Saban feeds on the leftovers of another steam-free franchise; the first two movies were no great shakes but they were better than this low-rent DTV mess. Following Raul Julia's death and the departure of the rest of the cast (bar Carl Struycken as Lurch), the series drops into a gaudy mixture of cut-price CGI and unbearable overacting by a miscast bunch headed by Tim Curry and Daryl Hannah. Curry's saved more than one bad movie, but not this time. Joke free and even stingier on the plot front than before, this uses its holiday resort mix-up plot in which the Addams family are accidentally reunited with the unrelated Adams family as a slim excuse for a series of underdeveloped subplots and idiotic slapstick. Something of a travesty, it fires wide in every department.


Bad acting, bad special effects, bad script, bad direction and very bad editing. Was there any reason to make this movie?

John Astin had his approach on Gomez. Raul Julia, instead of playing Astin's Gomez, made a character of his own. But not Tim Curry. No. Maybe not his fault, after all. This was supposed to be Julia's third installment as Gomez, had he not died. The "producers" may have been obsessed with the idea and wanted Julia's Gomez, anyway. Curry imitated Julia's Gomez and payed poor homage to his predecessor.

Darryl Hanna as Morticia? Back in the day, I thought a blonde was a stupid choice for playing the character, but back then I didn't know Carolyn Jones was a redhead herself. Hanna would have been an average Morticia, if it hadn't been for the wig shifting places above her head. Sometimes her forehead looks so big, its creepier than the Addamses.

An advice for the guy playing Fester: "There is such a thing as OVERACTING".

The Wednesday girl tried so hard to be creepy, that her acting career is over.

Pugsly was OK, if you don't count on his excessive baggage.

A bad movie overall. Even for a TV movie.

Sorry for the people who bought it on VHS.


When Grandpa and Grandma Addams get the rare Wontheimer's (?spelling) disease that is slowly turning them normal, Gomez decides to take his family to a family reunion, but end up going to the Adams family reunion instead, while an ordinary couple ends up at the Addams family home. This is the premise for Addams Family Reunion, a rather sorry entry in the Addams Family legacy.

I'm generally a big fan of The Addams Family, whether the Chas Addams cartoons, the original television series with John Astin and Carolyn Jones, or the first two movies with Raul Julia and Anjelica Huston. I was not impressed by the animated series (neither the 70's nor the 90's versions) though I won't claim to have seen every episode. And I didn't like The New Addams Family television series (1998-1999) either.

And that is my problem with Addams Family Reunion. It doesn't have the comedic charm of the original TV series, and it doesn't have the dark humor and closeness to the original cartoons of the Sonnenfeld movies. It does however have the feel of The New Addams Family, and indeed, coming out at the same time as that series, it seems that this was released to promote and be an introduction to that series.

This movie fails on several levels. The humor just isn't funny and it lacks the darkness of the other entries in the Addams Family archives.

Second, there seems to be a lot of miscasting here. I really like Tim Curry and thought that he would make a good Gomez. But for some reason, he just doesn't manage to pull it off in this one. Someone else commented that he did a "bad Raul Julia impression" and that pretty much sums it up perfectly. Darryl Hannah clearly tries to pull off her role as Morticia but she just isn't made for this role. The child actors playing the children and the actor doing Fester, simply do a poor job. Totally unconvincing and annoying.

I don't expect much of a plot in The Addams Family-it's not the strong point of any of these works (and doesn't need to be for its enjoyment) but this one was just too ridiculous to work.

There was an attempt, I think, to try and pull away from some of the traditions of the earlier entries and add some new things (like the man-eating mailbox) but the filmmakers seemed to miss the fact that most fans of the Addams Family want to see the old clichés and traditions.

I didn't find this a very entertaining movie, but it might be worth watching if you're an Addams Family completest and you will probably enjoy it if you were a fan of The New Addams Family TV series.


Addams Family Reunion is the weakest entry of the three films, but it is better than the awful TV series(New Addams family). The other two films were truly excellent, and seeing that most of the crew were replaced, it was obvious it was going to be a failure. The worst scene was the scene with the postman, that was just cringeworthy beyond belief. Tim Curry is a brilliant actor, and he is the only actor I can forgive for being here. Raul Julia had died, so it was perfectly natural for him to be replaced. Tim Curry did quite well as Gomez, but Raul Julia was easily the better Gomez in terms of spirit and charisma. Curry looked a bit uncomfortable at times especially in that awful purple pinstriped suit they made him wear, but he had the best lines that at least he made some effort with. Daryl Hannah tried hard,giving an equally spirited performance, but she is too beautiful for the character. I also thought she was too young for Morticia. These two are really talented actors(I have genuine respect for them) and sometimes you find an actor that has a role that doesn't suit them , evident here. Patrick Thomas was just embarrassing. Christopher Lloyd was born to play Fester and Thomas badly overacted. None of his actions were reminiscent of the original Fester. The children weren't very good either. Nicole Fugere was bearable, but she rarely uttered a word, and her stare felt rather unpleasant. Jerry Messing was awful, so annoying. He was too big and too loud. To say the cast were entirely to blame is very unfair, believe me the script was so poor, I'm surprised the actors weren't shaking with embarrassment. One of the few bright spots was the brief chemistry between Tim Curry and Ed Begley Jnr, bringing back fond memories of Tales of the Crypt, when Curry played three members of a family, with Begley playing a salesman. The most embarrassing moments were the Jeffrey and Melinda scenes in the mansion, who served no real purpose to the poorly thought-out plot. That said, the director is entirely to blame for the failure of this movie; he had no idea how to direct them. The script was repulsive, really childish, and should have a razzie for worst screenplay. And the special effects were poorly executed. There was good chemistry between Curry and Hannah, who tried their best, with the poor material. The dance routine was quite interesting, although I have seen Tim Curry dance better in films like Annie and RHPS. I would've loved to have heard Curry sing, for he has a great singing voice, because Raul Julia sang a Mamooshka in the first movie. In conclusion, an embarrassment, but not the worst movie ever. 4/10 for the efforts of Curry, Hannah and Begley. Bethany Cox.


Tim Curry is right up amongst the top brilliant actors, and I've always admired the acting of Daryl Hannah and Ray Walston as well. But their skills are completely hidden in this movie. They were all hopelessly miscast, and misdirected, with a childish script. A complete disaster all round.

Gone is the clever, witty, black humour. Gone are the cleverly portrayed demented characters. Gone is the magic of the Addams superb support, understanding and love for each other.

Watch the TV series over and over. See the first two Addams Family movies too, relishing every moment. And avoid this awful movie like the plague.


I've seen some bad acting before, especially in gradeschool plays I've been forced to see, but never before have I seen acting worse than on Addams Family Reunion. The first five minutes shows the worst acting ever portrayed on television along with the worst animation. It's hard to decide who to blame as well, when they use a director who has no previous comedic directing skills. They credit three writers, including writer genius Charles Addams, but besides the characters I can't find his element int his movie anywhere. Out of the other two actors, one never worked on comedy before and the other was responsible for such drivel as Casper and Richie Rich, which is comedy but is extremely childish. Those are the only comedy movies credited to him.

Whether you blame the writers or the directors, the fact of the matter is the actors are not up to par. The main character, the famous Gomez Addams, is played by the equally famous Tim Curry ("Dale the Whale", Monk. "Dr. Sevarious", Gargolyes. "Long John Silver", Muppet Treasure Island. "Sweet Transvestite", Rocky Horror Picture Show). Though I have seen Tim Curry do some of the most startlingly different roles while still coming off as brilliant, this is not one of them. He does not act like Gomez Addams, he acts like a British lord pretending to be Gomez.

Morticia is also butchered by the likes of Daryl Hannah ("Elle Driver", Kill Bill. "Celia Jones", Ring of Fire. "Lizzie", My Favourite Martian.). Morticia's character is supposed to be french. Instead she seems to be Ukrainian or perhaps Russian. When she's supposed to be acting turned on because Gomez speaks french, she looks as if she's about to puke. Getting even a glimpse of her when she's not the person talking is enough to spoil the movie.

Pat Thomas (nothing of note) as Fester was horrible. Pat Thomas is a horrible actor, whose roles are usually of himself. Even in this role he's credited as "Fester as Pat Thomas". His voice was all wrong. He sounds like a bad guy in the ninja turtles movie. Why did they replace Christopher Lloyd, who may have been the greatest actor in that time period? He also talks WAY too much. And he overacts far too much. When he's not on screen you can still hear him and when he's on screen but not staring he's always fidgeting. "Oh, Boy, this is great!" Calm the hell down, your fester not an Anime supervillian. When he's "speed reading" he takes more time to turn a page then he does pretending to read. And why does he start howling? That's the stupidest gag I've ever seen in a movie. He's obviously a stage actor, which I have nothing against, but this is a movie, not a play. And what the hell was when he started shaking for no reason in the car? This joke isn't even explained, he just starts shaking and overacting, gomez says "Are you OK" and he says yes.

There is really no good time to watch this movie, with the possible exception of renting it when you're blind and deaf. If you're ever offered ten million dollars to watch this movie I suggest refusing.


Addams Family Reunion starts with Gomez Addams (Tim Curry) receiving a book through the post containing the name of every Addams that has ever lived. Gomez contacts a family reunion agency & receives a invitation back inviting him & his family to a family reunion to meet his distant relatives. Meanwhile it appears that Grandpa (Kevin McCarthy) & Grandma Addams (Estelle Harris) are suffering from 'Waltzheimers', a condition that turns the suffer normal. Gomez his wife Morticia (Daryl Hannah) their two children Wednesday (Nicole Fugere) & Pugsley (Jerry Messing), Grandpa & Grandma plus uncle Fester (Patrick Thomas) & Lurch (Carel Struycken) all set of for the family reunion at 'Primrose Resort'. It turns out that the family union agency mixed the invites up & the Addams received the wrong invite & are caught in a plot by Phillip Adams (Ed Begley Jr.) & his sister Katherine (Hilary Shepard) to get a larger slice of their rich father's fortune. Much hilarity ensues, not.

This straight-to-video continuation of the Addams Family franchise was directed by Dave Payne & is a bit of a travesty. This is the third entry in the series after The Addams Family (1991) & Addams Family Values (1993) which were very good films, Addams Family Reunion isn't. The dark Gothic look, feel & droll jokes are gone, the creepiness, the morbidness & the dark black humour are gone. Intsead it is replaced with unfunny family friendly slapstick, an explosion which leaves someone covered in soot or an electric shock which leaves someone's hair standing up for instance, really unfunny jokes that are as old as time itself & the usual fish-out-of-water shenanigan's that one would expect from the Addams Family visiting a luxurious modern day holiday resort. At the same time the missing normal Adams Geoff (Rodger Halston) & Melinda (Heidi Lenhart) who end up at the Addams family mansion & that's just the same as what's happening at the resort but the other way around. This is squarely aimed at a pre-teen audience but I doubt even they would find much here to amuse themselves with. I also thought the 'Waltzheimers' disease joke was in very poor taste.

Director Payne films like a TV film & while it's competent it lacks any style. The special effects are truly terrible, from a post box with a tongue of infinite length which looks awful to a vicious black poodle that looks like a five year old animated it. The CGI in the Addams Family Reunion is really embarrassing to watch, even the kids won't be impressed.

With an obviously low budget the film looks very cheap throughout & loses the fantastic Gothic horror film inspired production design from the first two & replaces it with cardboard sets & cheap props. The acting is pretty bad especially from Curry who is awful & has no subtlety in his performance whatsoever. Hannah as Mortica is quite good & pretty sexy, a pity she is given next to nothing to do other than stand next to Gomez. Clint Howard makes an uncredited appearance & when he goes uncredited you know your in trouble.

Addams Family Reunion is a miserable attempt at a kids comedy, the dark Gothic edge & undertones form the originals are sorely lacking & replaced with really unfunny gags & slapstick. Might keep undemanding kids quiet but anyone else will have have a hard time liking it.


I adore all other versions of Charles Addams' creations. But this one is the worst. Hearing what others had to say, I told myself that a movie can't be that bad. Well, I was right. It was worse.

Tim Curry is a great actor. As long as he isn't Gomez.

Daryl Hannah, I won't get into it. She was trying too hard to be as good as Anjelica Huston in the role.

Nicole Fugere was decent in "The New Addams Family." Nicole and Alice Ghostly (Grandmama) were the only two characters who didn't make me want to kill them.

All in all, not a bad movie if you like to make fun of a movie while you watch it.


A useful film, if one's studying French socialist thought. In this film all characters are mere debris at the mercy of a capitalist tide. And the "terror" of globalization looms just over the horizon! A serious study of the French Revolution (1789) and its Reign of Terror would be helpful background to understanding this director's seeming grudge against life's realities as acted out by the lead characters. The story line is minimal, with an overpowering message of "death to all aristocrats (capitalists)!" immediately recognizable to any student of French history. Do they still buy this tripe on the Left Bank? Apparently so. If you're watching this as part of a college course you may well ask yourself just how sensible your professor is. But then, he/she's likely to have long since tipped his hand by continually denigrating all that questions Marxist/socialist dogma. Continue to feign agreement, as your final course grade may well depend on it!


Robert Guédiguian, director of the film Marius et Jeannette, loves the working class people. I have no quarrel with that. On the other hand, being a socialist director doesn't guarantee a movie that has much artistical merit. The message is loud and clear: working class people are happier than the guys with all the money, because their emotional lives are purer and not spoiled by capitalist values. The problem with this kind of film is that people who adhere to democratic values need not be taught this stuff at such a childish - and sometimes downright stupid - level, while the capitalist viewer sees a conformation of his prejudice that a "communist" director has neither the intelligence nor the good taste to make a film about the working class that is worth spending his costly time on. Guédiguian's intentions are admirable, the result is hard to take seriously.


The film being a HSC study text probably doesn't help its cause, but soon after I starting watching I was wishing the board of studies had chosen a more entertaining text.

The "action" (if the cinematic ramblings of a nostalgic director can be labelled as such) takes place in the working class suburb of l'Estaque in the south of France. The plot is simple - the titular characters fall in love, clichéd plot devices pull them apart, before getting back together for a feel-good ending. All wonderfully bland and formulaic.

The only difference here is that there is a variety of interesting (but pointless) side-characters and subplots around them, sometimes genuinely good as individual scenes but always jarringly disjointed.

And here is the film's main fault: there is a lot of potential within the quirky neighbours, but they are reduced to little more than unrelated vignettes that simply distract from the main story.

By themselves, unrelated vignettes would have been fine - as would a bland romance.

But by mixing the two, director Robert Gediguian creates an unappetising sludge that is messy, meandering and boring - a crime with such potentially interesting characters to explore.


I am probably biased against this film, as I am studying it at school in extension french, but this is the most terrible movie I have ever seen. The people simply can't act; the camera angles are always dodgy as, and there is almost no backing music; a terrible film all up.

Not to mention, the whole 'old-people love' thing is just gross. Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it is kind of sickening seeing Gerard Meylan's derrière TWICE in the film.

All round, a terrible film; no plot, no acting skill... terrible quality piece. I'm sure Robert Guediguian is a very talented director and producer, but this movie was not some of his finer work.


Marius ET Jeannette is a nostalgic film created to highlight class struggle and things long gone. The latter is evident by the close nit community given by the living arrangements and how the people interact. The class struggle, given by the poor precarious employment and by the simplicity of life, where sex seems to be the only interest they can afford, highlights a longing for the France that once was the biggest power in the European union ( notice how in the beginning of the movie, a world balloon floats in the once great harbour - a symbol of globalisation and capitalism that has left France behind). Overall the movie is the same as many other french romantic movies .. a very slow start to a seemingly pointless love story , where all you can think is "get over it you two and get together!" and where the ending is rather disappointing. I wouldn't recommend it unless you had to study the french bitterness of the 90s.


"Marius and Jeannette" is a movie from Robert Guédiguian, a filmmaker who has almost always worked with the same actors. More important, this film that is supposed to be a tribute to the world of Marcel Pagnol was an unexpected success at the French box-office. I must admit that don't share this enthusiasm from the public at all. I would have liked not to have reserves about Guédiguian's work but it is impossible. I consider "Marius and Jeannette" as a really trite love story that takes in a popular district of Marseille (it is useful to add that all Guédiguian's works take place in this big French city). Trite, because it follows a classical outline: meeting, love affair, misunderstanding, separation and reconciliation. Moreover, there's ponderousness in Guédiguian's style and it is particularly true when the film turns to comedy. Due to this characteristic, it is nearly impossible to laugh honestly in the moments supposed to be funny.

In fact, the disappointment from "Marius and Jeannette" mostly lies in its screenplay. For example, it doesn't avoid vulgarity (when Marius shows his bottom in the bar) and doesn't exclude implausibilities either: Jeannette's daughter wants to go to Paris to study journalism. A good idea as long as you work hard enough to fulfill one's dream. But here, you don't see her opening a book or studying! In another hand, the clichés linked to any love story haven't been forgotten: throughout the story, we learn that Marius' former wife died in a car crash. An annoying point: the music. Too overwhelming and clumsily used in the way it badly suits to the atmosphere of certain scenes.

All right, Robert Guédiguian introduces his characters with a lot of affection and tenderness (particularly Marius) but it is not sufficient enough to make this movie pleasant. Quite obviously, the director isn't gifted to shot a comedy based on a love story. He is more at ease and convincing when it comes to make a gritty and realistic representation of Marseille. Try "La Ville est Tranquille" (2000) for instead.


I can't say I enjoyed Slime City too much, but it does have an element of trashy fun to it. The atmosphere is similar to Basket Case, only trashier and on a lower budget. There are some cool death scenes early on, but then the pace seems to plod for ages. There's a good erotic dance scene from one of the ladies which some may enjoy. The only reason I would recommend Slime City to anyone is for the scenes at the end, which are priceless. The girlfriend of the guy turning into slime hacks his head off, and the head splits apart and his brain tries to escape by slithering across the floor. Seeing that she is in front of him, the brain turns around to slither in the opposite direction. She then hacks him up.

If you can tolerate low budget trash this may be your sort of thing, just don't expect too much.


Writer/director/producer Greg Lamberson's first stab creating his own low-budget horror film comes across as a cross between "Street Trash" and "the Stuff" while being not quite as entertaining as either of the two aforementioned movies. This movie about a guy who moves into an apartment where he slowly gets murderous after a dinner of rather potent 'wine' and 'yogurt' starts off extremely slow and will leave you searching for the remote, but about a half hour in it gets slightly interesting. I applaud what Greg accomplished with the budget that he had, but sadly I still see this movie as a misfire.

My Grade: D+

Region 1 DVD Extras: Commentary with Director Gregory Lamberson; Making Slime featurette; Bonus film? "Naked Fear" with optional commentary; a promo for Shockarama Cinema; theatrical trailer; and Trailers for "satan's Black Wedding", "Criminally Insane", & "Women's Prison Massacre"


It was the first movie I ever saw where i was about to stand up in my chair at the cinema and scream out loud "Can anything happened soon?'.

From the first scene to the last you can almost predict everything. The stories are told in such a dull matter, that it doesn't really matter that a couple of the actors also preformed fairly poor.

They blew the highlights by running the camera like it was beck or something. They never tried to create the moods that were appropriate for the scenes - everything felt like it was rushed and moments that were sad or romantic wasn't directed good enough to give you time to reflect - making it seem flat, meaningless and boring.

It's been a lot of great movies from norwey in the past years, but this isn't worth it at all.


There is nothing really to recommend "Peaches". You could see the ending coming from the beginning (esp. with the preview ads). The audience only laughed on spotted occassions, and often the laughter was patched even then. The male protaganists seemed to be one dimensional mostly with the only character development being based around relationship attitudes.

A big problem I felt however was the lack of any real direction in the movie. There was no structure to it and it seemed to drift aimlessly. Sure there's nothing wrong with experimenting with the narrative design but theres no point if it doesn't amount to anything.

So what do we end up with? A snapshot of the lives of three guys just leaving college and finding out how to live life properly? You can see it on a variety of tv programs done to a superior degree. Peaches are not the only fruit...thankfully we've more variety.


One wonders why this was even adapted from the stage. Maybe the play was worth seeing but this movie arrived a few years too late to be a decent critique of lad culture.

Yaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwn!

Lazy adaptation. And as for the ending? We didn't write any decent scenes to wrap the film up so we just wrote these stupid captions instead!

Come on guys! How could a screenplay that had such noticeable flaws ever make it to the screen?

Don't even bother seeing this.


Neverwas is a muddled film that reduces the heartbreak of the disease of schizophrenia to a fanciful lark of literary imagination and children's fanciful dreams. Gabriel (Ian McKellan) is a hospitalized mental patient whose terrors of childhood abuse has driven him away from society and into the forest where he has constructed a kingdom of Neverwas. Zack (Aaron Eckhardt) is a psychiatrist who leaves an academic career to take a position in a small mental hospital where his celebrated writer/father Tom was committed and where he encounters Gabriel, who recognizes Zack as the child of the Neverwas myth. Haunted by the mythic story of Zack Small, the boy hero of his father's best seller children's book, also titled "Neverwas," Zack attempts to bring peace to the troubled minds of the mental patients and understand the clues which Gabriel delights in leaving for him. Attempting to piece together in a non-linear route of discovery, despite night terrors, and maniacal enchantment Zack's task is to outwit the system of stifling bureaucratic medicine, legal blockades, and commercial exploitation of Neverwas through Gabriel's clues.

If this begins to sound like a pitch for a feel-good, warm and fuzzy commercial spot it abounds in the film. With a superb cast of Jessica Lange as Zack's bruised alcoholic mother who can't forget her dead husband, Brittany Murphy as a reporter, Alan Cummings, and William Hurt as the hospital's administrator, Neverwas rambles toward a showdown in which Gabriel escapes to lead Zack on a merry chase back to the primeval landscape to revive his spirit of freedom from responsibility in a never ending playtime. While the premise of father-son reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness, and fulfillment weaves through the film, it is never achieved as the reality of the disease of schizophrenia can never be overlooked, and is anything but a playful romp in the forest green. The brilliant McKellen simply re-enacts his Gandalf personality with too much reliance on the seven dwarfs to come to the rescue. As the police surround the trash-heap towers Gabriel has erected on privately owned forest lands, the notion of squatters rights, eco-terrorism, and forest service clear cutting looms over the delusional situation that threaten to stop Gabriel's fantasy life.

Nevertheless, this is Hollywood which requires an upbeat ending. The improbability of salvation for the kingdom, the king, and the crown prince from the scourge of mental illness is forgotten and they all live happily ever after is the ultimate absurdity.


Wow am I tired after watching that snoozer of a movie. Neverwas stars Aaron Ekheart who is Zachery Small the little boy who is the hero of Neverwas in the book. Why is it many fantasy films are contained within books like The Nevereding Story which is ten times better of a movie. Brittany Murphy actually surprised me as being pretty good in this movie. And the dude from Lord Of The Rings loses his marbles as a mental patient who thinks he is the king of Neverwas. This film also stars Nick Nolte who is Zachery's father and the author of Neverwas. I thought this movie would get cool and Zachery would trip out halfway through the movie and have a crazy dream sequence. Nope... This movie sucked. And my co-worker at Blockbuster also thought it sucked. So if you like fantasy movies don't watch this film as it will be a very painful watch especially if your like me and wait to see if the movie will eventually pick-up. Not this time around and I wish this movie Neverwas made.


Just finished watching this and have to say that while we usually find IMDb to be spot on in regards to movie details, this one has a mistake on it. The character played by Brittany Murphy is not named Ally, but Maggie. At least thats the way it is in the Australian movie.

About the movie itself - I personally found it a bit slow and hard to stay involved in it. I was able to get up and leave the room several times and upon returning found that not only did I not need to go back to see what I missed, but that I was totally indifferent to what I missed.

It definitely didn't hold the kids interest either.


I've seen a few movies about "magical reality" -- that fantasy zone where fairy tales and the real world cross, forcing jaded adults and child-like idealists to war over the relevance of imagination in a world full of disappointment. Most recently, "Big Fish," "Finding Neverland" and "Gods and Monsters" spring to mind. Then there's "Neverwas," a film so full of unnecessary flash and "magical reality" clichés that it shames the stories from which it pilfered its name... namely J.M. Barie's tales of Neverland and Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere." And while "Neverwas" never will be remembered as fondly as those tales, it does manage to skim off the top of their inspiration and come up with a flimsy, smug movie that mimics much better movies.

"Neverwas" gives us the jaded adult, the insightful madman, the understanding girlfriend, flashes of light, rain storms of glitter and... nothing else. It's a hollow movie that has seen other, better movies and is trying, in vain, to ape them. And it's written by a writer who's read lots of fairy tales but can't seem to create a convincing one himself. It's a wonder that so many good actors were coaxed into this production. I can think of at least six good fantasy films starring Ian McKellen. And "Neverwas" is definitely not one of them.

"Neverwas" is a flashy shell of a movie... like a karaoke singer who knows the words but not the music.


Considering the all-star cast and the fairly large budget (this is no indie film), there's no reason why this film should be as bad as it was.

Ian McCellan gives a stellar performance, but otherwise this film is rendered almost unwatchable because of the performances of Aaron Eckhardt and Britney Murphy, and most of all, because of the insufferable/clichéd writing, which makes every effort to pull at our heartstrings.

Don't let the allure of the cast (in addition to McKellan, Eckhardt, and Murphy, it also features William Hurt, Nick Nolte, Alan Cumming, Jessica Lang, and more) draw you in -- stay away from Neverwas!


which felt like 10 hours. this is one of the most stupid and horrible movies i could ever imagine sitting through. i watched at a film festival and me and my friends felt like leaving but we didn't want to hurt the director's feelings, who was sitting right there. i pride myself in avoiding crap when i go to the movies, i don't watch blockbusters or lame comedies with former SNL comedians, but this movie falls right in there with the worst of the worst. avoid it, run, go do something useful, even eating french fries would be more productive. this movie is full of holes, bad dialogue and run of the mill bad acting. i wonder how the producers conned these actors into working in this movie either that, or they accepted because they were too lazy to read the script there is nothing redeemable about this movie, take my word for it.


Okay, Kirsten Dunst is great and one of the best aspiring actresses today; Randy Quaid made it nearly tolerable; but I can't get over the fact that this was really another typical American attempt to turn people against the system and gain distrust and dispise for authority. It was supposedly a "true" story; thus a real tragedy. The script was also a tragedy and the general story wasn't much better, though it does make one re-evaluate one's standards and perhaps learn something. There are of course much better films that complete this purpose as well. This too-long military demeaning flick is worth missing.


I was surprised how bad this one turned out for me, given that Dean Cameron and Patrick Labyorteaux usually make great under-achieving party animal characters, as they prove to do here. Except, even where the movie follows that party animal meets anal villain story line and completely follows the book on ski movies, nothing much happens.

At a posh ski school, cabin number 8, lead by David Marshak (Dean Cameron) only has three things on their minds that any slacker guys in an 80s/early 90s comedy romp has on their mind: beer, boobs, and parties. And, usually in that order. The sleazy jerks from cabin one, which could easily be mistaken for Eurofags Lars and Hans, were it not for their American accents, don't want to put up with the antics of cabin number eight. So, Capitan no fun and his gang of merry thugs wage war (somewhere in there) and vow to get them kicked out of the camp, because they're really stealing their thunder. There's not much skiing going on, save a few shots in the beginning, and of course, the dangerous slope competition finale (the pinnacle of any ski movie out of this period). The rest of the time is devoted to cabin eight's goofing off. Seriously, that's about it. A repetition of boobs and parties. They attempted to put a story in there and follow it, although they didn't and the characters had to state the obvious intermittently in the film because they obviously weren't devoting much camera time to it.

Granted, I usually love dumb comedies like these, and especially with Dean Cameron and Patrick Labyorteaux in the front seat (see 'Summer School'). I could tolerate the cliché ski school story line. I could even put up with the numerous boob money shots, but damn, they made almost no effort for a story here. That's a no go for me. Over and out.


I considered giving this pitiful, soporific comedy a 1, but settled on a 2 for some reason. That shouldn't deter you from running as fast and as far away as you can from Ski School, a bottom of the barrel celebration of immature frat life. Of course, this frat is actually inhabited by a motley assortment of party animals who pretend to ski in their spare time (why they couldn't just stay at home to party is just one of the many unfathomable mysteries of Ski School). Naturally they have a run in with the toney head cheese of the school, who somehow allowed them to attend in the first place, and there's a 'climactic' competition between the two groups at the end of the film. I won't tell you who wins, but (***spoiler alert***) the film's amoral heart is revealed when the party house, led by smirking Dean Cameron, choose to cheat in order to compete. Ski School is a foul-mouthed, misogynistic piece of trash that will appeal to those who thought Animal House was a tad too arty.


This is a terrible, terrible movie the only redeeming factor is that there's titties in it but thats not much of one. Dean Cameron is really really ugly and who ever the other guy is, is really ugly too. A horrible, horrible mash of crappy music and neon color. Plain and simple a complete waste of time do not watch it. And the extra two stars are for the boobs. I just could not get past Dean Cameron!! And many of the one-liners come off cheesy however there are a few lines that are funny. Overall I couldn't get into the movie at all really and Dean Cameron seriously needs to shave or at least trim his crazy old man eyebrows.


For a comedy, this movie sure doesn't have a lot of jokes. I think I laughed once during this movie, when someone made a remark about the "Lambada", and even then, I was only laughing because I kind of knew what the lambada was. The joke wasn't funny on its own. There are a few lines in the movie that could have been very funny, but suffered poor delivery by the actors.

Plot? There is none. Most of the movie is an excuse to show gratuitous nudity. In between the nudity, there is some sort of story about a ski competition, but it doesn't make sense at all. I think the ski competitions are supposed to be funny or something, but mostly, it's just a bunch of people falling over.

The soundtrack is atrocious. I've never heard so many bad 80's dance songs in my life. The characters look like such idiots dancing to the songs (and not in a funny way either - in a pathetic way). I think I heard two good songs during the whole movie, but they didn't feel like they went with the movie.

Oh yeah - and the acting sucks. For a stupid comedy like this, I don't the acting to be that important, but the actors were so bad in this movie, it's hard to concentrate on anything else. Their bad acting is a distraction, and by the end of the movie, you'll feel like strangling the actors.

If I were to classify this film, it would fall somewhere between "Animal House Ripoff" and "Cheap Softcore Porn".


Other than seeing a young Sandra Bullock looking cute in a film that was made before she was a star, there is not a lot of positive things I can say. Several young people share an apartment, joined together by Rae Dawn Chong's character, MJ (that in itself should be a tipoff because I cannot remember a Chong movie post-Commando). Tensions mount at the big party and MJ's self-destructive personality causes the friends to break up when the party ends including a couple that just got engaged during the party.

There are some uncomfortable scenes such as when Bullock's 16 year old brother jumps into bed with MJ and says that she will be the one to "deflower" him and then immediately falls asleep. Basically, the movie had the same effect on me!


The Horsemen touts itself as another serial killer cat and mouse and admirably attempts to mix in several sub-genres including torture, exotic piercing, plot twists, and even a silence of the lambs (more Primal Fear in execution) style prison exchange. What transpires is unfortunately a lot of set pieces that don't add a lot to the whole. Dennis Quaid has always been fun to watch and has had several noteworthy performances (my fav will always be Savior). Here he struggles to play a hardened detective reminiscent of Al Pacino in Insomnia, his lines are forced, he is simply a poor casting choice for this role. He never reaches believability as the detective, and the dramatic subterfuge of a single dad with 2 kids is laid on so thick, he never sloshes out of the muck long enough to fill either role. The plot is OK, fairly standard shake on a playful serial killer vs cop movie, but the dialog is simply horrible. The lines are terribly cliché' and the actors, while capable, are just waiting for there time to speak, never fully absorbed into the movie. This will likely go to video soon where it may attract an easy to please crowd but ultimately does not hold a candle to any of the movies it copied.

Maddis


This was one of those "clever" movies that had a twist at the end. The whole point in these films is the twist at the end. The twist in this film was obvious in the extreme but so stupid that you discounted it as being too dumb.

During the second half of this movie the only thought in my head was "please don't let this be the twist, please tell me that writers are more imaginative than that, please don't let me have to watch the second half of this movie only to find it was what I guessed after the first 20 minutes".

The moral message of it all is dumb and a bit tired for anyone who has watched enough American films. You could parody this entire movie and make the moral message play out like an episode of southpark.

You could probably have condensed the whole film into an episode of Steven King's short stories and it would have had a much wider impact.

Awful, just awful


7.2 on IMDb? Really? It must be a reaction of Middle America to the recent atheist uprising (books by Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.) that there are so many fantastical movies lately. Not satisfied with comic book heroes (Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman, etc.), or flat-out fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.), Hollywood has turned to outright religious propaganda (Knowing, Henry Poole Was Here, Taking Chance etc.). I enjoy watching movies as often as possible, so this trend was readily apparent to me. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for a quality movie experience.

I can only imagine the pitch the writer made to the studios: "It's like Saw/Seven mixed with the Davinci Code!". Except with even worse writing:

Quaid: "He made 4 rigs. We got 2 victims".

Detective who looks like Chuck Berry crossed with Willem Dafoe: "Ah, sh*t, so there's 2 more".

Sherlock Holmes, watch out! That's some fine detective work. How about this:

Quaid to Zhang Ziyi: "Well, I should also tell you that...I'm not very good with children."

Ziyi (who is 30 years old and looks at least 25): "I'm not a child."

You don't say! This is only a sweet taste of the delicious dialogue you can expect from...THE HORSEMEN! Further, the foreshadowing is so heavy you can barely see. I don't want to spoil the grand experience of enjoying this cinema for anyone, but from the opening scenes of Quaid dealing with his emo sons (the older one is admittedly not bad in this movie), well...it ain't no Sixth Sense, let's put it that way.

Not really sure who this is supposed to appeal to: either parents of Columbine-type nutjobs who can be reassured that their poor parenting skills are understandable because they're explained IN THE BIBLE or misunderstood youth who feel neglected by Mommy and Daddy, so it's okay if they act out a Marilyn Manson video. Regardless, it's the viewer who pays the price.

The only revelation this movie provides is this: Hollywood has your money and time yet again!


An earlier reviewer said his friend thought this was the worst movie he'd ever seen. My friend turned to me after watching this on HBO On Demand and said literally the same thing to me. I wish I could give this film less than a '1'. I've seen a lot of Michael Bey productions, and true to form it is a total mess. Dave Callaham should really rethink this screen writing thing. He's no good at it and his sense of story and dialog are an insult to anyone over six years old, make that four years old; I know some six year olds who could put together a better story than this. I'm actually a fan of Dennis Quaid, can't imagine what got him into this project. Maybe he was drugged and forced to do it. And of course none of this would have been possible without the steady hand and crystal vision of Jonas Akerlund, holding the wheel as he sailed this turkey right into the rocks. I guess directing the Madonna and Metallica videos won't qualify you to direct features. I'm so sorry to have wasted 90 minutes on this.


This film was something I had high expectations for during the initial half an hour, it had all the requirements of a good movie-good setting-good actors-good originality somehow... At the end of the film (it has a surprise ending) I found myself annoyed with it, like in lieu of creating what I think would be a believable ending, they hired another director to complete it or something, and that person just took the shortest route to achieve exit speed, leaving the film finished but not finished right. I found the ending ridiculous in fact, as in junk, unworthy of the build up of the rest of the film. Maybe just avoid it, go to the bathroom for a few hours or maybe rearrange a bunch of old clothes. That probably would be time better spent.


Well, I don't want to give any real spoilers (heck, it practically spoils itself) but 'Horsemen' sadly is an unfinished movie, like an exciting auto chase in the middle of a film and without warning the good guy swerves off an unseen cliff and the film's over.

Speaking of spoilers, all the way through this, about four scenes before something happens, I kept thinking, "Oh, he's this" or "He'll discover this" or "The killer is" Despite the fact I thought the movie was well shot, the locales made the most of the depressing city it portrays and Quaid did an above-average job, as he almost always does, the movie was very flat, (again) predictable and too clichéd.

We have a recently single parent who's putting his job (law enforcement) in front of his two boys. We have a detective that visits an "oh, I'm smarter than you" criminal in jail for clues to his case. We have torture porn. All of these are very familiar stomping grounds.

Unfortunately, when it's revealed (well fully, all the clues are spewed from minute one) why the bad things are happening, it's so off-center and contradictory (There are no four horsemen! There's thousands! And when the four horsemen comewhat?)

I think there was a great movie here, if they had finished it. Perhaps another 2-3 rewrites and it would have been more eerie. Basically the movie's about a detective bent on finding a killer or killers in so-called random murders, with clues left behind, before the next person dies! I can barely write that without laughing. Go watch (or re-watch) 'Seven.'

Side note: I'm surprised I didn't get the phrase "Come and See" before Quaid's character did; I've heard it before listening to one of my favorite songs more than a dozen times: Johnny Cash's 'The Man Comes Around.' I first heard that song during the opening credits of the much better movie: 'Dawn of the Dead' (remake.) Yes, I know the original reference, but I haven't read that verse as many times as I had heard the song.


Although the movie starts well, its plot twists and awful acting make this movie bad, painfully bad.

In it's first scenes I thought the movie was promising, and it kept me going for like 20 minutes, without complaining, but when the plot begins to twist, I began to think that it was not worth watching, and then that it's one of the worst movies of the year. But When Ziyi Zhang started playing villain, the last drop of hope felt, Zhang's performance is probably the worst performance i've ever seeing, her efforts to sound sexy are in vain, no movie lover will find one of the worst performances ever, sexy. Quaid never impressed me so much, and this one is not an exception, he commits an unacceptable mistake of acting, he doesn't seem real sometimes, the least I want from an actor is for his performance to sound and look real.

Like I said, the beginning was promising, but the plot twists are so unbelievable and dumb, that when the final twist came, I could not believe that I wasted two hours of my life watching the worst serial killer movie I had ever seeing, when I could be watching "The Silence Of The Lambs" again.

Verdict: This is not the movie that's worth watching because it's too bad, it hurts and insult your intelligence, and by don't watching it, you will save yourself for having Zhang's performance in your mind.


This film was an insult to the intelligence of the viewers.

The plot is that this police department has an investigator who is an expert of Teeth. So he's called out on a case where a bunch of teeth are left on a silver platter. Soon we are enmeshed in a movie where a bunch of creepy kids are involved in a plot to bring about the "Apocolypse" by mangling the scripture.

Okay, here's the plot twist. Ziyi Zhang (who is a 30 year old playing a teen...) gives herself up in the murder of her adoptive mother. Now, oddly, this police department apparently has a dental expert, but doesn't have the computer experts or psychological experts to pick this girl's life apart, figure out who her associates are, including the son of the lead detective.

Now, I'm sorry, if you are a detective, you have to be pretty poor at your job to not realize that your kid is seriously messed up. Yet he hasn't been in the kid's room in three years? Come on. No cop in the world is that dense... You just don't understand police mentality. Policemen tend to be overly suspicious of everyone they encounter. That's the point.


Somewhere at the core of Horsemen there is a good idea and a riveting premise. The execution, however, is all style and too little substance. There may have been a great screenplay at the beginning of the development of this project, but if there was, it got into the wrong hands along the way. The end product is a mess, like Frankenstein's monster, as if it were pieced together from material from past, better films.

Every single "serial killer on the loose" movie cliché is lined up, making Horsemen a tribute to these flicks or a "best of" compilation at best and a sad copy at worst. There is a neat twist almost half way through that cannot be described without spoiling the central premise, the only truly interesting part in the film, but in the end nothing remotely remarkable is done with it.

I am very sure that the people at Platinum Dunes are very good at what they do and they consciously aim their releases at a specific genre audience and most of their films are a success in that respect (I liked the raw energy of the Friday the 13th remake) but Horsemen is a failure of diabolical proportions. Dennis Quaid looks like he's sleepwalking through his role and his character is ridiculously clichéd. The rest of the cast cannot really do anything with their roles either, their characters being sketches at most  there is not one credible personality in this film's universe.

Photography is great, though: the film looks slick  just like an episode of CSI. The similarities do not end there; there are even a couple of those CGI zooms into wounds accompanied by a metallic sound. In fact, the whole film reminds me of an episode of a Bruckheimer TV procedural, only somewhat more gruesome.

Thankfully brief, Horsemen clocks in at a mere 80 minutes, but there isn't a single memorable moment in the entire experience. The "message" or "controlling idea" in the end ultimately turns out to be pretentious and very shallow. This idea could have been worth a much better execution  no pun intended.


This story could have been good but the movie falls terribly flat.

The script was lacking and the acting was just not up to par. Dennis Quaid usually does a good job. he is the reason i watched it. But, I am guessing the script itself was so bad that the acting followed suit. There was no flow in the story. It went from one very basic scene to another. Very little was slowly revealed but rather just bluntly stated. I watched it with two other people and the response to it was all the same. Wow, that was bad! The story itself could have made a great movie but the attempt to make this movie good, failed miserably. Re watch 7 & Silence of the Lambs & you will be better off!


The start of this movie gave me hope I was on to something OK. There was some artistry in it, and the opening twist was promising. (But why does the bloody graffiti, i.e. "Come and see," have to be written in such phony, perfect handwriting?) That was all lost in an instant when Ziyi Zhang's character suddenly revealed herself for "what she was" - in the process suddenly going from normal middle class immigrant girl to ludicrous, evil, wry, hissing, (awkwardly) seductive, bloken engrish Oriental villainess. Cringe! I felt embarrassed on behalf of her and the producer.

I should have done what I wanted to do and gone straight to bed. But (deadbeat) curiosity got the better of me. However, I found everything else went downhill, too.

Particularly repulsive (and it takes a lot in a movie to actively repulse me) was the virtual rubber stamp this movie gave to homophobia. One of the "horsemen" as a gay character with a big brother so redneck and devoid of familial feeling that it almost went beyond belief, and who the gay character ended up disemboweling himself in front of because of his brother's rejection.

That plays on so many nasty old preconceptions, myths, and prejudices about homosexuality ("Homosexuals are never happy," "They bring it on themselves," "'Real' men can never feel comfortable with gay men" etc. etc.) that it's hard to believe this movie was made in the 21st century.

And as for the "revelation" (excuse the pun) at the end about who the fourth horseman was - puh-leeze, give me some credit. Saw it coming from way back.

Predictable, poorly acted, out-of-touch pantomime.


Horsemen is everything that I hate about movies. It is ruined by poor imaginations. It actually has potential, it has a good plot, and has cast that draws you into it. But the lack of intelligence in this movie is befuddling. The script is written to (what it seems) be able to let 2 year old understand what is going on. Some of the most obvious things are said numerous times and it becomes repetitive and annoying.

Next, some may disagree, but I liked what the plot had going. Although it seems like a copy cat of many other movies, I was totally enticed from the get go, starting with Denis Quaid(who plays Detective Aidan Breslin), who is called to the crime scene where he finds a bag of teeth and the message "COME AND SEE" written on 4 trees surrounding. You are automatically thrown into mystery and suspense with the first body being discovered. As the movie progresses, you become more and more confused by the plot. Numerous story lines emerge, and how it all ties together is so poorly executed, I was angered. The writers should be ashamed! In the end, we discover the white horse (final horsemen, ring leader, etc) is (who knew?!? oh wait..I did!) Quaid's son. The quiet, angry teen who is obviously really upset by his dad's ignorance. Not only was the twist so predictable, the boy doesn't even fulfill what he wanted to. He is saved by, of course, Quaid (dad) in a not-so-emotional scene where his dad yet again promises to be there for him in the future. Look what it took to make him notice! But really, do the writers expect us to believe that his son was involved in this, murdered numerous people, and his dad is telling him everything will be OK? And the kid just agrees to it. "Yeah dad, I believe you this time. I just killed a bunch of people and am possibly insane, but hey- I'll take you up on that offer for that weekly visit to eat! How about it?" So that's basically the conclusion. And it leaves you feeling like the writers questioned your intelligence and angered that you wasted your time on this terrible film.


This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why did Dennis Quaid star in this? I picked this one up at the Redbox. I misread the plot. I thought it was about 4 people who had one thing in common, they were all the bringers of the apocalypse. I thought they were the 4 Horsemen. Instead, we get a cheap rip off of 7even. It tries so hard to be suspenseful, scary, creepy, etc. The movie was very boring. I wasn't the slightest bit thrilled or given the creeps. The movie is basically about 4 serial killers who base their killings off the 4 Horsemen of the apocalypse in the bible. The serial killers kill their victims by suspending them in the air with hooks digging into their backs. The more they squirm, the more they bleed. The even post it on the internet where supposedly, millions of teenage serial killers are watching. This is a rip-off of FearDotCom and another film which I can't think of the name right now.

There are plenty of plot holes and problems in this film. I would strongly recommend you avoid this part if you don't want to be spoiled:

1. Alex's Bedroom: Late into the film, Aidan enters his son's bedroom and finds white paint everywhere! Alex has been painting his room white for 3 years. His father hasn't been in his Alex's room for 3 years. This is stupid. Wouldn't Sean, the younger brother or Aidan smell the fumes coming from the paint from Alex's bedroom? Everything in his room has been painted. His bed, pillow, sheets, walls, ceiling, floor, possessions, computer, etc. Everything has been painted white! Wouldn't Aidan or Sean notice the smell of new or fresh paint coming from Alex's bedroom? Big, BIG plot hole! Also, wouldn't Alex have been so sick to the point that the poor kid is bedridden. He hasn't been that sick in 3 years? No colds, flues, food poisoning, etc? I usually get colds about once or twice a year.

2. The 4 Suspension Rigs: The suspension rigs are about the size of my bed. It is a queen size bed. These rigs would be pretty suspicious if a bunch of teenagers were buying them. Wouldn't somebody notice these kids unloading these things and putting them into abandoned buildings? Also, when the cops go to the store where they bought them, the owner of the store says he's only sold 4 of them to a bunch of teenagers. Yet, the store owner doesn't act suspicious or anything! What do 4 teenagers need 4 suspension rigs for? Why not just buy one and rinse whatever you need to rinse in alcohol so you don't get an infection? Is rinsing suspension rig hooks in alcohol too much of a chore?

3. Alex: I knew he was one of the Horsemen right when I first saw him act shy, blame his father for not being there for his mother when she was dying of cancer, taking care of Sean while his father is busy working, etc. It was so obvious he was one of them. This was only 20 minutes into the film.

4. The Ending: At the end when Aidan comes home after his son dies, he wakes up Sean and Sean asks where Alex is. After telling Sean not to worry about Alex, the credits start rolling. I'm not even kidding. That's the ending. I expected a funeral before the credits started rolling. You usually get that in movies but not in this one.

There is one scene that just bugged me. There was a homosexual who invites his bigoted brother to a restaurant to chat. Instead, he drugs his coffee and takes him to an abandoned building and hooks him up to a rig. Before his brother wakes up, he fills a syringe up with a medicine of some kind. I think it might have been PCP or a very powerful drug like morphine. After he does this, he wakes up his brother and proceeds to kill himself in a very gruesome manner in front of him. He tells his brother he must do this because he is gay and that he doesn't deserve to live in this world.

That is unacceptable. There are hundreds of gay teenagers all over the country who kill themselves. We shouldn't use a scene like that in this movie. Who knows, this movie might make the problem worse. Maybe some heterosexual will get the idea that if they cuss, taunt, and harass them enough, they'll kill themselves. This is very inappropriate and very, very dangerous. The movie could have done without this scene.

That's most of the movie. I hope Dennis Quaid chooses better roles. I would hate to see his career wind up in the toilet cause he chose to star in a lot of bad movies.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10.


What a piece of junk! I would really like to know how movies this bad are made. Dennis Quade is as bad as Mark Wahlberg in the Happening.

The whole plot is a kid becomes a mass murderer because his dad didn't spend enough time with him. That's it! Nice home, school, neighborhood, but dad was working hard, not home, so he is so sad he just has to become a mass murderer. And convince others who are sad to murder also, because people were mean to them.

Dennis Quade was horrible in The day after tomorrow, and he stinks this one up also. this could have been good, but they worked over time to ruin this one. There must be a great story behind the making of this bomb. I would love to know what it is.


Detective Breslin (Quaid) is after someone who is killing people and hanging them on a contraption with hooks boring into the skin. Ouch! Double Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

I like horses. I thought this was going to be a horse movie. Fooled again. No, it has to do with murders and Bible prophecy. OK, but Dennis Quaid is in it so it can't be too bad. Fooled again.

There is a mixture of Quaid's character Detective Breslin agonizing over not being there for his two boys after his wife's death and the bizarre murders cropping up all over the place. The mixture needed more stirring. The murders are gory, bloody, perverse and it's hard to watch the crime scenes where the victims are hung up on some contraption with hooks boring into the skin. Makes your skin crawl when you see it. But, they do a very good job of showing this. Are they to be congratulated for this? I think not.

I like Dennis Quaid. I thought this was going to be a good Dennis Quaid movie. Fooled again. Something went very wrong. The story for the most part. The clues are loosely presented to represent The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and what will happen to mankind when the veil is lifted. Give me a break.

The ending is not surprising because the people in charge forgot to introduce other characters who may be the suspects so that leaves.well, I'll let you figure it out. You won't like it. You won't believe it. You will want your money back. Also the ending is incomplete as one cannot put oneself onto a contraption with hooks in the skin. So who put this person on the contraption? The killer or accomplice wasn't caught.

I like horses. Next time I see a movie title with "horse" somewhere in the title, I will read the box to make sure I will be watching horses and will try not to be fooled again.

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes, some, not much


The movie is too predictable, after watching the half of it, you know by 90% how it will end. The quality of actors (especially the Chinese girl) could not be worse. She tries to act scary and mysterious, but it didn't go further than an attempt. There is an attempt to bring some humor in the movie, and I must say some lines were funny, as much it can be funny in such kind of films. That would be probably the single positive thing, I can mention about the film. You would expect, that they will link all events at the end together. Sadly it was not like that.

I wish I wouldn't have spent my time by watching this film. Nothing new, nothing special, nothing...


You know, throwing out a psycho thriller in 2009 with fragmentary cuts, somber tone and final twist, and doing it as if it were the most profitable years of the genre (namely, a bit after the release of se7en) is risky to say the least. But the worse part of Horsemen is how badly does nearly every thing, from lazy actors, a script so inconsistent on what it is telling that I cannot understand how anyone approved this (characters coming out of nothing at half of the movie, others disappearing, blatant incongruence in the investigation...), and a direction that does very little to hide the weakness of the story. The fascination with hooks and skin was better and more gruesome (and interesting) in the Hellraiser movies or in The Cell, the kind of millennium murders are something too old for its own good, and this movie just repeats the same clichés all over again without any inspiration, any intention of being original in anything. OK, there's a smart subtext of young nihilism readable in some of the lines, but that subtext is destroyed by horrendous dialog and laughable melodramatic scenes. So a failure in every sense, but most of all a failure of Michael Bay, who I see as the responsible for having this project go ahead.


Considering there were very few interesting movies at the video store last night, I decided to go with one that I hadn't heard about, Horsemen A Dennis Quaid film that flew under the radar? Well that seems to be the case considering it had an incredibly small theatrical release and now it appears Lionsgate is just dumping hordes of the movies at video stores in hopes of salvaging the production costs. So I get home and boot up the DVD and begin only to find something so horrific that I almost broke the DVD right then and there. It's a Michael Bay production. Dammit.

I am being honest here when I say that I gave the movie a chance. I didn't automatically assume it would be crap even though it was more than likely, but instead went into it hoping for the best. The movie stars an aging Dennis Quaid who is an Indianapolis homicide detective who falls into a brutal case involving many different homicides all linked by the words "Come and See" written all over the walls surrounding the bodies. Ah, but this is not all as Dennis Quaid is also having problems with his children after a recent family tragedy What a shockingly original twist in a shockingly original plot! Gag me. As a Dennis Quaid fan, it pains me to see him in such an awful role. The script he is given is so clichéd and uninteresting that it is unbelievable this ever made it to production.

Even though Michael Bay only produced Horsemen, his trademark screw-ups can be found slapped across every square inch of the film. The major problem Michael Bay films always has are human characters and emotions. The humans always have the depth and charisma of pieces of cardboard and always act like robots striving for emotional moments instead of real people acting, well, in a real fashion. It's all so fake and ridiculous that it's hard to take anything seriously, this in addition to how the script must have been written by a brain-dead squirrel. But my favorite aspect is the editing, which is simply astounding. There are montage sequences that utilize fading to black in every sequence, and almost all of the other scenes fade to black as well. If they were going for a dramatic and edgy feel, it failed miserably since all it leads to is a headache.

Oh wait, I lied. My favorite part of the film is not the brilliant editing techniques, oh no, it's the incredible plot twists that I hinted at before. There were multiple times in the movie where I literally yelled "PLOT TWIST!" at the screen hoping that if my voice was loud enough, it could fly across the country and kick Michael Bay in the ass. Seriously, the twists were so ridiculous and uninteresting that none of them held and tension or were effective in any way. The ending is about as satisfying as sucking liquid feces through a straw, but I won't spoil it since I'll let viewers take it all in for themselves.

After the film was over, the person I watched the movie with turned to me and stated that it was truly the absolute worst movie he had ever seen in his life. This is the same person I watched Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with, mind you. Horsemen may not be worse than Transformers 2, but it really is a black hole of entertainment. It's about as much fun to watch as it is to have your poopchute Super-glued shut, and I would be hard pressed to make anybody suffer through this waste of time, let alone have to pay to see it. Michael Bay, can you please start using toilet paper instead of wiping your ass with film reels? It's expensive and it makes humanity cry.


Why do they make crap like this? And why do credible actors like Dennis Quaid lower themselves to appear in such garbage? Someone needs to inform the cocaine befuddled writers in Hollywood that grizzly, disgusting blood and gore do not make suspense. The only suspenseful thing about this movie was wondering how much longer it could go on, how much more hideous torture we would be subjected to, and when the totally predictable ending would finally arrive. Suspense movies these days seem to get progressively worse. This film had no one to identify with and no one to care about. My first reaction was to shut it off half way through. I wish I had.


Unbelievable for many reasons:

1) For surviving the whole film without ripping my eyes out. 2) For the actors......who risked jeopardizing their careers. 3) The Director- A person who can make this film and appreciate it. 4) The producers, for having the balls to release it. 5) The 'Visual -Effects' - Oh my god!If this guy finds a job after this by anyone except the same director........ it's a miracle 6) The writer- Anyone who can write this, has the total inability to find beauty in anything.

This is practically one of the worst movies I have ever seen! There was not a single thing that can be appreciated Everyone one acted miserably, the plot couldn't have been more 'cheezy' for a wanna-be parody! P.S : The only thing believable was Anu Malik's horrible music.


JAANEMANN.... 1 Leave your mind at home when you go to watch this film 2 direction is great in the beginning (as it apes musicals such as Chicago and moulin rouge) but fails miserably towards the end 3 Screenplay starts off well, then falls apart. 4 script is weak, dialogues are weaker. 5 acting is standard though nothing great - akshay has a gr8 character though salman's is the meatier role. priety could have done the role in her sleep, nothing new for her. aman vermas character and relation was left undefined for a long time- bad role, well acted. 6 the music is tuneful and enjoyable. but would have been better just as instrumental 7 Lyrics are PATHETIC (lyrics would have been better if they were written by a nursery school child) 8 editing was surprisingly patchy in parts. odd, as the film's director used to be an editor

trivia: a character is named preity zintakova. aman verma's characters name is zubin HORNIBOI (hahahah)

best: Akshay's Laughter. THE CUTE KID worst: SALMAN'S COSTUMES!! The annoying kids and family members towards the end!


First a house talks to us. Then we meet an elderly man. A young woman comes to the house, which is, or was, his. (The exact tense of this is never clear.) He tells her a little about his childhood. Back to her. He and the others are no longer children. She is now falling in love with Farley Granger (in an unbecoming mustache.) Back and forth it goes, with short scenes, like theatrical blackouts. And never do we get to care about the people.

It is one stereotype after another. Someone comes into a room, for example. A woman is holding a handkerchief to her eyes. "You've been crying, my dear, " he observes.

The only character of interest is the evil Selina, played by Jayne Meadows. Even she, though, is two-dimensional. She is Alexis Carrington in period dress.

And speaking of dress, somehow this movie makes the lovely Theresa Wright look homely. I wanted to like her character, named Lark. But I didn't believe her.

This comes across as an idea that started to go badly and got more and more out of hand. Then, (it seems, though of course this didn't happen) someone dropped the film and it was hastily reassembled into a vaguely coherent whole.

Very few A-pictures of its period are such miserable failures as this movie is. And I have no grudge against it. I'd never heard of it till today. There must be a reason that, despite its starry cast and its beautiful cinematography by Gregg Toland, it is relatively little known. I posit that the reason is it's trite and not even believable.

I love fugues. But this is about as far from Bach as ever anything could be.


Obviously, you have to judge this for what it is and that's a low budget film. The effort is certainly worthy of praise. Theo van Gogh is a gifted director, Thomas Kist a good DP and the actors do a fine job. The film's problem lies in it's screenplay. Yes, Holman has created self-conscious characters and given them confrontational, brutally honest lines that certainly exceed the quality of dialogue in the average Dutch production, but I didn't find the characters psychologically valid, especially Katja's. They never struck me as real people. Holman doesn't display a true understanding of the human psyche, which is unfortunate for a psychological thriller. Therefore, it could have been better.


On The third of November 2004, Muslim extremists assassinated director Theo Van Gogh because of his inglorious portrayals of their culture and beliefs. Did he deserve this merciless fate? No, of course not. Because everyone in this world is entitled to an opinion and if Van Gogh wished to express his using the medium of cinema, he had every right to it. This "Interview" dates from the year before the controversial filmmaker's death. It's a typical Van Gogh film, entirely set in one interior location and introducing two main characters constantly talking. It actually looks a lot like that other film of his, "06", only the protagonists are now face-to-face, while "06" exclusively featured two people talking over the phone. I admit I started (and continued) watching "Interview" for the most shallow reason possible: the starring of Katja Schuurman. This ravishing Dutch actress has the face of an angel, the voice of a siren and a booty that would even make the most popular Hollywood actress jealous. In this, she plays the part of a successful actress who gets interviewed by some sort of Bosnian paparazzi guy. They constantly argue, play with each other's feelings etc etc etc The script is tedious and nowhere near original or compelling. Although it probably was Van Gogh's intention, it totally doesn't feel like an artistic piece of cinema, as there's no style to detect anywhere. Not even a bit of exceptional camera-work or memorable music. This is a complete failure and I don't really feel obliged to give it more praise simply because the maker is death. Avoid! Watching a train rush by is more exciting than this.


I thought this movie had an interesting title, but that was about it. I found it excruciatingly boring and incredibly pretentious. This movie reflects, I think, Hollywood's disdain for the average moviegoer and shows just how out of touch Hollywood's writers and directors are. I lived in LA for many years, and I can truthfully say that I never met characters like those displayed in this movie.

On the positive side, I thought Jennifer Rubin was beautiful, although she played a total jerk and that Grant Show was good.


Four years before Peter Jackson's Sumatran rat-monkey caused a whole heap of trouble for Lionel in Braindead, director Giuliano Carnimeo introduced fans of Italian horror to Ratman, an equally troublesome simian/rat hybrid played by the world's smallest actor, Nelson De La Rosa.

Suffering the indignity of having to strip to his waist and don plastic fangs for the part, little Nelson gives his all as the titular poison-clawed, killer critter created by an irresponsible scientist. Unfortunately, being only two foot four inches tall, Nelson's 'all' is nowhere near enough, and with weak support from genre regulars Janet Agren and David Warbeck, who practically sleepwalk though their roles, Ratman winds up being extremely disappointing.

Between dreadfully dull scenes of chinwagging between Agren and Warbeck, as they attempt to discover who or what is responsible for a spate of recent murders, viewers are treated to a touch of light gore, plus some nudity courtesy of Agren's busty fashion model sister (who displays very unusual techniques when it comes to both modelling and taking a shower). There's also a little fun to be had from seeing just where teensy Nelson will pop out next: during the film, he launches attacks from a wardrobe, a fridge, a box, a luggage bag, and a toilet.

All of this cheesy silliness, however, is not nearly enough to compensate for the movie's virtually plot less script, crap acting and torpid direction.


I though that Ratman was quite a good film to watch. It is about a maniac who butchers a fashion model on a Caribbean island and leaves the body to be eaten by rats. The model's sister suspects something isn't quite right with the police investigation and decides to go to find out by herself. With her friend, Fred, their investigation's lead them to an unknown part of the island where they discover a rat like man. The creature is killed by Fred, but the true horror of the rats nature is just about to start. This ended up being a good film to watch. There is quite a lot of strong gory violence and nudity in the film for viewers which may be a bit to much for some people.


June Allyson doing her thing. This time, she's a down-home gal and ace illustrator who wins a contest for her artwork to be used in a new children's book penned by the beloved Uncle Bumps, a modern-day Hans Christian Andersen. Turns out Uncle Bumps is really a hard-drinking, free-wheeling bachelor who dislikes children--yet he is so taken with this uptight artist once he meets her, he attempts to woo her under an alias. Why? It doesn't matter, for this is a vehicle for Allyson and Van Johnson (movie favorites at the time), and the script treats their characters like human bumper-cars just to keep star-watchers on their toes. Johnson's ruse is soon exposed, forcing him to emulate an honorable guy--which includes 'borrowing' an orphan to pose as his son. June threatens to dislodge him from the ranks of celebrity by reporting him to her cousin, a banner of controversial books and plays (she actually seems to proud to know such a person). Throw in an obnoxious hometown beau waiting in the wings, a wedding overcome with ants, and Hume Cronyn as a publisher on the brink of a nervous breakdown, and you have all the ingredients for a laughless family fracas done with neither style nor merit. *1/2 from ****


The bias in this film is so blatant that PBS took the unprecedented step of agreeing to produce another film to provide balance. The analytic article "A Critique of the Scientific Basis for Key Assertions in 'Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories'" (I'd provide the URL, but IMDb doesn't allow URLs). concluded: 1) Many articles cited in support of the film contain assertions unsupported by any data, 2) In those articles that do contain research data, the data "fail to support the film's contentions, and strongly suggest contrary conclusions," 3) Two key figures in the film have made statements that raise serious questions about their ability to be objective: GWU Law Prof. Joan Meier is reported to have described herself in writing as among those "who start with an advocate's perspective," as opposed to a "neutral" perspective, and Lundy Bancroft is reported to have boasted that he was fired by the Massachusetts family courts as a domestic violence educator because of his extreme views.

Both the PBS and CPB ombudsmen panned it for it bias, with the latter writing, "It might be difficult to find a clearer breach of PBS editorial standards unless one concludes there is only one side to child and spousal abuse issues in the country's custody cases." Furthermore, the viewer's guide being distributed with the film misrepresents the research so egregiously that Murray Straus, one of the world's foremost researchers into family violence, issued a statement taking exception to the misrepresentation of his work. (Again, I'd provide the URL, but IMDb doesn't allow URLs).


This documentary is as true as the Bloody Mary Urban Legend; I am ashamed that PBS can produce something so vile, repugnant and sexist (and wrong; one of the 'abused mothers' - Sadia Loeliger - is actually a recognized abuser).

The 'feminist' who produced and endorsed this give women and mothers a bad name, and I wonder if they still can look at themselves in the mirror.

It says that many children are denied the love of their mothers; HELLOOOO! The children are denied FATHERS!!! It's so obvious an Italian (me) notices it! Don't bother with this work of fiction; it'll only make your blood boil.

Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories: 1/10 (but deserves even less)


Nothing like seeing a blatantly politicized and inaccurate film presented in "documentary" form... the worst since Farenheit 9/11. I like the comments from CPB and PBS ombudsmen following an investigation into its airing on PBS, an allegedly non-partisan public channel: Using the words "slanted" and "no hint of balance," in the report, CPB Ombudsman Ken A. Bode concluded, "The producers apparently do not subscribe to the idea that an argument can be made more convincing by giving the other side a fair presentation." Bode wondered whether PBS had been used as "the launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and law." If so, the documentary violates PBS' mission statement to be non-partisan and "provide multiple viewpoints." PBS's own internal ombudsman offered a separate analysis, "I thought this particular program had almost no balanceturning itinto more of an advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation." Avoid.


This surprisingly primitive 'streamliner' comedy from the Roach Studios -- with the collapse of the comedy short subject market in the mid-thirties, Hal Roach decided to go into feature production, first with films like the TOPPER series and later with second features that timed in at less than an hour -- contains all the standard cheap comedy motifs, including a Murphy Bed -- and runs through them in a rather mechanical fashion as made-it-from-scratch taxi fleet owners William Bendix and Joe Sawyer get tangled up with a girl who tries to kill herself and declares herself their responsibility. The dialogue direction limps and although there are some good gags in the opening scenes, including a music-hating music critic and Jack Norton playing his usual fine comic drunk, there isn't that much in the way of laughs to recommend this piece.


Edward Arnold is a blind detective with a guide dog named Friday. Investigating a murder for a friend, he visits a house filled with Nazi spies and their unwitting hosts who include a 21-year-old Donna Reed. The spies are after some secrets hidden in a safe. Arnold foils their plan. In one physical conflict, he smashes the light so that he and his opponent are on an equal footing -- "In the dark. My kingdom." Friday the dog is cute and provides some moments of comedy, as do the two African-American servants, one of them Mantan Moreland. This dog is really something. He's smarter than some students I've had and far more physically adroit than I ever was.

And yet it's a B picture from beginning to end. There were dozens of these inexpensive and mechanical films ground out by the studios in the war years. That Arnold is blind is no more than an attempt to introduce an element of novelty. Oh, and the dog. "Eyes in the Night" was supposed to be the beginning of a series, of which there were a number at the time -- "The Falcon," "Dick Tracy," "Joe Palooka." I think there may have been one more entry in the series before it mercifully expired.

Ho hum.


"Eyes in the Night" is another example of the power of WWII propaganda to freeze the brains of screenwriters. Adapted from a decent detective novel, the Nazi spy element was amped up to cash in on home front paranoia. Along with the better detective elements went most of the logic, suspense, and character motivation of the original story. In its place is a confused mess that even Director Fred Zinnemann (later to do "High Noon" and "Here to Eternity") could not salvage.

Along with simplistic motivation you will find a lot of stupid pet tricks as the blind detective's (Duncan Maclain played by Edward Arnold) seeing eye dog can open doors and obey vague fetch commands that confuse his step-and-fetch-it black servant (Mantan Moreland).

Set in the United States, Duncan's long-time friend Norma (Ann Harding) lives on a country estate with her new husband who for unknown reasons stores top secret scientific plans in his small unguarded wall safe. You know they are critical to the war effort because the spies say they are worth ten armored divisions. As the story unfolds it is slowly revealed that almost everyone is a Nazi spy; the entire household staff, a community theatre group, and a few guys of unknown origin. There are almost enough German personnel to fill up those ten armored divisions.

Although they enjoy a huge numerical advantage the spies conveniently wait around until Norma and her husband leave town to make their move on the safe.

A melodramatic back-story concerns Norma's relationship with her new stepdaughter and aspiring actress Barbara (Donna Reed). Barbara is supposed to be just 17 but Reed was in her early 20's and looked about 30. Harding (as always) is quite good and Reed (as always) is quite bad, the talent disparity gives their scenes together a farcical quality. These actually are bad enough to give the movie a certain camp appeal. Reed might be the only aspiring movie actress challenged by the role of an aspiring movie actress.

Zinnemann does infuse his production with a certain style. Playing off the blindness of his main character with frequent blackouts and generally understated lighting. There may never have been a feature film whose negative had less exposure to light than this one did.

Arnold's performance is a bit over the top, apparently compensating for his character's blindness with aggressive flailing (imagine an extremely fat man replacing Patty Duke as Helen Kellor) and a loud voice.

Along with Harding, Katherine Emery (a stage actress in her film debut) gives a great understated performance as the leader of the huge band of Nazi's. She may remind "Narnia" viewers of the best performance in that film, Tilda Swinton's White Witch.

There are no extras on the DVD but it is a very good print.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


Anybody who wants to know what really happened that fateful night in 1873 when two Norwegian women were murdered on an island off the coast of New Hampshire won't find out by watching this movie. There was an article written by a woman named Celia Thaxter who lived on the islands at the time of the murders and personally knew all of the people involved. Celia also saw Maren after the murders and talked to her. The article was called "A Memorable Murder" and was published in the Atlantic Monthly. You can read it at this website: http://seacoastnh.com/smuttynose/memo.html In it she describes the evidence that was found at the scene and on the person of Louis Wagner that clearly point to him as the murderer instead of the outrageous and contrived story that was told in the movie and showed Maren as the murderer. For example: his bloody footprints were found in the house and around the island. He was also found with property that belonged to the Norwegians that he stole the night of the murders. There were also witnesses who saw him coming back from the island. Don't know why the movie makers decided to portray this ruthless murderer as someone who was innocent and wrongly put to death. They instead took hard working and innocent Maren and assassinated her character by portraying her as some crazed and twisted lesbian and incestuous creature. What should have been put to death is this badly written and fictitious screenplay.


When I finished watching "Weight of water" I had the impression that I just had watched two different films mixed to each other. One of them was pretty interesting, and it told the story of a murder committed on an American small village populated by immigrant fishers 140 years ago. The other story was boring, the characters was such a mess, and it was plenty of narrative mistakes: occurred at present time and it's about a journalist who travels (along with his husband, her brother in law and the girlfriend of that one) to that small village in order to investigate the incident and take some pictures. We're told about his troubled marriage, and some other things we don't give a damn about.

So one story destroys the other. One part of the script blows up the other one, and even the actors (especially Sarah Polley) made a better job in the "historic" part. Yeah, Sean Penn was over there, but this time his performance was pretty forgettable (he just shows us some of his most known "tricks") ... and what to say about Liz Hurley's work!! God, she may have an impressing body, but she's quite a bad actress with that femme-fatale look in her face 100% of the time.

Anyway, I didn't expect that much of Kathryn Bigelow. Anyone did?

*My rate: 4/10


This movie sets a new definition of the terms "boring". Somehow, I guess this movie was meant to be clever and refreshing, but the implementation leaves so much to be desired that this movie ends up being a two-hour sleep-inducing affair.

Basically, it consists of two parts, a modern-day part and a historical part, set in the 19th century. The 19th century part shows promise and actually gives a pretty interesting view of how a mysterious double murder took place, but ultimately it's underdeveloped and a bit boring.

However, compared to the modern-day part, the 19th century part is Oscar material. The modern-day part seems to rely on one thing only: Liz Hurley's breasts. Now you won't hear me complain about that, but if that's all there is, then you just don't have much of a movie. Seriously, the modern-day part is filled with endlessly drawn out unnecessary shots and quasi-philosophical nonsense conversations. What's missing is an actual storyline, and it hurts.

All in all, this movie is more boring than anything. Any parallels or deeper meaning get hopelessly lost under a sluggish pace and overly dramatic dialogue. Definitely not recommended.

*1/2 out of **** stars


3 out of 10

The weight of water has a wonderful photography work, really amazing takes, and it's perfectly filmed. However, there's still a problem: the plot is the most boring and poor script, this kind of movie could have!

I try to classify movies as they manage to get what they want, example: John Woo's a better tomorrow is far better than The Matrix, just because, even though a better tomorrow is just about nonstoping action, unfolds in its essence something deeper, and it amuses at 100%, meanwhile The Matrix, tries to get you into a new level of action cinema, tries to do a more reflective exercise in the audience, and that's something impossible to get just by splatting on, between gun shots, the basics of the Platon theories (the myth of the cavern).

When adding this theory to The Weight of Water, I just found a HUGE LACK in interest, thrill or drama. As The Matrix, the plot tries to get the movie into a new level, but it falls far deeper than the Wachowskies film. The reflection comes from the monologues/voice off of the characters, but the action is so simple, that makes that reflection a giant JOKE!! From the first 10 minutes of the movie, you can fairly guess the end, and found myself predicting a walkthrough of the movie. However, the whole movie doesn't stink, there are parts of imaginary flashbacks from one of the characters, that are quite interesting, but doesn't succeed in keeping the interest for the movie. The acting is pretty good, but in comparison with the overall story, makes a very funny reaction (I found it more a comedy than a drama).

If you are interested in very beautiful Norway-like landscapes and ain't worried about the plot, watch it, at least you'll have a few laughs, if you're time is worthy, then pass out and better watch a Kitano movie.


But that's because it was so boring, I could only take it in 20 minute snippets. Then I would take a thirty or so minute break and play Freecell on my computer. The reason I continued watching it is because as bad as the movie was, Sean Penn was excellent. His introducing himself as William S. Burroughs was hilarious and his comic timing is flawless. One odd thing that came out was how much the Janes smoked. It was almost like the very first season of Dragnet, I mean the one in 1954, where cigarettes seemed to grow out of peoples faces. Regarding Elizabeth Hurley, let me just first say that when I first heard that Tomb Raider was going to be made into a movie, Hurley was the ONLY actress I saw playing the role, since, a) she looks exactly LIKE Lara Croft AND b) she's ALREADY English! Angelina Jolie, however, had won an academy award so that's where the money was. That being said, Hurley's character was so obvious and Lucas's character so unaware that their relationship seemed completely imaginary, unlike the Janes. There was an enormous amount of confusion regarding her character and at one point it was suggested that she played a major role in Sean Penn's character's (Thomas Janes) past, although this may have been a projection of Jean Janes' suspicious fantasy. What is also telling is that in the DVD, there WERE no deleted or extended scenes, nor were there directors comments. I got this movie because I saw the trailer. WHAT A SWINDLE! The person who has a future is the guy who put together the trailer. From crappy to snappy.


Almost awful, but it is pretty. The title should clue you in: this is no "Knife in the Water". The patronizing and sophomoric literary-cluttered conversations are not "cliched", as suggested, they are down right insulting. The director seems to think she is still on junior year abroad, her European, romantic literary tour. The poor Sean Penn character even has to "subscribe to the single ax theory" of the murder, to use this film's continuously dreary iconic phrasing. Well, not to be too harsh, I have to admit that the letters from home and the gift of a cute puppy do ring an even softer tone. Airlines offer barf bags, why not movie rental stores?


I like a lot of movies so when I started to watch this I figured it couldn't be worse then something like Crossroads. It came close. I've never been so bored and uninterested in a movie EVER. Nothing about this movie made me care about it or the people in it. The plot was hard to follow, and when I did figure out what was going on I didn't feel any better. In fact, I felt worse because I had just wasted nearly two hours of my life. The only consolation prize I have is that this movie is so unmemorable I will probably forget it by next week. I can live with that. Avoid this movie, unless you're an insomniac desperate for sleep.


....other than that I found the film pretty dire. The connection between the two stories told in the film is nebulous to say the least. The story of the original murder is told in a very straight forward fashion, but what is going on in the modern story is most unclear. After watching the film, I honestly don't know if it is meant to be the case that the Sean Penn character had an affair with the Elizabeth Hurley Character, whether she was trying to seduce him, whether he and his wife are happy, and many more things that are hard to mention without creating spoilers.

Watch something else!


A brother (Josh Lucas), his sister (Catherine McCormack) and their partners take a holiday on a sail boat and visit an island off New England in order for the sister to do some research into two women who were brutally murdered there in 1873. The movie incorporates two narrative strands, one based in the present and the other in 1873.

I am a big fan of director Kathryn Bigelow but I found this movie to be incredibly boring, slow, dull and a complete waste of time. I think that Sean Penn is an excellent actor but here he was acting a totally annoying character, what made him think this film was a good idea!

Elizabeth Hurley acted like the muppett she is, sticking her tits out for all the lads and using her sexuality as she has no acting skills. The actors in 1873 were shockingly bad, and that strand of the movie looked like a bad made for T.V movie.

Nothing good to say about this it is terrible, my worst nightmare would be to have someone force me to watch it through again


Possible spoilers herein.

Did worker Louis or Sarah Polly's Maren kill two women by axe and strangulation in 1873 New England? Or more importantly, who really cares?!

This movie tediously switches between these 1873 murders and the modern day story of a woman investigating the crime over 100 years later. The 1873 story is supposed to symbolize the modern day story but the flashbacks do not flow with the modern day story and overall don't work. Both stories are uninvolving with unlikable or one-dimensional characters. You don't care what happens in either story. When the movie got a little bit going with one story, the stories switched over and the flow was killed. As two separate movies they wouldn't have worked and would have been a bore.

The acting is adequate but uninspired for the most part. The most interesting character is Sean Penn's character but not enough is built on him to gain any significant interest from the viewer. It's a wonder why Sean Penn took this thankless role. Did Sean Penn's character cheat on wife with sexy Hurley? I don't care.

Both modern day stories and past stories fail to gain any interest. The direction is tedious and overdone. Two uninvolving stories make one muddled movie. This movie is just pointless. A couple points rewarded for seeing Elizabeth Hurley in the buff.

3.5/10


This movie is quite simply one of the worst I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. With the possible exception of the cinematography, this film has no redeeming qualities. The arrogance of the director and cast that they might actually pass this movie off as "deep" is sickening. Basically, in the three LONG hours of this film, only about twenty minutes of dialogue are spoken: hardly enough to offer any hope of character development for the movie's endless cast leading men. Another third of the movie is occupied by long pauses voiced-over with "poetic" inner monologue which sounds like it was written by an over-ambitous (and overly confident) college film major. (e.g. "The closer you get to Caesar, the more you fear.") And as for the critical praise of the film, I am baffled; I guess Terrence Mallick should be congratulated for his modern-day version of "The Emperor's New Clothes".


This is a truly horrible, incomprehensible mess of a film. It has no direction, a terrible script and appears not to have been edited!

All those critics who are claiming that this is some great work of art are a bunch of sheep who are just trying to be clever - don't believe it.


Is this movie a philosophical journey, a love story, or a National Geographic documentary? Good luck figuring that out. What is easy to figure out is that it is definitely NOT a movie about war. It has many historical and technical inaccuracies which might be forgiven if the movie actually had any redeeming qualities other than beautiful cinematography. Pretentious philosophical monologues and amazingly beautiful scenes of native wildlife do not make up for a complete lack of character development or a stream of consciousness style plot. Undisciplined and Pretentious!


The only thing worse than a boring movie, is an overly long boring movie. I was hoping for a nice, intelligent look at war, but instead got a 2 1/2 hour navel-gazing session. If you like introspection and more internal-thought-voice-overs than dialogue, and fighting scenes shorter than the actual credits, then this is the movie for you...

I enjoyed Woody Harrelson's mishap with a grenade and Nick Nolte's gruff and manic officer, but apart from that I found myself rooting for the Japanese to wipe out the lot of them.