For the life of me I can't understand what people see in this film. I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival. The movie is plagued with bad acting, bad dialogue, miscasting, and a cliché plot. I've read comments that the movie is introspective. But I failed to see an introspective moment on screen.

****SPOILERS***** The sex scene between Viggo and Maria on the stairs was realistic, but the sixty-nine sex scene, supposedly to show how into each other they were, didn't work. While it's a great position between partners, it looks ridiculous when trying to show intimacy. Especially when they acted like they were snacking on each other.

Maria Bello- Cast as a small town attorney. Miscast maybe. Her look speaks to big city lawyer but not small town.

Viggo- At least Maria tried to act. Viggo looked like someone was feeding him his lines from behind the camera. I really love his wooden acting when he tries to tell Maria that he thought he buried Joey a long time ago. It looked like he was going to laugh at one point. Plus it's hard to take a middle-aged man named "Joey" seriously.

Direction-Viggo's limping scene as he tries to race home to save his family. Crazy. Viggo snapping a flunkie's neck on his way out of his criminal brother's office. HI-larious. Or even the choice to have all the mob guys wear black like a vampire convention.

I could maybe forgive those scenes (or not) but I couldn't stand the obvious metaphor with the weak bully who preyed on Viggo's son. The bully was really a wimp at heart and Viggo's son was just waiting for his burst of motivation to take on the bully and his flunkie in the spirit of his father's heroism. Haven't seen that before.

But the worst was, no not Ed Harris hamming it up as Mr. Fogarty, but Viggo's daughter. She had to be one of the most grating child actors ever cast. She was horrible.

In summary, from the moment Viggo's family crowded around the little girl because she had a nightmare and all were there to console her (in Cronenberg's hackneyed attempt to show Tom Stall's initially perfect existence) to the end when Tom/Joey/Michael Myers comes home to find his family tensely sitting at the dinner table and little girl Sarah pulls out a plate to show daddy Tom/Joey/Jason X is still part of the family, the movie was a complete package of one terribly directed cliché after another.


There are times when you watch a movie and the flow of the story comes to an abrupt halt because some character does something that just doesn't make sense. Sometimes the film overcomes this bit of illogic, though more often it just derails the film's credibility completely because it inadvertently reminds you that you are, indeed, watching a movie. David Cronenberg's A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is an endless stream of such moments when characters' behaviors just don't ring true. One false move after another renders what could have been a passable thriller into being little more than a violent soap opera.

The story finds Viggo Mortensen playing Tom Stalls, a small-town café owner whose peaceable bucolic life is shattered when he thwarts a holdup in his folksy little establishment. His bravery, resulting in the well-deserved deaths of a couple of traveling serial killers (who inexplicably, but conveniently pick Tom's place for a stick up), gains him unwanted national notoriety and the even more unwanted attention of a mobster who claims that Tom is really Joey Cusack, an MIA Philadelphia gangster. It could be a case of mistaken identity, or else Tom's unsavory past is catching up with him -- just as it has with all manner of gangsters, escaped cons, gunslingers and fugitive Nazi war criminals who hide in plain sight in picturesque little movie towns.

This film wants to play itself as sort of a PULP FICTION comes to Mayberry RFD. But while Cronenberg's vision of picture postcard Medford, Indiana is archetypically American enough (though actually filmed in Canada), his villains are pure central casting stereotypes. Gangster Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) is such a trite caricature that when he shows up out of the past to confront Stalls, you expect him to step out of his black limo wearing a pinstriped suite and a white fedora while carrying a violin case concealing a tommy gun. Meanwhile, in an annoying subplot, Tom's teenage son, Jack (Ashton Holmes) is harassed by the school bully who seems like a juvenile delinquent straight out of a 50s Hot-Rods-from-Hell B-movie. The bad guys in the film are supposed to be menacing, but we've seen them so many times they come off as unfunny jokes.

But the transparent villainy of the bad guys is rock solid compared to the unfolding story; everyone is stupid, or at the mercy of the stupid screenplay, based tellingly on a comic book. Knowing that thugs are after him, Tom still walks to work alone along miles of desolate country roads. His wife is informed that the thugs may be heading to their isolated country house, but she doesn't call the police, let alone lock the front door. Despite numerous opportunities to quietly kill or kidnap Tom, the bad guys only confront him in public places. And worse, though Tom repeatedly risks his life to protect his family, his wife and son turn against him at the drop of a plot twist (how better to show that the prototypical happy American family is an illusion!).

Under the guidance of a Hitchock or another such director who could have shown some dramatic irony or a wicked sense of satirical humor (as well as demanding a rewrite), this could have been a decent enough suspense drama. But director David Cronenberg opts instead to play the story with the deadpan desensitized chill so prevalent in this Tarantino age of pseudo-hip sadism. He seems intent to do what has become the norm, subtly glamorize violence as a commonplace impulse in a mundane world, simultaneously pretending to condemn brutality, while giving it backhanded approval as part of the norm. Of course, such violence is commonplace, but only in hypocritical films like this.

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, like KILL BILL or RESERVOIR DOGS or THE WILD BUNCH or NATURAL BORN KILLERS or GOODFELLAS or dozens of other critic's darlings, isn't about the evils of violence, but about the adrenaline rush of its own sadism. It doesn't comment on a violent society, but perpetuates that violence in the society. There isn't even a film if you remove the violence; it is one contrived and phony situation after another, all made to build to an act of gore. There is no great suspense. There is no character development. It is like an old Hollywood musical where a silly story is used as filler between musical production numbers. Everything in this film exists solely so we can see graphic scenes of people being slaughtered -- or in one disturbing and unrealistic scene, violent sex.

In violent films like this, the director, actors and special effects people, as well as the stuntmen, the make up people, cinematographer and editor, all work together to make violent actions as cinematically jazzed up as possible. Filmmakers may spout the politically correct nonsense about how they are trying to reveal the horrible brutality of violence, but they work to create violent scenes that function as orgasms. We don't see the consequences of the senseless violence, because that would negate the ain't-it-cool impact of each burst of mayhem. If there is a consequence to the violence it is only to set things up for more violence later. Yet the violence begets violence moral of films like this is as sanctimonious and shallow as it is obvious and ultimately meaningless.


I really wanted to like this movie. And just to preempt what the critics may say about this review...I am a woman. but i'm not your typical "ew blood!" woman. I write copious horror and gore and my favorite movies are Glory, Night of the Living Dead and Gettysburg. That being said, it isn't really the 'violence' in this movie i object to so much. unless i object to the fact that there isn't really enough violence. No. it's the extent to which this movie is so god awful boring that in the first five minutes i already wanted to shout "LET ME OUT" in the middle of the theater. And for everyone who says, "You don't get it! This is an allegory for modern American society!" I say two things...

1. If it is an allegory for modern American society then I'm moving.

2. It isn't. Because people don't act like this. Hell, as devoid of culture as America is, it isn't this bad. Not at all. And there was no cohesive story line or moral or even style. The last 30 minutes of the film feel like they were made by a different director.

In short, I can't think of a single thing about this movie that I like from the cinematography and the script all the way down to the makeup and the incongruent little details that make the story entirely unbelievable.

Honestly. Watch the ice. It's cheaper, more interesting and it takes less time.


OK people, I'm not clueless. I love good movies and most of my top ten match the top ten of the majority of "professional" (i.e. they don't pay for their tickets OR their popcorn) critics but we part company in a major way when it comes to this movie.

I can't think of one positive thing to say about this mess of a movie...strike that, Ed Harris is excellent as always and provides the only thrills in this flaccid thriller!

Everything about this movie is extraordinary, and when I say that I am breaking that word into two parts as in EXTRA ORDINARY. The camera-work is pedestrian, the dialog is stilted and unconvincing and the acting, wooden at every turn.

If there was ever a sterling example of gratuitous sex and violence this is it. As I said in the beginning, I am not clueless. I realize the film is called "A History of VIOLENCE" so I'm not surprised that there is violence to be had...what surprises me is that even the violence is pulled off without imagination.

By now every six year old knows about exploding squibs and fake spraying blood and brain matter. So just being gross isn't good enough anymore, you have to be gross with flair. Obviously David Cronenberg isn't comfortable with his flair either because he exhibits none of it in this cinematic train wreck.

And far as the sex scenes go, they could have been left with the dust bunnies on the editing room floor and the film would have been none the worse for it...and that

gra·tu·i·tous - adj. Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified. is the dictionary definition of those scenes

Wait 'til this comes out on DVD and then DON'T RENT IT!


i was expecting so much from this film and i have to say, along with scarface and darkness, it's the worst film i've ever seen. There is no plot, horrible acting, and pretty much, it's a porno. But, David Chronenberh really does a outstanding job directing this. It's very gory, a lot of nudity, don't waste your time. it should have been called "a history of bad movies." or something. It look like this movie really took time to make and develop, which is sad, because the outcome is horrible. I was yelling at my friend telling him this is supposed to be a great movie, so he went along and watched it. The whole movie, were sitting there wondering how this is actually a produced film. I mean, who would pay for this piece of garbage. 1/10


This movie/series is horrible. It has horrific acting, plot, and effects. If I wanted to teach my children about God, I would, as others mentioned, get Veggietales. Not this stuff. There are so many inconsistencies in the story and ideas; so much of it makes no sense or is completely stupid. The unrealistic situations that Bibleman's little kiddie pals are stuck in don't help either. It also taught me that even if it's bad to lie, cheat, be prideful, or be angry, it's just fine to fight people with lightsabers! I mean, there are so many people commenting on this movie, and we're all saying basically the same thing, but with even more reasons to hate it tagged on. If you actually watch an episode of this stuff, you will see what we are all talking about. Trust me, you don't want to see this, and your kids don't either.


"Bibleman quotes chapter and verse to help real kids deal with real problems." How true these words ring, since I can't even count the number of times supervillains used mad science to make me doubt my faith in God when I was a kid. That quote actually exemplifies perfectly the problem I see with most of Bibleman's audience: they're just looking at the surface of this program.

Samuraiguy hit the nail on the head. This show is absolutely ludicrous in how it tries to entice kids into forming a bond with God. Most of the people touting this show's merits see a superhero fighting in the name of Our Lord (and I'm a Christian myself, so I'm not bagging on this because I'm against Bibleman's religion) and not how stupid and hypocritical the series is. In two shows, Lead Us Not Into Temptation and A Light in the Darkness, Bibleman tells us we need to work together and have fellowship with other Christians so we can resist temptation and other forms of evil better. Then in Jesus Our Savior, he totally throws those lessons out the window and goes out to fight his most powerful enemy yet ALL ALONE. And he had both of his sidekicks by that point and gave no reason whatsoever for leaving them behind besides it being in the script. Now that I think about it Bibleman did something similar in the Fear episode, where he doesn't tell his sidekick and supposed best friend about problems he's having. Just in general, he'll lecture the victimized kid du jour on how God loves them and forgives their sins no matter what, but as soon as a villain shows up he goes off on them about how people like them always get their just desserts.

I find the problem with many of the lessons the show tries to teach is basically what I said at the top; the villain will use his diabolical invention to make Bibleman feel pride or doubt or anger or distrust toward his teammates, but Bibleman never overcomes these negative feelings through prayer, faith or fellowship. He finds out that one of his enemies was behind it and the problem of his misbehavior and all of its consequences goes away, and that's why I find this whole program so laughable. Bibleman is supposed to be just a human at heart and so vulnerable to the same temptations as the rest of us, but unlike the rest of us he never has to resolve any problems that arise because of being angry or proud or dishonest. In the real world, these result in diminished trust between people or distancing of loved ones, and those are "real problems" "real kids" have to deal with as a result of the temptations Bibleman tries to teach us about. If Bibleman and his posse are supposed to be role models who go through the same temptations to sin as the kids they try to reach, they should be put in situations where their misbehavior is their fault, not the Prince of Pride's or Wacky Protester's, and have to face up to what they did, not just go, "Holy inane plot devices, Bibleman! El Furioso is behind you being an asshole the last few days! You're totally blameless!" The villains are supposed to embody the concepts of fear, wrath, pride, or thinking for yourself, but that approach costs the show all of its impact because a person was behind the Bible Team's sins, and they never have to answer for what they do because they were just being manipulated. And come on, what kind of role model hides in the bushes and spies on young boys? Watch Conquering the Wrath of Rage if you don't believe me.

And lastly, if you want to tell people how to live, you should pick one tone and stick with it. Bibleman takes every opportunity to make its villains look goofy and non-threatening, and altogether doesn't take itself very seriously with numerous self-referencing jokes, yet constantly turns around and tries to tell its viewers how to live in God's way and other serious issues. It was probably done to make the show kid-friendly. Instead it suggests that the creators don't know what they're doing.

In the end, Bibleman is little more than the Captain Planet of Christianity: he presents a worthwhile message, and many people who see it buy into it, but delivers it in an extremely unbalanced manner far fewer acknowledge because it's a superhero teaching what are ostensibly positive beliefs to kids. I know I've just made myself look like a complete lunatic, but better than that someone who wants a video to raise their kids.


Bibleman is truly a sorry/awful way for any Christian parent to teach their children any sort of values. Veggies Tales has stories with characters(cute veggies), and lots of other Christian animated videos. Got this for my son for Christmas(2006)this year, because I thought it would be more mature for his age(9). Boy was I wrong. He went back to the Veggie Tales, & The Pond, after only 15 minutes of watching BIBLEMAN. It was such a waste of money, and the time. I had to force my son into watching BIBLEMAN. I tried everything, to try to get him to watch it longer. He politely asked me to please put in the VEGGIE TALE video so he could watch that one.


My 7 year old sister borrowed this from the library at my church, the episode called, I think, "Silencing the Gossip Queen". Miles Peterson, a suspicious knockoff of Bruce Wayne, fights embodiments of human nature, while hosting an often-targeted youth group. Even my sister treated the show as a joke, laughing at the 'scripture-quoting' parts. The reasoning behind the low rating is not a matter of enjoyment, but the fact that children will watch this due to the 'Christian Values' content. There are too many problems that I could cover, but a few struck out to me.

First of all, the whitewashing. The show had an all-white cast, aside from a singular black girl. Now, I know that Bibleman gets a black sidekick later on, but this episode didn't have one. The youth group gets a segment in which they sing in front of an ALL-WHITE congregation. All shots of the congregation featured strictly white people. Even during the song, the black girl gets the least amount of screen-time, often going off-camera, or saying the least amount of lines throughout the story. What's the point of conversion if the kingdom of heaven would be predominantly filled by middle-class White America? Inconsistencies in moral structure: Bibleman and the youth group encounter all sorts of 'evils', such as gossiping, greed, wrath, etc. Even after Bibleman demolishes these embodiments, he is just as human as everyone else, and would succumb to the same evils. What does destroying these embodiments prove? Why are these embodiments then at fault, when these traits all exist in us? Bibleman can easily put the blame for his faults on the villains, instead of asking for forgiveness. The moral lessons are unclear in these series of episodes.

Poor script-writing: I swear, watching this episodes feels like as if someone is cramming a Bible down one's throat. Yes, the scripture is there for the children, but my sister can't even remember anything past the name of the book the verse is from. Most of the time, the script-writing caused the actors to say lines that seemed forced, almost unnatural. The villains had no reason behind their actions(the Gossip Queen wants to get rid of the 'meddling' youth group kids, but why?), aside from attempting to cause as much chaos as possible in a small-scale attempt. Yes, Bibleman gets a flashback at the beginning of every episode, but even he appears as a flat two-dimensional character. He is the same unconflicted man with absolute morals and inconsistent justice.

There are too many plot inconsistencies for me to actually list, even from a singular episode. Preferrably, to all parents out there, Veggie Tales is a better suggestion. Just because it has scripture and morals doesn't mean that your children should be subjected to this.


There's a common consistency with Christians and "fishing for men(children, really)" that cracks me up. Whenever there's an attempt to copy, it fails. This is seen in movies, video games, music, and TV shows. It's beyond me how a religion expects to dopplegang a popular thing and make it suitable for their morales. As stated, many times before, shows like Veggie Tales sell--both monetarily and morally. This is due to originality... To summarize: Christian copy = FAIL Christian originality = SUCCESS

That said, "Bibleman" fits in the prior. It's a garbage copy of a copy. It spins off other children's shows, and doesn't bring anything further to the table. The plots are lacking creativity, the messages are mixed, the characters are terrible, the edit job is comedic, and the sets are a B-film joke.

I don't want to knock any of the "values" or "ideas" expressed in some of the episodes. This is a children's show, and not meant to become a forum for non-Christians to retort (which is hard, lol). I find it funny that religious trollers lurk to the Da Vinci Code/Golden Compass/ETC. boards and rant hopelessly, and this comment list is filled with the exact same thing (in an opposite fashion), so forget it.

My recommendation to the Christian parent: Check it out and pick it up (I'm sure it's cheap). As other parents stated before, it does have the values you're looking for. Nonetheless, don't expect anything fantastic, like more mainstream religious entertainment.

My recommendation to the rest of us: Watch this. Not for its values or purpose, but for the sheer morbid love for terrible shows. If your one of those people that "knock" at things for the comedy of failure, this is for you. I'm sure it'll spark a blog or youtube video of all sorts.


I really can't say much about the rest of this show, but after the 5 minutes I saw of it I can't bring my self to ever watch anymore. I flipped on the TV just in time to see Bibleman vaporizing a robot that the dialog described as looking like an old ally of his. Bibleman noted that he should have seen through it because the robot has two blue eyes while the real person has "one blue eye and one green eye, as an unfortunate result of his hereditary lineage." Unfortunate result? WTF? I didn't stick around to hear anymore. If anyones hereditary lineage that produces simple heterochromia is unfortunate in the eyes of this biblical superhero, I don't think I need anymore.


I am going to be brief about this horrifying series, let me begin by stating I am a Christian, so I hold no kind of vendetta against the morals portrayed.

Let me explain my feelings about this show in one sentence: This is an awfully acted, horrifically directed, terribly written, atrociously misinformed, horrendously uninspired "series" that deserves to have a warning on it to keep unsuspecting families from renting it.

That is my one sentence review, there you have it.

NOTE: This series does not reflect what Christians enjoy to watch, quite the contrary really.


When I was a kid attending Catholic school many years ago, my class used to show Davey and Goliath on the school TV. The show taught us to be good Christians without being overly preachy and shoving religion down your throat and it was really entertaining. Recently, I was channel surfing and came across the RISE channel, one of several religious channels that my cable provider carries (along with Prayer Channel, EWTN) and they air not only D&G, but also Bible Man. I heard about this show from the E! True Hollywood Story on Eight Is Enough. I took a look and...GREAT...GOOGLY...MOWGLI!! What in the world was I looking at?

A wealthy Bruce Wayne-ish man played by Willie Aames (who did not age well; hard to believe that he was once a teen idol) going through a crisis of some kind decides to dress like a cross between Robocop and a Stormtrooper from Star Wars and fight wussy villains with light-sabers while spreading the word of God. If one wants to spread the word of God, wouldn't it be easier to be a preacher or volunteer at a church or something? To go from Eight Is Enough and Charles In Charge to THIS??? I know getting acting gigs after teen idol stardom is tough but Jesus Christ what was he thinking? I have nothing against Christian entertainment, is this really the best they can come up with? Kids want to be entertained, but I just can't see kids being entertained by this. If I was a kid, I would be puzzled by this. I know they mean well, but Christian entertainment doesn't have to be...well...like this.

Just have your kids watch D&G and VeggieTales. Those will definitely entertain kids while teaching them the Bible at the same time. They just won't know that they're learning the Book.


Avoid this one like the plague. Everything about it is awful. Special effects are poor, the "Bibleman" character is a hypocritical creep, acting is abysmal, dialog is inane, plots are painful to follow, and the only lessons being taught here are how NOT to make children's entertainment. Just because a show is meant for children is not an excuse for it to be poor quality. I would not want my children learning anything from a guy who spouts bible verses while hurting people.

The only reason so many "Bibleman" episodes were made because some parents feel they need to get children's shows that are designed to teach Christian values and Bible verses. If you feel that way, then get "Veggie Tales" or other selections. Trust me, you don't want "Bibleman" in your house.


OK I understand where everyone is coming from when saying this is incredibly cheesy. But I believe this give a great message to children. Though the violence may be rough but its meant for older children who I hope have learned your not supposed to hit someone with a sword. I also saw a few comments stating that the violence is unbiblical and ungodly. I disagree, being a Christain myself, I see the violence representing more of a spiritual battle rather than physical. Even if it is meant to be physical and I'm just mistaken it's not ungodly. King David in the Bible fought off many enemies, he even cut off a giants head. God also commanded the Isrealites to destroy nation and when they didn't kill everything in sight in the book of I Kings they were punished. I hope I've made my voice herd. You can knock this movie all you want but please don't knock God in the process.


This film is wacky and zany but just isn't funny. I yawned and cringed my way through it. It truly is the worst film that I have ever seen.

I went to see it at the cinema on the strength of the trailer and persuaded my cousin that it looked better than "Dead Poets Society" which was also showing. That was my crime, it was also my punishment. My cousin still complains about it today.


I would like to say i have seen Many film's , maybe about 2,000 so you could say i am a bit of an expert in my own household ! So if you only take one peice of advice from let it be this...Don't waste 90 minutes of your life and watch this film, it is the worst piece of codswallop i have ever had the misfortune to see , it makes the police academy films look like masterpieces of our time. Just DONT BOTHER,.


This movie will only appeal to five year old's. It is so lame, and completely dated by now, that it can only be seen as a historical document. The sound effects are so over used, you will scream 'shut up!' at it. Serious needs to go to comedy school for a couple of years, for he needs to learn that a lizard that makes a dinosaur noise isn't funny, and that being literally kicked out of somewhere and accompanied by a voice saying "and stay out!" isn't funny. There have been a lot of great Australian films, and this isn't one of them. I kind of feel a bit sorry for Yahoo Serious, I mean, anyone will a name like that has to have issues in the 'being funny' department. 3/10.


I watched this movie yesterday and after it was over I couldn't believe I wasted any of my time watching it! I rarely think that there are no redeeming qualities to a movie, but this one just had none. There seemed to be NO REASON for it to have even been made. I like most of the actors in it, but this was a complete waste of film. I know this sounds harsh, and I didn't hate it, it just seemed like it didn't need to have been made. The characters were pathetic and seemed to have no clear reasons for what they did. The only scene I thought was halfway effective or interesting was when they were all in the car and Dobbs was driving and Claudia was forced to talk about her sexual past and her relationship w/ Dobbs. It was nice to see a younger and slimmer Chris Penn, tho, and I always like Bridgette Fonda and D.B. Sweeney. Other than that, I could never recommend this movie. There's just no point in watching it.


Even though there is blood and guts aplenty, Leather Jackets is a decidedly unvisceral thriller. Perhaps its the fault of the bizarre screenplay, which provides the unlikeable characters with little if any motivation for their ridiculous actions. Cary Elwes provides the acting highlights: he's a long way from Princess Bride territory here.


Tonight instead of a single movie review I tackle a recently released DVD flipper disc of 2 rarely scene Mexican Horror movies, both directed by Ruben Galindo Jr.. The first movie is Cemetery of Terror lets take a look.

Cemetery of Terror (aka Cementerio Del Terror) is about a Satan worshiping killer who is supposedly shot dead by some local cops only to be resurrected by a bunch of teenagers who steal his body from the morgue and use a book of black magic to revive him. The cops are warned by the killers doctor that he is more than a normal man but a satanic killing machine. These elements were very Halloween like in their approach with this in the beginning but then this idea seems to dissolve as we get to meet the teens that will resurrect him and finally to another group of young trick or treaters that end up facing off with this Satanic fiend.

This is where the problems with this movie come into play. I really liked how this movie started as it looked like it was going to have shades of Halloween with the directors own little twist added however the movie, which starts off slow builds up for about a good 10 minute killing spree (nearly 50 minutes in, ZZZZZZZZZZ)then the movie veers off into weirdness as it turns from a satanic killer from the grave movie to an all out zombie film..thats right an all out zombie film. You see remember I said there are some trick or treaters well these kids end up taking on the killer and some of his undead friends culminating into a ho hum ending.

I really wanted to like this movie but for every decent thing they did they did 2 more things wrong. The movie seemed to try out one too many ideas into one movie when they should have just stayed with the main point at hand. Despite 1 or 2 OK kills the movie really drug along in parts and the whacked out last 20 minutes had me scratching my head. All in all not a bad film but really not all that good either. My score for Cemetery of Terror: 4/10: Below Average, with alittle more thought about what kind of movie they wanted, Satanic Killer, Zombie, or Scooby Doo(mainly do to the kiddie sequences) flick this could have at least been mildly entertaining however, since the movie bounced all over the place I cannot recommend this as a have to see film, maybe a rental at best.

Head over to Grave Robbers for the second film review of this flipper disk from BCI Eclipse


seriously nobody is doing to the Mexican film industry any good by calling this film a classic, because by telling that, it means that this is the better that Mexican directors can do.

I tell this because this movie is truly horrible, the acting, the ambiance, even the music it's like a nightmare to the ears. I beg to people from Mexico to be objective, this movie is trash, and it isn't deserve to call it classic, and to say the contrary is an insult for the cinematographic industry of Mexico.

One of the dullest film I've seen in all my life.

I give 1 out of 10


After his seventeenth murder in moving lift, a psychiatric patient named Devlon was killed by the police. Nevertheless Dr.Cardan, who has been the psychiatrist in charge of the patient for years, insists his body must be burnt. But three male medical students and their female friends steals the body for their party in an empty house nearby the cemetery. Soon Dr.Cardan and Cap.Ancira begin to find the body, but this night is the Halloween so that five local kids go to the problematic cemetery for tests of their courage... This Mexican zombie film, which consists of chaotic elements of Halloween, the Evil Dead and Death Screams, is so multifariously bad that I can write about only three major points. First, the lightning is technically problematic. This film, of which total running time is 91 minutes, has only 8 minutes day-time scenes, and 90 per cent of the whole is night-time scenes with amateurishly poor lightning so that at least half of the film seems to be almost black-and-white. Second, the dialogue is much more problematic. For instance, the psychiatrist, Dr.Cardan explains two contradictory facts to the policeman, Cap.Ancira, namely, 1)the patient's body must be cremated, and 2)the patient's body can be destroyed only with an old document named Black Book. Just what kind of foolishness is this? Maybe Dr.Cardan,M.D. is the same kind of more famous Dr.Butcher,Medical Deviate. Indeed the entire dialogue is so childish that words of the psychiatrist and of the five elementary-school kids are almost exchangeable. And third, the ending scene is terribly bad. I can tell what exactly it is, but I can tell its unbelievable irrationality turns the whole film to be some kind of four-sided triangle.


Sorry to tell you guys but this was a total waste of time. This was the third Mexican film in a row. First night of the Bloody apes, second Curse of the Doll people & then Cemetery of Terror.

Doll people is excellent, great classy horror movie. Apes was equally good, very gory & bloody. I loved it, but Cemetery was a total flop for me. So bad that I had trouble keeping awake. The pace is good but the there is no chemistry on screen, no seat jumping moments & totally unbelievable effects. Maybe a better plot would have helped the film cause I have seen this to many times already. But as it is, this seem to be a classic so If you have enough time on your hands...try it for yourself.


"Monkees: Daydream Believers" was a major disappointment. The beginning scene, presumably set in the late 90's or 2000, was weak and added no interest to the show. The best part of the movie was in the early scenes when they were casting the show. It went downhill from there. While it purported to portray the Monkees' story, the plot was weak or nonexistent. The movie didn't go anywhere. The Beatle segment was interesting, one of the few bright spots in an otherwise drab film. There was no real sense of place or time, no sense of the 60's, and it did not accurately portray the sheer hysteria that surrounded the group. I sat through it once because I lived in that era, but it is not worth a second showing.


I am a huge Monkees fan, from the time I was a toddler (I was 1 when the show premiered). I've seen every episode, read books, own box sets--you get the picture. I was excited when I saw that VH1 was going to air this movie, and kept an open mind while watching, knowing that no biopic ever gets it all right, and since I know more about the subject than the average viewer, I didn't want to judge too harshly. This one was definitely a mixed bag, a mostly disappointing one.

The movie wouldn't have been too bad, except for the ending--sooooo goofily bad! And why waste time re-doing segments from the show, particularly the entire "Daydream Believer" video? Plus, combining the creators into one guy was weird. The cast was pretty good, though, especially the actor who played Mike.

It's fine to watch if you're killing time and happen upon it on TV. It's just not one worth making an effort to see.


Well, I mean, just look at my name. I knew from the start that I was going to be a bit picky about this movie, considering I'm a huge Monkees fan. But still, I thought it was terrible! The only good thing about it was the casting, which I was pretty surprised with on accuracy. But otherwise... I didn't think it was a keeper. The dialogue didn't hold interest, the seemingly misplaced beginning sequence was utterly confusing, and there seemed to be so many things that the movie left out. But personally, I believe the very worst part of the whole movie was the ending. Several people disagree with me, but if you ask me, it's almost *too* happy. As many know, the Monkees didn't end Monkee-walking off into the horizon, and never truly became happy with their image. I can see why VH1 would want a happy ending, but I still felt it chopped the story off too quickly and differently than real life. If you're a serious Monkee fan, I suggest you do see this movie once, but probably just to see what you can find that's wrong with it...


Imagine {Sorry about the pun } a Beatles movie without a reference or mention of George Martin or Pete Best

Well this movie totally ignores the Monkees two biggest behind the scene stars

Jeff Barry and Neil Diamond

The Monkees would of not been the World famous Monkees without them

Hello

Anyone heard of "I'm A Believer" , "A little Bit Me ,A little bit You' and " LOok out , Here comes tomorrow"

Gee without these classics, the Monkees would never taken off!


I've always enjoyed the Monkees, but this my friends,mind you is a disgrace! It makes me vomit to see how grossly inarcurate it is! Mike was Christian Scientist, what's he doing letting Philyss stay in the hospital, and who could there be two guys, not that ass, Van, and why did they hire a 5'7 Bulgarian with a minturized doughnut surgically put in his chin play Davy? The 1967 Comedy Emmy was presented by a little girl (Buffy from Family Affair), not a full grown woman, and don't get me started on Jimi Hendrix and the ending and lots of other things?


After just watching a few minutes of this movie.. they did the usual non indians playing Navajo people. Portraying the Navajo Police as blue jean wearing police force is not correct. This was not researched or set in the proper place. Yuma, where the Las Vegas cop was to be met is over 6 hours from Window Rock, AZ. Window Rock AZ is in the Northwestern part of the state... The Navajo Police wear badges not name tags.

I have taken this back to Hastings and demanded refund of the rental fee of fifty two cents.

Would have been nice if they filmed NEAR THE REZ.


As a non-American Indian living and working in the Navajo Nation, I thought it would be interesting to see a film supposedly relevant to the people I was working with. Boy was I disappointed. The Navajo Nation Police as they are portrayed in this film make me cringe, not to mention the Navajo culture and people. This movie is sadly one large stereotype, and as most stereotypes is greatly off the mark. This film is a blemish on the career of a wonderful actress (Irene Bedard) {Irene- Why did you participate in this?}. If I recall correctly, this film was not even shot on the rez- it was shot in Utah or Nevada or something.


We saw this movie for free as a promo video, and after watching it we all vowed to never speak its name again.


This movie had so many problems I don't know where to start. The plot relies heavily on coincidences, often preposterous ones; I don't want to spoil any of the plot, but the way two of the characters are thrown together in close quarters is just wholly unbelievable. The obligatory throw-guy-through-pane-of-glass moment looks pretty much obligatory and gratuitous, and the oh-so-significant soundtrack songs are intrusive at best and would've been better suited to an '80s teen romance. The script is poorly written enough to make Irene Bedard, normally a great actress, seem wooden. If you just want a good action movie, there are hundreds of better movies to choose from. And if you're looking for a good movie about Navajo people, try the independent documentary "Return of Navajo Boy" instead.


Despite the fact there are funny moments here and there, the main problem with this show is (like all US recent productions) that this is strictly American oriented one. What does it mean? The jokes are juvenile, stupid and utterly predictable; mostly sex oriented, mostly homophobic and anti feminist oriented. There is nothing funnier than showing someone with his girlfriend implying they had sex with animals or someone saying he has been pig fender. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Nothing oriented for audience with more than 2 brain cells. I am sorry, this is not my piece of cake. 1/10 from me. More lines are needed. Nothing more to say except to keep these sitcoms for yourself, gentlemen.


I watched Bitter Blood to its bitten end, three grueling hours! You might ask why I watched to the end. Well, after sitting through the indescibably awful first two hours, I needed to see how this mess ended. Let me just say that when I shut my TV off at 11pm I was less than happy. Out of the 1602 movies I've voted on, one of the three I've given a rating of 1. Horrible.


I began watching this film on Lifetime on a Sunday afternoon, with the understanding it was your standard 2 hour TV movie. 3 hours later, it became clear it was a tad bit longer. I thought the acting was terrible, the story line less than plausible, and the characters totally unlikeable.

The ending was unsatisfying, although unexpected (or was it really?) I can't believe I got caught up in the film.


I saw this piece of s*** last November, and I have never turned the Television off in such disgust. Kelly McGillis was absolutely hideous as the demented divorcee who marries her cousin (Harry Hamlin, in an inappropriate and forgettable role)!!! The film is gross, even for television. The film could have been cut to 2 or 2 1/2 hours, but not 4 wasted hours! Keith Carradine is as milquetoast as usual, even by his EX-wife. This picture just goes to show that all child custody cases are bitter, and was there really a need to wipe out the whole family and the kids? My god! The person who wrote this trash, should be blacklisted in Hollywood, and any other place that has acting as entertainment. This is entertainment?!! I have never seen such a horrible and depressing movie in all of my life!! This gives the term, "bad tv-movie", look like "Gone with the Wind"!! I hope Lifetime NEVER shows this again!! For your sake, don't view this crap. See Gone with the Wind! Especially if you have 4 hours to kill, it certainly is the best film EVER!! Not this Garbage! Don't say you weren't warned!!!!

0/10 The lowest!!, The WORST!!!!!!!


Actually, I thought this B-film was somewhat of a throwback to the Black expolitation era of the 70s with Lisa Raye as a modern-day Pam Grier. The setting takes place in a female prison with disenchanted convicts feeling "exploited" or enslaved by an opportunistic warden who uses their labor to produce clothes for merchants. However, when you consider the fact that prisoners are wrongdoers who are in jail to pay their debt to society, it's rather hard to sympathize with their "plight" in this film.

The warden and captain of the guards are the bad guys of the movie, but their demeanors are too iniquitous. So much so that the film becomes predictable and you know what will inevitably happen.

The casting could have been better. Mos Def portrays a law student who works as a part-time corrections guard in the prison. However, his dense mentality makes this portrayal very unconvincing.

Perhaps the best part of the movie--at least for guys--are the scenes in which voluptuous Lisa Raye and N'Bushe Wright appear barely clothed in the "hole." In spite of anything else, it's enough entertainment to merit the movie's viewing! To any of the ladies out there who are reading this, yeah, I know what you're thinking. But c'mon, you'd get your jollies too if you were to see LL Cool J in a movie bearing his best!


I watched this movie twice. Once without any preview or knowledge of the plot. The second time listening to the commentary from the producer and the director. I do understand that the movie had a lot of problems with financing and script re-writes. I also understand that they had problems just getting all of the scenes that they needed to complete the picture. With that said, I really didn't feel that this movie was anything greater than a made for cable movie.

I read about the glaring errors in other posts, but to me, the most obvious was the acting. I just felt that it wasn't realistic at times. We've all seen the formula girl prison movie before. This movie tacks on another issue not explored in other prison films. If this movie stayed on that issue more and tried not to tackle 4-5 other problems going on in prisons today, I think it would have been a better movie.

I really hope they give the director a chance to really direct a picture so I can see what potential she has to offer with an all black female cast. I just wasn't stirred by this film and the disjointed acting and editing was probably the reason why.


In one way, I hate to downgrade this film because it does have a message it is trying to get out, and there are so few films about African American women. I also understand the director is an African American woman. However, the truth is, this film is not very well done at all.

What they wanted to convey was the conditions for women in prisons. What came across, however, was that only African American women are in prisons (the very few white women seen, had non-speaking roles and were just blurry extras in the background). They also wanted to indicate that the working conditions in prisons are terrible, again, they failed to truly show this--instead it came across as if the prisoners felt they shouldn't have to work at all, that they should just be allowed to loll about entertaining themselves all day.

I never did get all the women characters straightened out as to who was who and who did what. We don't get enough time with each woman to get to know her that well.

All the guards and the Warden are the mean, bad guys, except for the one new guard, Michael. The actor playing Michael was a very poor choice for the role. Michael is supposed to be a college student, studying to be a lawyer, the actor who played him, keeps his head down and mumbles his lines in a way that gives the impression he has no self-confidence at all.

The plot, such as it is, concerns the women being ill-treated by the Captain of the guards who demands sexual favors of them while man-handling them brutally. Also the plot concerns them doing sewing in what is supposed to be sweat shop conditions for virtually no pay, while the man who re-sells the items is making a big profit.

Can the women get the truth out there, is the plot question.

Meanwhile we see some woman on woman fighting, some stabbing, and some time spent in solitary.

All of the women have children and miss their children, and of course they have been imprisoned unfairly and that sort of thing.

Unfortunately there are no love affairs or sex between the female prisoners, which would have added some realism and interest to the story.

3 stars out of 10


A friend already warned me not to expect a whole lot from this movie, so I went in trying to like it. Perhaps it's because it's the director's first feature film, but mainly because of budget constraints, "Civil Brand" left a lot of gaps in credibility, and visual creativity. I know that the director comes from a television background, and a lot of shots have tight close-ups. Saves money. But I honestly felt that this picture almost slid into B-movie campiness. Let me break it down. Actors. N'Bushe Wright is the best thing in this flick. Casting a few rappers and marginal actresses hurt this piece. I love Mos Def, but he was set up as an important character, but he's underutilized. Perhaps because there was not enough cash to get this thing done, some scenes were not filmed. Less Voice over narrative would've helped. In fact, there should be no narrator. Narration separates the audience from the characters, especially when the person narrating is not integral to the plot. Next, sound design. Clifton Powell (who plays the head prison guard) is an awesome actor. He brings intensity to any scene, and can flip directions like Gene Hackman, hands down. But the choice of music (too much) overwhelmed scenes that could be more intense without telegraphic music that announces what happens next. I felt like I was viewing a silent-era film where the organ player tells you what to feel by the music cue. Reminds me of that damn zither from "The Third Man", the music over powers certain scenes that just don't need it. Make-up/hair. These women are in prison. Sistas had their hair and nails hooked up better than the women I see walking down my street! The characer "Wet" has a faded scar in one scene; a few scenes later another character is commenting on how she just got a bad scar on her face from a beating, then, minutes later (days later in movie-speak), her scars are all red a fresh, even though she had them way before the mention of any beating. Chalk it up to lack of continuity. A fake bloodshot eye lense was very obvious on the Tichina Arnold character. (I know I mispelled her name...sorry) The warden had this thick gob of gel that is used to simulate sweat, but it never moved in all the close-ups he had. Just looked like a gob of goo. Not a big deal if it's a medium shot. But Extreme Close-up? Yikes. Looks like vasoline. I tried to overlook these things, but they are important if one is trying to immerse a person in this world. It was a distraction. Especially Lisa Raye's glitter eye shadow in a few of her close ups as she's talking behind bars. Some scenes were just plain over the top, to the point where I was laughing when I should've been focused on caring for these women. I feel like the movie should be done again, and Neema Barnette given the budget and support to take her time making this picture. It was meshed together in 15 days, when clearly three more weeks probably would've solved a lot of character problems and plot holes left over. So much potential. I support independent film by any means necessary, and Neema is to be commended for actually getting a film on screen. At the same time, the idea that this is a film being lauded as one of the best "black films" and is winning awards in some festivals has me concerned about the quality of films black audiences are desperate to watch. I honestly don't know if the script was even up to task on this. Too many missed opportunities. This film shoulda been popping like the Attica Prison Riot. Instead, it comes of limp and unfulfilled. Just a major disappointment. I hesitate to recommend people to see this. It's a catch-22. If people see this, and like it, then more will be made just like it. Not Good. And if no one goes to see it, distributors and studios can point the finger and say, "See, no one wants to see films, with a dominant black cast." So, I say go see it for what it is, and hopefully it will be financially viable enough to actually get the money to do a story of this magnitude better justice. The prison industrial complex and female slave labor and assualts behind bars is no joke. We have yet to see that story.


The redeeming parts of this film are any scene with the Warden and Captain Deese. Everything else is cliched. Too many jump cuts and editing tricks. The acting for the most part is just a lot of yelling. The ending feels tacked on.


A failed adaptation of Peter Straub's eerie book "Julia", which had a tough time getting released in the States (in the early 1980s, it made the rounds of the Los Angeles art-house circuit under the title "The Haunting of Julia", not much of an improvement over "Full Circle"). Plot concerns an emotionally fragile woman, still grieving over the choking death of her young daughter, sensing the spirit of a child around her, which may be causing death to her acquaintances. Damp, peculiar treatment doesn't raise chills so much as it does simple confusion. Mia Farrow is well-cast in the lead, but there's hardly any character here for her to play, and all we see is her anguish. Some interesting passages--and a bizarre climax--yet one is inclined to believe the film may have been pared down in post-production...it feels truncated and tampered with. ** from ****


If I had to describe The Haunting of Julia in one word, the word I would choose is 'boring'. The film is of the slow build variety, but that isn't the problem in itself - the problem is that there is never enough going on to keep the audience wanting to see what happens next, and therefore the film does drag on far too often. The story is rather derivative of many other films and focuses on a woman who has moved to London after losing her child. However, in her new home she is haunted by the ghost of another child. Mia Farrow takes the lead role and while she is undoubtedly an excellent actress; she isn't able to elevate this drab material much above the bottom of the barrel. The film could be said to be 'horror' because of the ghostly plot, but aside from a séance sequence, there aren't many shocks and scares and I'd say it's more of a supernatural drama. The Haunting of Julia does not benefit from an interesting atmosphere either, as while some attempt is made to build one with a musical score; it never really comes off. Overall, I'm not surprised at all that this film is not better known and gathering dust on an old video shelf is really where it belongs. I would not recommend anyone going out of their way for this!


Veddy British, veddy dull horror film. Mia Farrow is a very frail, timid woman who moves to a very large, built to be haunted house after her daughter dies and, surprise, it turns out to be haunted by a young blond girl who (gasp) looks just like her daughter!! The acting is bland and one note save for Tom Conti as Mia's brother-in-law and a bit part by Robin Gammell as a drunk with a "very big secret". The score is atrocious. The cinematography is gorgeous but it certainly doesn't help any. The book that it's based on "Julia" by Peter Straub is only slightly more interesting. For a good old fashioned ghost story from the same era, rent "The Changeling" with George C. Scott.


Usually, I'm not a friend of really harsh critics, but to my regret, I can't find a single good thing about that movie. There is no tension, no action, no humor, no erotic...nothing, but boredom. Not even for friends of Mia Farrow like me it's interesting. Most of the plot seems to consist of questions, which are not very interesting and the answers neither. Sorry, but this movie is just a waste of time and money. And it's such a pity, because I anticipates so much. I thought, it would be an eerie and exciting haunted house movie- and than that!!! So, let me give You the advice: Don't watch it! I really wonder, how it could be realized. Which producer is interested in such a lame script? Maybe they hoped to make money with the mere name of Mia Farrow.


Of all the crummy movies I've seen, this poor man's version of 'Brief Encounter' would have to be one of the worst. It's even worse than the Richard Burton/Sophia Loren version of 'Brief Encounter' and that was an abomination. Although 'Roses' was pretty to look at, it had no substance whatsover and the main characters - Ann Jillian and Lee Horsley - were an unconvincing pair of dills.


This appears to be a very, very low-budget production. It is a comic treatment of crime. It is a comic treatment of ex-GIs who have returned from WWII. The acting is generally not only slapstick but also slapdash.

A GI returns to his job on a newspaper. He is in love with the editor's daughter. She wants him to get a better job. Light bulb goes off: Dad needs a new crime reporter, because it is so dangerous. Gives it to ex-GI. Ex-GI encounters friend from the war who has been booted up to a job in the police. The laughs proceed on this premise.

Joan Woodbury is actually very entertaining as a burlesque star called Bubbles LaRue. She wears shoes with ankle straps that reminded me of the first girlie magazine I ever saw. I couldn't figure it out, because it had photos from the 1940s -- ankle straps and all -- and I was a child in the sixties.

Though the movie is not very good, it is fun to see. One really tires of the same old things when it comes to vintage movies. My cap is off to whoever unearthed this.


Here is the King of Comedy, Hal Roach, on the downslide. This is a very low budget film, a continuation of the series starring William Tracy and Joe Sawyer which was usually the bottom of the double feature at the local theater.

I first saw Tracy as Misto Bottome in "Brother Rat" and thought he was wonderful. He had the look of a mischievous child and oh, that voice!!! He continued to look much younger than he actually was but in this film he is beginning to show his age.

The plot, what there is, revolves around the efforts of a reporter to prove himself to his publisher who is the father of his girlfriend. The finale is a mess......it is the worst type of slapstick with everybody running on and off a stage, falling down, being boffed on the head and generally causing mayhem. It was dated even in 1948. Roach made a career from this type of humor but the times had changed and audiences were not buying it.

Don't get me wrong......I like both Tracy and the excellent Joe Sawyer but this wasn't up to their comedic talents. It's not a total loss but comes pretty close.


Once again, ITV force upon us another hash and unwanted remake of a perfectly good predecessor. This episode may possibly be worse than the previous, The Body in the Library (equally dismal). The plot revolves around the murder of a hated local Judge, one Colonel Protheroe, in the vicarage study of St Mary Mead.

Whilst I don't like to keep repeating the comments of others, this is not a good interpretation of the book. Firstly, there is the tragic miscasting of Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple. She performs the character as though she has never read a description of the woman, and fails in so many places where Hickson succeeded. Firstly, she has none of the subtlety that both the Miss Marple in the books and Hickson's portrayal still enduringly have. She is far too blatant and 'cheeky', which, invariably intended to add humour to the programme, does not come off at all well, a real example of over-egging the cake. Miss Marple was a spinsterish old lady, described as "assiduous" in the book upon which this particular programme is based, not some cheeky chappy as McEwan plays her. Also, whilst I don't like to be a pedant, the description Christie gives of Miss Marple does not match McEwan at all. For a start, she is described as a tall, prim, straight lady, because, as Miss Marple herself tells us in one of her books, "I was taught to sit up properly". Perhaps I am the only person who has observed this, but McEwan actually seems to positively slouch, and has not observed any of the mannerisms and fussy gestures that elderly ladies of Miss Marple's type notoriously committed - she is too laid back.

Also, the actually story is far too slow, despite having numerous sub-plots. The 1986 version went at a much faster pace, which gave an exciting and sinister edge to it, and didn't use half of the sub-plots used here, yet still managed to get a good hour and a half slot.

Thirdly, the direction and lighting is just awful. As I have already mentioned, the original version had a quite dark ands sinister edge to it, with low-key lighting and the rather brooding winter setting. In this version, however, the lighting is ridiculously bright, to the point that one feels as if one is watching an amateurish pantomime. It is quite revolting, and when coupled with the dire script, which is so saccharine one would not be berated for thinking it was laced with pixie dust and sugar, it gives a hideous effect of jolly-hockey-sticks village life, so stereotypical and contrived. It is as if the murder is a mere interlude between garden parties and afternoon tea.

Finally, the inclusion of a tedious throwaway plot, which sees Miss Marple in her younger days, embarking on an affair with a married man during WWI, is the final nail in the coffin for this series. It is so out of character that one is led to question if the writers have read a Miss Marple novel. She was simply not the kind of woman to do such a thing: she was a genteel, well brought up middle-class young woman in a strictly Victorian society, not some daring, romantic woman from a Jane Austen novel. She would never have done such a thing with a single man, let alone a married one, and mentions on many occasions that she has never had a romance, bar one young man by the name of Lionel, but "mother nipped it in the bud" before anything as mad as a fully-fledged affair could begin.

As another reviewer has already said, there is nothing wrong with remaking series, but in this instance it wasn't needed so soon after the Joan Hickson performance, generally regarded as the definitive. Maybe I am too purist, and too dedicated to the true canon of Christie, but this just doesn't ring true, and I hope this series is soon forgotten about.


I recently watched "Marple: Murder at the Vicarage" (starring Geraldine McEwan), and must say I was not overly impressed.

If the police investigations of the day were conducted as they were in this dramatisation of Agatha Christie's novel, it's a wonder that any criminals were ever caught at all, much less convicted, with or without any dotty old ladies poking their noses in. Even in a pretend TV "whodunnit" investigation, a little reality goes a long way.

Not only was the murder scene not secured, but suspects "et al" were allowed to come and go through it at will, and in fact there was never any "boffin" in sight. No incident room was ever set up, but then I didn't see many police around to actually use one. No fingerprints appeared to have been taken or checked for (even though at the denouement it could clearly be seen that "dabs" were left all over said murder scene), and any reference to or collection of written statements were completely overlooked. Awkward for any later trial I would have thought. Albeit modern forensic science has advanced out of sight since the 1950's, initial proceedings were surely much the same then as they are now.

I was brought up in an English village during the same period (the Fifties) in which this production was set (although the book was written about 20 years earlier), but I didn't "recognise" any of the characters. They were all like plastic effigies straight out of a Hollywood studio, and the village itself from the top of a chocolate box. Although similarly born of Agatha Christie's pen, both characters and village were much more believable in the previous Joan Hickson series, and in which the direction was much more knowing. To its credit however, the story-line stays reasonably faithful to the novel, except for Professor Dufosse and his daughter. Where on earth did they come from? They're certainly not creations of Agatha Christie, and never appeared in the book. An unnecessary additional red-herring from the producers no doubt, or are they a replacement for Dr Stone (an archaeologist) and his secretary Miss Cram? If so, why? Why change the characters? Also, as another reviewer has reminded us, Miss Marple was the ultimate spinster and only had one small "fling" when young, which was maternally cut short.

Considering the impressive line up of star actors both young and old on display here, there should have been an equally impressive result. It was considerably short of that, and one is left to wonder why this re-make was ever produced, and with all due respect to Geraldine McEwan, magnificent actress though she is, the late Joan Hickson still reigns supreme as Jane Marple.


Adding more Leonard Maltin movie grading: It has already been done before! As close by as in 1986 to be exact  and then much better due to those who remember.

It should of course be a legal non-profit entity protecting these classics from overexploitation  as the one representing Swedish now diseased Astrid Lindgren (of Pippi Longstocking fame) rejecting all adaptations she wouldn't have liked. Else I can only agree with earlier downbeats by adding a few of my own. Except the MGM musical-style village in full summer bloom (Christie's novel was set in dark winter and in 1930 rather than 1950) not only is the sugar-coated McEwan a miss Marple miscast (and why is everyone treating this snooping old hag as a royalty?), but even worse is the misuse of the stately Janet McTeer as the sinister murderess. It must be people who simply hate tall blonds (she is 6"1') that got her into this! (At least she would sue someone for the terrible lipstick makeup smeared in her face.) And why is her lover-accomplish, "artist painter" Flemyng, sporting a Hollywood nineteen-century van Gogh-look?


A re-make of prem rog... a very boring movie....and very predictable... u all have seen it before.... whats the point watching it all over again. Only worth watching the two models..lara dutta and priyanka chopra...they will become good actresses!!


This movie was too sicken for words. It was unrealistic and the man character fit his name in the movie, "stupid". I really enjoy the character who portrayed Jiya. Her interactions were the highlight of the movie. Once we went back to the other female, the movie tanked. Don't bother spending your money for the movie.....he dumps jiya and goes back to the other one. And how he proposes is ridicules. Jiya causes a scene during their engagement party accusing the other girl of loving her finance and her finance loving her. Then she demands to know what he feels for her, and he goes and dumps the red powder on her head and proclaims her his wife. Then everyone sings and dances and accepts his choice, at jiya's father house. What nonsense!!!


Silverado is a movie I watch frequently only because, like seeing a shocking accident, I feel compelled to review this horrible memory and ease my disbelief.

Silverado arrives as a typical Western, with your typical heroes, villains, women, farmers, town in turmoil, obligatory ranch, saloon for the inevitable fight scenes, some evil-doing cowhands, personal vendettas, ultimate gunfights in front of a church no less, and oh yes, even a stampede.

Silverado covers all the bases and zealously steals every Western cliché' available. It has no teeth and its story fails to be daringly different. It lacks a serious lesson, other than good triumphs over evil only if evil gets careless, and it begs the question, "Why did you make this film?"

The answer lies somewhere in the conceptual thinking of the writers, who tragically missed an opportunity to take a talented ensemble and make a poignant and meaningful film that actually had the potential to send a true message.

I also found some irony in the movie's last line uttered by Costner's "Jake", where he simply states, "We'll be back!"

I sincerely hope not, and so far, so good!


Kinda dull plot, poor direction & editing, clichés left and right, and it really isn't the epic western it aspires to be. The performances are pretty good, although Glenn has some trouble acting hurt. Costner does his usual devil-may-care Jeff Bridges impersonation, Dennehy is over-the-top, Danny Glover does what he can in a tired role, Linda Hunt is always fun to watch, and Jeff Goldblum, as was his mien for the 1980s, totally steals the show as Slick. Most of the characters remain fairly thin, with the ones in black hats relying entirely on comic-book personas. Costumes are kinda lame, with the hats seeming to rely on what was available in department stores of the 80s. Rifles shoot tiny holes in people, the good guys never miss, and the music is far too ambitious. Once Upon a Time in the West this is not.


Went to this movie with my dad when we were in Minnesota. I loved it years ago, but seeing it again changed my mind. Maybe it was being a kid or styles change with time. (ie 80's action) This movie is too over the top for me. I will watch a bit of it, but not rent it. 4/10


This is one of the MOST derivative films I've ever seen. "L'auteur" Kasdan rips off so many other great westerns (including, of course, the daddy..."Shane") that it's hard to keep count. There was absolutely NO suspense to this film, the acting was mailed in, and the plot...well, enough.

Actually, this is a great film if you don't have time to watch a lot of other westerns. Just rent "Silverado" and you'll see them.

A "1"...should be a zero.


At the start, you think that this is going to be a Western with a sense of humor. The latter quickly gets replaced with lots of Peckinpaugh-like bloodshed with a few in-jokes and a smattering of very black humor. Kasdan's direction and writing is too clever by half, and his characters too one-note and wooden. Even Jeff Goldblum is robbed of any humorous affects. Kevin Costner started earning his "wooden" reputation on this one, and Berenger is relentless. The plotline is internally inconsistent. Only Linda Hunt provides this mess's saving graces with a magnificent turn as a Pirate-Jenny-of-the West. Overall, one of the most disappointing westerns I have ever sat through.


A good movie scene can become a cliché, but a cliché can't become a good movie scene. Not unless it's "Airplane," and this isn't, it's "Silverado," director Lawrence Kasdan's heartfelt but cluttered Valentine to the Western.

Heading west, reformed outlaws Emmett (Scott Glenn) and Paden (Kevin Kline) become a band, first by springing Emmett's wild brother Jake (Kevin Costner), then by getting saved from a posse by Mal (Danny Glover), crack shot with a Henry rifle. Then it's off to the beckoning town of Silverado, where Paden finds the bar of his dreams while the others are reunited with family. All is great - until trouble rides in.

"There's nothing' wrong with the land," says Emmett's sister Kate (Patricia Gaul), "it's just some of the people." That goes for Silverado the movie, too. Kasdan was coming off a bumper crop of hits as screenwriter and director, and thus had the ability to do whatever he wanted and work with whoever he wanted in 1985. He had some trouble cutting down on the scope of his ambition. "Silverado" is a big sprawling epic of a western with one of the most eclectic casts ever brought together. Kasdan and his co-writer, brother Mark, didn't know what to do with what they had, and it shows.

Rosanna Arquette is the most obvious casualty, playing a homesteader who floats around the edges of the story. Kasdan admits much of the point of her character was lost on the cutting-room floor. But even parts that made the final cut seem uneven and sketchy. Linda Hunt won the Oscar just before this was made, but she doesn't seem to have any purpose in the story except to trade rueful japes with Kline playing a bar matron with a good heart. Jeff Goldblum drifts in as a gambler, like Kline and Gaul a member of the cast of Kasdan's last hit "The Big Chill." When he played a cowboy in "Buckaroo Banzai," it was supposed to be a joke, but here it's for real, only it isn't as Goldblum never finds a character who serves no point anyway. Glover just glowers lifelessly about "what ain't right." Even Kline, a favorite of mine, feels shallow and flat here. Wearing a beard and duster don't make you a cowboy.

The bad guys come off even worse. Brian Dennehy is their leader, Cobb, who smiles wryly in that Dennehy way and never kicks it into the next gear. He's still got that wry smile on when he faces down old friend Paden at the end. His gang lacks any sense of motivation or personality. "Why are they doing this?" someone asks, only to be answered: "Because they enjoy it." That's not enough to go on here.

The editing is atrocious. Action scenes lack spatial reality. Less than a minute after some bad guys appear out of nowhere to ambush Emmett, Mal pops out of nowhere to ambush them. A few seconds after we see Jake riding out after some villains, he's in a bar getting into a fight over a girl. Kasdan shot too much footage, and without any organic flow to begin with, the result is a hazy mess.

So what did I like? Costner surprisingly plays a goofball to good effect, and Glenn does nice work in the lead Cooper-Wayne role. The opening scenes, of him and Paden finding each other and springing Jake, have a nice flow to them. John Cleese is another example of stunt casting here, only it pays off as Cleese finds a nice blend of humor and menace playing a lawman who's not a bad guy, just narrow and selfish.

But then "Silverado" descends into cliché, bouncing from rustlers' hideout to stampede to showdown in mechanical fashion. It never bores you completely; its desire to entertain is palpable throughout, but it never rises above predictability.

"What a waste," Dennehy says at the end. I couldn't agree more.


This film can't decide how to use the the cast it has. John Cleese is unconvincing as a Sheriff, Danny Glover misses Mel Gibson as a funny Man, and Kevin Kline demonstrates yet again he does not have as broad a range of talent as his press releases suggest.

Kevin Costner hams it up, and the film would have been better directed by Mel Brooks. Its far too long and pointless.


This film involves a group from the Peace Corps who have come to a tiny island to help out and do a bit of scientific research. When they arrive, they are shocked to see that the villagers involve themselves in a human sacrifice ritual of sorts. Oddly, while shocking, the group at first seemed to take this in stride--I guess they didn't want to pass judgment on quaint native customs. Soon after discovering this, the group is introduced to Mario Montenegro--who lives in a Western-style home on this completely primitive island! How he managed this is never explained, but considering how dopey the film was, I guess this didn't matter. Along the way, they encounter blood-thirsty trees (I am not kidding) and a horny green monster you just have to see to believe!

Talk about low-budget trash! This is a horrible little movie that was made in the Philippines and starred American "actors" as well as Filippinos. As for the Americans, most didn't look or sound like actors--particularly "Beverly Hills" (a.k.a. Carla Henderson), who looks more like a 1960s-era stripper. Sticking his hot blonde bombshell with a group from the Peace Corps was unintentionally very funny (maybe she thought it was the "Piece Corps"). Mario Montenegro (as the Mad Scientist) was interesting because he answers the question "what would a Filippino version of Dirk Bogarde look like?". He didn't seem very menacing or interesting, but it was interesting to see that Mr. Bogarde has a twin (of sorts). As for most of the Filippino women, they were there mostly to have their clothes torn off--making their performances probably the most convincing in the movie.

If I had to try to find some nice things to say about the film, I guess I'd have to say that for this type of film, the music and print aren't bad. The sores that later appeared on Montenegro are also kinda cool (though watching him transform was just plain silly). Plus, the naked ladies were rather attractive--though this makes this far from a family-friendly flick. For all the pervs out there, there just aren't enough of them to make this worth the trouble of watching it, either!

The bottom line is that this is a super-low budget film with tons of schlock and I can't understand why it's rated so highly on IMDb. The only real value such a film has is as a party film--so you and your friends can laugh at how inept the whole thing is.

By the way, for a laugh, look on IMDb at all the alternative titles for this movie--they are pretty campy!


This plot synopsis may sound kind of vague...but so is the movie! U.S. government worker Jim Farrell (John Ashley) is going to a remote island to help the natives build houses and irrigation ditches. He's joined by doctor Paul Henderson (Kent Taylor) and his sex bomb wife Carla (Beverly Hills!). They encounter moving trees, strange vegetation and meet Stephan (Mario Montenegro) who seems to run the island (I think). There's also a hysterically stupid monster that pops up every once in a while to rape and kill the native girls. Why he does this is never explained.

Pretty silly with a (to put it nicely) pointless script. I realize this film (along with the other "Blood" pictures) have a following but I can't see why. It's full of hilariously inappropriate music and mismatched stock footage (the sunsets they see keep seeing never match the people looking at it). With the sole exceptions of Ashley and Montenegro the acting is pretty bad--Hills is easily the worst. The special effects are beyond terrible--I could actually see the wires holding the "killer" moth and moving the tree limbs! The get up on the monster was uproariously stupid. People took him seriously??? Still this is a prime example of late 1960s exploitation with minor gore and nudity (all female of course). It's amusing to realize that this played on Saturday afternoon TV uncut in the 1970s for all the kids to see! Not really good but, in a strange sort of way, kind of fun.

The DVD version by Image is a full frame version with scratches and jumps galore. The color is strong though. This is probably the only available uncut version we'll ever see. I give it a 4.


There are many, many better Christmas movies out there to watch than this one. Mickey Rooney plays Mike Halligan, a retired New York City detective who dies before Christmas and is sent back to Earth to find an alcoholic angel and sober him up in time for Christmas to spread the Christmas cheer to the citizens of New York. Along the way, the retired detective kidnaps his grandson and is supposed to show him a real New York Christmas. The trouble is, there is nothing very Christmassy about death or New York City with no Christmas lights or decorations. Obviously filmed during the summer, this movie has no feeling for Christmas whatsoever. Scott Grimes, who plays the grandson, is a lousy actor for a kid, he can only portray a chipper, bright-eyed sparrow on the screen even when the scene calls for a deeper, emotional moment. Lots of sub-par acting and virtually no storyline make for a really bland Christmas movie that should be moving at times, but instead comes off as forced and weak. I don't understand all the high ratings for this film, it misses the mark so often and lacks any true depth of feeling in it's characters. Don't waste your time with this one, you will only be bored and disappointed I'm afraid.


This weird story is a little too weird for my liking. But some may enjoy it.


"12 angry men" was really a disappointment for a guy like me who waited for 1 hour to watch a story in the film...but after an hour i have realized that how wrong i was to download such a film..i was so much desperate to watch dis flick and in the end it disappointed very much.

I've heard people saying it is a simple story though i din' found it simple rather i found it irritating. There was no reason for making such movie and moreover no reason to share a place in top 10 list.

I can not see even a single positive point about the film except few dialogues..few dialogues were excellent..henry fonda was average but unfortunately sidney lumet nowhere shows the direction which i was expecting from such a good director.

just 12 jurors fighting on a murder and the life of the kid was in their hands. 11 were in the favor of GUILTY for the kid, while one was saying the kid on whom the blame was to kill his father was NOT GUILTY and after more than 1 hour of distracting and boring discussion the alone juror who feels the kid was not guilty was successful in changing the mind of other 11 jurors and in the end saved the life of the kid.

Watch it on your on sake.. 3.9/10


The family in this TV movie consists of a mother, father, and two boys. The older boy, Bryan, is having a lot of issues and this worthless claptrap would have us believe it is mostly the father's fault.

What does Dad do that's so awful? Well, for starters he wants to teach Bryan to be a better baseball player and show him how to get in front of ground balls. He also wants Bryan to stop lying to him and once in a while actually show some responsibility. The father also has the nerve to get angry when poor, misunderstood Bryan decides to kill a pet rabbit. What a monster that IL' Pops is!!

Does the father abuse Bryan? No. Does he ignore Bryan or spend all his time berating his sensitive son? Um...no. Jill Eikenberry's portrayal of the mother makes you want to shake some sense into her. To dear Mom, no matter what Bryan does it's okay and what is truly haunting is just how many parents feel this way in the real world. All you have to do is support your kids and everything will be great. Sorry, but if that were true and kids were that wise then they would never need any adults around. They could take care of themselves.

Of course, the fact that the parents refuse to get any help for spoiled Bryan leads to an even greater tragedy than a slaughtered bunny. In the end, "Family Sins" lets us know that kids just need lots of love and they will grow up just fine. The funny thing is that this philosophy flies in the face of everything else that occurs in the movie. Letting Bryan get away with worse and worse behavior without intervening brought about a sickening turn of events.

The only reason I don't give this pop psychology vehicle a rating of 1 is that I hope at least a few people out there have watched it and can see beyond the bleeding heart nonsense this promotes. Hopefully they can see that ignoring serious family issues may bring about some horrible ends. 2/10


Just bad. I'll refrain from giving it a one because I suppose the filmmakers must have done what they could with a budget ranging in the hundreds.

Still, the story jumps around incoherently, the characters' motives are never logical or duly explained, and the poor direction is just a chore to watch.

I doubt many people will even have to heed this warning, but stay away. Because it seems to be IMDb policy to not let a review through until it has 10 lines of text, not that anyone cares, I'll add a little more about what I thought of the movie. I thought it was the worst kind of movie junk, the kind that leaves you feeling soiled and unfulfilled after the final scene.


After watching the whole series, I must say this was a total disappointment, and the ultimate proof about how things are done in Hollywood: good contacts, speaking loud, and making the audience believe they are smarter than they really are because the series it's "intelligent".

From the very beginning there were lots of things that didn't add up, but we let them pass, such as full-election process in a refugee fleet, including public debates and such, as if anyone of the 48.000 survivors could care about politicians after their worlds, friends and family had just been killed. Boomer's sabotages to the fleet didn't make much sense, but they were interesting. Cain's "reimagining" was just a one-dimensional creation, a square warmonger who -as always happens with writers who dislike the military- is ultimately proved wrong in almost everything she does. Things got gradually worse, starting with the one-year jump, and the introduction of the "final five", a concept that most likely was spurned by fans who were asking themselves who were the remaining "models", instead of writers who actually had anything planned for those characters.

While the show garnered critical acclaim, viewers left in droves. Those who remained could be ultimately divided into two groups: the fanatics, for whom anything with the brand "Galactica" (excluding the old show) was God turned into television, and regular viewers who were giving the show the benefit of the doubt, hoping that things could be salvaged at the end with a plausible explanation.

The show's decline, however, became even more pronounced in the last seasons. Instead of fixing the glaring problems of the previous seasons, they introduced new ones, contradicting a lot of stuff, and creating whole story lines -the aforementioned "final five", for example- that in the end turned out to be just a big red herring. Even worse, they committed the worse sin for a show supposedly grounded in reality, even being sci-fi: they resorted to "divine intervention" to explain the whole plot and most of the central story lines. Two characters, one barely seen, suddenly became "angels", while another was turned into a "divine creature", without even the most basic explanation. The whole epilogue for the characters was a disaster, pulling the "emotional strings" while throwing logic out of the window.

To add insult to injury, the show's lack of appeal forced a number of obvious budget cuts, but at the same time, the number of episodes per season was increased from 13 to 20. As a result, we ended up with a sci-fi show with little sci-fi at all, with almost no action to speak of (space or otherwise), and tons of episodes to the top with filler. Of course, that filler was filmed as if it were "relevant" and "dramatic", with hand held cameras and dramatic lighting, no matter if it was just two guys speaking about nothing in a corridor.

As always, a number of fanatics claimed, as they will always claim, that the show was about the characters, about "drama", and never about space battles and such. They are wrong. Battlestar Galactica was sold as a sci-fi drama, not just "drama", and that's the reason it was green lit in the first place. Those who claim that Galactica was always what it turned out to be in the last disastrous seasons should take a look at what it was in the beginning.

In the end, the problem was one person -Ron Moore- with too much power and ego to make "just" a sci-fi series. He had the means, and ultimately proved his detractors right exactly about what they were trying to say from the beginning: that Moore, and Galactica, were all show and no substance, with soap-operish drama, weak actors -with a few exceptions in Olmos, McDonnell and a couple more-. Not only that, but by trying to write himself out of his corner, Moore's writing turned most of the events in the earlier seasons totally unnecessary, ruining the series as a whole.

So farewell, BSG 2004. You went the way of the do-do at the end, and just like the X-Files, managed to survive as long as you could avoid giving answers. I doubt anyone would want to re-watch the series knowing how useless everything turns out to be.


The show started out as one of the greatest, best written shows I have seen. Some where along the way they either ran out of ideas or had a fear of success or something. The original concept, that the Cylons were fighting a genocidal war against humans was thrown out when it was revealed that several key humans were actually cylon sleeper agents. If they had been activated the war would have been over the first week. It was one of the changes that completely negated the earlier, excellent episodes. It was similar to when the movie Aliens 3 starts starts off with meaningless deaths of key characters from Aliens2 or when Brad Ratner had Xmen start killing each other off in Xmen3. These things are bad by themselves but also taint all the earlier episodes. How can you go back and enjoy the first seasons of the show knowing that most of the actions by key characters are lies and completely illogical since you now know they are cylons. A bitter, bitter, disappointment.


Hmmmm, interesting. I'll keep this short on detail, as so many have done such a good job of pointing out the myriad problems with this series both of itself and as a laughably awful remake of a good original series. Ludicrously similar to the (usually) teen-aged modern "role playing game" fans who constantly talked of the lack of "darkness" in some game they were involved in a decade past, but themselves had so little experience of "DAHKNESSSSSSS" that they'd have shrieked and run not only from anything remotely like one of the creepy crawlies (usually human appearing, but horrific in some psychological or spiritual way) they wanted featured and emphasized into the ground but also shielded and run or simply self-destructed from any realistic darkness that had presented itself into their unthinking little lives. Or perhaps the equally silly conviction of the teen-aged "goths"; kids asserting the world had already gone to hell in its very own handbasket and wearing black and being morose was utterly original and beautifully "realistic" and anyone who did not agree just didn't understand (and was really dumb besides). Come to think of it, they had the the same rabid reaction to anyone pointing out the fact that the last few generations have also had a cadre of black-wearing "originalists" in high school...LOL!!!

The single detailed comment I;d like to make for those seeking enough info to decide on watching or not watching the "new" series involves a couple of subtle concepts called family and wisdom (or alternatively, wise leadership). The original series included truly adult themes such as family and friendship; it is mystifying to those actually "adult" as to why explicit sexual intercourse, drug use, and foul language is supposed to depict adulthood. The original series contained such scenes as an not-seriously-but-still-ill Adama in bed receiving a visit from his small grandson-by-marriage Boxey, who, tucked up beside his grandfather and soundly kissed, proceeds to tell Adama a small-boy version of his own favorite bedtime story.

"There once was a shining planet, called..." "Earth," says Adama, recognizing the beginning line of the story he's often told the child. "No, Mushieland (a type of sweet in the series)," replies Boxey. "Mushieland?" asks Adama, voice and expression exactly what you'd expect from an affectionate grandparent both a little surprised and offering encouragement to go on. "It was full of daggets (essentially an extraterrestial dog)," continues Boxey, "but the best of them all was Sire Muffie (the name of his own pet)." "Sire Muffie," Adama repeats, clearly understanding where this is going, and as clearly content, happy with the boy's company. Again, very much real world, real grandparent.

A moment later the camera shows the medical technician who's been keeping visitors away so Adama can rest...standing just out of sight listening, smiling. She's pretended to be asleep so the boy could sneak in and give the old man some of the medicine he needs most right then.

This is the stuff of reality. This is adulthood. All the "F & S" (reproductive activity and drug sucking) ever shown cannot trump such things on those two counts. It shows when Adama and Apollo --his son-- embrace after Apollo has been out on a dangerous mission. It shows when Starbuck, all choked up and having trouble speaking, sincerely tells the heavily advanced civilization of the Ship of Lights who just revived his dead best friend Apollo "Whatever you want from me, you can have". It shows in the not-too-often, not-too-little use of the term "buddy" between Starbuck and Apollo and Boomer and the trio handclasp colonial warriors use now and then at a difficult or dangerous moment. It shows in the trust evidenced across rank lines, generation lines, and gender lines by people who have worked together, understand each other's strengths and weaknesses, and are committed to each other and to a goal worth reaching out for.

Adama led so well precisely because he showed emotion, valued his family, worried sometimes intensely but let others live their lives, cared and managed situations with flexibility but brooked no nonsense, and was fundamentally an older human being saddened by pain but capable of happiness, flawed (without being a mess) but striving to be the best he could. This, too, is reality. There are bad people in this world, but the sort of disintegration into whoring, in-fighting, and drugs touted as "real" by such shows as this ridiculous new rip off are unreal because they show only the worst case most extreme scenario. (Come on, how many disasters have we read about, seen, or been in ourselves in which EVERYONE turned into a sick-minded nit?)

My advice? Go for the real thing; ignore the fake stuff.


I am the Sci-Fi channel's dream viewer in that I will watch pretty much anything that they can chum the waters with - and we ARE talking about some programming with more in common with fermented fish guts than with anything that could reasonably be called drama. But I still watch. During the week, throughout the day, it's the same 10-11 episodes of the same 5-8 canceled TV series, over and over again - FOR YEARS! (I believe that I have seen enough "Tru Calling" to recite the dialog along with the actors, the same way we used to at midnight showings of "Rocky Horror.) During the week, prime time, we get maybe one new episode of a current show, ramped up to by old episodes of the same show. Then comes the weekend. Cobras, boas, anacondas, copperheads, (Apparently snakes are easy to do CGI.) giant rapacious sharks, carnivorous locusts, dragons, cursed angels...all paraded past us in indifferently written, cheaply produced fashion. But I still watch, and for the most part, enjoy. I enjoy because I think that most of us who started watching televised science fiction (When there were really only three channels, when the creatures were usually enlarged garden denizens, large bug-like sculptures, or just some guy wearing something that looked like one of your auntie's failed quilting projects, and when any sci-fi tended to be broadcast long after our parents had been safely tucked into bed and Johnny Carson had signed off.) learned early on that a little artistic honesty and a sense of humor are far more important than overly dramatic posturing to any show's success as entertainment. Most of Skiffy's creature-feature programs are undeniably bad science fiction, and not worth a second look or thought, but succeed nonetheless as entertainment, which is something that they share with undeniably good science fiction like "Babylon 5". What they also share with "Babylon 5" is that they are all better than "Battlestar Galactica".

When I heard that they were "re-imagining" "Battlestar Galactica", I was giddy with the anticipation. The original show had been one of my favorites, but I have always felt that it never achieved its full potential. The premise was an excellent combination of the Biblical Exodus with a holocaust allegory and there was access to some good post "Star Wars" special effects, along with the potential for some good story lines as the rag tag fleet made its way to Earth, kicking some Cylon butt along the way. In the end, while the premise remained solid, the story lines faltered and became a bit campy (space angels?), and a limited effects budget gave us the same shot of the Cylon fighters doing their trademarked twist and dive maneuver over and over again. The show was canceled, which was bad enough for its scifi-starved fans, but to add insult to injury, was followed up with the abysmal "Galactica 1980" which retained none of the original vision, but the worst of the campiness.

I watched the obligatory "making of" promo for the new series and was very impressed. I didn't really see the need for trans-gendering the Boomer and Starbuck characters, but what the frack? After all, we're "re-imagining" here, aren't we? Then came the miniseries and I took heart. Same great premise as the original with better special effects. So the characters are unnecessarily dark, most of the dialog is delivered at a mumble, and the camera work looks like it's being done by the guy who DIDN"T get the "Blair Witch Project" job. "Re-imagining", right? Then came the series. What a hulking, pretentious, brooding load of festering felgercarb! I went through all of the stages of dying before the third season ended, lingering a little longer at "anger" and "denial" than I think I will when the time actually does come. "Re-imagining", my ass! The only thing that has been re-imagined here is what might go into making a decent science fiction show.

1. If you are only going to produce a limited number of episodes per season, with wide time gaps between those seasons, you might "re-imagine" something actually happening during the course of those episodes. The main story line moves way too slowly, and there are only just so many times that Starbuck can get drunk and beat up Col. Tigh in order to distract from the fact that nothing much has changed in the story line.

2. "Re-imagine" that at least one of your characters is likable. Yes, it's true that characters with flaws tend to be more interesting, but that does not mean that your characters should consist only of their flaws. There should be at least one character that the average viewer might want to invite over to dinner or share a beer with. As it stands, the only one of these people I would even allow in my house would be #6, and then only because I am intrigued by that glowy thing she does with her spine during intercourse.

3. "Re-imagine" that it's OK for your villains to be just that. Indeed, it would be refreshing to see ANY show do that for a change. The "Oh Gosh, they're really just like us, after all!" approach to villain building is today just as trite as were the baby-eating Nazis of the 40's and 50's. Make them as complicated as you want, but keep the venom, and by the Lords of Kobol, make sure that they are just a little less likable than your protagonists!

4. "Re-imagine" that your audience wants to give a frack. As it stands now, I hate these drunken, whiny, morose sons of bitches. I don't even want them escape the Cylon menace. In fact it's obvious that Earth would be far better off if we never meet our dysfunctional space cousins.

Edward James Olmos has said that the series' finale will be "brutal" (Duh!). I can only hope that it is also truly final.


This new Galactica is a huge disappointment. The old one (1978) is a masterpiece in a comparison to this. They managed to ruin the complete concept. Everything is not how it should be. The director does a bad job. The fighting scenes are comical. Special effects were better in the old series. The characters are poorly written. Also, they managed to transform Sturbuck, the hero of my childhood, into a female character, although there were some interesting female pilot characters in the old series. If you want to waste your time, then watch this one. I am the great fan of the old Galactica so maybe this makes me too critical, but still I think that the new one deserves only 1 star ( I would give it 0 if I could).