Expect little from it and you'll be please with what you get. I was. 'Forbidden World' is a quickly produced Roger Corman low-budget b-grade fable that's all in for exciting and junky exploitation. Nice. So I see it tagged as an 'Alien' clone yeah kinda. Ah definitely. This time it's not an outer-space visitor, but a mutant of genetic work which goes through transformation cycles and then making ends meat of a terrific b-cast. Out of all of the films of this ilk that decided to ride the wave of 'Alien (1979)' success, from what I've seen this would be my favourite of the bunch. Still need to get my hands on the other Corman produced Sci-fi / horror cult fave 'Galaxy of Terror (1981)'.

The story centres on intergalactic trouble-shooter Mike Colbey being sent to a barren world were a group of scientists in remote station are researching genetic research without restrictions. However one of their experiments has got out of control.

It's rather straightforward, even though the script does throw around many scientific exchanges but counterpointing that is many trashy dialogues. But it seems to know what it is and goes about it in the right manner. After such a disjointed beginning (like from some other movie), it hits its strides and keeps a quick tempo, as it moves through in no time. Where this draws the most interest from is its crude and gooey make-up effects. It's daring, outrageous and literally had guts. There are a few unforgettable sequences and it's a sight to behold in the way they finally depose of the mutant. Ridiculous, but clever. However talk about leaving a icky mess! They don't make them like this anymore. Although it did get hard to see with moments of hectic editing techniques (though some odd inclusions added something different), dim lighting composition and fuzzily intrusive photography. This stark visual quality helped cemented the forebodingly moody and suffocating atmosphere within the tautly limited set-designs. Susan Justin's electronic score is elastically thumping with a real seductive pull to it. Some might call it irritably cheesy, but I loved the main theme. Allan Holzman's direction is bitingly simple and it works. Adding graphic violence (like the melting tissue in to sloppy gruel) and constant sleaze (with actresses June Chadwick and Dawn Dunlap showering together) in a pulsating package of genuine competence. The mutant (who turns peeping tom at one stage or another) with its massive head and glaring teeth looks great and terrifying. The cast do the job of what's asked from them. Jesse Vint is fine as Mike Colbey, although he spends more time flirting and sleeping about with the women. Fox Harris hams it up as one of the scientists and the sumptuous June Chadwick gives a sharp performance as scientist too. The gorgeous Dawn Dunlap spends a lot of the time screaming her head off, running around corridors and baring flesh. I guess the character is just keeping to tradition. Linden Chiles, Michael Bowen and Scott Paulin cap off a modest support cast.

Cheap and tacky, but highly enjoyable kitsch.


Ooohhh...for crying out loud ... If this isn't your cup of tea then WHY do you watch it AND feel necessary to rate it poorly ? If you're in sf and/or horror get this on a friday night, make sure you're in the right mood (ie a few bottles of beer wouldn't hurt )and you'll have riot... Just watch those 'multi-million dollar special effects'... I'm looking for it on DVD but so far no hope..


Yeah, Jim Wynorski definitely wrote this. It's amusing, but his sense of humor comes across better in movies he directs. It's actually a pretty entertaining b-movie, but following on the heels of the amazing Corman production 'Galaxy of Terror', this is a bit of a letdown.

The "'Alien' rip-off" label is a bit of a misnomer, since 'Alien' is itself a rip-off of 'Planet of the Vampires', but accurate in that yes, the plot is basically the same, the setting being a genetic research station on a planet that just happens to also have the exact same rock formation that Captain Kirk fought the Gorn on in the classic 'Star Trek' episode 'Arena'! If that doesn't excite you...

...This might. Dawn Dunlap and June Chadwick play really hot scientists and they get naked... a lot. They bathe each other in some weird, psychedelic shower scene, at one point. Actually, these scenes are really the highlight of the film. The smaller scale effects actually look good as well, and some cool death sequences result, but the large scale creature is pretty hilarious. The exterior visual effects are well done, too. The dialogue is good for a laugh or three. It sometimes comes off as parody or schtick, which is what Jim Wynorski usually goes for, and director Allan Holtzman seems to be playing along occasionally, but he could have tried a little harder to be either scarier or funnier. A couple of familiar faces in the cast... The doctor is played by Fox Harris, from 'Repo Man', and the guy that dies first in this movie was the first to die in another 80's cult classic, "Night of the Comet". Jesse Vint is the bland, but okay protagonist, always scoping for some space booty.

The score was great. It's similar to the other 80's synthesizer scores Jim Wynorski used in 'Chopping Mall' and his classic remake of 'Not of This Earth'.

It's worth a watch if you're an 80's b-movie fan. It's a pretty fun schlock film, but Jim Wynorski's humor doesn't convey as well as it usually does whenever he's directing.


It is such a warm, lovable movie! There is no smut, just a sweet, memorable love story wrapped in sci-fi. Chris Knight made a great astronomer, very creative casting but it works! Meadow Williams is adorable, you want to take her home! Her scenes are beautiful and befitting of a lead actress. Eric Roberts makes a great villain, as is his style. This well blended tale has an endearing, old fashioned feel despite its science fiction flavorings. This little movie delivers! It has a creative story, great cast, and wonderful tenderness. It's definitely one to see. It is a great movie for all ages. It is an exciting, romantic love story that reminds you that love is the most powerful force in the universe. It reminds me of "Somewhere in Time" with all of it's timeless and beautiful storytelling. Movies like "Light Years Away" are rare. I can't wait to buy it so I can watch it again.


This movie is pretty funny. I saw it way before it came out because my friend Geoff has a small role in the film. I got to watch parts of the movie being made and they did a great job. The kid in the van who says: "woah" is my friend Geoff. It's a movie worth seeing. I highly recommend it if you live in Ottawa, Ont. You might recognize some of the locations that they filmed in, such as the Police station. The casting was great, like Mr.knight from the Brady Bunch t.v. show. He is a good actor and a great guy. I give it a 10 out of 10. I may be a little biased though... but that just means you should watch it for yourself and see what you think!


Based on it's budget, and having been a crew member and extra in the film, I'm giving "BMS" (the director) and "LYA" (the film) 9/10. It has a wholesome message, a name actor, beautiful actresses, and was shot with a limited budget. The special FX and uses of green screen show maturity from BMS's last film, Miss Castaway and the Island Girls. I had an enjoyable time working on the set with the crew and producers, and watched them solve last minute problems and deal with financier/producer tensions in order to get this finished. For your info, I started out as an extra, and was asked to work on the film as crew. I still have my autographed copy of the script! Actors Tim Peyton, Adri Curry, and Meadow Williams also did a good job and were pleasant to work with on set. This should be going to TV soon, if the right distributor picks it up.


I really liked this movie! The look of it is beautiful. I don't know where it was shot, but the locations are gorgeous, as are the actresses. The lead actors really pulled off touching moments. You really got pulled in to the story.Eric Roberts, Christopher Knight, and Meadow Williams gave first rate performances. Adrianne Curry was really good. She's one of my Myspace friends, so it was great to see her act. Since she's a model I wasn't sure she could act but she was great, and the uninvited kiss on Chris was perfectly played.Meadow Williams was so touching as the angelic alien. Need to see more of this girl. There were nice comic touches and warm,real moments. This is a movie you can see with anyone and not be embarrassed. I would compare it to "Princess Bride". I has an instant classic feel. The romance gives it "chick flick" elements, but it is so likable and the women are so pretty that we guys love it too.


"Light Years Away" is a beautiful movie. It has timeless, tender themes and genuine entertainment value! Well-acted with a touch of magic, this film will touch you. Gently mixed with a fun, whimsical playfulness, an old fashioned soulful romance is clothed in modern garments in "Light Years Away".The result is a joy, a rare movie. Chris Knight and Meadow Williams are very believable as star-crossed loves and have great chemistry on screen.Eric Roberts gives a great performance.Tim Peyton has fabulous comic timing, and Adrianne Curry is outstanding as a nerdy scientist.Creative and wonderfully cast, with genuine,believable, and powerful performances by all. A true jewel of a movie!


I hope this movie makes it this way to Duluth Minnesota sometime soon so I can Watch the only Movie. I have only seen part of this movie and I can say it's a wonderful love story that Bryan Micheal Stoller did a great job with this movie. I real can't way to see this myself. thanks for some of the part of this online for me and others. THis will be great if it come to some Theaters here in Minnesota. I hope that Bryan Stoller make more great and wonderful movies like this one. The music for this movie was great too. Million Miles Away can tough a lot of peoples hearts has it does for me. I all so hope some of the actors come to Minnesota and give that thoughts about there take with doing this movie. I real enjoy the parts of this movie and the songs that go wonderful with this movie has will. There a lot of parts that tough my heart and make me think about my son you is real miles away from me and the rest of my family so this movie make me real a part of want it means to have someone real away from you and but it hard to real now want it's like to have someone real million miles away from you. I hope other get a change to see this movie let the feels tough there hearts has it done for me.


A down-trodden girl, a mutt dog, and a criminal fugitive on the run. Sounds a lot like 1941's High Sierra, even down to lead actress Ida Lupino. But it doesn't matter that these elements got recycled, because Deep Valley is a really watchable 90 minutes of Hollywood melodrama. Sure, it's hokey at times, especially the weepy ending that's squeezed for all its worth. But the movie is also a testimonial to the demandingly high standards of Hollywood studio production-- scope out the great farm house that almost looks like Katrina hit it, and the road project that looks so real, I expect it was. There's also the exquisite b&w photography from cameraman Ted Mc Cord, along with expert direction from studio ace Jean Negulesco. But most of all, it's the absolutely luminous performance from Lupino in the central role. Was there anyone ever better at playing soulful parts. Here, her stuttering, long-suffering farm girl whose only joy is her dog and the great outdoors, is enough to move the Rock of Gibraltar, and is surely Oscar-worthy. Speaking of the outdoors, it's also a measure of the film's underlying romanticism that the lovers seek refuge in the liberating openness of nature, and away from the blessings of civilization. For each has been brutalized by societal forces larger than themselves. Dane Clark is very good too, even if he never got past second fiddle to John Garfield-- then too, his strictly blue-collar personality was a poor fit for the upwardly mobile 1950's, and by that white-collar decade, he was gone. Anyhow, this super-slick film again demonstrates how wonderfully vital B-pictures of the studio era could be, and is well worth a look see.


I caught this on Turner Classic Movies, during a showcase of movies that are not yet available on video. And what a shame, because this is a remarkably vivid, extremely well produced effort, featuring a typically marvelous performance from the so called "poor man's Bette Davis" Ida Lupino - her last as a Warner Brothers star. As well as an intense, believable turn from one of the WB's preferred non-glamour, refreshingly regular Joe's, Dane Clark.

She plays a stuttering, socially backward young woman living in a dark household where her petty, nagging father (Henry Hull) gloomily inhabits the first floor and her helpless, self-pitying mother (Fay Bainter) occupies the second one. Her only function, beyond tedious daily chores, is to be the convenient target of her parents' scorn and disappointment, the scorn and disappointment they actually intend for each other but are too weary to express - as they literally haven't spoken for years. Not helping matters is the fact that there are no other neighbors for miles, as the three of them are fenced in, both physically and now emotionally by the surrounding hills.

Lupino's only refuge is the woods, where she often blissfully roams for hours with her dog. During one of her excursions she stumbles across a work crew of convicts on a construction project, supervised by an agreeable WW2 veteran played by Wayne Morris. She is instantly captivated by one of the men (Clark, who is friendly towards her dog) despite the fact that the undoubtedly more respectable Morris soon drops by the house to get water for the crew and is clearly taken with her. But she prefers the dangerous Clark (from afar - they've only made eye contact) and is concerned that he has been placed in isolation as a result of a violent, if provoked, rage.

Soon, a terrible storm hits. Clark escapes his confinement in the mayhem, as does Lupino, deciding she can no longer withstand the unrelenting hopelessness her parents are inflicting on her. She and Clark run into each other in the woods and ... well, they fall in love.

I'd hate to give any more away but, as with all good movies, there are surprises in store and events to unfold. The characterizations are three dimensional, lived in, particularly those of Bainter and Hull as Lupino's folks. It would've been all too easy for them to have come across as simply nasty and grotesque, but they both do a wonderful job of shading their performances so that you can sense the buried humanity, the regret, the slender possibility of some kind of redemption. There's a tantalizing hint of mystery in Morris' nice guy supervisor as well. It's a relatively small role, but he seems TOO nice, TOO forgiving of and understanding of Lupino's stuttering and social backwardness. Though it's understandably left largely unexplored, you find yourself wondering about the guy's true intentions.

Wonderful film. There's a good amount of suspense too in the second half, as the authorities keep closing in and things get very tense. A colorful, cagey sheriff who appears to enjoy his work a bit too much comes out of nowhere and almost steals the show.

The director, Jean Negulesco, has put together a beautiful film. It's worth seeing for the stunning cinematography alone. Couple that with flawless performances across the board and an insightful, nuanced script ... "Deep Valley" has the richness and texture of an old hardback novel you pick off the shelves of a good used bookstore and can't put down. How do movies like this get so lost when mediocrities abound? (Didn't mean to rhyme.)


Ida Lupino was one of the best screen actresses of her generation. If one should doubt it, take one look at "Deep Valley", which was filmed when she was about 32 years old. Ms. Lupino transforms herself into a much younger woman, who makes the viewer believe she is a girl in her late teens, or early twenties.

Jean Negulesco had a lot to do with the good work he extracted from his players. The film, which is rarely seen these days, presents us with a dysfunctional family living in an isolated farm in California. Libby, the young daughter of the family is seen tending to her sick mother who is bedridden; her father doesn't seem to talk to the mother, leaving Libby in a difficult position. To make matters worse, Libby suffers from stuttering and from shyness, as she feels trapped into duty and not having the same things other girls, her age, can do.

"Deep Valley" is a film that presents a plausible romance between Libby and Barry, a convict working on the road construction nearby. Also, Jeff Barker, one of the men from the highway project falls for the young woman's beauty. Things become entangled as Libby finds the escaped man, Barry, and they fall in love. The lovers are doomed from the start, as one realizes Libby and Barry have no chance in being together. What Libby feels for Barry makes her speech problem go away as she regains a confidence she never had.

The film is worth a look because of Ida Lupino. As Libby, she makes this girl come alive without ever striking a wrong note. Dane Clark is also quite good as Barry, the convict. Wayne Morris plays Jeff Barker, the man that loves Libby, but he realizes she doesn't care for him. Fay Bainter and Henry Hill play the older Sauls.

The film is helped by the musical score of Max Steiner and the black and white cinematography created by Ted McCord.


Deep Valley is a kind of pastoral noir set in a mountainous glen right out of the Brothers Grimm. Isolated with her valetudenarian mother and coarse father in a tumbledown farmhouse, Ida Lupino is an introverted, unsocialized young woman whose awkwardness is symbolized by a stutter. Nearby a new highway is under construction by a forced-labor gang of convicts. One of them (Dane Clark) escapes; Lupino shelters him. Nature takes it course, as does the long arm of the law. The cinematography in Deep Valley is lush and evocative, and its score, by Max Steiner in an access of Wagnerism, may blow you out of your easy chair. Jean Negulesco directs with his usual high-gloss professionalism. But worthy as Deep Valley is, it's hard to work up much enthusiasm for it. Basically it's a quiet and sad little story that remains in its rural backwater and doesn't beckon us in.


If you are old enough to remember Ida Lupino and Dane Clark when they were both at the top of their careers in the 1940's, then this film will be a great Classic to view and enjoy. Ida Lupino, (Libby Saul),"The Big Knife",'55, plays a very innocent farm gal who has a big heart and falls madly in love with Dane Clark, (Barry Burnette),"God Is My Co-Pilot",'45. Barry is a guy who gets all the wrong breaks in life and has a very bad temper which he just simply cannot control. Barry finds himself wanting to start his life all over again, however, he has things in his past which make his hopes a big problem. This story is very sad and yet it has a great story about love between a man and a woman who know they will be Soul Mates forever no matter what happens to them in life. Ida Lupino looked real great in the close ups and Dane Clark gave a great performance as a very troubled man.


This story, based on a novel by California author Dan Totheroh, could have failed miserably if it had not been cast correctly, since the entire tale hangs on the believability of the girl played by Ida Lupino. Jean Negulesco does his usual excellent job of directing. But directing would not have sufficed, if the entire film had not been suffused with the mysterious 'Lupino Essence'. Many words come to mind to try to describe what she does on screen, words like 'integrity', 'intelligence', perceptive', 'authentic', 'genuine', 'spontaneous and uncontrived'. But how does one define magic? Lupino is the traumatised daughter of two quarrelling and cantankerous people who live on different floors of a tumbledown farmhouse in a deep and isolated valley in the north of California. The mother and father have not gone upstairs or downstairs to see one another for seven years, and Lupino is their only go-between, which has reduced her to extreme shyness, withdrawal, and stuttering. Fay Bainter plays the mother very well, with her expressive eyes the size of saucers, that is, saucers which are always sliding around all over the place, as if on shipboard in a storm. The profound isolation of the family is shortly to come to an end, because one of those California coastal highways is being constructed, with much dynamiting, landslides, and convict labour with picks on the obdurate rocks. The road will go through their front meadow, and they will actually see people! The love-starved and pathetic Lupino falls for an escaped convict, brilliantly portrayed by Dane Clark. Lupino's father is played by Henry Hull, who is chiefly remembered for appearing in 'The Fountainhead' (1949), two years later. Here he has little scope to be memorable. This is a very harrowing and moving tale of desperation, both emotional and of the life-and-death variety, as Lupino and Clark struggle to prevent his being shot or captured. It is a doomed love story between two young people who are at the very extremes of life. The film is superb in every way, and qualifies as a minor classic. If only Negulesco had stayed with this kind of intense dramatic films instead of wasting his time with such later things as the appalling and revolting cream-puff, 'Daddy Long Legs' (1955).


A greatly subdued Ida Luppino gives another wonderful performance as a backwoods girl suffering with a nasty father and mother who has been long suffering as a result of his abuse.

Luppino does an excellent job as the girl who stutters to her frustrations in life.

She falls for Dane Clark, who is a prisoner and escapes during a landslide. Pursued by the police, Luppino offers him help as the two fall deeply in love. Clark's problems seems to be environment oriented. He is not a cruel, vicious man but just a guy whose temper allowed him to run afoul of the law.

Fay Bainter gives another wonderful supporting performance as the long suffering mother. Equally good is Wayne Morris, as a cop who also falls for Luppino.

While tragedy beckons at the end, life does go on as the picture shows. Dane Clark is great here and he would always excel in taking parts of troubled men.


This cod mockney melodrama from the director of Bridget Jones Diary fails at every level. It's clearly a film involving working class characters made by middle class people with both characters and plot lacking any authenticity and credibility whatsoever. In fact, the basic premise of Bridget Jones is transposed to this disastrous attempt at making a serious drama. Instead of writing a diary she writes letters to Osama Bin Laden. Instead of getting caught in a love triangle between Colin Firth and Hugh Grant she gets caught in a love triangle with two equally wet englishmen, uncomfortably played by Ewan MacGregor and Matthew Macfadayen, and all this, after her poor husband and son have been blown to bits in an unconvincing attack on Arsenal football stadium whilst she was shagging the local taloid newspaper reporter! The mawkish sentimentality that ensues is unbearable. In a preposterous celebration of London's blitz spirit, the faces of the victims are printed on the side of WWII air balloons which float above the city in every shot. And Michelle Williams, who miraculously found her sons toy rabbit in the ruins of the football stadium, clutches it to her chest in almost every scene. I find it hard to believe that this ill conceived script ever made it past treatment stage, particularly when so many established UK film companies like CH4 were involved in its development and finance. I find it equally hard to believe that the film was selected to screen at prestigious festivals like Sundance.This film is a worrying indictment of the failings of a the British film industry.


This film is about a woman who lost her husband and son in a terror attack. Her life goes into a mess as she deals with her loss and hunts for the truth.

I have mixed feelings for "Incendiary". On one hand, it is beautifully shot. Every scene is nicely planned and constructed. Camera work is great too. On the other hand, the plot is confusing and strange. The pacing is excruciatingly slow, with a lot of repetitive scenes (such as London burning).

I also think "Incendiary" is not focused enough, as it tries to deal with too many topics including grief, guilt, quest for truth and the road to healing. If the filmmakers only focused on grief and guilt, without the subplots of the anti-terrorist guy or the suspect's family, I would have enjoyed the film more. Despite of Michelle Williams' superb acting, I find "Incendiary" disappointing and boring.


I have seen a negative review on this movie and I have to say that I am very tired of people picking apart movies to show how smart they think they are! This was a tragic and beautifully filmed movie that reminded me so much of The Sweet Hereafter. I believe that some people have a hard time watching others go through tragedy and grief and are uncomfortable expressing themselves. This movie drew a lump to my throat the size of a golf ball and made me hug my son extra hard at bedtime. Michelle Williams gives another outstanding performance and Ewan MacGregor is, as always, a complete pleasure to watch on screen. This film will come out on DVD this year and I would urge anyone with a heart to embrace it.


I was at the premiere of this film last night at the Sundance Film Festival. It was obvious that Sharon was very nervous, but she was gracious and funny and I could see how that transferred to her film Bridget Jones's Diary which I loved.

This, however, couldn't be further removed from that. To use one of Sharon's own terms, as a friend put it, the whole film was "eggy". Overdone, pleading with the audience to cry for sympathy for the main character. I don't really even know where to start. The little boy was adorable and precocious, almost to the point of being cartoon-like. Michelle Williams' hangdog "I'm sad and smoking a cigarette" schtick soon became old.

The film starts out alright enough, with the setup of the husband who's always working, the connection between mother and son, etc. Suddenly she is in bed with the very on-point Ewan McGregor, and a bomb explodes at the soccer stadium where her husband and son are. This moment is good - frightening, shocking. But the heavy overlays of jaunting piano music and slow motion running or crying or whatever are so saturated that it's impossible to really connect.

As most of us know, symbolism is best when subtle and stripped down. Well be prepared to have it wacked over your head in this film. Her son has a stuffed bunny animal that he always carries, and after he's dead of course this becomes the representation of her son. They reference the bunny so many times that it's no longer a special memento. Once she starts stalking the son of one of the suicide bombers, it just fails to make sense any longer. She predictably bonds with the son out of nowhere (I literally leaned over and said "She's going to buy him a cricket bat" to a friend after the boy mentioned his dad was supposed to buy him one for his birthday...and lo and behold, she did) and then suddenly there's a standoff at the train station where she gets apparently shot in the head and has not a scratch to show for it.

An additional thing that bothered me is her character apparently has all these amazing traits that men are dying for. Ewan seems suddenly "turned around" from a womanizing yuppie telling her that she's just so different from everyone he knows. Her husband's old boss tells her she's an amazing woman and spews ridiculous romantic crap about "laying in a caravan with the dust particles in the air" or "taking all the hundreds of pieces of your broken heart and putting it back together". What is so remarkable about this woman? She's just gone through a terrible loss, but that has nothing to do with her character or personality. Nothing shown tells me that she is deserving of this attention.

This combined with the in and out narration, apparently letters dedicated to Osama Bin Laden, the hot-air balloon with the picture of her son, the underuse of the engaging Ewan McGregor character, the random relationship with the bomber's son, and the obvious "Oscar nomination" scene of Michelle Williams screaming "My baby! My baby!" all comes together for one totally over the top melodrama that leaves the viewer with no real connection to anyone. If they had stripped it down by about 90% it would be watchable.

It does make me sad that I found this film so unenjoyable, because it was obvious that the director was very nervous and had put her soul and time into it's making. However, I don't see any way to fix the many glaring issues there are. Instead of seeing this, I would recommend popping in Bridget Jones's Diary and enjoying Sharon Maguire in her best medium.


A young beautiful woman (Michelle Williams) is trapped in an empty marriage tucked away in an ugly apartment block in London. Her pride and joy in her grey existence is her 4-year-old son. One day, as the two of them are at the football match, she seduces a slick journalist Jasper (Ewan McGregor) in the local pub. As fate would have it, they are locked in a lovers embrace, with the football match raging on behind them on TV, when the stadium going up in flames with a series of explosions. Her husband and son are both killed in the terrorist attack, leaving her broken and alone.

If you are now thinking that a film about the aftermath of a major terrorist attack from the director of Brigit Jones' Diary sounds like a recipe for disaster, then you are partly right. But it is not bad for the reason you might think. The film is, for the most part, an emotional roller- coaster - you could be crying your way through most of it. But not because of her grieving for her lost family. The bombs are just the beginning - she still has to endure a full load of unlikely events in the hour to come. She understandably loses it along the way as the story becomes so over-dramatised that it is just ridiculous (especially when you run the story back in your head afterwards).

Towards the end she enters a phase of grief hallucination and reconciliation with life. As the movie is neither funny nor exciting, this should have been the route to take all along. Concentrating on the mourning of the young mother, and perhaps even throwing in some guilt towards her semi-estranged husband. Her husband is just gone with his death. He is not missed nor is there any regret for his disappearance. Even for a semi-estranged husband this sounds a little harsh - she did worry about him, after all, so she must have felt something. It is also curious that they have no family, or friends who drop by to comfort her. A lonely marriage must have pushed them into some kind of a social circle, or a hobby, or at least the occasional phone call with their mothers. Was their life really that lonely.

The movie is clearly intended as a pamphlet against terrorism, by showing the human cost at the level of ordinary people. It also takes the time to "explain" the resilience of London in a voice-over. It is a little desperate to save a movie through nationalism, but can actually be fit in here, although it could have been better prepared, by, for instance, by making her a more integral part of London. This is no masterpiece, nor an entertainment jewel, and can easily be missed altogether. A pity, because it does have some potential.


i think the main problem with the movie isn't the movie, it's that people are going in expecting a thriller instead of a drama. yes the major plot points could be covered in 5 minutes.. but that's not the point of drama. your average thriller is about things that happen and happen to have people in them. this movie is about the people and how they feel and cope when something momentous happens. if you appreciate that you'll appreciate the movie better, or not watch it cos it's not something that appeals to you.. and that's fair enough.

As far as the film goes, Michelle Williams carries it well. The accent's fine and the various states she goes through as she tries to deal with what has happened never feel you leaving disconnected or not understanding how she got there.

McGregor is his usual charming self, tho his is not really a major part (likewise MacFadyen), this is a movie about the mother and so these two don't get an awful lot of screen time.

The one fault i'd say is that the passage of time is not particularly well expressed particularly right at the end of the film when what seems to be a present day Ewan is wearing the exact same outfit as in the next scene which must be set sometime after.

Regardless, it's a decent movie, but requiring empathy.. so if you prefer action flicks, watch something else.


Having knocked us all out in 2004 in LAND OF PLENTY by Wim Wenders, here Michelle Williams proves that she is truly supernatural. She gives one of the most gut-wrenching performances ever seen on the screen. And for a Montana gal who had to brush the sagebrush pollen out of her hair before joining polite company, stow her lasso, and pretend to be civilised, how did she manage to master the accent and rhythms and patterns of speech, dress, and mannerisms of those real savages, the gals in those short tart's skirts who live in tower blocks in East London and are married to men who support Arsenal Football Club? (Ugh! Football! Makes me sick! And singing about a football club, how oafish can you get?) It all goes to show that Williams, like good wine, travels well, even though in this case it was from planet to planet. This film is so brilliantly written and directed by Sharon Maguire (formerly a television documentary film maker) that the combination of Maguire and Williams sets the cinema on fire and thereby justifies the film's title admirably. Excellent support is had from Ewan McGregor and Matthew MacFadyen as the two male leads, but all eyes are on Williams. The production values of this film are very high, and it is easy to be convinced that the big terrorist attack on Wembley Stadium has really happened, as the attack and the aftermath are all so real. However, this is not a film about terrorism, which is merely the backdrop, in the sense that world wars and civil wars have been for so many films in the past, from GONE WITH THE WIND to FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS to MRS. MINIVER. This is a film about people, but especially about Michelle Williams. Only a woman could have directed this. In fact, one is tempted to say that all films with terrorism backgrounds should be directed by women, because they are not tempted as men are to dwell on all the violence for its own sake. With a woman at the helm, this film becomes a people film, but a man would have strayed, taken more interest in guns and corpses and explosions (little boys going bang bang sometimes never grow up, especially when they have a budget and a cameraman handed to them). As a study of searing grief and despair, Williams has our hearts in her mouth, but don't worry, it isn't really a downer, it is simply so spellbinding looking at her and seeing into another dimension. She seems to be a tiny little thing, and it is almost inconceivable that such a small package can carry such a huge explosive power. This film really is an instant contemporary classic.


People who don't make even the slightest effort to understand a film, should at least refrain from commenting on it as they only reveal their complete ignorance.

I don't know what kind of a zombie one must be to concentrate on the accents, the cast, the car or whatever and not be able to feel the slightest bit of emotional involvement with the characters and the story?

I'm not even going into what makes the film great and why one should see it. Experiences of grief, sorrow and hopelessness cannot be put easily into words.

But the film offers much more deeper insights than those alone and also a lot of hope for the future.

It asks the right questions about where we the common unimportant people stand in the "World Wide War on Terror" and even has the courage to answer them correctly.

Go and watch it and try to put yourself into the story, because weather you like it or not, you ARE part of it.


The story of a woman grieving over the loss of her husband and son, seems like a story that should not be told, it felt like every scene was just watching her crying and having flashbacks. On the other hand, scenes were very well done, and clear at some points, very good special effects too. I have to say though, this is by far the worst movie I have seen, or at least, I can recall seeing. The whole story looks like repetition, and then the mystery to be revealed of how everything happened is very badly done, it is easily guessed, not in any way clever, and pointless. I do not recommend this movie to anyone, it is appalling.


Where do i begin? Where does it end?

It is well known throughout the land that the face of the devil wears a hockey mask(just a reference), devil's actions are cowardice and backstabbing and of course Mr Red Horny Bastard works with an evil masterplan viciously crafted by him and his followers. Well, call me crazy but that's the villain of the movie. He blows up a football stadium full of heated Arsenal fans without remorse. And the badly made tearjerker begins with no end. Mommyyyyy..... Mommy indeed, because the director needs her mommy to spank her a bit and teach her some brains. The editing department was irrelevant, must be the same one who edited Pretty Woman or close,you need a reason? I'll give you one, it's the emotional motivation to sense the woman's despair and loss through the beach,the sea and the yelling-mommy kid ,better yet we were forced to feel the one-dimensional space these characters occupied. Was this a propaganda? Oh, i'll just let you decide on that. If you want me to force an opinion on you, call me in xxx.bin.666.laden or e-mail: maguire@sheepmentality.com .

The Incendiary had no fire but all the villagers carried torches ,this was a paper world and such as one ,it is real easy to be burned


Quite a surprise, topical clever and compulsive viewing. This film did run true to life in many ways, the characters are easy to identify with. The housewife sexually unsatisfied by her husband who apparently arrives home from a very stressful job of work and immediately falls asleep. The impression being that this is a regular occurrence. I was a bit puzzled though by the facial damage on a person who had'nt been to the match. Much of this film required intelligent imagination as it did'nt waste its time filling in what they thought was unnecessary detail. I'm sure many of those involved in terrorist incidents in London over the past 30 odd years will identify with one character or another.

It's a pity it has'nt gained the popularity it deserves now being released to TV only a year after production. Some very good acting by the 2 lead parts.


A heart wrenching movie. Though none of us are free from grief and quilt, some may find this movie too emotional. But for all who venture here, you may find your mind pondering your own lives and loved ones and those closest to you. You may start to think just how fragile we all are. You may consider calling someone, writing someone or praying for someone. Some of you may take a closer look at world events, read a newspaper or for that matter avoid one. But if you watch this movie you will feel the need to preform some action of good faith, if not just looking at your own. I found the shocking scenes in this movie did not shock me and the sad thing is they should have. Tomorrow when I look out the window, walk down the street, have a cup of coffee. I will savor the moment with more awareness and thankfulness. As Leonard Cohen said "It's through the cracks that the light gets in"


INCENDIARY comes as a surprise release on DVD: did it even have a theatrical release? Based on a book by Chris Cleave and adapted for the screen by director Sharon Maguire, this little film is notable on many levels. First, the story is another look at the topic of terrorism, revealing the effects of these senseless catastrophes much like America's 9/11 tragedy on all players - the survivors of the victims, the survivors of the perpetrators, and the way so much of life changes in the wake of explosive surprises and the strength to survive in the aftermath of these traumas.

A Young Mother (an astonishingly fine performance by Michelle Williams) opens the film with thoughts and demonstrations of the love she holds for her young son (Sidney Johnson) while she copes with the too frequent absences of her husband Lenny (Nicholas Gleaves): Lenny is part of London's Anti-terrorism division of the police force. The feeling of unfulfilled desires by this isolated young woman are magnified as she watches her newspaper reporter neighbor Jasper Black (Ewan McEwan) across the street escorting yet another tipsy dolly into his apartment. Lenny leaves, the mother lovingly puts her son to bed, then she goes out to a bar where she encounters none other than Jasper trying to tempt her to his lair. The needy mother submits to Jasper's intentions and in a brief moment of desire succumbs to her physical needs.

Another day passes and as Lenny and their son depart for the soccer game, the mother is again willingly seduced by Jasper, only to have their assignation interrupted by an explosion at the stadium where Lenny and her son are watching the game. The guilt-ridden adulterous mother flees to the stadium where she is injured attempting to find her family. Now hospitalized with injuries she faces visits from Jasper as well as from her husband's co- worker Terrance (Matthew Macfadyen). Once released form the hospital she discovers the withheld name and picture of one of the suicide bombers responsible for the attack and deaths - and she learns that the bomber was a suspect being watched by Terrance who could possibly have prevented her loss. She learns the name of the suicide bomber's family, meets the bomber's son (Usman Khokhar) and wife (Sasha Behar) and eventually allows herself to meet them. The consequences of all of this information and chance meetings and the afterburn of her association with Jasper and Terrance (both of whom profess love for her) make for a startling ending, but an ending that for once helps us understand the psychology of our current world of terrorism threat and the need to heal and move on.

The performances are excellent, with special attention paid to the gifts of Michelle Williams whose perfect British accent will be a surprise to most viewers: this is a career altering role for her. The film develops slowly, deals with a lot of internal dialog, but in the end the effect is one of powerful impact. Highly recommended.

Grady Harp


First, let me say that I'm not usually into these types of film. I prefer the popcorn movies with lots of action and not too much to think about. Every once in a while, however, I'll rent a "high-brow" movie and often I am bored to tears. Not with this movie. I am unfamiliar with most of Michelle Williams work, but she does an excellent job here displaying a woman dealing with a deep guilt, and remorse over the loss of her son (she doesn't seem to miss her husband much, however- but I digress). I honestly believe that if you cannot relate to her character here, then you are a soul-less creature and definitely have forgotten the tragedies of 9-11-2001. Terrorism is just murder on a grand scale, and murder benefits no one. Grief is universal. Go back into your caves and let those who still have the capacity to feel relish in the tragedy portrayed by an up-and coming actress. See this one!


My father always told me to be wary of reviewers who label their object of review as one which is *multi-layered* in a negative tone ("the fatal problem is that this is a film with an identity crisis", according to some Time-Out hack). It tells you one thing: That these reviewers have problems with understanding complex issues. Phrases like "this film doesn't know what it wants to be" etc., might've sounded 'phat!' ten years ago, but are sooooooo nineties.

Especially if said reviewers get essential story details wrong, one should be very mistrustful about their supposed skills, and whether they'd actually SEEN the film in the first place.

I'm referring of course, to the mother's meeting with the bombers son, which was of course, the completely logical conclusion of the journalists' actions, which themselves were borne out of a desire to win the mother back, which was totally understandable because of his guilt and her being highly attractive AND a damsel in distress, too.

This is clearly a film about guilt, both hers and his (and the coppers'), and dealing with grief and death of loved ones. The fact that there is some sort of institutionalized screw ups isn't there to show conspiracy, but to show that we all messed up at times. The references to the shooting/execution by the police of the innocent Brazilian in the subway after 7/7 are clear and intentional.

This is a great film, I really dunno what everybody is on about. Aside from the whole accent thing (we know that Williams' accent is fake, it is not perfect, but adequate. If we hadn't known that she was an American, most of the non-Brits would've never guessed) this is a near flawless film, story-wise. Williams again, delivers on the acting skills. She has been a very talented actress since childhood, whose talent can be obscured by her astonishing beauty. It can be more of an obstacle to her work, than an asset. Sometimes.

Oh well. Even Michelle Williams can't have it all .... ;)

The Melancholic Alcoholic.


I've got good news, & I've got bad news.

The good? Michelle is very fine - convincing sad mommy, Barbie cute, emoticon deluxe.

E.McG - not around enough. There must have been an editing mess with this one. The first part of the film suggests he would have had a bigger role. Our loss.

That's the good.

The bad: THIS IS NOT AN ACTION MOVIE!!!! It's a ruminative, junky, maudlin, meandering mess masquerading as an action movie. No guts, no punch.

It takes a long time to say - & you will be half asleep at this point - that, gee, Osama should just listen to the sad mommas out there & he wouldn't be such a bad dude.

NO. This is idiotic. Terrorists are NOT good daddies. Not possible.

The whole thing takes a long time to develop & then falls apart in semi-bathetic babbling. Like I said, wha' happened?


I actually find myself pitying the clowns who don't get/won't get this film. They are either brain dead or dead at the core... because not being touched by the events strung together here is really not paying attention to the film or to the current state of things. The acting is superb by everyone, obviously especially Michelle Williams. It's a gutsy move to bring in an American to play this blue collar East Ender but she pulled it off with astonishing aplomb. The photography is sensational and helps the emotional story emerge... that is, if you're interested in a story that deals in emotions, which is to say people, which is to say drama. If you don't want drama or people or emotions this is not the film for you. Perhaps no film is for you, but fear not, there are video games for you.


It never seems for me to find some obscure film from the U.K. or even here in America that places itself in a situation simple human nature. You ran on and compared this modern day tragedy to Bridget Jones Diary. Personally I detest the Bridget Jones Diary whereas in this film you find common day people catching themselves in a common day probable tragedy. The characters you mentioned played by Ewan MacGregor and Matthew Macfadayen, one who is not only caught in the candidness of Michelle Williams character, but also her husband's Supervisor giving his personal tickets away to save his own carcass based on probabilities.

I have suffered a modern day tragedy and if not for my family could easily seem myself wrapped up in my daughters personal items. Your complete and total insufferable ability to see the human nature side of this movie makes me wonder why you even watched it. I have many friends scattered throughout the UK and even a London Police Officer who speaks of the many things that happen on a daily work day for him. So perhaps you should climb out of your dungeon and take heart to the last words spoken in the letter to Mr. Osama. Because it is truly obvious you did not understand the plea to listen to the voices of the children and perhaps together we could speak of peace for it is the children that carry and must live in this shattered world we now live in.

The movie was touching especially to one who has lost through accident or currently war related reasons. The issues they speak of in getting through the grief are true and do work for many. As I said before I am not one who would commit adultery but realize that people are different and suffer issues and can see clearly how such a transgression could have happen. It has been said that it is not man that preys on the broken heart of a woman but the evil within the man.


In the wake of destruction, the world falls into silence, and memories of those lost flicker across flames, whispers in bleeding hearts, and love taken rises up to heaven to tell of how they lived and how they will never be forgotten. But how do you live after something like this? How does the heart heal, and how do you let go? How do you live, and would you ever be able to love again?

Love is the perfect memory that clings to your heart when the world is brought to its knees, and life refuses to surrender. Jagged pieces of what would never be again cuts deep, but time fights to pull it back together. And the world finds a way to rise up once more, and the heart rebuilds. But love might be denied, and love lost may be found. And the strength of one woman in her darkest hour lights up through the tremendous talent of Michelle Williams, and the fires of drama burn bright. And the intensity of the heart grips us deep in this chilling movie, Incendiary.


I went home and really appreciated the time I could spend with my young son after watching this. We played in the garden for at least an hour longer, everything he did was so much more vivid than if I had not watched this film. Many people have mentioned 'Melodrama' in their comments but usually with a sneer. Melodrama is not necessary a bad thing, it has a place if used well. This is a film about grief directed in the same manner as Bridget Jones. People who enjoyed Bridget Jones, Love Actually etc will find an emotional wrench with the mothers strength and weakness, as I did. A Mike Leigh type director would have made a very different film but that movie would have been unrelenting and harrowing by being much closer to the real life experiences of people suffering loss. I believe the filmmakers heart is in the right place and is not purposefully manipulating her audience. It must have taken much persistence and a strong belief to get this movie made, I imaging that it had a bumpy ride to get green lit. I'm glad they succeeded.


An awful waste of 1 hour and 35 minutes. Don't do this to yourself, unless you really enjoy pretentious melodramas with little or no story.

According to the producers, and IMDb, this is a "Drama/Romance/Thriller". Make no mistake - it is not romance, and most certainly not a thriller.

"Like watching paint dry" is an old saying, and probably as meaningless a way of spending time as watching "Incendiary". Still, many of us are likely never to have sat down for an hour and a half to watch paint dry, whereas we have all seen the clichées and the pretentious rubbish which makes up this utterly awful movie. We've seen it all before, though fortunately rarely in such a mindblowingly slooow pace and without virtually any story or message behind it.

I is usually a bad sign when, 20 minutes into a film, still nothing has happened, and the information conveyed would easily fit into less than a minute. In this case, it is indeed fully indicative of what's to come: more of the same.

The story as such can be told in it's entirety in a few sentences and scenes, which in fact it also is - the remainder of the of the movie just consists of endless, clichéd retrospectives, soul searching dialogs, marathon shots of facial expressions, you name it...

Some have criticized the plausibility and credibility of the storyline, very often a problem with today's movies, but that's hardly where this movie falls down - it's in the fact that the story could easily have been told in ten minutes. It would still have been pointless, un-interesting and without meaning or message, but at least it would have been over quickly...


What nonsense negativism from Steve "Cod" Carver in his post which does not even seem to be aware that the script is directly adapted from the celebrated Chris Cleave novel of the same name published on the same day as London's actual "7/7" attacks in 2005. This was one of my favorite's from Sundance 2008, and as an accredited film critic I am looking forward to the 25th anniversary edition in a few weeks time. I'm now sorry I missed "The Escapist" at Sundance which has also not yet been released commercially this side of the Atlantic. Incendiary is the first in a string of excellent Michelle Williams' performances, of which the best by far is in Wendy and Lucy. Comments here are always subjective. But when they slag others' professional judgments on the basis of little knowledge of either cinema or the world, they should be kept to oneself.


This was a surprisingly accurate adaptation of part of Fleming's novel and is the debut of Bond on film. There took a few minor *ahem* liberties with the nationality of our favorite superspy and this is a TV movie from the 1950's. If you're lucky enough to ever see this, you won't really be thinking about that. You'll be like wow, I can't believe I actually got to see this!


This is not your typical James Bond movie as we know James Bond today. I purchased it on video cassette and started watching it and was surprised to find a black and white movie in which James Bond is a CIA Agent and his counter part Felix Leiter is a British Secret Service agent. As far as action goes in this movie, it is a 1950's style of fights and action, do not expect it to be what you are used to. For something filmed years ago and seen today it is not the best, but for something of its time period it is a good film. The casino sequences are the majority of the movie. There are very few scenes set or shot outside the casino in this film. The actors did a good job of portraying the characters and setting the tone for the action to come. If you are a true James Bond fan then this is a must see movie for you, if not then don't waste your time.


While 1962's "Dr. No" was the first time James Bond appeared on movie screens, it was actually this 1954 television adaptation that the character was first seen at all. Since this was on American television, though, Bond's nationality was changed so he became Jimmy Bond, a Yank. Besides this distracting update, the story is very close to Ian Fleming's novel and most of the scenes are lifted directly from their source.

A banker for SMERSH, Le Chiffre (played by Peter Lorre) has lost precious funds and has turned to a game of Baccarat to win it back. Bond is ordered to beat Le Chiffre so that his bosses would eliminate their own agent, causing great embarrassment to the organization. Helping Bond is Brit Clarence Leiter (another change from the novel) and Valerie Mathis, a former lover.

It's fairly obvious that this was a live made-for-TV movie, with some technical screw-ups showing up here and there and the lack of a lot of different sets. That being said, the hour long episode moves quickly, with Baccarat being explained for anyone who doesn't understand at the start. There are also some funny bits, such as when Leiter manages to keep money away from one of Le Chiffre's henchmen.

The small cast works well together, even though the acting gets appropriately too theatrical at times for my taste. Lorre is chilling as Le Chiffre, and fits Fleming's description quite nicely. Michael Pate as Leiter is pretty solid and a believable ally, while Linda Christian is the only weak link in the chain. So what's the verdict on Barry Nelson, the first James Bond? He's definitely no Sean Connery, but handles himself well before the image of the secret agent was created in the film series. His relaxed attitude helps to distract from the fact that Bond isn't British here.

So even though the ending is a bit too tame (Fleming's torture from the book would never have reached TV audiences from 1954), the mini-movie makes up for it with a tense battle at the card table, some good acting, and a great espionage feel throughout. Any Bond fan should at least try to find this and the average movie goer should do the same, just to see how James Bond's first mission played out. 7/10


It was the first time we heard the distinctive opening theme music...of a timpani fanfare. It was the first time we saw him order...a Scotch and water. The first time we heard a woman moan: "Oh...Jimmy."

Um, okay, so there were still a few kinks to work out. But it was October, 1954, just one year after Ian Fleming's first novel was published. So what if James Bond didn't hit the ground running? To see the man, okay, played by Norwegian-American Barry Nelson, offer a casual quip after a brush with death, tuxedo unruffled, will stir the heart of any true Bondophile.

Bond (Nelson) is on the case for Combined Intelligence. His mission: Break the bank on Le Chiffre (Peter Lorre), a top Soviet operative in France. To do so, he needs to beat Le Chiffre at baccarat, and not lose his head in the process when his old flame Valerie Mathis (Linda Christian) is threatened with death.

I had to give this TV movie a ranking here in order to review it, though it's no fair using the same metric as with the theatrical Bonds. There was no "Take 2" for the cast of 1954's "Casino Royale", working live and without a net. Shadows are cast over actors' faces. A pasty, bloated Lorre stumbles over many of his lines. Nelson crams his shoulder into a lampshade. Someone can be overheard coughing behind the camera during a tense interrogation scene.

Nelson, an amiably solid journeyman actor, comports himself well under the circumstances. Once you get used to his accent and flattop haircut, a slight twitchiness in his manner, and people calling him "Card Sense Jimmy Bond", he's easy and interesting to watch, managing to look both cool and concerned while still pulling off a nice Roger Moore-ish quip or two.

"So it was you those men were shooting at! Why?"

"Maybe they needed the practice."

Christian is a terrific inaugural Bond girl, even if the flat black-and-white camera image does little justice to her face and form. Lorre, oddly, is the weak sister in this acting trio, but despite some obvious discomfort he does use his famous screen presence to some good effect, especially in a card-table sequence which is the best part of this short movie where he smirks and glowers to cold effect.

There's also a surprisingly gritty torture sequence at the end, with the bad guys using a pair of pliers on Bond's toes. The producers of "Climax!" and director William H. Brown couldn't copy the Fleming novel too closely; it had Bond getting nailed in a more tender part of his anatomy. But they do get much of the nub of the story, not a bad feat considering the time limit and production code.

The movie I saw ran just 48 minutes. Apparently there was more to the ending that I missed, though it seemed to have run its course well enough. The last line in my version has Bond saying "Call the police". I don't think you'll hear Bond say that in any other of his movies.

Despite or because of such incongruities, "Casino Royale" is a fascinating glimpse at giving birth to a 1960s icon a decade too soon. As a spy story, it only works in fits and starts, but what matters is its place as the somewhat-neglected beginning of a screen legend.


Its sad that a film as wonderfully made as this is so grossly misunderstood.

Let me say this right off that bat. If you're idea of a horror film is I know What You Did Last Summer and you consider Scream and The Exorcist to be the most shocking films ever made, this is not a film for you. If you havent seen I Spit on Your Grave, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead or Last House on the Left, this is not a film for you. If you've never listened to "Living Dead Girl" or "Superbeast" this is not a film for you.

Now having said that, this is a film for me. It is a film for true horror fans, the kind that stay up and watch Dawn of the Dead and The Beyond, who know who Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento and George Romero are. This is a film that was meant to be seen by people like this and will only be enjoyed by people like this. This is not exactly mainstream stuff here. Only a small percentage of people enjoy this stuff, and for those people, this film is a true rivival of classic exploitive horror.

Rob Zombie has created a homage to 1970's exploitation/horror films, and he has been extremly successful in achieving that goal. The film borrows largely from Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Last House on the Left, with his own little bits of original demential thrown in and an assortment of other horror film references. The film tells the tale of four teenagers who are terrorized and tortured by a bizarre southern family living in a remote farmhouse in 1977. The film uses all sorts of camera tricks--negative colouring, split-screens and seemingly random inserts of grainy snuff-like footage of various S&M and gore images; the off-the-wall effect is similar to what Oliver Stone did in Natural Born Killers. The film is not about plot, or about characters. Its purpose is to shock and disturb, to serve no other function than to entertain through exploitation and disgusting and bizarre violence. Just as you think the limits of weirdness are approaching, Zombie takes the film a step farther, and before long you surrender yourself to the mercy of the film and just accept things for what they are. The film has the feeling of an out of control freight train being piloted by a madman and the climax of the film is truly bizarre. The reviewers who wrote the film off as overly-sadistic with little in the ways of character development, plot or suspence have come to see a different kind of film, perhaps more at home with titles like The Sixth Sense or Silence of the Lambs. The have no busineness debasing a great film like this.

Rob Zombie has created a film that is both a homage and derivative at the same time; most things in the film have been done before, in one shape or another, and the level of gore is a fraction of what was intended, due to its shameful R-rating. To see the inevitable Unrated Directors Cut on video is going to be a true horror experience.

But this film is something has hasnt been seen in decades and it has been made with the utmost care that only a true horror fan could provide. It is a film made by horror fans for horror fans, a true labor of love by Mr. Zombie, despite some flaws. If you arent sitting the theater going "hey, theres Bill Mosely from TCM 2!" or "hey, that shot is a homage to the cover of Evil Dead!" or "hey, he wears peoples skin like Leatherface!" then you probably arent meant to be seeing this film. But for those who are, the film is a true gem and a rarity; it is a kind of film that hasnt been seen on the screens in over twenty years and probably wont be for another twenty years. Get out there and enjoy this rare experience while you still can.

An instant cult-hit.

Grade: A

For true horror fans only. Everyone else just wont get it.


I already had a user comment for "House of a 1.000 Corpses" submitted here on this site, dated over a year ago andumnot very praising. In fact, my first viewing of this film was so disappointing that I excessively discouraged other people here to see it. Rather than to simply ignore the old comment and pretend I never bashed it, I wish to write a new  more positive  review, if it were only to convince other people (who also disliked at first) to give it a second change. Several factors (like the praising reviews on "The Devil's Rejects"-sequel and conversations with fellow horror fans) nearly forced me to re-watch "House of a 1.000 Corpses" and I'm glad I did. This truly is a film that requires multiple viewing before one can properly judge it. Rob Zombie's style is often innovating and so overwhelming that it might look overly hectic at first but, in reality, his dedication towards obscurity and his knowledge on classic cinema is one of the best things that could ever happen to the horror genre. And that is something you (or at least I) have to discover with repeated viewings

The power of this film lies in the fact that the screenplay covers all kind of successful horror premises. Serial killers, mad doctors, a family of crazies, deranged clowns, devil-worshipers.you name the type of terror and "House of a 1.000 Corpses" features it! This movie is a small revival of the entire horror genre all by itself. No extended and boring intros or pointless red herrings in this film, "House" is straightforward and surefooted sickness from start to finish and you're given almost no time to breathe. Some of the sequences in this film are so damn close to brilliant that I can't possibly figure out why I didn't love them right away!! The execution-scene guided by the moody "I Remember You"-song, for example, is amazingly atmospheric and quite unsettling. Although Rob Zombie's directing skills are still open for improvement (the abrupt climax, overly rough editing), his debut is a staggering gorefest that every horror fan has to experiencerepeatedly! Bring on the sequelI'm ready now!!


House of 1,000 Corpses (2003) marks the directorial debut of Trash/Industrial Artist Musician Rob Zombie. This film was sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before Lion's Gate released it theatrically. A homage of sorts to Zombie's favorite genre, southern fried horror. Throw in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, add a little Eaten Alive and a dash of FunHouse and you'll get the flavor of this film.

Four twenty somethings are riding along the back southern roads when they come across a roadside carnival run by an eccentric clown named Captain Spaulding. He gives them a personnel tour of his fun house of horrors and tells them the tale of a local ghoul named Doctor Satan. Inspired by phantasmagorical tale of the good doctor, they decide to search for his grave. Captain Spaulding draws them a map and gives them directions to an area where the Doctor allegedly died. On the road, they meet a pretty blond hitch-hiker who also knows about the legend of Doctor Satan...and a little more! What happens next? You'll have to visit House of 1,000 Corpses!

A great film that does what it sets out to do. I'm so glad to see old school grind house horror is back in the mainstream. A sequel is out and it's even better! I have to strongly recommend this movie. You won't regret it!


All I heard about all year was how great this movie was, and how scary it was. I'm going to be very blunt and fair. It isn't any of those things. I was horrified, in a bad way. The acting was so bad I almost left the room, the gory violence was WAY too much, and it only seemed that way because it was quite fake. There was so many plot holes I lost count! This is probably the WORST movie I have ever seen in my entire life! As soon as it ended, I grabbed the disk from my DVD player, put it back in it's case and returned it for my money back (To my misfortune, we bought it) That's 2 hours I'll never get back, save your time and money and don't see it. If Rob Zombie is giving up his music career for this... I am truely sad... all in all 0/10


Initially I had little or no interest in this film but after hearing good things about it from a lot of sources I decided to check it out. Unfortunately for me this was not a new classic of horror that some people hail it as, it's a disjointed mess that's light on scares, originality, and fun. House of 1000 Corpses somehow manages even to mess up when it comes to plot structure, something even the lowest of horror movies can usually pull off.

It does have a few redeeming elements; the carnival sideshow style of horror is an interesting motif for the film, Sid Haig's character is cool and underused unfortunately, and occasionally Zombie manages to unnerve by using quick jumps to snuff like 16mm footage, a technique that would have been better served if the director was able to exercise more restraint, especially in the early film. The film also contains a rather clever plot misdirection about mid way through, a subplot about cops and one of the victim's father that makes you think the plot is going to evolve one way, but then completely changes direction you. I have to give credit to Zombie for fooling and surprising me.

The film's real problem is in the comparison it invites with its betters, this film basically is "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and it doesn't hold up well to the seminal 1974 classic. A movie that was made for approximately $140,000, that still manages to be way more effective then House. Maybe if you stripped Zombie of his 7 million dollar budget he would have been able to show his true film-making chops and been able to pull off the low budget fun and carnage he so desperately tries to achieve with this film; more likely this film would have been stripped of it's disguise of high production values and clever sets, and be revealed to everyone as the naked unfocused mess that it is. Even with its budget, the gore is nothing; there is nothing shocking or creative or fun. Maybe the unrated version is better, but since it's completely unavailable I have no way of knowing. As the R rated version stands it fails as a gross out flick and then later goes on to fail even completely at the loftier goal of actually being scary. When I first watched TCM I really was unnerved by it, and I found myself thinking about for weeks after. I watched House of 1000 Corpses today, and nothing has stayed with me; what little effect it had on me was gone the second I stopped watching it. Hell, I might even be fooled into renting this again years from now when I completely forget about it.

"So what", you might say, "it's not scary, not all movies of this variety have to be scary, look at Evil Dead 2". Well the problem is it's not really fun either. The teen victims are completely indistinguishable, which in fairness is pretty common complaint for this genre, and the killers, who the film is obviously in love with, are just too gaudy and derivative of slasher stereotypes. The one that had the ability to stand out from the crowd, Sid Haig's Captain Spaulding, disappears for most of the movie. So for most the film you are left with a plot, that much like victims, runs but never gets anywhere. It almost seems like a masturbation reel for serial killers. I get what he was going for, I've seen the dinner scene from Texas Chainsaw Massacre (there is that comparison again, but I can't help if the shoe fits), Zombie just doesn't achieve the disquieting creepy effect that film had. Towards the end the plot just spirals out of control into what I think was a failed attempt at surrealism, personally I was just glad it was going somewhere. After what is a close approximation of the last teen going through a house of horrors, the films ends on a truly predictably note that once again feels ripped from TCM.

Overall this movie just kinda sucks plain and simple. I get that it's a homage, but it's just not a particularly effective one. Zombie might eventually be able to develop his directing into something interesting but first he has to clear the hurdle from music video style and shock to film atmosphere and substance. I will end by saying one more positive thing about the film; it's not the 2003 remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre.


If you like horror films then you will love this movie. 'House of 1000 Corpses' will keep you on edge, and scare the crap out of you. Rob Zombie is a brilliant horror writer, so if you are squeamish, please stay away! As far as horror movies go, this is among the best ever made. I compare almost all new horror movies to this one, and few come close to the extremity and violence of this film. People who give this movie a low rating do not appreciate true horror, and therefore should not be taken into consideration when evaluating whether or not to watch this movie. It goes from general nervous horror (like what are those crazy kids doing in that "creepy country town") to full out mutilating horror where people are getting scalped and slowly tortured. It leaves out nothing when it comes to messed up killings, Rob Zombie somehow thinks of it all. You don't have to be a Rob Zombie fan to like this movie, anyone I have ever watched this with has been horrified (to say the least) and that is what most people are looking for when turning to a truly scary movie for entertainment. I can't give 'House of 1,000 Corpses' enough praises for stepping outside the box of the general horror movie equation, adding both an intense plot and gruesome (not cheesy) effects. It is a movie that will stay with you, and will stand out in your mind when comparing it to the rest of the new millennium horror films. I absolutely love it!!!


I have to ask because it seems that I'm not a true horror movie fan if I don't like this movie. Thats a load of crap. I have seen all the Nightmare on Elm Streets, Halloweens, Friday The 13ths, Hellraisers, Evil Deads, etc. etc. I like film directors like John Carpenter, Wes Craven, George A. Romero, Eli Roth. I've seen some obscure horror films too, like Blood Beach, The Company Of Wolves and even seen The Last House On the left (even though I didn't like it that much).

Problem I had with this film was it was too sadistic for its own good (the "bunny" killing scene especially made my blood turn cold), the villains antics grew tiresome, and THAT scene where the gun was held on the guy's head was JUST TOO LONG. No matter how stylish it was meant to be, it was just a director letting the scene run for too bloody long!

That said, I didn't totally dislike this movie. I could see that Rob Zombie has an obvious fondness for the horror movie and he set out to create a familiar story with his own sadistic and creative additions. The film was effective at making me wonder if the actors playing the villains were really acting or not, they did seem genuinely disturbed. However, the victims were kind of ho hum.

The production design of the film looked impressive too, with a lot of visual points of references to horror clichés.

Main problem was that I didn't really enjoy watching it, and I grew bored with it in its latter stages. It was shocking (in parts) just for being shocking and was just a film made by an amateur film maker (albeit an obviously enthusiastic one)


**Spoilers**

I saw this movie yesterday, I don't really know much about Rob Zombie, I don't listen to his kind of music. I'm not a big splatter fan, but I did like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and other horror films, so I thought I would give this one a chance.

I actually liked it at first, it was kind of scary and bizarre enough, but it just became more and more sickening, the evil family in this movie was just absolutely disgusting, which wouldn't have been so bad, but they are almost treated as the heroes of the movie, I get the feeling that Rob Zombie doesn't find their behavior all that reprehensible.

One thing that happened was just to ridiculous, there were 5 local cheerleaders that went missing that keep getting mentioned in the movie, and when one is discovered in the trunk of a car, dead, with the words "trick or treat" carved into her, they send 2 cops to check things out. That place would have been crawling with cops, my suspension of disbelief doesn't go that far.

I don't mind downbeat endings, sometimes I find them preferable, but this ending just took the cake, I think mostly because it wasn't presented as a downbeat ending, again, I get the feeling that RZ views this as a happy ending. Also, if they were going to end it that way, couldn't at least one of the villains have gotten their comeuppance? I would have loved to see that evil, annoying (but very pretty), blond bimbo get whacked. But of course, I think the director saw them as the heroes of the movie.

I felt dirty after watching this movie.


House Of 1000 Corpses (2003)

This movie was awesome! To tell you, I have never, ever seen anything on the big screen quite like this before. House of 1000 Corpses is a throwback to old school horror movies such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but succeeds much more. It is about four friends who are driving cross country and are returning home after a long trip. Late on Halloween eve, they stop by a sleazy gas station and next to it is "The Museum Of Monsters And Madmen", owned by Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig). Interested and curious, they check it out and end up riding a "murder ride" inside the museum, learning a bit more about a local legend, Dr. Satan. They then head for the road and pick up a strange hitchiker, Baby (Sheri Moon). Their car then breaks down and Baby takes them to her house, not far up the road. They then are pulled into a world of torture and violence, as they are captured by a family of insane lunatics who want them dead.

I have to say, congrats to Mr. Zombie! He has created a horror masterpiece that may become a historical landmark in film history such as others have done before. Zombie's directing debut is wonderful, and had some uniqe and unusual touches to make the film that much more bizarre and spooky, such as the split screen effect, I mean I haven't seen that used since the movie Carrie! The movie also had strange flashbacks and flashforwards. I recommend this movie to any horror fan! You won't be disappointed! I'm surprised it took 3 years to get a company to buy this movie! I can't believe Universal turned it down! I give House of 1000 Corpses a 10/10.


This is clearly one of the dumbest films I 've ever seen and surely the dumbest I've seen this year and that's only because I haven't seen any Uwe Boll disaster so far this year. I'm pretty sure a real zombie would have made a better movie than Rod Zombie did. The story is completely laughable, the characters...well...what characters, there's no suspense and there are only lame shocks and so on. With the exception of the make-up FX everything else was just uninteresting and unbelievably boring and annoying. By the way, I'm sorry for Karen Black for having to make films like this to make a living. And to the director of this abomination I can only say: Welcome in Uwe Boll territory, Mr. Zombie.


****possible spoilers******

The movie spends an absurd amount of time establishing a boring and pointless backstory about some Dr Satan nonsense. You'll probably be so bored after awhile you'll be begging for the psycho hick family to start the killing already.

The gore is so over the top, it comes across as laughable. The four main characters, a couple of kids lost in the middle of nowhere, are irritating, have no depth whatsoever, and are just there to die. There's really no one to sympathize with or care about, at all. The situations aren't believable, and there's absolutely no suspension of disbelief. For example, you'd have to be retarded to think two cops and a bunch of kids would go missing, and thousands of state police officers and possibly even national guard wouldn't have descended on the place. It's all highly predictable. And the cinematography is lousy ADHD MTV drivel.

Something like that fishboy scene might have been disturbing...if the characters were anything more than cardboard cutouts.

The villains from the psycho family have such horrendously bad makeup and one liners that they come across as funny more than anything. Their motivations are never established. They pretty much are insane and kill for no reason. Again, more cardboard cutout characters.

You'd have to be high on something to think this was a good movie.

Rob Zombie wanted to make a tribute to slasher films of 70s, but he contributed nothing to the horror genre himself. I actually found it pretty boring overall. You should never be bored during a horror film.

I borrowed this from a friend because I was curious. Sure, I didn't spend any money to see it, but that's still a few hours of my life I will never get back.


One thing, i'm sure about, that there was another policeman who didn't die yet, (the one with the white barb). But why he doesn't worried about his partners (or his friend/ father of the victim) who obviously never showed up again ???? Or maybe looking for a help ??? (I always hopping that in the middle of the film, there were a S.W.A.T team who came from no where) I always like a horror/gore movies, but i like betters ones with some logic behind it. I think Rob Zombie miss about this one. We can only suppose that, Mr Policeman is a member of this freak family, or he doesn't really care about his partners, or maybe he's got sick and die ...

Rob Zombie shame on you :p


A piece of pure schlock to say the very least. The basic "story", if you can call it that, is pretty much a ripoff from the far better and much more intense "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" from the 1970's. This Zombie (Rob) film is nothing more than a feeble attempt to shock you into numbness, as is shown with most of the victims in this story. Dr. Satan? He or "it" appears more as some kind of alien creature or maybe an actual demon from the underworld. And there is no real attempt to explain or define what the motivation for all this butchery is. It just happens, one after another. It also leaves nothing to your imagination so that you dredge up in your mind what's happening as in the original "Texas Chainsaw." In this flop everything is right out there in the open, distorted camera shots as they may be. A waste of time. Avoid it like the plague!


You know this is one of those movies that I went into with hateful expectations and did my best to make sure that's exactly what I got. I was critiquing it from the start, and even at the most random things. Now, I apologies. "House Of 1000 Corpses" may not seem original, but it is to an extent. Like I really appreciate it's humor, and retro-aspect, and characters, who yes at times may seem faceless, but they've got more of a pulse than the people in most horror films like this. Sure it may seem a little too "Texas Chainsaw" at times, but hey if you liked "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", like me, than you shouldn't have a problem with it. I mean it's not like the family were cannibals, or had a member named feather-face who carried a driller :-P Anyways about the movie. The Ups: It's very entertaining, and I must say very thrilling. In fact this is a creepy movie by how real it is. Okay realism is something I truly look for in a horror film(along with characters and story structure), because it seems to me that if a horror film(of any kind) can in some way be portrayed very realistic to even a not so realistic situation than it has more potential to scare people like me. Personally if a horror film can be real enough to where it's scary by, not only how it can really happen, but by the fact that it DOES happen. This movie succeeds in scaring us that way, if you truly put yourself in these characters position you will feel that feeling of fear, anxiety, and hopelessness. The characters are fun, and even though they've been done a million times, you still like them, plus they're very real. Like I love these arn't kids that look like they'd be on a photo spread advertising American Eagle, they look like normal people, which makes it more real and scarier. Sure they may be dull and/or annoying at times, but it's only a few times, as opposed to the whole movie. The downs: Although the retro-aspect is fun, cool, and refreshing, it does become a bit too much at times, and becomes over done and in result becomes self-indulgent. Speaking of which a lot of stuff didn't really fit the atmosphere or realism of the film, plus some things(such as the buried alive thing) didn't really call for what they were doing to the scene, and all in all around the last 20 minutes kind of transcended into a very realistic horror film to almost a monster film. However "House of 1000 Corpses" is one of the better horror films of the decade, and should really be viewed by only horror fans, otherwise normal moviegoers, probably won't dig the films violent, retro, and horror themes.


· Four young adults go on a road trip to document quirky roadside attractions and stumble across Captain Spaulding's Museum of Monsters and Madmen, which includes a murder ride indexing famous murderers· One of the attractions featured in the murder ride features a local Texas legend, Dr. Satan, who was accused of performing horrendous experiments on his patients at the Weeping Willows Mental Hospital·

Captain Spaulding's horror ride piques the foursome's interest in Dr. Satan. Spaulding happily gives them directions to the tree where Dr. Satan was allegedly hanged by an angry mob. The four set out to investigate · Close to the hanging tree, and in the middle of a pouring storm, the four pick up a hitchhiker named Baby Firefly. Shortly after picking up Baby, their car blows a tire. In the middle of nowhere, with no spare tire, the four decide to take up Baby's offer to have her family help fix the car · Once the four have gathered at the decaying farmhouse inhabited by the Firefly family, the Halloween Eve fun begins

· I'm a little ashamed to admit that this is one of my favorite horror movies, which is essentially a tribute to 70's horror films· People either really seem to love this movie or flat out hate it. I understand both perspectives. There are definitely some things I don't like, such as Zombie's choice to cast his wife Sheri (Not a professional actress) in the role of Baby Firefly, and the overuse of lighting effects in some scenes· Zombie doesn't hold back, and that's what I like about it. Zombie doesn't care if he steps on people's toes with this film. There is extreme graphic violence, much of which is committed against women· The editing and cinematography are cartoonish, and frightening at times. I was caught off guard when I viewed this movie for the first time, and was genuinely shocked and scared in some scenes.

There are some quality jump scares and enough horror to go around for all· Some people seem to go into this movie having already decided their not going to be scared and their not going to like it because Zombie made it· Admittedly, I didn't like Zombie's attempt to remake Halloween. But House and the follow up, The Devil's Rejects will eventually come to be admired as quality horror film contributions **********Ten out of ten stars


This is one of the worst new horror movies I've ever seen. Okay, there are a lot of bad new horror movies out there (the prequels to the prequels of famous 70's or 80's horror classics), but these is really far from the worse. I can't understand who is actually letting Rob Zombie (a rock singer or whatever he is) to direct this piece of crap, because he is even worse horror movie director than famous "Ed Wood". Even more, Plan 9 from Outer Space is a brilliant classic comparing to this amateur horror movie.

The plot: two guys and two girls are searching for the clues for the local legend Dr. Satan. After that they found a house of the disturbing family, full of serial killers. The story is "copy - paste" of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Nothing more than that. That proves that Rob Zombie is talentless idiot, who is stealing everything from the classic horror movies. There is nothing original in this movie so I am quite angry to see how some people can afford to direct movies with nothing to show in it, just a bunch of washed up ideas. But there is a lot of people out there, who are having a fresh ideas, but they can't show it to the world because they don't have the connections in Hollywood or entertainment industry.

The main villain is named Dr. Satan. How long did Rob Zombie need to came up with so predictable and unoriginal name like Dr. Satan? The violence in the movie is silly and boring. You have a feeling like Zombie is filling us with violence because he doesn't have no idea how to develop a story. The acting is horrible and so bad even for the lowest "B" movies. Hell... even Sarah Michelle Gellars acted better in I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER movies. The script is really bad written, like it was written by 5 - year old kid, who thinks that Sleeping Beauty is a horror story. The dialogs and humor is even worse, jokes are bad, primitive and without any sense. The music is okay, but for that I rather go to the concert than watching this piece of untalented crap movie.

House of 1000 corpses is a good sample of the fact, that you can be whatever you want (despite of not having good ideas), as long you're having a good connections in the entertainment industry. Rob Zombie doesn't have nothing to say: he's just copying stuff from the other movies and deliver them to his fans. That's insulting.

P.S.: There is no spoilers in my comment, because I was watching this movie for about 15. minutes.


I have to admit that when I was sitting down to watch this last night, I was skeptical. While I was never a fan of director Rob Zombie's brand of music, I did hold out hopes that his penchant for the depraved would translate into at least a B grade horror flick. I was wrong. What ensued was something that was perhaps as tasteful and visually presentable as a Rainn Wilson-fish. Now, in defense of the film, it set out its goal of being deliciously trashy (at least I hope that was the goal), but I found that after about 20 minutes, the poor acting stopped being funny, the porno-grade directing was beyond laughable, and the movie was not in the slightest bit interesting. I'm no movie snob, but this movie was much worse than my already low expectations. I was expecting a movie with no substance, lots of gore, poor acting, highly suspect character choices (you're driving away from a house full of crazy people! Why the hell would you get out of the car?!), and most importantly, plenty of startling moments that would make me jump out of my seat. This movie unfortunately contained far too much of the former, and not nearly enough of the latter. If you ever find yourself holding a copy of this at blockbuster, put it down and go rent some porn. You'll find a movie with higher production values, better direction and twice the plot.


This was one of the best horror movies that I've seen in a long time. For a first time producer in Rob Zombie, to make a film like this is just amazing. This movie was banned from theaters in the US, but still got a huge buzz and became an instant horror classic. This movie provides everything you want in a horror movie, but i will not give away any details but Rob Zombie does a great job in bringing the horror movie back to its roots. This movie will have you on the edge of your seat or your head tucked in your shirt through out the whole movie. I would recommend this movie to anyone who loves horror movies and a lot of gore. Once you see this movie go check out the sequel: The Devil's Rejects (Also a great movie).


Rob Zombie's theatrical directing debut "House of 1000 Corpses" has often been sold as wacky horror comedy. But it's everything else than that.

Zombie does a good job with making the viewer feel save in the first half of the movie. The first scene could have been right out of "From Dusk Till Dawn" or one of its countless rip-offs: Two people having a funny conversation and it all ends in a blood bath. Been there, done that more than once. Then your typical teen-horror characters get introduced. All of them more annoying than likable. And so the movie goes on and you are pretty sure that nothing too interesting will happen anymore. WRONG! Suddenly Rob Zombie shifts gear and what started as an average teenie-slasher, becomes a twisted and frightening piece of unexpected terror. And I mean REALLY unexpected, not just "creative killings". You can't tell what happens next, especially not in the last act.

Many viewers have complained about the "Video clip style" of the movie. Well, I can see that it might be annoying for some viewers, but it also adds a surreal quality to the movie. The whole thing looks and feels like a nightmare! Colours change from normal to screaming, people say things that don't make any sense, you see crazy pictures, everything you might have witnessed in a dream is in that movie! Seriously, this is an underrated piece of horror film. At one side just being an update of gritty horror movies like "Texas Chain Saw Massacre", on the other side something completely original. At first sight it looks like a complete mess, but it's a well calculated kick in the stomach!


I don't see what everybody's beef is with this flick. I actually found it to be extremely entertaining. For Rob Zombie's directorial debut, it was excellent. A lot of blood, a lot of gore, really messed up stuff, great story and the characters were just superb. I urge people to see this one if they are a fan of the horror genre. There was not a moment in the movie that I felt bored. It was constant killing after killing. A completely original horror movie from someone who's brand new to the directing scene. This made me want to see the new Halloween remake, and I was absolutely stunned by it's greatness as well. I don't know what's up with all the low scores! But that's just my opinion.


(Second Review.)

"My brain is frozen!" Otis Driftwood (Bill Moseley) yells at a trio of bound-and-gagged cheerleaders at one point, and I felt the same way. Even on second glance, "House of 1,000 Corpses" is awful, simply because form and narrative is jettisoned for a near-endless string of abrasively avant-garde camera techniques (loud color filters, cut scenes that come out of nowhere, aged-down video quality, negative filters, split screen, etc.) chosen because...well, "they look cool," I guess. They certainly don't augment any narrative purpose with their constant assault, and this makes sense, given Rob Zombie's previous background in music-video direction.

The story itself is a muddled mess. There are at least 3 separate plots going on, none of which are given sufficient attention. The scene is set when a carload of grating college students (including former "Singled Out" host Chris Hardwick and "The Office"'s Rainn Wilson), writing a book on weird roadside attractions, run afoul of Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig"Spider Baby"), the flour-faced clown proprietor of a combination gas station/fried chicken stand/Murder Ride. Said students learn of the local legend of Dr. Satan, but get sidetracked by obnoxious hitchhiker Baby (Sheri Moon, Zombie's wife), who brings our zeroes home for a night of torture, terror, and totally gross overacting by her kin, the Fireflies. But what of the aforementioned cheerleaders, who are made out to be a plot point? And why do we spend most of the movie with the grating Fireflies when the Dr. Satan thread would have made a far more interesting film?

Who knows, who cares. While Zombie may have never read about postmodernism in film, "Corpses" fits the criteria to a Tthis is a fanboy movie that wears its '70s influence on its sleeve (going so far as to set the movie on October 30 and 31, and making blatant the socio-economic commentary that Tobe Hooper's infinitely superior "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" smoothly implied). The Firefly family is yet another riff on the inbred sickos of Hooper's seminal masterpiece crossed with the mountain loonies of "The Hills Have Eyes"but whereas the characters in those films gave naturalistic performances (that made them seem all the more real), Zombie writes dialog like an invitation for histrionics from his C-listers; Moseley spends most of the film screaming his lines; Moon's helium-inflected voice is irritating; and Karen Black's over-the-hill slut routine is embarrassing. Haig emerges relatively unscathed, as his presence is reduced to a handful of scenes. And the less said about our wayward heroes, the better. Zombie doesn't present any characters worth caring about, and his penchant for third-grader gross-out gags induces more groans than guffaws.

But above all, "Corpses" fails in the department it was most heralded in: a throwback to gritty, 1970s horror. The aforementioned overzealousness of the director is so unnatural that the viewer is constantly being reminded of the film's modernity as it pulls out all the tricks in the book. More than anything, it feels like a renegade from the direct-to-video bin, where it should have gone in the first place.

That being said, "Corpses" did invoke a consistent feeling of unease in my gut, and I thought the story threads introduced could have yielded an entertaining (and '70s-faithful) finished product if handled with any bit of seriousness. And the last 15 minutes are easily the best in the filmtaking place in dark catacombs with zombies and a red-tinged S&M club for lobotomy patients is very well-done, as it is the only time Zombie reins in all his camera tricks and focuses on atmosphere and suspense. Too bad the same can't be said for the rest of this bloody mess.


I love Rob Zombie's music and was looking forward to this movie when I first heard about it. From the recurring themes in his music, I thought it would be a bit like Evil Dead II: surreal, funny, supernatural, and purposefully cheesy. Instead, I got 90 minutes of torture porn. Zombie makes no attempt to build any kind of suspense or generate any kind of terror. Rather, he focuses in excruciating detail on the process of abducting, torturing, and killing four unlucky teenagers. Watching what could be Charlie Manson's home videos is an unnerving, disturbing, disgusting experience; the teens are trapped in a house of killers, hopeless, beaten, despairing, with only the knowledge of their imminent torture and death for company. It's an excruciating experience that left me feeling dirty and thinking about all the people who really have died at the sadistic hands of very real serial killers. All in all it's an example of what not to do in a horror movie.