Any sensitive man or woman who knows the depth of detail of the greatest battle in the WWII Pacific Theater, the "Battle for Iwo Jima" gets tears in their eyes not just for the incredible loss of Marines but startlingly enough, for the tragic, needless loss of the Japanese soldiers who had dug themselves deeply into the island's rock-like volcanic ground and fought to their deaths from bunkers, many remainders committing suicide in keeping with the then prevailing philosophy of war in Japan.

One can almost feel the sadness coming from text written by invested historians even today, now more than 60 years after the event that began just before 2AM on 16 February 1945.

This feature film bears the title of the book upon which it's based. The book was written by James Bradley, the son of Petty Officer John Bradley one of the flag raisers in the famous photo by photographer Joe Rosenthal. Roughly a year ago or so I sent around an email to friends about the flag raising photo and about Joe. Joe Rosenthal is now gone, having passed away this past August (2006).

The author of the book was the son of a US Navy Corpsman (a medic, then rated as a Pharmacist's Mate) serving with the Fleet Marines whom history had placed at the point where the large flag was raised over Suribachi (a replacement flag for a smaller one raised shortly before).

While I would argue a bit with Clint Eastwood about the lack of historical background data in his film I cannot argue about the quality of it. It stands as the best film depicting war or a battle that I have ever seen.

What the film is about; the gap between those who fought the hellish and nightmarish battle and the remote, sometimes even supercilious perceptions of it by the mass public at large, those who just simply heard of the battle. The film pulls no punches when it comes to revealing this human riddle.

There have been other films about this battle. One that comes easily to mind is about one of the other flag raisers, a Native American by the name of Ira Hayes. His tragic life was dramatized in the moving 1961 Delbert Mann feature film well portrayed in this serious turn by Tony Curtis (as Hayes).

We have also had some superb anti-war films such as Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory (1957) set in WWI.

This Clint Eastwood film takes its place among the best of this kind. It clarifies, instructs and above all it inspires us when we realize that such films that reveal the horrible truth about war can not only be made but celebrated by growing numbers of audiences. This towering film will receive much recognition as time plays out. It's a triumph in film-making.


A look into the infamous battle that took place on Iwo Jima during the Second World War and the resulting aftermath which is not so much on the blood soaked battlefield as it is back home on the political front.

The film shows the difficulties of trying to sell the one thing in the world no one wants: WAR. Politicians want results, soldiers want to earn a living, families want their children home, the world needs change and sometimes it seems war may be unavoidable to make the latter happen. But the fact remains: no one wants war. Yet certain people decide that it is necessary and continue to wage it at high costs of money, time, resources, and life. What seems as the film's central event - the famous flag raising on top of Iwo Jima's highest peak - is not really central at all. The great irony here of how such a small event, that happened only in the beginning of the battle, was made out to be one of the biggest drives in advertising how important it is that the American people continue to fund the war. How insignificant and even naive it is to label a handful of soldiers, who were merely following orders and trying to stay alive, as heroes that won a great victory.

Clint Eastwood has tackled issues of all sorts, especially since he directed 'Unforgiven' and this is his grandest film yet. It encompasses an entire country and how it deals with selling war, which is one of the biggest (not best, or even worst just the BIGGEST) things any one country can do. Eastwood keeps the film critical throughout about this very important and today, ever relevant, issue. Pointing out the great political convenience that has become of "heroes." How they only matter for something that has been deemed great, yet this "great" thing can be, very ironically, routine and even disregarded when it actually happened. And the heroes disregarded and brushed off the moment they are no longer needed. 9/10

Rated R: war violence/carnage and profanity


This isn't a review but simply my impressions after seeing the film for the first time. Its more an answer to the question "what did you think?" than anything concrete since I'm still pondering the film and wondering when I'll be able to see it again.

I love movies that defy expectations. I love movies that make you agree with every review, good and bad, that you read. I love movies that are almost impossible to classify.

Going I knew that Flags of Our Fathers was not a straight forward war film. It is not just the battle of Iwo Jima. Its something more. Its an examination of heroism, propaganda, what people need to believe to win a war, how vets see and speak of the past, how the soldiers see the war and themselves, how parents deal with the death of a child. Its a very complex film. Clint Eastwood has structured it in several layers, like an onion, with flashbacks within flashbacks and within memories. Its never difficult to follow, it just has a great deal going on and it takes a good chunk of the film to begin to understand whats going on and what Eastwood is getting at.

To be honest I'm not sure what I think of the film. From a technical stand point its one of the best films of the year. Its a masterpiece of the film makers craft. Its beautifully acted as well. Look for Oscar Nominations come the end of the year. Anything the film wins will be well deserved...

...but I'm not sure I "like" the film. The problem is that this film is hard to warm up to. It takes a while before you begin to care about anyone, hell before you even really know who anyone is. Then it takes a while to warm up to them. These are not clichéd characters so you can't instantly drop preconceived notions on to, these are people not ideas. Most people are not what you think they are, and some aren't around long enough to know if you were right or wrong.

I think anyone who sees the film will have to, in fairness, see it a second time, maybe more. Its a movie that requires you go through it more than once so that you can see it fresh and peel away some of the layers each time you watch it. The first time you see certain things and the next time, now that you know everyone, you'll see more. Its a Chinese puzzle box of a movie. This doesn't make it a bad movie, it just makes it difficult to say if I liked it or not.

I think the only ones who are going to dislike it outright are either those who want a straight forward account of the battle or those who refuse to allow the film to be anything than what they thought it should or would be. I thought I had a handle on it going in after reading about it and still I was surprised by what the film really was up to.

Yes its graphic, but in someways the emotional truths the film digs at are much more raw than the blood splattering and the limbs flying. The battle begins almost before we know anyone really so that there is this odd distance at the start. Its almost nameless faces and bodies being torn apart. I know I was kind of unaffected to the early scenes of violence, however later once the film shifts to the tour and we revisit the battle and we have a sense of who these men are the effects are devastating. Though the real power of the film lies in its simple scenes of mere humanity which moved me moved me more than any of the acts of violence.

I don't know what else to say other than see this movie, just be prepared to do so more than once.


a real story, a real account, a real movie.....one of the best of all time!! if anyone had any questions on whether clint eastwood could do it again, they've been answered. The flag that stands on Japan's Iwo Jima remains as one of the nation's most prevalent symbols of freedom, justice, victory, and, most of all, freedom. i have never been so moved to see such a movie then Flags of Our Fathers, and i know that this movie will awake the eerie memories of WWII vets from the war in the Pacfic some 65 years ago. If this movie does not win at least 3 Academy Awards, then we as a nation have lost a patriotic feel towards our history. We will never forget, and we will always be thankful.


Wanna see a movie that will make you think about the meaning of war? See Flags of Our Fathers.

You may very well feel like I did after watching this movie. I felt like I was assaulted as much as the enemy. I saw more war and blood than I expected. As movies go, this part of the movie was done as any good war movie should be done. You see the enemy, you kill while spilling blood all over the place, get killed while spilling blood all over the place, and then you make people cry.

In Flags, you have more to deal with than blood and tears. You have to deal with the sweat and cold heartedness from both sides. Hmmm, both sides...? Maybe not for people like Ira Hayes. There was definitely more than 2 sides for Ira and maybe even for you.

No matter who you are or what you are, there is something in Flags of Our Fathers that should make you notice the reality of war. Yes, I am saying this is a thoughtful movie. If you want war and blood and nothing else, you need a slasher movie. You will see how war is fought by people at all levels of life in more dimensions than are normally obvious. War sucks, people can suck, but this movie does not suck.

To everyone involved, thanks for the reality check. Hopefully everyone who sees this movie can read between the lines - on all sides of all lines.

The story is GOOD, the cold-hearted bast**ds are BAD and the war is UGLY. But you don't see Clint Eastwood. However, you do feel his million dollar touch and he will not go unforgiven.

8 out of 10


"Flags of Our Fathers" is a well written account of the impact on the lives of three young servicemen by a single photograph seen back home as an image of victory. Little did nearly everyone know at the time, and apparently even today, the photograph depicted the 2nd raising of the flag. The "heroes" in the photograph felt far from heroic.

Clint Eastwood juxtaposes memories of the preparation leading up to and in addition to the actual events at the Battle of Iwo Jima with ceremony after ceremony of War Bond fund-raising and the different effects it had on each man. To some, this jumping around, time-wise, may be a bit confusing, especially with the inconsistent use of a narrator.

The battle scenes were, at times, gruesome and graphic, but were not overdone and successfully instilled a sense of what is was really like in the costliest battle the United States fought. The most gruesome scene, though, was left to the imagination.

This was the first depiction of the Battle of Iwo Jima I've seen that attempts to divulge the mostly unknown faces of the men made famous by a photograph and the problems they faced at home.

It was also one of the only movies I've seen where all (save 1) of the audience stayed for all of the credits and when the credits ended, there was a long, silent moment shared by all.

In summary: Powerful.

I'm looking forward to Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498380/)


Sometimes you see a movie that opens a door into a fascinating topic, into subject matter that is completely new and original, and that was the case when I first saw "Flags of Our Fathers".

I'd visited the statue of the raising of the Iwo Jima flag, and I'd long been a fan of the John Wayne movie, "The Sands of Iwo Jima", but I had no idea about the controversy surrounding that famous photograph.

This movie just sucked me in and didn't lose my interest for one second. It's brilliant story telling by Eastwood. Lots of films deal with the psychological effects of battle on soldiers, but "Flags Of Our Fathers" examines this subject from a completely new angle. This also might be the best movie ever made about war-time propaganda, revealing the nuts and bolts of manufacturing heroes for public consumption.

Sobering, thoughtful, and totally engrossing, "Flag's of Our Fathers" is a revelation of a film.


To take the battle of Iwo Jima and show how that war, that turning point, maybe not, that dramatic apocalypse, for sure, of the Second World War, American side, is a pure illustration of what an apocalypse is: a revelation. Clint Eastwood with his Steven Spielberg accomplice demonstrate that revelation and its secret content. The kids who are sent to a war, any war, all wars, are no heroes whatsoever and in any way but they are the flesh and dough of the cannons of the enemy, or rather the other side. And they even have to lie and play heroes to get the dough the government needs to continue and finish that war. Those heroes are associated to flags and the raising of flags on a pile of ruins to show and inspire victory, be it in Iwo Jima, Berlin or Hiroshima. Heroes are fabricated for the sole reason that they are needed to go on with the lucrative and politically essential war, on any side of the conflict. For one flag, and in this conflict hardly more than half a dozen flags for fifty five million dead. That makes each star on the flags, when these flags have stars, quite expensive. There is no clean war, there is no un-staged war, there is no just war. There is only war, war horror and staging the horror to make it palatable to those who do not live it, have not lived it, do not remember it. And some invent a duty to remember, an obligation to keep in mind, even when we are two or three or more generations after the conflict and we do not have direct witnesses to speak of it any more, and their word is only their word modified by time, propaganda, celebrations and simply the desire to forget. There is no obligation to remember, even if there is an obligation to make, not only permit them to, historians go on with their work and try to reconstruct what has disappeared forever anyway. In fact a poet could be more effective in that direction than a historian who is paid for his work and tends to follow the trend of whoever pays him, be they publishers or politicians, or committed associations on one side or the other of the many rivers that run through historical time. Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg do a marvelous work along that line.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID


I saw the movie on TV and liked it a lot. TO be honest, I am a huge Clint fan, no matter if actor or director, or both at the same time. Given this, I found the photography great (with the use of a rather dark and "dusty" light) and the first battle scene rivals "Private Ryan" (does it have anything to do with the fact that Steven Spielberg is one of the producers?). The non-rhetoric tone chosen for the story is Eastwood's true landmark (see also "A perfect world") and I found extremely touchy and delicate the scene where "Doc" finds the corpse of his mate Iggy brutally tortured, he lights up an electric torch but all we see is his own face looking at the dead man, not the corpse. I bet that 99% of other directors would have shot a close-up of the dead. The scene as it is stresses even more the sense of brutality and sadness of the circumstance, whilst respecting the audience and avoiding to spectacularize death. Unfortunately, I found it rather difficult to follow the script with so many flashbacks and, to some extent, I found the movie development a bit chaotic. Nevertheless, another big hit from my actual favorite director. 8/10.


'Flags of Our Fathers' is a well-organised picture that flows rather nicely on the issues it wishes to address. However, it is hampered by its depiction of the surviving members who lifted the flag on Iwo Jima.

Although based on fact rather than fiction the characters all seemed to be stereotypical, or fulfilling roles so as to compare and contrast against one another. You have one individual who is happy to be in the public eye, another who is angry that they are receiving such plaudits, and lastly the indifferent but stable individual who is central to the whole story.

It does have a strong emotional core, but does not offer anything different to the many other war films that have come before. It is a sombre study of the background behind the iconic image of America at that time, and for its factual and historical focus it should be appreciated.


who know little about the battle for Iwo Jima. It is almost like 2 separate movies in one. You have one part centered around the men who rose the flag and their life in the US afterwards. They are celebrated as heroes. The other part shows flashbacks of the fighting in the Pacific. I like war movies, so I liked those parts best. The war scenes were realistic and well filmed.

The acting was pretty good, but this is not Clint Eastwood's best film. I have liked other war films better but this one is entertaining enough to watch.

FINAL VERDICT: If you like war movies, then don't miss this.


This movie is so clearly a christmas classic that i can barely contain myself! Please, make this movie a part of your family's traditional holidayic behavior. Watch it while you wrap the presents, and for a truly quixotic effect, watch it backwards when you unwrap them.

I think that this movie has also taught my "dog" how to talk. I have showed him this movie (privately) over fourteen hundred thousand times and now he can speak. Of course, he doesn't vocalize his speech: he transmits it through the air-but i think that this is still somehow remarkable (I think).

He is telling me to write this: -------- I am so hungry please feed me. Please. I am starving. I need to eat. I am so skinny I that can barely move. Don't hit me anymore. It only hurts and makes me sleepy enough to fall into some reverie. --------

Well, better go feed the pup! (10 out of 10 stars.)


just wanted to add that i really like the video, and i think its no more weird than any television talk show or game show or news show or presidential election show: it mixes up a lot (in our heads i mean), but the confusion comes from the matter, not from the artist.

it's full of speculations and confusing plot points, as part of what it is about. in fact it was the only movie i ever saw, that was able to both analyze and illustrate the TV strategies of war reporting since operation desert storm (which it is exactly about) and the beginning new world order. that's maybe what seems technically overwrought?

seems to me, other artists like godard or kitano work the same way, merging so many images, synthezising so many parts of life, in the end you're overwhelmed. because we are not used to watch movies that way. because there is little chance to see stuff like this in cinemas.

thx for your attention. ;)


Not unlike an acid trip, I don't think this film is meant to be clearly "understood" in its entirety. You have to pay attention and give it some thought, like modern symphonic music or abstract painting, but doing so might just reward you with a strong appreciation. I stumbled across it on VHS at a rental shop and took a chance, and now am very glad I did. It is (a bit dated) psychedelic eye candy and food for thought. It can be rather depressing, or if taken lightly, can be quite comical. If you discount anything mind-bending or mentally challenging as boring or stupid, if your idea of great film-making is "Signs" or "True Lies," don't bother with "Wax."


"Wax" is very likely the oddest film I've ever seen. Marvelously, beautifully, lyrically, and profoundly intellectually stimulating in all respects. Breathtaking in its scope and achievement. But very odd.

I have read medical reports containing sodium pentathol interviews and transcripts of schizophrenics' monologues. I have read memoirs and fiction by schizophrenics and hard drug users. I have read Surrealist and Beat Movement literature. I have read James Joyce and Gertrude Stein. I have read the visionary poetry of Charles Williams and H.D.

I have watched films by Kenneth Anger and David Lynch and Maya Daren. I have read Yoruba ethnic literature from West Africa and studied Aleister Crowley's skryings on the Enochian aethyrs. I have read H. P. Lovecraft and also Kenneth Grant's post-Crowleyan magickal writings describing journeys behind the Tree of Life which would have preempted H.P.L.'s usual nightmares had he but known of them.

"Wax" stands tall in that company. A hypnotic, hallucinatory, purely poetic fusion of words, images, political ideas, and mystical transformations, nothing quite resembles it. "Pi" (1998) tried for something as distinctive, but that film gave us a glowering, paranoid, tortured vision shot in deliberately painful close-ups. "Wax" makes a complete contrast in its joyful freedom of eloquence in narration and visuals.

"Wax" enhances life while critiquing it. The film employs early, simple computer graphics. It juggles idiosyncratic desert architecture, prosaic photography, and absurd juxtapositions of common images.

It tells a story of Middle Eastern honey bees along with offering a hard view of the original U.S. military actions against Iraq in 1991 (a time so simple in retrospect as to seem the good old days). It links Los Alamos with transformations in consciousness. "Wax" leaps beyond the merely political in its luminous metaphors for human existence.

You can find stronger films, more beautiful films, more linguistically spry films, but you will probably never find anything quite like this fireworks display of language and image. Think "2001: A Space Odyssey" on a home movie budget. Your grasp of reality (and cinema) may never feel the same.


We showed this at our local Art film movie-house. It is where it belongs.

Watch it if you think that David Cronenberg's adaptation of Burrough's book, "Naked Lunch," is too linear. If you don't know who William Burroughs is definitely avoid this. This has more to do with surrealist dream films than documentaries.

Delightfully mad IMHO.

Bees, Bouroughs, Book of the Dead. Egyptian myth.

Anti-War Sci-Fi Cyberpunk "My dead wife was in the hive. She fragmented." "They were the dead and vengeance was their life." "I was Cain." "The Planet of Television, transmitting the dead."

It's all pretty schizophrenic. Jacob Maker, beekeeper, in the land of the dead and the garden of eden, Iraq.


I don't remember much of the plot of this one, probably because most of my memories of that experience are probably repressed. Until this point in my life, I didn't think it was possible to effectively torture someone with sight and sound alone.

One of my college teachers showed this to our class for reasons which to this day I don't even begin to ponder. I do remember that perhaps a third of the class was asleep throughout most of the `films' duration. Personally, I'm not the type to sleep through ANY movie unless I'm extremely tired, but I did find out that choosing to stare at the ceiling or ground for three hours was at least as interesting as looking straight ahead to the projected image.

Unfortunately I still heard it.


i gave it 3/10 and even that's a gift. the strange thing is that i can't keep myself from suggesting certain people see it. hopefully you're not one of them. the quality is impossibly bad yet somehow some elements sort of stuck in my brain. if you figure out what that's about, let me know?


First things first. This movie is clearly done in a style in which bad acting and a bad script are over dramatized to create a potential cult classic. The problem is it's just too annoying to enjoy. The acting comes across as something from an elementary school production, and the script seems like it was written by several people who didn't collaborate. Granted, the movie was made over four years, and its easy to lose track of what you are doing. The budget of $20,000 wouldn't do anyone justice, and that $20,000 didn't even come all at once, so I understand the problems. Not a great movie, but a lot of great directors had some rather questionable material come out of their first hours behind a camera.

That said, Rusty Nails is a great guy. I saw this movie at a film festival that he hosted. He's a witty, funny guy and doesn't strike you as a person who makes bad movies. He can hold his own in front of an audience. I really want to say, judge this movie, not its maker.


Two teens wake up ready to go on a class field trip. Along the way one of them drinks contaminated water and they both become zit-zombies. They can only eat chocolate and the disease only affects teenagers. The infected teens gather together and hatch the devious plan to travel to Hershey, Pennsylvania to contaminate the country's chocolate supply and dawn the remaining populace a zit-juice dripping existence.

This screwball punk rock black and white comedy is some kind of bad. To be blunt I think I'd need to be on dope or something to get a kick out of this one. You got to give the actors credit for walking around the entire production (and I use that term loosely) with burst zit appliances on their heads. The music ain't half bad though.


Wait a second. Who is it that likes this movie? I rented it for a movie night with friends because I was intrigued by the teens shooting lazers out of their eyes in the picture. I also liked the description of the zitheads terrorizing the area. There were no lazer beams anywhere. And the teens didn't terrorize anyone, they more or less bumbled around like they were lost with no plan. The acting was horrific and I have seen second grade productions that had better acting in them. The plot was weird and hard to follow because it didn't make coherent sense. Characters were not developed, there were only 7 or so zitheads when it said that they turn many into zitheads (7 is not many. An entire high school would have been many) Oh, and they didn't even try to make-up over their skull caps, so it was ridiculously obvious that it was fake. In general, the movie was lame. So, save your money and time and get a decent movie.


This is a b&w and very low budget film made by one of the actors, Rusty Nails, and while it has its moments, it's merely OK. Contaminated drinking water manages to postpone a class field trip by turning NJ teens into zit-heads. They are then attracted to greasy food and (of course) chocolate, and they don't eat it, they rub it on the affected area. Lots of zit bursting and pus flowing, if you like that sort of thing. Problem is though, the prosthetic zits are bald-head wigs, sort of, and there isn't one of the people involved where you can't clearly see that. Anyway, the army gets involved, and they're a bumbling lot, of course, just like in real life, and they are out to stop the teens from reaching Mershey, PA, which is of course the place where they make Mershey chocolate bars. It's also George Romero country, and there are more than a few scenes here that resemble bits of Night of the Living Dead. This is somewhat amusing and disgusting, and would have been better had the makeup effects not been so obvious. I'm not sure what happens toward the end but I think perhaps Clearasil figured in somewhere. A decent attempt, but falls a bit short of the mark. 7 out of 10.


Sadly, I was subjected to this film not too long ago. It was truly a wretched example of film making, and better serves as a cautionary tale to young film-makers everywhere. The acting was very poor, leading one to believe that perhaps the creator's friends were used in production, rather than Ms. Simmon's third grade class, but the difference is negligible.

It's very easy to see that this "film" is a poor attempt at creating a cult classic, utterly failing at creating a cohesive storyline, failing again at actually entertaining viewers, and really, cannot be considered to be much more than simple at best; It attempts to weave a lacking storyline, an attempt to look as a "B movie" would look, and a lot of popular music from the punk genre; simple anthems, in an obvious attempt to create a movie that would possibly catch on and elevate this film maker to some sort of status of which nothing but a miserable failure has occurred.

In any case, please do yourself a favor, and avoid this blunder. Otherwise, you're in for a treat of nothing more than a couple of poor actors with disproportionate pimples on their heads, as the cover dictates, music from a punk sampler, and poor-quality production values; which seem an attempt at irony; but is exactly what it is- poor values. Skip it, do not think of it a second time, and do not watch unless you have a motion sickness tablet handy.


After all the bad reviews I read of this movie, I was dreading watching it. But it actually exceeded my expectations!! It's really fun! Don't listen to all the negative reviews. This was actually a very suspenseful, entertaining, low-budget SCI FI movie! Yes, there are some Alien elements in it of course, but I think the actors performances were really very good. Tara Buckman is fantastic as a "Linda Hamilton" type heroine. I really enjoyed her performance - she definitely leads the movie, and I have to say she's got wickedly cool hair too! She was a knockout in a Buck Rogers episode ('Unchained Woman') from the 70's. I was worried that Jan Michael Vincent would be alcohol-deadened, but he actually turns in an admirable performance as well! I know he's older, but some of that 80's 'action star' persona comes through really nicely, and he still has amazing charisma in front of the camera. It's also a treat to see a young Nicolas Lea (from the X Files) in this - battling aliens, no less! The alien itself is pretty interesting - nothing as scary as 'Aliens', but it's pretty cool special effects. Enjoy this movie- it's fun!!!!


Apparently it takes no less than FOUR different people to script a piece of junk that looks exactly like the "Alien", only a lot less claustrophobic and suspenseful. Four people and a bunch of washed up actors to make a US sequel that has absolutely nothing in common with the British cult classic from 1983, but presumably just wanted to cash in on the awesome title. The original "Xtro" is a movie you either love or hate. I happen to love it, because it was totally unique Sci-Fi fodder that blended surreal elements with kitschy comedy, gratuitous nudity and gruesome make-up effects. This sequel has  nothing! Even the additional title is boring. "The Second Encounter"? Well duh, it's the second movie after the first movie. "Xtro II" is basically just a re-telling of Ridley Scott's legendary "Alien", only set in an underground research facility instead of a spaceship. Deep underneath us, unaware tax-payers, Doctors Alex Summerfield and Julie Casserly run a secret laboratory where they teleport three people to an alternate dimension. Only one of them returns, however, and she's carrying a hideous monster that explodes through her chest "Alien"-style. The whole facility becomes hermetically sealed off and inescapable, and it's up to an ex-scientist (Jan-Michael Vincent) and a team of macho soldiers (like in James Cameron's sequel "Aliens") to survive this ordeal. This film is completely unoriginal, derivative, uninspired, boring and forgettable. It's literally everything you expect it to be, with exaggeratedly big guns and muscled imbeciles climbing up elevator shafts etc It seems as if Jan-Michael Vincent and Paul Koslo, both reasonably acclaimed B-movie veterans, are competing for who can deliver the most uninterested and cocky performance, whereas the rest of the cast tries real hard to do good but don't have the talent. Tara Buckman, for example, must have watched and learned a lot from Linda Hamilton in "The Terminator". The special effects are weak, actually, even though this movie falsely raises the impression of being gory and trashy. The gory bits are always over in the blink of an eye, the lighting is poor and  if you watch it in slow motion  the make up looks quite amateurish.


Hey there science fiction fans. Familiar with the concept of dual tangent fields? What about neutrino heavy proton beams? Interdimensional bi-location orbs? I'm guessing your answer will be no, unless you happen to have seen this film many times, because unfortunately this is the kind of daft drivel the film throws around to explain its plot set up of interdimensional travel. Its doubly unnecessary since anyone watching this kind of film isn't likely to have a clue what its on about and the presumed target audience of undemanding science fiction horror fans aren't likely to require such an explanation anyway. Plus, the film messes around and takes too long to get down to business. Granted, the wait isn't that long time-wise, but when the film has an ugly set and little going for it in terms of acting or writing one can't help but want a rapid pace. Things do eventually start to happen and its still no great shakes at all, with uninspired action, lamely edited deaths and a lack of gore. In terms of bloodshed the only notable moment is a surprisingly neat chest bursting that rates as one of the highlights of the experience. Also, the monster is kinda cool, a looming man in dark and clawed suit creation which looks pretty solid in an Alien rip off vein. Actingwise things are about bearable, but no great shakes in general. Jan Michel-Vincent is hardly convincing, yet watchable as heroic yet maligned scientist Shepherd, Julie Cassidy cuts a pretty figure and is fairly lively as his ex, working on a new project and Paul Koslo has a certain talent as her a-hole superior. Elsewhere Jano Frandsen is fairly representative of the talent free performances of the military types going after the creature and Nicholas Lea (the villainous Alex Krycek from The X Files) has an early and charmless appearance as a young soldier. Altogether this is pretty unimpressive stuff. I've now seen it a couple of times, once when I was a lot younger (and it didn't impress me then) and again more recently and though I don't regret watching it, its hardly a good film. However, it does carry a certain dim witted nostalgic charm and its always good to see a creature feature with old school, non cgi effects. The film moves along fairly smartly once it gets to business and though it only briefly registers as exciting, it has its fun passages. Watchable if you really like these kind of films, as I do, but otherwise probably one to steer clear of.


It must tell you something I went in thinking I haven't seen it, but hold on. Upon every scene and development it suddenly came back. 'Xtro II' is an unrelated sequel to 'Xtro' that's nothing more than a workable, but fairly lacklustre low-budget 'Aliens' clone. The chest bursting scene is a prime example. Well it seemed to share a lot of common ground with another film (which is a lot better) from the same year 'Shadowzone'. Anyhow I didn't find it to be as terrible as many to make out to be, but however it's just too formulaic to rise above its limited scope. Still I was entertained. The conceptual idea is something imaginative (exploring an alternate dimension and bringing something back), but director/writer Harry Bromley Davenport decides to stick with the copy and paste clichés and usual plot mechanisms. Everything is straight-forward (alien stalks and blandly picks off team one by one), rather than the bizarre and unconventional nature of the original.

The acting by Jan-Michael Vincent (uninterested), Paul Koslo (over-the-top) and Tara Buckman is reasonably so-so, but their character's are poorly conceived. Nicholas Lea (best known as Alex Krycek in the 'X-Files' TV series) shows up in support. Not helping was that the script was shamelessly lousy in it's supposed toughness. The minor sets look cheap, and the misty blue lighting tries for moody atmospherics in the same-old set-pieces and the score is forcibly clunky. Pacing can stall too much. There's a little bit of splatter, but nothing truly worthwhile. Director Davenport's touch lacks the firepower, despite the weaponry on show. While the story is predictably colourless, the repetitive visionary on screen doesn't fair up any better. The alien doesn't look too bad, but there's a striking resemblance to the way its shot with 'Alien'.

I don't think it's the pits, just too familiar and unfocused to be much effective.


This is perhaps the most obvious, undisguised script plagiarism that I have ever had the misfortune of watching. This movie completely and shamelessly rips off the "Alien" franchise, and does so with extra-cheesy production value, "Dr. Who" quality sets and special effects, and some of the worst dead-faced, deadpan acting ever recorded. I mean, my God...aliens with acid blood that pop out of people's chests, who run around screeching and curling their lips over their pointy glass teeth??? And a small team of soldiers to hunt them down? They even rip off the Bill Paxton character in James Cameron's "Aliens," only this time the whiny hysterical soldier is played by Nicholas Lea of the "X-Files." An absolutely horrible movie.


Now I think that I can appreciate a movie if it doesn't have brilliant sets brilliant actors or even a brilliant plot. But this film? No way! It was dull it was pointless it was a rip off of alien for the first part then Aliens for the second. Also it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the first film Xtro, I am guessing they just called it Xtro II to try and get some people to buy it, and I am one of those people. The acting is awful the characters are lame the sets are not very complicated if you know what I mean, the special effects are not that special although the alien actually is passable as a fun monster if not a realistic one. Now this is full of cliches but where as Cyborg Cop seems to know it's using cliches and relishes in the fun this movie takes itself completely seriously, the only part where it started getting interesting was near the end but that was only getting upto a 2 or 3 on the excitometer. All in all a bad film, Paul Koslo was much better as the evil Russian counterpart in Robot Jox, here he is just plain wooden. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone except maybe if you put together a short five minute movie of the edited highlights. A waste of time. 2/10


This movie is so bad that it crossed over into the Cheese category. If want a few really good laughs, there are several of the cheesiest scenes in movie history in this movie. TIVO it, as you will want to play several scenes over and over again to get the full cheese effect. Look for the following scenes:

The military commander whips out the biggest gun in the history of armed conflict. Prior to being skewered, Alien style, he is searches the complex with one of his men who has an accent that changes from with each scene, but on average sounds like a Hispanic from the valley. See if you can figure out what he is saying?

Also, don't miss the scene where the doctor walks into the main lab and one of the soldiers pulls a gun on him. The cheesiest scene in motion picture history. You'll wear out your TIVO.


I love the film Xtro, because it's weird and imaginative, and just overall a strange little film. Jump 8 years into the future when this "sequel" was made and we have nothing more than "Alien" in an underground research facility. And the critter looks like Alien, it doesn't look like the critter in the original at all. The storyline is promising as this lab is set up to send people to a parallel universe (and then of course bring them back...right?) but of course this is a horror movie and they're not coming back, or at least the one that did wasn't alone. And it's a woman, and guess what is inside her? Of course it gets birthed in glorious splatter and once loose, goes into the ventilation system at which point this becomes a movie you've seen many times before and probably much much better. Not worth your time, 2 out of 10.


I had been interested in seeing Xtro for a very long time, so naturally when Xtro 2 was coming on the Sci-Fi channel late on a Saturday night, I was more than exited to see it. This movie is about as big of a rip off of ALIENS as you can get. People being sent to another dimension, finding a derelict ship or something, and coming back to have a monster pop out of one of their bodies? There's even a Smartgun from Aliens appearing in a couple of scenes ("I'm gonna go and get 'the gun'"). The entire movie moves slow and doesn't make much sense either. The sets are boring as are the characters and the dialogue. The monster looked kind of interesting at first, but when they finally showed it in its entirety it looked like a model with crappy lighting. This is sincerely the worst movie I have ever seen to date.


Now I got to admit this is far better then the first movie. I mean no wonder why it had nothing to do with the first movie, who'd want to be connected to that rotting British Cheese. The whole other dimension story line works and Jan-Michael Vincent does a pretty good job acting in this one. The creature is cool, so cool that they reuse it in another movie called LETHAL TARGET. Which I didn't realize until recently. But that's another story. Now just because this is better then the first movie (like it could be worse) does not make it perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There is some major character and some story issues. There are some really unlikable creeps in this movie and it was a tad weak on plot in points. But as sad it is for me to say, this is the best this series gets or ever will get. 8 STARS


Xtro II: The Second Encounter has nothing to do with the first Xtro mainly because the Director had the rights to the name "Xtro" but not the story of the first film so they could have any type of Alien scenario and make it a sequel to Xtro, this is why the Xtro films have no connection between each other and why the Aliens are different so Xtro II is a completely different film to the first Xtro.

The plot is about a group of scientists that have created a dimensional gateway to another universe called the Nexus, three people go through the gateway while the scientists watch through a camera on their suits. They see some weird thing in the distance and go towards it then suddenly their cameras shut off and they're trapped in the Nexus, so they call for a group Marines and a scientist that has been in the Nexus to go the base, they arrive their and later on the gateway opens with one life-form detected. Of course the women that has escaped has one of the Aliens in her and soon it bursts out of her (Just like Alien). Then the marines go around searching the base for the Alien while it slowly kills them off.

Xtro II is a mix of Alien and Aliens, even the one weapon that marine uses is similar to the Smartguns used in Aliens and the Alien itself looks a bit like the Xenomorph in Alien. I did enjoy watching Xtro II: The Second Encounter and if you're in to low budget sci-fi horror flicks then check Xtro II out for some Alien copying fun. 10/10


This movie really succeeds at one point only, to be a really bad rip-off. The makers of this movie even had the nerve to steal the classic scene from Alien where the creature bursts out from the chest. This movie steals pretty much everything from the alien movies, the look of the monster is also very similar to the monster in Alien. The cast and acting in this movie is at its best poor, you don't really care if the characters get eaten or not. My recommendation is: Don't watch this crap, stick to the original.


I hated the original XTRO but I did recognise there`s something bizarrely unique about it and that it does have a cult following , but there`s nothing unique about this " Sequel " it`s just an ALIENS clone with only Paul Koslo treating the film with the contempt it deserves . In fact it`s not even bad enough to be good which explains this very short review


Anyone who has seen the utterly worthless original will rightfully wonder why a sequel was even filmed. But what's really inconceivable is that this so-called sequel is actually even worse that "Xtro". A shameless "Alien" rip-off, terribly acted and full of very derivative effects. Trust all the comments and don't waste your time with this film.


XTRO II: THE SECOND ENCOUNTER is a truly dismal film. It is about as subtle as a thief in the night wearing a suit made of pots and pans. XTRO II is such a blatant rip-off of the ALIEN films (ALIENS mostly) that it becomes somewhat embarrassing. The pacing is just as bad. There is so much walking, searching and waiting for the "alien" that I fast-forwarded through much of the film. There's just nothing happening. The few times the creature decides to show up, I was extremely nonplussed. The downtime, and there is plenty, is occupied with washed up actors and soon to be washed up actors who deliver their lines based on dubious scientific precepts badly. It has been a long time since Jan Micheal Vincent has been on 'Airwolf', and has seemingly carved a niche for himself in bad science fiction and soft-core porn flicks.

In conclusion, skip this film. Do anything else: learn another language, smash your toes with a claw hammer, watch the original ALIEN. Laying in an empty bathtub staring at the ceiling is more productive than actually viewing this film. I have not seen the first XTRO, nor have I seen XTRO 3 (!), nor do I plan to. How do films like this get made? And if given the chance, wouldn't most people make a better film? I don't know and I don't care. XTRO II is an abject waste of time. 1/10.


I saw this movie on TNT's Monstervision, and I think Mike and the Mystery Science Theater 300 robots would have a ball with this one. The writer blatantly ripped off the Alien movies with this disgrace, and the monster's habit of zipping through ducts to grab unsuspecting cast members is reminiscent of John Carpenter's The Thing. The best thing I found in the entire flick were the assault weapons carried by the cast. Better than some other bad movies I saw, but not by much.

Rating: 2/10


this is one of the worst movies that I've ever seen. It had some possibilities I give it that but the rest is so low budget and bad that it really hurts. Nicholas Lea (X files, Once a Thief) is in it and Jan- Michael Vincent from Airwolf. That's no point in seeing it believe me. It's pure bull****. Beware


I wonder, don't actors,producers,screenwriters and directors care about what kind of movie that they make. Well, not here I guess. This is one of the absolutely worst movies I have ever seen. It really sucks and is not something that anyone should see. Matter of fact I don't think that there is anybody that can enjoy a movie like this.

The movie is about a group of scientists far down under the ground in a secret military laboratory. Here they experiment with travelling to other dimensions. When an experiment goes wrong and one out of three travellers makes it they call in a group of what would be tough-guy soldiers. They also call in another scientist that is supposed to be a little crazy. Mean time the surviving traveller dies when her body is torn up and something escapes out of her. Some kind of alien that the soldiers and the scientists now must face. This is about it. The movie is very poorly made, it steals parts from sci-fi flicks, especially alien. It has bad actors, bad special effects, bad script, bad camera work and everything else is really bad. It got nothing good, only bad. Jan-Michael Vincent from Airwolf is in it and he makes a very lousy role as the crazy scientist. This movie got nothing good, only bad. And please, don't ever see it, or you'll regret it for the rest of your life.


"Winstanley", directed by Andrew Mollo and Kevin Brownlow, is a true masterpiece of British Independent Cinema. The talent of these two film makers in unquestionable. Their vision of 17th Century England has never been bettered. Andrew Mollo's attention to period detail is unsurpassed resulting in costumes and design that are simply faultless. The cinematography is breathtaking and Kevin Brownlow's editing is masterful.

Miles Haliwell plays the lead part of Gerrard Winstanley and he gives a moving and insightful performance. This is a must see film the like of which we may never see again. I am sure it taught Kubrick a lesson or two about filming period dramas.


I first watched this film in an Early Modern European history course and it blew me away. As a film buff it's interesting. It's a lot like a silent film (i.e. Griffith) with all the narrative frames in between each scene. As a socialist I find this film invaluable as a gateway to Winstanley's writings. He was truly a man ahead of his time.


Wonderful film. Cinematogaphy is brilliant. Story is one long overdue in telling (few people knew of the diggers prior to this film, outside of a small alternative community). Memorable scenes, such as the crossroads confrontation between the Puritan parson and Winstanley. The battle scenes at the start are artfully, sparingly, and convincingly drawn.

Winstanley himself may come off as a bit saintly, but he's nonetheless compelling, and a good choice for the role (he was a schoolteacher by trade and amateur actor). The attention to historical detail borders on the fanatical, and is well worth watching. And much of the dialogue is drawn from actual writings of Winstanley himself.


With all the fanfare surrounding this low-budget indie, I guess I was expecting a bit more than a series of disjointed scenes and poorly exposed cinematography. The film opens with great promise showing a well-executed battle scene interspersed with text explaining the political landscape of the mid-1600 but then rapidly goes downhill with below average technical production. There's no drama or tension to speak of. I've seen much better historical "documentaries" when I was in grammar school. A valiant effort but it doesn't hold a candle against other indie films of the period. A '4' in my book, and that's being generous.


This is the most bizarre movie I've ever seen - and it is one of my absolute favorites. The jokes are deeply embedded, and you have to pay close attention. The super-car that breaks sound (and dimensional) barriers idles when the ignition is turned off... the test code for the oscillation overthruster jet car is a spelling variation of "signed, sealed, delivered"... The high-tech, alien-technology visi-glasses are made of pink bubble wrap...amidst the deafening screams of fans and the jazz playing horn section of the Hong Kong Cavaliers, Buckaroo hears one single person crying.... It's these bizarre little jokes are that make the movie great, but they are not every one's cup of tea. It's good to have a very strange sense of humor - otherwise, you just won't understand why it's funny when... well, you just won't get why the movie is funny at all!


"So what? Big deal."- A Lectroid commander in THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI.

Greetings honorary members of the Hong Kong Cavaliers and to all you neutral observers and detractors as well. Hoping to clarify the mystery and purpose of this 1984 docudrama, I have scoured all available data (including movie reviews), scrutinized the musings of the film's director via the DVD's special features, and held extensive conferences with official representatives of the Banzai Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Strategic Information. I hasten to point out that my findings are inconclusive and that many questions remain.

The film is (negatively) a rambling, disjointed pastiche of pseudo-hip, sci-fi/comic book inspired shenanigans that (positively) manages to generate inordinate amounts of charm and wonder through its fortuitous collusion of eccentric story line (battling aliens; a deeply depressed damsel-in-distress, Penny Priddy; the actual Hong Kong Cavaliers honing their rock and roll chops; Buckaroo himself, pushing his new jet car- with the incredible Oscillation Overthruster -through the forbidding regions of the 8th dimension) and the glowing charisma of the actors at play: John Lithgow's Dr. Lizardo is hilarious and ingenious. W.D. Richter's nerdy persona obscures his inability to fashion Earl Mac Rauch's free-wheeling screenplay into a coherent whole. Still, the many facets of the story remain intriguing and Michael Boddicker's synthesized music is majestic and buoyant.

However, the questions persist. What did happen at Grover's Mill in October of 1938? Was Orson Welles part of an invasion plot that involved mass hypnosis? Are there extraterrestrial biological entities living among us? Documentation outlining an thorough governmental inquiry into these matters has reached this commentator. A report by the investigators, special agents Mulder and Scully, shall be made available to the public in due course. A final note: a page, supposedly torn from Welles' personal diary and written in a shaky, nearly illegible hand, carried the following, ominous message: keep watching the skies!


W.D Richter's Buckaroo Banzai succeeds on many levels, thanks to a wonderfully droll sensibility and inspired casting. Peter Weller lends a perfect, dead-pan seriousness to the very 'out there' proceedings, while John Lithgow chews up the scenery as the fiendish Dr. Lizardo. Ellen Barkin is particularly fetching as Penny Priddy, while Jeff Goldblum stakes out his turf with an engaging feverishness that is all his own. Christopher Lloyd takes a relatively low-key approach to his role and does well for it, allowing for Lithgow's extravagance. Welding the pieces together is a delirious, kinetic script by Earl M. Rauch.The film, although essentially a spoof of science fiction films and comic book superheroes, remains a delightful, inventive enigma of eighties cinema. The look of the picture is quite good, and (considering it's meager budget) highly-digestible. Given that the film never found a mass audience, it is surprising that so many individuals seem to remember it as vividly, and as fondly as they do. I can only hope that after everyone has gotten their fill of a certain "galaxy far, far away", that a return to the more substantial basics of storytelling and characterization is deemed imperative. Meanwhile sit back, relax, and laugh yourself silly with a charming, 'little' film that tends to be so much more.


If you like The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy or Red Dwarf, chances are you'll enjoy Buckaroo Bonzai. It is full of subtle/dry humor and has an overall upbeat mood. The subtly dry humor is found in the background audio as well as the odds and ends that find their way into the set decor and dialog. These offer a nice array of silliness to punctuate the story with their own unique twists of humor.

The cast is definitely All Star! Peter Weller (Robocop), John Lithgow (Third Rock from the Sun), Robert Ito (Quincy MD), Clancy Brown (Highlander), Ellen Barkin (Wild Bill), and Christopher Lloyd (Back to the Future) all have fun and amusing roles. Even the minor roles are covered well by perhaps lesser known yet veteran cast members such as Rosalind Cash and Matt Clark.

If you're a fan of British humor, you should definitely enjoy this one, even though it may take more than one viewing to catch all the subtleties. If you haven't been exposed to this style of humor, this certainly isn't a bad place to start! If, on the other hand, this style of humor is not what you enjoy, it may not be the one for you. For everyone else, kick back and enjoy! If it weren't a bit of a cult classic, I doubt it would be available on DVD. I give it a 7 out of 10 since it may not be for everyone. Personally, I rate it a notch higher.


Aliens hiding on Earth, all with the first name of "John". A deranged mad scientist named Dr. Emilio Lizardo. A band of sidekicks named the Hong Kong Cavaliers. And in the center of it, Buckaroo Bonzai -- the part-time particle physicist, part-time brain surgeon, part-time rock'n'roller. How could this not be fun?

You're not watching this for the deep inner meaning. You're watching this because it's ridiculous and the actors know it is. John Lithgow is absolutely over the top as Lizardo. And Jeff Goldblum does a great comic turn as New Jersey.


HOLY COW. I have only been around for 13 years now, and that was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. I quote that movie almost everyday since I saw it, and hope to own it on video or DVD really really soon. Lines like, "No matter where you go there you are." and "Give her your jacket" - Buckaroo "Why me" - Tommy Prefect "Because, your Mr. Prefect." Buckaroo "(pauses) You have a point there" - Tommy, still crack me up. I would love to see the sequel the "World Crime League" but I guess some people don't have as good of humor as some of us. I guess it's to late to do that now, but man, It would have been one of my all time favorite movies. If your in for a good laugh, and can fine this rare treasure in some movie place, RENT IT, and if you like it, BUY IT.


I'm not surprised that many people do not 'get' this film. It is a very low-budget, 'psuedo-Sci-Fi' film. 'Psuedo', because it is most definitely not serious about being 'Sci-Fi'. All of the 'science' is portrayed totally tongue-firmly-in-cheek. If you didn't get that with the "baby bang" reference from "Doctor" Penny Priddy during the press conference scene, well, then I'm sorry, but you're hopeless.

If anything, this is an anti-Sci-Fi film. It's a spoof of all those 1950's-era Sci-Fi films where the incredibly bad science interpretation is played completely seriously. I mean, c'mon, the Overthruster tracking device with the UPS-truck turn-signal click should have clued you in that someone isn't quite serious here.

What we've got here is a great romp with some future mega-stars having a great time. Lithgow's performance alone is worth the price of admission. Ellen Barkin is luscious in both that pink dress and her tied-up black skirt. That jail-cell flirtation scene... well, what more can I say? Those wonderful in-jokes: "Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems". YOYO-dyne? "The Future Begins Tomorrow"... well, of course it does. "Negative, we do not have crossover... we are over New Jersey. All is not lost." Well, of course it isn't... or is it? (Born and raised there, Woodbridge Twp., sorry. To this day, my sister and brother-in-law live in New Brunswick, I'm not making this up.) If you own the DVD, as I do, then you probably know that practically nothing was created for this film. The Red Lectroid bivouac was an abandoned Firestone tire factory. If you ever did high-school drama, you probably recognized Lizardo's foot-pedals as an ancient lighting dimmer board. The spinning Styrofoam cup in the "shock tower" (an automotive term) takes the cake.

There is so much going on in this low-low-budget film to laugh with, not at. If you watch this film looking not to trash it but to laugh with it, I think you will get far, far more out of it.

I only wish they had been able to make the sequel.

And finally, I originally saw this film when it was first released, in the Harvard Square cinema in Cambridge, Mass. The screening was sparsely attended, but you could tell that some people "got it" even then, and many didn't. Too bad.


Since the release of this film in 1984, it has achieved bona fide cult status, and with good reason; for it is, without question, one of the most unique offerings in the universe of cinematic science fiction. chock-full of quirky, memorable characters and scenes, `The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension,' directed by W.D. Richter, is laced with clever dialogue, action, adventure and surprises. And where else are you ever going to find a main character who is a scientist, brain surgeon and rock n' roll star all rolled up into one?

	After years of research, Buckaroo Banzai (Peter Weller) and his colleague, Professor Hikita (Robert Ito), have successfully developed an `overthruster,' a device that has allowed Buckaroo to pass through solid matter-- a mountain, in fact-- driving through it at high speed in his specially designed and equipped car. But when his achievement hits the news, it captures the attention of the mad Dr. Emilio Lizardo (John Lithgow), who catches the story on television from his room in the insane asylum, where he has been a resident for many years, ever since his own attempt at developing an overthruster failed.

	But though Lizardo's trial run with the overthruster failed, it did put him in contact with alien beings from another realm, one of whom-- Lord John Whorfin-- has since that encounter inhabited Lizardo's mind and body. They are Red Lectroids from Planet 10 by way of the 8th dimension, stranded on earth (in human form) and awaiting the development of the overthruster, which will enable them to return home. These are dangerous and resourceful beings, and they are about to take Buckaroo Banzai-- currently on tour with his band, The Hong Kong Cavaliers-- by surprise. And soon, all that will stand between the Red Lectroids and the destruction of the earth, will be Buckaroo, his band and some help from his loyal followers, the `Blue Blazer Regulars.'

	Working from the highly imaginative, clever and detailed screenplay by Earl Mac Rauch, Richter has fashioned and delivered a colorful and exciting adventure filled with subtle humor, the unexpected and an array of outrageous characters, from Whorfin and the Lectroids (all of whom have the first name `John'), to Buckaroo's cohorts like `Perfect Tommy (Lewis Smith)' and New Jersey (Jeff Goldblum), to the alluring, mysterious woman Buckaroo encounters, Penny Priddy (Ellen Barkin). It's an unconventional, yet readily accessible film that Richter has packed with interesting asides, lines and situations, all of which drive the story forward and keep you guessing as to what could possibly happen next. He throws so much at you, in fact, that it's impossible to catch it all the first time through; but it's a movie that lends itself to repeated viewings, because it's exactly what this kind of film is supposed to be: Pure entertainment from start to finish.

	Peter Weller is perfectly cast as Buckaroo, and he successfully captures all of the elements that make his character the ultimate Renaissance Man of the immediate future. With this performance, Weller becomes the personification of the genius, adventurer and master-of-all-things; it's the definitive portrayal of a unique individual, quite unlike any ever presented on the silver screen before. Weller's Buckaroo is intelligent and self-assured-- watching him you get the feeling there's always something going on in his head, and always a step ahead of the next guy-- and it's his ability to convey the complexities of the character that makes him believable, and his incredible exploits seem credible. Simply put, Weller has taken a comic book character and made him real, and it makes the film work.

	As Lizardo/Whorfin, John Lithgow takes it magnificently over the top with a character that is something of a precursor to his High Commander Dick Solomon on TV's `3rd Rock from the Sun.' And watching this guy in action is a real kick. He's larger than life, wildly animated and extroverted, while affecting an accent that's a veritable smorgasbord of dialect. He lumbers along like a mutated Quasimodo, and when he gives a speech to his fellow Red Lectroids about going `home,' it's one of the most hilarious scenes you're ever going to see anywhere. There's definitely a method to Lithgow's madness, and it's a terrific performance.

	Christopher Lloyd also turns in a winning performance as another of the Red Lectroids, `John Bigboote,' and his exchanges with Lithgow are a riot (especially when Lizardo insists on calling him `Big-Booty,' and Bigboote adamantly insists that it is pronounced `Bigboo-TAY!'). And that's just an example of the many, many finer and detailed elements Richter uses to make this film so enjoyable and successful, from consistently funny verbal exchanges to broad physical humor, all interspersed with the action and woven seamlessly into the story.

	The additional supporting cast includes Rosalind Cash (John Emdall), Pepe Serna (Reno Nevada), Matt Clark (McKinley), Clancy Brown (Rawhide), Carl Lumbly (John Parker), Vincent Schiavelli (John O'Connor), Dan Hedaya (John Gomez), Bill Henderson (Casper), Damon Hines (Scooter), Billy Vera (Pinky Carruthers), Ronald Lacey (President Widmark) and William Traylor (General Catburd). A film that will take you on a wild ride and into regions beyond the known, `The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension' is that most rare treasure among cinematic discoveries: A truly unique film. It's enthralling and entertaining, and will keep you laughing and involved no matter how many times you see it. And it's filled with great lines you'll be able to quote endlessly and use for any occasion. Or, as Buckaroo himself would say, `No matter where you go, there you are...' It's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.


The wonderful thing about this film is that it stands up to repeated viewings by default - You really have to view it several times just to understand what the heck is going on. The payoff is not only getting a grip on the ultimate battle between the black lectroids (good guys) and the red lectroids (bad guys), but you are also treated to picking up on new gags and jokes (actually more like bits of humor - to wit: Who in their right mind would build a jet car out of an Econoline Van???) and subtle plot devices which were previously overlooked. One criticism that makes this a less than perfect movie (although I rated it a 10 because it's just so way out there) is the audio track, which seems to be mixed way too low on my copy of the video, making it a struggle to hear what's being said over background noise, music, and tape hiss. Maybe this is just another of the clever plot devices to keep you tuning in to the adventure. By the way - does anyone have an extra Oscillation Overthruster they can spare?

"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"

I'm out.


Another movie some people hate or love with good reason. If you aren't a sci-fi fan, you will likely hate Sci-Fi spoofs as you will not get much of the humour and aren't interested in the setting of the story!!....Galaxy Quest is similar...If you hate Star Trek and never watched it, why would you laugh at a Star Trek spoof? I like this movie, because John Lithgow is one of the funniest people alive(my opinion and taste), I get the jokes because I read the comics, watched the Sci Fi movies, like satire, lived the 80s, and like silly humour. 8 out of 10 if you like silly, sci-fi and in-jokes. 2 out of 10 if you dislike silliness, satire, slapstick and sci-fi..

"Only and idiot would drive head-on into another car without first having a few drinks"


Considering the success of "Men in Black," Buckaroo should have at least been a moderate hit, in that it is no more or less strange and entertaining than that later sci-fi-alien-invading human cartoon. Buckaroo even has a better storyline (Orson Welles War of the Worlds broadcast of 1939 being genuine). Would Will Smith have made the difference? Perhaps a little more bathroom humor, a huge helping of added gratuitous violence, a female slapping all the men around, some thinly-veiled pejorative references to drug and tobacco companies, considerable sexual depravity and a homosexual hero would have elevated Buckaroo Banzai to the level of a neo-classic, a la Pulp Fiction.


There are, and always will be, differences of opinion about every movie. After reading the existing comments on this one I decided that one of the things causing those differences is the question of how many movies you've seen. I grew up in the 40s of the last century so I've seen an awful lot of movies. Maybe for that reason or maybe just because I'm a wacko, I tend to judge every movie at least partly for its relation to all the other movies I've seen.

Take "Buckaroo," for example. It came out in 1984 containing some elements suggested by "Dr. Strangelove" (1964) and "Superman II" (1980).On the other hand, its driving force shows up again in "Men In Black" (1997). "Sneakers" (1992) shamelessly copies one of its principal sets, the background of one of the characters, its technological McGuffin and one scene right down to the dialog. One line by John Bigboote is hilariously adapted in every single episode of the BBC comedy series "Keeping Up Appearances." Top that, "Citizen Kane!"


Unless you can approach a movie with an open mind and an eye for parody, stay far, far away from this film.

If you CAN approach the movie as noted above, this is a film you'll love. It would be hard to compare this to any other movie. It is sci-fi. It is 30s pulp fiction. It is adventure. It is comedy. And for the most part, it is a brilliant piece of work.

When Buckaroo discovers that aliens from another dimension are infiltrating our world, he and his intrepid band of engineers and scientists go on the job to investigate and correct the dangerous situation. The word band is not used lightly. In addition to their work beyond the frontiers of known science, they are also a music band with raving fans and groupies. LOL Just a wonderful escape into a truly different slant on things for a couple of hours. Highly recommended.


'The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai' nearly defies definition! A cult classic, this send-up of alien invasion stories, pulp fiction heroes, and adventure movies is a love/hate proposition; while I found it to be brilliant fun, many of my friends thought it was incomprehensible! One thing for sure...There is NO other film quite like it!

Buckaroo (played with laid-back coolness by Peter Weller) is a Japanese-American race car driver/neurosurgeon/rock star/comic book hero who, with his rock 'n roll commandos, The Hong Kong Cavaliers, balances his time between saving lives, pushing the boundaries of science, troubleshooting for the President, and playing gigs in nightclubs. The film careens from one climax to another, scarcely allowing the viewer time to think (which, in a film like this, may be a GOOD thing!). Director W.D. Richter deftly keeps the tone light, although there is a heartbreaking death scene tossed in.

Loaded with more imagination than any three films you can name, and a oddball sense of humor, to boot, 'The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai' is a wonderful, wacky triumph, that challenges you to toss aside preconceptions, and 'enjoy the ride'!

I HIGHLY recommend it!


A super sci-fi movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, but also doesn't get out of hand with being too ridiculous. The characters are extremely well played and the idea of the movie is unlike anything I had seen before. Men in Black and Matrix probably borrowed some of their ideas from this movie - it is fairly obvious. The credits are some of the most memorable and enjoyable I have seen. It also mentions a sequel, but apparently Buckaroo had better things to do, like become Robocop!


It's right up there with another of my favorites, "Big Trouble in Little China"! It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy this movie: You have to be open minded and like to be entertained.

I watch it every time it's on tv even though I own it on video. When I watched it for the first time, I thought I must have missed something. The movie seems to start in the middle of the story-like it's already on episode four. Which only makes it more fun!

If you're looking for meaning-take a Philosophy class. If ya wanna be entertained and have some fun-watch Buckaroo Banzai(or Big Trouble).

> I can't wait til they release this on DVD!!


Buckaroo Bonzai is not a movie for everyone. I thought it was great fun, myself. It is sort of a Doc Savage spoof. It doesn't even take itself too seriously, but the humor in many places is very subtle. If one was not familiar with Doc Savage or any of the other pulp heroes, then that person may just look at the movie and wonder what it was about. But for the thinking person who likes some subtlety in their shows, it is perfect.


Buckaroo Banzai is quite simply the most fun movie you'll ever watch. Romance, aliens, high-technology, and gun-toting rock star techno-geniuses--how can a movie like this possibly go wrong?


A movie that is easy to watch, funny and fun and still allows so many big names a little early days fun. Even is Sci-Fi is not your thing, if you liked Hitchhiker's Guide and Fifth Element, you want to see this movie.

This title has to come to DVD some day. When it does, get it!


A good, if not great, cult film starring Peter Weller as the jack-of-all-trades superhero. Great performances by John Lithgow and Jeff Goldblum in supporting roles. Lithgow in particular is good as a scientist driven mad by the eighth dimension. Many quotable lines make this movie a fun one to watch over again. A sequel advertised at the end of the movie evidently never made it into production.


Absolutely one of the most memorable movies from my teens, only eclipsed by the star wars movies, tron and alien..... I think the line that keeps coming forward into my brain most would be, "Why is there a watermelon there?" - Jeff Goldblum, upon entering the lab....pretty much sums this movie up. What boggles my mind the most about this movie is the fact that if you ask someone if they have seen it, they probably haven't - but say, "Remember, no matter where you go.....", they will most likely finish the quote for you......."there you are." Inconcievable.


I am among the few that saw it during the initial week or two that it was in theatrical release, I am also privileged to own a copy of the media kit and a bootleg of an editors cut with additional footage.

This is a film that had the difficult task of creating a superhero whole-cloth with 100 minutes to do it in. All other hero films (Tarzan, Superman, Batman, The Phantom, The Shadow, Doc Savage) already had their mythos firmly established in print: not so with Buckaroo. They had to start at ground zero and explain everything in as little time as possible while giving you the film's own story: a very formidibal task.

Then the money behind the pic got insulted. He (whoever he is) felt that the theatrical release slammed him and was personally insulting: that's why the film was in the theatres for all of a week or so. No PR, no theatre run time: miserable flop.

I'm unapologetic: I think the story is great. An fantastic take on Orson Welle's War of the Worlds radio broadcast, a truly all-star cast, alien Rastafarians, the jet car, some pretty good blue screen work on the cobbled-together Lectroid ship, and true love triumphing over death itself, not to mention one of the coolest end title sequences I've ever seen! (I will fault the lighting on the parachute sequence)

I think it was quite commendable, and a film truly worthy of the cult status it has attained with the science fiction fans. I attend San Diego ComiCon every year, and every year I see Banzai t-shirts for sale along with all sorts of other merchandise.

I only hope that the Fox series pilot is accepted, broadcasted, and becomes a moderately successful series, as that would give me a slight chance of someday getting the movie on digital media.

Tanno Banzai!


The authors had to be under the influence of chemicals that are not normally present in the body (perhaps something from the 8th dimension). It's a rare style of movie in that while the characters take themselves seriously, the movie does not. This movie really makes no sense, but you don't want to watch it if it has to make sense. It's a series of moments. If you try to go linking them together to form a plot, you will fail miserably. So just enjoy.

If you watch it, you'll understand the full context of "Laugh a-while-a you can, monkey-boy!"


Well, first off - Buckaroo Bonzai is not a great film - what it is - is a amusing, silly sci-fi romp that pretty much spoofs the whole concepts of sci-fi / screaming mad aliens / with an implausible plot and a comic book continuity. But frankly, who cares. There a dead pan looks, sight gags, puns, bad costumes, and a list of stars that makes you blink twice trying to understand how they got these people to agree to do this movie. And that's the key - its just a group of people with a bad suits and wacked out lines trying to push the serious sci-fi concept out the window and have goofy fun with firearms and technology.


The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai has withstood critical blasting and a studio that tried to kill it to become one of the quirkiest little cult films in the past 20 years. Stocked with a cast of actors and actresses who were all on the verge of becoming big, "Banzai" is just plain fun. A pulp character that was never printed in pulp magazines brought to life, a Doc Savage for the 80's, Buckaroo is something you watch for pure enjoyment, not personal enlightenment.


This movie is not meant to be taken seriously. It is serious fun. The cast is delightful and the story fast-paced. It is light-hearted, inoffensive, and action packed. So what if it isn't believable? It isn't meant to be. Relax and enjoy.


This movie didn't do well at the box office and was not a commercial success by any means. It was, in my opinion, one of the best comic-book-to-movie films ever done. With such a wealth of material to draw on, I don't know how Richter was able to keep the running time under 3 hours!

I caught the Banzi band wagon a little late in the game (first viewed it on tape around 1986) and have seen it about 3 times but never seem to tire of it's subtle (and overt) humor, colorful and well formed characters, clever and original premise and terrific ensemble cast!

All I want to know is:

WHERE'S THE SEQUEL THEY PROMISED US AT THE END?!! (8/10)


I can only describe this film as one of the delightfully insane motion pictures ever made. Weller,Goldblum, and Lithgow were all in magnificent form, while the script is a hilarious, surreal masterpiece of heroic absurdity. I've always wanted the sequel to appear, but I realize that that's as likely as a new Twin Peaks film or restorations of The Magnificent Ambersons or Greed. One last thing: I AM New Jersey!


A scientist/rock n' roller/brain surgeon/samurai fights evil aliens named John from the 8th dimension.

My Rating: Severe Eyebrow Twitch Warning My Review: In the cult movie world, there is The Rocky Horror Picture Show and then Buckaroo Banzai. These two films have the largest cult followings of any of the strange flicks we present on our page, and for a good reason. . . although I'm not quite sure what that is.Buckaroo is odd. Very odd. So odd that you might be rewinding at the beginning going, "What the flippin' flapjack did I miss?" You didn't miss anything, patient viewer, this movie is out to mess with your mind. I read once that the best way to explain this movie is to compare it to jumping in to the middle of a series of movies. You feel like this is Part 6 of something, since it doesn't start at the beginning. I like that explanation, so I'll leave it at that. You must have a blank, tabula rasa mind watching this. Just be a conformist: accept what is happening and go with it! Buckaroo (Robocop, er, Peter Weller), a Jack-Of-All-Trades, is currently riding his rocket car into the 8th dimension, inhabited by bad dudes all named John. They come to earth and try to fight us, but Buckaroo and his Hong Kong Cavaliers are there to stop them. I feel so funky trying to explain this... it's like trying to explain a dream that really made deep sense to you while it was happening, but no one is really going to know what you are talking about in the morning: "And so, this snail gave me a hug, right, and said I was from the Land of the Lollipop People! Can you believe that?

I personally didn't find this film as engrossing as other famous cult movies, but it wasn't bad. Just very disjointed and nonsensical. There are a lot of great, great lines, including the famous: "No matter where you go, there you are." Jeff Goldblum, Christopher Lloyd, and John Lithgow join the cast (I didn't even have to look up their names! I'm so proud of myself, > like when the giant snail came up to me...). Definitely worth a rent, even better at a party of your bizarre friends. Sure you have bizarre friends, right? If you don't call us and we'll send a couple of us mutants over to your place for company.

Recommended for: Comic Book Fans College students that just can't make up their minds as to what they want to be: be everything!


Director W.D. Richter's THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI is sort of hip, and kind of cool, but really isn't as good as it could be.

It certainly starts out well enough. The opening credit graphics, and Music by Michael Boddicker, set a rousing tone for a grand, comic book style adventure.

An opening story background "crawl", ala "Star Wars" lets us know about Buckaroo, played by Peter Weller ("Robocop"), and his mixed background (U.S. father, Japanese mother) his varied interests (neurosurgery, martial arts, particle physics), and the fact that he makes music with his off beat friends, those "hard rocking scientists, The Hong Kong Cavaliers".

Without wasting time, Director Richter plunges into the action. At the salt flats, team Banzai prepares to launch its rocket car. The problem is, of' Buckaroo is not present and accounted for. That's 'cause multi-talented Buckaroo (Weller) is busy recruiting Jeff Goldblum ("Jurassic Park"), a top surgeon, who is performing an operation. After asking Goldblum to join his group, Weller inquires, "Can you sing?" Goldblum responds, "A little... I can dance."

Soon Weller, dressed in a black, Ninja-style firesuit shows up at the salt flats. When Weller gets in the jet car, the film really takes off, literally and figuratively. When Weller goes off course, it appears he's going to slam right into a mountain. Instead, a blue beam from the jet car zaps the mountain, and then the jet car goes into the mountain. Instead of crashing, it enters a weird 8th dimension. We see a strange landscape, and unusual creatures, some human-like, some not. Soon, Weller and his jet car come out the other side of the mountain, unharmed. In this sequence, Richter and Director of Photography, Fred J. Koenekamp, really delivers the Sci-Fi excitement goods. This is my favorite scene in the film.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie never again reaches this level of fun and entertainment. The rest of the film is a mishmash of aliens, a mad scientist (John"Cliffhanger" Lithgow at his most excessive) and a "lost soul" girl named Penny, played by Ellen Barkin ("Sea of Love") in an early, non-impressive performance.

The main problems lie with the Screenplay by Earl Mac Rauch. His biggest mistake is that darn jet car sequence. The much acclaimed film "Bullitt" has its famous chase scene well into the film, which makes it all the more satisfying when it arrives. By contrast, THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI by having it's exciting jet car sequence first, gives filmmaker Richter nowhere to go but down.

Another problem is the Hong Kong Cavaliers themselves. Other than Jeff Goldblum, they are a faceless lot, not very well fleshed out, and with little to do. Weller, as Buckaroo, is the whole show, and the rest seem like a Superstar's hangers on: perhaps important to him, but not interesting to the viewer.

THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI is like a Chinese dinner: an hour later you're hungry for a more substantial film. All you remember is the opening jet car scene and the cool music.

THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI should be watchable for both undemanding Sci-Fi fans and the small fry, who may get a kick out of the aliens. Banzai!


One of the early serial killer flicks and it still packs a punch. Kurt Russell's Malcolm Anderson reminds me a lot of Darrin McGavin's Kolchak, the skeptical paranormal investigator from TV's "The Night Stalker", from their lousy taste in clothes to their hardheaded devotion to the truth as journalists. Kolchak stalked freaks & creeps and Anderson gets the experience in reverse, seriously wreaking havoc on his off-work romance with girlfriend Christine (Mariel Hemingway), a schoolteacher with strong values. Richard Jordan is suitably creepy in one of his last roles--really a variation on the local corporate slimeball he played in another made-in-FL minor classic, "A Flash Of Green"--as the killer. Andy Garcia is also quite likeable in the role he's best at: solid support work as a police detective pal of Russell's journalist who inadvertantly gets as much press as the glory-seeking villain. I've seen this picture several times and never tire of it. It's in that class of films with "Night Moves", "Flash of Green", maybe "House of Games" and "Blood & Wine": tough-guy thrillers with smart writing and heroes to boot.


This flick will pass the time, and Kurt Russle is always interesting to watch, but JEEEZ is this one clichéd. Every standard suspense element is there:

1: Several scenes where you think the killer is coming, big scary music, then it turns out to be someone else. Ooooh, I'm soooo scared!

(spoilers ahead, I guess)

2: the good guys girlfriend ends up s the final target. gee, never woulda' thought of THAT....

3: Oh heck, why waste time listing them all. I have already taken more time with this review than the production team took making the movie.

The score is absolutely hilarious. It goes from nothing, to Hitchcock-on-steroids about fifty times. Might as well have a narrator shouting "here comes something scary! hear comes something scary!"

Russel and Garcia manage to come off OK despite the hackneyed script. However, Mariel Hemmingway makes a fool of herself with her overacting in the end. Well, at least she shows her tits in the requisite, early shower scene (gotta' get that "R" rating, after all.) Big woop.

I can't say I'm surprised that Phillip Borsos only directed two more films after this one.

Don't go out of your way to watch this, though as I said, it WILL pass the time. I've seen MUCH worse.


Malcolm Anderson (Kurt Russell) is a star reporter for a Miami newspaper who becomes the sole contact for a murderer (Richard Jordan) who is craving headlines. However, the murderer gets angry because, as his killings continue, Malcolm becomes the focal point of the stories; Malcolm's girlfriend (Mariel Hemingway), in fact, suggests that the two are practically collaborating.

This is a satisfying, entertaining thriller that seems to have something to say about the way that the media sometimes conduct themselves. It doesn't call attention to itself with any flashy gimmicks; it just tells an interesting story in a simple, straightforward manner. Russell delivers a solid performance and is assisted well by a good supporting cast. All in all, I have to say that I liked this movie.

Based on the novel "In the Heat of the Summer" by John Katzenbach (who also wrote "Just Cause").

8/10


****SPOILERS**** Superior crime drama set in South Florida during it's "mean season" when the winds pick up and the storms and hurricanes come rolling in and with them rolls in a serial killer who's more interested in publicity for his crimes then his victims who are a result of them.

Coming back from a vacation in Colorado Miami Journal reporter Malcolm Anderson, Kurt Russell, is assigned to the murder of teenager Sarah Hooks, Tamara Jones, who was found dead by the beach that morning. A few days after filing the story Malcolm gets a phone call at his desk at the Journal from someone claiming to be Sarah's killer.

Told by the caller a fact that is not known to the public about the crime Malcolm as well as the police officials Ray Martinez & Phil Wilson, Andy Garcia & Richard Bradford, that he got in touch with who were on the case realize that the caller is the real McCoy and begin to tape Malcolm's phone at the newspaper to identify and capture the killer. The killer, in his calls to Malcolm, tells him that he's duplicating a number of killings that he did some time ago and got no recognition for.It's later found out by someone who knew him Albert O'Shaughnessy, William Smith, that his name is Alan Delour, Richard Jordan, and that those killings were in Chicago a number of years ago.

The serial killer wants Malcolm to be his link to the outside world, via his newspaper to prove that he's the one who committing those crimes and tells Malcolm that there will be, like those that he didn't get credit for, five more killings before he's finished. As his murder spree continues it's Malcolm who's getting all the publicity and the killer feels cheated and takes it on on Malcolm for his failure to get him the recognition that he wanted. That leads in the killer kidnapping Malcolm's girlfriend Christine, Mariel Hemingway, and threatens to murder her.

One of the better crime dramas that came out of the 1980's thats smoothly paced and finely acted as the serial killer gets bolder and bolder with each killing to where he unnecessarily exposed himself, to Malcolm, in order to get his ego enhanced.

Malcolm's life becomes a horror as the killer starts to take it out on him for his overshadowing his actions which lead to Christine's kidnapping. Tense suspense murder drama with an unsuspecting ending makes "The Mean Season" a modern Film Noir classic.


This is one scary movie. Richard Jordan is one of the finest actors ever to grace stage and screen. He died too early, and we were the losers. Jordan's talent makes this movie a TEN.


This is a movie called " The Mean Season " and stars one of the best action actors of today's cinema. Kurt Russell is Malcolm Anderson a Miami reporter working for a Florida newspaper called the Journal. He is suppose to be an experienced hard hitting journalist who's immediate future is to retire his position, get married and move to a small town and settle down. His girlfriend's idea, not his. Unfortunately, a serial killer appears and calls him with the shocking details of a recent murder. Thereafter he is hooked into covering the macabre story for national coverage and that does not sit well with his girlfriend Christine (mariel Hemingway) who is stunning in her role. Richard Jordan is Alan Delour a mad killer out to prove he is not mad at all, but desires some half witted attention from the reading public. Andy Garcia in his debut appearance is Ray Martinez, a police detective. William Smith is Albert O'Shaughnessy, a veteran counselor and is surprisingly good in the small role. But it is Russell who despite his best with his character is less than convincing. The story line is clear cut and chasing Jordon proves elusive. For Russell fans, there is much to be desired and waiting for the finale is disappointing. Still, I like to see Kurt Russell and so the film is sadly relegated to his second string. ****


Kurt Russell plays a Miami reporter who starts getting calls from a serial killer. The killer wants stories written about him so he gives Russell inside information about the murders, but soon it's Russell who's the celebrity. Unfortunately this interesting theme is wasted and the movie soon settles into mediocrity. The script has all the usual predictable plot devices that are supposed to lead us to the big "surprise" ending. Russell is very good here, as is Richard Jordan, who plays the killer, and in the end these performances are the only reason to stay with it.


Kurt Russell and Andy Garcia are good eye candy and pretty believable in their roles but this is a kind of run of the mill thriller. The issue of the reporter's complicity in the story he's writing about just isn't developed as well as it should be, probably because the plot twists in a direction it shouldn't have gone. You could easily put this film aside, except that Richard Jordan is so frightening, so intelligent, manipulative and totally psychotic as the killer that you can't look away. He puts more electricity in the film than the lightning does, and it's worth watching just to see him give acting lessons. Just make sure you leave the lights on while you're watching.


I fully agree with 'Cabbleaddict' all right... Maybe not QUITE as bad as all that, but definitely NOT a keeper by any means. And YES, I also agree that likely the main culprit here was the director (thus like CA said, not surprisingly the guy did only 2 other films) First thing on looking this up here on IMDb was 'Who the hell is that...???' upon seeing who the director was.

Basically, pretty much the word 'amateurish' sums up my overall impression. Nice outdoor shots though; after viewing the film and before looking it up I would have sworn due to it's sort of dated execution (even for the time) that it had been made several years before this (even with the exception somewhat of the hair 'styles' and such which slightly may have indicated a tad more toward 1985) ALL of these people have done MUCH better!

As to the one comment in the discussion section, yes, Mariel does indeed look a tad 'Manish' (except for the lovely set displayed in the shower of course : ) but ever since seeing 'PERSONAL BEST' (cough...) I'm afraid that I've been quite taken with her (and THAT was PRE-implants!!!)

Okay, okay... I think I'd better stop on THAT note... Basically there are MANY films starring these same people, not necessarily together of course, where they are LIGHT YEARS better. You wanna see a good solid Kurt Russell film, see either 'SOLDIER' (for Sci Fi fans) or 'DARK BLUE' a bloody excellent Police Drama / Thriller! Another excellent film directed like 1 MILLION times better (Sidney Lumet) starring Andy Garcia and a lovely cast is 'NIGHT FALLS ON MANHATTAN', another excellent Police Thriller!

So... a '6'...??? NO... But, maybe a '4', yeah...


I will state for the record that I am a big fan of Kurt Russell and it was his name on the marquee that first made me take notice of this film. After having seen it a number of times-- first in the mid 1980's after if was released to negative reviews and poor box office receipts--most recently last week-- I think that THE MEAN SEASON is an under-appreciated, tightly crafted suspense thriller that, in spite of what other reviews have stated, does NOT pander to cliché's--this film is old enough to have helped establish those very same tropes that have since become clichés; remember, this was made before Manhunter, Silence of the Lambs, 15 Minutes, etc etc...and was one of the first films to deal with the whole notion of fame/celebrity/serial killers and the lack of ethics displayed by journalists, who must rank somewhere below pimps and pickpockets in terms of moral turpitude. The film benefits from excellent performances from Kurt Russell and Richard Jordan. As the two leads they carry the film; and Richard Masur,as Russell's editor, sells every line of his characters dialogue with complete conviction. Andy Garcia makes a very strong impression in what i think was one of his first roles in a film and he is perfectly paired with Richard Bradford, who reminds me so much of my 1st step-father ( an ex Marine Corps drill instructor turned cop)that i have absolutely no trouble believing him in the role of a burned out, bitter homicide detective. Mariel Hemingway has always seemed miscast no matter what the role-- i think she is a very poor actress;She nearly destroys the fine work Richard Jordan does as the killer. He has a scene with her near the end where he threatens her with a knife and she is so awful and unconvincing it almost makes me want to scream--every single time I watch this movie!

The direction by Philip Borsos is very tight; his framing and cutting remind of Hitchcock, there is a certain stylish elegance to the images ( each of the killings is filmed with a minimum of blood displayed but to maximum stylistic effect) and all in all the plot hurtles forward at just the right level of intensity. I will admit that there are 2 examples of egregious false scares in The Mean Season-- which were apparently studio-mandated. ( no surprise, really) and I guess I should deduct points for that and Lalo Shifrin's sometimes bombastic score--but I am not going to; because after 21 years of mostly pale imitators, The Mean Season is looking better and better with age.


The reporter Malcolm Anderson (Kurt Russell) is contacted by a serial killer, Alan Delour (Richard Jordan), who seeks promotion of his acts in the news. The only leads for the police force, commanded by Detectives Ray Martinez (Andy Garcia) and Phil Wilson (Richard Bradford), are the contacts of the criminal through Malcolm and the bodies of his victims. When Malcolm becomes more important for the media than Alan, the killer becomes jealous and kidnaps Malcolm's girlfriend, Christine (Mariel Hemingway), looking for revenge and more attention for his crimes.

"The Mean Season" is an efficient thriller, mostly supported by the great performance of Kurt Russell, in excellent physical shape. The story has minor flaws and some clichés, but hooks the attention of the viewer until the last scene. Watching it again in 2005, we can see a not famous Andy Garcia in the beginning of his brilliant career. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Temporada Sangrenta" ("Bloody Season")


There's a killer on the loose in Florida. He starts calling reporter Malcolm Anderson (Kurt Russell) to talk and help spread his story. This is the break Anderson has been looking for all his life. He starts printing stories of his talk with the killer which become front-page news. But as the killings continue and Anderson gets more obsessed, a serious question comes up--is Anderson's reporting fueling on the killings? His girlfriend (Mariel Hemingway) becomes very frightened and the killer starts getting angry...

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!The movie starts off well posing some very serious and thought-provoking questions...and then falls apart. At the end all the questions are forgotten and it ends up with a big fistfight between Anderson and the killer. SPOILERS END!!!!!!

The movie does have other problems--there are WAY too many false scares (I counted about 12) and there's a needless shower scene which is just in there to show off Hemingway's chest. Also Richard Mansur and Andy Garcia (in small roles) are terrible and then-unknown Joe Pantoliano is given nothing to do.

However Russell is great and Richard Jordan is superb as the killer. Hemingway is saddled with just being a whining girlfriend at the beginning--and then she becomes a helpless victim. I HATED the sequence at the end where all she does is scream and cry--her character was originally much stronger than that. The script (for most of the movie) is good and it was shot on location in Florida with a nicely done sequence in the Everglades. And there's a great sequence in which Russell races to save Hemingway.

So...it's worth seeing. Just don't expect much from the end.