Whoops I forgot my 3D glasses to experience those mind-popping images (where we are informed when to put them on or take them off), but I doubt that gimmick would have saved this already below-average, if bizarre supernatural/slasher tale from Hong Kong. It looks like it had a bit money behind it, but it feels second-rate when compared to others of its field and that ending is a complete wimp out.

At least it has going for it some stylish visual brushes by Wai-keung Lau's frenetic direction and an imposingly eerie setting (an abandoned theme park, which has some freaky looking clown dolls on a hanging tree) with some sensational art direction (like the opening entrance of the clown face). Too bad that it's senselessly penned with an messy same-old, same old structure (even though the concept showed more promise than your copy-and-paste 'Ringu' clone) of cheap jolts, typical thrills (that steals its thunder from other films) and lazily constructed characters. Even throughout it demonstrates some unwelcoming camp qualities, where the witless script and self-knowing humour just don't come off. It irritated, but not as much as the performances do. Bobo Chan in the lead role never convinces and her screaming/crying gave me a splitting headache.

Yen along with her friends are looking for her missing brother, despite the warning from her medium mother that he's dead. It leads them to an amusement park, which closed down over a decade ago after a horrible accident involving the death of a young girl. Instead of finding her brother they come across restless spirits who pick them off one by one.

The computer effects are well-done and never distracting, as there's one memorable decapitation sequence that's brilliantly executed and there's a little bit of blood 'n'gore in the traditional style. Sound effects hold an atmospheric grip, but those constant whooshing noises and whispering voices could've been toned down. The music score wasn't all that effective, even with some jaded cues.

Pretty much like a foreseeable, underwhelming haunted house theme park ride.


Let me start by saying this movie tries way too hard. What's with the long haired ghost and powder white boy at the start, who have nothing to do with the rest of the movie? I guess it's called pandering to the masses.

But seriously, the scares keep coming and coming, but there's one problem. None of them are the least bit scary. Some are unintentionally hilarious, but nothing scary. Considering the greater part of the movie is supposed to be frightening, this is a major flaw.

I don't particularly care about the characters either. Sure, they throw in some 5 minute subplots, but none are interesting. The plot is pretty basic as well. I mean, how original is a haunted theme park? There are some positives however. There are one or two death scenes, including a beheading, which are pretty cool. And they managed to find the official ugliest man in the world, who is fun to laugh at.

Still, this movie isn't good. Pass it up for other better Asian ghost flicks.

4/10


Chinese horror film about an abandoned amusement park where a bunch of kids go looking for a missing family member. Years earlier a series of accidental deaths caused the park to close and for people to stay away. It transpires that an evil clown like entity is taking and stealing the souls of the people who died there and holding them.

Good looking but unfrightening and dull movie that really isn't worth bothering with. If it wasn't for the fact that the film has some ghost sequences in 3-D this movie really wouldn't have seen any play dates out of China. There has no tension since much of the spooky action consists of the characters stumbling around looking scared while in the dark amusement park with nothing scary happening. This films ideas of scares or interesting ghost imagery is to trot out every long haired and small child ghost cliché and use it. If you've seen Juon/The Grudge/The Ring you've seen it all before.The film also uses people with physical deformity for frightening effect for no good reason other than the film makers have broken through the bottom of the barrel. The clown ghost stuff is interesting but because of lousy 3-D you really don't get a good look at it. Its not even worth discussing the illogic of the plot, its twists, or how good the amusement park looks after being abandoned for so many years.

Clearly this is going to be the made just for the cash turkey in director Andrew Lau's closet(he did Infernal Affairs and Initial D among others).

Stay away from this, even as a rental.I picked this up in Chinatown for five bucks on DVD and feel I was over charged (and ripped off since the DVD only had one set of 3-D glasses in it- then again the 3-D didn't always work) 3 out of 10.


... And this film is good for only that. At an amuzement park a little girl falls from one of the attractions, and dies. This shots down the park, but some year later a boy goes out to the shut down amuzement park. Who he is, or why he really wants to go there, noone knows. He goes missing. Who takes him or why, noone knows. Then his annoying sister wakes up, and decides to go find him. Why noone knows, he´s been missing for quite some time. Who she is? Well she´s the sister ofcourse. She teams up with some friends, and from here on the movie steals from every single film, that the writer could think of. Small kids with dolls, themepark built on cemetary, DV cameras that can record what isn´t there, evil clowns, and a mutant and his son, who´s just basicly up to no good. Oh yeah. It even has a "Surprising ending".

What a piece of garbage. This and "Mutant Dog" must be the worst I´ve ever seen. 1 out of 10.


Whichever way you approach this movie, you can't escape the fact that it is downright awful!! Anyone expecting something along the lines of the standout far east films such as the Ring, the Eye, the Grudge etc is in for a massive disappointment when viewing this effort. In fact, it's difficult to find any redeeming features about this movie - storyline is flimsy in the extreme, acting is atrocious, screenplay and script are diabolical and, for a supposed scary film, it just isn't in the least bit scary. In addition, the few 3-D scenes are quite simply not in the least bit 3-dimensional! The whole thing is an utter mess from start to finish, and its 90 minute duration seems more like 90 hours! All in all, a quite dreadful experience!!


Why do I find this movie unsuccessful? They pretend to be unbiased, and clearly have a point of view. The filmmaker begins by saying that she really liked Moore and his movies and even his beliefs, but as she attempted to have a meeting with him, during the heat of his crazed Fahrenheit 9/11 press junket, his inability to make time for an unknown filmmaker led her towards the dark side of Moore. The truth is, she set out to film an expose, and failed miserably.

It's a shame - all the research, all the interviews, and all the back story would have simply made an entertaining biopic of a larger-than-life man who's actually had an impact. Instead, she magnifies insignificant details of a man's life that demonstrate not Moore's missteps but her own.

She tries time after time to show that Moore's films aren't flawless scientific reports on their subjects. Is it a surprise that a film might not be a perfect, exacting list of empirical data? Moore's films have always been under extreme scrutiny, specifically Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and now Sicko. Moore is open and honest - he refutes each and every claim of error on his website, backed up with links to the official reports and sources for his information and facts. So the attacks change to "Yeah, but Moore's film made it SEEM like...", that his films somehow imply things not offered into evidence. I think everyone's hope is that NOTHING is taken at face value - if it is, the fault is with th ignorant viewer.

Much is spent demonstrating that his "image" of being poor, hapless, slovenly and angry is manufactured. In fact, as a whole I consider the entire piece to be an ad hominem attack on Michael Moore's work via attacking Michael Moore. It's a logic fallacy tool used by debaters lacking actual evidence.

Going back 20 years to the filming of "Roger & Me", the filmmakers are unable to find confirmation that Ted Koppel had canceled coverage of a town hall meeting (a quick humorous mention in the movie is that the satellite news van was stolen so Koppel's report couldn't be broadcast live). This movie then goes so far as to convict Moore of actually manufacturing not one, but all elements of the story. There WAS no town hall meeting. No news van. No Ted Koppel report. They even filmed a phony news reported commenting on the town hall meeting, Ted Koppel and the stolen news van. Of course, nobody mentions this in 1989 when the movie is seen and scrutinized by millions. But 20 years later, they can't find evidence so it must be a fraud.

In short, the movie fails because it aims an empty gun at Moore and fires repeatedly. Moore is imperfect. He's certainly got a point of view. But he makes great, honest films that serve to enact real change. The casualties are his enemies, not the truth.


I don't have particular feelings for or against the work Michael Moore does, so hopefully you won't see this as a pro-Moore attack on naysayers. The arguments and supporting evidence presented are are weak and blown-up, and in most cases hypocritical. A typical example of this is juxtaposing footage of Moore arriving at the Oscars, while nearby protesters demonstrate against the war. Trying to imply that Moore is just a glory-seeking filmmaker who would rather hobnob with celebrities than join in the protest, the point falls flat when you consider how the now infamous acceptance speech made by Moore (and the film itself) did more for the Anti-war cause than a street protest ever could. I am all in favour of films to counterbalance the polemics of Michael Moore, but please don't accuse him of manipulating footage and then do exactly that, adding sinister music. A badly-made film presenting a poorly-made case.


I approached this film from the position of being a Moore fan.

I use the word "fan" loosely here really because while I've enjoyed his documentaries and come away from them believing I'd learned something, I've also had problems with them.

Now I don't want to get political here, I'll leave that for others to do. I just wanted to open my review with an honest statement about where I stand with Moore myself.

With that said, I felt this movie had far more problems than your average Moore film. I felt it was manipulative and at times, extremely biased. It felt to me like the film makers were just annoyed they couldn't really get any quality time with Moore. I got the distinct impression that Moore was not only aware of this movie but was aware of what the movie was trying to do. Namely, to try and cast a shadow over Moore using the very same techniques they damn Moore for using.

It was good that some aspects of why I've always been unhappy with some elements of Moores documentaries were addressed in this movie. Only the gullible believe Moore is unbiased and presenting only truth. However this film fails to satisfy my doubts because it laces the documentary with such bias itself that you cannot extract whats true and what is just purely anti-Moore propaganda.


First of all, I have no allegiance to (nor do I have anything against) Michael Moore. This review is as unbiased as can be. I appreciate his films that I have seen, but I rented Manufacturing Dissent with the intention of seeing a thorough counterargument from the other side. What I got was nothing short of childish.

There is not a single logical argument presented in this entire film. An argument goes like this:

1) If p, then q. 2) p. 3) Therefore, q.

This never happens in this film. The entire film is based upon naive associations and assumptions which anyone over the age of 10 should know not to make. For example: Moore is anti-George Bush, therefore Moore is bad! (This is actually suggested in the film. I am not making this up.) To even take this argument *seriously* (much less accept it), you'd have to actually support George Bush. And unless you entirely support George Bush, then you have absolutely no reason to be offended by such an association to Michael Moore! If this sounds ridiculously obvious, that's because it is. And that's how stupid this film is.

Another example: Michael Moore is a bad musician, he's fat and ugly, and here's a creepy picture of him with creepy music playing! (Once again, all of these are actually presented in the film.) This, of course, should be an insult to every human's intelligence on the earth. This is just sad. This is nothing less than an 8-year-old attempt at brainwashing/behavioral conditioning.

The day after watching this film, I woke up wondering if it was real. At this moment I am looking at a rented copy of Manufacturing Dissent from Blockbuster on my desk...so unfortunately, it is real. And it is possibly the worst documentary of all time.


Im not a blind Michael Moore fan by any stretch, in fact I think "The Big One" is probably one of the worst films of all time, and I think that he is an annoying blowhard. Being a proud independent, I can see the idiots on both sides.

But as Im watching this, I noticed a glaringly ridiculous scene (mentioned briefly by someone else in an earlier review). They showed a group of Flint High School girls doing some sort of irritatingly silly amateur schoolie play that mocks "Roger and Me" (the kind that only the mostly blindly adoring of right wing parents would be able to endure in their pompous little brats), and then the teenage girl "writer" of this play is interviewed, and she claims that Moore "fabricated" a news report that shows a female reporter stating that a Nightline report was cancelled because their news van was stolen, even as the scene from the film with her report is being shown over the girl's claims. It is from all visual inspection a real news report. Is she truly trying to say that Moore literally created the report in the film himself, hiring an actress to pose as a reporter and putting a fake station logo on the screen? If so, its funny because I cant seem to find any mention of it anywhere else but on this site, about this film. Did this little girl just make it up and these idiot filmmakers put it in at face value? Doesn't that make them complete hypocrites (like most people who do these kinds of amateurish no-budget "gotcha" documentaries).

The female narrator (I assume its a woman named "Debbie Melnyck", who is listed as one of the "writers" and "directors") tries for a parody of Moore's sardonic style, but her lispy, effete elementary school teacher housewifey monotone would be more apt for Romper Room or selling jewelry on QVC. (Maybe the girl who put on the play is her daughter or something.) Sure, Michael Moore is a jerk, but what comes out much more glaringly in this film is the vapidness of young people in the majority of the spineless post-baby boom generations. We're doomed, folks. Face it now and save yourselves the Christmas shock. There's no hope. This documentary is depressingly effective at showing how our nauseatingly effete youth are going to sissy their way into the end times. We're all going out with a whimper, followed by a bang. This film is a good argument in favor of everyone deserving it. Both sides are chock full of fooles. The difference between the swishing grade Z Canadian twits who created this and Michael Moore is, Moore has talent for making films, and they don't. Stay home, Debbie dear, you aren't worthy to speak to Moore for a reason. It's not because he's avoiding you. It's because you are insignificant.

This wretched film is showing on Sundance Channel this month, so watch it for FREE by all means, if you must at all (please don't pay people like this to make more films like this). Or better yet, watch a good documentary instead (like "Grey Gardens", which is also playing this month on Sundance).


I've seen enough anti-Moore information to know that yes, the guy uses manipulative techniques and stretches the truth to fit his points or tell a good story. Unlike other reviewers here who seem to excuse this, I find this absolutely ridiculous, unnecessary and morally repugnant. Also, I totally see that he's a megalomaniac and a blow-hard who cares more about himself than the populist change he preaches. After all, if you're truly fighting "The Man" (and not just making entertainment for Lefties), you'd better point a gun that is loaded with facts, not blanks.

Given all of this, I still like his stories and find the guy amazingly charismatic. Those who critique him seem to ignore that he is a master at making interesting films, deftly mixing humor and emotion in a way that makes it seem easy. If that skill is being used for good or evil, fact or fiction, is another matter.

Whether on the side of justice or malice, I think that the makers of "Manufacturing Dissent" don't have an ounce of the ability of Michael Moore. The film plods along, marking off point after point like a laundry list. The editors should be viciously beaten. There's no clear narrative line, just a series of scenes, one after the other. At just over one hour and a half, the film seems long, making the same tired points over and over again.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with the film is that it indulges in the same bag of tricks against which it accuses Moore. The documentary is obviously a hack job against the guy, meant to counter his legacy. The footprints of a personal vendetta are all over this film, from the very first minutes. This is fine. In fact, I welcome it. Yet the filmmakers manipulatively use a "neutral" and "unbiased" style, as if they were simply presenting "facts." Also, they steal Moore's framing device of a failed chance for an interview. This goes nowhere (It's pretty obvious that they wanted to call the film "Michael and Me" but settled on the lame "Manufacturing Dissent." At first I thought this was a documentary about Noam Chomsky). Toward the end of the film, they gleefully admit to "stepping over the line," using a Moore tactic to enter one of his press conferences. They then attempt to build sympathy with the audience, appearing shocked and indignant first when they ambush him (What? We're not the center of Moore's universe?) and again when they get caught and kicked out.

All of this falls flat, partly because it is done with strident self-righteousness, not the humor and humanity of Moore's own attempts. But it mostly fails because using Moore's manipulative tactics to show how wrong those tactics are is a rather silly thing to do.


My curiosity kept me watching this movie on the Sundance channel when I happened upon it. I agree, Moore can be ridiculously melodramatic in his style, but who isn't in regards to the entertainment industry? It includes documentaries, non-fiction. The makers of this, supposed expose, kinda SUCK. It appears they're trying to show that Moore manufactures much of the content in his movies, & they fail miserably. Yes, Moore does make up some crap to get his point across, but that's a standard practice in our wonderful Hollywood, even in documentaries. The points they make in this movie are equal to a high-school student's project, & the grade wouldn't be above a C. Anyone who likes this movie is either a Bush supporter and/or someone who has issues with Michael Moore's character. They're trying to show how Moore manipulates the facts & shapes the story to his own bias. That's scriptwriting 101, "you morons"! As if that has not been done throughout the history of film making, of scriptwriting for theater, of authoring books and articles. Yeah people, talk about how pointed & biased Moore is in his movies, & then go & watch the History Channel & say that it's documentaries & history on religion are based completely on NON-DISPUTABLE FACTS. I would consider you the easiest MARKS for any con-man who 'says' that he believes in 'YOUR' God & 'YOUR' Jesus. By the way, I'm wondering, did I see Ann Coulter in 'YOUR' movie? I also agree with many, that Moore can be a little, to a lot overbearing at times. Michael Moore can be grating, unfair in his treatment of others, hypocritical at times, but will those unpleasant flaws about his character cause you to despise and disregard his productions? How about it if everybody watches everything that's produced as NON-FICTION, with a critical eye. It's like a film student watching the business end of Hollywood productions that are on TV or at the movie theaters. Where's the product placements, which of our emotions is the script trying activate, who are the villains, the scoundrels & do the roles they play work at all into the politics of today. Politics are in every aspect of your life. Look around yourself, the war, the price of gas, the 4th amendment, the cutbacks. If film makers want to make a left-leaning director look bad, they need to do a lot better than this movie does! Just making Moore look like an inconsiderate assh*** & then letting those who represent the completely opposing views have their say, while throwing all the trash they can on Moore's work, causes me to suspect whether these film makers were ever truly fans of Moore. I don't think so & the proof is in the pudding & even Don Quixote would say that it tastes horrible. OK Bush devotees, point at my incorrect use of that aphorism, about the pudding. Or was it incorrect? Look up the word, "aphorism", in your DICTIONARY, & it starts with the letter A. Or are you like GWB? Is the DICTIONARY, a job for someone else? Oh yes, the "you morons" written above is my tribute to Bill O'Riley, which I think is himself talking to himself and his multiple personalities. If only one of them could be intelligent.


Strategically timed with the DVD release of "Sicko", as is the other Moore-stalking film, "Michael Moore Hates America", a wannabe documentary maker cashes in, again using the same "Fahrenhype 911" rehash and Albert Maysles ax-grinding as Michael Wilson's film used.

It's good for people to remind Moore of any factual errors he needs to improve on, which can be done in an article. As to the film's refrain about Moore's film not being a "documentary", Moore has said repeatedly he is not a fan of documentaries, does not watch them and is not trying to make them. People keep putting his films in the documentary category and they win prizes there.

So aspiring directors Caine and Melnyk, as with Michael Wilson, latch on to him playing "gotcha" to make themselves famous. Melnyk has the camera focus on herself intermittently as she plays "investigative journalist on the phone taking notes", then puts forth the message in her film that Moore's including himself in his films is bad film-making. Sour grapes abound from film people interviewed, at least one of whom defames him personally. As with "Michael Moore Hates America", the crew follow Moore from place to place for interviews.

One would think that the fact Moore was himself making a film (Sicko) the past two years might have entered their minds as a reason he might have been busy, but they take their complaints in with them to his public appearances to paint him as a hypocrite. Moore has brought this on himself to a degree by his "Roger and Me" film's style of following Roger for an interview, but in that case it was to try to bring attention to a problem affecting other people. This new crop of directors following Moore are all about manufacturing images for themselves to no particular end since the topic has already been handled in full by Fahrenhype 911 previously.


This film accomplishes nothing. Even the tagline is exaggerating, far reaching crap. It should have been:

"Because we're small time and couldn't get an interview- it's never been so hard to get Michael Moore in front of a camera."

The film shifts tone, focus, and favoritism with each interview or point. What's the big deal with Moore doing the same thing as Republican politicians with their tainted media? It's like fighting fire with fire- you lie, we lie. It's obvious he does it much better than this group of filmmakers trying to ride his coattails- and by the way- they're late. This film should have come out decades ago so it's dated and tired out already. If it had a point to prove, they blew it by waiting decades to state it, because with time facts and footage are lost- so if this films investigators couldn't find facts or footage it must be because Moore was lying...dumb way to prove your point. The only thing this film achieves is letting the audience realize what a bunch of amateurs this group is by comparison to Moore. If you're going to lie, do it well...and for a frigging reason at least. Moore has moved on to other topics, other films, and new focus. This film lives in the past, so there's nothing compelling about it other than a cover design featuring graphic art of Moore as a caricature.

LMFAO "Unbiased" my ass. They'd be more credible, in my opinion, if they just said this was an anti-Moore film. They're lucky Moore wouldn't waste his time discrediting these hacks, because all this film had going for it is Michael Moore's name. This film has been made before at least twice, so come up with an original concept for once- instead of remaking Republican propaganda that discredits Moore. Instead the filmmakers waste our time telling us something we all know already. It's more about their self- importance and how they're 'worthy' to continue on their journey to discredit Moore. This is a bitter and resentful documentary with jealous undertones and I'm sorry- but they don't have the chops or charisma to win over Moore's popularity.

Aren't their more prominent world figures to discredit? Like ones who influence the world because they RUN IT- and not watch it on CNN while eating chips and thinking up conspiracy theories? the man may throw out a lie here or there, but at least he gets his audience to think with a different view or mindstate- unlike this film, which has nothing to say other than: "we're as good as him"- which they also are not.

sin-surely,

RF

"This is me...ya anonymous bitches" http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PREVALENTMIND


It's a shame - all the research, all the interviews, and all the back story would have simply made an entertaining biopic of a larger-than-life man who's actually had an impact. Instead, she magnifies insignificant details of a man's life that demonstrate not Moore's missteps but her own.

She tries time after time to show that Moore's films aren't flawless scientific reports on their subjects. Is it a surprise that a film might not be a perfect, exacting list of empirical data? Moore's films have always been under extreme scrutiny, specifically Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and now Sicko. Moore is open and honest - he refutes each and every claim of error on his website, backed up with links to the official reports and sources for his information and facts. So the attacks change to "Yeah, but Moore's film made is SEEM like...", that his films somehow imply things not offered into evidence. I think everyone's hope is that NOTHING is taken at face value - if it is, the fault is with th ignorant viewer.

Much is spent demonstrating that his "image" of being poor, hapless, slovenly and angry is manufactured. In fact, as a whole I consider the entire piece to be an ad homing attack on Michael Moore's work via attacking Michael Moore. It's a tool used by debaters lacking actual evidence.

Going back 20 years to the filming of "Roger & Me", the filmmakers are unable to find confirmation that Ted Koppel had canceled coverage of a town hall meeting (a quick humorous mention in the movie is that the satellite news van was stolen so Koppel's report couldn't be broadcast live). This movie then goes so far as to convict Moore of actually manufacturing not one, but all elements of the story. There WAS no town hall meeting. No news van. No Ted Koppel report. They even filmed a phony news reported commenting on the town hall meeting, Ted Koppel and the stolen news van. Of course, nobody mentions this in 1989 when the movie is seen and scrutinized by millions. But 20 years later, they can't find evidence so it must be a fraud. When a young girl pro Bush was ask if she see the "Fahrenheit 9/11" the answer was just great...NO. but I am a sensitive person and I cry when I saw "Saving Private Ryan", witch mean: "I don't know what is about but I know something else and I proud about"


Considering the subject matter, you already know whether you will agree or not with this film. The damage here is how bloody boring the thing is, and how one major interviewee has actually accepted money from Moore to aid his (get ready for it) sick wife that her insurance wasn't covering properly. His name is James Kenefick and the story is on the daily IMDb news feed. Check it out for yourself, but so far all this film proves is that Moore is a charitable human being. As for the rest of it, nothing we haven't heard before from various members of the pretenders to the documentary throne. Just ask yourself why all of a sudden medical industry people are so nervous about Moore. Could it be he has a point? Conservatives get cancer too, and it seems more and more of them are seeing Moore's point enough to cash his check.


It was supposed to be a horror, thriller but disappointingly the only horror that occurred was the money I spent for the cinema ticket. The film was so boring with extremely terrible acting, the only good actress was Michelle Rodriguez and the film was watch able because of her but what is the use of having a good actress in a rubbish film? The story is a hundred years old about a few friends on holiday & something is after them. Films like that have been tackled a zillion times in Hollywood, what was the point in turning it into a zillion & one now? The most stupid thing in the film is that every time they kill one dog then two dogs appear out of nowhere maybe there is a Killer Dog factory around the place somewhere. It is not mentioned clearly that why these dogs are killing people without a reason probably because they see whipped cream & a cherry on top above people's heads. My personal advice would be to avoid this film because it will save your money & time. While I was watching it in the cinemas a few people just left the hall half way through the film and they didn't come back! Worth a miss.


It is truly sad to watch Michelle Rodriguez, who is a pretty good actress and damned sexy, continue to spiral downwards doing bad films. Cosigned to this bit of Direct to DVD Perdition is "The Breed", a clichéd horror movie where everyone involved just phoned it in. (Hey, if They can't rise above clichés in the writing, I feel no obligation to rise above them in the review.)

"Bark, Bark" "What is it, Lassie, has Michelle's career fallen down the well?" "Bark bark".

So two brothers, two hot chicks and the Expendable Black Guy(TM) go to a summer house that just happens to share an Island with the Abandoned Secret Government Research Facility. As it turns out, the island is swarming with mutant rabid genetically engineered dogs that attack people en masse and are smart enough to eliminate their means of escape or rescue.

What follows are the typical things you've seen in every zombie movie ever, but with dogs. You know what WC Fields said about never working with children or animals, they always upstage you. Dogs leap out of nowhere. Dogs break in through boarded up windows. Dogs pop up when you've thought you've escaped.

The thing is that you know what's going to happen a few minutes before the characters do. YOU Know the Expendable Black Guy is going to be the first one to get it, because the Expendable Black Guy is always the first one to get killed in movies like these. You know that when they think they've gotten away on a boat left on the Island, that there will be a dog hiding down below in the hold (ending the movie or leaving room for a sequel? The Breed 2: Back to the Pound. Heaven help us.)

Then there are the leaps in logic. Michelle gets shot in the leg with an arrow, but barely seems phased by it. The other girl is bitten and seems to have a telepathic link to the dogs, but they don't go anywhere with it.

Wondering if the dogs piddled on the script when they marked their territory, because it certainly seems like they did.


This isn't a good movie, Starring usually good actors like Hill Harper, Taryn Manning and Michelle Rodriguez that don't seem to focused this time maybe they fought it would be like a vacation shooting the movie.

Two people have bigger roles than them, I don't know their names nor would I want to considering how awful they are.

The movie is NOT SCARY, while being trapped by devious dogs from hell they manage to have a good time drinking and stuff.

Not much more to say really, I guess if you already are afraid of dogs like some people are then you might get scared but otherwise, no.

Being a guy who's had a lot of dogs, I could tell that the dogs were in a happy mood for most of the time, which is good for the dogs BUT bad for the movie-watcher because all the tension is thrown out the window.

And the end was incredibly bad as well, because well I won't spoil it BUT the end is not satisfying.


Quite simply, this movie should have gone straight to DVD. All horror movies of the same Hollywood cash-in repetition should, but like many before it this had a theatrical release.

I caught it on DVD, not in the cinema, and I wasn't impressed at all.

For starters, to me, if you have a budget with which to make a film, why choose this concept. An island that has been completely emptied and overthrown by normal looking dogs, but which a few teens (played by adults) can survive on...It's daft, and I bet even the makers realised this when they played back their footage of close ups of cute doggies eyes.

There are a few "jumpy bits", but you can make people jump with no budget what so ever, and this by no means makes up for the moody, unlikeable underdeveloped characters that I almost wanted to die. The lead role of Nicki by Michelle Rodriguez hardly pulled the film up, she seemed not to realise she was the one all quality, emotion and interest relied on and just fell in with the crowd of moody generic teenagers.

The scenes in which the dogs physically and strategically attacked were laughable, they were basically things happening that no dog could ever do, (such as a plane being untied and drifting away) , with a few dogs sat around, cutely relaxing.

Acting, bad (mediocre by Michelle R.), script, daft and unnecessary, music, generic unoriginal American "oh my god oh my god!" movie horror music.

Don't bother unless you're forced. There's plenty of really good movies out there for you to watch, and they'll take the same amount of time and effort.

3/10


The video and audio quality is sub-par. To me, it felt like a home video reminiscent of something you'd see taken at the relatives place on Thanksgiving Day.

The acting is amateurish, forced, and seemingly barely rehearsed. The screenplay/dialog is poorly written.

You just know a movie is going to blow when 50% of the opening credits go to special FX techs, the dude who cast "extras" for zombies, and the writer/director/editor is credited with about a half of a dozen other billets.

Usually, I'd say that a movie this horrible is worth watching for the simple entertainment of pointing and laughing at how bad it is... but the whole thing from start to finish is mind numbingly dull.


Let me start by saying this: if you liked this movie, good for you but please don't think that I don't "get it" simply because I didn't like it. No...I get it, and it still sucks out loud.

This film is a rarity for me. It actually made me angry that I sat through all of it. Most bad horror movies I can simply shrug off with a simple "man, that was terrible", but not this one. Even accompanied by a liberal amount of alcohol and a very healthy suspension of disbelief I still think this is truly just an awful movie. Why? Numerous reasons.

First of all, giving some "actors" some white grease paint for their faces and black around the eyes doesn't make a zombie. I realize you do what you can on a small budget, but if your zombies look like they're straight off of a Misfits album cover, just stop there. Hell, leave their faces alone and just smear fake blood on them. Trust me, it's a better effect. And that little disclaimer at the beginning of the film with something about the movie being violent and disturbing...get rid of that. Nobody likes a liar. The only person who would find this disturbing is *maybe* an 8 year old...but kids are so screwed up today even that's a stretch.

Then there's the script, acting, and direction. All well below par for any movie, indie or not. The actors throughout the entire film looked like someone with a shy bladder thinking "don't watch me! I can't do it when you watch me!". I imagine they may have been half way convincing off screen, but as soon as someone said action they just froze and delivered some of the most mundane, bland dialogue I have ever seen. The story was equally flawed...leaving much of the background information out of the film. I suppose I could knock the production values and minor technical crap like that, but it's an indie movie after all and you make do with what you can afford.

The pluses to this movie? It's only 60 minutes long so your suffering will be limited. And...well...that's about it. If you really want to watch a bad zombie movie that's at least funny bad, go watch Death Metal Zombies. Skip this junk.


I sat down to watch this movie, with my brother. Together, we are NOTORIOUS fans of any and all zombie movies. However, I was almost instantly let down. From the opening shot with some unknown woman writing in her journal about a mysterious man who ruined the planet or somesuch, into the overly pretentious 11 minute opening credits....... OK, I digress.. but seriously, who cares about the radio stations still working and the 2 fat guys who drive around for a while mumbling. I don't have any idea what they were blathering on about and I somehow doubt it would have improved the scene much if I'd bothered to turn the volume up to a level which would have made the background music cause my ears to bleed. Wwhile I'm on the subject of music...it was there when it shouldn't have been and STOPPED the moment it needed to be there.. music while talking and none during 'action'. I absolutely despise when somebody reviews a movie that they did not even watch through, but *I* could not finish this movie.. for only the third time ever ( the first, being the pitiful remake of Rollerball, and second being that miserable piece of rancid feces, Freddy Got Fingered).

We got tired of all the non-stop "dialogue" and ended up fast forwarding in minor one-minute increments to see if it would ever end.. 30 minutes into the movie there was no sign of substance. So we took a five minute jump and were.... rewarded... with a blurry slow motion shot of people chewing on what appeared to be bloody eels, in a seriously unconvincing manner. The great John Romero did much much better with FRIED CHICKEN.. nothing bloody.. nothing weird....simple FRIED CHICKEN.

Another leap revealed something that seemed to approach an action scene but was lacking in background music (mentioned above) and we simply shut the "film" off. I went back later to try again... and still couldn't. Everyone's lines were forced, their every motion was filled with stagefright... or possibly too much drug usage. Seriously, the little kid looked high. For crying out loud guys, you should have at least watched your own film and realized that you BADLY needed to do another take. Heck, even other indie filmmakers have the intellect to know when they are making an unwatchable scene.

I'm not even going to be able to be polite here and say something re-assuring like "good first effort'.... these guys just don't have the talent to make movies. I'm aware they also have a history of attacking reviewers.. have at it, guys.. it won't change how simply awful this is. You're not "indie filmmakers" you're just a bunch of kids with a camera. This "film" is acceptable for an 8th grade show and tell session; nothing more.


Shrooms basically is a Slasher Movie. 3 couples go to Ireland woods to collect magic mushrooms and trip out. Of course on their way they already meet some strange inhabitants of the woods and it doesn't take long until a creepy story is being told at the campfire which of course is more than just a story. So strange things happen, people start disappearing, silhouettes move through the woods and the creepy story starts to melt into reality. The idea of blurring the lines between reality and imagination is quite nice and works after the horror kicks in along with the effect of the mushrooms. Problem is that the pacing of the movie is damn slow and doesn't really pick up much till the end. So I often looked at my watch since it seemed and eternity. Shrooms is not a bad movie, it has some nice modern elements like the typical washed out colors, some nice tripping ideas like a speaking cow mixing in with the classic campfire story and haunted woods themes. Anyway its hard to be sucked into the movie... it tries to be hypnotic with the trippy visuals and permanent uncertainty of reality and imagination. But it just rides that horse too long and too slow... so when you get the ends twist you already might be too sleepy to care. If you want to see a trippy mix of Evil Dead, Blair Witch Project and High Tension go check it out, but don't expect too much action and gore.


I saw this movie tonight. Never have left comment here but feel compelled to warn you all before wasting your money in cinema - AVOID! I'm Irish and this film was made by Irish people, but never have I been so insulted by such deedley-i-isms, or laughed so hard at the completely rubbish and regurgitated story that they peddle here. Absolute load of tosh - stolen sequences from at least 10 different films, not the slightest bit scary or ironic. They were too cheap to spend any money on gore so decided to go for the 'unseen horror' option. The film actually got booed in the cinema as the end credits rolled, by not just me, but half the audience. Breathnach should be ashamed of himself, never show this film in Ireland again, and stay well away from the horror genre. Shame on Bord Scannan na hEireann for giving him the money, but it just goes to show what an old boys club the 'Irish Film Industry' actually is. *response to 'Johnofgod'* I do not work anywhere near the entertainment industry, and have as such no grudge to carry against anyone therein. In fact I'm a science student, and have no desire to pick up a movie camera. I am however a fan of cinema and horror movies and take offense when a 'popular' director picks a 'popular' genre and makes a total pigs ear out of it, when I then in turn am expected to shell out premium prices for someone else's vanity and back-clapping. I am quite certain also that the good money thrown after bad towards salaries, production and marketing on this one, could have funded 5 superior new hopefuls with the aim of in fact igniting a revival in the 'Industry' and saving the rest of us from the embarrassing drivel we got. I saw the film as the surprise film at the Horrorthon in the IFI, and certainly did not choose to see it as such. Given the surprise film from previous years, this one certainly was a surprise, and I'll be hard pressed to attend again next year. I don't know if you were there but certainly the boos I heard were not phantomised. I am entitled however to express my opinion of the film on this opinion page for the film, and given the other comments I do not think I am alone in my musings. Your unashamed vitriol towards my comments only serves to make me think that I have possibly hit a nerve with your own misgivings towards an 'industry' within which you are vaguely 'un/employed'.


I cannot remember the last time a horror movie irritated me to this degree...SHROOMS is about a group of American friends (who actually don't appear to like each other much) who go to Ireland for vacation. They're obviously spoiled brats because the only thing on their mind when they're in freakin' IRELAND is getting their hands on some magic mushrooms ASAP. They meet up with some Irish friend (who is obviously British faking a bad Irish accent) that the lead girl (played by the creepy little girl from JC's VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED--the rest of her face has now caught up with her forehead, thank goodness) is creaming over. They immediately go camping in the woods and searching for shrooms. VotD girl gnaws on a mushroom that the Irish-but-British guy specifically said not to eat because it's poisonous. Soon she starts flipping out and having flash-forwards about her friends dying. It's up to her to save her friends from the ominous backwoodsmen, the creepy black-hooded ghost that pops up between people legs and/or above their heads, and the obvious overused plot twists in the script.

It seems like every line of dialogue spoken by the obnoxious 20-somethings in this movie features the word "shrooms." And you thought JUNOisms were annoying! If you took a sip of your Irish coffee every time someone in this movie said "shrooms," you'd be dead before the first jump scare.

The only good thing about SHROOMS is the movie poster, which features a skull shaped out of SHROOMS in the moonlight. Cool!


I've seen hundreds of horror movies in my lifetime. This rates among one of the least entertaining or scary.

None of the characters were convincing or engaging, in fact I prayed for their deaths after about 15 minutes. The plot was nigh on skull-numbingly poor and the scares relied almost totally on sound effects and offered precious little on the visual front.

In its favour, the plot was not entirely predictable, but I was left not really caring what happened less than a third of the way through.

The thin pretext of a 'shroom'ing holiday could have quite easily been left out and all of the visions etc. could have been explained by a dodgy smell in the air...

Anyway, don't bother wasting your time with this one. Have a nice cup of tea instead and do something constructive...


This was the surprise film at the Dublin Horrorthon this year and let's just say it was only surprising in that this is all that can be made of horror in Ireland. Firstly, the writer of the film must never have taken mushrooms in his or her life as during one "sex scene" the two unsuspecting teens take mushrooms and proceed to have sex, a noise outside is heard and they chalk it up to it being the "shrooms" taking effect. I understand that it was their first time taking them so that's the writing leeway that they allowed but there is a big difference in taking mushrooms where your entire physical senses are changed and thinking you heard a twig snapping.

The only idea of mushrooms that stays with the "plot" after the first forty minutes is the supposed special black headed mushrooms our heroine takes that allows her to see into the future. Boll**ks, I expected the idea of how messed up it would be to have a killer chasing you wile on mushrooms to be the basis of the plot, but aghast no! They don't need an interesting plot when you can just bash together some loud noises to try and scare the audience every two minutes.

The main character spends twenty minutes of the film walking around an insane asylum with an axe, that's not an exaggeration. Twenty bloody minutes with nothing happening. There were literally people talking amongst themselves in the audience through sheer boredom.

The film has one redeeming feature, and that is the appearance of Don Wycherley and Sean McGinley as the two hicks. I'm Irish and personally have no problem with someone creating a stereotype of us from time to time and I think the exaggerated acting was a welcome relief. No one complained when there were extreme freak rednecks in the likes of Texas chainsaw Massacre or Wrong Turn and considering I believe there are people in this country who still believe in "the banshee", fairy rings and other such insane Carroll's Irish Gift Store endorsed ideas, that it is entirely appropriate to enhance this image into that of the drooling country freak. We've all met at least one, come on, don't deny it.

To sum up, this film is in a word, bollo**s. Sorry to use the inarticulate "foul" language and constant air quotes but there's nothing else to go by with this one. It's the greatest waste of money. Take a hint producers, next time you want to give a new starter a chance in the business, make sure the script isn't the largest pile of cow dung to come out since, well, hell I'll just say it, The Roost. Hang on.... cow dung.... maybe that's where.......?


Our Transatlantic puritanical fundaMentalist Judaeo-Christian cousins (at least once removed) strike again, with yet another fear-mongering propagandist defecation.

This time, they are feebly attempting to turn our hearts and minds against the psychedelic mushroom, and all those who indulge in such practises of course, by suggesting that anyone (even an cloying, incessantly altruistic, All American teenage virgin cheerleader-stereotype) can become a psychotic sadistic murderer overnight after ingesting a single "Death cap" mushroom (not even a psychedelic strain: merely a poisonous lookalike).

This moronic "update" of Reefer Madness, shamelessly and inappropriately steals several visual scenes from the infinitely more intelligent classic, Jacob's Ladder, which remains the only genuinely frightening film of this ilk, in my opinion.

Ah, why am I even bothering. I had better things to do than watch this stool, never mind describe it to you, who is obviously even now contemplating wasting the best part of two hours on this drivel. OK, if you want to see trippy visuals, this is not the film for you: watch Fear and Loathing again, or google "optical illusion". This is nothing more than anti-drug propaganda, badly-made on a shoestring, directed and acted by people who have never even seen someone on (or apparently met anyone who has ever taken) psychedelics.


A group of five friends travel to Ireland during their school break vacation in order to do some shrooms in the wilderness along with their Irish friend/ mushroom guide. When Tara (Lindsey Haun) takes a particularly bad mushroom, she fills her mind with horrific visions of the past and of her friends' future. A future that will bring death and destruction. It's also a future that will hold boredom, and a wasted hour and a half for those who choose to watch this uninvolving, predictable, agonizingly slow horror flick. The acting is all right, but the scares are just sadly non-existent. Also the ending (which anyone with half a brain can figure out EARLY in the movie) is pretty much a direct rip-off of another modern horror film (no spoilers)

My Grade: D+


When I first heard that my local movie theater was going to be playing a movie called "Shrooms." I laughed simply at the name and concept of it. A drug-induced horror flick? Reading the poster tag line, the first few movies I thought about were "The Tripper" and "Idle Hands," both had a comedic edge to it.

I decided that I would give it a go. After work was finished, I slipped in to watch it as we gave the print a run through.

It appeared to me at first to be a fairly basic horror flick. You have the classic group of teens setting out into the woods alone, you have the suspicious characters who seem to lurk on the outside of this group, and you have the stranded complex which ties their permanency to the unfamiliar setting. Trite, but hey, a lot of classics seem to fare well with these aspects.

First, off there are some pros to the film, though they are only very slight. The side characters and presences were fairly convincing in making me believe that there was some malevolent murderer outside of the teenage group. Even when I had considered my verdict, these factors were almost enough to make me think otherwise. (Note, almost).

The cons of this film are as follows: As I watched the characters get picked off one by one. I was positively sure as to who was committing the murders by the second to third dead victim. (To my misfortune, I was correct.) I was able to come to this conclusion because of the repetitive mechanics that befell every incident relentlessly. First, the main character would have a vision of who would die. Within the next five minutes or so, that person would die. Soon after, perhaps another five minutes or so, the main character would find her friend dead. To what I can recall, this pattern occurred with every single character. The main character's visions were never inaccurate to what would happen, nor were they ever vague, so when the given character would die, you had already seen it happen. When the hallucinations would occur later in the film, you could begin to suspect what was going to happen, and chances are that you're left with no sense of shock. Overall, It was a very boring prospect.


A group of average American college students head to the Emerald Isle strictly for the 'shrooms. Funny, never saw that in any Ireland brochure, must be a well kept secret, but I guess if it's in a direct-to-video movie it must be true. This is a good looking film, the production value is good considering it's obvious a low budget project. Lots of convincing dirt and grime as most of the action takes place in a damp Irish forest. The atmosphere is effectively ominous. I found some of the scenes, although admittedly supposed to be taking place at night, too dark to really see what's going on, which was frustrating at times. The violence, disappointingly takes place mostly off screen, but you get an adequate look at some damaged body parts and corpses which is nicely done. The lead actress, who reminds me of a certain cast member from Scrubs, seizes, "trips" and hyperventilates her way into our hearts. Generally the acting is mostly just adequate, but I thought she was the best of the lot. I found the ending to be mostly uninspired and unoriginal. Could really see it coming. But, despite all this, hey, I've seen worse. MUCH worse. The director shows definite talent and I will keep an eye peeled for any of his future projects. All and all a 4/10


Thin plot - even for a teen slasher movie.

Where's my free sample of shrooms or any mind inducing drug? I could have used this while watching Shrooms.

The blueish hue is supposed to make this much more scarier...it just don't work. It just makes it look bad - real bad.

There could have been some humor thrown in to make this a good film...especially since the shrooms were supposed to make you laugh...but no. Just lame action, uninteresting dialog, boring sett.

Add to that, the typical screech that all horror movies must have and it just becomes really boring and bland.

So much could have been done with this, but so much was left out. I assume that a second or third write was never thought of before filming and that nobody thought to expand on the story a bit.

I want my sample damnit!!!! I deserve some good quality drugs after sitting through this.

At least everybody got a paycheck out of it - or should have.

Kinda shitty ending.


I saw the advert for "shrooms" and instantly wanted to see it so i rented a copy. I think the real clincher that will get this film an audience is the fact that it brings the drug element into a horror. I was hoping for a very trippy film that was so messed up you don't know whether to scream or rewind and rethink.

Unfortunately "Shrooms" goes for the premonition approach. After taking a bad shroom, Tera the main girl starts "seeing things". I just thought from that point on i'd seen it all before. I was right. Most of this film is simply people walking around, looking for something with a scared look on their face. The whole back story seems to be a relatively regurgatated camp fire tale that is used in most films "a bad house, kids are abused, one messed up kid left"- come on this just isn't scary.

Admittedly the ending is clever, but again not the most original.

The potential this film had is wasted on what seems to be a boring storyline. Not much trippyness or edge of your seat tension, just another B-grade horror.


This film was perhaps one of the most boring horror films I've ever sat through, the plot was boring, the characters were boring, even the deaths were boring! With a name like Shrooms you imagine this will be a horror film with some sort of 'Trainspotting' appeal in places but this film lacked any sort of interesting concept whatsoever! The film is based around a group of American teens visiting Ireland with one purpose to take magic mushrooms & have a good time. They are meet at the airport by main character Tara's (Lindsey Haun) on/off boyfriend type Jake (Jack Huston), he appears to be local although he too has an American accent. The group head off to the woods & get high & soon enough they're being killed one by one.

If anything this film did two things make me laugh at the poor acting, particularly Haun's wooden acting & it also made me slightly angry at the representation of Ireland. Why make a film set in Ireland & then cast all main characters as American I'll never understand but it explains why the film was so obsessed with promoting Ireland as some sort of drug paradise.

I actually had to force myself to finish watching the film as I hate to not finish a film & my attention was wandering constantly. The villains were like something off Lord of the rings & the ending seemed like the writer was getting bored & thought just end it quick I'm fed up. The twist should have been suggested a little earlier in order to hold the audience's attention because honestly I think that was the only slightly interesting thing out of the entire film. My advice give this one a miss, you'll be bored within minutes & feel cheated by the boring ending & the poor acting displayed. Plus if you are from or have ever been to Ireland the representation of 'the locals' will only insult you somewhat.


I've only myself to blame.

When a film boasts that it has a group of tourists getting high on funny mushrooms, resulting in them being "attacked by ghostly creatures, never sure whether they are experiencing gruesome reality or startling hallucinations", the chances are it will contain tourists getting high on funny mushrooms, resulting in them being attacked by ghostly creatures, never sure whether they are experiencing gruesome reality or startling hallucinations.

And I am unlikely to really go for that.

So what we have is some young people, who start out alright, but become more repugnant as the film goes, running around a swamp, screaming, swearing, getting more and more muddy, while bodies and leering faces jump out at them in entirely predictable ways, while the camera zooms around in that style that has become quite trendy in recent years. Admittedly, a story that involves hallucinations is as good as any to be filmed in such a way, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.

The result is an incomprehensible mishmash; ugly (not so much because of gore, as there is surprisingly little, but the direction), dumb and, in the end, just dull. But I will give it one thing.

It's the first time I've ever seen a horror film with a talking cow.


A group of young American tourists visit Ireland to experience magic mushrooms. Their Irish guide, Jake (I don't claim to be an expert on the Irish accent butwas that an Irish accent?!) takes them deep into the woods to hunt for the psychedelic fungi and enjoy them as nature intended. Before they even make it to the camping spot their vehicle hits an animal and they run into two creepy redneck types. When they reach the intended spot, one of the first things their buddy Jake does is take away their cell phones. After regaling his group with some creepy local legend stories over some tasty mushroom tea they are off to do some hunting. Although warned to not consume the Death Head mushroom one of the female characters does exactly that. Each character has their own unique "trip". Some of these episodes are actually pretty entertaining. Meanwhile our death head shroom girl is freaking right out and having vividly horrific visions of her friend's deaths. Then we get into this whole dodgy is it real or isn't real scenario. In the end, which many will see before it comes, is a very lame and empty conclusion. The group spends a lot of time bickering, and don't seem as though they should eat dinner together never mind traveling half way across the freaking world to do mushrooms. The characters are disposable and you really don't care who dies next. The deaths are pretty unimaginative particularly considering the whole stoned aspect. They really could have gotten more creative here. And as I mentioned the ending is just so weak. The landscape is lovely, the production value is decent and there is some gore. It had some potential but it failed to deliver.


This is getting ridiculous now. Would a bunch of American tourists travel all the way over to Ireland to sample some magic mushrooms and camp out in a scary wood? I mean REALLY? Haven't these kids got anything better to do with their time? And would they leave their mobiles in the car in the middle of nowhere? And when they come across a couple of weirdos armed with guns out hunting, why aren't they just a bit perturbed that their group is alone in the forest with them overnight? I know I shouldn't be asking these questions, I should be getting into the spirit of the movie and setting myself up for a scare etc. Sorry, but after sitting through this sort of crap 100s of times my patience has finally snapped. Let's see what else we have here..

Oh of course the ghostly killer. It all starts with a story around a campfire, as the only Oirish member of the Yank party tells a tale of a old boys school in the area, a massacre and spirits left behind. Blah blah blah. No one believes this happened.. until people start turning up dead. Before they discover the first of the victims, we have an extended scene of a blonde rushing around shouting BLUTO BLUTO that could have been cut by a couple of millenia. Oh, did I mention this little nymphet has premonitions about the murders thanks to her digestion of an extra strong black spotted fungi? I didn't? Oh darn.

There now follows, in no particular order: dull killings, bad acting, a talking cow, a hairy wolfman, cleavage shots of sexy young things being chased.. you know the formula. When done right, this can see to a satisfying horror experience. When done wrong, you get.. well, Shrooms. 2/10


Just watched this tonight, the lass is at work, the kid is in bed... was bored so stuck it on, and why not eh? wasn't expecting a massive amount from this movie tbh - in fact i only got it coz i have been reverting back to my childhood days lately and have fancied a bit of horror again (i grew up on horror) and the added mushroom factor only poured fuel on the the fire - horror/scary things in general is last thing u want when ur high on that shat... anyway, turned off lights and got settled, trying to give it a chance..

Opening scenes were good i thought, trying to get in early shocks and jumps with the running over of the cow (or what ever that was, a deer?), the 1st sights of the location was promising, big scary woods, nice open fields, a stream etc... Party time? And then it started to go wrong and the horror clichés were unleashed.. The creepy stories around the camp fire - which although are the starting point for the horror, like in 99% of horror movies, it all starts with the telling of a story.. but it is getting tiresome and the story itself lacks any horror merit i think.. It is an obvious laziness of the writers. No imagination! The idea of this movie could of been great, a real future cult classic if it was done correctly.. but it wasn't done right! The horror was weak, the script was weak, the characters were to 'teen movie' what ever happened to good adult horror? all the horror i see now seems to be aimed at teens - and its boring! To sum it up, the only saving grace to this movie was the half decent acting, some of the camera work was well done - nice moving shots through the woods.. And although most of the reviewers here say the twist was obvious and they got it in the 1st 20-30 mins.... Well, i got it - but only figured it out maybe 10-15 mins b4 they dropped it - maybe just a slow night for me.

Im afraid Horror as a genre is dead - it is all just commercialized like with everything else now - they get a good idea and cut/trim/change it to fit a mass audience and i don't like that.. They should be aiming to please the few that care, not the masses that don't really have an opinion either way.

Anyway, forget this movie - it was a boring waste of time after 15 mins or so and never gets any better! a talking cow? f off! Go stick in a classic if u wanna watch some good horror - the shining or the omen. watch how the professionals do it haha.


Due to the recent Full Moon Feature "Killer Bong", I was incredibly apprehensive to see this latest drug-themed horror yarn. Thankfully, "Shrooms" isn't a dopey comedy, written to appeal to the minds of adolescent boys... Unfortunately, it is a painfully boring movie, despite that, seemingly, winning endorsement. A group of teenage friends venture into rural Ireland during mushroom season with plans no more extensive than "tripping out". One of the girls unknowingly eats one of the 'wrong' kind of mushrooms and experiences uncontrollable premonitions of her friends' deaths. Honestly, who funded an Ireland vacation for a group of stereotypical losers, who head right from the airport to the bleak woods, with no food other than the fungi they intended on?? The whole basic premise seemed utterly forced into a tired formula of young, drug taking campers. This, inevitably, leads to the incorporation of a spooky ghost story (which ends up supplying a source for the hooded killer), which was pointless in the long run, but I guess the crew had access to a big, creepy building they wanted to show... Also, the involvement of the two inbreeders seemed like gratuitous filler. Numerous scenes in this dragged on effortlessly while the end was a complete ripoff of "Identity" and "High Tension". To sum it all up - I pretty much hated this movie!


A group of American teens take a trip to trip (on 'shrooms, that is). Told by a mutual friend about the ultimate drug trip by a certain type of magic mushroom, they head to the woods to experience it for themselves. However, after a bad batch, the group begins to see unearthly visions of demonic apparitions trying to attack them. Reality is blurred as the group of friends try to figure out if the visions are simple hallucination. . . or a true, evil threat.

First of all, may I ask: Where the hell did they get this Irish guy? Because. . . he's not Irish and whatever casting director thought his British accent would go over as Irish is absolutely ridiculous. Just had to get that out. Now, onto the film: I think I've decided on a new title: Clichrooms. It's a nice blend on the two main components of this film: shrooms and clichés. Within the first ten minutes we're given: the typical idiot stoner, the nice girl in love with the 'bad boy with a heart of gold' foreigner, the travel deep in the woods for less-than-moral activity, being stranded due to hitting an animal, the shady forests 'looking for dinner,' etc. (I won't even mention the dozen we get at the end of the film.) It got annoying, but eventually evened out when the plot developed. The acting isn't awful, but not very good. . . just enough to make the film watchable. The backstory of the home for delinquents (or whatever the wannabe-Irish guy was talking about) was interesting, and I'm glad it was utilized a bit. The writing was quite off, however, resulting in stiff and boring dialogue and poor structure (and, eventually, a bit of a cheap ending). Breathnach's direction and Nanu Segal's cinematography weren't bad and worked well for the film, although the 'trip' visuals got a little too 'MTV' in their editing. Gore is almost nonexistent, or cut away too quickly. Dario Marianelli, an amazing composer, is one positive on this film. The music is very good, and it surprised me when I first heard it, and surprised me even more when I saw the composer. The blur of reality and fiction is actually effective, as it did make the film more than just a typical 'in the woods' slasher. But it wasn't enough to make it as thrilling as it could've been. It's entertaining enough, just chock-full of clichés which limit the worth of watching it.

Final verdict: 4/10. Meh.


I had seen the poster for this film, but I didn't really think about critics opinions or anything before I watched it, maybe I should of. Basically some American teenagers arrive in the Ireland, and are promised by Irish friend Jake (Jack Huston), and expert in mushrooms, the "trip" of a lifetime, knowing their eagerness for adventure. Jake warns about the certain "shrooms" they can't eat, but hardly any of them listen, and horrific visions start happening. Because they are high on these magic mushrooms, they don't know if the ghostly creatures and other things are for real, or part of their hallucinations, to be honest, neither do we (the audience). There are also some really creepy woodsmen, Ernie (Don Wycherley) and Bernie (Sean McGinley) don't help the panicking teens. As everyone is being bumped off, it becomes clear that it doesn't matter if these visions are real or not, the evidence is there afterwards, the ending however, with last survivor, Tara (Lindsey Haun), isn't great. Also starring Max Kasch as Troy, Maya Hazen as Lisa, Alice Greczyn as Holly and Robert Hoffman as Bluto. The plot is certainly innovative, and the gore amount gives the story a bit of energy, but just like the characters, you don't know what's real and what's not, and it is a little tedious. Okay!


It seems that all I see are horror movies lately and well . . . I saw a trailer for Shrooms months ago and had decided there and then that I would see it and it would be awesome! Oh how I was wrong! With such a wonderful premise I just can't explain what happened?! Well I can try. The cast did what they could making some slightly interesting, if annoyingly cliché-ridden, characters! However, there were a few very attractive actresses that helped to draw that attention away . . . for a brief second.

To be honest I could go on and pick at this film and break the maximum word limit on this because I was so disappointed in the overall quality of horror films and how Shrooms had the potential to break the trend of bog standard cliché ridden horror flicks but no!

What's good? One star for each good thing. 1) The cast do the best giving some good performances 2) The talking cow, that's all I'm going to say 3) This is only worth watching if you want a pointless jump fest!

What's bad? Follows the typical killing off one person at a time (boring!). After the first few initial jumpy moments, it's really slow and then to top it all off it has the worst ending ever. You just feel cheated as if they ran out of time and thought this will do! This film encourages drugs in a way for all the wrong reasons. In which I would rather get high on mushrooms or whatever, then endure this again! If you want a superior horror film watch 30 Days of Night!


Ireland may have given the world hurling, green beer, Graham Norton, and that funny dancing where the arms don't move, but it isn't exactly renowned for its horror movies. Shrooms, a psychological chiller from director Paddy Breathnach, is unlikely to change that fact.

A dreadful chiller set in the wilds of the 'Emerald Isle', Shrooms sees a group of teens run into a spot of bother when they experiment with hallucinogenic fungi: as they begin to trip out, they begin to check out. Is there any truth in the stories about murderous spirits that haunt the woods? Or is someone else responsible for their deaths?

With nasty desaturated colours, irritating performances from most of the cast (who over-act in a desperate attempt to show the world what they are capable of), frequently fuzzy visuals (used to try and simulate being whacked out of your gourd on drugs), blatant cribs from other horror films (The Blair Witch project and many an Asian ghost film), and virtually no gore or gratuitous nudity, could this mess be any more annoying?

Of course it could.

Rather than tell a straightforward scary story, Breathnach unwisely chooses to blur the line between what is reality and what is merely a figment of a drug-addled mind. In doing so, he confuses matters so much that the film ceases to be frightening. And let's not forgot about the talking cow, the daft plot device to rid the characters of their cell phones, the Jason Mewes/Jay lookalike, the inbred goat herders, and the extremely bad twist ending!!


could have been great. interesting enough idea. amazing antagonist. some really great camera work/mood.

however...it feels like a lock groove. similar scenes playing out time and time again similar camera tricks again and again it tried to be smart just as high tension did (both failed miserably) and is basically a slasher flick again could have been amazing, however...ended up being slow and a bit boring however the moments that deliver really deliver.

unfortunately it just doesn't make it at the end of the day.... but it tried...and i want to see more of the 'killer' shame... proceed with caution, but know what you're getting into. it's soaked in mood so...that can be enjoyed at least.


Tony Montana didn't build his empire after a weekend's charabanging in Aberystwyth. Unlike other drugs, the magic mushroom is largely unrepresented in movies and it'snot to see why. If cocaine is Al Pacino, magic mushrooms would probably be Rhys Ifans. Mushroom munching doesn't generally lead to your boss's wife overdosing spectacularly, FBI helicopters chasing you down the freeway, or free-diving around Edinburgh's sewage system to an Brian Eno / Daniel Lanois soundtrack; altogether, it's a conspicuously un-cinematic high. Compared with a crimson flower-burst sprouting in a syringe, a cable of coke on a gleaming mirror, or even the mighty Camberwell Carrot, how cool is a cup of tea?

Just a handful of films have nibbled round the caps, including Performance, Work Is A Four Letter Word and - coyly - Dougal And The Blue Cat (less a whimsical child-friendly distraction, than an escalating series of terrifying derangements), in which Dylan the rabbit complains of feelings of exhaustion after cultivating his "crazy mushrooms".

And now Shrooms, the latest addition to this sub-sub genre, in which some American backpackers discover the downside to pigging out on fungi fancies. Tara (Haun) doesn't even take Aspirin - so perhaps isn't ideally suited to fly to the Old Country on a drugs hunt at the invitation of an Irish school friend-turned-mushroom guru called Jake. But "nobody's ever died from taking 'shrooms before," she's reassured, thus guaranteeing they'll be squealing like stuck piglets before the 90 minutes is up. Ireland is a land where schoolgirls riverdance in circles - and that's before our tourists are barely through passport control. It wouldn't surprise you to see a pony in a lift, or a Guinness-swilling pig in a green velvet jerkin carrying two leprechauns under each trotter. Yet once they've left the airport and set up camp in the wild, wild wood, they could be almost anywhere.

Jake (Huston, John's grandson, so possibly cast for his distant Celtic roots) turns out to be a supremely punchable Trustafarian tit. "When I was first sent to boarding school I used to get the s*** kicked out of me a lot," he explains, and it's no surprise at all. But the discovery of those happy little mushrooms helped him through those lonely days and nights. "These bad boys with the black nipples are the Death Heads," the cut-price Castaneda points out, while the audience wonders just what the heck kind of accent that is. It's not Irish. More like Joe Strummer circa 1977. "According to the ancient Irish druids," he drawls, "these are a gateway to another dimension," enabling one to commune with the dead, shape-shift, and predict the future. It's true, you can. Five minutes in, you're certain this feeble, derivative blarney (Blair Witch, Cabin Fever and Silent Hill can all be found bobbing away in the broth) will leave you with feelings of profound emptiness.

Round the campfire, Jake relates a supposedly real-life ghost story concerning a nearby abandoned borstal that was run by an evil religious order called 'The Black Knights'. After stringing the kids from the rafters and flinging them to slavering hounds, one vengeful tyke spiked their soup bowls with Death Heads one night and carnage ensued. Only a monk and a feral child survived - then went missing. Legend has it, they're still roaming the woods. Nice one, Jake: just the thing to tell a bunch of silly kids with a head full of psychedelics. From here on in, it's business as usual. Bluto the jock gets slaughtered while out 'dogging', shortly after conversing with a talking cow; the rest follow suit.

Meanwhile, Tara's witnessing their grisly deaths before they happen - or is she? As she wails, "I overdosed on the heroin of shrooms, I don't know what's real and what's not!" If it's not some malevolent Black Knight or feral dog boy they glimpse tearing through the trees - or do they? - it's a couple of bestial goat-herders wielding axes. Or are they? Look: here's a boy with a sack on his head. Or is there? Somebody just threw a stone in my eye. Or did they? There's no escape from your own mind. Luckily there's an escape from the cinema, just below the psychedelic Exit signs.

Yet the real problem at the core of Shrooms is a more fundamental one: there are few ventures more redundant than trying to replicate the inner-world on film (see Shane Meadows' Dead Man's Shoes or Jan Kounen's Peyote-drenched western Blueberry for two of the more convincing efforts). 'Sacred Weeds', a 1998 TV series, encountered similar headaches after getting a bunch of dosed-up students to record their experiences live to digicam. Not being Mexican shaman with direct dialling codes to Mescalito or the Virgin Mary, these guinea-pigs' trips largely depended on the limits of their experience; they were hardly going to return from their controlled brush with salvia divinorum - containing the most powerful hallucinogen known to man - with anything but giggling fits, some musings on oak bark, and what it's like to sit in a tree. (You feel like a big old monkey, apparently.)

"The hallucinations are so intense, I might not be able to speak at all," swooned one excitable and, in the event, overly optimistic participant. But with nothing of note to report, and Sacred Weeds' under-cranked and over-cranked cameras affording scant compensation, why bother in the first place?

Shrooms also has to make do with the self-same camera tricks to replicate the audio-visual apparitions, and to similarly lackluster effect, while its monotonous over-reliance on sudden, deafening chords pastes over the lack of genuine shocks. That said, one short scene in which Bluto first trips through the woods (in both senses) comes close to capturing the spatial dislocation common to the psychedelic experience, and one wishes the film offered more moments like this one. But as Alan Partridge once opined, "Dere's more to Oireland dan dis."


I try not to be too negative when I comment on films so I shall start with the good points.

This film did some things well, particularly the jump shocks and setting up the atmosphere with the Black Brothers and the Lonely Twin, but the dialogue was pretty rank and unbelievable (no teenager in the history of the world has ever talked like that) and the ending twist was pulled out of a hat, in an illogical way, that the film had at no point built up to.

The acting was variable, with the background characters done well, which was to be expected, given who was playing them, and the teenage characters varying from well done (Jake) to not so good (Lisa).

The directing was, again, variable, as I said previously, the jump shocks were very well done, but the director seemed a little too fond of the shaky cam effect at other points. While I understand the reasoning to this, with the exception of the drowning scene, I don't think it added much to the film.


This is one of the worst films I have ever seen and I have seen some rubbish in my time. The premise is 5 teenagers go to Ireland to try some magic mushrooms, they pickup the other token spooky Irish guy when they get there. Why bother going all the way across the globe to get high ? Anyway from the off one of the girls eats a mushroom that you shouldn't touch, so this is a big Plot signpost as to where we are going and whats going to happen. The teens get picked off one by one after the Token Irish chap tells them all a scary Moonlight story. Throw in the mix a couple of locals to try and throw you off the bait (i didn't work) and the standard make you jump moments, girl looks through crack in door somethings going to happen!! I'm just glad I watched this on sky and didn't waste any money down the Cinema.

Avoid


As far as serial- killer films and thrillers are concerned this one's right down there with the worst of 'em. Only "Copycat" and "Sisters" manage to be more annoying in their absurdity, and only "Saw" is worse. And it's a pity because the first hour is genuinely eerie, with a fittingly claustrophobic mortuary as the ideal setting. I am a very jaded viewer, but some of those early mortuary scenes really get under your skin. However, after an hour it all goes downhill, and I mean steeply. The relentlessly stupid plot twists rob you of all patience and the movie just keeps sinking to new lows. All logic is thrown into the wind, and the viewer's intelligence is insulted and pounded upon repeatedly with more force than that baseball bat could ever have generated - the one used by Nolte and McGregor. (I'd be the first to sign up if they were looking for volunteers to take that baseball bat and bash the heads of the writers of this nonsense.) Nothing here adds up. Absolutely nothing. Nolte was molesting corpses decades earlier and the writers of this film would have us believe that this man could years later become the city's chief police investigator! Making him the killer is as absurd as giving Thomas Edison credit for inventing the wheel, as laughable as a conspiracy-theory plot from the "X-Files", and as stupid as Kim Basinger's book on how to solve all of world's problems (if she'd ever write one). The very notion that a man - so disturbed that he indulges in necrophilia in mortuaries - would have the sanity, interest, patience, and willingness to climb all the way to chief investigator in a police department only to start a savage murder spree is simply a mind-bogglingly dumb, far-fetched concept to me.

And how the hell did he even start with the framing of McGregor? This is an essential piece of the puzzle that is badly missing here; McGregor JUST HAPPENS to get a job where he meets Nolte. And McGregor's best friend, Brolin, JUST HAPPENS to know a prostitute who is Nolte's play toy (and later victim). It can sure be a small, small world in a Hollywood stinker! And to add some silliness, Brolin is some kind of a deranged thrill-seeker who acts like a total lunatic all the time. Obviously, he is the decoy for the viewer; we are meant to treat him as the suspect. But how dumb do they think we are? And how the hell did Brolin get into the mortuary when he carried out his "practical joke"? And how the hell did Nolte manage to drag out a body of one of his victims within seconds of McGregor entering the room, without McGregor noticing it (the fact that he had his walkman on and/or was singing and/or talking doesn't make it any more believable)? And what's with this annoying scene where Arquette JUST HAPPENS to walk into the mortuary at exactly the moment when McGregor is hitting Nolte with a baseball bat and predictably starts thinking her boyfriend is the killer??! More annoyances came from the scene in which Brolin's reaction to McGregor's telling him that the latter is been suspected of murder is to laugh! Or the one in which he cuts off his own thumb in order to free himself and save the others. Sure,... why not?? ("I am being hand-cuffed to this metal pole, and as a result can neither save my friends nor myself... What do I do...? I know!... I'll cut my thumb off! How come I didn't think of that before!?...") Nolte makes the best out of his role, but due to the bitchingly silly script he appears to be hamming it up too much at the end - but what choice did he have? McGregor is solid, too, apart from his on-and-off accent (which was it now? American or English?).


I love movies, and I am very forgiving of most of them. (I usually like thriller/suspense movies.) But Nightwatch I gave a 1. I never give movies a 1. It's especially odd in this case as I usually LOVE Ewan McGregor. But even he (and all of it's other big-name stars) could not save this poorly written, badly executed, gross, retarded-plot movie.

A law student has a whacked out, bored best friend, a really nice but under-defined girlfriend, some sort of poorly outlined, difficult childhood past and then gets a job as a nightwatchman in a morgue to pay for school. (This involves checking to make sure that the bodies are okay each night.) The plot just gets worse from there. I won't go into details, but realize that it's set in a morgue (just go with that image for a second), involves really icky mental disorders, hookers, bored twenty-somethings and a serial killer.

Perhaps Nick Nolte's worst role EVER. Ewan McGregor just looks embarrassed, as do Josh Brolin and Patricia Arquette. Filled with gratuitous nastiness and gross-out violence, this movie, rather than being redeemed by such a good cast, serves only to add a black mark to their career resumes.

As I said, I love movies and rarely, rarely, rarely diss them this hard, but I honestly believe that this is the worst movie I have ever seen.


I haven't seen such a bad movie in a long time, actually i haven't seen such a bad movie ever. What have Miramax done with the original manuscript. This movie was one of the best ever, in the Danish version. But someone bought the rights to this movie, and tried to make a Hollywood version. But dear "Hollywood", you can't make a box-office hit if you first of all take the Danish humor away, and then take out some scenes from the movie, just because (my own opinion)you think it doesn't suits the American people. But 10 stars to the original version, and 1 (They didn't have 0 stars)star to the Hollywood version.


I must say I don't like this version, just as the original version also seems a bit lame to me. The original was a big hit here in DK, and so I expected something exraordinary, but it wasn't. This is the Hollywood'ized version, but that doesn't make it any better - on some points it is even worse than the danish version. Not impressed, no, not at all... :-/


Ah, another one of those thrillers where you're supposed to wonder about the killer's identity, suspecting everyone in turns. Well, I guessed the killer *in the video rental*, after I looked at the cover! And I was right, of course. Now that's a "quality" script! As for the rest - boy, where to start... The acting is either hammy (McGregor) or wooden (Arquette) and the worst thing is that this flick is so *dull* and *boring* that it makes eating tomato soup and potato chips The Great Adventure! This is a remake of the Danish original which I might choose to see one day (for free - if it's anything like this remake, it's not worth paying a penny). I doubt it can be any better, though, with the same director and writer. One star, and even that is being too generous!


It is a fine first effort, or a mediocre second effort, or horrific life's work. The plot was a little thin. The action was a little choppy. The effects were not half bad. The video was slightly grainy. Better than a student film. But It was fun. This is not the type of film one finds at Sundance. This is the type of film one finds at a SciFi convention. If you want 90 min. of light hearted distraction, this is it.

If one goes by the writing style, this film is the first in a series.

I look forward to the second film in the series.

Perhaps the lighting and cine will be better polished.


I can't even begin to tell you what this movie was about because the photography was so bad. A good 65% of it is so dark that you can't discern anything going on. Watching this crap, many questions spring to mind. Was the DP trying to emulate the work of Nestor Almendros on DAYS OF HEAVEN by shooting only ambient lighting? How could the director, after watching several days of pitch black dailies, not decide that it might be time to invest in one lighting kit? How did the editor so seamless cut scene after scene of pitch black on pitch black so effortlessly? What photography does come through is muddy and ugly as hell. Had the cinematographer ever SEEN a movie before? I doubt it. Otherwise, concepts like "composition" and "backlight" might have played a part in the framing. When you look up cinematic incompetence in the dictionary, you'll find this second only to BACKWOODS. At least in THAT movie you could see what was going on.

Worst movie I've seen in years. And yes, I've seen Turkish STAR WARS.


In 1870 Philadelphia, faint-hearted Don Knotts (as Jesse W. Heywood) obtains a license in dentistry, and decides to spread "dental health through the west like a plague." After his stagecoach is held up, Mr. Knotts joins a wagon train. He plays horsey with buxom Barbara Rhoades (as Penelope Cushings) and dresses up as a fetching Indian squaw. Is Knotts' character bisexual? The ending leaves the question unanswered. Gun smugglers Jackie "Uncle Fester" Coogan and Don "Red Ryder" Barry head off an able supporting cast. Vic Mizzy's wild, wild western music resembles his own "Green Acres". All in all, this is a tedious, uncalled for re-make of Bob Hope's "The Paleface" (1948).

** The Shakiest Gun in the West (7/10/68) Alan Rafkin ~ Don Knotts, Barbara Rhoades, Jackie Coogan


I really hated this movie. The acting was so bad, the actors weren't "in" the story, do you know what i mean ??.

And the plot, well after ten minutes anyone can see how the movie is going to end.


This independent low budget drama gets good ratings for the characterization and plot. Even though it is a typical boxing movie cliché, there are enough twists to make it seem somewhat fresh and original.

The story follows the adventurers of Dublin, a crooked boxing promoter who travels from town to town setting up underground fights and sometimes trying to fix them. He meets a female fighter, Katharine, who appears to be homeless but who can fight and defeat men twice her size. The two eventually team up, but Dublin's somewhat sleazy past catches up with them, causing conflict, pain, and emotional distress for both.

I enjoy all types of fighting (the real kind) and consequently, I find myself being somewhat critical of film fight scenes, particularly when they involve obvious mismatches. The notion of a 135 lb woman fighting bare-knuckle with much larger, ostensibly experienced fighters and winning by KO consistently is just too much for me to willingly suspend my disbelief. The fight scenes are poorly shot, primarily because there are no stunt people and the principal actors do their own "fighting." The fight theme and fight scenes are central to the film and they are just not well done. I realize that corners have to be cut somewhere in a limited budget film, but this was not the right place to do so.

The ending was just too sappy for me and I was disappointed that the writer couldn't avoid the Hollywood style happiness and give us a real surprise for a change.

If you enjoy the "Underdog overcomes all obstacles" type movie, then you may like this film, but I have to say I wasn't all that impressed.


Simon Cowell manages to try another spin-off of "American Idol", despite of the failure with his previous attempt "American Inventor".

It follows the same guidelines than "American Idol", you know, a host the three stereotypical judges, an obedient crowd for audience, and some entertaining contestants plus many more that are shown only for their humiliation on national TV, that is actually what most of the public seems to dig anyway. Even more, giving it is an open talent contest, half of them are singers what gives Cowell a chance for a shot closer to the "Idol" success.

Regis Philbin does his job, he always manages to look as a nice guy, I don't think he contributes rising the show interest but is not responsible for the poor overcome either.

Moving on. I may concede that the Idol's judge model settled what seems to be the Holly Grail of reality-show contests, but that's not magic. The chosen court must have some charisma. In the Idol, it was this Cowell's quality that brought attention to the show. But did he manage to put together an attractive set of judges prescinding of himself? Let's see.

Let me start by David Hasselhoff just because he is the only I know. At least when watching Hasselhoff a couple of generations will feel some kind of comfort reminding "Knight rider" and "Baywatch". And it guarantees the show will be sold in Germany too.

Piers Morgan, who I don't have any clue who he is, takes the role of the wise and balanced judge completing his stereotype with a British accent that in America seems -wrongfully- to be synonymous of a higher intellect.

Finally Brandy. No, they are not drinking any alcoholic liquor, but may be you'll need it to digest why this completely unknown -or at least very well forgotten- singer (that is how they introduced her) is the judge that completes the trilogy. When Hasselhoff and Morgan are somehow appealing, Brandy is some kind of hyper-kinetic and overexcited Tasmanian Devil sat in the middle. At some point I felt bad for Morgan whose face seems Brandy preferred target for the uncontrollable spin of her arms and her annoying affection demonstrations.

In his modesty Cowell doesn't realize that the success of his shows is linked to him being in front the cameras rather than behind them. If Simon were in this show not even the contestants would be necessary to nail its success. But this is not the case. Clearly.


I was really looking forward to this show. There have been several people in my community that made the show. But after sitting down and watching it, I don't know if I can actually sit through another episode in order to see them. This show was more like the Gong Show from the 70's. Except you have to have 3 gongs instead of one. I was really hoping that people could get a big break with this show. There was too much of really bad talent or useless talent to have to sit through to get to the very sporadic good talent that was shown. This is not a show that I will sit through again. There are too many other quality shows that are worth my time. I'm not a big reader, but about 3/4 way through the show, I decided to start reading a book. I feel sorry for the people who got chosen to be on this show that have great talent, I hope they are not disappointed.


I love the idea of a talent show that focuses on more than just singing, especially the same old adult contemporary music that we hear over and over and over again on the likes of American Idol, Star Search, or any other popular talent competition. The problem is that when it comes down to it it ends up being nothing more than a singing competition with some other performers thrown in for good measure, but without a shot at winning.

The "judges" constantly berate people for not being diverse or "mixing it up" enough, which flies in the face of what the show is supposed to be about. Take, for instance, the martial arts exhibition group Sideswipe. They were told by all of the judges that they wanted to see more than just punching and kicking, and that they had to do more dancing and add more production to their numbers if they were going to have a shot at winning. WHAT!?!?!? They are a martial arts group. . . . . PUNCHING AND KICKING IS WHAT THEY DO!!! Why not tell the singers that they need to add more flips and jumps and tumbling to their acts? When it comes down to it the judges, and America, do not consider anything other than singing to be real talent, and that is a shame, because the variety is what could be the shows strongest feature.

In defense of the show, there is much more variety than you will see on American Idol. At the end of the second season there is a blues/reggae singer, a young American Idolish singer (though not of the same caliber), a ventriloquist/impressionist whose act is 99% singing, and a beat boxing singer. There is more variety than many other talent competitions, but it would be really nice to see more of the true variety acts and far fewer singing acts.

Another negative is that the show would be totally unwatchable without TIVO. Less than half of every show actually involves performing, and they spend way too much time on background info and letting you know what is coming up "after the break."