A action-adventure,crime drama,pseudo-comedy,buddy picture that fails practically at all levels. Robert Hays,whose career had a handful of early successes--the short-lived success of TV's "Angie" and the two wildly funny "Airplane" movies--followed by a long string of films that would elicit blank stares of confusion if mentioned to the average film viewer--"Touched",anyone?--and numerous TV projects that would not last past a year(my fave was the TV treatment of "Starman"),ends up in this flick which really has little going for it except the film debut(?) of Playboy mega-babe and "Baywatch" fixture Pamela Anderson. Her nude/sex scenes along with a very lovingly filmed shower scene with starlet model April Bogenschutz really seem to be all that makes this flick seem watchable. David Keith(here a LONG ways from "An Officer and a Gentleman" and even "Firestarter") as the gruff,angry,hard-bitten cop seems to barely register here. Stacy Keach's usual oiliness is underused here, and the film is set squarely on the shoulders of Keith,Hays and Anderson. It seems as if the writer(s) of the movie,in desperate need of a catch-phrase for Keith' s character,is best able to come up with the "Don't EVER insult my mama!"when a thug or goon he runs into calls him an S.O.B. Not very inspired,need I say.

Strictly late-night cable viewing. A cheap rental if you really must see this.


OK, so there is virtually no plot in this movie, the acting is atrocious at best and there are some very annoying characters in it. I know it sounded like there was going to be a but...., well there isn't, this movie is rubbish and it would be a waste of time to watch it.


One of the worst movies i ever watched. Probably the worst. A movie just made for two scenes (minute 39 and 58). Lets see if there is any positive to say about this movie. No I can't think of any. Pam just destroyed my ideology of good acting. Who was stupid enough to produce this?


Once you have witnessed the scene where Pamela (as a hooker??? how cheesy is that... at least the director knows why we are watching this crap...) gets the job done, you have no more reason to keep watching this atrocity... I put a 3/10 but for a girl or anyone who thinks Pam is ugly, this movie is not even worth that...


i thought this movie was kind of funny because david keith had sex with pamela anderson after a high speed chase. does anyone know why this is? the movie had D- action and a plot that only John Woo could do something with. It was a stupid movie but the sex scenes were good.


This movie has lots of action and a decent storyline for it to be a good movie, but the writing and directing of this movie is very poor. This movie's plot was of a murder mystery, but the creators don't leave the audience in suspense because they reveal the killer as he is slaying his victim. Also, Pamela Anderson's character had no reason to be in this film. She plays a hooker, but her character doesn't affect the main story in anyway at all. Pamela was just thrown in the movie so they producers could incorporate two sex scenes into their film. The sex scenes were very entertaining, but they were highly unnecessary.


Starts off with a sex scene, of which there were eight total I think, three of them in the first half hour. The movie really comes to a standstill with them, so they should have done some talking during those scenes to dispose of some exposition! Or maybe some split-screen action.

Anyway, the plot is that at a fashion pajama party, one of the models trying to win a contract is found dead in the pool. An alcoholic ex-cop private investigator is hired by a friend of the model to investigate it as a murder when the police decide it was a suicide. The whole PI investigation is really stale, right from the "you don't want to hire me" to the end. The head of security at the party is an ex-cop friend of the PI, and the PI also has a friend still in the department.

The ending didn't make too much sense to me. He might as well as never been hired in the first place.


Here we go with another instantly forgettable direct-to-video romp. The story - or what they call the story - is just insulting. Perhaps that's not saying a lot for the territory, but this one hurt to sit through. Don't believe me? Watch it. It doesn't make once bit of sense. Now, okay, I know what you're thinking. It's not like we tune into T&A flicks for the stories so what about the naughty bits.

I found them disappointing because they were just more of the same found in any number of other T&A duds. Filmed in the usual predictable style against the same 'ol backdrop. Nothing new, no style, no atmosphere. As for Tweed herself, she doesn't even star no matter what the movie box tells you. She only gets naked once and when she finally does drop the dress it's far from mind blowing. Some T&A flicks surprise you, some don't and just deliver the goods. This did neither. Pass.


This movie is sort of like "Robot Jox" in that it has a tournament. It isn't like it, in that it is fights between aliens. The alien in this case being a rare human ready to become the first human champ in some time. All the standards are here for this type of movie with a villain, betrayal and all that good stuff that make movies of this type so predictable. It does not help that the fights are lacking any real punch as they are nothing like the high energy fights you get in an anime or any Jackie Chan movie. Still though you have loads of alien creatures to look at and some attractive female leads. That, however, does not a movie make so for the most part it is a by the numbers sports movie with an alien twist.


I stumbled across this movie one of the 5 million times that HBO showed it my Junior year of College...

If you like cardboard cutouts in the crowd...wrestling moves that are supported by visible wires...and a plot that a monkey could write...then rent this movie...

Terrible...awful...but not the worse...there is always Congo...where you want to make an ash tray out of the stupid monkeys head...but that is another rant...

If you want to see a good action space movie...that is brainless...see the motion picture classic and guilty pleasure Starship Troopers...lead by Doogie Howser...stay away from this piece of garbage that could of been shot in someones garage...


If I were to rate this film based on my memories of it when I was ten years old, it would be a straight nine out of ten. Unfortunately, I'm not going to do that, since I watched it again just last year (I'm 26 now). Anyway, it turns out this film is actually a badly acted, poorly produced and boring effort. The fights which impressed me so much as a child now reveal themselves for what they are - a funny looking blonde guy pretending to use martial arts on a man in a rubber suit (a technique recently revived for the atrocity that was Alien Vs Predator). The script is badly written, and does no credit to what is actually a pretty good premise for a sci-fi action movie. There are certainly some interesting ideas. Perhaps a remake should be considered?


Despite a large budget and the usual MGM gloss, this is not a particularly good movie. Perhaps when it debuted in 1939 people knew nothing of Vietnam--this is the only way I can explain the insane casting of the Viennese Hedy Lamar as a woman who is half Vietnamese! Now if the casting of Austrian-born actress in the lead was the only problem, the movie still could have been interesting. However, the film has many more strikes against it--most notably the very, very limited range of the starlet in this film. Much of the time, she utters her lines as if almost half asleep and had practically no emotion to her performance. Part of this might have been because she was relatively new to America or perhaps she needed better direction. All I know is that she was beautiful to look at but rather vacant.

To make things worse, although she is NOT a rich woman in the film, repeatedly she sports gowns that were right out of Vogue magazine--yet she is supposed to live in Vietnam, not Paris. Now the movie seemed to imply she was possibly a prostitute or a mistress--but even then, it seemed silly to have her traipsing around in one glamorous gown after another in a third world nation. One reviewer faulted the problem with the movie to be Robert Taylor's fault--I think it was all Hedy's.

The bottom line is that aside from saying the film was set in Vietnam, you'd never guess it by watching the film. It is instead a sanitized and ridiculous Vietnam as seen by Hollywood.

As for the plot, it's only okay. In many ways it's a bit reminiscent of Robert Taylor's earlier film, CAMILLE, as both are about fated romances. Most audience members will figure out rather quickly that this romance will not end well! So due to predictability, the plot wasn't able to counteract the lousy casting decisions. While I disliked the film, it seems most other reviews were very positive--so who's to say you may not enjoy it.

By the way, just who or what was Joseph Schildkraut supposed to be in the film?! With his silly fake eyelids and lack of any conventional accent, I was left confused. Again, maybe 1930s Hollywood thought it was okay to say pretty much ANYTHING or ANYONE was Vietnamese--after all, who in the audience at the time would have known differently?


For those who don't realize it the Lady of the Tropics we're referring to is Hedy Lamarr who falls big time for visiting playboy Robert Taylor in Saigon. Of course one look at Hedy Lamarr and his romantic goose is cooked as well. But there's is a forbidden love and sad to say the message in Ben Hecht's screenplay is stick to your own kind.

Lady of the Tropics was shot while Hedy Lamarr was on hiatus from the ill-fated I Take This Woman. Louis B. Mayer nor any of the other movie moguls believed in letting their players sit idly by. So Lady of the Tropics became Lamarr's second film and her only pairing with that other screen beauty Robert Taylor.

Taylor plays a very honorable character here or at least more honorable than most. He's part of a visiting party of tourists off a yacht that lands in Saigon right before World War II starts. As we well know Vietnam was then under that colonial umbrella known as French Indo-China and Saigon was its capital. Among others Taylor is with is his American fiancé Gloria Franklin.

Of course the romantic sparks start the second that Lamarr and Taylor catch sight of each other in that Saigon café. Taylor does an unheard of thing, he breaks it off with Franklin and weds Lamarr post haste.

Sad to say, but implicit is the message that what you do with exotic beauties not 100% Caucasian is bed them don't wed them. But Taylor and Lamarr don't see it that way. As was said by Queen Latifah in the recent Hairspray, they're in for a whole world of stupid.

This was 1939 not 1967 in America. We still had miscegenation laws in most states at the time so the message of sticking to your own kind was in keeping with 1939 mores. This is the exact opposite message the screen would give in 1967 in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner.

Taylor and Lamarr are stunning, no two ways about that. The sets showing tropical Saigon are great and the film did get an Oscar nomination for cinematography. But the story is both melodramatic and thank God, dated.


Paul Newman as a P.I. in Southern California, searching for truth among the wealthy -- shades of Harper and the Drowning Pool! Throw in Gene Hackman, Liev Schriber, James Garner, and John Spencer and how can a girl possibly go wrong watching Twilight?

It starts quite well. Newman, giving the film noir detective's narration in perfect form, sets the stage well and gets us quite interested in his life and perspective. Hackman, Sarandon, Reese Witherspoon, and Schriver chime in with very interesting characters. We appear to be in for a treat.

But, then it goes nowhere, except cliche-land. The result is dreary and listless as unmotivated characters go through the motion. The ending turns the interest level back up somewhat, but not enough to salvage the overall experience. Rent Harper instead.


I have commented on a few of Newmans movies and they were favorable. Sorry to say this one was not. Newman sounded very old ... seems like his cigarette habit caught up to him. Quite frankly the guy did not want to be there. Its a shame because the rest of the cast was stellar. OK but now the plot , it went all over the place and just seemed to me spoofed of the old 40s film noire classics. Thats fine but not a well written film. It was one of the rare times we get to see Reese Witherspoon topless , if not the only time. Guys will want to watch this, but thank goodness its at the beginning of the film. Perhaps though this film, with its ALIST actors might have been better served if Newman played Hackmans part and vice versa. Thats all I will say without giving the movie away. Truth be told , even if this was Paul Newmans best acting performance this could not have been saved.


I came to this movie with some expectation, and having read some favorable reviews on IMDb: that was a big mistake.

Just because there are some well known "names" in the cast do not believe that will save this film, because it does not.

Briefly: a retired cop gets entangled in some blackmail/murder plot, but the whole picture is boring, self indulgent and unbelievable.

The script is poor, and none of the players give convincing performances. The story, the plot and the players are all unrealistic in the extreme and just because they have made their career by other films will not salvage them or this picture.

1/10.


The film is a poorly made attempt at 50's film noir, complete with hack narration from Paul Newman. The film has the potential to be very good: a good director and top stars (Newman, Hackman, Sarandon etc). It isn't. The plotline is thin. How many more times are we to have a washed up cop as the lead character? The script and dialogue are poor. Worst of all, the acting is wooden. You get no sense that the actors have been given the time to familiarise themselves with their characters. Even if they had, the script is so poor that they would have nothing meaningful to say anyway. This is a film equivalent of painting by numbers. The film has the look and feel of something that has been made quickly and with a minimal budget. It might be made by the same team who made "Nobody's Fool", but don't be fooled by the comparison. Nobody's Fool is a good film. This one is a dog.


It's unfortunate that this film was released only shortly before L.A. Confidential, which is a wonderful film that deserved its honors. Twilight, with its intriguing characters and twisty script, simply fell out of the limelight, and hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.

There are faults in the script, to be sure, and even with this all-star cast, things are a little uneven. However, this film is a gritty, interesting thriller, focused on the playing out of lifelong grudges and desires. Much as Deep Impact was nominally a sci-fi film, but truly focused on the different ways in which people confront the end of the world, Twilight is only nominally a crime thriller, but truly focuses on the lengths to which people will go to preserve the legacy they desire. A satisfying, if not brilliant, film.


It's refreshing to see consummate actors plying their trade, especially one with the skill of Paul Newman. It's especially wonderful to see this skill applied to a film like "Nobody's Fool." In "Twilight," Newman is reunited with "Nobody's Fool" director-screenwriter Robert Benton and is essentially playing the same character. Only this time the character is placed in a manipulative plot that seems like retreads from better crime films. It's simply a window for Newman to show is talents. Other screen veterans--Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon and James Garner (who is just as natural in front of a camera as Newman)--are also on display, but are not given the screen time to display their skills. It's really Newman's picture and the rest of the actors are simply "guests". Stockard Channing is underused in the role of a police investigator and one of my favorite character actors, M. Emmet Walsh is completely wasted in the role of a...well...a corpse, I guess. The message--about people in the "twilight" of their years--is heavy-handed and the story makes absolutely no sense logically. But it's good seeing Newman at the top of his form--now, if he will only pick out better projects in which to display his talents.


It was both inspiring and painful to see such great lead and supporting talent demonstrating their craft with nothing to work with. It could have just as well have been several one-person demonstrations of how to act. I'm glad I got this video for free from the library.


A creepy Victorian house surrounded by fog. Things that go bump in the night (and at other times). Creepy servants, scared children. A twist you can see coming a mile off (unless you've never seen a film at all like this before). Well made, solidly but unspectacularly made, and technically perfectly competent, but with a story and an ambience that is nothing new. Anyone who has seen 'The Woman in Black' (on stage or TV) or any of a score of British ghost flicks of the 1960s or 70s will find everything here amazingly familiar. That 'The Others' is being touted as a possible 'best film' for 2001 is a extraordinary (unlike the film).


Nothing special, nothing new, with a suprise ending that you could see coming from the begining(not necessarily the exact ending but you knew there would be a suprise). The whole point of a suprise ending is that you don't expect it. It wasn't suspenseful so count that out. It was obvious through the whole movie that something didn't fit. Maybe that's what they were trying to accomplish: showing us how obvious it should have been but how hard it was for them to realize the truth. It wasn't a bad movie but it certianly wasn't a good movie. It copied Sixth Sense in so many ways but totally failed where Sixth Sense succeeded so dramatically. I just couldn't wait for this movie to be over and I'm shocked at how high the ratings are on IMDB.


The Others is way too slow and relies way to much on atmosphere to be involving. The story is thin and the ending is trite. Nicole Kidman is her usual limited self. The production design and cinematography are very nice but not good enough to save this film (or its audience) from the doldrums.


Okay, first off I noticed this movie is insanely high, it's in the top 250 (I forget where) and I really did not like this movie. The acting was good, the premise was good, but the plot was utterly predictable and the dialogue was just awful. and this whole "secret ending/twist?" I think that anyone who saw the Sixth Sense could see it coming. This movie is overly hyped, and ranked way too high. 3/10


I don't know what so many people saw in this movie, I thought it was very boring. There was not much going on, Nicole Kidman looked like she was simply going for a paycheck here. If you are looking for a real suspenseful movie, this isn't it. Save your money and rent something worthwhile. 1 out of 10.


This film was not scary, nor was it exciting at any point. I was bored out of my skull watching this slow-developing piece of trash. It just didn't seem to ever get moving. I saw the ending coming a mile away, since it was a LOT like the ending to Sixth Sense. I've seen worse, but the hype surrounding this movie made it a HUGE disappointment. Terrible excuse for horror, only Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows was worse in that category.


This Movie Sucks. It's just like the Sixth Sense only it sucked.I didn't think it was possible for a movie to be that bad. They shouldn't have ever even made the film let alone release it on video. No offense but the few films I've ever seen Nichole Kidman in have been awful. If she did Panic Room like she was supposed to I wouldn't have seen it.


This was supposed to be a horror film? Maybe it was meant to just make the audience dumber from watching it so that they would think that it was good. This movie rode on Nicole Kidman's coat tails, basically needing her fame to succeed with any type of movie-goer response. i really cannot believe that i made it past the first hour... but i have a thing against walking out on movies. the not-so-surprising twist at the end really leaves you with the feeling that you can never get the last two hours of your life back. i could have been sleeping!


Hard to believe now that this middling TV Movie/Pilot, with a needlessly convoluted plot, would spark a phenomenon. Caught this on Starz Mystery Channel on satellite.

Seeing it for the first time in nearly 30 years, a few retrospective thoughts:

1. Interesting that Jaclyn Smith was front and center for the first act since she had the least amount of acting experience going in. Apparently, Kate Jackson (who was promised the lead) switched roles with her. Farrah is the 3rd banana here - history changed that.

2. It isn't surprising that the David Ogden Stiers character was dropped after the pilot. Originally added so that there would be a man who could "bail out" the Angels, he was really too stuffy for the show's fluff. David Doyle hit the notes perfectly.

3. I liked the jazzier sounding "main theme" as played in the movie. The rest of the score is typical 70's TV waka waka electronics.

4. Aside from a brief shot of Jacklyn Smith in a bikini and the requisite "Charlie Girl" snippets, there was little of the cheesy T&A exploitation that the show became known for (particularly in its first season).

And to think that this was hot stuff at the time. sigh.


You must wonder about the intelligence of TV viewers during the seventies when this gibberish was on top. I saw my first episode last week and was totally amazed at the amateur hour presented therein. A sixth grade dialogue, extremely emaciated plot, downright silly action scenes as the "girls" took on ruthless drug lords with their pipsqueak snubbies, absolutely pathetic performances, and the list goes on and on. But who could give a good performance when asked to do mindless garbage like this? No wonder I prefer books to television.


After the first two films, with their lavish sets, excellent acting, and state-of-the-art CGI, this comes as a massive disappointment. It's an ultra-low budget animation, so poorly drawn that it looks like a rough draft rather than a finished animation. The cast who played the Little family in the previous films return to voice their characters here, but the dubbing is so haphazard that you'll swear that different actors were used. The plot is paper-thin, the jokes are mostly lame, and even the very young are likely to get bored well before the end. A great shame, as the first Stuart Little in particular was a great hit with my daughter, and one of the best children's films of recent years. Stuart Little 3 is, however, best avoided.


Consider the wolves, reduced to mere caricatures of evil, in Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Consider the leopard from Disney's animated Tarzan, who was simply trying to survive. Consider the hyenas of The Lion King; science tells us that hyenas are successful hunters and caring parents within their pack, and yet here they've been reduced to stereotype; mangy, miserable poachers.

Now comes "The Beast" of Stuart Little 3. Her habitat is shrinking, her food has fled the encroachment of human civilization, her forests either destroyed or filled with the sounds and smells of ATVs and chainsaws. She herself has probably been hunted, running for her life from baying dogs and humans who only want to destroy her because she would look good on a wall.

But even through all this, she is less of a carnivore than her real-world cousins would be. She offers her potential prey a way out. Bring her food, and you may live. She may indeed feel some disdain for the "lesser" animals she deals with, but she might be forgiven, considering the life she's lead.

Indeed, she could be the tragic hero of this opus. She defends the last vest ages of The Really Wild, while her forest is altered and destroyed to make way for scout camps, roads, condos, subdivisions and strip malls, vanquished tellingly by a mouse who thinks he's human and a cat who has forgotten his catness.

Yes, this video is for children, but children learn from what they experience. What are we teaching them? Quietly, I root for The Beast.


as kids story's go,this ones no different-something happens,hero has to fix it(save/find/insert relevant problem here),has abit of trouble on way but alls OK in end-that much am pretty sure can give away without being accused of mentioning spoilers,in fact that could probably describe any child orientated film.If your kids like animated movies,this will make them happy regardless what i think.On other hand though,if they expect anything different on the animation front,they will be disappointed-most of the animation could have been done just as decent(or badly,depending on point of view,) in the 50's,in fact it looks like they may even have had that in mind intentionally when they made it for all i know.

To summarize its an OK film for kids but i think they forgot what made Stewart Little films liked in the 1st place,and thats decent animated characters in a real world environment,and since this is all animated i cannot see the same appeal being prevalent.


Stuart Little is back in an all awful sequel and this time he's a boy scout. It's funny how nature is seen in this movie as a playground meant to be tame and fun for city people with no idea of how to distinguish a pine tree from a mushroom. The cougar portrays of course the forces of evil who must be tracked down and vanquished by a goody-goody lab rat and a cat who acts more like an overgrown guinea-pig than a cat. The parents are as usual a goofy, happy pair with the father who sees vicious, vampire skunks and rabid chipmunks behind every single slimy toadstool and the mother who smiles and cleans up the mess without complaining.


Based upon release dates, I was provided with this version as opposed to the 2007 film of the similar name. Keeping an open-mind, I watched patiently.

People will celebrate its oddness of colliding civilizations and languages while also mentioning the threads of overlap in poor behavior in both the 'mudpeople' and the merely dressed better actors - this is not enough to make a good film. To fixate on the eccentricities without considering the cohesive whole does anyone considering spending time with this film a disservice. To start, instead of developing the divide between words and actions, the plot moves forward without leaving the viewer with any motif. Stylistically, not providing moments of quiet with the camera to draw out the characters' inner thoughts makes this picture forgettable. Utterly two-dimensional, I pity Sam Watterson's involvement.

There is humor unintentionally created by death and the indifference by the other characters. Amusement is highlighted at the end. The people's hysterical and manic attraction to merge with the jungle once more is laughable. Who knew croquet was so powerful?


Something of a labour of love, Colour Me Kubrick is a short biopic of con-man Alan Conway who successfully posed as Stanley Kubrick during the director's lifetime. Played by John Malkovich at his most enduringly camp, Conway charms the socks, money and underpants from a string of wealthy suckers and gay young men. A master of his game, he gets people to write large cheques to cover fictitious donations to charity dinners as readily as conning twenty quid off a rock band to buy them (and him) fags and alcohol.

Wildly exuberant and certainly colourful, the film is well directed and acted. Its main shortcoming are two fold. The plot, such as it is, comprises a series of extended sketches until Conway's eventual apprehension, which lends an air of repetitiveness. Secondly, although Malkovich's intensely colourful campness is a remarkable achievement, he stage centres in practically every scene and if you cannot fall completely in love with it, the effeminate preening eventually can look dated and rather irritating.

Colour Me Kubrick is a traditional camp comedy with lots of cross-references for film fans. If you enjoy the first five minutes you will love it, otherwise it may have you climbing the walls.


I saw this film recently at the Vancouver Film Fest and left thoroughly disappointed.

As other reviewers have pointed out, this film is rather one-dimensional. Easily 75% of the movie is Alan Conway (Malkovich) hanging out in bars trying to convince guys that he's Stanley Kubrick so they'll: a) give him free drinks and stuff AND/OR b) sleep with him. Which gets old pretty quick... Virtually no insight is given as to what drives Conway's need to escape the insignificance of his life.

Also, the repeated allusions to Kubrick's films are so heavy-handed that they some off feeling uninspired. A little more subtlety would have gone a long way, and prevented from reminding me of how superior Kubrick's films are in comparison to the one on-screen.

All in all, it's not a completely terrible movie. However, given the subject matter and the lead actor I definitely felt really let down by this film.


I went to this picture with the hope that -- if nothing else -- watching John Malkovich play a highly troubled delusional queen with a genius for manipulation and an obscene fashion sense would be enough to keep me entertained for an hour and change. It wasn't.

The flick's barely worth analyzing; it's simply a mess, handled so poorly that Malkovich's moments of comic mastery are lost in a sea of poorly executed photography, tepid writing and haphazard form. While director/prod Brian Cook was one of Kubrick's assistant directors we see that little to no talent ever rubbed off - things get so bad that one clings to the often forced and clumsy musical/visual homage's to the genius' work to at least quell that nagging voice that won't stop whispering "you spent eleven dollars on this...you spend eleven dollars on this..."

To say nothing about the quality of acting, photography, writing, form, pace, etc., one can credit Color Me Kubrick as a charming premise, but one gone sodden and awry with mediocre film-making.


If any proof was needed to show that John Malkovich is probably the most over-rated actor of his generation, then this it it.

His performance is a total embarrassment, as is his attempt at an English accent.

What is a great premise for a movie is ruined within minutes by inept direction and poor casting.

In the most unsubtle and ham-fisted of ways this film tries to reference Kubrick's pictures by using music associated with his films.

Two boys walk down a west London street with....what else but bowler hats.

This is unwatchable rubbish, plain and simple.


Malkovich gives a performance that carries the picture. But the picture goes nowhere! I wasn't offended by all the gay stuff in it. but I might have been were I gay. It's a bit much.

While there are a lot of references to Kubrick movies, there are few, if any, attempts to include any of his cinematic signatures; i.e. the tracking shot, the bathroom scene, the sullen stare into the camera. There are repetitive inclusions of music associated with this movies, Zarathustra, Thieving Magpie, Sarabande, snippets from Wendy Carlos' Clockwork Orange score. These become tiresome.

The movies fails, because the Alan Conway character is never explored in any way. This is Brian Cook's fault, not Malkovich's. Here's and example: The high point of this long-running con occurs in a restaurant, where Conway takes in super sharp Frank Rich of the New York Times. Now, regardless of Conway's background or motivation, this should have been a great moment for him. Was he scared? Was he challenged? Was he so into the con that it was inconsequential to him? He did go to the trouble of verifying Rich with the maitre'd. The script thought it was important. But the scene tells us nothing.

It's worth seeing, I suppose, for Kubrick fans like myself. But it adds nothing to the canon. The screenplay is fine, probably hits the right notes, but the direction is fatal.


I rented this movie tonight and after twenty minutes, my wife began washing dishes. Fifty minutes in and I was playing games on my cell. This movie has nothing to do with Stanley Kubrick so if you're intrigued because you are a Kubrick fan, don't waste your time. Looking at Brian Cook's resume, it seems like he was Kubrick's long time assistant director. Obviously he wasn't paying attention. Some of the compositions look very ameteurish, straight out of film school (characters placed in the middle of the frame, staring directly at the camera). Worst of all, the film gave no insight into Alan Conway and why he was doing the things he was doing. The dialogue is painfully self-conscious. Everybody in this film is completely aware there are in a film. Nobody acts like a real person. Even John Malkovich's performance (which others are praising) is very over the top, with an ounce of subtlety. Stay away...


i went into this expecting a documentary, or a biopic, or at least a drama that examined the events that occurred around this guy. what i got was a crappy comedy that played like a rip-off of catch me if you can. it seemed to me like they filmed several separate "incidents" that they found funny, then remembered that films are supposed to have plots, so they threw in one scene introducing his roommate as some guy smoking pot on his couch, and then we were expected to have an emotional reaction later on in the hospital scene when he's there and malkovich is pretending not to recognize him? the subplot with the escort service went nowhere and neither did the newspaper one. this director needs some practice.


This is an ugly little film in every respect. Story and character, execution and performance are all unpleasantly displayed in a film that remains leaden from start to finish.

It opens abruptly with Alan Conway, an alcoholic, fashion challenged gay man assuming the identity of uber famous but reclusive director Stanley Kubrick. This masquerade manages to induce drink, entry, money and sex from awestruck strangers. He's fortunate most of the time not to be exposed since he's done little research to pull off his deceptions and in one instance is unmasked when he accepts credit for a film most people know he didn't make.

As the dissolute Conway, John Malkovich is too affected to be effective. His over the top flaming performance borders on a nauseating stereotype. It's as if he is an outrageously gay man being John Malkovich.

The one lone conceit that shows a semblance of some wit in this film is the utilization of Kubrick's famous scores to accompany Conway on his journey. It's fun, a moment of light parody that is quickly buried under the mean spirited actions of the lead and misery of his powerless victims that permeates this unctuous work.


Either DVDs have created too many niche markets, or big time filmmakers have become so disengaged from public tastes that they're willing to come up with anything and shove it in our faces, thinking we will find interest in things that are just not interesting.

In recent times, Sean Penn filmed a story about a psychopath who tried to hijack a plane and crash it into Washington D.C. It was based on a true story about a nasty creep who only caused a lot of people trouble and killed some men. Did he rate a motion picture being filmed about his life? No. What was the point, except arrogance on the part of the filmmakers.

Colour Me Kubrick is the same type of story, about a nasty little loser who pretends to be someone else because A.) He wants free drinks B.) he's a nasty little loser, or C.) he wants free drinks. That's it. That's the whole story. Funny? No. Interesting? No. Sad? Only in that so much money was wasted on this project.

If you're interested in Stanley Kubrick, there is no reason to watch this film, it really has nothing to do with him. The thief who uses his name has no interest in Kubrick or even watches his movies. Generally, the whole thing is a waste of time.


just watching this on late night FREE TV.

bad acting, story, hairstyling, casting choreography, directing,,, can't even be bothered finishing the list.

i love bad TV. i laugh at lame 1 liners and cheap sets. but this is just plain bad.

i think the makers were going for a jean-claude/Dolph lundren type movie, but even they probably would have turned down the role.

the only thing i like is the supposed tough 'mafia' guys who would make anybody they threaten laugh in their face.

do not waste your money on this and if you are looking for cheap laughs you will be waiting a while.


I just caught this film when I was away on holiday and being a martial arts movie fan I thought I'd check it out, but I have to say it was diabolical.

The fight scenes are slow and poorly choreographed, the acting is laughable and the direction is deplorable. They must have pulled these actors off the streets and thrown them in front of the camera.

When you look at what people like Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan were doing over 20 years earlier it makes you wonder how these people have the face to make such rubbish. It really is THAT bad.

Don't bother spending any money on this film, buy your wife some flowers or something like that, you'll get a better result!


While not dreadful Beautiful Dreamer is so clichéd and just predicable that it fails on every front.

A simple tale of childhood love, that grew up, and get married. He then goes off to the Second World War and loses his memory (or has dissociative personality disorder) anyhoo he does not remember his previous life. When his wife's car breaks down and finds him in a small town, and he cannot remember her, there follows the inevitable tale of discovery and love reborn.

We normally love romantic movies but this is too simple to really shine. The camera and lighting are all pretty basic and it all looks and feels like to belongs instantly on Hallmark.

I cannot recommend this: it is just to saccharine, and the script lacks any depth of its complicated topic - all in all it felt barely OK, and barely romantic: just too predictable, linear, and made for TV values to shine.

Sorry...not one for the heart or brain...


Although the locations were authentic and Cinematography good; the plot was very unlikely and not credible. It was as credible and plausible as an Eagle picking up a beagle dog taking him to great height, dropping him, the dog catching a pigeon in flight, the Dog landing in pile of Hay, bouncing harmlessly, making a great meal of the pigeon only to be found by the rancher who was just thinking about buying a Beagle for his daughter who had been begging for one. C'mon!! the writer should NEVER be allowed to write again.

The acting was indeed cheesy and corny at times. probably induced by bad writing and bad story line. I actually, rolled my eyes, huffed and puffed at times

granted that this movie tries to appeal to the Human condition and tries to make a story about romance and love, it just doesn't work! The writer tried to create a jigsaw puzzle with pieces and elements that did NOT belong to the same set.

it is also puzzling that the director did not catch any of this. and appeared not quite prepared to be a director and unable to guide the actors.

I also noticed that all the "GREAT" reviews here, were all from people in Los Angeles where this company is based. no doubt from people all connected to this movie and thus meaningless to me.


Awful is not a strong word in the case of this messy soap opera. While I'm not divulging any secrets of the movie plot (there is no plot to mention), you won't get to see this movie on any wide release or even a small release in the theaters. If they are lucky, a TV sale on LifeTime TV might land in the director's backyard.

This movie is like a damaged plane made of parts that cannot fit and it simply doesn't take off. The writer hasn't stop for a second to think of his writing, basically writing the movie and perhaps reading a book on how to write movies at the same time.

The director is childish to think she can direct, since any good director would change lines, direct actors to react a certain way and frame the shot so that is not in a constant 3-shot. While the cinematography is beautiful, the story tries very hard. I was actually impressed with the producing because the movie looks very good for a small budget (under $1 mil). But then again, who cares about that when the movie is a total waste of your almost 2 hours, hours that will NEVER come back.


While it is true that this film is a lot like the book, it just does not make cinematic sense( or any other sort of sense either. It is painful to watch. The creature is just not that ugly. ve seen people look worse after a weekend bender. WHY exactly does everyone fear him as though he was shedding his skin? And the genius Viktor is so totally stupid that he just can't help pissing off the murderous creature and then putting his loved ones conveniently in its path and running off somewhere so that it can have an easy uninterrupted go of it. The creature isn't that convincing. Its only real argument is that it had to kill people no matter how harmless because he was angry at other people. It never explains just why it never harmed anyone that actually mocked it, just people that did absolutely nothing to it whatsoever. The most silly part is where Viktor runs after a beggar(even though the beggar is half of the creatures size and obviously human)can conveniently walk through a door and kill her without breaking a sweat. It is also inexplicable why Viktor could simply make sure that the creatures mate was unable to reproduce instead of torching her in front of the monster. Its rather predictable what would happen next. Viktor even conveniently screams NOOOOOOOOOO instead of shooting at it so that it could run away and seek vengeance. Please do not watch without a barf bag handy.


My daughter brought home the DVD of this mess the other night for a school assignment. She asked if I could watch with her to help with the assignment. What started out with so much promise (Donald Sutherland) just blathered away into a Jane Austinique exercise in excess. Other than Sutherland and Hurt, the cast was kind of weak, the adaptation of what is supposed to be a classic horror novel was made to look more like a spoof of Mel Brook's "Young Frankenstein". Hey its a spoof of a spoof. While I do understand that first it's a "Hallmark" (as in greeting cards) Production, so right there schmaltz and rubbish and that it was also a "Mini-Series", it seemed as though the producers were looking only to fill time and in a feature package... (DVD) meant for one complete viewing... it came across so God awfully long and boring. Almost as draining as watching a "Pirates of the Caribbean" episode. I started cheering for the monster to kill off everyone so that the stupid film would end already. If you have insomnia, and need some help sleeping - please watch this. If, however, you have better things to do with your 3 some hours, skip this. Blechh!


I thought of a couple of director Takashi Miike's movies while watching Full Metal Yakuza- Ichi the Killer and Izo- because of what they have sort of in line with it. Both of those films have a protagonist who, more or less, is on a hell-bent path of murderous destruction. But even Izo, in comparison with this (and I consider Izo a flawed film), is more worthwhile than this minor claptrap. Maybe it's also a sign of what Miike had with better things to come, as it was just a short on-assignment gig to fill up his V-Cinema requirements. Not that you can't tell he might've had a hand in some scenes, notably the most violent and abrasive ones where the hero of the title gets his revenge (albeit with the head of one yakuza and the heart & body of another, ho-ho). There's not much story to it at all, except that a lowly gangster gets gunned down when his mentor, a yakuza previously in jail for 7 years, gets out and gets killed too. A mad scientist dubbed the "nutty professor" (double ho-ho) puts them back together, and this time totally in metal. Not that there aren't any other "special" modifications too, like in the groin area to be precise (not just quick blue electrical flashes go through when he gets charged up).

Then the exploitation-fun continues, as the bare plot wheels away until I couldn't really care less about whatever really happened with most of the characters, and just wondered when the next big huge violent gush of blood would occur. The special effects, even for something as quick and ultra low-budget (and yes, even for a Robocop spin-off it's very low-budget, even with an invention or two in Miike's arsenal), are cheesy, and sometimes the film/video speed reminded me of seeing kids movies from the 80s or something. The only side development in any of the characters, however shallow, is with a woman (a prostitute I believe) who is with another man after a previous ill-timed engagement. Sure to be OK enough for most just looking for a splatteriffic time, but I think to really get a lot more laughs out of it I'd have to be pretty wasted. It's not devoid of punch, but it's got nothing in the way of a sharpness of wit or wild visual panache of Miike's other works. It's just what to expect- a V-Cinema gimmick made long into a feature with so-so acting and a yakuza story that's nothing new; I don't even think it'll get too much better if on a repeat viewing either.


This would appear to be one of them. If you're a Miike completist, and you simply must see this, try the DVD. That way you can learn to love the blessed ff button. It's cheap and cheesy gore, and I have no complaints about that, but the script appears to have been written by a drunk zombie. Truly it sucks. The interview with Miike on the Arts Magic DVD pretty much explains how and why gonzo trash like this got made, but it doesn't really redeem the 75% of this movie which is just ham awful. It would make a great manga, but the translation to live action only serves to emphasise the lameness of the Franken-san "plot". It clunks, but as a contrast to the beautifully scripted and acted films he's made since, it just about bears watching. Try to borrow or steal a copy of the DVD. That way you won't feel ripped off.


Japanese film maker talent and inventive genius Takashi Miike (born 1960) has done incredible amount of films in his not-even-so-long career so far. He has done made-for-video cheapies and big screen films that vary from unconventional and wonderful Yakuza tales to insane comic book adaptations to mind blowing satires, and the greater the themes in these films are, the more serious he is and uses his ideas and crazy creativity with restraint inside the otherwise serious world he's created: a bazooka torn from a guy's back isn't any funny moment in Dead or Alive (1999) but has its important meaning for the theme telling so much about the character(s) and their values in the violent world Miike depicts.

His Full Metal Yakuza aka Full Metal Gokudo (1997) belongs to the cheap and fastly made video films and it is easy to tell it is a very exploitation oriented market that wants simple, violent and graphic films without much more merits in them. Full Metal Yakuza tells the Robocop-like (1987, Paul Verhoeven) story of a killed Yakuza who gets back to life as he is turned into a robot/human by one crazy scientist. He wants to avenge the death of his friend as well as try to save his former love from the sadistic hands of the rival Yakuza. Ultra violence and gore ensues and all the potential that was used to wonderful perfection in Fudoh (1996), for example, is not there in this film.

There are some nice Japanese cinema elements like the silence that tells more than words. The scene in the beach after a refusal to kill one Yakuza boss is especially memorable and also close to the work of Takeshi Kitano. Still the revenge theme is not handled here as it was in Dead or Alive or Fudoh. In Full Metal Yakuza, violence and acts of revenge don't have any other meaning than to satisfy the gore audience and that is pretty sad for those who'd like to see Miike making more serious cinema all the time. In real world, violence and revenge is never as harmless and fun as in this film and Miike for sure would have talents to make real films from the subject matter, as he's done. Also the ending, showing how desperate the characters are for personal revenge and payback would be as wonderful as in those other films, but now it all is just mostly comical trash as Miike definitely wasn't doing this for anything else than money and to satisfy his huge need to work. It is hard to make any interpretations on single images and scenes while everything before and after them fights against any serious analyzes.

Also the way how females are treated and depicted is pretty unpleasant. I don't think there's even one normal, calm and balanced female character here, all are just screaming and sudden bitches that just need to be killed off by the more or less restrained men. The ending involves a very nasty abusion scene of a female character and that is definitely too strong in a trashy film like this. But fortunately it ends in a way that at least that female had someone who cared for her and loved her so at least females are not completely worthless in the film. Miike has depicted females in various ways and at least films like Fudoh and Rainy Dog show them equally significant, if not always strong, with the men.

The film has also very few of the wonderful cinematic elements and ideas of Miike like the kinetic storytelling and speed of City of Lost Souls aka The Hazard City (2000), the brilliant and surreal imagery of one of his masterpieces Dead or Alive, the claustrophobic, creepy and disturbing brilliance of Audition (1999) or the manic elements in the soundtrack, editing and camerawork of Koroshiya Ichi aka Ichi the Killer (2001). Of course the budget in Full Metal Yakuza was much smaller than in those mentioned films, but still the film doesn't offer any significant achievements of its director, other than the typical ultra violence and silliness. At least the always so great criticism towards the Japanese censors who like to censor all the pubic hair off the films is there and again very delightfully so. Another examples of these opinions can be found in his films like Visitor Q (2001) and Rainy Dog (1997). I'm sure the Japanese producers and censors have a lot of fun when they see what has Takashi done now!

The film is high on its gore level and so reminds pretty much of Ichi the Killer, a film that is filled with cartoonish violence and blood plus sadism towards both females and males. Full Metal Yakuza has plenty of swordfights (!) and other bloody carnage that gives the makers an opportunity to throw in plenty of blood geysirs and splatter that satisfies some viewers but is not enough when the film is by talented director like Miike. Neither this or Ichi the Killer are to be taken seriously (hardly anyone takes, at least Full Metal Yakuza), and especially Ichi, despite its flaws and negative sides, tells something about the audience, that laughs looking like a bunch of monkeys and as sorry characters as those inside the film, when someone's being tortured and brutally murdered. Ichi the Killer has also some interesting elements in the form of Ichi himself, who is a traumatized boy with violent environment and society around him. This important theme is handled more carefully in Rainy Dog and also in Fudoh.

Full Metal Yakuza is filled with desperate and weak human beings that have only few civilized characteristics that make it able to call them men, not only beasts, which they very often are inside in Miike's cinema. Full Metal Yakuza is far from his greatest achievements and ambitions and thus is not at all among his most noteworthy films, but that is understandable considered the film's speedy low budget exploitation money maker status. 4/10 but only as a lover of Japanese cinema. Anyone with not interest in this great cinema and its elements won't likely to be able to sit through the manic and insane (and also the most uninspired) examples of it, like Full Metal Yakuza.


Its obvious political biases aside, this movie was terribly made and impossible to follow. Scenes were pieced together as if someone had cut up the reel, scattered the tape on the ground, and given the director only five minutes to tape it back together in no particular order. When characters were in doubt for dialogue, which was often, unnecessary profanity was used liberally. The movie didn't make sense, it preached incessantly, and it had the same entertainment value as cutting off your own finger. Alsino can keep his condor, thank you.


Blood Shed/Crazed/slipping Into Darkness was the first movie I ever reviewed on IMDB. Initially I totally bashed the film. After A second viewing I take it back completly!!! The fact that the video art work makes it look like a violent-gore film lead to my negative review. I was expecting a gore fest and instead got a film with low body count and no gore. This film is actually very good. Their are a lot of interesting little things in this movie proving way ahead of the current events of our time. The lead character is constantly having flashbacks of his childhood. Most interesting is the priest flashbacks, the film seems to hint that he was molested by a priest especially of the quick shots of the boy on his knees possibly in a confessional booth. Ironically this issue is currently all over the news. It's almost as if the writer knew of a dirty little secret and was exposing it with this film. The character's army flashbacks are interesting too, especially since real life serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had a bad experience in the army as well. It seems to me at second look that this film is a realistic look of how a lonley individual with serious past issues can slowly become completly insane and end up murdering people. To top it off there is some funny dialogue by the old ladies in this film to soften the serious tone. A second look at this film reveals a seriously under rated study of insanity. The original title Slipping into Darkness fits the movie better than the Blood Shed tag which will steer you the wrong way!


This is a low budget movie and it has it's flaws but I liked it because of the way it showed how loneliness, alienation and a bad upbringing can turn a man from being a quiet introvert into a peeping tom and then a murderer and then full blown insanity. Laszlo Papas has the unfortunate habit of mumbling his lines but maybe this was done so to deliberately display the ostracised nature of his character. If so, my apologies to Mr Papas. Belle Mitchell, who previously had appeared in House of Frankenstein and The Beast With Five Fingers, also stars as the landlady of the boarding house where the title character stays.


CRAZED is one obscure movie.

It's quite forgettable and boring but not bad. I've seen much worse than this.

While watching it, I couldn't figure out when it was made, who was in it or why it was made. I couldn't help but feel that this movie was made in the 1970s, not 80s. The whole cast is unknown to me. And the reason why it was made is even more obscure. It's not horrific enough to be considered an all-out horror film. But it's too gruesome to be considered a standard melodrama. The characters in the movie were all annoying, certainly the woman who's looking for a room. Talk about an unpleasant character. And the killer was such a loser that it's impossible to empathize with him. The filmmaking is neither this nor that. It's very conventional filmmaking with very little personal, artistic touches to it but it's not 100% commercial filmmaking because of its low budget.

In the end, it's like watching nothing at all.

BTW, this film is also known as BLOOD SHED. I wonder why they called it that because there's no shed to be found anywhere in the entire movie.


I'm willing to forgive the fact that Billy Crystal declared this movie better than the first one and overlook the very contrived inclusion of former cattle drive participants as well as an evil twin. All that notwithstanding, this sad sequel forgets the honest and genuine drama that was at the heart of the original film and replaces it with dopey, juvenile humor and an egregious attempt at sentimentality. We get to hear the same boring, recycled jokes from the first movie beginning with the birthday morning phone call, to the dialogue about setting VCRs, to the same dumb joke, "He's behind me isn't he?" I know Crystal's irritating screaming is always good for a chuckle, isn't it? It just goes to show if a joke doesn't work the first time, use it again, only louder. If you're a Jon Lovitz fan and want to see him do a halfway decent attempt at drama rather than his schmaltzy performance in this movie, I recommend Mr. Destiny. If you want to see Billy Crystal do drama, don't. I'll admit that I did like this movie when it first came out, but I've since graduated from Junior High. This movie was an overall eye-rolling train wreck which was only made to capitalize on the laurels of the first one.


Utter contrivance is the only way to describe this complete rehash of the 1991 smash hit comedy "City Slickers". Again we have three lost, middle aged men searching the wild west for treasure, again accompanied by craggy faced, stony hearted Jack Palance, back from the dead, as it were. Not only is the basic plot structure the same, but all the clever comic moments from the first film are carefully milked again here.

Crystal appears to be doing an old routine that looks very tired from early on. Support form comics Daniel Stern and Jon Lovitz (whose character is a waste of space) is uninspired, and it's left to the ever enjoyable Jack Palance to rescue the sinking ship, which he really isn't quite able to do.

Writers Billy Crystal, Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel are never able to capture any of the hilarious moments that made the '91 flick so successful, yet they did commit the same error that the original movie's writers Ganz and Mandel did in the first, letting proceedings get clumsily sloppy at the close.

Scene after scene is so obviously contrived that it is impossible to let go and enjoy the film. Even one fantastic piece of eye catching cinematography is clearly a set up. What can you do?

Monday, June 10, 1996 - Video


Every so often you get a sequel to a really good movie that is even better than the original; sadly this is not one of them.

The gags are more crude than subtle, and stretched till all the stupid people get them, to the point of discomfort, and redoing the VCR gag that was great first time round was a crime against comedy.

I loved the first film and after waiting 15 years to catch CS2 I have to say I was disappointed. The start is slow and bogged down by domestic issues that did not contribute to the plot in any meaningful fashion.

CS1 was uplifting, CS2 is a predictable repeat and subtracts from your fondness for the characters as they discover greed.

Thankfully Jack Palance lived on to make a few more films after this for us to remember him by, may he rest in peace.


Curly had a twin brother? Really? And he is just as surly? Wow! Well, let's make a great sequel. OR NOT. Bruno was smart. They asked him back, he probably read the script and said something to the effect of "No way! Never! Not for all the money in Paris Hilton's Yochee!" And seeing it, it's no wonder Jon Lovitz did it. This is the same guy who starred with Teri Garr WAY past her Mr. Mom days. Remember all the things you loved about the first one? They are here in a perverted unfunny way. I don't mean perverted in the touching little boys sense, but in the sense they are taking something good and molesting it. City Slickers isn't a classic, its cute but sappy and melodramatic at times. The second one just plain blows. It gets on it's knees and starts bobbing like a trained seal. While the first one was about a search for one's self, the second one was about money. And that ending? Incredibly dumb. I wish I could go back in time and sabotage this movie. Burn the sets, kill minor actors. If you are someone who enjoys watching this, drink heavily. You got nothing going for you.


I don't think that the first one really needed a sequel, but "City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold" is OK if we just accept it as completely ridiculous. Billy Crystal and Daniel Stern reprise their roles from the original, this time looking for gold said to be buried in the mountains where they had the cattle drive, but Jon Lovitz replaces Bruno Kirby. Jack Palance also returns, not as Curly but as his brother Duke. Needless to say, there's a series of silly situations along the way.

I guess that I wouldn't call this movie god-awful - the comments about trying to milk the "cow" were pretty funny - but they really didn't need to make this sequel; the original was just fine. I can see why Billy Crystal didn't have any hits in between "City Slickers" and "Analyze This".

Also starring Patricia Wettig, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Bill McKinney (the "squeal like a pig" guy from "Deliverance"), David Paymer, Josh Mostel, and Billy Crystal's two daughters.


This movie was the worst movie I have ever seen. Besides not being scary it had bad writing and directing. I won't even get started on the soundtrack. The scariest part of the movie was when I knew there was going to be a ghost in the shower, that guy was freaking creepy looking. Me and my roommate laughed through the whole thing, so funny I am glad I started with this movie. It wasn't a complete waste of time I got a lot of laughs and lot of smart ass lines that I will use on my roommates. (You you you you you you) Alright what is with the blackouts they just didn't feel like writing that part. "The Making Of The Off Season" "Well we went to this small town in the middle of BFE and I had my sister's hand held camera and I handed my friends the napkins I had wrote the play on and we had a pizza and some beer and by the next morning I had a movie." Finally, I will leave this movie alone on this last note, please tell me that they aren't making a sequel and they just left the end like that for the hell of it. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. GO TO THE STORE FIND THIS MOVIE AND THROW IT AT THE OWNER FOR EVEN HAVING THIS MOVIE IN HIS STORE.


To say this movie is low budgeted is an overstatement. If you like the quality, the production value, and the acting of a poorly done student film, you will love this one.

The story: Two people decided to hole up in a small room at a rundown motel so he could write his next great play while his girlfriend works at a menial job in town to supporting him. Right off, strange things begin to happen in this cramp room. As the day gone by, things become worst and worst.

The good: the first two minutes of the movie, when I thought this is going to be a reality style horror movie shot on video instead of film.

The bad: The next 83 minutes of the movie. First of all, the surroundings of this movie doesn't promote any scariness nor creepiness. The motel room the haunting is suppose to take place is not big enough to fit two people along with a ghost. I mean, if a ghost wants to haunt the room they are in, one person needs to leave the room first. The directing is amateurish and so is the camera work, especially halfway thorogh the movie when the camera-person decided to play with the zoom lens. The sound is hard to heard. The male lead is a poster boy of over-acting. Nothing in this movie is remotely scary for a ghost story. I am very glad that I only rented this movie instead.


I think this one goes down as the worst horror film of all time. If not the worst film of all time. And I'm really not kidding.

I was mislead into watching this piece of garbage when I spotted the cover at a local Hollywood Video rental store. The cover looked promising, and I was thinking this would be something along the lines of "The Shining" but I was so very wrong. And I later noticed that on the cover, a critic (must've been a dumb one at that) quoted this "The scariest horror film since The Shinning". Yes, "The SHINNING".

This film is basically about a couple who move into a cracker jack box hotel room at some cheap seaside hotel, and they begin to see weird stuff and it's somehow related to the hotel's past.

The only thing remotely memorable about this film is Angus Scrimm's performance (well known as The Tall Man from "Phantasm"), but other than that, the rest of the film is just complete and utter trash. I will say this film created a sense of claustrophobia, 99% of it took place in that tiny hotel room, but it was just plain awful. Terrible acting, extremely weak script, nothing scary at all, really bad cinematography, etc. I'd say this is even way below you're average B-horror film. Avoid at all costs, unless you want to laugh and make fun of it for the hour and a half. Even then, I don't think sitting through it is even worth the laughter. 1/10.


This movie is garbage. It looked interesting and scary so I rented it from Rogers. What also drew me to see it was the comment that it is the scariest movie since The Shining. Yeah right. This movie is TERRIBLE. I am not even exaggerating. It is the worst film I have ever seen, and I really question why ANYBODY would give this movie anything higher than a 2/10 rating. First off, the plot is pathetic and it is extremely boring. There were rarely any moments that the movie was scary at all. The editing was horrible as well. Something would happen in the movie, then all of a sudden it will cut to another scene and never carry on what happened. It's like they just stuck it in there for no apparent reason. The story is very hard to follow in the sense that it makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Don't waste your money or time with this film. Not even halfway through the movie, my mom and I started laughing because it was just so pathetic to the point that it turned into a comedy. Whoever said it was the scariest movie since The Shining should be ashamed. It is an utter disgrace to compare such garbage with The Shining! I actually got scared watching the Shining and had nightmares! I was a little young when I watched it, but still, it was entertaining.


by far thee worst movie i have ever seen in my life! i would rather watch teletubbies over this movie! i am telling you this was a waste of time and money! -bad acting! -bad, cheesy music! -bad filming! it looks more like teenagers taped it for a project.. which they got an F on!

me & my mom were at the video store looking for a good, scary movie.. i came across this one and the cover made it look like a great one. so i thought what the heck.. it looks good so let's get it.. well we just watched it and we couldn't wait for it to be over with.. we gave it a chance and didn't stop watching.. but it was dumb! sorry to any of you who may like this movie.. for some odd reason.. but this is my opinion.. and a bunch of others too so if you like scary movies.. Don't LET THE CASE FOOL YOU!!! THIS IS NOT A GOOD HORROR MOVIE AT ALL!!


My roommate and I rented three movies and this was one of them...We should have saved it for last so that we could watch something funny before we went to bed. It was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

What was the director thinking? This story has been done over and over and over again. And what's with the jumping around so much? It's annoying and...just plain annoying! AND they left room for sequel! WHY?

I think my roommate and I are going to throw it out the window. Or maybe we'll just play Frisbee with it. I haven't decided yet. Either way, I'll get some entertainment out of it.

Funniest "scary" movie ever.


If you have time to waste, and I MEAN WASTE, then by all means this is the movie for you. The only half decent actress is the lead, Christina Campenella, the rest must have been hired from the unemployment line. The story seems to me an extremely low budget version of "The Shining" and takes place MOSTLY in a cheap motel room. A couple leave New York city to move in a half star motel room in Maine( for some reason, I just thought of the actors) so the guy ( Don Wood) can write his best selling novel, while his girlfriend works in a library. After they move in, strange things start happening. The feeble attempts to scare you are laughable, if not sad. Of course, the room number is 13, which must have required a great deal of thought for the writer to come up with something so original, and is haunted by a woman who had a relationship with a minister. This movie has a real crappy soundtrack that sounds like a propeller plane, which is really annoying! This film is true proof that they will put anything on DVD. The movie is written, produced and directed by the same guy, and believe me it shows. I can honestly say this is the worst movie, by far, I have ever seen. I have the movie on DVD, which in one way is a good thing, it's a perfect cure for my insomnia. This film is truly a horror, it's horrible! Take my word for it, don't pay to see this movie, they should pay you to see it!


The movie has a horror category.It justifies its horror category via use of dumb dialog, and acting that must be a deliberate spoof,characterization that borders on moronic. The references to the living accommodations were for an apartment but it looked like a motel room.I can't identify one redeeming feature of this movie. If I paid full theater price for this waste of film I would never go to another movie.Watching cartoons would be preferable.I was lucky because the DVD I rented was defective and only about fifty percent of it was viewable. Save your money by not bothering with this piece of junk. Does anyone with movie making knowledge approve of a piece of work before it is released?


My wife and I love horror movies and bad ones at that, but this is failure on all levels.

It starts with bad cinematography, as we see the "happy couple" looking for the hotel. The whole exchange is shot from behind each actors shoulder. And throughout the couples check and initial dialogue with the neighbor we hardly get a clear shot of the actors faces, except in the hotel mirror.

The first half of the film amounts to a bad retelling on the shining. Jerk of a boyfriend has writers block and becomes a drunk, while the girlfriend supports them both (we see no emotional connection in the actors or reason for us to believe they are even sleeping together, let alone in a relationship). Vaguely odd things happen, a purple coolaid stain on the bed (which we are to believe is blood) comes and goes, the "writer" sees ghosts, and we discover the "writer" isn't really writing.

At this point the girlfriend gets sick and so does the plot. The bf freaks out and leaves, and the gf, jobless (because she has been sick for so long), is left to face the supposed evil of the room alone. In the only successful jump scene of the move the gf takes a shower only to find a dirty, gray-haired hippy squatting in the shower behind her.

The climatic scene of the film is little more than the ghost of the gf's mother telling her to leave alternated with another ghost telling her to stay and the gf pacing or rolling on the floors.

I feel this film is victim of a singular lack of vision on the part of the writer/director/editor. It seems that a lot of promising elements were here, but they failed to be developed by either the writer, the director, or the editor.


Shot on video...and not very well. Amateur acting. Did not use Scrimm very well. Director has no sense of pacing. Shot over ten days and looks it. Scares not scary. Motel location is extremely colorless. Too ordinary. Camera work is languid, lighting too harsh. Probably cost nest to nothing nothing to make. So all in all, this another shot on video waste of time that show a complete lack of talent on the director's part. The actors seem to struggle with the dialog. Only Scrimm seems to stand out, but the director does not cover him effectively. Premise of the script has merit and could be utilized well in a more expensive production, but is let down by the threadbare production values of this film.


I picked up this movie in the hopes that it was a good suspenseful ghost story. That is not what I got.

This movie must have been produced on a shoe string of a budget, from the odd camera angles to the meandering around the plot, this movie was a big disappointment.

I do believe it had the right ingredients, but just needed more direction and some better actors. The only thing that kept me from turning it off is my curiosity of just how bad this movie could get.

The ending was abrupt, leaving all sorts of questions in the viewers mind. Much like this review.

I do not recommend this flick.


This is a low budget, indie horror film that takes a downward spiral from the start. This is a haunting tale, but the scares are pretty weak. A writer(Don Wood)and his girlfriend(Christina Campenella)leave the dog-eat-dog days of New York City for a quieter location...Maine. The couple check into a dingy motel and settle down in Room #13. Strange things begin to happen in the one-room apartment and there is no place to run. Having writer's block is nothing compared to unwelcome spirits of former murdered guests of Room #13. Warning...the cover art of the DVD is very misleading and the movie inside is less interesting. Others in the cast: Larry Fessenden, Jamie Sneider and Angus Scrimm.


My dad and I were at the local video store trying to find something to rent when we saw this. The cover made the movie look fairly creepy, and the comment on the back "The most terrifying movie since The Shining" (probably by the director's mom) made it look like a decent movie. We were wrong. This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is horrible, the camera quality is equally terrible, and I'm still not sure if I even fully understand the plot. But man was this movie entertaining. I love bad horror movies, but this one takes the cake. It was hysterical. We've got a homeless guy flipping the bird for 20 minutes....that had to be my favorite part. We have an old lady who apparently "forgets" to wash blood-stained bed sheets and leaves them in the hotel rooms. My dad and I were literally in tears throughout the whole movie. I would only recommend this if you're a fan of crappy horror movies that you can laugh at. If not, then this film would be a huge waste of your time and money.


this movie isn't scary or sad funny nothing this is more of a ghost story then a scary movie i wasn't scared but i wont give it a one because i thought it was good to watch there's only one or two good reviews on this i say its OK but

scary film so go rent that or this there are thousands of scary movies though more scary then this like high tension saw and much more and its nothing like the shining this is not a scary movie but if you like old like scary movies that are like this i say you rent it and wacth it and like it but if you like scary movies you can get something eles.rated pg13 for mild language


Don't even bother with this movie. I can only hope that I'm as lucky as another commenter on here, and get a free rental out of how ridiculously awful this movie was. Just goes to show you: don't judge a book by its cover. The DVD cover made it out to be something relatively enjoyable, and it was the biggest crock of crap I've ever seen. The official website for the movie even mentions the misleading cover... Thanks, guys. How this made it into rental stores, let alone the "horror" section, I'll never know. It's not even bad enough to laugh at. The writer should take some advice from the lead character in his own story, and go out to a bar instead of trying to write film scripts.


Leave off without Off Season

After having driven to the Viking hotel in Portland (ME) from Manhattan during the off season, a playwright and his girlfriend settle in to their new home only to find strange things abound. They both begin to experience the strange things, yet neither seem interested in revealing those experiences to each other - for no good reason. The oddities soon take a toll on their relationship physically manifesting mainly against the girlfriend (probably because she doesn't walk around in the hotel room naked like any respectable B-Horror actress should). She suffers dearly getting the paranormal flu (who knew the afterlife was so unsanitary?!), booted from her job (as a part time librarian?), dumped by the boyfriend (for the company of the day drinking town hooligan; a guy that hangs out across the street from the hotel and flips off the manager when confronted - oooooh....scary), and a sweltering shiner (beware of the dangerous library book). No worries for her though because a dead relative that talks through the answering machine (only after the beep) to her will help guide her through the advances of dirty old men wielding small cactus, long haired freaky wet men cowering in the shower (don't get hopes up for any nudity!), and homicidal book smacking psycho chicks. Our heroine triumphs in the end writing her own best seller exposing the exploits of another best selling novelist that co-incidentally lived in the same hotel before she arrived.

Believe me when I say I am making this movie sound better than it is. It is an incredibly bad movie that attempts weakly to capture small town colloquialisms by spinning them into a yarn of mystery and horror (which it doesn't). The problem is the writing and the direction. The plot is almost impossible to follow (not in a good way) and is filled with a myriad of ridiculousness (would the makers of this movie please decide if it is cold or warm or what is the actual weather pattern in Portland during the off season! Sheez!). For the psychological thriller fan, the story is not tight and the characters hold no interest. For the B-horror fan, this movie is missing all the elements - no gratuitous nudity, no slashing, and no chasing.

The only screams are coming from the people that paid to see this movie.

Don't say I didn't warn you!!


Well during a girls night out we were looking for a good, scary movie, or a good chick flick, we were all in the mood for a scary movie, and from the looks of the cover this seemed to be what we were looking for. We rented it in hopes to watch it late and be scared enough not to sleep. Well it wasn't scary and there were no parts of it that were scary, although it was good for a few laughs. There were just some parts of it that were so stupid, that you would laugh at it. Me and my friends were having more fun making fun of the movie than we had most of the night. The camera shots are horrible, and there are a lot of cheesy scenes and cheesy lines. The first hint that it is prob going to be dumb is the fact that a room is haunted. It makes it seem like a first graders scary movie. I must say if you are wanting to watch a cheesy movie that you and your friends can make fun of, this works. I don't think someone should watch it alone because it isn't as fun that way. It would be a lot more stupid by yourself than with someone. If your into cheesy films this is a good one, but if you are not a fan of dumb things then I suggest not even trying it. The cover of the movie is deceiving. They did a lot better on the cover graphics than they did on the graphics through the whole movie.


How a terrible, terrible movie like this is financed and distributed to video stores is beyond belief. The cover box in the store is completely misleading as you think you are getting a fair to good quality product but you soon realize that this film looks like a film school video with a budget of about 5 hundred dollars and filmed over a weekend - unbelievable. The only reason I sat through it was because some reviewers said it was so bad it was funny...It wasn't, it was painfully bad. Lame dialogue, direction, acting, story - you name it, it was bad, really bad!. I going to try and get my money back from the store that rented this garbage.


The Off Season...sounds like what the director was thinking before he started this production because this is not something I would want on my professional resume. In two words...it sucked. It had its comedic moments, Who says Poo-Poo these days? and a drunk guy who seemed to flip some lady a bird for the better part of 10 minutes. Was there nothing else to pitch to the production company? Oh wait the production company probably gave them a budget smaller than the amount I got for milk money in grade school. I can't believe this movie lasted close to two hours since I personally didn't believe there was 32 seconds of useful material in this horrid farce of a movie. I just threw up a little in my mouth. Nope here comes the rest of it I gotta go.


This movie was by far the worst movie I have ever watched. The acting was horrific, the story was absolutely painful. The plot was lacking in every aspect. the majority of this movie consisted of "small talk" between two seemingly unexperienced actors with what appeared to be an extensive amount of extremely bad "Ad Lib". Lets put it this way, when I returned this movie one of the employees gave me a free rental after "Over" apologizing for allowing me to rent it in the fist place. Don't waste your precious life watching this movie. If you already have I feel for ya! Get together with your buddies, have way too much to drink, grab a pen and paper, a video camera and by morning you'll have a film ten times better then this one.


This movie is one of the worst movies to be put on film since The Blair Witch Project. The Actor who plays Ted could barely walk let alone act. Listening to the back and fourth dialog was as good as torture and the actors couldn't have landed a role in a elementary school play. Not only was the writing poor but the plot has more holes in it then a homeless mans shirt. The ending could go down in history as one of the worst ever. It was a pathetic attempt to create a modern day "Shining" It failed worse than Tom Greens attempt to do a late night talk show. You're better off spending five dollars on an uncooked burger from Arbys than rent this movie. Two words to sum up this movie "Putrid Misery".


I have never felt moved to write a movie review before... but this was so bad and such a total waste of time that I feel obligated to warn others... just as I would if I knew the plague was headed our way...

The plot (well, what plot, really?) was insipid, the acting was horrid, the dialogue inane... And it wasn't in the least bit scary, save for a few (very few) momentary snatches of startle reflex. About the only good thing I can say about this movie (and it is a stretch) is that there are parts that are so bad that the campiness of the scene or character sticks in one's mind... but unfortunately rather like a fish bone in one's throat! The only reason I even finished watching the movie is that I have some issues with OCD in certain venues, and one of the weirder (and in this case maddeningly inconvenient) manifestations of this is that once I start a movie, I feel compelled to finish it... although, on this one I almost threw in the towel. My wife had the good sense to roll over and fall asleep after the first 15 minutes, the fact of which I am certainly envious.

Avoid this movie! Seriously, it has nothing remotely worth your time to offer... My wife and I wanted to see it in part because we just returned from our yearly vacation in Maine, and we hoped to see some Maine scenes in addition to watching a good New England horror flick around Halloween. But dear reader, trust me when I tell you that this movie is one fat BUST and if you decide to waste your time and dollars on it, you can't say you haven't been forewarned!


Awful. AWFUL!!! My best friend rented this because it had a scary cover and we watched it tonight for halloween. THIS MOVIE is SO BORING. IT IS A WASTE OF LIFE. It should be called The off season a story of the most boring couple ever. I diddn't remember seeing any ghosts. It is so terrible it looks like someone filmed it on their camera phone. The woman in the movie sees blood in her bed but she doesn't care until halfway through the movie! HOW STUPID!! Oh my god I hate this movie so much. Blockbuster is being silly...how could they put this out to the public. Some movies are so bad its funny but this was just so dull, if anything scary was about to happen it jumped to nothing just banal every day living of a boring ass couple who don't make love, watch TV, go out, or do anything interesting except SIT IN A CHEAP MOTEL ROOM and have an answering machine talk to them from time to time. What a silly movie! I guess it was so bad that it was slightly funny and did not succeed in ruining my halloween.


This movie has the feel of a first year college want to be director. The cover art on the box makes it out to be a horror film and if you go to rent it, it will be found in the horror section. Let me tell you, it is NOT a horror film! I'm not really sure how to rate this one because it is so bad. This movie wouldn't even make a good COMIC BOOK and I've seen some really bad ones of those as well. Not that I will give anything away by saying this, but the story has so many holes you could drive a truck through them. The acting is so dry that I found my self falling asleep in my chair when I should have been jumping out of it. Unless you want to waste almost two hours of your life I would stay as far away from this movie as you can.


To get the Summary ... Watch the movie?

This movie to sum it up is ... low budget like you wouldn't believe

*goes into story* On a cold winter morn there i was With my movie rentals in a horror state of mind thinking HEY this movie sounds awesome but i was sadly mistaken ... It seems to be the answer for the horror urge i needed but yet again i was sadly mistaken so i sit there watching ... waiting with anticipation switching positions to avoid the cursed limbs falling asleep syndrome but to my despair it was nothing of what i hoped it was far from it

Now ill admit i did jump at one part i was playing with my kittens and BAM LADY and i jumped ... but to find out what i mean about the book and the lady watch it ... if your into that whole student film craze if not ... avoid!


Normally, I like independent flicks. They can be pretty charming in their own special way. However, "The Off Season" was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The cover on the DVD made it look half way decent. The so called special effects were lame. The acting was terrible. There were absolutely no scares anywhere. I thought that was the goal of a "ghost story", to scare and shock the audience. Not even close. More like rolling in the floor from laughing so hard during this low-budget "thriller", with absolutely no thrills. Still, this is not the WORST movie I have ever seen. That distinction goes to "The Zodiac". For sure, the WORST movie ever created!!!


Some of these reviews must have been from a friend of someone connected to the movie.

The box cover is the most professional part of the movie. The writing is unoriginal and the acting is just bad. It starts off in a slow time warp and then the cement starts to set.

I spent most of the movie wondering how much time was left. I kept waiting for it to get better and live up to the box cover. Half way through felt like too long for a feature film. Most of the time I just felt bad for the actors having to recite the horrible dialog and the rest of the time feeling mad at those who decided to release it.

Do not watch this movie if you value your time! The most frightening part will be that you didn't have anything better to watch.


This movie was okay but severely marred by unbelievable human behavior and concepts. Rating 4/10

As a science fiction fan, I can easily suspend disbelief about various scientific concepts (ie: intelligently evolved apes travel back in time and conceive a child(chimp), force-field doors, etc...) However, when various common sense concepts and human behavior are flawed it usually ruins the movie for me. Just a 'few' examples from this film:

*spoilers*

* Concept: How did apes change so drastically in such a short period of time, to become bigger and more intelligent in a mere 20 years? This is not even alluded to in any way. Had they made reference to or alluded to Bio-engineering, or the virus having killed all cats and dogs causing this, perhaps I would have found it acceptable, however they did not explain this even in the slightest. Mere selective breeding would not permit such rapid change in 20 years. Since we already have some understanding of evolution, such rapid development should have been explained (if only in a single sentence). Note: since we have no understanding of backward time-travel, it does not need to be explained.

* Human Behavior: Why, knowing what Corneilus and Zira told them about the future, would mankind and human government permit the keeping of apes as pets and eventual slaves, while increasing their intelligence and capabilities? I could see if this happened a hundred or more years down the road, but 20 years after the intelligent apes arrive from the future and tell how apes rule the planet and subjagate humans, mankind is purposely making apes more intelligent and capable. It's absurd.

* Concept/Behavior: With such an oppressive and militaristic 1984'esque government, how are they so easily overrun by apes, which seem to have their every move watched except for their collection of an arsenal of weapons. In a similar vein, how is it that such a society has a system in which apes take simple notes of paper to businesses to retrieve things for their owners (including a firearm and amunition?)

A science fiction film does not need to explain every single concept, but for those things which are not explained they need to make some degree of sense to our understanding of the way things work and human beings behave.


You watch this movie, with its depiction of humans (with a single exception) as either mindless order-following automata or mustache-twirling stock villains, and you have to ask yourself: Is this what the filmmakers think people are like? Well, no, of course not. This is what the filmmakers think *other* people are like.

And that, far more than decreasing budgets or continuity errors, explains the inferiority of the APES sequels to the original.

Great satire--indeed, great art--is always an examination of *us*, of what *we* are like. This is what the original film did so well and why it is still remembered so fondly. By this point in the series, however, the filmmakers were simply sneering at "them," defined as all those people who didn't attend film school or vote for McGovern. It's a nasty, bigoted little piece of hackwork which tries to pass itself off as clever satire.


The irony of the first legendary "POTA" movie was that everyone had to object to the way the humans were treated, when we did just as bad or far worse to our captive animals. "Conquest," the brutal fourth installment of one of sci-fi's greatest franchises, finds irony in bringing us back to square one.

Unfortunately, "COTPOTA" is the weakest chapter of all. One reason is probably the "irony x irony" mentioned above. However, that isn't the only reason. This film is populated with ew-don't-touch-me, chauvinistic humans and "See, do" apes. On the plus side, the actors in ape makeup did raise the bar in terms of simian arm-swinging. And Roddy McDowall, as Caesar, the one ape on Earth who can talk, is sort of like the angry Communist leader-pig in Orwell's "Animal Farm," appalled by the wretched treatment of his fellows by their human captors but willing to do some dark, sadistic things to gain the upper hand. Ricardo Montalban is terrific as Armando, Caesar's only human friend, but his scenes are few and (generally) far between. Natalie Trundy (the POTA staple) strives for a genuine performance underneath her thick, mute chimpanzee character, but it doesn't come through. And Don Murray plays Governor Breck, Caesar's villainous foil, whose human superiority complex leads to much torture and violence.

The climax of the film is the one key that unlocks the entire jumbled five-film story, but it's heavy on brutality and skimpy on any real substance. Director J. Lee Thompson makes the film darker than obsidian, often shortchanging real emotion for the sake of keeping us biting our nails in terror. Of course, we don't. And Tom Scott's bizarre musical score is not the critical final piece of the puzzle-- it's the corner piece you had no idea even existed.

I wouldn't say stay away from this movie, especially if you want to see the entire story. Just be ready for the darkest, most boring POTA movie ever. And about "boring"-- it's only 88 minutes long. So that is saying something.


A plague has wiped out cats and dogs, so instead of turning to turtles and hamsters as pets, mankind obviously chooses apes.

The apes are unhappy from the start. As if it weren't bad enough that they are not being allowed to pleasure themselves as they constantly do in the wild, they were given dog and cat food which - it turns out - gave them non-stop diarrhoea. Add to that the fact many Belgian perverts switched from pedophilia to monkey-sex and you can certainly appreciate why the chimps started a revolution against the humans.

The revolution is started by none other than Ceasar, Sean Penn's son (a striking resemblance: those eyes), who one day finds "Das Kapital" in the library of its owner, Tim Robbins.

The rest is history. Ape history.

Please someone lobotomize me so I can finally forget this dumb movie: I can't stop laughing!


"Planet Of The Apes" an awesome, classic movie... "Beneath The Planet Of The Apes" a little slower paced.. but some of the scenes with the mind controlling bomb worshipers are very interesting. "Escape From The Planet Of The Apes" In my opinion the best of the 5, cute, funny, tragic.. excellence.

Then this came along, a mindless, boring movie. I understand the nessecity of this movie to continue the storyline, but this one gets real boring real fast. The Apes revolt from their masters in an elaborate war scene that seems to last forever in a 60's "future" town. This one can be skipped. (Coincidently, The next and last installment "Battle For The Planet Of The Apes" is well worth watching, and I'd recommend it and all the other apes movies over this one)


Most of these 30's thrillers/murder mysteries have been forgotten by now because, let's face it, they haven't got much to offer apart from  occasionally  a good story. This little film has a very decent story, fluently written dialogues and some really adequate acting performances, yet it simple can't be called memorable because of the shabbiness of the production. Pat O'Brien ("Hell's House") stars as an obtrusive reporter investigating the vicious assassination of a befriended District Attorney and unravels almost single-handedly an entire network of corruption, blackmail and political scandals. His performance is very good and he gets to say some very slick lines, yet the movie lacks a lot of action and continuity. There's one sequence near the beginning that I found particularly smart, showing how the assignment for murder is passed on to several involved parties and thus creating a complex structure that sadly never gets properly clarified. There are some more ingenious and dared ideas in the plot, but it all looks too poor for you to care. Feel free to avoid this one.