The movie versions of Mission Impossible are complete crap that are nothing like the TV series.

The movie versions of Mission Impossible turned the TV show's hero (Jim Phelps) into a bad guy and made a character (Ethan Hunt) who wasn't even in the TV series into the hero of the movies. It would be like making a movie adaptation of the A-Team with Colonel Hannibal Smith turning into a bad guy, killing the rest of the team, and then having a totally new character not in the TV series be the hero of the movie.

Moreover, the movie versions of Mission Impossible are just another action movie with fancy stunts and big-budget explosions like the James Bond movies. The TV series wasn't about stunts and explosions. The TV series was about cleverly-devised cloak-and-dagger plots to trick the bad guys into turning against each other. The TV series was about outsmarting the bad guys with brains, not beating the bad guys with brawn. In fact, there were probably less punches thrown during the entire TWO TV series than during the Mission Impossible movie.

The producers of the Mission Impossible movie just wanted a way to market Tom Cruise in an action movie with fancy gadgets and big-budget explosions, but there are so many of these similar movies that have already been made. So they called it Mission Impossible to lure in fans of the old TV series.

If you're just looking for a big-budget remake of a Rambo-type movie, then go ahead and see this movie. But if you're a fan of the Mission Impossible TV series, then don't waste your time on this crap of a movie.


This was a Tom Cruise spy film. Unfortunately it was not a "Mission: Impossible" film, and that was my problem.

The overall most important element of the TV series was the plot - the heist, the robbery, the fraud, the trickery, the whatever... The team (the brain, the girl, the technician, the muscle and the actor) in effect were only there to move the plot forward. But, saying that, we really got to know and trust these anonymous agents; a tribute to such excellent actors as Peter Graves, Martin Landau and Leonard Nimoy. The first thing that this film does is kill off the team. Disgraceful! And then various members of the new team he puts together turn out to be traitors. Drivel! And then at the end of the film they completely trash the reputation of TV's greatest spy master Jim Phelps. Terrible! Sorry, but this is not the film that I wanted to see.

It says a lot that according to rumour the producers did not see fit to offer any of the original cast members of "Mission: Impossible" so much as even a silent cameo in this movie. (Imagine the great Martin Landau as the aged Rollin' Hand. What a missed opportunity). I think another case of buying a title and doing what you like with it. See "The Saint" for further details.


De Palma was trying to take a great TV suspense series and turn it into an action movie, and fails to be either. The plot is too thick and twisty for an action movie (hence, all the confusion for the people who wanted an action movie), and there's too much mayhem and uncontrolled improvisation to work as a tight, suspense filled caper like the original series. For those who wanted an action movie, I'm told De Palma dumbed down the other MI movies, thus moving it further yet from the spirit of the original series.

As far as an action movie goes, it's got plenty of action, but it's hard not to roll your eyes at Cruise surviving that bomb blast towards the end. Yeah, real good IMF-type planning there, Cruise. You planned on surviving that bomb blast and getting catapulted up to the next car all along, right? But what REALLY blows is the way De Palma ruined the premise of the series by making Phelps out to be the baddie. Don't let De Palma get a hold of "Columbo", or he'll have the lieutenant become a serial killer, with Tom Cruise, his partner, tracking him down in a car chase and killing him in some fiery explosion at the end. Complete waste of time for anyone who likes either genre.


Mission Impossible is the movie that could only come from DePalma and Cruise. The former is a hack and the latter is a real drip. The plot is set in motion when the good guys "knock list" is stolen. But the thieves learn it was a bogus knock list, so it's vitally important to replace the knocklist or the bad guys will realize their goods are bad. Mostly the plot is an excuse for characters to say "knock list" a lot, and you get to see Cruise play an unbearably cocky ass in Eruope for a change. Plotwise it's pretty stale; One guess as to who turns out to be the bad guy; yep, that's right, the person who was supposed to be the good guy. Gee, that's fresh.

Cruise projects the kind of phony confidence of the guy who knows the "right" answer to give to those idiot job-interview questions. You know what I mean... "What's your worst habit?" followed by the correct answer that cloaks your success in flaws clothing: "I drive myself too hard." or "I cry myself to sleep at night over my lack of flaws." The type of deeply phony horse-sh*t that makes you roll your eyes and fills you with revulsion for the ass who would actually say it; the type of person who would give those answers and really sell it, not realizing that an impartial observer would retch over his teeming phoniness.

Keep your eyes on Cruise though. The heyday of this type of this meathead tripe has lasted anachronistically into the era of the metrosexual. It's due to expire some time in the next 3 months. Cruise hasn't figured out that this kind of sales job makes him look really old, not young. Chicks with fake boobs, guys who drive hummers, and those who wish to join either group will like this movie.


If you are a big fan of the television series, starring Peter Graves and Martin Landau, like I am, then you will hate this movie as much as I did. It has nothing to do with the television series, other than its title and opening musical sequence. I went in to this movie expecting more. If you can get beyond these prejudices, then you can expect, at best, a mediocre movie. Right off the top of my head, I can pick five or six episodes from the series that were actually better than this movie. It's a shame because I like Tom Cruse. He's better than this!


I was very disappointed with this film. I cannot understand why anyone would complain about the complexity of the plot. Compared to an average episode of the TV show, the story was simple, meaning that one action follows the other, and nothing really unexpected happens. In other words: it is very constructed, and you can sense it. For example, the way in the terminal room is MUCH too easy, I think in a TV episode the writer would have invented much more "tricks". The thing that might make the film hard to understand may be the way how the simple story is told... In addition to that, some scenes are so illogical that they are already silly, for example the helicopter in the tunnel, not to mention the often criticized fact of making an arch villain out of Jim or the stereotypic dialogues. I will not spend a cent for watching part 2...


A more stylish movie you are unlikely to see.

However, 2 hours of gorgeous sets and costumes is scant compensation for sitting through Baldwin's wooden acting, and a plot which manages to be both contrived and obvious at the same time.

Given its considerable legacy, The Shadow deserved better treatment than this.

Director Russell Mulcahy was once an innovative music video director. This movie (when viewed in context of his forgettable 'Razorback') prove he his a terminal lack of attention span for anything which requires more than 5 minutes of coherent screen time and filling more substantive than eye candy.

Finally, let me record my astonishment that anyone on IPDB could rate this movie highly. Unless of course they are covert PR agents for the studios. Best we check their ring fingers ;-)


While I feel the message of this film is laudable, the execution isn't great. It's full of mediocre acting, bad story and character development, bad writing, and is completely predictable. A movie promoting good church values doesn't have to be this bad. Simply said, this movie doesn't offer anything interesting or new. It's the stereotypical story of a young man struggling with the decision of whether to serve a mission or not and offers its audience no surprises or insights we haven't already seen dozens of times in other "feel-good" LDS movies. Like I said, I think the message is important, but the movie comes off as bland and, quite honestly, a bit preachy. I think there are more artistic and compelling ways to tell the same story or deliver the same message.


Slightly longer than a fifteen minute seminary video. Just as bad, just as cheesy, just as predictable. The bad kids really are not that bad, the kid who falls doesn't really fall that far, you know...all the clichés.

Still, like most LDS films (Seminary and mainstream), the acting is mediocre, the scenery is always Provo (are there any other mountains in the world that can be used as background), and you start looking at your watch.

Avoid the movie. Yes, he does go on a mission (as if you couldn't guess) and does get the girl. That's all you need to remember.


Somehow I always thought this was Bertolucci's first film. It isn't. But it looks like it. Here's a director with a huge potential, a cinematographer who'll soon be one of the greatest, but they still have a long way to go. We were young and Bertolucci was very left-wing so it was de rigueur to find this great, but in fact it was boring. The plot meanders on, the acting is wooden, and in the end you don't know if there was a story there at all. Bertolucci has become an icon, maybe more because of the scandals adhering to his films than of the intrinsic worth of his cinematographic output (in contrast to for instance Ettore Scola). No scandalous scenes in this one though, just plain pretension and showing off.


This film seemed to be going for shock value, but without much sense of reality in the script or in the acting.

No addict of any kind would submit to the indignities depicted here unless predisposed to do so.

I rated this 2 out of 10, though, because of a pretty cool soundtrack, and because "Dorothy" was kinda cute. ;-)


A film about absolutely nothing, populated by exceedingly boring, uninteresting characters. The black & white is not justified as it does not serve the film well. I suspect it simply served the budget.

Why is it that gay filmmakers are only capable of making films about their

favorite subject... their own sexual proclivities/fantasies? Every time I see a gay/ lesbian film I am struck by how consumed these filmmakers are with themselves and the exploration of their own sexual deviancy. Same old same old.

This film was excruciatingly interminable.


This movie about a sexually depraved young man starts out good enough, but as soon as Dorothy appears, the story turns for the worse. Definitely not for everyone, though one could say the makers have been bold enough to make a movie about this subject.

I could care less, frankly, and was sometimes unpleasantly surprised by the eagerness of both leads to make it a realistic experience. Vote: 5/6


Don't waste your time... I couldn't even finish watching this annoying crap... Claims on the advertising for this "film" claim it's a unique look at a gay relationship? Again, gay men are really women, so turn them into transvestites... Who writes this garbage? How about Ugly, meets Ugly..?


I've watched a few episodes of Fox's Trading Spouses and I liked some of the episodes a lot. I especially loved the episode that takes a man from Southern America and puts him in a New York city apartment with a very rich New York family. The two families were different, yes, but the Southern man tries to fit in with the new culture and does a very good job. The host family was nice and treated him like a guest. What was nice was the way the host family carried on as normal.

Most episodes of Wife Swap are different, however. Like Trading Spouses, the families are completely different, but the problem is that instead of simply having the wife living with a new family the show tries to start a fight by getting each wife to read some sort of manual about the other family and then after a while to set rules. The wives who swap don't even try to adapt to the environment. They are intolerant of other cultures. They loudly and proudly hold on to their way of life, thinking it is superior, and try to change the other people in the process. I hate it most when the wives tell us at the beginning who they are. You don't learn about who someone is by listening to what they say because their ideals about what they should be will get in the way with what they really are. There's a reason why people buy status symbols like large cars and large houses. They are trying to express themselves and project signals to others so they can be recognized as belonging to a certain social identity. Too many families use Wife Swap as a vehicle to show off their identity. Everything the parents do on the show, whether it is sport or shouting at their kids, is just another weak attempt to conform to an image or a stereotype.

It's not just the contrived conflict that makes Wife Swap so painful to watch but also the fact that you know the wives are posing for the camera. It is so clear these women are desperately trying to show off their identity for the world to see. In other words, they are acting, and that goes against what I expect in reality TV.


Some of these presentations are amusing; however, in my estimation, they don't possess the instructive value which the producers/directors seem to feel they portray.

For example, I saw two episodes today. The first had a beauty queen/late-sleeping princess type, whose husband did everything for her, swapping places with a gal obviously not into great concern over appearances (either hers or her home's), with a street performer husband with some sort of metal clips permanently installed in his forehead, permanent red striping on his face, and more tattoos than the typical NBA basket-baller.

As to grooming, the family of the former apparently spent more time applying cologne (even to the kids) after showering, than the latter group might be spending on an entire week's total grooming.

The second had the mom from a family of religious fanatics, and a son wearing a "Promise ring," swapping households with a gal in a self-styled "ultra liberal" family with a son and daughter, each proclaiming himself/herself, respectively, a "stud" and "wild child."

The problem with this show, particularly episodes like BOTH of these, is that I found no empathy for either family in both episodes. In both story lines, I wouldn't care to emulate any of their particular lifestyles,. Neither would I want to spend ANY time in any of these households.

A good way to view most of the folks in this series is to be thankful we don't live in a society dominated by any of these almost freakishly extreme families.

(4* because of the level of fascination provided. This is especially true in viewing how almost every one of the women, as well as their husbands, profess to have virtually every answer and piece of advice necessary to alter their counterparts' lives and families.)


That this show is renewed once much less that it ever got on air at all is yet another example of how dumb our country has become. This kind of gutter garbage does nothing for the human experience and is insulting. I'm not saying everything on TV has to have a moral center or be totally educational, but good lord, do we really have to sink this low? I hope parents are not letting their children watch this. If they are they should be hauled in front of a court for child abuse. This show does nothing but play to the dumbest in all of us. It's like waiting for a car wreck. It's worst than that. The only logical next step to is televise executions. Actually, on second thought, let's not. That would probably be the most popular show on TV and spawn spin offs like "Who wants to be an executioner?"


I saw this movie, and I use that term VERY loosely, in one of my film classes. As an example of what NOT TO DO. LAND OF THE COLLEGE PROPHETS is bad. Really, REALLY BAD. And not a "fun bad", either. Painful, angry, why-are-you-making-me- watch-this-type of bad.

Where do I begin? It claims to be directed by about eight different people and it shows. It also shows that not a one of them ever went to school, either. Very simple, first day, Film School 101 rules are completely ignored and it shows off that the people doing the thing are nothing short of amateur and the whole thing really comes across as a public-access show.

It claims to have a script, but can't see how. The story, another term that I use very loosely, is all over the place and extremely ponderous. It tries like the dickens to tell the story of the world coming to an end on some Lucas-Spielberg-Jackson-type scale. Except no one told the rest of the town- traffic runs as normal, college students wander freely during the numerous badly choreographed fights between the (cough) heroes and assorted grade-z hell-spawn. Attention to any kind of believable detail is simply non-existent.

And I certainly don't want to hear about this thing had no budget. EVIL DEAD had no budget. DEAD ALIVE had no budget. HALLOWEEN had no budget. Need I continue? Having no money is simply no excuse for making something as purely DREADFUL as LAND OF THE COLLEGE PROPHETS. If even the slightest bit of care was given to this thing when it was in idea phase instead of the "hey, mommy, look at me! I'm making a movie!" phase, then maybe, just MAYBE, something even remotely watchable could have come out the "Hale Manor Collective"'s efforts. Instead, a bad idea was made even worse by being made.

Whatever you do, AVOID THIS MOVIE. Do not believe a single positive review about it (as they obviously are coming from the less-than-no-talent hacks that were involved with this turkey), because anyone with DNA will be not only bored to tears by this thing, but downright insulted.


Wow. The DV revolution has spawned this. Digital Film Tree's Founder Ramy Katrib stated the other night while presenting that the DV revolution has done nothing but put powerful creative tools in the hands of mediocre to horrible story tellers. I present to you Exhibit #1: Land of the College Prophets. I applaud the effort of the young digital movie makers as the effort to produce a feature length project is not an easy thing to do. Especially when there is little to no money. That being said, the focus of said projects should be on dynamic story telling and rich character driven dialog. Keep the scope of the project within reasonable limits. This would include not attempting a large scale sci-fi/horror movie without the means to get it to viewable standards. One scene that springs to mind is the "climactic battle" on the front lawn of Tunxis Community College. Here we have "scary monsters" in broad daylight, with college students milling to and from class unfazed by the oncoming holocaust. This scene sums up the trouble with handing newbies cameras and computers. Jeff Goldblum's line from Jurassic Park springs to mind, "Just because you could, doesn't mean you should". I could go on and on pulling each scene apart as common mistakes are made over & over such as 180 rule breaks for no reason, mismatched misenscene, mismatched eyelines, and no match action edits. My advice to the young "filmmakers" is to get into some kind of storytelling school, tighten your aesthetic approaches, and put Adobe Aftereffects away.


This is one of those movies that looks promising. But it really lets that promise down. It's neither good or bad good (in the campy sense), merely very very boring. And that's how a film really fails.

The apparent aim was to make a campy sort of movie - you have a cast of ridiculous characters seemingly out of various animated comedies like Sealab, King of the Hill and possibly South Park. You have one bald guy who likes to dress like a priest, another guy who wears army fatigues (and looks like the guy who mutters from King of the Hill), a goofy Science Teacher, another bald guy who wears a deck of cards on his arm.

The trouble is, none of the concepts really works. All of the actors play their roles too tightly, and it comes off as more pretentious than anything else. The only exception would be the campus cop leader.

The plot apparently revolves around a romantic dispute over a guy in drag. This was when I started putting the DVD player on "x4". Nothing much happens, but near the end we get sort of a surreal sort of fight with a guy painted blue and wearing a helmet and everyone else.


This is the worst movie we've ever rented for our kids. We kept watching to see if it would eventually get better, but were disappointed. We can put up with bad behavior by main characters in a kids' movie as long as at least some of them learn their lessons and make changes. However, this never happens, except in reverse - a mother who seems to have the right values loses them. Even the baseball scenes were sub-par, though our 5-year-old "heavy hitter" did enjoy them. Thankfully, neither of our kids ever wants to see the movie again. If you want a GREAT baseball film suitable for the family, check out "The Rookie," with Dennis Quaid. Not only is it a great movie, it is very faithful to the true story upon which it is based. Our whole family loved the movie and it may soon be found on our purchased video shelf. Avoid "Perfect Game" like the plague!


Would it have killed the makers of this movie to even attempt to do something worthwhile? This is a kids' baseball movie that has been done too many times already.

The setup: The "evil" coach Bobby Geiser (Patrick Duffy) has won eight consecutive local Little League Championships and all the other coaches are jealous of him. In order to try and even the playing field, Geiser agrees to allow a lot of kids who aren't very good at baseball to be on his team. Our hero, 10 year old Kanin, is going to be on Coach Geiser's team this year. So what's the problem? To be honest, I'm really not sure. The kids' parents flip out when they find out that the coach has been holding extra practices for his good players in order to make sure they stay sharp.

This is where the movie nosedives even further. The parents decide to get rid of the coach and all of the good players on their team. Then they tell their kids that they should just cancel the rest of their season and not even play anymore. It's twisted logic which I can't understand. Why make your kids stop playing a sport they love simply because the coach was holding extra practices? Just goes to show you how parents are ruining youth sports programs these days...even in the movies!

Anyway, I won't spoil how things turn out but I need to get one more gripe off of my chest. In several scenes, the baseball used during the games is not real. It is an extremely poor computer special effect. Has the film industry sunk so low that they can't have a baseball movie using a real baseball? Why use CGI when you don't even have to? This movie has no soul. 1/10


Sadly, I found that this film seriously outstayed its interest; it starts off well with an intriguing concept, that of the lone survivor in a mysteriously abandoned city, and develops this into a socio-comic commentary on the worthlessness of money and valuables in unlimited supply, compared to the real necessities of life. The handful of survivors who find each other become bored of their effortless scroungers' existence and start quarrelling among themselves -- saved only by the arrival of the long-awaited signal from the outside world.

Thus far, thus John Wyndham (there are strong parallels here with the novel "The Day of the Triffids"). This silent film is somewhat heavy on its use of intertitles (which do inevitably suffer in translation), is not especially distinguished in its acting and as a comedy not particularly funny. But, having explained away preceding events by invoking a mad professor and then wound up his story by an 'and then they all went back to their previous lives' scene, the film-maker then commits the cardinal error of pressing the reset button -- or in this case, throwing the freeze-ray switch yet again. And again.

We get a whole new segment of story driven by the financial travails of only two of the previous five characters, who can't face being poor after having had the whole city to glean from and decide to freeze everybody again so that they can rob them. Only the professor notices, so he reverses the switch yet again... demonstrates to his disbelieving colleague, jerking everybody on and off... the world 'compensates' by being cranked extra fast, Keystone-fashion... and the whole thing descends into slapdash tedium of a fairly primitive kind, which has ceased some time earlier to be entertaining. More or less the entirety of the second half of the film could have been cut (from the young couple parting outside the Eiffel Tower straight to the finding of the ring), and only to its improvement.

This film was shown in a double-bill with Buster Keaton's "Three Ages", a film shot in the same year and similarly using camera trickery (what must be one of the earliest animated cartoon sequences featuring a live actor). The comparison was not at all to the favour of "Paris qui dort", alas, which dragged terribly and came across as much more wordy and primitive; it's not entirely fair to judge it against an action comedy, but it is in the frenetic action sequences that this film is the weakest. One gets the impression that the director had just run out of ideas. By the ending of the film I was seriously bored; the Keaton, despite a poor print, woke up the audience (in at least one case, literally) like a shot.


Basically, It was like a pretty good movie with a really bad ending. The problem with the main event is that there is a tradition with Wrestlemania where the good guys win in the end. Why they had to change it for this one, I have no idea. This was the perfect chance to give Mick Foley the send-off he deserved. He could've retired as WWF champion. But what happened? Triple H wins the match with a screw job finish. The match itself had some good points, like the final teaming of the Rock and Sock Connection. Aside from that, the Main sucked!

The undercard went from decent to classic. I am primarily referring to the first three-way tag ladder match between the Dudley's, Edge and Christian, and The Hardy's. Spectacular.

You can also throw in the triple threat, double title match featuring Benoit, Jericho, and Angle. It was great to see Benoit and Jericho as champions by the end of that match. And yes, I know Benoit was a heel in that one, but Vince was an idiot to make him one in the first place.

Of course, Vince being an idiot might explain the crappy ratings they've had over the past year or so.


I think that this particular Wrestlemania was a waste of my time and money ordering it on PPV. The worst match was the main event. It wasn't setup well and the story line was horrible. Out of all the Wrestlemania's, I rate this as my least favorite. But of course, that's only "my" opinion.


A very mediocore show. HHH winning really sucked because WrestleMania is supposed to be a "Make the fans go home happy" show.

Everything else was hit or miss Mildly recommended


I love short films and short animations, so I really was expecting to enjoy this film far more than I did. That's because most of the animations weren't at all funny and they almost always relied on scatological humor or nudity. In a rare few cases, such as Bill Plympton's HOW TO MAKE LOVE TO A WOMAN, the crudity was necessary for the jokes and it worked well. In most cases, though, it was just potty humor that even 6th graders would find too juvenile to merit watching.

If you are looking for collections of short animations, I recommend you watch the ANIMATION SHOW DVDs. While many of the cartoons fall flat, far fewer do and you also don't need to feel ashamed if your kids decide to watch it with you. With this Spike and Mike collection, this definitely isn't the case!


If poo is all you care about, this might be your thing. Otherwise, thumbs down. I would only care about "Humping Dog" and the "Wrong Hole" just because they are not about poo (well, about `same old in-out') but it's not worth getting for just 2 titles.


yes, worse than anaconda.

consists of mostly pointless and usually very violent animations. revels in pointless grossouts -- not grossouts that have a point and humor, but for the sake of the grossout. same for the ubiquitous violence -- no point, no reason, no humor, just because animation can do it. i went with high hopes of good entertainment, but I didn't laugh once -- and I held out for almost an hour hoping.

don't do it.


As no one has yet commented on this piece of trash I think it is my civic duty to warn people not to be tempted by the title into watching this. It is not a horror movie. There is no tension, no frights and very little gore, and that is badly done. I know Ulli Lommel has produced some of worst movies in history but this surpasses even those god awful efforts. Maybe Lommel's parents are to blame for encouraging him or maybe he's just some spoilt rich kid with more money than sense but either way, he should stop making films immediately. I believe the movie is taken from a book called "Diary of a Cannibal". I'm intrigued enough by the awfulness of the film to seek out this book and see if it is better. It must be.The entire movie is made up of flashbacks that are, more often than not, repeated over and over. The whole thing looks like it was shot through the bottom of a jam jar and the main actors do nothing of consequence throughout the whole turgid 80 minutes or so. If somebody offers "Cannibal" to you for free, don't take it. Just walk away because you will, most surely, regret the experience for the rest of your life.


Not only is it a horrible movie, but it seems like the Director approves of the whole situation. It seemed like they made the Male cop out to be a jerk for saying they were sick, as opposed to it being for "love". Come on man, it's sick! You're not together forever, you're not "one". The guys dead, you just ate his heart and liver! The relationship is pretty much over when his severed head is sitting on the table. (thats not a spoiler, it tells you what happens on the back of the DVD) "Cannibalism is misunderstood". Are you kidding me? It's like ignorance claiming genius....ugh....The thing that makes me sick is that the movie appears to be trying to get you to sympathize with the twisted crap. I don't know man. The only movie I've seen worse than this is "Final Days", the movie based on the last days before Kurt Cobain's suicide. It's a close call though.


I just HAVE to write a comment of what I'm experiencing right now. I am shocked by what I just saw, and not because of the contents, but by the way they were brought to the screen.

I remember the movie's story being on the news, as it is based on actual events. Unfortunately, there is hardly anything left of the true story, and it is turned into a vague 'romance' story.

The filming, editing, acting and effects in this movie are so terrible, that it is a horror movie in the fact that it is simply horrific. Don't let anybody tell you this movie is good, they are lying. It looks like a project of a starting film student, who is about to be kicked out for lack of talent.

The best example to the sadness of this attempt at film, is when the headless body is shown. In the place where the head would be is a black block that seems to be drawn on the image in Microsoft Paint! I'm going to go back to the video store tomorrow and not ask for my money back. I'm going to ask them to remove this DVD from their assortment. My 3 euro probably doubled the amount of money they paid for it to begin with.


You know "women's" pictures of old - tragic love stories, soft focus camera work, weepy scores. Well, the tradition is alive and well in this boring tale from Ulli Lommel. Based on a true story of a man who ate another man because he met on the internet (was it consensual? was it murder?), "Diary of a Cannibal" trades the details to modern California love. It tries to combine horror and romance, but it just falls flat on both counts.

As a horror film, it's too slow and not gory enough, plus it gives all the money shots too early. We know what's going to happen and see the same shots over and over again. The way the story is structured, the girl isn't driven to madness or secretly already mad. She just does what she does and seems bored with the whole deal.

As a romance, it's too gory and disturbing, plus the romance part really isn't shown well. They meet and they're both relieved the other is cute and walk around on the shore and BLAMMO! that means love. There's just no resonance to it.

A silly subplot/twist also fails, as does the irritating "flashback" way the story is told. The performances are also pretty terrible, with the exception of Jillian Swanson who does a nice job as Noelle. And dig the epilogue with the faux Mulder and Scully who are interrogating her! Romance and horror can work - just look at "Dellamorte Dellamore" or even "Return of the Living Dead 3." Just don't look at "Diary of a Cannibal."


Where to begin. Firstly I would like to point out that the "spoiler alert" will spoil nothing as it was already spoiled when it was made.

SUMMARY Overall this movie is defiantly NOT WORTH IT! I would NEVER watch it again. I would NEVER recommend it to anyone either. DO NOT be fooled by the tittle or cover.

PLOT This movie is not entirely bad. I think the last comment wrote on this said it was based on a book. I'm not too sure about that but I do like the idea of the film. It was a good storyline. Although it seemed to me like the film would have only run for about 40 minutes but they decided that instead of adding more on they have just drag everything out. There was little dialog through the film and when there was you almost wish there wasn't. The whole film was almost like a bunch of kids had done it. You can't really blame the actors when the actual script is that bad.

CAMERA QUALITY As soon as the movie starts you can tell it was not properly done. The filming quality was very poor. The movie dragged on and on. Considering it only runs for 80 minutes it feels a lot longer then that.

GORE When I picked up the DVD the title and the cover was rather catchy. I love gory movies and I am interested in cannibalism. I was extremely disappointed to find that the movie merely touches cannibalism and the gore was Extremely fake! The "blood" has literally stuck to her face. It was way too thick and didn't even drip. The body parts were also very fake. My boyfriend works on films, particularly war movies so its not like I have no clue what I am on about. I've seen a lot of blood work they have done and it is so much better then this. Where to begin.


The only interesting part of this movie was the true story which inspired it, however, even that is lost in a never ending parade of cuts, fades and pointless scenes. There are certain unspoken rules about the appropriate number of scenes, the repeated use of single scenes and timing that Ulli Lommel (Director) either doesn't understand or chooses (unfortunately) not to obey. The characters are whisper thin, and the story almost absent. Top this off with ultra low budget digital film quality, poor acting and a hollow cliché of a soundtrack. Unless you really just enjoy bad films, there is no reason whatsoever for me to recommend this to you. This movie, like Lollels other work, is a waste of time, money and space.


I honestly watched this movie from beginning to end, I had the worst headache of my life and even watching Ulli Lommel movies couldn't make me feel worse. I can honestly say the only plus to this movie was that there was hardly no dialog, because the acting wasn't even worthy of being called acting.

The story and characters are extremely unrealistic, this movie was inspired by the man advertising on internet to eat somebody and getting a response. Lommel tries to apply this on a seemingly normal 16 year old girl. The guy writes an advertisement on the internet "I want a girlfriend who is ready to do the ultimate sacrifice" and she responds. No dialog is spoken, so it's hard to say what they see in each other, but he seems like a nice guy. Out of the blue one day he says "I want you to eat my heart" and tries to justify it, she, I guess, says she dosen't like it and dosen't want to see him anymore (or they should not see each other for a while), but somehow he convinces her to kill him and eat his heart, why is never explained, neither is why he believes in this act.

Lommel's explanation, I guess, is after the girl has killed the guy she puts the heart, liver and something more on a grill and walks around, her "father" has dialog... he died from *some* disease and has written her letters. One of the letters is "when you meet the perfect guy you should do anything to make him happy." Honestly, that is not how you reason to eat anybody. But honestly, this is a Lommel movie, he obviously lacks socials skills and don't even know what people say to each other - hence the lack of dialog.

Was this movie scary? No. The actual killing isn't very graphic, you see her stab into nothingness and they show a wound. That's about it. Was there suspense? No. Did this movie make any sense? No. Was this a waste of time? yes.

Honestly, you learn nothing about cannibalism, the characters are unrealistic and the movie is mind-numbing boring.


I got this movie from the $1 section at my local video rental store. I'm sorry that I even spent that much on this movie. I actually turned the movie right off after about 20 minutes...and I've never done that with ANY other movie. It seriously looks like some man just took his home video camera and filmed two kids staring at each other in a van and then every once in a while threw in a clip of a shiny knife with blood. Oh my! I almost WANT people to watch this movie...just to seriously see how horrible it is. It's almost comical. But I wouldn't do it, that's about an hour and a half of your life you'll never get back.


this movie is without a doubt the worst thing god could ever have let happen. he should have struck the creator of this horrible, terrible sequence of b u l l s h * t with lightning or something. honestly, god. this piece of utter s h * t cannot be called a movie. when i rented it, i thought it was some kind of joke. words simply cannot express my outright **disgust** with all things associated with this film. the actors were pathetic and s h i t t y. i just... i don't even know. does it even have a plot? or a point? the music is pretty f u c k i n g torturous. the blood looked like watered-down grape jelly. the chick's nipples were violet. what is the point of this god-awful, damned to hell piece of s h i t. i hate everything. this movie ruined my life. i only voted it a "1" because there was no **f u c k i n g zero** option. it was not worth the five dollar budget.


After the Walt Disney characters and The Muppets, it was the turn of the Looney Tunes stable to tackle the popular Yuletide tale revolving around the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge; coming so late in the game (i.e. way past the Warners Animation Studios' prime), it is no surprise that this emerges as the least effective rendition of all! The grouchy Daffy Duck is the natural choice for Scrooge: with the premise updated to modern times, many of the familiar Looney Tunes figures turn up  atypically  as submissive employees in Daffy's department store (that said, Bugs Bunny is his usual independent self, though he serves no particular function here except to further harass Daffy!). On the other hand, Porky stands in for Bob Cratchit, Sylvester is "Jacob Marley" and, as the Christmas Ghosts, we have Granny and Tweety(!), Yosemite Sam and the Tasmanian Devil. Even at a mere 46 minutes, the film is mostly a drag  since the comedy is generally forced, thus unfunny, and the quality of the animation extremely poor when compared to the dazzling imagination displayed by the form in its heyday.


How many studios have to remake the "Scrooge" tale, but with different characters playing the parts? Disney did it, of course, but it was flat and quite unentertaining to say the least. So Warner Brothers decides to do it as well. It was better, but it still wasn't as good as a Hollywood remake could do.

The Daffy Duck spin with the duck jokes and Taz had little laughs. I know there was a chance it could have been good, given it had good lines. Instead, all we got was below average Warner toon interpretations. Yes, going back to Mars for Christmas is a nice little touch, but it doesn't have the same value as Billy Murray going crazy in "Scrooged".

It could have been done better. But it wasn't as bad as the Disney version. "C-"


I can't agree with the many commentators who found this a great movie. It isn't.

I think many viewers confuse Wilberforce the man with the movie.

I have nothing but admiration for Wilberforce, a man with a powerful moral vision and great determination, who spent 15 years persuading his fellow parliamentarians to do the right thing and abolish the slave trade.

The movie does not measure up to the man.

The movie is nothing but a collection of pretty period scenes and idiosyncratic actions. None of the characters are developed in any depth. There is not a strong story line, moving inexorably from the beginning to the end of the sage. The story, such as it is, hops confusingly back and forth in time, to no particular purpose. There are scatterings of little vignettes, which add nothing. The script is dreadful.

The acting is fine, if frequently overdone. I particularly enjoyed the portrayal of Pitt the Younger.

The costuming, art direction and photography are fine, but do not redeem the film.

Too bad. Wilberforce deserves better.


The role of William Wilberforce in the abolition of the slave trade is an important one. I was interested in seeing a dramatization of the life of this important historical character and of the period in which he lived.

First, regarding the movie: it is a well acted period piece. It effectively shows many of the conventions of the period though it does so through a familiar stilted manner--in the way that an 18th and early 19th century gentleman of privileged means would want one to portray his or her time. The actors are all first-rate and they play their roles with both sensitivity and insight. The screenplay is somewhat confusing since the settings of the flashbacks in the movie are not sufficiently different between the periods to provide the sharp contrast that aid the viewer in following the story. They are also somewhat unnecessary since they are based on Wilberforce narrating his life while pursuing a late-life romance that never existed in reality. More on this to follow.

Now for the history, which is nearly non-existent. Mr. William Wilberforce was one of many abolitionists instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade, this much is true, and his lifetime commitment to his cause is one from which to draw lessons. Unfortunately any lessons that the movie can hope to tease from the history is purely fictional. Mr. Wilberforce befriended but was not in the same party of William Pitt, who was to be Prime Minister. He was an independent MP and his work habits considered poor. There is no evidence that Pitt ever offered him a place in his government though Wilberforce allied himself with his friend. He went through a type of religious conversion after traveling through Europe in 1784, not spontaneously as a result of study. His opposition to the slave trade did not come from a childhood friendship with John Newton but after meeting James Ramsay in 1783. He consulted Newton later in life after his activism. He did not become completely committed to the cause until 1786 after some urging by the abolitionist society known as the Testonites. He supported Pitt during the War with France in the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the infamous "Gagging Bills" that outlawed public gatherings of greater than 50 people. He did not marry a woman who followed his career and was herself an activist. His wife was, indeed, Barbara Ann Spooner but she displayed little interest in Wilberforce's political activities, tending herself to bearing him six children in less than 10 years and tending to his failing health later in life. They were married in 1797.

While Wilberforce's contribution to the abolition of the slave trade is undeniable there are others whose commitment and sacrifice was just as great or greater, such as Thomas Clarkson and others. The movie, therefore, comes off as a bit of anti-historical propaganda and, so, being a historical fiction of sorts, in the final analysis fails.


In theory, it's a great idea for a black comedy: a school-kid calls a prostitute while his parents are away, and ends up running a brothel. But in truth 'Risky Business' is not so comic (the pace is too slow), and not even very black: the hookers are so sweet that they don't even ask for the money beforehand, and even their pimp gets up to nothing worse than stealing a bit of furniture. In fact, films like 'American Pie', which may be thought of as more modern equivalent of this 1980s movie, are (for good or bad) massively more vulgar and direct when it comes to presenting sex. What they have in common is a certain kind of teenage-wish-fulfilment vibe. This film, as befits its age, also features a capitalist morality and the oddly unattractive (to contemporary eyes) fashions of its times. The soundtrack, however, is more 1960s than 1980s, for reasons that are hard to fathom. Add in some fairly wooden acting, and the fact that a certain sort of teenage boy (such as those in this movie) is not the easiest type of character for others to sympathise with, and the result is more tiresome than fun or telling. But it's odd how a film about prostitution can make one feel nostalgic for a gentler age of cinema than the one we have now.


Joel is supposedly the "good son" - straight-laced, dull but an average guy with implied moral values that erode throughout the film.

Initially, you get the impression that he needs to let loose a little, but of course things get out of hand.

The overly-trusting parents are cardboard morons, his wacky friends show more personality in one line than he can muster throughout the movie - no, dancing around in your BVDs does NOT constitute a personality- and Chewbacca De Mornay's hooker character is not quite ugly or crusty enough to be remotely believable.

Yeah, I realize Risky Business is trying to be over-the-top, but watching a really boring Tom Cruise character crumble into moral decay after a long sequence of idiotic events doesn't do much for me.


This movie explain to me why American culture considered to be like rock eroding from Chinese water torture.

Stupid American kid fool around with hooker, he get what he deserve! He lucky he only get house ripped off, he still have his privates!

Midget actor Tom Cruise make lousy stripper, I laugh at his tighty-whiteys.

Girl who play hooker look too young to be crack user. Hookers not look like that, not ones teenage boy can afford.

Pimp chase him, threaten him,it serve him right! He an idiot!

Why I supposed to care if parents find out? Then they can cane him hard with stick, teach brat a lesson!

Good American solution to problem:

He throw orgy, charge money! More hooker-girls too pretty to make sex with pimply high school boys!

Better ending is he get caught, see how long smirk lasts in prison bathroom!


The upside to being a bad actor, in America, is that that the movie industry is structured as a business. And like any business there is a product they want to sell to you. In order to sell the product they need advertising, and this is where the star-system steps in. In order to sell a movie to the American target audience you need a "typical American looking" leading actor, which will be quoted like a commodity(this quote will determine the further use of him to endorse another product). And this explains why a not so good looking, next door looking guy like Tom Cruise, who can't act, gets the lead in movies. He is backed up in his performance by other, talented, not next-door material actors, but with strong personality(in this case Bronson Pinchot, Curtis Armstrong and Joe Pantoliano). The American movie business calls them "comic relief" characters, but in fact that means they are not destined to make it big in the business. Well, the only comic thing I find about all that is that luck (because the way you look is destiny) can put a bad actor on top of the pyramid. Only in America.


Kind of dated'80s sort of comedy movie.

It was cute then.

High point is TC dropping his pants, and dancing.

He was still cute back then.

This movie was Tom Cruise's claim to fame, probably still is.


The movie "RISKY Business" lack of almost everything. I saw it because a lot of people said that it was a good, perfect movie but they are so wrong.I mean just the description and all that fantasy seems so stupid. Then his parents left and all that it was not original. Then about the part where he was doing it was so stupid and pathetic. Why did they make such a pathetic film.I think his first film was so wrong, it just wrong. Then when they were having the party why the police wasn't there? Then all his stuff was gone in just a few hours when truly it takes more than a few hours to packed all of those things. Then he was paying back, like all that stuffed really coop in that small truck. The movie wasn't fun, nor dramatic, nor anything. There wasn't any soul.


Conveniently suburban prostitute, well-groomed, teeth intact? False. Primary ignorance, nothing primordial, except the sludge of wasted minutes irretrievably spent.

Pennies in a fountain were at least wishes and not pimply teenage fantasy.

Except for the water,

They don't float, just watered-down, horny whitebread tomfoolery.

Pancreatic, fumiliar scentiment. Redundant.

How do you chasm truth? You meek it; that's all. I curse the day I ever met that 8-fingered freak. The over-sized spoon; the baseball cap - it tells you he can't possibly understand.

This is your body. (dancing badly in soiled briefs and sunglasses)

This is your tombstone. (STDs and philanthropic abortions)

White picket fence hides herpes, lesions, erosion in the cloth of memory. Nothing is actual, clownish caricatures trump reason, reality. Let them rot with syphilis, so I can pretend I learned anything.


Well, isn't it wonderful to be a rich teenager, having your parents on a vacation, leaving you a big house, a car and all the money you can spend? Isn't it nice to have a friend who convinces you to call up a prostitute with whom you fall in love after you spent the "wild" night together? And after you've been robbed, car chased and after your dad's car ends up in a lake, there is still a good chance everything will be fine, with no serious consequences! And it does! Hey! You even get a chance to go to Princeton! You think I'm joking, right? It may sound disappointing, but this movie is a joke, it's no more than a teenage sex fantasy film, trying to have a "moral message in the background", but fails to afford one in the end. But who wants moral messages in a teenage movies anyway, right?


The movie Contagion was a well thought out story that had below average acting and corny elements. The actual plot of the movie was great. The President of the United States is shot with the ebola virus by terrorists and the disease will spread like wildfire if time runs out. By listening to that plot, one would think that suspense keep the viewer anxious throughout the whole movie. However, the acting is so bad that it is hard to take the movie seriously. In addition, there are several effects that unsuccessfully add drama. For example, the President refuses to take the antidote provided by the terrorist cause he does not believe in it, the nurse tells Dr. Landis to tell her daughter she was "the light of her life" before she dies, and randomly the screen shows what hour it is since the virus was shot into the President. None of these attempts to add drama or suspense made me hold on to the edge of my seat. The bottom line was that this movie did not reach its potential. With the story line, it could have been a great science fiction; however, the bad acting and the lack of development make this a below average film even for a science fiction.


Alright I'm almost not sure where is should start with this movie it was that bad. First of all the acting in the movie was absolutely terribly except for one minute part in the movie where Washington dies, she was the only person who showed emotion when she actually died. And other than her no one else looked like they were taking it seriously. As for the flow of the movie it was at least partly smooth, there were parts where it was choppy but it wasn't that bad. As for how believable the story line was, I'm not ashamed to say that is horrendously bad. There is no way that those secret service men wouldn't have noticed a gun barrel pointing out of the window at the beginning of the movie. Also the chance that the little boy would just happen to be a survivor is so slim that it makes it absurd and it is just obvious that it was a bad plot hole. The endingwhere do I start it was just bad. The whole love story between the doctor and the president was obviously thrown in there just to how a little side plot, and it didn't work very well at all. And just the way the president asked her to come to the white house was so corny and clichéd.


!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!!

A man shoots the US president with a dart containing an infectious agent . What a stupid premise for a film . If someone wanted the president dead why didn`t they shoot him with one of those old fashioned bullets made out of lead ? And just how easy would it be to shoot the president ? I know it`s been done in real life but you`d think the security people would have noticed the muzzle of a gun poking out of a window 30 yards away . In fact wouldn`t they have checked the buildings for snipers beforehand ?

From the start I was convinced the bad guys were going to be right wing militia types but in a shock twist it turns out the villains are an IRA man and an American woman and for once it`s not the Irishman who`s the dumb one. Boy is this woman stupid , if she was good looking she`d be a bimbo . In fact it`s impossible to take seriously the whole idea that an idiot like this would be able to engineer such a virus , especially when the script points out that not even the defence department has the resources to create such a virus .

But it gets worse ( No small feat ) when it`s revealed that ugly American woman has got an antidote to the virus ( Like I said it`s no small feat the way this film degenerates ) so Irishman phones the president to tell him if he gets $100 million the president gets the antidote . But the president turns down the offer because " The United States doesn`t negoiate with terrorists " Now let`s think about this , the president has been told his organs will slowly dissolve due to the virus and when offered something to stop this happening he turns it down on principle ! You do get the feeling this American president isn`t based on Dubya , or Clinton , or any American president , or any politician ever . It`s also difficult not to notice that in real life leaders and former leaders of the IRA , Irgun , Stern gang , EOKA , PLO , UVF and ANC have all shaken hands with the American president . Oh and don`t think that because the Irishman and Ms ugly bimbo want one hundred million big ones the president will suddenly decide they`re blackmailers and not terrorists and give them what they thereby saving his principals . No sir this is the president of the United States after all , he`d rather dissolve than give in . Luckily the villains die and the president is saved .

Sure you still want to see it ?


This is a bad, bad movie. From the first appearance of its main character, the whole thing starts to fall apart. The characters are flat and uninteresting stereotypes. The plot is banal and predictable. The acting, while not horrific, is at least bad enough to put "Contagion" in the B- or even C-movie category. And any fans of "Outbreak" will be able to see how much of this film is a blatant ripoff. There's one particular scene involving an air vent that might as well have been copied verbatim, right down to the melodramatic dialog. And for science-nerds who enjoy virus movies, the misapplied, inaccurate, wishy-washy soft science in "Contagion" is almost painful.

Still, it has some good elements. Credit where credit is due: there were some amusing parts, and I suppose there haven't been many movies that made the President of the United States seem as much like a human being as "Contagion" did (the movie also gets the prize for the closest a movie has ever come to an actual Presidential sex scene).

All in all, though, "Contagion" is a very weak movie. It's inaccurate, inauthentic, insincere, and uninspired.


When I started to watch this movie, it was immediately apparent it was not going to be of the highest quality. You may ask why I persevered and viewed the entirety of this celluloid excreta - this film is so bad, on so many levels (acting, script, plot), that one has to keep watching to find out whether the cast and crew can maintain such a ridiculously low level of quality for an entire film.

One could be forgiven for thinking that this film was a spoof - its clichéd predictable script would only need direction to the 'actors' to turn this into a true, but poor quality, spoof.

Although I have said this film is dire, I would recommend it - it's so bad, it's entertaining, however not in the same league as Edward D. Wood Jnr.


The quality of direction, acting and script made a possibly worthwhile plot into a disastrous movie. The BBC in their wisdom gave it a re-run tonight and I can't think why. It is not worth even one star. There were glaring continuity errors including (in a different sense)the fact that the previously annoyingly gabby punk kid didn't say a word during all the time he was being held loosely captive by the baddie. She (the baddie)would actually have made a great Rosa Klebb in a Bond movie, but in this film had to cope with bad lines and execrable scenes. She was so quick to plunge the needle into so many of her later victims yet she took so long in her attempt on the heroine that the lift doors open. There was a glaring continuity error with the President's tie. All-in-all not a movie worth the candle.


The movie "Contagion" was better than I thought it would be. At first before the movie started I had the feeling it would be cheesy like a horrible Sci-Fi movie. The quality of acting in this movie was not of the best of quality, the only actor's face who I knew was the dad's from the television series "Wonder Years." The actors did not say their lines with the "realness" that they should have. There were a lot of holes in the movie, for example with the president's family. They didn't exactly speculate what happened with his wife and they talked a lot about the son, but we never saw him or heard anything about him. The believability of the storyline was alright with the virus spreading through the hospital by it being airborne made somewhat sense. The ending was annoying, first with her cutting only one of the straps on the tunnel and it expanding and then when she made the last second phone call. All in all this is a movie that you watch during a boring weekend to go to sleep.


Contagion, looked at as a serious or thought-provoking film, is horrible. The storyline and the "scientific information" given in the film is implausible and for the most part false. The movie starts slow, failing attempts to replicate opening scenes of high budget science fiction films such as The Matrix, and eventually evolves into what you might expect from the average Sci-Fi channel movie with low quality acting, choppy storyline, cheap special effects, no real climax, and the sporadic cheesy line thrown in. The most annoying aspect of the entire movie is its lack of scientific facts or supporting information (that is true), such as the movie's portrayal of the virus' effects on humans. Over all this movie's concept seems to be a bit played out and parts of the movie seem awkwardly squeezed and manipulated to fit PG-13 standards, turning this potentially serious sci-fi movie into a low budget comedy.


Leaving you with a feeling as if you've just gone through a spontaneous lobotomy, "Contagion" directed by John Murlowski gives off the token aura of a made-for-TV movie. A plot shallower than a kiddie-pool and character development mirroring that of a bed-time story combine to make the perfect recipe of mediocrity. The cast starring Bruce Boxleitner and Megan Gallagher give little depth other than an awkward "chemistry" which leaves you rolling your eyes. The most notable appearance is Lin Shaye who most recently starred in Snakes on a Plane (2006) but other than this exception, the cast have seldom seen the big stage and understandably so. The most prominent feature of this movie is unarguably the low-budget feel which it gives off which one can't help but notice. While watching the movie you'll find yourself in a constant state of deja-vu. "Every breath you take could be your last." sounds like a welcoming fate as the 93 minutes pass by before you.


Contagion. I suppose that if I tried hard enough I could come up with an adequate review of this movie, but it just does not even seem worth it. Contagion is one of those movies that is so terrible that one finds themselves loving it for the sheer comedic value it holds. The special effects were shabby to say the least, and at some parts the camera work was enough to make one sick. The storyline sounds like it was written by someone with the IQ of a soap dish. The dialogue between characters was so incredibly staged and unrealistic it was as if it was being read off a prompter as the movie was being filmed. In addition, THE MILITARY CANNOT JUST BLOW UP A CIVILIAN HELICOPTER! That's the least of the unrealistic plot elements. So many parts of this movie just do not make sense. The twists and turns of the movie were terribly overdone. There were too many of them and none were even realistic. If one event occurs that defies all odds, that is fine for a movie; it adds a little "miracles are possible" feeling. However, when every other change of pace involves something that defies all odds, it gets old. Quickly. All in all, the movie was just plain bad. To try to explain it more in depth is truly not worth it. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad.


The story of the movie was not really to bad, something like that could possibly happen now or in the future. Some parts of the story were really kinda silly and didn't make much since. The story didn't flow as good as it could have. The acting was another really big part that kept the movie from being better than it was. Some of the actors actions were just not really believable and did some very odd things. This was another big factor that kept the flow of the movie from being as smooth as it could. Like I said the storyline was for the most part believable, but their were some holes in the story. Their were a lot of parts where they didn't go into enough detail so you really don't know whats going on. But overall I gave Contagion a rating of 4.


The film, "Contagion" by John Murkowski is a hilarious, stereotypical low budget product. The quality of acting was laughable to say the least. The actresses and actors' invariable use of cliché lines from past films made the plot turn sour real fast. The flow of the movie was quite choppy and irregular. It wasn't difficult to follow the movie per se, but there were numerous times in which the average viewer questioned the legitimacy and purpose of certain scenes. The movie itself had the potential to become an endearing film such as "Out Break"; however the film fell real short of making the impression the subject matter should have had on its viewers. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that you should be taking off your bio gear before leaving the quarantine room with contagious pathogens running a-muck. Similarly, it was also hard to believe that the supposed antagonist of the movie could be disposed of by a flying bungee tunnel off the roof. As creative as the ending was, it made the movie even more unbelievable and made a serious subject a very comedic one.


This movie was not only badly written but the acting could not have been worse. The only actor who was any good was the 10 year old boy, who actually had feeling when he cried. The script was not the best either. Most of the lines were very cheesy. I had to laugh to keep from hurling. The story line was not all that great or accurate. The president did not have very good security either. How could they not see the barrel sticking out of a window across the street right in front of them? I would like to think that the people protecting the president are a little smarter then that. For dealing with a level 4 hot agent the doctor was not very intelligent seeing as she touched her mouth with a gloved hand after handling the dart that contained the virus. No real doctor would ever work with any level 4 agent with out the right protective gear. There was also not a very accurate representation of what the Ebola virus can do to a person. Now I don't know that much about Ebola but I do know that it does more to your body then just give you a bloody nose and a cough. A better representation would have made this movie better. Everyone looked too good through out the movie. Plus it jumped around a lot. There were too many holes in the plot. In one scene they were standing up talking and in the next scene they were dead. Now how about that ending. No movie would be complete without the terrorist falling off of the roof after being hit with a portable tunnel, the bomb being turned off with two seconds to spare, and a bit of romance. Everyone has time to flirt when there is a hot agent that is air borne around a hospital.


Before I watched this movie, I must say I wasn't really expecting much, regarding all of the negative reviews I had read on IMDb about Contagion. And, unfortunately, I was correct in my presumptions. There is no word that can better describe this movie than RIDICULOUS. This movie is not considered a comedy; however, I don't think I stopped snickering the entire length of it. The majority of the plot was just absurdthough the theme would have made a good movie perhaps under better direction and with better actors, this creation of Contagion was not only disappointing but silly as well. The acting was horrible on behalf of every main character. None of the roles were portrayed in a believable fashion, and the dialogue was rather amusing in its unoriginality. Everything that happened in this movie was just ludicrously predictable. As a last thought, I was really disappointed that the director did not include any more blood and gore than he did; the effects of Ebola on the human body are horrifying  but all I got to see were some red warts and a nosebleed.


I recently viewed the movie Contagion and was amused by the concept of the movie. I also was amused by the extremely bad acting. I believe they made the movie in a rush. I hope that's the excuse. For example the female doctor taking care of the president vividly explained to her assistant that it was a level four virus. Which is extremely deadly. Well after telling him that she rubs her lip just after touching the level four virus. That made me laugh out loud! Also the smart mouth elusive kid. " Who'd ever thought he has the carrier of the virus." The movie was extremely predictable and poor. I don't have cable and I haven't seen a movie in a long time, but I can still recognize a poor movie and that was a prime example of a poor movie.

Quinton H.


This movie was not the greatest movie I have ever seen. This movie was below average, it had its lame acting moments and random scenes that didn't make the movie flow. The acting I think could have been a lot better, I mean one of the main characters, Dr. Landis, couldn't even cry she looked as though she was in pain with a two tears. The flow of the movie was pretty good, however; it had some random parts. The storyline I thought was believable. I only hope that someone doesn't take the movie's idea. The ending of the movie was OK, but it was predicable in my opinion of Dr. Landis and President Howard. Overall the movie was decent however it isn't a number one blockbuster. The actors and all who were involved did a very good job making this movie.


In my opinion the movie overall was just kind of embarrassingly bad. While it had some educational value that was about the only value it had. Other sci-fi movies can't even compare for example Gattaca. It's not that the movie wasn't entertaining when it was supposed to be serious, it was just trying to be too serious of a movie with a very low budget, it seemed.

The quality of acting was awful for several reasons. One it was just the actors were way to into it being really serious and stuff so it made just really easy to laugh at it. Secondly these actors obviously haven't had much experience, it just shows. The flow of the movie was alright. It made sense but it could have gone a little faster. There were some moments when it just got too long because it was supposed to be "intense" but instead it was just aggravating. The science of the movie seemed alright to me but the plausibility of something like that happening on a massive scale just doesn't seem real. It definitely could happen, like the anthrax through the mail event but it seems very unlikely to me. The ending was way too cliché. You knew that president of course was going to live and that everyone else lived happily ever after. It was just too perfect.


Contagion, a movie about the president, a scientist and an evil virus was not the best movie. The acting in this movie was just awful, from beginning to end. The script was predictable and unoriginal with over-used clichés and bad lines. The acting was not the only problem that this movie had. The movie did not flow very smoothly, there were constant scene changes and loud interruptions telling the viewer the timeline in which the movie is taking place. It was hard paying attention to storyline because the pace of the movie was so staggered and hard to follow. Not only was the story hard to follow, it also made no sense. It was never clear why the villains wanted to kill the president or who they really were. The Movie, overall, was just awful. It was the kind of movie you could rent if you wanted to see a bad movie with bad acting and terrible effects. I would say one phrase sums up the entire film: "I want my hour and a half back."


What more can I say about Contagion that hasn't been already said in other remarks? This movie makes Ghostbusters & Space Balls a work of art! Megan Gallagher is the only actor/actress in this movie that's actually believable even though Debbie Ann Thomas (Nurse Washington) was extremely good for the little she acted. Give me more Debbie Ann Thomas and less Bruce Boxleightner and this movie may actually be 5 stars. Bruce, just promise me that you'll never be acting president ever again because you reminded me a lot of Bill Clinton. The flow of the movie was actually decent though. Everything went according to plans and you could actually keep track of going on besides having mind bending confusions everywhere throughout the movie. This movie is unbelievable though. Nothing in this movie can truly happen unless pigs started flying from the sky and money grew on trees. The end of this movie was probably the worst I have ever seen in my 18 years of watching movies. It was so predictable within the first 5 minutes of the movie what was going to happen. Sometimes, the camera shots didn't flow with the other ones with different lenses. Overall, this is pretty much garbage. If the actors careers weren't over before this movie, they should be pretty much done now. If you want to watch a good movie, get Scarface, Godfather, or Anchorman, but if you want to get a good laugh from what's supposed to be a serious movie, then i suggest you give this a look.

Anthony Inangelo


The movie Contagion was a very low budget and horribly made movie. If they where not so cheap and chose to actually spend some money on some decent actors the film would not have been so bad. During the whole movie it reminded me of the movie outbreak which was actually OK and I think this movie tried to be like that. The only good actor in the whole movie was the sketchy little kid that crawled through the air vent to get every where, why couldn't he just walk? I would never recommend this movie to anyone unless you have to watch and even then I am still sorry for you. The up side to the movie Contagion is that it was actually kind of amusing at some points in the movie, and I believe that it wasn't suppose to be funny. I loved how when one of the doctors was studying the virus she started to rub her eyes and mouth with the same gloves that she was studying the virus with. This movie is not even good enough to have a chance to be played on the sci fi channel, which is bad because they play some really bad movies on there.


Contagion is the worst movie I've ever seen. I keep watching it because I just couldn't believe if was that bad. To the end of the movie it keeps getting worse. What bothers me the most is that everything in this movie is so unrealistic. Climax was the moment on which Dr. Landis saves the little boy on top of the roof by pulling some tunnel thingy which blows Miss. Ugly of the roof. It looked so amateurish and unrealistic. I could name you all the stupid things about this movie but then I would be telling you the whole movie. God, I just couldn't believe people could make such bad movies. I've seen movies with a lower budget, but non of them where such as bad as this one.


This movie was unrealistic and a little boring. For the quality of acting it was alright but you could really tell that it was a movie. I didn't feel like i was a part of the movie. The movie was real muddled some parts made since but others didn't. I really believed that this is a deadly virus. The science behind it was really true i thought. The ending you could tell the way it would end but it still had some holes. Overall this movie was a really dull and not that hard to figure out. It was a bad movie. The actors could have done a better job on the reality of the movie. They didn't act as if the really liked the movies background. They also seemed as if they wanted more of the money instead of really liking the movie.


**Spoiler*** Holy cow that movie was so sad. The acting was horrible, the editing was sloppy, the story did not flow, and well no one would really believe that could happen. The only good acting that happened was when Nurse Washington knew she was going to die and just had to make her loss felt. The editing in this movie was horrid. In the very beginning we see the president being shot with a dart then the next we see woman talking on her cell phone. I thought someone had taped another movie over the movie I had started to watch. The movie was a mess mostly because of the subplot they tried to have going on, which involved a romantic interest between the virologist and the president. The virologist gets infected with virus and does not have to wear the containment suit, and to that she says "Well now I can do this" to the president. Not that, that was bad enough the story line was not even believable. The whole thing with the virus being airborne and then the general cuts a hole in the containment shield which contaminates the whole area outside of the hospital. Then the brilliant general decides to blow up the hospital because then the virus would be gone. But really what would happen is the airborne virus would then be able to travel farther because the bomb disperses particles over the area. also the ending was abominable with only two minutes before the bomb goes the doctor must find the little boy with the cure, kill the villain, and inform the general that she has the cure. Which she does just two seconds before the bomb explodes.


Spoiler****Holy cow that movie was so sad. The acting was horrible, the editing was sloppy, the story did not flow, and well no one would really believe that could happen. The only good acting that happened was when Nurse Washington knew she was going to die and just had to make her loss felt. The editing in this movie was horrid. In the very beginning we see the president being shot with a dart then the next we see a woman talking on her cell phone. I thought someone had taped another movie over the movie I had started to watch. The movie was a mess mostly because of the subplot they tried to have going on, which involved a romantic interest between the virologist and the president. The virologist gets infected with the virus and does not have to wear the containment suit, and to that she says 'Well now I can do this' to the president. Not that, that was bad enough the story line was not even believable. The whole thing with the virus being airborne and then the general cutting a hole in the containment shield which contaminates the whole area outside of the hospital. Then the brilliant general decides to blow up the hospital because then the virus would be gone. But what really would happen is the airborne virus would then be able to travel farther because the bomb disperses particles over the area. Also the ending was abominable with only two minutes before the bomb goes the doctor has to find the little boy with the cure, kill the villain, and inform the general that she has the cure. With only two seconds to spare she tells the general that she has the boy and all he has to do to turn off the bomb is push one button while it took at least three to set the bomb.


This movie was very cheesy. The movie opens with a scene where the president gets shot in the neck with a dart full of the Ebola virus. It was wicked lame; the sniper guy shoots the president from the second floor of a building across the street. There were 2 things really bad about that. First, the secret service would have noticed the barrel of a gun sticking out of a window. Second, the shooter was at such a close range that he didn't even need to use a sniper riffle. There were many holes in the plot also, like how did the orphan kid survive the Ebola virus in the first place, and why did that crazy doctor lady fake her death? Also there is the huge coincidence that the only person who survived the Ebola virus in Uganda (the orphan) who is also the only person whose blood can be used to make a cure, miraculously is at the hospital where the breakout of the virus occurs. The movie just ends too, there isn't a scene where it shows the antidote being made, all of a sudden everyone is just healed. Overall I thought that it was a terrible movie, although I did laugh at several different points because of it being so absurd.


The movie Contagion was kind of disappointing in that I thought it would be have a better story line. The acting was not very good, some parts were believable but other times it was so just fake! You didn't really feel as if they were living this like it was happening. The flow of the movie was really choppy. The scenes would jump really ahead and you had to just assume things had happened because the story didn't tell you. The storyline was very sorry, this could have happened but a lot of the things that happened is defiantly not how the scientists would have handled it. The bomb would have just pushed the disease further out so that would have never happened. The scientist would have acted a lot more cautious. The ending was just how a normal movie would end, the bad guy dies and of course everyone is saved.


I thought the movie was ridiculous. I can understand why Russell Manzatt hasn't written a movie script since 2001. It's like he came up with an amazing dilemma and just couldn't figure out an interesting way to solve it.

A perfect plan right? A physco woman plotting revenge on the president is fortunate enough to slip pass the amazing security of the United State's Secret Service, with just a sniper from a building 50 feet away (amazing huh?), and infect him with an advanced form of the Ebola virus. But all her plans are ruined because of a little boy who is always sneaking around the hospital. And it's not as though this kid accidentally discovers her plan or anything like that, oh nohe just happens to be the only known survivor (other than the physco lady) of this strain of virus in the whole world. The world is so incredibly fortunate to have that kid in the hospital at just that right time. His white blood cells save the day great story? There were a lot of subplots within the story that were just weak. Dr. Landis's obsession with her work that inevitably ruins her social life could have been more developed. Her phone's ringing constantly in the beginning and for two days not a single call until the very end when she's walking away from the hospital. And at that time she decides that living a life is more important than work but where was that 'drive' during the rest of the movie? I don't know. It was a decent idea for a movie, just poorly written.


As I sat down to watch "Contagion", I hoped that the movie wasn't going to be a complete and utter waste of my time. My hopes were not only dashed, but they were also horrifically bludgeoned to death by a blunt club.

I found the acting to be quite over-dramatic and at some points forced.

Their performances were about as novice as a 13 year old boy trying to remove his girlfriend's bra. I am actually being very kind in my criticisms.

I find that when a movie is poorly written no manner of great acting can save it, not that there was any great acting in "Contagion." The writing and dialogue were stilted and hackneyed. This movie explains why the writer hasn't done anything after writing it. There was no believability in the storyline at some points. There were more holes in the storyline than on a small town's main street. There was no connection or storyline between the climax of the movie and the denouement. It was like they had been running out of money around the end so they had to quickly end the movie.

The science in the movie was deplorable. I believe that if your going to write a movie involving science that you should at least get information from a reliable source to back your writing. I know that not all movies are 100% scientifically correct, but at least make an actual attempt to be somewhat realistic. Like how the intelligent and ,of course, beautiful virus doctor took the dying nurse's locket to give to the nurse's daughter, and she didn't even disinfect it or keep it in the quaranteed area.

I advise that no one should ever view this movie again, because it is an insult to cinema and all we hold dear about movies. I give this movie a F minus (which is saying a lot for the movie). Any movie that needs an overly precocious and mischievous child actor(how nauseatingly Hollywood) to make people warm up to the movie should never be seen.

Alison H.


Amick makes a solid centerpiece as she runs from tree to tree and pillar to post in this lame drama about an insurance investigator who goes deep into a Canadian forest to retrieve $12 million from a downed aircraft...armed with her lipstick and assorted cosmetics. "The Hunted", just another of a zillion or so people-hunting-people flicks, is trite, simple minded, predictable, and full of plotholes. An okay shoot, the story fails early on urging the thumb to inch toward the fast-forward button. Passable and forgettable. (D+)


I really tried to like this film - an excellent ensemble cast and technically well-shot, however the addition of the US scenes (credited as being shot in Kentucky) appeared to be stuck on simply to provide US 'appeal'. There appeared to be no sophistication of the plot - and it simply boils down to; Jocket gets cancer, his horse tears a ligament and may be put down. Therapy for both before eventual recovery, and both win the Grand National at Aintree. Even Edward Woodward didn't appear to be overstretching himself, and whether you could believe John Hurt as a successful jockey with his size of frame requires a massive leap of faith. It just hasn't stood the test of time, and it's re-release on DVD may gain a few extra viewers, but if there's a car to wash or dog to walk, your time may be better spent doing these task instead.


Of the 30 or so Hitchcock films I've seen so far, this was by far my least favorite. It has some rare Hitchcock touches, as with the superimposed "candidates" in the chair (I loved it when Minta sat down to take their place). Overall I found it predictable and boring, and entertaining only in spots. I knew pretty much exactly what was going to happen as soon as they started making the list.

Still, it serves as a window into the world of 70+ years ago, and is an interesting glimpse into the early career of the greatest director who has ever lived.


I do understand the social importance of this film. It is refreshing to see this period of film-making tell a novel story where the lead characters are black and involved in a romantic plot line. I get it. That being said, the screenplay is over the top and heavy-handed; clubbing us over the head with the sentiment of "See, blacks are cool, suave, and sophisticated." As a result, the plot is flimsy, awkward, and often confusing. We are expected to follow the story without ever really getting to know any of the characters, again with way too much emphasis on the situation. And, sorry to say, the acting is somewhat tragic. A weak performance by the BRILLIANT Poitier and Abbey Lincoln is beautiful but boring and flat. Weird direction also accompanies the players; odd angles and points of view that only distract. Beau Bridges turns in the most interesting performance and does the best he can do with what he is given; specifically the nonsensical monologue he is given at the end of the film. The most interesting thing about the film is that it does give us a peek into the somewhat decadent and experimental social aspects of 60's nightlife. The scene in the club is very intriguing!


I am amazed that so many people on this forum rate this movie as the pan-ultimate film regarding the 'Beat generation'. One comment even goes as far to state that "to a Kerouac/Cassady fan and fan of that era ( late 40s early 50s ) this is pure gold".

Why, I wonder. Because as far as a depiction of reality goes (and reading the raving messages on this forum to many the essence of this film is a fair picture of what actually took place), this film is a travesty if ever there was one. In my files I have (the translation of) an article written by Kenneth Turan in 1979 which contains an interview with the then 55 year old Carolyn Cassady. She says that when she first read the script (by John Byrum), she was taken aback by the untruthfulness's of it. Facts were distorted, characters twisted, and reading some of the dialogues, she said to herself: come off it, this is a sham! However, she was paid 70.000 dollars plus 2,5 percent of the nett turnover, which was as good deal as she might have expected, and soon enough she took to the script, false as it may have been. And why? "If this had been my real life, I'd have been satisfied with it". Also, she loves what Sissy Spaceck did with her part: "I am the true heroin of the story, what more could one want?" So much for character.

Interestingly, Alan Ginsberg refused to cooperate with the film and forbade the producer even to use his name or quote from his poetry. So the Alan Ginsberg character in the movie is called Ira Streiker.

I am 60 years old and read On the Road for the first time in 1969. Last month, forty years later, I read it again. It was a weird experience... Kerouac's prose is baffling, he truly was a great writer, but the experiences he describes in On the Road have no meaning whatsoever. Actually, Neal Cassady is a low life (Kerouac more than once refers to him as "a rat"). And no biopic can change that.


ej's kung-fu capsule review for films of the chop-socky old-school -

1. basic plot type - fantasy comedy, supernatural-'fu

2. plot construction - confusing

3. dramatic - no

4. funny - tries to be, but fails

5. dialog - ridiculous

6. cast performance - poor

7. crew performance - poor

8. amount of fighting - appears to be lots

9. quality of fighting - bad; loses interest

10. special any cast or crew notes - billy chong's worst movie ever, and he plays an unlikeable character; in fact, there are no likable characters in this film; the only thing of historical interest here is the introduction of Japanese anime references into an old-school chop-socky

11. big positive - none

12. big negative - it was ever made

bottom-line - who should see this movie - kung-fu completists only


I just finished watching this on late night television and I am in awe. I mean, I have seen a few TV movies in my day, but this one almost comes across like a bad satire of TV movies. It is bad in just about every way imaginable.

The music is pretentious, the editing bears the mark of a first year film student, and the acting is horrifyingly bad. At some points this movie heads off following Andrew Cunanan in aimless directionless scenes. It has the characters fighting in swearing fits that come off like children learning the "f-word" for the first time. And every scene, particularly those with the actor playing Andrew Cunanan are stretched out with the most appalling acting I have ever seen. I mean it. Every single line of dialogue is delivered almost painfully. The most excruciating example is the scene at the very end when the two FBI agents have this really presumptuous and pretentious theory session on murder and consumerism. It was truly "crap-tacular".

This movie is a complete waste of time, and unintentionally turns a horrifying true-life story into a sloppy farce. Worse still, I got this impression the film makers were vastly overestimating the importance of this movie in their own minds. This comes off with endless scenes with the various characters where they spout speeches thinly veiled single entendres about their motivations and society. I get the impression the film makers even wanted to make a connection between the glitz and glamour of the fashion world and how it drove Cunanan to kill - except that no viewer is going to buy that the way it is presented here.

If I were Donatelli Versace, I would sue on principle alone just to end TV movies of mediocre quality.


I picked up the Versache Murder DVD at Big Lots for $3.50... since my wife is a fan of cheesy TV docudramas and true crime books, it seemed perfect, and it was indeed worth every penny.

The acting is on par with your average high school drama class production, the plot is almost nonsensical, and the music was... well, nonexistent.

I've seen other people comment on the cheesy synth music of this film, but the DVD I bought has no music at all! This leads to numerous bizarre scenes where Andrew is dancing around getting dressed in the morning to silence, roller-blading to silence, dancing in a club to silence... and there is no sound at all during the credits. At first, I thought the director was just being "artsy", but now I know that it was some kind of mistake, but it makes this awful movie even worse, if that's possible.

It's the kind of movie you'll watch time and again because it's JUST SO BAD!


I wanted to try this film because of Franco Nero and Menahem Golan. But damn who casted Shane Perdue? He could be good looking if he didn't look so retarded all the time! But acting wasn't one of his skills either. As of the rest of the acting crew, even Franco didn't do much about his character. To be honest I think Steven Bauer did the best of acting. He didn't deliver much beside Scarface either. Really, somebody tell me, why is this film made? It's terrible! I really hope people read all these comments before considering watching it. And you actors out there: please deliver more into your character. And you writers out there: go get inspired!

Please don't see this film. It's not worth it.


Here's an excellent example on how a good true-life story can be totally lost by an eager-to-make-money producer. The lead actor portraying Andrew Cunanan is possibly the worst actor I have seen in a legitimate movie production. The plot gets lost and the story has no point what so ever. I got it on VHS and now its the prank gift on birthdays. Nobody who gets it wants to keep it. It has now been handed over seven times and only one of the owners (bar me) took enough interest to watch it to the end.

Never spend the time on this movie it SUCKS!! BIIIIG TIME!!


I have seen some truly awful movies in my time, but The Versace Murder could actually be the one - The Best of the Worst(TM). I could really sing this movie's praises, but I wouldn't want to spoil it for you ... it's like The Matrix - nobody can tell you what it is; you have to experience it for yourself.

Below are my theories on what made The Versace Murder the gem of movie making that it is.

- 40% of the budget was spent on the one cop's sunglasses.

- Rather than being paid, the "actors" were actually required to give the director oral sex in order to be allowed to appear in the movie.

- During the shooting of one of the scenes, the script writer had to nip of to the bathroom, so the director told everyone to just yell their lines.

- While shooting another scene, the director had to nip off to the bathroom, so the scriptwriter told the camera man to just shoot the cop's crotch.

- Whenever the director and the scriptwriter were simultaneously in the bathroom, the accountant took over their duties. The producers were never on set, because they just couldn't watch.

- Prior to writing the script for The Versace Murder, the script writer once wrote a slogan for a t-shirt. (I believe it was "F*CK YOU YOU F*CKING F*CK.)

Runners up for the title of Best of the Worst:

- War Camp (There is no script, and the entire movie was shot on the first take.)

- Ancient Evil: Scream of the Mummy (Have you ever seen a chubby mummy?)


Personally,I didn't see a single boom shot in the whole extravaganza.There were some shots that were incredibly out of focus,but it turned out they were deliberate choices by the filmmakers.Parts of this film are actually wickedly funny,as all horror films should be.I couldn't help thinking though while watching this film that it might have actually been quite terrifying if the babies just looked like real babies!


The most interesting thing about this film was seeing Golden Globe and three-time Emmy winner Michael Moriarty rant and rave about the fact that they wouldn't leave his child alone. I just can't look at Moriarity without seeing Ben Stone from "Law and Order." Seeing him on the other side arguing before Macdonald Carey (also a two-time Daytime Emmy winner for "Days of Our Lives") to save that butt-ugly child of his was hilarious.

But, it gets even funnier as he tries to save his child and, ultimately, his grandchild. He should be Parent of the Year for loving those creatures. Karen Black is his ex, the mother of the monster, and, well, you just have to see how that ends.

Making a comedy out of these things is genius.


Someone once asked me " What`s the inhabitants of the isle of mute called - Mutants ? " " No Corporal " I replied " It`s the isle of Bute and they`re called Brandanes " But come to think of it when I walk down the streets of Rothesay on the Isle of Bute and see the inbred lumpen underclass drinking on top of empty heads I do think Corporal Williams may have been right . It is the Isle of Mute and the inhabitants are Mutants

***** SLIGHT SPOILERS *****

Anyway you get the drift , I live on an island and I come across mutants all the time so I was going to relate to a film dealing with mutant babies being confined and I wasn`t disappointed by what I saw . ISLAND OF THE ALIVE is a very entertaining bad taste horror comedy , maybe not a classic like Peter Jackson`s BAD TASTE but still fairly good as the film opens with a woman giving birth in a New York taxi cab and a cop trying to shoot the new born baby , while the next scene features the knowingly stupid line " It took four bullets before it died - That`s some baby " , and of course there`s scenes of the mutant killer babies ( Done by stop frame animation , none of this CGI rubbish )going on killing sprees , and I haven`t even mentioned Michael Moriarty doing a great Al Bundy impression . <br /><br />I`ve no idea why people are slagging this movie off , it`s supposed to be silly . My only criticism about ISLAND OF THE ALIVE is it slows down in the final third and the expected HUMANOIDS OF THE DEEP ending with the mutant infants emerging from the sea attacking everyone in the city doesn`t appear which made the ending a complete anti-climax .<br /><br />And if Larry Cohen is thinking of doing a sequel to ISLAND OF THE ALIVE showing what happened to the mutant youngsters after they`ve grown up he should come to the Isle Of Bute . He won`t need a script , only a camcorder