I have seen the movie Knight Rider 2010 and do agree that it is not the best.in fact,it is extremely poorly produced.However-I think Tug 3 should get his facts right.James Doohan is in Knight Rider 2000,and not Knight Rider 2010.Dont' roll over my leg KITT!In any event the original is a great show which,although very eighties,still carries enough punch to make the grade.Reading about how some of the stunt work was done makes the big budget shows of today a bit naff.some of KN might seem a bit cheesy,but then again,some cheeses have a great flavour.and if super pursuit don't blow your mind just see a black pontiac close up-KITT is timeless.cue purple sunset


This excuse for a film is not worthy of the name Knight Rider. Avoid this at all costs. Anyone wanting to see Knight Rider after Michael Knight should see Knight Rider 2000. Even Team Knight Rider is more entertaining than this turkey! Minus 1 out of 10.


just a terrible excuse for a movie. this project greatly tarnished the already damaged knight rider franchise. this was dismal filmmaking. complete trash, not worth the 8 or so million they spent making it!


The film was reasonably well filmed and reasonably edited and it's great that there is now a film out there about a synth pioneer.

However my first thoughts on watching this film are: It repeats itself far too many times. It only needed to mention that Moog synths were first used for experimental music and adverts once. It only needed to show Bob Moog with his garden once! And there only needed to be one section on his philosophies on life and synthesisers.

There were massive sections of the Moog story missing. What about the first fall of Moog Music in the early 80s and the Moog Liberation (the first guitar synth - only problem was it was too heavy to hold!) He only touched on his feelings about digital synthesisers. What about the 80s and the DX7 and Moog synths falling massively out of favour. What about the comeback in the 90s - initially selling his analogue circuit designs to other companies, who produced synths like the MIDI Moog and the SE ATC1. What about his FX pedals?

Finally the soundtrack left much to be desired. All the live performances were badly recorded, the synths were far too loud compared to the backing. I know the synth was the instrument being demonstrated, but I found it uncomfortable to listen to. The content of the music was nearly all progressive rock musicians and various lesser known modern electro acts (bar stereo-lab and DJ spooky). He only mentioned Walter/Wendy Carlos in passing, he/she was the most important thing to happen to him and there was no interview or audio clip!! What about electropop, which was founded on the early affordable synths like the Moog Prodigy? These are just the first 2 genres that spring to mind that were missing - I could go on! So all in all - it's great that there is now a film about this fascinating guy. But...Hans Fjellestad should have got all the raw materials together before doing it. Get interviews with ALL the relevant people and use a soundtrack that is more diverse.


This is an unfortunately terrible documentary. It's boring and tedious, and does very little to tell me much about the instrument or its inventor. It seems like the director didn't really even bother to edit the film at all, presenting a collection of rambling, nonsensical "conversations" between Moog & various musicians, or semi-relevant ramblings with Moog by himself. It really is unfortunate, because he seems like an incredibly intriguing & intelligent person, but is presented in such an uninteresting way that seems to indicate that the director not only doesn't really care about him, but doesn't really care much about music in general. There are scenes where Moog is talking about the sounds the instrument can make, and the musician's options in terms of how they can manipulate the sounds, but the director doesn't bother to insert any "examples" during that scene, making it actually aggravating to watch. I found most of the various performances not really all that interesting to watch, either, as some of them barely showed the artist using the Moog (Stereolab) or focused more on other musicians in the performance (Money Mark's d.j.) I also really didn't learn much about Moog's life, or the real history & development of the instrument. It may have only been 70 minutes long, but i was barely able to sit through the whole thing. It really doesn't do the man justice in the least. If you want to see a great documentary about an inventor of an incredibly influential electronic instrument, watch THEREMIN. Not only is THEREMIN incredibly informative, but also rather touching. Truly a beautiful documentary.


Others have said it in other comments and I have to agree with them. Moog was an extremely important man in the world of electronic music and he really deserved a better tribute than this rambling mess of clips. The film maker never gets to grips with the guy in any way, shape or form but what I find more frustrating than anything is his choice of music to represent the moments in history. Perhaps he was on such a low budget that he couldn't afford certain rights but when Bob Moog talks about 'Switched on Bach' as being a ground breaking album, changing the public perception of what electronic music could offer, there isn't one single note from the album played. There's not even the mention of the composer's name. How can you have a documentary about Moog and not even mention the name Walter Carlos ? Quite unbelievable. The 'Switched on Bach' moment is quickly passed over for some reason and rushes into a short Keith Emerson clip. I also seem to remember that Tangerine Dream are never mentioned or any of their music played. All in all there are so many holes in the production it limits both its appeal and historic interest. Shame really because it queers the pitch for someone else who may want to do the job properly.


I must say that this documentary is a rather poor tribute both to Robert Moog and the Moog synthesizer for a myriad of reasons. Perhaps you might watch this (as it is being aired this month, December, 2007 on The Movie Channel (HD) for the same reason that I did (and that is to see what this documentary had to say about the man and his instrument, philosophy and some of the history behind the Moog synthesizer's and company's development), however the total impact of this piece greatly suffers both from what was included in the film and what was left out.

Granted, it is obvious that this film was not intended to be a complete historical review of the Moog's development. The same applies to the music, musicians, interviews and other footage including Robert Moog's own comments about himself, his instrument, and those who used the instrument commercially or in performance. The soundtrack is also quite disappointing, especially in terms of what was chosen as representative examples of Moog performances over the years. I suppose you would have to be well-versed in the history of the synthesizer (as I am) to fully understand this.

I agree with other reviewers in that Walter/Wendy Carlos was only briefly mentioned during this documentary, especially when it applies to the Moog modular system (as recorded on Switched-On Bach, The Well-Tempered Synthesizer, Switched-On Brandenburgs, Tron and others) which were perhaps the first and most influential recordings of the Moog synthesizer of all time. Also missing were such artists as: Isao Tomita, Dick Hyman, Herbie Hancock, Tony Banks (Genesis), and many more who recorded and performed with the Moog synthesizer during its early years. Instead, the focus of the piece centered around Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, Bernie Worrell and some of the early partners and friends who worked with Moog towards its development (Herbert Deutsch and other contemporaries and personal friends of the late Dr. Moog). The interview with Wakeman and Worrell was taped in a noisy hallway and could have been more effective (at the very least) by being taped in a quieter setting.

The commercial use of the Moog synthesizer centered around a rather dated beer commercial. I was expecting perhaps an interview with Suzanne A. Ciani who was infinitely more prominent in this area. In other cases, the interview location (city) was titled, but not the name of the person speaking with Bob Moog and that was also disappointing.

I also agree that certain comments were repeated, especially Bob's comment on having a feel of what was going on within the Moog's circuitry when he played it. Since he also discussed the Theremin (which seemed to be a major portion of this documentary) it would have nice to included some commentary about Miklos Rozsa and the role the Theremin played as the only recognized synthesizer as an "orchestral instrument." I am referring to many film score recordings which featured the Theremin, such as Hitchcock's Spellbound and many others in the suspense and Sci-Fi genres. There was little discussion about the other Moog synthesizer models outside of the modular system and the MiniMoog (such as the PolyMoog, MemoryMoog, and others).

The in-between footage, music and performances were rather disappointing and disjointed. I think the director could have planned a better tribute to a wonderful person, inventor, instrument, social and historically-significant musical technology. I think to really do justice to both the man and his machine, you would have to present, at the very least, about a 2 to 3-hour-long documentary.

On the plus side, it was interesting to see the Moog in production and some of the performance and interview footage, but not all. Actually, much of the footage is somewhat comical in nature when you look back at how it was presented, back in the early days of synthesis.


A documentary about Robert Moog, one of the most important figures in electronic music? Yes, please, sign me up. Alas, this premise goes awry from the outset. This mishmash of a documentary feels like a collection of outtakes from a better work. I don't need to see Robert Moog talking about pepper plants and Money Mark diddling around on a synthesizer.

MOOG demonstrates that sometimes it's best to not rely on the subject of the documentary as the subject matter expert of the film. Robert Moog is not the most well-spoken advocate and historian of his life's work. Likewise, showing the electronic guts of his machines doesn't do much to explain how they work or why Moog's work is important to the music world.

When utilizing archive footage, MOOG works. Unfortunately, these moments are few and far between leaving MOOG a mumbling, muttering mess for its interminable seventy-two minutes. Moog and electronica deserve better.


This must rank among the worst documentaries ever made, and that's truly a shame. The subject could have been endlessly interesting, not because of the man himself, but because of the musical revolution he instigated. Sadly this doc largely leaves it up to Moog to tell the story, producing a diffuse, woefully inadequate film. The man is pleasant enough, and tells one or two amusing anecdotes, but he's terrible at explaining his inventions, and worse at contextualizing them. Interviews with the likes of Bernie Worrell and Money Mark are equally uninformative and uninteresting. Only Rick Wakeman was worth talking to. There's a lesson in here for doc makers-- you actually have to WRITE your film. You can't just slop together a bunch of interview footage, as is done here. (Oral history doesn't work unless the event revisited is familiar to all in most of its details.) This footage should have been placed into the hands of a good general-interest magazine writer and a decent film editor-- from this raw material they might have made a decent film. All in all, a really frustrating watch.


This is the kind of movie that makes this exercise of writing up every feature I see kind of redundant, because it's not much of a movie. (at 60 minutes it's not much of a feature either) Bob Moog invented, you know, the Moog synthesizer, which as the movie illustrates has been the source of lots of directions in music, some legendary (Bernie Worrell), lots fun (Stereolab), and lots of atrocities against the ear (Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson). The common thread between these musicians is nonexistent, and the movie doesn't even try - it just plods from point to point, with Bob in tow to look on like a proud papa. I think the reason there's no cross-cutting is that there's no content - some lawyer clearly wouldn't let them talk about Moog's battles with the company that bears his name (don't ask me for more detail), and all that's left is a sequence of short arbitrary rambles - still life with Gershon Kingsley, still life with DJ Spooky (who is a pompous ass), Moog picking bell peppers, et cetera, plus some wan recitations of the word 'spirituality.' The only breakout moment is when Worrell tells Wakeman that he thinks of a keyboard as a woman that he's having sex with and Wakeman responds, 'I tried that but I found that the songs became very short.' To which Worrell replies, 'Play slower!' THERE is a cultural frisson to die for.


This vicious crime drama certainly scores points for sleaze, but it doesn't hold up for more discriminating viewers. Helmut Berger plays a handsome and cruel killer who breaks out of prison and leads his gang on a rampage of rape, murder, and kidnapping. Along the way he ravages Marisa Mell, who pretends to enjoy his impositions whilst plotting her own secret revenge with police inspector Giulio Santini (the incredibly wooden Richard Harrison). Though the film was shot in widescreen, cinematographer Vittorio Berini displays no talent for the 2.35:1 lens, relying on static centred shots throughout. The screenplay is brutally bad, with characters lacking motivation and no back story to explain why Berger is such a complete bastard, and the dubbed English track is awful. (A close viewing reveals that Beast With A Gun was probably shot in phonetic English, as the actors' lips do seem to approximate the words they're speaking.) The only saving grace of the film is Umberto Smaila's persistent and minimal score. Only for hardcore fans of Eurotrash.


It's taken four or five films, but it seems like Hollywood has run of out occupations for Will Ferrell to have while he acts like a man child. From anchorman to NASCAR driver and some other sports, the apparent remedy of this problem comes in Step Brothers: make him a jobless man child. Oh, and have two of him this time and get John C. Reilly to play the other. That's the basic set up for this, Ferrell's third collaboration with "Anchorman" and "Talladega Nights" director Adam McKay, a tired, annoying, and sometimes cringe inducing display of the same shtick you've seen many times before.

The movie follows Dale (Reilly) and Brennan (Ferrell), two single, unemployable 40 year old losers who still live at home with their single parents (played by Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins, two very good actors that don't have much to work with). When said parents hook up and eventually marry, the two find themselves under the same roof and an hour and a half of them screaming and getting hurt ensue. The two despise each other at first, but eventually become friends, especially when their parents grow tired of their immaturity and force them to try and get jobs. This sets the stage for what essentially boils down to a series of sketches. One supposedly funny situation after the next that the boys find themselves in, barely connecting to form a plot at all, let alone something overly funny. Set pieces include Brennan's diabolically cruel younger brother, his crazy wife who finds herself infatuated with Dale, a street brawl with some grade school children, and a rap video (groan). Like previous McKay outings, this movie is a gag a minute, throwing out a lot of things, most of them missing the mark.

To deride the humor as stupid is incredibly pointless. That's what one is expecting with movies like these, and even people who loved this movie would freely admit that it's stupid. The "stupid" factor of the humor isn't even my major problem with it. I've enjoyed movies like Anchorman and the indefensible Kung Pow: Enter the Fist, but there has to be some kind of wacky and over the top charm to a film's stupidity in order for me to be on board. Not only are Dale and Brennan un-charming, they're barely even likable, and even a little creepy. Seeing these men scream obscenities, beat the crap out of each other, act like children and destroy the lives of those around them wears thin very quickly without any charm acting as support. The film also suffers from a degree of unoriginality, nothing is recycled directly from the previous McKay movies, but I couldn't shake off the feeling that I've seen this all before, or that McKay and Ferrell weren't even really trying anymore.

Ferrell and Reilly are gifted actors, and have proved in past films that they can be funny, but they have nothing to do here but repeat the same joke over and over again. Dale and Brennan are moronic man sized children, look at how stupid and childish they act, etc. etc. I'd be liar if I said the film was devoid of any laughs, because it does deliver some, but they just feel cheap, coming solely from Ferrell or Reilly's tone of voice or facial expressions, and not from good writing. You also get the feeling that, if nothing else, the actors are having a good time, which keeps the film from being something truly terrible. I'm also a sucker for randomness, and it succeeded at making me crack a smile a few times because of it. But the majority of the jokes just don't work; coming off as McKay trying to be as immature and senseless as possible (think Ferrell rubbing his balls on a drum kit is funny? Then you're in luck).

The supporting characters don't help much either, most acting as one note and unlikable as the step brothers themselves. Brennan's brother and his wife try to be so frantically funny you feel like patting them on the back and saying "You came on a little strong". Steenburgen and Jenkins try their best, but as mentioned, they simply have zero material to work with, forced to simply act as straight-men to Dale and Brennan's idiocy. Until, of course, the movie finally decides to have some sort of conflict and makes the parents fed up with them, eventually resolving in conclusion just as asinine as the rest of the film. By that point I couldn't have cared about the characters any less.

The film is bad, but not terrible. It's far too uninspired to get that strong of a reaction from me. It is simply McKay and Ferrell reusing their tried and tested formula once again, and failing completely in an attempt to capture any real sense of comedy or fun. If you loved the other movies made in this vein, then you'll surely like this too. If you find yourself tiring of Ferrell with each release, then save yourself some time and skip it, because "Step Brothers" will probably be the film that'll break the camel's back. Then fart on it or something.


Brennan Huff's mother and Dale Doback's father get married and go to live together. Since Brennan and Dale still live with their parents (even having 40 years old), they need to live as step brothers. They don't like each other and don't get along. The main problem will come when they start to shake their parents' wedding.

What a HORRIBLE movie! I haven't laughed even once! It is as bad as ''You Don't Mess with the Zohan '', but even more retarded! (If this is possible!!)

How can someone even laugh with those ridiculous situations? The two lead characters seem two retarded men whose main objective is to destroy their family's lives. They behave like babies and they are what? 40 years old?

I cannot believe this movie has almost a 7 in its rate. This only proves how many people with bad taste live in the world.

Don't even bother to watch this movie, or you are going to lose your time with one of the most pathetic movies ever made by humanity.


Will Farrell tea bagging a drum set is not funny. John C. Reilly in bicycle shorts or a Chewbacca mask is not funny. The two stars pulverizing a playground full of eleven-year-olds is also, you guessed it, not funny. In fact, it is desperate and pathetic.

It is small consolation that one of the egregious scenes in the movie takes place after the credits roll. Unfortunately though, the aisles and exits at the theatre I saw Step Brothers at were clogged with spectators who, beyond any intelligible reason as far as I can tell, were amused enough by the first 100 minutes to stick around for the encore, so I was stuck.

I find it necessary to qualify my above remarks, as well as those I have not yet written down, by saying I do not object to raunchy, low-brow humor. Any one of the images mentioned in the lead of this review could have been as funny as the pie scene in American Pie or the testicle/zipper shot in There's Something About Mary. But there needs to be some context and perhaps a little motivation as well. We need to know why something is funny, and understand how it fits in with the world its movie occupies. The images themselves do not suffice, no matter how shocking or disgusting.

If you are not yet familiar with the general set-up of Step Brothers through the movie's excessively aggressive and ubiquitous marketing campaign, it is rather simple. Will Farrell and John C. Reilly play two slacker children- one is forty years old and the other is pushing forty with a short stick- whose successful, motivated single parents get married, and therefore begin the weirdest Brady Bunch type family in movie history. Farrell and Reilly's characters hate each other upon sight and bicker insufferably until they realize they are cut from the same degenerate cloth and then become best pals.

Eventually, the father, a revered and important physician played by Richard Jenkins, becomes so enraged by the overgrown adolescents' antics, that he delivers an ultimatum to them. Get jobs and move out by the end of the month. I feel this is all the plot exposition this film deserves, because Step Brothers is more about a series of failed gags and profanity for profanity's sake.

I consider myself to have a very high tolerance for explicit, raunchy sexual behavior and an even higher tolerance for foul language, but even I found Step Brothers to be puke-inducing, more than a bit rough. Remember the tea bagging scene mentioned in the lead. We do get to see every hairy inch of Will Farrell's scrotum. It does not advance the plot. It is not the logical conclusion of a series of events. It is not executed with any sort of subtlety or surprise, it is telegraphed a week ahead of time. It serves no function whatsoever except to show Will Farrell's testicles because Farrell, who co-wrote the script with director Adam McKay, thinks it is funny. It is not, and neither are the endless gags which continually use sex, genitalia, cursing, etc. as bludgeons. It is not so much a movie as an exercise in arbitrary weirdness and manic perversion.

The clerk who sold me my ticket said that while most of the younger audiences seemed to love the film, many middle-aged moviegoers had left the film enraged, demanding to be refunded. To me, this does not demonstrate a schism in tolerance, but a schism in taste. Today's middle-aged moviegoer grew up with Animal House and Porky's, and was quick to embrace the aforementioned American Pie and There's Something About Mary. And anybody willing to put down ten bucks to see a movie starring the man behind Old School must have been prepared for some politically incorrect humor. However, in Step Brothers it is not funny, just depressing, mean-spirited and reprehensible.

Even more depressing, is the fact that there is a kernel of a good idea here. There is endless comedic possibility of two social misfits with Peter Pan complexes who are seemingly oblivious to all real world expectations. Unfortunately, this movie is completely unwilling to push the frontiers of any sort of substance whatsoever. It just falls back on the same safe, broad humor that so many of Farrell's previous efforts are marked by.

Worse yet, is that the two lead characters' quirks are made less interesting by the supporting characters in the movie. Everybody is pretty much the exact same. Even the supposed smart, successful people in Step Brothers behave like social deviants, giving Farrell and Reilly nothing to bounce their energy off of. They hardly even stand out as weirdos. Even the straight-laced father succumbs to visions of being a T-Rex. It is not a fantasy, but a goal.

There is something potentially fascinating about a successful doctor who aspires to be a member of a different species, one that is extinct to boot, but like so much of the rest of the movie, the joke is undercut by the tone of the rest of the film. The undeniable chemistry between Farrell and Reilly is the only thing that makes this film supportable. They really embody these characters and go all the way with them. Unfortunately, that is all the way to the toilet. The film displays many symptoms of Farrell's classic "Ain't I cute" syndrome.

This film makes the classic mistake of believing goofiness is an adequate substitute for wit. All comedy writers, directors, and actors would serve themselves well to observe a few basic lessons. Smart people are funnier than dumb people. Secure, well-adjusted people are funnier than zany outcasts. And most importantly, a bad gag done loudly is even more annoying than the same bad gag performed at a humble volume.

In a summer of surprisingly strong major studio releases, Step Brothers does what it can to taint the cinematic gene pool.


Step Brothers - Two 40 year old men (Will Ferrel and John C. Reily) who live with their single parents find those parents become married. The two men hate each other but soon find themselves becoming friends. They then learn to grow up.

Really, the usual thin plot premise has worked in other movies that Judd Apatow has had anything to do with remotely (producer) but seriously. This movie has almost no plot. It would have worked ten times better as a sketch on a comedy show (and did. Am I the only one who has seen Mr. Show with Bob and David?) than as a two hour long movie.

I have enjoyed both men's comedic and dramatic talents in the past, but after their most recent effort together: Talledega Nights, a movie that was tiresome and largely unfunny, who thought it was a good idea to bring them back together? Oh that's right, Adam McKay, the guy who directed and wrote that movie and also directed and wrote this one (There was a script? Really?). It felt like amateur hour at an imrov club. Occasionally something funny gets said or done, but you have to wait through a lot of crude, unfunny crap inbetween.

Reilly seems to have abandoned subtlety in comedy altogether. Ferrell plays an even bigger dumber lout than usual, still mistaking screaming for comedy. They are beyond quirky to the point of being cartoons. Make that cartoons you feel kind of bad for. Only Adam Scott comes out of this retaining his dignity as the sort of evil other brother to Ferrell's character. Seth Rogen shows up for a cameo scene to remind us how people can seem like real characters and still be funny.

Yes I love Anchorman, but I'm beginning to think that McKay is like a comedic M. Night Shymalan. He had one good movie in him. Period. The bar for taste could not honestly get lowered. There were some surprise laughs once in awhile, but I was considering leaving about half-way through..Once the "rift where the characters learn about growing up" occurs, McKay tries to squeeze this monstrosity into the cliché comedy mold, and it all feels even more awkward. Like only then they realized how ridiculous and unfunny it all was. The cartoons try to become actual people, and it's all just too painful. There is one bright light: Ferrell can actually sing (which I already knew from The Producers). Did we need to go through an entire movie to see it? Painfully dumb, Step Brothers gets a D+


I hate this movie. It is degrading to the intelligence of anyone who actually condescends to watching it, it offers nothing of worth in any category and it loses itself in a festering ball of pathetic, sorry ass-felching crap that I would rather have a root canal than watch again. It's about two thirty or forty year old guys who live with their single parents. When the parents end up meeting at a business conference of sorts, the two men are forced to try and get along. Well, they don't, and what follows is a gamut of immature genitalia jokes, farting jokes, masturbation jokes and, to top it all off, Will Ferrell's balls rubbing on a drum set. I swear I'm not making that up.

So, yeah, the jokes are by far the worst part. Will Ferrell had a hand in writing this screenplay, and to that I say, don't let this man touch any more scripts. Seriously, this is awful. Do you still think jokes about penises and masturbating are hilarious? Do you like watching grown men cry and shout curses at each other at the top of their lungs? Well, then, you're a disgrace to humanity, and this movie is for you! Every moment of this godforsaken piece of cinematic bowel cancer is just painful, every last minute of it. It's clear that there is a story trying to happen here, but when you have dialogue about wanting someone to crawl into your vagina and live there, well, it's a bit hard to let it blossom. I swear, I'm not making that up, either.

The worst part about this movie is that our two main characters are supposed to be likable, more so than Will Ferrell's brother character, played by Adam Scott. The brother is made out to be a horrible, obnoxious and rude person who takes pleasure in talking down to and humiliating his older brother, who, if I might remind you, is forty years old and living at home. Yeah, this movie wants us to feel sorry for Will Ferrell and his new buddy, but the problem is that they're even worse and more asinine than the brother is! It doesn't work as an inspirational coming-of-age story not just because the two characters are already OF age, but because we don't like the two main characters! They're insipid, shallow, rude assholes and I just wanted to shoot them for the better part of the story. It doesn't work as a comedy because nothing is funny, it's just sad.

Yeah, and there's one part where they try to bury each other alive, which is where the movie officially hits an all time low. It's like something you'd read out of a tabloid newspaper column after you've already read through everything worth reading. Or maybe like something off of one of the online 'weird news' categories. It's pathetic, and all it really does is make you embarrassed to still be watching this movie.

So then we get the end of the movie, which turns things around and sees the two guys reforming themselves and starting to live real lives. It is kind of nice, at least as an apology for the rest of the insufferable crap on here, but in the context of the movie? It's like two completely different films mashed together, and it's even kind of insulting that a movie that features insurmountable levels of grotesque and puerile farces against the film industry's integrity would actually try to have, in the same movie as the dialogue about crawling into a woman's vagina, a "moment" between the two brothers. Yes, we're expected now to put down our barf bags and pick up a tissue box. Good god.

Well, I don't buy it. This movie is wretched. It is unpleasant, it is unfunny and most of all it is mostly unwatchable. I've never seen anything quite so shameless. This whole movie is actively detestable and hateable. Never before have I seen a movie that made me feel quite this dirty. If you think this movie is funny then you have terrible taste in comedy. Utterly worthless tripe on every level.


After viewing this film 5 or so hours ago, I left the cinema thinking this was an OK movie. As far as a "leave your brain at the door" kind of movie goes, it was actually pretty good. But after a few hours of letting the experience stew over in my mind, I find myself utterly unfulfilled. I say this, because the only moments in the film that I can recall are the entirely negative aspects. Awkwerdness is the word that springs to mind. The jokes seem laboured, for example, the drawn out fart joke. Even with the cameo of Seth Rogen lifting this moment up abit, its the kind of humour a 5 year old Nickelodeon viewer would enjoy. Fart jokes haven't worked since Blazing Saddles, and even there it was just a device used by Mel Brooks to see how much the censors would let him get away with. I think maybe its time to stop.

Now to bring up what has to be the worst point in the film, and that has to be the relationship between Dale (John C. Reilly) and Alice (Kathryn Hahn). Everything about them felt so wrong. Just throwing out a "vagina" or a "ball sack" doesn't merit a laugh from me, and oh boy were the scenes awkward. I would liken them to watching the crassest of the crass Bill Hicks act with your Grandparents. Yep, really, and I was just in the cinema with a friend of mine.

So all in all, I'd recommend for people to avoid this film. Unless you want to sit through a butt-load of average. Hey, but what do you expect from a Judd Apatow production.

Oh, and also, Will Ferrell has a terrible voice!


I DO NOT RECOMMEND!!!!!!!!

I wasn't expecting much from this. I did not like Talladega so I knew I will not like this. I saw it because of the good comments it received here. The film depicts two grown up men playing teenagers. Both have a huge parental complex and cannot live if the umbilical is broken. They become step brothers and their behaviour is very predictable. They hate each other in the beginning and they start doing the same old: pranks on one another. Unfortunately, the jokes and ideas these two grown up men have used to be funny when I was twelve. Putting your balls on a drum set, 'gina jokes and all that tasteless humour is beyond me now. This film took everything to the extreme. You had a bad joke but that was not enough. It had to be pushed, and pushed, and pushed until it became so lame that the premise wasn't even funny anymore.

The plot thickens when Dale shacks up with Derek's wife. Derek is Will's brother in the movie. Typical brother, very successful but the biggest moron on the planet. So, back to the shacking. That was so random and it lowered the quality. Her lines were taking from a porn film and they were very explicit. The scene where she pees in a cubicle is simply overkill.

What was funny in this film, I do not know? Every scene involves explicit sexual organ description or sex related images.


This movie is worse than Disaster Movie a worthy Candidate for the worst comedy made within the past 5 years. The plot is about these losers who still live at home, unemployed 40-year-olds who live with their mother and father they meet and they develop a relationship and get married Ferrel and Reilly hate each other and Ferrel does the worst thing in any comedy movie (besides Charlies Angels 2 with hiring those writers(even though writers isn't a word to describe them) he puts his balls on Reilly's drum set (no wonder earlier in this piece of crap he said "Don't touch my drum set") and then they find out they have more in common and they decide to start a new music band (REPLACE THE DRUM SET) and then Ferrels younger brother is in town this guy is a success with a love relationship Ferrel says he's an ###hole and the brother sells their house and they try to get it back by doing the unthinkable like dressing up as Natzi's and putting makeup on Ferrel's face trying to make out he's dead (if only it was real) and later Ferrel's younger brother runs out of people to sell it to and one night they release their first music video see they wanted to be in this band with 2 people the step-brothers and Reilly's father owns a boat and that's where they were filming it while it was in the water with nobody driving it. it hits a cliff not knowing what they did they made their parents break up the brothers cry now this is THE WORST CRYING I HAVE EVER SEEN and I have seen Muriel's Wedding and that scene in Charlies Angels 2 where Drew Barrymore thinks her friends have died the mother says it's not their fault but the father snaps some logic in them and say it is their fault and anyway Ferrel bury's John C Reilly alive and how he got past the broken up parents I don't know and Reilly gets out and they decide to grow up (they decide to stop acting like overgrown 4-year-olds and get a life) and Ferrel works with his brother and he does some festival or some crap and Reilly's the chef and the band doesn't show up so what does the father do he says go and act like overgrown 4-year-olds and do that band and Ferrel's voice changes everything in the movie (except thee quality) and the younger brother who his co-workers chant something extremely disturbing until that voice came on he decides to make peace with the brother so the movie changes from some 40-year-old losers acting like 4-year-olds to a gay finale like in High School Musical and Hairspray oh and Ferrel entered Therapy earlier in the movie and that stupid voice made the therapist in love with him but we change from a Gay finale to Ferrel and Reilly beating the crap out of little kids who earlier in the movie forced them to lick dog crap which I don't want to know how it became white. all in all the worst comedy I have seen since Charlies Angels 2 or Muriels Wedding


There are movies that are really bad, but are so bad they are actually good, thus watchable. B-movies from the 50s come to mind. Then there are silly movies with some chuckles along the way. Then there are stupid movies, and some are still okay, as there are some chuckles along the way and likable characters. Then there's Step Brothers. What the rating system needs is a zero or negative numbers as this movie does not even rate a zero. The group that was watching this flick were all Ferrell and Reilly fans, but after 20 minutes most had left the room. I'll have to admit that no one stayed to watch the entire flick, even the most die-hard Ferrell fan, so this review is only based on what was watched. And even then it was painful. What were Jenkins and Steenburgen thinking when they decided to be in this movie? Both are fine actors, and if not for them this flick would have been turned off sooner. But then, this movie is not about them, but 2 middle-aged men who have been coddled by their parents and not only still live at home, are waited on hand and foot. No one liked Ferrell or Reilly's characters at all and we had no idea what this movie was trying to prove. Maybe there's a point near the end. That's if you can stand to waste your time waiting for it. Our guess is that everyone learns to live peacefully with one another. Our suggestion, your time would be better spent cleaning your bathroom.


I used to like Will Ferrell..but after this, I have my doubts about his quality. This movie is unbelievably stupid...and I don't mean funny stupid, I mean I can't believe anyone would find such basic, simple, absolutely ridiculous jokes and situations, funny. It's an almost impossible task to watch it to the end as they get worse and worse. I felt so bad to have spent my money on such a poor poor comedy-wannabe movie. I just can't understand how this even got to the cinemas. And also how is it possible so many people found it funny?? Think twice before watching it, it doesn't bring anything useful to your life, doesn't even make you laugh.


I just finished watching this movie. let me start by saying that I usually dont comment on movies, unless they are exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. normally I just leave a rating. I'll admit, I downloaded this movie purely because Liv Tyler was in it. My expectations were not all that high, just that it have something resembling a plot, decent acting and that she look good in it. Well, they got one of those right, and it damn sure wasn't the acting or the plot. what kind of high quality **** are these people smoking and where can I get some of this stuff. Okay, the main story line of this movie is that this kid stole over $9000 dollars from his employer. this is not a spoiler by the way, it occurs in the first five minutes of the movie. The only form of punishment that he is subjected to is that he has to sit on the couch. no police report, no termination of employment, as a matter of fact, the manager tries to commit fraud to cover up for this guy. Horrible acting, one of the basic 14 or so plots floating around in hollywood, just the names and places substituted. I gave it 3/10, just because of the fact that liv tyler appeared in her underwear, and that you get to see rene zellweger in skimpy clothing, but that was being liberal. I just don't like giving anything a real low score. I dont know what else I can possibly say that could be considered positive. don't waste your time. later.


I didn't expect a whole lot from this movie, and to be honest I didn't get that much. From the onset the movie was pretty tame and I felt the set up was a bit long, I was praying for the carnage to just start already. However once it did, the movie found some very funny moments. The main characters weren't all that compelling but the two comic relief friends Diggs (Tadhg Murphy) and Henry (Laurence Kinlan) did manage to get a few good lines in. The movie had its share of plot holes (quite a few of these were pretty big.)

But on the whole I did find it funny and I was smiling by the end so it wasn't too bad, just nothing to write home about. I felt it tried a little too hard to fit with what are usually American high school stereotypes and could have been a little more homegrown. The over the top gore (which was my whole reason for viewing) was good but the movie ended very quickly and after such a long set up I was a little disappointed. All in all a vaguely entertaining watch with a few (but not enough)laughs.


I didn't expect an awful lot from this film, I sat prepared to just go along for the ride and take whatever enjoyment I could from the experience. Which is why I'm so surprised it left me quite this disappointed.

There were one or two moments that aroused a vague smile, but it fell far short of anything I'd consider comedy. The acting was, for the most part, painfully wooden... movements so deliberate and self-conscious that you'd think you were watching the rehearsal... constantly jolting me out of the (generous level of) suspension of disbelief I was affording it.

The plot was uninteresting, tired and boring. I felt nothing for any of the characters, they all could have been eaten or horribly killed and I wouldn't have cared in the slightest.

This is a bad film, plain and simple. The only recommendation I'd give it is to someone I disliked.


Part satire and part romantic-comedy, Boy Eats Girl should be looked upon as a homage to the classic 70s horror genre and not a poor effort at recreating the success of Shaun of the Dead. Hailing from Ireland, it takes plenty of liberties in its character's settings and mannerisms. Not wholly European as you'd expect but it works on most levels, just not so much on the humour however.

Nathan (David Leon) is the heartbroken teenager who accidentally kills himself after making the mistake of witnessing the love of his young teenage life, Jessica (Irish pop sensation, Samantha Mumba) in a compromising situation with his school's Lothario. Nathan's mother (Deirdre O'Kane) finds his lifeless body in his room and remembers the handy book of resurrection spells that she'd found just days earlier in the bowels of the church that she works at.

As easy as you can say beginner's luck, she manages to bring back her son and gets him ready for the next day of school. Nathan starts to feel the effects of his zombification when he starts to feel impervious to pain and feels hungry all the time. His 2 pals, Henry and Diggs (Laurence Kinlan and Tadhg Murphy) who at times seem even less shiftless than their dead friend, get worried when they see Nathan's disenchantment with Jessica vanish.

At the night's school disco, resident slut and girlfriend of the toughest jock in school, Cheryl (Sara James) propositions Nathan. Not exactly willing to do what Nathan wants from her, she ditches him. Unfortunately for Nathan, the jock boyfriend follows him as he stumbles on to the rugby pitch. Normally, this would be a cakewalk for bully-kind everywhere but Nathan's newfound undead ability of super-strength makes it easy for him to overpower the jock. He finally gives in to temptation and takes a couple of deadly chunks out of him. Nathan runs home and is given the bare bones of his worsening condition by his mother who promptly locks him in the garage as she finds a cure. Things start to get a whole lot worse for him after last night's attack starts a chain reaction of killings, each spawning a much more vicious version of Nathan's condition.

The plot and situation 'borrows' heavily from a handful of movies, especially the 1993 cult classic, My Boyfriend's Back with virtually the same sub-plot of unrequited love between the unfortunate undead and his high-school sweetheart. As most will use Shaun of the Dead as a touchstone in understanding the film's comedy/gore tandem, it's intended use of black comedy and detached humour falls short.

The backyard splatter that comes from fending off ravenous classmates and neighbours is refreshing to see and it does it well. The violence and the reactions of the harried survivors are always tongue-in-cheek which is satisfying, as the zombie horde never comes close to being scary, just downright silly. The flaying of skin and removal of limbs is a requisite in any good romp through a town full of undead. However, the gore starts of perfunctory, not exactly a good sign when it takes almost half the movie to get there.

As the film progresses to its climax, a visible shift in priorities takes place. Suddenly, the story stops and a zombie free-for-all take place, courtesy of a pimped out tractor and surge of adrenaline from the heroine. As the movie is a relatively short enterprise, clocking in at about 77 minutes (including credits), it almost makes up for the lack of spilled blood and guts when the horror aspect of the film finally kicks in.

Most satires succumb to taking themselves too seriously at some point in their films and Boy Eats Girl is no different. The romance between Nathan and Jessica felt too overdone in the beginning, leading to the most controversial scene in the movie that initially got it banned in its native Ireland. The attempted suicide scene was clumsy and awkward; not exactly an endorsement for depressed teenagers everywhere.

The film starts out slow, working out the set-up of the eventual suicide that triggers the rest of the plot, leaving just a third of the movie for bona fide zombie mayhem. Each transition is disjointed and rushed, especially the weak example of a deus ex machina during the last minutes of the film.

The 1-note characters and unresolved story lines are indicative of the apathetic acting and lack of fleshed out character development. Mumba does not show any signs of being a tough female character in the beginning, making a transformation into the movie's heroine seem out of character. Leon's Nathan seems too self-aware and confident to pull off being the angst-ridden chump who finds it hard to bring up his true feelings around Jessica.

From start to end, its campy throwback to nonsensical horror-comedy masks over its inability to find its feet and its problematic attempts at satire. Suffering from a painfully short running time and an overly brisk pacing, Boy Eats Girl does not fulfill the potential that it has. What it does achieve is a quick and harmless way to spend just over an hour when bored.

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars


If you've seen "Die Nacht der Lebenden Loser" (I guess it's called "Night of the Living Dorks" in English), you can basically imagine this movie to be an exact rip-off, except that this one has more gore in it, but less good gags in exchange.

That said: It's enjoyable. The gore and FX are well-done most of the time, the zombies do look decent. The acting isn't bad and there are actually some gags that work. It's too bad that most of them don't, however, at least not for me. The main character turns into a zombie more slowly than anybody else, but that's okay. The problem is, his desire to eat humans obviously is so small, it doesn't even count, and there are no funny scenes like "oops, I ate *insert name here*" or anything like that. Lots of occasions for gags wasted. For a comedy that's pretty lame.

Still, there are a few gags in there, the zombies are decent, the gore is good and the story isn't that bad, which makes the film enjoyable.


This review contains minor spoilers.

Remember Shaun Of The Dead? A funny zombie comedy with laugh out loud moments. Now here's Boy Eats Girl starring former teen pop star Samantha Mumba trying her hand at acting, and failing miserably. The movie follows 17 year old Nathan who is in love with Mumba's character Jessica. He's finally plucked up the courage to tell her and guess what? He dies.

Coincidentally, Nathan's mum found a book of voodoo magic prior to his death. Fancy that! So she decides to resurrect him using a spell from the book. Big mistake love. Nathan comes back as a zombie, eating human flesh and whatnot and the zombie curse manages to infect his whole neighbourhood.

Blatant rip-off of Shaun Of The Dead? Possibly. Okay, yes. But it's not all that bad. There are a few chuckles along the way and the makeup is pretty decent for a movie with such a limited budget. But other than that it's pretty damn awful.

First of all, the title is majorly misleading. Boy does not eat girl. In fact, the boy doesn't even attempt to eat the girl. Despite being a zombie he only manages to bite one person and the scene in which it takes place is pretty dull anyway. I would highly recommend avoiding this at all costs, but if you are intrigued online stores are practically giving this away. Rating: ★½


This had to be the most clichéd and predictable rubbish I've seen so far this year, perhaps ever. From the poor script and diabolic acting (and I'm not talking about the monsters) this was a poor effort.

Why the makers decided to try and emulate an American high school, with all its American Prom-goodness I have no idea but it didn't work and it didn't feel credible.

Last thing? Samantha Mumba had to put out the worst Irish accent I've ever heard, and playing the part of a 17 year old? I think they were pushing the boundaries of actors playing young characters even in comparison to the likes of 90210.

Lacking in any of the fundamental elements of the genres it was going for; Horror, Comedy, Suspense. This wasn't even bad enough to become cult.


It was inevitable that we weren't going to like this Gaelicised take on the zombie movie. You just can't take Irish people being pursued by the living dead seriously.

There's some pretty poor acting in here and the whole situation pushes suspension of disbelief a little too far.

There are a couple of good moments, but anyone could throw a couple of decent jolts into such a genre film  it lends itself to them...

I can't understand how anyone can bugger up such a simple format. They're zombies, the script writes itself... Alas, there was no respect here. No understanding of what to do with them.

Poo.


This movie has nothing to show. It's just terrible. The idea... Maybe, but no, still not good enough. Maybe if it was a love story without the zombies it would have been good for some teenagers. The beginning is also good, but as the whole film it's said in just a few words and a movie would never look fine read as a bedtime story. The actors - what can I say?? I didn't quite like non of the girls, the boys aren't acting much better. I could stand no more but 30 minutes. Because, it is neither scary enough to make me feel just a bit frightened, nor it's so funny. As I said, it has nothing to show. It's just another low budget movie which would attract a terribly low number of audience. To be honest, I feel that the 50 mins I spend watching the movie and it's completely stupid end are like stolen from my life. Just don't make this mistake. Watch something you have watched and you know it'll make you feel better that this consecutive senseless movie.


Very primitive. Villagers don't speak, they take turns, as if on cue, to SHOUT their lines at the top of their lungs, and in a pronounced Tehrani accent at that. The incessant SHOUTING gets annoying real fast.

What makes things worse is that the sound level is the same regardless of the actors' distances from the scene. Someone shouting from the top of a roof several houses away is as loud as someone standing next to you. If you don't look at the screen, you will get the feeling that all actors are standing around a single microphone and shouting into it.

This could have been a much better movie in the hands of a more experienced director and crew but as it is, I couldn't stand it. Fast-forwarded through.


No, it isn't Disney, and it isn't even quite Shakespeare (the almost too clever but crafty subtitle "Sealed With A Kiss" tells us that), but as a throwback to one and a light introduction to the other, this very little (77 minute) film deserves to find an appreciative audience.

The one-man, single cell "flat" animation is smoothly done and handsome. While the brown and yellow Romeo and Juliet seals (to distinguish between the Montague and Capulet herds) are closer to the look of Casper the Ghost and friends than the more detailed "flat" animation from the corporate giants at Disney, Pixar or Bluth, it is several steps ahead of the still popular (among the undemanding young) work associated with Rankin-Bass. The standard Nibbelink maintains is consistent and impressive. Even the Elephant Seal "Prince" who stands in for Shakespeare's Duke who threatens any who would disturb the streets of his Venice does not recall the visual sloppiness of the broad lines Ursula, the evil witch in Disney's LITTLE MERMAID was rendered in.

The script might have tried a little harder (it omits more Shakespearian characters than it had to - where's the nurse? - and while it feels free to drop in "famous" Shakespearian quotes from other plays at any convenient turn for the amusement of the adult audience, it could have used a few more in the actual plot without turning off the younger set), but it is coherent and even in "smoothing out" the rough edges of one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies for overly sensitive parents, it preserves the essence of most of Shakespeare's lessons (at least as interpreted these 400 years later).

Charm is the key word here - it is a charming film, and a very nicely done one, even if it were from a major studio. From a one-man operation it's close to a miracle that any student of film or animation should put on their "must-discover" list. Even before the kids are ready for MONSTERS INC. or SHREK 1, 2 or 3, this ROMEO AND JULIET, Sealed With A Kiss would be a very good choice for a wise parent.


I love Shakespeare, and was intrigued at how "Romeo and Juliet:Sealed with a Kiss" would turn out. I did hear from people it was a disgrace to Shakespeare, but I have been known to disagree with critics and the IMDb ratings, so I gave this a chance. It wasn't absolutely repulsive, but it didn't quite click with me. The best asset of the film is the animation. The backgrounds are fluid and colourful and the characters with the exception of the Prince were well drawn. Considering the animation was done by one man, Phil Nibbelink, it was quite impressive visually. The story pretty much follows the storyline of the play, except it is about seals, plus some (I think) pointless scenes with Friar Lawrence and a shark, and the voice acting was on the whole decent. However, there are a lot of things wrong with it. I personally didn't care for the music. I love good music in animated films, but here I found the songs forgettable and bland, and the incidental music felt misplaced. I will say I liked one or two of the characters, Romeo and Juliet are appealing enough and the Kissing Fish is really cute. However, Friar Lawrence is not the wise caring character I associate him with, and I do not know why the Nurse was omitted when she provides the most effective source of parental love in the play. In my opinion, I didn't like the character of the Prince at all, I didn't like how he was drawn and his voice was too monotonic for my liking. Worst of all was the script, constant misuse of the Shakespeare language and Mercutio's jokes went well overboard, and especially in his death scene they weren't even funny. Overall, this movie was okay but I don't recommend it. 4/10 Bethany Cox


Romeo and Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss (DO YOU SEE WHAT THEY DID THERE? IT'S ABOUT SEALS!) is possibly the laziest excuse for a film I've ever seen. There are maybe 5 surnames in the credits to this film - clearly the backers of this film called in every family favour they could. One of the characters, a talking fish, is played by the director's daughter, for instance. She sounds about 8. She gets to sing a solo of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. This should give you some idea of the sheer skill and respect for the craft that went into this.

First of all, an interpretation of Romeo and Juliet where no-one dies feels... well, redundant. You can't really take one of the great tragedies and tack on a happy ending. Doubly so if that happy ending involves Mercutio surfboarding in taking racist jokes with the punchlines replaced by the word "Capulet".

Also, there is a dance scene on the Titanic. I don't know why these awful children's films feel the need to use the deaths of thousands for cheap laughs, but it's a trend that is apparently spreading.

And when it's all said and done, the Shakespeare content is pretty weak. The family rivalry is replaced by lazy racism, characters are cut or merged to the point of nonsense (we want Tybalt!), the ending is changed, all the scenes describing their courtship are cut and replaced with badly sung musical numbers, and yet Mercutio feels the need to constantly quote other Shakespeare plays! And use words like "thou" and "wherefore" wrongly, which isn't very educational at all.

All in all: hilarious for adults who know Shakespeare and are drunk. Weak otherwise.


This movie was bad on its own. The singing was horrible. But the fact that they took Shakespeare play and turned it into mush is unacceptable.

Everything was different from the original Shakespeare script. For starters, NOBODY died in this movie. Not Romeo, not Juliet, not Mercutio, not Tybalt(who was not even in the film). And Juliet is to marry the prince instead of Paris(who again, is not in this film) I know that its for kids but you are doing Shakespeare so all his plays have tragedy. None of his films have happy endings. This film might have been a bit better if it was a brand new film, but if you say you are going to follow Shakespeare, at least do not change the whole plot and have the guts to pin it on him.


This was a major disappointment, especially after the profound "La Vita e' Bella". Have been a great fan of Benigni for years since "Down By Law". Interestingly, the "usual suspects" are rounded up again as the same Tom Waits from that flick of twenty years ago is recruited to appear in this one in the part of a musician in a marriage. The sets are simplistic and theatrical. The characters overloaded with mannerisms that better work in theater than on the silver screen. The plot is overly centered on Benigni, as if the entire movie is only about him. There are many mini-plots that are basically recycled comedy-circuit gags (something Benigni has done plenty in Pinocchio). I am somewhat surprised that seasoned producers decided to finance this motion picture. It seems that analysts did not do a good job in measuring what audience it would address, which ends up only being Benigni fans residing in Italy. The end result is hardly an export cash cow, as La Vita E' Bella turned out to be. To gain some traction in the export market, a motion picture should have some depth in character development, which this motion picture completely lacks. A point of interest, however, is the portrayal of American soldiers and Iraqi prisoners in post-war Iraq. This could be the first fictional motion picture with such a portrait. The very young Marines are seen in a sympathetic light.


Before watching the movie i thought it would be a full length comedy like Benigni's first works or maybe an amusing fantasy like Pinocchio.but,it was more like the film "life is beautiful",a romantic comedy that was not as impressive as that one was . it is very similar to life is beautiful:both telling their romantic story in the background of a war and want to be a happy romance. but what the snow and tiger lacks, is it can't provoke the deep emotions of audiences like life is beautiful.most of the movie is based on the Benigni's improvising one liners and it made the movie more like a one man show that in some moments becomes boring,and Jean Reno as an Arab poet is not as interesting as his roles as gangsters and so.

but beside these negative points i've made, the tiger and the snow is not a weak movie at all.it has a good sense of humor and is a drama in respect of post-war Baghdad .I really admire Benigni because of his style that tends to add up comedy and fantasy with human subjects.it's a simple story of a childish love to a woman that strangely begins in Italy and keeps on, in Iraq.but this romantic story can't be a lovely and memorable love story like great romances, because Benigni is very far from the character of a importunate lover, he is much more believable in the role of a kind father in the film like his character in the life is beautiful,his best movie.


While I loved Roberto Begnini in LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL and JOHNNY STECCHINO, I really had a hard time enjoying this film--though fortunately it got better as the film progressed. My biggest problem with it is that I felt that Begnini's character was really creepy. While the film is supposed to be a comedy of sorts, it wasn't all that funny and he came off as a very needy stalker. Last I checked, being a stalker was anathema to good comedy! It seems that every night Begnini dreams about marrying a lady and when he finally sees this woman (Nicoletta Braschi) in real life, he stalks her! In real life, such a guy would have a restraining order out against him or end up killing his "lady love" in some sort of psychotic murder-suicide spree! Others may have laughed at his "cute" advances towards this poor woman--I just felt uneasy.

Later, this lady travels to Iraq just as the war is beginning which begs the question "is she 100% insane?!". And, shortly after arriving, she naturally is severely injured and is dying. When Begnini finds out, he drops everything in Rome and travels against all odds to Baghdad to do everything he can to save her. This portion of the film is actually pretty sweet, as he works so hard to keep her alive--it's quite touching,...though once again, I had to remind myself that he IS a stalker and traveled a couple thousand miles into a war zone because of his bizarre obsession.

Strengths of the film were Begnini's performance (though at times, it did come off as essentially the same guy he was in LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL) and the latter half of the film (while not great--it was light-years ahead of the first half). Deficits were choppy editing and storytelling, occasionally confusing writing, an uncomfortable juxtaposition of comedy with tragedy and stalking as well as Jean Reno's inexplicable character--his motivations and everything about him seemed ill-defined and confusing. The bottom line is that despite being a very talented man, this is a huge letdown for Begnini and isn't an especially good film. Watchable but quite flawed.

FYI--Nicoletta Braschi is Begnini's real-life wife and they have starred in quite a few films together.


I rented this film thinking it was the cartoon. Lone behold, it was a Jackie Chan remake of the cartoon. So I watched it anyways thinking that it can't be all that bad since I like some of his other films. First of all it showed a trailer for the cartoon which left me drooling to see it. Then I watch the film, man do I regret that. I always here people saying "I want the time I spent watching the film back." but I never thought I would say it. I believe you can learn something from every film whether it is good or bad. But this film just sucks. The film is dubbed even though you can see Jackie talking english, the backgrounds and action scenes are very low quality, and most of all, Jackie Chan shows us once again that his humor gets old all because of his lack of acting skills. If you want a good action movie I suggest Hard Boiled, or something that you have read about and sounds good. I regret watching this film and yes, I want my 90 mins of life back!!


Boy, I never knew how bad a movie can be, but after watching about 20 minutes of this piece of s&%#t I do. To me there is nothing funny about this movie, even if I try to give my brains a so-called day of. It is not that I am interested in more pretentious movies. I mean, I do like "Under siege", "Die hard" and also some of Jacky Chan's works, but these flicks at least do have descent settings and some funny dialogue.

City hunter will entertain let's say 3 to 8 year olds who are not so bright and it makes one wonder how this scrap made it on DVD while a genuine masterpiece like "The fearless vampire killers" is still waiting for a DVD release.


I love almost anything that comes out of HK, but even I have my limits. If Troma ever made a cheapo Saturday morning TV series for children, this would be it. You know you're in trouble when you're watching a Jackie Chan movie & 20 minutes in there still isn't a fight. This ultra lame attempt to bring a manga to the screen fails in almost every respect & the only fun to be had with it is if you get the newly released US version & watch it with the horribly dubbed English soundtrack, where no attempt whatsoever was made to sync up the hilariously dopey English voices with the mouths of the Chinese actors. Back in the late 1970s/early 1980s the martial arts genre nearly died due to a glut of cheap & substandard films. I'm afraid of more cheap & awful substandard dreck like CITY HUNTER flooding the market & making it impossible for good HK cinema to get released here. With great martial arts/HK flicks like HERO & KUNG FU MASTER (the epic starring Donnie Yen) still without wide US distribution I am afraid this may already be happening. I know if a piece of sh*t like CITY HUNTER was the first HK flick I ever saw I would never bother to see another one.


I bought a 3 DVD box named "Manga in motion" which contained the movies "Story Of Ricky", "Dragon From Russia" and "City Hunter". I watched the two other movies and thought that they were OK, so I didn't expect very much from this movie, I thought it may as well be "OK". The movie starts with a very stupid scene and goes worse and much, much more worse all the time. The humor is very stupid (even for a hong kong movie), and so is the over-acting. I just had to fight to watch the first 30 minutes of the movie. Then, in the end comes the Street fighter scene. I can honestly say that I have never seen anything as stupid and retarded as that scene. That scene almost made me stop watching the movie, but I fought until the end. The movie is without a doubt Jackie Chan's worst movie, and don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Chan. But this kind of a movie is something that I think they shouldn't have done.

2/10 *** WORST JACKIE CHAN MOVIE EVER ***


As usual I thought I was in for a great movie since Jackie Chan was in it. My oh my was I wrong. This movie is complete crap from beginning to end. It feels like it lasts for about 3 hours and all those 3 hours are filled with nonsense. Why is Jackie Chan in this movie? I really don't know, but he shouldn't, because the movie sucks. They have added Looney Tunes sound clips in order to make it funny. So when someone in the movie gets hit in the head you feel like you are watching roadrunner, except this isn't funny. I feel really stupid buying this movie on DVD but just so you know, I will sell it as soon as I can because I don't want this movie in my collection. So if you are in the mood for some good Jackie Chan action, don't rent or buy this movie. If you are over 14 years old I can't figure out how it would be possible to like this movie. I rate this movie 2/10


I really hate this movie but I like Jackie Chan movies in general, so what can I say? It tries to be some funny silly comedy but I didn't laugh one time, the jokes are so dumb, maybe if you are like 5 years and under you will find it funny, anyway I didn't watch the whole thing, after about 20 minutes I wanted to rip my head off it so terrible...YUCK...

1/10


Despite of its reputation and the repulsive sounding title, Abel Ferrara's The Driller Killer is more of a social drama about life in the big city than it is a horror shocker. Ferrara himself stars as Reno, an unbalanced painter slowly going crazy due to financial troubles, the noisy punk-band next door, demanding employers and housemates, and non-stop images of the pauperized city. He buys a tool and unleashes his fury on the numerous homeless in the area. Driller Killer is truly grim and as much shocking as the classic film it's clearly inspired on (namely: Taxi Driver) but it lacks a fitting tone and a appropriate background drawing. The film opens with a very confusing sequence in which the protagonist is standing at an altar while being approached by an elderly man. This footage is extra since the 1999 re-release and it looks like Ferrara wanted to supply his film with some kind of spiritual depth. It leads nowhere, though. In fact, take out the killings and you're left with a somewhat boring urban portrait. Driller Killer was included in the infamous list of 'video-nasties' and therefore automatically received a controversial cult-status without people even seeing it. Although the substance matter doesn't belong amongst the other titles in the list, The Driller Killer often wanders on the thin border between trash-exploitation and art-house cinema, as it features voyeuristic elements (a gratuitous lesbian shower sequence) as well as sheer close-ups of blood-puddles and whirring drills.

Abel Ferrara without a doubt is one of the most remarkable directors in American cinema history. I'm a huge fan of most of his films like 'The Addiction', 'Bad Lieutenant' and 'The Funeral'It's not that I didn't like 'the Driller Killer', I just think that the poor production values really show off and that Ferrara did not yet had the professionalism and talent to make up for it by adding the trademarks that made his later films so brilliant. If you're interested by the repertoire of this often discussed director, you better don't start by watching Driller Killer. You're appreciate it a lot more after seeing some of his 90's films.


It's hard to imagine how this film gained its notorious status(especially in the UK). It is poorly shot(reflecting its miniscule budget) and is really no more violent than any other horror film. True, when the disgruntled artist Reno(played by first-time director Abel Ferrara) first goes on a rampage armed with a drill and 'porto-pak', the film does manage to touch a raw nerve, but soon it descends to laboriously-paced repetition and struggles to hold attention.

Will be remembered as the debut feature of director Ferrara, who has since never been afraid to court controversy with films like Ms. 45 and Bad Lieutenant; and probably as one of the films that sparked off the 'Video Nasty' hysteria in the UK in the 1980's; but for little else.

4/10


SPOILERS: A man runs around killing people with a drill.

More specifically, a struggling painter is slowly falling apart. He lives with two women and they are all behind on their rent. A loud band moves in above the painter, making it more difficult to focus on his work. Then his girl leaves him and his painting is rejected and he begins to drill people more frequently.

The good: some of the dialogue feels quite natural and the movie is sometimes artsy in a good way.

The bad- Some dialogue is ridiculous. I especially liked it when the DK approaches a drunken middle-ager in the dead of night, revving his drill. "Hey, you a fix-it man?", he asks with no sign of alarm. DK revs it again, waving it at him. "Watch it. You got problems?" he asks in a gently concerned voice that a parent would use with their child.

Also, Baybi Day's acting is often (unintentionally, I believe) quite funny. Very strange. And the crappy new wave punk band that jams in the apartment above is amusing. The film spends a surprising amount of time forgetting the main characters, dwelling on the lame music group. This was likely done to help pad out the movie's running time.

And don't forget to check out director Abel Ferrara's audio commentary on the DVD. That alone is entertaining.

Ultimately, I don't think Driller Killer is a "good" movie, but it entertained me and made me laugh. That's more than I can say for most Hollywood comedies.


Because of the warning of gratuitous violence with the provision that "no one under 17 will be admitted", I found myself stumbling into this movie on the Classic Television Showbiz site. It concerns a struggling painter (director Abel Ferrara) who lives with two women-one his lover who left her husband and another a druggie who's the other woman's lover and hangs with a punk band that just moved in another apartment room-as he tries to fight his demons by drilling holes into many homeless men that live below. There's some details I've left out but while there's some interesting developments later in the narrative, especially at the end, it's mostly pretty repetitious concerning the killings though there's also a sexy shower scene with the female roommates and some pretty entertaining guitar licks during the punk band scenes as well as one amusing scene at a bus stop with one derelict constantly bothering other patrons. Knowing this director later made the cult movie Ms. 45, which I have yet to watch, I approached this movie with some interest but I'd only recommend The Driller Killer if you're interested in anything Mr. Ferrara made and not if you want to watch a slasher flick (though those drill scenes can be fascinating to watch).


Onto movie number 11 on the Chilling Classics DVD set. Jiminy Jesus. If there's one thing i've learned about the 1970's it's this. most of their movies are god awful. There are several reasons for this. Since this was the dawn of the age of the slasher film, they didn't quite get the formula down yet. By the 80's they had the formula of it down, but back in the 70's they were still working it out and a lot of them failed. This is one of them.

The second thing i've noticed is that while some films used a lot of day for night shots where they attempt to convince you that it's nighttime when it's obviously daylight, and that's pretty stupid. But at least you can see what's going on. For some reason they feel that it's better to show absolute pitch blackness to show that it's night. But at that point you can't see anything of what's going on at all and there is officially no point. And this movie had A LOT of that.

The last thing i noticed about 70's horror movies is that they try to be artsy about it by putting substories and reasonings and all that art-house crap. And in a horror movie, nobody cares. But anyway, onto the film.

Some guy is an artist and is trying to make this one painting which is apparently going to be his best painting ever. We then have 45 minutes of pointlessness such as a band moving in, the main characters talking about how they need money, and the guy complaining about noise and how his girlfriend won't shut up about when is the painting going to be done. And then he starts to kill hobos with a power drill. Why? I have absolutely no idea. Then the art dealer tells him his painting is crap, and so he gets angry, and starts killing people that live in HOUSES! what a twist! seriously, according to my DVD sleeve, he goes crazy AFTER the guy tells him his painting is bad. So apparently killing hobos isn't crazy, but killing people in HOUSES is VERY crazy! that's very random.

And at the end, i don't know if this was a glitch of somekind like a bad transfer or something, but after he kills his ex girlfriend's new boyfriend, she begins to call for him because she doesn't know he's dead, and then the screen turns red for about 3 minutes and you can't see a damn thing. And then it cuts to the credits. i don't know what happened, if they got a really bad VHS source from Jimmy Dean's trunk or something, but.... yeah... somebody please tell me if i missed the real ending or that's actually how it ends. because that confused the crap outta me.

While being incredibly boring, broken up with hobo killings, this movie isn't the WORST slasher movie ever, but it is a very boring 1970's one and therefore gets 3 drills to the temple out of 10.


"Unfairly maligned" "A hit" A gem" Who writes this stuff? This film was a real waste unless you are a punk rock fan.

It is notable because it was the film that ignited the whole "video nastie" brouhaha in Britain. It was initially banned in Britain and Germany and then released with cuts in 1999 and re-released uncut in 2002. It is now in the public domain so you can see it for free. Don't bother.

The actual horror portion doesn't some until 40 minutes into the film. 40 minutes of punk rock to see someone use a drill to kill some homeless guy. He only picks on homeless guys. Why in the world didn't he go after that punk rock band that was keeping him up all night? The only thing worthwhile in the entire film was Carol (Carolyn Marz) and Pamela (Baybi Day) having fun in the shower.

Too bad I have two more Abel Ferrara movies in my queue.


Long available in incomplete or full screen editions, Abel Ferrara's 1979 cult classic THE DRILLER KILLLER here receives its definitive presentation, accompanied by three of the director's never-previously-released short films from the 1970s. THE DRILLER KILLER stars Ferrara himself (under the pseudonym 'Jimmy Laine') as Reno Miller, an artist being driven mad by the pressures of New York life who takes to the streets and begins murdering derelicts with a power drill. Although Ferrara intended to make a film in the tradition of THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, the end result bore an even greater resemblance to Martin Scorsese's TAXI DRIVER. THE DRILLER KILLER is an indispensable addition to the collection of anyone interested in 1970s horror, the work of Abel Ferrara, or off-the-wall cinema.


When I popped Abel Ferrera's DRILLER KILLER into my DVD player, I was expecting something. What it was that I was expecting was a twisted and sick slasher flick. It had a little bit of that, but not enough to redeem it. It looked as though it was trying to be an art-house movie, only with some B-rate exploitation in the mix.

Director Ferrera plays a struggling New York City who lives in a tiny apartment with his girlfriend and her rather annoying best friend. And he's trying to paint a bizarre picture for a snobby art critic. Then a punk band moves next door and plays music at all hours of the night. What does the artist do? He randomly takes a power drill and starting killing homeless people with it.

I'm actually rather surprised that DRILLER KILLER made it into the infamous "Video Nasties" list. Really, I'd say less than 25% of this movie is actual exploitation killing, and the scenes aren't even that gory. Most of the movie is just scenes of Ferrera losing his mind. It tries to be an art-house horror film on a low budget, but fails.

The horror scenes were the only redeemable things about DRILLER KILLER. But other than that, the film is just not worth it. If you want to see some of Abel Ferrera's other works, check out BAD LIEUTENANT or THE KING OF NEW YORK.


I remember visiting friends in their apartments during the 60's and 70's. There was a smell. It was a bit of decay and lost dreams. The guys living there were always submerged in some pretentious daydream. I remember forcing myself to look at their "masterpieces" and compliment them, even though they had little or no talent. I think about the pathetic artist in this film. Trying to drum up a life for himself. He, of course, is mentally ill, but he also has that same sad vacuous thing going as well. The film is a bit of practice for its director. There is borrowing all over the place. The colors used for transition from violent episode to violent episode are disjointed and trite. There is a six sexuality. For some, this was such an exciting period. Excitement was born out of despair sometimes. This guy acted on his despair. I think the wildest thing is the thought of being killed with a 3/8 this inch power drill. Chicken soup for the sadistic soul.


Though it's not your typical "slasher" movie, with all your stereotypical school-girl power-sluts and horn-dog jock kids getting their asses mangled by a masked killer, "Driller Killer" is - believe it or not - a more maturely done flick. Abel Ferrara - director of "Ms .45", "Bad Lieutenant", and "King of New York" - directed and stars as a struggling New York painter living a "Three's Company" lifestyle with two babes in a rat-hole apartment complex while desperately hoping to score some rent money with his next big 'masterpiece'. Hard to concentrate, however, when a lousy punk band rents out some space in their apartment building and jams constantly as his overdue rent builds up and bills come flying in. The dude seems to just snap and run amok through the city with a power drill, viciously attacking homeless people in the dead of night for no apparent reason... The movie is more of an 'urban drama' than an all-out horror film, which is fine, though the characters were just far too one-dimensional and it comes as no surprise this guy decides to run around with a deadly piece of hardware since there is absolutely no change in his demeanor to indicate exactly WHEN he has officially lost his mind. A little more insight into what exactly triggered such a rampage would've been better because, hell, we all have bills but I always thought living with two hot chicks would compensate somewhat... The death scenes, though extremely gory, are portrayed as much too "in your face" and detracts from any kind of feeling of menace these scenes had or could've had. The movie itself sort of just plods along with nothing really 'gong on' and a lot of really annoying music performed by very annoying people and two of the dullest hot chicks I've ever seen. This isn't the WORST flick you could watch but it's my least favorite Abel Ferrara movie I've seen so far...


The Driller Killer is a movie whose reputation precedes it. Those who have never seen it expect a shocking gore-fest. Those that have seen it know differently. This film was a prominent member of the notorious Video Nasty list from early 80's Britain. However, the film attained it's nasty status primarily because of the graphic cover of a hobo being drilled in the head and also because it had a catchy and memorable title which the British tabloids could bandy about whenever they produced an article about the dangers that this new breed of violent films posed to civilisation as we then knew it. The actual content of the movie, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. This is not a blood-drenched atrocity. The violence is minimal, if on one occasion strong. It is mainly a portrait of a painter being driven mad by his surroundings. Secondly, it is an interesting historical snapshot of the late 70's New York punk scene and the grimy streets of the city at that time. One of the main problems of the movie is that the people who think they will like it, generally won't, while those that might enjoy it probably would never pick it up in the first place. The Driller Killer is a movie that does not play to expectations.

On a technical level it is very raw. This in itself is not a major problem as the setting is so scuzzy that the film benefits from the DIY punk rock attitude in terms of look and sound. The acting too, is primitive but, again, doesn't seem entirely out of place. But these limitations, along with the threadbare narrative, do make the experience of watching The Driller Killer one that you may not want to repeat very quickly. The mix of exploitation and art-house on a low budget is certainly interesting but ultimately a bit aimless.

If you are a fan of exploitation cinema then certainly check this movie out but please be aware of what this film is not - it isn't a mindless slasher or serial killer gore-fest. It is a hybrid of grind-house cinema, punk rock and urban alienation. Filmed by a maverick director/performer. It will disappoint many but reward a few.


I once shared a second-floor apartment with a guy who seemed to have the most rotten luck in life: his first rent check bounced, he had endless problems paying his half of the bills, and his car was always breaking down. His solitary activity (outside of attending class and smoking) was playing his lefty-guitar at high volume. And, strangely enough, he bears a slight resemblance to Reno (Jimmy Laine, aka writer-director Abel Ferrara), the starving artist driven to madness in "The Driller Killer." This film, one of the more notorious titles on Great Britain's 'Video Nasties' list, is nihilistic, grisly, and darkly funny...but also shallow and ultimately unsatisfying. When Reno tries to convince a gallery owner to front $500 for his latest painting in order to pay his bills, he is turned down; factor in the punk band that has moved in to the apartment beneath his (and never seems to stop jamming), and a commercial viewed on late-night TV (for a portable power-pack)...and it's not long before our disheveled, vulgar hero takes to the squalid New York City streets, decimating the wino population with a power drill. Ferrara has a good eye for location shooting and the grim ugliness of urban living, so that his depiction of Reno's madness isn't unconvincing. However, while "Driller Killer" has its share of frantic low-budget energy (the murders are photographed in a genuinely unsettling way), the script is simplistic and repetitive--seldom does it veer away from its exploitation surface sheen. Still, for curiosity-seekers looking for a bloody bad flick--or where a now-respected director got his start--this is a fine time "Killer."


In a decade of great musicals from all studios, Columbia, in 1955 managed to make a truly terrible one....and it is this one...and was their first film in Cinemascope. Harry Cohn must have bellowed orders at someone to re make every Marilyn Monroe dance number so far on film at Fox but 'blondly' hire Betty Grable instead. It also might be Jack Lemmon's first film too. Either way, this embarrassing musical is a mish mash of MGM's Kiss Me Kate, Give A Girl A Break, The Bandwagon and Fox's How To Marry A Millionaire. I guess Columbia just wanted to make a splashy musical as their first Cinemascope spectacular ......but forgot to create one.....so they just copied the best bits of box office hits from the previous few years. It is really awful. If you like awful films like I do you might find it strangely fascinating...the musical numbers especially. Don't show it to anyone though, just watch it yourself.


For the viewer who was wondering where this movie was filmed: it was filmed on the campus of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC. I can't say this film did much for me. As others had said it seemed to be padded out just to make it into a feature length movie. The long takes of following the stage tech wondering around backstage reminded me of the recent film "Elephant"(but to it's credit it did come 7 years before that film). The stuff with the sniper on the roof was interesting but even that could have been fleshed out more.The budget obviously showed but where it let the viewer down was long bits of nothing happening. A decent student film with some nice Steadicam work at the end but nothing more than that.


A very bad attempt to pull off a David Lynch/Cohen Brothers/Tarantino. Bad acting, excessively annoying characters, and long, drawn-out, irrelevant scenes. Humor? - only when you consider the moronic idiocy of immature college students trying to impress. Ten lines of text needed to complete this comment before it can be submitted ---- OK. Let's see. The film was tedious, and dumb, and lousy, and unbelievable, and hideous, and annoying, and the sound was terrible, and the number of irrelevant scenes was exasperating, and the swat team was laughable and I'm having a really hard time trying to compile 10 lines of commentary on a film that was better left in the "bad idea" stage.


This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This event occurred in 1966. Will the director please explain why the police are flying around in Apache helicopters and carrying Beretta M9 pistols? I know the film is supposed to be "surreal" but give me a break. A little bit of research could have lent a lot authenticity to this film. Acting was also mediocre at best. The "tactical" team at the end of the film is absolutely ridiculous. This film constituted a complete waste of my time. Don't waste yours!

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched film with an undeservedly good title.

This event occurred in 1966. Will the director please explain why the police are flying around in Apache helicopters and carrying Beretta M9 pistols? I know the film is supposed to be "surreal" but give me a break. A little bit of research could have lent a lot authenticity to this film. Acting was also mediocre at best. The "tactical" team at the end of the film is absolutely ridiculous. This film constituted a complete waste of my time. Don't waste yours!


I've always wanted to see this movie but never got round to it. Being a "foreigner" I never really got to grips with the whole Watergate thing. Now thanks to this movie I have and wish I hadn't: the whole thing is extremely boring. It does not make for exciting viewing. eg the final denouement is told to the viewer by a typewriter screen. Doesn't that demonstrate that the material is clearly non-cinematic? A very disappointing movie. I can only assume that people rate it highly because of the significance of Watergate rather than the actual movie. 4/10


The reason this movie sucked royally was not because it didn't have the potential to be a good movie it was mainly casting. I don't understand why mainstream Hollywood horror movies cast ridiculous people in roles that don't fit them. The casting of Rhodes was absolutely dumb considering Ving was in the Dawn of the dead remake so it confused everyone into thinking that he survived or something of that nature. Also, if you want a sure shot at ruining your movie just cast Nick Cannon in any part and he will say ridiculous lines like "by the power or gray skull" or some random curse word when he kills his hundredth zombie because apparently he is a super zombie killer as soon as the outbreak occurs. He was quite possibly the worst actor i have ever seen and i just don't understand why he was even cast. The same thing happened with Busta Rhymes in Halloween Resurrection when he said "Trick or Treat Motha F*@#*$." When these dumb lines were barked out by these no talented actors the entire movie lost all credibility in my eyes. Granted both of these movies are not that good but at least would have been watchable if these no talented ridiculous actors were cast. It is just a recipe for disaster with respect to a horror movie.

Now for the movie itself, i literally feel like the only redeeming factor in the whole film was Mina Servari (excuse spelling if its wrong) because she was the only actor that i believed deserved credit. I think Ving was just looking for a quick pay check and the rest of the cast i don't think have any experience and thats all this was for them. I don't blame them for taking the roles because they probably didn't know this crap fest was going to be as bad as it was considering the success of the Zack Synder remake of Dawn of the Dead. The zombie's in this film must have been bitten by radioactive zombie spiders because they develop powers very similar to spider-man when they turn. My brother and I laughed out loud as the chaos happened because it was a mockery of any zombie film ever made.

I also want to point out that i very rarely will comment on films because it is almost pointless, but this film was one of the biggest let downs in all of the movies I have ever seen. I am an avid Romero fan and this did nothing but make a disgrace of his life's work.


The director surely mustn't of been a big fan of this genre when he signed up for it. I just don't understand how somebody who has achieved the status of becoming a film director could end up spoiling a movie that could of been so good!

OK, so i guess he wanted to take a different approach to the Zombie movie. Maybe add to Zach Schnyder's good effort with DAWN. But to make Zombies able to leap 20ft and walk on walls and ceilings. I mean really!!! What were you thinking?!?! You've well and truly messed up big time and done nothing for you career. I apologise for sounding a bit harsh but millions of fans of this DEAD franchise expected a lot better to say the least. I was gutted from the first twenty minutes. The casting was way bad too. Who in their right mind would have Mena Suvari as an Army Corporal?? Ving Rhames does his best. Make up and special effects were extremely mediocre as well.

My advice, wait for Diary of the Dead. And see how a zombie flick is supposed to be made.


Steve Miner, as a director, isn't bad. He directed my favorite entries in the Friday the 13th series, Halloween: H20, and Lake Placid. None of these movies are Oscar worthy, but they are all good, fun horror films. What he was thinking when he directed the Day of the Dead redux is beyond me.

A small Colorado town is overrun with the living dead, following a flu like virus that has swept across the land. As soon as the virus kills someone, their skin immediately decays and they become superhuman beasts. These zombies don't just run (a modern zombie element which has caused a lot of controversy in recent years) they jump, shoot weapons, and somehow manage to crawl on walls and ceilings. At the forefront of this super-zombie apocalypse is Mena Suvari (who phoned in her part) and Nick Cannon (who should have) as well as a few other meaningless characters. People die, things explode, and an hour and a half of your life is wasted as you watch this deplorable film.

Honestly, if this film had carried any moniker other than the classic Day of the Dead, I would have given it a bit higher of a rating. I'm thinking 3 or 4, mostly because some of the make-up fx are pretty nifty. Instead, the filmmakers decided to take everything Romero created and turn it on its head. Experimentation is a good thing, but not in this case. This should not be called a remake...or even a reimagining for that matter. It has nothing to do with the original film, aside that there are zombies involved and the military has a presence. I say, pull it from the shelves now, and send it out retitled. George Romero really shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense anymore.


As an avid zombie film buff I feel sick to my stomach after watching an hour and a half of worthless film. Everyone associated with this production should truly feel uncomfortable with the direction of their careers. I knew it was going to be bad after a zombie scaled a hospital ceiling for no apparent reason other than being some type of crazy generation x zombie...not to mention zombies later on poking air conditioner ducts with crutches and floor sweepers (apparently not blessed with the gravity defying before mentioned wall crawling) in order to get at non zombie flesh crawling to safety.

You have to wonder about the makeup of a person who sits down to write a script like this. Better yet those who read this nonsense and throw millions of dollars around in order to make sure it happens. Was it that they truly could not tell a difference between this script and dawn of the dead remake script. One being decent while the other, well, read my first paragraph...

Simply put, this is pathetic. If anyone who took part in the production of this reads this, please look in the mirror and ask yourself was this the reason you got into film. Though you will always have the Day of the dead remake on your resume maybe its not too late to do something worthwhile and memorable...good luck.


Like many of you, I got really excited when I heard about this film. After the incredibly good effort that was the Dawn of the Dead 2004 remake, this film is an extremely cheap attempt to cash in on the name. It's extremely important to keep in mind that this film it's not a remake as much as it's a by-the-numbers zombie/infected flick with a fancy name on it.

The film stars Mena Suvari and has a short cameo by Ving Rhames. While I'll watch anything with Mena Suvari in it - even "Loser" - this is a stretch. While Suvari does a decent job with a flat, lifeless (no pun intended) script, the other actors are incredibly stiff, awkward and unconvincing. Rhames plays basically the same character he played in the Dawn of the Dead remake, although he only appears for the first 15 minutes or so.

The film itself is extremely boring and the action and special effects are haphazard. I can honestly say that I've never felt so bored during an action sequence before. The "climax", if you can call it that, runs on for about 5 minutes more than it should. Even worse, the film doesn't even attempt to redeem itself by being a tad funny.. it tries, but fails with flying colors. The script is absolutely ridiculous, not even making relative sense in the world of the film.

If you've ever wondered what "vegetarian" zombies eat, feel free to watch this movie. If you want to see a new spin on Romero, wait for Diary of the Dead to come out in wide release by the man himself. I'm giving this one a three for Mena Suvari alone.