When I began to watch Heroes, I had a very open mind about it. The pilot episode was pretty good, it had nice elements, wonderful cinematography, and it was intriguing. Somehow the show began to dig and dig and dig itself deeper into a hole. As the story lines got more "advanced", it became incredibly noticeable how weak the acting was. The writing is mediocre and the plots are dragging and predictable. But Heroes doesn't even try to keep it's viewers in suspense! It instead, informs the viewer five-ten episodes in advance what the finale is going to include, and then it plays out exactly as you expect it to. It's not intelligent, it's not even that entertaining, and scenes that they could've made memorable and touching were so rushed and devoid of emotion from the blank "actors" that you are left feeling like you wasted an hour of your life viewing this show.

Soon, these "normal" people were no longer holding jobs, going to school, or seemingly doing anything but running around aimlessly trying to find swords, looking for someone or some other nonsense.

This show does what I will call "reluctant killings" as they introduce character after character just for the "villain" to kill off so that they actually have a body count. You feel absolutely no connection for whatever character dies, and the story lines seem to lack steam and trudge along like you are riding a lopping pony at a fare. The legendary cliff-hangers it supposedly delivers are annoying, as you might've been getting into a scene finally (the last ten minutes is the only thing worth watching) then it ends.

Next week, you've lost interest and when it returns, it spends twenty minutes recapping what happened last week as the show seems to think it's viewers have the memory span of a fish, then the exciting discovery to see whether or not a character is dead or not (which you could really care less by then) is finished and the party continues at a lagging speed, until it repeats itself over and over again...

The music score murders the show worse than the villain Sylar and his head cutting kills the heroes. It's tuneless and seems to interrupt the scene instead of accompany it.

The show always seems very slow:

Ep 5: "We are going to save so and so!" Ep 6: "We have to save so and so!" Ep 7: "I'm going to go save so and so!" Ep 8: "Don't try to stop me from saving so and so!" Ep 9: "Because I'm going to save so and so!"

JUST SAVE HER ALREADY!

The producers make the mistake of trying to make their show popular by giving the viewers (who must be fooled with the dopamine coming from their heads that the show is actually "good") what they want. Claire became a quick popular character, I even liked her... at first. So, guess what? The producers decided to show more of Claire, and more... and more... until her story was... dried up... HRG or Noah Bennet, her adoptive father was no longer malevolent and instead became a total sap that only wanted to protect Claire.

Nikki also became popular with the men, probably because of that lovely crotch shot in the first episode, so they continued on her dull struggle to keep from becoming her alter ego, take care of her son and to not go to jail, when they finally put her in there, she murders some couple guards or something, and then... they release her! How come they don't put her on death row for that?

Peter who was at first an innocent, sweet guy, who cared about everyone, and had dreams about flying, only became someone who was insecure and grumpy. He went from my favorite character, to my least.

The main problem with this show is that they introduce too many characters and give them story lines that the original characters could've had, they don't add anything to the general plot, they just take up time to end up getting killed later.

Also, the show attempts to run four plots at once in one episode, which gets quite confusing and frustrating when one plot gets interesting and they flick to... say... Mohinder looking through books or something irritating.

The idea of how the heroes have their powers is ridiculous, putting it on a scientific theory that is an incomplete theory in the first place: "evolution" To say that a person needs the ability to fly is rather foolish as the brain is people's weapon, and if they want to go on Darwin's theory of evolution, they best realize that it's also "survival of the fittest" which goes into the idea of the food chain. It would be quite unfair to hunted animals if we not only have brains to figure out how to make weapons, but we also had the speed of the animal, everything would become extinct!

For one, if people evolved, everyone would do it, not just a few. If we evolved from the monkey, how come monkeys exist?

I tune in for a good laugh at how crappy the content can get, and I'm amazed when the viewers actually find something to theorize about- why bother as it's probably going to be explained... Usually they're right though, but as all fingers pointed to the conclusion... It's no wonder.


not much of a spoiler in this post. i wouldn't worry about it, but it's there for safety's sake. i guess the disappointing thing about heroes is that, judging from the pilot alone, the writers at the helm don't seem to have the finesse to fulfill the premise's potential. it's a difficult thing to balance - an interwoven group of characters who all develop superpowers - a fact made evident by the pilot. the "catch" for each of the characters is okay, but is substantially weakened by the writer's desire to shove them into new york by the end of the episode. there's really not much of a cohesive concept, and so much of the dialogue is self-important and blatantly expository, it's more of a distraction than an addition. this film could potentially benefit from a better group of writers. and, quite frankly, while i appreciate the attempt to set up the lives and moods of the characters, poorly executed homogeneous direction, coupled with the pitfalls of the initial premise provide the viewer with little more than a forced and crypto-pedantic show. this is thus far a squandered opportunity. we look forward to bigger and better things on the horizon, for other shows, as well as this show.


The characters are dumb, like really dumb, story is inconsistent. That bad guy has the super hearing ability yet more than one time someone sneaked to his back. And is there anything u can't do if u can time-travel and stop time? If u can't make the characters use the power intelligently don't give them the damn power. Whatever the characters do or say it's often the stupidest option humanly possible. A complete waste of time, insult to viewers and the production crews.

"oh i can fly which mean the human understanding of biology and physics need a complete re-study; but no my stupid election is much more important." "hi my body can heal itself and my hobby is hurting myself randomly just to see it regenerate."

I mean wow guys turning on the TV will also automatically turn off ur brain too? Or u all have a superpower of watching TV without thinking?


This pilot was the biggest disappointment of the new season for me. I really wasn't expecting much, but I suppose its possible that subconsciously I had my standards too high after watching the pilot for Studio 60.

Regardless... Heroes was weak (at best).

I am hoping they venture to explain the massive coincidences in this pilot with some otherworldly explanation, but even if they do... it cannot explain the completely implausible scenario of a guy who THINKS he MIGHT be able to fly...lunging off a 10 story rooftop and hoping for the best. Give me a break.

The characters in the show are all so annoying as to completely eliminate any sympathy viewers should feel for them. I could itemize them... but they are all annoying and unbelievable in equal measure. The flying guy seems like he would be the exception.... but when he spends every scene TRYING to remember to talk out of the side of his mouth (copying Jennifer Anistons manufactured facial tick???), his scenes become ruined by the fact that I want to shout "STOP DOING THAT WITH YOUR BOTTOM LIP!!!!" The two blondes in the show are attractive, but both so stupid as make a viewer wish for their death.

The Asian guys bits were funny... but... he just DECIDES he is going to teleport??? Never having tried it? And ... ? ??? How convenient and unbelievable can you get!!! The Indian guy seems like he would be a likable character... but... his diatribe in the intro scene was so scatterbrained and pointless that I have no clue what class he might have been teaching. Then... we are supposed to believe that he is going to continue his fathers LIFELONG WORK with a single set a file folders that he was able to salvage from his fathers study? Then, it just so happens that the flying guy has a crush on a gal who is already seeing another mutant who can predict the future! There is nothing remotely believable about this show so far.

"Lost" does similar things with chance/coincidence... but on Lost, that IS the premise of the show. That part of the mystery has been given to us in plausible doses. "Heroes"... seems like something a 15 year old wrote... in a hurry.

I hope it gets better... I am not holding my breath.


Seriously, I don't know who wrote the screenplay. The show started without relevant expository, and the worst of all was the Japanese guy. He was introduced in the first scene as a normal geek and BAM, he controls the time/space continuum(repeated 1,039 times). I mean, if that is not convenient scripting, I don't know what is. The characters are all unbelievable. Is like they live their lives as normal people and BAM, hey you know what, I think I can fly/bend time/read your mind/paint the future/blah blah. After all the hype, I don't know what people sees in the show. The editing sucks, the dialogue corny, the direction confusing and worst of all, it pretty much like a stylized but dumb-down version of X-men! I'm no fan of series, and if this is what they have to offer, I will keep my staple of Simpsons and Seinfeld reruns.


How they could've ruined such a wonderful thing is beyond anyone's imagination. Season 1 was magnificent, with an addictive plot, great character development and a slow unveiling of what's to come.

Season 2 was so so but slow, and take any 20 minute segment in Season 3 you understand the show has gotten unbearable. They don't explain a damn thing and the plot is too convoluted to care. Instead you see how the writers using their now totally uninteresting storyline as an excuse to make all the good guys become the bad guys and vice versa. Do this enough times and you're going to loose an audience. It's like trying to keep a child with ADD interested with flashy magic. The little side adventures with the vortex guy or mind controller guy were completely uninteresting.

There are many flaws with the script, but off the top of my head here's one: They build up Adam as this super powerful/influential guy and beside the healing ability they don't even explain how, and then he gets easily killed to make room for the next big villain.

Cancellation is coming soon! Quit while you guys made some money.


It's impossible for me to find a rating that reflects the overall quality of the show. It started out strong; the first season was far from perfect, but it had an energy and a message that simply felt good. There were incredibly fulfilling episodes, such as Homecoming, Company Man, Five Years Gone, and heart-warming character moments not just for a few, but for most characters. I felt safe with this show. Anyway, one of the show's biggest problems became obvious in th finale, when all the character came together for a mostly underwhelming showdown. Somehow, Heroes was best when it did not follow closely to a plan, but allowed its characters some room to develop naturally. The best moments and characters of Season 1 are thanks to the writers having enough sense to use the opportunities that opened up. When Noah Bennet proved a more interesting character than previously hoped for, his role became bigger. The same for Sylar. The enmity between Mohinder and Sylar. Molly. It all grew naturally, and lost its momentum only when everything was yanked back into the intended showdown.

The second season put a damper on the mood. What fans wants to wait a whole season only to find out one of their favourite characters died between seasons? I'm one of the few who didn't mind the new characters. They felt fresh and gave new impulses, showed us new perspectives on their power. What really slowed the series down to a crawl was the need to force certain other characters back into the plot, even though they no longer had any purpose, and should in fact have died in the season finale. Since the writers could not think of what to do with these characters (Nathan, Peter, Claire mostly) they simply rehashed their previous story lines. But there was still enough to keep me interested, and I thought that if I could see the problems of Season 2, then surely the writers could see them as well.

Sadly, Season 3 came and was a nightmare, a disaster. Characters were written off, other characters had their backstories and even basic motivations retconned. The once international cast was suddenly down to three (two of which are the Asian comic relief), and all the characters who had already run out of steam by the end of Season 1 were now front and centre, source and solution of the problems. Showrunner Tim Kring now declared that Heroes was actually about the Petrellis and the Bennets. Had I known that from the start, I wouldn't have bothered - I started watching when he described the show to be about "ordinary people across the globe". Instead, Heroes is now about a bunch of upper-class New Yorkers ensuring one another that it's okay they started a genocide. Heroes did the impossible with Season 3: they made a show that bears little to no resemblance to Season 1. They also managed to make Sylar into one of the most obnoxious characters on TV. They shed all pretension of being interested in diversity. Consistency and continuity have been tossed overboard, not just in regard to previous season, but even with things established just an episode earlier.

I chose the rating to reflect this disappointment, too. If I was to judge only the first two seasons, the rating would be considerably higher. But in the end, the complete product shows a disrespect towards the audience, a hatred for its own characters and story lines except a few precious upper-class New Yorkers, like I've never seen it before. It leaves a foul taste in my mouth. As a viewer, you're lost. Can I grow attached to this character, or will he die, or will the next episode forget he existed, will this storyline be dropped or will his entire personality be switched around? Probably. What reason is there to watch?


Actually it's phenomenal that so many people genuinely like this show. I can't believe it. For one thing, I know I don't. Right now, when I'm writing this, I've already decided to quit watching 'Heroes'.

If I ran NBC, I'd broadcast the show in weekend mornings for little kids to watch, because that's just what this show is for. For children, not adults in prime-time TV time. There's absolutely no realism or even common sense science-fiction in 'Heroes'. It's not sci-fi, it's delusional fantasy! One could inject some sort of substance to human beings and they would get super abilities? Moreover, these 'powers' differ from one individual to another and are sooo unbelievable you have to actually give the creators of the show some credit for their boundless imagination. Some of the most ridiculous abilities include flying, conjuring fire, freezing things, shape-shifting (Wait, did I say shape-shifting? Are you kiddin' me?). Now tell me, how could any chemical substance alter a person so that he would be able to FLY? How would an organic body create a force that would lift it off the ground and carry anywhere? Just think about it the science way. Answer is...NO WAY could it ever be possible. Therefore it is not science fiction, because it is not based on science and only disgraces the noble sci-fi name.

Plus, the whole special ability and being a hero idea is a total duplicate of X-men. How come creators of X-men haven't sued NBC for copying everything but the name of the show from them? Plus, it's very corny and some actors (most notably the lead, what's his name, Peter Petrelli) are overacting, making forced expressions of awe and amazement way too often.

Plus, the show is afraid to kill-off characters, as they did with (SPOILERS begin here) Sylar, Claire's father, Nathan. They finally killed that darn mannequin Nikki only to bring the actor back in a role of her never-before-heard twin-sister? (SPOILERS end here) Do sissy slavered brats with bibs run this show?

I can't really explain why have I watched the show for so long (till season 3). Maybe I had to get the bigger picture, see where the programme was going... Maybe I was light-hearted at first, but right now shows like these make me angry and disgusted. The only little redeeming factor could be the casting of some good actors. Dania Ramirez, Andre Royo, Jamie Hector. They were amazing in 'The Sopranos' and 'The Wire' respectfully. However, they were given small parts and a stupid script, what good could they have done?

And so to conclude, unless you are a immature or a kid, don't watch or stop watching this circus on TV and chose other TV shows instead. Recommendations? If you like fantasy or something like that, check out 'True Blood' on HBO, a fun, light-hearted show that leaves you with a feeling of satisfaction after each episode. Want REAL science-fiction? Hmmm, that's probably a little bit more tricky... You could try out the new 'Fringe' on Fox with the amazing Lance Reddick in tow. Action? Come on, who could be better than 'Prison Break' on that? Other alternative - 'Sarah Connor Chronicles'. And of course, if you look for the queen of all genres, the drama, look no further than the golden 'Mad Men', 'Six Feet Under' or platinum 'The Sopranos' with 'The Wire'. Done expressing myself.


Many Spoilers be aware

As the series went on I could only but be disappointed from what was a very good start. I would say that for the first 2/3rd of the series it really deserve a good 8/10, for its originality, the efforts made in creating different heroes and a real nasty and evil Villain. Then it turns into a family affair where every character is in relation of some sort with the other, with vague mention of a secret society that is not even fully exploited nor explained. Also there are more and more inconsistencies in the power of Peter Petrelli (replicating other's power) which is automatic when needed by the script (regeneration, be invisible, becoming radioactive etc..) and inoperative when really useful (replicating Sylar's powers at first, second or even third encounter, time travel from Hiro and so on) and not to mention that he never uses the ones he really need when he needs them (unlike Sylar), why did it take him the last episode to listen to anyone's mind (aside from the accidental encounter with Parkman), and why does he need his brother to fly him and play the firework while he can fly all by himself (his first ever duplicated power).

So as you can see I'm really upset that a very good start turned into such an anti-climax. The cheap fight against Sylar, and the first few images of the teaser of the second season don't reassure me with the potential disappearance of Sylar's body in the sewage (how the Hell could anyone let him move even an inch) or Hiro in Medieval Cliché type Japan....

Watch it when you really don't have anything better to do and watch Battlestar Galactica instead if you look for the best TV series ever (who said I'm subjective)


Its a typical American feel-good movie which is supposed to be a romantic comedy. The comedy is hard to spot and an hour and a half of predictable romances is just too much. There are no real turns in the plot and you already know the end of the movie within the first half hour. The only good thing about the movie is the feel-good part of it. It does make you relax and feel all romantic, although this is often spoiled by a moment of simple humor. If you're looking for a movie to watch when you're really feeling like simple humor and not too much thinking to do, this is it, else don't do it because you won't survive for an hour and a half.


I only gave this movie a 4, but that's mainly because it was kind of slow. I like Chief Dan George, so that was a plus right there. I read a comment from one of the commentors and he mentioned how grainy the picture was and I pretty much experienced the same thing. However I thought it added realism to the movie. The dialogue, the sets, the wardrobe, the scenery. It almost looked like someone had a video camera back in those days and actually filmed what was taking place. It's always a good thing when movies use real Indians instead of actors that are painted up to look like Indians. You would think that I would have givin' this movie a higher rating with all the positive things I've said, but it is a movie to fall asleep too. I got this movie in a 20 movie pack, so what the heck.


Alien Thunder (whoever came up with that title should have been pistol whipped) is just plain dull!

Donald Sutherland (in a wooden, unlikable performance) plays Dan Candy, a member of The Royal Canadian Mounted Police who arrests an Indian for slaughtering a government alloted cow without prior approval. The Indian escapes and kills his partner.

Most of this excruciating movie consists of Sutherland walking into the woods, coming back empty-handed, and arguing with his superior officer.

There's no suspense and what little action there is (before the climax) consists mostly of pot shots taken by and against Indians on his various trips to the reservation.

Considering the talent involved, (Sutherland, Kevin McCarthy, Chief Dan George) this should have been good. I suggest you watch Thunderheart instead.


**SOME SPOILERS**This 1974 north western stars Donald Sutherland in the title role as Dan Candy, a Royal Canadian

Mounted Policeman on duty in the plains of Saskatchewan. He is a

little immature, a little annoying, and perfectly balanced by his

family man partner Kevin McCarthy. The duo arrests Gordon

Tootoosis for stealing one of the government's cows out of

desperate hunger. Chief Dan George is Tootoosis' father.

Sutherland takes the whole thing as a big joke, until Tootoosis

escapes from jail and kills McCarthy. Sutherland spends the rest

of the film tracking down the now dangerous criminal, with little

help from his fellow constables or the native people.

At ninety minutes, the film is way too brief, and takes short cuts in

its story to get to the action scenes. This means that Sutherland

goes from party doofus to vengeful rogue cop in about twenty

seconds. Tootoosis goes from hungry martyr-like indian to cold

blooded killer in record time. McCarthy is in just three scenes.

When the film tries to be an action film, it fails as well. Sutherland

is usually screaming as his superior for the umpteenth time, then

rides out into the woods and is shot at...again and again. The

finale, when the criminal and friends are trapped in the woods, is

equally puzzling. The RCMP higher ups do not seem to care about

catching the killer of one of their own, but suddenly arrive with

cannon to root out the villains. Even McCarthy's funeral scene is

messed up, as Sutherland thinks about McCarthy's murder, even

though he was not there.

Sutherland, for being given such an impossible part to play, does

a good job. One amazing scene has him trying to tell McCarthy's

orphaned son a funny story about crows and an outhouse roof

while he slowly breaks down in grief.

Fournier catches some of the amazing vistas we are lucky to

experience up here in the Great Plains, and his fog enshrouded

opening credits are dazzling, but with the lousy editing and dull

script, he is as creatively bound as Sutherland.

"Dan Candy's Law" should have been a rumination on revenge,

and a comment about how the United States does not have a

monopoly on mistreating its native peoples, but instead this film

went for the cheap action thrill without an action thrill to exploit. I

cannot recommend it.

This is rated (PG) and contains strong gun violence and strong

profanity.


Why did I waste ninety minutes of my life on this piece of crap? Badly acted, horrendously directed and utterly devoid of a coherent story (climaxed by the brain-dead lead squashing a rat), how the hell does this thing garner these sort of numbers in here? Anyone giving this thing a 10 must be a masochist, desperately in need of therapy. First love? For whom? Obviously not these two sexaholics (though none of their sex scenes could ignite a candle). Last rites? Who for...the rat? That's about the only thing actually dying in this film whose title itself is a blatant lie.

My only consolation is that I found this for 2 bucks in a bargain bin, but I WANT MY NINETY MINUTES BACK! Curse each and every talentless hack who helped birth this hunk of garbage!!


The main virtue of this movie is the cinematography and the languorous mood it creates. The plot on the other hand was nonsensical and boring. The Joey character was good for a young man experiencing his first love, but I found the Sissel character convoluted and hard to follow. There were a lot of parts where Sissel's character was overacted and boring at the same time, and this especially made me not like the movie. I don't recommend this movie.


This movie was very basic in the sense that nothing was developed in every sense of a plot . There was no conflicts in the story really. Let me just say that there was no beginning, middle, or end . And when it was over you felt like all you did was watch nothing evolve into nothing.


I have numerous complaints about this film but most importantly I did not like the characters and did not understand their feelings, motivations or actions. The was no advancement of the plot or resolution of any issues. My interest in the film was only slightly raised by the interaction between Ribisi and the father. I am treating the 90 minutes I spent watching this as a "what not to do" primer for my own screenplay.


I was most intrigued by the set decorations - or lack of them in this peculiar photoplay. Our seemingly lonely two stars live in a bayou house on stilts and never clean they only well, you know, have lots of sex.

I rented this movie and shut it off after the first twenty minutes only to return to find out if they ever cleaned up. I can't tell you the ending that would spoil all the fun. I suppose if you can make it through the first reel you are hooked.

I think that Natasha Wagner has quite a career ahead of her and I look forward to more, but, this is one of the bombs, sorry.


From then on, alas, this movie turns into a cheap TV horror movie one of the cheapest genres ever existed. When I saw Kôrei I've already seen the very interesting Kaïro, also by Kiyoshi Kurosawa; after that positive impression had someone told me that Mr. Kurosawa was capable of clumsiness when dealing with a fantastic story I wouldn't lend him or her ears, but unfortunately that would be true. When I'm seeing a movie or reading a story I can suspend my feeling of disbelief and believe in a ghost, I don't have problems with unreality, whereas I cannot believe when the characters in a story abruptly and against their own psychology, start to act the opposite way they would. Mr. Kurosawa needs his story to go in one direction and forces the characters and the plot to achieve his needs. That is one of the biggest mistake an author can make.

Anyway this a a TV movie nonetheless, if you liked it, see Dark Water (http://imdb.com/title/tt0308379/), The Eye (http://imdb.com/title/tt0325655/) and Kaïro (http://imdb.com/title/tt0286751/), they're better, far better than the last 54 minutes of this one. Of course, you always can stop the DVD player when the display shows you 42 minutes; you'll be sparing yourselves the disappointment of seeing how the very decent first part of this movie helplessly wrecks.


This is a movie that famed director Kiyoshi Kurosawa made by demand for a TV company, after the success of Ringu. Well, there's a kind of Sadako feeling to it, the girls looks a lot like the one in Hideo Nakata's Dark water... but this is a flawed movie. Terrible script. Not scary at all (and I scare so easy! that's why I love terror movies). Forgettable.

For instance (spoiler coming) at the very beginning of it, the psychological expert tells us about how, when a person sees her or his doppelganger, double, it's an omen of death. And then, one of the main characters actually goes through this experience... and doesn't die! Why sow a seed if you ain't going to follow it to the very consequences? I really don't get what's all the fuss about this guy... I love Japanese movies, I study Japanese, so if I find a Japanese movie too boring, I just listen... but I think this guy is overrated.


A kidnapper is apprehended by the police, but the young girl he abducted is still missing. The police bring a medium onto the case to see if she can contact the girl's spirit, or at least determine whether the girl is still alive. However, the medium is going through a sort of mid-life crisis and believes that she and her husband can turn the case to their advantage. Of course, in simple minds bad ideas breed like rabbits, and soon this witless couple find themselves working against the police.

"Seance" is a fundamentally flawed film, cursed from the very start by an inept script. The film's plot rests on a mammoth coincidence, and the central characters become utterly unsympathetic as soon as they begin covering up for a crime they didn't commit. Stupidity does not attract empathy, nor do cheap scares. Granted, the ghosts in the film are fairly creepy; director Kiyoshi Kurosawa takes advantage of many shadowy halls and ominous doorways, teaching his audience to fear open spaces. Unfortunately, when neither the plot nor the characters give us a reason to care, thrills alone cannot carry a film. Cliches abound here as well, including the requisite psychology expert who--at the very beginning of the story--primes us with information about a certain type of psychic manifestation which is key to a scene late in the film.

Perhaps "The Sixth Sense" was not the most sophisticated horror film of recent years, but the quality of this knock-off is nothing less than ghastly.


Other than some familiar faces, this episode has nothing special about it whatsoever. I have to say that this is by far one of my least favorite episodes of the entire series.

The episode seems to be trying to make a kind of telenovela out of a chupacabra story and ends up throwing in too many stupid soap opera elements so that the actual story that could have been told gets completely lost. There are so many versions of the story at the end of the episode that not only is it impossible to figure out what actually happened, but neither do I care. Like in "Hell Money", the local cop who is supposed to be an intermediary for Mulder and Scully to connect with and understand the culture ends up being more loyal to his stupid cultural ideals than to the badge he wears. I don't know why the writers think that just because someone is Mexican or Chinese or whatever that they will end up being corrupt in the name of culture and tradition and honor and blah blah blah. The story didn't even try to explain the actual myth behind the chupacabra at all other than translating it to English for those who don't speak Spanish. The actors, who supposedly are Mexican and speak Spanish as their first language, have less convincing Spanish accents than I do and I'm a hamburger and pizza lovin' gringo. The main character, who I've seen in a number of other shows and have enjoyed quite a bit, does not work well in this episode as the chupacabra. His acting is TERRIBLE! I know that this wasn't his first job, you would think the director could at least done a little directing and done some retakes or something. Ugh! The worst part is I might actually be able to enjoy the episode if there was an obvious attempt at parody here. But there isn't. It comes across as being totally serious.

I think I'm done. Other than some pretty cool special effects this episode was lame and not worth watching and I give it a 3 out of 10.


As with most prison movies, the setting is merely a vehicle for telling the story. Prison ain't like that; talking to a couple cons and ex-cons, or even, god forbid, doing a little research from printed material, would really go a long way.

That said, if this movie wasn't so poorly acted and mis-cast, this might have been more watchable, because the plot is interesting enough, exploring male roles and male sexuality. The problem is in the acting - it's dreadful. And the mis-casting of the antagonist - it is impossible to suspend disbelief enough believe he's a big bad sexual predator who could possibly over-power the protagonist, who is bulkier, more "butch", and more physically imposing.

I suspect the main culprit for these flaws is simply the era. I'm sure in 1971 it was impossible to find more qualified actors who would touch this kind of subject matter with a ten foot pole, for fear of torpedoing their careers. Times have certainly changed since then.

A better prison fable about male sexuality and male relationships is the HBO series OZ.

We've come a long way, baby.


had it not been for the commentary! If Emily wasn't giving away upcoming events in the film, she was talking over dialog and killing the mood of the scene. My son and I found it very annoying. I checked Tivo to see if there were any other showings of this movie, in case they showed it without the commentary. Hopefully the DVD will give viewers a choice between watching with commentary and without. The plot was interesting. The parts were played well and the kids did a good job bringing the characters to life. Good balance of drama and edge-of-your-seat suspense. All in all, remove the commentary, and this is a very good Halloween movie!


In 1914, Charlie Chaplin began making pictures. These were made for Mack Sennett (also known as "Keystone Studios") and were literally churned out in very rapid succession. The short comedies had very little structure and were completely ad libbed. As a result, the films, though popular in their day, were just awful by today's standards. Many of them bear a strong similarity to home movies featuring obnoxious relatives mugging for the camera. Many others show the characters wander in front of the camera and do pretty much nothing. And, regardless of the outcome, Keystone sent them straight to theaters. My assumption is that all movies at this time must have been pretty bad, as the Keystone films with Chaplin were very successful.

The Charlie Chaplin we know and love today only began to evolve later in Chaplin's career with Keystone. By 1915, he signed a new lucrative contract with Essenay Studios and the films improved dramatically with Chaplin as director. However, at times these films were still very rough and not especially memorable. No, Chaplin as the cute Little Tramp was still evolving. In 1916, when he switched to Mutual Studios, his films once again improved and he became the more recognizable nice guy--in many of the previous films he was just a jerk (either getting drunk a lot, beating up women, provoking fights with innocent people, etc.). The final evolution of his Little Tramp to classic status occurred in the 1920s as a result of his full-length films.

This short consists of Chaplin as the Little Tramp crashing a Hollywood set. You do get to see some of the behind the screen action, but not enough to make this film stand out too much from other early rotten Chaplin shorts. Interesting but no real plot or humor.


Ray Liotta as a forensic examiner who discovers he can experience and thereby solve his wife's murder by injecting himself with cerebral spinal fluid from those involved. Dahl's direction is leaden and every character is dull. Linda Fiorentino fans will find nothing here. By the time it's over you may wish you can siphon some CSF from people who saw a better movie that night and mix it with some of Fiorentino's cocktail, grab a syringe, flex your arm...

Seriously though, it's a pretty cool story that would have been more successful as a novel. Hey, what's with Kim Cattrall playing a non-sexpot supporting character?


Very interesting Sci-Fi thriller directed by John Dahl. A forensic expert(Ray Liotta)accused of murdering his wife injects himself with an experimental serum that may help identify her killer. Use of flashbacks provides the "meatier" part of the movie. Some scenes are not only vivid, but stomach turning. Liotta does well with the role and leads a very solid cast featuring: Linda Fiorentino, Peter Coyote, Christopher McDonald, Kim Cattrall and Kim Coates. Fiorentino was my main interest in watching this worthwhile and a little far-fetched mystery.


What is wrong with Unforgettable? (some spoilers) Ray Liota is the husband of a District Attorney who was killed while RAY was passed-out-drunk on the front yard of their house (and everyone thinks he did it). Ray meets a Scientist (Linda Fiorentino) who develops some kind of drug that she thinks allows one rat to use the brain fluid of another rat in order to live that rats memories. This project is in the early stages of experimentation, so Ray decides to seduce Linda so he can use her drug and patch into the memories of another victim of the person Ray thinks killed his wife. Linda does not react with any feelings of betrayal, and in fact becomes his little assistant so that Ray can go from brain to brain and figure out who killed his wife. The rest of the story moves along pretty well. Of course, the detective who keeps telling Ray to get on with his life is tipping his hand.

Aside from being predictable and giving away the surprise ending, Unforgettable has some other minor flaws: 1. Brain fluid should not look like SYFO carbonated mineral water. 2. If you stick a five inch needle into someone's brain stem, a little blood might drip out? 3. If you take someone's brain fluid, and then inject the brain fluid into your bloodstream (intravenously) then you might have a heart attack when the heart cannot filter the brain fluid, but I do not see how injecting brain fluid into your arm is going to cause anyone to relive the memories of the person whose brain fluid was injected. 4. Even if it did work, wouldn't the brain fluid have thousands of memories? Why would it automatically go to the memories that Ray Liotta wanted to see? 5. Why does Linda continue to hang around when Ray basically USED her to get to her wonder drug, and he certainly never even gives her a kiss or even says he likes her! 6. Why does the Coroner fire Ray because he ordered a RUSH blood test? Seems like a real cheap Department if that is how they do things! 7. Why does the Bad Cop blow up Linda's lab?? Ray could not prove anything regardless of how many memories he could re-live. A better "bad guy" would have played it cool and claimed that Ray was crazy. Anyhow, those were some of the things that made this movie hard to get into. Ray Liotta's Cat-Scratch face and contortion acting made it even more difficult. I like Ray, but he always seems to be pretending he is the late John Belushi and is constantly twitching his face, eyelids, or arms and hands. Ray reminds me of Joe Cocker when he is singing.


One of the hardest parts about reviewing an 'art house' type movie is inherent in the genre's name: it's a lot like criticizing art. And if you've ever tried to criticize modern art, or almost any art, you're probably familiar with some brutal rebuttals and denials. The same is true for these 'art house' type movies. It's a lot easier to give the movie a good review and go, but bad reviews draw a lot more fire. This is harder for me as well, because I typically love these types of movies.

But I did not enjoy this movie--and I don't mean in the general 'it didn't make me happy' sense. I mean it in the 'had little value, emotionally or artistically' sense. Depending on how you're looking at it, there were many ways in which the movie could have gained merit--you could look at the performance of the actors, the entertainment of the plot itself, the tension or suspense, the message or theme. It tried very hard, but I don't think that it was able to live up to any of its expectations.

The most important aspect of this film when judging it is meant to be unconventional. It breaks film-making conventions and denies the audience's expectations over and over. For example, it breaks the fourth wall quite a few times--meant to be a punch in the gut for the audience as they are acknowledged as participants in the film. It denies the audience's expectation of gore by making almost all the violence occur off-screen, leaving only sound effects. Although the movie fulfills its aims in its unconventionality, what we are left with when all the conventions are broken is only the shell of a great movie. The over-the-top experience is gut-wrenching and terrifying, but that is the only real effect you are left with. The movie sucks one in by being unconventional, but the movie made a mistake in that it aimed to be unconventional without having a clear idea of what to do after convention was broken. The movie just seems to wander around, dragging a great premise through the dirt.

Another criticism of the movie comes from the intentions of the movie's plot. This movie--and its director, based on his real-life comments on his purpose in remaking a film shot-for-shot--is, in a word, pretentious. Haneke himself states that "It is a reaction to a certain American Cinema, its violence, its naïveté, the way it toys with human beings" (The Village Voice). Already there lies pretentiousness in the idea of remaking your own movie only ten years after the original, with practically the only change being the language. Already you're assuming that Americans will actually watch your movie just because it's in English, and on top of that, you're assuming that the bourgeois depiction of the 'victims' would be more fitting in American theaters. Then, you're saying that the violence message is more fitting in American theaters. I'll go ahead and dissect why all this pretentiousness bears no redeeming fruit.

First point: American cinema is more focused on and condoning of violence than other countries' cinema. This point is already rendered practically untestable by the fact that there is no movie industry in the world that is quite comparable to Hollywood. Most industries are much smaller, and even the most comparable industry in terms of size (Bollywood) is not a fair comparison due to drastically different genre and stylistic focus. The established industry of film in America has the negative side effects of allowing low-quality and low-standards movies to be produced and distributed on a massive scale, as long as it provides a hook to entice consumers. The amount of violence in Hollywood is highly overemphasized, and is inevitable in the industry due to its inevitable hook. Also, these movies do fairly well in other countries (in terms of box office), suggesting that it's not strictly an American issue.

Second point: The bourgeois characteristic of the characters is more appropriate in American theaters. Although there are plenty of yuppies, brownnosers, and bourgeois in America, I think it's unfair to say the bourgeois appearances of the characters are more of an American feature than German, or French, or English, whatever developed country you like. It's a common human attribute, a longing to move up in life, and enjoying a higher standard of living--not something I agree with, but everyone's seen it in action. Both this point, and the previous one, simply show a narrow-minded judgment on the part of the director.

And the most, MOST important point to why this film did nothing for me: The film delivers a message about violence, especially in regards to middle/upper-class culture. This movie said nothing of importance to me. If you want to find a message like this, look at Clockwork Orange. There is no denying that Clockwork Orange effectively conveys a message about violence and morality in the modern world. This movie was looking and looking to make a point about violence, something about how watching violence and indulging in violent movies is akin to the violence itself. It got halfway there in that it drew the audience into the experience and almost created a sense of guilt. But it was unable to go much further. It did not even justify a nihilistic view, because the way in which the movie was made, especially the semi-surrealism of the actual events and the 'rewind' feature, at least reveals intent in creating a point. It circles round and round and ends up no where at all.

I would call this movie avant-garde if it actually made any impact on me. A film can seek to chase beauty, tell a story, delight viewers, convey a message, play on a theme, or invoke an emotion, but when a film does none of these it loses its value as a piece of art. And this is exactly where Funny Games ends up.


Back in 1997 director Michael Haneke made Funny Games, a disturbing and thought-provoking thriller that toys with the viewer's place as a voyeur. In 2008, the re-make, also directed by Haneke, debuts with an all new cast and this time in English. The problem is that it is essentially a shot-for-shot, line-for-line, verbatim re-shoot. This makes watching this film pointless if you've seen the original, or unnecessary to watch the original if you're planning on seeing the 2008 version. And despite those pesky subtitles that often upset American audiences, the original's authenticity and casting is surprisingly superior. Anne (Naomi Watts) and George (Tim Roth) arrive at their vacation home ready to enjoy some golf and sailing with their son (Devon Gearhart) and neighbors. As Anne is unpacking groceries, she is confronted by two young men, dressed in golf attire, and wearing white gloves. Thinking nothing of their politeness and harmless asking for eggs, explaining that the neighbors ran out of cooking materials, Anne immediately helps them. But when the two boys begin obviously antagonizing her, she realizes that their family is about to be taken hostage for a terrifying night of anything but "funny" games. The same opening overhead shot of a car (this time an SUV) driving down a desolate highway while the family inside plays a game of guessing opera tunes, opens the film. The same opera pieces are used, the same title sequence and the same ear-piercing abstract death metal. The film is undoubtedly disturbing, unique and white-knuckle suspenseful, but if you've seen the original, there's nothing new. The breed of dog changed, along with the style of phone (from mobile to cellular), but the house's white gate looks almost completely identical, and the kitchen and all of its seemingly random decorations are all a perfect match. Georg and Anna have been altered to their American counterparts George and Anne, and some of the original translations have been reinterpreted (such as fatty to tubby and cheeky to rude). What makes this remake only slightly more successful than Gus Van Sant's famously horrendous turn with Hitchcock's Psycho is that Funny Games was never that well known. Taking what many believe to be one of the greatest films of all time (Psycho) and re-doing it scene for scene is so utterly pointless, it's a wonder the idea was ever even carried out. At least with Funny Games the reasons are more coherent. Making a German film more accessible for American audiences through the use of English speaking actors isn't entirely inane. Devoid of an omniscient soundtrack and played out to feel like real-time, the events of this one freakish night is quite a distressingly entertaining ordeal. Regardless of the superiorities that are evident in the original, this version isn't without its shock value and thought-provoking commentary on voyeurism and violence. But with its unexpectedly appalling conclusion, bizarre plot twists and the unexplainable interference with the "fourth wall" (a.k.a. having characters talk directly to the audience), Funny Games may very well be a film that could never have been truly accepted by American audiences in the first place. - The Massie Twins


Funny Games US is a motion picture study of two young psychopaths and the pain, suffering, and ends they inflict. In the end it gives just one line that justifies what actually took place and that line was unable to make me not feel like I had wasted 2 hours of my life.

The characters are cardboard. The length of the film is excessive. In the end you care about no one involved and you are left feeling the conclusion (though there really is none) is totally unsatisfactory.

The violence contained in the film is never shown though the effects of the violence and its remnants are displayed prominently.

My belief is that the director was trying to show how passé we now find violence and even goes an extra step to show bare sexuality (there is no nudity in the movie) against the back drop of the violence to allow the audience to judge their own "arousal factors" and how close they are to violence.

But no matter what the directors intention, the product was without merit. I would recommend not watching the film. Not even when suffering from extreme sleeplessness in hopes that this might lull you into a restful slumber - trust me it won't.

Tim Roth is wasted with very little dialog. Naomi Watts is wasted though she is able to show a great deal of emotion and is used for her looks as an arousal tool. And the best showing was the actor who played their son who showed a great deal of stage like visual emotion. Bravo.

I was being nice when I gave this two stars - Watch at your own peril and remember you'll never be able to reclaim the two hours of your life.


The purpose of "Funny Games" is to provoke and disturb the audience. It does this so well that you may not be able to watch it -- a curious thing for a filmmaker to shoot for, but hey, that's the Austrians for you.

Michael Haneke already made this film in 1997 before going on to make other challenging films like "The Piano Teacher" and "Cache." Now he has remade it, almost shot-for-shot (see my note at the end), in English. His reason is apparently just that he'd like the film to be seen by a wider audience.

The hilarious part there is that no matter what language it's in, this film is not very marketable. It's not only a violent movie but a movie ABOUT violence. It toys with the audience's expectations about how movies are supposed to work. It allows brutal things to happen, then indicts us for wanting to see brutal things happen.

It's set in a lovely vacation home on a lake somewhere, the refuge of an affluent, upper-crust family whose members amuse themselves on long car trips by playing "Name That Tune" with opera CDs. We know little else about them other than their names: George (Tim Roth) the father, Anna (Naomi Watts) the mother, and Georgie (Devon Gearhart) the young son.

Just after they arrive for an extended stay, a young man in a tennis outfit stops by. He says his name is Peter (Brady Corbet). He's staying with the neighbors for a couple days, and the wife of that family asked him to come over and borrow four eggs from Anna. Anna gladly hands them over. Peter drops them on his way out, apologizes profusely in his soft, whimpery voice, and Anna gets some new eggs for him.

While this is going on, Peter's buddy Paul (Michael Pitt) shows up. Like Peter, he's dressed in tennis whites and is unfailingly polite. Also like Peter, he is slightly odd in his behavior. The boys' language is grammatically correct and unprovocative, yet at the same time slightly "off." Some of their answers are non sequiturs. They ask questions that don't seem to mean anything. They refer to each other by names other than Peter and Paul.

Haneke presents this sequence in a way that's almost unbearably tense. No one is doing anything blatantly wrong from a moral standpoint; even from a purely social standpoint the boys are more awkward than anything else, only gradually growing intrusive and presumptuous over time. Part of the reason the scene is so unsettling is that you can't quite put your finger on what's unsettling about it.

Finally the dam breaks and the incident turns into a full-blown home invasion. George is incapacitated -- unmanned, really, as he is forced to see his family suffer, powerless to help. Peter and Paul play mind games with the family and with the audience. Peter is the younger and less confident of the two, while Paul -- played with chilling menace by the soft-spoken Michael Pitt -- runs the show.

Haneke's goal is to unnerve us by subverting our expectations. He sets it up as a violent film, and yet almost every act of violence takes place off-camera. Instead of the frantic editing one normally sees in movies about killers and victims, Haneke shoots in long, unbroken takes. He keeps us distanced from the action by minimizing close-ups and by frequently composing shots that avoid the actors' faces, or that focus on someone other than the person speaking. And then, once we feel safely distanced from the horror, Haneke yanks us into it by having one of the characters look right into the camera and address us.

The film is not fun in the usual way that movies are fun. It deliberately avoids giving the payoffs we expect. Yet I don't find it frustrating or aggressive. Some provocative filmmakers seem intent on irritating or turning off the audience. With Haneke, I get the feeling that once you understand what he's up to, he's glad to have you in on the joke. He certainly goes about executing it in a masterful way.

(Finally, a note on how the film was remade. Only a few minor things prevent it from being literally a shot-for-shot remake. The dialogue, apart from being in English instead of German, is likewise almost identical. The sets are virtual twins of those in the original. Haneke has basically made it so that native English speakers have their own version of his film. He has not watered it down or altered it in the translation.)


This may contain MILD spoilers.

I like good horror/suspense movies in a genre which is full of PG-13 Asian Horror films that are Americanized or complete torture porn such as Hostel.

I was hoping this movie would be different. Unfortunately, the director simply wants to make a point about violence in movies. He basically is stating that people that enjoy the violence are sick.

As for the movie itself, it does have a good performance by Watts and overall the acting is good. However, it builds no suspense and breaks the cardinal rules about films. The characters talk to the audience and uses a remote control to change the events of the film.

I don't know who movie would appeal to. It does not have much violence for the gore hounds and I don't find a couple of psychopaths torturing a family (all off-screen) to be entertaining.

The movie has no suspense, humor, violence, and only a message that violence is bad.

I personally am not a gore hound but I do think the director does not give people enough credit. People know violence in movies are make believe. Why waste 2 hours of peoples times trying to make a social commentary against violence in movies? This movie is nothing more than a waste of time.

My recommendation: Go Rent (or Buy) Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange which covers similar territory but in a much better way.

Dean


There is nothing funny about Funny Games, or at least it wasn't for what I saw. The movie is marketed as an "important" social commentary about violence in cinema, but I left the movie without any new information. INstead the movie is a gratuitous torture porn flick that is constantly relentless. The word "relentless" is usually associated with movies when giving a positive review. Do not confuse my choice of words as a recommendation of any kind. Relentless it is. Stupid and pointless it is also.

The plot is obvious and almost arbitrary. A moderately new family is brutally tortured by two psychotic individuals. They wager a "bet" with the captives. The bet: The twisted minds believe they can kill this family before a certain time, while the family believes in survival. Of course, such bet could end with three gunshots at point blank range, but that would be too easy. Literally the largest chunk of the movie involves the family being tortured with random objects. As seen by advertisements, golf clubs are used frequently.

Naomi Watts stars and produced this film. Why would she attach herself to such a project? Because while some people will criticize the film for being without any redeeming merits, others will praise the "originality" and the "daring" aspect involved in creating something so "deep and meaningful". I should probably say at this time that this film in question is a shot for shot remake of an 11 year old Austrian version directed by the same individual. So much for originality. So why remake something so soon? Because as we all know, Americans can't enjoy a movie unless it is made domestically. Maybe we should make a commentary about that problem.

There is currently a debate about art versus entertainment. It is being suggested that even though the film contains hardly (if any) entertainment value, it should be accepted because of its artistic quality. Call me naive, but I feel that art and entertainment should be mixed. And while some film snobs will suggest that the film is "complicated" and needs a high intellect to enjoy, I say that it is too simplistic and predictable. Within the first ten minutes I was very aware of what was to follow. I knew how the ending was going to turn out. The only thing I didn't realize is the amount of manipulation that was to be used. At one point a remote control is used to rewind the action that just happened while the audience is scolded for rooting on the heroine in a violent act that they would have booed for if the villain was the one with an upperhand. The scene is then played out in a now grim way, leading to an ending that is so "original".

The sad thing about all of this horrible movie is that it is being marketed like a fresh horror satire. Scream was a very good horror satire that accomplished what it set out to do, which was to show the audience how horror films were clichéd, violent and unoriginal without actually producing a clichéd and unoriginal horror film. Without such false advertising, I can't see why anybody would want to watch Funny Games. It promises an explanation for the current audience's fascination of torture porn, but yet resolves to become an exhausting and manipulative torture porn story.

The psychopaths (played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet) constantly break the fourth wall in which they want to know what the audience is thinking. They assume that the audience is rooting for Anne, George and little Georgie. I didn't. Forgive me for not caring for one of the dumbest families captured on film. Forgive me for wanting to walk out of this inspired 100 minute rant about violence in cinema. Forgive me for hating Funny Games. Forgive me for advising that you avoid this movie like a plague.

Rating: zero stars out of ****


I'm afraid I learned nothing from this movie. It isn't a smart satire on the detached upper middle classes and how they put up a gate between themselves and the violent world outside. It isn't a dark comedy of manners. It's really just a slow paced slasher movie promoting and celebrating mindless violence for entertainment. It has about as much social significance as I Know What You Did Last Summer. I particularly despise the use of killing a child for nothing more than shock value. If you are distracted by the art house aesthetic and use of cinematic and audio editing techniques and don't agree then I'd like to present the classic horror/slasher/suspense scenario for your consideration.

Spoiler: One of the victims escapes the clutches of the psychos and runs into the deserted neighbourhood only to flag down a vehicle driven by - yes you guessed it, one of the psychos who brings her straight back to the house where she was originally imprisoned. It's played a little differently as he isn't the driver of the first car she sees but it's the same tired old trite cliché you've seen before so many times.

As for the excruciatingly predictable ending, I really could have written the last line myself half way through the movie, (sealed in in an envelope and posted it to myself and it would have been delivered before the end of the movie which felt like forever in arriving). And it has one of those endings that you think to yourself 'is that is?' And unfortunately 'that is it'. A movie about two motiveless two dimensional psycho killers with no explanation or conclusion to satisfy the viewer. It addresses the issue of violence and its affects on an ineffectual society just about as much as the latest Rambo movie does. It seeks to do so and aims but misses by a mile. Just glossy violence and nothing more.


I'd heard a lot about this film - apparently the original was superb and nicely psychologically dark. This, however, was just a disappointment, Positives of the movie: the two lead 'men in white' had their nicely eerie moments, and played their parts pretty damned well. Some of the forth-wall breaking was very well done, however it just wasn't done enough. The father's acting was good, and his pain was well simulated.

As for the rest of the film...I thought the moments of drawn-out nothingness were, at times, effective. But when you look at the brevity of the film, and the amount of cinema time actually wasted, it just didn't seem to add up. Naomi Watts was wooden and pretty appalling, the dialogue had definitely seen better days, the supposed 'brutality' was surprisingly disappointing.

I wasn't expecting much from what I thought was going to be a standard horror movie. Perhaps the main reason I was so disappointed was because at moments the screenshots, dialogue and directing seemed superb. However, it was lost in bad dialogue, mediocre acting and a poor sense of suspense.

Watch the original. This remake was a complete waste of time.


I have seen many bad movies in my time, this one has to be at the very bottom of the list.In every aspect it hits the GONG. It was originally a German film in 1997, same writer & director..He redid his original, which was no where as bad.

In the celluloid piece of garbage nothing works & here he has two actors who have proved there worth. Tim Roth & Naomi Watts are just awful.

The 2 nasties are revoltingly bad & one of them has done much better work..

I do not normally mind sleaze but here it is beyond the pale.

Ratings * (out of 10) 14 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (out of 10)


Today I went to the movies to see "Funny Games," an apparent shot for shot remake of an Austrian film produced ten years or so earlier which I also didn't see. I suppose its supporters will claim its a 'black comedy/horror.' I must admit, I am not one of these supporters. In fact, when I left the theater, I found myself feeling an overwhelming sense of disgust with both the film maker and the audience! Of course, I will get to more specifics on this, but for now, lets focus on the story.

This film is about a husband and wife, and their young son going to what appears to be their rather lavish riverside home, unaware as they drive past their friends that there are a pair of degenerates who are terrorizing the community, one family at a time.

The sociopaths, Paul and Peter, are a pair of soft spoken blonde haired guys who one would expect to see living in these mansions- who knows, perhaps they do. Either way, there isn't any kind of substantive catalyst to the horrors they unleash aside from a patronizing determination to 'remain civil' at the expense of their victims dignity, right until they reveal their true intents.

This story could have had a lot to say, and indeed, some of the technicals of this film are quite effective. This director knows how to ratchet up the suspense, to prod his audience into a state of near catatonia, however ultimately the effectiveness of both the story of the wolf in sheep's clothing and the quality of some of the film making becomes saturated in a need to demean and torture would be victims.

Case in point: in a scene where the two villains are debating the quality of the female victim's body, they decide they want her to take her clothes off- and to effect this, they stick a sack over her son's head and twist it to the point that these rather loud screams of pain and anguish can be heard. Imagine my absolute horror when members of the audience, and in particular, female members of the audience, could be heard laughing hysterically.

While I write this, I think I've concluded that the thing that I find most unsatisfying is the degree that the villains manipulate pretty much everything that happens in this story. You see, there's nothing particularly intelligent about them...just condescending and fake! There's nothing physically impressive about either of them: indeed I had hoped and still believe that someone like Tim Roth could've throttled them to within an inch of their lives, golf club or not! But on a couple of occasions there is an acknowledgment of their omnipotent control of everything and anything that I found just so inappropriate and ridiculous in this story.

For instance, at one point one of the characters talks directly to the camera (and of course, by extension, us); at another, one of the characters when the victims rise up (as one would naturally expect after they KILLED THEIR LITTLE BOY!!!) manages to rewind the action when it is unfavorable, and alter it so that the husband is shot dead, and the wife is bound and dropped into the lake.

And then we have the ending. But guess what: as the audience, I kinda feel like it was MY right to alter the action, and not that of one of those nothings who unleashed their horror! Therefore, I'd like to go back to the scene where there is a confrontation with these two over the eggs, and have the husband take his driver and knock both of their heads off BEFORE they get to kill the little boy.

To summarize: privileged young devils torture and kill a family. That really is all this film is about, and whilst it can hide behind its "uniqueness," truth is there is nothing unique here. Its not as gory as "Hostel," but its main purpose for being barks up the exact same tree! A tree that, as it grows, says less about our own world, and more about us! I'd recommend passing on this one!


It is difficult to comprehend how such an appalling movie was made. My family sat there shaking their heads in disbelief as to what was unfurling before their eyes. How did Naomi Watts ever get herself involved in such an awful production.I have no idea what the German original was like but it had to be better than this. Presumably in an effort to inject poignancy and engender some sympathy for the victims the director applied static cameras concentrating on the contorted expressions of the suffering Watts and Roth.During one living room scene of more than 15 minutes the camera did not pan or zoom but on just one occasion moved six feet left. The action was so slow I thought the DVD had frozen. Ultimately you couldn't careless what happened to Watts and company and I still don't know what happened since it became so excruciating that I called a halt to proceedings with less than 10 minutes to go.


watched this at work to pass some time on a slow night shift. oh my god! its absolute poop. it is very slow indeed (described as art-house by some reviewers) but some of the scenes are so slow we were laughing at them, its like someones forgot there's film in the camera. the rewind bit just doesn't sit with the rest of the film, its just total garbage. all in all i wish a x x o and f x g would watch some of the films there palming off onto the unsuspecting download public.Naomi watts looks good though! see ended on a positive. we watched zohan the night before and that was loads better. one more line needed. one more line needed. one more line needed.


There us no reason why this movie should ever have been made the first time yet alone twice. No one wants to see a family that includes and young boy get murdered with the psycho killers getting away. There is no reason for this idiocracy, and who makes such stupid choices? Run away you stupid kid, who hides next to a fire place? No house phone? And how many movies have you seen where the car you flag down is the villain? The answer is every horrible abductor movie. Think of something new, will ya. This movie made me angry, and if that is the reaction you wanted your the same a the psycho killers. Demented and sadistic. And for the people who say that the acting was great, wake-up No one would make the choices they make or react that way. This was just plain bad.


I have seen dogs excrete better material from their rear ends.

Those who try to make the case that this movie is about America's obsession with violence or voyeurism miss the real point. One that I think the writer and producers don't fully understand. If this movie contains any useful subtext, it is the futility of pacifism in the face of those bent on violence and trying to negotiate with evil.

The movie was full of plot holes and the ending unfulfilling and pointless. It is stunning to me that they could raise the money to make this movie. Did anybody read the script? Why was Naomi Watts drawn to this project? About the only redeeming part was seeing her in her undies for half the movie.

I certainly wish that I had been warned about this stinker of a movie.


All the people reviewing this movie don't get the fact that the point of the movie was to make you feel stupid for watching a movie like this. The preview makes it out to be a great thriller/horror movie but, ironically enough anytime in this movie there is any violence they just pan away and the one time you do they just take the whole scene back almost out of spite or just to annoy you. The whole point of the one OC preppy guy talking to the audience was almost to point out the director knew what you wanted to happen and more or less did the opposite. The end of the movie when they are all on the boat and they are talking about fiction and non fiction seemed to me like the director was explaining that in reality the way the movie was played out is the way it would happen in real life and not how most standard horror movies play out. This movie is like the strangers but worse the main characters do nothing to save themselves (nothing smart anyways) so you almost do even feel sorry for them and you don't care and sit there afterwords wondering why you watched this POS but in this movie i think that was the point, the director wanted you to feel stupid for watching it.

REGARDLESS I HATE IT SILL.

P.S. if you want to get a better idea of what this movie was really trying to say then read some of ther loved it posts there's some good points.


I really tried to like this movie. The critics (before I knew better) raved about this film so much it got me pumped up to see it. Well, to say it was a letdown is putting it mildly. Then again, a lot of people like sick and sordid films. I learned the hard way how sick mainline film critics are since they just loved the idea of a key character in the film turning out to be a transsexual. Wow! Cool! (Okay, if you say so.)

There are just too many uncomfortable, sordid and dark scenes in this movie, including a horrible first 15 minutes in which Forest Whitaker is a hysterical IRA hostage out in the middle of the woods. That beginning was anything but entertaining, at least to me.

However, I don't know anyone who watched this movie and liked it - not one!


Even The Simpsons said that this movie is great, so I decided to see it. But with knowing the big surprise this film is just a laugh. I think that it was very shocking when it came in the cinemas but now with knowing what happens, this film is nothing but a big joke. The first half of the film is pretty boring, and I didn't check why Fergus and Jody had to become friends. Jody didn't seem to be so nice and friendly. All the cursing of him turned really on my nerves because it didn't seem to be necessary. Then there is this big cut in the middle and you think another movie starts. With the new haircut of Fergus and the change of the setting there seems to be no connection between the two halfs. With knowing that Dil is a man, you always have to think about the outcoming and you just can't wait till it happens. And when it happens there is no reason for watching the film anymore. You think about why doesn't he leave this pervert or when he doesn't how they are going to have sex. Also you think about how Jody and Dil might have had sex and you can't understand that Jody first wanted to sleep with Jude.

The Oscar for the best screenplay is not earned because there are things I already have counted up. Also the nomination for best picture and best director seem to be not right. It is no good movie at all and the only thing worth watching it, is to see this girl's penis. Stephen Rea's acting is very simple so I'd like to question that nomination also. It is not bad, but I think almost anyone could act as good as this, there were no big challenges for him. Jaye Davidson really seems to be a woman, but with knowing, that he/she is a man you can see that the face is not woman-like.

So I think with knowing what happens in the film before watching it, this is just a waste of time. And even when you don't know what will happen, which you now know because I said it, it is also not worth the time.


I looked at the box and saw a sexy glamorous woman with a gun and thought she was going to go around shooting people and that the "unexpected plot twists" meant something like Pulp Fiction. This is not so -- this movie is mostly about a bizarre friendship and a bizarre romance with some nasty violent scenes thrown in. I found it mostly slow and occasionally creepy (watch out for the Irish Terrorists), and I think that in dividing itself between the male bonding and the love story it failed to make either part very compelling.


I've got a spoiler for you so if you don't want to look at a spoiler look away right now O.K. here's the spoiler: this movie sucks big time.

The utter craptitude of this project is beyond shame. A political Trojan horse of a movie if there ever was one. I should have suspected something when I kept trying to determine whether I had stepped into something on the way home from Blockbuster only to realize that the odour was emanating from my blockbuster bag. Never has an olfactory sensation so shocked my senses. Undeterred I removed it from its Pandora's box and unleashed it upon my DVD player. The movie did give me a million dollar idea however-google could invent a penis pop-up blocker for the DVD player, I know I'd buy one. I've had political agendas crammed in my face before but this is ridiculous (pun intended). If certain people want to push their beliefs that is fine but to do it in an underhanded style such as this is disgusting and abusive. Using shock value as your only means of persuasion is unintelligent and actually childish. What if in Bambi at the end a little kid came up hunting with his dad, cocked a shotgun with one hand and blew Bambi's brains all over the screen Pulp Fiction NC-17 style? Then immediately they cut to an American flag waving and patriotic music playing, and a shot of the kid hugging his proud father with a screen that said The End brought to you by the NRA. That would be the shocking equivalent. Never before has a movie sucked in this way and perhaps...one never will again.


There I was, peacefully enjoying the movie. It was quite good, realistic atmosphere, authentic dialogue etc. THEN came the twist... I'm sorry I can't tell you about the rest of the film, I switched it off after that...

 NOT because I was offended or repulsed, but because the big 'surprise' had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what had gone before it. It just came completely out of left field. When even the film's tagline shamelessly promotes the one big 'shock' in the movie for all it's worth, you can be sure the rest of the film that's built around it won't be much cop.

 Juvenile shock tactics just to get bums on seats? It's schoolboy stuff; and that's really who this film should be aimed at, despite the clamouring of the pseudo-intellectual crowd who claim to love it for its 'daring'. Pssshht.


Don't know what all the hype was about. All in all I cried about wasting my time watching this over-hyped film. Did absolutely nothing for me.

As for the big surprise, it certainly was not a secret to me. It was telegraphed way ahead of time, so that my reaction at the fateful moment was "is that all there is?". I actually kept watching the rest of the movie since I was expecting something bigger or more shocking.

Nothing at all special about this movie.


Evidently a cult movie with the homosexual set, The Crying Game is a homoerotic fantasy based on a deeply disturbed transvestite character, Dil, implausibly mixed up in Irish terrorism. The blurb speaks dishonestly and misleadingly of the film as "a romantic thriller" without disclosing its homosexual character. Irish terrorists should sue. The film should carry a health warning.


A sex scene using Pink Floyd's "Shine on you crazy diamond" as soundtrack is one of the very few original things in this movie. But apart from that, little is to be remembered from this mediocre soft porn film.

Joe Dalessandro and Sylvia Krystel were top sex symbols at the time "La marge" was made; the former still had the infamous Warhol trilogy stamped all over him , while the latter had found stardom a couple of years earlier with the legendary "Emanuelle". I guess it was inevitable that the "talents" of these two were combined in one movie, possibly having their strip-in-every-other-scene fame in mind. And while Krystel seems to be laid back in a territory she is familiar with, Dalessandro is obviously nervous at times, the reason probably being that he CANNOT speak french! Almost each time he speaks, the camera avoids shooting his face, making us seriously think if it is his voice that is heard!

Too bad that such an interesting storyline is wasted on consequent, vaguely linked to each other, sex scenes.

3


The show is quite nice except for the actress should learn to act a bit more natural rather than trying to so call act cute. I have seen lot of her show and her acting really have lots more to brush up. Too fake. I also don't understand why she was choose to be the lead actress of this show. Maybe budget was low. If she can learn to act less fake, it would be nicer.


Fann Wong (Yes, weird name) . Just because some industry bigwig thought she was photogenic and popular with teenagers, she was cast in this picture. Peter Ho is a singer by trade and this is his first time acting. Though they look like they could sell toothpaste together, they certainly can't sell movies. This movie was a thorough waste of time and it nearly bored me to tears in the cinema.

"The truth about Jane and Sam" is a totally shallow work employing the oldest plot in the book. A cynical, jaded woman (Fann Wong) in Hong Kong, meets Singaporean journalist(Peter Ho). At first they don't like one another, then he finds she is actually a sweet, nice girl inside. Then they end up going to bed. The next morning, POW! she is in the kitchen (how domestic) , making him breakfast.

This is just a movie to cheat impressional teenagers of their allowances. By the way, the soundtrack sucks too. Thank goodness they didn't let Fann Wong sing the theme song. . Watch this movie at your own peril.


The murder of a lawyer's wife takes second place in importance to the impact of gossip on members of the small town. By gossip, I mean the exchange of supposedly confidential information about persons and their relationships. It's a better research problem than murder because we can all understand why someone might kill someone for personal reasons. They hurt us or they stand in our way. But when malicious gossip endangers the peace of mind and the social status of a heretofore upstanding citizen, we must wonder about it. What is it that makes some of us hate well-known and respected people? Why do we seem so eager to believe everything bad about them? The victim doesn't even get a trial, just summary judgment.

Briefly, the plot is this. Peter Coyote is a kind of smug defense lawyer who gets Lesley Ann Warren off after she murders her husband. Coyote beams. He's won yet another case, which makes him look good but makes the police chief look like an idiot.

Warren becomes enamored of Coyote, power and celebrity being the aphrodisiacs that they are, but Coyote is happily married and has a few kids. He spurns her advances. Hell hath no fury like a woman spurned. Warren hires some dumb stud to kill Coyote's wife, telling the murderer that the whole thing is being instigated by Coyote himself. After the killing, Warren blames Coyote publicly and at the grand jury she testifies that she was nothing more than an intermediary between Coyote and the killer. The cops having been humiliated by Coyote once too often, are happy to dig up whatever circumstantial evidence they can to make him look bad.

Then the plot falls apart. Warren takes the stand to make sure that Coyote gets skinned alive, but she begins to stutter. The media describe this as a "nervous breakdown on the stand." (It would be nice to see a courtroom drama in which nobody has a nervous breakdown on the stand.) Coyote is set free. He walks out of the courtroom vowing never to leave Travis.

I don't know why he doesn't leave Travis. With some exceptions, the towns folk seem to have leaped on him like a rabid pack of his namesakes on a rotting pronghorn carcass. And what kind of climax is that, anyway? All this intrigue, murder, family love, gossip, and what happens? Nothing really, except that Coyote is let go.

Peter Coyote is a pretty good actor. He's confident and professional. Lesley Ann Warren is very sexy but cannot act. She should have made more soft-core skin flicks. Those goggling dark eyes, her breathless quivering voice, he nervous little laughs, her tics. Nobody else really stands out.

No more than average. It should have gotten more into the dynamics of small-town gossip but the movie isn't ambitious or dark enough to tackle a subject so reluctant to yield simple answer.


I just picked up a video of this one for 75p-about all its worth. I usually like the True Story types but this is only true if you realise that people murder people. More likely its a rip off of Fatal Attraction. A woman apparently discovers her husband has been murdered-there was no motive for her to have done it yet she's arrested.A lawyer gets her off on some sort of technicality-which could have been due to the fact that there was no fingerprints,witnesses or motive but the police need to do this stuff. This is when you think it can't have been a True Story because it starts to get into the realms of fiction with plots and subplots based on the storyline of a woman lusting after her lawyer who tells her he's happily married.We find out later he DID once have an affair which nearly destroyed him. How utterly original! It just seems as if the plot is being added to when the woman employs a hit man to bump the lawyers wife off after arranging to have his nightclub torched.It gets too silly I was glad when it finished the film overstayed its welcome by about an hour


I was told this movie was good, so I was expecting something watchable. But what I saw was the biggest waste of a movie ever. This movie isn't worth the $3 to spend to watch it. Please never see this movie.


This film has a cult following, much like Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator or Sam Raimi's Evil Dead, but isn't close to entertaining as the two cult classics. I am a huge fan of cult films - I even enjoy such obscure cult flicks like Head of the Family and Don't Look in the Basement, so I was anticipating an enjoyable ride with Basket Case, but it didn't deliver. Everything about this film is bargain--basement, from the acting to the effects. The stop-motion effects are TERRIBLE. I realize this isn't Harryhausen, but low-budget filmmaker Brett Piper uses stop-motion quite well.

The film tells the tale of conjoined twins - one little more than a head growing out of his fully developed brother's right side. His father hires a trio of quack doctors to remove the head, named Belial, from the body of the anatomically correct Duane. The doctors throw away Belial after removing him from Duane's side, but Duane picks his brother out of the trash bin and they go on a revenge murder spree, killing the doctors who separated them.

STORY: $$$ (This isn't the problem. The story is interesting but everything else is muddled. This dialogue is bad and the effects are terrible. In more capable hands, this could have been the cult classic that some people proclaim it to actually be).

VIOLENCE: $$$$ (There is plenty of blood in this film. The best scene is when Belial gets busy with a set of scalpels and plants them in the female doctor's face. If gore is your thing, then this won't upset, but if you like well written dialogue, then don't bother).

ACTING: $ (Terrible, from top to bottom. There isn't a soul in this film with a shred of talent. The lead, Kevin Van Whatever, is in desperate need of acting lessons as is his love interest, Terri Smith, in her only film credit mind you. The doctors were poor actors and the people inhabiting the motel seemed plucked from off the streets).

NUDITY: $$$$ (Plenty of it - men and women


Allow me to ask some rhetorical questions:

-Why would ANY airport allow an 11 year-old on a plane WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR TICKET?

-Don't you think Megan is a little too smart to get on the wrong plane?

-Why would the most PRESTIGIOUS hotel in Los Angeles allow a single 11 year-old to stay in the PRESIDENTIAL SUITE? Without checking her credit card? Do the words FRAUDULENT CHARGES ring a bell?

-How was Megan allowed to stay in the hotel's PRESIDENTIAL SUITE, which costs a good $15,000 a night (or more) for over a week? Gee, that's over $100,000, plus ROOM SERVICE. Her mom and dad are going to be ticked...

-How did a couple of thugs outwit ARMED GUARDS to get a money printing press?

And just to top it all off, it wasn't really a very funny movie...


This film is an attempt to mix an (American) Office style lead character with a watered down Woody Allen writing style. However, this attempt at dry and edgy fails due to uninspired writing and sub standard acting. It is closer to a feature length episode of 'Sex in the City', but somehow managing even less in the way of intuitive observations about relationships.

I assume women will find this film ignorant and unrealistic and men will find this incredibly dull and unable to relate to any of the one dimensional male characters, so I'm not sure who will enjoy it (but what do I know about women since I'm just a man). What is most confusing is how none of the characters managed to endear themselves to me. This is similar to any other modern romantic comedy about the difficulty of relationships, but fails to make the viewer care if any of the people end up either alone, happy, sad or dead etc. I could be missing the point, and this might be intended as a hilarious roller-coaster of a film, and not anything to do with realistic characters, but if so, it is even further from the mark the mark than I thought. One major point that only deserves a few simple words: the lead character is absolutely terrible.

The good points about this film are that the direction isn't that bad, Stamos is good, the pacing is fine and the plot had potential. This is not a horrible film, its just lacking in the most important areas that this sort of film needs to excel in to be good: believable comedy acting and precise writing.

Avoid, but not like the plague, and instead 'When Harry Met Sally' or 'The Break Up' are much better films that do something similar to this film, but better.


Okay, some get John Waters and some don't. The same is true of Divine, I think. I fall into the second category. With the exception of "Hairspray" which was tolerable only because of Ricki Lake, John Waters's movies go straight over my head.

This movie was my first introduction to Waters and Divine and what a wake up call. It's rare that I don't finish a movie, but this is one of the few exceptions. It is incredibly UN-funny. It features "nude" scenes with Divine who is the ugliest, least talented female impersonator I have ever encountered. Admittedly I haven't encountered many, but the ones I've seen were way better and they didn't get to star in even a lame piece of junk like this one. At no time did I accept Divine as a woman, and yet this movie insisted that I do so even to the point of enduring scenes where he/she attempted to seduce various male characters, and even attempted to provoke (if memory serves) a rape scene. Perhaps the ridiculousness, the sheer lack of any believability is the whole point. Usually I like that kind of thing, as when Elmer Fudd defies gravity. But this was pushing it, even for me.

Maybe John Waters and Divine are your taste; maybe you'll get it and be entertained. Me: I rented this stink bomb and really wanted my money back.


This is one of weirdest of film projects Marlon Brando ever got himself involved in. I'm still trying to figure out the point of it all.

The Night of the Following Day was shot in France and it involves rich, young, and pretty Pamela Franklin being kidnapped and held for ransom. As is the usual the initial snatch goes off like clockwork, but the plan after that just doesn't come off.

Jess Hahn, American expatriate actor, is the leader of the group that includes his sister Rita Moreno, Marlon Brando, and Richard Boone. Moreno is a junkie, a little trip with some nose candy and Brando and Hahn are left waiting at Orly Airport. An obliging POLICEMAN actually gives them a lift.

In the meantime Richard Boone who's never bad even in the worst films is getting some lascivious desires about Franklin. Brando's got reason to be concerned about him.

Al Lettieri plays a small role as a pilot who's also part of the plan and his work here led Brando to push for him with Francis Ford Coppola to give him a breakthrough role as Virgil Sollozo in The Godfather.

I think the American players did this one for a hefty paycheck and a trip to Paris. There have been worse reasons for doing a film.

As for its meaning, don't want to give anything away, but think Dallas as you're watching it.


To call this movie "bad" is to pay it a compliment. There are superlatives, however: the worst musical score everworst-ever wig for Marlon (runner-up: Rita Moreno)worst-ever ill-conceived kidnap plot and the list goes on. It's fortunate that this was not Marlon Brando's first role because it might have short-circuited an otherwise brilliant career.This movie was not a dream, but a nightmare. The only redeeming feature for me was that it was a free movie available on the Comcast cable network.

The picture was so "European" that you get a greater appreciation of the abilities of the boys in Hollywood.

This is a very short review, but it's more than the movie deserves.


A group of criminals kidnap a young girl to extort money from her rich father. While this sounded promising, it was an insufferably dull film, easily the worst I've seen of Marlon Brando's at this point. It's also flatly directed with poor characters and dumb dialog, some of it spoken unconvincingly even by Brando himself, "man", and it comes off as almost laughable!

The first half contains meaningless squabbles between the gang, and then we get into other situations with little point to them. The music is bad too, and just when you thought it couldn't get worse, the lousy ending seals the deal shut.


...I mean, besides the fact that it wouldn't be a short, snappy, catchy title. ;)

Sleazy soap opera shenanigans? Reality show spoof? Serious murder mystery? Examination of the abuse of power and the tempting/corruption of innocents? Satirical jab at the rich & crazy and our famewhore culture? Sympathetic look at "poor" dysfunctional family? Envy the wealthy and ogle at the opulence! No, pity the rich their shallow, empty lives! What...the...hell.

This show was all over the place. The tone, and apparent intent kept changing from episode to episode, depending on whoever was writing or directing that week, I guess. Looking at the list of credits (so many producers) it's easy to conclude that there were too many cooks in the kitchen...too many people who wanted a piece of the pie (mmm, now I'm hungry). Too many people behind the scenes who did not share a unified vision of what Dirty Sexy Money should be. Television, or any other kind of writing, by committee, sucks. Greedy, untalented hacks who attach themselves to a show they think will be a hit, also suck.

They hired some damn fine actors for this thing (which is why I tuned in). Too bad TPTB didn't really know what to do with them, wasting their talent, and our time. I didn't even bother with Season 2, which I read was even more ridiculous. There's no way this incoherent mess could've ended to anyone's satisfaction. Just be glad it ended, freeing the cast for better work.


Normally I wouldn't comment on an American soap opera however this just seems another example in a long line of mediocre work, which is just way overrated. Case in point: Peter Krause seems to be the most narcissistic actor working in TV today and the 4 or 5 expressions he managed to pick up in acting classes were wearing a bit thin in 6 feet under ( another overrated pile of doodoo ) Now they are just indicative of his total lack of character/personality/screen presence.

The married relationship smug Nick and simpering Lisa have is a boring cycle of Lisas' insincere jealousy of Karen-argument-bust up-reconciliation EVERY episode.

William Baldwins' character Patrick is supposed to be a senator or congressman or something. Well all he does is stumble around with that slack jawed, half coherent primate with hurt emotions thing he does so well, which suits 2 dimensional stereotypical characters like cons, drug dealers, drunks but is a bit of a stretch way playing a complex character like a US senator.

Donald Sutherland and Jill Clayburgh are just laughing all the way to bank.

There's more but I've got things to do.

OH Glenn Fitzgeralds' character is this shows only saving grace and it's probably not enough. Cheers


I agree with the reviewer that this "felt" like the Royal Tans or Running w/Scissors, both of which are acquired tastes in my opinion. Top shelf stars, no doubt. Interesting sets and an obviously expensive budget. It was meant to be intriguing but wasn't. I developed no interest in any of the characters or their predicaments and like the reviewer above, I felt nothing but disgust for most of the them. It didn't leave me looking forward to the next episode so, if it was immediately canceled, I would not take notice. That's truly sad to say of an act with such notable stars. This show has much to do if it is to gain my interest...so, in one sense, it has only one way to go but up and that's better than having crashed on take-off. On the merit of the stars' past performances, I'll give the show a few more chances.


SPOILERS: We sit through ten minutes of AWFUL clichéd dialog at the beginning from two completely unoriginal characters with bad twangs (ripped off from Kalifornia and Natural Born Killers - there isn't an original thing about these two) and you're going "either they're about to kill everyone in the diner or already have" and lo and behold guess what happens.

I can't stand all the Tarantino wannabes out there and this guy is one of the worst. I got maybe 25-30 minutes into the thing when I just couldn't take it and stopped watching. Miner's really bad acting was unbearable - I couldn't take it. That, and the terrible script. After reading some of these comments I see there was a big twist - well guess what? No one cares. When you create completely uninteresting, unoriginal and unlikeable character like these two clichés, no one cares what big "twist" may have happened. I hope this is the end of these types of movies.


watched this movie tonight, it was very very dry...we almost turned it off............................but we figured to keep going.......boy was it a mistake............... the acting.............sucked...............the plot...............well it was more of a made for TV movie based on a true story............... if you value any sec of your time...don't watch this...i want my time back but will never get it....just say no to indy films...they all suck...they are just like this... I was asking my wife.."do you think they got paid for this?? like the main actors" we figured maybe like a few hundred a week? awful awful stuff.. I don't know why I keep seeing crappy movies but there are just so many of them!!!!!!!!!


I recently viewed this movie and was left in awe at the sheer awfulness that this film portrayed. You would actually have to compliment the writers for making such a disgusting film, because to my knowledge no being who had any semblence of dignity could be capable of making such a horrible movie. Translations from the attempt at italian in this movie were terrible. In conclusion, avoid this film at all costs.