Contamination .7, or The Crawlers as I think it's more commonly known, is set in the small American town of Littleton where Josie (Mary Sellers) has just returned after several years away to reunite with her family there & her ex boyfriend Matt (Jason Saucier) as well. However Josie has picked a bad time to return home as the corrupt head of a nearby nuclear power plant has been stealing the money used to safely dispose of radioactive waste & dumping it in the local woods which has the unwanted side effect of producing mutated killer roots which have a taste for human flesh! Can the residents of Littleton save themselves from becoming tree food?

This Canadian production has Martin Newlin credited as director but that's just a pseudonym for Fabrizio Laurenti & the IMDb also claims Joe D'Amato had something to do with it but the version I saw only had one credited director, anyway this has a pretty bad reputation & I can't really say it's undeserved. The script by Laurenti, Albert Lawrence & Daniele Stroppa is an eco-horror with a message, basically pollution is bad. Now this sentiment is all very well & good but it would have helped if there was a decent film behind it & then there's the fact that Contamination .7 is far from the first film to tackle this issue. The character's & dialogue are poor, their decision making is hopeless & at times strange, some of the scenes here are just plain ridiculous & make no sense, it's too long at 100 odd minutes, it has next to no gore or exploitation & it's just very badly written & thought out right down to a none event of an ending. Having said that I actually found it watchable in a really bad kind of way, I don't know why but I was actually glued to it! Maybe just to see how bad it got I don't know but I've certainly seen worse & there was just something here that I liked, I mean I didn't like it much but as far as I'm concerned I saw something in it.

Director Laurenti doesn't impress here with plenty of continuity mistakes & probably the single most pathetic model bulldozer special effect ever, the model they use is obviously a kids toy & it looks terrible. Then there's the killer roots themselves who never really do much apart from wrap themselves around people & we never see what they are attached to either. There's no gore here except one scene when the corrupt Sheriff has a root enter his mouth & exit through his eye socket...

Technically this is alright, forget about the continuity mistakes, it's quite well made & beats hands down many low budget horror films that are made these days. The acting is poor by an obviously amateur cast some of whom appear to have been very badly dubbed in particular the Sheriff.

Contamination .7 is a terrible film for sure & I'm not saying otherwise but for some strange reason I sort of liked it for what it is, don't get me wrong as 99.9% of the film going public will hate it with a passion but I guess I'm in that 00.1% minority & proud of it although I'm not quite sure what that says about me.


Not that it didn't have its moments, but this is definitely one that should have gone directly to video. It just seems very poorly made. This movie also has Sherman Hemslely in a rather large role so once I saw that flash on the screen, I knew the film would be kind of generic. Still I like Norm MacDonald and he does his best, though he doesn't have much to work with. This movie has a butler who kidnaps his boss's dog, but the dog goes away. The police find a ransom note and Norm's blood everywhere and think he is the one who was kidnapped. There is a twist at the end anyone will see a mile away and there are some humorous scenes with Danny DeVito, but for the most part I wouldn't look too hard to find this movie.


It's a little film that really tries to be funny but ends being more like silly or stupid than funny. The plot isn't really a novelty but that's even not the big deal, the real problems are at the acting and the jokes. Some of the jokes are funny, OK, but the major part is so ridiculous that the fun is completely lost! I was induced to watch this movie by some comments I saw here on IMDb, saying it's hilarious and a good movie, but I must disagree. I laughed at many parts of the movie and I was entertained for 1h18 (even here the film is short), I cannot deny it, but at the end I found this film more silly/pathetic than funny. I score it 4/10.


I'm a little disappointed with this movie because I thought that it would be better. I expected more from this one. Plot is fine and best performance is delivered by Danny DeVito in a small role. He should be more in this movie. Norm MacDonald and Dave Chappelle can make that stupid face and they are OK each in their roles. But only DeVito and Elaine Stritch managed to do something with their characters.

This movie is not bad but it isn't good too. It's somewhere in the middle. It starts good but in the middle of the movie gets boring. I don't know on what scenes other people laughed at. It's not that funny and most of scenes I've seen before in other movies. Small, little comedy but just don't expect too much. And take a look on Danny DeVito's performance.


This has got to be one of the "screwiest" movies to appear in a long time. A chauffeur fed up with working for a mean and nasty old and rich businesswoman decides to kidnap her dog and hold him ransom for $1,000,000. From there the story moves - not always logically or comprehensibly, but - hey - this is a crazy comedy after all!

It has a lot of flaws, though. First off is that the acting is not very good. The actors seem to put enough effort and energy into their parts, but it just doesn't come across in the end. I suppose this is to be expected in this type of movie, but they seemed more interested in wild exaggeration than in good acting. Second is that the humour just isn't that funny. There are a few good laughs, but it's very inconsistent. There's no attempt at all at realism. The scene in which the dog, trying to fight off the kidnappers, gets hold of Willard's hand and shreds it, spraying blood all over the room is just plain stupid. It looks like a long wig attached to Norm MacDonald's (Willard's) arm. And, given the amount of blood that appeared in the scene, it's hard to explain why there isn't even a mark on Willard's hand the next time we see him! A miracle cure for dog bites? I mean, I don't expect perfection from this kind of movie, but it would be nice if there were at least some effort put into continuity. How much would it have cost to put a bandage on Willard's hand?

Most of the performances are sub-par. MacDonald seemed quite artificial most of the way through. Sherman Hemsley as Chip was a disaster. Elaine Stritch was certainly crotchety, but also not especially funny as Miss Crock. There was a decent performance from Daniel Benzali as Detective Dewey, who did exactly what this kind of movie demanded: he played it absolutely straight, and was quite funny as a result. The best performance was undoubtedly David Chappelle as Rusty Hayes, Willard's partner in crime. The biggest disappointment in my opinion was Danny DeVito. I usually enjoy him, and think he is a fine comedic actor, but his performance in Screwed was not good. He seemed too forced and didn't look as though he were enjoying himself playing Grover Cleaver.

Hey, take it for what it's worth. It's not great, but it has a few laughs in it, and a totally crazy storyline. And, at 1:21, it doesn't take much commitment to see it through.

I gave it 4/10.


I swear I love Norm Macdonald I think he is a great comedic talent. Right up there with Denis Leary,but this movie (I will not call it a Film) was horrible. This was one of those movies like "Joe Dirt" where they had maybe one or two funny ideas and they built a whole movie around it. I really hope his next effort will be more thought out.


holy cow, what an awful movie! i'm a dave chapelle fan, and i like danny devito too, in most of the comedies he's played in. norm macdonald is a gifted stand-up comedian. but in this movie, chapelle's reduced to playing the silly black sidekick, danny devito is given NOTHING to work with, and macdonald is so unfunny i found myself thinking about cleaning house while the video was on. yikes. i wouldn't even recommend renting this movie with a free rental coupon.


Dont bother, dont even rent it. Terrible. Every bit of humor could have been condensed into a 10 minutes skit, and even that might not have gotten a laugh. If you really want to see this one, please wait for it to be on video, and even then have a back up plan, as I doubt you will want to sit thru the whole thing.


This is not Norm Macdonald funny, this is not even Carrotop funny. Every gag fails, the movie is shot in dark, depressing colors which only drive the "sad, very sad" message straight to the subconscious. This movie is a shining of example on how not to make a slapstick meets a crazy twisting plot movie.


I honestly don't understand what was going through Scott Alexander and Larry Kawazinky's heads when they wrote and directed this piece of drivel. The plot is convoluted as are the characters. Very little is funny other than scene stealing Danny DeVito. What is funny is brilliant, but there is very little if anything to recomend this film.

I expect more from these guys. The two of them brought us the screenplays for such thought provoking and emotional films as Ed Wood, The People Vs Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon. This is one disapointing directorial debut.


This film has an untraditional style and format. The closest I could compare it to is CAR WASH, as both are not about a particular person but about a group of people living in a ghetto neighborhood. However, unlike CAR WASH, this isn't a comedy though there are a few mildly funny moments. Plus, while CAR WASH is not for everyone's taste, I liked the film and found many of the characters likable.

This non-traditional narrative might bother many, as the film does seem rather disjoint. Plus, given that most of the people aren't all that likable (and several are very unlikable), the film isn't one I'd recommend you watch. It's really a shame because this style COULD have worked very well....with likable and more interesting people. The folks in this film are mostly hustlers--out of work young adults who will lie, cheat and steal to make a few bucks. Their idol is Yaphet Kotto--in an odd role as a master film-flam man.

The bottom line is that this just isn't a very good film--with an inferior script, lousy characters and a lackluster musical score. There are many, many Black-American films from the 70s that are so much better and more interesting than this dull mess.


It's difficult to write a plot description for a movie like The Monkey Hustle. On its surface, it would seem to be the story of a diverse group of people banding together to stop a proposed freeway from destroying their community. But the movie is just as much about a cheap, small-time hood named Daddy Foxx (Yaphat Kotto) and the boys he trains in hustling. Then again, The Monkey Hustle is about the relationship of two young people and what they go through to be together. Or is the movie really about a flamboyant would-be gangster named Goldie (Rudy Ray Moore) maintaining his control over a community through force? Actually, The Monkey Hustle's plot is a mish-mash of ideas that, unfortunately, never seem to hit their mark. It's supposed to be a comedy, but I can only think of a couple of instances that I found remotely amusing. And even though The Monkey Hustle gets lumped in with the blaxploitation movies of the period, it lacks the sex, violence, and emotional charge necessary to be considered as such. What does it say about a movie when the most generous adjective I can come up with to describe it is "watchable"?

Did you ever watch a movie and feel like a reel or two were missing? That's how I felt after watching this movie. A big part of the plot is that Daddy Foxx has "something" on Godlie. Likewise, they both seem to have "something" on the Alderman. Infuriatingly, the movie never spells out or even hints at what the characters have on each other. In the films finale, we see Daddy Foxx and Goldie wink knowingly at each  but why? It just doesn't make any sense. I feel like I feel asleep and missed crucial plot points.

I normally don't get into the messages or meanings of the movies I watch, but with The Monkey Hustle, I feel almost compelled to at least mention the mixed messages it sends out. Why are Daddy Foxx and Goldie made out to be the heroes? They don't do much of anything of value for the community. And neither man has any moral issues when it comes to stealing from their neighbors, thereby helping to maintain the status quo of poverty. It's a shame that the one educated black man in the community who was responsible for organizing the save the community block party isn't given any of the credit. Instead, it's the hustlers and the number runners who come out looking good as the real hero is shoved into the background.


Although I found this movie entertaining, I'm afraid it made zero sense. How was anybody in the neighborhood capable of getting scammed by Daddy Foxx? Everyone in the neighborhood saw everybody else practically every day; couldn't they just get their money back the next day? And what was he supposed to be doing, anyways? Selling boxes? Who the hell was Goldie supposed to be, and what did Daddy Foxx have on him? What was the cop taking money for exactly, and why did he pay Baby D? How is it, at the end of the movie, that the bulldozers were already on the streets, ready to tear the town down, yet seconds later a fat guy pulls up in a limo and reverses the demolition? Long story short, this movie leaves many questions unanswered, but it did make me laugh a couple of times, so it got a 2.


When I give a movie a 4, I mean it is really bad. This is the kitchen sink mentality of these movies with the violence, glamour and pimps all taken out. Instead we have a now very dated formula of a small time hustler hanging around a group of kids with oversized afros and egos. The best part of it, is Rudy Ray Moore(Dolemite) appearing as Goldie featuring a shirt made out of gold chains, whether hes a hustler, gangster, pimp or leader we will never know. But he steals the show withs his larger than life, style (You're my main man!!). The children do little more than try to make money and use outdated jive lines such as "Slick the slick" and there are the antics of a 12 or 13 year old boy called the kid who has a gang of synchopant kiddies who hang around trying out all sorts of nickel and dime shit. It is funny at least in its use of the cheesiest disco soundtrack possible. The roller skating scene is very funny with the disco music heavy on wah wah guitar and kids with oversized afros and flares dancing around in a bright red rink. The kids fight and steal but there is no real violence or sex involved. Overall the acting is cardboard, storyline tapering and a piece of claptrack that is an embarassment from start to finish. Its only saving graces may be the Keystone cop and Goldie, otherwise its schtick. I think too it portrays African Americans as greedy and over sexed simpletons who just want to make money and have a good time.


One has to remember, that with the introduction of Shaft and Superfly, Hollywood churned out one blaxploitation film after the other, whether the script and acting succeeded or not. During the 70's, at the height of the blaxploitation film era, the genre was completely plot-driven rather than character-driven. Ask yourself how many times a neighborhood could be saved from some type of demolition? How many times could someone come up with just the right lottery numbers? Take this film for what it is, something lighthearted that introduced actor/director Thomas Carter, II, Debbi Morgan of All My Children, Charmed, The Hurricane, Rosalind Cash of The Omega Man, General Hospital, and Tales from the Hood, Randy Brooks of Another World and Generations. And, of course, Rudy Ray Moore. These actors had to eat, support families, and it was training ground for some later great work.


Because I really have to throw up. Back in the seventies, there was a genre called Blaxploitation. Most of the films were utter trash. This is one of the trashiest! This film is pure garbage. Have you ever seen a play in a black-oriented neighborhood? You know, that over-acting kind of acting, similar to what's found on Good Times (TV show), full of stereotypical pimps, hustlers, theives, welfare recipients and too tight jeans. Just plain horrible. A waste of film.


The major themes of the movie are not so original as some people are lead to think. The fact that Kim Ki-Duk is Koreean and uses that environment is, of course,"exotic" but this doesn't mean the movie has anything to say. I am puzzled as to the overall meaning implied here. From what I could understand the whole thing was about plastic surgery and how bad it is...unfortunately nothing more. There was a great potential in the idea, but it realization is simply preposterous. I don't necessarily ask for "reality" in a movie but in this case only something painfully real would have hit the spot. The plot devices are laughable, to name some of them, the death of the male character at the end, the use of the locations is unrealistic (especially the coffee shop). The actors don't seem to bother too much with being at least mildly pleasant and making the viewer interested in their problems.

I heard the director had a few issues with Koreeans when he made this movie, because he is believed to portray his country in dark colors. Well, considering some of his early movies this is certainly so. Though it is not something inherently bad in doing this if you manage to convey the artistry you desire, I think that there are some things in Time which are pointless and through an unjustified shadow on Koreea. First of all the violence, utterly gratuitous, who could ever believe that people who react as they do in public spaces are left alone by the police? In this movie you have a doctor beating the living day-light out of a guy he was having a meeting with. And by the way, is it customary in Koreea for the doctors to break their "vow of silence" and share the details of their patients with whoever wants it? Aren't there laws against behavior such as this? Wouldn't a doctor loose his reputation, credentials and probably freedom if he attempted such a thing? And how about those telephone companies who erase your number in only a few minutes...?

Most of Kim Ki-Duk's fans don't seem to be bothered by all these obvious flaws and think that a good idea makes a good movie. Some reviewers identified elements common to other movies, they are right. The plot is not based on original ideas. I always thought watching this at Hitchcock's Vertigo, identity change, betrayal, mistrust, obsessive love, trying to reach out to a person that's no longer there...no plastic surgery but, again, that's not meant to be the essential point here. What is present in Vertigo but lacks in Time is: suspense, good acting, clarity (Kim doesn't seem to give a damn about this aspect in none of his movies), and especially a coherent meaning for the whole picture. Any director is good if he manages to obtain his goals. This movie fails completely, instead of leaving me wandering what's wrong with today's society (which is a thing I don't have to be reminded by a movie anyway) it left me wandering what was wrong with the director. Is it something related to cultural differences? Then how come I like Kurosawa or Ozu so much? Sorry for not being useful...!


I saw this film at the opening of the Karlovy Vary film festival. The story focuses on the themes of identity, vanity and the constant pressure to improve our own personal appearance. The story revolves around the central female character who undergoes radical plastic surgery in order to ensure that her lover does not grow bored of her appearance. The narrative builds an increasingly complex story woven around the central female and male characters and also utilises 3-4 key locations including a coffee shop and sculpture park. Yet the narrative is very unevenly paced - initially it deliberately takes very little time to set the basic premise of the story, but then after dragging out the middle section of the story, the final series of events seem to pass at a frankly ludicrous pace. Little time is taken to explore motives or explain events and as a result potentially dramatic scenes are given little context. One reviewer was surprised that the audience at the premiere laughed during serious scenes - my personal opinion is that many viewers found the events unbelievable and unrealistic - hence the incredulous reaction. This problem was further compounded by a weak performance from the central male character. The character is largely bewildered by events but then as the story unfolds he goes through wider mood swings that are not conveyed in a way that makes the viewer believe or empathise with these emotions. Personally - I found as the story developed I gradually lost interest in the characters and the conclusion to the story was predictable, convenient and over-engineered.


I see people waxing so enthusiastic about it, apparently I am really stupid eh what?

Anyway, I've never before gone through the plot in one of my IMDb reviews but here I will give it a go cause I really am not sure what I just saw... so here's what I thought I saw:

there is this cute lovable guy he's got this annoying girlfriend who would drive a saint away, she's very jealous and her idea is that he must be sick of her cause who wouldn't be with her "boring face" and in fact, she's right about this. he can't get it up until, under her direct orders, he fantasizes about this girl they saw earlier in the day at which point he does just fine. so she becomes angry, naturally. then she runs out to the plastic surgeon wanting a new face which will take 6 months to heal during which time she abandons the hot sweet as pie boy.

while she's gone the girl working at this cafe along with just about every other girl in the universe, makes a play for him but he can't forget his bitchy annoying girlfriend he still loves for some inexplicable reason. ... um. . . eventually the girl at the cafe lucks out for some inexplicable reason, I mean basically this guy is the male equivalent of "there's something about mary"'s mary, he responds to anyone pathetic and creepy who latches onto him. by this time it's evident he has a weakness for utterly annoying women, jealous and insecure and prone to violence and to making embarrassing scenes.

OK really my comprehension of the film totally broke down when it got to the point that I didn't know whether it was the cafe girl or the original girl post surgery who was making his life miserable at about midpoint... sigh... all the while I just wanted him for myself to take him away from this witchy world in which these horrible women were there to make him so unhappy. . . .

at one point (forgive my non chron account) he even agrees to see this one girl who is not very pretty and who kind of masochistically insists on making it very clear that he doesn't really like her, in spite of which though of course because there is something seriously wrong with this guy he's willing to be with her...in fact when she's shooting a gun it really makes him think she looks "awesome" OK sure why not, look on the bright side why don't you. until she masochistically plays a game in which she leaves him behind... um. . . so at least she doesn't get rejected. OK, that sort of makes sense, why not? for him anyway, st. stupid cute guy... we can give him some credit at this point for not running after her. good boy!

so then this horrible doctor who operated on the original horrible girlfriend decides the thing to do is to have our now thoroughly destroyed leading man who is so adorable and hot and long suffering undergo the knife as well, so they can be even... and . . . so then all these not by any means terrible looking but nowhere near as darling as the star of the picture guys make the scene, by this time I'm really quite honestly watching at +1 speed at which I can still read the subtitles. . . but I don't have to be stuck watching this ridiculous film with its deep implications... for quite so long.

when the girl shows up with her old face pasted over her new one, I"m confused as to whether this is cafe girl or original girl... OK maybe Asian womens' faces don't make as strong an impression on me as they might .... but it seemed to me that it was in fact the cafe girl who stole the photo and cut it out and so would be wearing it... unless somehow it got into the hands of the surgery gal.

and so it seemed to me that it was cafe girl at the denouement... when boy gets we guess killed, or at least properly mangled, whatever he looked like at the end of the movie...he certainly looks worse off after his big car accident. and there is one of those corny things where the beginning is the same as the end it's recursive and... as you see people on IMDb are puzzling over how to make sense out of that...I neglected to mention the beginning though, but it must be the key to the whole thing eh what? I could had a v8!

mainly I just ... was very frustrated that such a nice guy was with such bitches the whole way through... honestly... that;'s about all I got out of this film.

I really enjoyed the same director's "The Isle" though!

I hope that hot doll face makes lots more movies though, he was awesome... better still why doesn't he just come to America and sweep me off my feet. the end!


If I can spare at least one fan of Kim Ki-duk's other films from wasting their time on this sub-par offering, then my work here is done. Time is perhaps the director's most straightforward film, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in this case the lack of complexity and hyperrealism found in some of his better films makes this one a failure by comparison. Time makes some fairly obvious statements about identity, jealousy and attachment (as opposed to real, true love.) No doubt some viewers (especially those unfamiliar with the director's other work) will find these statements deep and moving (and the fairly pat and predictable narrative easy to follow.) The director is nonetheless an artful cinematographer and this film is not without its charming scenes and symbolic and visual merit. However, compared to the complex, cerebral and occasionally magical dramatic presentation of films like The Isle and 3-Iron, this offering from Kim falls miserably short.


I was very disappointed by this film, perhaps in part because it is South Korean and I've enjoyed Joon-Ho Bong's work a great deal, as well as some others. I could see some similarities too in the rapid clash and shift in emotions in "Time," and found the final third fairly compelling. Unfortunately the film already had been undermined for me by that point. The movie struck me as being very ham-fisted -- over-the-top acting, repetitive situations, telegraphed twists. I also was frustrated by the way the main characters are presented to the audience, already bickering and irrational. Failing to show the audience the couple's relationship when it was good before showing its collapse and the shallowness and incomprehensible decisions of both of them left me with no one to root for, nothing left to do but ask, repeatedly, "what the hell is wrong with these people?" There's the kernel of a good movie here, but you have to dig -- and wait -- to get to it.


I could not believe i wasted 1.30 minutes for this wacky movie!!!the director of this movie tries his best to make a good statement about the contemporary sensitive issue in Korean society- plastic surgery however,what i see in the movie is an unconvincing script, illogical character development...I think we all have noticed about the famous die-at-the-end trend in Korean movie. This movie follows blindly to that trend and makes the main character die in the most unreasonable, stupid way that i have never seen in my life. The main character just die because the film need him to die at the end in order to continue the stupid script,if he's still alive, audience will not cry and the movie will not have the strong impact on audience. I believe that was what the director of this movie thought! Believe me, i have seen many bad Korean movies and i still accept it if it can help me chase my boredom for a while,but this movie is just nonsensical, it makes me wonder how can a director can make a movie this bad! Does he know what make sense and what does not?! For those who are curious about this movie, please FIND ANOTHER MOVIE TO WATCH, DON'T TOUCH THIS CRAP!!!

By the way, I could not believe in my eyes when u guys rate this movie 7.5 stars. Oh gosh...what's so wrong with people!!!


"Searching for Paradise' tells of a Gilda (Pratt) whose father dies and leaves behind evidence of an extramarital affair which she discovers. Wanting to become a movie industry camera operator, Gilda carries a small camcorder everywhere which doesn't have anything to do with anything. She also falls in like with a young man and then creates a scene in a library when he won't just drop everything and have sex with her. Posing an an Italian journalist, she goes in search of a handsome leading man, ends up cornered by him in his flat where she creates another scene. During the film she periodically has strange visions/dreams about her father...etc, blaa, blaa. If this sounds messy it not because I can't write a cogent commentary. It's because this is a mess of a film which doesn't really ever make sense of itself. It's obvious that Gilda has issues but they never crystallize and we're left wondering what the hell is wrong with the lovely and otherwise likable Gilda whose character is superficial at best. "Searching for Paradise" is a novice auteur's teeth cutter which is floating around on the Sundance channel and available on DVD. Bottom line? If you can't find something better to watch than this turkey, you're not really trying. (C-)


What exactly is the point of this boring, predictable, cliche-ridden little zit of a film? Are we to be subjected henceforth to the home movies of everyone under age 30? Is this to be our new Inferno? Chris Noth is good but doesn't seem to be in the same film with anyone else. The rest look like they're trying to remake from memory one of Woody Allen's lesser "serious" efforts.


Oh, I hate this type of movies. The European (Italian) background was just a fake. It had nothing to do with the story. Gilda Mattei thought she was smart and sensitive and blah blah but she was actually a low IQ self-centered kid. The film is terrible because it shares no feeling about the real world that is much deeper and wider that can be beyond the imagination of the poor director.

2 out of 10 for some of the camera works.


I have been a lover of Chopin, the man and his music, for years and years, and have always been fascinated by George Sand. I rented this film on DVD (with English dubbing) and watched it last night with great expectations. I recently purchased IMPROMPTU, the other Chopin/Sand biopic, and found it wandered quite far from the actual events of their lives. So, I was disappointed with that one, and was hoping CHOPIN: DESIRE FOR LOVE would be just what I wanted from a Chopin biography. It was not.

What would be so hard about making a film based entirely, or at least mostly, on true events? Why do film-makers seem determined to turn the lives of these historic geniuses into soap opera frivolity? If you have ever read a biography on Chopin, or even just listened to his music, then you know what a highly intelligent, sensitive, perfectionist, almost otherworldly man he was. I want a movie about Chopin with an actor and a script that are as sensitive and detailed as he was. This film seemed like a cheap, made-for-TV movie with overacting, cheesy drama, and unnecessary sexual situations. I'm mainly referring to the scene of Solange frolicking nearly naked in the river in front of Chopin. There is no documented proof that there was ever anything beyond mild flirtation between Solange and Chopin, if there was even that. He was older, frail, and sickly, and she was young, sexy, and looking for money. She used him for sympathy, and he did have it for her. Oh, and the scene with the maid and Chopin! Completely made up for sex appeal! What were they thinking? Perhaps they just wanted to show that Chopin was starved for sex while living with Sand, but there were other ways to show that. Chopin would be sick over this one, and George Sand would never have stood for that under her own roof.

Chopin struggled with depression and sickness, and even had a few hallucinations from time to time. His own genius mind drove him mad with striving for perfection in music, dress, and appearance. Neither movie I have seen has touched on this aspect of his life very well, if at all. They have portrayed him as a whining snob and not much else. There was far more to him. In my opinion, he was very misunderstood. This is just something else I would love to see played out on screen.

On a positive note, there were a few little details in this movie that lovers of Chopin might really appreciate. For instance, in most scenes, the actor playing Chopin wears gray pants. This was Chopin's favorite color for his suits. There were also scenes of Chopin in a room with gray and green walls, which were the true colors of the wallpaper he chose for his apartment in Paris. I also liked the fact that the actress playing Sand in this film actually resembled the real woman, whereas in IMPROMPTU, Judy Davis looked nothing like her. They didn't even try with Davis, except to put her in a man's clothing. In the first party scene of this film, the actress is dressed and has her hair done exactly like Sand in a well known painting. I loved the way she looked here.

All in all, I would have to say that for Chopin and Sand fans, this movie is severely lacking in historical truth and nuance. At the same time, for those who have no knowledge of Chopin's life, it must be very confusing, tedious, and hardly entertaining. I hope one day that a good, detailed biographical film will be made for Chopin. Perhaps lack of interest from the public is why we've had two duds about him. However, I think if a well made film were to be done, many people who never knew about Chopin would find themselves fascinated and wanting to know more about this amazing composer's sad and hauntingly beautiful life story.


Skin-divers Richard Egan and Gilbert Roland scour the depths of the Caribbean looking for treasure; they eventually find it buried under the sea with the wreck of a sunken ship (teetering on the edge of an underwater cliff). Howard Hughes-produced adventure from R.K.O. unevenly divides its time between on-location footage and studio shots (occasionally occupying the same scene) for a strangely dislocating visual experience. Jane Russell received top billing playing Egan's wife, and she's not bad except that her accent (perhaps laid on for a colorful, comical effect) slips in and out of Frito Bandito territory. The cast looks great in their swim-wear, but the story is without much suspense. *1/2 from ****


Why is this film never shown --even on Turner Classics-- in its original aspect ratio? I believe it was the first RKO widescreen film. The pan and scan version makes all the underwater photography look murky and that had been the movie's big allure, along with Jane Russell of course. But I have noticed, especially on Fox Movie Channel, that some widescreen films are never shown in widescreen. Others are. Perhaps the original prints are rotting in a can somewhere. SKY DIVERS, a movie with James Coburn and filmed in Greece is another example of one never shown in all its original glory. Both of these films' experience would be greatly enhanced by full view of the scenery.


Another in a long line of Jack the Ripper returns movies. Every cornball cliche in the book was in this dull, routine, totally predictable yawner. A big city cop moves to Arizona as a way to avoid stress after a bad incident in Chicago. However, he runs into even more pressure when he gets on the trail of a serial murderer who slays in exactly the same fashion as the notorious 19th century London killer. Gad, what a stupid film.


In 1888 Jack the Ripper is shot by police and dies in the Thames river. In 1985 the last original stone used to rebuild the London Bridge in Lake Havasu, Arizona is laid, and all the city is happy. But since that moment some strange murders occur in the quiet tourist destination. The policeman Don Gregory (Hasselhoff) has some suspects, but his ideas are quite strange. He thinks that Jack the Ripper has somehow been revived. Nobody believes him, even though he is, in fact, correct.

When I sat down to watch this, I didn't expect a masterpiece. I just expected it to be a bad 80's horror movie that would be good for some laughs and some gore. But this is a made-for-television horror film that should never have been made. The premise is ridiculous, the film is scare free, and the acting is atrocious. And since it was made for TV, there is no gore, just women screaming as Jack raises a blade as we fade to commercial.

This film isn't even good for some laughs. Despite the presence of the always terrible Hasselhoff and cult icon Adrienne Barbeau (who is given nothing interesting to do,) the movie is boring, plodding along until it's predictable conclusion.


This film is set in my hometown of Lake Havasu City, Arizona, home of the London Bridge. What I can tell you about this film is that you should only see it if you live in LHC and would like a big laugh. To see big stars (Rose Marie from the Dick Van Dyke Show and David Hasselhoff) in our little meccha is unreal, especially when you see that Rose Marie is the owner of the hotel at the edge of town. This film is one for the history books, and if you had the opportunity to see this film on NBC when it first aired, you would have probably seen the Apple Computer "1984" commercials a few times too. Ahh memories!


Caught this at Cinequest. It was well attended, but the crowd seemed disappointed. In my humble opinion, "Charlie the Ox" was very amateurish and overrated (it pales in comparison with other cinequest pics I saw). Acting (with the exception of Polito) seemed self-conscious and "stagey." Photography, despite originating on high-end HD, looked like home video... very stiff and undramatic. Score was repetitive. There were basic sound editing errors, such as background noise that changed noticeably with each edit. Most importantly the script was unfocused, repetitive, and limp.... I hate to ask the tired old question, but "why should we care?" I applaud the effort involved in any project like this, but it played much more like a community project put together by hobbyists, than a legit movie.


I saw this movie at Ohio University. I couldn't believe how horrible it was. It was dreadful. Put it this way: it's no different than watching a bunch of high school boys get drunk and make fart jokes. Not funny, not scary, not good. Waste of time! Don't even bother with this mindless adolescent trash. If you really have a desire to watch high school students act like children, then just go to the mall. It's unbelievable that the producers of this movie didn't realize how horrible this is, unless they were children. This sets a poor example for young boys, and most importantly, it is a slap in the face to filmmakers who actually take their work seriously. For a better satire, go watch Monty Python, Mel Brooks, or David Zucker. "Coons" isn't satire, or parody. It's like being in the center of a really bad party. This is not a movie!


So, it's a Troma pick-up, which can sometimes be a good thing, but not lately & definitely not in this case. First off, one must sit through Lloyd Kaufman's increasingly annoying rants, and then, the pay off, a really bad movie. Gosh, what more could you ask for? Plenty, really.

There is no attempt here for any actors to look like the ages they're supposed to be, with horrible wigs, fake mustaches, etc. The only ones that fare well in their roles are the ones that are SUPPOSED to be teenagers, so they kind of look like it.

The gist is that there's a campsite that is overrun by raccoons, and they're not just any raccoons, they're raccoons with a taste for human flesh. Which is, in itself, a great idea for a horror movie parody, but the rest of what goes on is so amateur and rinky-dink that it just defeats any other purpose.

The raccoons themselves are all real, but obviously deceased, and someone provides evil little chuckles for the things as they pop up here & there.

There are a couple almost funny moments, like one teen losing his virginity to the girl of his dreams, while she's being attacked by raccoons....the realization of her plight while he's still busy is probably the highlight of the movie, such as it is.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who is going to watch it without the benefits of some heavy-duty substance abuse, in which case it might be worth a chuckle or two. I, however, haven't done that stuff in a long time so I was merely envisioning putting this one straight into the trade-in pile when I was done watching it. 2 out of 10.


The "filmmakers" have produced an awful film, but that's precisely the point. The high school actors seem to be winking at us,as if to say, "Yes, me in bad movie, and me proud of it."

This is a comedy in the tradition of "Date Move," "Epic Movie," and "Sleepover." Unfortunately, the director, Travis Irvine, fails to understand that true comedy works when it is taken seriously. That's why classic spoofs like "Airplane!" and "Cannibal! The Musical" work: because the actors act as if they are in a serious drama.

"Coons" was featured at the 2006 TromaDance. It was the worst film of the night. Perhaps the cast and crew had set low standards for themselves. One would guess, by the obvious lack of production value, that the only goal Irvine and his team had in mind was "Let's make a horrible movie!"

They certainly have succeeded. "Coons" is unfunny, and not only that, it lacks skill and professionalism. Even terrible comedies like "Epic Movie" at least aim for quality in cinematography and acting.

Take for instance the poor casting. Rather than casting professional, talented comedians, Irvine cast young men who look like high school students, dressed them up in wigs and costumes, and then made them recite raccoon jokes. It looks like the worst high school play you've ever seen.

But again, that was the point. "Coons" fails as a comedy but succeeds as one of the worst independent "films" ever produced. I'm sure Travis Irvine and his crew are out there somewhere, smiling as they read this, convinced that they have made the best bad film ever. Yes, indeed, they have.


I really can't say whether this was the worst BBC comedy of all time or not. I only vaguely remember the plot details and I can't bear to watch a re-run.

What I do clearly remember is the zeal with which the BBC promoted it in the run up to its premiere. This was going to be good (despite the clumsy title) - just look at its pedigree, cast etc.

Well it wasn't. I vaguely recall the typical wobbly low-budget sets; I certainly remember Molly Sugden declining to use fart-power under zero gravity (almost funny, if it wasn't embarrassing).

Despite being a dedicated fan of AYBS?, Dad's Army and IAHHM, i just couldn't take it. I cringed with embarrassment for Molly Sugden and Ina Lavender, trapped in that script! In the end I switched off before the end of the episode; something I never do to a comedy, it just made me feel uncomfortable.


The premise is familiar -- guy learns he's going to die, tries to find a way to leave his family provided for -- but it's presented in an interesting manner here, with Kennedy an appealing if unlikely lead. All goes well until the ending, which is so outrageously wrong for the movie that it completely sinks the film. A surprise ending is generally something many thrillers try for, but it has to be a surprise ending that satisfies the audience on some level, not one that throws the whole story back in their faces.


Hallucinogenic alienation and left-wing schmaltz during a trek on ancient Christian pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela, shrine of Santiago Matamoros - Saint James the Moor-Killer. One plot line revolves around two young men of Arabic descent who speak French and their relationship with their traveling companions. These people are indigenous French equally étranger to Christianity or at any rate very open-minded indeed. Another theme concerns three older siblings who must go on this particular pilgrimage in order to collect an inheritance. One of these is a state-supported alcoholic who receives no ascertainable spiritual or social benefit from the effort. Another is an uptight conservative sans social conscience who magically awakens to his plight through no other means than simply suffering a bit of discomfort and outward bound-type group bonding. The third is a dedicated socialist teacher well versed in Christian-baiting. At a later date she is apparently ready to "screw the rich" (as discussed earlier in a tender moment) via Eurabic alliances bolstered by her Christian mother's money. The movie is interspersed with inchoate dream sequences meant to rival Christian grandeur but merely succeeds in reminding this viewer of the increasingly banal nihilism of European elites. Clever plot full of modernist irony, beautiful scenery of France and Spain, and multicultural sentimentality only residents of the wealthier Parisian arrondissements could love.


Gundam SEED Destiny, the direct sequel to Gundam SEED, got off to a great start. We were thrown into battle that raged on and off for 4 to 5 episodes non-stop, and our hopes were high. There were new characters that had stories to be told, and a new plot to be delivered. But, this all stopped before the series even hit the 20th episode. Instead of the new characters being in the spotlight, Lacus and the crew came in and took it back. Athrun was left in the cold, and it became the Jesus Yamato show. Instead of seeing intense battles, we get to see Freedom strike the same pose over and over again as hundreds of grunt units explode.

Gundam SEED retained elements from the older, more war oriented Gundam series, which made it easily watchable and quite entertaining if you could get by the re-use of the same frames. But SEED Destiny became a "super robot" show in which the main characters suits could easily take out an entire fleet without getting a scratch. The new suits, while flashy, are just blatant copies of UC suits. Pumping up a Zaku and giving it a huge backpack doesn't mean you've created a new suit.

Destiny had the potential to be as good as SEED, but it ended up destroying itself by becoming a super robot show filled with Gundams.

I give it 3 out of 10 stars, because it did have a good start.


My first true experience with Gundam was through the Wing series when it was shown in the US via Cartoon Network. From then on I watched the 3rd movie of the original, Double Zeta, Char's Counterattack, Victory, and a few episodes of Turn-A. And I appreciated Yoshiyuki Tomino's ability to tell a good war-based story (despite the lighter mood in Double Zeta and Turn-A). And my opinion of him didn't change after I found out that Tomino had psychological problems.

I started watching Gundam Seed Destiny with the hopes of seeing a "Gundam" title return to its roots. But after episode 21, I lost all hope for anything animated in Japan and having to do with war.

Mitsuo Fukuda and Chiaki Morosawa are the two people to blame for this series. How many more "re-cap episodes," rewritten specials, and re-usage of base images must they require in order to be satisfied with their end product? Why make a lead character (who had an actually good story to tell) along with a set of new characters when their next step is to shine the spotlight on the old set of characters? I know the lead singer from TM Revolution had a busy schedule, but why does he have to play some "shining cannon-fodder" who lasts less than 5 episodes?

I had my opinions of this series booted off of review sites because of my "bias." But isn't it our duty as viewers of media to commit to some "whistle-blowing" whenever we see something wrong? If a director, producer, and/or screenwriter rely too much on lazy re-caps, re-usage of images, and "specials" based on re-used and re-edited scenes; then one wonders why people like them have been hired or are still employed.


This series revives many the characteristically flashy visual and musical elements that gave the first SEED its barrages of pink laser fire and pervasive J-Pop background. Of course these worked much better with a good plot and characters to back them up. Despite its promising start, this series spirals out of control with the reappearance of Kira Yamato from the first SEED. Little by little, the intended protagonist Shinn falls to the way side until the hopelessly perfect Yamato takes his place. The notion of 'real robots' once so central to earlier incarnations of Gundam effectively fades away with the introduction of inexplicably godlike mecha for most of the major characters, reaching the apotheosis of absurdity with the one Kira receives.


I find this season surprisingly disappointing, Athrun just practically went back to being an idiot like he was at the beginning of Seed, fighting for what he "blindly" believes in. Kira, I can understand he wants to live peacefully but man, honestly he looks like a depressed old man to me -__-. Destiny just practically copied everything from Seed, except doing them backwards, rather than the ZAFT steals EA's mobile suits at the beginning of the season, this time is the opposite...and ZAFT have shitty mobile suits this season, the only fights that are worth seeing is when Kira kicks ass with Gundam Freedom, and later on both Kira and Athrun kick ass with their Infinite Justice and Strike Freedom. Probably the only thing worth seeing. The new characters are soooo annoying, if u ppl thought Yzak was bad, then man he is a cool character, and him and Dearka should have had a bigger role in this season. Shin is just unacceptable, a BRAT!!!

OK, i might sound like a complete ass for dissing this so much, but if ur looking for a good plot then don't bother with this season, if u end it at Seed, then it makes hell of a better ending than continuing like this.

I personally loved Gundam Seed, although I was cheering for Fllay to die lol. but Destiny is just utterly disappointing.


There are just so many problems with this show, my mind is boggling as to where to start. Well, I suppose the best place to start is the beginning.

The story initially begins during one of the major battles from the previous show, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. A young boy named Shinn Asuka and his family are caught in a crossfire between two mobile suits, one of them piloted by Kira Yamato, the protagonist from Gundam SEED. Although Shinn survives, his entire family is killed, leaving Shinn aghast. Fast forward two years later, Shinn has relocated to the PLANTs and enlisted in the ZAFT military.

This show definitely had a lot of potential during the first twelve episodes, which focused mainly on Shinn and all the other new characters. But then the writers decided to switch gears and bring back Kira and the rest of the old cast from Gundam SEED, and they ultimately save the day. What is frustrating about that is Kira has no struggle to speak of. Yet in the last few episodes of this show, the writers decided to make Kira invincible in his latest mobile suit and the climax was insufferably one-sided. Overall, this show is a disgrace to the Gundam franchise.

Yoshiyuki "Kill 'Em All" Tomino, the instigator of Gundam, is definitely the superior director and I would definitely recommend any of his shows or movies over this lame series anytime . They don't call him "Kill 'Em All" Tomino for nothing. No sir.


MODIGLIANI is a difficult movie to review. It has some very strong features such as the cinematography that captures the artsy feeling of Paris 1919 and, despite excesses, manages to create some visuals of hallucinations and the wild madness of painters painting canvasses; a rather complex peak into the lives of several of the more revolutionary artists of the time; and a substantial feeling for the interchange between artist and model. The main problem with the film is a script that is banal, limited in historical validity, and concentrating on a single rather silly motif of a painters' competition.

Amedeo Modigliani (1884 - 1920) was a Sephardic Jew from Italy who moved to the mecca of Paris to create his brilliant portraits and sculptures of nudes and extended neck women and girls. His genius lay in his unifying the spiritual Eastern iconography (tribal art and Judaism) of his heritage with the Christian (read Catholic) traditions of the artists with whom he associated which resulted in his creations of the female nude from a feminist cultural perspective. What this film delivers is a rather annoying portrait of a young consumptive artist who drank and drugged himself to death at a moment in his career when renown was just beginning. The reasons for his place in art history are merely hinted all for the sake of the Hollywood biopic.

Andy Garcia plays Modigliani with a modicum of élan and a plethora of bad traits. The lovely model Jeanne Hébuterne (Elsa Zylberstein) who was the subject not only of his portraits but the mother of his illegitimate child and his live-in paramour is a bit long in the tooth on suffering, though despite the fact that Zylberstien is hampered by both a weak script and limited acting, she does have an uncanny resemblance to Jeanne. The artists with whom 'Modi' works include a strangely miscast Picasso (Omid Djalili), Chaim Soutine (Stevan Rimkus), Maurice Utrillo (Hippolyte Girardot), Diego Rivera (Dan Astileanu), Zborowski (Louis Hilyer), and the strangely non-effeminate Jean Cocteau (Peter Capaldi)! Dealer Max Jacob (Udo Kier) and Gertrude Stein (Miriam Margolyes!) are thrown in with the harlequins and 'Modi's' child spirit Dedo (Frederico Ambrosino) for atmosphere. The storyline is one that could have easily been told in the requisite time frame but MODIGLIANI taxes the viewers' attention for over two hours.

So aside from a visually exciting experience there is really very little to be learned from this liquor and opium soaked consumptive noisy melodrama that could have been about any one of the artists involved in the story. The genius of Modigliani is barely tapped. Grady Harp


I really love Modigliani's work, so I was excited to see this movie.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be disappointing. While Andy Garcia is a good actor, he's an unconvincing Modigliani-- he looked much too clean, well-fed and robust for (most) of the film! The music was bland, terrible and out of place- instead of heightening the experience, it transformed most scenes into cheesy, sentimental, and trite. The ending was far too drawn out, and it only made the movie more clichéd and sentimental. Jeanne talks about her intense love for Modigliani at the beginning and end of the film, but we really hardly even get to see that-- her character is flat. Consequently, these "dramatic scenes" of her love for him come off as contrived and ineffective. Another thing I didn't like was the way the characters spoke. As a reviewer mentioned before, they switched from different languages and accents at the drop of a hat.. which was weird. From American English to European accents to European language. It was annoying.

But, I liked Elsa Zylberstein as Jeanne. She looked just like a Modigliani painting. A good scene was the one where Modigliani and Picasso visited Renoir, as was the scene at Picasso's exhibition where one of Modigliani's paintings was shown.

But, overall, I feel that the movie was trying way too hard to be dramatic, artsy, and decadent and it really didn't accomplish any of it. I thought it was a rather contrived, emotionless effort that didn't do much justice to the artist.


Did the screen writers both to pick up a copy of Janson? Or anything with a basic outline of art history? And what is with the famous Piaf song, La Vie En Rose playing from a café as Modigliani and Jeune walk on a Paris street. A beautifully filmed song, so someone knew a bit about cinematography, but didn't bother to do any other homework. La Vie En Rose was popular in post war Paris, World War II that is. Not in 1914, or whenever the scene is supposed to be taking place because the flashbacks are indistinguishable. The depictions of Utrillo, Picasso, Braque, Stein and Rivera are cliché at best. And Frida Kahlo is supposed to be in this?? Whattt?? Kahlo didn't make Paris until the late 1930s. Certainly there are better venues for Andy Garcia. This is actually worse than the most recent "wild sex in ex-pat Paris" film, Head in the Clouds. I'm giving it a four because 2 is usually reserved for pornos. Although some lush sex scenes might redeem this a bit.


If you know anything about art or artists you won't like this film. To paraphrase the late Barry Took: there are thousands of films made, catering for all tastes, but most of them are for those who have absolutely no taste at all - and this is one of them. It is avowedly based on characters not events and most of the latter are invented: the film is after all a drama, not a documentary: the paucity of facts is acceptable, it is the lack of truth which is makes this film so shallow. The characters are Modigliani and his contemporaries, most notably Picasso. With a few exceptions, the acting is wooden where it is not mechanical (Andy Garcia); the exceptions include Louis Hilyer as Zborowski, Jim Carter as Achille Hébuterne, Michelle Newell as Eudoxie Hébuterne and Hippolyte Girardot as Uttrillo, who all try to convince. The rest were simply not believable as the artists they were impersonating: mostly even they themselves gave every impression of not believing in what they were doing. Andy Garcia is too fat for the role of Modigliani, who at the end of his life was wasted by excess (e.g. alcohol) and illness and living in squalor on a diet of brandy and tinned sardines. Omid Djalili as Picasso is even fatter. Elsa Zylberstein is just wet as Jeanne. The scenes of the artists painting are pure vaudeville - most of them seemingly getting more paint on themselves than on the canvas; this is not a total loss however since the paint looks decidedly better on them than on the finished paintings, which are dross. The picture of Jeanne which 'Modi' (his nickname and a pun on 'maudit') paints at the end is unbelievably bad and an insult to an artist who has pretensions to greatness: this is partly what I mean about lack of truth.

This is a film purporting to be about artists, made by someone who clearly knows nothing about art.


Elsa Zylberstein gives a very irritating, mannered performance. Every time that she screams or yells (and she does that quite often in this movie)you wonder if she understands English well enough to understand what she's saying. She also changes accents several times throughout the course of the movie.

Garcia's accent lapses from Italian to Brooklyn, (which is odd considering he's from LA). Plus he's gotten old and fat.

As a biography, it doesn't really stick to the facts, especially with regard to Modigliani's death.

As a romance, it's a love story between a drug addict/alcoholic and his punching bag/doormat/unfit mother/ model. Hardly Romeo and Juliet.

As a tragedy, generally a movie about a tragic couple shouldn't make you think, "phew! Thank god those two aren't around breathing the same air as me anymore!" As a period piece, its set in Paris in the 1920's and filmed in Rumania with an anachronistic soundtrack.

As a movie about artists, aside from one nice sequence where Picasso and Modigliani converse with Renoir at his estate, it seems to be this movie's contention that painters spend most of their time drinking absinthe, mistreating their wives or mistresses, acting like pompous egomaniacs and occasionally firing or pointing guns at one another.

Pretty much a botched job from start to finish. Writer, director, and cast should all hang their heads in shame.

Ignore any positive comments you see here. Don't waste your time or money on this nonsense.


This is a movie about painters in Paris that tells us nothing about painting and shows us nothing of Paris. (Even a little stock footage would have been welcome.) The most profound observation anyone in the movie makes about Modigliani's work is that he exaggerates the length of the neck. To add a little excitement to the mix, characters fire guns in one another's general direction (twice) and the manner of Modigliani's death is irresponsibly fictionalized. At least I consider it irresponsible, because people will come to the movie not knowing the facts and come away thinking they've learned them. Andy Garcia is to be commended for taking the title role-- Modigliani is worth a movie, and I'm sure no one set out to make it a bad one-- but he is less convincing and interesting than the supporting actors who bring Soutine, Utrillo, and especially Renoir to life.


Hello,

I loathed this movie for the following reasons. This grotesque portrayal of the parisian life of artists is a waste of time.

First, the structure of the narrative: the succession of short scenes is all over the place. Example, the scene where you can see the "Service pour l'enfance" on the front of the building for about 3 seconds (thank God I read fast)is immediately followed by Modigliani getting out of prison. Why? It's as if they made a mistake during the montage. Same thing with the couple's love story which is totally overlooked. One day everything's fine, and the day after Modigliani wakes up and leaves her. And their baby...She only has to talk to him for a minute and he finally decides to recognize and accept her...

Then: the clichés. The couple dancing in the dark at night in the street, the little boy (Modigliani as child), Picasso being the first one to recognize Modi's talent (He applauds first), the punchline "I 'll paint your eyes when I know your soul"...I'm pretty sure the director lost a bet and had to include as many clichés as possible. Horrible.

Third: Elsa Zilberstein. What a terrible actress...especially when she screams. Totally unbearable. But she's never as bad as Modigliani's agent.

Well, an awful movie, awful...


This more or less completely useless film is hopelessly stuck in a romantic (as in 19th century) view of the artist as a lonely, struggling genius. The film (if not its subject's life) is a catalogue of clichés: The miserable childhood, the penniless adulthood, the difficult love life, the threat of insanity, the critical incomprehension, the refusal to 'sell out' (possibly the most long-lived of romantic clichés, it's still thought to be relevant in the world of rock and roll) and the god-damned post mortem vindication are all present and accounted for. Add to this lookalikes of the usual suspects of Paris between world wars - Cocteau, Picasso, Gertrude Stein etcetera - and an audience with the godlike Auguste Renoir (courtesy of Picasso) and you get this: Two hours of rehashed ideas trying to convince the viewer of an artist's originality by equating him with every stereotyped image of the troubled genius. This extreme conventionalism is hardly suited to the memory of an unconventional artist like Modigliani, is it?


This film deserves no review. It is the worst movie I have never seen. I voted with my feet and walked out.

The filmmakers have taken the foundation of a remarkable story, person, and talent and constructed over this foundation a facade which collapses into a putrid dung heap of bourgeois cliché.

Was this one of those classic examples of producers forcing a rewrite into some cretinous drivel they could at last relate to on their own level?

If the filmmakers couldn't handle the truth of this story why did they bother at all?

The director should reconsider his present occupation and focus his future employment energies with some police-state propaganda ministry where his predilection for "The Big Lie" will play with great appreciation. If he Bowdlerizes his upcoming project about the story of Dorian Gray to a similar extent as this film I can see clearly the denouement - "Shock! Gasp! Horrors! Look at the painting! My God! There! Look! It's a tiny blackhead on the side of his nose!"


While this film looks good it has the values of a pop clip which is indicated by the use of music: either it's from the wrong era (Edith Piaf)and just a French cliché, or just new age nonsense.

But the biggest problem is the film deceives the audience with a tragic story and portrayal of the artist which is not true. Furthermore Andy Garcia's performance emphasizes the unfair tragedy, as it is serene: as if the world has pitched everything against him.

The real Modigliani was a very disturbed, self-destructive and unpleasant man. He was an addict, alcoholic, prone to violence - against women and Jeanne too - who despite all that, could paint pictures. His brain chemistry and personality would have been changed from years of abuse. In the last year of his life, as this film is set, he was emaciated, eating only rarely, and toothless. Not an attractive thing to look at on a movie screen. Real poverty and addiction is not.

In the last weeks of his life he had been drinking very heavily and went home where the tubercolar meningitis and alcoholism caught up with him but he still insisted that Jeanne give him more to drink. The perils of an addict. He ate just sardines, and the account is his clothes and mattress were smeared in sardine oil.

At his end he was not beaten but found by a neighbor in his apartment with Jeanne cuddled beside the comatose painter. They had been in that position for 2 days.

He was taken to a hospital and died. Jeanne saw him later, with her father, and it is said by witnesses that she did not kiss Modigliani. She screamed. There was no farewell scene, nothing tender just the death of a junkie, albeit one who painted well. If that had been on screen it would have knifed an audience by its power.

No one has deciphered Jeanne well: impressionable young woman, devoted, or perhaps a bit mad like the rest of Modigliani's circle of painters.

When she committed suicide she underlined Modigliani's life (the value of his paintings rose 800% overnight) and our complicity in enjoying tragic stories about artists.

This film has several defects, and its final one is the dedication to the daughter of Modigliani and Jeanne, who herself, died in 1984 and had an unhappy life. It's a smug gesture.

This film is probably about an artist, but it is not about Modigliani.


It's sad to see what just one director is able to do to someone's memory. 'Modigliani' by Mick Davis is a poor melodrama in a "pop tribute" suit, with an awful soundtrack, made against a great genius memory. It should be forbidden to Art's students.

The good work of some actors is not enough to save this 'pasticcio' from the clichés and absolute inelegance. Despite of the eventual interest in Modigliani's deranged private life, it couldn't have been used as an attraction to 'teen audiences' to do such an inconsistent movie that promotes a false romantic hero. There's total lack of respect and delicateness to treat psychological complex profiles that Modigliani and his contemporaries colleagues had. Mick Davis simply gave us total flat, stupid characters. A clamorous example is Modigliani's wife, Jeanne.


I agree with the comments about the lack of truth in this movie, regarding the facts in the life of Modigliani. I would like to comment on the casting of Picasso. Some viewers are impressed with the actor; obviously they know nothing about Picasso and haven't seen his pictures. When I first saw the "Picasso" in this film I was so shocked and disgusted I wanted to quit and not watch it any more. (May be it was a good idea - I would've saved an hour or so). Picasso was nothing like this physically - he was athletic, robust, virile,oozing sexual power. He was Spaniard. Nothing like the greasy, obese, fat-nosed actor in the movie who looked more like an aged Middle Easterner with dyed hair (well, he is actually from Iran). To sum it up - regarding not only the casting of Picasso but the whole story - this is a very bad film, made by people who not only had no idea about the artists concerned, but they even had no interest to research the period, the place, the art scene. Their only concern was to make some easy dollar for the simple fact that most people have no information about Modigliani, his life and friends, and will take everything in the movie for a fact.

This is one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life, this is for sure. Picasso and Modigliani were spinning in their graves when this pretentious insult to their memory was made!


Sometimes movies with potential try hard and fall just short of being good. In some ways "The Traveler" falls into that category. In other ways it falls so short of what should be considered film that it's downright sad.

Let me start by saying that if this is a student film, it should probably get a decent grade. It's story had potential, the effects are fairly good given the budget, and it genuinely made me (a real horror fan) cringe from time to time. The problems? First of all, the production values are are poor. Extremely poor. In fact I think I've made home movies that took longer to produce. Half of the fun of watching horror flicks can be the bad production, but this is just too much. Then you have to deal with the "actors". I use quotations because I'm fairly sure the makers of this film just asked friends and possibly strangers on the street to be in this movie. It's so bad that it makes a somewhat promising story and makes it almost unbearable to watch.

Why the 2 extra stars? As I said, the story isn't bad (think TV show "Survivor" meets your gruesome untimely death by way of creepy British guy)...it's just executed very poorly. Add another star for some practical special effects that were more than I expected (probably where the entire budget went for this film if it had one to begin with). All of this gives you a finished product that, if more time and a little more money had went into it, could easily have been a real contender for a good horror flick. I really wanted to like this piece of indie horror...I just couldn't.


Well, I give it a 2 for the gore, but otherwise this film is worthless. Heck, I just went back and gave it a 1. With this movie I have finally decided I'm too old to finish movies that start off as poorly as this clunker. SPOILER: For 10 minutes an uninteresting couple with nothing much to say drives around lost in the country. This bit has to be seen to be believed. Were they all on 'ludes when they edited this section? I saw this movie for free and I still paid too much. That silly movie about the giant walking turd monster was like Citizen Kane compared to this bowel movement. Your life will be better if you skip this puppy. Your entertainment dollar would be better spent on gas to go driving around running over stray dogs while dressed as Edna Turnblatt.


Okay, so this is a low-budget horror flick. I get that. That's no excuse for not having at the start a solid script. I mean, before anything, get the script in the best shape possible. Don't just hope it'll come together on the screen. It won't. The script would've been much better if there was more of a connection between the characters and their fate. The philosophical note at the end rang empty, because, frankly, we just didn't care.

The directing was just as bad. There was a sense that the director rushed it without considering the flow of the scenes. You think that everything was just padding to get to the gore shots.

The acting was on an even keel with the script and directing. Doesn't anybody rehearse any more?

The one star I give it is for the gruesome effects.

So why did I watch the whole thing? I'm one of those people who has to finish what they start watching. (I need to stop doing that...)

Oddboggle


I had a good friend tell me I would find this hilarious, which has historically always been a bad sign. After sitting through 2 and half episodes and trying to force the occasional smile, I could stand it no longer. It's not that it's spectacularly bad, it's just that it is, at best, average in every respect. The humour is predictable. Gormsby's dialogue wears thin after the first couple of lines. The acting is dire for all but a couple of the main characters (Gormsby and that fat PE teacher) and the few dramatic elements are plastic, hollow and laboured.

Don't get me wrong. It's great that a low-budget show from NZ of all places has done well outside its country of origin. And thank god there's no laugh track, but Christ, I have to voice a counter opinion to all this wanton praise since I've sat through repeated viewings of it now (with the aforementioned friend and his flatmate) and I honestly hate it. Now this might be asking for it, but am I the only one?


I doubt it. But this one is pretty thick-headed, which sort of ruins the movie. I suppose that he's not supposed to be a street cop, but it's still inexcusable. He's on a mission for personal redemption. The only problem is that he's pretty bad at it.

It seems that a lot of people find this movie to be disgusting, which suggests that they haven't watched many movies. The gross factor is actually pretty low.

Other than that, the plot and production are pretty good. The music is great.

Overall, you can spend 90 minutes with a worse movie.


It was gruesome and full of strange oddities. The basic plot of a man force feeding women to death is the basic key of desire to want to watch this movie. Well, besides the crime investigator, and the hardcore sex, thats basically what you see in this movie. A woman being fattened up until she's so morbidly obese that she cannot live on her own, and is basically bet on for how huge she can get and how long she will stay alive as an extremely fat woman. It was enough to send chills down my spine, watching 9/10th's of this movie. If you wanted to watch something that scars you for a while, then in that case I deeply suggest you stay out of watching this movie!Evren Buyruk


It is often the case when reviewing that it is more enjoyable to write about bad 'art'. In the case of Brett Leonard's Feed I must thank my brother for recommending me a motion picture of such superlative-defying badness that I was instantly compelled to express my apparent distaste with anyone prepared to take the time to read it. The Israeli military continues to demolish Lebanon with gay abandon whilst Hezbollah returns fire with its rockets; Shia and Sunni are at each others throats whilst Baghdad, Basra et al crumble in the midst of unacknowledged civil war; thousands die every day from aids, hunger, poverty, disease and neglect. The truth is you know all this already, and although I feel a slight guilt that I don't surrender my free time to the discussion of more pressing matters such as those aforementioned, I still cannot allow myself to let the memory of Feed pass without discussion. It just means too much. Feed manages to rip-off every serial-killer film made in the last 15 years and does so with what I hope to God is an ironic awareness of its own ineptitude. Useless flash cuts, filters, choppy editing and nausea-inducing camera-work prove only to aid the revelation that Leonard can't direct. The man who brought us that untouchable sci-fi milestone The Lawnmower Man (arf!) is so clearly unaware of how to generate tension that the film descends into farce from the opening frames. A perverse killer (Alex O' Loughlin) is feeding up women to elephantine proportions whilst he creates a secretive website where gamblers can place bets on their imminent deaths. To counter the death of his latest soon-to-be victim, a cybercrime cop (Patrick Thompson) is determined to track him down; journeying from Australia to the US, so determined is he to do so. Oh, he also happens to have a really hot nympho girlfriend who gets naked in the shower in a few soft-focus flashback scenes designed, (I presume) for the red-blooded male viewer to give his eyes a rest from women so fat it looks like they're going to burst through the telly. Such plot contrivances are irrelevant however, because Feed makes little sense. I visualize screenwriter Keiran Galvin's look of twisted glee whilst barking orders to his bored ghost writers to add scenes of a crazed German man being willingly fed his own bleeding member ('I vant to be eaten!', screams said crazed German in a standout scene). If there is one thing to be said in its favour it is, intentionally or not (I'm doubtful), one of the funniest films you will find staring at you from the DVD shelf of your local Blockbuster. It's Plan 9 funny at times. The scene where cop awakes to find crim (I refuse to register the planks in this film as actual characters) has injected him with a syringe of fat, only for him to burst it open like a huge zit had me reeling. Crim force-feeding Tubby McTubbster the fat of the other girls he's killed was another zinger ('It's a bit salty baby,' she says to him lovingly). Also, the cheesy eloquence of Crim's speeches about the importance of inner beauty made me smile. Perhaps most important though is the inevitable twist ending, which for the sake of formality I will fail to spoil for you but needless to say, probably had our beloved screenwriter sporting wood from self-adulation. Glad I got this off my chest. Now that I have completely slated it for all it's worth, go rent it. My opinion won't change a damned thing.


This film was so terrible that i actually couldn't bear it any longer, i turned it off. I'm not sure why this film has so many good reviews and an overall above average score, but if you thought it was terrible, your not alone. The acting was awful, the low budget look didn't help and the dialogue seemed to of been written by a child. The soundtrack also seemed completely out of place as they tried to squeeze as many death metal songs in, in an attempt to improve this terrible film i can only assume. What else was wrong with it? Well, what was right with it. A good idea has been sabotaged in a terrible attempt to create what i can only assume was meant to be a film? A plus side of it is, i guess, it gave off a good vibe and i was intrigued,until i turned it on.

The premise of the film seemed promising but it failed to deliver and after a while i gave in and turned it off.


This is one to avoid.The premise sounds interesting and as a film it owes much of its plot theme to David Finchers infinitely superior Se7en.Its an uncomfortable film to watch for all the wrong reasons.The characters are badly realised and the cop on the trail has to be the worst cop ever for the some of the situations he gets himself into.This is a film that will appeal to people when they read the back of the DVD in the rental store but upon putting the disc in your machine you'll realise why you hadn't heard of it before you came across it in the store.Its,save the odd moment,pretty rubbish stuff really and deserves its place in the bargain bin.Watch it you must be don't say i didn't warn you.4/10


Think of wanna be Silence of the Lambs, but with limited budget, a small cast and an appalling script.

Main difference: This time, the serial murder is going after fat women. He kidnaps them and feeds them until they die.

Poor acting, stereotype dialog, massively improbable behaviour, this movie lacks of nearly anything. It is supposed to be a thriller, eventually aesthetically it is just disgusting.

You can tell every second they had very little money to spend, however, if a movie is to be expected that bad, one should simply not even start making the movie to begin with.

This is the worst I have EVER seen, a true insult to intelligence, taste and conventional wisdom.


Gross and ugly does not begin to describe the wretched FEED. If it took itself at all seriously, or had decided to play it "camp," or simply attempted to provide decent thrills and chills, we might forgive it its nastiness and vomit-inducing swill. I rented it because it supposedly starred Australian actor Jack Thompson, a long-time favorite of mine who, it turns out, has almost no role in the movie. (His son Patrick plays the co-lead, along with Alex O'Loughlin, who, as a blond, looks an awfully lot like Owen Wilson, without the noticeable nose.)

The movie begins as though it might hold together, but slowly comes apart until, toward the end, director Brett Leonard ("Lawnmower Man," "Virtuosity") leaves logic adrift entirely and has his hero (and us) lamely rolling around in body parts and fluids. For sheer stupidity, nothing equals the moments (several of them) when hero and villain could easily kill or at least maim each other, but simply don't. So, of course, the movie can continue on its vile way for another half hour. The questions supposedly raised here about our consumer culture and over-eating are red herrings, plot-wise, and neither pertinent nor intelligent enough to qualify as "intellect."

Yes, unhealthily fat women (and the men who go for them) exist in life and online, but this film--which equals "Hostel" and "Wolf Creek" in sheer ugliness while possessing about one-tenth the movie-making smarts of both put together--has no reason to be.


The movie has terrible actors. Even young actors from the Portuguese soap-operas are better. Well, when most of actors are from the family, the best actors from this movie are then the American secondary actors. It is more than obvious that this movie was made only to get some money to pay the holidays of all Oliveira's family to USA and Madeira. The sound is awful, as well as the image. A kid could do a movie with a better argument. In the end, everybody becomes convinced that Colombus wasn't Portuguese with again terrible arguments! The movie cannot has 1/10, since it has still one funny part: "Oh Silvia!..." when the old actress (director's wife) forgets her lines. A terrible pseudo-nationalist movie, as a old men's crank.


Rewatch, 3/10.

It's a re-watch indeed, but I don't remember ANYTHING from when I first saw it a couple of years back on TV so I decided to re-watch it again.

It's not a big surprise why I didn't remember it, there's NOTHING worth remembering, there's not a original joke anywhere in this movie and the cast is lame.

FRENCH STEWART, the "stupid" alien in 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN has the lead and well he's good in 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN but definitely not in this one, he is not Lead-Material.

I don't wanna spend to much time writing about this movie, I'll put it like this: Love might stink, but not as much as this movie does.


Not at all a film noir, Klapisch's "Ni pour ni contre" is a run off-the-mill "heist", "coup du siècle" movie, with no original standpoint. The story is a poor justification for a series of beautifully filmed, very bright, colorful and sunny photographic scenes that parallel the aesthetics of this "more than perfect" gang, their associates and their "Appat" film heroine.

There is no justification for the use of a camera in the first "coup" scène, other than the set up of how this very particular innocent girl is being recruited by this band of criminals. Other incoherent sequences appear through the movie that one doesn't get to criticize for fear of sounding too realistic nowadays. Contrarily to other heist movies, nothing goes unusually wrong after the robbery to justify the mess up that ensues.

The attempts at building a camaraderie between the gangsters also falls short and shows clearly that too many people were involved writing this movie.

All and all, this movie is Klepisch's take at a genre he never tried before (american crime movies, not film noirs by any means, and surely not thrillers or polars), and he succeeds less-than-averagely.


TOO MARVELOUS FOR WORDS is the one reason for seeing this very mediocre WB musical. The song is sung many times during the course of the film and used for a somewhat silly finale, where Ruby Keeler and Lee Dixon dance on typewriter keys (a really tacky set). It was obviously a swan song (she'd only make three more musicals in the later thirties) for her career and a typical "B" picture of the period. The plot dealing with mistaken identities and misunderstandings is simplistic and rather dumb. There are three songs (in addition to the classic TOO MARVELOUS FOR WORDS, there's HANDY WITH YOUR FEET and JUST A QUIET EVENING)but only the one is worth mentioning. It inexplicably was Oscar nominated for Choreography (decidedly undeserved) but did not receive a Best Song nomination.

Ross Alexander (the lead) appeared in 18 films for Warners but did not click with the public. This would be his last - he took his life the year of its release.

Lee Dixon (a gawky, untalented amateur and rather obnoxious) appeared in only eight films and had his sole hit in creating the role of Will Parker in the original Broadway cast of R&H's OKLAHOMA! - a part he played as long as the show ran and toured. He was to die an alcoholic bemoaning the loss of the one part he seemed right for.

Louise Fazenda is rather a hoot as Keeler's mentor, Jane Wyman has a bit as a snappy secretary, and Lorenz Hart's brother, Teddy, has a bit as a stage manager. Wini Shaw made 19 films, this was to be her second to last.

The film is totally forgettable, both as a film and as a musical, but there are enough "bits" of fun in the above observations of performer personalities to pass the time.


This is not what you would expect when you see the front cover of the DVD. Actually, it's not even close. It's just a "Scream" kind of film where a masked guy chases some frightened teenagers through an isolated mental hospital.

From my point of view the first film was way better than this one. The first puts the accent on the horror part, this one emphasizes the bloody, cruel and disgustful part.

As for the plot, it's a little bit incoherent because you actually don't know who killed the children's parents in the beginning of the movie.

Anyway, "Boogeyman 2" is definitely not a horror fan's movie and I am a little disappointed in it's shallow approach of the Boogeyman subject.


When i was watching this i presumed it would be the sequel to the 2005 Boogeyman.. a horror film.. but instead all we got is another Scream type clone.

The actors and directing is OK i suppose but whats the point of watching a sequel to a horror when its basically a completely different film and genre. In my eyes it should've just been named something completely different or Called Boogeyman, without the 2 on the end.

If you want a thriller, 'who's doing it' type of film then sure this might be for you, if you want a horror though i would wait and see if Boogeyman 3 has anything decent to offer.. who knows it might actually have the Boogeyman in it this time.

Fair play for not taking the usual "hey lets throw in a heap load of CGI", but it was just wrong to call this a sequel.


1 for Tobin Bell whom I thought had a good character (And the only reason I watched it in the first place).

2 for some of the death scenes which were quite grisly.

Other than that...this movie appears to have stolen ideas from other movies such as Nightmare on Elmstreet, scream (or any other slasher picture), and lastly jeepers creepers.

I say Jeepers Creepers because the "Boogyman" looked a lot like he could have been the Creepers' brother in this movie. Even on top of that the "Boogyman" looked like he stole his costume from slipknot.

It started off with potential...but seemed to just go down hill extremely fast. It snowballed and the movie ended leaving me more disappointed than the first one.

I was gonna give this a 3 out of 10...but I couldn't think of anything else good about this movie in which I enjoyed.


Boogeyman 2 is the sequel to one of the worst horror films I have seen during the last 10 years.This sequel is better than the first part...but it also is a pathetic crap.Besides the good presence from Tobin Bell and Reneé O' Connor,there is nothing to recommend in Boogeyman 2.The screenplay is horribly bad,the characters are completely generic and the movie is tremendously tedious from its first scene to its last one.Jeff Betancourt,who was the editor of some very competent movies (like The Good Girl or The Ruins),made his first work as a director in this movie,and it would be better if he goes back to editing movies,because the direction from Boogeyman 2 is pathetic for many reasons,but mainly,because it never finds a good tone and it is very chaotic.Boogeyman 2 belongs to the worst kind of horror cinema and I suggest you to avoid this big piece of crap.As I said,it's better (or,more properly,less bad) than the first part,but it's still unbearable and painful to watch.


Just been watching this movie Boogeyman 2 and for me it was not anything I will watch again.Alltough I must say the good looking cast was OK and some of the gore scenes fine.Much more gore than I expected as the first Boogeyman from 2005 is pretty dry.Plot is OK..but nothing more.Starts with two children watching the Boogeyman killing their parents and then go forwards 10 years and they both at a clinic to overcome their fears for the Boogeyman.Some scenes really bloody and not for the sensitive ones.Maybe worth a rental but not a film I will buy to my DVD collection.If you like your film bloody and a movie not any different than many other horror films coming out these days maybe this is a film for you.I give this film 3/10.


This movie is a waste of material and precious time... avoid it if possible. All parts are trivial, no real horrors... The plot is plain as it can get, you know how it will end before it begins. The beginning is the opening to your trials: guts cut out, woman pinned to the wall with a knife. Donr by who? A guy in a hoodie. Dear mother of God you could score with it in 1984 but not in 2007!! Then all psycho wrecks are killed by facing their own fears... Again, who's the psychiatrist? The Saw guy... Who's the second doctor? Gabrielle from Xena... like what?! The almost-closing scene with those gardening tools is really gross and loosy.


I give this movie a 2 out of 10 - but only for the cast.

When I sat down to watch this movie, I expected there to be, at the very least, the real Boogeyman from the first movie making a comeback. But, to my dismay, no such luck.

Instead, I was treated to a half-baked, poor excuse of a film that I will be glad to get out of my house.

The acting was fair, the overall plot could have used some work, and the gore should have been toned way down. With only a passing reference to Tim, the main character in the first Boogeyman, this film should not be classified as a sequel because when a second (or third) film in a series is made, there should be something there to make a positive connection. I didn't even catch that the Tim in #2 was the same Tim from #1 until I read about it here on IMDb.

If you like gore reminiscent of SAW or HOSTEL, feel free to peruse this title as well. But if you're looking for a continuation of the original, leave this DVD on the store shelf.


The only reason I am giving a 2 is because some of the actors managed to pull through the script.How they managed half of these scenes without bursting into hysterical laughter is beyond me. They at least held up on their end of the bargain.So, where to start. I wasn't expecting much on a direct-to-DVD movie, but holy sh*t was I in for a crap storm tonight. The first boogeyman sucked, no denying. So, to remedy the problem, looks like cues were taken from other horror films * cough cough SAW, and infused with a special spoonful of terrible. Seeing people die in the most disgusting ways was a reminder about what crap costs these days. $5.34 at your local blockbuster. PASS!!!


I can not believe they called this boogeyman '2', did the director even bother to watch the first Boogeyman? This film has absolutely nothing to do with the first one, its a different reality entirely.

The first one was deep and twisted and really made you think about the world and colliding realities, it was such an inspiring film and it still gives me a cold shiver thinking about that little girl saying 'you can't save me, you can only save yourself'..

But this one is just cheap and boring, a steaming pile of wannabe 'slasher' movie with no plot that makes any sense, no surprises, just really dull. what a magnificent waste of time, can I have my money back now?


This movie is boring than I thought. Well I have to say the first one was great & the sound effects were superb comparing with this one. Boogeyman 2 has nothing to do with the first movie. no proper storyline, most of the cast are new. the first movie was with a real boogeyman, and this one a human trapped inside a mask trying to be boogeyman. funny to me. I don't know how other viewer think about this movie. it's up to them. Horror movies in the 80's & 90's are with real fear. Horror movies that are releasing now is only with gore, violence, sex & bloody scenes. A real horror movie is about special effects like evil dead, omen, exorcist, sleepy hollow. ghost ship, etc. I am afraid whether all other movies about to releas is just like Boogeyman 2!!!


The movie centers on a young woman with a long-term phobia of the Boogeyman, who voluntarily checks herself into a mental health facility with the hope of conquering her overwhelming fears. However, much to her horror, she discovers that some things are terrifying on purpose, and confronting her demons was not the best course of action.

Through last year (2007), you might have noticed many direct-to-DVD sequels coming out. There was The Butterfly Effect 2, Open Water 2, Wrong Turn 2, Return to House on Haunted Hill, and now this. I pretty much found the others very bad to decent but I found this just very stupid.

This so called "sequel" to the first film have nothing related to it. There's probably one idiotic scene that tries to connect them together. I found it just very stupid, like I said, on how they tried to connect the two films. First of all, Boogeyman ended. It ENDED. There was not an opened ending. I found it really decent if not good.

Now this film is completely different. It's more of a serial killer film than a supernatural thriller like the first (probably because they didn't have enough money for visual effects). First, Boogeyman is a supernatural force. In this film, he's just another serial killer in a mask. Might as well make a generic serial killer movie not related to the first film.

One could wonder why this isn't a sequel to the "Saw" movies, especially since it resembles much with them, including Tobin Bell (no wonder he decided to be in the movie!). There's also the dialog from Tobin Bell, the deaths from this film, taking place in a "hospital" (get it?), etc.

The filmmakers of this film also had enough guts to make one of the most idiotic twist in a film. It seems like they just added in there for "effect." And if you're worried about violence and gore, you should be because it's just very nasty, disgusting, and mean-spirited rather than scary. There's also some very funny moments in the film including the word for "fear of the Boogeyman": Which is called "boogeyphobia."

There's a reason why this film is released direct-to-DVD. It's just a very bad movie. However, I will say the character development is quite nice at one point but all got smothered in the next scene. How nice is that? And as you know with most horror movies, there's an opened ending! Should we expect a third "Boogeyman" movie? I hope not. Instead, watch "Jeepers Creepers" (the first or the second), which is a far better, far creepier horror movie.


This Martin Sheen film went almost completely unnoticed on its release, probably because the film company knew it wouldn't be worth promoting it. The film is a bit pretentious; it's characters speak lines in a manner that no one would really say in our real world. The actors do the best they can with the script they were given (including Blythe Danner, Craig T. Nelson, and Sebastian Dungan as Martin Sheen's 10-year old French son). It's not their fault, but the fault of the screenwriter Erich Segal (who also wrote the novel). Towards the end the movie goes to extremes to jerk the tears out of the two or three people sitting in the theatre. Really, not very good.


I'm really on the fence about this movie. Though the score is wonderful and melodic, it is often interrupted by cheap directorial tricks. The ballad "Isn't It Romantic" would have been lovely if it had been performed straight, with no flounces. Instead it is truncated, and for me, ruined by cinematic tricks. "Lover," a superb Richard Rodgers waltz, is sung to a horse, the late Jeanette MacDonald halting her rendition to make jokes with the animal! There are many other examples of film fireworks that fizzle. Perhaps Mamoulian was anxious to show how a movie musical could be superior to the stage, but for me all that emerges are unwelcome and dated film artifices that serve only to annoy. I get the feeling that Mamoulian didn't really like the score and tried his best to submerge it. Though I'm still on the fence, I really detested this film.


Mamoulian ruined practically all the songs in this musical comedy... Such beautiful songs as "Lover" and "Love Me Tonight" would have been presented by Lubitsch in a much more entertaining manner... Mamoulian seems to have been obsessed with moving the camera around (as if that is what makes a good film) .... "One Hour With You" was directed by Lubitsch and released in 1932. It is such a delightful film that I have seen it over 25 times.... and it is entertaining every time... I had trouble watching "Love Me Tonight" even twice... So many things could have been done better... His technique is unbelievably childish... He doesn't understand how to portray the actors properly... (both Chevalier and MacDonald look absolutely terrible at times)... their acting is unbelievable as well as the manner in which they handle the songs... they amade by Paramount in which she sings "Love Me Tonight" .. this short sequence is better than any musical sequence in the actual film) I don't understand why people praise "Mamoulian" so much... he was a terrible director..