I absolutely loved DEADER, and I feel that it's one of the strongest additions to the series since HELLBOUND. So, I held back from watching HELLWORLD so that I could have something to look forward to watching in the future (as I hadn't read ANY of the comments in this thread...) Finally, I decided to gave in and decided to watch it last night.

I am utterly shocked at the chasm in quality between DEADER and HELLWORLD. Stylistically, HELLWORLD has all the makings of a PG-13 theater horror flick. There were only two things that stopped it from being PG-13; one was the presence of a few vividly sexual scenes and the second was insufficient death to be a teenage slasher.

I'm all for trying new things with the franchise. Certainly, almost every installment since HELLBOUND has taken the franchise in a new direction (well... except maybe HELLSEEKER.) Regardless, DEADER showed us that a decent, intelligent (though at times incomprehensible) Hellraiser story can even be woven from a non-Hellraiser work. I'm assuming that the HELLWORLD script was written specifically for the franchise, and I have to tell you, this was far from a good story.

1) CHARACTERS - The first half of the film is driftingly slow. It revolves around the characters spending troves of time on each, yet managing to develop NONE of them. The token minority/asthmatic served little purpose beyond poorly timed comic relief, the horny bastard was NOTHING more than a horny bastard, the brooding teenager was nothing more than a brooding teenager, Chelsea tried oh so hard, and the British girl was a throwaway. How can you spend 45 minutes barely moving the plot forward, and STILL not expand the characters beyond two dimensions?! (And by the way, I think someone should recut the film and edit out the asthmatic comic the way STAR WARS fans edited that annoying fellow out of Episode 1. At least the film would be SOMEwhat darker.)

2) MUSIC - Nothing said "PG-13 teenage slasher wannabe" like lots and lots of party rock. It absolutely killed almost any sense of mystery and darkness that this film COULD have approximated.

3) CENOBITES - I love Chatterer, Bound and Pinhead, but come on. Where was the aura of majesty and intrigue and control that make the Cenobites so alluring? They were reduced to little more than slashers. Honestly, Henriksen could have done the killing scenes himself and it would have probably been BETTER. I'm all for keeping Cenobitic appearances limited, but then when you DO use them, for God's sakes, use them WELL.

4) "HOW'S THAT FOR A WAKEUP CALL?" - Besides the fact that the ending made less sense than the ending of BLOODLINE, and that it was probably more far-fetched than the ending of HELLSEEKER, throwing in this oneliner was the single worst thing they could have done other than have the Cenobites burst forth into glorious song... Pinhead has NEVER sunk to pun oneliners (unless I've forgotten.) Even in HELL ON EARTH, the puns were limited to the makeshift Cenobites, and Pinhead retained his majesty with some fantastic speeches. Someone needs to tell the screenwriter that he was writing for a HELLRAISER film, not A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.

5) SHODDY EDITING - Take your DVDs to timecode 1:01:41 and watch closely with the volume up until 1:02:20. Ignore the fact that Pinhead jams a wooden stake (?!) through the cop's throat. Watch the actors' mouths and listen to the dialog and just picture the actress and a voice-over actor in a recording studio with headphones, microphones and a sound mixer. This was the most POORLY CONCEALED looping I've seen since HELL ON EARTH's "S***!!! GASOLINE!" And at least that was only one line, not an entire exchange. I'm all for ADR, but TRY to do it a bit better...

6) ENDING (SPOILER WARNING) - This was a lot like A.I. (the Spielberg film), in that it could have ended several times, but was dragged unmercifully on and on. It could have ended with Chelsea screaming in the coffin. That would have been best under the circumstances. Or it could have ended at her rescue. Or it could have ended with Lance looking at his son's photo. But no, they threw in a puzzle solution with no apparent reason. (See #4.) And then they dragged it out EVEN FURTHER with a vanride and scenes from the police arrival at the hotel room.

7) The minor stuff - Then there's the stuff that's just plain petty, things that annoyed me in this film, but probably wouldn't have in a stronger film: 1) Lance, lose the earring. You're cooler without it. 2) In the scene in the attic (1:13:00) In ONE minute of edited footage, they cut to the flapping pigeons SEVEN BLEEDING TIMES! ENOUGH!!!! 3) Did anybody notice in the beginning that van had a European license plate while driving and then pulled up with an imitation New York one? That was just blatant. *sigh* ...

Grr...

"How's that for a wakeup call?!" THAT was how we followed DEADER?! If there's EVER, EVER another HELLRAISER film on the table, please, PLEASE give it to Tim Day to correct FIRST.

"How's that for a wakeup call?" *sigh* On the other hand, it was begrudgingly better than VAN HELSING.


After the abortion that was "Deader" I really wanted to enjoy this. It opened interestingly enough. And it was set in a reality where Hellraiser is acknowledged and it powers a super hip video game. The movie tries to borrow from Wes Craven's New Nightmare by putting the reality in the fiction. The set up was rad too. Nods to the old films, and characters who knew their Cenobites from overbites.

Maybe if the film depended on their knowledge of how a Hellraiser film or myth plays out it could have been clever.

It did not. Once they hit the house, the whole thing starts a downward spiral and doesn't stop until the end credits. Rick Bota turns up his same movie-making cheap tricks. It's there, it's not there, Oh wait! You're dreaming! You might know this trick from Oh...Hellseeker on..and on..and, MAN I HATED DEADER! BUT I DESPISE HELLWORLD! Lance Henriksen lends the outfit a modicum of class by being..well Lance Henriksen.

And it seems like the sex scenes are completely gratuitous now, they no longer serve the plot, they just move a character from one room to the other. Not like Hellraiser I where Frank and Julia's sex meant something. It's pathetic in parts V-VIII.

The film had a nifty concept with the cell phones and the masks but it never follows through.

A couple of nifty moments involving an impostor cenobite, a cop who radios for help one last time, and a house I would love to party in.

And this is perhaps the greatest insult of it all. Pinhead has MAYBE a total of 2 minutes screen time. And he's not the same. He's not the amazing host of hell who imparts the tales of suffering anymore. Instead he's an unleashed boring as all get out serial killer who keep saying the same inane lines! Here I'll give you his entire film dialogue. "Adam was right." "Do you believe him yet Jake?" "Do you see?" "This is just the beginning." "Welcome to Hell." and the one that made Freddy Krueger scream WTF!? "How's that for a wakeup call?" Lame ending, terrible music, and basically just an excuse for Dougie and Lance to earn a paycheck. Clive must be shaking his head in wonderment at this horrible exercise in sub par craft.

The only reason I'm keeping the disc is because the incredibly hot female lead runs around in pleather pants for the duration of the film. I can mute it if I want to. And I want to!! Send these Hellraisers to Hell please! It ended with Bloodline if you ask me!


I don't waste my words for this movie. I knew the Comics the movies and the novel. The first from Bota was good. Better then INFERNO. I make it short. Bad acting. Bad Pinhead. Bad Light. Bad music. Bad writing. Bad. bad. Bad. Bad DIRECTOR. The Horror in this movie is very small. The actors plays like bored first time actors. And this modern editing with Rockmusic and speeder velocity is out. And why teens. Why not older People? Please Mr. Bota. Stop to direct the Hellraiser movies. Every Hellraiser fan would make a better Hellraiser movie. A bad 3 from a bad 10. I couldn't believe it how bad and uninspiring that movie is.

I hope Barker never see this. ;)


Hey you wanna know what I hate? Lines of dialogue like this:

"You been away from the dark realm a while, Chels, how'd it feel playin' again?"

"Just like any other ultra-violent twenty-four hour wildly popular and yet utterly purposeless embraced-by-the-masses Internet role-playing game."

It's one of those lines of dialogue that they always put into movies like Hellraiser 8 that are impossible to avoid sounding like they were written and re-written and rehearsed and re- rehearsed and then finally they just give up trying to make it sound natural after 30 or 40 takes and, exasperated, just drop the best bad take into the movie. That, being said, let me tell you what I have figured out.

After years if deliberation about what it takes to make a good horror movie and what is missing in a bad one, after countless theories (the presence of teenagers or college-age kids being near the top of that list, by the way), I have finally discovered for certain the exact point at which a movie stops being scary and good and instantly becomes stupid and bad. There is a perfect illustration of the solution near the end of this film, when Chelsea gets locked in the room and Adam starts calling to her from under the floor.

She has becomes absorbed in some photo album despite having found herself locked into the creepiest attic imaginable, and she hears someone whispering her name from behind her. She spins around just in time to see a hand disappear beneath a crack in the floorboards, and she cautiously moves over to investigate. As she peers into the hole, she continues to hear her name being called and she can see the tiniest glimpse of a face in the darkness, and at this point I am absolutely cringing in my chair. No matter how sure I am that something is going to spring out in a situation like that it still gets to me.

And then she did something stupid.

Literally the instant Chelsea put her hand through that crack in the floorboards, I immediately relaxed, almost to the point of breathing a sigh of relief because I didn't have to worry anymore because I completely stopped caring. And it's not just because she doesn't realize she's in a horror movie (despite the fact that the entire cast of this movie are hardcore Hellraiser fans, so the fourth wall has already been breached), it's because the moment her hand crosses the threshold of that crack in the boards she instantly ceases to be a victim.

And you know what my analogy is? Suicide! When someone in a horror movie does something that stupid, it is generally because the filmmakers need to have the character killed off but can't think of a really clever way to have it happen, so they just have the character do something monumentally stupid, but the problem is that this places the blame for their death on themselves, and in a horror movie, it's not only not scary when someone is attacked after doing something as idiotic as putting her hand through the crack in the floorboards because she thinks she sees her dead friend down there, it's satisfying, and not in the good way either.

Stupidity should be painful, but in the movies, it should be lethal.

That being said, it's amazing how little effort was made into making it clear what exactly was going on in the movie. It starts out with the funeral of a college age kid having been killed because of his over-involvement in something called Hellworld, which itself is never very clearly explained. His friends later mourn that they all knew what was happening to him but still kept playing Hellworld, although if you watch the making-of featurettes on the DVD, Director Rick Bota refers to Hellworld as "a website, or video game." It's kind of an ominous sign when even the director doesn't know what his movie is about. Either that or he doesn't know the difference between a website and a video game.

The story follows the death of their friend, something about that game, and then cuts to a few years later when all of his friends get invited to a party celebrating the said video game. Needless to say, it's kind of like an overblown Halloween party where everyone seems to be fascinated with the macabre (serious macabre, too, like dead babies in jars, sounds like a blast), and girls randomly pull their breasts out (curiously, the first bit of wildly gratuitous nudity is followed by the following exchange  "Gratuitous breasts?" "Necessary breasts! Ha ha ha!" Clever.).

When all is said and done and you finally realize what has been happening throughout the entire movie, it is such a ludicrous and ridiculous twist that it distantly surpasses the Saw movies for absurdity. If you thought Jigsaw had some time on his hands to come up with some incredibly complex machines of torture, wait until you see the plot that is hatched by the Host (played by Lance Henriksen, who wastes his talent completely in this movie).

Also don't miss the making-of featurette on the DVD, in which you can witness Pinhead eating a piece of pizza and, my favorite, Khary Payton, one of the actors in the film, makes the following mysterious analogy  "Horror movies are like roller coasters, you know, they're not gonna win Oscars or that kind of thing, but they're just a lot of fun."

I don't know, Khary, have you ridden Xtreme at Magic Mountain in Southern California? I see an Oscar in that ride's future!


This movie was terrible. I can't believe all the good reviews it got. This is easily the worst movie ever to bear the name Hellraiser, and if it weren't for Lance Henriksen, it wouldn't have even been a 2 in my book.

The acting ranged from mediocre (Chelsea) to downright abysmal (Jake), with the lone exception being Henriksen in his usual calm and menacing demeanor. The dialogue was clichéd, and Pinhead was turned into a crude mixture of Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees. He is supposed to be an arbiter, a ferryman to the other-worldly pleasures of the Hellraiser world, not some mindless killer of teenie-boppers. I couldn't care about any of the characters, which is what so painfully divides this movie from the 1st, which was built upon its characters. This is like Scream, except without any meaningful attempt at suspense or scares. The whole movie was so damn predictable that I was able to call every surprise.

I could tell though, before any of drivel that passed as "horror" in a franchise that isn't even supposed to be horror, that this movie would suck based on the Pinhead shirt one of the characters was wearing. That and a guy in a cenobite mask removed all attempts at a dignified motion picture before it even really began.

What disappoints me so much though is not the crappy acting, the swiss-cheese plot, or the sheer failure to achieve even mediocrity. Its how far this movie has fallen form the 1st or the 5th. Hell, Deader was worlds better than this, and even 3 and 4 had at least good quotes. This movie is an embarrassment, and Clive Barker should be infuriated at how his once-noble franchise has been mutilated.


I really wanted to like this. After five bad sequels of a potentially likable franchise had passed, I had hopes that somewhere along the line, someone actually cared.

The biggest problem with this film is the script, or at least how it turned out on film. The story is SUPPOSED to be a mystery, but it's not.

In a mystery, the audience has one big question and a few smaller questions that drive our attention from scene to scene, in hopes of finding out the answers to those burning questions. In the case of Hellworld, we're given no clue as to what question we're supposed to be asking, except to ask, "what question are we supposed to be asking?".

We're in a perpetual state of not knowing what we're supposed to be concerned about until 80 minutes into the film, when instead of revealing the answers to the mystery by making connections in our mind for ourselves, we're dealt a five minute scene of the villain saying, "Let me explain my dastardly plan that's been going on for the last 80 minutes, that you as an audience were completely unaware of, while you watched random scenes that still don't make any sense or have any connection to the plot, even after I've explained it." During the first act, assuming there was one, I was getting a sense that the film was predictable, but I was wrong. You might think that's a good thing, but it's not, because the predictions I made were way better than the actual unfolding. I was teased into thinking there was a chance this might be good.

Pinhead shows up only a few times briefly during the that first 80 minutes, only to do things that his character never does or would do.

The film is full of "red herrings" disguised as important subplots. Subplots are supposed to mean something and have an arc. For instance, Lance Henriksen's party has a system to it, in which the party-attenders wear white masks with a number on their forehead. When a party-attender sees someone whose body they like, they dial their cell number to engage in sexual activities. You would think this mask thing would play into the plot, especially since it's discussed in detail and used throughout the film, but it doesn't do anything except make the audience go, "Hey, that's kind of a neat idea for a party.". Nothing else is done with it. It's one of many wasted opportunities in the story.

The predictable ending comes where Lance Henriksen has to face Pinhead and go to hell. Instead of torturing him and taking him to hell, Pinhead just chops Lance into three pieces for no apparent reason. Then the ghost of Lance appears briefly in the car of the barely known "protagonists" to scare them, also for no apparent reason or logic. The movie closes on police finding the bloody room where Lance got chopped up and we see the puzzle box on the floor and we stare at it for about 10 seconds........also for no apparent reason, as loud, awful and completely out of place rock music plays over the end.

On a technical level, this film was obviously shot in a hurry. There's never a single noteworthy shot in the film. No angles that were carefully chosen. No artsy one-point perspectives to make it feel like religion was a topic of the film. Just mostly regular 3/4 angle point-and-shoot. The editing work does not belong in feature films. I don't know if it was the editor or the director making this decision, but the film is chock full of MTV music video time-jumps and aperture flashes that don't do ANYTHING significant. In fact, even if there was a good story, these flashy techniques would pull you right out of the film because all you can think about are the "clever" editing techniques.

Still, this is way better than "Urban Legends 3".

3/10


Now, don't get me wrong: the movie by itself wasn't *that* bad, it was just horrible (no, not in *that* way) in the Hellraiser context. The problem, you see, is the following: the first half of the series (yes, even the 4th installment which most people dislike) were monster-movies - a mysterious box, a couple of evil looking beings that came with it, and a lot of unlucky people who came in contact with them - while "Inferno" and the rest have been turned into mind game movies, where people see things which may, or may not, be related to the box...

What we have in "Hellworld" is a genuine mediocre teen slasher: 5 young people, who were once dedicated players of the Internet based game "Hellworld" but are taking it cooler since the suicide of their fellow player, get invited to a big party. From the beginning things seem weird and soon our heroes start to die one by one... And that's it. Pinhead, once a scary creature from Hell, has basically been turned into a serial killer with minimum imagination. The whole "you dared to open the box, we came, now you'll be tortured for all eternity" is gone. It's quite obvious that this script wasn't written with Hellraiser in mind. It's actually a mystery why it was even made part of the series, when it'd worked quite nicely independently... It could have used more deaths though.

I have to mention two positive things about the movie: Lace (hey, it doesn't matter if it's a brilliant masterpiece or Z-class production when Lance is in it!) and the fact that everybody was familiar with the Hellraiser mythology (the main character Chelsea even mentions that cenobites could never attack her because she would never open the box... beside the fact that it's all just fiction).

But all in all I'd give it a 4 out of 10 - not enough deaths, lame story, has virtually nothing to do with the Hellraiser franchise, but the deaths were OK and Lace played along.


I've got to say i wasn't too impressed with this to be honest. I love the original hellraisers and i just keep hoping that they make at least 1 more decent sequel but thats looking unlikely.

Having said that i've seen worse films but its seems to have gone down the the traditional slasher film a bit too much. The real shame is that there's some good ideas in it. They just don't seem to have been pulled off.

Don't go out of your way to watch this unless you're really into the series. It doesn't add anything, just offers a slightly different slant on the story.


as usual, being a big hellraiser fan i was looking forward to the next episode; after seeing hellworld, there is only one conclusion: this time the really f... up!!!! i cannot understand how the makers of this movie did their job; the movie is really bad, weak plot, bad cast... pinhead does not deserve to be mistreated that way; the end of a legend? i hope not, but this sequel must be forgotten asap. I have seen a lot of B-horror movies that were much better. the story is really awful!!! according to hellraiser standards this is the worse that has ever been made, and a slap in the face of every pinhead fan. I wonder why Doug Bradley even accepted to play that part after reading the script! a first class shame


Awful movie. Simply, is not related with the Hellraiser saga. The movie takes elements from the "Hellraiser culture" but is really another kind of movie, about a man that takes revenge against his dead son friends.

The real "Hellraiser" parts are in the beginning and the end of the plot. The rest is another movie.

BTW : about the plot description : "Pinhead returns to terrorize computer hackers that have opened a virtual Lament Configuration on the website Hellworld.com." (Description taken from IMDb)

1)Pinhead does not return to terrorize anyone. (in fact, Pinhead appears only in the imagination of the characters) 2)There's no computer hackers involved 3)There's no such "virtual Lament Configuration"


Like Freddy Krueger, Micahel Myers, Jason Voorhees, and Chucky, Pinhead has become a pop culture icon the years. He first appeared in Clive Barker's novel "The Hellbound Heart", which was later turned into the 1987 hit movie HELLRAISER, which was written and directed by Barker. The success of HELLRAISER lead to three theatrical sequels, comics, and action figures. In the eighteen years since its release, the cult status HELLRAISER as grown bigger and bigger. Knowing they have an audience of die-hard Pinhead fans, executives at Dimension Films insist on cranking out a new direct-to-video sequel every few years. None of them are particularly any good, but I just like the legion of other Pinhead fans, watch them with the hope that one of the sequels with be as good as the original HELLRAISER. This year saw the release of two direct-to-video sequels. The first was HELLRAISER: DEADER, which was better than the average direct-to-video release, but still not nearly as good as HELLRAISER was. The second direct-to-video sequel featuring Pinhead to be released in 2005 is HELLRAISER: HELLWORLD, a film so lackluster that makes all the other direct-to-video Hellraiser sequels look like cinematic gold. 'HELLWORLD' is yet another horror flick that seems to have been inspired by Wes Craven's NEW NIGHTMARE. However, while NEW NIGHTMARE was a clever and original horror picture, HELLRAISER: HELLWORLD is anything but. The premise seems dated and it is not nearly as clever as the filmmakers believe it is. The plot is just one of the many faults with this poorly edited, dreadfully acted, and misdirected failure. Like HELLRAISER: DEADER, 'HELLWORLD' was long delayed and it's not hard to see why. It's sloppily put together and for something that is supposed to be a horror thriller, lacks tension altogether. On the plus side, the make-up and effects are decent, some gratuitous nudity is thrown in, and Lance Henrisken is good in his role. The best thing that can be said about it is that it is not quite as bad as HELLRAISER: BLOODLINE. With any luck, this will be the last Hellraiser sequel. If there is actually yet another sequel, hopefully Clive Barker will be involved. The franchise as lost its steam. It's time for Pinhead to finally die. My rating: 4/10


The '80's gave way to the modern horror film. True, they didn't have the "teen stars" coveted by the raving teen masses back in the day, but they did have the killers that these same teens continually talk and debate about. We had Freddy, Jason, Chucky, and the resurrected "careers" of Michael Myers and Leatherface. BUT there was one who managed to be not only the most frightening of the bunch, but actually never managed to cave until now, that is. It was Pinhead, the leather-clad Black Pope of Hell's Labyrinth, played with ghastly grandeur by thespian Doug Bradley, the symbol of the brilliantly macabre Hellraiser series.

However, with the release of Hellraiser: Hellworld, the third direct-to-video sequel directed by Rick Bota (whose previous entries, Hellseeker and Deader, actually gave me fleeting moments of hope for the Hellraiser series), not only has Pinhead caved (and this is a level of caving that no one could ever imagine, a level even worse than the one he stooped to in Hell on Earth), but the whole idea and principle of the series has caved to a point of extreme embarrassment.

In the "real world," Pinhead, the Cenobites, the Labyrinth, Leviathan, and the Lament Configuration are nothing more than instruments in "Hellworld," the hottest internet game to sweep the gamer and hacker world (which is kind of a sad commentary on the gaming world). Five gamers in particular  Chelsea (Katheryn Winnick), Allison (Anna Tolputt), Derrick (Khary Payton), Mike (Henry Cavill), and Jake (Christopher Jacot)  have been invited to a "Hellworld" party, hosted by a peculiar man (Lance Henriksen, who just seems to be looking for work nowadays, which is just depressing) who knows all about Hell and more. But it's not long before Pinhead and two of his followers  Bound and Chatterer (who are completely butchered because of lack of funding. Watch Hellbound* and Hellseeker^ to see how Bound^ and Chatterer* are SUPPOSED to look)  arrive to bring everlasting torment and misery to the five gamers. But how can the Cenobites be there if no one has opened the Lament Configuration, which doesn't even exist to begin with? And what could the transpiring events and the Host have to do, as Chelsea begins to suspect, with the suspicious suicide of their friend, Adam (Stelian Urian), who became more paranoid of the game as he continued to play?

Words truthfully cannot describe the disgust I felt as the film progressed. Of course, I will admit it was nice to have tiny references to the original films occasionally discussed here and there  such as the infamous "Engineer" from the original or the discussions of Philip L'Merchant, the box's creator  but references do not make a film. Serious research of the material, an excellent screenplay, and a cast up to the challenge does, which Hellworld all lack. The screenplay is nothing more than a bunch of bland splatter-fest clichés and scenes poorly sewn together, and the cast (save for Henriksen and Bradley) are all at their possible worst. When each character meets their fate through the Cenobites, their pain was completely unbelievable. If you want to sell a Hellraiser movie, the most excruciating forms of suffering have to be believable. And another thing, how come two of the torture-prone friends get better looking makeup than the Cenobites?

Back in the '80s, Pinhead's "Oh, what wonders we have to show you" would have a monumentally chilling effect. Now, it does nothing but cause fleeting moments of despair as I recall a time when Pinhead was effective.

F


Complete horror failures such as "Fear Dot Com" and "My Little Eye" apparently haven't made it fully clear just yet: the internet is NOT scary!! And yet in this eighth sequel, Rick Bota; also known as the dude who doesn't allow the Hellraiser franchise to die peacefully; presents Hellraiser now as a popular internet game that has nerdy followers and organizes secret parties in isolated mansions. Two years after the tragic suicide of their friend Adam, a group of heavily addicted Hellworld players receive invitations to an exclusive party for Pinhead fans only. The macabre host (played by Lance Henriksen) turns out to be the biggest freak of all and his collection of dangerous toys and Lamant boxes is more than impressive. During the party, however, the game becomes reality and Pinhead & his Cenobites occasionally come around to kill the teenagers. Admittedly, "Hellworld" is slightly  with the emphasis on the word 'slightly'  better than the previous two installments directed by Rick Bota. The reason is simply that "Hellseeker" and "Deader" tried to be complex psychological horror films whereas this "Hellworld" is less ambitious and goes straight for some old-fashioned morbid butchering. The murders are quite gory and there some really morbid set-pieces to enjoy, such as a gigantic meat-hook and a nice collection of bottled monsters. Still, you don't care one iota whether the characters live or die and there never is any real suspense in the script. The once legendary Pinhead is barely present and he's pretty much used like a typical pop-up advertisement: pointless, promising but bleak and gone before you know it. Decent ending, though!


This review does not contain a spoiler. Nothing could spoil this movie or make it any less enjoyable.

This is the worst movie in the history of cinema. I have never seen anything this bad before. Usually I think people just haven't given a movie a real chance when they give it 1star out of 10, but this movie do not deserve anything but the worst possible rating.

This shows a total lack of respect for Doug Bradley and Lance Henriksen and anything associated with Clive Barker and Hellraiser. This could not have been more humiliating to these people if they had been forced to unspeakable sex acts in teletubby costumes.

This movie is beyond a review. Everything about it is bad. Show me any five seconds of this movie and I can write a whole review telling you how those five seconds suck in every possible way.


Don't even rent it. If you happen to come across it on the side of the road (which is quite possible due to the hatred I had toward this movie once I finished it), maybe then you could give it a watch. I want my 87 cents and time wasted watching back. This movie is just pathetic. I thought there was no way a Hellraiser movie could get this bad, but oh, it can, and it did. First of all, this movie has the entire Hellraiser series "self aware" in the world, and Pinhead is a widely known character to all of these sad pathetic gamers. For example, one of these douchebags is running around in a Pinhead shirt....yeah, lame. Don't expect any great acting either, because there's NO acting. It's horrible. A laugh fest. All I really have to say is this; Before I rented this movie, I came on here and read all these bad reviews, but being a huge Hellraiser fan, I decided against them and went ahead anyway. Now I'm here to back them up, this movie does truly suck.


So...this is IT for all the major hellraiser fans...finally taking the series to a new direction....I disagree it does(i apologize for cursing,but it sounds better this way).

The movie is about a MMORPG game called hellworld,which is based on the previous hellraiser movies. The game annually has a party,where people are invited viá the game. Only the best players are invited. The movie follows a group of people who are invited. Their friend died 2 years before,and the death apparently had something to do with the game. Anyways they party in the house after meeting ''the host'' played by Lance Henriksen. Apparently the ''leviathan house'' where the party is,is owned by him. Eventually they start dying one by one in REGULAR deaths. Thats right. REGULAR. No chains ripping through human flesh. No piano wires to cut people up. No nothing special really. The directing on this one works well,and it has decent actors. The story is also clever and good. So whats the problem? IT ISN'T A HELLRAISER MOVIE! OK,the thing is that miramax couldn't bother to make a decent script for the 2 latest hellraisers(hellworld and deader),so instead they took some old script they hadnt filmed yet,put cenobites to it and voilá,they had a new hellraiser script. In deader this worked,but the thing is deader was very,very different from hellworld. Were as deader went for a thriller/horror approach in the movie,hellworld is nothing but a basic slasher. It might work with some other franchise,but not with hellraiser. What mostly bothered me in the movie was that pinhead,although getting shown little enough to keep him scary,does most of the dirty work himself,but the thing is he doesn't use the regular chains and stuff. No,he uses a hatchet and a stake. He uses the hatchet with his hand. See the problem? The pinhead we all know doesn't kill people with hatchets,and especially doesn't handle them himself. Then the other cenobites include only 2 actual cenobites. The other two are victims of murders in the ''leaviathan house''. These two are a zombie looking man,and a woman with her throat open(not like in hellraiser or hellraiser II,this one is worse). The 2 actual cenobites include that annoying chatterer wannabe(in the ending of the movie he has a neat toy though),and the guy whos has a black cloth on his eyes and mouth(any help on which movie this guy is from?). The musical score is very meaningless,it doesn't bring any tension or badness in the movie. It might as well not be there.

Overall if you are a hardcore fan of the hellraiser movies,don't watch this. You'll just be mad afterwards. BUT if you're a slasher fan,then definitely see this one. You'll like it. Scoring: Hardcore Hellraiser fans:21/100 Other people:80/100


This is blasphemy! Doesn't Clive Barker have the final power to say no to a Hellraiser movie ?!? I gave this a "4" because it was mildly entertaining. The acting was hurtin' for certain. The lead girl was beautiful. The guy playing Adam's father was the only decent actor though. That guy with the asthma problem was not only a bad actor but, annoying to look at with his gooberish expressions. This was like watching Scream. This had very little relevancy to The Hellbound Heart. Look at the fat cop at the end and you will see how much sense this movie made. Funny, seems as though our heroine has a pretty good imagination...


I am only five minutes and ten into the movie, and I felt compelled to pause and complain about this. Already, the over-dramatic dialogue and stereotypical group of teens makes for an hour and a half of teen-horror crap. The funeral scene implies a whopping body count of ...1! Now i haven't actually seen it yet, so i don't know. When sci-fi/modern technology mixes with horror, when has it EVER been good? i.e. Halloweeen: Resurrection with webcams, Jason X in the future, a 3-D Nightmare on Elm Street, and now Pinhead in cyberspace? All this time, I'm wondering how could Doug Bradley possibly agree to do these types of movies? With the exception of Inferno, the direct-to-DVD sequels were cinematic crap; even Disney has the sense to stop making DVD sequels to good movies after 1. Hellraiser needs a revival, a rejuvenation, a return to the big screen. They did it for Batman, they're doing it for Superman, and they sure as hell can do it for everybody's favorite cenobite.


Any fan of the Hellraiser series will be sickened and insulted to see that the entire franchise has been reduced a teen slasher comedy/horror joke. It's hard to believe that director rick bota, who actually created the dark and atmospheric "Hellraiser: Deader" is responsible for this putrid. With the look of a student film gone wrong, bota sets up his ditsy teens in a stupid haunted house to get ready for the slaughter. The premise is that these kids are all attending a 'Hellraiser' party, fans of a stupid video game. Yes; this movie claims that Pinhead doesn't really;y exist: he is actually a video game! If you don't believe me, just take a look. you will be shocked at how incredibly bad this one is. With the look and all the style of a horrible made for TV movie, this one is certainly the death blow to the franchise. Absouletely sad and embarrassing... but should be seen only to see just how bad a film can be.


I was going to agree with everyone here who claim HELLWORLD isn't really a HELLRAISER movie but I'm having an internal debate with myself as to what constitutes a HELLRAISER movie ? The original was like Hitchcock on acid with an AIDS allegory . HELLBOUND was a rather plot less runaround but was still reconisably Barker inspired . Since HELL ON EARTH the series shows often cynical flaws of being a franchise with a lack of internal continuity and unimaginative repetitive plots . HELLWORLD continues - and probably concludes - the series

The film starts with something Barker couldn't have envisaged 20 years previously - people spending their lives in front of a computer . Somewhat unimaginatively these people are teenagers wearing Cenobite paraphernalia and right away you're reminded of Wes Craven directing a screenplay written by Kevin Williamson , effectively Pinhead Meets SCREAM . To be honest though there's absolutely no reason for Pinhead and Co. to be in the movie since the villain is Lance Henriksen a father who is embittered about the death of his son

There's all the symbols , iconography , plotting and situations common in all teen slasher films . There's also a couple of nods to SAW which like HELLRAISER started off as a well regarded horror film then became a franchise factory churning out sequels to lower acclaim and box office . HELLWORLD isn't a terrible horror film in its own right but there's a seen it all before feel and people who have enjoyed most of the sequels will certainly feel cheated that they're watching something that could be any type of horror film


Director Rick Bota made two Hellraiser movies at one go. Shooting in Romania is apparently cheap, so he takes on the task of releasing two more outings of the franchise at one go.

This time the story revolves around a group of teenagers, immense fans of an internet game called Hellworld set in the realm of the Cenobites. Two years ago Adam, the one responsible for introducing the group to Hellworld, set himself ablaze in a gruesome suicide. Since that time they played less of the game and one of them cut all ties he had with the grouping. However an internet riddle results in an invitation to a Hellword party hosted by none other than a Lance Henriksen lookalike. The party is like no other, as the Hellraiser fans can really party: Random sex, easy-going naked chicks, hellish music and a lot of Hellraiser lore make this the event to be at... Rick Bota naturally one again reminds us of the Merchant bloodline, which was so key to the horrendous Hellraiser IV (thanks for reminding me of that tragic movie!).

After two decent flicks in Hellseeker and Deader Rick Bota is back with this teen slasher movie version of Hellraiser with Pinhead as the new Jason. The reaction is immediate: WTF? And the WTF stays on with you up until the very end of the movie. Lance Henriksen sums it up himself the best stating at one point: "You feel like your in a bad horror movie?" Hell, yeah. At least I did. Almost no Cenobites parade through the movie and the gore is exceptionally unimaginative with Pinhead lopping off one kids head (totally idiotic torture tactics by the master of pain).

The movie is infested with sexual undertones and quite a few naked chicks parade throughout the movie with a sex scene here and there. If a mix of sex and gore is your piece of cake you'll be loving this. After seeing Deader it seems however cute chicks is Rick Bota's of distracting people from the lacklustre scriptwriting...

I was also quite surprised that the Cenobites seem to be progressively less frightening and devious with time. Could it be that in the era of special effects people have forgotten about how important decent make-up is? Surprisingly the movie ends on a high note and after the terrible hack-fest in between I really like how the movie was resolved. Everything seemed to fit together so nicely and highly influenced my end score (from 2 to 4). An unexpectedly slick end to the movie and most likely a nice outré to the series.

If only we didn't have to watch a teen slasher movie to see the suiting end to the series.


To be honest, I didn't even make it all the way through this piece of crap movie. It was horrible! Boring, with a story that made absolutely no sense, and full of random nudity and sex. Not creepy, bloody, or even like a Hellraiser movie at all! They should have used another actor to play Pinhead, this movie surely couldn't have been made worse by it.What were they thinking when they made this garbage? I'd rate it zero if I could. I think I made it about 85% through the movie, there was about 15-30 minutes left of it, and if the end redeemed it...well...I wasn't willing to waste a second more watching to see. The series had gotten steadily worse, but in the end they were watchable. This travesty though...I think it's time to stop.


The story of "Hellraiser:Hellworld" revolves around a group of teens who receive invitations through a Hellraiser website to attend a Hellworld party.They then find themselves in a huge mansion party with plenty of sex and booze.The party is hosted by the Lance Henriksen character.Then one by one the gang start to die at the hands of Pinhead and the Cenobites at the urging of the host,who apparently has a hidden score to settle with each of the teens."Hellraiser:Hellworld" is a crappy teen slasher flick with little bit of gore and sex thrown in.The characters are obnoxious and stupid and the action moves at snail's pace.Pinhead is used sparingly and his dialogue sucks.The direction by Rick Bota is uninspired and the script by Joel Soisson is extremely predictable.Like "Hellraiser:Deader","Hellword" is beyond bad and even Henriksen's great performance can't save the film.3 out of 10.


The problem with the last few Hellraiser movies is that it's not a Hellraiser movie... "Deader" and "Hellworld" are OK stand alone films, but as a "Hellraiser" films, they're a disgrace.

Take a simple story, fill it with "real or unreal" events and show some blood every ten minutes. Oh yeah, and don't forget to throw Pinhead in for a few seconds every half hour. True, Hellraiser was never meant to be about Pinhead. It turned out that way and that's not an problem. It's the disrespect the creators of the last films have for this awesome character. That's the issue. The Hellraiser series needs to be brought back to their origins.

"Hellworld" is a fine movie when you don't see it as a "Hellraiser" film. I enjoyed Lance Henriksen presence in the movie and the film also includes a few cool kills.

6/10


The eighth series in the Hellraiser sequels is pathetic with long drawn out slow shots to fill the movie's one and a half hour time space, it's hard to believe this film is by the same director who filmed Hellraiser VI and shows you exactly what can be made with no real plot if the producers think a profit is available. A vengeful father misses out on his sons life and takes out acts of violence on the people involved surrounding his suicide, maybe Vengeance would be a more appropriate title, the storyline is awful, it has no actual links with hell until the very end when Pinhead finally makes a short appearance. Lance Henriksen and Doug Bradley bring little to the film and are capable of much finer performances, the ideas are not new and have been done before similarly in The CLubHouse. Scenes near the end with Jake and Chelsea make you want to be sick, lots of cuts between the two the only dialogue being Jake!, Chelsea!, Jake!, Chelsea!, Jake!, Chelsea!, Chelsea!, Jake! the film is too slow due to a lack of everything and these should have been cut on the editing table along with the rest of the movie.

Hellraiser Hellworld is painful to watch and by that I mean really poor, cast with a stereotypical British actor in line with the current US trend it always seems to be a cockney or someone who has the Pride & Prejudice Mr Darcy, Mr Darcy accent, there are other areas in England apart from London, period dramas and Narnia, this film is very predictable and boring, the box and pinhead seem to have taken a back seat in the later movies and also people seem to just die instantly as opposed to being taken to hell or within hell, as IMDb user troyanov states, 'Lance and interestingly even Pinhead looks bored', probably due to their 'uninspiringly' crap dialogue.

Should you ever find the box one day and open it the cenobites will come and take you to the hell cinema to force you to watch this movie for all eternity or perhaps the part where Pinhead says 'How's this for a wake up call?' looped forever. Just another Hollywood cash-in movie a sum up of the outlines: fear of adults, teens, rock music, partying, sex all round and some death scenes, if you want to make a movie like this just read the How To Make A Hollywood Teeny Flick For Idiots Guide.


Never having seen a Butler Brothers Production before, I came into this film fresh and with no bias one way or the other. I'd read both pro and con reviews of their previous movies (ALIVE AND LUBRICATED, BUMS, etc.) and thought these zany brothers might be worth checking out. Having received and watched CONFUSIONS OF AN UNMARRIED COUPLE, I must say that there are both pro and cons in this one little film and, unfortunately, the cons tip the scale a bit too much for a positive rating.

The most appealing aspect of the film is undoubtedly the snappy dialogue and the comedy it contains. Watching Dan (Brett Butler) try to sneak his old mattress out his ex-girlfriend's apartment was pretty damn funny (note: this is attempted while his ex is still in the apartment). His comment "We need to talk" while peaking out from behind the would-be stolen mattress is quite hysterical. The downside to the dialogue is its delivery. Brett may be a fine film maker, but he's not an actor. His lines are delivered in queue-card fashion with poor (or little) emotion. Naomi Johnson as Lisa (his ex) does a more admirable job, using both good facial contortions and voice modulation to get her side of the story across.

The fact that this is a story about messed up relationships is old territory covered many, many times, too. This accompanied by the continual panning back and forth of the camera during conversations/arguments makes for an old and stilted feel. I'm sure the intention was to give the audience the sense that they were the camera, watching this story unfold, but the effect gets tiring and irritating after a very short time.

The other sense (for me, at least) was that I was watching a soft-porn film without the sex. The verbiage was there  the f-word being used liberally, as well as other profanities  and felt abused/overused rather than natural flowing dialogue or shocking. I'm no prude and enjoy the occasional merry chorus of "F-yous", too, but Confusions of an Unmarried Couple went overboard.

I understand the budgetary constraints of such a small production and seriously appreciated what Brett and Jason Butler were doing here. They just needed to avail themselves of better filming techniques (i.e., not the continual panning) and find an actor who could play the Dan character with an edgy style, and I feel almost certain that the film would've received much more praise from me ...and perhaps others.


The people here who praised this episode, are obviously leading an extremely boring life. This is one of the worst episodes I have ever seen for any TV program, anyone with an IQ over 2020 can guess the ending right away. I think the people who were surprised by the ending would have thought OJ was innocent even if they saw a video of the whole crime. The beauty of English TV is the woman Stella who is supposed to be beautiful, I would call a bit dumpy and a 6 on a 10 scale. She was no raving beauty. And the guy who is the fitness fanatic, and mind you I'm not gay, looks out of shape. I think Thriller is an excellent TV series but this episode was its worst.


This is a horrible film. Its nothing like the Karate Kid except that it has a kid in it who knows Karate. The plot is paper thin, the acting is cardboard (Corey Feldman included) and character development consists of good guys in white, bad guys in red. The whole film takes itself far too seriously and this is especially evident anytime the overly dramatic soundtrack ques in (good example being the very serious sounding synth music being played during a food fight in a school cafeteria as students smile on). The way the film plays out it feels like they're making it up on the spot. Even the action is boring and safe feeling. Don't waste your time.


I don't know what to say about this film. I went into it with zero expectations, apart from Aishwarya Rai to look stunning. So I was sort of pleasantly surprised. Make no mistake though, it is a poor film.

Ill keep it short because there isn't really much to say.

Story: Tilo (Aishwarya) is part of some ancient mystical cult which uses the power of spices to heal people, around the world. So she sets up shop in Oakland. She also has to relinquish any sort of personal desires, and can never leave the shop. Then she meets Doug (Dylan McDermott) and so the normal culture clash thing which pops up in every single one of Gurinder Chadha's films ensues. Blah blah blah...the end There are numerous flaws, but Ill start with the positives The Good - Aishwarya looked great. And she had a consistent accent. Performance was relatively good, given the other flaws inherent in this film - Santosh Sivan did a great job with cinematography. San Francisco looked fantastic Errm I think thats about it The Bad - The script was weak. there was no character development and it was padded out too much with contrived and unnecessary subplots. Anupam Kher was so badly wasted. I mean I think that some subplot was needed to show the way the spices work (or however you want to word it), but they really detracted form the main story, which itself wasn't up to much in the first place.

- I think the very basic concept of the film was handled poorly. the makers never seemed to know themselves whether they were making a realistic film or some sort of magical/mystical fantasy. And resultantly there was no sort of ambiance, build-up or anything to keep someone interested to the end of it.

- Absolutely no chemistry at all between Aishwarya and Dylan McDermott - On the same point, the performances were average at best. I think the fault does lie in the script and the direction as no one had any real scope for performance and they were all just basically required to look good for the camera.

- Unnecessary voice-overs, really got to me As I said, if you go in with no expectations at all, you could well enjoy it, but its still a poorly made film.

4/10


So I randomly flipped open a newspaper one Friday night to look at the movie listings, and on a whim decided to check this one out. I was expecting something simple, dumb, yet enchanting - something in the realm of Chocolat or Bewitched. This, however, was WAY below my expectations, and I think that could have been prevented by simply adding one ingredient - a different director.

Aishwarya is absolutely beautiful, and I'm sure that she can act - when she's given something to work with. Unfortunately her only given function in the movie is to stare wide-eyed out the window of her shop at the world around her. How disappointing. Then there's Dylan McDermott, the beautiful stranger who captures the mistress' attention. He's cute enough to pull off his part well, and seems to be the master of sultry stares. Then comes the myriad of regular customers, bright and interesting personalities that could have been the highlight of this movie if it weren't for the director's insistence on putting random Tilo voice-overs in whenever the customers were about to say something interesting. Was it really necessary for them to be constantly interrupted?

The problem isn't in the story - it's quite enchanting. Banal, yes, but what movie isn't nowadays? The problem was the lack of subtlety. OH NOES! DANGER! THE CAMERA'S SUDDENLY FOCUSSING ON A PILE OF RED CHILI PEPPERS! The problem got so serious that 20 minutes into the movie, the audience (including myself) would laugh at every chili pepper that came onto the screen. Constant flashes forward to events that may or may not happen? Unnecessary. Doug's extremely random back-story that doesn't greatly affect the plot? Unnecessary. The store suddenly collapsing thanks to mysterious unexplained powers? Weird, and again unnecessary. If only Gurinder Chadra, the screenwriter, had directed this. I really enjoyed her Bend it Like Beckham, which nicely mixed cheesy Bollywood cinema with modern "dromedy". I think something much nicer (and much more tasteful) would have been produced.


Mistress of Spices can be watched just once. The story line is downright amateurish. The Mistress of Spices has weird rules. Aishwarya Rai looks pretty, but has no role to play. She just stands and twinkles her eyes, coy and shy, reserved, steeped in age old tradition and modesty, wrapped in Indian sarees.

Doug (McDermott) acts much better, has more expression to his face, delivers his lines well.

The customers to her shop add color, contrast and variety. But they have no serious roles. They all look lost and scattered, like little kids who have memorized their lines and come to get a pound of garlic or some crushed almond powder.

It is like when you know which spices provide what relief, I would not visit that store again. Would you? Garlic - an aphrodisiac, okay. Lotus Root - for love eternal, and so on.

The lines in the script are so artificial and do not hold up. They are so weak. The narration by Aishywarya Rai just does not cut it. It is so poorly delivered without any inflections to tone of voice and plain.

In the middle of the story, the plot deviates to some Indian hut (for no reason) and comes back. The story did not do the movie justice and the script poorly written.

The actors looked lost except Doug (McDermott). The Mistress of Spices if forever locked up in her store. Hmm! A Cinderella Motif without relief.

Jacob David.


Hear me out on this one.

It might just be me, but I am more forgiving to voice overs if they are not in English. I spend most of my effort watching the screen and reading the subtitles in this case, so the only noise I ever notice is the music, and the melody of voices. As another reviewer here pointed out, we're in voice overs up to our eyeballs because of this film. It bothered me so much I couldn't watch more than twenty minutes of it.

I wanted to love this film so badly. The premise was brilliant, the story wonderful, but it was all undone within ten minutes by poor execution and lousy dialogue. I cried when I hit the stop button, but I just couldn't take anymore.

It's funny. If it has chocolate it's wonderful, but if it has spices (a la Woman on Top), it lacks fire. Maybe one day someone will get it right.


there certainly was zeeeero chemistry between the two leads but i don't think it was due to the lack of "smootching", ash and shahrukh had chemistry in devdas and everyone knows they didn't kiss, so i rather blame the actors in MOS who obviously were very uncomfortable with each other.

ASH disappointed me in this flick, going through her filmography feels like being on a roller-coaster, sometimes she'll give an amazing performance (like in devdas or khakee) and at other times (like in MOS) she'll just hammer her lines and look as blank as a board that's just been erased.

I won't even get started on that Mcdermott guy, Geez! display some emotion man!! that scene when they're in bed together felt like watching the weather channel, no scratch that, it felt like watching my grandma cutting her toenails while watching the weather channel. what was the director thinking?? Gosh, i remember complaining about the lack of fire in Bride and Prejudice, well, this movie makes B&P look like the new Gone with the Wind.


Sorry to say I found this movie pretty grim.I did find Ashwarya Rai to be quite luminous and lovely.Her performance seemed pretty nuanced but somewhat one dimensional.The story is confusing and hard to describe.It is like a lenghty advertisement for both Ashwarya and spices/aromatics/mystical healing properties of various substances.Mind you the rattling chilies wore thin on me! I went with 2 of my sons who are major film going people and when asked to describe the plot line,simply could't.It is long- and feels long.Dylan McDermott is easy on the eyes- he uses all the usual tricks to allure- unshaven,motorcycle,architect....but there is essentially no chemistry between him and Ashwarya Rai. I was very disappointed in this film.I unfortunately could't recommend going to it.A rental on a dark gloomy November night might be OK- warm colors,good cinematography etc.


When the chillies in a spice shop get more on screen attention than the leading man in a romance, you've got yourself big, big problems. Here are just a few: She's not allowed to touch a human... SHE'S RUBBING HER COUSIN'S HAND 5 MINUTES IN! Does every Indian now living in San Francisco have a history blighted by parricide!? When a film relies on over 50% of it's dialogue through the source of spoken thought it is corrupt of imagination.

On a more general note: Mistress of the Spices is a poor story poorly told. It's cliché ridden; the dialogue is shocking; the acting is unconvincing and the directing woefully one dimensional. Aishwarya Rai does indeed have stunning eyes - but does the camera really need to give us close-ups of them every 4 minutes!? There is nothing to recommend this febrile nonsense. It is patronising to both the Sub-Continent and the West and, as a metaphor, is as involving as if she'd have ran a DIY store. Actually...

If you're a fan of film and want to see how to get everything wrong - watch this. If you think time is too precious, have a curry instead - it's infinitely more authentic and satisfying.


The movie is awful.no two ways about it. The directer and the screenplay writers have completely killed the story. This movie is based on Chitra Devakaruni Banerjee's novel by the same title. Go read the book. Chances are you are going to hate the movie even more after reading the book. I don't even want to waste my time explaining what went wrong with the movie,but this is the worst adaptation of a book i have ever seen. I am amazed how did the writer allow her book to be so badly adapted into a movie. The writers have killed all the essential elements of the book which made the book good. The film,instead is nonsensical and even ridiculous. Don't waste your time watching the movie. buying the book would be a better utilization of your time and money.


First of all I do not know how I landed up to watch this unbearable movie...

The characters are really weak, The plot nothing great. And certain moment seem to have been stolen from other movies like Chocalat!!!

The script and direction are weak and did not hold me for more then 15 minutes.

However I still watched the film till end.

How do such filmmakers get financed? I guess there are brave people like me around who make up the audience -maybe thats how.

please avoid. Save your money and spare your being...


Maybe I don't know enough about how spices are revered in Indian culture, I felt it did not make me that interested in the spice thing - except that I love Indian cooking! However, after watching Chocolat, I wanted to know a lot more about the Mayan heritage of chocolate and about the folklore behind the 'magic' - the film just inspired that romantic imagery and magic feeling about both Vianne and the chocolate.

This film did not inspire very much and I think, considering the premise, could have done a lot more! I don't think Dylan McDermott was the right guy because it was never convincing that she was THAT interested in him to break any rules. I wouldn't have broken any rules for him! :) He just wasn't very charming and the part about his so-called Native American history was almost gratuitous and very unconvincing.

Uninspiring and unconvincing...that's how I summarise this film. Nice idea though, just got in the wrong hands for carrying it out, I think.


I went to this film because it was advertised as being in the "Bend It Like Beckham" vein, which was not only a misleading come-on, but in the end also a film as ineffective as the real Beckham in the recent World Cup. Right from the beginning the viewer has to wonder about the motivation. Why on earth does Tilo go to San Francisco and why is she designated the Mistress of Spices? Yes, of course, there is small reference to the upheavals and uprisings in India and going to San Francisco could have been for reasons of escape. However, this is not made at all clear and the next time we see Tilo she is in her spice shop greeting a number of stereotyped types with trivial, boring dialogue. It doesn't stand very well on its own but when compared to other culturally-centric films such as "Like Water for Chocolate," "East is East," it brings up the bottom of the spice barrel. You'd be better off going to a good Indian restaurant rather than wasting your time and money on this film.


My friend gave me the vcd of mistress of spice because i was bored.

I would rather be bored. I closed the movie in about 20mins. I was that annoyed.

This is miscast, mis-shot, mis-edit, a miss-miss and probably was a mistake.

The acting is mediocre. Ash's performance, like any of her Hindi movies, was pathetic. I am surprise she gets all this attention. Seriously, beauty can take places.

The story is strange and the way to present it is even stranger.

Not recommended to watch it. Unless you really want to drool over Ash.


I went to see this film, and if it wasn't for other people sitting around us, I would have walked out of the cinema half way through. There is no chemistry between the leading actors. There is very poor character development. Lots of bits of information is thrown in about various characters without linking it to the story. Ashwarya Rai's voice over after a while becomes boring. Lots of other minor characters are added, I think just to fill up the blank pages of the script. The spices are only an excuse to give a movie its title. I am sure some of spice add makers could have done more justice to the spices. The music in places is pathetic. Anupam Kher tries hard with his performance, but fails to add any relevance to the story line. This film does not deserve to be associated with Gurvinder Chadda. Is her name being used for promoting her husbands lacking talent?


There isn't very much to be said about this film, so I will keep it short. The script is simply laughable. People will say: "you have to understand the magic of it...". They're wrong. There's no magic. Only excruciatingly poor story and character development. To top that off numerous smaller characters are introduced to the story without actually contributing anything to it, and the chemistry between the two leading roles is just non-existent.

For those of you thinking: "I hear you buddy, but I think I'll take my girl/boyfriend to it. They love those romantic love stories." To you I say this: I watched this movie with my girl and another couple. We all left the cinema with bruises on our foreheads from smacking them with despair throughout the movie.

This movie is a waste of your time. The only reason I gave it a 2 and not less is that Aishwarya Rai looks stunning. That's it.


Let's begin with...the good things, shall we? The cinematography, art direction... it's OK. Visually, I think this movie has succeeded in creating a modern showing and respect for traditions. Beautifully done there, I promise you that your eyes will have a feast on all the spices.

That's about all I can say. The characters are confusing, questionable, unrealistic... The whole storyline and concept is magical, mystical and mysterious though it succeeded in being unconvincing. I mean, my favorite movies are Memoirs of a Geisha and Big Fish; all these stories have beautiful story lines, images, fantasies etc. "Mistress of Spices" failed right from the beginning. Overflooded with voice overs, over explained and overdescripted with unnecessary dialogue. I thought it killed the beautiful images seen on screen. Wise words and inspiring lines were thrown casually at inappropriate times. Everything was predictable, foolish and very flat. I feel so terrible for every potentially-good movie I see that turns out to be a flop.


Magical realism requires a deft directorial hand and a great screenplay that can present you with the absurd but still make you believe it. The Mistress of Spices had neither.

First of all, the lead performances were OK. In Aishwarya's case I expected much worse, based on what I'd seen from her past roles. Here she played a woman reluctant to embrace love and it turned out believable. Dylan, already known to be a competent actor, delivered the occasional smoldering look necessary to convey "I'm falling in love."

It was the poor treatment of the supporting characters that made this movie almost atrocious. The good-natured cab-driver's first scene seemed completely unbelievable because of the bad acting. The young Sikh teenager's transformation from dutiful son to gold-chained gangbanger was unintentionally hilarious, calling on caricatures rather than character development. And whoever fixed his turban needs to be fired. The grandfather's needling concern for his granddaughter's love life reeked of "Bend it Like Beckham" with the over-the-top parental figures nagging their children into the arms of non-Indians. The problem is, that while all these undeveloped 2-D characters would have been great in BILB, they ruined the atmosphere that the audience needed to believe in Tilo's magic. If you aren't grounded in the reality of the movie's world, then the "magic" part isn't special.

The use of voice-over for Tilo's thoughts may have been necessary so that the audience could know about the different spices, but it just did not feel right. It indicated that the screenwriter never completely transcribed the story for the big screen. Inner voice works for books. Not as much for movies. The rules that Tilo lived by also came across as hokey and impractical for a store-owner in California. The fact that none of her customers, even traditional Indians, knew of her true nature kept the stakes low. At the very least, if there were people helping her stay inside the store and truly appreciative of her mystical skills (or truly dependent on them) then her conflict would have made some kind of sense.

Now to SPOILERS: The blazing speed of the relationship fixes is mind-boggling. Tilo meets Haroun's neighbor, a woman who has barely spoken to Haroun. Pretty much the next day, Tilo is handing Haroun a wedding gift. Give it a little time please? The Sikh gangbanger suddenly agrees to take martial arts lessons rather than fire off that gun with that DANGEROUS GANG he just joined yesterday. Roundhouse kicks don't stop bullets! Doug's girlfriend suddenly shows up in Tilo's Indian spice store so she can find out how to cook for him. Then when she finds out that Doug loves someone else, she's just happy for him?

They put way too much makeup on Aishwarya, who was meant to be playing the role of an unassuming natural beauty who supposedly couldn't leave her store or have romance. Tone it down a little bit so that when you finally have that big makeover scene, there's a real reason to be impressed!

Strangest of all was Doug's back story about his estranged mother. It was so completely irrelevant. With such mystical tension and drama leading up to his deep dark secret, I am still left wondering :So your great grandpa gave you a magic feather...and???

But the colors were pretty.


Everything was in place for this to be a real benchmark American Bollywood fusion flick (are there enough out there for that to be an actual genre?), but Dylan McDermott was so horribly miscast as Aishwarya Rai's love interest that I was gagging every time they shared the screen. Painfully unwatchable. How oafish, vapid and superficial can a guy be? Really, this film could have been so much more powerful with a more appropriate male lead.

The idea of the magic of the spices was a bit of a stretch for me at first, but Aishwarya played it well and carried it off nicely. I liked how the intent of each spice could turn on its head if the rules were not followed. Great colors!

Remember folks, listen to the chilies. They should have warned the casting director, heh heh.


It's not often that a film can be called both sophomoric and pedophilic, but the "daring" Andy Anderson has achieved that dubious status with his latest pornographic diatribe, "Detention." With absolutely no social or entertainment value whatsoever, this film makes it painfully clear why Texas filmmakers seldom receive respect in the industry. I attended a staged reading of the screenplay and I was genuinely embarrassed, both for the writer and for the Texas film industry. The work is not just shocking, it's shockingly bad, and is an insult to both the industry and to those of us who pay our money to see garbage like this. Mr. Anderson, a college professor in the Dallas area, proves the old saw that, "Those who can, do. And those who can't..." Well, you know the rest.


If ever there was a pointless movie, then this is it. The story is basically the wartime experience of a Scots lass Charlotte Gray, who has a much needed talent of being able to speak fluent French. ("Oh Lord, not again", do I hear somebody say? Yep! Afraid so.) It begins with Charlotte sitting in a railway carriage rolling up a cigarette with a type of paper that wasn't on the market until after the war (i.e. with tapered corners). Still in the carriage she then talks to a complete stranger who is obviously after personal information. Whatever happened to the observance of the popular slogan of the time, "Be like Dad, keep Mum"? After the railway journey she is seen alighting in a supposedly war-torn, yet oddly blimp-free and undamaged London from a post-war (indeed relatively modern) London bus. After which it starts to get sensible, but only for a while.

After falling in love with an RAF officer (and to whom for some unexplained reason she has tried to teach French beneath the sheets...please don't laugh, it's supposed to be serious), she discovers that he has been posted missing in France, so decides to join SOE (Special Operations Executive) for the express purpose of finding him. Hold on! It gets sillier!

Notwithstanding the fact that never would such an emotional girl either have passed the scrutiny, or indeed the strict training of the SOE, she is sent to France on a probationary tryout. A tryout? In wartime France, albeit only in Vichy? Oh come on!

Considering that many (if not most) agents sent, were captured and/or killed within days of their arrival this idea is ridiculous. In wartime, or at any other time, there is no place for sentimentality in the furtherance of sabotage or espionage. Certainly no tryouts. Churchill's idea was to set Europe ablaze, not to send love-sick girls on errands of stupidity (or should that be Cupidity). I'm still actually wondering what her official mission was, or did I miss something?

Then we're given a ludicrous depiction of an air drop. Supplies are dropped from no more than 60-100 feet at which height the parachutes would not have time to open, but somehow they do. (Needless to say if a person is dropped from that height they would almost certainly be killed, with or without a parachute.)

A short while later comes a scene (after said airdrop, of which the enemy had got wind and ambushed it), which shows that the Germans have left bodies of resistant fighters lying unguarded in the middle of a field. I find it extremely puzzling that the Germans didn't remove them from the scene, if for nothing else than to glean vital information from them. But then I suppose the screenwriter thought that really the Germans weren't all that clever. What? In his dreams! In the meantime Charlotte learns that her pilot boyfriend is dead.

Although being somewhat tedious, the story then begins to take on a vestige of reality, regarding the fate of two parent-less Jewish children and the resistance group leader's father who is also of Jewish ancestry. I won't say any more on the plot for fear of any more spoilers, but suffice it to say that the end is even soppier than the beginning.

I was going to mention more goofs in the film, but some have already been noticed by other reviewers and placed in the "Goofs" board. I refer you to them.

It's all reasonably well acted, and has good cinematography, but in coping with such an empty-headed script, no-one shines through. I was hoping this production would be as good as both "Odette" and "Carve Her Name with Pride". I'm sorry to say it doesn't even come close to either. That said, there was the making of a really good movie here, and it could have been another fitting tribute to the courage of all wartime agents. However, somewhere along the line it got lost amongst the emotional twaddle and the scriptwriter's fantasy. Maybe in the future someone with more nous will try a remake, and sort out the mess.


This film recently surfaced on Channel 4.I saw it when it came out and thought it awful then and my view has not changed.What grates with me is the fact that it trivialises the role that many brave women played in SOE.Cate Blanchett is approached on a train.Well that just would not have happened.She seems to have been sent to France without a defined role.One minute she is a courier then she is involved in the blowing up of the train.She is constantly asking people for their names,and then if that is not bad enough she tries to find out about her RAF boyfriend who is hiding in a French village.Then she becomes involved in trying to avoid the roundup of Jewish children.None of this is in any way true to life.Watch "Odette" or "Carve Her Name With Pride" to find a truer representation of SOE agents in France.


Charlotte Gray is long, ponderous, shapeless, unpoetic, unconvincing and dull.

Cate Blanchett looks like a million bucks; I don't think there's any doubt that she is, like Helen of Troy in her day, the most beautiful woman on the planet, but even that isn't enough to liven up this misdirected and clumsy adventure. You feel like you're watching a retro fashion show, as Cate models a wool skirt, and then a tight-fitting green sweater, and there she is in a crimson outfit topped with a beret. The wardrobe is fantastic, but one can't be blamed for wondering how a Scottish agent dropped into Vichy France with nothing but a parachute and a pocketful of cyanide managed to assemble such a dashing wardrobe in a farming village.

The script essentially relies on sexual tension to function properly, and it doesn't, because the gentlemen cast opposite Kate are such bland pretty boys -- soap opera sidemen -- that you only feel uncomfortable for them when things start heating up in the bedroom. It may be that there actually aren't any leading men fit to play opposite Ms. Blanchett in this year 2002 as a consequence of 10 years of increasingly vapid and effeminite chiseled-jaw frat boys taking over the screen, but regardless of the systemic explanations, there's not much to do but blush or laugh when you note that Billy Crudup's voice is registering about an octave higher than Ms. Blanchett's. Tilt.

The direction is lamentable. The movie plays like a shoddily-constructed Merchant-Ivory film; you're left with the bad parts of the genre (artificiality, preciousness), without any of the good (smart, adult, sexy). While the movie isn't wretched in the fashion of pap like "The Majestic", it is indeed painful to sit through as one scene after another drags the stale plot through the French countryside. It's like the director, Gillian Armstrong, is trying to flog sentiment out of the audience in a battle of endurance. By the time the 3rd act rolls around and Armstrong starts throwing in title cards like "6 months later" and "1945: Peace" you've long since had enough and are only wanting to see one title card: The End.


I haven't read the book, but unfortunately I saw this film, being a big Cate Blanchett fan. Well, I still remain a fan and don't blame her for this 'spy game' drek, but still, what were they thinking? How can they make a story like this boring? Variety called this movie "bland and dour", I'd have to add silly. Billy Crudup's weird little attempt at a french accent made me giggle at times, and there is absolutely no chemistry between the leads. I liked the villain, Anton Lesser, and some of the camera work held my interest, but for the most part, wait for the video.


I am not sure quite how this film claims to be based on Faulkes's novel Charlotte Gray. The story vaguely follows a similar chain of events, but much of the emotion in the book, is lost in the film. The producers/screenplay writers have added small details which do not aid the story, but just take it further and further away from the original story.

I also think a Scottish person should have played Charlotte - I did not find the accent of Cate Blanchett at all convincing.

In all, the film is not too bad to watch, but compared to the book it is a dead loss and a waste of time.


Possibly the most tedious war melodrama ever made. Long, empty scenes. From a long, empty script. Cate Blanchett is an interesting looking woman, no doubt. But I think about half the running time of the film was composed of close-ups featuring her amazingly limited acting range: from nervous all the way to tremulous. After about twenty minutes, I just grew tired of looking at her. And in this film, she's about all there is.

Not one moment of this whole tortured mess felt genuine. But, hey, the scenery was great. So one has to give France AND the second unit its props.


Not even worthy of a wet-Sunday afternoon C5 slot I'm afraid.

Take one gormless girl, add two competing handsome hunks (one home, one away), mix in a land of franglais where the locals say "good morning Madame" without a single sub-title and you wonder why the heroine had to know any French to become a spy... the kind of spy who keeps saying "what's your real name" while breaking the next person's cover and rushing up to warn the next safe house as the Bosche may or may not have got there before her.

Add in some duplicitous Vichy french (hiss hiss), some evil *ard Germans who even take Jewish children and you'll be wondering whatever made you rent twaddle like this.

Reminds me of that story of a very poor Anne Frank's Diary production where the audience were motivated to shout out 'she's in the Attic' when the German first came on stage.

I'd be shouting out Goodbye FilmFour if this is the best you can waste your production £££ on - and come to think of it unfortunately it was the best they could waste their £££ on and hence goodbye FilmFour :(

A shame...


Whatever you think of this misguided and silly film, please don't tell Mary Louis Parker, Billy Crudup's girlfriend, he stunk big time in this disaster because she might not like you, and hit you, the same way she hit some fan who was bad-mouthing Billy in his last stage appearance in New York.

Whatever was Cate Blanchett thinking when she accepted the title role in this stupid little number? No one can believe for a moment all the goings and comings the screenwriter has plotted at the expense of truth and reality. I'm afraid that our Cate really has to have her little head examined and maybe one day she'll fess up the real reasons for getting near this project that makes absolute no sense at all, let alone the preposterous situation which situates "la Blanchett" in that God forsaken little town where she sticks out like a sore thumb.

Billy Crudup is totally out of place in the company of people like Michael Gambon, or even Cate. His character is totally unbelievable and we cannot think of him as the brains behind all the work against the invading Nazi army.

Sorry Ms. Armstrong, better luck next time. We have admired your work before, but films like these are beneath your best abilities. Try to get involved in an Australian theme, one that you're more familiar with, and give us something more dignified than Charlotte Gray, who, by the way, doesn't even have to change her name at all because no one could have cared less if she was Gray, Brown, Green, Black, Blue, Black, or just plain Jane Doe!


The sequence where the train was blown up was filmed on The Bluebell Railway in Sussex mostly because the filmmaker was given the track without disturbance from visitors. They had two attempts at blowing up the train on successive nights and managed to break one of our home windows in the second attempt which happened at 1am with no warnings! One of the worst film crews EVER who didn't even clean up properly. The main reason being that there were foot and mouth restriction (which the filmmakers managed to ignore). One consequence was they had to park the caravans a quarter mile away and then walk the actors to the set and also use a "simple" lighting rig to simulate a full moon which reflected light off the clouds and manged to cause a complaint from aeroplanes landing at Gatwick Airport 10 miles away! Only the local farmer was happy as he got a new road laid for free! Truly the worst most disruptive film EVER (and we have film crews like other villages have buses).


Moves as slowly as mud, and maybe the dullest film of the year. Skip it or if you must then wait for the video. Too many plots, which are not that interesting to start with. Neither a good spy movie or romance.


It's one of these films that talk down at you; the cinematic equivalent of reading a novel in capital letters: it's all SPELT OUT FOR YOU AS IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Nothing is left to the imagination, let alone the intelligence of the viewer as the film moves boringly forward from one tiresome expository scene to the next. Even the "emotions" of the characters are underlined continuously by leaden dialogue or lingering close-ups. Cate Blanchett, a fine actress, is wasted in a lifeless role that simplistically smoothes over all the moral and emotional complexities that I assume existed in the original novel (I haven't read it)... At one point she asks "what am I doing here?" - the viewer in the cinema feels like asking the same question.


Like the previous reviewer, I watched this film on television the other night and am eternally grateful that I didn't spend any hard earned cash going to the pictures to see it. What a disappointment.

When I read the plot synopsis in the newspaper, I was expecting something vaguely along the lines of "Carve her name with pride". A stirring tribute to the men and women of the SOE who put their lives on the line in Wartime Occupied France. What I actually got in return was a jumbled mess resembling an advert for expensive perfume, full of meaningless close ups and mumbled dialogue. Cate Blanchett's character (supposedley a hard bitten Secret Agent)looked as if she'd just stepped off a photo shoot for "Cosmopolitan", and exuded all the sexual allure of a maths lesson.It was over an hour before I saw a German.

Pretentious arty farty rubbish.Sensitive girlies who think Sebastian Faulks "is like really, really good" will love this film. I hated it. I'm off to get me some real WW2 action - "Guns of Navarone" anybody?


Drawn in by an exciting trailer, I made the mistake of seeing this dull, stultifying, exasperating and endless film. Since I knew it was about a British heroine parachuted into Vichy France, I was expecting something along the line of the marvellous "Odette" of the 1950s, Odette being a real-life heroine who endured much hardship while aiding the French resistance. The trailer certainly indicated an action flick.

The plot is absurd. Cate opens her legs for an RAF flier the first night she meets him (slut alert) and, when he disappears in France a few days later, she decides to find him (getting a number of French underground fighters killed along the way).

Cate Blanchard is incredibly annoying. I yearned for her to be machine-gunned by a Nazi! In fact, I ached to have everyone machine-gunned halfway through the film so that I could go home!

It is a true "woman's" film in the classic sense. Few men would waste their time with this, for less than a case of beer and a pizza.

I gave it a "2" out of ten. Largely because it is visually beautiful and very well photographed.


I must agree with the previous comment: This movie is a girls-movie. Nothing wrong about that, but men (or just everybody) without taste for blooming colors and sticky romance should avoid this film. Truly this must be the low-point of the wonderful Cate Blanchets career.

In my view, this film is perfect for the sunday 5pm slot. I would have liked to see the gender of the positive commentators below.


Move over Plan 9 From Outer Space. Charlotte Gray's only distinction is that it has quite possibly moviedom's worst ending.

See it, if only for that. Otherwise, this movie deserves to go straight to cult status.


I've seen quite a few vampire films in my time, good and bad, but never as bad as this one!!! First things first: Blood Angels or Thralls was crap, but I've basically already pointed that out. The acting was overall okay, but what really sucked for me was the storyline, directing/editing and the ability to keep me entertained.

This is the first Ron Oliver film I've seen, but he can't direct for s**t! The dodgy camera skills and editing techniques show no talent there. Lisa Morton and Brett Thompson have also given us a dodgy script with little interest and beyond stupid (I mean one of those "Thralls" had snake thingos come out of her boobs, now that's just plain dumb).

Overall, Blood Angels or Thralls could be possibly one of the worst horror films I've seen so if you need a good laugh for the wrong reasons you've gone to the right place. If you want to save your money, choose another film!


The film was done pretty good. The actresses are also fine-> young, beautiful and talented (I especially liked Fiona Scott).

But the story did not impress me. I wasn't excited when I watched this movie, I was somehow looking forward to the end of it. I also felt a little bit sleepy while watching it. When I watch film, I have to understand everything in it-> why is everything just the way it is.. But in this story, things are just not clear enough. I never knew why something happened.. It is like a story for a 5 years old children. Some things just don't make any sense.

That's why I give this film only 6/10.


This somewhat awkward transition to American markets finds Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur a bit over his head with this little mystery. In effect, A Little Trip to Heaven plays a bit like the watered down, third-rate cousin of the thriller Insomnia (nothing spectacular to begin with), although here most potential intrigue is crushed by the deadening weight of a charisma-lacking direction. A talented trio of actors do help elevate the often lifeless direction, but the movie does take an even greater toll by employing Forest Whitaker in the misguided lead. A shame to be coming out on DVD so quickly after his triumphant academy win, Whitaker's questionable Canadian-esqe accent paired with the boring, underdeveloped character he is written here just proves too bland for lead role material. Co-stars Jeremy Renner and Julia Stiles do offer more inviting performances however.

Difficult as the actual lack of energy beaming off the screen may be, the film is not without it's subtle shade of merit. Beyond the b-grade artistry lies a filmmaker with a promising talent for composition, often showing his best, least obvious strength when setting up succeeding, more important shots. As well, the script might have seemed a lot more convincing when on paper (which would explain some of the big name interest), offering a humbly ambitious, localized little guessing game centering around insurance fraud. Sadly, the adaptation to screen just does not gel in any real compelling way, though the detail oriented plot should throw enough curve balls to keep mystery buffs afloat.


I really love Icelandic cinema and all those stories which have an inherent ancient Nordic mysticism or spiritualism about them. I knew nothing about this film prior to viewing it at the Melbourne Film Festival except that it was Icelandic. Having visited there and been totally captured by the stark beauty of the country I was really looking forward to anything that was served up.

However I was really disappointed when I found it was for all intents and purposes an American film shot in Iceland. I'm a fan of Forest Whittaker but in this film he is totally miscast. And what was he trying to achieve with the inconsistent accent? He stood out too much and just did not fit the character of an insurance investigator. Julia Stiles character was half way to trailer trash and frankly, she just looked too good throughout. Perfect complexion, glowing skin color, simply too healthy - it didn't fit the role. The ending was also way too manufactured so as to keep commercial audiences happy. She's a single mother with a "son" who needs money to survive - let's make sure she gets it even if we have to totally change the lead character's actions to ensure it happens.

One thing I will say in its favor is that the car crash stunt towards the end of the film is absolutely fantastic - that really came from nowhere. Very impressed with the genuine level of danger involved - it looked very hairy to perform.

However overall, a disappointing storyline with few engaging characters and a poorly cast lead sinks this film for me.


A great cast does what it can with ludicrous details.

The most intriguing aspect of this story is that the audience is constantly in search of a hero or victim, but all of the characters are villains, to varying degrees.

The real problem is the basic premise. It would have been nice if the writers would have actually done some research instead of making up ridiculous lies about the insurance industry.

For starters, attempting to deny or reduce legitimate claim payments is a practice called Unfair Claims Practices, and is prohibited in all states. Secondly, no insurance company would issue a life insurance policy to a known con man, especially for $1 million. (And you can not blame it on a particular office - all policies go through a central underwriting department at the main office.) Thirdly, once a life insurance policy has been in force for 2 years, it becomes incontestable. The only thing that would cause an investigation is if there is a question of the deceased's identity, or there is an accidental death benefit that might not be an accident. Furthermore, insurance fraudsters are notorious for NOT self-inflicting real damage to themselves. Lastly, a claims investigator, agent... can NOT do what James Whitaker's character does near the end of the movie, or even throughout the movie.

The ending was rather unusual. Afterward, it does make sense, in a strange way. But this is a strange film. Give it a try if you have nothing better to do and like strange plot twists.


Okay, first off, it wasn't an absolutely horrible film. The soundtrack was kinda neat although very oddly placed along side the story. I FULLY agree with many of the other posters here (which I SHOULD have bloody well taken MORE time to read first!!!!!) when they say that the visuals and the VAGUE fundamental mood of the film is good. But, it is SO dang BLAH...

They simply could have done WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more with it. The way the dialog was written and staged (directed) left a HELL of a lot to be desired. Needless to say Forest Whitaker's accent was ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY, and COMPLETELY annoying and unnecessary. I mean, did ANYONE ELSE bloody well sound like that???!! What the HELL was the point??? GEEZ...

If the director had just done EVERYTHING the same EXCEPT added some really good, stylistic, Lynchian Surreal touches... Bloody SOMETHING!!!! Then maybe I could have at least lived with it...

VERY, VERY disappointing...


I've always had a soft spot for Don "The Dragon" Wilson's films. None of them are great films, but the likes of the Cybertracker films, Ring Of Fire series and Out For Blood with PM Entertainment were very entertaining B-flicks. However, signing a contract with Roger Corman probably wasn't the wisest idea as many of these films are low quality and not very interesting. I wasn't expecting a lot from this when I rented it, but wasn't ready for incredibly bad cinematic cheesefest thrown at me. This is a bad film. This is BAD. Although it may have some comedy value, there are far more more entertaining examples of "so bad it's good" films so I can't think of one good reason to watch this.

If anything, the career of Art Camacho serves as proof that sometimes the production company has more influence on a film than the director. The only film he directed that was actually worth anything was "Recoil" for PM Entertainment but everything in it screams "Joseph Merhi" who was the main man behind PM Entertainment and bears nothing in common with the movies Art Camacho directed for other production companies, so I highly doubt he was responsible for making the movie turn out the way it did. Since the demise of PM he's been responsible for ultra forgettable efforts like 13 Dead Men and Redemption as well as the hilariously bad Albert Pyun tribute film Gangland. But with Sci-Fighter it seems he's hit a new low!

First, it's quite remarkable that a movie like this could be made in 2004. The whole "Virtual Reality" thing is so 1992. There's a good reason why nobody makes movies like "The Lawnmower Man" and "Arcade" anymore, and that's because computers have become an integral part of our everyday life and nobody finds it scary anymore. Likewise, "Virtual Reality" has all but died. Nobody is really interested in plugging some bulky object into their head anymore and awkwardly trying to control it through a sub-standard design as the good old computer monitor or TV screen is a lot more convenient and comfortable. The antiquated plot is about a "genius" who creates a virtual reality fighting sim for his grandson. Apparently while you're playing it takes control of your mind so in case you hadn't already figured something similar, a virus gets into it and locks his mind inside the game so his Dad jumps to the rescue and the only way to free him is to complete every level according to Grandpa. Woohoo! Sounds great doesn't it? Now let's just think about that for a second shall we? A virus gets into it? Firstly, viruses can't just generate out of nowhere. Programmers write viruses. And a virus that runs on one platform won't work as another in the same vein that a PS2 game won't work in an XBOX. Somebody would have had to have coded a virus for this game while it was in production. And dang, how does old Grandpa know that the only way out is to complete all the levels if he's never seen the virus before? But we're getting carried away now, as we all know this completely stupid and nonsensical plot is just a thin excuse for fight scene after fight scene. So how does it fair on this scale? Not very well, is the answer. All of the fights take place in areas clearly inspired from beat em up video games but unfortunately none of them are particularly well choreographed and have no real interesting touches so it just comes off as tiresome.

As for the performances, all I really thought about Don was "poor guy". He's just left with a bad part, and when his character isn't fighting, all he does is moan about his sons behaviour. Even when Grandpa shows him this virtual reality game, he just hits out with "There's no way he's going to be playing this". Would you respond like that if you were introduced to a device which brought your mind into another world? And then there's Cynthia Rothrock, who goes around dressed in clothes that look 25 years too young for her. At one point she's referred to as "a lovely young lady" which gave me a good laugh. As for Lorenzo Lamas, he's there. There I said, he's there. No more, no less. He only appears in a few scenes and interacts with about 2 other characters. I'm still trying to come up with a good reason for this character to exist, and I'm not finding one. It's painfully obvious that he was just cast for name value alone so they can plaster the names of three B-grade stars on the cover.

Overall, the premise made this doomed from the start but I wasn't expecting the huge levels of stupidity it threw at me. It's cheap, it's boring and although there are a few unintentional laughs along the line, they aren't worthy of the price of a rental. Best left to collect dust at the bottom of the video shelf for years to come.