For being the introduction to one of the most enduring horror series in European cinema, FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR is rather lame - apart from being an edited variant of the original Spanish cut, bearing the more accurate title THE MARK OF THE WOLFMAN - but one tends to forgive Paul Naschy the many shortcomings of his script on this occasion because here he was still treading the waters, as it were. That said, his penchant of filling the plot with as many monsters and weird situations as his imagination could conceive is already well in evidence, as we not only get two werewolves for the price of one but there's also a mad doctor and his female assistant involved, who both just happen to be vampires! At such a distance it is easy to forget the impact that Naschy's presence as either Daninsky or his werewolf alter-ego made on the movie-going public when it first appeared (proving obviously popular enough to generate the myriad sequels, or variations on the same theme, which followed) for, even if the monster gets a fair work-out here (scenes from this film were actually lifted outright for the abysmal THE FURY OF THE WOLFMAN [1970]!), he's also chained up for a good part of the second half, as if Naschy was as yet unsure how to use his 'creation'. In fact, the vampires dominate most of the proceedings during the latter stages of the film, while early on there's also excess footage featuring a gypsy couple (who, for plot purposes, unwittingly revive the werewolf which subsequently 'marks' Waldemar Daninsky); however, despite the limited resources at the film-makers' disposal, the Gothic atmosphere is well up to par for the course (though dissipated somewhat by the faded print I watched!).


First time in which Waldemar stricken by ancient curse that turn into Werewolf at the full moon . Paul Naschy is turned into a werewolf when an annoyed Wolfman attacks and bite him . Daninsky looks desperately for a cure . He along with his lover (Dianik Zurakowska)) and a young man (Manzaneque) seek help for a doctor . Meanwhile Waldemar goes on a murderous rampage every time the moon is full. They contact a strange couple (Julian Ugarte, Aurora De Alba)who tries to cure his Lycanthropy with incantation but they result to be vampires. First entry about Werewolf with the unforgettable Waldemar Daninsky-Jacinto Molina ,under pseudonym Paul Naschy. Continental Europe's biggest horror star again with his classic character and horrifying to viewer. Jacinto Molina Aka Paul Naschy ,who recently passed away, was actor,screenwriter and director of various film about the personage based on fictitious character, the Polish count Waldemar Daninsky. The first entry about Waldemar was ¨The mark of the Wolfman (1967)¨ by Enrique Eguiluz , it was such a box office hit that Jacinto went on filming successive outings as ¨Night of Walpurgis¨, ¨Fury of the Wolfman¨ , ¨Doctor Jekill and the Wolfman¨ , and once again¨The return of the Walpurgis¨, ¨Howl of the devil¨, ¨The beast and the magic sword(1982)¨ that is filmed in Japan and for the umpteenth time ¨Licantropo(1998) and finally even directed by Fred Olen Ray in ¨Tomb of the Werewolf(2004) with Michelle Bauer.

It's a B series entertainment with abundant sensationalistic scenes and a Naif style.The movie has a bit of ridiculous gore with loads of blood similar to tomato and is occasionally an engaging horror movie full of fights, curses, and several other things. This time Paul Nashy/Jacinto Molina exhibits little breast but he was a weightlifting champion. Here Waldemar takes on vampires and werewolf in some moving fighting scenes. Pretty slow going, but hang in there for the Werewolf versus vampires. Regular cinematography in 3D and big screen ,70 mm, by Emilio Foriscot is accompanied by a lousy remastering. Filmed in Manzanares and Navacerrada, Madrid and Talamanca De Jarama, location in which were shot most part these horror movies. Eerie and atmospheric musical score by Angel Arteaga, saga's usual .The motion picture written by Naschy is middling directed by Enrique Eguiluz and regularly played by Jacinto Molina , a slick craftsman and mediocre actor.The flick will appeal to Paul Naschy fans and terror genre enthusiastic. Rating : 4,5 .


This film starts off hilariously bad. First, there is some little prologue about vampire curses and the Frankenstein family becoming were-wolves--now they are the 'Wolfsteins'! Then, as the film opens, you see a ball--at which point, two men do A LOT of exposition--in other words, through their conversation (which sounds totally fake), they explain all the back story. It's really dumb and a terrible way of film making--and boded very poorly for the rest of the film. Soon, satanism was tossed into the mix. About the only things NOT in the first 3-5 minutes of the film were mummies or zombies and I held on---waiting to see if they, too, would be in the movie! Well, soon two old ladies begin talking--again, it was all exposition. They talked and talked about Count Waldemar Daninsky--telling all about him, his family, etc.. Couldn't SOMEONE in the film have a normal conversation that was NOT telling the audience the back story of various characters?!?! Sloppy....very, very sloppy.

A bit later, a gypsy and his very buxom girlfriend are stranded in the rain. The Count advises them to take cover in a nearby castle--Wolfstein castle! Once there, they begin looking the old and seemingly abandoned home. They take to opening up family tombs and robbing the dead. However, one corpse looks pretty fresh and when they remove the silver cross-like dagger, he comes to life as a wolf-man and kills them. It was a neat scene--at least until the end, when the lady spasmodically writhes like a go-go dancer who is magnetized to the wall!! Pretty dumb.

After these two get torn to pieces, the villagers and the Count go looking for the wolves that supposedly did this grisly deed. The Count is bitten during the hunt...and he's cursed to be a were-guy. Soon we see Count Waldemar turning into a were-wolf--in one of the worst transformation scenes I've seen. "The Were-wolf of London" and "The Wolf-man" did this much better--several decades earlier. His friends try to help him through this, but they seem powerless to do anything.

A bit later, Dr. Janos Mikhelov and his wife arrive. They claim to be able to perhaps cure Waldemar! In the meantime, they chain him up so he can't hurt anyone--a prudent thing that they never seem to get around to doing in other films. BUT, unfortunately, it's not because they are saints. On the contrary, they are satanists who wish to use their unearthly powers to turn Waldemar into a servant of Satan! If this doesn't sound dumb enough, later you learn that the Mikhelovs are, in fact, vampire satanists!!!! And, in a never-ending need to feed and make more vampires, they decide to make the moves on Waldemar's friends. In the end, Waldemar takes on the satanist-vampires and it's, of course, a fight to the death (or at least, death for the undead).

Overall, the story is bizarre and suffers from the kitchen sink approach--they toss everything into the plot and hope it all works. It isn't a terribly inspired approach and the dialog bogs the film down horribly. However, the film does have creepy music and a nice creepy look to it, so for the less demanding horror fan out there, there is probably enough to merit seeing it. All others, though, should stick to the better monster films from Universal and Hammer--they are light-years ahead of this one.


About the only people who will have any appreciation for this movie are homesick Vermonters...I grew up riding my bike on the same roads as Adam, so it was a hoot to see Marshfield & Barre from back in the day. It was even better to hear the gold-domed State Capitol Building described as a "court house." Don't bother renting this film- it's truly awful. And the ending sucks. I don't understand why it was ever released on DVD...maybe it was an attempt to capitalize on the study hall market- bored kids watching the movie because they can't be bothered to crack open the book...Why on earth Robert Wagner chose to get involved with such a lame project is beyond me...


First I must admit that I could not sit through the entire film. After only 30 minutes, I realized that none of the characters from the book were in the film, just card board cut-outs. They took a nervous and fearful Adam and made him a smiling and waving awkward kid. Heck, Amy wasn't even a tomboy. They butchered the atmosphere as well, no suspense or sense of foreboding. So I shipped to the end and guess what, they butchered the ending too.

Read the book, it has awesome characters and a story that builds and keeps you thinking and an ending worth talking about. As for the movie, shame on everyone involved in its making and shame on you if you watch it after reading this.


The people who made I Am The Cheese disregarded the atmosphere of the original novel. The movie is bright and cheery. The interrogation scenes take place in a well-lit, normal-looking office. The doctor is basically nonthreatening. The drama of Adam's situation is underplayed and subdued, and the movie insults the book by adding an ending that fits the movie's sanitized view of the story. A new version of this film would be really cool, if any studio had the initiative to take on the project. Since the cast is so small and the story requires little in the way of special effects, an independent production could work out very well. Today's audiences would probably react well to a version of I Am The Cheese that stays true to the style of the book -- dark, threatening, and mysterious. It's a shame nobody's bothered to dig up the rights.


the title says it all, "I am the Cheese". This movie is nothing but cheesy.

The movie makes no sense at all for those who haven't read the book, it makes a little sense to those who have read the book.

The acting is terrible, the character lacked charisma it's almost like they are reading from a script.

And last of all, the movie is boring, they are good boring movies like " lost in Translation" etc. This movie is everything you don't want you movie to be.

Anyway, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. It's the ultimate embarrassment if anyone catch you watching this. The book is a worth read but STAY AWAY FORM THIS


A lot of people admits Plan Nine From Outer Space is the worst film of all time. But this 1952 French Canadian movie is just a little bit near to win the title. Acting are awful, story is very very stupid and anything's about this movie is extremely bad: film direction, sets, and music (Big old Hammond organ all the way!). In a very poor countryside of Quebec, a little girl lost her dear mother. Her father marries another woman. This woman hates the little girl. So she tortures her. She hits her with sticks, with iron, she push her in stairways, she don't feed her, she burns her hands on the stove, she made her eat soap (yes!) etc. But nobody's seem to notice, despite that the little girl look like a zombie. But at the end of the film, a neighbour seem to notice there is something strange about this kid... Then comes the priest and the holy man realise what's wrong. The bad woman is sentenced to death. But the little girl, now an angel, forgives her. Can you image worst melodrama? I can't! See this film! You will never forget it, in the same way people of today loves Plan Nine From Outer Space.


Directed by David Schwimmer, Run Fatboy Run is a warm hearted comedy that does nothing new for the genre but merely follows in the footsteps of previous offerings. The film tells of how Dennis (Simon Pegg) runs away from his fiancé Libby (Thandie Newton) and his unborn child only to have a sense of resolve five years later (now that he's grown up). And, here's the twist, in order to prove that he is now worthy of ex-fiancés hand he embarks on an attempt at the London marathon.

Regrettably any negative preconceptions of this film are confirmed from the outset, for example, in sticking firmly to genre conventions and expectation the film quickly establishes David as an unfit wimp by him being outwitted by a shop-lifting transvestite (clearly only a transvestite to elicit a smile), it also stereotypes his Pakistani landlord to the point of it being cringe worthy and it reacquaints us with the clichéd "smooth boyfriend" character - brilliantly played by Hank Azaria.

The film concentrates on Dennis and the struggles and pitfalls he encounters on his quest to win back his ex-fiancé, but in doing so it tiresomely emulates the media's obsession with sporting underdogs and how they are always winners on some level. Its chosen plot is something that has been played out, many, many times in cinema and it is disconcerting to see a contemporary comedy with bright actors and a fresh director regress to such tedious story-telling.

In a nutshell the film parodies modern masculine anxieties, from the worry of marriage, commitment and fatherhood to the ever more popular and relevant... "am I getting a belly". In satirising these notions the film epitomizes the generic conventions of all those films that have preceded it, from Big Daddy to the more recent Knocked Up. Run Fatboy Run is a film that could have quite easily starred Adam Sandler and have been based around the New York marathon; it tells a story that has no real relevance to its cast or locations. In addition I could imagine Hugh Grant playing the "smooth talking boyfriend".

Fans of Simons Pegg's previous offerings will not enjoy this as much as Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead, but will nevertheless gain some delight from the brief cameos of Stephen Merchant and David Walliams. Given that it centres around a marathon it is ironic that the film plods along at such a predictable pace, with the only sense of urgency evolving from the certainty that it has an end. There is no attempt at characterisation and the audience will not care what happens to the people on screen as no real empathy or identification with them is likely to occur.

Some scenes are funny, most notably his attempt to relieve himself of his groin rash, the moment he hits the wall and a blister popping in his friends face. The laughs are there (be them sparse), but given how they're executed and placed, it is clear they are gags that have been worked into the film to help make it funnier. Unfortunately the over worked idea and the clichéd plot devices take its toll on a film that would have been better if it the characters had been more distinctive, which is a shame because given the films short comings Schwimmer does manage to evoke heartfelt performances from his leads. Finally, the trait of predictability in a film will always pull an audience, as some viewers like well-worn ideas - the very notion proves they are a success. But if you're after something similar to Peggs previous work, that's inventive or off the wall, then this film isn't it.


Not in sum, but every part seems familiar. It plays like a montage of previous rom coms.

There's nothing objectionable about it, but then again there's nothing memorable either. It's blurb, a schedule filler, one in the bank.

Pegg and Moran just sleepwalk through the same parts that they always play, not expanding their range on iota. Pegg's cringing everyman is getting quite tired now. Thandie Newton just has to stand in doorways and look pretty. Her character is a prize, not a person. The bit parts are played by the usual assortment of jobbing British actors, also on autopilot. Azaria is the strongest actor, but isn't given much of a part. His character development goes: good, good, good... evil, with no reason given for the sudden transition.

Everything about it, Schwimmer's direction included, is just... adequate. There's no snap, no pizazz, and no chemistry between any of the actors, something that becomes painfully obvious when listening to the awkward stilted commentary track. Film making by box ticking.

The whole is instantly forgettable, and dreadfully disappointing given the collection of talent working on it.


The problem with Dennis, the 'fat boy' of the title, is exactly that. What is his problem? He's a loser, a scumbag and utterly unlikeable, and at no point in the film does he become a nice, likable, or sympathetic character. So it is very hard to root for someone this self-involved. At no point is he ever nasty or pathetic in a funny way, he's just a jerk. And no matter how many 'emotional' scenes are rammed in, it has been five years since he left his pregnant fiancée at the alter. FIVE YEARS of seeing her every day. How is it only NOW that he wants to do anything about it? And it doesn't matter if he does. It's been FIVE YEARS. It's too late. Luckily for him, the people he wants to win back, the dull Libby and their duller son Jake, are so flat, the audience can't care about them either. Especially Jake. And the lazy demonising of Libby's new love Whit is obvious and convenient so Dennis can worm his way back in to Libby's affections after five years of being the most detestable and unreliable jerk she could hope to meet.

So, Run Fat Boy Run isn't funny. There are a couple of jokes that possibly could have worked as part of a sitcom, but never in a one-off film, but just to make it clear, this isn't funny. The serious scenes are even worse, falling horribly, uncomfortably flat, and the painful dragging out of a heart-warming ending is not heart-warming. There is no character development or motivation, so basically there is nothing here that is needed to make a film. Dire.


i should have realised that this film was going to bad just by looking at the director. David schwimmer who was good when his scripts were written for him but how he thought he could write a British comedy when he has never lived here before. Simon pegg and Dylan Moran have highly accomplished themselves as great comedians but the americanised poetic element of the film was laughable. it was obvious from the moment that we met hank azaria that he was going to turn out to be devious and how Simon pegg ended up with his ex is beyond me. the comedy was very poor and you do have to wonder how much Simon pegg really was involved in the script and the final outcome was a complete farce. the reality that the film is supposed to mirror i.e. running the marathon and the troubles of this was also completely trivial. how Simon pegg was able to walk those last 9 miles in about 5 mph while it was still dark and I'm not sure when i was supposed to laugh as its very poorly written with a small poetic plot. David schwimmer should maybe go back to the drawing board before dragging down his, Simon pegg's and Dylan Moran's name.


This really could have been written by committee. The plot is ridiculous and contrived, the script is painfully predictable, the characters are two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs, and the film's pay-off is painfully obvious from the beginning. I guess I didn't expect too much more from Schwimmer (I'm sure he'll get better with experience), but Pegg really should know better.

This is a pretty feeble effort by all concerned, which, at times, is so cloyingly smothered in saccharine that you almost expect an irate Richard Curtis to appear, demanding royalties and screaming about breach of copyright.

3/10


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Dennis (Simon Pegg) suffers nerves on the last minute before his marriage to Libby (Thandie Newton) and does a runner. Years later, he's stuck in an unsatisfying job while she and their son are shacked up with successful business tycoon Whit (Hank Azaria) a charismatic American with lots to offer. But older and wiser, Dennis vows to get his life back on track and win Libby back to him by doing the unthinkable...running the London Marathon!

I had meant to go and see Rendition but I fancied a laugh so I went and gave RFR a go instead. Unfortunately I payed for laughs but got rather little of them, as well as a slow, slumberous story that takes far too long to get going. I was also rather surprised at how liberal our censors appear to have become. The film is rated 12A, meaning moreorless anyone of any age can see it, but the amount of times the F word is used, along with a lot of the sexually explicit jokes, really made me wonder.

Performances wise, Pegg just ain't up to his Hot Fuzz standard, Newton manages to be little more than attractive eye candy and David Walliams makes his standard cameo appearance in a bakers shop.

There's quite a lively soundtrack going on and it's an amiable enough ride to the end. Plus anything I say isn't really going to make much difference because the film's been showing for well over a month now and by the looks of it is still really continuing to rake it in. The British really like to flock out to have a laugh at one of their homegrown comedies, but seem to overlook all the flaws with them. **


This film is an insult to the entire history of British comedy, and I'm mad at myself for wasting my time and money on this stupid little movie.

This is the first British comedy - indeed, the fist "British" film of any kind - I have ever walked out of. In fact, there are so many Americans involved in this movie that I'm not so sure it really is a British film. In any event, 30 minutes in and I just couldn't take it any more. If I had wanted to see a poorly written TV sitcom I could have stayed at home and rented an episode of "Friends", the hardly humorous US TV show in which this movie's director, David Schwimmer, was an actor - an unfunny one, at that.

Why in God's name would the maker's of this film have selected inexperienced American director Schwimmer, American writer Michael Black (Schwartz), and an American actor like Hank Azaria? Do they work on the cheap? Did they pay to participate? Were they hired in the hope of attracting an American audience? I can't imagine this film succeeding in Briain. Whatever the reason, they absolutely ruined the movie.

This movie is so bad that the British Government should cancel Schwimmer's visa. He represents a clear and present danger to British culture. If Schwimmer and Schwartz ever again show up at a British Point of Entry they should be turned away immediately. Perhaps France would take them; they could say they're related to Jerry Lewis. And Simon Pegg and Dylan Moran should be hauled up in front of the actors' guild and chastised for participating in this affront to British comedy. They should be made to watch Ealing comedies until they return to their senses.

There's not much left of the British Empire other than great wit. To lose that would constitute a crime against civilization.


Mr.Pegg and Mr. Moran musta had some bills to pay.This is the worst kind of predictable"feel good" tripe imaginable.Immature boy gets girl,immature boy loses girl to rich successful mature boy and then proceeds to mature to win back girl.Also this film tries to have it both ways,there are plenty anti-American digs lobbed about whilst the film repeatedly has tons of product placement shots for Nike.Gotta laugh at that.Not a complete waste but most of the gags are flat and "been there before" kinda stuff.Shame Mr. Pegg seems to be rotating to this kinda tripe,it would make a "nice" double bill with the almost equally as awful "Hot Fuzz"


Now I'm not an ideal audience to review this movie. I don't like Simon Pegg, I don't find him funny and I've never enjoyed one of his films yet so this review might be just a slight tad biased against the film.

I'll try my best to be objective but it won't be easy. Pegg plays Dennis who jilts his stunningly beautiful bride to be (played by Thandie Newton, is he insane?) on their wedding day.

Don't you already hate him? NO? Did I mention she's heavily pregnant with his child? Do you hate him now? Yes? Good!

Now I truly don't understand why they chose this title. At the start of the film he's not fat, 5 years later he's not fat either. That's just a bit of a paunch, and as he's a smoker it's not a surprise.

Pegg is an exceptionally pathetic character who is hard to root for. There aren't many laughs in the film (the little boy giving Pegg the finger on the night bus is hysterical!) and the running "joke" (because it is never funny) of Pegg locking himself out of his flat isn't even funny the 1st time it happens.

The whole training sequence is totally wrong. I've run 2 marathons myself and been a road runner for more than 15 years, you NEVER train by running in the middle of the road. It'll get you killed really quickly. Also for man who just had a nail jammed into his foot he isn't limping when he goes to see the Nike people.

Whats even worse is he's still training in the same stupid plimsols that gave him a gigantic blister in the 2nd training sequence, I also don't see how skipping or running up steps is going to help train for running on mostly flat roads. The whole drinking raw eggs thing is a total myth too (and tastes disgusting!). I understand their parodying the original Rocky training sequence but that's only funny if your making a movie where Dennis's end goal is a boxing match, which it isn't.

Now as kind as his landlord may think he's being, giving Dennis a brand new pair of running shoes less than 3 weeks before the race is a really stupid idea. He'll have no time at all to break them in, it takes at least 2 months to break in new running shoes fully.

The chances of them televising a Marathon thats only in it's 1st year is pretty low to be honest, especially one that's only got 10,000 runners (that's not a very big field at all).

Also them putting a drinks station away from the actual route of the race would never happen. Likewise the shots of cars behind Dennis, most Marathons keep the roads closed for at least 5 hours for slow runners & stragglers so that wouldn't just happen either. It's stupid that they wouldn't know who Dennis is, they can see his race number, its a matter of minutes to ask who registered under that number.

The TV guy says Dennis broke his ankle, I'm sorry but no matter how fit you are, your not going to run even a metre on a broken ankle let alone another 9 miles like Dylan Moran told Dennis he had left to go. Anyway, the race organisers would have stopped him and pulled him off the course after a certain amount of time (especially after the report of his broken ankle) due to insurance reasons.

Once Dennis spots Thandie Newton & his son past the finish line he suddenly "forgets" his broken ankle (he doesn't even limp or hobble like he was before, highly unlikely).

It's never said exactly when the next scene takes place but Dennis is walking OK so I'd have to assume its at least 6 or more weeks later (thats how long a broken ankle would stay in plaster). This is an incredibly weak ending, nothing is resolved.

Has Thandie left Hank Azaria? Has Dennis got his flat back? Are Dennis and Thandie getting back together?

Far too many questions left unresolved. A really weak ending in a pretty bad film.


Simon Pegg jilts his pregnant fiancée at the altar, but comes to regret it five years later when he meets the new man in his ex-girlfriend's life, a successful American hedge fund manager. Pegg, worried that the new man will supplant him in his five-year-old son's affections, plans to win his former girlfriend back by running the London Marathon. With a fortnight's training. And entirely predictable results.

Having enjoyed Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, I was really looking forward to this one. But sadly, it falls well short. It's difficult to muster much sympathy for Pegg's character, and Hank Azaria (voice of Moe the Bartender, Apu and Chief Wiggum in The Simpsons) is wasted as Pegg's rival. Dylan Moran is dull, too. Thandie Newton looks gorgeous, but that's not really enough.

I'm amazed that this has done so well at the British box office. But if I were you, I wouldn't bother.


Extremely unfunny movie that utterly wastes the usually hilarious Hank Azaria (Huff, the Simpsons et al).

The main problem is Simon Pegg. He's well pegged out and will soon reach Ricky Gervaise levels of tedious one note shtick. It's not that the comedy isn't juvenile -- (I mean, American Pie was juvenile) it's just that's it not very funny.

Ealing this ain't. More like a blown up sitcom. The UK just can't make funny movies any more. Sorry, but it's true.

Go see Knocked Up again rather than waste your time on this tosh, as did all the cast.

Still, at least Hugh Grant wasn't it in -- the one redeeming feature.


First of all, I am a huge fan of the seminal series Spaced. It was, to my formative mind, as significant as This Life. Nothing much has impressed me more since then.

However ..

Hot Fuzz simply wasn't funny. Shaun of the Dead reminded me of a Final Year Project for a Media Studies undergrad.

This latest offering is truly dire.

Its not that it doesn't try to entertain, it does. It just isn't _funny_.

Asinine, predictable, low brow and spun to death.

Its a great great shame, but its becoming more obvious to the world that it should be Jessica getting all the plaudits not Simon. Evidently, among the entire creature genius assemble that produced Spaced, she was the one with the sense of humour.

Don't waste your money on this, go watch Bourne instead.

You might get this off TPB at some point in the future, when there's a dry spell in the winter. You'll wish you hadn't bothered.


When I buy a movie (Usually a sequel) I expect that movie to be reasonably the same theme and plot to that of its predecessors Amityville curse is one of the worst sequels in the history of sequels. I am not joking. If you are curious about buying the movie becuause its the only "Amityville Related Topic" you haven't seen - Please dont let curiosity get the better of you! The only reason they called this movie Amityville curse was to attract the attention of the public into buying and watching the movie. The facts are plain - This is not Amityville. The infamous long island house which we see in many of the true Amityville movies and most strikingly "Amityville horror" is not present in this movie. The house is not amityville, just some other house in the town of amityville - Terrible!!! (I like the amityville movies becuase of the house - This decieved me into buying this trash!)

The acting is so bad its not possible to comprehend and the script is awful. I still fail to see why the guy's who made this film went through the process to acquire permission to use the "Amityville rights" which would have cost money. (The book was a hans holzer novel) but when they got permission they did not use the amityville style house or anything for that matter! This movie is a disaster and is inconsistant with the others. If you have any sense you will take a look at the other reviews and follow their advice in AVOIDING this mess of a movie. (I bought it just to see if it was all true about it being a pile of junk and it was!!!!!!)

Watch this movie and you will suffer the curse of boredom, terrible acting, stupid scripts, awful effects and a pompas storyline.

The only way this movie could have worked is if they had seperated it from amityville franchise. Making this a seperate haunted house movie may have been OK, but as we all know its supposed to be amityville its laughable.

well... what can I say...

This is not Amityville 5... I suggest you watch Amityville dollhouse or Amityville 1992.

They ALL beat this by miles!!!!!!

***AVOID***


The Amityville Curse (1990) has very little to do with the series. Why did they call it this then. I guess nobody would want to rent a movie called "The Spooky House" or the "The Curse of an Evil House". In their infinite wisdom, the producers probably sat around in a smoky room thinking up of ways they could market this film. "Hey, how's about we make another Amityville Horror movie?" "Why" asked the second Producer. "They just made another one for T.V. So hears what we do, we finish the film and just loop in a mention of Amityville House. If we's have to," explained the Executive Producer. "If that's too expensive we'll just make up a scary poster and video art and leave it at that."

You know what? That's probably what happened. Bad movie that's nearly unwatchable. But it's fun to make fun of if you're in the right mood or if you're hanging with some friends. Other wise avoid it like the plague!


First of all, this wasn't meant to be an "Amityville" sequel, it just tried to draw its audience by using that word in the title, but otherwise has little to do with what has happened before it in the series. That would be OK if they had come up with a good flick anyway - but they didn't. Do you find it a good idea for a horror movie to give away its own surprises halfway through? If not, then avoid this one. (*1/2)


I could not believe how dumb and pointless this movie was. It almost made me sick to watch it. The acting was terrible accept maybe a couple of people who were worse than terrible. There was no direction in this movie, I don't think this should even be considered a movie. I just happened to stumble upon it and found that my grandma had taped it about ten years ago. I saw the Amityville name and figured it might be worth watching. I was wrong. One word describes it, and that word is pathetic!


When a priest (Jan Rubes) was murdered years ago in a confession booth in his Church. The murderer was never found and the priest's personal stuff is been boarded up in the basement, where he used to live. Now in the present day, a group of five people (Kim Coates, Dawna Wrightman, David Stein, Anthony Dean Rubes and Cassandra Gava) are moving in the old priest's house. Which this house is supposed to be haunted and now the ground are experiencing strange things in the house. They been hearing noises, having nightmares, seeings visions and more. But one of them is the group of friends is not what he seems to be and they better get out of the house before it's too late.

Directed by Tom Berry made an rather boring supernatural horror film that has nothing to do with the previous "Amityville" movies and even the house is different. The cast tries their best but the script is boring and very dumb at times. It is very obvious this one, it was made in Canada unlike the other pictures. This film is based on a book by Hans Holzer, who wrote the book "Murder in Amityville". Which that book was turned into a picture titled "Amityville 2:The Possession". Also the movie is laughably bad, even the last act. Don't watch it, it's forgettable. (* ½/*****).


A group of friends buy and move into an old Long Island house, where 12 years earlier, a priest was brutally murdered by a teenager who hanged himself before he could be tried by the police. Soon, the newcomers encounter strange and eventually fatal spectral visitations. Will any of them be intelligent enough to get out before the Amityville curse claims them?

'The Amityville Curse' bears about as much resemblance to 'The Amityville Horror' as a polar bear with lipstick does to Marilyn Monroe. It's little more than a generic haunted house tale dressed up with the Amityville banner - and when I say 'dressed up', I mean with the same amount of effort put into making a Kalahari bushman pass for a diving instructor by giving him a snorkel. Setting the events in Amityville and one throwaway line from a yokel in a bar about a kid murdering his parents doesn't make an Amityville film.

But, I reasoned with myself, what the hell - maybe it'll be like 'Halloween III: Season Of The Witch', which had nothing whatsoever to do with Michael Myers, but was an enjoyable film in its own right. Unfortunately, a hackneyed and incoherent script, annoyingly drawn characters and torturous acting very quickly dashed that optimism against the rocks. Still, 'The Amityville Curse' does helpfully offer up suggestions on things you could be doing that would be less painful than watching it, like being menaced by domestic pets, playing with poisonous chemicals, or maybe having someone frisbee sharp cutting equipment into various parts of your body.

Pretty much the only positive I can think of is the sultry presence of Cassandra Gava, who, unlike Kim Coates, seems to be putting some genuine effort into her part - possibly just to make the time go by quicker. There is some genuine acting talent in here, but they are unsurprisingly not inspired to prove this at any time by the script to hand, preferring to let Dawna Wightman crank up the hysterics to 10.

Certainly, this isn't the first time I've asked myself why a film was made - I've seen 'Children Of The Corn VI', but 'The Amityville Curse' is definitely another head-scratcher. Its lazy, peripheral attempt to hang onto the coattails of the Amityville franchise only underscores a message we didn't need to learn - you can't staple a couple of Kraft singles to a tomato and call it a lasagne. Likewise, it isn't a decent horror film in its own right. If there truly is a curse here, it's brought to life every time someone decides to watch this thing.


I see that many viewers dislike this film, some intensely. I can understand that. But reading how this one is worse than the others? Not keen on that point. As far as I can tell, "The Amityville Curse" is no worse (or no better) than virtually any of the others in the series. This one is dull, inane, badly paced, sloppily rendered, (mostly) badly acted, silly, predictable and largely devoid of notable special effects. Except for the last descriptive, each of the above words can be applied to every one of the "Amityville" movies, and the special effects wasteland can be said for probably 3/4 of the others as well. So...the good points. ...

Well, there is a decent feeling of creepiness somewhere towards the end of the film. Several others in the series lack even that. Otherwise, this is standard issue Amityville nonsense. Basically.


It's a cheap production sequel to AMITYVILLE series that has almost nothing to do with the original movie (or even the story!). The kind of plot used is the same which have been used so many times before. The production is much worse than the previous films (at least comparing with the first two movies). The soundtrack is very different too and it's terrible (it's between very poor pseudo-mysterious sounds and a cheap imitation of PSYCHO's tube scene track). But if the production and the soundtrack are really bad, the acting is not better; especially the performance of Dawna Wightman (who plays DEBBIE). It's incredibly awful! Is she a professional actress? I really don't think so! Anyway, this chapter doesn't add anything new to the series and it would be totally unnecessary!


This is most definitely the worst of the series, given the fact that it has almost nothing to do with Amityville... As a matter-of-fact, I can't remember anything that reminded me of the real horror of Amityville throughout the entire movie,except for two small things: The very ending, of course.

The ending contains a possession, and a similar run of the very original story of the dangers of the actual home in Amityville. That's probably, really, the only part of the film REALLY worth seeing.

The second, is just personal to me, but I've always had my attention stolen from any news of anyone hanging dead. That is by far the scariest way to die to me- a hanging. Therefore, this immediately got my curiosity.

Other than that, though... ...worthless.


i have seen every amityville apart from amityville 4 and a new generation and all of the others were excerlent (especialy amityville 3) but this one was a real disarster it is extreamly slow unbeleviably boring right up untill the last five minutes so if you want to buy or rent this out only do so and fast forward to the last five minutes

Contains spoilers!!!! a woman is drawn to a house and moves in with lots of other people (does not make sense why) this house was home to a preist killed by his long lost son (drags on and on) the spirit of the son who hanged himself from a tree out side of the house is in the basement and takes over one of the people in the house, old woman dies and man gets sliced and diced by blades and acid etc (that was the last five minutes) and they all die apart from a nuty woman and her freind who for some reason is desprate for sex

so this film is a must see no no so skip this and head for amityville 1992 its about time


First of all,this movie is Canadian-so why pick Amityville.The radio announcer is speaking pure Canadian (AY!) The movie can be summed up in one word:ODD.Even in a land of misfits,it is a misfit.The characters are pure wierd.One is a psychic with bad dreams-another is a maker of "painkillers".One seems to own a restaurant chain-but only the name is mentioned.I believe it is the BLUE GOOSE. A priest is killed by a deranged man,during confession,of all times.(sounds like Exorcist III).He then hangs himself the next day in guilt.The mysterious characters continue with a lady with a glass eye (Mrs.Morioriti)who tells the story about the priest. I won't go on any longer as the mystery continues:it looks like someone wrote a haunted house story and took advantage of the Amityville legend.It is not THE HOUSE,but a house on the way.The humor barely carries it.


There's not really much to say about this movie. It does contain one good scene that has a couple of good scares but that's about it. The rest of the movie is peppered with bad acting and boring dialogue. This may be why the climax is entertaining...you've been waiting so long for something to happen!

This movie could have been a bit better if the house itself was more interesting. Had the movie been shot better this may have been accomplished but as far as haunted houses goes this one is just dull.

As far as the backing story goes...apparently there's a ghost wandering about the house but the reason for it is so flimsy that it almost becomes pointless...that and the fact that the ghost doesn't do very much. The rest of the story involving the mystery of a priests murder is just as banal. As it is the story just isn't interesting so you are left hoping to be scared a couple of times...well a couple of times is about all you'll get.

Overall a flat story with a couple of scares in the first half and a moderately enjoyable ending will leave you wondering why you bothered with The Amityville Curse. The Amityville Curse rates a 2 out of 10.


This movie is bad, it is so bad. It is a cheap (and I mean cheap) rip-off with no special effects and no Amityville house. Instead, a group of friends live in a house in Amityville (as a fix-it-upper) and find themselves in deep do-do. FIRST; the entire point of this series is location. The group lives in another haunted house in Amityville, where a priests confessional was places 12 years previously (at a time around the "real" horror). NO REAL house equals bomb of a movie. (At least 1992, A New Generation, and Dollhouse make some sort of reference to the real-house (like timepieces, mirrors, and small replicas), but this movie feels like a Halloween movie without Michael Myers. SECOND; Get a story-line. (they stop by the house because it is the first right not the second, huh?) The mundane plot they came up with is stupid. Instead of picking up on the 1978/earlier date tie in, the plot follows strange behavior in the group (where all of them, predictably die and I don't remember seeing the ghoul). One of them is supposedly the murderer of the priest 12 years ago. But is this another flashback or some-person you see who is not really there? Urgh. Third; Stop pretending. The haunted house is only filmed from one side. So half the time I cannot tell if it is the real house.


Go back to the beginning and the Lutzes.could we have imagined back then what their hoax was going to do to the world .even to this day people keep trying to go to the house which has been remodeled and the address changed,hollywood still keeps churning out these stupid fictitous movies regarding the orginal hoax ..the owners who moved in after the lutzes never had any incidents and even sued hollywood and the lutzes for fabricating the whole thing. Makes me wanna go back in time and kidnap ronald defeo to avoid the whole thing. Crappy movie after crappy movie all because one family couldnt pay their bills so they had to concoct the most infamous paranormal hoax ever.


"The Amityville Curse" is a seemingly misplaced installment in the "Amityville" series, which seems to consist of a whole slew of never ending, cheapie horror movies. This time around, it doesn't even have anything to do with the Amityville house, if I remember right the only relation is that the house in this film is in the same neighborhood. A group of adult friends decide to buy an old house with the plans of renovating it and selling it or something along those lines. Unbeknowst to them, a Catholic priest was murdered in a confession booth that is now stored in the basement, and the man who killed him hung himself because of guilt. So, the ghosts begin to appear to one of the friends who seems to be a little psychic, and it's up to her to put the "curse" to rest before her friends' lives are at stake.

This film is nothing new, is fairly boring, and really has nothing to do with the rest of the Amityville movies. It's almost like "Halloween III" was in the Halloween series. The house isn't the same, so it's not really the "Amityville Horror", the film isn't even really linked to the others if you don't count the title. The acting is so-so and the effects which are supposed to be substantially shocking look very cheap and unscary. The story itself is weak, even more so because of the series it was randomly placed in and the unrelation to the other films. I enjoyed "Amityville Dollhouse", but this one is completely unrelated and failed to do much for me. Perhaps if it were it's own film and didn't have "Amityville" branded on it, it would've made more sense, but of course it isn't.

If you like cheesy, low-budget haunted house films (which I normally do), then you might wanna give this a look. Although, it may just be a disappointment. I think I'll give it a four for trying, I tend to have a soft spot for films like this. But don't expect anything brilliant, after all, this is an Amityville sequel. 4/10.


The title sound perfect but there where the things ends.The fact that the stunts seems to made up by some 5 year old coordinator and the dialog is so predictive and boring that you can see the final sequence of the movie. My god, what the director and the whole crew members where thinking when they ware shooting the sequence when the main actor shoots at the two Koreans from 2 meters and runs out of bullet after depleting the gun trows at them with the pistol and hit one in the face.Come on guys even a 3 year kid will not buy something like that. Is so pathetic that not worth watching until the end really. How hard is to make something good when the budget doesn't allow it.


Supposedly a prequel to The Art Of War and Art Of War II, the third installment in the "franchise" is basically the same old thing as the others minus any real backstory that a prequel should have. Guy falls in love with girl, girl ends up backstabbing him, some convoluted government plot featuring the USA and other foreign countries, and lots of shooting and martial arts. That's basically it.

(But wait, there is a twist to all of this - this isn't a prequel! That's right, it's just a sequel that doesn't have anything to do with the other two movies, with Snipes being replaced by Treach due to his jail time. Yeah.)

Liked the DTV sequel to the first Art Of War? Then maybe you will enjoy this one. Maybe. The choreography in the fights is alright, but the shootout sequences are horribly done, and at some points, hilarious. And yes, Sung Hi Lee is in this, but she doesn't show no tatas. So yeah, this Art Of War doesn't have any tits. Anyways, eh, acting! Yes! It is as you'd expect. Passable and at some points pretty bad. Treach is the doing the best hip hop expression he always does, and the supporting cast was eh, passable. Overall, heed the aforementioned. Only see this depending on your enjoyment of Art Of War II. Anyways, I will finish my review with a meaningful passage from Sun Tzu:

"STOP QUOTING ME IN MOVIES GODDAMN IT."


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

There's wrongs a doin' in Korea, it would seem, where a plan to merge the north and south factions of the country has upset a certain element and a political assassination is rumoured. So Agent Neil Shaw hops on a Korean Air (at least it wasn't Ryan Air!) flight with his partner and tries to stop it. But when a meeting goes bad and he gets framed again, he gets sucked in to another nightmare world of betrayal and red herrings.

The first direct to DVD sequel to The Art of War was surprising enough, but this third instalment, featuring the original character from the first two but with a different actor playing him in the shape of the far less charismatic Treach (Today You Die), came out of nowhere. The 18 certificate this time round promises more hard hitting, no holds barred action but the whole thing plays like a bad episode of Mission: Impossible, with a clichéd script, a banal Brit sidekick, the lamest gunfights ever put on film (where the good guys and bad guys fire at each other in the same way all the time and WITHOUT MOVING AROUND!!!) and a ridiculous, Latino flavoured love scene, all with the random quotes from the great Tsn Zu book coming thick and fast. So sh!t even Wesley Snipes wanted nothing to do with it. Nowadays that's really saying something. *


The "Art of War" franchise has produced 2 good, fun films. Wesley Snipes has been largely responsible for how good they are, but there are also smart script-writers and effective directors involved.

Somehow, the 3rd film has run badly off-track. Since Mr. Snipes isn't in it, my guess is he saw the script in advance (they'd have been fools not to ask him), and gave it a big, big pass. Judging from what we now see on the screen, he was wise to do so.

The subject of the film is, generally, illegal arms trading. Namely, selling a nuke to North Korea. The primary focus is a UN-sponsored meeting on the issue in South Korea. The Secretary-General (a woman, which has not yet happened and may not since none of the Islamic nations, which have a vast, unreasoning fear of women, would vote for her) underplays a pivotal role here, and needed to have appeared a lot more.

Unfortunately, the film treats this subject in a somewhat fuzzy manner that obfuscates the seriousness of the issue. We know that the tyrant of North Korea wants a nuke so badly he can taste it. But my guess is that having it would be a prestige item much more than a threat  the Nuclear Club is a very exclusive one. Using a nuke invites retaliation  and North Korea's infrastructure is so fragile that a single hit  certainly more than 2  would leave the state unable to manage itself. It can barely manage now. (By contrast, even if Seoul is completely flattened, South Korea would still be viable.) We should mention that the major characters are: Neil Shaw (or Agent #1), played by Anthony Criss (billed as "Treach"); Jason (or Agent #2), played by Warren Derosa; Sung Hi Lee, played by Sung Yi; and the aforementioned Secretary-General, played by Janet Carroll. Criss, who is pushing 49 and doesn't really look it, has had a robust film/TV career and manages to play his role as if he half-way believes it. The dynamic between Criss and Derosa is exactly the same as that between Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith in "Men in Black"  who gets to drive, who gets the big gun, and so on. It would have helped to play this bit for comic relief, but you're not working with first-rate movie-makers here. Sung Hi Lee is an anomalous character who's found with the bad guys early in the film, but then plunges in to cooperate whole-heartedly to help the good guys.

The story is developed through a lot of shooting and fisticuffs and implausible misses by the bad guys, who can't seem to hit the good guys with a hail of bullets. The fights are too obviously staged. The ultimate mystery here is the identity is the main bad guy. Some red herrings are dangled, but on the precedent of previous films it has to be somebody under our noses. Main candidates: Derosa's and Lee's characters. He is always seem to be a squeaky wheel and she, the sweet innocent, turns out to know her way pretty well about kung fu. Of course, since they're so obvious, the bad guy may be someone else entirely. The Secretary General? Kim Jong-il? Wesley Snipes? I'd tell you, in order to spare you having to go through this thing in order to find out, but there would be the usual bad-movie-masochists who will complain I committed the "spoiler" heresy. Hell, this film was spoiled the moment it went onto celluloid.

Some of y'all will just love the senseless violence. For the rest, avoid this turkey. Sayonara, "Art of War" franchise.


Awful is the not the only word that comes to my mind after I watched The Art of War 3. Others like: sucks, terrible, shame, waste would be inspired by The Art Of War 3. The very last minute almost made me it was actually a parody, but it wasn't. Terrible lines including some overused ones such as the main character's reply: "it's not a matter of luck..." I have been in love with Sung Hi Lee for many years and followed her career as a model, she's simply stunning. In this movie she appears as an unpretty and poorly skilled actress. Not to mention the 2 male main characters. It is, again and too often, sad to see how money can be used in such a bad way and I still can't understand how the cinema industries works so this kind of project can actually benefits to someone. Gery Lively, Joe Halpin, go hide yourself!


This is the kind of epic that makes you realize how wonderful GONE WITH THE WIND was by comparison. Dull characters are defeated by a dull script. It's better than taking a tranquilizer to put you to sleep.

A long, lumbering, disorganized tale that takes so long in getting to the heart of the story that it's very likely you'll tune out before the story begins. Nothing helps. Not the costumes, the scenery, the pallid performances--the wooden behavior of Montgomery Clift--the syrupy Southern accent affected by Elizabeth Taylor--the pale performance of Eva Marie Saint. Only Nigel Patrick and Rod Taylor bring what little life the story has to realization. They all seem to be trying but nothing works and it remains strangely uninvolving.

Taylor's role is so buried in whatever torment she's supposed to feel with regard to her past, that it becomes annoyingly clear that we're never going to know the truth about her character until the very end of the story. And that end takes an excessively long time in coming without providing enough interesting plot ideas to keep one interested or even caring about the fate of these colorless characters.

An awful bore--so bad that the only compliment I can give the film is its rich musical score by Johnny Green and the title tune which is sung by Nat King Cole with an attractive choral arrangement as backup. Sadly, it can't compensate for the film's many drawbacks.

A total waste of time and talent. Montgomery Clift's accident may have contributed to his lifeless performance but his role, as written, is no help and his character is an insufferable bore. Miss Taylor is no Scarlett O'Hara and Eva Marie Saint makes no impression whatsoever.


Many of the other "posters" are very good at judging movies - WHY does EVERYONE have to tell the whole story, naming all the actors-actresses, etc.? By the time one gets to posting a commentary, we're all familiar with all of that......after all, we're not writing a "critque", we're just giving personal opinions.

This is a gorgeously-filmed movie - isn't that enough? Taylor gets her chance to look beautiful and attempt to live-up to her reputation of being a "great" actress. Huh? As I am quite old, I know people who saw her in public when she was young - say "Suddenly Last Summer" age (my opinion, her best) - say no one could take their eyes off her, she was so lovely. I've heard she has often said, "My beauty is a burden". What a clear message of "dont'!" to other ladies whose sole goal is to stand-around and look gorgeous - Ms. Taylor has been subconsciously trying to destroy her beauty all of her life. If you've seen her appearance at the Acadmey Awards for 2004, then you'll see she has achieved her goal, no matter how. They should have locked her in her house! I wanted to slap those who allowed to appear in public looking like that. Yet, perhaps I am being unkind, because I think there will be no other great beauty like hers. I am quite content to watch her in amazement of her beauty, no matter how unfulfilling the acting may be..... knowing she has had so much tragedy in her life.....and knowing it is public information that she does great charity-work: The American Foundation for AIDS Research, to be specific. Perhaps she has accepted the fact that beauty comes in many forms. Long live Liz !!

I've found only one other commentary which states that Cliff was gay, covered-up by studio-politics for a long time. Can that be important? He was a fine actor - just as Eva Marie Saint was a fine actress, and under-played her role wonderfully. So good to see Lee Marvin as a "hunk" instead of the character-actor roles he was usually assigned to.

I don't believe "Raintree County" was meant to make a statement - they didn't even allow the actors to see the rain-tree in the end !! Wasn't its existence supposed to be the ultimate "healer"? This movie, so far as I can see, is just pure entertainment, done well. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Montgomery were huge stars - what else could be done with them but allow them to exploit their "star-power"? As for acting, Montgomery was much better in "The Heiress", and had to produce against the magnificent Olivia de Haviland.

So, Guys - lighten-up and just enjoy this beautiful film. To all who had any part of its production, Bravo!


Monty Clift really struggles with intellectualism in his role. Liz??? What a bad story line. As movie fans watch this horrible movie, they anticipate that the movie will end "please now and thank you". But the film does not end at any of many, many, monotonous, multiple chances at ending: it keeps going and going with subplot and subplot and scene change and scene change. Someone should have chopped a really big tree down on Monty. An ex-husband, like Mike Todd, could have assassinated Liz Taylor early on in the film.

When viewers hope or pray to GOD that the film will finally end: ... a train whistle in the background of a dull scene "transports"(?) the attention of the movie watcher to yet another subplot.... and it is not Steve McQueen in the "Great Escape". "Wheee! Wheeee!" or "Ding! Ding!", a train whistles or a church bell dongs. The trapped, by now stupefied, movie watcher finds him or herself looking for a road map in the darkness of the theater. Gasping, they realize that the map is in the glove compartment of the car out in the parking lot. Bored, blitzed, bedazzled people, who paid money for this punishment, are trying to find a way out. It takes the American Civil War to stop this movie script!!! A car crash couldn't.

"Please, no more"! "Bang, Bang, ... Bang, Bang", the producer of this Cliff-Taylor fiasco should have been shooting stars and doing this on screen with a re-write of the script. Lee Marvin could have played a widely grinning, ax handling timber-man in what would have been an Oscar(TM) winning role.


"More Dogs Than Bones" is a comedy about some crooked cash which gets so doggone lost that no one can find it. Supposed to be a comedy, this dog stumbles clumsily along with a monotonous storyline punctuated with some comic relief which is so bad the only relief is when the film ends. How so many good actors could end up in such an awful film is beyond all reason. Pass on this puppy. (D+)


Bad. Very bad. I wouldn't suggest it to my worst enemies. Through innuendo this movie basically describes America and its inhabitants as bloodthirsty and greedy. Even those who originally came from foreign countries eventually became tainted. (There are some people in this country that match that description, but not every single person) The direction of this film was also poor and it left decent actors (not the best, but what kind of talent would sign on to this project) with no chance of helping the film. Do yourself a favor and skip over this film when you are looking to rent something.


For those old enough to remember, CONTROL is Michael Crichton's TERMINAL MAN turned on its head. Convicted murderer Ray Liotta becomes the subject of a secret experiment to turn this vicious, unrepentant killer into a civilized pussycat. After taking an experimental medication and undergoing behavior modification, he is mainstreamed with a new identity. All too predictably, enemies from his past track the "new" man down and the chase is on. Liotta is the only reason for watching this horse puckey. He goes from a snarling, foul-mouthed beast to a real sweetie, albeit one with a hidden agenda that is revealed much too soon (see the film). Willem Dafoe as the mad scientist and Michelle Rodriguez as Liotta's new love interest are completely and utterly wasted. Sad, because it starts out with a bang when the prison fakes Liotta's execution and he is then transported to Dafoe's lab to begin his transformation. From the moment Liotta is mainstreamed, the film simply falls apart and becomes just another muddleheaded and improbable B-level thriller.


The premise of this movie is a decent one, if done before in other ways. There are reasons why some movies go straight-to-video; the utter predictability, laughably clichéd scenes and obvious subplots intended to lengthen the film are these reasons. Ray Liotta's intensity at the beginning should have been capitalized upon, but he loses it halfway through. The movie has all the earmarks of being rewritten as it was being shot.

Some observations: What purpose does it serve to have TWO people gunning for the Ray Liotta character? The corrupt warden and "Russian mafia" hit-man contribute nothing to the storyline and could easily have been left out. The avenging brother would have been enough, and was not fleshed out. Liotta showing remorse, trying to befriend and help the man he shot and crippled, beginning to live a normal life, only to have the angry brother whose life was ruined bent on revenge.... now that could have been a good movie.

Do we really need to know the Dafoe character's personal life? What does this contribute? The way he tells the story of his murdered son should be shown to acting students as an example of bad "mailing it in" acting. "He looked up at me and said, I'll be alright Dad... and then he died." This only exists to prop up the cheesy end scene, which should never have been included. A better ending would be to have Liotta die, and that's it! Gee, the undercover guys driving around in a large dark colored van. How original. And the pursuers all driving identical black sedans. Not original at all... and the "blood dripping on the shoulder" flashback scene was shown far too often. Gotta justify that CGI expenditure, I suppose.

Why were the drugs taken as pills? Why not injections to make SURE? Why was the doctor allowed to go into Liotta's cell where he could be easily attacked? How is it that Defoe was beaten by Liotta the first time, but the second time Dafoe suddenly gets fighting skills and beats Liotta to a pulp?

Ah, there is plenty more to pick at, but to save time, stay away from this one.


One wonders why the likes of Ray Liotta, Willem Dafoe, and Stephen Rea would sign on to do a film like this. I seriously hope they actually read the horrible story before agreeing to it.

A complete garbage story about a convict saved from execution by being a guinea pig for a doctor. The deal includes trying out a medication that will erase the harmful tendencies of the convicts past, trying to make him a better person for society.

I gave it a chance but after about 30 minutes, I realized this story was formed around a single idea and the rest was just filled in along the way. That characters are underdeveloped and you never really get a liking for any of them. Then before you know it, its over, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The film feels like a movie of the week based on a cheap page turning novel you pick up before you get on an airplane.

Unfortunately Liotta and Dafoe don't help. They over-act, probably to compensate for the poor plot.

Skip this one if you can. Waste of time.


A generally exciting film with a very good cast and a plausible concept. Ray Liotta is a vicious criminal without redeeming characteristics. In lieu of execution, he is offered an opportunity to become involved in a test program for a drug which, it is hoped, will master the evil tendencies of the "test subjects". While the characters are fairly well fleshed-out and the acting is of, at least, an expected level of a few good actors (Ray Liotta, Stephen Rae and a fine Willem Dafoe), most of the rest of the actors are pedestrian in their parts.

The action sequences are good, with a couple of exceptional ones. The love stories, although not germane to the main action, are not so intrusive as to off-set the film. The film is virtually done in by a very unsatisfactory, almost "added on" ending. Would have been better without the last scene.


I agree with most of the comments on this movie, the opening scene was definitely the best part of the movie. After that movie goes downhill. The real problem with this movie is that it's not believable. I'll explain. *********Spoilers ahead**********spoilers ahead************* First of all, why would a state government allow a death row homicidal murderer to participate in this experiment? There are plenty of anger management patients out there that have not killed several people. Second, why would they trust the patient to take the pills himself? Especially a convicted murderer. Wouldn't they make sure the medicine was injected into the patient or something? And third, why would they put the reformed murderer back on the streets IN OR NEAR THE TOWN HE COMMITTED HIS CRIMES IN!? That doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't they treat it similar to a witness protection program and put the guy somewhere in the middle of nowhere Kansas? I see why this movie never made it to the screens. The critics would have destroyed it and it probably would have made under $1,000


I am an IMDb regular but have only just joined now. I joined because after having seen this movie I was anxious to see just how much other people hated it too, alas, they seem to like it. The film is awful. It has the premise for a good movie otherwise I wouldn't have got it out from the store. The plot and characters hold water, there are more holes than a siv, and the film has a lot less use. I tried to like it, and the actors aren't bad at all, it even has Michelle Rodriguez, which could make any film watchable - on looks alone. But the film is terrible, please don't get it out, I won't go into any plot points as I have a gripe with far too many of them - I'll sum it up by telling you that it's the kind of film where things are literally spelt out to you, nothing is left to interpretation. Maybe if it was you may have managed to miss some of the awfulness of this movie. Be warned.


This is one of the strangest and definitely one of the most atypical titles to be found in the whole list of infamous Video Nasties. Judging by the stills on the back of the VHS-cover and based on the narrative during the first half of the film, I would unhesitatingly describe "Delirium" as a crude and misogynistic slasher reminiscent of "Maniac" and "Don't Go in the House". You know; the type of sick film that doesn't bother keeping the identity of the killer secret but depicts the violence against female victims extra vile and repellent. There's a maniac at large who slaughters his women relentlessly and grotesque. One of the poor girls even has a pitchfork stuck in her throat! Whilst the roommate of his first victim teams up with the incompetent police force, the maniac  Charlie  gets killed after a failed attempt to make another victim. Then suddenly and completely unexpected, "Delirium" becomes a post-Vietnam war drama. It is revealed that Charlie was a member of a secret network of vigilantes that exists entirely out of bloodthirsty Vietnam veterans and they are hired by a board of eminent & businessmen in order to keep the streets crime-free. Charlie just went a little berserk and started killing women randomly, that's all! The "leader" of the vigilantes is a fairly short-sized yet menacing guy with a shiny bald head that would make even Telly Savalas jealous and, during the climax of the film, he goes totally bonkers as well. The concept of "Delirium" undoubtedly shows potential, but the elaboration is overly confusion and dull and reverts all too easily to dreadful clichés (like Vietnam flashbacks and power mad army officers). The first slasher half is rather exciting, with a couple of truly nasty murder sequences and the most laughably inept police investigation ever, but the second half is painfully tedious and derivative of much better films. I can't really bring myself to recommend "Delirium" to anyone, but I suppose it holds some interest if you're a cult movie freak.


A dark night somewhere in St. Louis, Susan Narcross (Debi Chaney) arrives home to find her roommate Jenny Thompson (Pat Knapko) murdered, impaled on a door with a spear. Detective Sergeant Paul Dollinger (Nick Panouzis) and his partner Detective Larry Mead (Terry Ten Broeck) are put on the case. They interview Susan who tells them of a date Jenny had been on that night with a man named Charlie (Turk Chekovsky) who had been in the office where they work earlier in the day looking for a job, and that they should question her boss Donald Andrews (Bob Winters). The following day the two Detectives visit Andrews but he is unhelpful and evasive and seems to be hiding something. Meanwhile, Charlie steals a car and picks a hitchhiker (Letty Garris) up. He drives her to a beach, she decides to take all her clothes off and have a swim in the sea. Charlie follows her in and strangles her. Charlie's real name is Charles Gunther an ex Vietnam vet who recently escaped from the Illinois state mental hospital. The guy has gone psycho because of the violence he witnessed in Vietnam, and the fact that a Vietnamese prostitute (Charlotte Littrel) taunted and laughed at him when he couldn't get an erection! Charlie has been hired by Stern (Barron Winchester) who runs a kangaroo court to correct injustices by the legal system and real courts, but Charlie has flipped his lid and is killing everyone he runs into, most of them being attractive young girls. After listening in on one of her bosses conversations and becomes suspicious, Susan herself becomes a target. Dollinger and Mead are baffled, all of their leads produce nothing but dead ends. Their Captain (Harry Gorsuch) is piling on the pressure, and they also have to deal with a sudden spate of suicides among criminals. Will they be able to save Susan and put an end to Stern's self righteous campaign of murder?

Directed by Peter Marris this is a bit of an odd film. It unsuccessfully blends various genres, little bits of horror with Charlie sticking pitchforks through girls throats and killing people with meat cleavers. War, there are various incredibly poorly done flashbacks of Charlie and Stern plus their fellow soldiers having gun fights in what looks like a football field and some local woods. Action, there's a small car chase with a few explosions and a shootout at the end. Romance as Mead and Susan become involved with each other, and crime with Stern trying to sort out St. Louis's injustices. It doesn't quite work, though. It's certainly different but just not very exciting or interesting. The script by Richard Yalem, who has a cameo as Peter Sykes who is thrown into the Mississippi in the opening sequence, is a little talky and reveals too much too soon, it might have helped if all these sub plots remained mystery's and were tied up at the end but instead the script reveals all very early on. Technically the film is poor, special effects, photography, acting, editing and music are all well below par. Talking of the music this film either borrows or more likely steals the theme tune to the British quiz show Mastermind, as someone who lives in the UK and has heard this music several times on Mastermind it sounds ridiculous to hear it on the soundtrack to this. I would probably describe this film as an interesting misfire. At least the makers tried to do something a little different, it's just a shame it doesn't quite work and the film lacks any kind of polish.


I saw this movie, with a friend and a film writer. The content was misleading at best. The film quality and directing was amateurish. His camera actually moved from person to person, without cuts. I got dizzy just watching. I, with no film experience, know better than that.

My film writer friend thought his work was so amateurish that she was embarrassed for Rossi. My other friend who has written and done stage work herself, was literally sickened by his misportrayal of Aimee Semple McPherson's life.

His intended premise is misguided and never proved. The movie never gave "insight" to anything but gross exaggeration and erroneous information. There is nothing to indicate why she was such a phenomenon. There is never a crowd -- no attempt to give any kind of context to her world-wide appeal or her national "celebrity" status.

Seeing this movie you would think all she did in life was marry three times, in a very short span of time, and fought with her mother. And that really is the just of the movie in a nutshell. And very poorly done at that. Now I've just saved you 2 1/2 hours of watching a boring movie.


Dreadfully bad, the acting is so poor it draws attention to what is going on in the film, not that it matters. The quality of the film is grainy and at times blurry. Diodn't anyone making the film know how to focus the camera?!It is very amateurishly done. It is clearly evident director Richard Rossi has no idea how to make a film. The camera work seems like it was done by a child, the script is laughable bad. This certainly has to rank among the worst film of the 2000's. The lack of effort to capture the time period - the early 1900's is painfully obvious. This would be an excellent example for a film class and how NOT to make a film.


Is there enough budget to release a DVD???? I'm sure many out here want to have a copy. I'm writing this comment because I've been looking on the internet for over a year to find if there has been a home video release. Just think how many people want to see this film and there evidently has been no progress that I have seen to indicate that there is any production in the works to release a home video. This is about all I can say on the subject. I have long admired Ms McPherson as a spiritual leader and dynamic personality. I've heard recorded sermons and viewed most all other video material that relates to her story. Maybe a grant from SAG should be considered to have this important film available to the general public.


Wow, what a story! But then that is just about all it is is a story loosely based on real facts, as I perceive them. I was born in 1928. My mother was really smitten by Sister Aimee, and she became from the 1920's a very devoted member of the church. She was the guide for visitors to the temple from 1930's to the 1970's. She worked in the office and did lots of other activities for the Church. Myself, I went to Sunday school at the Temple, and worked with the stage crew in setting up the monthly illustrated sermon settings, and performed in many of them, from the late 1930's till just after her death when I went to the Navy. I even played the kettle drums when the regular drummer did not show up for services. I knew her personally as well as Rolf and his daughter. So what? Well, first of all the producers might have taken a little more care in providing the correct uniforms for Sister and the others shown. I have never seen her in anything other than the white nurses uniforms and capes with the large shield like tie and never saw low cuts to show cleavage. The actress was so far off the natural voice of Sister, she was squeaky and high pitched. Sister to my recollection did not have that high pitch during her sermons. All in all the movie was not that bad as far as it went; although much of the conversations in private must be in the writer's imagination. I remember well the day it was announced that she was dead. Within those who were a part of the Four Square religion anywhere, the shock might be comparable to that on the day JFK was shot.


I understand that this was a project for school! The guy responsible had hired the same team from "Once a thief" for the pyrotechnics. To bad it doesn't show! I liked Max Payne and Max Payne 2! But Max Payne:Hero misses the point! Max Payne isn't a hero! He is actually a cop who went rogue and therefore becoming a criminal himself! Yes, we root for him, yeah we like being him,we love the extravaganza shootouts,but to call Max Payne a hero is wrong! So the use of the song "Hero" doesn't belong! This project also is meant as a homage to John Woo (which Max Payne is based on)! This doesn't show! First I thought this was some kind of parody,with the people shooting at boxes and not hitting the main character! After viewing the flashback I have to assume everything is meant to be seriously! The movie looked like it was made by professionals! But overall it fails and is not enjoyable! Next time better!


Predictable, hilarious treatment of the cult video game character. The actors are obviously amateur and the acting, well hammy. They are all a hoot as the title hero and the villains, respectively--watch out for their robot like body movements and feeble attempt at shock value with the "gun in the mouth scene". To its credit, the film has adequate production design, but that's about it. For a good laugh, check it out; for good action, look elsewhere.

The film quality is OK but the content is questionable. It plays like a video game with really really good graphics. Wouldn't be seriously considered for distribution. Scenes were basically "cut and pasted" from stuff already exists out there.

Needs unique items to impress. Again very predictable.


I have played many games in my life, but none of them ever made me feel the way Max Payne did. It had a life, an emotion that most games fail to show. This Game was mean't to be made into a movie, just not this movie.

Hero fell short in almost every way. The shoot out was confusing, the audience never understood where people where so we never believe it. Cardboard doesn't block bullets. Why does Max dive into the open? Why does everyone stink at shooting? There are too many times that Max is in the open and being shot at. I could have hit him, I don't shoot Guns very often. Why is Max a kid? He looks to be like 18 or 19. For all directors out there, remember that slow motion is a trick to be use rarely. If you over do it, it loses it's cool factor. I am sad to see that someone had all the things you need to make a cool action scene and have him throw it away on something so amateur. I am happy in a way, there is still an opening for a good film maker to make a wonderful Max Payne film.


"Deadgirl" was promoted to me as being a perverse and morbid, yet unique and eccentric "coming of age" story for the nowadays adolescent generations. Well, okay, that's one way of putting it, of course. Another way could be stating that this is just a bizarrely experimental and exploitative student film. I'm really inveigled to glorify "Deadgirl" and stimulate others to watch it, as this is a film directed by two ambitious and obviously enthusiast young horror directors, but the truth is that it's honestly not that great. The basic plot contains a handful of ingenious ideas and the setting boosts an overall unsettling atmosphere, but the screenplay unfolds too grotesque and the escalation of the events are far too implausible. Teenage high-school outcasts simply don't turn into relentless rapists & murderers overnight. And now that we are being skeptical anyway: undead girls don't just appear naked on tables in the catacombs of an abandoned asylum without reason, and they certainly don't remain lying there for weeks at the disposal of oversexed nerds! That is, plainly put, what "Deadgirl" is about. One day whilst skipping school, outsiders JT and Rickie hang around an abandoned asylum and discover the seemingly lifeless body of an attractive young woman chained to a table in the one of the basements. Seemingly lifeless, because the girl is alive and apparently can't even be killed. JT promptly satisfies his sickest and twisted sexual fantasies on the defenseless girl, but Rickie at least has some moral decency left. The basement rapidly turns into a rendezvous place for horny losers, but then the fun is over when the girl bites back. The formula of "Deadgirl" is dared and definitely a whole lot more original than the majority of mainstream horror movies being released today, but still it falls short in several other and equally crucial departments. The film is a bit overlong, occasionally very boring and sometimes too gratuitous only for the sake of being gratuitous. The "Coming of Age" theme of "Deadgirl" appears to be secondary to directors' Sarmiento and Harel intent to provoke people by depicting misogynistic sleaze and violence. Noah Segan is not at all convincing as the typical high school rebel gradually metamorphosing into a stoic and ruthless killer, while Shiloh Fernandez is just pitiable as the conscious but loyal friend. The rape sequences, although they are actually more on the verge of necrophilia sequences already, are disgusting and  as mentioned above  completely gratuitous.


I bought this movie from my cable TV company, it didn't give too much info about the story line other than it was a zombie found in a building by two teenage boys.

I like horrors but I see them as fantasy so they doesn't disturb me. In fact horror and Sci fi are my preferred choice generally.

What was disturbing about this was the zombie wasn't the monster it was the boy/s - it examines teenage boys boundaries if offered the "gift" of sex without consent and the fact the victim is dead or a zombie is not important. Not only to they rape her but they beat, sodomise and sexually "poke" her in the infected bullet wound one of the boys gave her a week previous because " it's wet and warm" I am only thankful they didn't treat us to a viewing of that particular scene. I am by nature creative and as such have a vivid and abstract imagination.I an able to enjoy a book over the film in most cases because my imagination is better than what the movie producers often create. The down side to having a creative mind when exposed to unexpected emotional and psychological horror of what humans can be capable of under the right circumstances is it leaves me upset and emotionally disturbed for days or weeks later.

I would not of watched this movie had I known it was as dark and as sick as it was. I just wanted a bit of good old zombie horror and what I got was the possibilities of horrific human nature.


Just as "Deadgirl" was conflicted with what approach it should take to its noticeably compelling subject matter, I am conflicted as to how I should critique it. Certainly, it is a well-made film and I would be lying if I said that I did not develop some sort of morbid fascination with it. But, I must also say that I was offended by it, disgusted by the depravity of most of its characters, and perplexed by the actions of others. In a film that seems to be dripping with subtexts and more profound social commentaries, I could not find any; instead, it was displaying such vile imagery simply for shock value. I believe that film is the perfect medium to deal with such difficult topics as rape and misogyny, but I also believe "Deadgirl" is not the type of film to do it. Its awkward blend of drama and humor translates poorly, seeming more inappropriate than intelligent.

Read My Full Review Exclusively At: www.thecinemaview.blogspot.com


I detest the modern horror film, especially those with gratuitous violence. I watched this one because the violence was reported to be NOT gratuitous. It wasn't, but it fell short of being good.

It's obvious that the two boys are frustrated in dealing with girls. They understand that to play the game, you have to be "nice" to girls and "obey" them, and if you're poor, ugly and awkward you have to debase yourself even more. Thus the discovery of a "living dead girl" is a dream come true; a girl they can have sex with, without pretending to be "nice." It's been suggested that the film is actually a fantasy, or a metaphor playing out in the boys' heads. Maybe so, but the filmmakers didn't wish to make that clear. In fact, we don't really get to understand the boys enough to figure out why they might turn sadistic and violent. Is this what is inside every rejected, lonely nerd? Are we all Harris and Klebold just waiting for an occasion to strike? We don't know, and the film doesn't want to tell us.

Incomplete, fragmented and unclear storytelling do not make a film "deep." If this film had been more coherent, it might have been celebrated despite the gore, cursing and near inaudible audio engineering. As it is, a 4 is generous.


Last night I watched what on the front end looked like a perfectly good horror movie. It was after all tagged as a trailer on front of the wonderful, The House of the Devil. That was a great piece of work and you should check it out. But this movie. This is what the acronym WTF was made for

Deadgirl. Wow. This is the worst movie of all time. Absolutely. I don't really think anything has been a bigger waste of time for so few people. Deadgirl is poorly written (how many times can two guys say, "man"?), terribly, horribly, acted, and a complete fantasy for guys who will never, ever find a girl. Oh, wait, these guys did find a girl, a chained up girl, and she was dead/not dead, so they and their ne're-do-well pals just took their time raping her. Let's just leave the horror porn to Eli Roth. He seems to do them with a little more class. Stay far far away - it will be hard to get the stink off ya.


What kind of genre would you put this movie in? It's not horror, thats clear from the start. it's supernatural, but just because there is some gore in it, you cannot class a film as horror. It's not a thriller, as it's neither thrilling nor tense.

This would need it's own sub-genre entitled 'EMO movie/Teen Zombie Floozy'. and still that wouldn't give the movie a genre.

In this mixed up movie, we get two guys who bunk off school and go to the local abandoned Lunatic Asylum (theres one in every town) and get drunk. They go down into the basement and find a zombie (i know it's not mentioned at all in the movie, but she bites others, and son they become dead. Textbook zombie).

One leaves, the other investigates and realise she cannot be killed. So what do they do, get their rocks off, apart from the main character who is obsessed with another girl, but is very shy so just stares at her from afar like a chubby Joaquin Pheonix.

And thats the film really, apart from the old clichés we get in these films, main characters friend becomes a bit mad towards the end and starts acting like a Shakespearian villain, the Jocks have revenge taken upon them, and their is a pointless twist in the closing seconds.

And it's all made very badly. The acting is okay, but the story and the script absolutely stink more than the titular character, which is a shame because the film rally had a lot going for it.

If it dared to be a little more left-field, rather than ticking the predictability box, it could have been a lot more, but it chose to stay on the path, rather than stray away.

Boring


"Deadgirl" is indeed frightening, but not in the way it's been advertised. This is nothing less than pornography for necrophiliacs disguised as a horror movie. I'm sure the writer and director thought they were being edgy, but the end result is a morbid stew of violence, rape, and the vapid emptiness of modern teens who have no moral compass at all. Since the "living" dead girl of the title cannot speak when discovered by the two main male characters in an abandoned mental hospital, it is naturally assumed by the writer and director that at least one of the boys will instantly see the chained woman as a sex object, that is, after he kills her three times. The "evil" protagonist J.T. casually tells his "good" friend Ricky that he initially killed the woman because she tried to bite him. He goes on to say that this murder "felt good", and this is how he discovered her inability to die. Ricky displays no emotion at all to the news that J.T. initially committed a murder, even before it was discovered that the girl could not die. Evidently this sort of behavior is common among today's high schoolers. None of the male characters with the exception of Ricky seem the least bit concerned that this undying woman could harbor disease, instead, they rape her repeatedly even to the point of using bullet wounds as entry for sex. Thankfully, the audience is spared this visual. In plot line, "Deadgirl" owes a lot to "River's Edge" in that a group of teens without pity or any sense of decency abuse a corpse and refuse to divulge the information to anyone of authority. They simply use this dead-girl to satisfy their own twisted agendas and seem surprised when things don't go well. The writing is very weak, consisting mostly of f-bombs, homophobic taunting, and screaming. This is one time I'm sorry I didn't turn the DVD player off, since watching the entire movie ended up making me feel culpable in the on screen activity. I hope there is no sequel in the works, but I wouldn't count on it.


rented deadgirl nov 15's afternoon along with another, better horror movie, laid to rest. rented deadgirl based on a lot of positive reviews from various print and electronic sources. big disappointment, in my opinion.

while watching deadgirl, i kept thinking/hoping, we get some backstory about the deadgirl. who was she? her connection to the abandoned hospital? how did she die?

the teenage boys and their behavior was nothing new. if the actors were trying to be annoying and stupid, they accomplished their goals.... the lead characters were the most annoying. kudos to them. i mean, they were thinking with the smaller heads...........


Zombie, tied, raped, fast forward, every character behaves precisely in the most improbable way. I mean, you have MACHETE in hand and there's a woman TIED to ceiling by a foot long ROPE and you start to UNTANGLE her ? Come on ! Its all like this the whole movie time. This movie was the first zombie movie which i stopped watching because i was bored and resumed later on, just to see that the end sucks too. If the makers of this movie wanted to express some dark side of men, or moral aspects, they failed, and remaining time was wasted on long camera pans and emo music. It could have been better movie, if they at least washed her from time to time.


The issues of Kashmir have never been easy to solve since Nehru took the issue to UN. It has become much more complex in a world where terrorism has become the easiest way to wage wars. Trying to make a movie around this requires competence. If you are looking a movie around this theme, please stay away from Fiza, even if it is aired for free on telly.

After watching this movie, Khalid Mohammed will remain in my memory as one of the worst movie makers in Indian cinema. Immature and confused storyline along with his absolute misdirection only complicated the story-telling. It takes great ineptness to even mess the things like Johny Lever's comedy in a movie. Trust me, you can only get embarrassed watching it.

The only reason I didn't rate it awful is for a quote on Indian flag.

-Kiran


Historical romantic fiction set during the American Revolution, filmed expensively to showcase mistress Marion Davies, by William Randolph Hearts, for Cosmopolitan Productions and Metro-Goldwyn Pictures. For 1924 audiences, this must have been like going to see D.W. Griffith's "America" again, with Ms. Davies (as Janice Meredith) inserted into the Revolution. The two films were in production simultaneously, they covered the same ground, and were written up in movie periodicals prior to release. It's odd that Mr. Hearst went up against Mr. Griffith, who got his "America" into theaters well ahead of "Janice Meredith"; blessedly, Griffith's Colonists win the War without Davies' help. However, neither film was the epic intended.

Davies is awkward, forced, and pouting as a wealthy New Jersey belle; at first, her character is uninvolved in politics - but, she becomes instrumental in founding the triumphant new United States of America. Romantic interest Harrison Ford (as John Brereton) arrives on her estate as a handsome indentured servant ("Charles Fownes") with an intriguing background. Davies and Mr. Ford fall in love; but, Davies is expected to marry goofy, noble neighbor Olin Howlin (as Philemon "Phil" Hennion). Paul Revere (Ken Maynard)'s ride and Washington crossing the Delaware are highlights. After almost an hour, W.C. Fields appears as a British officer encountered by Davies; not even their comic antics can save this thoroughly non-engrossing film.

*** Janice Meredith (12/8/24) E. Mason Hopper ~ Marion Davies, Harrison Ford, Olin Howlin, W.C. Fields


This movie is disgusting, and yet, tries to be funny.

I hated the kissing scenes, and Preity Zinta use to be my favourite actress but not now, after watching this movie!! This movie had no story and failed to get my interest! Yash Raj films are going down. Bunty aur bubily was rubbish and so was Salaam namaste. Neal n nikki was just as bad!

The name of the films does not match the story VERY well. The music was quite goot. The music videos were sick. To me, this movie should be a flop! The worse movie i have ever seen! I wish i could give the movie NONE out of ten!


Film review: Salaam Namaste: what's new ?

Today we have a ready audience who are seeking uncharted territories with films based on diverse themes. In such a scene, a concept of 'live-in" relationship looks promising but when you dig further what you are subjected to is another guys are guys and gals are gals type of Harry meet Sally clone very much on the lines (and influences too) of  Hum Tum, Saathiya, Chalte Chalte, Kal Ho Na Ho et al. Surprising again it is coming from country's No. 1 movie production factory. Debutant writer-director Siddhartha Raj Anand, tried to delve into a mature topic and somehow manages to hold interest till interval with his some witty, smart, one-liners and hilarious situations when the film is still finding its premise. He should be applauded for dealing with topic of sex before marriage without being pretentious. All that took care of metro-based multiplex and NRI audience. Lead characters are very similar to Hum Tum ones and supporting characters' introduction is very KHNH type. All supporting NRI characters are made buffoons. Guys are naughty and irresponsible and Girls are street-smart, today's woman. Oh please, not again. Also, when heroine cries there is a Ganpati idol in the foreground and a Alaap in the background score. Gimme a break ! Do new generation directors require all this ? Post-interval everything goes haywire when director gets into story-telling and tried to deal with too many themes and subplots without doing decent justice to even one of them. Thus you get to see, extra-marital relationship going sour, pregnancy before marriage, women liberation, evolution of fatherhood in hero, numerous forced situations to get couple back together and so many other done to death scenes and dialogs that film follows a very predictable path and ends at same common oft-repeated note. At one point film even goes to the territory of Kya Kehna. Worst of all is the climax based in an operation theater where giving birth situation is made a mockery and sequence is completely dedicated to gallery. Overall film could not rise above mediocre. Though, performances are neat, the subject requires a much younger couple and not the same repeated pair. At least, Preity Zinta should be given some decent pregnancy costumes. Though Javed Jaffrey is a surprise packet keeping audience in splits and so is Arshad Warsi. Except first song, rest all songs are forced. Now, this is for the producers, please pull up your socks before it is too late. Agreed that initial hype, encouraging reviews and record no. of prints gets film terrific openings and it manages to cover itself under "hit" tag yet everyday is not Sunday. Better, watch out !