Lately cats have been attacking people for no apparent reason. These cats and their owners can't get enough of 'Lotos cat food' that has minced human flesh as it's special secret ingredient. Factory owners Landau (Sanford Mitchell) & Maltby (J. Byron Foster) pay a fat guy called Caleb (Warren Ball) and his wacko wife Cleo (Ann Noble) who feeds and sings to a plastic doll as if it were a baby, to dig up bodies from the local graveyard that they put through a large mincing machine to provide the necessary ingredients. Their work force that consists of a mute one legged woman who has a bad hair day everyday called Tessie (Drucilla Hoy) & an old geezer named Willie (Charles Fox as Charles "Foxy" Fox) can't keep up with demand. Dr. Howard Glass (Sean Kenny) and his girlfriend and fellow medical professional Nurse Angie Robinson (Monika Kelly) are having a bit of a chat when after giving her cat some Lotos cat food it attacks Angie. Soon after, somewhere else in town a woman named Annie (Mary Ellen Burke) is also attacked by her cat which bites her throat out. The body ends up on Dr. Glass's table and both he and Angie decide to investigate after Dr. Glass discovers that a cat was responsible for severing Annie's jugular. After performing an autopsy on Annie's cat he comes to the startling conclusion that the cat must have eaten some human flesh for it to have attacked it's owner. Dr. Glass finds traces of what might be human flesh in the cats intestines but the sample is too small to be sure. While searching Annie's apartment Dr. Glass and Angie find a can of Lotos cat food and become suspicious. They talk to the local food standards inspector, Mr. Desisto (Earl Burnam) who says there is nothing he can do at the moment but gives them the address of the factory which makes the stuff. Dr. Glass and Angie head over to the factory and confront Landau and Maltby. They all become suspicious of each other. Angie is convinced that something is happening at the factory and won't let it go. Will she be able to stop Landau and Maltby's gruesome scheme?

Edited, co-written, produced and directed by Ted V. Mikels, who also has a music/sound editor credit, on an estimated budget of $47,000 according to the IMDb, I have to ask myself why so much?! Where exactly did the money go? At least we know where to lay most of the blame. There is not one single good aspect to the Corpse Grinders as a film. The script by Arch Hall and Joseph Cranston has a reasonably fun central premise and in better hands the thin material could have been turned into a half decent exploitation film, but as it is the entire film sucks, big time. There is a funny sequence, and at the same time totally idiotic, when Caleb pulls a gun on Landau and forces him to pay him money that he owe's, after Landau has given Caleb the money Caleb hands Landau the gun! What!? It doesn't take a genius to realise that Landau may not be too happy at being held at gunpoint and threatened especially since this guy has no worries about mincing dead bodies up as cat food which Caleb knows about! Looking at this film I felt a good 75% of the extremely short 70 odd minute running time was padding. There are endless boring shots of people walking, driving, opening doors and other such pointless shots with which to eat up the time without having to spend any money. Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any, just a barrel of human body parts at the end of which nothing is recognisable except a very rubbery arm & a short cat autopsy. The acting is horrendously bad, real rock bottom stuff. The production values are some of the worst I've ever seen, the Hospital is nothing more than a white room with a medical cabinet in one corner. The mincing machine is nothing more than a large box with a few dials & buttons on it and an opening for the body (still wearing underwear) to go into. The photography by Bill Anneman is terrible and the film was probably shot on 16mm so the entire thing looks grainy and either too dark during the night scenes or too light during the day. The music is awful, bland and doesn't really fit the film that well. It came as no surprise to see a credit at the end of the film that said 'music supplied by' so from that I assume that the music wasn't composed for the Corpse Grinders. The average daytime soap opera has better sets, props, photography and acting. Avoid at all costs, this is the film equivalent of Monday morning, boring, dull, a real chore to get through, really depressing and totally soul destroying!


In case it sounds familiar, the title of this user comment is a lovely quote stolen from the legendary "The Simpsons" character Ralph Wiggum. I thought it was more or less appropriate and it doesn't immediately reveal just how terrible "The Corpse Grinders" actually is. As a fan of the horror genre, I should have known that all films directed by Ted V. Mikels are better left untouched, but the synopsis of this movie simply sounded so damn funny! And the first twenty minutes actually aren't that bad, neither! After we witnessed how multiple people are attacked and killed by their own pet cats, we learn that the Lotus cat-food company makes its product from mauled human corpses. You know how it goes, right? At first, you're just searching for an untraceable method to get rid of one corpse you accidentally got stuck with, yet before you know it, you're mangling people especially to generate more tasty cat food. The canned food only increases the cats' appetites for human flesh, and they quickly turn to their loving owners for more. "The Corpse Grinders" could have been a halfway decent 70's B-movie trash production, if only the script wasn't so full of stupidities. Two loonies supposedly operate the factory, yet they provide a nation-wide stock of cat food supplies? And even though neither of them is capable of producing full sentences, we're supposed to believe that they're intelligent enough to trick health inspections and a pair of private investigators? The film relied on a shoestring budget and the only type of special effect is a repeated shot of this huge machine spurting out a gooey pile of hodgepodge that is supposed to look like human leftovers. It's only 72 minutes long, yet Mikels succeeded in making his film quite boring and overlong. Overall, an abominable film, but not entirely without merit in case you're an avid cult-movie purchaser.


Being a B movie fan is not easy. There are varying grades of B movies. There are your B+ movies, that try real hard but end up falling short for various and sundry reasons. On the other end, however, there are those movies that not even worthy of B- status; movies that should exist for all eternity in the eternal Abyss prophesied in Revelation. The Corpse Grinders is one of these movies.

This little dreg tells the story of the Lotus Cat Food company and their new ingredient for their expensive cat food (Think Donner party). The harvesting of this ingredient comes courtesy of an Aussie-like redneck and his less-than-stable wife (who likes to feed soup to her doll). Landau, the owner of the plant, employs everyone from an old man to a deaf/mute woman with a peg leg. You want motivation to be a good employee? Make sure you don't end up in the back room where the food is made!

The doctor and his nurse who are the heroes aren't going to be confused with Fred, Thelma, Daphne, Shaggy & Scooby-Doo any day soon. (As an aside, the nurse changes clothes 3 times in going from the office to the cat food plant and then back to the office.) Plus, her doctor boyfriend drives my grandma's puke green Ford Maverick.

To be sure, the scene of the woman stripping down to her bra & panties to pound a Budweiser is a hilarious one. And that one babe just *happened* to have been buried in her underwear? Plus, was it just me, or were all the feline killers Siamese?

While watching this movie, my wife said, "Well, they must have thought this was going to be a good movie when they read the script." It is impossible to have a good movie from a premise that sucks out loud like this.

Sterno says eat catnip instead.


The films I've sat through, honestly. I sometimes try to describe them to family & friends who aren't into these types of films & they look at me like I'm from another planet, how on Earth would I even begin to describe Please Don't Eat My Mother to these people?! A bit like this probably... Our peculiar tale starts with a momma's boy & all round loser named Henry Fudd (Buck Kartalian) walking down the street minding his own business. He is distracted by a strange noise, he investigates & finds the source is a little plant in a shop, well it's meant to be a shop but it more closely resembles a shed in someones front garden. Henry buys the plant for $1 & takes it home. The plant, which looks like a badly painted foam Venus fly trap, starts to talk to Henry in a sexy female voice & asks Henry to feed her. At first all she want's to eat are flies which is fine, but she begins to grow (it's flower pot must also have the ability to grow as well) & quickly moves onto frogs, then it's dogs from the local pound. She then decides she want's to eat a person & promptly eats Henry's overbearing, annoying & dominating Mother. The plant continues to eat people that Henry brings her & that's just about the entire plot of Please Don't Eat My Mother apart from the various sex scenes edited between the female talking plant eating things which have absolutely nothing to do with the overall story in the slightest.

Produced & directed by Carl Monson who also has an uncredited cameo in the film as Officer O'Columbus who is eaten by the plant, I couldn't quite believe what I was watching as the hour & forty odd minutes that it took to watch it ebbed away. Please Don't Eat My Mother has almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever, the script by Eric Norden is awful & has no dramatic worth at all. It makes no attempt to develop any of the characters, then again the only significant character in the entire film is Henry. It periodically switches from comedy horror to porno. The sex scenes seem to go on & on forever, they are at times quite strong with actual masturbation & fellatio although these scenes are brief while at other times they consist of nothing more than two people kissing for what seems like an eternity. It's almost as if two different films have been edited together, these sex scenes are worked into the plot with the ingenious reason that Henry is a pervert who likes to look at people having sex. In fact Henry is quite lucky to keep finding naked couples in public who are having full penetrative sex on which to spy. Why don't things like this ever happen to me, I've never found any of this sort of thing going on around where I live & work, some people have all the luck eh? The dialogue is wretched, the story makes no sense & Please Don't Eat My Mother is slow because of those sex scenes which break the main story up to much & for too long. Technically Please Don't Eat My Mother is an absolute mess of a film, the acting is of amateur level, the special effects are terrible as the plant looks like it's made of paper mache by five year old children & their mates obviously composed the music which seems like various instruments randomly playing at the same time, the cinematography is as basic, bland & static as I've ever seen & the direction is unimaginative failing to inject any personality, charm, entertainment, humour or pace into an already very thin concept. I still can't quite believe that a film like Please Don't Eat My Mother exists, who was the intended target audience? The sex scenes aren't going to keep the raincoat brigade happy because they are for the most part pretty soft & dull, the horror elements just aren't there as there's no tension, atmosphere, shocks & there isn't a single drop of blood in the entire thing. The supposed comedy doesn't work & frankly Please Don't Eat My Mother is about as funny as being sacked. But surely there's something by which to recommend Please Don't Eat My Mother, after all I gave it 2 starts & not a rock bottom 1. Well, there is I suppose, any film that features a giant plant that eats people & has a sexy voice can't be all bad, can it? Oh, & I love the artwork on the video/DVD box, yes the one on the main IMDb page for Please Don't Eat My Mother & it looks even better & even more colourful in reality. I just wish there was an actual film to go with it & don't be fooled by this cool artwork as the actual plant in Please Don't Eat My Mother looks nothing like the one on the cover in any way, it just goes to prove you can't judge a film by it's cover or something like that. For masochists only.


This movie started off really horrible and I almost gave up on it because of the stupidity but then there were tons of sex scenes and the whole movie redeemed itself in some way. The thing with the talking plant was really stupid. The plant looked like it came some Sesame Street or something. I pushed fast forward to get past the plant and get to the sex scenes but when I got there, there was this creepy guy, Henry, who stands there and grins. That really ruined the whole scene when they cut to him playing in the bushes. I wondered what was going on with that gay guy at the flower shop. I would just suggest taking out the plant and Henry and his mother and just making a dirty movie. We don't really need talking plants do we?


A 40-something mama's boy (Buck Kartalian in a starring role!) is still a virgin and can't get any girls, so he obtains a plant which he keeps locked in his bedroom. The damn thing speaks in a sexy woman's voice and grows to huge proportions as it keeps asking its owner for more and more food - starting out with flies, but gradually moving on to humans.

This is a completely ridiculous and crazy comedy that's reminiscent of Roger Corman's LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS, and the main reason it gets one star is because Buck Kartalian is actually perfect for such a wacky part. It's very strange seeing him, an actor of many trades who's been in movies such as PLANET OF THE APES and COOL HAND Luke, headlining a thing like this. When he's not trying to secure victims for plant food he's got a habit of being a voyeur who watches couples having sex - and I mean bordering on hardcore pornography, with even male frontal nudity as well as the females. This is pretty much a tiring film after awhile, and though it shouldn't have been more than 70 or 80 minutes, the damn thing stretches on for nearly 100.


Roger Corman's "The Little Shop of Horrors" (1960) was filmed in under five days with the teensiest of budgets, yet it is a very funny, consistently entertaining little gem of a movie. The 1972 soft-core remake, "Please Don't Eat My Mother," looks to have a practically nonexistent budget, too, but it is hardly ever funny and something of a chore to sit through. In this cheesy cheapie, we meet Henry Fudd, a middle-aged Jewish voyeur who lives with his kvetching mother and basically spends his time ogling horny couples "doing it" in the great outdoors of L.A. He comes into possession of a plant with an alluring female voice and, like Seymour Krelboin in Corman's original, soon finds himself procuring ever-larger animal species for it to consume and grow on. This houseplant is soon around 8' tall, and pretty hard to conceal from Mom in his bedroom.... Anyway, this film has absolutely no FX to speak of; the monster plant looks like a 4th grade papier-mache project. We never even get to see the plant attack its human victims; how they wind up inside the plant at all is a mystery to me. But why even critique this movie like a regular film? The flick is essentially just an excuse to show some fairly boring simulated sex scenes, strung together by a very silly story. I must say that it is very strange to see these X-rated scenes, with full male and female frontal, alternating with juvenile-humor vignettes. I can't imagine who this picture would appeal to today, in this age of XXX-rated DVDs and sci-fi/horror films with top-notch FX. If you want to see what the poor raincoat crowd had to settle for back when, I guess check it out. Beyond the awesome title, there's little of interest here. By the way, isn't it strange that Buck Kartalian, the film's star, recently played a guy named Henry on CBS' "HOW I MET YOUR Mother"?


I like to MST3K this movie. Drives my roomie crazy. She takes Lifetime movies seriously.

Totally a guilty pleasure movie. Cheesy and funny. What makes it even better is imagining SD rehearsing her lines, actually taking the job seriously--"What's my motivation? What would Lorie do?" Wm. Devane is not my idea of a sexy sexy older man for a younger girl--Powers Boothe woulda been totally good in that role. Or Craig T. Nelson. Or Bruce Boxleitner. Or any other members of the Male Lead Pantheon of Planet Lifetime.

The whole daughter thing near the end came out of nowhere.

I've got way too much time on my hands.


I just could not believe that Shannon Doherty or any young woman would carry on about William Devane. I know your lead to believe she had daddy issues, but I didn't get it. Maybe if she had a bunch or rats at her place like the movie 'Willard' I'd get it. The acting is decent enough though the love scenes were sort of gross. I liked William Devane in 'Marathon Man' & 'Testament', but come on now! Basically it's like like Fatal Attraction, or Play Misty For Me if you just make it young girl, older guy. The way she keeps trying and trying to win Devane's heart is all too much. I always liked Shannon from her Beverly Hills, 90210 days and felt the show sunk down when she left, I thought she'd make more of her career afterwords, but then again, who on that show did?


Jonathan Sanger directed this murky film written by David E. Peckinpah. I found it very predictable and often tedious. Watching William Devane, looking well his age and a bit older, make love to a young thing was what I found silly and not real. The young thing, played by Shannen Doherty, was infatuated with him. You gotta be kidding. Okay, maybe he had the money. But his money isn't what she wanted. This I found hard to believe. I did like Clare Carey, who played Devane's daughter, the only real value in the picture. I felt the two leads deserved each other. Both losers. As to the acting, well, I'd give them a so-so, except for Carey, whom I liked. There are better films on this subject of obsession.


This plot line is totally unbelievable- who would actually fall for this guy? I am sorry that I wasted ANY time on this made for tv movie. The only movie that I have seen that is worse stars Susan Lucci, and she can't act her way out of a paperbag, so that isn't saying much (French Silk). Anyway, DON"T see this.


My first reaction to Babylon A.D. was that it's not nearly as bad as its own director, Matthieu Kassovitz, has been claiming it is, although that reaction came to me before I got to the end of the movie. The movie has a cool set-up and a few good action sequences, although they suffer from that all too modern symptom of having been put together by editors who must have been on some kind of amphetamines. Like so many other recent action films (Death Race, for example), the fight scenes and chase scenes and whatnot are cut together so fast that they fly by with dizzying speed, and you move on with the rest of the movie with only a vague impression of what just happened.

Vin Diesel stars as Toorop, a hardened loner of a mercenary whose latest mission is to escort a mysterious young woman from a convent in Russia to America (where he is listed as a terrorist), although like so much of the rest of the movie, we never learn why. Michelle Yeoh comes across as a bizarre casting decision for a bizarre character. She plays Sister Rebekah, Aurora's guardian. This woman I just don't get. She's Chinese and plays a kung-fu fighting nun in Russia.

She and Toorop have an immediate power struggle, and then during the mission Aurora exhibits more and more strange powers and abilities. She can feel other people's pain, she can operate old submarines, and can predict the future. The rest of the movie is basically Toorop's mission to get her to New York alive, avoiding the mysterious figures pursuing her for their own agenda, and figure out what's wrong with her along the way.

The movie moves along from one on-location set piece to the next, with action scenes and fights popping up out of nowhere and then wrapping up nicely as our heroes rush off screen to the next set. But I would argue that at least most of the action is fun along the way.

Unfortunately, I happened to have learned before watching the movie that a 160-minute version would be released in Europe, compared to the 90-minute version I just saw, and let me tell you, you can really feel the blank spots. There is, for example, a major, major plot development revealed in the third act of the movie that is so bizarre that it's almost like someone slipped in a page from a completely different movie. It comes from nowhere and goes nowhere, and adds nothing to the movie except provides a spot to slide in the ending, which leaves you with the feeling that the writer was hit by a truck or they ran out of money or just lost interest. The end is so sudden and so witless that the movie immediately transformed in my mind into an endless maze of loose ends and confusion.

There is a brief scene in the movie where Sister Rebekah explains hers and Aurora's history to Toorop, but it doesn't explain anything and doesn't really matter anyway, because the story is so clearly just a backdrop to the futuristic landscapes and the cookie cutter fight scenes, many of which are hilarious in their badness. There is one scene, for example, where the trio outrun not only a couple of what look like futuristic Stealth bombers, but also their missiles, and they do it on snowmobiles!

I don't think we ever learn the exact time period, but the futuristic element of the film is badly incoherent. New York City is jam-packed with neon advertisement, fold-out road maps are like Google Maps on paper and touch sensitive, and taxis have scrolling message boards on their sides, but Coke Zero is still around and advertising on passenger jets and the bad guys drive vintage, mint-condition 2008 Range Rovers. They must really like classic cars.

I have to say that Babylon A.D. left me with the feeling that it could have and should have been so much better than it was, and I'm guessing that was the money-hungry hand of the studio that swept away all of the good parts of the movie. I'm hoping that when Babylon DVD comes along it will include the uncut, 160-minute version that the Europeans saw, along with an explanation of why it was so badly butchered before released to American audiences. At any rate, any Director's Cut is sure to be a different movie entirely. I recommend waiting for it.


I had the opportunity to see Babylon A.D. today and just decided to go ahead and give it a chance, from the trailer it didn't look so bad. I know a lot of people have a thing against Vin Diesel, but I don't think the guy is so bad, he makes a great action hero and also makes a lot of movies very entertaining. Just look at the Fast and the Furios as well as XXX, you have to admit those movies would be nothing without him. But we have Babylon A.D. now, a lot of my co-workers at my theater warned me that it was pretty bad, but like I said, some people just judge too harshly, I just wanted to see it for myself. Sadly, they were right, the first hour actually had me, I was like "Are they crazy? This movie is pretty decent..." then the ending happened, well, what ending? This film felt so rushed, I was expecting a narrator to speak over and say "Sorry folks, we forget to tell you about the sub plot".

Toorop is a mercenary who has just been given an assignment, it seems pretty simple, he just has to deliver a girl from Russia to New York City, unfortunately, it's not that easy. In a world where you have to be a strong person to survive, this girl is something special, with her protector, Rebeka, Toorop leads them to New York discovering that the girl, Aurora, is pregnant with twins that are going to save the world, but they can't discover who to trust since everyone is pulling them in different directions on who will kill her or who wants her alive.

Babylon A.D. is just poorly put together. While I think it was an interesting story, it just could have been so much better and should have been told more properly. Sadly, the only character that we really get to know is just Toorup, who is played by Vin Diesel, he is the only one with depth, while they could have had a little focus on the girl, Aurora, how did she get her powers or was she really ill? What was the history and was she destined for all of what happened to her with her children? There were so many questions that were left unanswered. Over all, this isn't a terrible movie, but I would say definitely to wait for the rental, because while the effects are very good and the whole setting is disturbing, it's the story that leaves you dumbfounded and just bummed that the story ended the way it did.

4/10


I should say first that I don't know the book this movie is adapted from, so I just mean to give an opinion on the movie itself and the way it's handled.

Director Mathieu Kassovitz has been in the business for a while now and is a well complete actor as well and still something about this project went wrong. The story itself seems solid - and somewhat I can imagine the book being just great - but the movie looks rushed with only the most important and visual parts shown.

Actually, it's a kind of annoying experience as you can see how really good it could have been if they only did a better job on the background and the storytelling instead of mixing everything from the book in an action packed movie. Now being totally honest, the action isn't great at all thanks to the shaky hand cam effect (The Bourne Legacy I guess ...) and uninspired choreography. Same goes for the acting : Depardieu and Wilson are easily the worst : they would have read the script for the first time it wouldn't have surprise me.

Considering all the good material it certainly feels like a misproduction, someone said the director and actor Vin Diesel were having different opinions and I do hope the latter won because if Kassovitz did it the way he wanted I'd be really disappointed.

We've been awarded with such great movies around the same kind of subject (Children of Men to name one) that this one seems pale compared to those.


Really, if they wanted to show that widows can remarry then they should have made it like this : Even though Sallu dies, Rani gets over him in 5-6 yrs. But throughout the whole ordeal John was with her, helping her through. After some time she starts dating John and falls in love with him and then they get married and then all the drama. I mean, the movie was made in such modern style yet that same old ghissi pitti story ? Why ? I really didn't expect this from a director who made Baghban. Including the fact that it looked like as if Rani didn't even wanted to get married . Why the heck can't they leave a woman single? What's the big deal ? Throw in the bad acting { even from John} , boring songs, and a movie soooo slow that it successfully put me to sleep . {I had to watch it again. No, I'm kidding at this. Dead .Serious. )Jeez! And Rani and Sallu looked bad. Sallu looked as if he had wrinkles.Why can't Rani for once in her life change her style? Hema somehow really irritated me with way she speaks.Gosh !How on earth was a movie like that made? Especially in an year where really good different movies were being made ?Those who are against widows remarrying will continue to do so even after watching this movie. This really didn't get any point across. So what was the point ? This movie is just made to bore us ?and make no sense? and use a solution to a problem used in the '60s and '70s which was totally nonsense?? Please!


If the title of this summary weren't self-explanatory, then let me begin my ranting about how clichéd this movie actually was. If one were to write a documentary about clichés, they could use this movie to supplement any single example of cliché that one could possibly think of.

Lets begin by talking about the story line. The first-half, which dealt with a love story and father-son relations as dry as could be. While the father son relation between Amitabh and Salman was passable, there seemed to be absolutely no chemistry between Salman/Rani. First of all, they seemed to just rush the love story, deciding that it wasn't really all that important, as Salman wouldn't even be in the second half of the movie.

The comedy in the first half wasn't great either. Parts were OK, but the writers obviously thought they did a better job than they actually did.

The second half of the movie proved to be one of the most predictable and boring scripts ever. Its as if the producer deciding to bring in script writers from TV soaps and wrap up the script. Furthermore, the theme was unbelievably outdated.

Question>What do you get when you mix a bad storyline, with a bad director, bad writers, a horrible theme, and an extremely outdated moral message? Answer:Baabul


Being out of the loop I did not know about this movie until now. I do not know what the general reaction to this movie was, can only hope it was a super flop. The point of the movie seems to be that widow remarriage is a good thing. Agreed. But this movement had started more than a century ago and I don't think exists in the upper classes in urban Mumbai (which is where the movie is based). So, the movie should have been set where this is still an issue (like the movie WATER). OK now let's allow the movie some artistic license. So, what is it that we learn from this movie? We learn that women have the right to a happy and fulfilling life even if their husbands are dead. And how are they to have this life - by getting themselves another HUSBAND!!! And that too she should not fight for her rights and demand such a thing but hope that her patriarchal father-in-law has the goodness of heart to ALLOW her to remarry. Really, is the concept of women's rights, women's own identity so alien to Bollywood? AAKHIR KYON. This was a commercial movie made in Bollywood more than 30 YEARS ago and even that talked about the importance and necessity of a woman having her own identity. Seriously, does Bollywood suffer from Collective Amnesia? I can only end with AAKHIR KYON?


Which era does Ravi Chopra belong?

BAGHBAN was scripted 40 years back and it was modified and it had some good emotional moments bt yet it was too oldfashioned

Here too the story sounds 2000 years old

Rani Mukherjee's role, her dress sense, her acting, her smiling is all too bad Don't know why she is boring to watch Seriously i loved her in YUVA, HUM TUM but nowdays she is just doing the same roles, same acting style, even her dress scenes are outrageous

I don't understand people praising her like hell here, she has no role just to cry after Salman dies and then get married because Amitabh says so

About the rest as i said the story is like PREM ROG(1982) and the handling is not at all convincing

The all hoopla done about the clash of titans between Amitabh and Om is just 5 minutes talk

Direction by Ravi Chopra is outdated Music is outdated

Amitabh once again demonstrates his acting skills and overshadows everyone but he is getting monotonous with such roles Salman does well in the first half, nothing new but he is more lively and less animated then in most of his films John looks sick(he was suffering from jaundice those days) but fails in his acting here Hema Malini is just there in the movie, her role lacks substance In fact the director doesn't at all care for women's wishes in the film supposedly based on women role improvement in society Rajpal comes does some usual gags and is forgotten Parmeet Sethi has no role Om Puri is too loud


I would love to believe that either Ravi chopra directed this film in his sleep, or that he had some inspiration from Ekta Kapoor because i REFUSE to believe that he would actually make a 3hr film for justifying a 3 minute monologue!

Coming from a banner of BR films' repute (that too celebrating it's 50th year) this film disappoints (on so many levels), to say the least, as it is everything that BR Chopra would not make.

Perhaps the idea was to make a film that would remind us of the era that was 50 years ago. I say this because the dialogs are so cliché, it's disturbing. the characters are so one-dimensional its appalling. and the story is so predictable, I wonder if a toddler wrote it.... the dramatic payoffs are simply comical and the audience was left laughing at a scene where sympathy was expected....

salman tries to bring comic relief to the first half, but due to bad direction and worse dialog, one can't help but feel exasperated. the second half is so slow that "i wanted to rip my arm off, just so i could have something to throw(at the screen)" (yes, it's joey's line)

I was surprised to find that Mr. Bacchan, and Hema Malini could actually act so badly (hema-ji, has little or no role anyways) .... and Rani Mukherji and AB Sr. have none of the magic one has come to expect after "Black." the less said about john Abraham, the better. (Two words: Acting School!) in the second half the cast and crew tried it's best to put the audience to sleep, (and a few did in fact doze off) but i kept up with caffeine and bore the film (as it bored me) so i could warn others about this heinous crime against film making!)

let's now come to talk about the branding... OMG!!! Eros jewelry, Brooke bond, nerolac, kotak... please stop!!! i'm here to watch a film, not an advertising campaign!!!

OVERALL:

The Good: The kid, Rani Mukherji's bathroom-mirror scene, Amithabh Bachchan's 3 minute monologue at the end

The Bad: Everything else you have to endure to GET to the end!!

The Ugly: the dialogs, the dialogs, the dialogs, the direction, the costumes and jewelry!

Final word of caution, watch at your own peril!


while making this movie ?!! no plot-line whatsoever. someone falling in love, getting married and having a baby, husband dieing and then remarrying; is that what u need to watch in a 3 hr long, so called family drama movie ?! John Abraham, as good looking he might be, needs to learn little bit of dancing too if he wants to survive in bollywood; but then i might be wrong.. And Salman Khan definitely needs to learn acting. Rani Mukherjee, Amitabh and Hemamalini are just OK.. Terrible Audio (tune & mixing both). Rani Mukherjee has awesome voice but her expression doesn't match the dialog delivery. wouldn't' recommend this movie to anyone. even to the most bored to death ones !!!


I don't like this film for it's really boring,story of a father who wants to satisfy her bride after the death of his son.like every Hindi movie the boy comes from big cities like New York or whatever & just after the entrance,he meets a typical Indian girl,they marry each other during one man still loves the girl & has dined his love to see her happy... You can watch this film which takes a lot of time of you & after it ends you are totally board.Amitabh Bachchan does the better job.as a satisfying father to do the right move whenever necessary.Salman Khan is a bit old to play a young man comes from abroad to fall in love in India.he doesn't play like he should.Rani Mukherjee is my sort of favorite actress in Bollywod,but i got to confess that she isn't prepared for such a role,Hema Malini is unused.she walks in the stage to prove she is there. See,nothing for John Abraham or Om Puri & so many people who are struggling to fix such a boring time consuming picture. Ravi Chopra has made Baghban before 3 years earlier than Baabul.they have the same problem at all.BORING BORING BORING BORING ... Do i recommend Salman Khan to accept himself as a 41 years old man.he is not Prem Choudhary of Maine Pyar Kiya no more.maybe he is Aditya Sekhri at Lucky: No Time for Love,that's all with the film.boring fast food.


I want you to imagine for a moment. Imagine you are coming home from an evening out on the town with a friend, after having a few drinks together. As you're coming around the corner, You see a person carrying a child and walking a dog. You hit the brakes and try to swerve the car, but you end up hitting him/her anyway, then going off the road and ramming a telephone pole. You wake up hours later where you learn that the person was your spouse and the child was your child, and the dog was your dog. Then you learn that not only did your best friend go through the windshield and die, but he had advanced AIDS and since he bled all over you, now you do too. And to top it all off, they've had to amputate both your arms. Then a Man walks up to you and says "I can make it all better, I'll let you have another chance. I'll give you back your family, your dog, your friend, your car. I'll take away the memory of this evening, and the disease as well. I'll even cure your friend. And All you have to do for me is watch Spoiler." It's not worth it. Say no and walk away.

Spoiler is hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. I've sat through Manos, The hands of Fate, I've sat through Monster a Go Go, I've watched Red zone Cuba twice, I've seen every move Steven Seagal has ever made. I saw street fighter, Armageddon, Clockstoppers, the Core and the Day after Tomorrow in theaters and spoiler is still the only movie I've actually almost passed out from watching. It's also a landmark movie in it's use of time compression technology, as it makes each minute feel like you've just watched between 6 minutes and 4 months of nothing happening. My Friend and I Actually looked at each other after it was over and said that it was the longest 7 hours of our lives. Then we looked at a clock and realized it had only been 90 minutes. (Then we promptly pulled the tape out of the cassette, snipped it in a few places and threw it into a dumpster off a fifth story balcony).

Spoiler___________________________________________

In the end, your expecting them to build up something climactic, and the surprise is that nothing happens and the movie ends, and no one cares. The best part of this movie is when they drag the main character in and beat him with clubs. If only they would do that to the director too.


The film chooses to be sci-fi and then it chooses to have melodrama as well? Doesn't work when there is little attention to acting, and the script is poor. There is one scene in particular that goes on too long and you just can't take it seriously, but let's have your viewing ruin it for you!


Howling V is my favorite so far out of all the Howling movies. However, that doesn't mean this is a good film. The acting is pretty bad and the effects are absolutely horrid, but the plot is decent enough to make it tolerable. This one, the original Howling, and Howling IV are the only ones worth watching out of the first 5 flicks. The Howling series is really really bad. Only true horror fanatics would be interested in them at all. The only worse horror series i have encountered is the Children of the Corn series. Howling V is pretty predictible and the characters aren't killed off fast enough, so it moves kind of slowly. The music played after each death is annoying too. Recommended for Horror/Werewolf fans. Rating 4 of 10.


Very slow moving and hard to make it through. It never explains the back story and important details. Instead, the viewer is led on the typical "seperate and get killed one by one" type deal. That's about all this movie offers, no real plot, no gore.

The werewolf is barely shown at all, that is effective only if there is any REAL suspense. If the acting is bad, you don't care about the characters, and it's genuinely not scary then at least you should get some cool werewolf/gore/kill scenes. None of that is present in this movie.

If you can find anything at all better to watch, I wouldn't recommend this one.


This movie hardly qualifies as a werewolf movie. You could take the werewolf out of the picture and basically be left with "Clue" as different character types (the actress, the doctor, and even the professor!) try to figure out who is killing the other guests within the castle...or in this case, who the werewolf is. I think one element pivotal to werewolf films is "the transformation" scene, and this movie robs its audience of this payoff. You don't really even need a budget to pull off some type of effect, but all this movie provides is a costume seen in close-up or in shadow, further removing the presence of the werewolf from this film. Even when the werewolf's identity is revealed, we don't get so much as a nifty contact lens effect or wry-fanged smile. Additionally distancing itself from the werewolf genre, the film isn't even scary. It lacks any real thrill or even gore. It's hard to stay interested as the film goes along because the characters we begin to sympathize with are each killed off in turn...which is fine as an element of surprise the first time it happens, but when it continually happens throughout the movie, the end result is that it distances the viewer and you're not left with much to care about. It really is, then, like a game of Clue, with about the same amount of depth, where characters are gradually eliminated one by one, merely for the sake of finding out who the killer really is, and not for suspense.

I will say that it's nicely shot, the acting is above par for a low-budget video release, and for what it is--a somewhat awkward mystery--I guess it's OK. But a werewolf movie, it's not.


Great on location photography in Budapest Hungary, and surprise at the end (don't blink or you'll miss it) can't save this otherwise boring movie about a group of people, seemingly chosen at random, attending the reopening of an old Hungarian castle which has been closed for half a millennium, being stalked by an unseen killer. The killer turns out to be a werewolf. Or, maybe it was just a great big hairy dog. I couldn't tell, the killer was on screen so briefly.

This one isn't as awful as the previous three sequels, but that doesn't mean that it's very good either ...

*1/2 out of ****


I have seen this movie 5 or 6 times over the past 10 years or so - whenever Scifi Channel plays it pretty much. I have to say that this movie is just awful but it is thoroughly entertaining. In that regard I love it. To give an analogy, this would be like making a movie yourself. It won't be that great but you will love watching it nonetheless... The Howling V is full of cheesy acting and has cheesy plot, if any, but there are some good scary moments. The set and lighting, while not thoroughly professional looking, are good indeed and do help to make the movie as good as it is.

All things being equal, this movie sucks, but, is worth a whirl in the VCR.


This must be one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen. Even by modern Horror Sequel standards this is a total stinker. A gang of posh misfits gather at an old castle and are soon attacked by a `mighty' werewolf. It's a bland exercise in no-budget film making with a lot of bad acting, a barely glimpsed werewolf the size of a pony and sets made out of cardboard that you expect to blow down at any second. To be honest this is the sort of movie where you wonder about the mentality of the people who actually pay to see it. Fans of THE HOWLING series, if any exist after the torrent of awful sequels, will also be disappointed to find that this film is taken totally serious, all the warped comedy of the previous films is completely exorcised in favour of a stone faced tale of werewolf killings. It is worth pointing out that there is not really any blood or violence in HOWLING V. If you are silly enough to enjoy this cheap crap then may I recommend that you buy a tin of paint, throw it up a wall and sit and watch it dry, because you are obviously very easily entertained. Shoot this one with a Silver Bullet! My Rating  2 Out Of 10.


Lots of nudity and gore in the "Howling V". This show was horendously predictable, but fun to watch. The Transalvanian castle was a nice touch.


First up: I'm going to give away what happens. This is so you don't have to watch one of the worse films of all time.

The only decent scene is when the vampire, played by Victoria, has her head chopped off. I knew it was her long before they copped her head off. It is unintentionally funny. It's hilarious to watch her head bounce and roll down the steps. By the end of the movie, you are so happy that it's finally going to be over.

The acting, direction, production values, clumsy plotting, and silly set design make this terrible all-around. I was angry that it's not even about werewolves, per se, but vampires. But the fact that it steals so shamelessly from Agatha Christe is what make me want to scream! I can not believe this is not in the worse 50 films ever. My old friend Paul loved it. That makes sense, as he's a total misanthrope.


When I checked out "Blackballed" on IMDb I thought it might be an enjoyable movie. The rating was pretty high, and all available comments were very positive. Now, after I have seen this movie I think it is necessary to warn people like me who know nothing about it: First of all this sure isn't an "awesome" and "hilarious" film to everybody. I would say not even 10 percent of all IMDb people would like it.

It's a very flat documentary. A simple story is stretched out to one-and -a-half hours. It's very American and of very poor quality. What fascinated me though: It's all made up. It's all fake. They are actors playing roles of paintballers. The only problem is: It's so well done, it's very hard to realize it. That actually makes it a critique of people with very little braincells playing paintball all day long. A horrible mirror of todays society.

So if you are not completely into the sport of paintball and if you don't know the people from that TV show who did this and if you are not an American citizen, you most likely won't have too much fun watching this.


With all her money, why in the world didn't Anna Nicole think to buy that toothless cousin of hers some teeth? Even when she gave her a makeover she didn't think of that! Also maybe her dog would not have tried to have sex with stuffed toys if it had been fixed! But anyone think if that? NO! Movie stars make me sick, they could help so many people and do so much good with their money, yet most of them can think of nothing to use it for except for drugs, booze, and partying! Shame on them! Yet I do feel a great deal of pity for Anna Nicole, she thought fame and fortune would bring her happiness,and she had to learn the hard way that they do not. It was for people like her that Jesus Christ died for.


This show is unbelievable in that it lacks any perceivable value to anyone. It's perhaps the most value-less show ever to be seen.

I don't say things like this lightly. I have seen "poor" and "pathetic" and said so. I've seen shows which may not be *MY* tastes but I could see where they may appeal to someone who is angry enough, drunk enough or high enough. I can even see where someone might stare at a lava lamp for hours. Yet this show is worse than them all. Finally a network has come up with a show with less entertainment value than the lava lamp.

I've seen trashier. I've seen equally as stupid. I've seen more repulsive. Yet the Anna Nicole show is even lesser value. At least "trashy" or "revolting" are qualities which "shock" the sensibilities and appeal to certain groups. To each their own. Yet the Anna Nicole show even lacks these dubious appeals.

This show is about not a clever commentary on "nothing" like Seinfeld. It actually *IS* nothing. A woman without charm, intelligence or any redeeming qualities going about ansolutely nothing of interest.

Television has reached a new low with this one. I suggest anyone considering watching this move up a few notches and watch a good MLM infomercial or tune into the test pattern late at night.


What a disgusting TV show. For some reason (perhaps it is really cheap?) at some point it seemed to be on E channel 24 hours a day. Just flipping by you would catch some bit of this show. I actually watched a few minutes on various occasions, and it never failed to be gross. Stomach-turning, grotesque, and disgusting. A show about the life of a perpetually drunken woman who is usually also on drugs and is barely smarter than fungus as a result of the years of brain damage. Between her Playboy jobs and her marriage to the 90 year old billionaire, Smith has apparently socked away enough money that she can live in a nice house with a couple of parasitic friends and spend her time shopping, partying, and deciding who will have sex with her lardy side of beef. As a TV show, it must have had some viewers, since it was around for at least two seasons. This show is something like "The Faces of Death" videos. Really gross, disgusting, and pointless.

Not surprisingly, the Anna Nicole saga ended with her death from unknown causes. Her son died around Christmas, and this grotesque humanoid left a baby to fend for herself. When Anna died, she was partying in Florida while her infant daughter was in the Bahamas being cared for by unknown persons. She has reaped the seed she has sown.


Sleazy, short-lived (thank God) and cartoon-like reality-show from the anal-retentive Hollywood obsessed E!: Entertainment Television station that was intended more or less to be an unscripted (yeah right) update on the ditsy, southern-tinged, child-like and obviously obese former Guess Jeans and Playboy Centerfold-cum-plus-size Lane Bryant model Anna-Nicole Smith as she attempts to piece her crumbling and severely unstable life back together after numerous career failures, long public court battles with a former son-in-law over the would-be inheritance (supposedly worth millions) that she was supposed to receive when her *shudders* 90 plus year old billionaire oilman husband died back in the mid-1990's. And be it inadvertent or not on the part of the producers is questionable as it also became an extremely off-center portrait of the very strained relationships she shares with her grown son, lawyer, homosexual personal assistant, varying private makeup artists and all sorts of other creepy annoying people that seem to float in and out of her life faster than you can say: "Trim-Spa Baby"! In a strange, pathetic, surreal, cringe-worthy and I'm sure unintentionally laughable way it manages to be a triumph-over-the-odds/comeback story (of sorts) which ultimately invokes an unsettling combination of both sympathy and revulsion in whomever watches it. Altogether, it's pretty easy to compare watching the now-defunct "Anna-Nicole Show" to taking an unplanned detour through a nasty southern trailer park populated with toothless illiterate rednecks and crazy overweight derelicts in tube-tops! I know that's how I felt when I tuned in, and to be quite frank, I could only hope that no one ever makes the huge mistake of offering someone like her the opportunity to have their own reality show again! What were they smoking err...thinking I ask you?


This miserable show was shocking when it was on, taking the "celebrity reality show" to a drug-addled new low. It spurred debate among my friends about whether she was really as drug-numbed and stupid as she appeared, or whether the only possible appeal of the show was watching a trainwreck, and so, Smith was consciously and calculatedly provided that. Her life (on the show) was tawdry and pathetic, and of course she seemed very, very dumb.

And what a consistently bizarre final year she had; disclosing a relationship with her TV lawyer, having a baby, the baby's paternity contested, her case going before the Supreme Court & her son overdosing. When I heard about Anna Nicole Smiths death today, the first question that popped into my mind was "Who gets the money?" (which is really sad); followed by the roster of possible figures who might have wanted her dead. But perhaps I'm imposing the Marilyn Monroe storyline on this news item. The comparisons ARE striking. A.N.S. has died, conveniently, at the top of her financial game. Still, a newly wealthy mother and her heir overdose within 5 months of each other? Come on!

The next saddest thing I envisioned was a funeral consisting only of the heinous entourage of money-grubbers and hangers-on featured on her show; not a real friend among them; just a Hollywood set that provided a coddling, reality-distortion field for the starlet.

The cast dependably ricocheted around this range of freaks who can now vie for the camera as the most aggrieved; the schlep lawyer Howard K. Stern, the horrifyingly shallow, stupid and (spiritually) ugly Bobby Trendy, and that flunky, lesbian apprentice.

One can't be surprised that she's dead but an observer can be stunned that so many hoary aphorisms will be affirmed (i.e. Money didn't buy her happiness. The lawyer always gets the money! The in-laws aren't silently cheering this...)

Not to speak ill of the dead, but surely the most fortunate aspect of all this is that her daughter will not grow up under her disastrous influence. Now this child has a chance in life. Too bad one can't say the same for Michael Jacksons progeny. Sure, one can suggest that ANS might have got her act together, but really how likely was that scenario?

I give this a week to turn into a murder conspiracy. If Robert Downey Junior was considering a relapse, there's a lesson here for him.


What are they thinking about when they make drivel like this. No plot, just melodrama, same stereotypes and same typecast actors in same crap no plot movie.

Abhishek doesn't belong in a role opposite Ash, he is better placed behind a terminal at Wipro Infotech.

On top of that who is that gay dude who comes as Vik to marry Ash and take her money. He is the son of Bhushan from Buiniyaad , yet another historical typecast fellow.

The only thong missing was Alok Nath as a a overemotional uncle of Ash.

...Aamir Khan


Popular French art/cult director Jean Rollin's first foray into the horror genre calls itself a two-part melodrama and is divided into two segments that overlap; "Part One: The Rape of the Vampire" and "Part Two: The Vampire Women." In the first portion (which is the shorter of the two), psychoanalyst Thomas, his friend Marc and Marc's girlfriend Brigitte go to a mansion to investigate claims of vampirism. Living at the large country home are four psychologically troubled young women who are rumored to be ageless vampires by the superstitious townspeople. The villagers try to keep the women inside at all times by staking crosses everywhere and using a weird-looking, hairy-faced scarecrow that an old man provides the voice for. Thomas suspects the women have been brainwashed into believing they're actually vampires when it fact they're not, and sets out to get to the bottom of things. Even though the acting's not great, the dialogue is terrible and the editing is horrible, this segment is visually very beautiful. The images, the camera set-ups, the framing of shots and the clarity of the black-and-white photography are all done well. The director also proves to have a nice eye for detail, outdoor scenery, light and shadow. The art direction is also good, and though the storyline is a bit muddled it's still not too difficult to follow. Unfortunately, immediately after this shorter portion concludes, the film basically falls apart and it never recovers.

With several of the principals either dead or turned into vampires at the end of "Rape," we now enter the second segment "The Queen of the Vampires." The "Queen" is an arrogant short-haired woman who is carried around on a bed by two of her goons and has a bunch of hipster followers at her side to do her bidding. No clue what she really wants or what's driving her, but it seems like she's power mad and wants to put on some kind of theatrical wedding where two people will have sex in a coffin that's nailed shut. She and her minions have also blackmailed a doctor into trying to come up with a cure for vampirism. They have turned the doctor's girlfriend into a vampire to edge him along. Several characters from the first segment wander in and out every once in awhile. It's all extremely confusing to watch and hard to keep track of what's going on, who is who and what it is whoever is trying to accomplish. This second and much longer portion also seems more rushed and less stylish than the first. It's also full of continuity errors and hacky editing splices that make it even more confusing. Both segments feature plenty of T&A shots, which were quite risqué for 1967 I'm sure.

Discounting Rollin's super-cheesy living dead disaster ZOMBIE LAKE (which even his most devoted fans have a hard time defending), this is my first real look at the work of this director. I see a fantastic visual stylist with a lot of potential who needs a little help on his narrative structure and pacing. A happy medium can be met. Throwing a little clarity in every once in awhile never hurt a film. Of course, some people can and will defend the most senseless films ever made as long as they look good, calling them "poetic" or "dream-like" or "experimental." That's perfectly fine if this is a masterpiece in some people's eyes, but to me a movie this illogical really needs to sustain that other-worldly feel throughout to keep me interested. The first segment almost seemed to hit the right note, but the second didn't even come close. I'll certainly still check out more films from Rollin based on the positives here even though I was less than enthusiastic about this effort.


The Rape of the Vampire marks the directorial debut of French erotic vampire enthusiast Jean Rollin. The film was originally intended to be a thirty minute short; but someone had the bright idea of making it a feature film, so Jean Rollin went ahead, filmed another hour of dubious vampire nonsense and released the combined parts as a feature film. It sounds like a recipe for disaster; and since a disaster resulted from it, I guess that's exactly what it was. I really don't know how someone could have shot this movie and put it together like this without realising that it doesn't make an ounce of sense! This is almost to be expected from the second story, which is basically just an hour of filler - but even the first tale doesn't adhere to any kind of logic (except maybe Jean Rollin's!). There is a plot here somewhere, though, and to start off with it follows four vampire sisters. We then move into the second part, which follows the vampire queen; played by a skinhead who looks a bit like Grace Jones. Exactly what's going on is anyone's guess - but those are the basic story backbones.

In terms of plotting and substance, this film is a joke. However; in terms of style, it's a little more credible. The black and white cinematography looks almost like Jean Rollin was going for a French nouvelle vogue style, and it is nice to look at. It's not nice enough for you to forget that you're watching a really boring film, but at least the film has plus points. Rape of the Vampire does look low budget - but good plots don't cost anything if you're writing them yourself, and so this film's main problems can't be blamed on the budget. Rollin has got together a wealth of hot young French girls to star in the film, and while it doesn't compensate for the plot; at least the casting might stop you from falling asleep. Considering it was made in 1967, the film is fairly graphic; we've got a scene that sees a girl have her eyes poked out (although we don't actually see it) and there's plenty of nudity, of course. I'm not really sure what kind of person this film will appeal to. Pretentious film fans may find something to like about it; but if you're not a Jean Rollin completist, I really can't think of a reason to bother with this.


I truly thought it was made in the 30s.

The bad acting, the jagged B&W cuts, the seeming lack of a plot! (and GOD don't get me started on that unconvincing model the old bloke hides behind that our "vampire queen" reports to!) I don't care if it's supposed to be ironic - it's cheap & amateurish.

The ABYSMAL sword fight - leave it out!!

I'm really sorry, but I watche dthis film and deflated as it went on - it's everything Brecht would have hated, Schechner would have found it a joke, and Sarah Kane probably saw 30 minutes less in than I did.

But hey! I adore Star Trek: Hidden Frontier.

Judge for yourself.

(It AIN'T "Fire walk with me" - that had gravitas!!)

D


I first read about this in Fred Olen Ray's fantastic "The New Poverty Row", so when I saw it for $5 at Grimsby Giant Tiger, I scarfed it up. And damned if it doesn't have Ray himself introducing the thing in a sexist intro that will do nothing for his Irving Thalberg Award campaign. As for the movie itself, well, there's not much to say. It's an example of the era's Filipino horror output - and not one of the best (!!!) either - mom is supposed to be dead but she's locked in the basement and has turned into a vampire, and bites her son, and quite limited action ensues, some involving locals in blackface as happy slaves. Dull and slow and not nearly as tawdry as the scene's rep.


This is a bad film. Its not a good bad movie, its just a bad movie.

The plot has something to do with the adult children of a family finding out that their mother hasn't really been dead, rather she was changed into a vampire and had been kept locked up by their father in a secret crypt.

I've run across this movie a under a couple of different names and under everyone of them its a turkey. Nothing in this film works. The acting is more like over the top soap opera spoof than any realistic. The aged Grannie who plays the vampire is more laughable than frightening with the result that you may hurt yourself from laughing at it all.

2 out of 10 for the occasional unintentional laugh, otherwise this is a movie to be avoided at all costs.


This is a real stinker. I can think of nothing to recommend this film. The film transfer is from a completely washed out print, the audio is muffled and muddy and the dubbing is out of sync. And that's just the technical problems. The story line goes nowhere. The acting makes those Mexican movies from the early 60's (remember 'K.Gordon Murray presents') appear to be Citizen Kane. For offering itself as a vampire movie I really don't recall seeing any blood in it. I think once or twice I did see someone bare their fangs-the five and dime store plastic variety. I picked this one up for $1.00 and boy did I get gypped. I forgot to mention this is part of a "drive in treasures" collection so there are intros and wrap-arounds with two unfunny individuals pretending they are sitting in a car at the drive-in. Even the intermission tag they use is faded and scratchy and appears to be about 10 generations from the original. This is a complete waste of time. Not even one of those so-bad-it's-good movies. Stay away.


In a telling scene in Goldeneye, Judy Dench (M) accuses Brosnan (Bond) thus: "You're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur - a relic of the cold war." Excellent lines, barbed, insulting; great scene, accentuating the fact that despite his background, Bond is a timeless, transcendent character. Most of the rest of the film doesn't live up to the sentiments, the edge, the focus and quality of it, sadly. It's almost like an intrusion from another, better, more creatively realised movie (The Third Man, for instance, from which it cribs some of its' plot). This, along with the haunting night-time meeting in a "graveyard" for monuments of Soviet Russian icons (a smartly allegorical instance) are perhaps the only truly inspired facets of this film.

There is a sort of fragmented schizophrenic quality about GE that relates to tone, content and pacing. From the outset, with the breathtaking bungee jump off the dam, a real stunt by a real guy that manages to be both visually exciting and believable, my first impression was  if they're going to stick with this sort of approach; we're in for something special.

Next, we meet the new James Bond, complete with floppy bouffant hair, hanging upside down in a toilet stall whilst a Russian guard has a bowel action. "Sorry, forgot to knock," quips Bond - before cold cocking the defecating Soviet. What? Sorry, forgot to knock? How lame is that? What an awful, misplaced, miscalculated line. It's void and meaningless, ineffectual and completely lacking any sort of wit or contextual relevance. Now suddenly we're in sub-par Roger Moore territory. Even something like: "Just dropped in," would have at least referenced how Bond got there in the first place. Radio Station Bond suddenly tuned out here, signal lost.

Then, for a while, we're back on track with Bond meeting up with 006 and the planting of the bombs, Trevelyan's convincing "execution" by Orumov and Bond's escape. Great  a return to action- thriller mode once more.

Only, instead of Bond making it to the plane on the motorbike at the last instant, wrestling for control as it slips over the edge of the cliff and flying triumphantly away, what happens? Bond has to fall over the cliff after the plane has fallen before him, skydive to catch it up  defying the laws of physics  and then fly away. What for, exactly, and why did they do this? It ruined what could have been a perfectly good conclusion to the PCS. It's as if they just had to add that bit of complete stupidity, as though driven by some irresistible instinct, unable to help themselves. Additionally, has anyone ever noticed that the Russian chemical facility is at the base of a dam and that both are supposed to be situated on a very high mountain where it's possibly a trifle unusual to find a massive dam? And when you see the mountain base from above, where's the dam suddenly gone? Any ideas?

As for Brosnan, a prize cheese if ever, he cosmetically smarmed and smirked through the movie with the clumsy over-confidence of an actor who thinks he's extending his range, when he's really showing off his limitations against the backdrop of a more skilled supporting cast who unfortunately looked like they were outshining him even when underplaying. He should always be steered clear of real actors - for his own sake. And was it just my imagination, but didn't I see his right eyebrow strain to rise in an instinctive Moore homage a few times? I'm pretty sure about this.

The scene on the beach is jarring, horribly manufactured. The Broz doesn't do emoting in any way convincingly and should never be encouraged to try. Robert Mitchum's advice for non-actors of "Just walk around and try not to bump into the furniture" is the level he's pitched and stranded at. All that staring off into the middle distance whilst the breeze tickles the bouffant is truly embarrassing. Campbell's attempts at injecting "real" drama into this sometimes ill-rendered hack-cartoon reality fails to gel, adding to the episodic feel of the film and further to a lack of singular vision.

The pacing in GE feels all wrong - it speeds up, slows down, speeds up, like a Ford Cortina with the clutch burning out. And although some of the set-pieces are impressive, it doesn't seem to be able to sustain optimum thrust for long, as others seem painfully dragged out. Not helping in the least is the score which, it has to be said, is a truly dreadful thing of epic proportions. The worst and most offensive example takes place when Bond has a car race with Onatop. What were they thinking? Was it purposely intended for use in screenings only for the deaf? Those notes meant to signify car horns are crushingly ugly and horribly grating. A musical travesty capable of inducing suicidal inclinations in hyenas and hypomanics.

What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced pot-pourri of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise.


A wild, mock-documentary, a la Ken Burn's "The Civil War". The emphasis here is on "wild" - a wild, scatter-shot, liberal-biased attempt to swipe at every tired, pathetic Southern stereotype. While well-produced and full of (uncomfortable) novelty, the simultaneously laughable, queasy, and historically and culturally naïve experiment to imagine a modern "history" of the Confederate States of America is a palpably unsubtle insult - not only to Southerners, to Black Americans, and to modern conservatives but, ultimately, to all Americans. As a Northern Liberal, even I have to wonder: to what type of Troglodytic audience is this film pitched?


I was totally disappointed by this film. It started out with a George Bernard Shaw quote which gave me really high expectations since Shaw is just brilliant. I'm a huge fan of dry humor, which predisposed me to loving this film, but it was just disturbing. It was also boring and rather sickening. With regard to the latter, I think it did succeed since that was probably one of the writers' goals. In spite of its offensiveness, the film succeeds in its ultimate educational goal. The main failure IMHO is its taking advantage of every possible stereotype. After 15 minutes it feels stupid. The last two minutes before the closing credits were the parts of the film I enjoyed the most.


this movie just wasn't realistic at all. in fact, in the modern part toward the end, it was a little surreal. i really think it's borderline racist, even if it's only to be shocking. here are the main two points i disagree with this film on: - the confederate states of America were called a confederacy because their chief concern was with states' rights over the federal government. they were literally a group of states banded together for a common cause. while after winning the civil war they might have implemented censorship for the sake of keeping slaves quiet, they wouldn't have used such a statist policy for its own sake. it's the same deal with the outlawing of non-Christian religions. i realize that the focus on states' rights could have degraded over time, but directly after the war the south would have DEFINITELY recognized the northern states' rights to be free states.

- the civil war was about libertarianism, not slavery. i'm not a holocaust denier. southern politicians just realized that their economies absolutely depended on slavery, and that there was no easy way out of it. while they were racist and perhaps apathetic when it was convenient, they were by no means the fascists that kevin willmott portrays them as, and many slaves were freed before the war was over.

anyway, i just didn't want to let this go over like it was okay. i don't believe the old southerners were ever so willfully hateful.


A mockumentary with an alternative history twist. Great idea, but the execution was incredibly poor and lazy.

The acting was simply horrible, probably among the worst ever seen outside 50's B horror movies. I kid you not.

The pacing was awkward, if this was a real documentary, nobody would go through its painfully boring parts.

Whoever wrote this has absolutely no knowledge about history. Sure, the message is valid... but the movie doesn't seem convincing at all. A lot of the events are so poorly thought-out, they only become annoying.

All the major events in US history are there, only with a little twist, sadly, the 'twist' has no grounds in reality ( even alternative reality ).

Final verdict: 2/10, only because the idea was good.


The very fundamental premise of this mockumentary makes no sense. Anyone who knows anything about history should know that the CSA intended only to withdraw from the Union, not conquer it.

Yes, the South invaded the north in 1863, leading to the Battle of Gettysburg, but they did this only to force a cessation of hostilities. They wanted to be left alone.

I'm not trying to defend the idiots who wanted to keep the practice of slavery alive, what I'm saying is that this film is not even intelligent, much less funny. Real comedy takes kernels of truth and builds on them so that what you see ultimately in the film is both funny and cutting. Chris Rock's skit on how not to get beaten up by the police is a perfect example of this.

In terms of movies with this approach, "Borat" did a superb job of exposing real prejudices in real people in a way that was hilarious. Borat played the part of the idiot, but it was American culture which ultimately looked foolish.

Unfortunately, there is nothing funny, or intelligent, or accurate, or even worthwhile in this movie. And I think the box office numbers for this film underscores my point.


Presented as a history channel style documentary, detailing an alternative history of the United States, or in this case the Confederate States, as though the south had won the American Civil War.

The production is about as exciting and innovative as a standard historical documentary. Black and white photos, sound bite interviews, and a somewhat monotonous narration. That would not be a problem if the information provided was true, as the main purpose of watching a historical documentary would be to learn about history, not for entertainment.

For me there was little enjoyment in watching dully presented information which does not even have the virtue of being true. More interesting would have been an actual documentary where academics and experts discussed what they believed the consequences of a southern victory could have been based on real facts. This is just someone's unjustified conjecture.

If you don't have at least a basic knowledge of the events a consequences of the Civil War this film would just be confusing. If you do, then its mostly just annoying.


The whole premise of this movie is that the Cofederates had won the war the institution of slavery would have continued up to the present day. According to the movie the Confederates won the battle of Gettysburg with military intervention form Great Britian and France. However, one of the most important reasons why GB didn't add it's support to the Confederate war effort was it's opposition to slavery ! In the course of the movie we are also told that the Jewish population of America was decimated because of Confederate Aryan attitudes. In the 19th century in America the Jews were seen as being a "pest" both North and South, as well as the native Americans, the Mexicans and the Irish. In fact both Generals Grant and Sherman were rather anti-semetic. Nowadays these stupid ideas are mostly gone which would have also happened under a Confederate government. I have a ton of problems with this movie but I'll stop here at this last one ......the flag. We are supposed to believe that the old Confederate battle banner would be the national flag until the present day without the inclusion of the stars for the union states or any other new states !


I'm from Chicago and go to school in Michigan and found this movie offensive. Although not from the South, I thought this film was very unsympathetic to and caricatured Southern culture and history. It's also very questionable that history would look anything like they're portraying it if the South had in fact won. I don't think world agriculture or sentiment would have made slavery viable for more than another 50-70 years even if the South had won its independence or conquered the northern states. Also, this movie was simply poorly made. Its actors, commercials, and PBS-style program all seem to be aimed more at making fun of the South than at providing a realistic attempt at an actual documentary and commercials on what would be modern Confederate television.


The acting was bad, the writing was worse. It looked like something from a high school drama team--and this is being unkind to high school drama teams.

Willmott seems to have a dim understanding of the Confederacy, its ideology, the Civil War or US history in general. He gives us no explanation why the United Kingdom or France would come to the aid of the CSA in the spring of 1863 when the CSA was in serious trouble--i.e. Grant--Vicksburg. Nor does he explain how the Confederacy, a nation only 1/3 of the Union could annex the states of the Union--even if it had a desire to do so. This is the same problem later with the "Tropical Empire" section of the film--again how could such a tiny state--one that was bankrupted by the war--occupy all of Latin America? In the Davis Plan where slavery is reintroduced to the north via taxation where are the slaves going to come from? The Confederate Constitution bans the importation of slaves from abroad and most Confederate states banned the interstate slave trade as well--e.g. Mississippi would not have allowed its slaves to be sent to New York, etc.

Then there is the WWII section. The CSA allies with Germany but attacks Germany's chief ally Japan--as well as a number of other bizarre assertions dealing with both Germany and Japan.

The film continues piling more and more surreal experiences until finally the horrible experiment is over. Don't waste your time. It is not funny, it is not edgy, it is simply garbage. Not the worse film ever made for sure, but not worth the nearly 90-minutes of your life either. If I were to grade this film as part of a class project I'd give it a generous C-.


This mockumentary is godawful. The jokes are lame and the actors mug through their roles with no sense of timing or subtlety, telegraphing every punchline. The "history" is also poorly thought-out. Not only does the film ask us to buy that the Confederacy annexed all of the Union, but Central and South America and the rest of the continental U.S. as we know, it, too.

But not Canada. One of the stupidest bits was the idea that the Asian population would grow in California because new Chinese immigrants couldn't believe they would be enslaved upon arrival. As if enough Asians haven't moved to Canada over the years because they didn't like the conditions that America did offer. Surely, in this scenario, they would have simply emigrated to Canada, instead.

Basically, the film wants to drop us into the same spot where we are now, but following a Confederate victory one hundred and forty years before. To this end, the film's makers leave out all sorts of inconvenient historical trends and incidents like industrialism (the real reason why slavery became economically nonviable), Marxism, World War I, the expansion of the British Empire, the rise of Arab petropower and the Cold War. Russia doesn't even get a look-in. And the bit about Harriet Tubman and Lincoln in blackface is just straight-up offensive.

Strangely enough, modern Confederates in this film also share the views of modern extreme right-wing Republicans in our timeline. Why? People in the Confederacy were as varied a lot as people in the Union. Why automatically assume that we would have a repressed, conservative, homophobic, antisemitic Bible Belt dominating a Confederate world just because some fanatics who insist on perpetuating the conflict culturally are like this? This seems like an ignorant excuse to insult Southerners--not just White (both Christian and Jewish) but also Black, Hispanic and Asian. Nobody in the South gets off without a good slap. It's as if the filmmakers were looking for an excuse to indulge in every vicious Southern stereotype they could manage without causing a huge uproar. And no, deliberately making the Confederates unrealistically expansionist so that the filmmakers could turn the Japanese (whose army murdered tens of millions of Asians before and during WWII) and the Central and South Americans (who have their own obsessions with skin color and racial ancestry) into blameless victims of Confederate aggression doesn't make the stereotypes any more palatable.

As the Shaw quote that starts off the film notes, you'd better make people laugh while you're telling them the truth. This film does neither: it's not funny and it's neither honest nor truthful. It only exists to get a rise out of people. All it got out of me was a desire to get my money back.


a much longer version of this is on myspace.

The documentary is what if the South had won The Civil War, but it is actually a thinly disguised ruse on the part of Lee and Director Kevin Willmott to inculcate into the minds of the viewers that whites are racist by nature.

Throughout this insidious piece of trash, historical content is contently twisted and in serious question, as if they figure anyone dumb enough to eat this propaganda will not have much of an educational background to spot the discrepancies in historical facts. They might be able to pull the new timeline crap in a new Star Trek movie but it doesn't work when we're talking about a new history of The United States. The show goes through an overview of the history of the the CSA from 1860 to the present. There is the Spanish American War where this new American invades Mexico. Scratching your head yet? Did it ring a bell yet? If you said Mexican wasn't involved in the Spanish American War because they were no longer a part of Spain you win the cookie. So we invade Mexican, Annex the country, and then enslave the Mexican people. We couldn't even catch one bandit named Pancho Villa down there in 1917 and these people who made this what if movie think that we could conquer and rule Mexico We might have beaten .Mexico in the 1847-48 Mexico War, but to occupy and rule the county is another war, and one we would have unlikely won. The insurgency that would have followed would have lasted decades, especially since we intended to make the Mexican people slaves. However, let alone Mexico, this documentary has us conquering and ruling South America, too and enslaving those people. Ruling counties like the British Empire did is one thing and could very well have worked (since the British didn't turn the people into slaves), but when you enslave the people, you fuel the embers that heat the fire insurgency. Rule them maybe, enslave an entire country without dire consequences, fantasy. ..

One sequence of the film shows Abraham Lincoln being exiled into Canada. In a filmed interview of Lincoln in 1905, he ponders on how he wished he could have helped the blacks gain their freedom. I guess the Spike Lee and Willmott are unaware that sound movies were not invented until 1918 and not commercially used until 1920, usually little two minute news clips.

The last segment shows the election of Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. (That those two would still be candidates after all these timeline changes or that there are elections at all in such a country is truly mind boggling). I think the election it's to show Democracy as racist and evil. Nixon is shown to be the pro slave racist (We all know that Republicans are all racists, right- see Lincoln the Republican) and Kennedy is shown to the emancipator trying to stop slavery. And the assassination (which once again, in the real timeline, was tied to Oswald's trip to Russia and his being a communist- No cold war with Russia, remember?) is shown to be a conspiracy to keep America in slavery. After this, the revolt by Black Americans (This timeline's version of the civil rights movement) is put down. There are innuendos in this part as the black insurgents are called terrorists by the media, and a black commentator from Europe says something like "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, a reference to today's war on terror and a back door way of displaying sympathy for today's terrorists who attacked America on 911- a very clever attack by Lee and Willmott on their own country. Later, we see Ronald Reagan as a strong supporter of slavery.

Throughout this bad piece of liberal and racist propaganda are what if TV commercials, showing white people selling products that all have a heavy derogatory slam against black people, insulting both their intelligence and humanity. However, these commercials have another motive, an insidious motive that labels white people as natural born racists, and vilifies whites as the oppressors of the world. To imply that blacks can't be racist but whites can is a form of racism that is as bad as any Jim Crow law.

I could probably go on but I've made my point. Spike Lee is a racist. He hates white people and wants to vilify them and show them to be inherently evil, which is racist. Hitler did a similar thing when he made documentaries showing the Jewish people to be sneaky, perfidious, and greedy.


We expected the movie to be anti-Southern. But we did not expect the full throated polemic it turned out to be. Alternate history is entertaining and interesting to contemplate however there is little or no creativity shown here. The movie simply carried forward anti-black slogans and pejorative terms from the late 1800s and early 1900s which of course originated as a result of white disgust with freed slaves. There is little or no reason to assume that today,names like Mammy and Uncle would be used as nicknames for slaves 150 years later, if the Conferates had won. Also, think about this... European nations and most South American nations freed their slaves without a civil war. It would have spoiled the film's screed to imagine that the Confederate States of America would have done so, years after the war. But they probably would have, with the advent of modern agricultural technology (much of which was developed in the South, by the way.) On the plus side the world would probably not have the atomic bomb, and might not have wasted billions sending a man to the moon if the South had won the Civil War. The production quality was poor and the acting was straight out of an eighth grade drama class. We were looking at our watches 40 minutes into it. A very weak film.


I had heard about this film and that it was supposed to be a comedy and an alternate history. I'm fairly open minded and don't like to judge a book by its cover...or by other people's review of the book...so I decided to get the movie from Netflix and check it out for myself.

Now Mr. Willmott is a professor of film at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. With this knowledge I expected an interesting piece of work...well, I guess you could say interesting if you were really stretching for a definition in this case.

If this is an example of what a film professor is teaching his students...I pity his pupils. Willmott can't make a good film to save his life. At this point, I'm not speaking of the content, I'm speaking of the directorial style...or lack there of. The movie was poorly made. I've seen better fan films made with VHS.

Now, on to historical accuracy...or inaccuracy.

Willmott is full of crap. I don't know where he gets off making a film like this. Comedy? I think not. It takes a lot to get me riled up but this film hit all the right buttons.

I'm a Southerner first of all and I don't appreciate the gross inaccuracies that Willmott made in this film. Yeah, I know it is supposed to be fiction, but blatant lies and obvious racism on his part do nothing to make our country better. On the contrary, it makes the situation worse by filling peoples heads with blatant mis-reporting of history and human attitudes towards slavery.

Don't even get me started on him attributing the slash and burn policy of Sherman to Genereal Lee...and also his gross misrepresentation of George Washington.

His assertion in the film is that if the South would have won the War of Northern Aggression (AKA the American Civil War) that we (as a nation) would still be condoning slavery...not out of a need for inexpensive labor (which is a fallacy in its self), but out of a sentiment for the ways of the Old South. Slaves weren't cheap in the 1860's...hell, they never were...but if you take his perspective on slavery you'd be lead to believe that everyone below the Mason-Dixon line had 3 or 4 slaves to take care of a 3 bedroom ranch home.

Additionally, his idea of a Slave Shopping Network on cable TV is not laughable, but is totally absurd. To make it even more atrocious, his speculation of a Confederate peace pact with Nazi Germany is even more nonsensical.

This man may have studied film, but he is no student of history...and is obviously no scholar on human behavior, technology's influence on the American Industrial Revolution or other issues that would have caused the natural extinction of slavery in the US...even without the War of Northern Aggression. He also fails to note that the Confederate Constitution itself outlawed the slave trade in the confederacy.

Willmott's overlapping of the institution of slavery and the ideas of racism just add to the confusion and lies propagated by this "work". This film does nothing to heal the wounds of racism...it merely rubs salt in them and undoes much good that has been done by much better men such as MLK Jr. and others who strived and died to help make our country a better place than it has been in the past.

Please Mr. Willmott...step away from the camera. You are dangerous.


Hello Moviegoers, The Palm Theatre hardly ever disappoints, but nobody bats a thousand, eh? I was looking forward to Confederate States of America. The concept, what if the south had won the civil war, what would popular culture be like, is an intriguing notion, no?

Well, I thought so, but what a soggy leaden thing this movie was. It's framed as a British documentary of American History airing in America with Confederacy styled commercials. The documentary part is stiff, uninspired and dull. The commercials, which promote a racist condescending slave owning economy, were, well, flat.

I loved the Shaw quote at the beginning, "If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh or they'll kill you." Fortunately for the filmmaker he was nowhere to be found at the end of the screening. This project desperately needed a Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock to breathe some life into it.

Oh Well, Confederate States of America, stay away in droves.

This is K-Pig

This is 1030 KYNS


What if the Confederacy won the Civil War? Sounds like a interesting premise for a sharp satirical mockumentary about an alternate American history, right? Unfortunately, as promising as the concept looks on paper, in reality "CSA: The Confederate States of America" is massively disappointing and unfulfilling. I can't even call it a valiant effort hampered by some weaknesses, because that would be too generous.

In fact, throughout the entire movie, there was not one scene that elicited any kind of positive reaction from me. The movie could not even produce a single laugh or smile. Even the worst of the worst comedies ("Date Movie", "Failure to Launch", "The Benchwarmers"), as horrible as they are, were able to make me chuckle at least ONCE. One laugh: is that too much to ask?

Here I just sat there, feeling the movie literally suck the life out of me with its colossal non-entertainingness. When your mind wanders to ponder the intricacies of this year's income tax forms, you know the movie you are watching is bad, bad, bad.


I have no idea why some of the reviews I've seen on both IMDb and netflix are positive to this movie. Perhaps it is because friends of the filmmaker wrote in. Because I can only use 1,000 words to denigrate this film, I will try to be curt: First, for this film to be effective on any level (comedy, social satire, politically, whatever) it would have to have some basis in truth. In other words, the filmmaker should have interviewed historians, sociologists, and other intellectuals who could have drawn some reasonable projection on what modern day America would have looked like had the south won the war.

The fact that the filmmaker concluded that there would have been one country was so ludicrous, he lost all credibility.

Therefore, the mock commercials that ran through this movie were not only unfunny - but totally stupid given that no reality had been adequately established in this movie.

The various vignettes (lincoln being a black-faced escapee) were dull, stupid, reaching and clearly designed for the filmmakers hopes of becoming a staff writer on SNL or Mad TV.

Spike Lee is a very talented filmmaker and should not be faulted for producing this movie. He probably had little involvement and was busy shooting his Clive Owen, Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster film INSIDE MAN - a movie TOTALLY worth watching.

But this is simply tripe. Beware good reviews. They're probably friends of the filmmaker. This movie was not funny in the least, had no real insight to what ACTUALLY would have happened if the south won the war, and is a totally gigantic WHO CARES??????


I will say this and then be done with it.

This movie is NOT a comedy. It is not satirical.

It is revolting and insulting.

The little actual "footage" they show is taken out of context and is both abused and misused, and the remainder of the film is simply a veiled insult.

This film is a sad stab at an area of history that the writer plainly knows little about, and it is infuriating that someone might actually see this and think any minor part of it is true.

0 out of 10 for this, and by now known reputation, anything else the writer might involve himself with.


I was laughing all through the film, particularly when those who made it took themselves seriously. They presume that the South hated Blacks and from that hated women, would side with the Nazis, and develop an atomic bomb to put Japan it its place. No doubt popular ideas in the alternative reality worlds of Massachusetts, Vermont and Minnesota but laughable among thinking people.

Gross historical error - the movie portrays Central and South America as not knowing slavery. I guess the native peoples weren't around to give their perspective on things - like being forced into slavery and worked to death by the conquering Spanish and Portuguese. Nor was anything said about Brazil having slavery later than we did.

Nothing was said about Canadians sending their slaves to what is now Michigan (then still held by Britain) to avoid emancipation. Nor was anything said about serfdom in Quebec (when you buy and sell land you get the people who work it as well) that existed 'til about the time of our Civil War.

I disagree with the idea that the Civil War was fought over slavery. How could it be when you had slave holding states battling other slave holding states? Duh! Since we have fewer slaves and are on the road to full emancipation we are morally superior to you? Right. However I do see slavery inflaming passions.

And if the Confederates had won, who said that they would stay bound together? A founding principal was free association with free departure from association as the right of the sovereign state.


The premise of this "mockumentary" is preposterous.

The idea that slavery was the was the only reason for the Civil War is untrue. Besides this film is filled with so many far fetched inaccuracies that it comes across as bitter and vindictive and not humorous or informative and the only thought it provoked for me was "what's the point". If the C.S.A. had been isolated by the rest of the world because of its neutrality in the Second World War. How could they have been fighting the "Gooks" in Viet Nam and the "Ayrabs" in the Persian Gulf? This is the most racist piece of garbage I have ever seen. Unfortunately many uninformed people who see this steaming pile of excrement will actually believe that the scenario presented is possible and that this is what America is really like.

Not surprising that it is a Spike Lee Production.


I can't say enough bad about this joke of a film. It has taken stereotypes to extremes.

The writer obviously knew nothing about what the War of the States was about, taking only the false premise that it was all about slavery (and nothing else) and expanded on that as the main story line.

The CSA seceded from the USA, not invaded it. The Constitution of the Confederate States also outlawed slavery. Something this film missed entirely. Just to name a couple of inaccuracies.

This actually could have been a fun endeavor had they had not been so biased in their views of what it might have been like. This is worse than a Saturday night live script. And the fake commercials have imaginary products that are so revolting I could upchuck. The entire film in centered on what slavery would be like today in the writer's eyes.

Don't waste your time as even the attempt at humour is sickening.


Hmmm....well, I was surfing around an internet video store, and I came across "The Being." After reading it's description, I thought this movie would be pretty good, and also full of gore, so I bought the factory sealed tape. Boy, was that a stupid move!!! This had to be without a shadow of a doubt one of the most ridiculous and unbelievably dumbest horror movies I think I've ever seen in my entire life! The film is about some stupid monster that lurks within a toxic disposal dump, tearing off the heads of its victims. Now you see, that little description makes you think that there's going to be lots of violence and gore, but there's not. The movie was neither gory nor violent. This movie just plain sucked. The whole scenery was dark, and this film was not only annoying, but the background music was irritating as well. I would assume that this was an ultimately lame attempt for a scary movie, but jeez, does it fall flat! And these comments are based on the UNRATED print, so I can't even begin to imagine what the edited R-rated version is like. The bottom line: if you ever see this flick sitting in the horror shelf of your local video store, rated-R or UNRATED, do me a favor, pick it up and hide it behind a bunch of other videos, because this movie is a disgrace to all horror movies in existence. Beavis and Butthead couldn't say it any better, "this sucks!" UnratedX


THE BEING is one bad movie. And it's very funny. There's no point of writing a sensible review of this "movie" because it's sooooooo bad. If you like bad movies, you have to check it out. My favorite scene is the one at the drive-in, where people are watching a movie with a cheesy monster attacking a bimbo, while the "being" attacks people in their cars. The whole thing was almost brilliant! The main actor is very stiff and his voice is dubbed throughout the movie. I guess the actor didn't have a great voice. And Martin Landau plays a scientist of sorts. Boy, did he hit rock bottom with this movie. And then there's Ruth Buzzi. Yes, THE Ruth Buzzi. There's nothing like seeing the name Ruth Buzzi during the opening credits to give a film some star quality. Arf!

Anyway, I like this movie a lot. It's really one of the best "it's so bad it's good" movies.