I am a Chinese but I don't understand this movie at all. This is such a typical point of view about Chinese living in America. I don't know, but is it possible that some director can make a movie about those Chinese who are better educated. Because from what I know, also lots of Chinese who graduated from Chinese college also live a descent life in US, I am not sure if you guys have seen the movie "Push Hand" by directed by An Lee, that's something for real.

The people this story described, is someone who also live a poor life even in China, they struggled here in China and then with nothing to give up, they went to USA for a so called American Dream. that's something I really read from this movie.

this movie is just too negative to watch.


Pretty simple: Why can't Hollywood make a movie with positive Asian roles?

This movie has so many stereotypes it makes my stomach churn. And for what purpose? To tell a story so that the white guy looks good? It even makes a few outdated stereotypical references to "Empress Dowager" and "Special Fortunes (cookies)". Blech!

Production values are pretty good except for the fact there aren't any subtitles. I like the shot where instead of showing the manager's reaction, we see his hand fall by the doorknob. Musical accompaniment evokes empathic feelings for the central character Lee, especially at the end.

Back to the main point: There aren't any positive Asian imagery, particularly for Asian males. Every Chinese person in this movie is either poor (Lee, the cook, & the busboy) or an a**hole (just about everyone else).

Why can't Hollywood make a movie with positive Asian roles?


México did it again. That regular vision of us, with fairy tales sceneries and realismo mágico stories, has been implanted in this romantic comedy featuring (once again) mostly people from TV. From starters, Ladies' night doesn't look for a profound meaning, but the lightness that bears it's plot is more than just simplicity; it's almost insulting. The story centers in Alicia (for Alice in wonderland, played by Talancón), a candid woman whom has never been really understood since her childhood and that spends her life in a world of fantasy that she draws by and for herself. Her wedding is only a week away and she's engaged to Fabián (Corres), the editor in a teen magazine, and his coworker and best friend is Ana (de la Reguera), a "rebel type" girl who's more than evident that has a crush on him. Ana doesn't like Alicia and vice versa, so when the bachelorette party for Alicia comes, an uninvited Ana comes along and she as a secret surprise for the party, she hired a male stripper named Rocco (Guzmán) to spice up things, 'cause Ana and her friends are very uptight. But, after performing his act, fate arrange things for an instant click between Rocco and Alicia. Then, after some events that involves a small robbery and a video tape with scenes from a previous encounter between Ana and Fabián, both girls have to go after Rocco but with different intentions: while Alicia tries to find him to make up her mind about the marriage, Ana tries to recover the tape so Alicia won't find out.

This plot leads to an odyssey through México City with Alicia and Ana, and it is also the perfect excuse to create a romantic comedy to be treated under the label of a buddy movie but with girls. It's the same old song in which two antagonist characters comes to the end of the trip becoming best friends (take Por la libre as an example) and OK, even if this is not new neither anyone expects it to be, is in the way the plot develops where lies all the holes, failures and misguiding. Also, the level of intelligence in it has been dumbed so low that it couldn't be done without hurting the whole idea, and not to mention that the acting is flat, the characters are unidimensional (it's profiles are based on clothes, not in personality), and the language they use sounds pretty much fake.

Basically, Ladies' night is a very light motion picture with it's target on girls who are supposed to talk "dirty" and feel cool about it. There's some sexual situations but none of them are graphic neither sensual, and for the "irreverent" parts it uses the source of cartoons. And don't get me wrong, this is not about a hunger for seeing flesh but for watch witty, edgy material, that even if it can't really entertain us, at least be one that can make us feel the real needs in the main roles for each other, the deep passion we are supposed to buy, and the fire that burns only as minimum sparks in here. In the end, this film comes across as one more light teen mexican movie which is predictable, not funny, and with no good things to offer at all.


Utterly demented thriller (giallo?) about three twisted sisters that fall for the same type of men and use their washing machine as a killer device. Police inspector Alexander Stacev is bound to go nuts as all three sisters turn out professional liars and dedicated to get him in bed. It's hard to believe that this light-headed, almost comical horror cheapie was directed by Ruggero Deodato, creator of notorious Italian gut-munchers like "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Last Cannibal World". Judging by the ludicrous premise and absurd story-twists, Deodato must have been suffering from an identity crisis, or something! There's more gratuitous sex and nudity in "The Washing Machine" than in the average Shannon Tweed TV-thriller, but the actresses are bustier (especially the Polish Kashia Figura) AND there's splatter, too! What more could you possibly wish for? A terrific musical score, perhaps? There's that too!


A total waste of time, this sorry excuse for a soft porn (that doesn't dare enough, anyway) is a botched thriller, with a Budapest scenario, where three sexy, perverted sisters try to lure a naive police inspector (falling to all three of them - well he has his reasons to not resist to these sirens) in making him believe none of them is guilty of the killing of the husband of one of them. Apart from a couple of interesting nightmarish sequences (very gory and cannibalistic, a trademark of the director, Deodato) and the well exposed graces of the ladies involved, the movie stinks as a thriller, even as a late example of Italian giallo, the plot is crude and convoluted, and the result is a mess. To watch only with fast forward.


Movie adaptations of popular TV shows is not a trend unique to America. The Japanese have been doing it for years before. Odoru Daisosasen (Bayside Shakedown) is but the latest attempt to bring a popular Japanese TV show to the big screen. Based on Fuji TV's popular and hip cop show starring pretty boy Yuji Oda, Bayside Shakedown basically delivers what fans of the TV show expect and want. All the formulas that made the TV show such a hit are all well displayed here. Just as with the TV show there is the right blend of comedy, drama, action and even some bureaucratic intrigue in the mix. Unlike recent American attempts at updating TV shows such as Mission Impossible, The Avengers, Wild Wild West, Mod Squad and the upcoming Charlie's Angels, Bayside Shakedown has not altered or revised it's look (granted Bayside Shakedown is a relatively recent TV show as opposed to the examples said above). All the characters from the show and those actors that played the characters on the TV show are all here. This is basically your equivalent to a TV Movie or `Reunion Show' albeit one geared towards a theatrical release. All that being said, Bayside Shakedown will definitely please fans of the show, but for those like myself who are not really fans it leaves somewhat of a mixed reaction. The story is not all too exciting and the action is somewhat tame for a movie. Bayside Shakedown succeeds solely on the efforts of Oda and the cast and their interactions with each other. There's a lot of flash and style but it might have as well been a direct to video release than a `road show ` movie extravaganza. A nice try but could have been better.


What is this show trying to say? Action, Horror, Romance, Culture Clashes, Loyalty, the old and the new etc. I know it's wrong to pigeonhole something but really, this show suffers from a lack of focus. Done properly, it would have carried some merit. But what I saw was just slipshod film-making. The ending was so over sentimentalised that it was barf-inducing. Terrible.


I've seen first 60 minutes of this movie and it was the longest movie hour ever. The concept of this movie is weak, the bad guys are boring, very unfunny - the good guys totally lack any charisma, and their pranks and jokes are very week to make this movie valuable. The movie is just a sandwich without anything saucy in it. Scenes are busy, unoriginal, plot is hysterically stupid. This movie is anything but even remotely funny comedy. The natural chemistry in "the good guy-good girl" is misisng here, too it doesn't come out of the concept, the main character in my opinion failed in fitting into positive role, somebody viewer could be interested in or laugh at. I normally like easy and dull comedies - for example scary movie series - but this failed even for me. This was below any college movie where bunch of nerdy guys want to get laid. I am greatly disappointed in this title. My recommendation would be to avoid this one.


Two rival ambulance companies battle to be the one that will remain in business when budget cuts strike the town. Its a low rent, low brow version of the Bill Cosby film Mother Juggs and Speed which had a similar plot line. What can I say about this film? Its not terrible, but then again its not terribly funny either. Everyone is drunk, stoned or sex crazed and the jokes sin out from there. There are jokes about the companies not wanting to pick anyone up, they pass accident scenes. Its a collection of half thought out jokes that the writers and director must have thought were going to work once they edited the film. Guess what most of them didn't. In fairness I laughed a couple of times, but I didn't really enjoy myself. If you must see this wait for cable.


This movie truly seemed as if it were written by a pair of stoned fourteen year olds that just discovered softcore porn and boobs. To say that the humor was sophomoric is an understatement. There is no sign of intelligent life here; not that one would expect any. Yet slapstick humor serves a purpose and this title just falls short in every category. Nothing but crude and unfunny dirty jokes, sexually repressed writing and bad characters. The lead in this movie may just be the most unlikable character in recent comedy history. Somehow stalker tendencies turn into sweet nothings whispered into the ears of fourteen year old perverts in the middle of the most disturbing nocturnal emissions. Disgusting film with a ridiculous plot, pitiful and childish writing followed by terrible performances from actors portraying annoying characters. If you have any semblance of a brain, you'll do some good and stay the hell away from this garbage.


You know, I wonder sometimes how stupid a film promoter can be....

Every review but one here is by a person extolling the different virtues of the film in PR speak, and bad PR speak at that.

If you want to shill a movie, then at least have the decency to credit the members here with some degree of intelligence.

3 pages of PR, all obviously written by the same amateur promoter does NOT entice anyone to watch what is basically a single fart gag retold in 10 different ways.

I rest my case. If anyone considers watching this junk then they deserve everything they get Including me. :) Cheers, Will


There is nothing more painful than an unfunny comedy, and Skid Marks is a perfect example. Unlike a terrible horror or drama, where at least some enjoyment can be gotten out of unintentional humor, a god-awful comedy is just ....humorless. The acting here, aside from Dianna Agron, and maybe Tyler Poelle, is uniformly awful. If your main reason for watching it (as was mine) is to see San Diego locations, forget it, because in the 45 minutes I lasted before walking out, I saw none (and I never walk out of movies). I viewed a lot of bad movies during my time as a video store clerk, but this one may just be the worst (and at least those I hadn't paid for).


Ronald Chetwynd Hayes is a very underrated author . His horror stories often feature a twist ending mixed in with lots of black humour . I read his Tales Of Fear And Fantasy short story collection as a sixteen year old and can fondly remember the stories featured . Hardcore horror fans who enjoy gore will probably consider his stories quaint but as an entertaining read I recommend him . Unfortunately I find it difficult to recommend THE MONSTER CLUB to anyone

John Carradine plays the author who goes to a club only to find it populated by monsters and meets a vampire called Eramus who describes different types of bloodlines of monsters and relates three short stories . There's two serious problems with the film

1 ) Director Roy Ward Baker doesn't know whether to make the film serious or amusing and decides on embarrassing camp

2 ) The stories themselves are pretty dire .

Baker can defend himself in that he doesn't have much of a budget and much of the make-up is dire , especially the werewolf in the NHS glasses . That said however it's the way the werewolf is played that leaves a lot to be desired . Baker however does pull out a chilling sequence done via drawings where a vicar relates how he found a ghoul in a graveyard . The sequence is very well done but seems completely at odds with the rest of the film which is a badly judged jokey , camp affair . And the revelation that the human race is the worst type of monster isn't a revelation at all


Many years ago this reviewer subscribed to fantasy-horror magazine 'Starburst', then in its infancy and rivalling 'Fangoria' for its lurid colour photos of blood, guts and exploding latex. One such issue covered new release The Monster Club, and to this 10-year-old it looked utterly brilliant, with its gallery of werewolves, vampires and ghouls. There was even a woman with a melty face!

Yet if pre-teens had actually been allowed to see it, they might have found it less impressive. The monster masks alone, fashioned by freelance designer Vic Door, who also worked at a milk processing plant, are laughable when compared with those from the Mos Eisley Cantina just three years before - lending understandable succour to the myth that they were made by producer Milton Subotsky's milkman.

Amicus Studio's death-rattle, and a homage to the 1970s glory years of its portmanteau horrors, if The Monster Club has accrued a certain cult status it's mostly down to its sheer awfulness; yet, bafflingly, The Monster Club, adapted from Chetwynd-Hayes' 1976 novel of the same name, does in fact boast a highly experienced and occasionally impressive pedigree.

In director Roy Ward Baker it had the man behind cult horrors like The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires, The Vault Of Horror, Asylum - and, most famously, Quatermass And The Pit. As a screenwriter, Amicus co-founder Subotsky had also penned a number of culty items, including I, Monster and Dr Terror's House Of Horrors. Cinematographer Peter Jessop had shot the schlocky likes of Frightmare, Venom and Schizo. But most importantly, it stars a real horror triumvirate of greatness:- Vincent Price, John Carradine and Donald Pleasence - along with veterans from past Amicus films Britt Ekland and Geoffrey Bayldon (here reprising an earlier role as an asylum keeper).

This may have been made in 1980, but tonight they're going to party like it's 1973. To a frightful new wave soundtrack supplied by UB40 and BA Robertson who sings "I'm just a sucker for your love." Oh yes, a strange concoction indeed. But ranged against the likes of classic Amicus anthologies such as From Beyond The Grave (another Chetwynd-Hayes miscellany) even its dubious cult status is unwarranted - although the song "Monsters Rule OK" is pleasingly jaunty, and you do get to see Vincent Price and John Carradine disco dancing.

In keeping with the Amicus tradition, the film features a handful of not-very-creepy tales, plus a 'comedy' story for light relief, linked by a story-within-a-story - here played out between Price's vampire Eramus (his fangs are retractable when not in use) and horror writer Chetwynd-Hayes himself, played by Carradine. After necking his favourite author, Eramus ferries him to his members club by way of an apology, where they're subjected to forgotten new wave bands ("down at the monster club/a zombie and a ghoul can do the monster dub"), along with "every kind of monster you could ever imagine... and some far beyond the imagining of mere mortals" - which is just not true, unless you're actually incapable of imagining a one pound joke shop mask.

Price also inducts him into the arcane mysteries of monster genealogy, handily illustrated on a wall-chart (scroll away at leisure): "A vampire and a werewolf would produce a werevamp, but a werewolf and a ghoul would produce a weregoo. But a vampire and a ghoul would produce a vamgoo. A weregoo and a werevamp would produce a shaddy. Now, a weregoo and a vamgoo would produce a maddy, but a werevamp and a vamgoo would produce a raddy. Now, if a shaddy were to mate with a raddy or a maddy, the result would be a mock." Once we've waded through that gibberish (and how it must have pained the eloquent and mellifluous Price to utter it) we sample the delights of a stripper who takes her performance all too literally, and are told three tales, the first and most atmospheric of which is about a 'shadmock' (the lowest on the monster food chain) who possesses a deadly whistle - the Roger Whittaker variety, not the referee's aid.

In the second, a vampire dad foils a vampire killer with... "a stake-proof vest!" The final story concerns a remote village of human-munching ghouls. Having convinced the author of the inherent humanity of his kind ("there is nothing sadder than the agonised grief of a tender-hearted monster"), Price counters that the 'real' monsters are humans. And to that we must add, jaded screenwriters.


"The Monster Club" of 1980 is the last and least of the Horror omnibuses from specialist company Amicus. Fellow Gothic Horror enthusiast have warned me about the film, and so did several other reviews on this great page, but as an enthusiastic fan of even the cheesier kind of Gothic Tales, who loved the other Amicus Productions, I still decided to buy it cheaply, especially since Vincent Price is my all-time favorite actor. The warnings sadly turned out to be reasonable, as the film is an unworthy final entry to Amicus' reign in the Horror-omnibus world. The film is no total disaster, but it is entirely disappointing, which even the film's great cast does not change. While all the Amicus films had a (usually great) sense of humor, this one provides little more than absolutely mindless slapstick, and is accompanied by terrible music that will annoy the hell out of the viewer. What makes this even more disappointing is the fact that director Roy Ward Baker is a more than capable man, who enriched the World of Horror with such great films as "Quatermass And The Pit", "Scars Of Dracula", or "The Vampire Lovers", which he made for the Hammer Studios. Even though disappointing, however, "The Monster Club" is still worth checking out for its superb cast. The film stars none less than three all-time Horror-greats, Vincent Price, John Carradine, and Donald Pleasence, as well as the always sexy Britt Ekland in a small role. The great cast is a reason to watch the film, and yet expectations should be kept low - The film is among the least memorable in either of the three Horror stars' repertoires, and the beautiful Miss Ekland has only a very small role.

A Horror story writer (Carradine) runs into a vampire named Erasmus (Price), who subsequently takes him to a 'Monster Club' at which all types of monsters, such as Vampires, Ghouls, Werewolves and hybrids such as 'Vamghouls'. Erasmus then narrates three stories in order to explain the diversity of Monster species to his guest. The first and second stories are merely satirical, and in a very silly way. The first one, which introduces the monster species 'Shadmock', is amusing, in a way, but unfortunately also quite tedious. The second story, a slapstick vampire story which is actually a film in the film, is the worst of the three, very simple and even more silly, even though it is this one which stars both Donald Pleasence and Britt Ekland. The third story, a Ghoul story, is a lot better than the other two, and the only part of the film that has a certain creepiness. Hollywood tough guy Staurt Whitman plays a film director who visits a remote ghost-town - with ghoulish results... Inbetween the stories, the film switches back to the Monster club, where a dreadful band plays extremely dreadful 80s pop music. The music is so awful it is hard to listen to, and I admittedly watched most of the concerts at the Monster Club in the fast forward mode. The visibly aged stars, Carradine and Price are far from their best, and yet it is them who make the film a lot more worthwhile, especially Price brings in some great wit more than once. Overall, "The Monster Club" is watchable for its stars, and for the decent last story, but I can certainly not recommend it. My advice: Watch the other Amicus productions, or any other film starring Vincent Price instead!


1st watched 12/22/2008,(Dir-Roy Ward Baker): Strange group of 3 horror stories combined with weird live musical interludes from current British artists of the time(supposedly). The stories that the movie is based on were written by a popular horror writer and that writer is portrayed in the movie by John Carradine. He meets up with a real vampire, played by Vincent Price, who takes him to the "Monster Club", which is where the rest of the movie is set. The Monster Club is a strange hippi-like club in which only vampires, werewolves, ghouls or a combination of any of those thru mating can join. The stories start at various times and are interesting with the first being the best, but the silliness surrounding them lessons their impact. Vincent Price has some funny lines but there isn't much else appealing in this movie. The second and third stories are forgettable and therefore the overall affect of the movie is a negative one. The attempt, I believe, was to honor monster movies, but despite many other horror character actors appearing it doesn't do a very good job at this.


- The Monster Club is a three story anthology held together by Vincent Price and John Carradine. The first story is about a wealthy, pale faced creature with few friends who falls in love with the hired help. She turns him down and must face the consequences. The second story is about a modern day vampire hiding out from modern day vampire hunters. The third story concerns a town of the beaten path inhabited by nothing but ghouls.

- Story 1 - 5/10 - It's not bad, just very predictable. With better writing, this story could make an entertaining feature length film on its own. I found the pale-faced creature to be unique and interesting.

- Story 2 - 1/10 - What utter garbage. The story goes for laughs and fails at every opportunity. All of the humor is incredible obvious and, as such, I found it insulting. It's a shame that a talent like Donald Pleasence and Britt Ekland were wasted on drivel like this.

- Story 3 - 6/10 - Easily the best and most chilling of the stories. While the ghouls are not particularly scary looking, the continued and relentless attacks are effective scenes. The ending is a good piece of irony.

- The In-Between Bits - 1/10 - How embarrassing for Price and Carradine to be stuck in a mess like this. You can buy better looking monster masks at Wal Mart. The music that played between each story was especially rancid.

- Take the four rating, add them together, and divide by 4. The result - 3/10.


Production house Amicus had a rich tradition in serving the so-called horror omnibuses. Long feature films telling three separate tales that mix humor and horror. The Monster Club was the last one and I can't really say I'm sorry for that. I didn't enjoy this film at all since it only has a few good moments and even those aren't highly memorable. Two absolute legends in the field provide the Monster Club with a silly wraparound story. John Carradine is a horror-author who donated a little bit of blood to vampire Vincent Price.this latter is so grateful for this that he takes Carradine to the 'Club' where the writer could find inspiration for upcoming horror stories. Let's start with the worst news first: the second story is really stupid and a complete waste of Donald Pleasance's horror talent. It's a very boring vampire-tale that's neither scary.nor funny. The first and last stories are watchable, yet the quality level never surpasses your average 'Tales from the Crypt' episode or something. The reasons why these fables are more or less interesting are because they introduce interesting variants on the common monsters. The protagonists are for example a Shadmock and a Humghoul! This last one is a result of sex between a ghoul and a human being! The gruesome make-up effects are limited and the direction is really crappy. Which is really surprising since Roy Ward Baker did a few outstanding directing jobs in the past. For instance, Dr. Jeckyll and Sister Hyde and Quartermass and the Pit for the Hammer Studio's. Vincent Price looks so tired and fed up that he almost becomes pitiful.yet he still manages to ramble a funny monologue near the end. The whole thing is completely ruined by bad (and too much) pop/rock music that form yet another connection between the stories. The only sequence that is really worth mentioning is a female stripper that goes all the way.and I do mean ALL the way.


Okay--so this movie wasnt good--but it was better than i expected. There was a certain art to its badness--Price and Carradine seemed to enjoy themselves with whatever little they had to work with(and they should--knowing that their fees probably resulted in the producers resorting to godawful masks for the club scenes).

The stories told were not very good---the first was lame, the second goofy, and the third..interesting--but a little weak in the ending(it was the best of the three I think). Still--the film had its moments. There was a neat use of illustrations to tell parts of one story(drawn by comic artist John Bolton I believe) and the speech by Price at the end was somewhat satirical.

And the songs were amusingly bad--especially the performance by the singer of the second one.


If you love classic horror, this movie is a truly obscene experience. Milton Subotsky was the producer of some of the finest British horror in Amicus productions like the flawless "Dr Terror's House of Horrors", while Price and Carradine are two of the greatest actors in the genre.

So to see them all together here in the twilight of their lives trashing the memory of great monster films and their own careers is simply miserable.

Amicus films had plenty of humor, but it never overrode the creepiness. The anthologies took themselves seriously, so we, the audience, suspended our disbelief and bought into the thrills.

In this last gasp of a once-proud tradition, Subotsky apparently slipped his gears and decided to play it for yucks, but the result is simply idiotic. The music is the worst...efforts to portray fake rock bands in movies always have as much depth, credibility and coolness as The Archies or the Partridge Family. The actors, despite decent performances, come off looking like senile has-beens scrounging for a paycheck by savaging the genre that brought them fame.

This film belongs in the bin with such gems as "Abbot and Costello meet (insert overexposed Universal monster here)" and "Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders".


Vampire Vincent Price introduces his latest victim, John Carradine, to a nightclub where various badly made-up monsters hang out. There Carradine hears three stories  a con artist couple try to steal from a freakish 'shadmock'; Donald Pleasence is a special branch copper hunting down a vampire; and film director Stuart Whitman finds himself trapped in a ghoulish village. Although there is some fun to be had from Price's tongue-in-cheek performance, a couple of good songs and the occasional bit of amusing dialogue ("A vampire film producer?" "Aren't they all?"), the movie is slow-going and the stories prove too floppy to maintain interest despite their short running times.


Simply put, the film has as much resemblance to the book as the American Godzilla film has to the original.

The book, which is actually written by R. Chetwynd Hayes, is much better. Had they remained faithful to it, people might have had a finer opinion of the film.

The movie only has one story from the book, "The Humgoo." The other two tales either are a mishmash of two stories, "The Mock" and "The Shadmock," or aren't in the book at all (that horrid tale about the boy whose father is a vampire).

If only the filmmakers had included "The Vampire & The Werewolf," it might have done better.

As it stands, though, you won't be doing yourself any favors by watching this piece of crud. Feel for John Carradine and Vincent Price, as they don't really seem to be enjoying themselves.

Read the book.


The Monster Musical has been a failed genre since the brave creation of "The Incredibly Strange Creatures..." Like almost every monster musical before and since it has the distinctive characteristic of being truly awful.

The best and by far one of the most painful scenes is when Vincent Price gives us a little lesson in monster genealogy. If you ever wondered the family history of the Weregoo or the Hudoo, this is your flick.


I suspected a movie about a soldier trying to find his courage in the civil war, filmed during (and reflecting the values of) the fifties, was not going to be very good. But I'll rent anything. I found it bewildering and narratively weak. Somehow the movie chooses not to deal with the fact that Henry is fighting for the wrong side morally and historically. So his heroic effort to win big for the South never really became my own goal.

I couldn't find my interest in his skimpy story if I had a civil war ree-enacter sitting next to me. Scene after scene of Audie trying to pull it together, and it can only end one way. ...in his triumph over his wussiness. Gee that's deep.

Because Huston made so many movies, his fifty/fifty hit-miss ratio produced a lot of hits. But the list of duds is equally impressive; Annie, Moby Dick, Key Largo... but nothing is as abhorrent as Reflections in a Golden Eye.


A babysitting uncle tells his charges three horror stories--about a killer witch, Little Red Riding Hood and a werewolf, and a story about "Goldi Lox" and the three bears. However, a slack production and a director who seems confused as to handle the stories sink it. Tale one, a romantic horror fantasy with attractive leads and a lush score is a moderate success compared to the other tales. This movie is comprised of three stories, all of which totally suck. The silly script takes a darkly farcical view of 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears,' 'Little Red Riding Hood,' and some story about two witches looking to resurrect their dead sister. The soundtrack, the fashions, and the hairstyles, combined with a script that's obnoxious when it wants to be funny, and eye-rollingly stupid when it wants to be scary, sends "Deadtime Stories" to a watery grave in the latrine of '80s nostalgia. So poor, it went unreleased for quite some time.

Rated R.


Freaky Fairy tales just doesn't work as a film. When using a format such as this you need every story to be well written, but sadly things were lacking in that department. The first story is kind of weird and creepy, and has some good parts when the corpse comes alive. But that's about it. The second tale is about a werewolf and is only saved by the unintentionally hilarious lines from the old woman, such as when the man demands she open the door, to which she replies "I will not!" and then declares "I have a meat cleaver and I know how to use it!" I didn't see the third story because I was falling asleep by then and turned the TV off. That's how interesting Feeaky Fairy tales was.

No self-respecting horror fan should bother with this, unless you're a die-hard collector.


DEADTIME STORIES was released a few years after the release of George A. Romero's CREEPSHOW. However, Deadtime isn't anywhere close to the caliber of quality that CREEPSHOW is. This movie is comprised of three stories, all of which totally suck. The first story deals with witches, as they perform stupid experiments. The second story is based on a guy that gets his pharmaceutical prescription screwed up with another patent's. This causes him to change into a werewolf. Finally, the third and final story is a black comedy that has the viewer forced to follow the path of three escaped mental patients who shard a country house with a character by the name of Goldi Lox. The bottom line is that all of these stories suck. It's a shame a producer thought that this project would be a success. I wonder what he was smoking?? The movie has a cool box cover, but that is all. AWFUL.


I too, paid to see this stink bomb, made as video slowly ate the Movies as we knew them. Like the other poster, I remember the oddly talkie theme song, easily the most interesting thing about the movie. I think the advantage of this kind of low budget film was that they could do one story, and shut down if they were out of money. I remember one with Vincent Price made around the same time that looked like it had been flung together over quite a few years. Anyway, these god awful "Anthology" films were a drive in filler stable for many years. In my humble opinion, the king of bad is "Dr. Terror's Gallery Of Horrors" , a must for bad movie fans. "Deadtime Stories" as noted here, was a cheapo video staple for a long time.


"Dead of Night"..."Trilogy of Terror"..."Creepshow"..."Twilight Zone: The Movie"..."Cat's Eye"...yessir, the horror genre has had its share of fine anthology films; films that crawl up your sleeve and slide down your spine to produce commendable shivers. "Deadtime Stories," however, is a horror anthology like no other, basically because it's utter CRAP. Via a lame, low-budget framing device, a 'randy' uncle tells his restless nephew fairy tales in an attempt to get the brat to go to sleep (I, however, had no trouble falling into a somnambulant state while watching this). The silly script takes a darkly farcical view of 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears,' 'Little Red Riding Hood,' and some story about two witches looking to resurrect their dead sister. While obviously low-budget, we do get some fairly impressive, "Hellraiser"-style FX work...but that's about all "Deadtime Stories" has to offer. The soundtrack, the fashions, and the hairstyles, combined with a script that's obnoxious when it wants to be funny, and eye-rollingly stupid when it wants to be scary, sends "Deadtime Stories" to a watery grave in the latrine of '80s nostalgia.


Who would have thought it? My second horror anthology film in as many days. In this one, a paranoid lad who is having trouble getting to sleep at night is told three fairy stories by his weirdo uncle.. but with a twist. In the first, two witches are trying to revive their dead relative by getting their nephew to invite guests over, who they promptly slaughter and throw in a cauldron for ingredients. The second has Red Riding Hood becoming a fitness fanatic who is desperate to lose her virginity with her boyfriend while being pursued by The Big Bad Wolf (who just wants his medication back..) Lastly, in the best of the trilogy, Goldilocks is transformed into a homicidal maniac with psychic powers who has just escaped from a loony bin along with 'The Three Bears' and is on the run from the police. Yes, it is all as mad as it sounds.

And pretty cheap too. Like 'Chillers' that I saw just yesterday, the production was obviously operated on a very tight budget. But that doesn't excuse scenes where the boom-mike thrusts itself into view or we can see daylight through the windows, though it is supposed to be night. Whatever else you might think though, there is some very imaginative premises here which I can only guess how the writer came up with. For instance, The Three Bears are now humans, with Baby Bear as a simple-minded giant, Papa Bear as a fast-talking midget and Mama Bear as the stern matriarch of the trio. can I have some of your stash, please Mr Screenplay guy??

BUT (and this is a big BUT) the fact remains that this is still pretty awful stuff. It isn't frightening, the first two stories long outstay their welcome and the attempts at humour mostly fail miserably. A few one-liners stand out, like when Goldilocks is caught in the shower "You were expecting maybe Janet Leigh?" I also like the actor playing the uncle as well, who would rather watch porn on TV than read to his nephew. He deserved a bigger part than some of the no-talents in the cast. Ultimately though, this is one for those long winter evenings when you're drunk and can't get upstairs. If you're soused enough, it might just start to make sense.. 3/10


A very unusual, strange, but in the end not at all interesting, simil-horror anthology, based on a different interpretation of classical fables. A really warped uncle tell his nephew three different stories to try to convince him to sleep: the first is a sort of faerie tale with a couple of witches and their young male servant that try to resurrect one of their kind. But the boy falls for a knockout blond and so the story goes. The second is a retelling of Little Red Riding Hood, really strange and boring. The third segment, that is the only good one in this movie, is a sick and totally goofy version of Goldylocks, with the blonde girl as a crazy serial killer of young boyfriends that makes a strange alliance with the Bear family (in fact, a sort of mixture between Bonnie and Clyde and a farmer family coming out of Lil Abner) and find her true love in Baby. All in all, a forgettable attempt at innovation in a field crowded with better ideas


I saw this back in 1989 and its 1 week long stint at a local multiplex. Me and my friend were desperate to see a horror film. Well--that IS what we got! This is an anthology film about some annoying uncle (horribly overplayed) telling his bratty nephew some fairy tales to put him to sleep. Naturally these are all turned into "horror" stories. None of them were interesting, scary or much of anything. The acting sucked and the special effects were VERY sub-par. The only relatively interesting part was seeing Scott Valentine strip nude in the first segment. All you see is his butt and a VERY brief side view but he was young, handsome and in good shape. Also interesting to have male nudity in a horror film. That aside this was boring and just jawdroppingly stupid. In a way me and my friend sort of enjoyed it. It was so hopeless it was actually kind of fun! Seriously though a must-miss unless you want a textbook example of how NOT to do a horror film.


If you want my opinion, this show is very negative stereotype of Bostonians especially the blue collar family of the O'Neils as typical Irish Catholic. Harriet Sansom Harris and Lenny Clarke could have a better show without the rest of the cast. They're both really the stars of the show and they are much more interesting together. So their son falls in love with a daughter of two gay men. I don't anything about her mother which makes the impression that she did not have a mother or who is actually her father. I only saw a couple episodes and was not impressed by the writing. The rest of the cast seem easily forgettable in their roles. The gay couple is wealthy, educated, and cultured stereotype of the gay community. One male owns or works in an art gallery. Another male is a teacher in an elementary school. It kind bothers me that the Irish catholic O'Neils owns a bar in Boston. It's just all stereotypes and I'm not crazy about watching stereotypes or being preached too. I think the daughter's mother or actual parentage should be addressed.


It is the American Civil War as envisioned by Italians, set apart from the main theaters of conflict, out in the southwestern desert. James Coburn is Col. Pembroke who has lost impregnable Ft. Holman to the Rebs and who has a private scheme to retrieve it along with his honor. He sets out on a commando expedition with a sergeant and a dirty half-dozen volunteers, scalawags freed from the gallows and kept in line (barely) with a promise of hidden gold. Telly Savalas is the Southern commander dreading Pembroke's reappearance. Some exciting action and tense situations, but credibility is strained when, with the Ft. Holman Gatling gun spraying shot into the parade ground, the Confederate troops show no interest in cover but keep milling in the open like ants from a hill goaded with a stick. Not a great or inspiring movie but a solid performance from Coburn. And for all the death there's not much blood.


You know, I must have missed something here because this story just didn't make much sense. During the Civil War, Union Colonel Pembroke (James Coburn) surrenders his position at Fort Holman to Rebel forces, and once court martialed, makes an offer to Major Charles Ballard to take the fort back with a handful of men. When asked why he surrendered in the first place, he stated that it wasn't important, so we never do find out. Huh?

With five outlaws saved from the gallows, and a soldier thrown in for good measure by the Major, Pembroke makes his way back to Fort Holman, dangling a five hundred thousand dollar promise of hidden gold to his rag tag band. Curiously, it seemed to me that once the bullets started to fly, Pembroke lost more men than he started out with, but then again, I wasn't counting. In what looked like the complete reverse of the situation at the end of "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid", it appeared that Pembroke's bunch had the entire Rebel garrison at Holman surrounded, managing to destroy everything in sight while picking off a swarm of soldiers who never seemed to be seeking cover from all the gunfire. Holman's commander, General Ward (Telly Savalas) must have figured that being this close to the end of the flick, he might as well take Pembroke's sword to end it all. The set up seemed to suggest that Ward and Pembroke were mortal enemies, but if they were, I'm not going back to find out why.

The print of the film I viewed probably didn't help matters any, it was a cheap DVD I picked up for a buck, and was quite dark and muddy throughout. I will give credit though to Pembroke's military ally Eli Sampson (Bud Spencer), he got an awful lot of mileage out of the old, hey the War is over gimmick. As for the half million in hidden gold - nope, it never turned up.


This English re-titled "A Reason to Live, A Reason to Die" is a thoroughly unconvincing United States Civil War swipe of "The Dirty Dozen", done in the Clint Eastwood "spaghetti western" style. James Coburn (as Pembroke) leads a less than star-studded group of seven desperadoes. (Still pre-Kojak) Telly Savalas, who appeared as one of the original "Dozen", is Mr. Coburn's major foil. Mr. Savalas (as Ward) has interesting taste in sculpture art. The locations are nice, but don't seem very American. The film's relatively high level of explosions, shootings, and stabbings must have been the box office draw, back in the early 1970s. Today, you only need to play a video game.

** Una ragione per vivere e una per morire (1972) Tonino Valerii ~ James Coburn, Telly Savalas, Bud Spencer


Aap Ki Khatir is a blatant copy of many Hollywood Movies like Wedding Date, French Kiss and Bridget Jones. The only problem is half the time Bollywood Movies manage to entertain the audience even if it has copied a Hollywood Movie. Aap Ki Khatir is a Dull, Boring and practically a pathetic movie. There are only 2 good things about this film. One is obviously the music which is not great, but decent. The Second are the 2 actresses Amisha Patel who usually makes crap movies, but her sexy image keeps you still watching her. Priyanka Chopra looks quite pretty, but her acting seems to get weaker, perhaps she needs to focus on what movies to choose. Akshay Khanna is alright i guess. Dino is unusual, unrealistic and is suppose to be smart/rich, Yeah right. Sunil shetty tries to be funny but bores. The family members are suppose to be modern and all actors try to be funny. The family drama and members is described in one word awful.


Dharmesh Darshan after melodramatic messes like BEWAFAA returns with AAP KE KHATIR a remake of A WEDDING DATE

The film also reminds of PYAAR TO HONA HI THA(FRENCH KISS remake) which was tad better

This film tries hard to look like a modern love story but falls flat The first half focuses on comedy scenes which are too in your face, the scenes between Akshaye and Priyanka too are awful especially their sudden love angle

The director suddenly forces the drama in second half and Punjabi stuff which is bad and the sudden Dino-Amisha angle is forced

Direction is bad Music is saving grace

Akshaye Khanna looks bored and though better then the rest yet he got typecast in such roles Priyanka overacts badly initially but is good towards the end Dino is okay, Suneil is horrible Amisha is bad Anupam and Lilette irritate and so the guju family


So, we had Debra Messing and Dermont Mulroney a short while ago in a decent little romantic comedy called the wedding date, which was just above average content and humor wise, and brought up to decent by great acting by all the actors as well as the fantastic atmosphere set up by the film's location and- You must be wondering why I'm giving the review of a Hollywood movie in a bollywood forum.

It's simple. Aap Ki Khattir is an EXACT copy of the Wedding date. The honest truth? The movie is terrible. I cannot believe that this is the same director who made Raja Hindustani. The atmosphere, the scene direction is mediocre and deplorable and the dialogue (FIRE that script writer Immediately) is even worse! When you have Lillette Dubey, Akshaye Khanna and Anupam Kher in a movie, you expect quality acting, and that you do get. But only from the three aforementioned actors. Amisha Patel needs to quit the movies. Priyanka Chopra and Suniel Shetty SERIOUSLY overact their respective roles.

All in all, a complete flop. Please don't kill your intellect watching this sad mess of a movie.


One wonders if this is the same Director/ Darmesh Darshan who made films like "Raja Hindustani" & "Dhadkan".

A clichéd theme with scenes copied from Hollywood movies like "French Kiss", "Bridget Jones Diaries", "The Wedding Date" to name a few.

Akshay Khanna is good as usual, while Priyanka Chopra needs a complete makeover with her clothes, make up, acting...she needs lots of improvements. Suniel Shetty should quit movies, he spoils the film even more by trying to be funny. The less said about the others the better.

The movie has some melodious tunes by the latest sensation in the Hindi music world Himesh Reshamiya. One wonders what's the purpose of using words like "bullocks" & "get a life dude" in the songs, negative words that spoil music!

A large number of Bollywood directors seem to be in desperate need to attend creativity courses.

Just think people instead of trying to take your audience for a ride.


But I just didn't. Perhaps I'd read one too many okay reviews, but I had such high hopes for this after High Art, that I found it a little, well, disappointing.

Fascinating, but disappointing.

I'm the biggest Fraces McDormand fan out there, she's ALWAYS great in

everything she does, and she pretty much held my attention here as well. If the story had been more hers, it would've really set sail, but there's a plot about her son (Christian Bale, American Pyscho and Little Women) and his fiance (Kate

Beckinsdale, Pearl Harbor) that just doesn't work. Perhaps it's all the odd

accents- Bale is a brit doing a 'new yawk' accent, Beckinsdale is a brit doing a 'standard American', Natasha McElhone (Truman Show) is a brit doing an

indecipherable middle eastern accent, and Allesandra Nivola (Face Off) is an

American doing a British accent. Phew.

If you sense something a little 'odd' during this movie, it's that every sentence feels inauthentic, because there are certain words that all the actors doing

accents simply can't pronounce that well. It seems picky, but it has the

cumulative effect of feeling like you're watching a school play, and it takes you out of the story.

The story, by the way, has a great premise in it. The straight up tight son coming to stay with his promiscuous liberal mother- who seduces his fiance. Very

Greek. I just wish it had delved a little deeper, and that Bale and Beckinsdale were either more fully developed characters, or in the film less.

But I have to say, it was worth seeing for Frances McDormand alone. She really lights up a screen whenever she's given a chance.

I'd give this a 6 out of 10.


I saw this film with a group of four and, when it ended, we were all amazed with our patience to sit through two hours of directorial aimlessness, character superficiality and degenerating dialogue, giving the director the benefit of our doubts. Lisa Cholodenko should have asked herself one question before ever beginning to write and shoot this film: "What do I want to show here?" I hope she will do this before starting her next project, otherwise her films must be shown with a refund policy.


There were three things I liked about this movie: Francis McDormand, Natasha McElhonne, and the music (which even at times was in the contrived hipster-vein). I've always argued that Christian Bale, while he chooses interesting projects and, on the whole, good movies, is not a very versatile actor. When you replace Willem Dafoe, Micheal Ironside, Emma Watson, and Micheal Caine with Kate Bekinsale, this shortcoming is apparent. Kate Bekinsale is ridiculous in this movie. I rarely see acting this awkward. The two of them combine to make the least interesting pair I've ever seen. Bekinsale's side story revolves around some ridiculous research of Drosophila. The unrealism comes in when the audience is supposed to believe that someone is writing their Ivy League thesis about the fruit fly. People do this type of thing in undergrad at LSU. A friend of mine told me that I simply don't understand the movie or the lifestyle it portrays because I'm not from LA. I can't buy into this because Mulholland Drive is easily my favorite movie. Lynch is able to convey to his audience the California-way with much more intelligence, and that's barely even a story.


(this is my first IMDB comment BTW, after using this site for years)

I found this movie the worst movie I've seen in a while (I've gotten good at avoiding them).

I found the movie a little redeeming because it's quite easy to make fun of it while you watch it.

While watching this I couldn't help but think of two other movies: Wild Things and Scream (or Scream type movies). This movie have the plot setup of a bad teen horror flick. That's fine (I guess) for what it is, but then there's no payoff unlike Scream and Wild Things. If you're going to make a shallow, extremely predictable movie then at least give the audience some steamy or bloody scenes to work with.

The acting was bad except for Frances McDormand.

Funny how both of the people who tempted Alex and Sam from each other had foreign accents. It's this kind of thing that made this movie feel like a Cinemax flick.

To the movie's credit: the IMDB user who said that the plot was implausible (I couldn't tell if they were being sarcastic or not), the sad truth is that it's totally plausible that that exact thing is going on in Laurel Canyon right now (I live a block away). It's probably going on right now, including the bad acting, shallow personalities, bad music, hippie mom, yadda yadda yadda... If this was the perspective of the movie maker, then this movie is genius.

Anyhow, I'm done..


I don't usually get too upset when I see a bad film but this film had its characters going down this unrealistic road I had to turn off before the accident. This filmmaker is out to lunch ... therapy and then a good dose of reality. Get with it you hack!!!


This movie is the kind of indie garbage that gives right wing conservatives the moral high ground.

I'm sorry, but if your Mom and her boyfriend are even starting to diddle your fiancé there is a problem and no amount of next day apologies are going to make it right. Seriously, what is the filmmaker trying to say? I know she thinks this is cutting edge, but really it is just sick.

And one more thing. If the movie is about Americans - how about casting a few - I am so sick of all these Aussie and Brit actors playing Americans - aren't there any good actors in this country or what?


AWFUL!!!!

Were they trying to save time and film?

There needs to be MANY more steps between where the characters started and where they ended. Where is the struggle and inner-conflict? They just get the chance to do something completely UNCHARACTERISTIC and with only one hesitation they lurch at it. It's like they're desperate for a change.

Where is the impetus for this? Surely they have had plenty of opportunities for experimentation before now. This would only be believable if it had been established that they had been lived their entire lives (through high-school, college, & medical school) completely isolated from society. Haven't they EVER had to deal with temptation? They act as if they got married in high school and have been living sheltered lives ever since, clinging desperately to their marriage and spurning all advances. I don't remember if they stated how long they had been together, but SURELY they've had other relationships and other temptations. The other possibility about how this could happen so easily is that it ISN'T uncharacteristic but is common. But if they are promiscuous that undermines the whole script.

AWFUL!!! With more development the characters might have reached the same situations. They might have been able to change that much, but these are clearly two people who have spent years intentionally making themselves inflexible (as his mother said). They could have rebelled (even secretly) before now. They must be about 26 years old. I can't believe that they have been repressed for that whole time and yet well adjusted enough to build a relationship together. They don't seem sexually repressed with each other (even if it isn't as great as it has been, they obviously are very sexual). I just don't buy it!!!


totally predictable plot (although the final few frames were nicely done), unbelievably banal dialog capped by McDormand's soliloquy to her son -- how such a great actress agreed to deliver such tripe is beyond me -- this movie just fails. I can't understand the favorable reviews.

Opera fans will understand if I say that the plot is less creative, more believable, and more boring than "Cosi Fan Tutte," and without the Mozart music there is really no reason at all to sit through this flic.

And what's with the supposed-to-be-sexy shots of the Alex character who makes love and goes skinny-dipping without removing her top? What great auteur figured that one out? Supposed to show the prudishness of the character who tells her lover "f*** me!"? Va savoir...


...I would not have rented this film.

The footage and locale are pretty, the actors prettier...but the

dialogue is ugly, and the rock and the roll ("highway" rhymed with

"my way"), ack.

Well the song under the opening titles is catchy, and there's a

scene where Daniel Lanois is leading a jam session in a

penthouse suite that was sonically interesting.

Wait, why am I talking so much about the music. The film is really

not worth watching. It tries for frankness, but the connection

between the characters just never catches spark.

Maybe if they had both graduated from Johns Hopkins instead of

Harvard? Or better yet they were both working to become dental

hygienists and Frances McDormand's character worked with

bands that never really quite made it rather than Bowie, Iggy,

Springsteen...and the record release party was at a dive rather

than that penthouse suite...

But then how would the line "send up another bottle of Dom

Perignon" play. Ack.

Yes McDormand is gifted, but her performance does not save this

latest version of "Young Doctors in Love." Her relationship with

Christian Bale as her son, never rises above the lukewarm pool

water titillation.


The characters in Laurel Canyon exist as stereotypes of rich, spoiled Californians the kind of people we love to hate but we're supposed here to like. The plot develops so predictably that it couldn't hold my attention. Why would Sam consent to stay with a mother he has only bad feelings about (and he's a psychiatric resident, heaven help those suffering from mental illness)? Frances McDormand is the only reason to watch this film and even she wasn't nearly enough.


Christian Bale, a Harvard Medical School graduate, is bored having sex his fiancée, Kate Beckinsale, also a Medical School graduate working on another degree, in his mothers', Frances McDormand, glass and redwood mansion in the Hollywood Hills, which, instead of being vacated, is occupied by his record producer mother recording a British rock band while having sex with the very much younger lead singer. The Malibu beach house is currently occupied by the mothers' current ex-boyfriend. Nude poolside parties with joints the size of Louisville Sluggers lead to threesomes with Beckinsale. Bale's fellow psychology resident, a slavic accented Israeli with big eyes, big hair and big breasts, gets around to speculating about performing oral sex on him. I sat watching the film knowing that it was 19 degrees outside and a magazine editor had just informed me that my review of The Pianist, which I wrote for them in November, wasn't going to be in the issue he just took to the printers and he doubted whether it would still be relevant for the next issue in May.

I tried to figure out what problems the film's protagonists were dealing with. In pre-war Italy there were all of these films which dealt with the middle classes and the minor nobility and their various mating problems which became notorious as 'White Telephone' films for the prominent use of the apparatus which few ordinary Italians could even hope to use in plain black mufti no less possess. It was precisely these films which inspired the younger generation of Italian filmmakers to revolt against and create the neo-realism revolution after the war. Thus we have the present day equivalent of the White Telephone film, a film which exists because the writer/director, Lisa Cholodenko, needs to make films in order to be a filmmaker. Other than that there is no real reason for this film to exist. This is a film which says nothing and is about nothing and does not do it with either charm, wit, or the slightest amusement. I am always curious as to who thought this a worthy enough enterprise to invest the time, money and energy in so empty a project? By the way, there is a scene in the film where Christian Bale catches Kate Beckensale in the lead singers bed wearing a black lace thingee where she gets to say that deathless line: 'It's not what it looks like. We didn't do anything' surely the second most used line in films after 'Let's get outa here...'


This is one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. I only want to comment in hopes of saving someone else the experience. How could it be so bad with some really great people? Easy,

make them a modern Sunset Blvd. version of Bob & Carol And Ted & Alice....Or Ken & Barbie Meet Limeyrocktwit & WholeEarth MotherNympho....You take your girlfriend home and before you

know it, she's in bed with your mom...If that sounds like fun, or if you can relate...this one's for you...A poorly directed, nasty story that made me want to shower with kerosene and steel wool. A very ugly story and viewing experience...Avoid this trash!


When I finally decided to watch LAUREL CANYON, I thought that this would be a good movie. I mean, just look at the cast, right? But then in hindsight, I should have known better, simply just by *really* looking at the cast: Christian Bale and Natascha McElhone should have told me to expect a quasi-disaster, with Bale having appeared in a long string of terrible films (like REIGN OF FIRE, EQUILIBRIUM, etc) and McElhone having an almost identical number of crappy projects, like KILLING ME SOFTLY or REVELATIONS, or the half-baked SOLARIS remake. From now on, if I see either actors headlining a movie, I will lower my expectations quite considerably. But the two actors are not to blame for the complete crappiness of LAUREL CANYON. The director, the script and the producers who greenlighted this stillborn project are first and foremost to blame here.

The story sorta had potential (behind the scenes of the music industry) but I've never seen a movie shoot itself in the foot on so many occasions as this film. It's almost unreal. Whatever chance this film had to turn up good was repeatedly destroyed by the kooky decisions made for the film:

1 - The Christian Bale and Kate Beckinsale characters are so annoying and unbelievably fake that the whole drama of the story, which weighs on their attitude towards the people they have to live with and their new dwelling, falls apart from the get-go. Those characters aren't real people but just types.

2 - Kate Beckinsale's acting. But I don't blame her for such a bad bit of acting. Her character is so ridiculous, being a quasi-frigid woman who turns into a free thinking woman who's willing to have sex with her boyfriend's mother(!), that I don't think any actor, including Meryl Streep, could have given some gravitas to this joke of a character.

3 - Natascha McElhone's accent. Just awful. One of the worst accents I've ever heard, even beating out Rosanna Arquette's awful accent in THE WHOLE NINE YARDS. No one noticed how bad the accent was? Was everyone in denial or asleep at the wheel? Why even an accent?!?!

4 - The story. 100% predictable and devoid of anything interesting, including drama (the scene where Bale and Beckinsale scream at each other and then cry is laugh inducing). The scenes with Frances bitching over the phone with the female record producer are trite and serve no purpose at all.

5 - The music. The music the band plays is so bad, certainly the ballad, that I had to fast forward through these scenes. If you're making a movie about the music industry, please get some good music first because the whole reality of the film falls apart once we hear the crappy music.

Those are the five major points where the film actually shot itself in the foot for no reason, as those points could have easily been fixed before they started filming. The only redeeming feature in LAUREL CANYON is Kate's beauty. She's really gorgeous. But she should really choose better film projects in the future.


What a massive desception this flick is, A movie based around a plot as thick as ice is on a hot-Summer night is usually something you don't want to step on, normally there would be some leverage before the layer breaks but beware step on this and you won't need a peddle you'll be swimming.


Some films are deliberately downbeat and depressing; this film achieves that by default. The mid seventies were a high point for British TV - The Sweeney, Fawlty Towers, Rising Damp, Morecambe and Wise, Are you Being Served and many others; in all other ways British culture was at a low point. This film more than demonstrates that. Glam Rock was over, Punk hadn't started. There were two choices, Bay City Rollers for the kids, or bloated (if you'll pardon the pun) prog rock and heavy metal for the adults. Really not a good time for cinema to make a sexploitation comedy concerning pop music then! In fact as welcome as wearing a West Ham shirt at Millwall was at that time.

A sex comedy that is neither sexy nor funny, and these days you won't even be able to go to a Berni Inn in your Austin Maxi to refresh your jaded palate after watching.

But I have to agree - the appearance of Liam Gallagher's doppleganger provides a jaw dropping moment!


Don't ya just love Hollywood? They know you will return for a sequel of a hugely popular movie and thus take the time to overload it with PC (see Porky's 2 and about a million others). Lets see here, we got the idiotic bikers who try and destroy everything but are so stupid they are easily swayed by anyone with half a brain. We get the KKK (wouldnt be pc without them making an appearance) and of course Fletch is way too smart for those folks. Well I do declare they got the whole South in this movie and they is just about as racist and ignorant as anyone you ever wish to meet....heaven forbid I feel like I must have a mint julep now. Ohhh yes, and we got the loud mouthed Evangelist (played by a real life honorable and good person). Wow, give it a break Hollywood. Just make a decent movie without all the over the top stereotypes to bring in the brain dead masses.

If you didn't notice the agenda here.....you're stupid.


The original Fletch was kinda silly but fresh and different. This is old, not original and - if possible in something this tired - offensive. Fletch goes South to family homestead only to get tangled in local shenanigans. Nothing special from the supporting cast, no memorable lines, no reason to watch, and no explanation for the horde of Imdb reviewers that actually praise this movie.


Fletch is at again. But this time the premise is extremely worn out and the wisecracks are very tired and sometimes downright stupid.

It started so promising. When Fletch finds out that he has inherited an estate in the deep south from an aunt he hardly knew, we get a wicked satire of "Song of the South", complete with animation and a singing Chevy. When the scenery changes from L.A. to Lousiana we get every southern stereotype known to man. The Klan is apparently back in action and tries to get Fletch to leave the estate which turns out to be not what it's cracked up to be. We also get southern beauties who present themselves with three names like "Amanda Ray Ross" and "Becky Ann Culpepper" and you just know that the first thing Fletch does is make a rather suggestive remark that the women find irresistible and they immediately jump in the sack with him. The "Amanda Ray" character is not so lively the next morning and looks sort of like she was in the deep freeze for the entire night. Can this be a comment on Fletch's abilities in the sack or is there foul play involved. If you think it is the second answer you are absolutely right.

So next we meet a lawyer who seems to wanna help Fletch (do they do that?) and we also meet a ranch hand who serves as Fletch's only friend among hostile citizens. An amusing, but not quite funny bit involves a TV evangelist played by the great R. Lee Ermey but he doesn't seem sleazy enough to generate much suspicion towards him so the real culprit must be the most unlikely. Have I given too much away? Doesn't matter. The plot is not why we go to see this movie but the laughs are not there this time. A shame since I was looking forward to seeing this. You can only hope that there won't be another sequel.


This one could have been better. The scenario works, the good cop not being totally good and the bad guy not entirely bad. Beau Bridges does a reliable job and Kiefer Sutherland even works to do a role out of the ordinary kiefer. However, the director ruins everything. The result is boring beyond limits. All the suspense comes from the screenplay and the final is totally flat. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a movie where screenplay and direction differ in quality as clearly as in this one.


If "The Killing Time" is ranked well below average, this is mainly due to its implausibility and inconsistency. I could enumerate lots of reasons why the scenario is totally incredulous, but simply describing how the film starts, will suffice: A stranger (Sutherland) kills a man who was on his way to a job as a deputy sheriff in a small California coastal town. The murderer subsequently goes to the town, assuming the killed man's identity and starting to work in the police precinct himself, without anyone noticing that there is something wrong! The sequel of events does not get any more plausible: We watch the existing deputy sheriff Sam Wayborn (Bridges), as he plans along with his girlfriend Laura Winslow (Kath), the murder of her husband Jake (Rogers), with the intent of putting the blame on his new colleague. Throughout this inconsistent story we experience lots of annoying plot gaps, which render the movie a rather boring experience.

Unfortunately, the direction does not help either. I do not know the other works of director Rick King, but I bet this is not his best one...

The same goes with the acting: With the exception of Kiefer Sutherland, who manages to inject some liveliness in his role as a psycho stranger, the rest of the cast is mired in mediocrity.

Quite disappointing. 3/10.


I rented this movie and was very disappointed in it. I like Kiefer a lot, but this is not one of his best performances. His acting isn't bad, but it's not good either. The movie is boring and I should have rented something else. And as for Camelia Kath, I've seen better looking scare-crows in farmer's fields. She's gross! The story line is nothing special, good cop against bad cop. This can get boring really fast. Wife plans murder of her husband with her boyfriend. Brilliant! And you just know it's not going to go as planned. If you need help getting to sleep tonight, rent or buy this movie. Sweet dreams!!! I give this movie a 1 out of 10.


This crime tale is weird, suspenseful and filtered with off beat humor. Situational drama does little to help this well acted, but trying story line. The hardest part of watching is seeing Ann-Margret as an enabling granny that tells one lie on top of another.

Marg Helgenberger is the movies brightest spot. Nicholas Campbell is on the edge and totally believable. Henry Thomas seems to have phoned his part in from a phone booth, sorry.

A quirky little murder mystery that features brutal truth. Give it a shot.


This movie is supposedly based on a true story? Ann-Margret's character is annoying. -SOME SPOILERS- Without giving it all away, Ann Margret's character lies her way into a murder conviction just because she wants to get her abusive, alcoholic boyfriend put in jail too. AM's character uses the system in order to get revenge and punish herself. Meanwhile, since the Police have focused on the wrong person; the killer is walking the streets. This movie is supposedly based on a true story. If so, it is a very sad tale. On the other hand, it has a lot of dark comedy in the way it shows how the police play into Ann Margret's hands and how political pressure makes the Police look for the easiest choice, not necessarily the right choice. Marg Helgenberger is the Chief Detective, and she is usually an outstanding actress and she brings a lot of energy to her roles. In this movie she really is a very hard-working and sympathetic character. Even after she realizes that Ann-Margret duped her and is going to seriously hurt her career, Ms. Helgenberger continues to work towards finding the truth. In the end, the movie does not reach a satisfying conclusion. The only HERO, Marg Helgenberger, is sort of ignored; and the seedy character of Ann-Margret is the one who gets her way all the time, flaunts the legal system, gets several innocent people killed, and gets away with it because she is an older woman with abuse issues. The movie involved me emotionally and even if I did not like the ending it was a pretty good movie.


"Happy Face Murders" is a below par whodunnit which has little to offer and is very ordinary in almost all respects. Ann-Margaret is not believable as a quirky old woman; Helgenberger isn't believeable as a tough cop; the script is sophomoric; directing abominable; etc. Unless you're really bored and happen upon it on broadcast, don't waste your time.


An absolutely awful movie that's only redeeming feature is it's occasional moments of unintentional humour, when dodgy camera effects and ham-handed acting produce giggles instead of drama and suspense. The acting is terrible, the script is worse and the plot is just ridiculous. The only actor doing anywhere near a competent job is Marg Helgenberger, who plays to type as a "street-wise cop". The dialogue is clichéd and stilted and the storyline is so convoluted and outlandish that you'll think you've been teleported into a different movie sometime during the second half. Unless you want to have a bit of a chuckle at this cringe-inducing film that I judge to be the worst I have seen (beating even the horrific "Johnny Mnemonic"), give this one a miss. It's not worth the renting price.


Horribly unimpressive and unoriginal gangster film. It's amazing that this movie is often put in the same class as William Wellman's Public Enemy. Like all gangster pics of the time, they both cover the rise and fall of some criminal tough guy. Aside from that, however, the two films could not be more opposite. Wellman's picture was a gritty, artistic masterpiece, while this clunker is nothing more than a stock gangster film with barely a good quality to speak of. The writing is horrible, the acting is worse, and it seems like director Mervyn LeRoy wasn't even trying. It's hard to hate iconic star, Edward G. Robinson, as the title character, even if he does overact his way through every scene. It's easy to hate everything else, though.


The Pack a.k.a. The Long Dark Night (1977) was another one of those "nature rebels against man" films that were cranked out during the seventies. This time it's dogs and that's where this movie went to. Joe Don Baker and some residents of a Pacific Northwestern town must contend with a pack of mean and wild dogs who decide that they've had it with man. Dogs of all shapes and sizes join together to try and defeat man. Can Joe Don Baker and the beleaguered residents ward off the mangy mutts throughout the long dark night?

It's a real cheesy movie that's no great shakes. But if you could find a copy watch it with some friends so you can get a few laughs. I highly doubt that this movie was intended to be a comedy but that's how it turned out. Many of these films were pretty hokey and this one is no exception. The problem with most of these films is that they try too hard. The film makers forget that they're making a cheap animal exploitation film.

Not recommended, unless you're extremely bored.


The more I see of this so-called new independent cinema, the more I think "independent" simply means an amateur, shot-on-video production which otherwise never would have seen the light of day because the makers obviously lack the talent to succeed in the real movie business. Case in point, The Vicious Sweet, a very pedestrian offering which only proves that some people weren't meant to work on either side of a camera. Instead of any legitimate acting, we get a lot of self-important posturing while dialogue is delivered so forcibly that you can see the lines leap right off the script pages. The camera work is obviously rock video influenced, something which unfortunately passes for mise-en-scène these days, while the gore effects are used strictly for shock value in place of any real scares. Whereas shot-on-video productions such as The Blair Witch Project and The Last Broadcast succeeded because of their innovative approach to the format, this film, or should I say video, makes it abundantly clear that affordable public access to video technology isn't necessarily a good thing.


I had the great [mis]fortune to find this on local tv at 3 in the morning this week - and what a treat! At those wee hours of the night, something like this becomes a surreal, dreamlike oddity instead of the bleeding ulcer it would seem in daylight hours. This is a film that is too bad even for MST3K - it makes its own laughs. Your jaw will drop at how absolutely bad - BAD - this things is, and poor Ray Milland is on hand, sleepwalking like Im Ho Tep through this mess. Actually, he just sits in a lawn chair and mumbles much of the time. There is an incredible moment halfway through where the director seems to have gone berserk, asking for all 5 of his protagonists to spout the entire range of tragic pathos: where the film has just had lazy, bad performances, at this point they seem to turn on a dime and try to re-enact scenes from The Trojan Women. It's unbelievable, and I honestly can't figure out how Graves and Milland ended up in it. They were frequently in bad movies, I know, but this is ridiculous! Amateur hour is too good for this, it seems like this was made by a bunch of junior high kids on a weekend. Check it out.


DULL is the word to describe this lost little film made by a studio on poverty row. I'm surprised this had some airplay on TV, but that ain't the point! Boring would be another word to use. Yes, SURVIVAL RUN starts off with a 70s van that is soon going to crash into the deserted wasteland. The lucky teens survive, but fall victim to canyon drug smugglers where they cannot escape alive. Sounds like an exciting thrill, doesn't it? Nope! Not even the action elements would make this any better, which were kinda fun. Like other suspense-action movies of yesteryear, the plot was fair and simple: seeing good win over evil, which has recently become constantly boring this day in age. The lack of superior excitement and a basic plot drowns SURVIVAL RUN into the abyss. Thousands more action films like this one managed to be far better, but this title has easily been dated!


Oh lord, was this ever bad. The worst action flick I've ever seen. I mean, Yu-Gi-Oh anime has better acting - and action. The plot is disconnected and schizophrenic, which wouldn't matter if the action were good, but sadly it is not. The action scenes are far too infrequent and disappointing. The actors playing these "bad girls" are so thin and soft that every shot of "action" is laughable. (I'd rather see the cast of Dawson's Creek take each other on.) The quick and choppy editing during the fight scenes is necessary to cover up the actors' inability even to swing a rubber prop convincingly.

The director, Kenta Fukasaku, continues to spiral down in his inability to follow in his father's footsteps (Kinji Fukasaku, director of "Battle Royale", "The Shogun's Samurai", "The Yakuza Papers" and "Tora! Tora! Tora!".)

The DVD cover claims "From the creator of Battle Royale". That's quite a stretch. That claim could be made only by the novelist, Koushun Takami, or director Kinji Fukasaku. And any comparison to the exciting "Battle Royale" does not stand up.


Sadly, this film didn't deliver on its promise or premise. On paper, it sounds great - in execution, not so much. It starts off well enough, introducing us to our leads: a juvenile delinquent, and a grizzled old ex-policeman working for some secret CIA-esquire unit. But then it stops making sense fairly quickly. Why is it that our heroine, able to single-handedly fight off a roomful of cops, is easily taken down by a few thugs? And why is it that later in the film she's able to take down the same group of thugs without breaking a sweat? The villains aren't particularly well fleshed out. No explanation is given as to why the head thug has amazing seductive powers over women, without even saying a word, yet it seems every female character falls madly in love with him. A sub-plot about websites for tormented teens, is convoluted and nonsensical. Ridiculousness abounds, and not in a good/funny way: at one point, for example, a ten-minute monologue takes place entirely by text messaging. Really? They couldn't just, say, call? But the main problem with Yo-Yo Girl Cop is simple: not enough yo-yo-ing! The yo-yo weapon is introduced early on, and then only teased at until the last reel. Even then, it's not terribly exciting to watch in action.

For those hoping this would be non-stop cute Japanese girls kicking ass with yo-yos, prepare yourselves for disappointment.

3/10 for the cute girls. The lack of yo-yo action left me feeling a little ripped off, though.


I have to admit, I was disappointed. It's pretty hard to go into films like these without pretty low expectations of the splatstick stuff you're going to be exposed to, but this came off like a cheap Suicide Club with imitations of Silence of the Lambs. Well, again, that sounds a lot more exciting than this movie was. Basically, the problem is you watch this movie to see a girl kick butt with a yoyo, and you get maybe ten minutes of that with a whole lot of random other stuff getting in the way.

Not to argue with the writing. The dialog is pretty terrible, but actually the plot isn't half-bad if someone would have taken through a few more drafts and maybe even tried to make it either more serious or more silly than it is. Instead, it tries a little too hard to be both, and through Kenta Fukasaku's poor control of tone, ends up failing at both. Kenta has an eye for digital effects and making every edit seem like an exclamation mark, but he doesn't know when to sit back and let the story tell itself. At least not in this movie, it seems like the arena is open for him to do better elsewhere.

So basically, Saki Asamiya is deported from New York City and taken back to Japan, where she's conscripted, La Femme Nikita style, into finding out what's up with this teenager suicide bomber website with a mysterious ticker. She integrates into school as only a moody teenager can, is given a yoyo to play with, and starts her investigation mostly by sneering and getting into petty arguments with classmates. Luckily, though, the classmates she despises the most are involved with the website in some random way or another, and she's able to basically use momentum to find the badguy at the end. Kinda. There are a lot of plot holes, and weird diversions involving Kira (Riki Takeuchi, the best performer in this movie and one of the best Japanese actors currently working), the policeman who recruited her. Kira also has another important relationship with Saki, which again could have been really well-done if taken more seriously but instead just came off as random and weird.

Anyway, one thing somehow leads to another, a few bombs go off, and you'll eventually get your yoyo fighting awesomeness. Actually, even during the more terrible bits, this movie is quite entertaining. It just has an ill-gotten attempt at emotional seriousness that doesn't work out for it, or it's an actually emotionally serious film that can't stay serious what with the whole yoyo fighting thing, or something. It should have been one or the other but it failed at both.

--PolarisDiB


Sadly, this is a less than stellar effort from those involved. As Ernie Reyes Jr. is star and director of the film, putting him front and center, I can only say the film gives the impression that he's one confused individual. This being an older film, he's hopefully recovered from whatever ailed him. Characters and situations are all over the map, there is a very malicious anti-authority and anti-religion tone to the film, and the usually sharp technique Reyes has displayed in the past is missing here.

As noted elsewhere, there is little in the way of morality to be found in any of the characters or the film itself. This in and of itself isn't always a problem. But usually we witness an arc of some sort, for example Blood Diamond's mercenary character, the aging gangster in Charlie Valentine, or the cold hit man in The Killer, all undergo a redemption of sorts. Even when there is no apparent arc, for example Lee Marvin in Point Blank, Mel Gibson in Payback, Benicio del Toro and Ryan Phillipe in Way of the Gun, or Warren Oates in Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia, the main characters are of interest and not one dimensional.

Of course all of the above are exceptional films so you may not think it fair to compare them to Reyes' film, but I'm not since to do so would be ridiculous, I'm simply citing why the lack of morality fails to work in his film. Which may all be a moot point as sadly, the film pretty much fails on all counts.


Well the cover looked grate, but the film was pure sh.... Can't say it nicer. Really who came up with such a stupid story. Other filmmaker in the world is trying to get funding, then people get money to make sh... like this? the people giving this film funding must really be angry and feeling misled. I mean a Hitler with transvestite attitude and jerking off while in the middle of a fight etc. This film should never have been made, it destroys the market for real filmmakers.

And what was used to film it, handy-cam? the story was a big bag of crap and the actors really could have been better, some OK, but the one playing "Hitler" have been doing to much school-plays or theater not film. Well he sucked anyway. A real waste of money. Well people should buy it and burn it.


Ernie Reyes Jr. and Sr. made a film with no moral integrity. They make drug dealing look like a decent way to make a living and try to make smoking and cursing like a sailor look cool. They did have a lot of catholic imagery in the film so i guess it is ok to be a bad person as long as you read the bible. Also, there are some weird scenes that involve the villian cross dressing. This being said some of the fight scenes were pretty good.


I guess this was supposed to be some attempt to portray the relationships between a family faced with much adversity, but it feels like it was written and directed by people who have no clue of what that might mean or how it should be portrayed. The film has no context whatsoever, and there is no continuity from start to finish. There are no consequences for any of the actions.

The family is devoid of morals or values, and yet they lead an idyllic existence. There is little or no emotion between them, yet we are asked to believe that they are as close and loving a family as ever lived. The two children evolve into teenagers that assume the usual bad habits and make the usual bad choices, but there is never any crisis ensuing, and all is forgiven because nothing is really wrong.

Every character that impacts on their lives seems construed to be as unlikely as people can be, and yet there are so many of them in this one story. And then they just disappear from the scenery as implausibly as they entered.

The persistent introduction of totally unnecessary episodes of menstruation, gratuitous sex, birth control, intoxication, etc., etc., is simply irritating. Kris Kristofferson shows once again that Dolf Lundgren is not the worst actor in film history.

As for a theme or moral, good luck finding it. But then, I met a girl once who said she could dance to Pink Floyd'd music, so maybe...

Watching this film made me feel like I had just been to the finest restaurant in France only to find out that there is nothing to be served, but the chef then describes in great detail how good the food might have been.


The movie started out a bit promising but sank after the opening scene. Who are these people and why do we care about them? The character development was so poor that I never felt like I knew who these people were. And if I have to watch another movie with Kris Kristofferson croaking one dimensionally through another movie, I will give up watching movies. He has no no emotional range whatsoever, which considering he is a main character is a major major flaw of this movie.

The plot holes are huge. Why take the time to develop the Nanny,her realtionship to the kids, her romance and then once in America never heard or mentioned again. What happened to her? Same for Francis. All that film time and then there was no goodbye, no letters . No mention again. What happened to him?

And if we knew anything about the daughter with all the supposed development of her childhood etc, why on earth does she out of no where start sleeping with anyone who will drop his pants. And that scene where the father has the boyfriend sleep over was absolutely laughable it was so bad.

The father dies and yet there is no funeral, no goodbye, no closure: cut next scene mother getting hammered again, brother moping around depressed. Mother hoisting that diary at her son who doesn't want to read it right after the father dies. Why? Why then?

This is the problem with the whole movie. A lot of things happen but because we don't know the characters. The screenplay has so many holes we never really know anything at all. It all becomes very disjointed and by the end I was laughing it was so bad. 2 stars and please no more Kristofferson(reminds me of John Wayne and Robert Mitchem, both who couldn't act or emote either)


Daughter of famous WW 2 novelist (James Jones, though not called by that name), grows up in Paris and matures in 70s USA. OK cast, good performances (Sobieski is just fine here), even has subtitles for French dialogue during the Parisian sequences, but distinctly a case of so what? This goes on for hours and never gets to any point except that the daughter eventually writes a novel about her own life. I think I'm happy I didn't read it; I wish I could say I'd also missed the film.


I didn't care about any of the characters. They all seemed to be acting. No one was convincing. It started out like it was going some place but never got anywhere.


You've Been Framed was one of those programmes that as a kid I found hilarious, but it doesn't appeal to me now.

It is about people doing stupid things, being caught on camera and if it gets on telly, they get £200.

Jeremy Beadle hosted it for the first 7 years, Beadle is a very funny man. Then Lisa Riley from Emmerdale did it for 5 years, then Jonathan Wilkes did it for a year, now Harry Hill does it, who I don't find paticulaly funny. It is just the same thing happening in every show. When I was young, I thought someone falling off a bike was hysterical, but not anymore.


This played just last night on PAX TV, a small network that often runs religious-themed programming. I had seen it partly when it was new.

I was surprised to find that Abraham, who is revered in the big 3 western religions, to be an adulterer with a slave girl mistress and seemingly a liar, manipulating the words of god to fit his emotional weakness and his manipulative wife.

Joseph seemed to be there, not so much as glue to tie the Egyptians with the Jews, but as eye candy. I'm sure the producers and screenwriters were trying to avoid tripping over all those other stories but was the bathing scene so necessary? The whole thing seems more as a weapon to show how ignorant, selfish, and manipulative these people were. Perhaps, the faithful should avoid it.


I rate this film as just above awful. To those that approve of this film, they rationalize by stating that there is no real way to know if the Bible is more accurate than this film. If that is the case, then the whole point of worship is a waste of time (if you don't even trust the Bible to convey the stories accurately). There are a number of films that cover the same period with much closer accuracy. There is the film called "Jacob" with Mathew Modine that is superb, including each important detail from the Bible (the only authentic source) and it even manages to show the dream of "Jacob's Latter" in a scene that seems to me as completely possible as authentic. The acting of each character is absolutely superb whereas this film deviates so much that one would not possibly understand much of the story if they rely on this film. It is sad because it not only suffered from too much "compression" (which is some times a legitimate decision) but it replaces the actual Biblical dialogue with its own similar but very misleading telling of the stories. There is a series of 5 films produced by TNT that is infinitely superior and can be purchased as a set. Please do not ever use this film as a primary source for understanding these books from the Bible. The script was obviously written by a non-believer with the idea that the Bible can't be trusted anyway, so why not take liberties like so many other American adaptations? The end result is at times blasphemous.


Yes, I only gave it a 1 out of 10, but if you're voting on the Fabulously Awful Scale then it's really probably a 10 out of 10...I only caught the last 20 minutes on the Hallmark Channel today, but I could tell from just that short period of time that this one is a keeper for my Hilariously Hideous Films collection...Highlights: 1) the Egyptians costumes, 2) the bad make-up job on Moses, darkening his skin. (He looked like he had a streaky, orange fake tan, a la Charlize Theron at the Oscars)...and my personal favorite, 3) Joshua being randomly British, when all the other actors sounded American. (Perhaps it was explained earlier in the film somehow? Like, was Joshua from a different tribe or something?) Overall?...I'd say it was totally great, if you enjoy bad movies.


A 3-D short with some annoying narrator going into a haunted house and meeting Frankenstein (twice), a witch, a skeleton, an archer, an Indian and assorted other "madmen".

The movie is constantly throwing things at you for the effect--but it's pointless if u see it in 2-D (like I did).

It is interesting to see they had 3-D technology back in 1941 but this short is just silly.

And narrator Pete Smith is SO annoying.

Worth a look just for its curiosity value. I really wish TCM could show this in 3-D but they can't. A 3.


I Also have a super 8 copy of this film. There is a 16mm copy on e-bay now as I type... Yes I thought the 3-D was a little off or something, but I see by these other comments, you have to hold the glasses farther from your face. I just had to get back from the screen really far before it looked right, then it was pretty cool. Yes the film is not that good, but the 3-D is fun and it is very early for 3-D so it's historic. I hope some one will put out a sequential DVD of this and some of the other short subjects that were made. How bought you guys who ran the 3-D fest in California a couple years ago? Get some of these new prints you had made on Seq DVD!


There may be a halfway decent film trying to wriggle out of this mess, but as with another British disaster movie (of the unintentional kind), Crush, this film is killed by a ropy screenplay and some horribly two-dimensional characterisation. Michael Kitchen is a fine actor, but his performance here as Stephen's father is just shocking; he could probably drag the scriptwriter down the plughole with him, but either way he is not going to be a movie star if this is the sort of project he gets saddled with. Marianne Jean-Baptiste (another fine actor - when is she going to get another part as good as Secrets & Lies?) is quite unconvincing as a counsellor, in a seriously underwritten part, pretty much the only kind there is in this film apart from the two leads.

As to the two main roles, they have a few good moments, but are asked to make us believe the implausible and the indefensible by the script. The "operation" scene is laughable, which perhaps was the idea, although I would have thought we are supposed to be laughing at the horror of it all, not at the ludicrousness of the action. And when it came to the drug scenes, I confess I eventually had to fast forward through them, so embarrassing were they.

"Crush", incidentally, was almost called "The Sad Fuckers Club"; I'm sure that it was in the task of sanitising it for our protection that a good idea turned into a terrible film. I wonder if this film had a similar working title...


The writer has taken a good plot and completely messed it up. The dialogue between the two lead teen characters seems completely unrealistic and god help anyone that has to watch any other film starring the posh kid. He just can't act. This film was totally un-gripping, the relationship between the audience and the characters didn't exist. Anyone who likes space movies should see this film, it's completely lacking in atmosphere. The real question you will ask yourself at the end of the film is whether you should commit suicide for enduring this ****.


Pretentious teenage angst-w**k - that which is not utterly predictable is utterly nonsensical. Acting, Direction, Editing appalling, Dialog & Plot little better. Avoid unless you are a 16 with your head up your own colon...


At no time throughout this movie did I know what was happening. It was a headache to watch and certainly I read on the back of the DVD what it was meant to be about. NONE of this was conveyed in the film... I was like what the F%@! the whole way through. Unfortunately I had to watch it all as it was a part of the crappy movie marathon we were having but this one takes the cake..... it beats EVERYTHING. Why money was wasted on putting this supposed film on DVD I have no idea. All I know is it WINs, OK Pat, you WIN! I thought it would be a laugh to begin with seeing as the catch line is "he's not clowning around" and seeing the hilarious evil clown photo... it was the hardest movie I've ever had to endure because I honestly did not understand any of it. I think the only people on this planet that would make sense of it are all in mental institutions..


This movie is nothing to be psyched about! It was hard to follow, confusing, and just ridiculous to ever put the label "Horror" on it.

Something about a psycho woman witnessing her sons death and becoming obsessed with finding her sons killer (and i only know that from reading the movie cover).

Its a waste of time and money, not even bad enough to be laughed at. The only reason the actors could categorized as "good" actors is because they had a maximum of three lines each in the movie! The entire time my head was ringing with some shitty Michael Myers/Circus/hypnotizing music sh*!...

The only reason I rated it a 2 instead of a 1 is because I was put through the high school movie production of "Near Death" last night.


While watching "Hellbreeder" on DVD, I was really trying to understand what was happening on the screen. I decided to stop the movie for a moment and read the cover of the DVD seeking a hint. However, the only thing that I could notice is that the directors and writer apparently were under effect of acid or LSD when they wrote and shot the film, and the images are probably based on a bad trip. This movie is simply awful, among the worst I have ever seen. There are very few lines, and the plot is a complete mess. Further, I can not understand why this flick is tagged "horror" - actually "Hellbreeder" is horrible and dreadful, a waste of time. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Labirinto do Inferno" ("Labyrinth of the Hell")