I've read time line twice and its amazing. i don't understand how the film could have such poor production,the effects and sets were terrible! on its own its a poor film but if you've read the book its Even worse. i don't think the people who made it had ever read the book as the story is not right, so much of the plot was left out or ignored. Also the character relationships are often wrong (for example between Chris and prof Johnston) and there are extra characters (who is Francois dontelle?). there are also two female characters in the book which are for some reason male in the film (Steven Kramer is meant to be Diane Kramer, jimmy Gomez is also a woman in the book! worst of all they changed the ending! i waited 6 months to see this film and it was terrible, if your not going do something properly don't do it!!!! Also id like to suggest the makers read the book!!! they may relies what a crap film they made.


This is the worst movie-from-book that I've ever seen! While they did a pretty good job filming Jurassic Park, the seriously messed up with Timeline (same author). So, I would suggest you watch this movie before you read the book, otherwise the lack of "fanta-realism" and the differences between book & movie will be too irritating.

Some people blame the fact that you have to put a 300 pages book into a 2 hour film, but Jurassic Park did fine and, thou the theme is totally different, the writing / plot style is pretty the same. It would be acceptable if the techniques used in the book would be taken seriously! I mean, replacing the whole quantum physics idea with a simple "wormhole that can only be found by accident"? Oh please! In the book they tested everything for a dozen times and they had like 3 versions of the machine! There even was a backup plan! So besides this lack of believable technology, you have the "history plot"... English soldiers that start chasing 5 peasants in a crowd of like 500 peasants with this reason "Hey, why aren't you packing yet?".

+ What's with the language? Everyone in the movie is capable of speaking both English and french... except the main characters! Somehow they only understand English. Even the "pure french people" seem to be able to understand English :p Why didn't they do some research (why research, it's all in the book) on the languages? Why didn't they at least try to simulate some kind of medieval scene? This one is definitely one for my "worst movies ever" list.

But, don't get me wrong! The books is extremely strong! Read it!

(sorry for bad English but my native language is dutch...)


I try not to be too influenced by what movie critics write about the new releases but probably do listen more than i will admit to. However, i still rented out this movie, thinking that being based on a Michael Crichton novel, it cannot be that bad. But here is one movie that deserves its awful reputation. Is it the horrible horrible acting? Is it the historical inaccuracies? Is it the gaping holes in the very predictable plot? Well yes. Pretty much. All of these reasons make Timeline an often hilarious yet ultimately dreadful viewing experience.

The plot centres around the transportation of an archaeology professor (Billy Connelly) back to 1357, during the middle of the England/France 100yr war. It is down to his team of younger excavators and his unenthusiastic son, Chris (Paul Walker) to go back and bring him home.

Frances o connor, as the Professor's assistant Kate, in particular stands out for one of the most hammy and immature female portrayals i have ever seen. You want to try and blame it on the script but even that cannot be excused for her over-dramatic and pi55 poor performance that makes Paul Walker appear to be Oscar worthy, which of course he isn't. I would suggest that if Walker does want to be taken seriously as an actor, which he has stated more than once in many interviews, he would be best to choose his films a lot more carefully. Here, he does not prove that he can handle leading a film. In fact, he himself seems embarrassed, pulling all kinds of faces as he hides behind the other characters in the shadows.

Anna Friel is yet another woefully miscast actress, who takes the role of French Lady Claire. Now, maybe it is because i grew up watching her as lipstick lesbian Beth Jordache in Liverpool soap Brookside, but as a french graduate, i certainly am able to say that her accent is pitiful and incredibly stereotypical. Maybe, to make it easier for her to grasp, they only give her a few basic lines in French such as "allez, Allez" and then suddenly her knowledge of the English language suddenly improves tenfold and her accent comes and goes in spasms. Why oh why can the producers not hire authentically French actors. Most of them speak better English than the Brits do French. Added to this the complexities in the development of the British and French language and we have many horrible historical inaccuracies. They simply did not speak the same language that is spoken today.

I am not even goosing to mention Billy Connelly's humiliating role as an incompetent and dawdling professor that surely ranks as his personal career low. It is enough to say that this film is pure trash and to watch it would be depriving yourselves of 2 hours when you could be putting out rubbish, poking your eye out with a needle or fantasising over Martina NAvratilova.


I had the misfortune of seeing the movie on the SciFi channel just a few days after finishing the book. The movie was almost nothing like the movie. I was disappointed! There were new characters, sex changes, and a huge hole in the explanation of the technology, and big gaps in the plot.

I think if the movie was a SciFi Original, I would have liked it better. It's quite obvious to me these people made a feature film on a TV movie budget. Whoever did the screenplay was definitely a B movie moron. And as mentioned by someone earlier, Donner has "ring rust".

If you see it in the $.99 cut out area, get it so you can complete your anthology for whichever big name that is in this picture that you love. Otherwise steer clear.


This film is one of the worst book to movie adaptations of all time. In fact, all of Michael Crichton's books since Jurassic Park was a smash hit have been sub par to downright awful and this is no exception. First of all, the book is not one of his best, although the plot actually makes sense in the book. In less than five minutes, the entire "explanation" for how this time travel is possible is explained. However, the scientific explanation which takes several pages in the book to describe, and is reasonable if not far-fetched isn't used at all. The acting is also dreadful with one very notable exception. Gerrard Butler is fantastic (or as fantastic as he can be with this script). Even though the film itself deserves a 1 (or negative 7, but I can't seem to put that in). His attempt to save the film by actually acting forced me to give it a two. Don't bother seeing the film, but look for Butler in other things that have such crutial elements as a plot, acting and a script.


Oh my god. This film is terrible. It's so bad that even giving it my time to describe how bad it is is really a huge and unnecessary waste of my time. Just about everything that can be bad about this film is... starting with the truly abysmal screenplay adaptation from the book, gruesome directing from Donner (how did he ever make Lethal Weapon on this evidence?!), awful awful ham acting from just about everyone but Butler, and a dismal clichéd score that almost made me asphyxiate myself with the remote control in order to make it stop.

$80m? Please someone tell me it's not true. A truly terrifying example of what happens when the studio are determined to make a cookie cutter that they think will make a few quid. Thank god it tanked, let's pray it taught a few people to actually read the screenplay before they make the film next time.


I've never felt the need to write one of these reviews but I feel the need to save others from my fate. I read the book a few months ago and enjoyed it as much as any other Crichton book. I was interested but not too surprised that they made a movie about it and was intrigued by the possibilities so I rented it to see what they had done with the book. They did not do well. Do NOT watch this movie. You cannot get the wasted hours back. They decided to take out all of the interesting parts of the book and, even worse, they used that terrible actor from the Fast and the Furious movies. Not only can he not act, but he certainly can't pull off the even minor emotional changes necessary for the role. I emplore you, find something else to watch and if you feel the need to hear the story, read the book, it doesn't take any longer than the movie, but it, at least, is worthwhile.


In my reading experience Timeline is one of my favorite books, the story is great. You'd never know that if you watched the movie. The only thing I like in this movie better than the book is the time machine, it looks pretty cool but the rest is horrible. I could guarantee you I, myself, in my limited acting experience could portray any of those characters, even the female leads better than how the actors portrayed them. And although the time machine looks pretty cool the time travel sequence is horribly lackluster to the special effects it deserves. DON'T BUY IT. DON'T EVEN RENT IT. Ladies, if you want to see Paul Walker in a film rent Varsity Blues.


This movie sucked so bad. The director apparently phoned in his job. I read the book twice and could not wait to see this pile of crap. The production was terrible. The action scenes were done at night which is always a giveaway that the director is pocketing money.

There were so many plot points missed that it is not easily followed. The relationships between characters are changed for what seems like no good reason. The ending has been changed again for no good reason, except maybe to save money (again).

The only comparable movie to this disaster is DreamCatcher, but thats another story! Its been 3 years and I hope this movie never sees the light of day again.

Read the book!


Full quote (reconstructed): An incredibly mediocre Braveheart with a 21st Century Twist so lame it begs the question: why bother? (Sigh.) What a steaming pile of nothing in particular.

Thankfully I haven't read the book, so at least I was spared the full horror of this tiresome made-for-TV style widescreen time waster. What I got from it was just boredom, a mild sense of betrayal (made easier to bear by low expectations), irritation at the careless plot holes and appallingly uninterested acting, and a growing hatred for the characters that had me rooting for . . . well, no one.

An exception to the otherwise universal pointlessness was Gerard Butler as Marek. He really stood out. In fact his brief verbal description of the siege of Castlegard early on was probably, in terms of action, the most exciting moment of the film. He almost made it seem as if something interesting might happen later.

But Anna Friel did have a cute smile, no doubt about it, and the wayward comings and goings of her medieval Frenchness were a highlight. The maniacal rugby playing English leader, Lord Whatever, was all right in small doses. The colours were nice enough, and the river was a believable river. Also the catapults were good.

The rest was dreadful, but not in a great way. David Thewlis, for example, seemed to be played by a stand-in, not that anyone else was fully present (again, except for Butler, perhaps he didn't get the memo). And between them Billy Connolly (stumble, whimper, whine), Paul Walker ("Be careful!") and Frances O'Connor (who am I in this scene?), along with whoever cobbled together and okayed the script, created the most lacklustre and unlikeable bunch of bewildered heroes I think I've ever seen outside of satire. But, and this must be stressed, they were not funny.

The villains were equally pathetic. The plot absurd. Events "back in the present" did not add drama to the medieval storyline, but just sort of interrupted it like commercial breaks. And so on, etc.

In all, reading the reviews at IMDb was more involving than the film.


This movie is only getting two stars because nobody gives two stars for movies and I wanted to distinguish myself.

This book was one of the few books I have read in my life time, and to see it impugned so ruthlessly by the movie makers hurt. A lot.

Entourage watchers: Do you remember when the Variety columnist told Johnny Drama that he took a star off his "Five Towns" rating as soon as he saw Drama in the show? Well, apply that idea to Paul Walker, and make the one star three stars.

I really want to see Crichton's Prey on the big screen, but I fear after this debacle it wont happen. Great.


1. The first disappointment of the movie is too brief to cover the whole story within 116 minutes. It may take two or three chapters, or even an mini-series to cover the cream of the story, like the scientific theory of Quantum roaming, the thrill and suspense.

2. The second disappointment is the lousiness of the scene setting, especially the castles. The castle is just like a big house, too small to be a castle standing for battle.

3. The third disappointment is the love and romance element too shallow. Unfortunately, it is same as the original novel by Michael Crichton.

4. The last disappointment is the characters. The Professor is not portrayed as a wise and calm as the one in the novel. The effect is bad, because the whole team is all the same panicking, without someone wise and calm. The Professor in the original novel is like Gandalf in The Lord of the Ring.


David, a time travel movie? Come on... You were memorable in Divorcing Jack, unforgettable actually, hopefully that is not the case in this one. You did well in Basic Instinct II, a great story, but this SiFi drivel is beneath you. I trust you are not afraid of being type cast as a great actor, which you are, but more like this, and you'll achieve that status. I've said all I really want to say, but IMDb requires ten lines of text to post, so I'll natter on until I fulfill my contract; perhaps this flick was like that for you, who knows? I rented the thing against my better judgment, but went ahead on the strength of your being in it. I avoided Harry Potter for just that reason. You'll be a far better professional if you stick to adult films, and I don't mean porn, but films for people who can think. No more bubble gum movies, please. And no more American accents, either; others may, you may not.


Is there a scene where the people don't act like unintelligent meat bags? All characters say "don't speak out a word!" and what is the reaction of the one stupid guy? He says:"I want to tell..." He is killed instantly. Just as he deserves it!

And from my point of view this movie is soooo constructed. Any hopeless situation? Just wait a second, the rescue will appear. Conincedences as improbable as they may be are the big deal in the movie.

To speak of the science-fiction part: The scenes in the laboratory are hilarious. The budget for these parts must be about 5$ or less. Oh wait, the scenes are obviously sponsored by Dell.

And the transversal-through-time-action is... better not mentioned. Well, and maybe it's the German translation, but the dialogues are everything but smart.

All in all, I would not recommend viewing the movie. The plot is good but the implementation is kind of careless.


I found Michael Crichton's novel "Timeline" to be one of those - can't put it down - experiences.

One of my acoustic music jam buddies worked post-production (computer) on this film, so I REALLY wanted to like it. No such luck. So much of the plot and characters have been changed, persons familiar with the novel are not going to accept this as the "Timeline" that they know.

I am confused; if the film writers are going to tamper with EVERYTHING why even claim association with the book.

Like "Sphere" this is a classic example of a good idea gone very wrong.

Watch it if you like, but don't say that you were not warned.


Do not see this movie. Frances O'Connor, has the worst performance ever. During the whole movie i thought i was watching a middle school play. It is boring and just not fun to watch. I just got frustrated the more i watched it. I do not suggest this movie to anybody except middle school girls who are in love with Paul Walker. Their is one bright spot with the movie, for the most part it is actually historically accurate. The only real thing that wasn't accurate was the type of French that they used. But who really pays any attention to that. The only way you should ever see this is if you are payed at least ten bucks, then maybe you could consider.


Being categorized as science fiction is stretching the theme somewhat as time travel, the technology and theory played little part of the movie. Archaeologists have usually been portrayed as peaceful, enthusiastic scientists. I expected them to be overjoyed with the prospect of visiting an historical period for which they have an interest. However, even before they arrive in the midst of a medieval war they have all had several turns at arguing with each other. Even the scientists who developed the technology cannot agree amongst themselves. I did not seem to miss anything during a coffee break during which I did not pause the movie nor did anything important occur when I fast forwarded for a few minutes. Timeline is a fast paced action movie with a science fiction foundation and seemingly authentic medieval conflict. I would recommend this movie for a rainy day or late night insomnia. Although happy to have watched it, I'll never watch it again primarily due to the unnecessary and continual arguments and, secondly, because I could not understand why the 'bad guys' behaved as they did.


First, a confession: I did not like the Michael Crichton novel on which this film was based. I knew enough about medieval history for Crichton's historical howlers to ruin it for me. For someone who so strutted his research, it was shocking how much the author "knew" that just wasn't so.

Even so, I could never resist any film with a medieval time travel premise, so I watched it.

Look. Even if you like the book, even if you think 14th century Frenchmen spoke modern French, even if you think 14th century English nobles spoke any kind of English at all; even if you can accept social customs, military tactics and critical architectural details that don't belong there OR then; this is just plain a slow, confused, predictable movie.

It's not that it's unwatchable. Billy Connolly and Frances O'Connor in particular give delightful performances with the material they have, but their talents are squandered. Save your time and (if you're considering a rental) money.


Get a breathtaking novel, cross out everything except the chapter headlines, write a complete new story, add some Actors who really don't get the characters right (and really don't have the chance, because the story and their character were crucially changed by the director) and - voilà - you've got Timeline.

I have never seen a movie that completely disregards all information about medieval times the author has given and shows no respect to his work, until now.

Save your time, buy the book and enjoy it.

Spoiler: The only thing I enjoyed was the night shooting of the tribuchets: but even this had it's flaws. I know from personal experience that the sound of tribuchets firing is very different - and I listened to it on more than once on different occasions.


This is a low-budget slasher flick, hardly worth watching except for the splendid performance from co-star Dale Buckmaster. Outside his brief acting career, Buckmaster is a world-famous accounting professor as well as an excellent amateur golfer. He steals the show from the lead actors with his amazing portrait of a low-life sleaze-ball who gets what he deserves in the end -- a grizzly death. I suspect his accounting students cheered at his demise! But the rest of the cast is just awful. The young girls and the crazy killer. I don't want to spoil the ending, but it is no surprise to learn that there is a killer loose in this summer community besides the lake. Too bad Buckmaster didn't get a sex scene with the young honeys. Instead, they killed him off. Our loss. Now that would have been something to behold!


The most interesting thing about this film was the VHS cover - a girl with huge breasts in a swamp. Terror at Tenkiller started off looking promising, with the right mood for a slasher film and cool 80's synth music. It even had plenty of breast shots, in fact there was loads of flesh on display. But it was just soooooo boring! It played out like a soap opera rather than a slasher film, and I had to listen to endless talking between the two girls about how one of them should leave her boyfriend and stand up for herself...etc. The gore is virtually non-existent and what we do get is done very poorly. When one of the girls is killed, we see the knife puncture her skin, then bizarrely the rest of the stabbing isn't even shown. The pace is as slow as a tortoise and it doesn't take long before you just want the film to end.

Slasher fans should stay away. I know what I'm talking about as I've seen loads of slashers and this one sadly falls into the "bore-fest" category. Watch "The Forest" or "Don't Go In The Woods" instead - those films at least have some entertainment value.


This has to be one of the most boring slashers I have ever seen. Nothing happens... and when it does it's so slow and totally without enthusiasm, from the makers side. We have seen the story a 100 times, the acting is so bad it's not even funny, there's hardly any effects and the kills are uninspired. Even Oasis of the Zombies is more "fun" to watch than this one... and THAT says a LOT about Terror at Tenkiller! Then there's that music... it's so flat and (surprise, surprise) boring. It takes the suspense out of any situation. Not good...

I would not recommend this flick to my worst enemy. Watch paint dry instead... that's a kick in the head, compared to this c***!


And I mean that literally! Jana and Leslie decide to head up to Jana's father's cabin in order to get Leslie away from her extremely possessive jerk of a boyfriend. Mysterious murders begin plaguing the town, and Leslie and Jana become the next targets! As good as that may sound, TERROR AT TENKILLER has one major problem - It's way too talky! Not a lot really happens until the final act when Leslie faces off with the killer.

The acting is pretty atrocious, and borders on bad soap opera acting (Port Charles, anyone?) Also, there is a scene with Jana when she is changing clothes that shows a different actress in her spot with bigger boobs doing the nude scene! I'm not kidding. Ed Wood would've been proud.

Despite everything I just mentioned, TERROR AT TENKILLER still retains some 80s trash charm. It's good for one watch, but that's it. A true cure for insomniacs everywhere.


I watched Terror at Tenkiller yesterday and made it through the whole flick. I had seen it before years ago, but couldn't remember a thing about it. Needless to say, it's pretty forgettable. The main female character is a bit on the plump side, and she quickly shows off her assets by taking a shower after a swim (Too bad the lighting is pretty dismal and she's the kinda girl that wears panties under her swimsuit) Needless to say the shot of her getting out of the pool confirms that this chick has got some junk in the trunk. A rare occurrence in most movies who's producers seem to be convinced all men enjoy looking at anorexic women with boob-jobs. At this point I still had high hopes.

Once again the have an example of characters that are supposed to be in school, and still under their parents wing, but look to be pushing or over 30. The leads girlfriend in the flick looks about 31 (although I must admit she keeps in shape as she spends ample time in a bikini) Anywho, the acting is pretty stiff, but not terrible (Except for maybe Thor), that's the best I can say about the rest of the movie.

The quality of the picture is pretty dismal throughout, with the ending being almost unwatchable because it was filmed outside in the dark, the few effects are for the most part non-effective (except one involving poor ol Preacher). The story itself make no sense, and the scares are literally non-existent in spite of several attempt to try and produce a jolt. Attempts at suspense fall flat. There is big hair though and to further confirm the fact this flick was made in the 80's, has a soundtrack that was almost surely made entirely on one of those big ass sampler keyboards you used to play around with that were on display when you first walked into Sears circa 1984.


Sometimes I have the luxury of reading IMDb comments about a movie before watching the flick. Such was the instance here. So I was anticipating that this might be one of the worst. But it didn't impress me that way. Don't get me wrong...we ain't got no Citizen Kane here. However, my opinion is that it's not as awful as some. The jist is that a long-time, unstable employee of Funland is eventually given the heave-ho when the park's ownership changes. The takeover family arranged the death of their predecessor. Wacky as he is (he's a clown, with a puppet which he talks to), our hero deduces this, and snipes at his replacement. Oh yeah - he's also so goofy as to converse with his deceased boss and a wax figure of Humphrey Bogart. It's one of those films that can't possibly be taken seriously. The most intelligent reaction is for the audience to realize that it has been "put on", because we sure have a campy result.


This movie was filmed largely in Six Flags over Georgia in 1986. Anyone who visited that park near that time will probably find it quite nostalgic. For the rest of us, it's a very long hour and a half. The main problem is that the movie makers couldn't seem to decide whether they were making a comedy or a thriller. There are elements that could be part of a better film in either genre, but because the tone is so inconsistent, it fails in both regards. This is a movie that had some very good ideas. When you hear some of the clever lines, or see the situations that are set up, you can imagine those reading the script being quite excited about its possibilities. None of these setups are ever taken through to the payoff. I guess this movie is a good example of how difficult it is to make even good ideas pay off in a movie.


Don't waste your time. This movie is so stupid I wonder why it got 2 votes of 10. It was probably the creators, trust me on this. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!


After losing her parents in the age of five in a car accident, Laurie Cardell (Deborah Zoe) is sent to an orphanage where she stays for two years, until a fire burn down the place. Years later, she becomes a famous Hollywood actress, but traumatized and haunted by her past. When the small time criminal Nathan (C. Thomas Howell) is released after spending most of his life in prison, he goes to the house of his brother Daniel (Jason Widener), a young man that works in a rental and worships Laurie. Daniel has researched the entire life of Laurie and written a screenplay with her biography. Nathan decides to please his younger brother and asks Laurie to read the script. She refuses and he kills her manager and friend and abducts her. Nathan locks Laurie in the trunk of his car, and calls his brother to go to Saint Claire orphanage to shoot the movie. Once in the destroyed spot, secrets from the past are disclosed.

"Asylum Days" is an impressive movie, but in the worst sense: the acting is terrible, and I feel sorry for the once promising C. Thomas Howell. The awful screenplay seems to be written by a moron or for morons, or both, using clichés and an absurd and non-plausible story. The cameo appearance of the old lady in the gas station gives the best moments of this forgettable and ridiculous film. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Casa do Medo" ("House of Fear")


Like most movies that have former SNL cast members, you have to like the comedian to like the movie. Spade is a redneck, left in the Grand Canyon by his parents, and he spends the rest of his life trying to find them. Not that good, but keep your eye on Brittany Daniel in the future..a natural beauty, at least I believe she's all-natural.you never can tell these days! D


Mechanical translation from book to celluloid. No heart, no passion. An attempt to quickly earn as much money based on the popularity of the (audio)book. Wrong persons casted for the medieval roles. Love story of 2 scenes and 2 minutes. Friendship in 3 scenes and 3 minutes. Nevertheless - when the endless dragging thru the woods is finished - some beautiful castle pictures. Dark knights with white shields, grey knights with red shields: a film can do better than that. Director and producer should be a bit ashamed to have this film on his record. See "Kruistocht in spijkerbroek" for a much better NL book to film exercise.


After hearing Tonke Dragt's "brief voor de koning" was about to be filmed I really was looking forward to it. "Kruistocht in spuikerbroek" showed a dutch filmmaker can do really well. So when I saw the trailer and read about it, I hasted myself towards the cinema, assuming this would be a great two hours movie.

In the beginning all was fine, nice locations, beautiful costumes, all looked like it could be part of the book. But then, after ten minutes or so, the audio became very irritating with horrible lip syncing. It looked like afterwards in the audio recording studio the director forgot to show the movie and actors had to read their lines straight from paper  at once, without retries or any rehearsal. And why didn't any one bother to think about distance?? On film the actors turn their head, walk away, stand one meter from the camera or ten, but the volume is always the same.

I guess I could get used to this, wasn't it for the horrible stage acting pronunciation. I mean, if an actor is on stage he should speak as clear as possible. But hey, this is cinema, the audio comes from several speakers, speak naturally, do not overdo it! Then there's the acting, how many shots did it take to make this movie, only one? Was half of all shooting days wasted on rehearsals? With every single scene I was under the impression the director shouted "Great, well done! Next one!" You can sometimes even see main characters without lines looking around like "what am I doing here, or hey, what kind of lens is that cameraman using?" And then the locations, though well chosen, did anyone really bother to recheck them before filming?? Why are electricity cables running on walls in a medieval setting? And was it so hard to cover up twenty century electricity boxes?? After this, I think it was twenty minutes into the movie, everything became very annoying. The night shots taken at day time with dark filters, but with the sunny shadows so clearly visible. The rare good acting of even fewer actors became bad, rapped by bad voice recording.

And then, halfway through the movie I became angry, very angry, this was not a movie made to do just to the book or to entertain the audience. It was made so uninspired famous actors had a job and a film crew without any talent could make a full movie.

Was it all bad then? No, the choice of many locations was great, even some actors really tried hard and costume design was great, but what remained was this horrible feeling I completely wasted my time, money and even worse, my good mood. So I left the cinema with an very angry feeling. This movie was an insult, a blasphemy of what good cinema is all about. Besides very few efforts it all looked like the makers wanted to make a very, very quick buck.

But hey, this is my opinion. I still would say, go see for yourself. But please, rent it, or much better, try to lend it from friends or family or any one who was drunk enough to buy this one, because in all honesty, the idea the creators of this flick receive any more money makes me sick: they should be in the TV business, not the film industry.


This movie is dreadful. I really can not understand why the director is being praised for what he created here.

Every scene seems to be rushed, as if there wasn't enough film in the camera. Like when Piak throws Tiuri his sword. Piak doesn't throw it further than a few feet yet when the camera changes its angle, all of a sudden the sword flies another 8 feet. Is it such a bother to just throw that sword a few times more often?

And then there are the actors, almost all of them the best Holland has to offer and a few of Germany's great. How come none of these fine actors seem to shine in their parts? Isn't it a big part of the directors work to ensure they do their best?

Then there are parts of the book that are altered for no good reason. Why doesn't this film start with Tiuri in the chapel? That would have been a great introduction for the main character. A dim lit chapel, and then the knock on the door and the cry for help. It is easy to convey a bit a drama to that, but it doesn't happen. Vokia is also wounded, no idea why, he wasn't in the book. And it doesn't quite fit either.

There are parts that I liked in this movie. The shots of the landscape through which Tiuri goes are pretty good. The actor that plays Jaro does a good job. And when Tiuri meets the lord of the toll I got an emotional response from this performance, even though it doesn't really make sense in light of the book.

All in all, I just think it is too bad they didn't put some more effort into this. It could have been something if the makers would have just spend some more time in preparing dramatic effect, storyboard and a decent script.

I sincerely hope they don't ruin another great book by Tonke Dragt.

A disappointed fan.


When filming a book, one has the possibility to correct the flaws of the story to make it fit the two hours attention span that the audience needs to have. Reading a book for two weeks, immersing yourself in another world, is a different feeling than watching a story unfold in front of your eyes.

Sadly no one bothered with this book to make it into a believable script. First of all there is a never ending list of invented names: kings, kingdoms, cities, knights, princes... After the first minute you don't know where you are, whom you're watching and even in which country you are. Confusion is created. That goes on with the next scene in which the aspiring knight Tiuri just has to sit quiet in a chapel for one night. Not an impossible task. But with the first knock on the door and a voice whispering for help, he opens it and has failed the test. No internal struggle, no struggle with the other aspiring knights, just plain stupid behaviour.

And after this unbelievable act, there follow many. If the main character, which of course needs to be the one with whom the audience identifies itself, takes these kind of inexplicable decisions, he never gets any compassion. And he is not the only one with strange behaviour. The scoundrels who rob him, let him choose between a ring an a horse, and set him free after he has made his choice! Then there are the characterizations. No character gets any depth. No one is tormented by doubt. Every thought is said out loud. The "writer" helps Tiuri "because strange things are happening in the country". Even the red knight that decides not to kill Tiuri after he has saved him from falling of the cliff, tells him as if it is a material issue instead of a moral one: "Now I cannot kill you anymore." (-Why, is his sword stolen? -No, it's something moral but I'm not sure what it is.) The friendship that can evolve between characters who need each other is missed here completely. Tiuri and Piak, his, yes, what? Helper? He never helps him. His companion? They never share anything. They just ride next to one another through the endless woods.

The letter in the end turns out to be nothing that couldn't have been told to the king via other ways. The way that the treason is stated by the king: "He wanted to murder him!" is plain painful. We are watching a movie for eight year olds! (And even they might be bored.) To cast not really beautiful people is not a crime, as long as they either can act well or have a devastating charisma. The role of Tiuri, a boy we have to watch almost the full two hours, is played by the not so handsome Yannick van de Velde and he neither can act very well nor has any charisma of sorts. He is like a spoilt, artistic kid from Amsterdam, complete with pretentious brawl. His hair is strangely yellow although the whole film the evil people are looking for a boy "with brown hair".

The rest of the casting is made up of TV-actors, never taking the time to deliver the lines, being used to the "just say them"-regime. With a good script you can get away with that. With this crappy writing you can not. (Only exceptions are Jeroen Willems as the Lord of the Toll and the first Broeder Martijn.) To take this script, these actors and head for eastern Europe with all the medieval rental costumes of Holland ("voor al uw feesten en partijen"- no costume seems to be made especially for this movie) plus the ugliest wigs ever made borders on hubris. Let's hope this director, these producers get punished for that.


"Robots" is the latest computer animated feature film from the creators of Ice Age. Like many films of the same genre, "Robots" offers a new artistic style and a large cast of voice talents, all of which would make pretty entertaining guests on any episode of Saturday Night Live... However "Robots" is more of a sight to see than a movie-going experience to fully enjoy.

Rodney (Ewen McGregor, Big Fish)is a robot born (or built rather) to become an inventor. Just like his idol Big Weld (Mel Brooks) encourages, Rodney believes anyone can shine no matter what you're made of. This credo is put to the ultimate test when Rodney leaves home to Robot City in hopes to get employed in Big Weld's big corporation as an inventor. Rodney learns the hard way how tough Robot City can be for the average robot... especially under new management where management entails getting rid of outdated robots and reducing them to scrap metal. With the help of a rusty robot crew including Robin Williams and Amanda Bynes, Rodney will go on an adventure to turn Robot City into the dream he's always imagined it to be.

As you can tell, "Robots" is a movie with heart, what do you expect for a movie targeted for a family audience. It also had some funny moments, and, as expected, were mostly contributed to Robin's robot character. There were also little details that achieved good laughs... Robot City wouldn't be complete without a robot doing the robot. Again the art in "Robots" also deserves credit using darker color schemes which allowed for a better feel for the robot world. The design of the city was also impressive: intricate modes of transportation, the ability to carry a conversation with a traffic light, and a walking mailbox that knows you by name...

However its kind of like a new President addressing the United States... he may look nice, brand new suit with hair combed nicely, and he may have a good message. But the message is only as good as its delivery. This is probably a bad analogy, but if "Robots" and "Monsters, Inc" ran for president it would be a landslide victory for the Pixar party.

I compare the two movies with good reason. Both movies offer completely new worlds: a robot world and a monster world. Both movies feature major cities that rely its existence heavily on the production of a major corporation, Big Weld for Robot City and Monsters, Inc. for Monstropolis. There's just one major difference: Monstropolis makes sense and Robot City doesn't.

You might wonder why should it make sense, it's fake? Any Joe Schmoe from the street tripping on acid can make a movie about some make-believe world, but its an even heavier task to make a world where things not only make sense, but are also necessary for the world to be plausible. Monstropolis works: both the city itself as well as the things that went on in the made up city. With Robot City there are too many questions: Why?! How?! What the hell was that for?! Who?! I refer my Who question to Halle Berry's character who is top-billed and forced to be integral to the plot, yet only has about 4-5 lines throughout the whole movie.

I give it a 4 out of 10 because I'm midway with this movie. It looked cool but it wasn't. Like a beautiful girl with no personality. It can be really funny, but other times it tries a bit hard. What Robots lacked was ironically originality. Even Robin Williams' character was a bit reminiscent of the Genie from Aladdin without the comedic usefulness of shapeshifting. It was a good attempt, but ultimately "Robots" is sadly recycled scrap metal.


If you love the ever burgeoning list of computer animated flicks, it's worth seeing "Robots" just for the superb visual design. In fact, that's the only reason to see it.

This is a "schtick" movie, like the classic Warner Brothers cartoons of the 40's & 50's. I can handle that for 3 or 4 minutes, but not for the 91 minute running time of this movie. The folks at Blue Sky have failed to learn what Pixar has always known: Story. Story. Story.

"Robots" treats us to a pastiche of set pieces stuck together by a plot that is so clichéd it's virtually impossible to put a spoiler in here because you've already seen it all before: Evil corporation, valiant naive hero, funny sidekick, "you're okay just as you are" theme. And it's really too bad because "Robots" is a visual treat. The gleaming surfaces and rounded designs remind me nostalgically of my parents 1955 Chevy Bel Air. But even there it doesn't always make sense. Whether something is a robot or not depends not on the story, but on whether they can get a joke out of it.

See it for the visuals. Skip it for the story. It's one of those "near miss"" movies that will frustrate you, because it could have been great.


Since this movie wanders randomly all over the place, I thought I'd follow suit and offer some random thoughts:

Ever notice how all movie-length cartoons are starting to look the same? All the characters have a handful of human-like expressions that are supposed to make the viewer identify with them, and these expressions are recycled over and over and over from one movie to the next. Watch the eyes, for example; they don't hold in one place, the character will say something and the eyes will go down a little bit, then to the side a little bit. The mouth will open to indicate realization. The eyebrows will raise to indicate hope. The brow will furrow to indicate contemplation. And there's always a smartass female character who won't take no guff from the men in the movie. This is why this movie failed, because it's exactly like every other cartoon movie made over the last fifteen years.

Why on earth should there be male and female robots? Don't think about this too hard.

Robin Williams is becoming increasingly irritating as he ages. In twenty years, his voice can be used to sandblast ships in dry dock. Mork needs to go back to Ork already. PLEASE.

Why all the pop culture references? Because the writers were too lazy/uncreative/unmotivated to write a better script, that's why. Instead of a clever parody of technology, we get references to Britney Spears and 2001 a space odyssey. BFD.

Why doesn't Madame Gasket have access to the most sophisticated robotics in the entire world of robotdom? She should have been able to wipe out Rodney and his friends with a snap of her fingers. Instead, five robots take out hundreds. Doesn't make any sense.

I don't care about the robot's mission, their plight, their suffering. When something breaks, you fix it. So? What's the problem? Ratchet wants to sell upgrades instead of parts. Well doesn't Ratchet need parts too? Hard to understand. Don't think about it too hard.

Why in the world does Rodney "grow" from an "infant" to an "adult"? Don't think about this too hard.

Is there any point to this movie? What did the robots accomplish in the end, the right to have spare parts instead of upgrades? Wouldn't you really rather have an upgrade than the same old parts? Given a choice between the stock part and a superior aftermarket upgrade, anyone would want an upgrade.


A movie with excellent animation about a robot who doesn't have modern parts and must use hand-me-downs. He makes friends, gets his love interest, and defeats the villain. Sounds like it might be fun, right? WRONG The script feels like it was written by four year olds. Every single cliché is here, and some parts of the script just seem lazy. For example, the major city in the movie where our hero wants to go is called Robot City. Robot City. Why couldn't the writers have thought of something a little bit less dumb? All of the jokes are lame, especially the robot that begins dancing to a Britney Spears song.

The story is not at all compelling, and you will probably find yourself bored and/or furious. I was both when I actually paid money to see this trash. The characters are complete idiots, and do not have any depth whatsoever. Do not see this movie. It is a waste of good animation on a 15 cent script. The producers knew it would make money because they had good voices, like Halle Berry and Ewan McGregor.

Please save yourselves. Avoid this movie. Go stare at a wall or hit yourself in the face. Both will be more productive then watching this.


I have seen numerous bad movies over time, a result of a masochistic pleasure that my friends and I share in bashing horrid movies. I have seen The Final Stab, Cellular, Queen of the Damned, Jeepers Creepers, and Sleepover. And yet, despite all of this, Robots wins for the worst movie I have ever seen.

Why is this? Why is this movie so bad that it ranks below Sleepover and The Final Stab? Simply because the aforementioned movies were all bad enough to be good. No matter how much they sucked, I managed to find some pleasure in watching them. Robots, on the other hand, was simply painful to watch, and elicited no pleasure whatsoever. The few jokes this movie possessed were either ripped from other movies and pop culture (a dying robot singing Daisy- what could have been a lovely joke, except that 1. It was ripping off a better movie and 2. The target audience has likely never heard of said better movie) or the yawn-inducing crude humor meant to impress modern five year olds who couldn't live without video games. Robin Williams added no amusement, as he tried yet again to reproduce the genius he managed to possess in Aladdin.

Please, whatever you do, do not see this movie. It is painful to watch. Literally.


Yes, you've guessed right, this is yet another computer-animated film, filled with unnecessary morale and boring jokes. This worked out pretty good a few years ago when Pixar released "toy story" and "a bugs life" because then it was original and groundbreaking, the new visual style made you forget flaws in the story. However, while Pixar continues to evolve the genre by actually adding some story content, Dreamworks refuse to let go of the classic un-original storyline.

It's about a Robot who travels to a new city to start a new life and i ask myself, haven't I seen this before? This movie reminds a lot of "a bugs life", despite the fact that you get the need to puke every time those uncomfotable morale-scenes show up. I think I laughed one time during the whole film, and the film is filled with jokes, silly and real childish, I don't think anyone over twelve years will laugh more than I did.

I don't think that a movie can survive using special effects only, and since this movie is like one, big special effect with no interesting story whatsoever I have to give this movie 4/10. Dreamworks, you have to evolve a little!


Absolutely awful. Don't say its for kids. A 9 and 6 year old had me turn it off when I got sick of it, and very lightly suggested we watch Toy Story or Monsters Inc. instead! Usually they say "NOOOOO!", but in this case, in unison, they said "Yeah!!!!". I will admit it was a good 10 - 15 minutes after the public transportation scene, which they did like, but yuck!!!!

What a trite useless bit of un-entertaining fluff. I like ENTERTAINING fluff, but PC take no chances we don't want to offend anyone and use jokes and clichés that were old when Atok made his first comic cave drawing is a colossal waste.

Everyone in the "normal" world of this movie smiling and low key but no true warm feelings or bonds are anywhere to be found. For example: Why was the father running around town disrupting everyone's life who were strangers just because he was having a baby? I live in a big city, but if I was having a baby, I KNOW all the vendors and store keepers on my path to work and would bask in their EARNED friendships, their daily lives that interact with mine- the countless relationships that everyone (who is human anyway) has in their daily life.

While a stranger looking incrediuosly at the antics of another can be funny, as a rule, people shouldn't be used as mere props to somehow squeeze humor from a situation- unless you are a rich actor or movie executive who has no clue what life and real relationships are _really_ all about.

Tell me, where in the film does it get fun? Or funny? With babysitting over, maybe I'll try to watch it again. Maybe I was in a bad "mood", but really, please, SOMEONE go to where they make this stuff and shake them up! Sorry, I'm ranting. But still....


I suppose I shouldn't have expected any more, but I did. The animation was good, sometimes really good, though not nearly as good as the pre-release hype built it up to be, but the story was weak. Really weak. Then there were the truly insipid and lame jokes (fart jokes? why would ROBOTS even understand fart jokes. That sort of humor was very distracting. And those may have been the high points of the script. The cast worked hard with it, tried to give it some sort of freshness, but the script was so weak and dated that it just never had a prayer. The material was old and tired, and the sight gags were even older (did they resurrect Moe Howard to choreograph). All in all, I was bored and disappointed in this movie and hope to never see its like again.


This scores a three only for the visual competence; Rube Goldberg meets a pinball machine, with the free-floating '3D' perspective.

The jokes are funny for 10 yr. olds, we suppose. The creators are certainly among the mentally challenged. Witness the utterly crippled attempt to goof on HAL 9000.

Otherwise, this borrows mostly from the Wizard of Oz. The derivations are from flash in the pan pop culture concerns, so expect a short shelf life.

However, we have to confront the real reason for its existence, which of course, is to inculcate young minds with Hollywood/leftist flapdoodle.

-- The benevolent elites 'invent things that make everyone's life better'.

-- The small business owner is a cash register.

-- The homeless man 'got screwed'.

-- The corporation is ipso facto Evil; there's 'no money in concern'; offering products on the market involves 'making (us) feel crummy' so we need Upgrades. It must 'suck the last pennies' from customers'; if the bums can't pay they're just 'scrap metal'.

-- No one can afford insurance (so the answer is to make it a birth right).

Evidently, resources come from nowhere and can be distributed freely! Spare parts (money, health care/medication, insurance, etc.) are cheaper than what Evil Corp. pushes! They're just greedy...off with their heads!

Folks, if you let this drivel influence a child's thinking, you deserve what you get. Ice Age contains similar noxious themes, surrounding predator/prey cooperation in nature.

The leftist push for collectivism can't escape some hard facts...can you name one technological invention, one wonder drug, one cultural achievement that owes its origin to Socialism? No, because there are none. For Eisenstein and Tarkovsky to see, they had to stand on the shoulders of many non-communist giants, starting with Edison.

It's leftism that belongs on the scrap heap...


I took my kids to this movie today, and didn't realize it was not a rated G movie.

After we left the movie, I looked it up and see MPAA Rating: PG for some brief language and suggestive humor. Not sure what that's all about, there was a protracted 1-2 minute scene with flatulence as the main character. That sort of stuff doesn't bother me so much, but there was other stuff in this movie that just didn't seem right for kids. For example, the "evil CEO" character has a mother that works in a scrap metal facility, and at one point the mother says something to her CEO son to the effect of "you don't want to end up like your father?" who they then show chained up and hanging around the scrap metal facility - a short segment of the movie which makes an effort to have fathers look bad I guess. Always good for a laugh I guess.

It seems pretty common these days for movies that are supposedly for kids to have all sorts of adult topics, themes, and innuendo. Does Hollywood really think that the only way to get parents in to a kids movie is to have this covert subtext? Or is there something more sinister going on here?


No shocks, no disappointments. It's a classic family cartoon (made with CGI) with good guys, bad guys, a vaguely Hudsucker Proxy meets Wizard of Oz plot and the requisite postmodern asides, even for the kids ('yes we know you know it's a surreal cartoon' etc.).

There's plenty of invention in translating human attributes across to machines but that's where the invention ends. The film is purely a vehicle for its star voiceovers and CGI wizardry. For the latter, a laurel or two although I wasn't quite so ready to buy into the voicework: Robin Williams especially has a tendency to modulate the volume of his projection so wildly as to render many lines inaudible (sic an actor error, not production). One for the under 12s while you do the tax return. 4/10


After about 10 minutes you get tired of hearing about James Dean, and I like that line Richard Thomas said to his mother "I'm really upset right now momma someone I know died last night" His Mother: You don't mean that movie star Jimmy whats his name?" This is just another film trying to be like American Graffiti or Rebel Without a Cause, where the film examines rebellious youth characters and their UN-interested parents. In the film Richard Thomas also states that he and James Dean were a lot alike and some of the lines make you want to laugh.

I enjoyed James Deans three films and other performances, but I make it a point to not get personally involved when actors die.

From 1961 through 2006 I can't say that I personally was overcome by the death of non family members and certainly not actors or actresses, especially since a majority of them suffer through the excesses of drug and alcohol abuse This film is mostly a curiosity for all the up and coming stars (*1/2 Out Of ****)


This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The whole movie is just kids bummed out because James Dean died. I saw this movie back when it was first aired in theaters, and it is the only theater movie I've seen that was roundly booed by the audience well before the ending. Don't anybody even think of putting this movie in the same genre as American Grafitti.


title of the film is "the third miracle." the priest spends the whole damn film trying to find the third miracle. In the end he finds it. And it's accepted. The other two miracles were easily proved and witnessed. So the three miracle limit was met. But then in the last 2 minutes of the film the priest says that they've had two miracles and they're waiting for another one to happen. Pisses me off.

Honestly, I rated this film a 1 because of this horrid plot twist at the end. I would have rated it an 8 otherwise. The acting was alright, cinematography was nice as it had some footage that had to look like WWII footage, and there was an underlying plot of the priest finding his faith. Plus it managed to not bag on the Catholic church too much. I'm not Catholic, but I don't really enjoy the films that are too polar on the church.

So anyhow, if they could just cut off the last 2 minutes of the film it would have been great. As it is, IT SUCKS. It's like reading a short story for 20 minutes only to find out that the narrator was just dreaming or something. CHEAP TRICK, YOU BUTTHEADS, don't do it again.


There's a lot of that going around. This is a home organ for the catholic church. No problem. Just label it as such. Trying to present it as some viable miracle is about as believable as sticking pins in voodoo dolls for a curse. I really don't care what anyone believes. But there should be an "R" warning for religious hooey. Movies that try and portray "facts" as true, when they aren't, aren't enjoyable. For instance, when we watch "It's a Wonderful Life" we have no trouble in discerning that it is a fantasy. They needn't label it as "F" for fantasy. Or the Exorcist. We know it's fantasy. Or the Omen. We know it's fantasy or at least I thought it was before "W". But this movie offers no relief. It is a fantasy for the faithful. Fine. Tell me that before I watch it. I kept waiting for the pig's blood to be discovered instead of the red dye on the statue. Instead, we get a lot of complete nonsense from a 3rd rate writer,Richard Vetere, who just keeps chugging these things out on his mimeograph machine. I'll bet half of the audience, as paltry as the numbers were, left thinking that Helena was a real person. Well, to solve that problem, she wasn't. As for those fanciful bombs that never fell... they did... at the box office.


The fourth miracle would have been to sit through this thing. Ed Harris is a little old to play the brooding self-absorbed stud priest who has the hots for Anne Heche (of all people). Takes a strong stomach to watch these two make out. Only Hollywood would make a movie about a middle aged foul mouth priest and then cast a lesbian as his flame. The assault on religion is non-stop with the Catholic hierarchy living lavishly and wearing gold chains and big medallions and using foul language. Maybe they were trying to identify with the rap culture? What ever they were trying it didn't work with me. If Ed's character wasn't bad enough Heche's character is also angry and brooding too, I guess it's tough to have a mother who was a Saint. My advice is to skip this turkey.


"Touch Of Satan" has the feel of a movie destined for the 3rd feature at an drive-in triple feature. You get the feeling that by the time this thing started rolling at 1:00 am, everyone left at the drive-in was either 90% asleep, drunk off their butts, or so involved in heavy petting that it didn't matter what was on the screen. So on that level, TOS worked fine. It filled in 90+ minutes of screen and gave the night-owls some video background to accompany whatever their real priority happened to be at the time.

Unfortunately, I had to watch it while wide awake, 100% sober, and undistracted by any opportunity to smooch and make out. And so I have little use (or pity) for this movie....and I have to confess that it was so incredibly dull that I had a lot of trouble making myself pay attention to it. I kept pausing the VCR to get a soda, or go to the bathroom, or make myself a sandwich, or make a phone call, or to start the dishwasher. Then I'd get back, start things up again, and try to pay attention for another 5 minutes...only to decide it was time to start the laundry, or pay a couple of bills, or do some push-ups...

But unless a movie is actively offensive or horrifically awful, I always try to watch a movie all the way through and give it every chance to prove itself. So I eventually got to the end of "TOS", and my final reaction was...."Meh.".

I have to admit, there is the germ of a decent, unsettling story in this movie, and there is a plot twist that could actually be considered somewhat clever. The cinematography is OK in a 70's "Movie Of the Week" way, and the young romantic leads are decent looking, if not particularly striking. But even though director Tom Laughlin (of "Billy Jack" and "Master Gunfigher" fame) had previously managed to make some involving (if contrived) movies, here he couldn't pace a dramatic scene to save his life, and he definitely didn't have the know-how or the talent to make these uncharismatic actors carry the movie. Maybe he should have stuck to directing himself and his regular cast of cronies. Or maybe he should have stuck in some hapkido or some gunfighting to pick things up a bit. He definitely didn't have a feel for "horror".

As a previous reviewer astutely commented, this movie screams for a remake. Unlike good older movies, which are often happy accidents of inspiration, zeitgeist, and talent, the addition of modern 'gee-whiz' MTV jump cuts, CGI, and hot young actors would add a lot of visual interest to the proceedings, and would help frame the mildly interesting plot in a flattering way that held the viewer's attention.

However, that probably isn't going to happen. Hollywood is never going to be that desperate for material that this dull-tastic collection of 70's clichés will ever get a shiny new outfit.

Even in the MST version, the guys just didn't have anything to work with. That's kind of sad.


...you'll be praying for Satan to make an appearance. _Anything_ to make this movie at all interesting or attention-grabbing. The Touch of Satan staggers along like William Shatner on quaaludes, with huge reams of dialogue interspersed with breathy pauses as if the actors are phonetically spelling out their cue cards. Even an actor of the caliber of Robert Easton (I), as the leader of a slothful mob, can't inject any excitement into the proceedings. What might have made a decent 30-minute Twilight Zone episode (and actually in plot may have been very similar to a couple) is padded out to unbearable lengths.


(spoilers)Did anyone else actually enjoy the mad killer Grandma? At least she wasn't boring, and she didn't perpetually pause like the rest of the cast. Jody's a dull wuss, Melissa's a floppy vacuous Rhoda like girl, and her 'parents' aren't much either. Lucinda's actually alot of fun-from drifting into Jody's room to scare the crap out of him, to stabbing the womany cop to death with a hay hook. And heck, she even almost managed to kill the annoying Jody, so kudos to the crazed old witch for at least providing some entertainment value in this otherwise extremely slow film. And senseless, let's not forget senseless. There are so many things in this film that simply don't make any sense at all. Just who ARE the 'Stricklands'? Are they related in any way, or did Melissa simply force them to live on her ranch and pretend to be her parents? Why did Satan bother to possess Melissa at all, if he/she never intended to return? Don't you think the Devil would have found something for his servant to do in the last one hundred and twenty years besides try to corral her mad sister? Why don't the townspeople realize that Melissa never ages? How does Jody sleeping with Melissa(maybe to prove his 'love' for her was real?) help her escape from her devilish deal? And what kind of moron does it take to sell himself to the Devil just to get seconds? So they're both in the service of the Devil, and the whole beginning of the plot is negated. Melissa doesn't escape her eternal torment, Satan now has puss boy's soul as well, and nothing has been accomplished. Way to go, idiot. Besides these annoying little niggles, there's also the crappy soundtrack, the lighting that makes it appear as though the sun is going nova in every shot, and the apparent sleepiness of all of the cast members except for the dynamic but crazed Lucinda. The Touch if Satan apparently is supposed to make one fall asleep.


Sometimes I feel like I ramble on and on when I'm writing one of these. No worries this time though, because I'm keeping it short and sweet. The Touch of Satan is one of the biggest bores of a movie to ever come down the pike. Lackluster people doing dull and unimaginative things make for one excruciating experience. Even when Grandma shows up and hacks up a few people, it's met with the same ho-hum enthusiasm as the rest of the movie. For what it's worth, I've rated The Touch of Satan an incredibly generous 2/10.

As with many of the "bad" movies I've been watching lately, I saw The Touch of Satan courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. While some of the riffs (particularly those about the long pauses in the dialogue) are very funny, overall the episode is too inconsistent to rate too highly. I'll give Episode #908 a wishy-washy and very average 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


Ah, yes, The Touch of Satan. There's just one problem with this movie. It's bad, bad, bad. It starts off with a long, torturously slow drive through the opening credits, and never gets any better. Talk about slooooooooooow. This movie would probably only be half an hour long if they'd have just cut out all the dead space. More time is used up by pauses in the dialogue than the actors spend speaking their lines.

It's a movie about murder, witches, Satan, and love - your basic feel-good horror flick. The movie centers around our hero Jodie, a young man sowing his oats, and Melissa, the Satan-possessed would-be witch whom he falls in love with.

In a supporting role, Melissa's witch sister, (who resembles a cross between an extremely wrinkled leather coat and a troll doll) gleefully traipses about the family walnut farm pitchforking innocent farmers and meat hooking unaware sherriff's deputies, all the while making dolphin-esque squeals, and holding on to her favorite hideously ugly porcelain doll.

The strange thing is (no, there couldn't be anything strange about THIS movie), the person who's supposed to have been touched by Satan is the good guy. Melissa doesn't even get to kill anyone, and she's the one who was TOUCHED BY SATAN. The holes in the logic of this movie are big enough to lose the Mir Space station in.

It's also filled with memorable quotes like:

"This your pond?" "It belongs to my father." "Oh. Does he mind if people skip rocks across it?"

"What kind of farm?" "We grow walnuts mostly." "Walnuts, huh? I've never been on a walnut ranch."

And don't forget this classic:

"We ain't found nothin' yet, not even a suspicious cowchip."

This movie, as well as the rest of the world, would have been better off if it had "Touch"-ed the bottom of a garbage can instead of being released.


Currently over 58% of this films votes are "1", probably because it appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000. While it was great material for the show, this movie isn't completely without merit. The core idea of the movie was interesting (although amateurishly handled), and Micheal Berry gives a decent performance as the protagonist (or maybe the worse actors in the film just made him seem better). Some of the scoring and directing here is effective, as well.

Overall, this film is a 4/10. But if you see it, see it on MST3K. Not only did it make for one of the best episodes (proof that the worst movies don't make the best episodes), but it makes some of the duller parts of the film seem lively.


Wow....this film......has....a lot of.......pauses! Was William Shatner the dialogue coach or something? If this movie was any slower, watching it would actually send you back in time! This is pure seventies Grade Z-movie cheese. Take it from me- a movie that includes a Maverick, a walnut ranch, multiple uses of Amazing Grace, "This is where the fish lives!", "Zaaaa!", vomiting on a car, and an extended but unsexy nude scene is to be avoided. Movies like this should come with a Surgeon General's warning!


Like most who've commented, I saw this film with the help of MST3K, and I have to admit that this is one of the very few films I couldn't watch without it (along with the Coleman Francis trilogy and Manos).

There is so much wrong with this film that it's hard to start. The plot (if it can really be called that) is a retread, a boring premise (house with dark secret) that's been done to death in every other horror film ever made. The male lead, Jody (yes, JODY), is an ineffectual dope whose most memorable contribution to the film is yelling "Zah!" The "villain," Lucinda, is an ugly troll-like hag who can only spout gibberish when she's not busy hacking useless side characters into giblets. The love interest, Melissa, is a empty-headed ditz whose most enjoyable moment is showing Jody where "the fish lives" (and, quite fittingly for this film, is the character with the "dark secret").

Combine all this with horribly stilted dialogue (it feels like almost 3/4s of the film is pauses, either between lines or between words) and pacing somewhere between "cold molasses" and "glacier" (not to mention the fact that the first verse of "Amazing Grace" is used about 20 times in the film) and you have a movie that doesn't even manage to be affably mediocre or so-bad-it's-good, much less scary. Avoid this film at all costs, unless MST3K are shielding you from this film's dreadful slowness.


We follow Jodie, a guy, but with a name like that he's exactly the kind of wuss you expect him to be, driving way out to the country to eat his ham sandwich.

He then stumbles upon Melissa who lives on the walnut farm (yep, you read that right) he stopped at. Besides a psycho grandma, Melissa has another dark secret that Jodie slowly, and I mean SLOWLY, unravels.

Without the help of MST3k this movie would be a total pain in the royal behind. The pacing is slower than flowing tar on the North Pole, the dialog is unbelievably campy and dull and the acting is just plain crap.

I'm not going to call this a turkey because the whole thing is not even funny bad, it's just bad bad. If you like boring, long-winded, trying-to-be-scary-but-just-stupid movies from the seventies, go ahead and watch this.

If you do, I recommend you watch the MST3k version though.


Apparently, most people who have reviewed "The Touch of Satan" here only saw the "MST3K" version, as the original version is too crappy to watch. I now add my name to that number. As with most of the movies featured on that show, it's a litany of incompetent dialog, poor direction, and a barely comprehensible plot. No wonder Mike, Servo and Crow had such a hilarious time with it! The lousy excuse for a plot has a young man - named Jodie! - hooking up with a farm girl who (surprise, surprise) turns out to be the Devil. But most of the movie consists of scenes in which one person talks and then the other person takes WAY too long to answer. There's that and inexplicable usages of "Amazing Grace" (that one British Parliament member outlawed the slave trade for THIS?!). Oh, and the girl's grandmother looks like, to quote Crow, an overcooked turkey.

In conclusion, the movie on its own is a total zero, but the "MST3K" version is 10/10.


That and many other strange lines populate this rather boring film that has all the tension and excitement of paint drying. A rather bland young man turns down a country road and finds witches, killer grandmas, and walnut ranchers. He says "Zah!" to some people in a general store and there's an odd flashback featuring the hillbilly from "The Giant Spider Invasion." Then, the film seems to restart itself as the bland leading man turns down the same road from the beginning. In the end, Satan wins the day and we are left with the feeling that ninety minutes have gone by, and we'll never get them back. Even watching on MST, it's still rough


This, unlike many a bad movie, started out with an interesting plot. A girl sells her soul to the devil to keep her witch sister alive. It makes the mistake by starting up years after this event, where the witch lady is still as youthful as ever and has tricked a nice (if a tad bit dumb) guy to assist her. There's no more plot after that, the rest of the movie consists of various murder attempts by the severly aged sister and the witch lady tried to get the guy to help her. Add that with a couple of odd pieces of dialogue ("This is where the fish lives." "Zah!") and this movie never rises above camp, and fairly uninteresting camp at that.


Meet the Stricklands, hard-working proprietors of the world's most labor intensive walnut ranch. There's sweaty Luther who in his spare time cooks up hard cider and sticks coffee cups to his upper lip. There's his wife, Molly, who collects pot holders and can boil a mean pot of water. Next is Melissa, who likes shopping for Carnation ice cream and spooking the town folk with her witchy ways and large forehead. Oh, and then there's lovable Lucinda, who's into doll collecting and dispatching farmers and police officers with pitch forks and meat hooks. One day, while tooling around in his pristine Maverick, rich boy Jody decides to take the road less traveled and ends up with these loons. What's worse, he falls in love with one of them. Luckily, it's not Luther. This is a B movie that gives B movies a bad name. The dialogue is nearly as unspeakable as the horrors offered up in hell, the lighting goes from too bright to pitch and there's absolutely no one to cheer for. It's easy to see why this "film" was such easy fodder for Mike and the 'bots on the Satellite of Love. It lends itself to such biting commentary.


**This review is based on the MST3K version of the movie.**

This is a movie about a direction-less, spineless, and unlikable "hero" ( or at least the producer's idea of one) named Jodie who drives out to the country to eat his sandwich and meets a farm girl named Melissa. Melissa has a slight problem being that about 120 years ago she sold her soul to Satan and with our "hero" Jodie ( a male ) on the job the chances for correcting this problem do not look good. Jodie ends up spending a couple of days with Melissa at her family's walnut farm with her drab family who we do not care for or find interesting except for her old and ugly sister who makes a few appearances to murder people.

The acting is bad but what will really get to you is the SLOW dialog between the two main characters. If you edited out half the gaps between their words the conversation might actually appear to flow normally but since this was not done you are simply left with big gaps where audience members ( the smart ones that is ) will run out of patience and leave the room. It is amazing that the editor left these scenes in; "Yes, no room for improvement here. Another perfect take HA HA!" Speaking of amazing, the song "Amazing Grace" is featured about half a dozen times toward the end of the film. It would have been interesting to have seen this in the theater to see how much the audience groaned when the song started for the third or fourth time. I am sure that a collective "Not again !" drowned out the first measure of the fourth, fifth, and sixth renditions of the song.

About the only good thing about the movie is the woman who plays Melissa. She is most pleasant to look at. You think with a few, make that A LOT of acting lessons, her career could have been salvaged but it was not to be. With the mean-spirited and well-crafted remarks of the Mystery Science Theater gang the viewing experience will be about an 8 1/2. This is one of their best projects. They really tear this movie apart which is exactly what it deserves. Without them I only issue this warning; DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ! YOU WILL BE SORRY ! I GAVE IT A 2 OUT OF 10 AND I MEAN IT !!!

**** SEMI-SPOILER AHEAD****

Our "hero" Jodie lets us down right to the end of the film. No surprise that a guy who takes THREE DAY lunch breaks is not a champion overcomer of adversity. Non-Christians will find the ending unclimatic but Christians will probably find it offensive much like I did. Remember, throwing a rock or an empty beer bottle at your television will not hurt those who are responsible for this film so just write a scathing review like I did. God Bless Mike and his robot friends.


Tom Laughlin directed this.

Yep, good-old Billy Jack; the Master Gunfighter himself. And no, this one doesn't clock in at over three hours - it just FEELS like it.

"The Touch of Satan" is awash in stupid people. But not just any stupid people: slow, boring, lethargic and stupid people. From as far back as the 1800's to the 1970's, they all act the same - bored stiff. Even a batch of witch-burners chanting out "burn the witch...burn the witch....", exactly the way I wrote it. No exclamation points, no shouting, they just...say it. Hey Tom, give the cast some coffee, will ya?!

Some nondescript guy drives into this stupid, bored town and falls in love with a 200 year-old woman who doesn't look a day over 20 (or maybe 30 - okay, 39), in spite of having a haggard old woman living with her that pitchforks, meathooks or squeals at people at the most inconvenient times. There's a little blood, some nudity and a weird ending sequence where the credits and the end score both skip ahead a little. Coincidence, or...THE TOUCH OF SATAN? Aaah, who cares?

Oh, and a lot of dramatic pauses. I mean A LOT OF DRAMATIC PAUSES. Take them out, this crummy flick wouldn't even last twenty minutes. I know, they were trying to make it more dramatic and cerebral, blah blah blah. Great, if only this film had a brain to BE cerebral with!

Even Mike and the robots struggle along in this one. Favorite scene: their "whacka-chaka" sing-along with the beginning theme (very '70s, trust me).

No stars, not a single stinkin' one, for "The Touch of Satan". Only five for the MST3K version.

Hey "Satan", go "Touch" someone else.


This movie just sounds too plain awful. I can't even imagine seeing this film un-Mystified right before my eyes. And what I mean by that is watching it without the ultimate "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment this movie deserves. I've seen some "Mystery Science Theater 3000" episodes in my life, and believe me, watching most of these movies as originally intended (as in a theater, of course) would give be permanent depression! And this would most likely include this movie, too! So if you happen to come upon "The Touch of Satan," do yourself and your mind a favor: watch it with Mike and the Bots, will you, please? I've never seen it, but I know I'll do that!


I've only seen the MST3K version (as I'm sure almost everyone else has), so of course you can tell that this is a VERRRRY *bad* movie. The only thing is that if they had just followed the flashback, this might have been a better movie. It still would have been a B-movie, but I don't think it would have been as painful. However, if they had a new director, writer, cast, and production...


really has very little horror. I can't belive another title for this was night of the demon, because there is no demons in sight. Instead we get the great Jody driving through the opening credits, then he stops for gas, then he pulls into a driveway where he sits down for lunch (oh god the horror). And as fast as it starts out it even gets better as he meets Melissa Strickland and they start the first of their many clunky diolog scenes together. She introduces him to her "wink" parents and perceives to invite him to stay despite her "parents" wishes. I can not believe he stayed in the first place considering the look on the face of the parents. I would have gotten the clue that I was not really welcome. She then gets the nob to stay awhile. Well he goes to the room set aside for him and meets Melissa's sister (she didn't age as well as Melissa). In the end you find out there is a fish in a lake, the guy says Zah to scare people, the guy refuses to believe she is a witch till the very end (and frankly I still don't think he really believes), and both end up in the clutches of satan.


It never seems to amaze me how bad films can actually be, but this is an insult to intelligence. How does "From The Man Who Brought You Billy Jack" sound? Lighting is either brown, or supernova. Acting...pause...is...pause...awful!!! The story is the biggest joke yet. Whoever got this script and thought, "Hey, this is a winner!" should be burned at the stake like that crazy sister/grandma thing. Luckily, we always have Mike & the bots to help make light of the situation.


Some people will calls this film a chick flick, I prefer to say it is geared for a teenage women audience. With this in mind I fould it awful. Too sappy, predictable and reminds me of the low budget Bartell Drive inn movies. The all girl band headed out too the beach is toooo predictable. Their characters at best get across as cardbord. The tough girl etc. Even for an escapist movie, where the viewer turn his or her brain off, this film's script is too thin. I watched this with my wife late night, and could not care less for the conclusion. I left not really wanting to know about what happens too the band, or their love interest. For a film I found soaps have better wrighting. This film probably was done quick, on the cheap and it shows. Stay away unless your only other choice is Isthar at the video store. 3 Out of 10


Julia Roberts made her first credited film appearance in this late 80's girl band movie. Four girls and a token guy, a geeky one at that, travel to a beach coast roadhouse to be the summer house band. When the owner takes a liking to them, they could be headed for Europe where his friend can set the girls up. Are you kidding me? These girls don't sound good enough for that kind of opportunity. The girl band is headed by Family Ties girl: Justine Bateman on lead vocals; Britta Phillips is on lead guitar; Julia Roberts is on bass; Trini Alvarado is on drums. They all seem to have been cast with big hair in mind, popular in the late 80's. Scott Coffey is the token male on keyboards. The girls are all different clichéd types: Phillips is the simpleton stoner with an over-abundance of brainless comments; Roberts is the slut girl supposedly; Alvarado is the tough girl that falls for geeky Coffey! Of course that would never happen in real life. Bateman's character isn't fleshed out enough for us to know how to identify with her. She comes off as street savvy, but then melts into Liam Neeson's arms. He plays the club owner where the girls stay for the summer, and he is far too old for someone of Bateman's ilk, as portrayed in this movie. I didn't really believe he was ever that interested in her. The subplot about the guy gang is ludicrous and serves no purpose. The 80's synthesizer bridging music is annoying at times. Deborah Harry, of Blondie fame, has a cameo as sort of an acquaintance of Neeson's. The film has a couple of funny moments, but is mostly forgettable. Watch it only if you have nothing better to do, like washing your big hair. * of 4 stars.


The rock-loving teens in this movie don't seem to know anything about making music. We get no information about their musical backgrounds, and their idea of jamming is to feign a version of "Iko Iko" while driving in their stolen van (I say 'feign' because the sound of their unison vocals is distinctly studio-enhanced). There's one guy in the otherwise all-girl band, and they make him sleep behind a sheet--out of modesty?--and yet the girls themselves are sexually active and think nothing of having sex in that van until the damn thing just about topples over. The movie wants to have it both ways: be a modern look at streetwise teens and yet also be an old-fashioned musical. Justine Bateman works hard in the leading role, but she seems to suffocate under the plastic handling; newcomer Julia Roberts shows off a nice sense of sarcastic humor, but the movie is an underachiever, with oldies-rock tunes given '80s makeovers that wouldn't pass muster on Star Search. ** from ****


One thing I would like to do before I die is find out who it was that told Justine Bateman she could sing and slap that person into a coma.

If this stunningly mediocre attempt at a "teen comedy" didn't actually kill the subgenre it at least delivered it a mortal wound. It looks like it was filmed through a dung lens and sounds like it was written by a team of gently retarded clams. And what Hollywood studio cretin thought Liam Neeson and Justine Bateman would be a good romantic pair? I've seen more sparks coming from a thoroughly wet sparkler!

Lets see, in "Satisfaction" we've got the usual group of teen girl stereotypes with Julia Roberts in her first credited roll as Daryle, (the Loose Girl), Trini Alvarado as Mooch (the Tough Girl) and Britta Phillips as Billy (the Crazy Girl). Throw them into a retreaded plot from "Where The Boys Are" and set it all on the ugliest beach on either coast and you've got a good idea what this mess is like.

Or better yet, just hit yourself in the face with a cookie sheet for 92 minutes. Gah!


Think of everything that could be wrong with a film, triple these things, cover them with a coat of raw sewage then set them on fire and you will have a piece of charbroiled pigslop called "Satisfaction". Tepid, low rent comedy dealing with 4 simpering teen rocker wannabe girls and their dorked out boyfriend. I figure the actors had a better time making this bilge than anybody could ever have watching it. If Jagger were dead [and watching this drivel could very well have led to his demise] he'd be permanently spinning in his expensive English casket. Gad!


The best part of this awful film is when the ending credits are rolling and you hear the band playing and singing the title song.

Trouble is that the film is anything but good. 4 teenage girls and a young guy embark on a summer of fun when they land a job playing as a band at a beach resort. One girl is an orphan, but nothing is said about the other teens' parents. They just hop in a van and go.

We have what could fall into a beach blanket movie with singing,gaiety, an attempted suicide and a romance between Justine Bateman and Liam Neeson, a widowed song writer who shall we say has a lot on his mind.

Of course, Neeson likes the band so much that he wants them to defer school and go rock in Europe.

I added the extra 1/2 star since the film did end correctly, that is, that school comes first. Unfortunately, this film comes in last.


I was pretty sure, when I saw that Liam, Julia and Justine Bateman in a movie together, it was going to be somewhat decent. Well much to my chagrin. This movie was like a two way portal, ala some violent mirror in which I saw myself poking my eyes out with icepicks through the television screen to stop the pain.

Justine was just awful at singing, the Benny Hill, fast forward scene at the beach just made me cringe from head to toe and every concert scene was just.....well, can you guess the remorseful, disgusting feelings I have towards this movie.

I sat through this, I climbed this treacherous journey from the base camp to the pinnacle on a mountain from hell, so you don't have too. Take it from me, and where I came from. This movie will make you feel like a new asshole. It will give you a disease you never know existed. Please resist and refrain from watching this movie. I BEG YOU ALL.


Call me a glutton for punishment. I've now seen this wretched rock fantasy three times, and think I can safely call it a day after this. Bluntly, there is nothing remotely believable about Satisfaction. For starters, why would a group of rockin', freshly graduated from high school in 1988 girls spend their day playing old R&B numbers? I can buy them performing the titular Stones number, and C'mon Everybody is virtually impossible to ruin, but the cowbell-driven take on Knock on Wood is awful and the reggae-rific version of Mr. Big Stuff is a joke (and that joke just isn't funny anymore). Only some very powerful psychotropics could possibly convince anyone that Justine Bateman's Liam Neeson accompanied rendition of Dedicated to the One I Love is the future of rock and roll. And please--when was the last time an all-covers band was mooted for a European tour? Has that ever happened? I guess it's nice that Elvis Costello collects a royalty check every time Satisfaction plays on TV (the girls butcher Mystery Dance mid-movie), but that's not much compensation for what is otherwise a thoroughly awful film. Awful, awful, awful!


SATISFACTION is not a great movie by any shakes, but taken for what it was meant to be - a slightly naive tale of a girls' band that has a summer of adventure, love and opportunity for the big time nut opts instead to become just a group of life-long friends - it is a well done bit of pastiche. Thanks to the simple script by Charles Purpura and to the sensitive direction of Joan Freeman the little story works well.

The interesting aspect of the film is the cast. The band consists of leader Justine Bateman with Trini Alvarado, Britta Phillips, Scott Coffey as the token male, Deborah Harry and yes, the movie debut of Julia Roberts! Liam Neeson serves as the love interest for Justine Bateman's character and Michael DeLorenzo has a small part, too. The music is fun and the cast commits to the idea of the film well. Strange to see a film from 1988 with the established stars disappearing and the 'newcomers' taking flight. Grady Harp


I never post reviews on the IMDb.

But for reasons best known to my subconscious, the memory of this film slipped into my head on the bus this morning. Wandering online, I was amazed to find this had mustered above 3 stars.

Woeful in every manner, devoid of comedy or redemption and leaving a slightly nihilistic sick taste in the mouth, even as an undemanding teen

I remember my childhood abhorrence for this film. And since it was on Sky Movies weekly for a month back in the 90s I had enough opportunities to hate it.

I think a comment from my father best sums up this mess.

'Dear God, what is wrong with Elliot Gould? Things can't be that bad?'

Ugh.


I worked on this film for nine weeks as Elliott's stand-in. It was the first and last job i had in the film industry.

Even though I got to know all the actors and crew - Even though I worked up to 16 hours a day for nine weeks- Even though my name appears in the credits as a PA Even though I expected to have a biased opinion-

-I can't even watch the whole thing, this film truly sucks, and not in the good way - you know, films that are so bad, their good. Not this one - this is a truly awful piece of crap. It never made it to theaters, TV or rental. I found it on Amazon, bought it for $4, watched about 1 hour of it, checked the credits for my name and stuck it up on the shelf (forever)

The idiot that gave this 10 stars really skewed the rating which, without that vote would be a 1.5 at best. They should have a 0 star rating for films like this.


Of any film I have ever seen this has to have the most problems with appearing boom microphones - they are everywhere. Besides this, Elliot Gould perhaps should have known better, as he is wasted in a feeble, unfunny comedy with little or no plot direction. There is nothing to warrant seeing this film.


God help us with "Indie films" like these. It is almost embarrassing and disgraceful to even consider such designation for this underachievement.

The only rational and redeeming explanation for 100% compromise of this movie... if Amy Redford was completely enslaved to financial side of this movie. Because this $ide was writing and directing movie with all the usual and predictable demographic/sexual triviality hooks. So familiar with our society today. Such simple and honest premise is corrupted from the moment Saffron leaves the hospital.

It is pointless to comment all trivialities and the length this movie voyages without a hint of single intelligent solution : She is a vegetarian but she decides since she has nothing to loose, she can "stop the torture" and enjoy the flesh again.

Your common pizza delivery girl with hundreds of weekly visits has time to develop such profound relationship with Melody. In fact, the second visit would even grant her a touch of lesbian romance.

Your average delivery guy with hundreds of weekly visits develops a grand sensibility after couple of visits and dedicates his body even more for that extra pleasure to our lonely melody. But wait, since we have a very clear targeted demographic with such prosaic hooks; lets, lets even offer threesome pleasure to be even safer with the audience.

What do we learn from her state? The real question is : What Does Melody Learns From Here? Nothing! Almost as emphatic as our society, same void would strike her own values : Eat, Sleep, copulate and amply consume at that. Consume as much as you can! Let material possessions supplement all of your problems. At least one thing is clear, Amy Redford movie making is immature and even that is a compliment. I haven't seen any of her previous or later attempts, but if this is best she can do, then she is in the wrong field of profession.

The only pleasant thing to watch is Melody's loft. The most creative thing you will find about this movie is the nice PS picture from the official poster.


This movie did make me feel for the woman because of her illness, and for the cancer it made me feel like she has hope... of dieing.

Her illness is that she is 100% materialistic and shallow and has no idea of how to live a happy life and even the fact that she is dieing, which she finds out as the movie begins, cannot seem to give her any willpower to think on how to really find any real substance to what life she has left.

Not only does she seem to live in a void of meaning, but the entire movie and the way the effects are used seem to emphasize emotions to things that have no meaning whatsoever, as if the people behind the plot of the movie have no substance, and no understanding of any better ways to bring some color in to life then buying new curtains and such.

Even though events take different turns towards the end, she still doesn't learn anything new, and the movie remains with the same shallow thought that is started out with: spend more, take risks and you'll be happier.

To be fare, if buying stuff is the best thing you can imagine, if it is all you live for, then this movie probably isn't all bad for you.


Adolescent, uninspired movie about a girl who is dying and decides to buy things, kiss girls, and become unbearably shrill.

There's no sense of reality here. Seriously, this movie makes the television programme "Friends" look gritty.

We've seen this all before SO MANY TIMES. Not a note of originality in the tinny, cliché-ridden screenplay.

Pretentious? This movie is so self-important it's almost sickening. It's a lame, boring artistic failure.

Some of the supporting roles are well cast.

I wish Ms. Redford more luck next time.


why the bloody hell is this site so incompetent as to label Dandy Nicholls as Una Stubbs in one of the main images, posters, which is all over Google? OK, apparently, my post needs more lines why? I am trying to fix a glaring error, which must be obnoxious to Una Stubbs who is still living, I hope and also to Dandy Nicholls, who may not be still living, but I remember watching as a child - but it may be to her family! OK, it needs 10 lines of text *sigh* my husband loves this film...being a Cockney himself. I love Una Stubbs in many films, such as 'Summer Holiday,' and love her as a very warm-hearted person. I am very much looking forward to watching this film - having laughed at the T.V. series, even though a young child I could grasp that it was not serious.


Ah, paramedics. Is there anything they can't do?

Quite possibly the best film ever made featuring rapping white ambulance attendants - in fact, I think rap and hip-hop music in general received a monumental boost in its quest for legitimacy after Uptown and Mad Mike belted their street-savvy showstopper at the conclusion of Paramedics. Magnifique! And to the agent out there representing the Fat Boys? Shame on you! What a perfect vehicle for those crazy corpulants this would've been. One can only sit and think about it.

Please, PLEASE regard all of this as sarcasm and steer clear of this trash. Peace out.


This is one of many so-called "educational films" of the 1930s that were really sad excuses for sleazy low-budget producers to make films that could slip nudity and banned material past the censor boards. Starting in late 1933 and early 1934, the Hays Production Code was dramatically strengthened to eliminate nudity, extreme violence and decidedly adult far from movies. Believe it or not, before this time, all kinds of taboos were relatively common in films coming from reputable Hollywood studios. However, after the Code was strengthened, perverts and the curious went looking for seedy material and found it in educational films that were really just excuses to show boobs and talk about sex and drugs. As educational material, some states DID allow these films to be seen, though I seriously doubt that parents went to them to learn how to better raise their children!

The main theme of GAMBLING WITH SOULS is forced prostitution. It seems that a local gambling den is actually a front where nice young ladies are hooked on gambling and then forced to become hookers to pay off their debt. The story begins with a police raid and seeing a blonde shooting one of the leaders of this hole. The rest of the film is her account to the police of what led her to this murder and how she lost everything due to gambling.

The film is very obvious and trite--with only passable acting and a script that, at times, is very silly. Certainly NOT a great film but oddly watchable if you are a bit of a voyeur and like bad films. Otherwise, beware.


1st watched 2/19/2007 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Elmer Clifton): Formulaic good woman gone bad story. This time being enticed by getting nice things thru gambling initially, then pushed into being an escort to pay back her debts to the gambling club. This all happens while her husband is trying to make it in the medical field and is often out of town. The movie starts with a murder and the rest of the movie is told in flashbacks as the accused tells the story. As is usual in these films, it starts out innocent enough at the roulette wheel but blossoms out of control as she loses more money. The bad guys threaten her by saying that they'll get her husband involved and then she's stuck to being their slave until the money is paid back. Eventually, the main character's sister gets enticed as well and her hatred brings about the ensuing crime. This is one of those "B" exploitation movies that doesn't pack much of a punch and the viewer is left waiting for the whole thing to just be over. The good thing is that it eventually ends, the bad thing is that I watched it.