Man this is AWFUL!

You're dropped right into the deep end of a very cheap looking movie & given a female vampire & a 1st death VERY early into the film (the opening credits hadn't even finished!) & a stupid hand to hand fight (why bother when you've got a handgun?).

The vampire's easy death looked far too fake & predictably was. If they were trying to say praying over water makes it holy (sorry, you need a high level priest to bless water to make it holy) then that's just bad research.

Cutting to the diner and the acting in there was truly awful indeed. The guy playing the clueless highway patrol officer is a dire actor, not once does he return fire when shot at.

The girl playing the special agent generally over-acts in most of the scenes she's in and the whole film seems very much like it was made by students as an end of year project. The whole "scared of mice" thing seemed like it wasn't going to go anywhere.

I do agree that the incidental music is just plain awful and clearly added on very late in production as an after thought. We are finally given an explanation that German Zombies from WW2 are hunting down and killing the Americans that killed them. Yes, a stupid idea for a plot but it's certainly never been done before.

The very notion that they'd recognise people after 60 yrs has passed is one of the minor plot flaws. The fact that their uniforms are in such great condition is another one.

The reason for the dead Germans wanting revenge is how they were mistreated before they were killed and it seems they can only be killed by the WW2 weapons. In the final encounter the local cop is bitten and infected and the special agent goes 1 on 1 with the last German Zombie (why she pulls her modern gun on him I don't know) but it seems the final Zombie has a death wish and is strangled by the last living GI.

We find out that the special agent herself is a Zombie and she cures the local cop and she advises him to join her in the fight against monsters.

Bad ending to a truly awful film


I don't know how this actually got released. I do realize that there probably were intentional jokes in this but it is hard to tell. I saw this movie at two video stores here in the Cowichan Valley, BC! So congratulations for that. To the maker of this film: I do admire your ability to "produce a film" fast plus make many copies of it on a professional looking DVD and make a good cover for the DVD. It's great to see someone making horror movies from Canada also. But thankfully you posed this film as if it were American (Washington, U.S.A. not Ontario, Canada.) That was the saving grace of the DVD because I'm Canadian. It was also a relief to see that the Canadian government didn't give money to help this get made. Use your strengths to release DVD's to video stores, but please have all different cast and crew make the film itself.


This is really unwatchable. The acting is generally stiff and the budget is obviously very very very low, like $15 for the special effects budget low. There's really no point in watching this it's utter garbage on a lot of levels. One of the scenes features Germans planting a grenade but the grenade shown is an American frag grenade- it was ridiculous. There are some funny moments but this is like watching someone's home movie movie as far as cinematic quality of editing and stunts. Avoid this waste of time at all costs unless you want to see what someone did with 38 dollars and a video camera. Making something this crappy and masquerading it as a film should be illegal. PLOT: Zombie Nazis are looking for their victims - what connects them to each other? Poor acting and worse stunts ensue.


It was very intriguing watching a new movie produced by the famous Konchalovsky (Runaway Train, Tango and Cash)

The first 15 minutes are interesting, then trouble begins: ridiculous dialogs, unreal situations etc... Inconsistent, unrealistic plot made in superficial picture of post-Soviet Russia. It looks like tabloid-quality scenario with same ridiculous "bad" and "good" guys...

The main character appears being bored, just trying to fight his sleep throughout most of his appearances. The soundtrack is OK.

Movies like Moskva, Gruz 200, Bumer seem to be infinitely more subtle in giving a portrait of the Russian past and of the reality without being naive or politically engaged. Really very disappointing.


I thought this movie was horrible! The acting and directing was something that a four year old could do. I DID NOT like the way the movie was cast and the things they changed from the original book. First of all, Carton and Darnay looked NOTHING alike. Lucie was NOTHING how they described her in the book. Not to mention how horrible the actress was who played Madame Defarge. Not only was the acting terrible, but the directing and blocking was horrible too. But, I'd have to say the worst part was when Carton and the seamstress started making out randomly while they were at the Guillitine. I mean, come ON! You have got to be kidding me! This movie is probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I would not refer anyone to this movie.


Maybe the fact is that I'm just not a fan of Charles Dickens' novel "A Tale of Two Cities". I read the novel, or rather, I was forced into reading it, and I am only being honest when I say that the novel was not one of my favorites. Yet, this screen version of the story, was even worse. It made several critical mistakes and is overall, just not a movie that motivates. It tries to be creative and nifty, but fails.

Perhaps the biggest mistake it made was that it tried to cram literally almost EVERYTHING that was in Charles Dickens' original novel into the storyline. What the screenwriter(s) did not realize is that some things that work out perfectly in a novel do not work out in a movie. The movie lasts for quite a long time and right from the beginning, it wasn't very entertaining at all. Many scenes dragged on for too long, another mistake, and I can tell the director was trying to be creative, such as in the love scene.

Another failure of "A Tale of Two Cities" is how poorly executed everything is. The scene with the hanging had an okay buildup, but the action moment that was upcoming was executed in the poorest manner. The guy did not fall at all. He just kind of immediately froze and hung like a dummy. He should have kicked and strangled to death the way he was hanged like that. Acting was another problem, it was okay, but nothing great. That Miss Pross girl, when arguing with Madame Defarge, was talking and baring her teeth as if she was going to bite Madame Defarge like an animal. And their fight was just plain dull.

Overall, neither the novel nor this screen adaptation are really anything that sparked interest in me. And another thing is that it didn't spark interest in the others who were forced into watching this along with me. Maybe for some people, fans of the novel mostly, this is good. But I'm not judging it based on the novel. I'm judging it as a film. And it has too many flaws, there's literally no effective creativity, and it just doesn't work.


I had to read A Tale of Two Cities for my English class this year, and found it to be not that bad of a read, and it got VERY exciting towards the end. After we finished the book, our class watched this movie...while I had fun watching it because its so terrible at points I couldn't stop laughing, it's really a travesty.

The first problem is that almost all of the acting (perhaps with the exception of Darnay and Dr. Manette) is remarkably terrible. They have hired a whole movie's worth of low budget B-Actors, who simply can't be taken seriously. Their emotions are laughable, they deliver lines terribly, their accents are inconsistent, and they often overact trying to compensate for their own bad acting.

The worst thing is probably the script itself. Since I have read the book I followed the movie very well, but to someone who hasn't, they would be completely lost. The movie never keeps on clear direction or narrative and jumps all over the place spastically. The story is hardly told at all, its almost as if the script is ATOTC highlights strung together into almost 4 hours of hell.

So if you're DESPERATE for a movie version, give it a shot. But terrible acting and terrible script keep this from being all it could be.


I hate to criticize anything from low budget independents but this film is just plain awful. The characters are barely credible, the script is disjointed and weak and the directorship is poor. Low budget films can still be pleasing to watch, but not this one.

I fully support independents and believe that some really fine talent comes out of smaller productions but this film has left me reeling.

The concept has been flogged to death by the likes of Final Destination and now suffers from any form of originality. Please Please Please do not produce films like this unless you have a) A sensible Budget B) A credible cast and C) A decent concept.


First 10 minutes is the most grim, stupid, predictable, screaming female, dark, predictable, bad acting....god it goes on. The taxi accident was the worst crash effects I have ever seen. Rachel rolls over the taxi like a sack of wool (in slow motion) mixed with potatoes....

The script is jarred and seems to go from one point to the other - there's no cohesion.

This is I'm afraid as bad as it gets. I didn't watch the full film, so I might be wrong and all actors and director might have improved after the halfway point...yes, I could not take any more the 35 minutes. I like movies, but not this one.

This is 1 point above Ed Wood directing.


I had a feeling when i rented this movie i may not like it because of all the horrible straight to DVD movies these days.It reminded me a lot of the movie "room 6" that came out a year earlier.Literally the exact same plot in almost the exact same screwed up hospital which no longer existed.Hallucinations and weird nurses running rampant as some chic is trying to escape encountering other weird patients who are trapped.Finally some soul ripping creature dressed in a black cloak is killing off each patient in her dreams.This movie makes no sense.There is no way to tell what is really happening and it has no continuity.She wakes up from a nightmare to find out she's still in it. Meanwhile her boyfriend is searching for her after she was struck by a car and nobody believes him that she's missing.I agree the plot is predictable and lame.It is a complete rip off of the other film i mentioned.If this was a sequel to it then it would make more sense,but it cannot stand on it's own.I couldn't even stay awake to watch the rest of it as i lost interest thinking i have seen this all before.


The stripper Rachel (Cherish Lee) is hit by a cab but survives in the emergency room of a hospital. However, she sees Death chasing her, but she does not succeed in convincing the nurses. She is drugged and wakes up in St. Joseph, a mental hospital administrated by Dr. Brown (Brent Fidler). She finds five other inmates that had a near death experience and also claim that Death is coming for them, but Dr. Brown tells them that they are subject of a mass hypnosis experiment. Meanwhile, Rachel's boyfriend and student of medicine Liam (Benjamin Pitts) seeks her nearby the night-club. While trying to escape from the facility, Rachel discloses the truth about Dr. Brown and St. Joseph.

The very low-budget "Grim Reaper" has a promising weird beginning, with the confused state of mind of Rachel after the accident. However, the story shifts to a terrible and inconsistent rip-off of "Final Destination", with a messy and ridiculous screenplay. There are many flaws in the story, but the worse are: (1) Liam finds Rachel in St. Joseph and runs with her downstairs trying to find an exit. (2) How Rachel decides that she must die and face the Reaper? (3) How could a student of medical school accept the words of his stripper girlfriend that seems to be deranged and kill her in a death experiment? (4) Why Cherish Lee takes of f her overcoat after defeating the Reaper? As a stripper, she takes off only the winds of angel of her costume. The scariest scene is the conclusion with Rachel in the bathtub with an open end and a hook for a sequel. I like independent low-budget movies and horror is my favorite genre, but the story and screenplay of Ellis Walker is a lack of respect with viewers and cast. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Ceifador de Almas" ("Reaper of Souls")


Man, I am fed up with the rash of garbage we've been subjected to this year. I knew this movie had the whole Final Destination premise going, but I was hoping for a twist or something. What I got was another director trying to fill in for a bad script with a hot bod. Sorry guys, but that doesn't cut it anymore.

Cheesy acting, sound that seemed to be piped to us through a can, and a story so thread-bear that it was difficult to watch even a short part of the film. Don't waste your money, check the reviews and rating before watching this film (there's a reason it went straight-to-video). Oh yeah, most SciFi originals are leagues above this film, so take that as your measurement stick.


This movie made me cringe in my seat and at times I was forced to look away... but not for the reasons the filmmakers intended.

Disgusting and pathetic acting topped with the most stupid story and direction by an idiot.

Hated every millisecond of it.

At times I thought the writers had supernatural powers...

When the main 'thing' (I wont disgrace anyone and use the term actor) starts ranting 'Someone help me!' I was taken aback as that is exactly what I was thinking at the time.

When they discover an old newspaper that reports the closure of the asylum they are in and she quips 'This doesn't make any sense' I could only agree.

If there is a film god, then everyone on the project will never work again. I'm hoping the reaper gets them.

Amateurish rubbish at its finest! Just who slept with who to give this crap of a production the green light.


In Grim Reaper, a terror movie from director Michael Feifer, Cherish Lee plays Rachel, a surviving victim from a car crash stalked by the Grim Reaper himself who feels she should have died. In the hospital, Rachel tries to convince the staff that Death is hunting for her. Thinking her nuts, Rachel is committed to a mental health facility, where she finds herself with other inmates that have also cheated death. That night, the Grim Reaper comes for them. The movie is full of the usual terror clichés and formulas, where common sense is absent. It is a sloppy hash of a movie, poorly directed and plotted in a way that looks as if it were improvised on the spot. Feifer, who has produced over 30 independent films, could have done a better job staying closer to reality, than trying to frighten his audience at every turn. Grim Reaper feels like one cheap shot after another. Even the film's target audiences (terror junkies) are probably going to bail on this one.


There is only one way to describe this movie and that is that it is a complete waste of your time. A new definition for the low budget movie. Poor choice of scenery. The script must fit on a paper napkin. Only good thing I can say about this movie is Cherish, she looks beautiful (in the first 10 minutes). The movie starts of promising but after 5 minutes it's clear you made the wrong choice to go for the catchy title. If you really want to see this movie and even enjoy it a little bit try increasing the playback speed. When everyone sounds Donald Duck it wastes only 30 minutes of your time. It took me 15 minutes to start doing this and I am happy I did. By the way, Donald Duck is still 100 times better.


I got this movie just a day ago, and i must say that i regret that i bought it already. Maybe if i rented it, i would be able to laugh about it, but for the money that i paid, it just wasn't worth it. I feel robbed! The story isn't all that bad, in the right hands, and maybe a few minor changes, it could have been way better than this, i think. It's just that the dialoges and the acting in all seems so fake. The end was quite predictable, the boyfriends saves his girlfriend, blah blah blah. Too predictable.

The bottom line: This movie was a horrible attempt to make a horror movie/Thriller. Most of the time you just shake your head over the poor acting, and the fact that "Death" makes you laugh every time he appears. If you're (like myself) like scary movies, horror, or thrillers, please don't see this!


Grim Reaper starts as an exotic dancer Rachel Wilson (Chersih Lee) waits for a taxi to take her home, unfortunately said taxi runs her over instead. For no apparent reason although it's hard to feel sorry for Rachel since she was standing right in the middle of the road. Rachel survives & is taken to a nearby hospital where she meets a creepy nurse (Alice Ensor) & before she knows it Rachel wakes up inside a room inside the abandoned St. Joseph's mental institution where Dr. Brown (Brent Fidler) has collected several teenagers all of whom have had near death experiences. Insdie St. Joseph's the teens start to be stalked & killed one-by-one by a hooded figure that could very well be the Grim Reaper himself as he search for those who escaped him the first time round...

Produced & directed by Michael Feifer one has to say that Grim Reaper is awful in every just about every way & it takes a horror film buff with high tolerance levels to sit through all of it's eighty odd minutes, as for those who aren't particularly interested in the genre you probably wouldn't last much more than twenty odd minutes. The script by Ellis Walker is a total mess from start to finish, there are flashbacks, flash-forwards, dreams, dreams within dreams, hallucinations, a confusing plot that doesn't work, a terrible ending that makes no sense & the whole film is just a narrative nightmare as you are thrust from one scenario to another in the blink of an eye & thus not really giving you the chance to take the already confused plot in since it chops & changes so much. The whole point of a film in my opinion is to entertain, if a film entertains me for it's duration & I have fun then I can forgive almost anything but when it comes to a film such as Grim Reaper which is such a chore to watch I find myself rapidly losing the will to live. Considering that Grim Reaper only lasts for a relatively modest eighty odd minutes & it feels like it goes on for literally hours one could quite easily come to the conclusion it's a really boring slow moving film. The plot revolving around several teens escaping death feels right out of Final Destination (2000) only there's no clever death's & it pretty much turns into a really awful teen slasher as the Grim Reaper becomes your average Freddy Kruger type killer. The ending is awful too, since when does dying for a few minutes enable you to travel back in time & change past events? A real mess from start to finish.

Director Feifer does OK & to be fair to Grim Reaper it's fairly well made, I am not sure why there are no lights in St. Joseph's since it appears to be the darkest mental institution on Earth but as a whole the film is reasonably well made & photographed. Unfortunately reasonable production values still don't save it from being conceptually awful & a complete total utter mess. The gore levels are disappointing, a couple of people are stabbed by the Grim Reaper while someone has pencils stuck in their face & someone is sliced in half in an unconvincing totally bloodless CGI computer effect. You will notice a lot of comments for Grim Reaper saying Rachel is a stripper but she never takes her clothes off & is more of an exotic dancer.

With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 Grim Reaper was a reasonably well funded film & it show's with it's decent production values although as I have already said the film is terrible so that doesn't really matter. The acting is probably below average but not the worst I have seen.

Grim Reaper is a really awful film thanks to a terrible script that is confusing, has a rubbish story & is as dull as dishwater. Definitely one to avoid if you can help it. Not to be confused with the Joe D'Amato Italian gore film Anthropophagus (1980) which was widely released in the US & UK under the title The Grim Reaper.


I am so disappointed but still giving it 3 out of 10. First of all heroine is a stripper who whenever thinks, thinks herself either with her boyfriend on bed or naked in bath. Really disgusting. Story line is not awful but the direction and dialogs are extremely weak. She said "ANYBODY, SOMEBODY, LIAM" Millions of time in this movie and all the time, emotionless. The special effects are so amateur that my 8 year old brother can tell that its funny. And again the whole film was predictable and i presumed before every scene that it was going to happen. So Bad. Grim Reaper is a ghost type creature and when she her her boy friend hide behind crates right in front of the Grim Reaper, the Stupid ghost did not see them. Please Please Please do not see this movie in theater


After watching this (and I use the term loosely) film, I find myself wishing that the Grim Reaper had killed me before I chose to press that accursed play button. Terrible story, Horrible acting, the only redeeming feature of this monstrosity is they all die in the end.

I've never seen any Michael Feifer films before this and if the rest are of a similar quality I won't be seeing any in the foreseeable future.

I'm glad that I chose to download it instead of wasting money buying it. I'm happy in the knowledge that a simple press of the delete key has removed this piece of s#!t from my collection forever. Now if only I could delete it from my memory.


This movie contains the worst actors I've ever seen. I got the felon that they had an open casting on the street outside Burger King and selected the persons who wanted the least amount of pay. But the idea of the movie is great. I think if it was a higher budget on this flick and if a better director made this movie it could be a really great movie. The idea of escaping and cheating death and then try to get the Grim Reaper of your back is really exiting. So if you like the idea and don't pay much attention to the effort of the actors see it. But if you think the actors is very important in a movie "like myself" then DO NOT see this movie.


let's start off with the first big problem of this movie. the back of the DVD says "a stripper". now, forgive me if i'm wrong, but the concept of a stripper is to strip until she is naked for people's enjoyment. am i not right? OK good. i thought i was crazy. When the main character is a stripper you should be GUARANTEED nudity. however, in this WONDERFUL tale, we get a half assed actress who strips down to her big underwear and leaves the stage. are...are you serious? did a stripper just.... not strip? oh god this movie's going to suck already. it was probably something retarded like she didn't want to get naked for the camera. Well here's a hint. if the character design is a stripper and you don't want to get naked... DON'T ACCEPT THE ROLE! god. it's not that hard. whew. sorry about that. now that i got THAT rant out of the way, onto this convoluted mess of a movie.

Miss stripperella finishes her fake stripping, leaves the building, talks to her boyfriend on her cell, (cause yeah. i would TOTALLY have a stripper as my girlfriend) and then proceeds to get hit by a taxi in slow motion (which was actually mildly amusing). she wakes up in a hospital where she sees the grim reaper own the taxi driver, gets drugged by a nurse, and wakes up in an abandoned mental hospital. OH MY GOD HOW MANY OF THESE ARE THERE?!. seriously it seems every other movie has an abandoned hospital. why are there so many?! sigh. anyway, she meets the rest of the people there. a supposed mute artist, a blind girl, miss wrist slitty and some other people you don't care about. we then meet doc brown. no he didn't come back from the future. just a dude named doc brown. who apparently is the only guy in charge in this building... by himself, and for some reason gets repeated heart attacks. He doesn't lock up our heroine at first, only threatening her with a tazer. Hell, i would just beat his ass with a chair, but that's me. anyway, the boyfriend is looking for her ala silent hill style and can't seem to find her. Everyone around her gets owned while she keeps having random visions of her in a bath. no don't get excited, they don't show anything. eventually the boyfriend finds her, she goes into her subconscious, goes back in time (AHA! I KNEW it was doc brown!) to her accident and has the grim reaper get hit by the taxi. she is then transported to a mausoleum where the grim reaper turns out is a mummy (wtf?) and the sun then makes him explode. and then the lovers are finally together! and then she drowns in the tub. the end! no. i'm not kidding. that's how the movie ends.

The main problem with this movie is the fact that it's all sorts of confusing. ESPECIALLY the ending. the ending made no sense whatsoever. so he's a mummy grim reaper? (scratches head) and why does the sun kill everything?! she keeps having weird visions too which don't fit really well into this movie. The acting is also pretty terrible, but the worst has to be the grim reaper. he looks like the fisherman from i know what you did last summer and voldemort's secret gay love child. he walked like he had a gimp leg and he was INCREDIBLY nonthreatening, especially when he started STABBING people with a scythe. yeah. i scratched my head on that too. All in all, this movie is bad because it doesn't make any sense. it's not the WORST movie ever, but it definitely deserves to be in the same family. maybe the estranged retarded cousin of the crap family, but still in it. The Grim reaper in a game for your soul, wins 2 games. out of 10.


I was under the impression that being the victim of rape was just about the worst thing that can happen to a woman , a horrific violent ordeal that I can barely imagine , but when the lead character Billie is raped by an unseen attacker it seems all that rape involves is a woman getting her face rubbed gently on the ground . Worse than that when Billie finds out she`s pregnant by the rape she hardly bats an eyelid . I don`t think I have to hammer home to you how ridiculous this appears on screen . I know it`s a TVM so there`s broadcasting standards to observe and I suppose this prissy attitude is slightly more preferable than the full throttle stomach churning exploitation of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but to treat such a serious subject in such a light manner comes close to being offensive . As the story continues it gets even more depressing plot wise but SIN AND REDEMPTION still failed to hold my attention except to make ask how can one woman be so unlucky in life ? It`s like watching an American version of EASTENDERS and just as realistic


Benny Perkins, the man who won a truck before and comes back to try the contest a second time, is a genuine cowboy genius. His opinions on the contest and his philosophy of life are inspirational. Maybe the reason Benny's thoughts made it into the film is that he gave a sit-down interview. Most of the other interesting action of the film happens off-screen, because Bindler and the other film makers failed to capture it. They miss people cheating in the contest, they miss Benny deciding to drop out, they even miss the most vital moment of the contest, when the first runner-up takes their hand off the truck.

Bindler also uses choppy, melodramatic, and extremely repetitious editing techniques. While this is a great subject for a documentary, and there are many fascinating people, especially Perkins, in the contest, Bindler fails to make a film to do th


This movie doesn't really have a hero... Everybody in the movie eventually does something that causes you to question their integrity or decency and you never really understand the underlying motivations causing the behavior. As a result, it's impossible to identify with any of the characters and the movie breaks down. A film without a hero is not necessarily a bad thing all by itself, but you have to handle it properly. In this case, they didn't.

It starts off well enough and plays through the first 30 or 40 minutes as a black comedy... Then things get darker and not so funny anymore and that is when the movie begins to fall apart. You can't really stop watching it but you wish you could and by the time it's over you wish you'd never started.

The ending, especially, leaves something to be desired.. You never really feel the ending coming and when it happens, it's not only a surprise, but a disappointing surprise. It fails to shed any light on the rest of the film. I like surprise endings most of the time, but in this case it just didn't work for me.

There are probably many people out there that would enjoy this movie, but personally I can't recommend it. It's well made, and well acted, but in the end, it is a disturbing disappointment.


Well, I usually like english movies but this is absolutely boring and most disturbing. It is based on a true story, but still this movie is boring. Actors are good. The end is so stupid, that almost it is hard to believe that it is a true story. I would give this movie ** from *****.


Many years ago, I happened to catch a 1944 film called "Between Two Worlds"on television. Knowing that this was a remake of the seldom shown "Outward Bound", I was eager to see it,and I wasn't disappointed. Unfortunately, I have seen that version only once, but I do remember that the plot was striking and that Sydney Greenstreet, in a rare sympathetic role, was utterly memorable and just about stole the film.

Just this past Monday, I managed to finally see the original "Outward Bound". It turns out to be a beautifully photographed (by the great Hal Mohr) film with a striking use of light to create both an eerie effect and,at one point, a breathtaking otherworldly effect, something that Mohr would later win an Oscar for in the 1935 "A Midsummer Night's Dream".

As for the script, it is by far the best-written, most eloquent dialogue I have ever heard in an early talkie, rising very nearly to the level of poetry at times.The sound quality of the print that I saw(on TCM) was also quite good, with every word clearly intelligible.

But what unfortunately, and perhaps unavoidably, ages this movie, is the acting. Some of it (from Alison Skipworth) is quite good, and Leslie Howard, repeating his Broadway role, is excellent, as long as he is being a charming rogue.

But, the minute the plot starts to gain in intensity, his performance starts to fall apart and become unintentionally funny (something I definitely don't remember happening in "Between Two Worlds", where John Garfield played the Howard role). There is a climactic moment, at which Howard finally guesses the secret of the voyage, when we can almost sense a first-act curtain descending, because of the way that Howard delivers his lines and the fact that the camera lingers on him several seconds as he stands frozen, a demented, untinentionally hilarious, pop-eyed expression on his face.

Other actors are also hammy, though they don't all reach the level that Howard does when he goes momentarily berserk. The lovers, played by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and Helen Chandler, are actually worse, almost always wildly overacting, and Leslie Howard looks restrained compared to them. Montagu Love overdoes his pompous business tycoon,but he never quite gets to the point of being unbearable--he is actually supposed to be rather aggravating. Alec B.Francis is stilted and unremarkable as the ship's steward,and totally devoid of personality in comparison to the actor who would play his role in "Between Two Worlds"--Edmund Gwenn (Santa Claus himself in "Miracle on 34th Street").

The little-known Lyonel Watts is nearly unbearably unctuous and even whiny as a defrocked priest. But Dudley Digges, another member of the original cast, is quite good in the stern and mysterious role of Thompson,the Examiner--he seems to be one of the few early film actors who understood that acting for film and live theatre are different.

The film's direction has all the staginess of an early talkie---only a few imaginative camera movements, but those eerie lighting effects wouldhave been difficult to duplicate on a stage in that era.There is no music except for the opening and closing credits, and this also dates the film, although it adds to the spooky atmosphere.

"Outward Bound" is certainly worth checking out, but despite what Leonard Maltin says, it is an unfortunately dated film, and its remake,"Between Two Worlds" seems more preferable.


SPOILER ALERT!!!!! To really discuss the movie adequately, it's practically impossible not to mention that the film is about the afterlife. A small number of people find themselves on a cruise ship and they have no idea where they are headed or why. After a while, it becomes obvious to one passenger that they are all dead but most won't believe him. In the end, they arrive and are judged and sent on to their respective destinations (though conceptually, it's nothing like traditional notions of the afterlife).

I am a huge opponent of movie remakes. In the 1930s and 40s, films were often remade--sometimes only a few years after the original film debuted. In practically every case, the remake was really unnecessary and did nothing to improve the original idea, so I am a huge fan of originals. However, to most rules, there are exceptions and OUTWARD BOUND is such a film. This original treatment of the play was a bit stagy but its main problem was the last third of the movie. All the characters who were to be judged weren't nearly as likable or unlikable as they were in the remake (BETWEEN TWO WORLDS) and their final judgment seemed rather anticlimactic and dull. After all that buildup, the conclusion seemed to fall very flat for many. In particular, the selfish society woman was a big disappointment--and her husband wasn't present for this big "comeuppance". While not as big a letdown, the nasty business man was also a letdown. About the only characters who weren't that different were Leslie Howard's (along with the lady who chose to go with him) and the couple who attempted suicide.

While an interesting idea, the film falters not just because of the lousy payoffs for several characters, but also because the film was so stark and cheesy (though some of this can be attributed to the fact that this was such an early Talkie). In particular, there is no incidental music (not completely unheard of in some 1930 films) and it all seems so flat and staged. Also, the ship models might just be the worst I have ever seen on film since the very early days of cinema--with obvious paintings and toy-like ships that wouldn't fool anyone.

So overall, not a particularly good film. A bit dull, a bit stagy, a bit cheap and a bit of a letdown. While I am not a huge fan of the later film, BETWEEN TWO WORLDS, it was a good film and was light-years better than this turgid film.


THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

Jimmy Sangster's feeble hybrid is a misguided attempt to fulfil two ambitions: First to remake THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) - the film which launched Hammer Studios to worldwide fame - with half the budget and twice the irony; and second, to promote Ralph Bates as their new 'youth-oriented' star. The film fails on both counts because of the cheapjack production values and the general air of mockery, and because Bates plays the Baron as an arrogant, dissolute youth with few redeeming features, completely lacking the ice-cold authority of Peter Cushing in his prime. Hammer could never appeal to the 'youth' market without falling flat on its face, and this one is no exception. Here, the Baron works his way through a threadbare cast-list, seeking spare parts to build a monster that ends up looking like a pro-wrestler! Naturally, the brain is damaged before he manages to sew it into the creature's cranium, providing an excuse for some lacklustre mayhem once the monster is up and running.

There are minor virtues: Dennis Price enjoys himself as a graverobber who goes about his business with an unseemly glee, and the wonderful Kate O'Mara is upstaged by her own cleavage, but horror fans won't be amused by the film's rambling plot and half-hearted attempts at humor. Thankfully, the series bowed out in style three years later when Peter Cushing re-teamed with director Terence Fisher for the dignified swan song FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (1973).


In their penultimate Frankenstein entry, the Hammer folks return virtually full-circle to the first film in the series (The Curse Of Frankenstein). Apart from a few changes in personnel, and the way that this one goes for a peculiar black comedy approach, the two films are almost identical. Despite the fact that times had changed between the completion of the two films, one would hardly notice it after viewing The Horror Of Frankenstein. Old-fashioned, predictable and familiar in the extreme, it is arguably the weakest of the entire series.

Brilliant young student Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) is the scourge of his teachers and the wet dream of all the girls in his class. He goes to university in Vienna, where he enrages the dean by impregnating his daughter. Also whilst in Vienna, he befriends another student, Wilhelm Kassner (Graham James), and persuades him to return to the family castle when the teaching term is over. Frankenstein inherited the castle, along with a buxom housekeeper named Alys (Kate O'Mara), when his father was killed in a shooting "accident". Once at the castle, Frankenstein and Wilhelm are soon engaged in scientific experiments involving the forces of life, but gradually Wilhelm grows unhappy with the direction the research is taking. Wilhelm is perfectly happy to lethally inject, then revive, a tortoise but Frankenstein seems to have bigger ambitions, including eventually re-animating a dead person. Wilhelm prepares to leave, but is murdered by Frankenstein after threatening to expose the immorality of his research. The young scientist doesn't stop there  after purchasing various body parts from a local grave robber (Dennis Price), he begins to bump off more of his close friends. Slowly but surely, he assembles all the parts he needs to construct a man, but when the crude, disfigured human monster (David Prowse) is eventually reanimated it has uncontrollably violent tendencies, and smashes its way out the castle to go on a killing spree in the adjacent countryside.

Lots of reviewers say that The Horror Of Frankenstein suffers from the absence of Peter Cushing, but in truth I think that Ralph Bates is one of the few positive things about this film. While certainly not in the same league as the legendary Cushing, Bates still manages to bring much to the role, playing the evil doctor as a supremely confident, smug and single-minded type. The female characters are also nicely played, with O'Mara oozing feline sexuality as the promiscuous housekeeper, while Hammer regular Veronica Carlson is also solid as Frankenstein's childhood friend. The film suffers from its uninspired story and leisurely pacing. Also, the monster played by Prowse is far too unintentionally funny and has none of the scare factor that Christopher Lee demonstrated in the original movie. Prowse resembles something from a gay's only Halloween party, with his disfigured head, muscular physique and tight boxer shorts. When he is on screen, the film should be peaking into a crescendo of horror, but instead it becomes an accidental comedy! The Horror Of Frankenstein is naturally going to be of interest to those who like and have seen the others in the series, but for the more casual viewer it provides little to get excited about.


Yes, there was life before Darth Vader. Dave Prowse, these days relegated to autograph shows (his signature: "Dave Prowse IS Darth Vader"), plays the oddly sexual Frankenstein monster in this rather cheesy flick. His Frankie springs forth with a shapely (and clean- shaven), buff chest, defined abs, and tree-trunk thigh and biceps. From the neck up, he's pretty unappealing, but from chin down, he'd be a big hit at a gay disco, barely clad in what look like boxer briefs.

Also of note and flashing some skin: Kate O'Mara plays a buxom housekeeper. Kate has played the devilish sister of two of the greatest characters ever to grace the small screen: Dynasty's Alexis Carrington and Absolutely Fabulous' Patsy Stone. Here she has a fairy substantial role (in a less-than-substantial film) as Victor Frankenstein's housekeeper and concubine.

Victor inherits her, along with the house, and keeps her around even though she can't cook. He does explain why, indirectly: When seeing her for the first time in a while, he comments, appreciatively, that she's put on some weight "in a couple of places." If her costume in this scene had been cut any lower, we'd see her belly button....

This one certainly wasn't ever in the running for an Oscar, but for what it is, it's not exactly unwatchable. It's a modern retelling of a classic tale -- updated to of course include plenty of sex and gore. Like most Hammer films, it's beautifully produced and the sets are pretty convincing (mostly) -- though I found the castle (and the film in general) to be too well-lit to be very spooky.

I was struck by one interesting little tidbit: This film was released by MGM about the same time the studio distributed Dan Curtis's House of Dark Shadows, which has a bit of a Hammer feel to it; and the lovely blonde actress featured in Horror of Frankenstein (Veronica Carlson as Elizabeth) bears a striking resemblance to Nancy Barrett, similarly featured in HODS as sexy vampire Carolyn Stoddard. I'm sure it's a coincidence, but their makeup and hairstyles are slightly similar, and they simply reminded me of each other.


I recognised a name or two in the cast, then I saw that it was a Hammer Horror film, so I thought it was worth at least a try. Basically a younger Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates, replacing Peter Cushing) is the misunderstood scientist, who is determined not just to study life and the human body, but make it. With the help of some grave robbers and his anatomical knowledge, he wants to create what could be the perfect human specimen. Of course the Monster (David Prowse, the man inside Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy, replacing Sir Christopher Lee) created is an aggressive thing that obeys a few orders to get meaty rewards, but ultimately it is not a perfect specimen. Also starring Kate O'Mara as Alys, Graham James as Wilhelm Kassner, Veronica Carlson as Elizabeth Heiss and Bernard Archard as Prof. Heiss. This is supposed to be a remake to Hammer's original Curse of Frankenstein, it is not counted as the sixth in the series because of this fact, and because it is a little ridiculous. Adequate!


If nothing else, this movie is conclusive evidence of why Jimmy Sangster did not have a busy career as a director. Easily the worst Hammer Frankenstein (and one of Hammer's overall worst), HORROR is dull, plodding and seemingly endless. Ralph Bates, acceptable in some other Hammer films, plays Victor Frankenstein in precisely the same snide, supercilious tone throughout; nothing gets him excited, not sex with a gorgeous woman, not murdering his best friend, not even (accidentally) bringing his Monster to life. Peter Cushing was so very much better in CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (of which HORROR is basically a remake) that there simply is no comparison at all.

And Sangster matches him beat for beat; scenes have no pacing, they're just there, fulfilling their plot function (most of the time -- there's no payoff to Victor getting the dean's daughter pregnant), and then going slowly on to the next sequence; each scene is laden with boring talk. It seems to take almost the entire movie to bring the Monster to life, and then he doesn't do anything very interesting -- plus he's one of the least interesting-LOOKING Frankenstein Monsters in movie history.

There's some humor in the film (and some failed attempts at it), the best joke being Victor's body-part number appearing (in his imagination) on the forehead of the next "donor." But there's not enough humor to make this a comedy; there isn't even any attitude -- of any sort -- toward the material that would indicate a satire. It's a flat, lifeless movie with great color and good sets. But even with those good sets, the film seems very, very cheap. Hammer was definitely in a decline at this time.


There are only two even half-good reasons to watch this limp, atypical version of the Frankenstein story. And both of them can be found inside  just  Kate O'Mara's blouse.

It's rubbish, pure and simple, all the more surprisingly so considering a) it was written and directed by Jimmy Sangster, one of the half dozen most important names in the history of Hammer films; and b) it has an absolutely top-notch cast: as well as Ralph Bates (who Hammer were grooming to take over Peter Cushing's mantle; never happened) we get uber-Hammer babe Veronica Carlson, the aforementioned Miss O'Mara  as gorgeous, pouting and shapely a starlet as ever graced a Hammer flick (she can't act for toffee, but who cares?)  the criminally underrated and underused Jon Finch, and the brilliant Dennis Price.

Sangster's screenplay is weak. It tries hard to be funny, but succeeds only in being puerile. And his direction is workmanlike at best. There is little real action, certainly not the sort of action you expect from a Hammer Frankenstein movie. The gore quotient is minimal, and the naked bazooka count zero  odd, considering female nudity was Hammer's big USP in the early 70s, and Sangster's only other directorial effort for Hammer, Lust for a Vampire, was replete with a multitude of heaving bosoms. (Apparently Kate O'Mara refused to appear topless, which makes you wonder how she got the part in the first place, but never mind.) Most of the DIY brain surgery takes place off screen, and the monster, played by muscleman and soon-to-be Darth Vader David Prowse, is about as frightening as an ice cream cone. He's supposedly been stitched together in the usual way, from assorted local unfortunates, but for some reason he has the body of a Greek god. The only concession to his patchwork creation is stitching scars that look like they've been drawn on with lipstick.

The plot isn't worth outlining  Sangster clearly didn't spend much time on it, so neither will I  and there are some annoyingly stupid bits of business which mean that the film doesn't work, even on its own jokey level. (For example, the monster isn't strong enough to pull his shackles out of the wall, but he makes matchwood out of a solid oak door.) Unless you're a Hammer completist I'd give this one a miss. If it does happen to come your way, as it did mine, on satellite TV late one night, try and stay awake for Kate O'Mara's appearance in a see-through nightie, then switch off. (She gets killed off soon after anyway. Probably died of shame.)


We start in school as a young Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) is bored and decides looking at anatomy sketches would be more fun at which his teacher (Neil Wilson) is offended by. Arriving home at his Castle, Victor finds his Father, Baron Frankenstein (George Belbin) has just had sex with the 16(!) year old housekeeper Alys (Kate O'Mara, who was actually 31 when she made this). After a bit of cheek and sexual innuendo aimed at his Father Victor asks him if he can go to University in Vienna to further his studies. He Father says no and that he shouldn't be so interested in science at his young age, and adds "you'll see me in my grave before I let you go gallivanting off to Vienna for a couple of years". Victor 'fixes' his Fathers hunting rifles which backfires killing him while out shooting. Victor gets his wish and goes to University in Vienna. Unfortunately, once there he manages to get the Deans (James Cossins) daughter pregnant. After the Dean starts to talk about marriage Victor decides to head back home, and convinces his friend Wilhelm Kassner (Graham James) to join him so they can continue their studies and experiments back at his Castle in his Laboratorty. While on horseback travelling Victor and Wilhelm stumble across a gang of highwaymen robbing one of Victor's old school friends Elizabeth Heiss (Veronica Carlson) and her Father Professor Heiss (Bernard Archard). They intervene and save them by shooting two of the highwaymen. Once he is alone with the bodies Victor cuts one of their heads off with a large knife. Back at his Castle he finds Alys is still the housekeeper, Victor picks up where his Father left off by having sex with her on a regular basis. Victor and Wilhelm continue their experiments, and after successfully bringing a Tortoise back to life Victor decides to try his hand at something a bit more ambitious. He hires a local grave robber (Denis Price) who makes his wife (Joan Rice) do all the work and dig up the bodies, to provide him with the necessary parts. Using the various body parts delivered to him, Victor creates a human being but needs one more ingredient before it's complete, a fresh human brain. He manages to bring the stitched together monster (David Prowse) to life, but because of an accident the brain was damaged by shards of glass and renders Victor's creation near uncontrollable and extremely violent. The problems mount for Victor as his friend Wilhelm gets cold feet over the experiments, an old friend Lt. Becker (Jon Finch) starts to poke around as he investigates various murders around the Castle, Alys tries to blackmail him and he has the added hassle of having Elizabeth move into the Castle when her house is repossessed as he sets about trying to control the monster to do his bidding. Co-written and directed by Jimmy Sangster this was the sixth film in Hammer's Frankenstein series and was made between Frankenstein must be Destroyed (1969) and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1973). I personally thought this was a pretty poor film. Hammer have seemed to abandoned all the things that worked so well in the other Frankenstein films, the sets look cheap, tacky and like their made from cardboard. The music credited to Malcolm Williamson doesn't even try to be scary or build tension as it instead comes across as silly especially whenever the monster is on screen. I felt the film didn't have the atmosphere or vibe about it that many Hammer horror films do. The worse part of this film is the script by Sangster and Jeremy Burnham which plays more like a comedy than a horror. When Victor tells the grave robber that he needs fresh body parts he replies "anything I bring you would get past the Government meat inspectors". When Victor reanimates a severed arm he makes it stick two fingers up, Victor quips "I think I'll send it to the Dean as a going away present". There is a scene where Victor invites Elizabeth and her Father to dinner, at this point Victor needs a brain and on his anatomy diagram he has marked it down as '25'. While sat opposite him Victor sees a '25' written in black felt pen on the Professor's forehead! Needless to say it looks incredibly silly. Frankenstein in this film comes across as a spoiled, arrogant, cheeky and wise-cracking little sod. Far removed from Peter Cushing's dignified portrayal of the character. And as for Kate O'Mara being passed off as a 16 year servant, well forget it Sangster and one more thing would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale in London? There is no sex, nudity, blood, gore or violence as it's all merely hinted at and one or two quick shots of various severed limbs, that's your lot. Hammer have made much better Frankenstein films so make sure you avoid this one and see one of those instead. Disappointing, and strays too far from it's roots.


Nearing Grace is about as close to stereotypical and predictable as you can get. Boy loses mother, boy has alcoholic despondent father, boy meets wild, crazy girl, falls in love, wild affair learns about life...grows up. There it is...you just watched Nearing Grace only I saved you the boredom of watching it happen. Not that this story can't be turned into something good because with a decent writer, director and cast anything...even the most stereotypical of stories and genres can be made fresh and new and interesting but Nearing Grace doesn't even try. It says here is the recipe, don't stray from it, don't try anything new...slap it together and throw it out there and that's exactly what they do. Long time TV Director Rick Rosenthal isn't used to making something longer than 45 minutes and isn't used to the fact that we need to know about these characters in the run time of a film because they won't be back next week to give us more. He made the same mistake in helming the disastrous last installment of the Halloween franchise. Empty characters, short boring plot, and no depth and that is exactly what we see here with Nearing Grace. Two twenty four year olds and a twenty seven year old play the lead High School seniors in the film...this isn't 90210 Rick.

I think Gregory Smith is probably a good actor. He comes from doing Television (Everwood) and is probably looking for something off the beaten path to make people notice him but to do that he'll need something with range and he couldn't have gotten any more vapid and empty than the character he plays, Henry Nearing. He has no characteristics, no depth, no good dialog and I don't blame that on Smith other than he should have read the script better. Ashley Johnson is decent enough, and probably has more depth than most of the other characters combined as the next door neighbor best friend of Henry. Johnson is at least still baby faced enough to pull off the High School look but her and Smith have zero chemistry as soul mates and best friends. David Morse is a hell of an actor. He has had some amazing roles and done some terrific work and somehow they shoved him into this emotionless dull portrait of a grieving man (having lost his wife) turned to alcohol and looks like a hippie. They should have left the story and character building to his character because if anyone in this cast could have pulled it off it would have been Morse but he falls flat with this script. And finally we come to the lovely Jordana Brewster. The girl is sexy, there is no doubt about it, but that doesn't even come close to carrying a film. Her wild and crazy portrayal of the object of Henry's affections, Grace Chance, is not even close to what it should be. She looks so much older than she should be (which she is,) they give no explanation as to her characters flaws or reasoning, only that she appears to be a skank who wants to seduce Henry for no particular reason. Brewster and Smith actually do have decent chemistry and there are some steamy love scenes and a cute little "our clothes are gone let's run through the streets" scene but you just don't give a lick about their characters or what happens to them and you feel yourself begging to know more.

So many characters, so much potential to explain them all and yet never happens. You never get to care or find out any information but rather just watch Henry have this steamy little fling and then somehow learn from it and graduate. It's a bore-fest plain and simple. I don't know who to blame but I think it's mostly to rest on the shoulders of the writers and the director because they tried to create something that at best might be an "R" rated episode of Dawson's Creek but even that was far more entertaining than Nearing Grace could ever be (witty title by the way.) Steer clear of this indie film because it has Brad Renfro and Dominique Swain written all over it and if you know what I mean by that you'll know how bad this really is. 3/10


After I saw this film, it left me scratching my head for a few reasons. At first, I thought it was a movie about college, since all the actors were so old and just walked in and out of classrooms at their leisure, but then I was stunned that they were suppose to be high school age. They are all obviously in their twenties and looked ridiculous as teenagers...it's like casting white people to play blacks in a movie, just as out of place and ridiculous. Next, the movie plays on it's vagueness, we don't understand the motivations behind any of these characters and the dialogue comes off as contrived and phony. Finally, for a film that was supposed to be set in the seventies, it truly fails to capture any feel for that era, it seems more modern than anything in dialogue and appearance. Not a movie that you will hate, but bland and vague enough to leave an empty feeling in your gut after viewing.


Read the book! It is so much better. The movie does not even begin to reflect the complexities that Christie contained in her novel. Not to mention, HUGE plot twists are treated in a mundane way and many events are altered, discarded, or invented. Also, the character development in the movie lacks what the novel can provide. In a word, it SUCKS! While I realize that this is a movie website, if you are going to make a movie based on a mystery novel, you should probably at least attempt to maintain the integrity of the original work. Otherwise, just rob the general theme, give the people new names, and pass it off as your own. This movie is the reason why my professors always told me "always read the book, never watch the movie!"


The sequel to romancing the stone is rather disappointing.

The plot is shallow, humour is dry, and the whole atmosphere of the first is just not there.

I wish those responsible for its production could see that and realize that this was not meant to be as memorable as the first.

Nevertheless if you decide to watch this film, it is not what you call boring and overall it is just pleasant watching Douglas and Turner getting into trouble with their unexpected friend De Vito adding a bit of fun tone in the process.

4/10


Lewis Teague's sequel to Robert Zemeckis' 1984 smash hit "Romancing the Stone" is a very similar adventure-romance, only it's a lot sillier. Once again we follow novelist 'Joan Wilder' and her lover 'Jack Colton', this time across Egypt as they romance a very different kind of stone. Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner reprise their roles with no great flair, while Danny De Vito (in tow) provides some comic relief.

"The Jewel of the Nile" does remain light-hearted which it needs to as it is often a little naive. Overall though the yarn leaves us relatively uninspired and lives up to its predecessor.

Thursday, October 29, 1992 - Video


This sequel is rather quite disappointing to me. In all honesty I loved the first film, Romancing the Stone, so I when I heard there was a sequel to this I was excited to see it. So I went ahead and rented Jewell and it turned out to be one of the worst sequels I've ever seen. I figured it would be at least an entertaining fun movie, especially since it had the stars back from the first film. One thing that really ticked me off was the cheezy score that accompanied the film. I don't know whose idea it was to make this movie but as soon as Robert Zemeckis and Alen Silvestri said no this production should not have gone underway. Michael and Kathleen weren't bad but even they couldn't save this one.


The sequel to the movie "Romancing the Stone", was for me just not very good at all. Where as Stone was a well-paced, funny action movie in this one there are many periods of dullness. Danny DeVito is the only highlight to this one, as once again his character is great. The plot really kills this one though as it just isn't as fun as the originals. It involves some sort of ruler of a Middle Eastern country who wants Joan Wilder to write about him or something. She agrees and parts company with Jack Coltan. For some reason the ruler tries to kill Jack, by blowing up his boat, and this only sends Jack after them. Once in the country Joan begins to realize that the ruler is not as good a guy as he wants her to think. She runs into a guy called the Jewel of the Nile who I think is supposed to be the real ruler of the country. Meanwhile Jack and DeVito's character learn of the Jewel of the Nile from this people and mistakenly think it is some kind of real jewel worth money like in the first movie. Some good sequences here and there, but really nothing all that great. A good scene involving a jet and anther with Jack and Joan hung over a pit are pretty good and for me the highlights of this one. This movie just didn't appeal to me though like the first one...who knows; maybe I prefer jungles to desert.


Romance, adventure, sailing the high seas, sinister villains who desire to rule the world, cliff top fighting, F-16's, courageous heroes, bumbling sidekicks, daring heroines, over powering sandstorms, high speed train chases, mythical legends, desert runaways, native wrestling, pirate kings, daydreaming, secret maps, kidnapping, dastardly explosions, deadly death traps, and a couple who reunite in the shadow of doom. And to sum it all up, it's a sequel to "Romancing the Stone." A sure masterpiece, you think? Then you have yet to see "The Jewel of the Nile," that rare film that destroyed a reputation and a career.

The movie takes a turn for the worse when the opening sequence presents itself. It is only a daydream scene, but oh, what a daydream it is. It features Jack (Michael Douglas) and Joan (Kathleen Turner) getting married on a boat in the middle of the sea. The suddenly, a pirate captain invades their territory evolving into a fight with the same laughable quality as a middle school drama play. The script is all down hill from there, and trust me, it has to dig its way though the gravel, for it is already at the bottom of the barrel.

Then there's the dialogue in which the subtext quality of the characters' conversations explains how they feel; an almost certain suicide for any movie's structure: showing the character's feelings is the right way of development, telling the audience about them is the wrong way.

How about the film's disappointing false second act. In which we first learn that the characters will be searching for a certain "jewel," then half way though the production, the problem is solved, and a new one then opens: a villain named Omar wishes to take over the world. There we have it, two conclusions, neither of the two related to one another, leaving the audience to only wish that there was an actual storyline basis here. The entire second act does absolutely nothing to further the plot movement.

And the villain, Omar, who has zero dramatic structure to him. In a selected scene he is made to look dumber than a stump. In another, he devises a trap that not even Einstein could have concocted. And the Jack and Joan characters, who seem to look like they can take care of themselves, are saved in every danger scene by a natural complexion rather than their own smarts. None of the explained characters contain anything of interest to the viewer.

The performances are about as good as anything else in the film. Kathleen Turner looks like she'd rather be in bed than on the set. Douglas seems to have very little confidence in the screenplay, and Danny DeVito is nothing but a pesky little goofball.

How about the romance in which Joan and Jack argue one minute and make love the next. There is no imagination in the scenes developing chemistry between their relationship. Thus we never care about what goes on between them.

There is some comedy in "The Jewel of the Nile," that is colorful and energetic. Most of which isn't all that laughable, however. I did laugh a few times, though, but I don't think those scenes were meant to be funny.


This is an awful film: witless, humorless, pointless. It's essentially a chase film, the heroes running constantly from an assortment of wicked Muslim extremists. There are the usual explosions.

The low point of the film is a dance scene. The heroes, during one of their many escapes, are captured by wild natives, perhaps pygmies. Then there is a festival featuring topless black dancers--who suddenly turn attractive. Kathleen Turner gets carried away with the drum beats and the nude natives, and she (sort of) joins in, wiggling her behind and making everyone notice that she is much less endowed in the chest area than the dancers.

Danny Devito runs around during the chase scenes screaming four letter words. And you have to see Turner and Michael Douglas hanging by their wrists over a bottomless pit while rats gnaw at the ropes suspending them. You'll howl.

In short, this is a film for bad movie lovers. The unintentional laughs are many.


Sometimes television shows like to branch out, become adventurous and do something outside the realm of what could be considered television normality. For example, live shows, real-time episodes, prequels, flashback shows, the infamous clips show and so forth. It would seem that one of the writers at Smallville thought that it would be a great idea to do an homage to the noir films of the 40s and 50s, The Big Sleep being heavily referenced at the start of this episode. However what this writer failed to comprehend is that for a concept show to work you need one important thing, namely a plot, to make the episode memorable. Its not the idea that makes an episode popular, its the execution.

The action begins when Chloe and Jimmy Olsen decide to have a romantic evening in at the Daily Planet offices, when suddenly a gunshot goes off and they find Lana Lang in the lift unconscious, clearly the victim of a shooting. I'm sorry to say that the wound did not prove fatal. Whilst investigating the photos of the crime scene Jimmy Olsen is knocked unconscious. Suddenly we enter Jimmy Olsen's dream like state and everything has gone 1940s on us. All the Smallville regulars are their of course, Lois being paraded around as mild titillation, Lionel being his usual ambivalent self and Clark Kent as a timid reporter who happens to be an undercover cop. Oh the irony nearly killed me there. Anyhow what follows is what could be considered the staple of a noir story; the dame in distress, a car chase, a murder, the inevitable double cross, all lovingly prepared with a smattering of 40s dialogue. 25 minutes later and Jimmy is awake once more.

So what does Jimmy's dream contribute to the story? Well quite simply he realises that the cigarette case at the crime scene might prove a vital clue, seeing as Lana does not smoke. Now this may well have been somewhat shocking to the viewer if it were not for one problem; the writers had already drawn attention to said cigarette case earlier in the episode by having Lois steal it from the crime scene. Already the viewer is expecting something to come of the cigarette case clue before the noir action starts, so ultimately Jimmy's coma-induced fantasy reveals nothing we were not expecting. The homage, whilst being a nice idea, serves nothing to the story and feels like it was placed in there simply because one of the writers has a soft spot for the work of Howard Hawks. Of course I would also suggest that with 4 episodes left the writers realised they had very little material with which to use at the end of the season, so they needed something to pad the story out.

So with 3 episodes now left it seems that the inevitable end of season cliffhanger is going to be squeezed into the last three episodes. One brief mention of Project Ares, Lex's latest evil scheme, ensured the show contributed something to the end of season story arc, yet apart from that it was an episode that had no place in the last few episodes of this season.


This had 'Lifetime Channel' written all over it. I expected something a little more edgy. Like 'Crash'. As the movie goes along the conflicts develop, smolder, and erupt. But in the last fifteen minutes everything is happily resolved. All the uncomfortable, violent hatreds and bitter resentments dissolve. The bad old car thieves are shown to be just a pair of softies. The angry son and his alcoholic father share a tearful embrace. The three jealous friends who boffed, or were boffed, by the same guy are somewhat reconciled upon revelation of a mildly amusing bit of irony. The audience is allowed to breathe a collective 'Aaaaaahhhhh' of satisfaction. Everything turns out just as it should. In other words, like it never really turns out. I stayed with this film because of the direction, but I ended up watching a cinematic Hallmark card. No doubt this will appeal to a significant audience, but it's not the sort film that appeals to me.


I wasn't sure what to expect going in to the movie. I had watched a preview for it here on IMDb and thought that it seemed like an interesting story. Boy was I wrong! The acting in this "movie" is some of the worst I've ever witnessed in ANY movie. Another reason I had decided to rent this is because one of the other users here who had posted a review made a comment about how great the acting was. She must've been high, because this was laughable. The two hippy women were probably the worst of the bunch but the loudmouthed punk kid was right up there, too.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to Helen Keller. The story is so lame that it'll have you squirming in your seat. Stuck in traffic because of downed power lines and a man who refuses to move his wrecked car? Okay, here's an idea...TURN YOUR CAR AROUND AND GO BACK THE WAY YOU CAME!!! Jeez. I wanted to scream.

Watch this movie you you want but don't expect it to be any more interesting than watching paint dry.


The live action version of WICKED CITY is one big mess of a movie, as all sorts of monsters chase each other and an anti-monster squad pursues the various monsters. The special effects go from awful to awesome, and the acting is typical Hong Kong cheese whiz. Very little of it makes any sense, so what good special effects there are, are basically wasted. Maybe it makes sense to a Chinese audience, but an endless series of shots of a toy model of a commercial airliner being ridden (!) by various characters made absolutely no sense to this viewer. I will say the actress playing the lead female monster is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen, and she has some nude and near-nude scenes that you'd never find in an equivalent American flick. But she alone is not worth seeing this abomination.


The european video version of this film sucks. It boosts pathetic dubbing, and claims to be an "uncensored version" featuring "scenes never showed before", but I doubt this is true. For the film: it's incredibly dumb, has a very ugly production value, bad acting and has such an intense pace that you feel it could end any moment. And if it did, you couldn't give a **** about it. If you must watch it, fast-forward it to the cool scene in which a woman is transformed from an elevator into a motorcycle...


Oh, man....I finished watching this movie a couple of hours ago and I'm still laughing hysterically when I think about it. This movie is so bad that it becomes an undeniable must for everyone who's into bad cinema. The worst possible cinema actually, this is stuff like Edward D. Wood made it. Of course, I still respect the efforts that cast and crew put into this but you can't help but roll over the floor and laugh. This is Japanese SciFi cult ( even though they used American actors, they STILL dubbed it...badly ) coming to you straight out of the era when cinema actually had evoluated a lot. But The Green Slime didn't join this trend. Prepare yourself for some amateurish cinema, yet made with a lot of love and passion for the genre.

The story is about a blob of green mucus coming straight from outer space. It got here as an uninvited visitor when some heroes destroyed an asteroide. By the way...forget about Armageddon !! The Green Slime really shows you how to blow up an big block of rock. The mucus has the ability to build itself up to green one-eyed midgets with an elephant trunk and they make adorable noises. I assure you, one look at them and you're immediately sold...these little critters stole my heart. Naturally, they don't come with good intentions !! They go after everything that is human and they suck up energy...how ? Don't bother to ask yourself that question...The "scriptwriters" didn't bother neither. In between, all the inevitable clichés aren't forgotten. So, as you can see, the special effects and costumes are next to none but it sure doesn't stop there ! Don't forget the space-station and rockets on wires, the cardboard sets and the acting that is really Oscar worthy. *cough*cough*

Finally, They're are the small but highly memorable and hilarious little aspects about it. For example, the theme song is terrific !! You'll feel the urge to buy the single of that asap since it's sooooo catchy. And a very honorable mention goes out to Robert Horton's haircut. Heck, I would give this movie a rating 10 out of 10 if only for his flawless head of hair. No matter how many helmets he puts on and off ... no matter how many dangerous stunts he has to perform, his hair remains perfectly combed all the time. Truly a haircut you can set your clock to !


Some worthless trivia to bestow. This is the very first movie ever to be shown on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Boy when you watch it you can see why. This movie screams to be made fun of. I know other people have made list reviews. Well, here's another one. It's more or less general thoughts on the movie.

-very wooden acting. Robert Horton and Richard Jackel seem to be having a contest going on about who's the stiffer actor. The guys in the monsters suits are more lively than these guys.

-Oh the monsters. I like these guys. They look like something that was designed by eight year olds. Assuming that was the target audience. For rubber Japanese monsters I thought they were fairly cool. Of course I'm a sucker for goofy aliens. They move awfully slow to be scary though.

-All the sets look like cardboard. Who knows, maybe they are.

-All the models seem as if they were made out of clearance sale craft supplies. The wires they were on even look cheap.

-the title song ROCKS! I've had it stuck in my head for the past few days. Imagine the looks I get in Wal-Mart buying milk singing "The green sliiiiimmmmmme. The green slliiiimmmeeeee." I need to find a copy of that song. It's better than the whole movie.

Funny, goofy B movie. Yet another I recommend for a 'bad movie night.'


A Japanese-American-Italian collaboration on this sci-fi production, mostly revolving around the activities on space station Gamma 3. With a strange meteor on collision with the Earth, Commander Rankin (Robert Horton) is given the Armageddon type plot: blow up the meteor. Upon this mission a moldy piece of green, undulating jello is discovered. A small piece is inadvertently brought back to the station. For the rest of the movie, Rankin and the commander of the space station (Commander Elliot - Richard Jaekel), look for ways to curtail the growing green, moldy jello outbreak. Apparently the mold absorbs all types of energy and can grow a new self from a few cells. With the absorption of energy the jello turns into a mayhem causing six foot tall, two footed, two armed, two tentacled (the ends have pincers on them) asparagus with one giant red eye (that shoots energy out of it).

This is a classic B movie archetype, mixed with Godzilla-style models, ships and equipment. Somehow Robert Horton gets the billing over Richard Jaeckel (Hollywood veteran know for many movies including the sarge in the Dirty Dozens). Robert is looking a little worn in this movie, giving anybody wearing a mask of an old Ronald Reagan a run for his money. The conflict arises mostly from these two characters. Apparently the two used to be friends and have since had a falling out. To add to the conflict, is Dr. Benson (ex-Bond girl, Luciana Paluzzi). Apparently Rankin used to date her before, and she is now Vince's fiancé.

The acting is typical of most sci-fi B movies, terrible to average. This is mostly ranked up by Robert Horton (GIANT HAM AWARD WINNER) and the extras. Richard Jaekel pulls off his well known straight, tough guy. Luciana provides very little distraction from the doldrum in space and this movie. The addition of some new space age dances (resembling polka dancing on speed) and the intro theme song (flower power remix of green slime) is the Vegeta in this stew. The movie does reasonably well considering the limited budget. The film itself is not very endearing. I recommend it as a mindless alternative to prime time network TV or as a late night cap. Definitely not a keeper.

-Celluloid Rehab


**May Contain Spoilers**

I feel sorry for kids 34 years ago who were enticed by green-tinted newspaper ads and entranced by a cool Famous Monsters cover; they must have been truly disillusioned when they actually saw the movie. One member of Robert Horton's expedition accidentally picks up a gobbet of alien glop on his uniform and carries it back to the space station. Horton and Richard Jaeckel in one of his many thankless roles argue over who's fit to lead the expedition, when they're not fighting over Luciana Paluzzi. Much of this action takes place at a Mod-style party that effectively dates the film for all time. The slime, meanwhile, kills several people and mutates into a what looks like a one-eyed dill pickle with tentacles. The officers and crew find out the hard way that new creatures instantly emerge from the spilled blood of the original and that sunlight heals the monsters' wounds. They shoot at the slime creatures anyway with ray guns and when their guns run out of ray, throw them at the monsters. Some of the blue-screen effects are as terrible as the script. The idea of a deadly creature being picked up by space travelers brings back faint echoes of the superior IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE. Fans of films with aliens trashing spaceships had to wait eleven years for another good one.


Film deals as an asteroid streaks toward a head-on collision with earth and the reaction to impeding doom by means of nuclear bombs(plot posteriorly utilized in blockbuster as ¨Armageddom¨ and ¨Deep impact¨),being assigned for the mission the major (Robert Horton) and commandant(Richard Jaeckel) of a spacial station .They go along for the ride on a strike force to attempt planetary salvation from space.They are going to the satellite to put on nuke charges and blowing up it.They return to the station but have brought aboard the ship a horrible alien monster in shape of green substance that mutate in malevolent tentacled creature that feed energy.Meanwhile both dispute the love of the enticing ship medic(Luciana Paluzzzi).

The film is a cheap US-Japanese co-production with lack luster and little budget.Special effects are ridiculous and embarrassing as are the cheesy monsters made with rubber.Aircrafts and spacial station are toys and are made with lousy miniatures.However as the film has tension and suspense is entertained .Besides appear a magnificent secondary actor called Richard Jaeckel(Dirty dozen ,Airplane) and the wonderful Luciana Paluzzi(Thunderball,Chuka).The film is regularly directed by Kinji Fukasuku ,author of some classic sci-fi movie(Virus,Battle Royale). Rating: Below average.


Dear God!, is this for real? The first time I saw this I REALLY thought it was a spoof! The models and "special effects" [sic] will leave you helpless with laughter. One of the funniest turkeys I have ever seen. Gets close to the quality of Plan 9 from Outer Space. A MUST see


Saw the movie on TMC and it was indeed a classic. Everything about this film is bad, ranging from Robert Horton's (late of Wagon Train and 110 degrees in the Shade) hairstyle, to the acting to the incredibly cheesy special effects, the "Cousin It" monster (mentioned in one of the comments below). Even the colour they used for outer space was wrong. It was made in the late 1960's (around the same time as perhaps the greatest or certainly one of the greatest sci-fi films of all times: 2001) showing the future with technology that would have been dated even then. I've been watching a lot of films on TCM, including many of the best ever made, but I found this to be just as entertaining an hour and a half as almost any I've seen. Right up there with "Sata Claus Conquers the Martians."


I don't recall who survived in the end, all I can recall is not believing these were supposed to be a group of responsible adults running an installation and the truly grating noises the monsters made. Yes, those dear alien noises, it's the one thing that sticks out in my head (Holding ears and shuddering off the memory now.) whenever I think of that film after all these years and I saw it twenty plus years ago--The awful monster noises not the appalling characters that invarably pops up in my mind first. It's probably the second film I've ever saw where the special effects outdistanced the character portrayal and I didn't care at all.

I didn't like any of the "heroes" in this film. It starts of with our two male twits beefing about who should get missy and be in charge while missy love interest stands about looking vapid and stews up the friction between these losers even more. And they were supposed to be adults doing a job...oh Gosh, the earth's doomed.


This film is a nice example of exactly how "the future" is going to be. For example, large, cumbersome hallway vehicles inside of space stations in which astronauts may sit and enjoy the ride while others can just walk beside the slow moving motorized box while moving from one hallway to the next bend. Or how every space station has its own cops, doctors, scientists, nurses, and militia.

Another shining example of "the future" is the advancement of the thick yellow laser. All astronauts will be armed with giant laser guns that do not actually burn through things very deeply, but rather just apply pressure to them, much like a child's "super soaker." The thick yellow laser is far more advanced than any laser we use today, as it is fairly friendly and harmless.

We will also use jump cuts when focusing on foreign objects that float in space, such as perfectly round and spherical asteroids. This way, we will not have to watch the object move from being out of focus to in focus, we can sit back and rely on the computer technology to show us the picture right when it is centered and clear.

Another future advancement for which I am excited is the gendered space uniforms. We will take a giant step back in time and civil rights and return to gendered activities in "the future." Women will be required to wear plain colored, short, cute dresses and their hair long and brushed (or curled), while men will wear various space suits or police uniforms with badges. Space suits will be a shiny silver color and will come equipped with matching gloves and motorcycle helmet visors for when that sun is just a little too bright. Women will be permitted only to work in the infirmary with other wounded women and men. They will serve as mother figures for those male astronauts who need a little reassurance. When things get too scary, the women will be the first to scream their heads off and they will need extra comforting.

It will never be clear who is "in charge" and the authority will switch from person to person. If any man wishes to be in charge, he will simply say "that is an order" and one must obey his order. If two men are feuding, for example, this is a good way for them to decide who is the better man. Each man gives orders to other men and ends the order with a statement of authority like, "I am in charge here" or "follow my orders." This way we know who is momentarily the better man.

It is to be remembered that there is no sense of humor in space. Any person caught smiling or having a good time will not be taken seriously. Even space dances are to be civil and respectable affairs in which a man must give his individual permission to other men which allows them to dance with certain women. The woman may not smile or object to this, even if she is engaged to the man's worst enemy.

Space monsters of "the future" will live on asteroids rather than planets. They feed off of "energy", mainly from light sources such as hand held flashlights. When they touch these light sources, their tentacles then turn into festive sparklers and flail about, only to shed drops of blood which then reproduce more monsters as excelled speeds. Space monsters cannot be contained in rooms, for they will lose their tempers and begin destroying everything. Although their main concern is feeding off of energy, they love to attack humans and electrocute them to release some of their energy. This is a warning to humans to always carry a flashlight which can be used to deter the space monster into a room with an air-lock door.

In "the future" we have secured a way for astronauts to fly about in space wearing only a silver space suit and no attachment cord. They can use a rocket powered backpack to guide their bodies through space's thin atmosphere.

If in the situation of firing yellow lasers at space monsters, please be sure your laser gun is loaded to its maximum capacity. You could not imagine how many laser guns lose their juice after about five shots. If this happens while in the midst of a space fight, simply throw your state-of-the-art laser gun at the space monster. It will cause a small explosion and the monster will be thwarted. You can then run away from the monster. .... This movie proves that the future is an exciting place full of red and yellow glowing lights on television screens, panels of unlabeled buttons and colorful cubicles with glass walls that enable you to see the entire command station. Dry cleaning will soon be called "detoxing" in which you place your clothing into a sealed room which releases radioactive energy into the air and in turn cleans your suits spotless! Just make sure you do not have a single speck of asteroid slime on your suit or the energy in the detox chamber could cause great harm to our laundry mat of "the future".

Lastly, the musical tastes of the future will evolve to sound much like Jimi Hendrix. It is new and cool to be psyhedelic in space. No matter how square and humorless you are, at least you got some rockin' beats and mindblowing guitar riffs. GREEN SLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMEEE!!! AW YEAH!


This is not a great movie. It was never nominated for an Oscar. But that wasn't the intent. It is amusement, clear and simple.

The interactions among the three main characters is typical of many dramas and sci-fi movies. The alien invaders are phony looking, to say the least. But this movie is part of a genre that endeared itself to Americans for nearly a decade. Lump it in with Earth vs. the Flying Saucers and Them. None of the movies of that genre were ever headed for Oscar fame. They were there for pure amusement. And this is what Robert Horton, Richard Jaekel, and Luciana Paluzzi provided.

It's a fun movie, but professional critics would argue otherwise.


Oh dear, this is a bad movie. The acting by lead Robert Horton is even more horrible than the monsters. He keeps on repeating the line 'That's an order, Mister' all through the movie.

The same year Kubrick made '2001' this movie was released. You can't help wondering what would have happened if Kubrick didn't revolutionized the SF-genre.


...who love the campier aspects of this movie, I must beg to differ.

More than most of my friends and relatives, I admire a movie that's so bad it's good (please see my Comment re: "Killdozer") but in this case The Green Slime is so bad it's JUST BAD! I can watch a good bad movie (i.e. A Boy And His Dog) every few years and enjoy laughing at it. Green Slime I simply cannot watch for more than 10 minutes, tops.

And yet I find that this despicable little piece of slime :-) ISN'T AMONG THE BOTTOM 100!!!

It takes an average of 2.6 or below to make it into the Bottom 100. Amazingly, Slime has an average over 4. So I have dutifully cast my IMDb vote of 1 (the worst) today.

I URGE THE MOVIEGOING PUBLIC TO JOIN WITH ME IN THIS HEROIC ENDEAVOR TO DEMOTE THIS MOVIE TO THE STATUS IT DESERVES!!!

CAST YOUR VOTES WITH ME, FOLKS!!! VOTE 1. DRIVE THE AVERAGE DOWN!!!

BOTTOM 100! BOTTOM 100! BOTTOM 100! BOTTOM 100!


Overall, a right load of tosh. The slime creatures look like turds from a toilet cleaner commercial. The soldiers are all wearing crash helmets and there are so many unintentional goofs it's ridiculous. I smiled when a crash helmeted soldier answers the phone. How does he hold the receiver to his head with his Spaceballshelmet on? Badly of course! You can see the look on his face - oh, jeez, I wish I'd rehearsed this bit.

But it's not all bad. It fits into the genre of Them, those films where the Chinese tunnel under the earth to defeat America - Battle Beneath The Earth. Richard Jaeckel is always a favourite and good value. The Italian woman leading looks great (like an early Elizabeth Shue) and the funky sixties party when the Slime comes to light is just great. I am sure if I'd seen this at the cinema as a kid, I'd have reckoned this was a classic up there with The Blob and Invasion of the Body Snatchers.


This TV Show was rated one of the five worst shows ever made!! When I saw this evaluation of this Steven Bocho production, I was perplexed a little. Bocho has a reputation for cranking out prime time top quality television shows!. "Hill Street Blues" is one of the best shows ever made, now comes along "Cop Rock" by the same producer, it almost seems impossible to believe. I guess putting heinous crimes to notes and lyrics seemed like a novel idea, however, it BOMBED!!! Television has the right to bad programming, so long as it gets canceled right away!! This show was a mistake, and that's about all you can say about it!! Policemen and detectives do not need to take voice lessons to expedite their jobs effectively, therefore, putting music to police responsibilities seems rather purposeless!! I am glad I saw this show only a couple of times, I will not see it in reruns, and I hope ABC never comes up with a show like this one ever again!! THUMBS DOWN!!


I didn't read all the reviews, here, but the ones I did read seem to praise this flop. I like the cop-type reality programs, but this one sucked!!! W.T.F? It was like when I saw "Evita", "The most talked about movie of the year!" Now, in "Evita" they start out singing. I'm sitting there going..."this movie should be okay once they stop singing." They never stopped! 3 hours of this drivel! Why weren't we warned it had dialect that was sung? Same with Cop Rock. I just didn't get it. Maybe it would have been enjoyable had they maced some dude in the face, then clubbed him in the jewels and the suspect were to sing, "...by golly, that smarts..." or something. I seriously almost got sick watching this garbage. Anyone who thought it was a good show should have their head examined. Absolute junk! Thirty minutes of my life I'll never get back.


I agree with many of the other comments here, and understand where they are coming from (I think).

BUT - Cop Rock was a TRAIN WRECK. So many good ideas thrown all over the place. There were fantastic moments, some great innovations, and, for my money, one beautiful song (Sandman's Coming)...but COME ONE -

The scene in the courtroom where people are throwing glowing money around and legal people are dancing on the bench, dock, etc? It's a moment that only Ed Wood could love.

If anyone wants to disagree with me - great - maybe I missed something - it's been a long time since I've seen it.

I must say, though, that Cop Rock was one of the biggest disasters in entertainment - well intentioned, well produced, but ultimately a disaster.


What a gigantic piece of regurgitated whale excrement, and that's being polite! Although I have to blame the suits at MTM, who was the production company, for, along with the suits at the network, giving anybody, golden child or not, an 8 episode deal sight unseen. This is a testament to that never happening again! Consistently in the 5 worst shows of all time television rankings, it's the brunt of every bad joke about Steven ever told. As it should be... If I ever saw a judge break out into a song and dance number, I'd wonder who spiked the single malt scotch.. Know what the real kicker is, we actually sold it. Sydney Channel 5 bought all 8 episodes... It seems my boss at the time (Fred) felt so bad the next day he went back and killed the deal, much to the dismay of the head of MTM (and Mary's husband) but being that he actually managed to sell a Joey to an Aussie nothing was said about it... No other network through 88 worldwide bought it to my knowledge...


Western miner Tim McCoy (as Slim Braddock) is cheated out of his claim by Karl Hackett (as Williams), but he can't prove anything. So, he becomes "The Phantom" bandit, and robs stages carrying Hackett booty. During a confrontation, Mr. McCoy is wounded; he dies in the care of son Eddie Buzard (as young Tim Braddock). Mr. Buzard quickly grows into McCoy (as old Tim Braddock), which is the main Braddock role. After pretty Joan Woodbury (as Helen Brennan) is introduced, the characters' ages are difficult to discern.

McCoy is an odd "Phantom"; he makes no effort to hide his identity, and is plainly visible as "Slim Braddock". He also terrorizes citizens with kindness, and makes minor repairs on the coaches he robs. The most entertaining part of "Bulldog Courage" occurs when Paul Fix (as Bailey) arrives to blow-up a mine; he really uses his "noodle." After Mr. Fix is detained, McCoy does a wild impersonation of "Bailey"; with his obvious ability to memorize dialogue, and capture a character, "Braddock" should have been an actor instead of a minor.


The film begins with a Robin Hood-like bandit fighting the forces of evil (lawyers and the like). When he's shot and lies dying, he passes on his legacy to his son. This kid grows up to become Tim McCoy and carries on his father's one-man crusade against lawyers and bankers and telemarketers (okay, the last one wasn't in the film).

Okay, it's best I admit up front that I am not a huge fan of B-Westerns--especially the series films of Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and the like. I have nothing against them, but after seeing just a few I just can't see much difference between them. On a lark, I decided to watch my first Tim McCoy film and found that it really wasn't any different. Like the typical series film, Tim never seems to shoot anyone except in the hand, he catches people trying to murder him and takes their guns--then lets them go, and never slugs anyone unless it absolutely can't be helped. Now I understand that he's playing a good guy, but this routine is ridiculous. For example, in one case, a man shoots at him as he's riding his horse. McCoy pretends to have fallen off the horse and died. And, when the perpetrator comes to look for the body, he's caught by Tim. Tim doesn't hit him, shoot him or even yell at him--just takes his guns and tells him to git! No one is THAT wonderful! If Gandhi had lived in the Old West, I bet he would have plugged a guy who tried to bushwhack him like this--or at least busted him up a bit!! The complete and total lack of realism or violence of any kind make this a film only for the most undemanding audience.

The bottom line is that although in real life Tim McCoy was a great guy (look at his WWI and II record for proof of this) but he has all the on-screen charisma of a block of blue cheese! By comparison, he makes Autry, Rogers and the Lone Ranger look like Howie Mandel on crack--he's THAT dull! It's like he's just walking through the film, trying to be sure to keep his blood pressure under 100/70. Heck, the guy never even breaks a sweat!


TimeLine the book is probably one of my most favourite books. I have read it countless times and have enjoyed it every single time. So I was very happy when I saw a preview a long while back that there was going to be a movie about the book.

I wish that when people decided to make a movie out of a book they would make the movie just like the book. Don't change the plot, don't change the characters or their relationships, just leave it intact. They never do. I have been disappointed every time a book that I enjoy has been brought to the screen. I really don't know why I keep getting excited.

Ok, I understand somewhat that you can't re-create everything from a book. It just wouldn't be feasible. But they changed entire genders of people, removed some more interesting moments, changed character relationships slightly, and totally bombed at all the stuff dealing with the ITC, time travel and the vileness of both bad guys.

If you have read the book and seen the movie, you know what I am talking about. Some of the more exciting parts of the book were just not in the movie, like the struggle between the crazed man at the chapel, the fight at the mill and the entire tournament.

I mean I was confused with the whole thing. One of Donnigers right hand men is supposed to be a woman, Chris is NOT the professors son (in the book he is father figure), the French guy that gets killed in the movie does not exist in the book, Marek is supposed to be fluent in all aspects of time period including the languages.

I could go on about all the differences between the book and the movie, but there is no point. I would have to use up an entire screen just to point them out. It was a interesting movie if you had NOT read the book. However, if you have read the book and enjoyed it, a lot of great stuff was left out or warped into something different. I would say that the movie is very loosely based on the book, VERY loosely.

Overall I say I was disappointed. I did enjoy Gerard Butler as Marek, Ethan Embry as David Stern and Paul Walker as Chris. The females leads (Frances O'Connor as Kate and Anna Friel as Lady Claire) could have been better. And I suppose Billy Connoly did an ok job as the professor, although I just didn't quite believe that he was a professor for some reason.

I think I'll go re-read the book.


So many important plot elements were left out, that the phrase 'sort of based on an idea by Michael Crichton' is the closest you can get to a relationship to the novel. The most glaring omission is the lack of the radio 'transceivers', which, if you've read the book, were involved in a major plot twist. And, they could have at least made SOME attempt to have the characters speak in 14th century (sounding) languages and used subtitles to give it a more authentic feel. On a positive note, the acting and casting were reasonably good. The action/fighting sequences were done well.

Overall, the movie gave me the feeling that, as so often happens, the producers used the phrase "no one will notice" way too often during meetings.