Whilst on assignment in a very 1950s-looking WW2 London, a plastic-haired US ace-journo' (Turner) and an impossibly baby-faced Cornish ace-journo' (Connery) are lost in the throws of a torrid affair, despite the disapproval of colleagues (stiff-upper-lip Longdon, laconic James). However, even as declarations of undying love are uttered, dark clouds loom in the form of Turner's newspaper boss and erstwhile lover Sullivan, and Connery's shock disclosure that he has a wife and child tucked away in his native Cornish village. When Connery is killed in a plane crash, a devastated Turner makes a pilgrimage to his native Cornwall where her path crosses that of his wife and child...

Risible weepy, serving as a star vehicle for Lana and an early showcase for the handsome young Connery, both of whom fail miserably to convince. Turner seems to possess only three facial expressions, even when trying to stay upright in her stilettos as she totters round 'St. Giles' (actually Polperro) - witness her horribly 2-D efforts to comfort Martin Stephens after his nightmare. Meanwhile Connery's description of his Cornish fishing village birthplace is delivered in such a rich Edinburgh brogue as to be quite giggle-some.

So often the case with British cinema of the 40s and 50s, it's the support players who steal the show - Glynis Johns' is a beautifully judged and modulated depiction of a woman recovering from grief. Her resolute kindness, generosity and warmth make her reaction to the final reel revelations all the more believable. Sid James shines as a world-weary American journalist trying to juggle loyalties, and Stephens' post-nightmare scene is desperately convincing.

Sadly however, excellent support playing, and beautiful location shooting are just not enough to save this overwrought turkey.


In 1945, while in a temporary assignment in London, the "The New York Standard" journalist Sara Scott (Lana Turner) has a torrid love affair with the reporter of BBC Mark Trevor (Sean Connery) and she falls in love for him. Just before the end of the war, they cover a sapper disassembling a bomb and Sara is informed that her boss and fiancé Carter Reynolds (Barry Sullivan) is coming to London to meet her. When she tells the news to Mark, he surprisingly discloses to her after three months of relationship that he is married and has a son in St. Giles, Cornwall, and he loves and will stay with his family. Mark leaves Sara and travels to Paris with his assistant Alan Thompson (Terence Longdon), but the plane crashes and he dies. The grieving Sara has a nervous breakdown and is interned in the Headway Nursing Home for treatment. Six weeks later, Carter buys a ship trip to her from Plymouth to New York; however, Sara decides to visit St. Giles by train before returning to her country. When she meets Mark's wife Kay Trevor (Glynis Johns) and his son Brian (Martin Stephens), she is invited by Kay to stay with them until the next morning. During the night, Sara has a crisis, faints and Kay invites her to stay at her home during for recovering.

The silly "Another Time, Another Place" is an unconvincing romance, with a laughable screenplay. The story begins without a previous development of characters, but sooner the viewer understands that Sara is an experienced American correspondent that writes a column for her newspaper and is engaged of her boss. Mark is a married man that broadcasts news about the war and is having an affair with Sara, and disapproved by his friend and assistant Alan. When Sara tells that her fiancé is coming to London, Mark decides to end his affair since he loves his family. This revelation, associated to the shock of the death of Mark lead Sara to a breakdown. Up to this point, the story is convincing and I have no remarks. However, the decision of Sara to travel to St. Giles is the beginning of an unthinkable attitude of an experienced woman living overseas. The rest of this forgettable movie is pure crap with a corny conclusion, despite the good performance of Glynis Johns and the magnificent locations in Cornwall. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Vítima de uma Paixão" ("Victim of a Passion")


I found myself 'fast-forwarding' thru the last half hour. The script missed some great chances at early character development, which left the 'talent' struggling to pull this movie together. Their characters lacked depth and motivation in the later going, and the 96 minutes seemed much longer.


Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.

It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.

The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.


Now days, featurettes are fairly common for just about any DVD (most of them are for promotional purposes only and are painful to sit through). Back when HALLOWEEN 4 was released on DVD in 2001, it was somewhat of a new thing. This documentary, directed by Mark Cerulli (who hasn't directed since), is only interesting if one is looking for a comparison of just how comprehensive DVD documentaries have become over the past five years. 'HALLOWEEN 4' FIANL CUT keeps information to a bare minimum. There is very little meat. With the exception of actresses Danielle Harris and Ellie Cornell, all the participants look as if they want to say what they have to say and leave, making the short running time boring to sit through. Screenwriter Alan B. McElroy shares limited insight into his craft of writing the script. All he says is that he was a fan of the franchise and seems to be extremely impressed he was able to write the script in eleven days. Furthermore, there is no mention of the input by the three other writers on the project that came up with the story. Credit should go where credit is due. HALLOWEEN 4 director Dwight H. Little gives the most insight into the making of the film though he doesn't seem to passionate about his work. Worst of all is executive producer Moustapha Akkad, coming off as a complete business man and nothing of a fan of the genre. I respect him for trying to keep the series alive, but come on, show some interest. Overall, a very disappointing documentary that should have been much longer and thorough. I'm giving it 4/10, since it slightly better than the average fluff piece.


A good solid piece of British movie making of its period. No classic but watchable. In the hands of a director like Hitchcock, and there are some very Hitchcockian themes here, this material would have made a minor classic. The former Concentration camp doctor's comeuppance (he is gassed in the hold of a ship being fumigated) is wonderfully ironic.

The DVD watched was part of a 50 movie boxset from Mill Creek called Nightmare Worlds and the transfer is far from good. The image was fuzzy and broke up from time to time towards the end, and, somehow, presumably to save space on the disc, the frame had been cropped on all four sides. This was especially apparent during the opening credits and in a scene on a train where the evil Doctor and a padre are seated facing each other in a carriage having a conversation - all we see is their noses peeping out from the sides of the frame.


This contribution to the "Western" genre from Hong Kong is just about the most offensively poor film I've seen that actually had a budget. I don't know how much it cost to make (I'm guessing at a few million), but it was money down the toilet. I am an admirer of the work of Chow Yun Fat, both in Hong Kong and Hollywood, but I was shocked and disappointed to discover how low his standards are capable of dropping, as demonstrated by his heavy involvement in this shoddy piece of work (main actor and co-writer). Essentially, the story is of a part of wild China in/around early 20th c, in which a former gangster and mass-murderer reforms his life and builds the Peace Hotel, a refuge for all the area's disowned and hunted. This situation is maintained for 10 years, when a woman of dubious character turns up and claims refuge. However, she is at the centre of a plot to bring down the Peace Hotel, the owner, and all he stands for. Why is this a disastrous production? Where do I start.....The back-stories of the two main characters are treated in an overly sentimental way, the soundtrack throughout the film is irritating, the story didn't interest me, I found the pacing to be slow without being gripping, and most of the characters seemed to be one-dimensional, pointless, irritating and/or unlikeable. I also got the impression that there were gaps in the story in terms of explaining motives, but it may be that if I had taken more of an interest in the film I might have understood it better. Frankly, I was bored rigid after the first 30 minutes, and couldn't wait for it to end. Yawn.


Apparently one of the ways you can choose to die when you're sentenced to death is to watch this movie. No one has chosen this route because it too painful a way to go.

This movie is really bad. It should in fact be banned. The video store where I rented this from should really keep movies like this behind the counter, anyone could just pick it up, and rent it.

Basic story.. Underdogs who can't surf have a week to learn how to surf and beat REAL surfers who probably have been surfing all their lives, at the World High School surf championships in Costa Rica. And there seems to only be 3 teams that enter this contest. The local team from Costa Rica. Laguna Beach Team B(<----underdogs) and Laguna Beach Team A (The bad-guys).

This movie sucks so much I can't believe I'm using more then 3 paragraphs to let you know how much it sucks. There's notions of bestiality, lame fart jokes (I thought that fart jokes are alway funny.... I've found a movie where it's not), and a pretty crappy brave-heart imitation. Something about "You can take our lives, but you can't take our SPIRIT!!!). This movie should really be banned. After I've finished this "review" I'm starting a web site where people sign a petition to get crap like this outlawed. If I could give this movie a minus score, I would.

Don't watch it, please, I beg you.... you'll thank me later


Surf School is without question one of the worst movies I've ever had the misfortune to watch. It's dull, predictable, poorly conceived and painfully unfunny. The characters are paper thin and the plot lurches awkwardly from one yawn-inducing scene to the next. There is not a single original or entertaining moment in the entire 85 or so minutes. This film tries to position itself as a comedy in the vein of American Pie but whilst that movie (and it's first sequel) succeeded at being both entertaining and engaging Surf School fails spectacularly on both counts.

This movie should not be watched by anyone ever.

As a side note I find it interesting that the people who have left comments raving about how great this movie is have never commented on any other films. Draw from that your own conclusions.


With early comparisons to "American Pie" and "Road Trip," I wasn't expecting much when I saw SURF SCHOOL this past week. Actually, I like mindless, escapist fluff comedies, and was prepared for one of those here. What I found was one of the most gawd-awful 90 minutes I ever spent in a theater.

The plot was simplistic but had potential: typical "fish out of water" scenario, with East Coast transfer student Jordan (Corey Sevier) feeling out of place in a Laguna Beach high school run by a group of championship surfers, led by Tyler (Ryan Carnes). He bands together with other misfits at the school, including a geeky punk, silent goth girl and a perpetual virgin nerd, and enrolls in a surf school prior to the high school surfing championship in Costa Rica. Got the ending figured out yet? No surprises, believe me.

Most of the comic relief is provided by the alcoholic former "surf dude" who runs the school (overplayed beyond endurance by Harland Williams), and a couple of oversexed 60's era hippies who run the place where they are staying. Whatever funny moments there are (including a running gag by Williams inviting people for "mahi-mahi" and a chimp "flirting" with the virgin nerd) are overdone until they lose their appeal. And the film is filled with patronizing stereotypes, from three gorgeous Sweedish tourists to the illogical choice of a flaming campy gay MC at the surf championship. The dialog meanders in illogical circles, leaving the audience scratching their heads in confusion and wondering if this was mostly ad-libbed. The outtakes over the closing credits are better than some of the scenes left in the film. The writer/director should consider some other line of work.


A poor script was brought even farther down by horrible acting, especially on the part of Corey Sevier (unfortunately the main character). The girl who played Doris was decent but disappointingly had a minimal role. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. This movie was a waste of money. The cast and crew seemed likable enough as people but should probably consider finding another field to work in. The blonde foreign girls were gorgeous but that was all. They could have benefited from some better accent training. This movie was hard to sit through. I wanted to leave after the first two scenes. Corey really made a badly scripted movie even worse with his complete lack of acting skills.


it's interesting to note that teens, college kids reviewing here - view movies - as nothing more than a 'bunch of stuck together bits'. minds seem unable to think in terms of a integrated 'whole'.

cant believe i'm even taking time to write how excruciatingly awful unfunny boring clichéd this unspeakable thing was, the movie studio allowing him to make it must have been because they wanted to see him

as the assistant manager at a taco bell not writing producing movies - that is the only possible explanation

with something this bad one must not have many friends to clue you in before it too late 'hey this is bad bad bad' 7th graders on you tube have better writing skills.

i'm demanding my rental fee be waived on principle when i sheepishly have to walk this turkey of all turkeys in.

i wonder if class action suits might be possible against the studio and producer for foisting this on unsuspecting consumers as a 'comedy'. the supreme court surely would assess this as 'cruel and unusual punishment' even for multiple victim murders. studio dweebs out there - how in the name of creation does something this BAD get produced?! That is what i'd like to know.

BTW, the manager at my Blockbuster consented to waive the rental charge..and added she's heard that from EVERYONE.


The writing is horrible - even for a campy teen movie, it plain sucked. The acting was very bad, the direction was bad. I feel bad for the cast who probably worked for peanuts, to be portrayed in such a crappy film. I'm glad I was able to see it for free. Don't waste your $3 to rent, OR buy this - wait till it comes on Spike TV at 3am, that way you can sleep through most of it. Diane and Taylor have the only bright spot in the movie as a goofy couple, but it's not enough to carry this film. Frankly the only thing remotely worth seeing is the beach and scenery of Costa Rica. I give it a 1 simply out of pity, and because a negative option wasn't available.


I curse the day that IMDb didn't put an option to be able to vote 0 for a film. Even 1 is far too much of an accolade for this steaming pile of horse manure The film is just plain terrible its like they took gross out clichéd clips of jokes from other films and ran them one after another on here. The acting is terrible and the gratuitous shots of dumb bimbos got tedious and repetitive.

Don't watch this, even if your into all the topless or bikini clad girls. The films is just plain pathetic.

This film has a laughable plot, has no comedy, and bad acting, in fact its a travesty it was ever made. I though I would never say this, but I'd rather watch a Uwe Boll movies instead of this.


This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The only reason that I watched this crap was because Harland Williams was in it. He is a great improv comic/actor. I wish that the movie would have shown more of him.

The plot is just like any other....underdogs beat the champs. Very few funny parts during the whole movie. Harland along with the couple still locked in the 60's made this movie. They were hilarious. The outtakes at the end of the movie was a great way to end this film.

The girls were very attractive in this movie. Great job finding them but as soon as they "read" their lines, it ruined it.

I would not recommend this movie to anyone.


The only good thing about this movie is that it featured attractive actors and actresses. While there were a lot of "jokes," almost none of them was funny; it was just minute after minute of unbearably awful dialog and sight gags revolving around "old people shouldn't have sex."

I might have forgiven 'Surf School' for being an awful movie, but it's also one of the few that's managed to offend me on multiple fronts. Hey, it's 2005: you don't have to make five or six references in the script to how black your black character is, complete with Affirmative Action jokes. And I just love the gay guy wearing a red bikini, lisping about all of the beautiful boys while shaking his hips and petting other dudes for an entire agonizing scene! Yeah those queers sure are hilarious, aren't they?

But maybe the worst part of the movie was the female lead, Doris. She starts out as a pretty goth chick, who doesn't talk much and loves reading (in the movie she's reading Sylvia Platt's "The Bell Jar.") Everyone thinks she's creepy and she's restricted to background action. But toward the end of the movie she's urged to "show her support" for the boys. How does she do this? Why, by getting into a tiny bikini, seducing the "bad guy surfers," and -as a fantastic final touch- transforming herself into a blond, of course! Suddenly she's the center of attention and SO much happier! Who knew the secret to happiness was to stop reading books and whore yourself out?

I don't mean to say there's anything wrong with sexy female characters, especially in a beach movie. In fact, the gorgeous women and men in 'Surf School' were probably the only things that kept me from killing myself while watching it. But Doris's character does a complete and inexplicable 180 from a quiet intellectual to an oversexed exhibitionist, all in order to "encourage" a bunch of dudes who (with one exception) have been avoiding her for the whole movie.

Sorry Joel Silverman, but that's not sexy. That's creepy as hell.


Well, at least this one has closed captions AND DVD captions...if anyone cares! So, the deaf and hard of hearing can also enjoy watching films that are awful piles of dreck! It's interesting that two films in the IMDb Bottom 100 have similar titles. There is SNOWBOARD ACADEMY and SURF SCHOOL--which would apparently indicate that some sort of trend might be occurring. Perhaps there will be a ROLLER BLADE UNIVERSITY or the like coming out in the next few years!

When the film begins, it's obvious that writer Joel Silverman had watched a lot of formulaic teen films from the last 25 years. All the characters seem like caricatures. There is the female Japanese exchange student who doesn't speak English (a knockoff of the female French exchange student from BETTER OFF DEAD), the hyper-religious mom and her hyper-square virgin son (straight from CARRIE--but without the insane magic powers), the obligatory black teen (from practically ALL teen movies--and why do they always come in ones?!), the punk rock-ish boy with weird hair (again, from most teen films), the Goth girl who is so obviously 'hot' underneath all that black makeup (but, of course, no one recognizes this) and gear and the very nice AND hot leading man (can't the leading guy NOT be hot for once?!). It's all about as believable as the Tooth Fairy and betrays hack writing.

Taylor Negron and Diane Delano play an older couple who are rather repulsive. It's not just that they behave like horny dogs in heat but they are just gross people. Not a particularly pleasant couple and not what any sane person would consider 'comic relief'! There is a chimp on hand as well. Whenever the ape appears, references to bestiality seem to follow. Nice touch, huh?! The appearance of Harland William did not bode well. While he can be funny when he just talks off the cuff on TV, in films he has a very strong propensity to appear in ANYTHING...as long as it's bad. When ROCKETMAN is one of the best movie of his career, you know you're in trouble! The females in the movie, with the exception of the Goth girl, are there for pretty much one thing...sex. They are horny bimbos who have no depth whatsoever or personalities and they are nothing but walking pairs of breasts--which you see quite often. I doubt if N.O.W. would approve.

The film is about a group of losers (listed above) who go to Costa Rica a week ahead of their fellow senior class members so they can ski the K-2...no, wait, that's also BETTER OFF DEAD (and about 4523 other teen films). No, they want to learn to surf and out-surf the stuck-up jerks who are graduating with them in only a few weeks. Wow,...now that's an important and worthwhile goal!

Overall, there is really nothing to recommend this film. It's unfunny, crude, horribly written and appallingly unlikable. Remarks about body crabs and crotch itching, images of Williams sitting on the toilet taking a dump and, once again, the bestiality references make this one abominably offensive and stupid film. I could only imagine it being of interest to people who are either actively psychotic or under the influence of very, very strong intoxicants. A loser of a film that I couldn't have hated any more. Repellent garbage...at best.

Currently, this film is ranked #50 on the IMDb Bottom 100 of the worst films ever made. I think this is way too generous and might just give the impression that this film is better than it actually is!


This is a black comedy and despite the famous cast, definitely not my cup of tea. The talents of the three famous actresses were wasted on this depressing bit of drivel. I prefer comedies of the heartwarming, romantic, light hearted, or zany school.

The story revolves around three troubled sisters in a Southern town, who reunite when the youngest, Babe (rather a bizarre character), gets herself in a jam after shooting her husband. The oldest sister, Lenny, is an awkward spinster who has stayed home throughout the years caring for her father. The alcoholic, chain smoking middle sister, Meg, left home early in the hopes of making it as a singer & actress in Hollywood. There's also a jealous & snoopy cousin, Chick, who's basically the villain of the piece.

It has a stellar cast, especially its three leading ladies in the roles of the neurotic sisters, who are all coping in their individual ways following the trauma of their mother's suicide by hanging. Diane Keaton plays the shy, insecure, stammering spinsterish Lenny, who feels herself inadequate to attract a man because of her inability to bear children (due to shrunken ovaries). Jessica Lange is cast as the wild sister, Meg, who hates her father and has had a string of failed relationships with men...including a current love interest, Doc Porter (played by Sam Shepherd). Sissy Spacek is the kooky younger sister, Babe, who married at a young age an abusive man.

Presumably well crafted with great performances, but the tale of the personal demons troubling the three eccentric sisters simply doesn't make for humour, as I see it. When Babe shoots her husband, then goes into the kitchen to make a pitcher of lemonade, and offers him a glass...well, it's not something I find hilarious or entertaining to watch. It's set in the South, and for me the best part of the film is the wonderful old Victorian family home where the sisters reunite. Otherwise, I'll stick to the Steel Magnolias type when I feel like a movie interweaving the tales of a group of women.


It's quite a feat to take a really good play, give it a great cast, and still manage to make a bad movie. I've liked many of Bruce Beresford's movies, but this one just didn't work. He doesn't have any sense of comic timing, so a lot of the humor falls flat. And it's a real shame because the actresses are all wonderful. They play off of each other really well, and they really feel like sisters. It's worth seeing just for the acting.


Beth Henley's award-winning play about 'family' (her favorite topic) gets a cheeky, somewhat condescending screen-adaptation, with very little sensitivity or subtlety but a lot of Southern brawling. The story concerns three idiosyncratic sisters, and the trio of fine actresses in these roles are almost pitilessly miscast. Diane Keaton is the spinsterish one (though she's too young for the part), Jessica Lange is the sultry one (though she's too old for the part), and Sissy Spacek is the troubled one (though she's too sane for the part). I can't think of one thing that looks right, sounds right, or goes right in this picture. The production budget seems low and the script feels half-baked. The whole thing left me thinking, maybe "Steel Magnolias" wasn't so bad after all! *1/2 from ****


But you may easily be disappointed, if you see Jessica Lange's performance here, whom I had so much respect for (well, there are few moments when she actually is believable, but most of the time she's just too fake, would-be cool and high above), and even worse, Diane Keaton's pathetic and unbelievable acting. And she was so good in so many other movies, what a shame...

What does make the movie worthwhile are the performances of a nasty Tess Harper and, before all, a wonderful Sissy Spacek. All in all, Lange, Keaton and Spacek don't deserve this film and it doesn't deserve them, nor can they save it. Oh yea, and the characters have rather stupid names and act in a too hysterical way. Though hardly enjoyable, Spacek and the better part of the story raise my personal rating to 4 out of 10.


One viewer stated that this move addressed some issue, one being racism, the relationship between an older white southern women and a younger under age black man? I believe the issue here is pedophilia. If this had been presented as a man of Sissy Spacek's characters age and a 15 year old girl, everyone would be calling this child molesting, pedophilia, crime of the heart? No this crime is what it is, child molestation and they move tried to present it as a tender touching moment between a lonely older woman and a younger man, he was a child. Enough said, besides that issue this movie did not do much for me, depressing and lacked a point for me. Not one of Jessica Lange's better films.


I can't remember the last time that a movie squandered as much goodwill in such a short space of time as this one does. The first half is genuinely terrific, as six lairy, sexed-up twenty-somethings flirt, take drugs and confabulate on a yacht anchored off the coast of an unnamed Spanish island. Its like Hollyoaks as directed by Larry Clark, and it is totally gripping.

But as soon as the titular incident occurs (and the titular incident really does occur; just in case anyone else suspected that the title was merely a jocular come-on) the plot suddenly helter skelters straight into a brick wall; turning into the kind of dated, tiresome trash that isn't only shockingly predictable, but also entirely unaware of its own predictability. The film's twists are broadly apparent a full ten minutes before they occur on screen, which makes for an experience that isn't only boring, but also deeply and repeatedly annoying.

This is one of those thrillers in which every cast member gets a turn playing the volatile psychopath, purely because the script can't get around the fact that the previous character to go loopy has just been safely locked in a cupboard.

It never once stops being faultlessly directed - debutant Oliver Blackburn coaxes some really outstanding performances from his young cast, and there are a couple of devilish moments of genuine suspense and black comedy - but these jiffys are like a tiny number of slowly deflating rubber dinghies sinking into a gigantic ocean of generic pish.

People merely looking for explicit sex will be very well served, but the violence and gore is surprisingly tame for something that's being marketed as a plasma-stained killfest.

A very brief, but nevertheless apt and effective homage to Phillip Noyce's Dead Calm aside (a film so infinitely superior that I feel guilty for even having mentioned it here) this is just a shoddy, witless bore of a film.

And it all started so well.


Donkey Punch is more than competently directed, almost every aspect of it is superbly executed - save for the tiny matter called screenplay. The plot is so tired words cannot begin to describe it. There is not one event that cannot be foreseen from miles ahead by anyone who has seen more than two thriller movies in recent years.

The director is obviously very talented, and even the acting is above average compared to this type of fare (I'm looking at you My Bloody Valentine 3D with your silent movie-type overacting) but the plot is such a bore and there is a distinct lack of suspense throughout that instead of generating thrills it almost put me to sleep.

Any real chance of characterization sinks as soon as the characters begin to do awfully predictable and silly things, just for the sake of packing a punch to the audience - which in turn fails because everyone can see them coming.

And to think that British public funding is going to such stinking waste of material and talent is beyond comprehension. I am all for subsidizing mainstream films but Donkey Punch is a knockoff of dozens of movies we have seen, most of them better written.

Just a touch of originality would have elevated Donkey Punch to at least an average level, as it is now it is just not worth the time and investment. On the plus side: the soundtrack is awesome.


I found myself at a screening of this at the Sydney Film Festival - one of the producers was there to talk up the 'wild ride' we were about to be taken on which should have been a warning that it wasn't going to be that great. It starts off pretty well with a bunch of very attractive English party holidaymakers (very realistic, I've seen their types all around the world) hooking up for what is going to be a slightly sordid adventure. Once the title is mentioned in the film (Huzzah? anyone) you pretty much know exactly what's going to happen. Yes, it's a thriller but when there are seven people on a boat you pretty much know from the beginning that there's going to be a last man standing. The only real suspense is trying to guess which one it's going to be. All seven characters are complete stereotypes (really bad guy, ruthless guy, good guy and not so bad guy forced to do really bad things; party girl who gets knocked off early; middle ground party girl and slightly less inclined party girl). The characters get knocked off with very little imagination and it requires a bit of suspension of disbelief. I'm not going to ask for the 90 minutes back but I'm certainly not going to recommend it for anyone else to see - especially if they've already seen 'Dead Calm'; 'Shallow Grave' or any other film where a bunch of people are 'forced' into killing each other ...


i am going to keep this brief... if you value the use of your time this is one to miss.

the film actually had an interesting start -3 young woman on a girls holiday meets a group of lads on holiday in a rented boat, drinks, drugs, flirting and banter... at this point you are still awaiting the film to really kick in, however up until this point, the film is still more than just watchable, which i thought had potential to continue in its tracks... suddenly, the whole film changes direction, they 'lose the plot' so to speak.. after a perfectly filmed porno styled orgy scene where the infamous DONKEY PUNCH DEATH occurs and the the carnage begins... words cannot explain how unrealistic the rest of the film plays out.. completely idiotic unbelievable murderous acts coming at you like flock of seagulls until all but the 'good girl' is left.. it was laughable.

sorry guys! plot-less and pointless - very disappointing.


I will admit that I rented this movie because of the title. I thought it would be a low budget horror movies that would just make you laugh. However, this movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Really, don't waste your money on this movie. It does not frighten you, it just is full of blood and gore. The acting is also atrocious, and if you have not been living in the UK for the past few years you will not understand there mumblings. Susannah says ring ring...hello. The reason why I gave this a 3 was because the plot does have to deal with the basic idea of human instinct in extreme situations which is an interesting

theme.


I only watched this because it was on Film 4 last night, and wanted to see if it deserved the bad reviews, well it most certainly did.

I am astounded that Channel 4 saw fit to invest in this vile film that just set out to shock.

It also worries me that we have sunk as low as this in terms of humanity to consider this as entertainment,I love horror movies, but this had no redeeming features whatsoever.

As an aside, if the people portrayed in this film are an accurate representation of young Britons abroad, then I'm glad I don't bother with run of the mill holiday resorts with the binge drinking and all that goes with it.


Parodying the title of David Reuben's sex manual "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)", the late Douglas Adams came up with an idea for a book called "Everything You Never Wanted to Know About Sex (But Have Been Forced to Find Out)". If such a book actually existed, the sexual act from which this film takes its title would no doubt feature in it, perhaps to the extent of having a whole chapter dedicated to it. If you want to know what a "donkey punch" involves you will have to watch the film, although I can report that it does not actually involve donkeys. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will doubtless be happy to note that no donkeys were punched during the making of this film. Whether the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Audiences will be so happy is another matter.

Three attractive girls named Lisa, Kim and Tammi, on holiday in Majorca, meet four young men who invite them to their yacht. That sounds like the opening scene of a softcore porn film, and at first it seems that that is exactly what "Donkey Punch" is turning into. Unfortunately, matters take a more serious turn when Lisa is killed during a sex game that goes wrong. This leads to a conflict among the group. The surviving women Kim and Tammi want to report Lisa's death to the authorities, whereas the men want to throw her body over the side and pretend that she drowned after falling overboard.

The survivors then start fighting amongst themselves, and the film descends into a spiral of violence, with several more people being killed in a variety of unpleasant ways. Something like this could have been the basis of an intriguing thriller along the lines of "Dead Calm", another film which takes place on board a yacht. (The manner of one of the deaths in this film seems to be a detail borrowed directly from "Dead Calm"). "Dead Calm", however, works as a thriller because it emphasises tension over actual violence and gives us characters, particularly the young woman played by Nicole Kidman, whom we can care about and with whom we can identify. "Donkey Punch", by contrast, does neither. The characters are a generally unpleasant lot who will do nothing to dispel the widely-held perception of young Britons abroad as drunken, loutish and rampantly promiscuous. There are a few moments of genuine tension immediately after Lisa's death, but thereafter the film simply descends into gore and mayhem; the only tension is that involved in playing a game of "guess who will be the next to be killed, and how". "Donkey Punch" is a film as nasty and sadistic as the act from which it takes its name. This was director Oliver Blackburn's first feature film; I can only hope for the sake of his career that his second will be a huge improvement on his first. 3/10


Donkey Punch has a very interesting (although fu*ked up) premise in which seven people have a party on a yacht out in the Mediterranean sea, only to have one of them try the infamous "donkey punch" during sex with one of the women...and accidentally kills her.

Now, what they could have done with the paranoia between the surviving characters would have been interesting, but they degraded the plot even more from it's fu*ked up premise into a stupid slasher film. Not only that, but it's also hard to tell what's happening on screen for most of the time. Stupid and unbelievable situations continue to unravel themselves.

But, I have to be honest. I actually liked the film up until the actual donkey punch. After that happened the film just got lazy. But, hey, it had some good music though.


Take some young ladies, probably models, who can't act.

Take some young lads, probably models, who can't act.

Put them on a yacht, and throw in a script that seems to have been written minutes before. Get a guy from somewhere, call him a director and tell him to make some astounding rubbish. As it's going to be absolute tat you might as well try to make it controversial. Oh, and there's no budget either so it's gonna look cheap. Yep, it's gonna be something like an English version of Cabin Fever. The film is appalling on every level. The old cliché of 'you'll never get back the 90 minutes of your life' applies here. Only 15-18 year old's will rate this movie, as it's aimed at them. Really, really bad.


I've been a little curious to see this one for a long time, and after finally getting to see it.... it's one of the most puzzling movies I've seen.

The dialogue is nearly incomprehensible. In watching material like Shaun of the Dead, I usually get used to accents after a short time, but with this one, it started reasonably understandable, but by around halfway through it, I started having a very hard time.

Far too much time is spent setting the scenario up. Once the girl dies, the movie feels like it should be over. The drama that ensues feels absurd to me. I can understand that some people are able to take control of others pretty effectively, but the lack of opposition seems to be unbelievable.

People start making decisions that don't make much sense. I think that the girls would have both realized that they shouldn't light a signal flare if they don't want the people nearby to notice.

The deaths get stranger as the movie progresses. One guy dies by a knife, and that's handled well. Then someone dies by having a flare fired into his chest, then it ignites him on fire? Then someone dies by some tool - it resembled a weed wacker, but I'm not sure what it was. That one seemed particularly strange, but made all the more strange by how the killer had no motivation to kill.

The movie is otherwise competently made. The poor lighting out on a boat in the middle of the night is understandable. I can't evaluate the script since it was impossible to understand.

With some editing and general re-shaping of the story, the movie could be a nice teen thriller. But as it stands, it's not much more than a curiosity.


In the sparkling tradition of 'Very Bad Things,' 'A Simple Plan' and 'Open Water 2: Adrift,' comes a 'Donkey Punch' that's a dozen of hits inferior to the films it's mirroring. Sure it's more serious than 'Things' and 'Plan' but what made those fun to watch was that they didn't take themselves so seriously. This 'Donkey' movie was made by people that have never seen those three, or any other young adult 'Oh, I've never met you, so I guess it's safe to go with you to ___" (fill in destination) film. There's got to be countless ones out there. The twist, I suppose they were shooting for was the said title. What takes seconds to explain what it is doesn't make this much more original than 'Things' or 'Plan.' Three girl friends meet four guy friends while on holiday in Spain and opt for a sunset cruise on a yacht. After one dies by a (insert title here), the action, suspense and paranoia ensures. When the movie turns cat & mouse, everyone out for themselves, hurting each other, plotting, etc, it's not terrible, but horribly unoriginal, predictable and gives us zero characters/heroes in which to root for. Granted most of us haven't been involved in such circumstances, we can't honestly say what we would do. However, having seen at least 48 movies like this one, I think I'll have a pretty good idea of what NOT to do. I think if it really did happen to me, and they made it into a movie, chances are it would just a 5-minute You-tube clip. One other problem I had, and I'm probably in the minority, but though I speak English, I find myself using the English subtitles more with such thick English accents. Unfortunately, this DVD only had Spanish subtitles.

'Very Bad Things' and 'A Simple Plan' are highly recommended over this. Even the low-rated (but I actually enjoyed) 'Open Water 2: Adrift' is a better rental.


"Donkey Punch" is another movie in the sub-SUB-genre I have personally categorized and labeled the "trouble on a yacht" genre (other such films include "Dead Calm", "Open Water 2", and "Visitors" or anything that predominantly takes place in, on, or around a f!cking yacht...) and it certainly isn't anything remotely compelling. The concept of the Donkey Punch - a sex act involving aggressive contact, applied to the back of a chick's neck whilst performing anal copulation - was interesting, but that was really IT for the "thrill" aspect after that particular scene... We start off with the standard group of pea-brained party-girls vacationing in Spain, who meet up with some guys with a boat. There, it feels like an hour of pointless prattle, then a hot scene of group sex, Donkey Punch resulting in an accidental neck-snap, followed up by the whole "lets ditch the body and get out of here" routine... Strange how I've heard such positive things about this UK flick, because I actually found it enormously dull and drawn out. Not a whole lot of violence either - the best scene is an expected flair-gun blast that's pretty funny, but otherwise there's not much on that end... If only "Donkey Punch" had SOMEWHERE to go, plot-wise, after the first 30 minutes or at least tacked on a bit more T&A and a lost LESS of that hair lipped-meth-head and overly forced "alpha-woman" BS, it might have been able to hold my interest a little better. It's just a weak and pointless flick, overall...


Despite an early, glossy, this-film-should-have-been-made-in-the-90s fizz, Donkey Punch quickly degenerates into total farce. Whilst the orgy scene is genuinely erotic and skillfully done, that might as well have been the conclusion of the movie, not the pivotal scene that defines the film. Because thereon after, every agonisingly cheesy cliché from teen slasher movies right through to low budget horror farce is played out here and it is ultimately the fault of the banal script and utterly horrendous direction. At what point does the production crew stop and think: 'This is actually not working?'. If we, the audience, can conclude that some 30 minutes in, it defies logic that the 'finished' product was wrapped up and presented as some kind of genuine horror-thriller. A mess, and not worthy of the time you will spend watching it.


The content of graphic sex, sexual violence, drug taking and murder are aimed at an audience that wants to be titillated, and in this modest aim "Donkey Punch" more or less succeeds.Yet somehow Director Oliver Blackburn squanders reliable staple teen horror fare into an indigestible mess which is difficult to stomach.

Four young men and three young women, party, have sex, and then become embroiled in a deathfest when one of the girls dies during a sex act.The acting is fairly good, the characters are fine and the girls, Sian Breckin,Nichola Burley and Jaime Winston (daughter of Ray) look good and are a teenage boys dream, well "up for it".

A setting on a boat always has dramatic potential, confined space, isolation, no escape. It also has some drawbacks, physically you are limited with what you can do.This is where Blackburn errs.The first half hour of scene setting as the characters get to know each other is fine, and the sex scene is convincing. But once the bloodletting starts everything spirals out of control.The actions of the characters are inconsistent at best, and unbelievable at worst.This is no psychological thriller, if you don't know what to do - kill someone,that appears to be the maxim.Each sequence is so episodic, so stand alone, that there appears to be little link with what else is going on.By the end the dramatic tension has evaporated and you just want EVERYONE to die, but quickly.

Apparently this was shot in 24 days, which is quick. But this is no excuse for an inadequate script and screenplay.


having been somewhat looking forward to this movie, more because of the titillating title than anything else, i finally got round to seeing it. I have to say this movie is probably the biggest missed opportunity of the year. A interesting set-up/premise, competently directed but completely let down by a real clunker of a script. It's nearly half an hour before anything remotely happens, which wouldn't be so bad if we were getting to know the characters, some back story etc, but nothing. Each character is a complete no entity, bland, two dimensional, each spurting flat dialogue which you can almost imagine them reading from the page.

The only character who has any back story is Tammi, who's broken up with the boyfriend who cheated on her, therefore we're supposed to care about her; and because she's the only one who protests, momentarily, joining the guys on the boat, we know she's the one who will be the 'last man standing'. The blond, sexually adventurous one, you know straight away is the one who is going to 'get' it...and, ho hum, she is. Could this film be any more predictable.

After the 'incident' everything becomes totally unrealistic and over the top. The writing is just so bad. One moment Tammi pulls a knife on the guys but then is disarmed. Then while the guys are trying the sink the body they leave the girls free to get away. They don't go back to the knives which they know are there instead they run inside the boat, find a hatch and climb back outside again. I could go on but i really can't be arsed. The only thing i liked about the movie was the poster.


Please please do not put your self through this two hours of rubbish!! Do not get drawn in by the promises of sex, drugs and violence. Really really really really bad movie and cleft lip man (Tom Burke) is a terrible actor.

This sums this movie up perfectly

"Before I saw Donkey Punch, I was somewhat tolerant of British film. Now I feel inexplicable anger that such raging self indulgent sh*t can still make it onto the cinema screen. The world will shun this movie. There will be mass concessions of people collecting around twenty foot holes dug in the Sahara desert, just so they can symbolically bury the DVD release. "


Although this western is an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours, everything in it is so predictable and the acting so mediocre that does not really worth anybody's time. True, it has some ideas, but it prefers the easy solutions right from the beginning. I have given it 4 out of 10.


Like many I was suckered into watching this film thinking it was a horror opus with some sort of demonic black panther (leopard?) stalking scantily clad buxom B movie bombshells through the jungles near strategically photographed Angkor-esquire ruins of Thailand. It is but it isn't, and while NIGHT CREATURE isn't a "bad" movie -- there is some camp value to be had here amongst all of the conversations, and one really good extended cat attack scene -- it doesn't have much to recommend it, aside from Donald Pleasence. Like Peter Cushing or Basil Rathbone he elevates the film beyond the dreck level just by appearing in it.

Dr. Loomis plays a novelist and great white hunter drawn to equatorial Southeast Asia who takes up the challenge to track down a rogue panther that is mauling local villagers on some sort of island/peninsula/water bound isolated location. Predictably, he freezes up at the last moment of truth when confronting the beast and is maimed for life. "Crippled" is the non-politically correct expression. Other round-eyed Caucasian relatives drop by to visit, there is intrigue and romance under the jungle canopy and next to the photogenic ruins, and at some point the panther emerges from the teeming forests to claim the only white woman in the cast. The creature must be stopped lest it ruin the local tourism business, and Dr. Loomis gets really intense, sits around glowering like a madman while knocking back the native booze & gabbering about the past, and finally lures the panther to go mano-a-mano with his wits, slamming the doors at the last second ... and then skarkers. The film concludes with the surviving Americans getting onto a boat and leaving the natives to their doom, which would have been my suggestion from day one.

Filmed in 1978, this is actually one of the "When Animals Attack" vein of thrillers made after the success of crowd-pleasers like JAWS, FOOD OF THE GODS and GRIZZLY. Here the menace is in the form of a sexy trained panther, which means only one thing: Animal rights activists will be offended by how the animal was coerced into performing for the camera. If the movie had been made today the cat would be a computer animation and Ralph Feinnes would have played the Donald Pleasence role, so we can be thankful that the movie was made when it was & by who bothered to show up: It is a forgettable little bit of 70s Saturday afternoon idiocy. It's also funny how the pivotal scenes in the film all seem to involve action being staged with the Angkor-esquire ruins looming in the background. They serve only as a set decoration, whatever relationship the panther has with the ancient traditions that erected the monuments is never delved into, and essentially this is a PG rated (made for cable?) Jungal Trash exploitation film about white people going to the jungles and having all sorts of fascinating adventures while the natives carry the luggage.

What the film needed was some sort of lurid angle that would have produced bared breasts or better yet a blasphemous native sexual rite combined with a supernatural kicker. As mentioned above there's one great scene where the cat stalks a woman amidst the ruins, the final images of Dr. Loomis sitting in the boat with the face of the panther superimposed on him were perhaps the most evocative moments in the production ... aside from an excellent monsoon sequence filmed during an actual monsoon. If it sounds like I am just not getting into the spirit of things here you are correct, the film is plodding, unimaginatively staged, derivative, cheap, and has little to recommend it aside from another unhinged Donald Pleasence performance. Perhaps the most compelling reason to acquire a copy and subject yourself to watching it is that it's completely obscure, out of print, and with no anti-animal exploitation disclaimer at the end, likely to stay that way.

4/10; Worth a look for Animal Attack fans, otherwise you might want to try NIGHT OF THE SORCERERS, at least that one has some breasts.


A voiceover accompanies and describes celebrated writer and hunter Alex MacGregor (Donald Pleasence) while he and his attendants plod through a Thai jungle during this film's opening scene, as they search for a deadly rogue black leopard that has killed numerous local villagers. Alex is attacked and savaged by the animal, and made permanently lame as a consequence, and his offer of a ten thousand dollar reward for the beast if captured unharmed is soon claimed by successful Siamese beaters, following which the hunter keeps the caged mankiller at his remote palatial home while preparing for a rematch. The purpose of this revived hunt will be for MacGregor to expunge a newly found emotion within him: fear (although his high-powered scoped rifle should be of no little assistance in that regard), and after giving his servants two weeks off with pay, loads his weapon with nine rounds (for the fabled number of lives), frees the creature and limps off alone in pursuit of it. This is an interesting notion for what promises to be a stirring tale of adventure, but then the plot shifts to Bangkok, where are found the two daughters of Alex, Leslie (Nancy Kwan) and Georgia (Jennifer Rhodes with the work's best performance), along with the latter's child, all about to embark upon a journey to pay their father a surprise call. The three females are escorted by a transplanted Texan, a tour guide in the Thai capital and a former lover of Georgia, and he becomes romantically embroiled with her sister immediately after the group's arrival at the vacated MacGregor estate, while the title character is only seen as he threatens the visitors, the big game hunter seemingly having been swallowed by the encroaching flora as he seeks his hardly elusive prey. The matter of Axel's struggle with fear becomes subordinate to his offspring's emotional entanglements, although there are many slow motion closeups of the brute to enliven the action in a film that is bedevilled with serious flaws of continuity.


The information I gathered together beforehand, from reading reviews and listening to people's opinions, unmistakably taught me to keep my expectations towards "Night Creature" very minimal. Everybody agrees that this is a non-worthwhile late 70's killer animal movie with incredibly poor production values and a whole lot of preposterously unnecessary padding footage. Still I was stubborn enough to continue tracking down a copy of this movie. The concept of a macho hunter obsessed with the combat-to-the-death against an invincible animal predator, taking place on a remote and inescapable island, is undeniably intriguing and potentially very suspenseful. Particularly because the legendary Donald Pleasance ("Halloween", "The Flesh and the Fiends") plays the obsessive hunter, and because the guy in the director's seat is Lee Madden ("The Night God Screamed", "Unchained Angels"), I literally ignored all the negative warning signs and nevertheless hoped to have stumbled upon a genuine hidden. Well, I was wrong  again! "Night Creature" truly is a failure of a film, and neither Donald Pleasance nor the bloodthirsty looking black leopard could do anything to avoid that. The film is irredeemably boring and repetitive sub plots are endlessly prolonged in order to reach the 80 minutes of playtime. Perhaps the formula could have worked as a short film, or an episode in some type of TV-show, but it's too confined for a long feature film and all of Madden's attempts to broaden the concept (like adding a dumb love story or insinuating a psychological ordeal) look just plain ridiculous. Millionaire Axel MacGregor is a self-made man who already achieved many things in widely versatile areas of expertise. Now he decided for himself that he would be the one slaughtering the ferocious Black Panther that already killed several people in a remote Thai area. When the animal nearly kills him instead of vice versa, MacGregor feels like a loser and offended in his manhood. He orders to capture the animal alive and ship it to his own private island, where he intends to continue the showdown. Unfortunately, however, MaGregor's estranged family just planned a surprise visit to the island at the exact same time. I still firmly believe the above could form a fantastic starting point for an exhilarating and suspenseful Man Vs. Animal thriller, but far too many things went wrong here. For some incomprehensible reason, Lee Madden loves to shoot all the action sequences in slow-motion. This annoying little gimmick does not only interrupt the pacing and tension; it's also very pointless because the wildlife footage is unclear & fuzzy anyway. The fake love story between Pleasance's geeky daughter and a chauvinist tour guide is uninteresting and the film is full of illogical twists. The often repeated simulations where Pleasance stoic face transforms in the muzzle of the leopard are completely retarded. Judging by his uninspired performance, Donald Pleasance wasn't the least bit interested in putting energy into this film, so why should we.


Macho jack of all trades Axel McGregor (Donald Pleasence) whose past gigs have included test pilot, race car driver, and writer, hunts a lethal black leopard in the jungles of Thailand. When the beast gets the drop on him, he becomes despondent over his fear, so when it actually gets captured, he lets it go just so he can hunt it again and exact some sort of vengeance for being humbled so badly. This, just as his estranged daughters Leslie and Georgia (Nancy Kwan and Jennifer Rhodes) arrive for a visit, with Georgias' daughter Peggy (Lesly Fine) and local tour bus operator Ross (Ross Hagen) in tow.

This material had some potential, and it does have some atmosphere going for it. That said, I don't think it's particularly well made, well written, or well acted. (Although Hagen is very amiable and it's a hoot to see Pleasence really go off his rocker here.) The leopards' stalking scenes aren't bad, but the actual attack scenes left something to be desired. This is never as scary or as suspenseful as I would have liked; it's basically watchable, but barely so.

Location shooting in Thailand helps, anyway. The photography is decent enough and the music sometimes effective. But this plodding movie ended up leaving me wanting more.

4/10


Perhaps I should explain that I am one of those people who are willing to sit through the most egregious crap, just to be able to hear Nancy Kwan's charming Hong Kong accent and see her fabulous zygomatic bones. But even for me, 1978's "Night Creature" was tough to get through. In this one, Nancy and a few others pick the wrong time to pop in on her dad, big-game hunter Donald Pleasence, at his private Thai island in the River Kwai. Donald has just released a preternaturally cunning and spitefully ferocious black leopard to hunt and engage in a battle of wits; a creature that wastes little time going after Nancy's half sister... Anyway, this movie is basically junk. Ineptly lensed and directed, with a weak story and little in the way of suspense, it surely doesn't offer much to the casual viewer. And the DVD in question here doesn't help. The picture is fuzzy and scuzzy, revealing a crummy and scummy 16mm print source, and the sound quality is very poor. Still, somehow, a viewing of "Night Creature" does have its compensations. Pleasence's acting is fun to watch, ranging as it does from hypermaniacal to catatonic. The film is atmospheric in parts, the Thai scenery looks nice, and Nancy Kwan looks even nicer. She is 39 in this film--18 years past her yummy Suzie Wong debut--and still looks very beautiful. Heck, she's still a looker TODAY, at 68! But even those zygomatic bones aren't enough to redeem "Night Creature." This is surely a film for Nancy Kwan completists only. Like me


The major problem with Night Creature is that the 'creature' is actually a very cuddly looking black panther who clearly was quite well-behaved throughout production. Though he's supposed to be a powerful and deadly force of nature, he actually comes across as a rather dopey circus creature who wouldn't hurt a fly. Axel MacGregor (twitchy Donald Pleasance) is a big game hunter who brings the animal to his private island, where it proceeds to terrorize Socrates, the family Scotty Dog, distaff daughters Georgia and Leslie (Jennifer Rhodes and Nancy Kwan), granddaughter Peggy (Lesly Fine),and macho tour guide Ross (Ross Hagen). The film lacks suspense or chills, and an over reliance on slow motion, point of view shots, and narrative voice-over results in a technically inept final product. To date, this is the penultimate feature from director Lee Madden, whose next film, Ghost Fever, was even worse.


With its muddy sound and blurry, grainy film stock, Night Creature is a real chore to watch. Poor choices in casting and music serve to underscore the queasy tone of the movie, which verges on a "Manos: The Hands of Fate" level of badness. The filmmakers have an odd preoccupation with Donald Pleasence' "crazy face," that has earned him the villain role in countless 70's horror. In this "jungle adventure advertised as a horror film" (thanks Psychotronic Film Encylopedia) Pleasance is supposed to be a big game hunter with an Ahab-esquire obsession with his quarry. The repeated fade from Pleasance' beady staring eyes to the black leopard's eyes is supposed to emphasize the connection between them (is Donald Pleasence the "Night Creature?" whoa, deep, man.) None of the human characters are likable; not the "hero," played by the producer in an ugly suit with an unbuttoned shirt, not the two female leads (one to be eaten by the monster, one for a love interest) and not even the little girl, whose peril is supposed to evince some suspense out of this mess. The black leopard, while acting unlike any real animal, behaves like a movie monster, killing for fun not food. Unfortunately, the decision to shoot nearly every scene in bright sunlight (what's the name of this movie again?) and to show the monster in full body view from the very first frame, rob the animal of its ability to be menacing. This movie comes close to "so bad it's good" status, but without the cast of MST3K to help you through it, you'd better give it a miss.


Check that lame-o-meter. Donald Pleasence is Axel MacGregor, a world renowned writer, test pilot, big game hunter and writer. MacGregor has a lop-sided sense of machismo and his ego has been threatened by a black leopard who attacked him on safari. He has the animal captured alive with the intent to let the beast loose on his private Southeast-Asian island paradise in order to track it down and claim superiority with a high powered rifle. Meanwhile his daughter and granddaughter make an unannounced visit. MacGregor will have more than enough to deal with...right down to his last bullet. The supporting cast includes: Nancy Kwan, Lesly Fine, Ross Hagen and Jennifer Rhodes.


A scientist creates a drug that allows people to go without sleep. It's being tested on military personnel at a remote desert training facility (of course). As you can imagine, people can't go without sleep, so as time goes on, their fears or guilt or whatever truly haunts them begin to bleed into their real life (of course), and this happens just as the program comes under the scrutiny of an outside analyst (of course). People with high caliber weapons hallucinating. Do the math/body count.

Basically the average TV movie quality/formula rainy day movie.

Ron Perlman plays the unflappable scientist with all the single minded focus of an MD who's shooting his own sh*t (MD standing for Mad Doctor of course, so much for a "control group"). Calm, cool and manipulative, the doctor's concerns in life and work stretch no farther than the end of his syringe, and Ron Perlman's right on point with his performance.

Favorite line (spoken by the only member of the test group not to hallucinate): "I grew up in the Bronx. What's left to be afraid of?"

Worth a rent or buy used (if you must have it for your Ron Perlman movie collection).


I watched most of this film only due the presence of Mary Ward who plays a waifish psych doc in this tedious excuse for a sci-fi mystery thriller. Not a moment of "action" nor a line of dialogue is of the slightest interest in this loser. The acting is painful to endure. TV (not even TV movie) quality production. 2/10


Director Roberta Findley, wife of cult legend Michael, directs yet another bizarre, cheaply made, vulgar film. This one, Lurkers, named for the dead that can be seen by some "lurking" about, primarily tells the tale of a girl having a bad home life in New York in an apartment house where she sees these lurkers. We are introduced to her in a somewhat inventive and at the same time crude opening sequence where the young girl, having just been verbally/physically abused by her mother, goes outside to play and while playing jump rope - the rope mysteriously entwines around her neck as the children idly smile and watch. A young woman who will be seen later in the movie arrives, and the rope stops. Quickly we move to the present when the young girl has turned into a young musician in love with a photographer. The film then relates this relationship - but to say any more would give away the plot. And I wouldn't want to do that to you - or would I(might save you!) I think of all about this film that I did like - and granted that was not much - was the story. It is somewhat talky and you soon know where it is going, but it has shades reminiscent of Rosemary's Baby with regards to the man-woman relationship and a future conspiracy. I even thought the end, reminiscent of The Sentinel, was just quirky enough to be interesting. The real problem with this movie is that it never can shake the cheap look and feel it has. This can be easily seen in the settings, the lack of good, quality actors, and the special effects(what few there are). Christine Moore plays the lead - and she is pretty - but beyond that nothing very special. She is better than virtually everyone else in the film. Findley also has some obvious, how shall we say, peculiar interests as we are shown various scenes suggesting sexual aberration of some kind and scenes suggesting sick violence with a sledge hammer. The film is not particularly gory though. One scene that stood out for me was a scene between two beautiful models - both highly attractive - disrobing and talking about the stock market. It has nothing to do with anything yet has an interesting humorous edge as well as other pluses aimed to peak one's interest.


After emotionally / psychically being abused by her mother, Cathy would hear tales that the lurkers would come and get her if she was naughty. These lurkers were ghostly figures that hanged around the apartment building and only she saw. While, playing with friends the skipping rope strangely finds itself around Cathy's neck with little concern from the other children. Then a mysterious lady shows up and everything goes back to normal. Then we skip 15 years into the present where Cathy is in a relationship with a photographer, Bob. They're happily in love, but there's something lurking under the surface and Cathy starts getting recurring nightmares of her traumatic childhood.

Roberta Findley might not have a great rep behind her films, but surprisingly I enjoyed "The Oracle", which made me grabbed this particular flick. The shame was that I didn't quite get into this shonky trash, despite an interestingly offbeat concept. Sadly I found it quite tough going as its terribly talky without really going anywhere with the idea. Sure, chat is fine, but when it strings you along and along with even more lifeless chitchat. The overall silliness of it shows up strongly that your hoping it would break out the madness, but it hardly eventuates. When it does. It's not for long, and back to pointless chitchat we go. Throw in plenty of redundant build-ups and odd stretches that fill like nothing more than fillers to pad out the running time. This only dragged out the slow pace even more. It should have been more fun than it was, as I found myself to be either bored or baffled.

The plotting of the flat story was a convoluted jumble (It skips in between a whole lot of elements) with many uneventful happenings. It's a nasty little item that doesn't explicitly show it, but it's grim and mean-spirited in nature. After a genuinely creepy and tight opening couple minutes when Cathy was a child and throw in some motherly love. Some inspired touches creep up here. It never seemed quite sure where to go and its poor execution shows it up immensely. The look and feel of it is quite amateurish and it can't seem to shake it or work around it without embarrassingly telegraphing to us.

Now it's better to leave the moronic script alone! While, the overwrought music score is quite a groaner and like something that would fit nicely in a silent film. The only real component technical aspect had to be that it was actually pretty well shot and caught the grimy locations. The acting was very indifferent and Christine Moore in the lead role was the only one to give a reasonable turn. Roy MacArthur had a bit a fun with his performance and lightened it up when on screen.

This forgettable, drab feature definitely squanders every opportunity to make something fulfilling out of this idea.


This is a terrible horror film, that's very boring, and uninteresting. The acting is terrible, and i never really rooted for anyone, plus nothing happens until the last 15 to 20 minutes, and it's too talky with lots of extremely boring dialog. The twist near the end, is predictable, and dumb, and i was just thankful when this movie ended. It did have a couple of cool flashback moments, and Christine Moore is easy on the eyes, however, I was struggling to pay attention, since nothing happens!.I got this on a 8 horror movie 2 disc set. The Direction is terrible. Roberta Findlay, does a terrible job it's very bland,and the pace is awful!. There is a tiny bit of gore. We get a few bloody stabbings, and a decapitation. The Acting is extremely bad. Christine Moore, does good with the lousy script, however she had her off moments, still i liked her, plus she's gorgeous!,but her chemistry with, Gary Warner is off. Gary Warner, is terrible he over acts, and got on my nerves,and had no chemistry with Christine Moore what so ever. Overall AVOID! * out of 5


This is a muddled mess of a movie that has something to do with people who were born in a particular New York City apartment building being evil and how they become Lurkers undead creatures if they die at that building. I'm not really sure what happens because I don't think it was ever clear. In the films favor the muddledness of the movie does add some creepiness to the film because you never can get a handle on what is really happening, but at the same time the film falls apart because what you do understand doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. An exploitation "semi-classic" by Roberts Findlay this is the sort of thing that would have played in the old Times Square grind-houses. Actually the one good thing about this film is the copious shots of New York in the late 1980's which record the city before urban renewal changed everything for the better. This film feels like its related to Findlay's Prime Evil which has many of the same actors and locations. For those seeking to see every horror film ever made or those wishing to track the final films of the grind-house theaters and early days of home video.


I quite liked Roberta Findlay's film "The Oracle" so I thought I'd give this one a go, especially as I thought the VHS cover looked quite cool. Sadly it turned out to be rather boring. It actually has quite a good storyline behind it, but is just done in a very boring way. Which of course means little gore and suspense, and too much talking.

I sort of like the cheap and dirty feel to it - I've always thought cheapness adds a murky atmosphere to horror flicks, take "Midnight" by John Russo for example. It's a shame Findlay didn't go for blood and gore over the "talky" bits as that would have made it much more watchable. Using better actors would also have lifted it out of boring mediocrity.

Overall, Lurkers may be of interest to those who collect rare horror flicks, but gore and suspense fans should stay away.


I read about Lurkers in the pages of "Fangoria Magazine." Always on the lookout for interesting horror films outside of the mainstream, I went down to a now defunct mom and pop video store not far from my home and rented Lurkers and a couple of other flicks. It was "get one free" day. Thank God for that fact as I would never, ever pay for Lurkers and you shouldn't either.

Lurkers is without doubt, the worst film ever made. It's not a "so bad it's good" deal but, "so bad it truly is a worthless peice of complete and total garbage that wasted film stock that could have been used on worthier projects" type of film. It's muddled script can't make up it's mind as to what it is. Is it a Horror film, a porno film (there are many gratuitous sex scenes, betraying the director's porno background), a tour of New York City (there is lots of padding featuring the main characters driving around the Big Apple), what is it? Who knows, certainly not the film makers. The film's pace drags on and on and on, seemingly with no end in sight. It's what the fast forward button was made for, trust me.

There is nothing, nothing even remotely entertaining about Lurkers. The gore, the naked women, nothing lives up this truly awful turkey. Do not waste your time trying to track down this film, it vanished for a reason. It's no good!


I watched this movie at eight o'clock in the morning after being awake for two days. The front of the box hardly looked promising, but when I read the summary on the back, (She's into her boyfriend, Bob. Just like he's into Satan!) I realized that I had to give this movie a chance. Honestly, it must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen (and I am a fan of Plan 9 From Outer Space). There is plot but hardly a point. The scene when Bob asks "Orange you forgetting something?" made the whole movie worthwhile as well as a few other choice words I'll leave you to discover. I would honestly recommending watching it while you are a little overtired because it provides some laughs and a lot of confusion. Be prepared to giggle and scratch your head at the dialogue and scenarios. I agree with the chap above and gave it a ten. It's cinema at it's worst and that's something to be proud of.


It was torture watching the movie. This was not in Vietnam, it was in Thailand. The "Vietnamese" actors were Thai. When the "Vietnamese" police told Beckett to put down the gun, they were speaking Thai, not Vietnamese. If you want to make a movie, make it genuine. I'm white myself but it's giving off the exact stereotype white people have on Asian people.

This is what Cynthia Alvarenga from Burbank, California wrote:

"I liked the casting choices. Of course Tom Berenger is the perfect actor but John Doman, Denis Arndt, William Duffy and especially Byron Mann were convincing in their characters. The Vietnamese cast and crew were phenomenal. I liked the very well-written story, no loose ends. All the information that was told in the story was used with it's conclusions. I like the location choices in Vietnam. I loved the music (WOW). There was a Southeast Asian theme but not over the top stereotypical. The music was hip and matched the screens of the movie. I like the cinematography. The lighting at the dock with Quan and the informant, spooky. Great job, really !!"

Listen, Cynthia: take off your blind fold. This just shows how uneducated you are and your stereotype doesn't contribute anything to this world. You need to get a sense of what's a good movie and what's a bad movie because you are completely lost. I feel sorry for people like this lady.


I seen most other reviews are of a positive nature to this. While i liked the series, sniper 1 was great and two was pretty good, sniper 3 was a disgrace to the series. I realize i am a bit "old school" in that despite my realization that it is Extremely POPULAR and loved by 99.9% of movie viewers, i detest, abhor, hate, and despise movies without any definitive ending. I realize for whatever reason movie viewers love movies that create 10,001 questions and 0 answers. Movies that give you a great plot, great scenes, well written, and then just end leaving it all open to interpretation, while it is loved by the masses i hate it. Had this movie gone another 5 minutes, it could have explained everything, and i would have liked the movie. However appealing to popular demand, not to have an ending, they decided just to end at any random point. great job!!!!!!!!!!!!!


While it has moments here and there (not many, to be honest), this film has so little in common with its source material (Thomas Allen's book of the same name) that it is not really an adaptation at all. The dates, characters, and just about every other detail imaginable have been changed. And Timothy Dalton was thoroughly miscast (he tries to make Father Bowdern some kind of two-fisted action hero!), as was the freckle faced, red-headed boy who seemed less possessed and more in need of good old corporal punishment (more annoying than demon haunted)!

There are also so many overly-stylized, almost campy moments that the film sometimes feels like a half-hearted parody of "The Exorcist" (the boys' 'good voice' when he tries to hoodwink the priests is utterly laughable). And the whole political bent with civil rights issues, and Catholic infighting (personified by the immobile visage of Christopher Plummer) feel tacked on and have little or no relevance to the story. Trust me; if you want details, this movie does not (in any way) accurately relate what happened (according to eyewitness accounts) at ALL. It is a stock, Hollywood-ized version of a story vaguely related to the actual case.

I'm not sure why the producers ever called this an adaptation of Allen's book (as it clearly is NOT), but perhaps it was done for legal reasons. So many elements are changed, that they could have said 'loosely inspired by...' and it would have been more valid. But for what it's worth, if you want the "real" story (and we may never know that for certain) stick with the book (the latter 2000 edition even has excerpts from Father Bowdern's actual diaries made during the alleged exorcism; fascinating stuff).

And if you're just looking for a good scary movie with similar themes? Stick with the original, the best: The original 1973 Exorcist. Forget what you may have read from any nay-sayers; it is the best film of its type EVER made. It treats the subject with dignity, gravity and a cast that is fully committed to the material (not to mention it is still scary as all hell, too). Although it is fictional, it feels so much more 'real' than this stale, clichéd, extremely loose 'adaptation' of Allen's book!


**** MILD SPOILERS ****

This is based on a true story is it ? If that`s the case then why does the opening caption read " Somewhere in France , All saints day , 1944 " Couldn`t the caption have given the exact location ? , or would that lead people to research the integrity of this true story ? Since reading about the truth in " true stories " like PAPILLON and SLEEPERS alarm bells always ring in my head when the words " true " and " story " appear side by side , and if the story is in fact true ask yourself this question : If the events on screen actually happened then why isn`t the case better known . I mean if chairs were running around putting the boot into teachers wouldn`t that be front page news .

My second criticism is that I thought this was going to be a bit more light hearted . Of course as soon as the waffen SS turned up and got some bayonet practice in I realised this wasn`t going to be the case , but by then the damage had been done and I knew not to expect any intentional laughs<br /><br />POSSESSED isn`t of much interest except for one aspect - How things used to be . For example smoking wasn`t the social crime it is now , only white people were allowed to be catholics , commies existed and wanted to drop atomic bombs on the USA , young teenage boys could be looked after by priests without any suspicion and teenagers swearing was a certain sign that there were demonic forces at work . Ah the good old days

NB : That last line was sarcasm before anyone complains


Sorry, I see a lot of you enjoyed this movie, but, I think it was one of the most awful cheezoid productions I've ever wasted two hours of my life watching (and, for reference, I saw "The Tuxedo").

Timothy Dalton's acting (or, should I say, overacting) was tortured, belabored, and felt very ungenuine. He wasn't acting as if he were a priest; he was acting as if he were wearing a priest suit.

The little possessed boy was the only one who stood a chance. He acted wonderfully. However, the non-existent technical direction made me cringe: the entire audio department on this movie should have to write letters of apology. When I saw the movie earlier this week, I thought it had been made in 1980, so poor were the technical details.

If I had to choose between Possessed and The Exorcist, The Exorcist would win, hands down, every day of the week and twice on Sundays. It was, at least, entertaining.


Sure THIS one is fact-based, but who cares when the facts are quite boring? The Exorcist was much better. I rather see something interesting yet loosely based on fact than something closer to the truth yet of the quality of a dramatization in a documentary. Not at any point during the course of the movie did I believe that that kid was possessed. However, he did remind me of that one kid from Problem Child. Now HE was possessed. John Ritter was funny in that though. I still watch reruns of Three's Company whenever I can...

-Al


I couldn't figure out if this made for cable would be shocker was meant as a satire or not. Its not funny enough to be a comedy & not scary enough to be a thriller. It has the appearence of a movie that was rewritten by several different people. Parts of it are satirical send ups of 1950s Cold War paranoia as well as religious hyprocracy, parts of it are gory & parts are trying (unsuccessfully) to be frightening. In the hands of someone like David Lynch, Sam Raimi, Stuart Gordon or even Frank Henenlotter these parts could've gelled together & made an effective thriller & social satire. POSSESSED however is a bunch a parts that don't fit & the result is substandard cable fodder


The "Other Boleyn Girl" hit theaters today, and of course, I was in for the first showing. I've been anticipating this movie for over 2 years now, ever since I first heard it was in production.

Why can't directors seem to get it right when it comes to this time period?I understand completely the Hollywood concept of "dramatic" flair for the big screen. But there is a difference between "dramatic flair" and complete revisionist history. This movie makes the HBO series, "The Tudors" seem like a BBC documentary as far as factual information is concerned.

Now, the director is not all to blame. Phillippa Gregory does a damn good job of distorting the truth in this alternate interpretation of the story of Anne Boleyn. Her portrayal of Anne as ruthlessly ambitious and downright devilish is at odds with the softer portrayals favored by Jean Plaidy and other authors of this period. Anne's own diaries would suggest her true personality to be more of the unwilling victim and royal pawn in the schemes cooked up by her ambitious male relatives. Only when she discovered that her path in life would be to submit or face death or exile does she succumb to Henry's advances.

The opening scenes of the movie concern how Anne and Henry met. Well, there is debate on this, the movie selects Hever. I'll allow that. But this first it was most certainly not in front of the whole court and followed by a hunt in which Henry takes a tumble, to be nursed back to health by Mary, Anne's OLDER sister (the movie and book portrays her as the younger sister-this is false). Anne's ambitions are apparent from this very day, she indeed seems to find her father and uncle's schemes appealing and agrees to "hunt" his majesty. Hardly the case in reality. Anne was in love with and betrothed to Henry Percy at the time of her first meeting with Henry. The movie has it backwards. She does not "settle" for Percy only after Mary has "stolen" Henry. Another extremely annoying point of order here.Cardinal Wolsey is completely absent from this film. This is such a blaring error as to render the movie completely abominable. Wolsey is such a force in the entire drama, from the arrangement of the marriage AND the divorce, to all matters of state and religion in betweento leave him out is both amateur and foolish, not to mention a missed opportunity for much needed plot thickening.

Running through the laundry list of other inaccuracies.Anne was not EXILED to France because she fumbled her attempt to seduce Henry. This is utterly ridiculous. It is well known that both Anne and Mary practically grew up in the French court from the time they were 12 to their late teens. Only then did the sisters join the English court, much less begin their dramas with the king. And she was not brought back to entertain Henry whilst Mary lay in with his child. AgainAnne most strongly wanted to marry her first love, Henry Percy, Duke of Northumberland. But once Henry had set his eyes upon her and chose to make her his own, then and only then were her uncle and father's schemes put into motion. Their original intentions were to milk the long-going affair of her sister Mary for all it was worth.

Now, as for the "incest" theory. Gregory is taking a huge risk here by suggesting that the allegation levied upon Anne and her brother George was indeed founded in truth, borne out of Anne's desperation to get with child after her miscarriage. I do believe Anne was desperate to get pregnant quickly, and she was very close to her brotherbut this is a huge leap, and one true historians would never make. It also suggest that something other than Henry's brute desires were at play here when he charged them with treason, which is not the case. He simply wanted to be rid of Anne, to beget a male heir off of his next mistress.

And good graciouswhat of the rape scene? Not only is this disturbing, but so far fetched. Although Anne resisted for years, when she finally gave in to Henry, she did believe herself to be in love with himor at the very least, resigned to accept her fate. And Henry was completely besotted with her.why else would he break from Rome, Catholicism and risk his kingdom for anything less? No, he would not have raped Anne for their first sexual encounter. He was a brute, but he was most concerned of his image of the romantic courtier when it came to women's affections.

Finally, a note on the characters. Portman does an acceptable job portraying the character from the bookeven though this character is not the true Anne Boleyn. Johannson makes a lovely Maryand probably quite close to the real woman. As for Banaa sore disappointment. Bad casting, bad acting. Is this the same Bana of the acclaimed Munich and Troy? Where was the range? He comes across as flat and not well studied. Jonathon Rhys Meyers of the HBO Tudors blows him out of the water on all levels.sensuality, intensity and evil as Henry the 8th.

Why can't I just watch these movies and leave feeling entertained? I don't quite knowI care too much about 15th century England for some reason. It became hardwired in me after watching Anne of the Thousand Days as a young girl. No Tudor movie since then has gotten close in accuracy or sheer entertainment since then. Burton and Bujold are classic and untouchable. But after watching this hack job, I have to say I am looking forward to the new season of the Tudors on HBO.


OK, I will admit that since I am descended from Mary Boleyn (and most likely, Henry VIII),I do have a bit of family honor at stake here....

I knew the film was going to take liberties with historical truth, but REALLY. The Other Boleyn Girl is almost PURE FICTION from beginning to end. Why did they bother to tack on SOME accurate historical outcomes (in written sentence form) of the characters at the end, just before the credits rolled?

Just to name a couple of examples: Mary Boleyn was married to William Carey as depicted, and Henry took her as his mistress with Carey's approval as he was richly rewarded. Maybe emotionally conflicted approval, I don't know. I rather doubt it. Anyway, in the film Mary marries a commoner at the end. The film never explains what happened to Carey, it would seem to suggest she is committing bigamy!

In the closing "write-over", we read that Mary lived happily ever after with the lower class guy; in fact, her family looked down on her and even rejected her because she brought down their status. She suffered emotionally and financially due to the marriage, but was still glad she finally married for love.

Other things that are totally false: Anne and Mary did not hang out all the time as is suggested in the film; I understand that serves the plot well so maybe I will let that one go. Can't let this one go: Henry raping Anne before she surrendered to him. That is ridiculous. And Anne convincing her brother to have incest with her so as to produce an heir? That is even more ridiculous. She would never have broken the incest taboo; also, if Henry was really shunning her bed by that time, as Anne suggests in the film, then if she turned up pregnant she would be accused of adultery and sent to the Tower!

Speaking of being sent to the Tower, in real life Anne conducted herself with great dignity and restraint before and at her execution, likely she was trying to protect her daughter Elizabeth and better secure her daughter's future relationship with Henry. She was innocent of adultery but kept her mouth shut when she knew her fate was sealed. This is not at all how Anne is portrayed in the film.

Cardinal Wolsey is left out of the movie entirely, and he played a MAJOR role in the whole drama of the divorce from Catherine of Aragon and Henry's desire for Anne Boleyn.

I just don't see why this same type of movie could not have been made with FICTIONAL kings and queens and other characters--no authentic names. Then it would not be a particularly good movie but it would be less aggravating. Of course, it could not then claim to be based on Gregory's book about Mary Boleyn. I don't plan to read that; there are too many accurate books about Henry VIII that are no doubt more interesting, and I can read about poor Mary Boleyn, the pushover, in those.


WARNING-potential SPOILER ALERT: Although I am a huge fan of Phillipa Gregory's work, I was extremely disappointed that she allowed the screenplay to be as awful as it was. I understand the historical inaccuracies (they are needed sometimes to make the story flow better) but some of them are grossly and unwisely used. Why is the King surprised to find Mary married when HE was the one that arranged the marriage to William Carey. Also Anne was not exiled to France because of showing off for the king, that was a random addition to the story line. The addition of the rape scene between Henry and Anne was by far the most horrifying of them all. The part wasn't even in Gregory's book!

As far as casting goes, where to begin. The ONLY two roles cast correctly were Norfolk and Lady Elizabeth Boleyn both played spot on to the historical depiction of those people. Why did NATALIE PORTMAN play the legendary Anne Boleyn as a petty, grinning idiot. As far as grace goes, i guess some things cannot be taught. Anne Boleyn was graceful and intriguing, neither of which came out in Portman's portrayal. THOMAS BOLEYN'S casting was nothing short of a joke. Here is a person who was a savvy, manipulative business man willing to prostitute his daughters out for his own gain. Instead the audience has to watch a man who seems scared of his own shadow. Eric Bana could have made the role of the King very enjoyable if the writing of his role would have had any kind of substance. WILLIAM STAFFORD historically was a tall, handsome, strapping, and assertive man so why was the role given to a scrawny 12 year old look-alike? Costumes were another downfall. In the DVD extras, it was mentioned that the production "searched high and low for Tudor costumes but another production (Showtime's The Tudors) had used them all up." So the production was not intending to use original costumes based on the feel of the screenplay that was written. It seems an easy way out to use someone else's time and effort. Instead, the audience has to watch the characters prance around in the same dress just in different colors. The costumes looked very cheaply designed and made and it is evident on screen.

Overall, this movie seemed to lack in so many areas and one has to wonder if so much money was spent to attain the three leads and had little money left to allocate elsewhere. If you love the Tudor era, I suggest you do not see this movie, it will just make you want to throw something at your TV.


I'll jump straight into it. Why, when the girls were just children, was their mother wearing a Elizabethan riding hat for her walking dress? At that time the Gable hood with flowing lappets hanging below the shoulders was still in. Then, why had no one given Bana a red wig when it is an historical fact that Henry VIII had red hair, from his mother Elizabeth of York? Why was it forgotten that Anne Boleyn's hair was black? Why did Mary wed Carey as an adult when in fact she was twelve years old when it happened? Why were the sisters wearing tiny crescent shaped coifs perched on their heads which didn't exist, and shewing their hair, to boot? Only in early Plantagenet times did 'virgins' shew their hair and matrons did not; by now it was normal for the tresses to be concealed behind the wimple on the rear of the hood. Mary was the elder sister, not the young one. Both sisters were sent to France to be educated when young; Anne was never exiled there. Anne was partial to the French hood (the curved one) in which she was later seen, and she did a very forward thing with it: she wore no wimple and her hair was so long she could sit on it. Why was Henry portrayed as reluctant to take a mistress when by the time he knocked Mary up he was already father to Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond? Mary's son was just surnamed Carey because Henry had got involved with Anne by then and so no royal bastard surname for him, but he was made Lord Hunsford. Cath. of Aragon was fair of colouring; why was she made to dress in clothes like those of her daughter when portrayed in middle age? Why was Mary sent off in a coach when the first person to have one in England was the Duke of Rutland in 1555? What were Percheron horses doing drawing her wagon when they only 1st came to England in the 1880s? Eliz. Anne's daughter, spent her childhood with Anne of Cleves and then went to love with Cath. Parr, not her aunt Mary. Ohh, the side saddle - new? For 200 years, since it was introduced to England by RichardII's queen, Anne of Bohemia. It came from Transoxania, ruled by the Arabs, and was a camel saddle adapted for the horse and used for ceremonial purposes by men and women alike. The script was dreadful - looking for a great man - 'ooo, found 0ne!' How corny can you get? Why were there not two swordsmen at Anne's execution and why was it not explained that she requested them to be fetched specially from France? Many thanks for this space. This film was a series of gaffs and bad acting from start to finish.


This story is not close to being correct. First off, Anne was the younger sister (born in 1510). Mary was the mistress to King Francis of France she returned to England with Mary, Queen of France after the death of the French King Louis She became Henry's lover. She became pregnant and was married off to William Carey. The King NEVER acknowledged her child as his. Anne was STILL in France with Queen Claude. She was never banished to France. She returned to England when Henry changed allegiances from France to Spain. When Anne returned she fell in love with Harry Percy (who was NOT betrothed to anyone) It was a love match. The King saw Anne and became besotted. He had Cardinal Wolsey separate them and then Percy was married off to Mary Talbot. Henry adored Anne. He was never anything but generous to her and she hated him only a little less than she hated The Cardinal Wolsey. She blamed them for separating her from her love, Harry Percy. The King pursued her and she refused him, this went on for 6 years. she finally fell in love with him. They married (after he split from Rome) and were happy. Elizabeth was born, and Henry changed the Act of Succession to make Elizabeth his heir. It wasn't until the second death of a stillborn son that Henry had had enough. The saucy temperament and sharp tongue he loved in the beginning began to wear on him in the end. One of the greatest historical quotes is from Anne in the Tower "when I no longer hated him, he began to hate me"

This is a great story if told correctly. This movie was awful. Anne was not guilty of adultery and the scene with her brother never happened.In fact it was the situation with Mark Smeaton a court musician that caused Anne's downfall. She was accused with him (he was tortured to admit guilt) and with all of Henry's friends from the time he had first met Anne, her brother was thrown in to make sure there was no sympathy for the Queen. Interestingly, even though most of the people hated Anne for what had happened to Katherine, Henry's actions made the people sympathetic to Anne as they did not believe her guilty of what she was accused. Jane Seymour was no longer a secret. I am amazed that such an inaccurate movie would be made and the worst part of this is that in a time when women had little to no power, a young girl changed the face of the world.

By refusing the greatest man in the land..The King. Her end was tragic and not her fault. It was the doing a spoiled and old man who was always looking for the greener grass. The movie was shot horribly and the costumes were seen too often. Katherine of Aragon was not an ugly woman but one worn down by lost children and a philandering husband.

The best movie on this subject was Anne of The Thousand Days. The Tudors on Showtime is good but also rife with historical inaccuracies. Mary was not the saint she was made out to be but a whore who gave everyone everything and asked for nothing. She did live a quite life after the death of her sister.

And her children were honored by Elizabeth I