While not totally awful, it's certainly a very far cry from being a good Stooge comedy. And that's really too bad because despite the fact that Joe Besser refused to take any of the traditional pokes and slaps that Moe used to hand out to Curly and Shemp, he was otherwise a fine comedian. Check him out in Abbott & Costello's "Africa Screams" where Joe actually has some screen time with Shemp. At this time Colombia Pictures was obviously trying to "wind up" the Stooges contract so the writing and direction are just not there for them. A sad commentary on the state of affairs for the comics at this time in the late 1950's. If you have absolutely nothing else to do, then do watch this short and you'll see automatically how things had declined for this type of comedy during the "cold war" rock and roll era of the late 50's.


The stooges are launched into space, land on a distant planet and (after the usual stooge shennanigans, save the world from alien zombies (a young dan "hoss" blocker") The only reason i give this movie a 1 is because that is as low as the ratings go. The stooges in space can be a funny idea, but to pull it off you need THREE stooges, not 2 and the very unfunny Joe Besser. Imagine what Curley could have done with what is politely a bad script. Heck, even shemp or Curley Joe DeRita could have probably salvaged at least a few chuckles. Instead we are subjected to the annoying whinning of Joe Besser. This is a stooge short ( along with just about any other Besser shorts) that even the most die hardstooge fan (and i definitely count myself in that category) could not recommend.


For the longest time, this was my least favorite stooge short. The stooges with Joe Besser and an outer-space plot was always a warning sign that you were to be witness to cinematic poop. Though, fishing for something positive to say, I have had the "pleasure" of watching HORSING AROUND, which reaches to an even lower depth than this prize of a stooge short.

0.5/10


As a man with some very strong Newfoundland roots, let me comment on this movie.

First, I was not a BIG fan of the book. Proulx's writing style, while unique and engaging for athe first hundred pages, quickly becomes cloying and irritating in the last 200. While here characters were elegantly and ingeniously crafted (Billy Pretty, both in tyhe pages and on the screen by Newfie Gordon Pinsent being the best of the bunch), and here sparse descriptions of the Newfoundland landscape befitting the sparse and bare Western Shore (although there are some mighty fine towns along that same coast), here characterization of Newfoundlanders is very 'look-down-your-nose' - they are all rustic, and seem never to have seen any modern convieniences, and are second kin to the McCoys of the American Ozarks. When, in the movie, Quoyle confronts the Old Qouyle who has been cursing the house, we can almost hear the banjo from "Deliverance"; when they actually show Guy raping Agnes (a needless scene - we know he does it, the guy just told us. It serves no purpose...), I imagines the movies title to be "Deliverance II: The Newfoundland Connection"

This is the biggest problem I have; in the book, there is a line "Incest is a way of life in Newfoundland." and in the movie when Quoyle discovers his grandfather was 12 when he died, and Agnes says "You don't know Newfoundlanders." These strike me a the sort of thing Mainlanders have been saying about Newfoundlanders for years. The book was written, after all, by an American...

The movie itself is a good movie. Kevin Spacey (my favorite actor of all), turns in a good performance, not a great one, though he gets Quoyle just about spot on if you cut away all the parts about how fat Quoyle is and he is 10 times more insecure than Spacey portrays him, but maybe thats a problem of script. Dame Judi Dench gives a marvelous portrayal of Agnes, and the staff of the Gammy Bird one and all are spot on perfect in their roles. Dench, Scott Glenn as Jack Buggit, Pete Postlethwaite (one of the best character actors around) as Tert Card, and the Welsh guy as one of the best characters Nutbeem, and the best guy in the movie, maybe because he's from Newfoundland, Gordon Pinsent as Billy Pretty. Cate Blanchett is also remarkable as Petal.

I voted 8 out of 10 - good, not great. Lord of the Rings will take Best Picture and best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director, but Dench my get Best Actress, and Gordon Pinsent deserves a nod for Best Supporting Actor.


What a disappointment! Compared with SAFETY LAST or the witty and charming GIRL SHY, this is a retreat to the crude slapstick of the one-reelers.

The last episode of GIRL SHY was so good it was copied decades later in the GRADUATE, but there is nothing worth copying here. The old gag about hiding behind the body of a horse is recycled, and the washing up routines are lifted from Keaton's THE NAVIGATOR. Neither are there any magic moments here such as the Shakespearean bust of Lloyd in GIRL SHY.

Most reviewers give this 4 stars - just goes to show they don't know their job.


George C. Scott is a conservative, religious businessman from Michigan. Everything changes when his daughter is kidnapped and put into pornography films in California. He has to search for her and fight all the scumbags out in California, which happens to include the private detective he hired. It's pretty much the same movie as 8MM (which came 20 years later). Both pretty much serve the same purpose, which is to shock us.

"Hardcore" is quite similar to "Taxi Driver" which has the same screenwriter. Maybe not getting Martin Scorsese to direct this movie was its ultimate flaw. Scorsese can make us like characters no matter how depraved they were. There's no attempt to that here. I don't mean the villains who have kidnapped Scott's daughter (who are one dimensional) but everyone Scott meets in this movie tends to be sleazy and perverted except for him. Even his detective is morally corrupt.


This film is a self-conscious, derivative mistake with both writer (O'Connor) and director (Nettheim) displaying self-indulgence without the quality usually associated with such behaviour.

This was a movie desperately uttering the dialogue of countless pop culture movies seen from Kevin Smith, Justin Kerrigan, and even Quentin Tarrantino to a lesser degree. Why clone? And why do it so badly? I think Anthony O'Connor needs to try and create characters that are fleshed out and interesting - not just saying 'clever' things. The dialogue was, in a word, try-hard. The only thing that came out of anyone's mouth were the writer's words. He needs to develop. To do more with the characters, instead of showing his smugness. He needs to show us he can create interesting characters. Ones that express *authentic* feelings about themes in the film: getting over love, friendship, alienation, obsession... with some true insights - not shallow punchlines in the guise of enlightenment. An immature effort all round. Good for showing amongst the makers' friends as a laugh - not in a cinema, please!


Generally the movie is slow, but memorable.

I remember watching this when I was a teenager. It was shown on Channel 50's "Creature Feature" sometime in the mid-80's. The plot is as mentioned in the other comments here, but I remember most the vampire Candid Camera moment when the main actress is undergoing forced "vampirization" therapy which consists of a the fake vampire cult sneaking human blood into everything. Initially shocking, when carried to multiple instances it all becomes hilarious.

The scenes that stick in my mind.

The lady goes to the fridge, opens up a milk carton, drinks from it and (SURPRISE!) you see blood streaming down from the edges of her mouth. She reacts as if nearly vomiting and the shock diminishes as these instances are repeated like a series of bloody pranks.

It seems like she cannot eat or drink anything without it having blood previously injected into it.

She goes on a picnic with her cute mustached boyfriend, bites into a deep fried chicken leg and golly gee, it also is squirting out blood like some weird prank.

The one uplifting star of wannabe "Vampire Candid Camera" is that there is a fellow that I mistook for Patrick Macnee (one of the stars of the 1966 British TV series "The Avengers"), but he only plays a minor role.


Kate Davis (Chantal Contouri) is abducted by a group that has been watching her every move. It seems that she's an descendant of Elizabeth 'the Blood Countess' Bathory, yes the Hungarian whore herself. This secret cabal of wealthy individuals feed on peasants who live on a commune. It's not hard to find the ripe political symbolism there. It feels like it goes on to long, and the vampire 'effects' are incredible silly. One couldn't help but feel that the movie would have been better served by going to its approach to vampirism the same way as "Martin" did.

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: Commantary track; Isolated film score; Filmographies; Photo Gallery Theatrical Trailer; and 3 TV spots

Eye Candy: Chantal Contouri shows breasts


Thirst starts with a strong minded career woman named Kate Davis (Chantal Contouri) rising from a coffin in a crypt of some sort in typical Gothic horror fashion. On the soundtrack two voices can be heard, a Dr. Barker (Shirley Cameron, the IMDb listing is definitely wrong as her character's name is Mrs. Barker not Mrs. Cameron which is obviously her real name) & a Mr. Hodge (Max Phipps) who talk about Kate's conditioning & that she is a completely different woman from that of a week ago... Thirst then cuts back to presumably a week ago when Kate was just an normal Australian living a normal life who is about to take an extended holiday on her own as unfortunately her architect boyfriend Derek Whitehall (Rod Mullinar) is too busy at work to join her. However the morning Kate is due to leave she is kidnapped by the Hyma Brotherhood who are a secret sect of modern day Vampires who regard themselves as a superior race gaining power & youth from drinking blood. Kate is taken deep into the Australian outback to a complex where the Brotherhood are based, known as the farm there are no cattle or crops, just people. Kate is told by Dr. Barker that her Great Great Grandfather was a direct descendant of Countess Elizabeth Bathory & that she must accept her ancestral blood drinking heritage, at first Kate is understandably reluctant to believe what she is being told & thinks everyone is crazy. The Brotherhood feel it's essential for Kate to accept her heritage so Dr. Barker, Dr. Gauss (Henry Silva) & Dr. Fraser (David Hemmings) devise a programme of conditioning to convince Kate that she is indeed a Vampire who must drink blood. At first Kate refuses to give in to the Brotherhoods tactic's but how long can she hold out with the constant bombardment of brainwashing?

This Australian production directed by Rod Hardy is in my opinion is as dull as dishwater & didn't really do a thing for me. I have to give the filmmakers credit for trying something different even if the end result is less than spectacular. The script by John Pinkney mixes some of the traditional Vampire cinematic themes such as fangs, blood drinking & glowing red eye's with new ideas like the farm where humans are kept like livestock, bleed through special hi-tech machinery & scientifically checked for disease before it is packed into milk cartons & shipped out to other Vampires all over the world. Unfortunately the main problem with Thirst is that is just so slow, boring, dull & at 90 minutes far too long & drawn out. Thirst never explained why the Brotherhood wanted Kate to join them & become a Vampire so badly, was it just so Hodges could have sex with her & merge the two families together as mentioned at the end? If so why just not have sex with her against her will? Or have sex with her even if she isn't drinking blood? They put an awful lot of time & effort into conditioning Kate to become a blood drinking Vampire for no good reason as far as I could make out. One more thing, why wait until now to condition Kate? Why not years earlier in her life while she was still vulnerable before she had fully developed her personality & career? There are a couple of good sequences in Thirst like the tour around the factory where the humans are bleed & Kate's shower of blood is decent for a cheap thrill I suppose. I also have to mention the so-called twist ending which I figured out a long time before I actually had to sit through it. There's not much blood or gore in Thirst, half a mangled face, some neck biting & a few jars of blood is about it. The acting is pretty good throughout, maybe the acting was the best thing about Thirst in fact. Tecnically the film is OK, the cinematography is adequate despite what many say & just because a film is shot in scope doesn't automatically make it brilliant. There is a funny scene when an old woman listed as blue rinse lady (Paddy Burnet) bites someone on the neck during some sort of ceremony, she looks like cross dresser Barry Humphries in his Dame Edna Everidge costume, now that's scary folks! Overall Thirst definitely has some interesting ideas which are wasted in this dull, boring & tedious horror film, I'll take Christopher Lee as Count Dracula in one of Hammer's fine period horror films over this confused mix of ideas that seem to have just been haphazardly thrown together. One to avoid unless your an insomniac.


This film starts off OK. It has heather graham in it, so I wasn't expecting much besides nasty sex scenes and bulging eyes (of which you get both in this film). The fact that she is supposed to be some folksy singer-songwriter is laughable because I've met this character time and time again in the downtown art scene.

All of the dialogue, starting with Jeremy Sisto's entrance is laughable and obviously written by a man. If written by a woman, Hope (heather graham) would've reached for her pepper spray after Will's (Jeremy Sisto) initial pick up line.

The movie goes no where fast, has a small up lift with the black box theatre style of the dinner, then continues on a downward spiral. The cast is amazing, and I'm surprised that so many somewhat respectable actors would sign to such boring banal work.

The special features are a laugh and a half as more praise over Graham's beauty and perfection for the part is expressed. The producer says producer-like things like "many other actresses wanted this part but Heather was just perfect". Way to make it sound like Angelina, Charlize, and Drew all wanted to be part of this ishfest.

I'm glad I bought this for 3 dollars on Thanksgiving. I'll be thanks-giving this away on Ebay tomorrow.

There are so many other problems with this film including editing, music, and character development but the other REAL comments speak for themselves.

Jeremy Sisto...what happened?


Don't waste your time with this movie. Heather Graham's performance as a singer/songwriter turned heroin addict is awful. For most of the movie, I couldn't tell whether she was still an addict or not, which I'd attribute to Heather's terrible acting and possibly some poor editing. The storyline is non-linear, which when done properly can be really interesting, but when done poorly (as in this movie) is very confusing and distracting. Jeremy Sisto was fantastic, but unfortunately didn't make up for all of the film's flaws. It's hard to say more without giving away any spoilers, but take it from a fan of drug movies, don't waste your time. An hour and a half of my life that I will never get back...


This is among the top three most terrible films I have ever witnessed. I kept waiting for it to have some kind of theme or point. There is absolutely none. Its not even worth my typing these words except for the idea that I might spare someone the curiosity. Don't be fooled, this movie doesn't have anything to do with the synopsis on the back. There's no manifestation of "the seven deadly sins", there is nothing remotely interesting in this movie. It never wraps itself up into a remotely understandable, sensible package. Its just drug use after abusive situation after drug use all twisted up in a largely boring cafe. Unless you're looking to see Heather Graham at her worst, don't see it.


My brother and I watched the first 15 minutes of this movie and both decided it was boring and we were getting nothing out of the movie, yet we decided to give it a while longer to see if it got any better. 20 more minutes went by and still - nothing too interesting. The only relatively interesting scene was when Hope and her boyfriend hook up. Then about 5 minutes later she makes out with a girl on who's experiencing her first trip on ecstasy for about 5 more minutes. Then you basically find out after reading the reviews on here that the movie is not what you expected it to be. The back of the DVD package makes it sound like Hope is supposed to go crazy and have hallucinations and things of that nature, but it's really about drugs. She's battling an addiction of her boyfriend and her boyfriend's battling his own addiction with drugs. Overall, it's the biggest waste of time ever.


- A Mexican priest becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage or something -

I went to see this movie because it was about non-WWF wrestling and so I thought it might be funny. It wasn't. It is excruciating to watch. Embarrassing. Any and every opportunity for comedy is mercilessly squandered.

I admit I don't like Jack Black anyway. After this I have been racking my brain to think of one good role that he has performed. The only thing I can come up with where he was o.k. was as a necessary foil to the John Cusack character in 'High Fidelity'. Jack Black is one of those awful relentless flat-out ham-it-up knockabout guys (like the little fat one in Abbot & Costello or Jerry Lewis) who should be told that being overbearingly idiotic is not the same thing as being funny.

It is not even slapstick. It's just irritating. It's not even stoopid, it's just stupid.

I heard good things about Napoleon Dynamite too, but if this is anything to go by I wont be rushing out to find it on DVD.


Jack Black can usually make me snicker simply by breathing, but in this movie...

Besides the direction, writing, lack of plot, constant mugging (aided and abetted by constant straight-on camera shots), and a .050 joke batting average, it was still an utter waste of time. The idea sounds promising, but what potential there was gets wasted with an utter lack of comedy and some of the worst direction I've seen this side of you-tube.

I kept hearing that this film portrayed Mexicans very negatively. While that's no doubt true, I really don't think this movie is meant to be racist. I think that's it's more a result of a "creative" team desperately trying to find something funny in this mess. You can almost hear them crying out from behind the camera: "Hey look, it's an ugly Mexican! Laugh, people! Please, for the love of all things tenacious, LAUGH!"

But put the racism charges aside. When you get down to it, it's anyone who plunked down good money and time to watch this pile of leftover refried beans that should be offended, IMO.


I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.

I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.

It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.

I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.

I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....


I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.

Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...

What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!

Just skip this piece of garbage

P.S. (sorry for my English)


What a disappointment!

This film seemed to be trying to copy 'cutting edge' comedy but the direction and the script was sloppy, sickly and sentimental in the worst film tradition. Jack Black's acting/role was self-indulgent and self-regarding... and the other characters were equally unmasking and uninteresting. The soundtrack was tedious. We are ( WERE) fans of Black but none of us did more than mange a forced titter for the duration. Why did he feel he needed to make this mistake?

We will not watch another of his films without reading reviews more carefully first!!

Was he drunk when he read the script before signing up for this drivel?


We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time.


Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.

I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.


"Nacho Libre" (2006)

Directed By: Jared Hess

Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog)

Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that "Napoleon Dynamite" was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of "Napoleon Dynamite", and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as "Saturday Night Live" or possibly even "Mad TV", would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.

Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with "School of Rock" after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humorof course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.

The performances in "Nacho Libre" are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.

"Nacho Libre" just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of "Nacho Libre": yes, the cast. This cast was justwell, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's "Napoleon Dynamite" kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with "Nacho Libre". Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that "Nacho Libre" is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.

Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical "Napoleon Dynamite".

Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+)


While I appreciate the possibility of a zombie film from the zombies' perspective, this is not a skillful execution of that good idea. This is a remarkably anti-female movie. From the opening of a man shooting his girlfriend twice to the continued use of "faggot," "bitch," and other ridiculously disempowering words, this is a piece of garbage. The female characters are either weak (the woman who won't let go of the boyfriend who shot and killed her, then continues to hunt and hurt her after she's dead) or absurdly strong (the character that refers to men needing to grow a pair, prove their manliness by killing, etc). There is much to much gender normative and heterosexism in this movie for it to be any good. The main take aways from this movie are that 1.females are weak. 2. men can and should rule females. 3. women are universally cruel or weak.

Terrible.


This movie screams "Student film project", which someone thought was good enough to make a quick buck off of and distribute into DVD.

Not that bad of a film, it implies that a "Night of the Living Dead" type virus has hit that resurrects the recently dead, who still retain most of their mental faculties. THey try to go into a satire of modern life and discrimination, but they really don't quite pull it off. It follows the adventures of Angela, a girl killed by her abusive boyfriend, finding herself resurrected as one of the undead, and coming under discrimination in her new incarnation. Meanwhile, her ex-boyfriend has joined an anti-zombie hate group that hunts them down and kills them. Too many images of American flags, as though they want to equate America with intolerance, but hey, that's probably the kind of crap being taught at film schools today.

Some of the scenes come off as amateur special effects guys showing their stuff with the undead makeup and the simulated (not very convincing) gore of people being eaten by zombies.

Worth a rental? Yeah, if you're bored and want a good laugh.


Last Rites of the Dead is set in a world where the dead don't stay dead, any freshly deceased person returns to life as a zombie. Office worker Angela (Gina Ramsden) is shot dead by her abusive boyfriend Josh (Joshua Nelson) but she doesn't stay dead for long, Angela quickly learns that being a zombie is difficult. Your skin rots, you have no legal rights & you are treated as dirt by the living. As the debate rages over what should be done about the living dead a section of society who are against zombies having equal rights set up their own terrorist organisations who persecute the zombie population as they try to get on with their lives (death's?) in normal society. Josh is one such extremist & joins one such organisation & uses his knowledge of Angela to help further his cause...

Edited, written, co-produced & directed by Matt Fratto who also co-composed the music score & also known under the title Zombies Anonymous I have to say I thought this was crap despite all the glowing reviews from people who seem to have seen it at some obscure film festival & somehow that makes it great. Unfortunately I had to endure the full almost two hour cut of this crap rather than the shorter US DVD version which apparently makes no sense but would have thankfully lasted for twenty odd minutes less, I just have no luck at all. Last Rites of the Living Dead is an all too obvious take on the issue of mass immigration & racist attitudes. I guess the filmmakers were trying to go down the George A. Romero route by mixing zombies & (rubbish unconvincing) gore with a little bit of social commentary & satire but fail miserably, I will give Last Rites of the Dead some credit as the initial ten or fifteen minutes are quite good as the script focuses on the plight of a zombie in the real world, the fact they wouldn't be entitled to any money or have any rights, adverts on telly for make-up to hide rotting skin, the issue of termination centres & the basic core of the film the racist attitudes of the living. But once all the clever little allegories & references are out of the way including a support group for zombies in which they call themselves the 'mortally challenged' the film focuses on the battle between some left wing Nazi style terrorist group who attack & kill zombies & Angela & her struggles to survive in the world as one of the living dead. The plot is poor, there's some crap about a zombie cult which in a way exonerates the racists & what they are doing, the character's are poor, the dialogue is rubbish with every other word being a profanity because that's as imaginative as the writers can be & the film never elaborates or builds on it's central premise & the issues & ideas it first brings up. I also thought the film was incredibly boring with poor narrative & a very bitty plot that falls apart at the end& becomes a mess.

Don't let anyone con you into thinking this is gory, sure there's a bit of blood but it's very poorly realised with very watery blood & poor make-up effects created by the interestingly named 'Demonic Pumpkins' whoever they are. There's some decapitations, some severed heads placed on stakes, there's a few exploding heads, a few bites, a bit of flesh eating, some blood splatter & a really poor scene in which Angela cuts Josh's testicles off & he just literally stands there & lats her do it. I'm not being funny but if I was stabbed in the groin I would at least take a few steps back to try & get away from my attacker, wouldn't you? Or would you just stand there & let them continue to mutilate you? The zombies in this aren't a bad lot really, they still have their human personalities & even though some like to eat human flesh most don't. Bless 'em. Shot almost entirely during the day in the cast & crews homes there's nothing scary here, there's no tension or atmosphere & the action & set-pieces are poorly handled throughout.

Shot in New York this has all the production value & polish of one of my holiday videos, it looks awful with a really digital video camcorder look to it that I despise so much. I really wish filmmakers would go back to using grainy 35mmm film. Sigh. The acting by no-one I have ever heard of is up to the standard of the rest of the production, basically it's crap.

Last Rites of the Living Dead had a few promising Romero style touches & ideas at the start but it all goes downhill very quickly & I thought it was pretty crap all round. It tries to clever & say something about immigration & racism in particular but it forgets all about the entertainment value in the process.


Angela is a young woman who has just been killed by her angry ex,but Angela isn't dead,she's one of the undead.You see,the recently deceased have come back to life and these are not your typical zombies either. They are organized,intelligent and crave the flesh of the living.A crazed cult of undead terrorists and a militia of brutal zombie-hunting humans fight for dominance.I'm a fan of old-school zombie flicks,where walking dead devours the living and that's why I highly disliked "Last Rites of the Dead".Undead can talk,shoot,search for a job or drive a car.Zombies roam the street,hold jobs-even have their own dating services online.Is this a joke?Admittedly the script has some originality and fresh ideas,but I prefer zombie flicks with an constant aura of apocalypse and tons of gory mayhem.The concept of intelligent zombie is beyond retarded.Still the acting is pretty good,some of the gore is excellent,unfortunately "Last Rites of the Dead" plays more like an unfunny joke.4 out of 10.


I respect the fact that this film was made in a mature way, since movies with lesbian characters often contain silly jokes or numerous stereotypes. Unfortunately, that's the best thing I can say about this picture. Despite obviously good intentions, this film is just plain dull. There's not a person that I cared about, not a scene that was particularly interesting. It was a movie that I wanted to like, but it didn't take long for me to get VERY bored.


... Or, at least, until I stopped watching it. Lame dialogue, choppy story, and editing for which the word "cheesy" would be a glowing compliment. The acting was average at best; most of the performances were either cliche or stilted. The characters themselves were, to a person, unlikeable; I didn't care what happened to them. The movie limped along to its uninspired climax. (No pun intended, I assure you.) The word must have gone out: Give this movie good reviews; it's a lesbian flick.


Sly needs to stick to 'Rambo' and 'Rocky' movies and forget about doing comedy. Plot was weak. While this is suppose to be a comedy, it got very few laughs from the audience. One of the few movies I was tempted to leave after the first twenty minutes.


Where is the guy who directed Trading Places or (to a lesser degree) Spies Like Us? You failed me here pal! First things first, Sly Stallone is NOT funny. Not even close. (see Stop or my Mom Will Shoot! Actually, don't see that.) He never even said anything witty when he killed people in his action movies. Well, not like Arnie! He would toss a guy off in front of a subway and say "Get on the right track" OK, with that out of the way, this movie also is not funny. You would have to be from Bulgaria to think was funny. Its like a VERY BAD Three's Company episode. I'm talking late Three's Company when Jack worked for that guy with the beard. So many misunderstandings! Marisa Tomeii is terrible, Sly is unwatchable, the funniest people in this movie have the least screen time. Poor Harry Shearer.... OK It might be easier to tell you what is GOOD about this movie: Red Forman plays a cop. That is all.


This movie is one of only two movies that I walked out of the theater before it was over (the other being cobra, another Stallone flick go figure). The story was bad the acting horrible I think they even burned the popcorn the night I went to see it. Anyone that liked this movie must have absolutely no taste when it comes to movies


When I first saw the cast list of the two movie 1988 Little Dorrit, I was really excited and expecting a sumptuous feast of Dickens. What I got however was dreadful. In fact I would go as far to say that it was the worst historical drama I have seen on the screen. Worst ever screenplay Worst ever direction. The music is completely incongruous and sometimes played so loud that it drowns out the actors. In fact all the sound levels are totally off. Dreadful, dreadful acting in some places that even the likes of Alec Guinness cannot rise above. I would imagine that he cringed when he watched this for the first time. The lead character of Sarah Pickering playing Little Dorrit could not act if her head was on fire. It's embarrassing. It is amateur hour really and a very expensive waste of great actors like Jacobi and Guinness. Terrible limited sets that kept cropping up throughout. I mean, how many times can they use the bridge scene. I sat through the whole lot, but this movie is only fit for one thing, DELETION...


In addition to describing the progression of my regard for this film as I watched it, these are the names of the last three chapters of the book, a book which, as usual (with Dickens adaptations), the writers of this film had not read - or at least had not read recently enough.

Most of the performances were fine. Alec Guinness was spot on, and the little woman playing Amy was perfect. At first I hated the Fanny performance - and then I remembered that I hated Fanny, so she was also perfect. Arthur could have been played with a little more enthusiasm, and without all the whispering. The actor playing Tip likely never went far. But all in all, the acting was acceptable.

Where this film failed, and failed completely, was in the telling of the story: in the writing, directing and editing. First, of course, was the ludicrous vertical splitting of the film into two character-centric/perspective parts to be presented sequentially. This was a horrible idea on every conceivable level, but most importantly, it resulted in the disconnection of important elements of Arthur's story and Amy's story, that must play upon one another in order to build the drama and advance the story. These connections being brutally severed, the story and all of its intensity were lost.

If that were not enough, there was so much more ill-advised meddling on the part of the writer and director, that it alone would have ruined the film - at least for readers. Anyone who has read even the cheat notes for Little Dorrit must have wondered and been dismayed at the absence of numerous important characters. Most notably, they must have asked, 'where is Rigaud?' This story can't be told without Rigaud! It is through this colorful and evil character, "with his nose coming down over his mustache, and his mustache going up under his nose," who is blackmailing Mrs Clennam, with the help of Flintwich, that Mrs. Clennam's secret is revealed, and his involvement is essential to the building suspense surrounding this secret - of which suspense, as a consequence of Rigaud's absence, there was not a trace in this film. And since there is no Rigaud it follows, perhaps, that there would be no Cavalleto, another uniquely Dickensian character who was sorely missed. Rigaud is also an important evil element among the Dorrits abroad, where he teams up with the dissipated Henry Gowan - who is also, sadly, never seen again in this film after he marries Pet.

So little is made of the Meagles family, a major omission in itself, that I suppose it is no surprise that there is no Tattycoram, and since there is no Tatty, there is no Mrs. Wade: more great losses for the audience, since their highly charged and emotional subplot helps to define and humanize the characters of the Meagles family and of Arthur. Mrs. Wade of course also plays an important part in the Rigaud - Flintwich - Mrs. Clennam story.

The Murdles are so overlooked in this telling, that one may wonder, when Mr Murdle shows up at Fanny and Sparkler's apartment to ask for a pen knife (with which he later commits suicide), who he is and where he came from at that point. Among other hard-felt losses stemming from this neglect, is the missed opportunity to engage in some of the fun that best exemplifies Dickens' sense of humour and satire. The parties at the Murdles, with all of the sycophants that are named only by their professions (Bar, Physician, Clergy etc.), and the head butler that terrorizes the great Mr. Murdle. All gone!

Since there was no developing Rigaud blackmail subplot, readers knew well in advance that the end of the film would have to be substantially re-organized, and that it would be awful; and it was. Dickens version of the story behind Mrs. Clennam's secret is, of course, quite complex, but certainly worth accurately telling, since it is the motivation for the entire plot! But no! Now we are expected to accept the story that there is money in the house that Frederick had sent for Amy, and that Mrs. Clennam had held back? How absurd! Frederick has been in contact with Amy her whole life; so if he had money for Amy, he would have just given it to her. Of course the real story was this: Old Mrs. Clennam's father had forced her and Arthur's father into marriage, when Arthur's father was actually in love with another woman (Arthur's real mother, who lived with and was provided for by Frederick), an affair that when discovered by Mrs. Clennam, sent her into an old testament rage, in which she took the baby (Arthur)to raise and drove his real mother into an insane asylum and eventually into her grave. When Mrs. Clennam's father died, he felt remorse for what he had done, and left part of his estate to Arthurs real mother, or, if she was not living, to the youngest female kin (Amy!) of the real mother's caretaker (Frederick!). Yes, complicated, but not if it's told right.

As much as this film was brutalized and its audience cheated by the cruel omissions and alterations in this story, which I have only highlighted here; it must also be noted that by dint of scandalously flawed directing and editing, what remained of the story managed to drag on miserably, with inordinately long pauses between lines, painfully slow pans to make small points,and long, lingering scenes in which nothing actually occurs.

My recommendation: do not waste six hours watching this. In that much time you could be well into reading the actual book, which is terrific. Get the Penguin Classics version - it has all the original illustrations, wonderful, informative extras including very well done end notes.

Will no one ever properly adapt a Dickens novel to film?


This movie heralded in the Irish Film Industires era of gritty post modern neo-realism. To some it may seem made on a cellphone and scripted by a 13 year old and none too bright one at that. Others will see a slice of contemporary life. The cheap alcohol consumed on an empty stomach and the continual sucking on cigarettes suggests the nausea of life in a post-modern society, the continual need to suck to fill the vacuous nature of existence. People will complain about the shaky hand held camera not realizing that this is a metaphor for Irish life: shaky at the best of times and wouldn't you know it the devil of a hangover and how did I get into this mess. Gritty post modern Irish neo-realism or me kid sister making a film on her cell phone because she's got the grant money and it has to be finished by Tuesday and in the mail. Does it matter? That's a thought to be going on with now. and that's me kid sister, genius or what have you? You decide.


This film (which was shot on video, by the way) is rather low quality. Someone should tell the director spend some money and buy a tripod. As far as I know, EVERY shot was hand held. Some at high magnification. Lots of moving back and forth. So, apart from that dread feeling when you realise within 90 seconds that your money has been wasted, and that do I or don't I walk out of the cinema, what has the film got to offer? Not much. A storyline that could be written by a teenager. The script that well, sucks. Probably penned in a day, maybe an afternoon. The acting, well some of it was OK. But some of it was useless.

When I first realised the quality of this film, I wondered whether it was a form of self-parody. Sort of like a straight-A student intentionally flunking an entry-level exam. And this may be the case, I don't know. But if it isn't, would the director be embarrassed by his creation? probably.

If you've got 90 minutes to kill, and nothing better is on television, give it a go. But please don't actually spend money on this film. It makes me sad that I could have fed a 3rd world person for a week for the money that it cost me to go.


Having just watched this movie at its premier as part of the London Film Festival 2003, I have to say I came out being sorely disappointed.

The movie is basically a series of loosely coupled cinematic clichés stitched together in a rom-com template. First timer Karl Golden has mistakenly crammed too many tricks on to the screen, and the jarring jump-cuts, grainy stock and jerky camera movements are not innovative, merely annoying and nauseating. It is truly a sad indictment of the state of the British film industry when funding can be made available for predictable, plodding, saccharine nonsense like this at the expense of other more worthy projects.


I saw this movie on DVD after it was given away free with the Sunday Times. And it's safe to say it's like all of those freebie CDs the newspapers are giving away these daysone OK song amongst a dozen that aren't worth the cardboard sleeve the disc came in.

The premise is a romantic comedy stapleHe gets jilted at the alter. She gets fed up of playing second fiddle to her married boyfriend. The mismatched pair are thrown together for a trip to Donegal, presumably with romance and comedy thrown into the mix. The problem with this film is that it's neither romantic or funny. Yes, it's obviously a low budget film but that's no excuse for the dreadful script. There's no character development whatsoever, some very dodgy acting, zero chemistry between the leads and worse still, very little to like about them.

At least I got a free newspaper with the DVD.


OK. So someone took an A-list actor and his famous singer/ part time kind of-sort of actress wife and decided that the movie would be carried on the weight of the names alone. Substitute "fiancee" for wife and one has Gigli.

But it is not- it is Shanghai Surprise, possibly the most ill-conceived movie of the 1980's (and yes, I have seen "Hobgoblins.")

This movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Ridiculous plot, painfully bad acting (Madonna as a missionary? She didn't buy it either, so she says her lines in a flat tone which just screams "get me out of this costume and get me my check"), cinematography worthy of an old episode of "Fantasy Island," lame ending.

If, by some chance, you stumble across a copy of this in an unused corner of your local video rental store, call your local hazardous waste disposal hotline- do not rent it.

But do not forget that this horror exists. Some people forgot- and thus "Gigli" was born.


In 1938 China, a pretty but prim missionary needs to find a hidden stash of smuggled opium (for medicinal purposes!) and attempts to recruit the help of a ratty-looking con-man; his latest get-rich-quick scheme is glow-in-the-dark ties! After an OK opening (without Sean Penn and Madonna), this falls completely apart, weighed down by lethargic attempts at screwball comedy and no chemistry whatsoever between the leads (then a married couple). Based on Tony Kenrick's novel "Faraday's Flowers" (a better title), this failure from George Harrison's HandMade Films must have been a devastating blow to the ex-Beatle, who also executive produced, co-wrote the score and wrote and performed the songs (which are heavy on the camp-Asian allure). Just getting through the picture is a chore, and everything about it seems eternally misjudged. NO STARS from ****


"Shanghai Surprise" is an idiotic, out-of-date, poorly-acted, campy action film that wants to be a romantic comedy. Madonna, in her second starring role, had about enough acting talent at this point as a doll. Unfortunately, the doll in this movie comes off looking better than she does.

Madonna, playing a missionary (!) nurse (!!) for a Shanghai mission, is in search of opium (!!!) for medicinal purposes (!!?!!) approaches Sean Penn, an American soldier-of-fortune type who happens to speak Chinese. Penn and Madonna, who were married at the time this film were made, are obviously uncomfortable with the material and do little to justify the film's existence. Penn mugs his way through and attempts to crach a few weak jokes, while Madonna stamps her foot and places her hands on her hips as she squeaks (yes, she squeaks, and you must hear it to believe it) in frustration.

The plot is absolutely ridiculous -- Madonna and Sean Penn chasing after a mysterious cargo of opium known as "Faraday's Flowers" (incidentally, the name of the book this movie is based on) must run from a Chinese gangster with porcelain hands, have a romantic interlude with an Imperial concubine, teach baseball skills to another Chinese gangster, and (boy, aren't we surprised) sleep together to seal a deal.

This movie, like "Mommie Dearest" or "Plan Nine From Outer Space" has immense camp value because it's so deliciously awful. Utterly predictable, insipid, and full of instantly forgettable lines, this movie is the equivalent of the yellow stuff they stick on your nachos at the movie theatres -- it's not really good enough to be real cheese, but it's much cheaper and tastes pretty much the same anyway. This movie isn't even cheesy enough to be cheesy.

Avoid "Shanghai Surprise" unless, like me, you like Madonna WAY too much or if you're just a fan of bad movies.


The IMDb advises that I should say ...

*Warning Spoilers Follow*.

... but there is no way to spoil this movie, because it is already spoiled to the point of being compost, and is ready to be spread out on the fields.

It has been almost 20 years since my girlfriend of the time, an obsessive Madonna fan, talked me into seeing this piece of trash, and I still go to bed at night praying to God that I can somehow get that two hours of my life back. This is not one of those movies that is so bad it is good. This is one of those movies that is so bad it actually slingshots right around past good and right back to bad again.

Madonna stars as a missionary (I know this is a leap of faith folks, but I am *not* kidding!), who teams up with Sean Penn (her then husband) to search for "Faraday's Flowers", a cache of opium balls she hopes can be used as a pain killer for wounded troops. From about this point on, the movie takes on a rhythm that more or less goes "1, 2, 3, plot twist, 1, 2, 3, plot twist, 1, 2, 3, plot twist, and so on", as the duo of Penn and Penn bounce around randomly from one ridiculous situation to another with plenty of plot twists, but absolutely no plot evident to be twisted. In the mean time, they are being chased by a corrupt official with prosthetic hands (He lost his real hands from opening a booby trapped money belt called a "shanghai surprise", which is what the movie is supposedly named after. This seems appropriate to me, seeing how I had lost my money from watching this booby trapped movie.).

You may wonder why it is that I am able to remember so much about a movie I haven't seen in almost 20 years. To that I can only say one thing ...

... emotional scarring.

This movie is that bad folks! I have seen a lot of bad movies in my time, but this one rules as the unchallenged chief god in my pantheon of stinkers. It makes Ed Wood's movies look like Academy Award winning material. It even makes the worst of the worst of the flash animation that I have seen over the last six years on the net look good. I would eagerly gnaw my foot off to escape from this movie.

If, for some reason, you are ever unfortunate enough to find a copy of this little "gem" on the shelf of your local video store, the only thing I can recommend is that you slowly and carefully turn yourself around, then run, run! RUN!!!!!, and immediately seek psychiatric counseling so as to avoid any possible post traumatic stress syndrome you may suffer from exposure to this movie.

I give this movie a 1, but that is only because IMDb will not let me input negative numbers.


I think I made it through about half of this movie. The acting was horrible. The plot was non-existent. The editing was awful. It seemed like they just took a bunch of scenes and put them together in random order.

This movie filled me with so many questions: Why is Penn dressed in '80s-style clothing? What is going on? Was Madonna's crotch shot in that first chase scene intentional? What is motivating these characters? How did Sean Penn go on to have a successful career after this film? Will I ever regain that piece of soul I just lost? Why? Why? Why?

My wife and I tried to watch this film tonight and it made us physically ill. If only I could unsee this film. I'm going to cry in the dark for the next few hours.


Who thought this up? It must have looked brilliant when they got Sean and Madonna in the same movie. Unfortunately Sean goes through the whole movie looking like a kid pretending he's in a movie and Madonna as usual just plays herself, badly. Nothing to see here, move along folks...


The only surprise is how this movie ended up being made. HA HA.The plot has Gloria(Madonna) as a missionary who needs to get some jewels to buy opium.In turn to sell the opium for medicine for the mission. She is joined by (Glendon)Sean Penn who helps her to get the jewels and avoid the sneaky Walter Faraday(played by Paul Freeman) who is after them and the jewels.He is disguised as an old man whom Gloria thinks is just a storekeeper.Most of the action is corny , the acting bad ,poor writing but you can't blame it all on the writers.Casting Madonna as a virginal missionary and Sean Penn in an Indiana Jones type role was pure idiocy. Actually ,I will say one positive thing , I did like the soundtrack-all of the songs are performed by the late former beatle George Harrison. The only reason I went to see it at the time was I loved Madonna and her music and wanted to see her on screen. She was terrible and so was Sean Penn(he is so damn ugly) how could they cast him as a romantic lead.Guess because they were going together at the time. 4 stars for the soundtrack by George Harrison, 0 stars for the movie itself.

Of note to movie buffs - Paul Freeman who plays the bad guy Walter Faraday in this movie was also in Raiders of the Lost Ark playing Indy's nemesis Belloq.


There is no reason to struggle with justifications, nor to reach for words to describe such an amateurish, hackneyed, stilted, banal ... well, there I go. Just suffice to it say that it is completely understandable why the talented Mr. Penn reportedly chose to stay drunk for every shooting day of this miserable, limp, pointless ... you see where I'm going. However bad you remember it to be, you must re-see it to believe it. Madonna is the worst American actress of all time without peer. The only thing she's done on film that is worth seeing is Evita (a music video) and "Desperately Seeking Susan" (in which she has little dialog and rolls her eyes a lot).


As you can see by the name in my email adress, i am a huge fan of madonna, but in this movie she performs her worst acting.... I personally think it's because of the cooperation between husband and wife (madonna and sean penn). In the past this combination of husband and wife playing together in the same movie has to end in a bad trip! Examples: Bruce willis & Demi Moore, Nicole Kidman & Tom Cruise, i am sure you can name one couple for yourself who are acting in a movie, but the acting isn't worth the movie.....


this is an awful film; it could have been condensed into about 30 minutes. it was long, boring, and slow, with nothing interesting or compelling about it. there was bad acting on the part of everyone other than whoever played hirohito, especially whoever played macarthur and all the other Americans. furthermore, hirohito is such an unappealing personality--ugly, awkward, mouth spasms--that it was downright painful to watch two hours of him floundering about, accurate as the portrayal may be.

i believe this film is intended to be a deep meditation on power's end, but its flaws greatly outnumber its virtues. it failed to convey an interesting story or to entertain me in any way.


Ogata's performance is not bad but a great performance would be required to carry off such a claustrophobic script. Robert Dawson is clearly not even an actor and seems not to understand his own lines. I assume that the GIs were played by Russian passers by with a cold war grudge.

Like 'Downfall' the narrative has all the potential of Greek Tragedy: human life writ large, where the outcome is not in doubt and a small stage on a human scale is used to chart great events. Unfortunately the task was beyond the writer and director's grasp and far beyond that of the cast.

Some of the Emperor's verbal and physical non-sequiturs are amusing and generate some pathos from his situation but that is as far as it goes.

In the few outdoor scenes the curious visual effects that are obviously meant to add artistic gravitas are as intrusive as the score.

A good film could be made out of this subject matter but this one isn't it.


This film tries to be "Film Noir" but just doesn't make it.

When I started watching it I could have sworn it was from the late 30's or early 40's, partly due to the poor quality print. When I realized that it was from the late 40's I was shocked.

The plot is actually quite good until the end, which was a dreadful anticlimax.

There are two main problems with this film, one is the obviously very poor direction, the other is that Brian Donlevy's character is far to mild mannered.

Brian Donlevy was a great actor, strong willed and forceful. Check out "Beau Geste". In this film, even though he starts out to be a businessman who doesn't take no for an answer, he turns out to be a wimp. Poor writing.

A wimp is not what is needed in the second half of this film and wimps do not belong in film noir.

Charles Coburn was a fine actor and could be gruff when he needed to be. This role called for a hardened detective, instead he acts like Shirley Temple's kindly grandfather. Poor direction.

Ella Raines and Helen Walker did a good job, though I think Ella's character should have gotten stronger and nastier after she found out that her husband was alive and her lover was dead. Again, poor direction.

Anna May Wong should have quit when sound came in.

I believe Mae Marsh to have been a good "sound" actress but she never got a chance to prove it. She had all but retired from acting until the stock market crash wiped her out. She doesn't seem to have wanted to be an actress and was relegated to uncredited mother roles when she had to return to make money. Mae did a good job in this role as in the other small parts that I have seen her in.

Now back to the biggest problem with this film, the ending.

Brian Donlevy's lawyer tells his wife that he can prove that she is guilty. Charges are dropped against him, brought against her, The End.

The writer seems to have been late for an engagement and just hammered out a quick end.

This could have been a great film with some touching up of the script and a better director.


"Impact" starts off boldly with a voice-over definition from the dictionary of the word "impact"; as two lives colliding for good or for evil. While this may seem like a cheesy introduction to the film, I was willing to give it a shot.

The first half of the film is feverish, and weaves us into a plot involving a wife who sets up her husband to get murder so she can elope with her lover. The film adequately succeeds in laying the groundwork for a promising and clever finish (after a simple plot twist in the middle of the film).

Sadly, any energy or suspense in the first half of the film dissolves into a slow-paced, lethargic love story that distracts greatly from livelier main plot. By the end, the director is left juggling too many themes and I simply became disinterested.

Also, there were several nagging questions left to be answered as one watched the film (one of the large ones being how could the police not explore all motives or situations surrounding the murder? how come no one reads newspapers in small towns?).

"Impact" hardly delivers the punch it promises and deflates slowly but surely.


If you watch this movie to get some kung fu action out of Yuen Biao, you'll be pretty disappointed. Except for a couple of evasive flips and spins here and there, the is only one fight sequence in this movie, and it comes about an hour into it. This is a supernatural tale, neither funny nor scary, but with lots of pretty bad special effects.

The story is unclear and messy; yet another example of the fact that Hong Kong commercial cinema has never discovered the importance of a clear plot. Action, helpless women and funny effects seem to be all they think the audience wants.

Also, an already weak story is completely destroyed by the horrid English subtitles. Why can't they get someone who actually knows the language to at least rephrase the subtitles into something that makes sense? My theory is that the English subtitles are not for Western audiences at all, but for those Asians who happen not to speak Mandarin or Cantonese or any of the other five Asian languages this DVD was subtitled in.

Anyway, a main reason to watch this movie is Gloria Yip, perhaps the cutest Asian actress of all time. But she hardly has any lines here, nor much of anything to do - you should catch her in Flying Dagger (1993) instead, or Saviour of the Soul (1992).

All in all, this movie really hasn't got a lot going for it. Amazingly, it spawned a sequel, Saga of the Phoenix, where the entire cast returned. I haven't seen it yet, and, truthfully, I may not bother, because it looks like it's more of exactly the same.

Peacock King is yet another movie in which Yuen Biao is pretty much wasted. Why has he done so many bad movies? Was it just bad luck that none of them were hits, or does he actually like this kind of thing?

My rating: 3 out of 10.


I had been debating with myself for years about watching this movie. Having been an avid fan of the entire series of "Flowers in the Attic" books, I knew there was a strong possibility the film would do nothing but irritate me by way of poor acting and even poorer script-writing. What I didn't realise, was how much of a massacre the film was going to make of such a beautifully written book.

First off, and I'm sorry - but it is a shallow comment to make: Those kids; Chris, Cathy, Carrie and Cory are supposed to be stunning. "The Dresden dolls" because they are *that* striking. Whoever cast the film seemed to have sorted through the "Village of the Damned" rejects in order to find the two youngest (scariest looking couple of children I have ever seen) Chris was, I'm sorry - just nothing like the original character and while Kristy Swansen is very pretty - she just didn't cut it as Cathy.

Which brings me to my next point - Cathy's thing is ballet - she's an excellent dancer - and aside from a couple of pathetic scenes involving Swansen trying to get her leg higher than her hip-bone, they ignored the one thing that the entire character centres around.

And just out of interest - where was the relationship between Cathy and Chris? I know having an incestuous relationship played out in film has got to be controversial - but don't bother even picking up a pen to write a script for a story if you have absolutely no intention of keeping the central story-lines. And if you do, don't have the audacity to pass it off as the film version of a highly acclaimed book just by giving it the same title.

"Flowers in the Attic" was based on a true story. (As stated in the prologue of the copy I have anyway). How - HOW is it OK to just butcher such an awesome piece of work? It's like passing Pokemon off as the Mona-Lisa; sick and entirely wrong. They have completely missed the point of the story: It wasn't about 4 kids sitting in an attic waiting to die or be let out; it was about four children adapting to a situation wherein they have to become adults long before their time. It was about how the relationships between the siblings evolved, and the psychological consequences of losing one parent through death and another through greed.

For anyone who has watched the film and is ready to dismiss the books because of it - seriously; don't be fooled by such an obvious lacklustre attempt at a book adaptation. There are not enough words in the English language to explain how wrong this film is - how utterly and completely pathetic the script, setting, acting, casting, directing and the 101 other ways in which the movie sucks beyond belief.

And just... just don't get me started on the ending. Every time I think about it I just want to do nasty things involving pointy objects to the script-writer.

Please tell me someone agrees with me?


Every great story has its own essence. And when it is stripped off that, it becomes a story that easily you and me or any John Doe could write. "Flowers in the Attic", written by Virginia Andrews, is a gripping tale of broken trust, betrayal, and complex human relationships that seem so natural under the circumstances, however forbidden they were to be. It's such a pity that such a novel should fall in wrong hands for its screen adaptation. The movie horribly lacks the original soul of the story, its sinister twists, its surprises, its adventures in sociology.

The story is like this: after their father dies accidentally, Corrine, the mother, takes pre-pubertal Chris, Cathy and little twins Cory and Carrie to her own wealthy parents hoping she would inherit from his dying father. But there's a catch; her marriage had been earlier disapproved by the old man and he won't let her a penny if he finds out she has children. So she and the equally cruel grandmother lock the kids up in the attic... until the fine moment comes when she'd win the old man's heart back and tell her everything. But that day never comes while Corrine herself marries another man and eventually inherits the money... without telling her father about the children. In the meantime, Chris and Cathy grow up through teens and discover each other quite fruitfully, and eventually all four of them become a family, sharing a special bond made out of the feeling of being betrayed, and the longing to escape, which occurs not before three years.

The movie changed a lot of it. Some I didn't mind, but some are really outrageous. The account of mental and physical growth of the children during the course of time is largely left out. The movie shows Chris and Cathy in late teens right from the start, which ruined the basic message behind their relationship. In the book the twins played an enormous role in building up that relationship between their older siblings. The movie did not treat them as characters, to put it flatly. And how the movie ends, it may look dramatic in a rather happy-ending manner, but comparing to the book, it is overtly exaggerated, giving the whole thing a cheap smell. The book's climax is not dramatic, yet far more thrilling than this crap about the kids meeting their new stepfather. And finally this sick hush-hush about the incest! Somebody who liked the movie considered the brilliant plot of the novel just an excuse to write about incest, and told me it's good how the movie avoided the details. Nonsense! incest in this story comes as the most natural thing on earth. And how wonderfully indifferent Andrews is when she writes about it, the storyteller being Cathy. The movie blandly leaves a large part of it out, making the whole movie seem, well, infertile.

For the casting, only Louis Fletcher made a great grandmother. She is right there in her Oscar-winning standard. But besides her, it's all a bad casting throughout. Kristy Swanson as Cathy is just disgusting. How can she act so blunt when she's the central character? Jeb Adams as Chris may not look like he's described, but he acts not that bad. And Victoria Tennant as Corrine too, receives little screen time to be judged well.

I wish there hadn't been a movie. You cannot make an art movie through three years, and you can't easily show a 13-year-old girl naked performing incest, both of which are absolutely necessary to make a good screen adaptation out of the story. But I don't want this crap to be remembered as the only movie out of Andrews' novel. I now want a remake, however controversial it may be, whatever ratings it may get.


That might sound a little harsh. It certainly wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen, but it's down there. The events that transpire throughout the course of the film stay true to V.C. Andrews' novel, in some ways. Four siblings are locked in the northern wing of their grandparents' house by their selfish mother and sadistic grandmother after the death of their father has left the family in debt. The movie does open up before "Daddy's" death, and there is even a scene where the oldest daughter, Cathy, is given a music box by her beloved father, just like in the book. However, the relationship between Cathy and her father seems almost irrelevant to the whole feel of the movie, from what I can remember, because unlike in the book, their relationship is not developed well, not much beyond that one scene in fact. And there were sequels to the book that were able to expand on the effects Chris Sr.'s death had on Cathy, especially seen through her incestuous relationship with her brother, which was cut out of the movie. Then there is the night of the father's birthday party (only in the movie, there are no guests), and the family is waiting for him to come home from work. He never does. Instead, a couple of police officers show up at the door. Cathy screams. Cut to Cathy and Chris in a bus (was it a bus? In the book, they were in a train), on their way to their grandmother's house, or rather, mansion. Blah blah blah. The kids arrive, are locked away in a northern room, and that's where they stay for the next few years. You have to pardon me. I know all about the book. I know it by heart. But I haven't seen this movie for years so I don't remember exactly how long they were imprisoned in the film. In the book, it was like 3 years, four months and 16 days. In the closet of this sequestered room, there are stairs leading up to the attic where they often like to play, and where Cathy practices ballet. Cathy and her brother Chris do not go on to have a love affair, though, like they did in the book. Yet there is still plenty of abuse. Besides the obvious fact that they are being locked away from the world, the grandmother also cuts Cathy's beautiful hair and slaps the children and stuff. And Chris and Cathy do like to take baths with the other one watching. The ending is the worst part of this movie. It strays far from the book's conclusion. It goes for sensation, unlike V.C. Andrews, whom I think knew what she was doing when she had the story end the way it did. She also left room for a sequel. Jeff Bloom really didn't. I read that there was talk of a sequel, but they never got around to it. I'm glad. Petals on the Wind was my favorite in the series, and the rest were really good too, better than the original because the characters were more complex. I shudder to think of what would have been done to them in a film adaptation. Overall, this is not a movie worth seeing. Fans of the book will most likely be disappointed, and those who haven't read it probably won't like it much either. I don't know quite why the movie failed to live up to the book. Well, no movie seems to, just by principle, with rare exceptions. On top of that, the acting wasn't very good, though Kristy Swanson does look like Cathy would. Though perhaps that's because I originally bought the movie tie-in copy of the book, and the kids on the cover were modeled after the actors. There certainly was a vague resemblance between Cathy, Chris and their younger brother Cory, twin of Carrie, on the cover and the actors who played them. On some of the movie covers, it shows the illustrated picture from the book cover. It is cool. It shows four kids standing in the attic doorway as if they are prepared to enter a dangerous other world, looking scared. The main failure though is probably that the way V.C. Andrews wrote the book cannot be duplicated by any director or screenwriter. And the prologue was ten times better than Cathy's voice-over during the opening credits. But mainly, this is the kind of story to be read, especially since I feel that V.C. Andrews was a much better writer than most people give her credit for being, most of all this movie, which by the way, she had a cameo in. She was a window-washer. So if you want the story, read the book. Read the whole series, if you want. I gave the first four books very high ratings on Amazon, though they disturbed me greatly, and in a way, I hate them for that. And it takes a lot to disturb me. Forget this. I give it a 3 out of ten.


Flowers in the Attic (1987) was a weak attempt to translate the twisted V.C. Andrews southern Gothic horror novel into a made-to-teens movie. A film like this cannot be a P.G. film. If you even read a part of the book you'll know why. That's why today I'm going to give you a brief run down of the movie so you wont be tempted to watch this piece of garbage.

A hot mom and her four bratty kids have to leave their suburban home because the bread winner (i.e. Pop's) is killed in a traffic accident. Pop's and the daughter have a very bizarre relationship (shown briefly with Mum spying on the two). Pop's dies on his birthday leaving the family to fend for themselves. When the money runs out, the five of them move into a dreary mansion that's ran by a cruel grandmother, a butler who resembles a young and spry Ronald W. Reagan and a basket case on wheels who looks like Mr. Steptoe.

After being cleansed of her sins the ancient way (involving a scourging bull whip). The mother has to put her kids into an attic room while Mister Steptoe eh.. the Grandfather dies. While they wait, the children must live chaste lives and live out the days inside a musty and moldy attic. Chirs and Cathy (the older kids in their budding years) must fight temptation and (oops that's the book) they must become the most stupid and obnoxious children they can become. Grandmother berates them and calls them sinners and what not. The youngest of the brood the twins Corey and Carrie are even more unsympathetic than the older sibs.

Pretty soon the food stops coming and Mum only makes cameo appearances. The child have nothing to eat (expect when Chris plays Jesus and feeds the wee ones his blood. If you think the movie can't get more ridiculous, it does. While the children starve, Mum courts a middle aged mullet wearing suitor. When she finally visits the kids, the ungrateful children lash out at their benefactor and she makes a hasty exit. The day of judgment comes when they learn three things, one Corey is dead, two Gramps is dead and three Mum's gonna get married!

After stealing enough money, the kids get the courage to leave their room in the attic. After Chris puts the smack down on grandma and avoid lurch err I mean Ronnie err the butler, they run right into the middle of the wedding ceremony. Daughter confronts the jealous mother and a brief chase turns into tragedy. Mum hangs herself with her long veil. How ironic she wore white. As the three leave the mansion, the narrator promises more to come!

Thankfully this movie sank like the Bismark at the box office. No more book-to-film adaptations for V.C. Andrews (who died during the post production, probably due to watching the dailies whilst she was on the set). A shame about the movie because if it was done correctly, we could have saw the whole series on film. But when you cheap out and use a hack to write and direct, you get garbage on the screen.

Not recommended.

I wouldn't watch this movie again on a dare or a bet. Well, maybe if it was worth my while.

xxx


I read the book back when I was in college. It was trash but it was GOOD trash. It involves a happy family--a mom, a dad and four kids. The father dies and the mother rapidly runs out of money. She has no choice to ask her parents (who disapproved of the marriage) for help. Her mother agrees but tells her that her children must stay up in the attic--her father doesn't know about them and, if he did, he wouldn't help her. The kids are in the attic for THREE YEARS. And, over time, one of the brothers "discovers" his sister...and the grandmother tortures them almost daily. Those were the big selling points of the book...the incest and kids being tortured. It does have a happy ending though (sort of).

I was one of the "lucky" ones who actually saw this at a theatre back in 1987. The studio snuck it out quietly--I found out why. First, the story was changed. They wanted a PG-13 rating so there's no incest at all--not even suggested. The tortures their grandmother puts them through were softened or eliminated entirely. They aren't up there for three years. And they completely changed the ending (although it WAS great to see the mother get it at the end). All the changes drained the story of any impact it might have had. Acting didn't help--Louise Fletcher is LOUSY as the evil grandmother; Victoria Tennant was even worse as the mother; Kristy Swanson as the oldest daughter overplayed her role a LOT. Only Jeb Stuart Adams as her brother gave a halfway good performance. It was no great piece of acting but pretty OK.

To be fair to the movie, a faithful adaptation of the book would probably be way too grim for a movie (and get an NC-17 rating) but diluting it completely AND adding lousy acting isn't the way to go! Boring, stupid, illogical...a total waste. This deserves a 0. I'm really surprised that some people LIKE this movie!


I was so disappointed when i saw this movie. I had just read the book, and thought it portrayed the characters so well, and showed the bad sides of human nature. In this movie the acting was horrible. There was no emotion, and so much drama over too little drama..if that makes sense The movie also seemed like it was over the span of a couple months, rather than three years. It did not touch on a major issue of the book, how the brother and sister fell in love, which took up a lot of the actual story. It also added in a lot of weird characters and it had little or no detail in the scenes, making the kids seem like total brats. It seemed like everything happened for no reason. If you have read the book, don't watch the movie because you will be disappointed. I hope they make another adaptation, because I think flowers in the attic could be a great movie.


Bears almost no resemblance to the book (unfortunately). Two of these kids are big enough to have jumped the grandmother AND the butler and gotten the hell out of there. They wander around like meek little mice and refuse to question their mothers sanity. They make half-hearted attempts to escape but not really. The boy is the worst when it comes to standing up for the kids. They let this bible-thumping crazy grandmother reek havoc on their lives and their mothers (who's already nuts). She's (the mother) already allowed the grandmother to pay her back for what she considers 17 years of sin. It just goes on and on till the writer and director have decided they're never going to get the book on film. They shrug their shoulders and walk away from the film at the end. This might be a great re-make in a few years with a well-thought-out script, a good director and especially a good cast.


I saw this movie when it was first released and I was so excited about it because of the profound effect the books had had on me. Unfortunately, the movie was an absolute travesty and whoever passed the script as OK should be ashamed of themselves. It's the worst adaptation of a book I've ever seen! The only thing I really liked about the movie were the sets. The bedroom looked just as I imagined it would! However I felt that the movie had been totally miscast and the storyline had been butchered. I don't know whether I'd like a re-make or not - what if it was even worse? Just as an aside, one of my exam questions years ago was to compare a book and a movie adaptation and I chose this one because I felt so strongly about it. Just wish I had a copy of the essay lol - I'm sure it was a masterpiece :D


There are only a few book to movie adaptations, I hate and this was one of them. My lordy lord lord,VC Andrews must be spinning in her grave,this is an abomination to her fabulous Dollanganger series. "Flowers in the Attic" was the first of her books I read and I was watching the VH1 TV show "I Love the 80's" and they mentioned that this was made in 1984. So I went out and bought it. Wish I could get my money back,this is so not like the movie. It is so no like the book,they cut back so much. If you read her books do not see this movie .

The acting is done horribly and they twisted the ending so badly,the mother doesn't die until the fourth book or something,I can't recall


I have loved the book series since it came out in '79. it is, in fact, my very favorite novel Ever! my advice: if you've never read the books, you'll like the movie. if, instead, you have read and loved the series, stay far, far, far away from the film. you will be disappointed, don't go there! I had, admittedly, high hopes Before the flick premiered. my best friend and I walked out, at the end, muttering:" why in the name of God, would TPTB do That?!?!?!?!"

it's not a bad film, per say, it's just not my cup of tea. does, I suspect, work as a thriller or horror story. the acting is okay by most involved. music's not bad. FYI: does not show, in my opinion, or hint at the incestuous relationship between Cathy and Chris. which, as we all know, is the cornerstone to the book mythology. ending is also markedly different than the novel.


OK the actress is nice looking don't get me wrong but she so did not strike me as Cathy striking beautiful like she should have been, they killed the movie especially Cathy they butchered her character, and being my favorite book i was extremely critical and how can you mess up cookies and donuts it's not a huge thing why cookies? well i hate this movie it sucks and should be done with justice to the book!! and no wonder they didn't do the whole series they killed off Corrine which is something nobody can do without getting endless venting, i think all of the loyal vca fans were outraged at this atrocious excuse for a book-based movie!!! but hey i heard the original script (was turned down, you can see the guy's name still on the inside) it was R rated which sadly means it was probably correct, and they could have inserted a little of Chris and Cathy's relationship, right? i love them together and it sucks they didn't include that!!!


I seriously feel for the person that mentioned in his review of this film that he paid to see this in the theatre in 1987 (he bought two tickets which at the time totaled $10.50). Not only was he subjected to a severe test of his patience as a film-goer, but had to lose money in the process. Ironically, this is the same year that Evil Dead 2 came out starring Bruce Campbell, a movie that was most likely playing at the very same theatre (which would have been a far better choice even on the whim of a guess over FITA). What a bad stroke of luck this guy had.

This film is not only bad, but it is not even laughably bad. Laughably bad are the following films: The Core, The Hills Have Eyes (the original), Troma's War, Class of Nuke Em' High, Class of 1999, Bad Taste (although entertaining for its gross-out quotient). These films have merit for the sake of knowing they are bad. They make us laugh because it's self-parody.

Flowers in the Attic somehow finds a new low in cinema (or found one I should say). I feel disgust for not only myself since I cannot have the 90 minutes of my life I wasted watching this garbage, but for every single person involved in the making of this film except for the director (he is solely responsible for its fruition). As a crew, I'm sure they had to smile a lot around the director during production so as not to look dumbfounded and disgusted. My guess is when the director yelled "cut!", the crew let out a not-so-obvious sigh of relief. Even more so when he announced, "that's a wrap!" The acting is very bad, the photography is uninteresting, the locations are mundane, the role of the Grandmother played by Louis Fletcher is not convincing whatsoever, and the list goes on and on. The main thing to attack really is the script itself, which from what I hear from fans of the novel it was adapted from is one of the most tragically altered renditions that they know of. What else could top these things on the list of "bad" other than the fact that two lead actors have us not at all concerned of their plight or unease. They are not physically tortured in the film (which brings me to ask, why is this movie PG-13?), but in one scene when the grandmother knocks over the daughters beloved (and highly fragile) music box, the daughter screams in agony and twitches her face as if she is enduring 15 lashes across her front torso.

You might be curious to see this film just to see how bad it really is, but that would be a mistake. You will almost find yourself feeling unclean and your stomach will assuredly churn. Worst of all, much like the poor guy that remembers his experience in the theatre some 19 years ago, you will unfortunately remember this film for a long time as the most horrific of traumatic film experience ever to take place and be recorded in one's memory bank. The young ons in South Park have inspired me to take a road trip across wherever to track the director down and ask not for monetary compensation, but simply for 90 minutes of my life back.


I first saw this movie when I was about 7 and I really quite enjoyed it! How wrong was I?! After reading the books last year and loving every single 1, I watched the movie again and was horrified! Why anyone would waste money making such tat is beyond me! The film differs so much from the book its quite unbelievable. Why they would waste time filming scenes which had absolutely no consequence at all to the plot and missing out important features such as the relationship between Cathy and Chris is pathetic! It is clear that whoever made this rubbish never went anywhere near the book let alone read it and should be ashamed. The ending... what on earth happened there? Corrine doesn't die until 'If there be Thornes' which is the third book in the series and even then she is allowed to redeem herself a little by saving Cathy. Also, in the book Cathy and Chris are meant to only be 12 and 14 but in the film they both look at least 25. I don't know about anyone else but I wasn't amazed by the beauty of these children at all, they were supposed to be striking! The acting was terrible and extremely overdone, this film is nothing but a complete mockery of an amazing piece of literature. Another thing, why on earth did Jonn Amos no about the children? Why was the mouse called Fred not Mickey? Why only 17 lashes on Corrines back, it was 33 wasn't it? Why cookies, not donuts? Why was Cory buried in the woods and not his remains not concealed within the house? The list of wrongs is endless, the only thing I can advise is don't waste your time watching this movie if you love the books, you will only be disappointed!


Let me start off by saying that the book "Flowers in the Attic" was absolutely incredible. Perhaps because of how much I enjoyed the book, I absolutely hated the movie. Yes, I mean hated. Abhorred. Despised.

First off, the acting was...oooh how do I put this? CRAP! And that's putting it mildly. Victoria Tennant (Mother) was just purely awful. Not a single line portrayed any realism whatsoever. Louise Fletcher (as Grandmother) is normally quite menacing in her roles, but this time, she was absolutely laughable. Perhaps she simply didn't have much to work with. Kristy Swanson (Kathy)...how on EARTH did they choose her? Every single line was over the top, overly dramatic, and just so plain ridiculously delivered it made me wonder if I was watching an Ed Wood film. Umm, yeah, it was that bad. Jeb Stuart Adams (Chris) was, well, ok I suppose. He wasn't *as* bad as the others, but still had his moments of "Can someone please buy me some acting lessons?" Thankfully, the children playing the twins had few lines as they were already difficult to deal with WITHOUT words.

The screenplay was just downright awful. Now I understand that books cannot always be *perfectly* translated into a movie, but c'mon...FAR TOO MANY changes took place that completely took away from the story itself. Well, at least for those of us that read the book. The dialogue was excrement, to state it lightly.

About the only thing this movie had going for it was the setting. The huge mansion and grounds would have been fantastic for the movie had not the rest of it been so darn awful. It's a shame, this really could have been a great one. Unfortunately, it was nothing but a major dud that left little to enjoy.

Flowers in the Attic (the movie) earns 2 out of 10 stars (and that's for the ability to pick a great setting).

The book, however, earns 10 out of 10 stars and I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone who loves reading.


i was so disappointed when i watched this movie. having read the entire series of the flowers of the attic, i expected some kind of following the novel to get a decent idea about what v.c. andrews wanted us to receive while reading. the movie was a total stinkbomb and had nothing at all to do with anything. you were better off just reading the series and interpret that from your own imagination.. the actors that were supposed to portray cathy and chris appeared to be in their late 20's at didnt give the effect of being young, as they were supposed to be teenagers. grandmother filled some of what i thought that she would be, but not to the highest extent. i give a warning to all that read this and have an interest in watching this horrible movie.... DONT WATCH THIS MOVIE! (F-)


First of all, this movie is painful. Downright painful. It's really nothing more than an incest sex story soft-core porn. First, the Dad brings home the daughter a "special gift" and let's her know she's extra special. Then they kill him off (5 minutes in to the film) and the family moves back with the crazy grandparents in a Transylvanian-type mansion where the grandmother strips the mother down to her panties and whips her in front of the grandfather... the reason?? Her husband was her uncle. Yes folks, the kids are inbred. Then, the grandmother makes a big deal about the kids sleeping in the same bed. Finally the girl (who's supposed to be like 11 or 12 or something) practically masturbates in the bathtub while the brother sponges her down. Creeeeepy.... Oh, and the acting on a porno would be a step up from this travesty of a film.


First let's talk about the movie and its many problems, to be succinct it sucks. The screenplay is the first major flaw in this movie; it didn't fleshed out the characters into believable human beings. Not even the character of Cathy and she's the narrator. The closest to a multidimensional character in the movie is the oldest brother Chris. Everyone else seems to be just mannequins standing around waiting for the next plot twist to fall on them. The acting for the most part is stiff from just about everyone with the exception of Louise Fletcher, she was the only one who seemed to bother to act and she wasn't that good either. Her performance paled in comparison to another deranged religious fanatic, Piper Laurie's Margaret White, 'Carrie' 's mother. How about just plain quietly deranged? Judith Anderson's Mrs. Danvers from the Hitchcock version of 'Rebecca' comes to mind. Everyone else seems to be just mouthing the words without understanding the circumstances around them. The movie moved at a snail's pace, which is an insult to snails, they move faster than this flick. And there doesn't seem to be any imagination to the directions in terms of camera angles and movement. The set decoration and designs are just plain awful, did they have to use floodlights in every scene? That has got to be the brightest attic I've ever seen. By the way when was the story set? I saw the oldest boy wearing Nikes and jeans in one scene, yet when they finally left the house they were wearing clothes that have been outdated 50 years earlier than 1987 when the film was made. Finally, back to the story line, the final confrontation with the mother was not the least bit believable. No self-respecting daytime soap opera would allow such a contrived and awkward confrontation to occur. I've never read the V.C. Andrews novels, and from other people's comments in Amazon.com, thank god! They were favorable comments but the novels seem to be filled with deceit, betrayal, revenge, and incest. Is everybody sure that V.C. Andrews wasn't a pseudonym used by Jackie Collins? Maybe some executive from Lifetime or Oxygen would turn the whole book series into a Maxi-miniseries. If they do please do not blame me for imparting that lack of wisdom to them.


I think this movie really contrasted a sociological perspective of outlined curriculum. The foreshadow in the eyes of the beholder of the realm in which the setting lies continued to baffle much more than the intellectual side of myself. To pursue in a lifestyle of such diseased, open-minded negligation of the congregation in a situation of a presidential, supersticial, consequential, suspenseful mood, I must say the catastrophe of agencies to build upon ages of young personalities seemed to purify my thoughts on the beholders of stationary bikes. When I put myself in their shoes, I realized my foot was too big. Metaphorically speaking, I could never put myself in a position of such satisfaction of any assorted grade A bologna. To befiddle extremities of locomotionalizationalized inconveniences, I don't think that I could eat breakfast the same...

Billy- Bob Jallet and Beetle-headed Wilson of Head Inventory Clerk of the presidential statuses of the international offensive phrases and materials deposit agencies of the district attorney's offices of America and foreign legions


Chaplin's first park comedy for Essanay is a rehash of more of the same we've seen before in his park comedies for Keystone. Chaplin flirts with a woman, gets in trouble with her significant other, and the slapstick is on. Although Chaplin again edited, wrote, directed, and starred in this film, there's little to recommend regarding originality from Chaplin. There's the usual unsavory characters thrown in for good measure, one of whom is played by Warner Brothers director Lloyd Bacon. Brick-throwing makes a come back in this film. Being away from Keystone, only one policeman shows up at the end for the usual dousing in a lake. Highlights of the film include Chaplin getting a leg up on Edna Purviance, Chaplin trying to eat sausages out of his breast pocket, and Chaplin winding up for a good swift kick in someone's fanny. *1/2 of 4 stars.


This is one of 5 Chaplin that are on the first DVD of Chaplin's Essanay Comedies. In general, compared to volume 2, the shorts on volume 1 aren't as well-made--because the DVDs are arranged chronologically. Chaplin's skill as a film maker and actor appeared to improve through his stay with Essanay Studios.

This film has very little plot--just slapping and punching. It's like the first five minutes of Chaplin's later Essanay short A WOMAN--but instead of then transitioning to a plot, this film just stays stuck in slapstick mode. Too shallow to have any lasting value and I got very tired of the mean-spirited Chaplin hitting people. This shows little of Chaplin's later genius.


I have the man from Atlantis pilot and the City beneath the sea movie.And when i saw the movie The city beneath the sea i noticed that the character Aquila swam the same way that mark Harris dose on the show Man from Atlantis,did anyone else notice this besides me?If you did let me know.The show in it self was OK but not perfect.The year for city beneath the sea was [1971]and the man from Atlantis was [1977]If you have both the movie man from Atlantis/and city beneath the sea on VHS or DVD compare the two and see for your self that one was copied from the other as far as the swim moves goes,thanks for reading my comment