The first installment of a third-rate detective series, featuring a former safe-cracker, Blackie (Chester Morris), his sidekick the Runt (Charles Wagenheim), and the impatient Inspector Farraday (Richard Lane). Crimes get pinned on Blackie so he has to sort them out. This time he acquires a pretty lady (Rochelle Hudson) when he commandeers her car, and she's almost a match for him. With a modicum of witty repartee, some excellent carnival locations, and an unusual villain (a master spy whose cover is playing a sideshow mechanical man), this one might have ascended from third to second rate, were it not for Morris's acting (mostly a matter of flashing a grin that looks too wide for his face) and his hat (its too-small brim accentuates his big square face and makes him look stupid amongst all the elegant, wide-brimmed hats worn by everybody else, even the weaselly villains).


I like to watch DVDs with as little information about what I'm about to see as possible. I like to avoid preconceptions and expectations and just let the material unfold before me like life does.

In this case, as soon as I put the DVD in the player, I knew I was in store for some stand-up comedy from Steve Harvey. I didn't know anything about Harvey personally. I'd seen him in at least one film, Johnson Family Vacation (2004), and I thought that was okay, but not very good. I'd never seen his stand-up. However, I usually enjoy stand-up a lot, so I was ready for a good time.

In this case, my "avoid preconceptions" strategy backfired a bit. For at least the first 10 minutes of Don't Trip, I was trying to figure out what the hell the deal was--I felt like I had stumbled into a timeshare sales pitch or multi-level marketing meeting by accident--when you know there's some ulterior motive occurring, and this isn't just a collection of more or less random people interacting in a general way.

I didn't know Harvey was religious, so the comments at the beginning of the DVD threw me off a bit, but okay, he likes to mention God at his shows. But then he kept doing religious material, which seemed very odd to me. I didn't know he was _that_ religious. And I wasn't really laughing at anything. That's a bad omen for stand-up. Yet there was this huge audience at his show. It took me awhile to figure out that this was filmed at a religious "festival" (a gospel "Megafest"), and apparently Harvey was just one of the acts.

I suppose I'm just in the wrong demographic for this. I'm not at all religious. I'm an atheist, one who doesn't mind arguing religion, and one who has actually convinced some religious folks to change their views. I prefer Anton La Vey's (the founder of the official Church of Satan) ethics to Christian ethics. I'm a hedonist. I've done things that can be interpreted as anti-mainstream-religion and pro-Satanist in my own artwork (even though it's not meant quite that simply). To me, religions basically amount to mythology and superstition (and I think it's fun to interact with mythology in various ways).

On the other hand, I like experiencing everything, and that includes religious films and religious music. I loved The Work and the Glory (2004). I thought The Second Chance (2006) was very good (and I love Steve Taylor's music, by the way). I thought The Last Sin Eater (2007) was okay. I thought people were unduly harsh on The Gospel (2005), which I thought was a pretty good film. I love all kinds of gospel music--The Winans, Mahalia Jackson, The Staple Singers, Aretha Franklin's gospel, The Carter Family and Johnny Cash's gospel, Dr. Charles G. Hayes--I don't think there's any gospel I do not like. So it's not as if I won't like something just because it's religious.

But I just didn't find most of Don't Trip funny. There were some parts that made me chuckle. And a couple times, when Harvey got serious, I thought he had something valuable to say (such as the speech about not discouraging your children's ambitions). Unfortunately, just as often, Harvey came across to me as something of a jerk. But maybe he was just trying to be funny. I don't know. The people in the huge audience (about 16,000) sure seemed to find him hilarious--at least given the way the audience reaction shots were edited into the film.


From the comment titled "What It's Like Being Amazed"

***A wondrous and fiendishly humorous stop-motion animation series about freak orphans who are desperately trying to get adopted. They must have had a crack writing team. Incredible animation and each touching story is as pithy as it is erudite.... (yadda yadda yadda...)***

Clearly, this post was written by Peyton himself - no other human being would display such bravado as to write such complete drivel about a poorly constructed show that has nowhere to go and no way to get there.

While I have to admit that the animation and set design is top-notch, the actual story lines are weak and the characters direct rip-offs of other artist's creations: a cuter version of Princess Lucy can be seen on "The Oblongs" and the dead bunny is practically a direct steal from Vasquez's "Johnny the Homicidal Maniac" - not to mention the Tim Burton-esquire "influence" that other posts have mentioned. This can come as no surprise to anyone who has ever had the pleasure of reading Dirge's "Lenore" comic book only to later be exposed to Peyton's "Evelyn" - the plagiarism is tangible enough to choke even the most stalwart goth-wannabe.

It is a shame that this show was made on the backs of the Canadian tax-payers while the art and animation department struggled to make the show funny and brilliant under the weight of poor scripts and even poorer management.

Do yourself a favour and watch the show with the sound turned off - at least that way you may enjoy the beauty of the animation and art direction unencumbered by the lousy writing.


At first I was intrigued when I saw the posters advertising the show. Stop-motion animation on TV? what's not to like? But when I looked up the creators I found that one of the guys was responsible for Evelyn: the Cutest Evil Dead Girl, a short film whose style was obviously taken from Tim Burton, and concept was lifted wholesale from Roman Dirge's comic Lenore: the Adventures of a Cute Little Dead Girl. He couldn't even be bothered to change the title. So when I finally saw the show, I was watching with lowered expectations.

I've only seen the third episode, but for the most part it's about as unfunny and derivative as his previous effort. The style still looks like it was fished out of Burton's recycling bin, the main character is more grating than necessary and there are the usual comedy ensemble stereotypes. Only Aldous had a few funny lines and I liked the Seymour character mainly because he was mute. I might watch a couple more episodes to give the show a chance, but unless the writing improves I'll hold out for the next Aardman film, thanks.


I'm astounded that a show this bad could have made it on a major network. It would have been rejected as a cable access program. The only reason I gave it 2 stars, and not 1, is because the animation is beautiful. The writing, however, is about as amateurish as can be. I'm sure a 6 year old who speaks ONLY Bulgarian could have done better. It is insulting, unfunny and STUPID. The voices are so grating that it actually caused me physical pain to listen to the show.

Don't get me wrong, weird can be good and sometimes great, but this show is neither, and weird for weird's sake is just BORING.

The person at the CBC who green-lit this junk should really be out on their ear. What on earth were they thinking! This really has to be the lowest that Canadian TV can sink.


I was looking forward to this, being a big fan of stop motion animation. Man, what were they thinking? Wasting all that gorgeous animation on such awful writing?! That was the lamest attempt at comedy I've seen in a long time. The character with the most lines had the most irritating voice imaginable, and blathered on in a near scream throughout the entire episode. It was like fingernails across a blackboard, it was so difficult not to get up and change the channel (okay I admit, I didn't make it through the whole episode. After 20 minutes I just couldn't take it any longer!) And the gay character, who is constantly on fire (get it? 'flaming'? get it? don't feel bad, i didn't laugh either.) is such a homophobic stereotype, I'm surprised the CBC let it slide. It feels like they just thought, 'hey let's throw some kooky characters together and that will be enough: this one will be the smart one, this one will be the nihilist, this one's gay, etc.....' The end effect was soulless and irritating.

The show looks gorgeous, the animators are talented and must have worked their butts off, so I hope they get some better scripts. They deserve it.


Those poor, poor animators and production designers on this show. They knocked themselves out on this really terrible effort from third-rate Tim Burton rip-off Brad Peyton.

Lucy the irritating monster in the toilet paper roll with the annoying voice -- completely unlikeable and enough to turn the channel before one episode is finished (never to return). Really lame sight-joke characters. Adult humour in an infantile format which misses the mark completely as to how South Park and the rest pull these things off so well. Insults to gay people, racism, insults to thinking people everywhere. How in the world did the CBC let this one slide on by? Read on.

Those poor animators...

Poorer still are the Canadian Tax-payers who flipped the bill for this one. Not unlike the endless disasters from the English Canadian film Illuminati (Egoyan and those other failures Canadians hate so much), the Canadian public who is paying for this garbage is avoiding it with a passion. I read today that the ratings are down to 118k average for the season so far. Which means, at some point, the ratings dropped to about 90 thousand people, across the whole of Canada, who paid for this. It doesn't get much worse than that. An astonishing .25% of Canadians are watching this show (ONE QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT). It cost us HOW MUCH? As a point of fact, the ratings have been dropping through the floor since the premier episode, falling off an incredible 40%! Some people gave it a chance, then fled after seeing how worthless it was. If this were in the US, it would be yanked immediately and never heard from again. Brad Peyton's career would be thankfully over and he'd be sent packing to flip burgers back in Gander, Newfoundland -- his natural calling. But this is Canada.

Terrible writing, irritating characters, bad jokes, no actual audience that can be identified, and the whole rip-off fake pseudo-Burton/Suess/Sesame Street thing is infuriatingly bad. So how did it happen? It all got a blind-eye instant greenlight because Fred Fuchs signed up his name knowing he'd make a quick buck because Peyton had a deal with Tom Hank's PLAYTONE and the big name recognition that brings (Hanks needed a Tim Burton rip-off for some project). Now the mythic Hanks project has fallen off the map, not listed on the website even, and we Canadians are left holding the bag on this.


Less importantly, I can't figure out why Sharon Stone is the number one credit when the story isn't really about her character. Other than that, this movie has good intentions and a great story. However, there were a few scenes that just felt overly tense, such as when--possible spoilers--Kevin begins choking on his food and loses consciousness, when Max learns of Kevin's death (which is more disturbing than emotional), and even the scene where Loretta is strangled (but not killed), which is otherwise understandable. This seemingly is supposed to be a family-friendly film, but with these scenes the filmmakers make it look more like a horror/thriller. If the filmmakers had not done this, I believe this film could very easily have been given a PG rating. -6 stars for the tension.


In 1998 two sentimental movie so alike was make one is this and the other is Simon Birch. Both are about the boy tried to make a different in this world despite the fact that they are disable. This movie star Elden Henson as the boy with disturb past and Kieran Culkin as the disable boy, they two become friend and that when imaginary adventure begin.

The movie also consist of many A lister star such as Gena Rowlands, Sharon Stone, Gillian Anderson, Meat Loaf, and James Gandolfini. Yes, that is one hell of a cast but that doesn't really save this film anyway. The movie is dreadful, because by the end of the movie you'll wish you never seen it cause it is too slow and boring.

The script wasn't that bad at all, the character is well written but the situation is boring and dreadful and the sentimental stuff was overdone that it end up being really cheesy. The acting wasn't all bad but the set was boring and unimaginative. And the lighting and cinematography didn't do a good job, it as if the film was shot 3 decades back.

Reason To Watch: Better Not Watch It.

Reason Not To: You Won't Miss A Thing, Feel Like Waste Of Electricity Watching It.

Rating: 3/10 (Grade: F).

Please Rate (Y/N) After Reading, Thanks.


Cheap (and I mean CHEAP; I don't know what they paid the actors, but the rest of the budget must have been around 50 dollars; it was shot on KODAK film stock!) softcore thriller is mostly talk, with minimal horror elements and a monotonous performance by Monique Parent. The director plays so much with the lighting that you would think the house where the action takes place is a disco. (*1/2)


High School Hellcats is one of those films from the fifties you took a date to in a drive-in because you had other things on your mind and didn't want to miss anything good.

You didn't in this film. The local high school play will feature a better class of acting than you'll see from anyone here. To be fair the cast doesn't exactly have Shakespeare writing the dialog so they all overact outrageously. And the implied lesbianism of the gang the Hellcats isn't hard to miss.

In fact the worst thing about the film is the lesbophobia implied. A new girl in school Yvonne Lime, coming from that perennial home where the parents just don't understand her. She gets hooked up in a girl gang headed by Jana Lund. When she shows promise, Lund starts saying that Lime might become second in command. That doesn't sit well with Susanne Sydney the current number two.

All's well that ends well as the Sandra Dee wannabe Lime ends up safely with all American boy Brett Halsey and away from that evil group of lesbians.

When this one is aired, pass this by or hold your nose when viewing.


I've seen over a dozen wuxia films, but the only ones that are worth watching were released after the new millennium: House of Flying Daggers (2004), Hero (2002), and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (2000).

Everything else I've seen has been an utter waste of my time: The Bride With White Hair (1993), A Man Called Hero (1999), Storm Riders (1998), Ashes of Time (1994), A Chinese Odyssey Part 2 (1994), Butterfly Sword (1993), and A Chinese Ghost Story (1987) to name a few. There have been some bad films made post-2000 (e.g., 2005's The Promise), but the pre-2000 wuxia library is thoroughly horrible. Even more disturbing is that these films are hideous for the same exact reasons:

1) Awful screenplay. 2) Atrocious action choreography. 3) Dreadful editing.

The Bride With White Hair is not exempt from these common wuxia pitfalls. The screenplay simply fails to properly develop the romantic relationship between the two leads. They spoon each other in a mini waterfall for 10 minutes, and the viewer is supposed to be convinced that they care for each other. It's not convincing in the least. In fact, the script writers contradict themselves near the end of the film when the two leads do everything in their power to desert one another. Their actions are beyond stupid, as they inexplicably begin to doubt one another on speculative events that are promulgated from the institutions and persons that they initially abandoned for the sole purpose of being together. There is no reason for them to give a rat's arse about these people anymore, yet the male lead sides with them without hesitation. At that point, I wanted both leads to die for counterfeiting the very idea of love.

The action choreography is non-existent in The Bride With White Hair. A character waves their sword or whip at the camera, which immediately cuts to show an enemy instantly die. Repeat ad infinitum. The final fight is laughable when two siamese twins (connected at the back) grab hold of one of the protagonists and bounce around the room like a superball. Interestingly, the sub-par editing is directly related to the fight scenes themselves. It's much easier to cut up the movie on an ad hoc basis to gloss over the unimaginative character interactions in combat, instead of mapping out fight scenes and brainstorming over fresh combinations of moves and maneuvers. There's really nothing else to say other than the obvious fact that no effort was put into the action set pieces, and it shows.

It would seem that filmmakers within the wuxia genre showed almost no development or improvement before the year 2000. It is thus important that this review exists to inform readers of the futility inherent in watching wuxia films released during that period of time. Nearly thirty reviews of The Bride With White Hair exist, almost all of them overwhelmingly positive, but the reasoning behind these high ratings is dubious at best. The pre-2000 wuxia camp seems to consist solely of fanboys who will eat up anything and everything released under that particular genre's banner.

As a fan of East Asian cinema, I think that this is a disservice to new viewers who are attempting to make the transition to better cinema. They may hit a pre-2000 wuxia film and go running (perhaps screaming) back to Hollywood.


Since this film has received so much praise, I feel the need to issue a warning here for those who expect a masterpiece.

The film is actually pretty difficult to get into. The storytelling is very confusing. For at least the first 45 minutes, I couldn't make heads or tails out of what was happening, who was fighting whom, who all those people were, etc. Perhaps this is a movie meant to be seen and understood completely only by those who have read the novel on which it's based. When an actual story does begin to take form, the film does have some touching and/or disturbing moments (you get a good look at naked Siamese twins), but the much-talked-about violence and action choreography is strictly comic-book-level. This film needed more clarity and narrative skill to be successful. (*1/2)


now this little notice is based on the dubbed version I cannot recommend it as the voices are in current english idioms & coming out of the mouths of people from over 1000 yrs ago is pure ludicrous. It is possible if I saw this with sub-titles i would of liked it better

Thanks


This movie features two young actors who will hopefully be seen in more films. The teenage "good girl falls for boy from the wrong side of the tracks" story falls short of explaining the psychological factors that would cause a relatively stable girl to defy her parents and cause a hardened juvenile delinquent to open up so easily to his girlfriend. The writer hinted at some of these, but she never delved into it thus making it a predictable story that could have ended thirty minutes into the film.


The leads are the best part of this "film." There is potential in their performances and hopefully they can find work in more films with better material.

But the biggest distraction of the movie is that it is shot on mini-DV (digital video). When projected (I saw a 35mm blow-up) 95% of the shots were out of focus...hence I was constantly rubbing my eyes. It should not hurt to watch a movie. And at a reported production budget of $70,000.00 and shooting schedule of 4 weeks...you'd think if the filmmakers were smart enough, they could have shot on film (16mm or 35mm).

Plus the "film" went on about 15 minutes too long...this is a grade-z "KIDS."


"Falling Like This" is a jiggle-cam no-budget indie loser not worth the time. The flick has no story, no point, no purpose, no moral, no message, and comes off like a bad class project. What is supposed to be a slice of life flick about a couple of rebellious teens goes something like..see the kids take a bath, see them drive a truck off a cliff, see them play darts and look at the sky and drink beer and get busted and hang out and pitch a fit and go to juvi and...yada, yada, yada. If you want to watch amateurish films, there are much better amateurish films than this on late night t.v.


The DVD of "Falling Like This" has a featurette in which the writer/director pats herself on the back and blathers on about what a great "love story" this is. Yeah. Right. Like the world needed ANOTHER story about a couple of teens who are born into such a terrible world that they don't care about anything. Anything except their own instant gratification that is. They have sex and do drugs and get drunk and skip school. Gosh...how romantic. This love story blows "As Good As It Gets" right out of the water doesn't it? Heh.

Our Brad Pitt wannabe hero thinks it's funny to constantly commit theft and even points guns at the cops. Of course, the police are shown to be a bunch of angry thugs who beat up our poor little lovable hero. Maybe he shouldn't commit felony after felony and maybe he shouldn't POINT A GUN AT THE POLICE!!

It scares me when I see people rave on and on about how great this is. Yes...I understand it is only a movie. Really I do. But even under those circumstances I don't know how anyone can enjoy watching these losers exhibit completely irredeemable behavior and do nothing of any substance for the entire length of the film. It's a total snoozefest and I have seen other shot-on-video movies look way better than this. A complete waste of time! 1/10


There comes a point in every man's life when he must decide whether to gouge out his own eyes with a dull and fiery hot spoon ... or watch this movie.

I wish I had taken the 1st option.

In fact, I wish that I had more than 1 set of eyes to gouge out.

I once thought that it would be fun to try to see the worst movie ever made. I believe now that I have. This movie is not even bad in a fun way, it's just bad.

At one point, I thought that maybe this movie was meant to showcase the talent of the Killer Barbies (Note: the movie spells their name wrong). I tried to find the talent they were showcasing, and it too was terrible.


There was a time when Franco at least tried to make entertaining movies - always sloppy (he'd shoot lots of loose footage, then resell/repackage the same stuff to different distributors under different titles); but this is even worse than Lust For Frankenstein - just a cheap amateur whack-job shot on camcorder by high school students.

At least Ed Wood tried to make "important" movies - but he had a terribly overinflated sense of himself, and unfortunately - no talent.

Franco has talent, and occasionally employs it, but he IS a sleaze and cheese (and he's no Joe D'Amato!) Franco's best films are the most misogynistic: SADOMANIA, BARBED WIRE DOLLS, WOMEN IN CELL BLOCK 9, THE DEMONS and EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN - any of which you should watch before dumpster-diving into his many, many other duds.


I have hardly ever seen a movie of such low quality. It's nice to see actors like Peter Martell making movies again, but this movie unfortunately seems not to have had a script or an original idea. Not to talk about the camera work (probably a first time operator, at least I hope so), although the "day for night" they invented for this movie is shockingly interesting (I understood this only after the first half of the movie and when I mentioned it to the others watching the movie I could see that no one had understood the purpose of this strange color effects before). The film looks like high school kids tried to make something funny and transgressive, but did not dare to really do so. I must see some of Jess Francos older movies because he must have made something better before otherwise he could not be working anymore.


I can't write much because basically nothing happens. People pose for the camera, speak their lines badly, pretend to be tribal people, run away, come back. A couple of people get eaten by crocodiles. Apparently there is some sort of history behind the tribes and their locations. There are some ape men who are around for whatever reason. I guess to give the movie some sort of plot. They seem to have designs on the women. There's also some sort of queen that the women go to who howls and makes statements. When the men were around, what did they think of this? Anyway, unlike most silly movies, I couldn't really see any fun in this one. One thing of interest. I guess there's a sub-genre of prehistoric women movies. Why!?


I was really disappointed with this movie. It was a hodge-podge script short on character development and long on unbelievable plot points.

Some, but by no means all, of the problems I had with the movie:

In the opening scene of the movie suicidal Sarah is standing on what, we find out later, is supposed to be the Empire State Building. Tribesmen in Papua New Guinea would know that wasn't the Empire State. Why bother with the pretense?

Sam's supposedly the love of Sarah's life. She's gone for 7 years and never hears he's given up on her and married someone else. Telephones don't work between NYC and Scotland, no email, no snail-mail?

In what I imagine is supposed to be a desperate attempt to tie Sam to her, Charlotte suggests they have a child. His response is to humiliate her in front of their restaurant staff and customers. The scene then devolves into an even more embarrassing fight between the characters amid rather perplexed diners. In the next scene she offers him opera tickets! As if it were a minor disagreement and the fault was mostly hers!!??!!??!! He's off with another woman and she's trying to woo HIM back? She should have taken a cue from the Jude character and copped it ASAP and escaped this movie.

What's with that ramshackle stone cottage Sarah keeps ending up in? Couldn't there have been a line or two about its previous connection to ANY of the characters? Sure it's a semi-romantic location for Sam's and Sarah's obligatory sexual reunion but I kept wondering about how much it rains in Scotland and gee, that's an awfully big hole in that roof. Hey, "suspension of disbelief" only goes so far.

Sarah's supposed to have had this wonderful life and been such a terrific person? Some vague references to her "success" in NYC and some incredibly bitchy behavior and she's a great gal? What a loss to humanity!

At the end of the movie my sympathies were with most of the actors, what a waste of talent. If this had been my first Gerard Butler movie I would have suggested he switch to a career in male modeling. Fortunately, I'd seen Mr. Butler in better vehicles prior to viewing this mess.

One real worry is that the director of this disaster has been listed as the director of "Burns", should that project ever get off the ground. If it does one hopes they find a better director.


Silly horror movie. POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!! A mad doctor runs an insane asylum (how original--heavy sarcasm). For reasons not worth mentioning he needs the blood of inmates to stay alive.

That's it. No vampires at all, but the film does open with a pretty bloody (and totally unnecessary) staking. The film looks great--beautiful sets, nice color and some fairly strong violence (for 1958). But that's about it. The plot is stupid, the pace is slow and it gets pretty dull.

Donald Wolfit, as the doctor, really tries to give a good performance but he's stuck in some lousy makeup that makes him look like Bela Lugosi (WHY?)! Also check out the even worse makeup on his deformed assistant Carl (Victor Maddern). Vincent Ball (horrible actor but handsome) and Barbara Sheeley (beautiful as always but given nothing to do) are the obligatory nice, innocent couple.

Not unwatchable but of very little interest either.


I'm not sure HOW this was accomplished, but Blood of the Vampire is both ghastly AND dull. I had taped this off AMC during the 2002 Halloween marathon and finally had a chance to watch it and while it had the look and feel of a Hammer movie it was amazingly, painfully dull. The fact that Dr Callistratus is resurrected from the dead is the only supernatural element in the movie and somehow it never becomes an issue or is talked about again. (SPOILER AHEAD) Although the visual elements of the Doctor's secret laboratory is stark, there is no attempt to generate any fear in this movie. Dull dull dull.


There are so many problems with Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III that I'm not sure where to begin, so I suppose I'll try to limit my comments to the characters. I couldn't have cared less whether the supposed heroes of the movie lived or died. A more unlikable pair do you rarely run across. The guy was a sniveling idiot and the girl had even less personality. "Kill 'em and kill 'em quick" was the thought running through my head.

Second, we've got the characters that make up Leatherface's "new" family. Who are these people and where did they come from? I would have thought that the Texas Rangers would have completely investigated the Sawyer family and discovered any relative who may have taken in Leatherface after the events of the first two movies. And, are we supposed to believe that the entire extended family is also made up of inbred cannibal serial killers? With a family as large as the one presented in these movies you would think that (even if just by chance) at least one member of the family would have some reservations about hacking up innocent strangers. I almost get the feeling that the makers of Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III would have us believe that everyone in Texas is a nutty, chainsaw-welding maniac.

Finally, there's Leatherface. I'll just say that he's a sad imitation of the original. And I know this has nothing to do with the character of Leatherface, but what's that engraved chainsaw all about? It's a completely ridiculous concept.


Well it wasn't horrible but it wasn't great. No where near as good as the original. It kinda tried to hard to be the first movie. I think it needed a better director. The opening title sequence was cheesy. Some the acting was cheesy except for Viggo Mortensen. Leatherface wasn't that scary in this movie, he was a million times more scary in the original and its 2003 remake and the 2006 prequel. It could have been better. The trailer was kinda cool though. This is a very underrated movies and it deserves it. The ending made no sense when Ken Fore's character died by Leatherface in the pond and had his head cut off by the chainsaw. Then he came back to life at the end and we see that it was only a little cut on his head. Wow this is so unrealistic. If you got your head cut off by a chainsaw you are not just gonna get a small cut your gonna be bleeding very bad! And another thing that was stupid about this movie is that it's a hole new family in this movie. It's not the same family of cannibals from the original Chainsaw Massacre. What is the deal with that? Leatherface can't get adapted. And wow there is only so many cannibalistic families in Texas! Give me a break! And another ridiculous thing about this movie is that it's called part 3 and it's the same plot as the original. It's more of a remake. All the Chainsaw Massacre movies all have the same plot.


This certainly is not the worst of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, but it's probably the hardest to sit through, despite also being 75 minutes without credits. The fourth Massacre movie is much easier to sit through, even though it's one of the strangest, dumbest, worst movies of all time. As with most bad movies, the weakest link in this one was the story and pacing. It's not exciting when a movie is in a constant climax. You begin to lose interest, and that's where this movie suffers most.

Michelle (Kate Hodge) and her boyfriend Ryan (William Butler) are bringing her father's car from Florida to California. Along the way, they stop for gas in Texas, and meet Tex (Viggo Mortenson), a man claiming to be lost. Ryan refuses him a ride, they drive off, and are attacked by a giant monster truck. And, you'll never guess it...Leatherface and his family are at it again. Thrills, chills and spills are nowhere to be found.

These Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies are too similar to each other. Sure, they have original characters in each one, but they all end up with the family scaring the protagonist(s), and they're too much alike almost to call sequels. Even Nightmare on Elm Street brought some element of freshness or originality to each film. These are just rehashed over and over again, minus the fourth film, which is in a bizarre league of it's own.

The acting wasn't too bad. The lead actors gave okay performances, including an early performance by Viggo Mortenson. It's not as over the top as any of the other movies, and because of that grows boring very fast. The direction was pretty good for what the script allowed. All the action scenes were well shot, though nothing spectacular. The dialogue is okay, meaning there's no lines that stood out as absolutely awful.

The story and pacing makes this very hard to watch. The story is the same as the other movies. The pacing consists of a 5 minute opening, a 20 minute introduction to the characters, then a 50 minute climax. It's not exciting to have constant climaxes in movies, it's tiresome, and this movie is nothing but that.

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. Rated R for violence and language.


It is difficult to identify a horror franchise that is more creatively bankrupt than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series. Friday the 13th at least ups the body count and devises interesting ways to kill people and Nightmare on Elm Street has cool effects-laded dream sequences, but what does Texas Chainsaw Massacre have: a guy with a skin face mask and a chainsaw chasing people around the woods. That's about it. For a ponderous example of why this franchise is going nowhere fast, just take a gander at the third entry in the series, Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

The plot to this entry is inconsequential, but if you want the reader's digest version: Michelle (Kate Hodge) and Ryan (William Butler) are driving cross-country through Texas and make the bad mistake of stopping at a gas station run by peeping tom psycho Alfredo (Tom Everett) who gets put out with the couple and forces them to flee or meet with the business end of his shotgun. Just before leaving the gas station in a hurry, they are given a shortcut route through the back country by drifter Tex (Viggo Mortenson, yes that Viggo Mortenson). They make the unwise decision of taking the route and end up with their car broken down and a giant guy with a chainsaw and poor manners when it comes to greeting guests on their tail. They run into (literally) survivalist Benny (Ken Foree) who quickly becomes chainsaw bait also. With both vehicles out of commission, and a power tool that is just itching to be covered in the thick red stuff right behind, they quickly begin wandering the woods and find a farm house containing (imagine this) crazy people! Mayhem ensues, unhappiness abounds and lots of screaming occurs. Oh yeah, and people die.

Leatherface is lowest common denominator horror film-making: it takes a familiar premise, changes a few of the characters, juggles the deaths a bit, and slaps a roman numeral on the end and calls it a film. It is an almost complete rehash of the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre in content, lacks any significant scares, has characters that are as thin as rice paper, and looks like it was made for about what I currently have in my wallet. Michelle and Ryan are almost non-existent characters, they are bodies for the slaughter and that is it. Benny is a little more entertaining, but not much. The villainous family are all freaks sure, but by round three, the ability for their behavior to shock is pretty much gone. I suppose it is a sad commentary on pop culture when the gruesome acts of despicable people on film has become so blasé as to be boring, but that is where it stands.

It is also interesting that even though this film barely clocks in at an hour and twenty minutes, it feels like it goes on for an eternity. The film has no visual interest, it's just random woods photographed with competence, and that is it. No style, no flair, it's just there. For those gorehounds who view these films for its extensive bloodletting, Leatherface is sure to disappoint. Even in its unrated version, most of the grisly stuff is off-screen, so those in search of the horror film equivalent of the "money shot" will be unsatisfied.

Yeah, Viggo Mortenson is in it, and he's okay, but nobody's winning any awards here. Kate Hodge varies between decent and terrible, and R.A. Mihailoff, who essays the role of Leatherface, doesn't have to work too hard to collect his paycheck. More or less, this is just an attempt by a film studio to cash in on the name Texas Chainsaw Massacre with no real meat on the bones of this sequel. You have been warned.


Amongst the classic chainsaw-wielding psychotics of cinema, none is more famous and dangerous than Leatherface (Jason who?). How can I call myself a horror fan (which, for the record, I don't) having seen only bits and pieces of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, one of the most demented movies of all time? I have wanted to see TCM for a very long time, and the saw that split the camel's back was the film's original trailer, which I recently saw as part of the "Boogeymen" DVD collection. I was in awe of the 2 minutes of film presented in said trailer and rushed to the video store to rent this horror masterpiece. Unfortunately, I was in a hurry and accidentally picked up this box instead. Really, I've heard of sequels killing a franchise, but this one guts the franchise, then neatly prepares it for Grandpa.

First off, the film-print used in filming is top-notch. Normally, this would be a good thing, but part of what made the original TCM so freaky and gave it that unique charm is that the film was shot on grainy 16mm, with fairly bad colors, which left it looking like a first-hand "home video" account of the horror. This looks more like a high-budget, low-spirit remake of the original than a true sequel. Which is a fitting description since that's exactly what it is.

Every attempt at a "shocking" scene in this movie was stolen from the original or one of the many flicks "inspired" by TCM. The acting is amazingly unextraordinary, with the exception being the sole survivor from a group that was abducted and killed a few days in before this story (fittingly enough, she gets in one set of dialogue before she is separated and killed) and Leatherface's little sister, who is genuinely unsettling from first encounter (she holds tea parties with skulls and a doll made from what looks like a mummified infant), but is also barely given any screen-time. The story of Leatherface and his family told in the original movie was pretty horrifying but perhaps not realized to its fullest ability because of budget and technological limitations, so it would seem that remaking it with a better budget and technology would work, but, besides the factor of the film not looking "right" with a better film-stock and higher budget, the higher budget meant there was more financial influence, which more simply means it was cut to ribbons by the censors (what's the point of supposedly-brutal killing scenes if there's barely any gore in the film at all?!), and had its original ending (see "Alternate Versions") changed to the awful, unfitting "happy" ending it now has. A conflict between Leatherface and his father that would've been very interesting was hinted at, but never fully attempted (although Leatherface did burn his father's hand in the oven so he could get a favored tape back). The only part of this film I truly enjoyed was a darkly humorous scene in which Leatherface is playing with an electronic children's toy, and becomes frustrated when it shows him a picture of a clown, asks him what it is, and keeps telling him his answer of "food" is wrong. The rest takes all the originality, edginess, and dementia of the original and chucks it for an incredibly boring feature.

The reason this tragedy of a film happened to such a great franchise was obvious. Nobody from the original was involved at all in this; Tobe Hooper had no involvement in this, and New Line was even too cheap or stupid (or both) to get Gunnar Hansen, the only "true" Leatherface (R.A. Mihaillof, the new guy, doesn't have near as threatening a pose, or the cool one-armed chainsaw spinning moves). Made in 1990, over 15 years after TCM, this is just another case of poor, unnecessary sequels hoping for a quick buck and destroying the good name of the original film. Next time I'll make sure to pick up the right box...


I watched all of the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE movies in a row recently. TCM 1 and TCM 2 are amazing films. Filled with energy, dark humor and unforgettable moments, imagery and characters. So when I watched LEATHERFACE TCM 3, I was underwhelmed. In fact, I have to say that TCM 3 is the definition of a flat, boring movie. This TCM movie has little to do with Tobe Hooper's movies. Except for Leatherface, none of the previous characters from the Hooper movies are present. They even decided to add a little girl and a mother to the family. The other characters from the family are confusing. Who are or were they?!?! But for a movie called LEATHERFACE, the character of Leatherface is remarkably flat and boring. He comes across as Jason from the FRIDAY THE 13TH series, or The Undertaker from WWF. And his mask is terrible. Leatherface in this movie is not the Leatherface we all know and love from the Hooper movies. And the other characters, the victims, are annoying or trite. And to make things even more flat, the movie wasn't even shot in Texas. Looks like California to me.

I'm hesitating to call LEATHERFACE TCM 3 the worst TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE movies because I watched TCM 4 after this one. But even so, this "sequel" is not worth watching. It's flat, uninspired and boring. And those are its good qualities.


As it appeared with the outcome of the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" series to date is that it's capability of maintaining it's stability as an effective franchise decreased more and more with each film. Where the original took horror to a new, edgy level, the follow-up took the turn into comedy, yet this third installment merely set up a similar, yet bland premise, that really isn't worth more than brief, mild entertainment. Following a near deadly encounter with the demented attendant of a remote country gas station, two road-tripping friends find themselves hunted in the dead of night down a long stretch of backwoods road. After being run off the road by a mysterious monster truck, the helpless duo are pursued by a familiar chainsaw wielding madman and soon stumble across a prominent hunter (played by Ken Foree) who assists them. The terror doesn't end there, as they later find themselves captive in the new Sawyer family's residence for a night of sadistic torment. Compared to the splatter-fest "part two", the gore factor of this movie is nothing to write home about. Aside from the weak-ass cannibal family, and the Leatherface acting like an overgrown teenager, the film itself moves along at an alarming pace that left me feeling unfulfilled, in a sense. The on-screen mayhem is minimal and forgettable and just plain disappointing. Not a good addition to the series...


A boyfriend and girlfriend traveling through Texas on their way to Florida have the misfortune of running up against the likes of Leatherface and a brand new clan of nutcases(including a young Viggo Mortensen). The film shows a barren landscape of dirt and forest. The forest is the setting at night and inside it is where Leatherface and his clan(including a mother with a mechanical voicebox and a father whose been dead quite a long time)live..a compound very similar to the one we are familiar with from the first film. Ken Foree is Benny, a hunter passing through who almost hits the couple trying to flee Leatherface who had just tore the trunk door off it's hinges. Will Benny be able to help the couple escape the cannibal clan's clutches?

I watched the mutilated version with studio demanded cuts. If it weren't for the excessive profanity, this could've easily covered the PG-13 market because the gore is missing. Even true graphic violence almost always appears off-camera. The ending feels like it was hacked by a chainsaw. And, Benny must have 9 lives, because there are at least three different instances where, for all intensive purposes, he should've been killed. The flick's cannibal clan aren't that demented enough and the direction is rather limp. There's no moment in this flick that raises you to a different level and the photography is just not that effective. The film might increase in quality a notch if the gory bits are inserted, but I'm not sure if even that will help much. The flick is uninspired and silly. Leatherface, despite his BIG chainsaw, isn't that menacing or memorable. Kate Hodge, as the terrorized female, is not very good. She really isn't even put to the test like often happens in other films. It also feels like it aspires to be a macabre comedy which might work if the humor was smart enough. It could just come down to Burr's direction which is anything but stellar.


I wanted to love Vacation, I truly did.Seeing as how everyone thought it was a magnificent movie, I wanted to think it was a magnificent movie as well, but instead it turned out that I thought Vacation is pure crap.Nothing was funny.I laughed at maybe one thing.Also, it couldn't keep my interest, and it was "REALLY" boring.I was pausing the movie continuously, because I wanted to get up and do something, for I was about to fall asleep.The acting was good, and the script is somewhat original, but there was a lot of unnecessary material as well, and overall I found this to be a pretty terrible movie.Don't waste your time on it.


Sure there are camp moments in Sex Madness, a film which somehow tries to gain the notoriety that 'Reefer Madness' has but fails despite having tons of elements that should point in it's favor.

In the beginning it starts off strongly, with all sorts of people going to a burlesque show (and jamming the auditorium up!). This show is probably the highlight of the movie, plenty of silly dancing, no nudity, and clunky choreography. I liked the personalities that showed up for this. A group of randy boys looking to party, a lesbian couple who can't stop pawing each other, and a man who gets all worked up he rapes the first girl he sees. Funny, but ALL of these plot lines get dropped for Millicent (!!), a dancer in the chorus, who finds out she has VD from her doctor. After taking a tour which she's all chipper about seeing icky cases of VD, she goes into treatment, carefully hiding it away from her fiancée. After going home and seeing another doctor who gives her a quack cure, she marries and.. well you can guess the rest. Rest assured that as foul as it sounds, it drags somewhat, and is nowhere as memorable as 'Reefer', (admittedly, I thought It was going to be of the same looniness). It's okay for some laughs, but doesn't hold up.


The severely dated production values and stiff performances by the actors immediately calls to mind another 'educational' gem of the era - "Reefer Madness". In the name of sex education and the eradication of the evils of socially transmitted disease, the film begins with the earnest entreaty that "Ignorance Must Be Abolished". But actually, if the presentation wasn't so corny and outmoded, one would be hard pressed to consider whether anything's been learned since the film was made, as the toll in human lives to STD's worldwide is at epidemic proportions.

I guess you'd really have to be a viewer back in the 1930's to get the full impact of how titillating a lot of the film was. The burlesque sequence offered a lot more tease than the actual dance show, with a lesbian pursuing a hot conquest and a dirty old man type getting worked up enough to attack the first young lady he sees after the show. The main story involves a would be actress falling victim to an unscrupulous director only to find herself at the mercy of the dreaded syphilis, ultimately infecting her new husband and baby. Not entirely unimaginable, but confounded by the unsavory practices of medical quacks who take advantage of the uneducated and uninformed.

As a period piece, this is another example of sensationalist film making and worth a look to see how far we've come as a society and a nation. It's unlikely that anyone reading this was even alive seventy years ago when the film was made, and that in itself is a remarkable testament to the staying power of a cult classic from a bygone era.


This is a very, very, very low-budget exploitation film made by a "poverty row" studio in the 1930s. It's all about the horrors of syphilis and appears to be well-meaning but is also VERY heavy-handed and silly. The actors are clearly not professionals as they say their lines like they are reading them directly from cue cards--sometimes only reading them syllable by syllable!

The story involves a small-town girl from wins a beauty pageant and goes to New York to become a star but ends up taking a trip on the "casting couch". She gets VD and can't marry her fiancé, that is until she's taken the cure. Unfortunately, she sees a quack who promises miracles and she is not only uncured but transmits this evil disease to her husband and eventually to their baby! The husband is left blind and the baby is clinging to life--all because of the dreaded syphilis! In addition to the overly melodramatic and silly story, the movie also passes along a lot of information to the audience--some of which is wrong (I taught sex ed and could tell). These portions of the films were very dry and preachy at best. Most likely it just helped to put the audience to sleep.

Overall, instead of being a movie to frankly talk about STDs, it was cheap and in many ways exploitational. Because of its rotten production values, this film was the inspiration for the take off of sexploitation films done at the end of AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON (starring Carrie Fisher and Paul Bartell). While in every sense it is a terrible film, it could provide a lot of laughs if you see it with friends.


Another cautionary propaganda film. This one is not good so much as hilariously and purposefully bad.

Films like Sex Madness are early-middle 20th Century examples of Abstinence-Only sex education. In other words, the message really is, "Don't have sex because scary things can happen. Yes, those urges are natural, but only a person with low self-esteem would want to engage in intercourse before marriage. And, anyway, you might catch a deadly disease to boot."

Though these films typically portray the problem for both men and women, the message is really about women and their bodies as baby-delivery devices. I love the assumption abstinence-only supporters make: that when you're married, you won't catch STDs. OKEY DOKEY.

Sex Madness is worth watching especially if you are coming to terms with why the white-American-middle-class vision of the world has always lacked any real intelligence. Its mission has always been white people pro-creating. The film's message need not be smartly portrayed; rather, it should be portrayed repeatedly and simply for mass consumption.

I do get a kick out of the comments left for these films by IMDBers who take these genre films seriously and are shocked after watching them. Of course they are wrong. They are tools of oppression.

Finally, it's worth the purchase of the DVD for the two US Navy hygiene films that come as bonus features on an Alpha Films copy. Cocaine Fiends is my favorite of the bunch.


At first it was good, but then it got boring. I really loved the burlesque show. It was so great. I wish there were still shows like this now. Men getting turned on by girls in big feathered hats and sequin leotards jumping around with big grins on their faces seem a little less threatening than those who want genitals of women they've never met before shoved in their faces. Sorry to be so graphic, but the movie makes you realize how drastically sex shows have changed.

That is really the main part of the movie that caught my attention. The film does have valid points about how you shouldn't have a kid if you have syphilis. And you shouldn't have sex if you have it either. However, the whole idea of someone with this disease being forbid by their doctor to get married seemed a little strange to me. Plus the main woman was in cloud nine the whole as if the whole world was either completely wonderful or completely horrible.

I also thought the point about the "quacks" was interesting because it's harder today to figure out if a doctor is a quack since we have such a high rate of suing for malpractice. A doctor today might push some unnecessary pills on you so that s/he will get some money from the drug company, but they would never go so far as to guarantee you are cured of syphilis and can now freely have sex with people when you actually weren't cured at all. That's just bogus. I'm glad that doesn't happen anymore.

Watch this movie to see how drastically times have changed but also to educate yourself about this disease. It's the only thing that hasn't changed.


This is an ancient movie that claims to spread the word about the dangers of getting syphilis bluggg.. pardon me, ladies and gents, I think I just vomited a little... but also takes the time to be an exploitation flick by showing two lesbians coming on to each other at a strip show,etc. How considerate of it. Here's a couple of things I noticed about it. In one scene where two women are talking, a window slams shut for no apparent reason, distracting the audience but obviously not the cast or crew, but they just kept on a filmin'. In a later scene where an older man is talking to his adult son who claims to have syphilis, the older man is looking directly at the camera... as if reading his lines directly off que cards. Hmm... how very strange!

"He took meeee!"


1st watched 2/13/2007 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Dwain Esper): Absolutely horrible excuse for a movie. I mean, if it did it's job of educating the public against syphilis it might have been somewhat worthwhile, but even this attempt was executed very badly. This is another one of those late 30's attempts to educate the young folk on the horrors of loose living and boy does this one stink!! The acting is inept, and the plot is exactly what we'd expect from this type of movie. A local good girl moves to the big city and has supposedly one bad night of rolling in the hay and turns up with the dreaded social disease. She is told not to marry until her disease is behind her, so her longtime sweetheart waits in the wings while she treats her disease and hides it from him. A quack then supposedly cures her, she marries and then things get worse as she has a baby that gets sick and her husband gets it to. Why oh why did the health department have to get involved in making movies back in those day?? I'll have to check into this..but anyway the movie gives very little information about the disease -- just that if you party-hearty, get laid, you'll get it and your life will be Hell!! As far as I'm concerned this fire-and-brimstone type of teaching is not enough and in my opinion isn't even education. Well, I think I've said enough, avoid this clunker at any cost.


While I'm not a fan of this kind of humour, it is testament to England's ability to produce quality programmes that is echoed the world over.

Even though I haven't seen the American version of this show, and have no wish to, it does beg the question, why can't American TV execs watch a British comedy without saying "that's a good programme, very popular, lets do it ourselves" And ruin it. Not that this programme needs ruining since it did it, itself. But alas, I am clearly in the minority, this show has stood the test of time with countless re-runs on BBCtv, UK Gold, and while I stand to be corrected, even on Paramount Comedy. So credit to the actors in the show!


Back in 1979, Harry Medved brought out a funny and interesting book entitled "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time". Considering that Medved was only 17 at the time and that video and cable were only in their infancy, it was a truly amazing book. Since then, I have tried to see as many of his 50 worst films--and TROUBLE MAN is about #35 for me. However, as was sometimes the case with a few of his selections, TROUBLE MAN wasn't that bad a film. Shallow and violent and not as good as most films of the blaxploitation genre, sure--but not exactly bad.

The main character, called "Mr. T" (not THAT Mr. T) is played by Robert Hooks. He doesn't have a huge amount of charisma but he's apparently one bad mutha that drives a Lincoln and lives in a cool pad with lots of mylar wallpaper and 70s do-dads. How he got all this expensive stuff is a bit vague. He describes himself as a private detective but he didn't do much of that in the film--instead making his money through gambling and "fixing things".

Paul Winfield and Ralph Waite (the father from the TV show "The Waltons") are gamblers who hire Mr. T to help put a stop to robberies occurring at their dice games. The problem is that this is all a set-up--there are no robberies and it's just a scheme to take over "Mr. Big's" territory. By the way, I love how people are called things like Mr. T and Mr. Big--what great clichés.

Well, after being jerked around through most of the film by Winfield and Waite, Mr. T becomes a tad perturbed and goes on a killing spree that is basically brainless entertainment. If you like seeing a bad mutha killing mobsters with his .45 again and again, then you are in for a treat. My problem with the film was that there was practically no depth to the story--little back story and Mr. T was a very wooden character. Compared to films such as COFFEY or even BLACULA, TROUBLE MAN lacked emotional range and substance.

Still, even with its many shortcomings, it still was a long way from 50 worst territory. While I am not exactly an expert on blaxploitation, it isn't the worst of the genre. For example, BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH is much worse when it comes to acting and production values.


This is as mistaken as a comedy ever got towards thinking moviegoers seeking a few laughs required an elaborate plot (or any plot). There is no scene involving Paul Newman that is funny or interesting. I just didn't care if he repaired his marriage and understood why his wife wouldn't want him back. His character is a doofus. The movies merits and fun have nothing to do with plot or star power. If you're distracted by the snooze-inducing plot, you might miss some funny situations and lines in the middle. The Hansens are a very funny idea especially considering the timeframe; the further development of the anti-hero to the point where they even cease being physically attractive.

The 60s anti-establishment viewpoint is eeking into absolutely establishment movies like this. Newman reasons his way to a now untrackable blow-up for unknown reasons. Whenever a laugh is needed you can be sure gay men and women will provide an easy punchline. The combative Lyndsey Crouse subplot is wrong-headed in every way. To see Jill Clayburgh young, playing this dumb, horny role is strange and unpleasant. Michael Ontkean plays a constipated pretty boy.

God the 70s were hideous. Awful sound recording/mixing and really ugly technicolor process.

Dozens of sports movie tried to recapture it's success. I love the movie Bull Durham but I had no idea how much of it's vibe Ron Shelton stole from this. Bull Durham is a virtual reshuffling of scenes from Slapshot.


This movie is SOOOOO bad! If hockey was actually anywhere near this bad, it would be WWF on ice. This movie is nothing but stupidity, sexism, swearing, and violence. The only thing worse than this movie is Slap Shot 2. Don't waste your time watching this. Boring and mind-numbing.


Perhaps in the 70's this movie had some appeal, but I cannot think of any good reason anyone would want to watch it now. With thousands of other rentals available this should be your last choice. I wish I could get the two hours I spent watching this movie back. If you have any respect for quality films, please take my advice and pass this one up.


I had to shake my head watching the outdoor NHL hockey game on New Years Day this year (2008) at Buffalo. In between periods, NBC announcer Bob Costas reminisced about his favorite sports movie. It was this one: "Slap Shot." Although I did enjoy this movie 30 years ago, I can't say I echo Bob's sentiments today, but I laughed along with him when it came out in 1977.

It seemed that films in the '70s were either outrageously good or ridiculously sleazy regarding language, sex, or irreverence. Most tended toward the latter. Many movies - like this one - had tons of overdone profanity, As for sports movies, none was more profane than this one which, in essence, was a real takeoff on goon style of hockey. Kudos for that, and the NHL finally woke up 30 years later and cleaned up its sport.

After not seeing this in over 20 years, I was shocked it looked and sounded so seedy with almost every sentence seemingly having a cuss word!. It sounded like slob-like Animal House mentality on ice skates.

However, I do admit there were a lot of funny scenes and I'll always remember the Hanson brothers, along with Oggy Ogglethorp." If hearing the Lord's name in vain constantly doesn't offend you, you'll get a lot of laughs out of these characters, on and off the ice.


Cynthia Rothrock, whose first film this is, appears on the video cover and has a couple of fight scenes in the opening 5 minutes. Then her character is dressed up as a ninja for the rest of the running time, except that the woman inside the ninja suit is NOT Cynthia. It's easy to see that from the close-ups of her eyes, and the ending credits confirm it. But even if you ignore this fraud, "24 Hours to Midnight" is not a good movie. The script, full of irrelevant and recycled scenes, is strictly amateur hour, the direction is inept and the "action" scenes are uninspired. The criminal organization that "Cynthia" goes after is supposedly making billion dollar deals, yet its headquarters seem to be a small cheap room. The only bright spot in this movie is a sexy female cop (Myra) - without her I would have given it a "Zero" rating for sure.


The Film is a bit of a jumbled mess. The plot involving a wife seeking revenge for her murdered husband and Two cops who just seem to drive around is pretty uninvolving. The reason I would like to find it is I acted in it and would just like a copy. Vanity I guess


This movie originally came out in 1985. It was one of Cynthia's first roles. The re-release of this movie has Cynthia Rothrock as the headline star. Now, if it were true, then the movie would have been better, but you only see about 3 minutes of her in the whole movie. She is suppose to be the ninja who gains revenge on the drug lord and his henchmen for killing her husband. You see her in the very beginning and then through a series of flashbacks to the beginning scenes, but the the ninja is NOT her. They used some double and kept her face covered for the whole movie. I felt I was watching Game of Death. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone! Rating 1/10


Oh dear...

It's easy to tell where this latest version of Conan Doyle's perennial classic goes wrong because so little goes right. There's little fault with the script, which does a decent job of retelling a by now overly familiar tale and even throws in an intriguingly Gothic Christmas Eve party for good measure. Some of the supporting performances are fine - John Nettles and Richard E. Grant in particular. But the leads are so very wrong that they sap the life from the thing.

Ian Hart's Watson is surly and obnoxious, all too easily offended and trapped in a deeply distrustful relationship with Holmes. Since Watson has to carry much of the drama, this keeps us at arm's length from involvement, especially since Matt Day is such a dull Baskerville. However, where Hart is a good actor giving a misjudged performance, Richard Roxburgh gives every indication of being a bad actor giving a bad performance. He may not quite be the worst Holmes in the way that he was definitely the worst Dracula (in Van Helsing), but he's certainly the dullest and blandest despite his overstated distance and eccentricities, while the attempt to make him more of an action hero simply ends up making him a very ordinary figure instead. With all displays of Holmes' deductive reasoning dropped (even the famous scene with Dr Mortimer's walking stick is gone), his disguises omitted (he just appears on the moor as if he were still dressed for Baker Street) and his drug use wildly overdone (rather than resorting to narcotics when bored, he even jacks up in a public toilet while working on the case in this version), he's such a blunt bull in a China shop here that rather than pay the cabby for information, he beats him up instead as if he were a 19th century Popeye Doyle.

Although David Attwood's direction throws up the odd good bit of composition, the grotty lighting and perpetual green tint on the original TV broadcast version sap any signs of life before they can bloom. And the less said about the shoddily animated CGi hound the better - despite the impressively populated London street scenes, it's hard to believe that this is probably the biggest budgeted version since Rathbone and Bruce strode the Moor.

The BBC have previously had good luck with the tale - both their Peter Cushing and Tom Baker versions, studio-bound though they were, were more involving in their cosy Sunday teatime way. Sadly, this attempt to bring a more modern aesthetic, while marginally better than the dreadful Peter Cook and Dudley Moore spoof, is nonetheless a very poor show indeed.


This is probably the worst adaptation of any Sherlock Holmes story I have ever seen. Though the setting and characters are the same, the plot doesn't even resemble the original story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. If you know anything of Doyle's works and Sherlock Holmes, you will be sorely disappointed. If you don't, you won't learn it from watching this story.


I read the book a week before I watched this 'made for TV' movie. The previews should have warned me what to expect but I still watched it. I was hoping it would be enjoyable but the insipid performance from the actor playing 'Holmes' was barely offset by the far more scintillating 'Watson'. If you've not seen it, don't waste your time. Instead enjoy either the Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone versions.


I was really looking forward to this. Yes another remake but it's a fabulous story and possibly the greatest detective story ever. It started off mighty fine too, Nettles was superb throughout and although the Watson seemed a little young I grew to like him. I also liked seeing Holmes get the needles out as it's a part so little told on the screen. My first misgivings were at the archaeological dig. As far as I remember in the book Grant's character was a butterfly collector. Then things started going wrong big time when there was a party at Baskerville Hall, mmm this never happened. Oh well I am all for changing stories for the better for screen but this wasn't the case in my opinion. And without giving the end away, what the hell was going on - awful ! And no phosforous (spelling?) on the dog ! Anyway a big thumbs down from me. One to watch once and once only. A superb cast, good acting on the whole and excellently filmed but ruined by a rewrite of a perfect story. Oh and why the Ivor the engine train scene with St.Paul's in the background :)


The Hound of the Baskervilles is one of the most gripping,brooding and atmospheric thrillers ever written. It perfectly captures the Victorian psyche incorporating as it does all the elements of gentlemanly chivalry and courage against fiendishly twisted evil and callousness. Add a dose of the supernatural set against the dark and forbidding moors of Dartmoor and the stage is set. Unfortunately this film achieves the almost impossible in capturing absolutely nothing of the original. The main characters are preposterous and bear no comparison whatever with Conan Doyle's description. I am not aware that Sherlock Holmes had a convoluted mixture of Southern Hemisphere accents and Watson reminds me of an East London spiv.The plot does not stay true to the book and the drug taking scenes are not in context and appear merely as gratuitous. There is no need for the makers to have "improved" the original story by adding scenes of their own e.g Watson being shot,Holmes falling into the mire etc. Best of all the Hound ,when eventually seen, is obviously an import from "The Lost World" looking as it does a cross between a sabre toothed tiger and a crocodile. This is poor fare and a waste of a lot of money and time. Worse it is the latest in a long line of failures to tell this story with the imagination and attention to detail it deserves. Conan Doyle has done the work ,it merely needs faithful reproduction. Sadly it appears there is no one able enough for this task.


What a load of rubbish this film is. I don't know why it was called "The Hound of the Baskervilles" as it bore little resemblance to the well-known story of that name, nor why the main characters were named Holmes and Watson because they could just as easily have been called Jones and Bloggs and be done with it - they had nothing in common with the well-developed written characters of Holmes and Watson at all. As for the storyline: dull, dull, dull. Instead of the brooding gothic horror we might reasonably expect, we are subjected to a barrage of flashy sensationalised melodrama. Yet here's the most unbelievable bit - read this and weep: given the opportunity to cast Richard E. Grant as potentially the most electrifying Sherlock Holmes in decades, our bumbling Watson of a casting director elects to cast him in the role of the villain, thus relegating the characterisation of Holmes to the usual mediocrity we have sadly come to expect. Not Richard Roxburgh's fault, I am sure he did his best in dire circumstances, but he does not have the physical characteristics or personality to play Sherlock Holmes - few people do, and Richard E. Grant is possibly one of them. The opportunity was there and they totally blew it. Why, oh why, oh why don't producers of Sherlock Holmes films do their research, i.e. read all the books and gain a true perception of those two incredibly well developed and documented characters, Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. And if they don't want to do that, why do they even bother? In short, this film sucks.


To paraphrase one of the characters, if you value your Holmes, stay away from this perfectly dreadful HOUND. Conan Doyle's original novella - often regarded as one of the finest detective stories ever written - is a pretty straightforward affair, one which would seem relatively a breeze to adapt for the screen. Perhaps that's part of the problem then, because in every film version I've seen (save, perhaps, for the Jeremy Brett Granada one, where the hound looked as though it merely wanted a Milk-Bone and a nice tummy rub), scriptwriters can't resist the temptation to add dubious "improvements" to Sir Arthur's masterwork. This latest BBC attempt is one of the worst offenders of the criminal lot, thanks largely to the woefully unfaithful script by one Allan Cubitt. Mr. Cubitt apparently ignored the book and used the recent, thoroughly wrongheaded version of OLIVER TWIST as his template for "adapting" the Holmes tale. As other IMDb users have noted, gone is the crucial opening scene of Holmes and Watson examining Dr. Mortimer's forgotten walking stick; in it's place, Cubitt has - for some strange reason - cribbed the Turkish bath scene of an entirely different Holmes adventure. (Why? To suggest a more intimate relationship between the doctor and the sleuth?) It's downhill from there, folks, as Cubitt makes major changes in the story, such as tossing out important characters while creating entire chunks of business which add absolutely nothing to Sir Arthur's finely constructed plot. When he sticks to the original - such as when Holmes identifies the culprit from an ancient portrait - the film intermittently feels on target. Redefining the Holmes-Watson dynamic in a negative light, revealing the villain's identity halfway through the film (!), inventing a seance and Baskerville Hall Christmas party and - worst of all - having Holmes shoot up in the Gents of the Essex train station on Christmas Day show that Mr. Cubitt will go to any depth to rip the source material to shreds. Set the hound on him!

Casting isn't great, either, as Australian Richard Roxburgh makes the second worst Holmes in recent memory - the top "honours" there go to Matt Frewer for his snide, spastic sleuth in those awful Hallmark TV films. Roxburgh's Holmes is blond, bland and lacking in much charisma, which is painfully obvious when he's in his scenes against wily Richard E. Grant's Stapleton. (Somehow, casting Richard E. Grant as Stapleton pretty much gives the game away right off the bat; yet with his tall, slender build, Holmesian hairline, feline grace and dusty velvet voice, Grant seems more like a natural Holmes than poor Roxburgh, with his occasional Down Under twang.) Peter Cushing R.R. sure ain't, and the polka dot tie doesn't help him either. Ian Hart fares somewhat better as a more active and intelligent Watson, but he's physically wrong for the part: small and even more rat-faced that the show's Lestrade. Supporting players come off best - Aussie Matt Day makes an appealingly naive Canadian Sir Henry Baskerville; Ron Cook is a nicely mysterious Barrymore; lovely Neve McIntosh is a Beryl Stapleton work sinking into the Grimpen Mire for, and Grant pretty much makes his scenes endurable when nothing else does. However, a fat Selden (Paul Kynman)? Let's just say that Stevie Wonder could see the difference between Sir Henry and Selden in this production, which makes Holmes look like a total idiot at a crucial plot point...

And the hound itself? The CGI work does indeed create the most fearsome beast - far better than the poor German Shepherd pressed into duty in the even worse Frewer version. In fact, this digital hound looks like a leftover critter from the BBC's WALKING WITH PREHISTORIC MAMMALS - not some mistreated modern dog. And where was the animal's ghostly glow? Another glaring omission on the filmmakers' part.

No denying, then, that another opportunity to adapt this hoary Holmesian chestnut went straight to the dogs. Granted, the 1959 Hammer version and the 1982 flick with Ian Richardson aren't much more faithful, but they each have an excellent Holmes - Cushing remains my favourite, as he rescued Holmes from the cliche which Rathbone made him, and Richardson has an airiness which still seems refreshing compared to Brett's ham-and-more-ham approach. Both of those versions are preferable to Auntie Beeb's latest atrocity. If you do catch this one, be prepared to do a lot of howling yourself - in outrage.


The location and photography were excellent but it ends there. Watson did not look like he had retired because of health after a long hitch in India. Holmes did not have aquiline features. But those are minor distractions. Why oh why do these makers always have to rewrite the story. No one yet has equalled the story as written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I really had hopes that Masterpiece Theatre would do it right. Not a chance! This version is a disappointing dud. I sort of thought I was in for disappointment when they completely left out the analysis of Dr Mortimer's cane. They could easily have left out the seance. Too bad! They could have had something good with the same effort.


As everyone here has already said, the casting was quite terrible and Holmes and Watson's symbolic friendship was condemned to hell in this 'adaptation', but it had some interesting elements.

This may be a bit of a SPOILER!!!!! but I liked the confrontation at the end where Watson went on somewhat of a rampage. I also like that he got shot, which did add a bit of... something-- some kind of emotional tension between the two supposed friends. Speaking of, it did introduce the interesting idea of 'what if Watson did hate Holmes?' but if that's the case, then why are we here?

Anyway, the movie seemed to try patch things up between the two in the final scene where Holmes offers a nice evening to Watson, in which I forgot the response, but it's there. (Shows how impressive it was, huh?)

Point is, if you wanna see a good adaptation of the Baskerville story, along with proper casts, watch the Russian one with Livanov and Solomin. Best, most accurate, in my honest opinion.


I hated it. The movie made wandered away from the book so much, it was almost painful to see it.

First of all Dr. Mortimer was a young man and his age was the key in the opening sequence of the novel. By making him an old large man destroyed the very beginning of the story.

Then, the main characters - In one scene Holmes is using violence to get his way, which he NEVER did unless the situation was life-threatening. If we was beating people up to get answers then he would be a pretty dumb detective. Besides that, this Holmes is arrogant and a big snob. I am not so fond of the original character, but he was better than this. And Watson is so undeveloped. He is like a enclosure to Holmes, just sitting there and doing nothing, while Holmes is babbling on and on (he never babbled, he was a man of silent action).

And the plot was changes so much, I don't know where to start pointing out the wrongs. I will only say, that Barrymore was flashing the lights for the runaway murderer who just happened to be his wife's brother. Why did he do it - the spouses were feeding him, while his was hiding before moving to South America (he never had the chance).


I have seen several TV/film adaptations of this story, and this is by far the worst. For a start there's the central character, who lacks any of the charisma of Conan Doyle's creation. He shoots up with drugs in public toilets, he beats up and threatens cabbies - it all seems too much like the makers of this new adaption are desperately trying to get an audience, but might have been happier making episodes of Eastenders. Parts of the story are ignored completely. And as for the hound itself - it looks nothing like a dog, even one that's been brutally treated all its life. More like an escapee from 'Walking With Beasts'. It's not a total flop, however. Watson (played by Ian Hart) is at last an intelligent doctor rather than the bumbling idiot he's usually portrayed as, and Richard E.Grant makes for a sly, scheming Stapleton. However, you'd be much better off watching the far superior Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing and Ian Richardson versions.


This was a bad dramatisation of a classic. Although the cast had potential I couldn't help but feel that this dramatisation hammed up Sherlock Holmes horribly and failed to evoke the atmosphere and norms of Edwardian England. It was yet another remake that failed to provide a new insight into the story. I particularly disliked the characterisation of the relationship between Holmes and Watson - it seemed that Holmes held Watson permanently in contempt which is not something that I felt when reading the stories. Even Richard E. Grant was disappointing and seemed to be over acting - I suspect that was due to poor direction.

For me the best dramatisation of this story is the Jeremy Brett version which combines wonderful acting, with a real sense of history and atmosphere. In fact for me the 'Jeremy Brett' series is the most authentic and atmospheric dramatisation of the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes to date. If you want 'ham' look at the Basil Rathbone version which is wonderful in a different way and don't waste your time on this.


The good bits - the sense of period was reasonably well captured, and it began with some genuinely frightening scenes. The minor characters of the Barrymores and the convict were also very well done.

Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there, Richard Roxburgh was an uninspiring Holmes. The relationship with Watson was clearly misunderstood, and personally I found his rather surly characterisation irritating, Dr Watson is supposed to be conduit for Holmes' brilliance, so us mere mortals understand what is going on not to behave like a spoilt schoolboy made a mockery of.

The character of Stapleton was too big, and far too obvious. No offence to Richard E Grant, but his manic, nervy, edgy style was completely wrong from the beginning. You are expected to believe that another claimant to the Baskerville title and lands would have hidden in plain view in such a flamboyantly obvious manner, and not have aroused people's suspicions? It then got worse. The violent end for "Miss" Stapleton was unpleasant, not in the book, and totally unnecessary. The hound was dreadful, some of the worst CGI I have ever seen. The end of the story was changed for no apparent reason, and was not an improvement. The blood and gore, merely gratuitous; Holmes floundering in the bog, and Dr Watson's sharp shooting act finally killing Stapleton totally missed the point of the true ending.


This could have been good, but it's too much a "Hound for Our Times". It obviously appeals to people who've never read the book or seen any of the other versions. Richard E Grant stands out of the morass as an excellent Stapleton - how about keeping him on and remaking the story? The "my wife's a medium" bit is not from the book but from the 40s Rathbone/Bruce version. If only film makers would stick to Conan Doyle's unerring Shakespearean prose! Nobody even says the words "Great Grympen Mire"! And we need the scene setting at the beginning where Holmes and Watson divine the character of Dr Mortimer from his walking stick, and then Mortimer's telling of the story. Footprints - a man's or a woman's? Mr Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound! Though Jeremy Brett was a great Holmes, his Baskerville completely muffed the suspense. The Peter Cushing TV version is the best I've ever seen. Little joke from the 40s version - whenever they go out onto the moor, you hear tropical frogs on the sound track. A final comment on this Nettles/Grant version (I've already forgotten who played H and W) - the most frightening moment was the embarrassing hey nonny no Christmas festivities scene. Time stood still, and not in a good way.


I'm not sure if I'm writing a "spoiler" or not. The explanation is vague. I am going to say that the movie is poorly done, so if you don't want to be put off, don't read this critique. But I am not gong to reveal any secrets of the plot.

It struck me immediately that Van Johnson was completely wrong for this role. It should have been someone British like Trevor Howard or James Mason or Dirk Bogarde or John Mills. Some actor who could portray completely different kinds of character. Van Johnson was always good old, baby face, Van Johnson. He got the role so as to have a Hollywood glamour boy to sell tickets.

The whole beginning of the affair between Johnson's and Kerr's characters is too facile to believe for a second. Johnson meets Kerr only briefly at a large cocktail party where she is hostess flitting from guest to guest. I can't imagine him falling for her on the basis of a few sentences of (very) polite stilted conversation unless she were sensationally alluring which she most certainly was not. In addition, before he leaves the party, he sees her kiss another man (not her husband) through a partly open door. This would only make any normal man think she was a shameful tramp and want nothing to do with her. Who needs the hassle of an affair with a woman who already has a husband and a lover? Please take a number! In addition, if she were to kiss another man in her own home, she's hardly likely to do it in a room with the door open and visible to everyone who enters or leaves the house! But, despite this rapid sequence of most improbable events, lo! He has fallen for her.

Then, when they meet in a restaurant, he tells her right away that he saw her kissing another man. Any normal woman would take great offence at being so rudely unmasked but no, Kerr doesn't bat an eyelid. During this very early part of the film Kerr is pretty much a cold fish. She portrays an icy, polite, upper middle class Englishwoman and no American is going to be tempted by a woman like that. Further, I don't see her having any reason to fall for Johnson. He neither says not does anything either intelligent or charming.

Kerr and Johnson then proceed to spend lots of time together which is most unlikely to be achievable. Her husband would have to be a complete idiot not to wonder where on earth she was all the time. In addition Johnson is swanning in and out of Kerr's house, sometimes when the husband comes home. Again, in real life, any sane husband would smell a great big rat. When there's something going on between a spouse and another person, and they're in the same room with the other spouse, the other spouse can always tell. They know their spouse too well. The husband is a highly intelligent civil servant and yet is portrayed as a moron who hasn't a clue about what is going on.

The story itself is interesting enough and improves as the movie progresses. It poses the usual well known conundrums about God. Having never been religious or Catholic in her life, Kerr, at a moment of crisis, walks in to a Catholic church. In real life that is just not going to happen. Unfortunately, for me, the so called "affair" is a structure built on sand. There was never any initial foundation of passion between a man and a woman and hence there was never any credible affair.

The book is just a convenient vehicle for the stars and that will bring in the fans who want to see Van Johnson in a sob story. My tears are for Graham Greene.


Imagine me saying that a Van Johnson, Deborah Kerr film was awful. It's true folks. This was one miserable film.

In war ravaged England the two of them begin an affair only for Ms. Kerr to end it in thanks to the Lord when Maurice (Johnson) survives a bombing.

The two of them engage in absolute endless talk. The film falls into a discussion regarding the lord and all other kinds of philosophy. Kerr gives an emotionally restrained performance in her usual sing-song diction.

As Sarah in this film, there is no great chemical reaction between her and Maurice.

As her suffering husband, an English civil servant, Peter Cushing is adequate but the dialogue is ridiculous.

John Mills is real dead pan as an investigator.

When a husband hires a detective to investigate a cheating wife, that can be believed. When a former lover does this, you have to wonder.

Am wondering if Van Johnson was using this film as a pre-test to the much better "Miracle in the Rain" which occurred the following year. Two deaths coming during rainstorms is more than quite incidental.


Bad directing. Bad acting. Bad writing. Bad editing. Bad sound. I felt nothing for any of these characters and could care less. This film is a "Boyz in the Hood" wanna be, but never achieved the heart and strength for any of the characters and stories. Much less the cinematic achievement, with the typical Latino stories that have been told and told again. Not all Latinos grew up in the 'hood'. Characters such as Torneo and Abuelito should just have been edited out completely. And obviously, with the character of Alfonso, not much casting choices were seen for this actor. The only thing that made me cry in this film was the waste of time I spent watching it.


The film was certainly interesting with its use of camera work, funky shots and general creativity, but more often than not, that 'funkiness' was used to excess. Cropped images linked together, lens tricks, and so on distracted from the picture more than aiding it.

(Minor spoilers may follow.)

The story itself has very little to do with the plot outline as listed on the main details page for this film. The Japanese anime-watching character (Adam Goldberg) was minor in this film. The picture revolved around a metalhead-type loser (Jake Busey) whose dream of being with a porn star (Jennifer Tilly) leads him on a strange road trip after he is dismissed by his girlfriend (Natasha Lyonne). Along the way, he picks up Jules (Crispin Glover, in another obscure yet excellent performance), a bird-loving, awkward man.

The writing was at best mediocre. Many portions of the plot which should have been expanded upon were summarily discarded. This is the first thing I have seen from Salome Breziner; if this is any indication of Breziner's style of writing/direction, then I'm not in any rush to see anything else.

This was based on a book by Bruce Craven, and perhaps it was just a poor adaptation. Not having read the book beforehand, I just don't know what the main culprit was in this film's set of problems. Regardless, this was not a film I would consider overly enjoyable.

*1/2 of ***** for some good work by Eric Roberts, Jennifer Tilly and Crispin Glover.


Long-haired drug and pornography fan Jake Busey (as Rick Jeffers) finds his Los Angeles apartment robbed, and trashed. So, he decides to soothe his sorrows by visiting Palm Springs, where he hopes to meat up with promiscuous adult film favorite Jennifer Tilly (as Ginger). The otherwise luckless Mr. Busey had once enjoyed the pleasure of Ms. Tilly's company, after a street encounter. Along the way, Busey picks up quirky bird rights activist Crispin Glover (as Jules Langdon). Under Busey's tutelage, Mr. Glover learns how to drive, have sex and party - but, not all goes well...

** Fast Sofa (2001) Salomé Breziner ~ Jake Busey, Crispin Glover, Jennifer Tilly


This is a very strange movie. Lets get that down first. It is similar in that regard to recent films like Doom Generation and Freeway 2: Confessions of a Trick Baby. It is violent, can be repulsive and disgusting, and is not for everybody. But if you like this type of film, this is a great film. By all means I recomend it highly, especially if you want to see more of Jennifer Tilly than you have before. Definately an unusal but fun (if you are into this type of film) ride.


To see a film with such a good ensemble of actors is wonderful... except in the case of FAST SOFA where the film is choppy and has a raw look along the style of a student film. Maybe that's what they were going for, but it was a bit distracting.


I am not sure who okayed this movie, but i know if i were to put my money into this garbage, i would be truly angry. Maybe I just didn't get the whole, "I have a better life than i thought" message. It just didn't seem to matter. Will someone please give Crispin Glover a good role already? I mean he was good in the "Charlies Angels" movie and all, but the man is much more talented than what he is in. Jennifer Tilly (Oscar nominee for "Bullets over Broadway") and Oscar winner Eric Roberts, (yes Julia's estranged brother) what the hell were either of them thinking? Must have just been a few days of shooting i guess. Please don't waste your time with this 2 hour bore show.


Just to correct some earlier posts.

1- Eric Roberts is NOT an Oscar winner. That was his sister that won.

2- Jennifer Tilly uses a body double in this movie. It's Asia Carrera, the porn star.

The movie? A waste of time and $3.99. Two out of ten.


"Fast Sofa" manages to take a bunch of B-movie actors and drag them down with this sub-C project which probably never saw the light of a projector. There's nothing in this piece of garbage floating like flotsam now on cable worth mentioning. Watching paint dry would be more entertaining. (F+)


JURY DUTY is exactly what you would expect from Pauly Shore: obnoxious, silly and ridiculous. Here, Shore plays a jobless boy who decides he can get himself a free hotel room by posing as a juror for a murder trial. Usually, I give movies what they deserve, but since Shore never made a good movie, I have to give him credit. I mean, here is another guy whose movies were successful at the box office, but had little or nothing to show for it. If you are a fan of Pauly, I doubt you will be disappointed. Others beware, for JURY DUTY will be a real trial to sit through.

1 out of 5


There is a scene early on in "Jury Duty" when Pauly Shore stands on a bus and imitates a town tour guide. It is obvious that this scene was written to showcase Pauly Shore's comedic talents, however, he makes noises and is loud and generally obnoxious and unfunny.

"Jury Duty" is the point where Pauly Shore officially abused his stay in movies. After this movie, he would forever be sanctioned to the lunch table in the corner with the smelly kid, Carrot Top and the Noid from the Dominoes commercials. But not until he showed the world his versatility in Bio-Dome.

Jury Duty is bad. Not bad like "In the Army Now," but close. There is little originality to the script, no amusing characters and about four funny lines. I did enjoy the scene where the witnesses from restaurants give testimonies in their respective fast food uniforms. There isn't much else here. It just isn't funny.

Shore also lacks the wit his idiotic leading men contemporaries like Adam Sandler and Chris Farley showed in the 90s. These were all, more or less, bad versions of Steve Martin's wonderful "Jerk" character. All Shore shows in this movie is that he has the talent to bug you.

Of course, not all the blame can be put on his shoulders. He has no script to work with. Nothing. I don't know why Stanley Tucci thought this movie would be good for him and or how the studio blackmailed him into being in it.

I remembered both "Encino Man" and "Son in Law" were kind of funny in a stupid way. "Jury Duty " on the other hand is stupid in a very unfunny way.


This is one of the worst movies I think I've ever seen in my life. Who on earth spent money on this piece of junk. Whoever they are I am sure they are regretting it. I am not a Pauly Shore basher, I really liked Son In Law, but this movie is worthless. Do not see it, I'd say burn it and put it out of its misery.


Pauly Shore is just not funny. How can one man continually create such irritatingly grating roles one after another and still be allowed to make more movies ? Answer: if Adam Sandler, Jim Carrey, Chris Elliott, and Tom Green can do it, why not ? The one thing that does carry this film is by filling it with actors who do know what they are doing so that he can ride on their coat tails and stay in the minds of a tiny legion of fans blind to the truth. Tia Carrera shines in this movie as she struggles to remain aloft, but Shore just drags her down to his level at the end. Richard Riehle starts out like everyone else wondering how he got into this mess and how to get out, but then gets brainwashed to down to Shore's level. Some of the film is funny, much of it is not. Shore's dog, a long-haired chihuahua, does a better job at being funny as well as carrying the movie. Another thing which makes the movie is spotting the celebrity cameos through out the plot. If only they got rid of Shore, maybe it would have worked!


I first saw this movie when I was in grade school, so naturally I wasn't too critical. It's a silly comedy and I got a few laughs at the time. I also didn't see what people hated about Pauly Shore. When you're 11 years old, you don't find a dude like that obnoxious. Now...he pretty much annoys the crap out of me.

I'm not jumping onto the bandwagon of Pauly Shore-haters. As a matter of fact, I recall very few comic actors who hardly retain an ounce of merit. The thing that's jarring about Shore is he tries hard to hammer a laugh out of his audience, but he does it in such a dull, low-key manner. If you're gonna be obnoxious, flaunt your obnoxiousness. Obnoxious can be funny. Just look at Vince Vaughn's portrayal of Trent in "Swingers." Shore is like that class clown who tries hard to annoy everyone in sight, yet at the same time tries hard to be liked. If Shore had charm, that might be possible. A guard dog has more charm than him.

The cast is pretty much second-rate. Tia Carrerre would grab any script that's hurled in her direction, and so would Abe Vigoda. Sure, Vigoda was popular in his hayday, but that's the whole point. He was popular IN HIS HAYDAY. Andrew Dice Clay has an amusing cameo, though. And what in the world was Stanley Tucci doing in this film??!!! Yes, THE Stanley Tucci. The Stanley Tucci from "Sidewalks of New York" and "Big Night." And here he is, playing a fanatical environmentalist. I can betcha 100 bucks this film is now crossed off his resume.

Unless you're a die-hard Pauly Shore fan, this film is as boring as sitting in a jury for 4 straight hours--and the movie's only 90 minutes long! The only hints of wit are occasional references to "12 Angry Men."

My score: 3 (out of 10)