Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is the film version of those terrible recap specials that come every couple seasons or so on a popular television show. Comprised of recycled clips from previous episodes, these specials usually are close to un-viewable. They take the best clips from the series that most people have already seen and place them one after another out of context, thus stripping them of any of the original comedic value or suspense. Likewise, Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is mostly comprised of footage from its predecessor. In fact, over forty-five minutes of the footage has been cribbed from the original. This has never really been done in any movie before, and there's a good reason for this, even beyond that these clips have to be viewed in their original context to retain the same power. Most people watching the sequel have already seen the first entry. No one wants to sit through the same stuff over again. Sequels are supposed to continue the story, not rehash it. This is why while the original Silent Night Deadly Night is a personal favorite of mine, this film is possibly one of the worst sequels of all time.

Silent Night Deadly Night 2 focuses on Ricky, the younger brother of Billy who was the original "Santa Claus" killer from the original. Ricky has followed in the path of his brother and become a serial killer as well. Now detained, he recounts his story to a psychiatrist. Cue footage from the first film, used in the form of flashbacks. Not only is this boring, but it makes absolutely no sense at all. Ricky's flashbacks date back to when he was less than a year old in some cases, where it would be almost impossible to have any memory. In other instances it is certainly impossible for him to remember several of the flashbacks as many don't even involve him. The fact that Ricky has memories of things that he was never a part of and would never have a way of finding out, is just one of the many enormous plot-holes.

After about forty five minutes, Ricky begins recounting his personal story of growing up. Thankfully the recycled footage ceases and the audience is presented with something new. Unfortunately, it is insanely stupid, venturing into so-bad-it's-good area half the time and just bad area the other half. Despite not being old enough to have been emotionally scarred by the same events that sent his older brother over the edge, Ricky has also become a psychopath. The difference here is that while his brother was set off by the sight of Santa Claus, Ricky gets murderous tendencies whenever he sees the color red. When he sees a red truck he subsequently murders the owner with it. When he sees a red umbrella, he uses it to impale a gangster in what is possibly the lamest death sequence ever. When he sees a red blanket, he nearly has a heart attack. The problem with this is that it's virtually impossible to avoid the color red on a daily basis, meaning young Ricky would have heart attacks every time he got a test back graded with red marker. Not to mention that this makes for a fairly pathetic serial killer. All you have to do is put on a red t-shirt and he will probably wet himself (although by the end he has inexplicably gotten over this fear and dons a Santa suit).

In one mind-boggling sequence, Ricky takes his girlfriend to the movie theatre to watch the original Silent Night Deadly Night. Keep in mind this is a sequel to Silent Night Deadly Night that continues the exact story from where it left off. Even Ricky has a "huh" moment as the film starts and is revealed to be the first entry in the series. How can Ricky, who was in the first film and has crystal clear memories of events that occurred within it, go and watch the first film in a movie theatre? Does this mean that Ricky is delusional and the events from the original never happened? Or does this mean that Ricky has crossed over out of the movie-universe and into the real world. No, all it means is that the writers were probably snorting cocaine while they typed out this script.

It doesn't go much lower than the movie theatre sequence, but there are still plenty more examples of stupidity sprinkled throughout the rest of the film. Eric Freeman's ridiculously over-the-top acting as Ricky, accompanied by eyebrows that seem to bounce around his face like they've been injected with acid, turn his "Garbage Day" rampage into a laugh riot as he blows up cars with his pistol and shoots at people taking out the trash. The scene has since become a viral video hit, garnering hundreds of thousands of views on sites like Youtube. By the end of the film the director seems to be trying to turn Ricky into some sort of classic horror movie villain, as he is practically unfazed as he is remedially shot in the chest. While this works for inhuman villains such as Jason Voorhees, it makes absolutely no sense for Ricky to be brushing off shots straight through his chest like they are bug bites. Then the ending comes around and it truly is just plain retarded.

Silent Night Deadly Night 2 could have been enjoyable in a so-bad-it's-good way. There are certainly some instances that made me laugh out loud. However, over half of the running time consists of boring, recycled footage from the original Silent Night Deadly Night, which makes it not worth the time to get to the "good" stuff. If Silent Night Deadly Night was a nice, little Christmas gift, Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is just huge lump of coal


Ricky(Eric Freeman), the brother of Billy(the killer from the first film)is the psycho donning the Santa outfit..well, for a moment or two..this time, explaining to a psychiatrist what occurred to his brother years back. This screen time is merely a shameless excuse to save money while taking cash from paying customers who ventured in to see it. They practically show most of the first film and then we get thirty or so minutes of Ricky killing people. The most inventive kill comes when he attacks bookie with an umbrella that opens after being thrusted through the stomach. He provides us with little snippets of his past while chatting with the psychiatrist(..who stupidly insisted that a security guard wait outside the room..this understanding that he's in the room with a man who shot numerous people for no reason whatsoever). We get a little understanding of a possible love-life with Elizabeth Kaitan's Jennifer. There's a confrontation with Jennifer's former boyfriend who has a smart-Aleck mouth and says the wrong thing which sets off Ricky's trigger leading to the use of jumper cables as a weapon! The film has a truly sickening scene where Ricky goes on a shooting rampage down a suburban street killing as many innocent people as his gun allows him. Even more despicable than that is when Ricky attacks a wheel-chair bound, facially scarred nun with an ax.

Eric Freeman is truly awful as the killer of the film. Even worse is how the film tries to turn this putrid slasher into a comedy. Dreadful trash.


..... and you've got part 2. If you've seen part one, you've seen this sequel. Yes, the flashbacks do get annoying, and Ricky is a god awful narrator and character to follow. Flashbacks and references aside, it's oddly almost completely different. The murders here are dumbed down a bit, aiming for the more simplistic and spontaneous rather than the thoughtful and creative like in part 1.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, as there are a few disturbing moments added into here that weren't in the original, but everything else about the movie is incredibly incompetent. The acting, sets, cinematography, and even the special effects are mostly amateurish, and even laughable.

You'll figure out the scenes that make this film a classic among "bad" movie lovers, but other than that, I see no reason to watch this film (or even the rest of the series) after the conclusion of part 1.


Ricky (Eric Freeman) is the brother of the killer Santa from the first film. Don't worry if you missed it--the entire FIRST HALF of the film are scenes from the earlier movie! Then it gets back to Ricky being adopted and seemingly OK--but the events he witnessed as a child are still with him and--at the age of 18--he snaps and goes on a killing rampage. And, like his brother, he hunts down the Mother Superior who tormented him.

Even as horror sequels go this is pretty terrible. For starters literally the whole first half are scenes from the earlier movie. Purportedly they are things Ricky remember--yet they're all things that happened to his brother which Ricky has no way of knowing! Things don't improve with the second half. The killings are pretty silly (one guy is impaled by an umbrella!) and the script is really pathetic. You gotta love the scene where Ricky kills off a guy and his girlfriend's reaction is a shrug of the shoulders and saying, "Thanks"! Yes he DID try to rape her beforehand but still... And when Ricky and his fiancée go to the movies they end up seeing the first movie which means we get to see it TWICE! It all leads up to an eye-rolling finale.

The acting is lousy. Freeman is so terrible it's almost embarrassing to watch. His "acting" during the "big" rampage at the end is just beyond belief. I just sat there wondering what the hell the guy thought he was doing. I do like the "Garbage Day" bit though.

Bottom of the barrel stuff here. Might be good for a few laughs from fans of the first movie but nobody else. A 1.


This movie is so awful it's fantastic. It has everything -- a lead actor who moves his eyebrows up and down to convey strong emotion, unnecessary (ludicrously unnecessary) nudity, idiotic death scenes (the best one is when Ricky shoots a car with a handgun and it flips over and explodes). Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, and the script is outstanding. Watch for a provoked Ricky saying, "Punish!!!" and "Garbage Day!"

If you get a chance to see this one, don't miss it. It's one of my favorite movies ever.


This movie is currently remembered for one scene...the infamous scene where one of the worst actors of all time spouts out the line "GARBAGE DAY!" and proceeds to shoot a man and let out horrible fake laughs. Though that scene is hilarious and all, this movie needs to be remembered for more. Eric Freeman, the film's lead actor, has created a monster, and his acting is so bad, perhaps it deserves to go down as worst ever. I've seen many films considered the worst, but never was the acting this unconvincing and bad. It must be seen to be believed.

Ricky Caldwell (Eric Freeman) is in an insane asylum, but is let in to see a psychiatrist, Dr. Henry Bloom (James Newman). Ricky tells the Doc everything of his past, even events he wasn't present during and clearly would have no real way of knowing what happened. We learn about Ricky's brother, who the first film is about, then after half the movie flashing back to the first film, we get to know Ricky and how he became so psychotic. But after Ricky escapes from the room he's telling the story in, there's gonna' be trouble for whoever gets in his path.

This movie is so full of plot holes it's ridiculous. Ricky flashes back to the first film in vivid details, and literally over 20 minutes of the film are just long scenes from the first movie. How he knows what happened to his brother makes no sense. In one scene he flashes back to when he was a newborn baby, because, of course, vivid memories are easy to keep for a baby. Even when his flashbacks are of new footage, they're still boring, and extremely poorly acted. Eric Freeman acts like he's a robot or something. His words come out in strange patterns, like he's trying to read the words for the first time off a teleprompter as he performs. It's really that bad.

Ricky flashes back to the girl he loved. The writers didn't even try to give them any sort of connection. The first scene she's introduced, seconds later they're making love. They only speak in two scenes, and in neither scene does he show any sort of affection towards her.

The climax of the film is also the last ten minutes, and the only part of the film that doesn't take place in the asylum or in flashback. And speaking of asylum, how did Ricky escape? He just walked out. That makes no sense. But anyways, back to the plot. When Ricky escapes he goes for the Mother Superior, who is supposed to be the same as in the first film, but now she looks completely different and resembles Two-Face from Batman. Ricky chases the Mother around her apartment, which happens to be 666 (These writers are geniuses). The Mother Superior is in a wheelchair! And then Ricky shouts "Moooooo!". Possibly this line was meant to be Boooo, but he clearly says "Moooooo!" It's so ridiculously stupid!

The script to this is so bad. Limiting your knowledge of the film to "Garbage Day!" is a shame, because this film really has some gem lines and really bad readings. Thanks for the worst part of this film goes to the lead, Eric Freeman and his overly expressive and always moving eyebrows which each deserve their own film. This movie's godawful, but full of what seems to be unintentional humor in the acting. It's hard to believe director Lee Harry wasn't laughing out loud while directing this thing, it's that bad.

My rating: BOMB out of ****. 88 mins. R for violence, language and sex.


a very ridiculous movie. but lucky for the movie i love laughing at movies whether when it's meant to or not. The "rampage" scene, which made made him go into the doctor's, set me over the edge. I was having just regular fun with the movie saying o my god and chuckling at times but during the rampage, i almost fell outa my chair laughing. The guy tried so hard to make the audience believe he was crazy and my god did he fail haha if you never wanna watch that whole i wouldn't blame you. but in case you ever do stumble on it, just at least fast forward to that scene i promise you won't be disappointed. well i don't wanna give out any spoilers of the movie so i recommend it only if you're looking to have fun with it. Garbage Day!!


I'm a huge fan of 80's horror. And to me, the cheesier the better. But this is a flat out terrible movie. Silent Night Deadly Night was a great flick with some very decent acting and enjoyable kill scenes. But this sequel is damn near unwatchable. The first 40 minutes (almost half the movie) is just clips from part one, which makes this a terrible viewing if you try and watch the films back to back. And the acting is bad, not even an enjoyable bad, just nails on a chalkboard unbearable kinda bad.

Yes, the movie does deliver on some good death scenes...late in the film. But getting to them is a nightmare. The back and forth dialogue between the doc and Ricky is just flat out retarded, Eric Freeman could possibly be the worst actor ever. Even the lame ass actor who read his line off his hand in Blood Feast was better.

Overall, I'd say pass if you're thinking about watching this. It's not enjoyable on any level.


Oh the first film was trashy, seedy and truly in bad-taste and that's what made the dementedly serious piece entertaining. It had balls. This ridiculously low-rent sequel is a complete botch, and pointless beyond belief. I don't know if they knew that or not. But I tend to think so. By throwing flashback after flashback of the first film within the first 45 minutes (were half-way there) and having Ricky, the brother of the original Santa killer provide the voice-over. Which is quite baffling, since he was only young and wasn't in it much, but he can go into so much detail. It had me thinking "Should I just turn it off, and put the first one instead?". But after that slog out, it still has a 'few' amusingly stupid merits throughout its shoddiness and vapid moments. Boy, doesn't it get outlandish. Like that sequence in the cinema and that one-of-a-kind wander down a suburban street. They're poorly executed (just like everything else in it), but gave me a good laugh. Some padded sub-plots can slow it down, the script is laced with mind-numbing dialogues and an amateurishly random score is very inept. Actually there are one or two surprisingly creative deaths, but they do lack that mean-spirited vibe. An overbearing Eric Freeman takes over the psychotic mantle, and is unbeatably awful and at the same time comical. How can you beat that 'convincing' evil cackle?! There's no denying this is a long running big joke, and it purposely plays it up.


I give this film a one out of ten stars, simply because this movie has earned just one. It goes down as something so horrible that it blurs the lines between garbage and masterpiece. If you are in the mood for a good laugh and some horribly good acting then look no further. The plot doesn't matter, it in fact just shows clips from the first movie through the middle of the movie, but when you meet the title character Ricky face to face you realize that the movie is taking a turn for the best/worst. Ricky is a character who you will learn to love, His acting can be summed up with the best line of the movie. "GARBAGE DAY?!??!?!!!"


Did I end up sitting through the original "Silent Night, Deadly Night" again or was someone just playing a cruel joke on me? Seriously, this is just a damn clip show! The first half of this "sequal" is a re-tred, showing lengthy scenes from the the first movie, strung together with narration by Ricky (Billy's little brother) who is being interviewed by a prison psychiatrist. His snarky mannerisms are enough to make you want to pound his face with a brick! Then, we get into his past, which is not worthy of the laughs it was obviously trying to gain and just annoyed me to the point of physical rage... Yes, I broke a LOT of things throughout the course of the "film". There's a scene where Ricky and his bimbo girlfriend are in a movie theater watching the original "Silent Night, Deadly Night"!! Was that suppose to be cute! And just a note for the apparent fans: "Garbage Day" is the dumbest line in all of horror history! I don't usually get so worked up over a film but this was just a pointless waste of time on an insurmountable scale that it is nearly impossible to comprehend... I mean, a chick watches this terrible actor drive a truck over her boyfriend multiple times and she THANKS him. Thanks him! Even if the boyfriend's a would-be rapist douche, you'd think witnessing a murder would alarm some random chick a LOT more. Don't bother with this crap...


So you signed up to do a sequel, but you just really don't feel like it. What to do? Don't worry, just shove some footage from the first movie in a new box and someone will actually see it. The plot, and I use that term loosely, is about the little brother from the first movie (played by a distractingly horrible Eric Freeman) sitting in a room telling his life story through flashbacks. Which include the beginning, ending and every single death scene from the original. He wasn't actually you know, there, but those are details. Then there's new footage of him taking his girl to the movies and the movie playing is you've guessed it, "Silent Night Deadly Night". At last he goes crazy and kills a bunch of people while moving his eyebrows a lot, because apparently that's what crazy people do. The final fifteen minutes of this movie are entertaining, sadly this thing is much longer than that.


Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 continues the story of Ricky, brother of killer in a Santa suit Billy from the first SNDN film. The film opens with Ricky in an institution for what we later find out is a result of a killing spree he went on. The movie is based around Ricky basically telling his life story Dr. Bloom, which consists mainly of flashbacks to the first film. In fact, the first 35 minutes of this "sequel" is footage from the first, minus the gore. So, as you could imagine, it is pretty boring and even after that, when Ricky explains what happened to him after the ordeal at the end of the first one (in which his brother is shot dead in front of him), it does not get much better.

To be honest, and this should not be surprising to most, this is a pretty bad movie. The acting, script, story, score, effects and direction are all unanimously shoddy and reek of low-budget. Eric Freeman is a revelation as Ricky, truly the best worst actor to grace our screens. Who will forget his ever-twitching eyebrows, his clownish laugh or his crowing glory...GARBAGE DAY! The script mainly consists of Ricky muttering 'naughty' or 'punish' under his breath as he goes around killing people who he thinks are misbehaving. For a slasher the deaths are uninspired, most of them are shootings, with a couple being hilariously bad (death by umbrella and a death by electricity are honourable mentions). Logic flies out of the door in this movie, with bullets flipping cars and Ricky escaping a hospital by merely walking out, so just sit back, relax and enjoy a campy late 80's semi-sequel to the controversial slasher Silent Night, Deadly Night.

1½/5


Must watch this movie at some stage for its sheer awfulness. It is absolutely NOT a slasher movie as slashers only kill with machetes, blades and other piercing weapons. The killer's usage of guns automatically removes the movie from the slasher genre. In any study of the slasher movement this rule is evident. I recommend Carol Clover's book, 'Men, Women and Chainsaws' or Adam Rockoff's book 'Going to Pieces' and the documentary of the same name for more on these rules.The documentary is particularly excellent, filled with clips from movies like this (movies that think they're slasher pics because they are sequels to slashers) and 'real' slasher classics. In short- Guns may be used to injure and kill the killer, but usually s/he will survive this to return for the sequel... It's just grates my guts when shoot out movies are called slasher movies... oh and this movie is so awful, it's hilarious. I think the actors weren't paid, the script was written day to day and the movie thought it was a lethal weapon movie. very very very bad LOL!


Well, the first one was full of clichés and the killer Santa wasn't that scary, but I give it the benefit of the doubt since they were trying to explore deep childhood fears that some of us may have had!

But my friends, this sequel!!! To begin with, if you see the 2 movies one after the other like i did, you'll save a lot of your valuable time playing it in fast forward, since this Part 2 has about 40 minutes with footage from the first one. Then we get to the new footage, and... voilá: After a few sips from the leading actor's performance, we get to see him in his most absolute and complete crap acting... well, i can't describe it, not even in my mother tongue. It's so bad U have to see it for yourselves! Take a good look to his evil laughter and to the eyebrows! I believe his eyebrows act better than him! For real!

And the plot? Well, the plot is just what you're expecting for! After his parents death, and later his brother's (in the first movie), he became so disturbed that starts killing everyone who crosses his path, or blows his nose to a red handkerchief! He does all this while, in a retarded ape style, keeps repeating: PUNISH! PUNISH!

At least take a few minutes to appreciate the eyebrow master in action!


What's Good:

The set and costume design.

What's Bad:

Quite frankly, almost everything else. This is a catalogue of historical errors. In fact, almost everything is incorrect. Some people will no doubt bleat that it's a film and it doesn't matter. This is our history, ladies and gentlemen. If you want to tell a story, then make it all up, but don't mess with historical fact. Tim Roth's portrayal of Cromwell is laughably inaccurate. Cromwell was nothing like this. And he was also a general, and a very good one at that, something the filmmakers seem to have conveniently forgotten. The performances are mediocre at best. Even the usually reliable Roth turns in a thoroughly average performance. Rupert Everett (as Charles I) is the best, but even he hardly shines. The script is slow, dull and poorly written.

Conclusion:

When will filmmakers realise that real history is invariably more interesting than their warped version of it? This is one of the worst historical dramas I've seen in a long time. I was glad to get out. Take my advice and don't even go in.


Well I am quite well read on this period of history.And unfortunately I don't feel this film portrays the period well at all,Tim Roth,as good as he is is other roles,was,in my opinion totally miscast as Oliver Cromwell..history shows Cromwell to be a strong minded,gruff,honest,happily married Huntingdon Farm owner who rose through the ranks of the army to become commander in chief,and who trained his army to be the best in Europe.Tim's portrayal comes across as a greedy,power mad weasel.I'm afraid if it is a history lesson you are looking for then watch 'Cromwell' starring Richard Harris (an excellent portrayal)..but if you choose to watch this film,then take the history aspect with a pinch of salt.I can't really imagine a statue of Mr Roths version of Cromwell being erected outside parliament and being heralded a great Englishman.


Stunning - - absolutely stunning visually. If for no other reason to see the film BUT -- the sound is awful. You can't understand everyone. It's hollow! You would think with all the producers on this film - that they would be conscious of everything. They were so sensitive to the perfect costuming and sets. But the sound? Yikes! It spoiled it for me...

Was it because it was in Dolby 5.1 -- and we didn't watch it in Dolby 5.1 ???

There also was not enough explanation as to what was going on. Otherwise it would be PERFECT for school children to see. It would have taken so little effort to explain things..

I can only assume this contributed to the films unpopularity. I never heard of it. I took a chance on it seeing it on the library shelf... and was immediately impressed with the costuming and sets. But try to understand it? I put it back on the shelf... and forgot it...


My heart bleeds for almost everyone involved in this film. They obviously tried VERY hard but the low budget shows in every frame. There is an epic movie to be made about the English Civil War ("Cromwell", with Burton and Guinness is by far the best so far), but to do the subject justice you need decent funding. Battle scenes involving 10 actors shot in close up and "can't be bothered" extras are just embarrassing. The other big problem is the casting of the enormous Rupert Everett as the tiny King Charles I. Everett is a good actor and does his best, but his casting is completely inappropriate. Just about everyone in this enterprise deserved to be praised, but it's still a rotten film. 10/10 for effort, but 4/10 for the finished product.


I have two favourite periods of history: JFK and the English Civil War. It would therefore have had to have been a really awful film to have kept me away.

What can I say. I loved it. Yes there are one or ten historical inaccuracies, and Scott is a poor actor. However, Roth and Everett are very good. I had a great night out with Cromwell & co.


For producers and screenwriters, trying to make a historically accurate film, especially one dealing with a faraway and complex period, is a thankless and often pointless task. History, having no clear beginning and no clear end, is almost impossible to squeeze into the conventional story structures demanded of cinema-going audiences - at least as they are perceived by film financiers. And the result is always a mass of over-simplifications, compressions, chronological mayhem and mis-characterization. Even if the end result is a good story, which in this case it sadly is not, the value of the piece as 'history' is as good as useless. This is the case with 'To Kill a King'. As an aide to history it is without value, because the events and conflicts it portrays were almost certainly nothing like the film-makers would have us believe. And as pure entertainment it's unpardonably slow. It gets ties up in arcane issues that we have no special reason to be concerned about any more, and rarely flames into life. Some of the performances are lively (Everett as King Charles is the high point), but most are one-dimensional, include that of both Fairfaxes (Dougray Scott and Olivia Williams). Overall, unless Civil War costumes fascinate you, this film offers little return on the cost of a cinema ticket.


This film is absolutely dire! Not only is it historically inaccurate, it takes massive liberties with the character of Oliver Cromwell. The real Cromwell was honest, brave, faithful to his wife, family and religious principles. As it happens I disagree with his religious beliefs but I recognise that they were sincerely held. Living in a time vastly different to our own, Cromwell sought guidance from God in everything he did. He was also a highly skilled and dedicated leader of men. To suggest that he would randomly shoot someone in the street is frankly an insult. He was subject to severe mood swings, possibly even manic depression but remained an honourable man. I realise he is a figure who polarises opinion, and he is not particularly popular here in Scotland but he most certainly is not the bloodthirsty little thug portrayed in this film. Tim Roth was spectacularly miscast! By the way ianpb you clearly haven't done your homework, yes Charles was born in Scotland but as he left it aged three you could hardly expect him to have a Scottish accent!


Aside from JFK, the English civil war is my favourite period of history. So it was going to be a set of very bad reviews to keep me away.

Yes there are inaccuracies, Scott is a terrible actor and they overdo the modernist slant. However I really enjoyed this, Roth and Everett are always watchable.


One of the pivotal events of European history, the English Civil War, is treated with an indifference to reality that surpasses insouciance. The frustrated viewer may be forgiven for concluding either that neither producer nor screenwriter had read anything relevant beyond a short encyclopaedia article or two (though, doubtless, both looked at many an illustration of the time: costumes and sets are largely accurate) or that both deliberately chose to reinforce the stereotypes to which the ignorant subscribe (Parliamentarians were dull, bigotted fools; Royalists were noble and brave; etc., etc., etc.). A thorough waste of time.


Apparently the filmmakers didn't even have time for the Cliff's Notes version of the English Civil War. Last time I checked, Oliver Cromwell was regarded even by his enemies as one of the foremost military minds in history. The New Model Army was his baby. And a biggot? The man welcomed the Jewish faith and open practice thereof back to England, for God's sake. As for comparing these events to the French Revolution/Reign of Terror, the FACT of the matter is that it was essentially the American Revolution...just a little ahead of it's time. (Something, no doubt, the Brits simply cannot contemplate.) Sad, silly, revisionist stuff.


I'll keep it short and sweet, as many have already made accurate criticism of this film, and in general I agree.

The film is a travesty, portraying Cromwell, inaccurately, as a 2-dimensional bully. This is compounded by terrible acting (as usual) by Tim Roth. The man just can not act! Here he spurts out each line like a child in a school play, relieved that he has managed to get yet another memorised line out of the way.

Rupert Everett as Charles 1 was unconvincing, playing the part as a brute with no class. Charles was a Scot but there was not even the faintest hint of a Scottish accent here, and only the clumsiest inclusion of badly performed stutters. He had clearly not done his homework. I guess Alec Guinness set a standard for this part (in 'Cromwell') which may be impossible to surpass. But the difference is that Guinness was a good actor.

Dougray Scott played Fairfax better, but it just got tiresome.

As for the script, it was dire and lazy. Easy money. Don't expect any history lessons.

I walked away from it half way through. Life's too short to waste it on this junk.

This film demonstrates two things: Tim Roth can't act and Mike Barker (Director) can't direct. Just goes to show, it's down to who you know, not what you can do.


A smooth talking ladies man and his very married partner are the "Bad Boys" in question here. Together this cop duo show plenty of attitude while pursuing a ruthless crim who has stolen millions of dollars worth of coke from under the noses of the Miami P.D. There are explosions and gunplay aplenty, a sexy girl and a useless, unfunny subplot propelling this romp.

"Bad Boys" is another cop buddy action flick with absolutely nothing new on offer. Both script and action sequences borrow much from other, superior action movies, and the whole film is just far too formulated to make any sort of impression.

The cast are uninspiring, the story seriously lacks some fresh effective humour, and not only are the bad guys totally predictable and one dimensional (they can't shoot straight either - but what's new?), but the good guys are void of depth too.

Still, all things being equal, "Bad Boys" never pretends to be Oscar material. So, if dumb, loud action films are your thing, then by all means give these boys a whirl, or rather let them give you one!

Tuesday, May 23, 1995 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne


1st watched 7/20/2007 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Michael Bay): Worthless Michael Bay-directed garbage. After this one, I think Michael Bay has been cemented in my mind as one of the worst directors of all time. As you can tell, I'm not one of his fans. This time, he has taken a couple of pretty appealing movie stars and turned them into worthless action heros with the occasional one-liner thrown in (Aka -Travolta & Cage w/ Face-Off). This time he's done it with Will Smith & Martin Lawrence. He has the unique ability of spending lots of money blowing things up and devoiding the audience of all caring for it's characters. This movie is about a bickering cop due who become involved in a major drug deal and protecting a witness, played by Tea Leoni. She provides some of the only nice moments in the movie with some witty lines despite her weak character. Smith & Martin bicker throughout the whole movie, their cop boss yell at them a few times, things blow up, there are a few car chases, people get killed and the good guys end up winners in the end. That's about it for this mindless action-comedy movie from one of the biggest money wasting directors of our time, who has very little good stuff to show for it. America, please give up on this genre and this director before we all go bankrupt!!


I started watching Hollywood movies 6 years back, watched some of the greatest classics and blockbusters of all times. Was amazed and awestruck that how was Hollywood capable of churning out such amazing stuff with such amazing consistency...but after seeing "Bad boys" and a few other disappointing movies, I realized that Hollywood too, wasn't perfect. Coming to the movie, the plot was an oft repeated one of two cops pairing up, both different in personas (infact diametrically opposite), and still great pals, one has a wife and kids and other is single and hot, the usual clichés. But that's not all that is bad about the movie..., there is more-the silly dialogues, lousy work by the lead pair, the female lead has no clue what to say or do, she often keeps mumbling and muttering in the background. Above all, the scenes are illogical and can't be attributed to be the actions of sane people. Martin Lawrence does ok in his role, but maybe he could have done better if he hadn't tried to fake that dialogue delivery style which looked very irritating and totally lacking in humor. Comic timing and wisecracks have to be differentiated from silly mannerisms, and this movie is a big example of that. Will Smith, is a little more subdued...but isn't able to emote much or come up with funny stuff. Téa Leoni has no role in the movie, she acts in the craziest, most insensible ways, invites trouble each time(if it was real life, she would have been killed the first time she tried to pull off those stupid stunts of hers), not to mention the male leads who too are guilty of this!!! The wife too is shown as an irrational human being who would make unjustified demands on his apparently busy husband. The movie is about the most irrational and stupid people we are ever going to come across. They do all sorts of crazy and suicidal things at the silliest pretext and dumbest logic!!! I hope there are no people of such kind anywhere in the universe. About the director, he must realize that a movie can be comic even though it has intelligent people in it, everything doesn't have to be so dumb. Besides, showing African Americans in such clichéd roles just tarnishes their image. THE ONLY GOOD THING ABOUT THE MOVIE is the action scenes, and occasional good comedy. So, my advice is, if u have better things to do in life, don't watch it. If u really have to watch a movie, then rent some old favorite rather than go for it. GOD SAVE YOU.


"Bad Boys 2" takes all the personality, originality, creativity, and humor of "Bad Boys" and buries it in a disjointed mess of mindless, stupid, over wrought nonsense. This is such an awful mess I can't find the words to describe how bad it is. However, "abortion" and "clusterf**k" do come to mind. (D)


I loved this movie. It's without a doubt Will Smith's best. Martin Lawrence was very good, too. If you want to catch Lawrence at his best I suggest everyone see "Nothing Lose"(loved this film!). Anyway I think this was a brilliant film. Smith and Lawrence made a great team. This is definitely Bruckheimer's best


This has to rate somewhere among the 25 worst high-production-value movies of all time. The plot and story line are so weak and poorly developed that a lot of the action doesn't make sense, nor does the dialog and reactions among the actors during the scenes. A lot of the problems they encountered throughout the movie could have been resolved by applying high-school-level common sense. But then the movie would only run for a half-hour or less.

Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are supposedly a detective team along the lines of Danny Glover and Mel Gibson in the "Lethal Weapon" series, or the spy team of Bill Cosby and Robert Culp in the 1960s "I Spy" series.

The difference is there is no chemistry between Smith and Lawrence, unless you consider a cocktail of hydrochloric and sulfuric acid "chemistry." Their non-stop verbal abuse of each other without comic relief quickly stopped being entertaining and migrated to the tedious and boring. I found myself surfing other channels, but came back because other interesting shows were either in Spanish or German with Spanish sub-titles.

Sure, watch the movie for the first time if it's on TV and there's nothing better. It will help if you're of age and have a pitcher of Margueritas or a bottle of wine handy. If not, consider having a root canal that day and be on Codine -- the movie will replace your focus on the pain.


After catching glimpses of "Bad Boys" for several times on TV I finally decided to watch the whole thing intact. But after doing that I found myself puzzled. For what reason is "Bad Boys" so highly regarded as a great action movie? In my desperate attempts at trying to grasp any form of entertainment from this feature I finally came to the realization that it's impossible for me to like it. Much to some people's surprise I found the film's "style" to be a shallow, incompetent imitation of John Woo's ultra kinetic Hong Kong films. Everything that "Bad Boys" does has been already made, only much much better.

So what is "Bad Boys" all about ? Well, uh, it's about Will Smith running around in slow-motion while talking a lot, and yeah there's this other guy Martin Lawrence who also talks a lot. They're cops, they are the Bad Boys who talk their mouths off, run their legs off, shoot their guns off. Naturally Michael Bay does all that in slow-motion, because that's what action movies are all about you know, slow motion. Oh and did I forget to mention that there is a generic bad guy, not bad as the two titular anti-heroes mind you. This character, he's your basic action movie villain who is obviously evil for the sake of being evil. And of course is the person who our two brave "Bad Boys" must defeat in an epic slow-motion battle to the death filled with over-the-top explosions, one-liners and car chases all directly taken from the "generic action movie clichés" handbook.

"Bad Boys"'s overly simple plot exists for the sole purpose of providing us with enough reasons to watch the series of action sequences the movie's made of. That wouldn't have hurt all too much had these scenes been directed capably, yet Bay demonstrates an inept ability to create an entertaining action piece. All such sequences are bleak and devoid of originality, stuffed with slow-motion, randomly used, making less sense as to why it was added. The usual reason would be to enhance certain dramatic moments in a movie, or for stylistic approach during complex action scenes. Seeing as the first one is impossible to integrate here and the second is just not directed with any understanding of detail what we are left is an approximately 40 minutes of slow-motion that does it's job in extending "Bad Boys" into a near two hours length. Making this already boring film into an test of will. More than once I was tempted to turn off my TV and stop wasting time with the predictability on screen, fighting of the urge to laugh it all off in denial.

I'm not actually sure there's anything more to say about "Bad Boys". It's such a sub-par movie that it's action becomes forgettable soon after viewing, leaving only the flaws to remind me why I should never watch anything stamped with the sign "Hollywood Action Movie". Then again it's not such a big surprise why so many people liked it. It's crude visuals could prove to be impressive enough for people not as familiar with the genre as the more hardcore fans. Then again I don't count myself amongst genre fans so it's anybody's guess why it appeals so much to audiences


Robert Young is likable in the romantic thriller. Florence Rice is, too, as the worker in his father's store for whom he falls. A couple murders are committed. The police, including Sidney Toler, investigate. (Almost the whole thing takes place on the premises of the store.) During the period such B-movies in this very overworked genre usually are still turning up clues, this solves the mystery. Very unsatisfactorily, I might add.

Julie Haydon plays Rice's sister. She is said to have been wonderful in the original stage production of "The Glass Menagerie." And she's fine here. But, though it has several plots going on at once, to a degree it's more short subject than full-length movie.


The Review of Smoke Signals: I did not find the film (1) poignant in any way or (2) entertaining for entertainments sake. I found Smoke Signals to be rather uninspiring, there was a lot of hype, and not a lot of substance. The storyline is disjointed and the acting is well below average and unfortunately, the sad performances from the actors did nothing to propel the extremely weak plot. I found Sherman Alexie's story to be lackluster, trying to prove a point which is quite unclear. I wasn't sure if this was a comedy about two opposites thrown together (because there were very few humorous moments, this film certainly was not the side-splitter that reviews boast it to be) or if it was a drama about a man discovering who his father really was. Too many themes are attempted to be covered, leaving the viewer confused and uninterested. Unfortunately, because of the poor script and unskilled actors, this film was not moving or compelling at all, no emotion was evoked, except disdain for everyone involved in the making of this film. Additionally, the Native American accents sound incredibly bizarre to me and resemble a strange mix of Irish, Indian (from India) and American English dialects. In addition to the film's disjointed feel, many scenes felt rushed and contrived. The somewhat interesting dynamic and contrast between Victor and Thomas seemed to resolve itself just in time for the end of the film. Also, Thomas' fascination and appreciation for Victor's father, (as the father he never had) is hardly explored or discussed by either character. Conversely, the relationship between Suzy and Victor's father feels completely unbelievable and seems to work only as a means for Victor to better know his father, although I am never convinced that happens. Because of consistent plot holes, or rather underdevelopments, the audience must take great leaps of faith throughout the entire film, hardly any of which pay off.


I still wonder WHY so many people say this is a good film. . . The acting is poor, the direction even worse, the story is nothing more than an Indian soap opera. . . The placement of the music is bizzare and akward, the cinematography is bland, the editing is nothing special. Overall, the movie just feels like it should've been made into a TV show or something, and NOT a full length motion picture. This is NOT one of the biggest surprise movies of '98, unless you count it as suprisingly bad. . . Do yourself a favor and skip Chris Eyre pitiful attempt at drama.

-Josh


A very low budget movie with really poor acting.

 The comedy attempts failed miserably and the Playboyish scenes with half naked latinas are just pathetic since they have nothing to do with the plot. I'm not even gonna go into the action bits...

 Skip this one and go rent "American Me" or "Blood In Blood Out" instead.>


Dave H., for being a movie reviewer, you sure don't know the first thing about rating one.

"I'm a movie reviewer for a Massachusetts radio station. I recently saw Latin Kingz. This movie is a brutally realistic view of the street/ drug crowd with all of it's nasty behavior, womanizing and seedy undertones. It is rare to see a film come so close to portraying the reality of life on the Urban streets.

Dave H. Movie Reviewer-WRNX Radio"

"The reality of life on the Ubran streets"? Are you kidding me? Was the "brutally realistic view," as you so elegantly put it, before or after the exploitation of porno shots from Latina girls parading around on the beach shore? Or was it in the 2 actual instances of confrontation (one being quelled just as quick as it began)? There was nothing "real" about this story, it was just another sub-par movie filmed on an extremely low budget. The "actors" (and I use that term loosely) were horrible, the plot was hackneyed, and the "violence," as it states on the cover, was minimum. This is basically a ghetto version of "Road Trip," which also sucked.

Come off it and come to your senses -- this movie defines all the things that makes a movie wretched. People, don't waste your money, time, or energy on this trash. Anyone who tells you this is good viewing is obviously misguided; don't fall into their trap.


This is, well, a silly movie. The script is terrible, even if you look at it as a movie for kids. And that's another thing -- it's geared towards kids, and yet I'm not sure this is a movie I'd show to kids. It's extremely violent and concerns a highly traumatic situation involving young children -- not to mention that the hero is a juvenile delinquent (NOT the misunderstood kind) who wins out by playing all sorts of illegal tricks. In fact, his actions are very much glorified by the fact that he can "mastermind" the "real" criminals, as well as by his constant, triumphant little asides. Oh -- and if you're only interested in this movie because you're a Vincent Kartheiser fan, don't bother. This is not what I'd call one of his best performances.


Yes, the movie is predictable. You can read the plot like a book and expect what's coming up next. A recalcitrant trapped in the school (taken over by a bunch of supposedly professional missionaries led by Patrick Stewart's character) turned out to be the hero that saves the day. Hurray! Oh well, the movie probably appeal those who are really young and fantasies about being a hero. Unless you have nothing else to watch, go ahead and see this movie.


Like seriously this movie is SO bad this kid is such a plug like seriously cut your hair and how dumb can these bad guys be he walks onto coal and see the pull cord things right beside him and the kid wouldn't of had time to but the burner against the nob. Also Wtf is with the mine scene that was SO bad they some would have died and your going to jail for ever anyways you terrorists just kill someone seriously toy soldiers is Way better and they would of killed the cops when they shot like 1000 bullets and them like what the shiz what are the cops doing just charging thats so stupid i would just kill the children I'm not even and the terrible sewer scene yet that I've herd so much about. PS how the hell does the kid know how to do that impossible hack thing he did wow such a bad movie as if professor x is in this disgrace.


If Hollywood keeps making bad copies of movies, at least they could see fit to copy a decent movie. Instead these bozos decided to copy the 1991 barely-B-Movie "Toy Soldiers" in this overacted cliche-filled steal wherever we can excuse for a film. It has the school kids held hostage, gadget-freak semi geek with a heart of gold, bad boys doing good and even the cute teens of Toy Soldiers, without the benefit of the dimples of Sean Astin or even the acting prowess of Wil Wheaton or R. Lee Ermey. Skip this one.


Bollywood movies have grown up a lot and are becoming more mainstream. The problem is the standard Bollywood movie has to follow a strict formula, with very little room for experimentation. This movie appeared to try to push some of those boundaries, but with little result. The plot line starts off normal, the FOB character is far from believable. His character would be a FOB in India, the way he's portrayed. The characters are very plastic and predictable.

The music and dance scenes were nice, modern and fun. The supporting characters were the best part of the movie. This "party" takes up almost 1/3 of the movie and nothing goes on really, leaving you waiting for the traditional ending "big speech". When it arrives, it makes no sense, and if ANYONE can understand the main character's point from his dialog at the "big speech" then send it to the production company for inclusion on the video jacket. It might raise the rating a notch or two. Fans of Bollywood will find this average, fans of comedy will forget it within hours and fans of movies will find it below average.


I remember seeing this at a 3rd I Film Festival, and I was shocked at how bad it was. The whole genre of "Indian-American films"- from American Desi onward- is usually amateurishly written, and keeps focusing on the same themes over and over again- not "fitting in" to American society, having difficulty with parents, dating, stereotypes of Indian culture, etc. The only reason 2nd generation South Asians like them so much is that between Bollywood and Hollywood, there was no genre that represented their experience. On top of that, I found the FOB caricature offensive (and I am an "ABCD" myself)- having parents, friends and relatives who are "FOBs" from metro areas and don't fit the stereotype of socially awkward, bad-smelling people that can't speak proper English. It's almost like ABCDs take pleasure in pointing out the differences because they are ashamed that many Anglos think of US that way. There is a wide diversity in the people who immigrate here, and I know that my cousins in Bombay, Delhi and Bangalore actually grew up in far more liberal and progressive environments than we did here- their parents had no problems with them dating in high school or becoming artists or whatever. And that's not to say that a person who grows up in a small village in Gujarat or Andhra Pradesh is going to smelly, socially-awkward and not worth knowing, just because their values are traditional or they dress differently. Indian-Americans who have been the target of racism here and therefore ashamed of their origins shouldn't take it out on their "FOB" brothers and sisters.


There have so many of these "growing up brown in America" movies in the last decade, mostly low budget flicks that don't get a whole lot of press. But premise has nearly been run into the ground, traditional parents, rebellious kids who want to fit and date like everyone else. One thing these movies have taught us for certain is this, if you're brown and growing up in America, you have a harder time assimilating into the mass culture then lighter skinned people. We've been told this over and over and it really does get tired. For young Indian Americans these films may perhaps be of deep cultural significance, loaded with in jokes that non-Indians may not get. For much of white America, they will strip the film down to it's basics and call it a "country mouse meeting city mouse" story and think "meh, what's the big deal"? Probably gutting the Indian Americans who think they struck comic gold showing off the cool Indians vs. the over exaggerated fresh off the boat Indians. To make more of the desired impact that the Indian American culture so desperately seems to want to make with mainstream film goers, a more concrete and weighted story has to be delivered with far more sincere actors.


where ever I go, I get a movie pass at the local video store and just start renting countless videos. Dude wheres the party was one of those movies that was released with no advertising and even the rental i got a hold of had no box, just a DVD with the name of the movie and I don't even think it had a photo or anything it was just a white label with the name. so I watched it, and it focuses on the FOB.. F.O.B Fresh off the boat aspect of the Indian crew.. basically you have a bunch of Indians who are totally assimilated into American culture like our hero Kal Penn (no accent) and they basically have a tight party (according to them I suppose) but the FOB's show up and they don't want to let them crash the party. and some girl gets mad at Kal for being insensitive and so he has to make it right. I was a little surprised that Kal's character didn't notice right away that the fobs were trying to get in on the action but he seems really out of it until the girl gets mad. Its a bit lame, most people can pick up on a group of people looking for action.

I'm sure there is more to the movie than that but it boiled down to this. if you're going to have a huge party for your Indian friends, you better make sure that you give individual invitations out because that kind of event will be crashed every time by FOBS. Personally I don't have a problem with FOBS of any type, they're more fun than some of these dead beat Americans I know, and if they're crashing a raging party they're probably open minded at the very least. Let em in FOOL, they're here to party! LONG LIVE HAROLD & KUMAR! DJ LIQUIDSMOKE


This movie seemed promising with a decorated actor like Kal Penn starring in it, but unfortunately that ended up being the only attraction to this movie.

This movie is the most hypocritical movie I have ever seen. This movie has it all backwards, the South Asians who are born and raised in America are the ones who are being ostracized by the (what are referred to in this movie as) "FOBS". The American born South Asians are the one's who are constantly bending over backwards trying to please the "FOBS" because of their constant criticism of us being too "American". We are constantly struggling to find a balance in our lives and we are the one's being treated like outcasts because the "FOBS" are the ones who are so critical and stuck up with their own set of standards that they expect from us. The person who made this movie should try actually making something accurate and portray the struggles that South Asians living in America have to deal with. There is a reason why everyone has heard of Bend it Like Beckham, and that hardly anyone has heard of this movie unless you happen to be browsing around your local video rental store.


Director Baltasar Kormakur leaves Iceland to make an American movie, except he really doesn't, and that's a large part of the problem. Kormakur actually shot this film in Iceland, and it would take a hyper-credulous viewer to accept these stark landscapes as Minnesota. "Heaven" is a dark tale about insurance fraud. Dark in every sense of the word, as several early scenes are nearly invisible. The plot is murky; the cast's accents are all over the lot, especially Forest Whitaker's. Whitaker's attempts at Minnesotan leave him somewhere between Duluth and Dublin. The ending is intended to be richly ironic, but falls absolutely flat. For a far better experience, see Kormakur's "101 Reykjavik."


I hate everything about this decrepit series, and have hated everything about since I saw it in my childhood.

This is the worst kind of colonial narrative. The presumption of competence of Whites and the presumption of incompetence on behalf of the African population. The very concept of a family 'getting on' and 'making a future for themselves in the wilds of Africa' is in itself racist and ignorant. The very unrepentance of it's racism, as well as the historical revisionism make this garbage. At least "Jewel In The Crown" and "Passage To India" put some serious questionmarks over the British presence in India and colonialism. The writer of Thika still doesn't understand why they had to go.

Those wild open spaces with no Africans in them didn't come to exist on their own. The people who lived there were driven out with all the force and firepower that the British state could muster at the time. Tribes (meaning anything from bands of nomads to empires, but specifically in Kenya, the Kikuyu) were forces to pay taxes to the British and make way for any "settler" that wanted their land. If they refused, they and their families were massacred. That is colonialism. Like in all other British colonies, Africans were driven onto 'reservations' which went by various names, and mainly starved because a lack of land. The British atrocities in the 1950s against the Kikuyu, whose entire population they put into concentration camps, was only slightly less brutal than Germany's prelude to the Holocaust in early 20th century Southwest Africa (now Namibia), which led to the genocide of the Herero. (Read: Imperial Reckoning, by Caroline Elkins on the treatment of the Kikuyu after WWII.)

Looking at "Flame Trees Of Thika" is like watching racially correct Germanics being resettled in Eastern Europe under Nazism. If Hitler had won, my own family (the Dutch side) would have been 'resettled' in Poland as farmers, to clear out the subhuman Poles (even though going back 250 years, their common ancestor was a shepard from Silezia). The point being that racism makes no sense, even though it is very much incorporated into the fabric of this series. Notice how the Masai are noble, tall, cattle herding folk, contented to tend to their cattle (on bad land, of course), while the few Kikuyu and other people are grafting, if they don't blow themselves up with loose explosives. It is still ironic how the 'inferior' Kikuyu have managed to get all the good land, while the 'superior' Masai managed to only get land fit for cattle herding.

Oh and by the way, the reason why most of the White people in these series speak with South African accents, is because... THEY'RE SOUTH AFRICANS. Most White Kenyans didn't come from England, they came to Kenya from South Africa.

This is another series of the time, almost all about a group of White people in Africa. You would never understand from watching this garbage that Whites only make 1% of the population of Kenya. Remember that in 1981, Zimbabwe had only been free for 2 years, and that Apartheid was still the system of the day in both Namibia and South Africa. The Portuguese had only fled Angola and Mozambique 6 years earlier when Portugal and Spain threw off the fascist yoke themselves. The CIA was getting ready to create UNITA to "fight communism" and in the process, kill 500,000 people. (Read: CIA Station Chief John Stockwell's "In Search Of Enemies".)

Even to this day, the land has not been redistributed to the people who know how to use it. Ordinary African farmers have been eking out a living on tiny 3 hectare plots of land to this day. I would say the greatest drag on African development and food security today is the lack of land that is available to it's farmers. That is why there is hunger today. Most arable land in Kenya and Africa today is going untilled, because it is locked up in huge estates like in Thika, that belong to individual White people who do not have the capability to farm it all.

The reason is that when the British government received the huge pieces of land in the Berlin Conference of 1884, they simply did not know what to do with it all. As an empire, they were on the wane. They had already used most of their surplus population in the rather thin population of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. As a result, many of the "settlers" who migrated to Kenya were from South Africa. Most of the "settlers" in Zimbabwe didn't arrive there until after 1945.

The main reason for British expansion in Africa was to (1) exploit its massive natural resources (oil, gold, diamonds, copper, cobalt, platinum, gemstones and many more) and (2) get there before the Germans did. This was especially relevant in South Africa, where Lesotho and Swaziland were created by then Cape governor Cecil Rhodes to hem in the Boer republics, and Botswana was created to create a barrier between German Southwest Africa and the Boer Republics. (Read: "Rhodes: Race for Africa", by Antony Thomas)

The problem of the British state then became - how can we have these new colonies pay for themselves? The answer was to give away huge tracts of African land for almost nothing to any White person who wanted to "have a go at farming". And give it away they did - thousands, usually tens of thousands of hectares at a time. This is while the African population was driven together on the worst pieces of land. Add to that a population that has increased in size 4 fold since the 1950s, and the problems in food sufficiency and land erosion are obvious.

Oh, did I forget to add... I hate this series and everything it stands for?


A Frenchman directing mostly Germans speaking awkward phonetic English--that's just one of the problems here, but it's a big one, since so many of the actors here stiltedly handle dialogue that would be problematic under ideal circumstances. The only person here who seems to have a firm grip on what he's doing is Alan Bates, who chooses to play his media-mogul villain role for arch comedy. As a result, he seems to be in a different movie, so at least this one doesn't embarrass him like the luckless other performers.

Jennifer Beals has the right droning, narcotic quality in scenes where she's the hypnotic face/voice of sinister advertisements, but elsewhere she has to rely on her acting abilities, which are limited as usual. Jan Niklas has apparently been excellent elsewhere, but he's dreadful here as the noirishly cynical investigating hero. Andrew McCarthy has exactly one brief scene as an assassin--he does get special billing, but it's neither a cameo or supporting role, just a straight-up bit part (I hope he fired his agent after this).

Many people have said this film doesn't make much sense. and I'll have to take their word for it--it's so turgid I might well have not paying attention if/when there were elements that did somehow explain things. There's an inexplicable suicide epidemic in a faintly futuristic Berlin. Like Francois Truffault before him (in "Fahrenheit 451"), Chabrol has no particular feel for sci-fi or dystopian fantasy, despite OK production design. He doesn't even try to build suspense around the possibility of sudden violent death at any moment, and the deaths when they occur are indifferently staged.) There are ridiculous scenes in a quasi-fascist quasi-punk club where everyone dresses in designer black; they dance like performance artists trying cluelessly to imitate a mosh pit. There's also one of those hysterically pretentious sex scenes in which naked gyrations (Beals no doubt using a body double) are intercut with archival footage of nuclear explosions, war crimes, etc. Oh, the humanity. Things get even sillier when the protagonists go to a bizarre "resort"--hence the retitling "Club Extinction"--that's like Club Med meets Jonestown meets "The Prisoner."

Unfortunately, the whole film is so misconceived and lifeless there's little camp entertainment value to its mess. One among "Dr. M's" many misfortunes is that it was filmed in 1989, and the script makes much of tensions between Wall-separated East and West--but of course that division had collapsed by the time it came out.


The early 1980s saw Britain gripped by a wave of moral panic similar to the hysteria that shook 1950s America concerning the content of EC's horror comics. Only this time, it was a batch of gruesome B-movies from the 1970s that were aggravating the blue-nosed guardians of public decency as well as the government and certain over-zealous members of the police force. These were the days of the 'video nasty', when the likes of Wes Craven's Last House on the Left, Meir Zarchi's I Spit On Your Grave and Sam Raimi's the Evil Dead were available to rent, uncut and uncensored, from your local friendly video library. The tabloid press had a field day, comparing video dealers to drug pushers, whipping up a good old-fashioned frenzy of moral panic among their readers and (naturally) offering blow-by-blow descriptions of the goriest, sleaziest scenes from these oh-so-shocking films in case anyone was left wondering what all the fuss was about.

This was the climate into which the 'controversial' (in so far as he ignored politically correct concerns, enjoyed the company of scantily-clad women on his programmes and thought no joke was too tasteless or too obvious to pass up - and often made use of pantomime blood and gore effects that even Monty Python would have balked at) comedian Kenny Everett released his one and only feature film, Bloodbath at the House of Death. Yes, the legendary 'Ev' chose to release a gory, smutty, lip-smackingly excessive horror spoof - just as the genuine articles were being impounded, banned and burned, lest they fall into the hands of impressionable tots. That, along with the ever-cautious British Board of Film Censors' decision to award it an 18 certificate (meaning Everett's fan-base of school-kids and young teens couldn't get into the cinemas to see it), an almost unanimous critical mauling (Kim Newman's excellent reference work, Nightmare Movies, describes Bloodbath as "excruciating") and the simple fact that none of Everett's best-known characters (Gizzard Puke, Sid Snot, Cupid Stunt etc) don't get so much as a look-in, meant that Bloodbath was a monumental flop - and Everett's film career was as short-lived as some of the characters herein.

The disconcerting thing about Bloodbath is that it doesn't really know what it wants to be. There's none of the fast-paced, joke-a-second, semi-hysterical mayhem that marked the best of Everett's television work, and (surprisingly for a film scripted by Barry Cryer) there are very few actual jokes - indeed, when director Ray Cameron presents the viewer (in the opening moments) with a barrage of shockingly violent murders, shot and staged in a bizarrely straight-faced manner, one has to wonder what on earth is going on. And the remainder of the film doesn't offer a great deal of laughs either.

Outside of some amusing set-pieces, like the much-discussed Carrie-inspired decapitation by can-opener, Everett's short-tempered surgeon yanking the innards out of his patient to hurl at his derisive colleagues, the use of John Williams' ominous theme from Jaws (the punchline to this bit is best left to the adventurous viewer) and virtually every moment spent in the company of a deliriously hammy Vincent Price, Bloodbath is a dour and po-faced affair indeed, saddled with rather too much genuine tastelessness (Pamela Stephenson rapidly coming to enjoy being raped by a poltergeist, for example) and the most feeble of finales to make much of an impact. The plot - what there is of it - is simply forgotten halfway, and Everett isn't given nearly enough screen time, which is a real shame given the talent for (admittedly broad) characterisation his best television work displayed.

For the record, the executive producer Laurence Myers was also responsible for the nerve-shreddingly awful Gary Glitter vehicle 'Remember Me This Way', the low-budget glam-rock ragbag 'Never Too Young To Rock' and the oddly entertaining seventies time capsule 'Side By Side'. Not exactly an impressive track record, but at least he was well used to backing losers by the time Bloodbath came out.


Mediocre spoof of Horror and sci-fi features Vincent Price in a minor role as a Satanic Warlock who gathers up his town of worshipers to disrupt an obnoxious group of paranormal researchers visiting a supposed haunted house where a series of bloody murders took place. At times Monty Python-ish parodying prevails..if only the gags and one-liners were as funny as the filmmakers wanted them to be. They try really hard, but I have to say I laboured through it instead of enjoying the film from start to finish. Bizarre gore murders such as a man being pulled into a toilet, a woman's throat being attacked by a monster which emerges from the mold on a colleague's arm, a victim stabbed by a teddy bear(!), a female victim getting "raped"(..blissfully, in this case, unlike THE ENTITY)by a ghost, and one woman getting beheaded by a sword(..it glows like a Star Wars light saber, an obvious poke at the George Lucas flicks). There's a poke at Carrie where a punished girl(..she kissed her boyfriend)causes her deeply fanatically religious mom's beheading. A lot of paranormal activity where objects fly across rooms and break, along with blood coming out faucets and walls. Dopplegangers from hell killing off their human counterparts in the Headstone Manor is quite an unusual touch, I must admit.

The film is a good-natured spoof, but I found the humor itself rather lacking in quality. I'm sure this film, though, will have a fervent following if it were to get a DVD release. Perhaps there's a reason why it hasn't, though. I guess the film's best gore gag would be a badly orchestrated surgical procedure where our lead paranormal scientist loses his monocle inside the body of a patient as his aids laugh hysterically. I'm sure Vincent Price fans will have a good time seeing him swear, gleefully theatrical, parodying his image. I wish there was more of him and less of everybody else. I admit, I was incredibly excited(..maybe, TOO excited)when I found a rare VHS copy of this at a local rental store going out of business, so a degree of disappointment was too be expected. The cast take great pride lampooning the British kind of stage acting, quite animated in their expressions, really letting it hang out unrestrained, but I didn't particularly find very much really gut-bustingly funny..maybe, I'm not part of that crowd targeted. There are lots of sex jokes and gags, even some homosexual humor. I think the film's biggest misstep is not featuring Price as the central character, even though Kenny Everett has some shining moments. The ET gag with Pamela Stephenson's body being sexually ravaged by the ghost who molested her the first time, her silhouette flying across the image of the moon is certainly a strange moment towards the end. The version I watched suffered from poor picture quality and sound so I would perhaps respond better to a remastered edition.


"Cookie's Fortune" is perhaps the most inane and useless movies I have ever watched. Definitely NOT a watershed event in cinematographic history. On the CZTV website, 21 percent of viewers rated it as "waste of time" whereas 72 percent rated it as "excellent," with almost nothing in between. I don't get it. Do YOU get it? I certainly don't get it. Had this film not have had Liv Tyler in it, I don't think I would have watched it to its pathetic and boring finale. Definitely a lot of material for a future episode of MST3K here. I mean, it takes just as much time/effort/money/etc. to make a good movie as it does to make a movie like this, so why did they even bother producing it? I guess CZTV doesn't have a whole lot of money to buy any good films, so all we get here are reruns of Dallas, and garbage like this. Possibly the only good thing I have to say about this movie is the fact that it doesn't copy the standardised model of most American movies. No helicopters, no explosions, no car chases, and no unrealistically exaggerated characters. In fact, the characters were all too ordinary. Even a video of some guy playing chess on his computer would have been more fascinating than this movie. It definitely has its own genre: Useless. I mean, even my writing this comment is a useless waste of time.


Altman should go into retirement, as should Scorsese, and all the other former great directors who waste everyone's time with their new material.

This overlong, unfunny near-mess starts off with a half-hour of pure tedium, in a sort of "Driving Miss Daisy" vein; with an old woman and her loyal black friend. Absolutely nothing happens in this part of the movie. I wish it had stayed that way, because once things start happening that is when the movie gets really annoying. (Like Sting's famous song-line: "Life was easy when it was boring", or "This film was easier when it was boring".) The overly familiar plot  already milked dry by the self-copying Hitchcock - of an innocent man accused of murder is just too stupid. It also sinks any chance that the gags and the humour might have; but the jokes are mostly mediocre so it doesn't matter. The other major problem with the movie is the rather "blah" cast: Julianne Moore, Glenn Close, O'Donnell, that "country" singer, and worst of all - Liv Tyler. While Moore is convincing as a semi-retarded woman, Close is simply annoying in yet another wicked-witch-from-the-South role. O'Donnell is typically bland, while Tyler is not only awfully miscast but a bad actress, as well. For Altman to cast her as some white-trash Southern girl is an insane move. Charles Dutton has a very cliché role: he is ultra-kind, pure goodness and is intellectually superior to just about everyone - without feeling that way. And what an annoying plot-point in the kid's father not wanting to listen to what the kid had witnessed. Plus, there is that annoying sporadic schmaltziness that any movie can do without. What a waste of time.


A Paul Naschy vehicle in which he plays an East Indian guru named (what else?) Krishna who may or may not be responsible for gang of murderous zombies on the loose in London, but the real 'stars' of this flick are the unintentional humor and the relentlessly kitschy soundtrack (the end title theme is particularly memorable, in that "so bad, it's good" category). Other things to watch out for include the stock footage of London, grinning zombies, a blinking corpse, and an "out of left field" plot twist. Stupendously bad, but terrific fun for those into this sort of thing.


What a mess! Vengeance of the Zombies tries too hard to be everything. The film doesn't devote near enough time to any one element of the plot. Vengeance of the Zombies is all over the place. It's one part Satanism, one part Eastern mysticism, one part Caribbean voodoo, and one part revenge. Throw in some bad acting, a lack of logic, and a twist out of left field and you've got a recipe for disaster. I'm trying real hard to enjoy these Paul Naschy films, but thus far I'm not impressed.

My rating would be lower if it weren't for some special effects that work quite nicely. There's one decapitation scene in particular that far exceeds the quality of anything else in Vengeance of the Zombies.


Shades of Jess Franco...this one has all the marks of a classic Franco hack-a-thon, and comes out of Spain. As with almost everything Franco did, this director obviously had the knowhow to create a decent film, but he couldn't be bothered to go back and polish all the rough parts. And the movie seems to be nothing but "rough parts" all the way through. The result is like watching the "rushes" for a talented neighbor's home movies for a script he hacked out in a day, if your neighbor had a photogenic wife (like "Rommy") and a 35mm camera.

The plot is completely lurid, which actually part of the movie's charm. It starts out with a masked guy (very "Phantom Of the Opera") reviving dead women as zombies to do his bidding, which mostly involved strangling people who obligingly just stand there and let them get on with it. (I have to admit that the make up on the zombies is pretty effective and one of the real reasons to watch the movie.) At least that's the opening scene. And before you know it, the plot has become a freeway pileup of Indian mysticism, serial murder, topless women, stylized slow motion assaults, zombies (of course), Satanism, ritual sacrifices, hallucinatory nightmares...have I left anything out? Oh yeah, all done to a swinging heavy jazz soundtrack that starts a new theme every two or three minutes, stops in the middle of a musical phrases whenever a scene ends, and in general seems to have nothing to do with the action on the screen.

The DVD print I saw (part of a "Drive In Movie Classics 50 pack) was awful; it was a full screen "pan and scan", but managed to consistently leave out one or all of the actors in a given shot, instead giving us revealing shots of the middle of the set.And mixing for the sound was apparently done in the bottom of a steel barrel. The overall sound managed to be muddy but was nevertheless so shrill and tinny that I was afraid it might make the neighborhood dogs start to howl. This was a shame because the dubbing for the dialog actual was one of the better efforts I've heard from this era - the dialog is still stilted and clumsy, but it seemed as if the ESL voice actors might have been allowed to actually rehearse a little before they had to jump into the studio. And again, the jazz music was mostly very sprightly and vivid - sort of the stuff you'd hear in a TV commercial for the new model Lamborghini or something; it would have been nice to hear it the way it was performed. My guess is that someone in production intentionally mixed things to sound best coming out of the speakers at a drive-in movie. Either that, or they hated us and wanted us to bleed from the ears and die in torment.

So yes, it's a mess. But somehow, it's an enjoyable mess, if only for the ambition of the lead actor, who casts himself in three different parts and the director, who tries to mix three or four different horror genres in one screenplay, and some hard working supporting actors who try their best to give the proceedings some dignity.

Do NOT pay money to see this, unless it's part of a collection. If you pay more than $5 to own a DVD of this movie by itself, you will probably be looking around for a throat to slit when it is over.


Vengeance of the Zombies is a head on collision of seven different horror genres. A hodge podge of gore, nudity, black gloved killers, voodoo, Satanism, surrealism , and unintentional camp. Naschy plays a dual role as the good Indian Guru Krishna,and his evil twisted and deformed voodoo doll making, Satan worshiping , masked killer of a brother. Obviously the plot is muddled. It reminds me of the old poverty row horror films but filtered through the distorted mind of Jess Franco. The most Franco like aspect of the film however is the jazzy score, which remarkably made the film a lot more tolerable for me. Naschy tosses in a few homages here, he's doing Blood and Black Lace in one scene, Curse of the Crimson Altar in another, things that are fun to spot. If you are in search for a good "bad" horror film with everything but the kitchen sink tossed in then you won't do much better than this.


In the beginning of this movie there is some bird or owl that got too close to the camera that it makes this annoying sound. This movie is awful and the painful acting doesn't help. In some scenes the peoples mouths move but the wrong words come out. There must have been something wrong with the dubbing that day. At one point I thought that it was being narrated but it isn't. This is just another terrible movie. Every killing is in slow motion and when the lady is being kidnapped she doesn't even try to escape. It's pathetic. Also the music sounds like a bunch of hyper active kindergardeners in a jazz night club. There is also a bad wrestling scene, a pop can on a guys neck and too many redheads. I got confused and thought that the main redhead was dead but then she wasn't and it was just another redhead. It doesn't matter anyway. Just avoid this movie.


I know one reviewer of this film that had the audacity to compare director León Klimovsky to Tarantino. Give me a break. The film jumped all over the place and switched scenes with no apparent rhyme or reason. One minute you see a love scene begin and a second later someone is running their bicycle into a car.

This mash-up of Hindu mysticism, voodoo and zombies never had any coherent plot.

It did have great zombie makeup. They looked dead!

It also had Mirta Miller. A voluptuous veteran of countless Euro-horror films, she again appeared scantily clad with her breasts heaving as she fell into the clutches of the zombies for their ritual.


This is the tenth film featuring Spanish horror star Paul Naschy that I’ve watched; though best-known for his series of “Waldemar Daninsky” werewolf movies, he made all kinds of genre efforts – even scripting many of them himself under real name Jacinto Molina.

Given the film’s title, this one obviously highlights the living dead – but, thankfully, it doesn’t follow the then-prevalent flesh-eating pattern cemented by George A. Romero; the plot, in fact, is pretty complex and also involves transcendental, voodoo and occult rituals as well as a masked assassin! Naschy, by the way, plays three roles here (though one of them, a horned demon, is only featured in a sequence depicting the heroine’s nightmare) – another finds the star at his most Brando-like (albeit inspired by the Method actor’s variable stint in the psychedelic star-studded concoction CANDY [1968]!) as a mystic and the last is the latter's evil brother, the disfigured man behind the mask who masterminded the titular plot.

The gory bits include a harmless old man getting a hatchet implanted in his face, a woman being memorably beheaded, a morgue attendant hilariously killed by having a soda can(!) viciously pressed against his neck, while the impalement of a pair of oblivious lovers clearly rips off Mario Bava’s far superior A BAY OF BLOOD (1971). As for the zombies, their attacks are rendered a bit more effective than would have otherwise been the case by the use of slow-motion. Typically, the lounge score (curiously highlighted by some otherworldly chanting!) is notable, as are the Swinging London settings; incidentally, the hero is a Spanish actor appearing under the name of Vic Winner – similarly, his character is hilariously named Laurence Redgrave, while that of the Scotland Yard Inspector is Hawkins who has an assistant that goes by the name of Basehart! Naschy...er...Molina presumably intended these as a tribute to their Hollywood namesakes, but they came off as unintentionally amusing instead (as is the film's very opening scene in which a couple who are hard up for cash decide to have a go at grave-robbing, to their eternal chagrin!).

The film has been released on DVD by BCI Eclipse but, since I can’t say that I’ve been all that impressed by the star’s outings so far, I don’t own any of them in this format: in fact, VENGEANCE OF THE ZOMBIES itself came via a full-frame English-dubbed edition sourced from a damaged VHS and accompanied by forced Finnish subtitles!


This movie is so cheaply and badly made that "Plan 9 from outer space" looks like a big budget production in comparison. This, however, would still be excusable.

The worst thing about the movie is that it features the on stage slaughtering of a real chicken.

What a waste of live for such a crap!

Has to be avoided at all cost!


Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.

It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.

The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.


An incredible piece of trash, with cheeky "artsy" pretensions.

The cardboard myth, the cinematic Potemikiniade, the clay-footed colossus that is Lucian Pintilie shows again his hideous and incompetent face.

He was once upon a time, several decades ago, a talented theater director and a promising movie-maker - but he never had the resources to substantiate his career. He simply has no grasp of what the cinematographic aesthetics MEAN. He believes that filmic art is synonymous with hysteria, brutality, vulgarity - and, oh yes, exhibitionism! If he doesn't command the actors to take all their clothes off and parade their nakedness in front of himself and the camera, he doesn't feel he's alive! This scabrous piece of film about the Romanian miners is one of the most amateurish and trivial he ever made. It's amazing, how certain semidoctes can achieve intellectual orgasms by watching this worthless insult to decent cinema.


It's a well known fact that the 10 years break between "Reconstituirea" and "De ce trag clopotele, Miticä?" was fatal to Lucian Pintilie, making him lose his movie-touch in a terminal way, his last sparks in cinema being noticed in "Balanta" and "O varä de neuitat" - two movies that contained a few good scenes. Unfortunately, the shameful "Prea târziu" is only the beginning of the author's final decline...

While fancying to attempt an in-depth analysis of Romanian society of the '90s, the story only juggles with some opportunist concepts, speculating in a gratuitous and expositive way the painful impact of the so-called "Mineriades". The conclusion is ridiculously hysteric: Romanian people turned into an underground killing beast, hungry for blood, for whose redemption it's "too late"...

The directing is primitively-violent, using cheap naturalist tactics that try to pose as "style". And Pintilie's personal obsession for full frontal male nudes, showing their genitals without the least aesthetic or semantic legitimacy, reaches here nightmarish proportions... We are deeply sorry, but NOT EVERYBODY is fascinated by staring between the legs of naked men, thank you very much!


Bob Hoskins does the most convincing American accent I've ever heard a British actor do, but directing doesn't seem to come as naturally as dialect. This movie features unattractive leading children, unbelievable school situations, stereotypical 'media' types, and completely fails to persuade even the most credulous that the magic is *there*. Special effects are variable, but generally poor. Unconvincing acting ruins what might have been rather good dialogue. It's a shame. I really, really wanted to like this movie, but there was no there there.


crap storyline....long story short. Three kids, one of em is called Mike and he has an older brother (who steals 3 gold pieces of prism from the rainbow) and 2 other of Mikey's friends chase a rainbow and travel through the rainbow. By the older brother's greedy action to steal the gold which make part of the structure of the rainbow, it starts to affect their world. Without light, there is no colour, no photosynthesis...no oxygen. This movie is a cross between Pleasantville and War Of The Worlds, but kids' style. This movie bored me to death. Ending was so predictable. Bad stunts and bad acting. Bad concept. Overall..it sucks...it's categorised as comedy. Throughout the movie, i did not laugh. I only laughed once, was when one of Mike's friends, sucked in helium n began 2 speak in that squeaky voice.


I've became addicted to Guy Maddin films lately. I'd heard many negative things about "Twilight of the Ice Nymphs", how it had nearly destroyed his career as a filmmaker, but I decided to give it a go anyways, if only because it was available on a DVD with both "The Heart of the World" and "Archangel". I'd love to say this film is underrated, but to be honest I can see why it attracted all the bad hype. Its uncompromising to be sure and often looks terrific, but is overall really boring. Mainly, Maddin's typically droll sense of humor seems to be present, but it doesn't work at all. Where the offbeat lines in "Careful" and "The Saddest Music in the World" were hilarious in how left-field they were, the dialog here is merely off putting. Also, the film's plot is completely impossible to keep track of. Maddin's other films, as bizarre as they are, usually have some kind of linear story. I had no idea what was going on in this one.

To add insult to injury, the acting here is pretty dire. Nigel Whitmey (uncredited due to disputes with Maddin) is really wooden in the lead role and doesn't know how to approach the tongue-in-cheek material at all. R.H. Thomson is far too bombastic and over-the-top in his part as well, while Pascale Bussieres and Alice Krige are completely forgettable. The only saving spot of the film is the feud between Shelly Duvall and Frank Gorshin. Their sequences are generally really entertaining and prevented this film from being a complete loss. Even so, its easily the weakest Maddin film I've seen yet. (4/10)


This show is so incredibly bad that it boggles the mind. I'm a really big Iron Chef fan (of the original Japanese show) and this was just so bad to watch. Most of the people that watch the original consider this to be an insult to the original.

- Takeshi Kaga is the chairman of the original show. He's wacky, he wears strange outfits, and he's got a voice that they didn't dub because they couldn't find anyone to replace him. This show has.. *cough* William Shatner. He can't even begin to compare. He's fake and just not good. Pricewatch is more up his alley.

- The general feeling of the show is just bad. Kitchen Stadium is where the original show takes place. It is a place of reverence for food (sounds corny, I know); this show takes place in Kitchen Arena and is just pitiful. If you've ever watched the Japanese ones, you know how quiet the stands are because everyone is intrigued; in this, it's just people standing up and cheering for no reason.

- What kind of judges did they pick? Bruce Vilanch is just a really, really sad "Hollywood Squares" dropout, and what kind of food critic is that Playboy chick? Pitiful. The Japanese critics might be really lame (like the fortune teller, heh) but they're much better than anything you'll see here.

In general, this show is just a disgrace to watch. It doesn't have the feeling and respect that the first show has. FujiTV should be shamed for having granted UPN the rights to this show. Hopefully, it won't make it past the second show.


I adored the Japanese version of "Iron Chef" and have watched every episode they aired in America. So, when I heard that production wrapped up, I was saddened...no more Chairman Kaga and no more Iron Chefs! However, soon after, there was an announcement that the show would be coming to America with a new cast and new Kitchen Stadium. I was excited. Then, sadly, it turned out that they tossed aside all the good elements of the original show and substituted it was an almost "Jerry Springer" and "Gong Show" atmosphere. Gone was the pageantry, subtlety and charm.

The single worst thing about the new show was that the chefs were no longer men you could admire and love. Kinichi, Sakai, Nokamura and the rest seemed like really nice people--skilled, yet honorable and humble. Now, in this bastardized version from America, the chefs were combination mega-celebrities AND GQ cover models. The worst of these was Todd English (who starred in this premier show). He seemed more like the wrestler Gorgeous George coming into the arena than a real honest-to-goodness chef. In the process, he came off as very obnoxious, self-assured and arrogant...and quite pretty. Because of his boorish antics (such as tossing food into the audience and prancing), I swore I'd never eat at one of his restaurants and I never will. I saw him recently on QVC or HSN and think that this is more fitting for his "talents". No one cooks THAT good that it's worth putting up with all this phony image that the show's producers no doubt convinced English to adopt.

The fact that English was so obnoxious was fortunate for the new chairman, William Shatner (who thought of Shatner!?!). While his performance was stupid, English so overshadowed Shatner that his wooden and dopey performance could be overlooked...a bit. Another problem is that when Americans watch the Japanese shows, they have no idea who Chairman Kaga is--and so it makes the idea of a real kitchen stadium seem almost possible. Most Americans don't know that Takeshi Kaga actually was a rather famous Japanese actor--famous for stage performances in plays by Andrew Lloyd Weber, TV and movies (such as the DEATH NOTE live action film). Not knowing all this actually was a plus in the States. You wanted to believe he really was the chairman of some mythic cooking arena!!

Apart from English and Shatner, the rest of the show had much more of a tacky Vega-style look to it. Too many crazy camera tricks, special effects and absolutely no charm. For fans of the original, there just wasn't anything to like. Fortunately, the Food Network version that appeared a few years later was much closer to the original. While still not nearly as good as the original, as least it did not look like a deliberate parody of the show!!

By the way, if you think I am being too rough on the show, Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle said of the show "'Iron Chef USA' an abomination". That about says it all!


Be warned. William Shatner does NOT know how to run Iron Chef shows. This is "Iron Chef USA." The real show to watch (American version) is "Iron Chef America!" Still, the Japanese "Iron Chef" beats them both with little effort. The real Iron Chefs are Chen Kenichi, Hiroyuki Sakai, Masaharu Morimoto, Masahiko Kobe, and Komei Nakamura. When I saw "Iron Chef America", I thought the show could use an Iron Chef Chinese in Ming Tsai. I just love how he prepared the duck dishes. I think he should become Iron Chef Chinese in "Iron Chef America." I also agree with Bobby Flay's comment that cooking can become an athletic sport and it should be on ESPN2. I hope that "Iron Chef America" can serve to make people forget the atrocities of "Iron Chef USA", which is NOT the same as "Iron Chef America." Also, "Iron Chef America" should let Morimoto speak English.


Iron Chef USA sounded like it would be a suitable compliment to the great Japanese version of Iron Chef, which was always elegant and well produced.

A slap in the face and utter flop, Iron Chef USA was a circus joke and mockery to the original, from the flashy, disrespectful Chairman to the bimbo interviewer. What a disappointment and supreme embarrassment. Thank goodness old Japanese Iron Chef reruns exist!


This is absurd on every level. First of all the moment I saw actors/comedians judging world's finest food and sportscasters the show lost its credibility. Well it's good to see Shatner's career in its downward spiral right in front of my own eyes.