I have watched all of Red Dwarf many times since I was little and always found it funny especially series 4-6. I loved the adventures they got in. The characters were brilliant too. The female Holly was much better and more stupid than the annoying bloke version. Every character had their funny moments. The main part of this review is to complain about series 7 and 8. They stink ferociously. There is no easier way to put it. I was hopeful after the first episode as that was quite good although still a little overdone with that annoying cinema effect they used but then in the next few episodes, Rimmer left and they brought Kochanski into the show. Not the original one played by Claire Grogan but the woman from Crime Traveller. She RUINED the show. Repeat: SHE RUINED THE SHOW. Her character was rubbish. Interacted with the rest of the cast badly and was NEVER funny. I was hoping every episode that she would leave but as she mysteriously appeared in the opening sequence I knew that would never happen. Along with that, Kryten completely changed. He went from Smart Alec android to some sort of whiny complaining love sick robot who over night developed a crush on Lister. I hated how the show was so serious. It's a sitcom not a drama. Star Trek had more humour than this. I was 10 when I anticipated this series and was genuinely looking forward to it. A few episodes later I was annoyed at school when everyone kept quoting it and saying it was really funny. It wasn't!!! For Series 8 I think they knew 7 had been too serious so they tried to make it funny again but they went too far and it turned into some sort of Benny Hill like slapstick, camp romp with stupid one liners and the addition of some awful actors along with Captain Hollister. Resurrecting the crew was a stupid BAD idea. The acting went down hill too. The episode with Canaries had "Bulla" from the 11 'o clock show. 8 had a very cheap n nasty flavour too it. I'm glad it ended when it did. I think it went crap because Rob Grant stopped writing and left Doug Naylor on his own. That and the 4 year time gap between 6 and 7. That said, the first six series are BRILLIANT


This show is one of the British classics. A comedy gem like Only Fools & Horses, Fawlty Towers and a few select others. The show's original and never-before-attempted space setting blends with clever, rapid fire jokes to bring laughter to anyone's face.

The show's style changed throughout the years, changing from a traditional sitcom (albeit in space) to a drama series in the later years. But throughout the changing ways and new characters and settings, the humour always remained top notch. Because of this, I find it impossible to single out a "best episode" or even "best series". Some of the finest jokes I've ever heard come from Red Dwarf. And the fact that the Americans made their own version just shows how brilliant it must be.

If you haven't seen it before, quickly rush out and buy series 1 through 8. And if you've already got them, sit down and watch. Red Dwarf, in one word, is (as Lister would say) "fan-smegging-tastic!"


I'm not a huge science fiction fan, but I love this show. It's a great comedy with spaceships, planets, and alternate dimensions as simple backdrops. The characters are extremely likeable and the situations are very funny. Unfortunately, this show is hard to see in the states, but if you have a chance, WATCH IT! You won't be disappointed.


From the first episode, to the last. In my opinion this is the best program to ever grace the television screen.

Its by far the funniest comedy, and certainly the best sci-fi comedy. The Americans try to emulate but fail miserably.

I don't understand the haters of series 7 and 8, there are some fantastic episodes, who doesn't like ace rimmer ? - And Krytie TV is a scream.

The show didn't go down hill from series 6, they just added the gorgeous kochanski, which may not have replaced rimmer but she certainly added something to the show.

I'm in two minds about the film, part of me really wants to see more, but the other part doesn't want to see an "american-ised" super special effects film which just isn't red dwarf. It looks like its been cancelled, and the chance of another series has the same odds of me stitching a pair of lemon maternity slacks.

Well it certainly is "cold outside" as i type this, so I'll say....

"Stoke me a klipper, I'll be back for Christmas!"


I love Red Dwarf! The basic gist of the show is Dave Lister, the last human alive, trying to make his way back to Earth. (Honestly, it makes sense if you watch it.) He is the last surviving human and only remaining member of the crew of the Jupiter Mining Corporation Ship "Red Dwarf". Trapped 3 million years away from Earth, Dave has only three companions to keep him "sane": Arnold Rimmer, a hologram projection of a previous crew mate; Holly, the ships senile and generally rubbish computer; and Cat, a humanoid creature who evolved from Listers pet cat. All sounds very confusing, doesn't it? But believe me if you watch it, everything will make sense. In the third series, the crew are joined by an android, Kryten, who has a manic obsession with cleaning and helping, which leads to yet more hilarious consequences. Their escapades take them to all sorts of mysterious planets and cultures including those of the GELFs, Psirens and even a backwards version of Earth! But will they ever get back to Earth???


***VERY MINOR SPOILERS***

At first glance, this show is a campy, cheesy, low-budget, poorly-acted Britcom. But, once you get past that, it takes on a certain charm that makes it one of my favorite TV shows.

What really gives this show its awesomeness is the soul put into it. Grant and Naylor work very well as a team to write scripts that rival anything in Monty Python.

The first two seasons play out like a standard sitcom, with most scenes being filmed in just a couple of locations on Red Dwarf itself.

Beginning in season 3, however, the show gets a bigger budget, CGI, and the actors even get a couple acting lessons. With the addition of Kryton as a full time cast member, the show really becomes awesome. It's still cheesy and low budget, but at least now they have resources to explore other locations and meet new characters. Think of it something like the classic Doctor Who: a small regular cast, no budget, and very entertaining to a cult audience.

The show slips a notch in the last two seasons, with the addition of Kochanski as a full time cast member. It stops being a bunch of geeks and losers romping aimlessly around the universe; Kochanski is smart and gives the show direction, while the writers seem to be trying to fit a storyline to the randomness of the first 5 seasons. It's like trying to put a storyline to all of the Monty Python's Flying Circus skits, and it fails completely.

Bottom line: Don't judge the show on the first two seasons alone. Give it some time, at least until the awesome episode DNA, before you disregard it out of hand. And, the last two seasons are still worth watching, even if the storyline does interfere with the jokes.


This series is the ultimate blend of British comedy and low-budget sci-fi. Dave Lister, a working-class, curry-loving, lager-swilling, chicken soup machine repairman aboard the asteroid mining ship, Red Dwarf, is placed in stasis as punishment for smuggling an unregistered cat on board. While in stasis, a radiation leak kills the rest of the crew and the ship's Artificial Intelligence, Holly, takes the ship on a course to deep space until the radiation levels drop enough to be safe for humans. Unfortunately, this takes 3 Million years. When Holly brings Lister out of stasis, he finds that he's the last remaining human in the Universe..his only companions being a hologrammatic version of his anal-retentive bunk mate, a neurotic android butler, a humanoid who is the evolved descendant of his cat, and the now-senile Holly. Nothing is safe from the writers of this show...from Jane Austin to the JFK Assassination. If you want to enjoy a ROTFLMAO bit of mind candy, check out "Red Dwarf"!


It's the best Si-Fi you'll ever see. The writers (Grant and Naylor) are little shy of genius. Good writing is accompanied by good acting and more importantly, good chemistry and comedy timing. Craig Charles, when you think about it, was brilliant in the first six series. It was incredible how he took his hand to acting as well as he did. All the cast complement each other perfectly, and the only main cast member not to tick this box is Chloe Annett. She's OK, but she doesn't fit in. She's like her character - upper middle class mixing with working class muppets.

It is important to note, too, that really, red dwarf ended at series six (last episode Out Of Time). After Rob Grant left the writing lost a vital dimension. I personally cannot pin point any one thing that isn't as good, but the feel of it, the jokes, the stories... It's just not cricket anymore. It's still good. By BBC comedy standards, it still up there with the best, but it's more mainstream.

To summarise - Red Dwarf is one of the best programmes I've ever seen come from the BBC. Inventive, intelligent, articulate - all good things. There is very little to criticise about series 1-6.


This has to be, one of the most outrageously funny and well-acted Sci-Fi Comedy series ever made. With a well-placed cast and ridiculously illogical episode plots, the whole thing seemed to mesh and become a huge hit.

Set in the future, on a space mining ship, the Red Dwarf, the show follows the zany lives of its remaining crew, 3 million years after a massive radiation leak from an improperly repaired drive plate wiped out virtually all life on-board the ship. The only survivors, were 'Dave Lister', played by the enigmatic and downright hilarious 'Craig Charles' (now appearing as Loyd Mullaney in Coronation Street), who had just been placed in stasis for smuggling aboard his female cat (Frankenstein), who then turned out to be the only other survivor.

When 'Holly' the ships computer, performed by 'Norman Lovett', finally feels its safe to let Lister out of stasis, he has the very difficult and repetitive task of telling him that everyone is dead.

Holly: Everybody is dead, Dave. Lister: Not Chen? Holly: Gordon Bennett! Yes! Chen, everybody. Everybody's dead, Dave. Lister: Rimmer? Holly: He's dead, Dave. Everybody's dead. Everybody is dead, Dave! Lister: Wait. Are you trying to tell me everybody's dead?

Once Lister comes to terms with it all, he is both relieved and distressed to discover that Holly has brought back his old roommate and colleague, 'Arnold Rimmer' as a hologram in order to keep him sane. The depth that actor 'Chris Barrie' brought to his character, to me, was amazing. He managed to convey a man so blinded by himself, believing himself worthless, yet somehow destined for ultimate greatness at the same time, with a naivety that surpassed even The Cat's.

'Cat', performed by 'Danny John-Jules' was the end result of 3 million years worth of evolution and breeding by Listers cat, Frankenstein. Cat is a self-centered, egotistical moron that takes more pleasure out of his own appearance than anything else. One of my favourite lines from Cat was in Series 1, episode 2, when he was to be found, sauntering over to Listers fish tank singing, "I'm gonna eat you little fishy!"

Later on, in series 2, the crew come across an android, 'Kryten' - 'Robert Llewellyn' (originally played by 'David Ross' in the first episode titled, Kryten). From then on, they spend their times together, while Holly steers them all home, back to Earth.

The crew go through a lot of insane adventures, with many obvious and illogical continuity errors between episodes, but that's just one of the many things that made this such a wonderful program to watch. It didn't have to be believable.

There are only two things that have stopped me from giving this excellent performance a 10 out of 10. Firstly, 'Kristine Kochanski', played by 'Chloë Annett'. I thought she was a dreadful actress, who portrayed the character of Kochanski all wrong. At the start of the series, she was played by 'Clare Grogan', a small, Scottish woman, who although, again, wasn't that good at acting, was definitely better than Annett. And then, later on, she was replaced by Chloë Annett, a completely different type. She was English, taller and much harsher. Not the sort of woman you would imagine Lister cooing over. Her diatribe was certainly less than amusing.

Apart from that, series 8 was a disaster. Bringing back the Crew of Red Dwarf was a huge mistake. The plot suddenly became far too serious compared to the outrageous antics that were on show previously. A complete change from the norm, that served to make me actually think about not watching the next episode.

But overall, this is definitely one of the best programs ever made, and will continue to be a source of entertainment for many generations. The humour throughout I don't think can ever truly become dated, so the wow factor will always remain.


Red Dwarf is often billed as a unique comedy outing, but in truth its humour has its roots in the same laddism culture that appealed to audiences of Men Behaving Badly. And much like MBB, its beginnings were so-so. Where it differs from other laddism comedies, however, is the extent to which characters AND plot lines developed in sophistication and imagination, to the extent that the Kryten+ series are deservedly accorded the rare tag of sci-fi comedy, rather than outer space sitcom. On a personal note, my eldest daughter was 9 years old when she first saw Lister teaching Kryten to call Rimmer a smeghead, and she laughed herself silly. That'll always make it a classic in my book. G&N rule!


Red Dwarf is a show that some people love and some people....well, don't love. It's easy to understand why. The show has it's moments of comedy brilliance but also has it's moments of comedy misses. It can be highly original and cutting edge but equally can rest on it's puns and, see them coming, visual gags.

I personally love the show and find the cynicism of Rimmer, the dead pan of Holly and the Bewilderment of lister to be extremely funny though i must add, i've never really been that amused by anything the cat has ever said (though i wouldn't want him removed from the gang) The show is funny, unique and in many cases, quite complex in it's structure and story arcs. The science fiction element certainly provides endless opportunities for comedy and story telling. The show is also capable of being more intelligent than ever given credit for plus it has moments of impressive drama and wit. The two hander of "Marooned" being a good example.

This show clearly doesn't get the respect it deserves and hopefully as the years go by people will afford it the chance to speak for itself. It is an extremely funny and often brilliant comedy.

There are those who will pinpoint series 7 and 8 as the weak links. Certainly series 7 is the weakest but even that has it's moments. Personally i thoroughly enjoyed series 8 and a felt it was a return to form.

Overall, an excellent show which is sadly ignored by the comedy elite but which may eventually have it's reputation enhanced with the passage of time


Anyone who has a problem with this revival is either A) a smeghead, or B) can't handle Red Dwarf without a laugh track.

Ditching the laugh track forces the script into sharper writing. Overall, there are less jokes than the previous seasons, but the jokes are higher quality. This is as it should be. The "There Must Be A Laugh Every 11 Seconds Or Less" rule of television sitcoms is the bane of true comedy. It's amazing the original Red Dwarf ever circumvented it while conforming to it.

Now Red Dwarf isn't restricted by such nonsense and is truly entertaining. If this is the last Red Dwarf we see, I will be absolutely sad.

Hell, this comeback leaves me cheering for a Red Dwarf movie.


***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** This is what British comedy is all about. To be honest i didn't even know about Red Dwarf until about five years ago, now i have Series I-VIII (all of them) on DVD. The best series, in my opinion, is series 3. I'll never forget listers shrinking underpants in the episode: 'polymorph'. My favourite character is Lister as he is the one with most of the jokes.

Series I: This is when it all started but it only has one of the classics, that being 'Future Echoes' which is one of my favourite episodes. Dave Lister gets put into Stasis for smuggling an unquarentined animal (a cat) on board Red Dwarf and in the mean time, the crew dies from a lethal dose of 'calcium 2' due to a damaged drive plate. 3 million years later he is revived by Holly, the ships computer, and is left with a hologram of his bunk-mate and a creature who evolved from his pregnant cat for company.

Series II: This series had more jokes than the original and expanded the series with most of the episodes being away from the mother ship as all Episodes from I were set aboard 'Red Dwarf' and the first mini ship was introduced: 'Blue Midget'.

Series III: This is the best series of the show, with every episode being a classic, in my mind. 'Polymorph' has to be the best episode ever as the jokes just keep coming and again 'marooned' expands on Rimmer and Lister. 'backwards' is again a brilliant idea, they finally arrive on Earth, after going through a 'time hole', to find time's running backwards, also a new version of Holly is introduced when he performs a head swap operation on himself to become a woman, and a new character joins the crew, a service mechanoid: Kryten and a new mini craft called 'Starbug'

Series IV: This is one of the somewhat weaker series but doesn't mean that it's not a good one. my favourite episode from this series is 'Meltdown' where they arrive on a planet where they meet historical figures made of wax but look and act like real people. they are soon put to war by Rimmer who takes charge of the heroes while a wax Hitler takes charge of the villains, Also Ace Rimmer, a more likable Rimmer, arrives from another Dimension.

Series V: This series follows III closely as it contains loads of classics like the best villain the dwarfers have come across to date: The Inquisitor and the introduction of the fan favourite 'Back to Reality' episode that contains the introduction of 'Duane Dibbley' and another great episode called 'Quarentine' that brings us the killer penguin: 'Mr. Flibble'

Series VI: This is again one of the great series, despite the Mothership and Holly not appearing at all in this Series. This is where we yet again see 'Duane Dibbley' and Lister marries a gelf in exchange for a vital engine part, screaming as he runs away: 'Change of plan...LEG IT!' and a special appearance from Ainsley Harriot from 'Can't Cook, Won't Cook'. also we see Ace Rimmer again. This award winning series also provides the brilliant western episode:'Gunmen of the Apocalypse'

Series VII: This is the weakest series in the show, mostly because of Chris Barrie's (Rimmer) departure from the show, to concentrate on 'Brittas Empire'. The writers brought in a less funny character: 'Kristine Kochanski', Lister's long lost love who died upon Red Dwarf with the rest of the crew but is brought from a parallel dimension. The Rimmer actor was written out in the second episode: 'Stoke Me A Clipper', when Rimmer leaves to become Ace Rimmer. this episode is the best in VII followed closely by 'Tikka To Ride'. Kryten's famous catch-phrase is also introduced: 'YOU'RE LYING'. Lister is also infected by a virus which is beaten by the sacrifice if his arm.

Series VIII: This is the final series when 'Starbug' is finally destroyed after a series of crashes in it's previous series and the crew is resurrected by nanobots (small robots) along with Red Dwarf and the dwarfers are placed in Jail along with the resurrected Rimmer as Chris Barrie Returns. The luck and sexual magnetism virus is re-introduced from Series V and a T-Rex called Pete shows up and the show goes out on a high with a cliffhanger in the last episode:'Only the Good...' This show belongs in Comedy's hall of fame and appeals to all ages. It shows what British comedy is capable of, A true classic!


I cant remember if I watched 5 or 6 seasons,but I do remember that I thought the series was very funny for a while,but then it became a little more confusing and darker (I liked the first computer best),I don't know if its just me but I felt it was almost depressing watching the later seasons. maybe the whole series just got too absurd for me.. and c'mon people,is it really that funny every time someone says smeg head? is this a British thing maybe? I also feel the acting is poor,not really funny characters,well rimmer is a little funny, the cat too,but lister is terrible. but it had its moments I admit, the idea is really great and its cool that it looks so cheesy and low tech,but the crew should have consisted of other characters. Imagine David brent and Gareth (from the office)on a space ship, that would be funny!


During its 8 season run, this series made fun of every standard genre element. Some seasons are paced slower than others. If you plan on watching the series for the first time, you might want to start with any episode from the season 6 through season 8 range. Give it a few tries. This show will not win anyone over out of the gate on 1 viewing. But, once you see the genius of Red Dwarf, its hard not to love the show, every moment of it.

Patrick Stewart, Picard of Star Trek fame, once commented about seeing Red Dwarf for the first time and wanting to sue Red Dwarf for ripping off Star Trek. Then ended up laughing at the scene before he could complete the call to his lawyer and becoming a fan of the show.

Without a doubt, the best science fiction comedy ever done on television.


I give this movie 8 out of 10 solely because of the laugh-out-loud level. I agree with the above poster, this movie is a riot. It's so ridiculous and the facts and "evidence" presented here is enough to make you wonder if the producers deliberately made it so goofy. I caught this one a few times on late night TV, it used to get aired on TBS a lot. I love the inclusion of that charlatan Yuri Gellar (sp?) and the "footage" that shows the young men running up the hill, pointing excitedly at the "UFO" they caught on film. The "big" revelation at the end that UFO's come from another dimension and are controlled by a race called the Ummo is the icing on the cake. I know this movie is available on VHS but not DVD. Someone please release this one on DVD!


Released in 1976 during the height of the UFO/ancient astronauts/Bigfoot documentary craze, "Overlords of the UFO" is quite simply one of the worst examples of an already ridiculous subgenre. Depending on what mood you're in, W. Gordon Allen's narration will either make you laugh or put you to sleep--and take it from me, if you're *not* in the mood to laugh, you'd better just skip this mess altogether. Ever see footage of an "invisible flying critter"? No? Well, you will in "Overlords of the UFO"! Did you know that aliens from a distant planet called Ummo visited Europe in the nineteen-sixties? Prepare for a crash course in Ummology! The single funniest moment in this wretched film is when the narrator, serious as a heart attack, reports that the authenticity of a certain series of close-up UFO photographs was confirmed for the makers of "Overlords" by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung! Ahem. Other than pointing out the obvious--namely, that Jung died in 1961--I can't even begin to address this absurd claim. The producers had brass balls, I suppose, but that's hardly an admirable quality in this case. Well, there you have it. If you're a glutton for punishment, you might want to take a look at "Chariots of the Gods", "The Force Beyond", and "Mysteries From Beyond Earth". They're almost as bad as "Overlords of the UFO".


--that this was intended as a hoax when it was made. Its "story" is so disjointed and its "effects " are so laughably shoddy that I can't really believe that the filmmakers were serious about this. I think a good indicator that this was intended as a laugh is the drawing of a UFO on a piece of lined notebook paper that is clearly being held up so the cameraman can shoot it. Apparently they didn't have an easel, good paper or a competent artist! Where the film truly goes off the rails is when the host begins blathering about the aliens being from planet Ummo. Nothing really leads up to it-- they just introduce it without so much as a how do you do! This is one that will have you laughing for real!


I saw this movie while in college in 1975. I laughed until I cried. I was in pain. I rolled on the floor in agony. You actually get to see photographs of " Invisible Flying Critters ". Plan 9 from Outer Space and Robot Monster have good production values when compared to this movie. The narrator talked about a 4 engine bomber that encountered a UFO but the film shows a 2 engined C-47 military transport. The saucers are tin pie plates dangling from fishing line attached to fishing poles! The guys who made this had a lot of fun. See it with friends as this heightens the effect of the absurdity and creates a bootstrap laughing situation. However you must be careful if food or drink is made part of the experience since choking and projectile fluids could be a problem. Someone should check out credentials of who made this movie. Was their a sinister motive like CIA disinformation or just an attempt to slay the audience with peals of laughter? Wonder if it came in under budget. Did it have a budget? A classic of its kind!


This is not so much a Western as a film noir that happens to be set in New Mexico around the turn of the century. Dame Judith Anderson steals the film as both the catalyst of all that happens and, in many ways, its hero. Dean Jagger is marvelous as the villainous lawman who cannot leave well enough alone. Harry Carey Jr. scores with a memorable portrayal of a well-meaning milquetoast manipulated by Jagger.

The photography and editing (James Wong Howe and Christian Nyby) are topnotch film noir. Alan Hale (Sr.) is perfect as the wry gambler who recognizes Mitchum's talent and woos him as a partner. Mitchum does a fine job as the emotionally paralyzed Jeb who is basically decent but with a busted emotional compass, he allows himself to be led by the fates. Although I'm not normally a fan of the sleepy-eyed and laconic Mitchum, I thought his signature traits were used to excellent effect here, and well explained by the trauma that eats him apart so much inside that he is unwilling to stand up for himself. Teresa Wright is stunning as Mitchum's foster-sister-turned-object-of-lust-turned-true-love-tuned-would-be-executioner-turned-true love again. What a woman!

One thing that differentiates this 1947 film in my book as a noir not a western is that the two main women are anything but passive -- and even more so -- ANYTHING BUT madonnas or whores. They are unafraid to fire guns or stand up to militias. But they will fulfill what is in their hearts even when it means societal disapproval or death.

Although the plot is full of holes, the storytelling is excellent enough to overcome it. Great pacing too -- a really fun ride.


In his introduction to the video release of JOHNNY GUITAR, Martin Scorsese describes the film as "operatic," and the same term applies to PURSUED, which he also chose for the "Martin Scorsese Presents" collection. Thinking about it this way helps: who looks for logic or realistic behavior in an opera? What you look forand get with PURSUEDis intensely aesthetic drama driven by passions both heightened and stylized. The screenplay is by Niven Busch, who also wrote DUEL IN THE SUN, and what saves PURSUED from descending into camp is not a better story but restrained acting, crisp straightforward direction, gloriously dark cinematography and an ominous yet contained mood that feels like an approaching thunderstorm. To properly appreciate the cinematic grandeur, you need to see PURSUED on the big screen, where the vast empty landscapes, looming walls of rock, and enormous close-ups provide the right context for this melodrama flavored with Greek tragedy.

Freud was trendy in the 1940s, and Hollywood turned out a number of overwrought yet simple-minded movies about characters whose twisted psyches can be explained by a single event in their childhoods (SPELLBOUND, THE LOCKET, etc.) The first thing you have to accept in PURSUED is that the hero, Jeb Rand (Robert Mitchum), has been scarred all his life by a traumatic childhood experience of violence that he can't clearly recall. We know that his whole family is dead, and he has been adopted by Ma Callum (Judith Anderson), who has a son and daughter of her own. Jeb never quite assimilates into his foster family: he fights constantly with Adam, who sees him as an interloper, while he and Thorley (Teresa Wright) develop a very un-sibling-like attachment. These undercurrents are revealed when Jeb leaves to fight in the Spanish-American war, and nothing improves when he returns as a hero. Controlled by impulses they can't understand, shadowed by the secret that only Ma and her sinister brother-in-law Grant Callum know, the three young people become puppets in a violent ritual. This is where the movie starts to strain credibility, especially when both Ma and Thorley turn implacably against Jeb after he kills Adam in self-defense. They've both known and loved this man all his life, so why can't they believe he's not at fault? "Blood is thicker than water" seems to be the only explanation. And when Thorley decides to marry Jeb and kill him on their wedding night, the film starts tipping towards the ludicrous. Her declaration, and the wedding night itself, are like a soprano's arias, while the scene in which Jeb courts Thorley has a sick, chilling quality, as they act out a polite mockery of their former innocent romance.

The role written for Teresa Wright by her husband Niven Busch is pretty much impossible to pull off credibly, since she starts as an open, gentle, loving girl and suddenly morphs into a cold, hate-filled avenger, only to change back again just as abruptly. Wright does her best, which is very good. Judith Anderson is superbly subtle in her portrait of a woman whose stubbornness and inability to admit her mistakes poisons her noble effort to make amends. Dean Jagger, a smooth-talker with an evil glint in his eye, manages to make a man insanely obsessed with vengeance believable enough to be scary. John Rodney is also excellent as Adam, whose envy and gnawing resentment destroy his decency. Where other actors might have worked harder to depict the mental torment, the waking nightmares that haunt Jeb Rand, Mitchum plays him with a numb remoteness, as an emotionally paralyzed man who has never really been able to connect with anything. His love for his foster sister is a yearning to latch onto her rooted normality, to be fully accepted, to make something good out of the wreckage of his past. But the perversity of the match, with its incestuous overtones, makes it an unlikely vehicle of salvation.

PURSUED was Mitchum's first lead in an A picture, and he not only makes the most of it, it makes the most of him. In the first scene he rises out of the shadows in a ruined stone house, his ruffled white shirt torn, long hair mussed, eyes dreamily haunted. His physical magnificence competes with the landscape, and both are monumentally flattered by James Wong Howe's camera. (Forgive me if I sound like one of the "Droolettes,"as an RKO publicist dubbed Mitchum's teenage fans.) He speaks in a hushed, weary voice sometimes barely above a whisper; as an added treat, he croons "Londonderry Air" and "The Streets of Laredo." PURSUED was also the first film to fully express Mitchum's persona as the eternal outsider, the man fundamentally alone and unable to fit into any community. "All my life I've known I didn't really belong," Jeb Rand says. Uninterested in steady work, adrift from conventional moralitythough he has his own code, and a tender heart hidden awayhe is distrusted, disapproved of and envied by other men. He's gambler, willing to risk whatever he has (here he loses his stake in the Callum ranch on a coin toss) because he knows in the end the best he can hope for, as he says in OUT OF THE PAST, is to "lose more slowly." A man doomed, alienated, yet strangely comfortable in that condition, relaxing into his peculiar blend of lucklessness and invincible self-assurance. In real life, Mitchum the former hobo loved to quote from Look Homeward, Angel: "Which of us has known his brother? Which of us has looked into his father's heart? Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone?" Or as Ma Callum tells Jeb, "We're alone, each of us, and each in a different way."


Interesting camera-work is the main attribute of this late 1940s western. It plays and looks more like a film noir than a western, but there is nothing wrong with that. I enjoyed that aspect, especially the film noir-like cinematography. I say the latter because of all the stark black-and-white contrasts, night scenes and facial closeups. At the same time, it reminded me of a John Ford western with the expansive skies and big rock formations.

I can't say the story is anything special. It's almost frustrating, seeing everyone chase after Robert Mitchum even though the man has nothing wrong! Yes, it's a paranoid viewer's delight but it got to be a little much of a downer for me. However, Mitchum, Teresa Wright, Judith Anderson, Dean Jagger and company all acted well, and I appreciated their talents.


Outstanding music and cinematography create a mood of brooding suspense which slowly builds throughout the movie. Dean Jagger is great as the sinister presence haunting Robert Mitchum. You don't have to be a western fan to enjoy this film - it is more of a suspense film than a western. Highly recommended.


Pursued is a very decent picture, very nicely shot, darkly imaginative, and dripping with Noir style, but if it's actually a Noir film then that really is up for debate, as is, if this film really is a Western? It wasn't quite what I was hoping for, and in truth it was a little too offbeat for the frame of mind I was in, but it's definitely one I'll go back to at some point to re-evaluate prepared with the awareness of what type of film it actually is. Robert Mitchum {excellent} is Jeb Rand, who is constantly pursued by assailants all his life. The film is told in flashback from his childhood tragedy when his family were all murdered, with him being the only survivor. Upon learning that there was indeed a survivor, the killers set about erasing Jeb from the planet, thus Jeb spends all his life trying to find out what the hell is going on, and just why did his adoptive mother raise him in the first place?

An oddity of sorts because Pursued is thinly embracing a number of genres, stretching the elements of each strand to create a film that once viewed, leaves one very intrigued as to its purpose......... 7/10


The theme of 'Pursued' is violent revenge. Don't forget that this was made shortly after WWII ended, so that the theme of men returning from combat, and the constant threat of death, was something everyone was conscious of; it's almost as if Jeb has PTSD (the 'black dog riding his back'), and death follows him, through no fault of his own, throughout the movie. The premise isn't complicated at all: a man brought up to love the daughter of his adopted family kills her brother - the fact that her family killed his is a bit irrelevant; see below. When Thorley reveals her intention to murder Jeb on their wedding night, I have to concede that it's a little unconvincing, but this is a limitation of Teresa Wright's performance, which is too wholesome - if she'd played it a bit sexier, more hot-blooded, she'd be much more believable. In terms of the 'operatic' plot, it's completely logical; two men have had a go at Jeb, now it's a woman's turn, and the stakes are even higher. Jeb phlegmatically welcomes death each time, and each time it turns out that he's the only one with the true killer instinct. The posse coming for Jeb is his real nemesis, and it's here that the happy (happy? Your mother-in-law shoots the guy who shot your father just as they're about to string you up?) ending lets the movie down; Thorley should have sacrificed herself to save Jeb and redeem herself and the Callums, but presumably this was thought too depressing for 1947. This would have dispensed with all the desperate last-minute exposition, too. The camera work is sublime, and Judith Anderson does a great Ma-in-law from Hell. I wonder what Elvis Presley would have made of the role...Mitchum shows just how far ahead of the 1950's beefcake field he was.


Watching Pursued tonight I was struck by the fact of how much Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound seems to have influenced this film. In the VHS copy I have, Martin Scorsese does a brief prologue and says this was a film that influenced him and he calls it a noir western. I think it's more of a psychological western in which Robert Mitchum works out his own salvation rather than get the help of a doctor like Ingrid Bergman who wouldn't have been available back then because Dr. Freud was just starting to develop his theories around the time this was made.

Mitchum's earliest recollections and something he dreams constantly was him being in a cellar and peering from a trap door as a lad and seeing and hearing a gunfight. He's rescued from that cellar by Judith Anderson who takes him in and treats him as an equal to her own children who grow up to be Teresa Wright and John Rodney. But Mitchum still experiences the nightmares and never quite seems to fit in. And he can't get the answers anywhere.

Mitchum was the third candidate for the role at Warner Brothers for the role of Jeb Rand. Jack Warner tested and rejected first Montgomery Clift yet to make his screen debut and Kirk Douglas according to Lee Server's biography. I think both those actors would have imprinted their own personalities on the part as surely as Mitchum does.

Playing a malevolent and unseen hand in the whole proceedings which run over several years is Dean Jagger who as a villain seems to be a combination of Inspector Javert and Iago. Jagger on screen is equally good in both good guy and bad guy parts and except maybe for his role in Alan Ladd's The Proud Rebel, this just might be the worst he's ever been on screen.

Jagger hates Mitchum boy and man and the reason for that hate is not revealed until almost the end of the film. It's a lot to do with the family name.

Niven Busch wrote the script for this unusual western and he was married to Teresa Wright at the time so apparently Warner Brothers bought them as a package. She's first billed in this picture even though the film is really about Mitchum. As for him, he was lent from RKO where in fact he had worked with a Niven Busch screenplay and got great acclaim for it in Till The End Of Time.

The film bills John Rodney who plays Wright's brother as introducing John Rodney. His next film was Key Largo where he played the luckless deputy sheriff killed by Edward G. Robinson. He never quite made it, but Harry Carey, Jr. in only his second film before he was 'introduced' in Three Godfathers, certainly has had one long and successful career. Carey plays a luckless storekeeper influenced by the cunning Jagger to go after Mitchum and does well with the part.

Raoul Walsh known primarily for more straight forward action films does all right with his cast in what had to be unfamiliar territory for him. Pursued is a good western, but definitely not one for the Saturday afternoon Roy Rogers crowd.


Before tonight, I'd never seen this underrated western. It is a complex morality play as well as being a film noir. The film begins with a young boy (Jeb Rand) being rescued from a house destroyed.

He becomes part of the family, sort of headed by Ma Callum (wonderfully maternal by the skilled Judith Anderson). He is well loved by this woman, and should have grown up a normal hard working individual if she'd had her way, much like his stepbrother Adam (John Rodney). To all outward appearances, he did. He universally accepts his fate when he loses a coin toss. As the loser, he goes to a war he has neither interest in or understanding of. He comes back a hero. The ranch has been very profitable and the girl he left behind loves him and wants to marry him.

Again, everything seems good.

The tranquility is only on the surface, held together by the love of the mother matriarch. The natural son is insanely jealous of the adopted son. We never really find out why, nor does it matter. All the courtesy and soft-spoken talk is all veneer. Everyone has twisted emotions except Jeb (Robert Michum), who has problems, which he never denies, nor does he easily relate his problems.

After two very ugly killings, Thor (Teresa Wright) hatches a plot. She consents to being courted and married.

There is revenge in her heart. She is not the naive girl who wants the three of them to live together guided her mother's love and powerful moral upbringing. Thor is consumed by a Gothic kind of hatred. The hatred is so deeply ingrained that the mother, herself filled with a disappointed and mourning hatred, cannot stand to watch what the Thor has planned: she wants to kill Michum just as he thinks he has everything.

Michum persists, but not stupidly. He confronts her hatred. Incredible as it may seem, he forces her to back away from killing him and to let her love surface in its place, which he knows is there.

That is the complex characterization of the first half of the movie. The second part has to do with the Callum gang (headed by Grant  played by an amazingly sinister Dean Jagger) that tries to kill Michum on his wedding night at the old Rand ranch.

The rest of the movie is all gun shooting and melodrama, which I won't reveal more about.

The photography is astonishing with its shadows and light, which is like choreography. Wright is like a salad with ingredients that don't look they should go together but do. She is an underrated actress who must convey complex emotions, which not only contradict one another, but also are sometimes also false. It is to her credit that she does this easily. She is as Michum says, quite beautiful from a small distance. Close ups reveal how consumed she is in her depravity. If you don't believe this, watch her in the pride the Yankees. Close ups or shots taken from a distance show the same thing: a radiant vibrant woman transparently in love. This movie shows quite different side.

I can't quite bring myself to give this a 10, because the plot suffers the same way all morality plays do. Let us say it is an interesting eight with subtleties that make it very engaging.

An interesting 8 (out of 10).


0ne of the strangest western ever, one of the very best too.

The story of a man deprived of his past, doomed with a feeling that he does not belong here. Mitchum gives one of his best performance and the other actors are also excellent. Walsh direction is as ever powerful and gives to the movie a sense of shakespearian tragedy. One of the peculiarity of this movie is the importance and complexity of women's characters: it is they that take the meaningful decision, it is they that know better than the men whether they are too stupid (Jeb Rand's brother), too sore (Mac Callum) or too foreign to their own destiny (Jeb rand).

In a word, don't miss it!


Truly a "film noir" - there are essentially no humorous scenes in this movie with the possible exception of the jury deliberation scene. The main story line revolves around repressed memories that gradually emerge, everything in this movie is dark from the story to the camera work... a classic.


At this time in his career - he was emerging from his Hopalong Cassidy years into adult mainstream cinema - Robert Mitchum had his share of offbeat female co-stars and if you thought Mitchum and Katherine Hepburn (Undercurrent) was a tad off-the-wall how about Mitchum and Judith Anderson, the Hamlet-playing distinguished stage actress. In a plot that makes a pretzel look like a breadstick with a ramrod up its spine they are cast as orphan and self-appointed 'mother' (don't ask); Mitchum grows up on a ranch with no male role-model as the 'outsider' of three children - the others being the biological son and daughter of Anderson. The plot unfurls - and boy, does it take its time - in that familiar device that enjoyed something of a vogue at the time, the flashback, so we begin with Teresa Wright - Mitchum's wife and longtime 'sister', given she's the biological daughter of Anderson and has grown up with Mitchum - riding out to join Mitchum, who is holed up and being pursued by a gang of what we don't yet know. In one of the most wacky uses of the flashback on record - these two grew up in the same house from very early childhood, remember - he starts to tell her of his past and as she knows most of this by definition, he mentions a consistent nightmare involving a man's feet wearing distinctive spurs. Via this and subsequent flashbacks we get a picture of a disturbed child, Jeb, who is never accepted by the other boy, Adam, in the family whilst clearly loved by Wright. He doesn't get many breaks, a psychopath, Dean Jagger, who hates him unrealistically, attempts to kill a ten-year old but succeeds only in killing his horse; when confronted by Anderson, he spews out his hate for the boy and the 'family' he springs from and then, equally unrealistically, agrees to back off and wait til the boy grows up for his revenge. When the army needs men and the ranch can only spare one the decision as to which one will go is left to the toss of a coin and Mitchum loses; this is pretty much the pattern of his life until the denouement but the problem is that Mitchum doesn't do tormented, he does Brutal, Laid-Back, but Angst isn't in his palette. You can call this noir, a psychological western, a mystery but in the end it is all these and none of them whilst remaining interesting and watchable.


The capable Raoul Walsh directs this wilderness drama with his usual aplomb and crafts a perplexing plot packed with puzzling twists and shadowy mysteries. Pursued is something of a New Mexico film-noir: a psychological thriller fought out in the prairie lands and rural country more commonly associated with straight rootin', tootin' Western shoot'em ups. The location aside, Pursued resonates more as a family melodrama and mystery film; something that the visuals and looping Max Steiner score rigorously reflect.

Bob Mitchum is down in the mouth and down on his luck here as main-man Jeb Rand. Rand's a blighted soul saddled with a hazy childhood trauma which reappears in nightmares of gun flashes and twinkling spurs (I'd be perturbed if I had hallucinations of a pair of dancing cowboy boots...). Rand's rambling story is rolled out in flashback taking in the main overbearing threat to his life (someone wants our Jeb dead), family disputes and several other consequential unfortunate incidents. The sad eyes and lazy look of Mitchum are sort of appropriate for this kind of movie, and the story is further strengthened by the solid support cast of Teresa Wright, Judith Anderson and Dean Jagger.

Pursued is a bit confusing and is a little lacking in punch, but it makes for an engrossing, unusual Western watch. The noirish elements and Jeb's tragic background and emotional obstacles make the movie more effective and add interesting angles to the action. It may be convoluted, but with the Mitchum on form in front of fantastic backdrops, Pursued is a prairie potboiler that's worth making a pass at.


Moody film noir from director Raoul Walsh has young boy left orphaned by a bloodthirsty band of killers, who dog the boy's trail even after he grows up into Robert Mitchum (seems to me that's the point where they might have given up stalking him). Mitchum smolders, as usual, though his character here is just a thumbnail sketch, and the melodrama inherent in this scenario is far beneath him. Judith Anderson fares a bit better playing the boy's elderly but wise guardian (a clichéd part, but invested with a salty kick by the actress). Lackluster film co-starring Teresa Wright and Dean Jagger just doesn't hold much interest, despite good cinematography by James Wong Howe and an atmospheric score by Max Steiner, top talents all around. *1/2 from ****


This movie neither succeeds as a film noir nor a western. The story is sporadic and doesn't have any drive -- it didn't make me want to keep watching after I was well into it. The acting is hammy and stagy. The characterizations are not consistent throughout the movie -- it's like any character can change his or her mindset at any time. The big "secret" that is revealed at the end was easily guessed a long time before the big revelation. James Wong Howe's photography is the only redeeming factor in this oater. I was truly disappointed after reading so many good reviews on this web page. Oh well, I guess I can trade this at the used DVD store for films that show Robert Mitchum, Teresa Wright and Dame Judith Anderson in better roles. If you like film noir and these stars, I highly recommend Night of the Hunter - 1955 (Mitchum), The Little Foxes - 1941 (Wright), and Rebecca - 1940 (Anderson).


A man has been pursued all his life but does not know why. The film opens with Mitchum's pursuers closing in on him and Wright coming to his side. He relates the story of his life to her, seen in flashbacks. It is strange that he tells her the story because she has been a part of his life since childhood. This bizarre film is unlike any other Western, and is really not a Western in the traditional sense. Mitchum and Wright are OK but the characters are not well developed and their motivations are unclear. Walsh enlivens the action scenes but can't rise above the disjointed script, not helped by the awkward storytelling structure.


Set in the New Mexican Territories at the turn of the century, Pursued is a well made western about Jeb Rand and his struggle against a dark past. Jeb's family disappeared when he was a boy - though he doesn't know how or why. Being raised by the Callum family, Jeb falls in love with Thorley Callum and hopes to start a new life; however, things from his shady past come back and relentlessly pursue him. The film grabs your attention and jumps headfirst into a pool of excitement within the first few minutes - what follows is an interesting and enjoyable story that takes plenty of jaw opening twists and turns throughout the film. Robert Mitchum stars as Jeb and gives a very fine performance that ranks among his most impassioned and very best. Mitchum portrays a smooth toughness and quiet desperation in Jeb, creating a perfect cinematic hero for all to easily rally behind. Teresa Wright also co-stars as the sweet Thorley and Judith Anderson gives a strikingly great performance as 'Ma' Callum. You really don't see westerns as dark as Pursued, cinematographer James Wong Howe really does the film good with his thick shadow-laced picture and wonderfully captured scenery. Director Raoul Walsh orchestrates every tense, tender, and action-packed scene very well and Max Steiner's haunting score kicks the film's mood to high gear. Pursued does have a couple of small hiccups due to some cheesy dialogue, but it is a real good western overall.


SPOILERS..........SPOILERS ............... EVERYWHERE.

A western as nightmare, peopled by strange characters obsessed with their ancestors, Pursued explores the deep hatred created by family feuds and infidelity. It mixes genres, styles and methods using flashbacks, noir lighting and melo-drama within the Western framework.

Mitchum's character is raised from a child by Judith Anderson after a night of murder and mayhem at his shotgun shack, leaving him an orphan. He grows up in a single parent family with a brother and sister but there is no brotherly love and sisterly love becomes lust. He knows he doesn't fit in and that there's a dire secret from his past leading him to paranoia.

***SPOILERS BEGIN***** Mitchum's paranoia is reinforced when his pony is shot out from under him by Dean Jagger, a sinister figure who is the ultimate bad penny. There's a touch of quasi-incest when a deeply disturbed Teresa Wright and an equally deranged Robert Mitchum pledge their love only to have it turned on its head when Mitchum shoots her brother in self defense after he returns from active duty, having lost the toss of a coin, an earlier version of the draft ballot. The plot is thick with devices, tricks and clues.

When Wright's love turns to hate she devises a revenge so steeped in wickedness and deceit, it's stomach-turning. Mitchum has done nothing to deserve his run of bad luck and bad treatment. He was orphaned by a vengeful brother-in-law, rejected by his adoptive brother who attempts to kill him, goes willingly to a war he has no interest in, and when he does the unthinkable and kills his brother, his "beloved" rejects him outright with a scathing gesture.

It all culminates in a final dreadful scene where Mitchum is prime for a lynching.


We all know that Tammy and the T-Rex is not meant to be in the IMDb top 250 but it sure as hell does not deserve to be in the bottom 100.Ill admit there are some cheesy and really what the f*** parts, but it is actually a entertaining film.This was recommended to me by a friend who likes movies like me so i watched this expecting the biggest piece of trash ever.Instead i got a somewhat good film.Denise Richards and Paul Walker play really good parts and though the plot seems very absurd, it not that bad.If your ever watching this just sit down and try and enjoy it.You might actually like it.

7 out of 10 stars.


This movie was unbelievably BAD. Not cool bad but bad bad. There was only one thing that made this movie worth wasting two hours watching it and that is Paul Walker!!! Although he's only in it the first part of the movie, you won't miss much if you just watch his scenes and turn the movie off!!!


Well, it's watchable, but it's also a movie that really has nothing going for it at all. I wasn't really bored while watching this film, but it is supremely forgettable. Then again, it's not like the title makes it sound like a classic that will stand the test of time. I suppose it is an adequate choice if you're looking to kill some time, but don't expect to be entertained.


I almost can't believe a movie like this was even made... almost. Then I remember other extraordinarily bad movies such as "Pirrhana II- The Spawning" and I am no longer amazed that this movie was made; I just wonder how much the script sold for. I am convinced I could crank out three or four scripts of this caliber in one night's time. My advice to everyone is to watch this movie only on a bet or under the influence of a few beers. By the former, at least you are making money on the deal. By the latter, it is actually somewhat amusing and Denise Richards is easy on the eyes. There is nothing to be found here in the way of story, dialogue, or acting.


Tammy (Denise Richards) is a young college student still living with her folks. She has the ex-boyfriend from hell, truly. He beats up all of her new love interests and tries to control her life. Although she has her eye on Michael, she plays it cool to protect him. But, hormones are hormones. She asks him to come over to her house one night and he does. Trouble is, her ex shows up, too. Michael gets the beating of a lifetime and ends up in a coma. Meanwhile, an unethical scientist needs a brain for his animatronic dinosaur. Michael's brain will do and he steals Michael from the hospital. So, that's how we arrive at a T-Rex called Michael. He is out for revenge and he is lethal. Can you spell trouble? This is an absolutely terrible movie. It has cult aspirations but they fall far short of true entertainment. Richards tries very hard and looks beautiful through one preposterous scene after another. The rest of the cast is pretty forgettable. Even the special effects are not that great. Okay. Someone out there will probably love this movie for its foibles, like an Ed Wood disaster. If you are that type, go find yourself a copy of this one. But, for everyone else, stay far, far away. You will end up blowing a couple of hours of your life, time you will never get back.


Boy dies. Boy's brain is implanted (?!) into animatronic dinosaur. Animatronic dinosaur w/ boy's brain seeks revenge. And that's not even the worst part-- Denise Richards is the lead.

Oh God my eyes! It hurts, it hurts! And yet I cannot look away!


This gets my vote as worst movie I've ever seen. I can't believe it was ever made. You know sometimes you rent B-movies so you can laugh at them? This isn't even worthy of that. If you want to see a poorly made, poorly acted, and just plain stupid movie, this is it.


Denise Richards and Paul Walker are two rising young stars with lots of talent. The first time I saw Richards was in the 1997 sci/fi epic "Starship Troopers" and since then she has appeared in "Wild Things", "Drop Dead Gorgeous", and the recent James Bond film "The World Is Not Enough". The first time I saw Walker was in the 1998 Disney release "Meet the Deedles". Since then, he has appeared in "Pleasantville", "Varsity Blues", "She's All That", and most recently, "The Skulls". But I find it hard to believe that a couple of years before these two actors started showing up in these movies, they starred in "Tammy and the T-Rex". I saw this movie on the USA station not too long ago, and I couldn't believe what I was seeing. This movie is a complete mess. The first 15 minutes of the movie were O.K. which starts out as a love story between two teens (played by Richards and Walker). Then the movie takes a disasterous turn after the opening 15 minutes by turning into a sci-fi/horror/comedy with no wit and no imagination. The comedic moments are not funny, and one scene in the movie (involving Paul Walker) made me cringe big time (if you've seen this movie you probably know what scene I'm talking about). The filmmakers should have stuck with the love story then they might have had a good movie on their hands. But no. They had to throw in the plot with the dinosaur. Ridiculous. If you really want to see a good movie staring Denise Richards, see "Starship Troopers" or "The World Is Not Enough" (even though most people didn't like her in the latter). If you want to see Paul Walker do some good acting, see "Varsity Blues". Don't waste your time with this nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised that if you walked up to both of these actors and asked them "what was the worst movie you ever made?" both Richards and Walker would say this one. I'm sure they regret that they took part in this disaster.

1/2* (out of four)


What in the world would tempt someone to think up a movie this stupid and bizarre? They must've been taking some mighty strong drugs to think up a plot this strange. A guy's brain is put in an animatronic T-Rex by mad scientists, and the guy's girlfriend goes searching for a cadaver to put his brain in. This might be the most horrible premise for a movie ever!!!

Tammy (Denise Richards) has a happy life. She's the head cheerleader at school, and she has a great new boyfriend, Michael (Paul Walker). The only problem is her old boyfriend Billy, who's pretty much a psychopath. Billy and his gang of thugs kidnaps Michael and they drop him off at the Wild Animal Park where he is mauled nearly to death by a lion. When in the hospital, his live body is harvested by mad scientists who put his brain in an animatronic T-Rex. Now Michael as a T-Rex must get revenge on those who wronged him and find a way to communicate with his girlfriend Tammy.

Everything about this movie is just strange. The acting is bad, with Denise Richards at her worst, constantly giggling like a braindead idiot, and Paul Walker acting as doofy as he possibly can. Theo Forsett plays the comic relief and seems to be doing a Little Richard impression. The whole movie is ridiculous, the ending being the dumbest and worst part.

Trying to classify this movie is hard. It's mainly a (bad) comedy full of gay jokes and silly unfunny slapstick. When Michael's brain is put in the T-Rex, you would expect, in a lighthearted comedy like this, for him to get revenge on the people who wronged him through funny pranks. Maybe lift up the bad guys and scare them a lot. Not here. Michael brutally murders them instead, including crushing a guy, and what sounds like ripping off the genitals of one poor fellow. It blew me away that this is how the bullies were taken care of.

Another extremely strange scene involves Tammy and her gay friend Byron looking through the morgue for cadavers. The morgue simply says "Morgue" on it, and it's unlocked with bodies just lying out. These characters go through the morgue messing with the dead bodies very disrespectfully.

Why was the Wild Animal Park featured here? Did they think that putting the zoo in this movie would bring more tourists in, because I would think it would do the opposite. Some kids break in by cutting a lock on a small gate. Behind the small gate is an exhibit full of cheetahs, jaguars and lions (who all live together?). These kids drive several cars onto the lot and drive off and it takes minutes for a worker to find what's happened! This just doesn't make any sense, and if this is a true portrayal, I fear for the lives of people that visit that park.

This was just one of many dinosaur movies made right after Jurassic Park, and of them it's the least remembered (Which is what it deserves).

My rating: BOMB/****. 80 mins. PG-13 for violence.


I can not agree with the person who posted here saying that the film makers knew that they were making a bad film and that we should be in on the joke and enjoy it. This film should stand as the very definition of hack filmaking. This film is bizzare, disturbing, poorly acted, terribly directed and astonishingly un-funny. Watching Terry Kiser crack horribly lame one liners while murdering a comatose teenage boy is like viewing a Carol Burnett skit from hell. This film is fascinating in the same way a major automobile accident is. Denise Richards looks incredible as always but, her poor acting here and in the box office and critical disaster 'Drop Dead Gorgeous' are examples of why she has quickly fallen off the radar. On a positive note, I think the Dinosaur looked top notch and the special effects were very good.


OK, not all the acting was top-notch. Or maybe not understanding much Hebrew deprived me of some of the subtext (especially the policewoman). But a plot with little motion is very hard pull off successfully. And I think Gitai succeeds wonderfully. The plot in our lives usually moves no faster than this. Does that mean our lives are without meaning? I was five years old when I was in Tel-Aviv, and I remember it being beautiful and modern. This was a bit of a shock for me. But this is actually life almost everywhere, even in the US. Politics is mentioned only peripherally, leaving us to ponder on the actual lives of individuals. The people are real, and politics is still there and does affect people, no matter how much you want to ignore it. But the movie is still about people. And this is a beautiful portrayal of their lives. Every character has some sort of frustrated passion. I recommend this movie.

I'd like see someone from Israel comment on the policewoman. She has an unusual way of talking, a strange hairdo, and some important story significance. Does she represent a stereotype of an anti-Arab? Or is there some other comment the author wants to make?


This movie was just pointless and more importantly - boring. The director had the goods he needed to make a great film. But when he actually narrated the beginning as to who worked on the film, "I'm like, are you serious?" I only saw this Israeli film because I wanted to see Ronit Elkabetz and she blew away the scenes she was in but overall, her appearance was much too brief. She is such an awesome actress, I re-watched 'Late Marriage'. Then her character's denouement in this film was the nail in the coffin for me. I fast forwarded through most of this cinematic wreck. I also recommend 'The Band's Visit' with again Ronit because this had to be an embarrassment to everyone who worked on this production.


I can watch almost all kinds of movies without any greater problems, but one of my pet peeves have always been poorly made horror movies. Some directors seem to think that this is the easiest genre out there, and that anyone can make a horror movie, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Steel Trap is yet another really poor attempt at making a buck of other peoples original ideas. At first, I thought this would be something of a Saw type of movie, but it is more like a straight forward slasher. Nothing new here.

The script and acting is OK at times, but those times are rare and really overshadowed by the sometimes down-right retarded decisions made by the characters. It's really not that difficult to attract say the police or fire department to a skyscraper in the middle of a large city.

If you're bored out of your skull, I suppose this movie is better than staring at the wall or re-arranging your sock drawer, but if you've got anything, and I do mean ANYTHING, better to do, I suggest you do that instead of watching Steel Trap.


I watched this not knowing anything about it. I hadn't heard about it and thought it might be interesting. The first few minutes were somewhat painful. Wooden acting, uninspired camera ... It wasn't exactly exciting. But then : I like Cube, and that had similar problems. Then the actual story started, and from then on it went downward. It looks like someone wanted to take advantage of the success of slasher/thriller movies like SAW and Battle Royale but just couldn't think of an original idea, so mixed thriller classics, and added some blood. If you know any of the "10 little n*ggers"-based movies (sorry ... That's the name of the original Agatha Christie book, and somehow she didn't care about being politically correct), you'll figure out what the ~punch line~ of Steel Trap is. This really just a remake of the original story, but sadly it is a very boring one. The characters are all very annoying and the story lacks any kind of suspense. The inevitable come back of the "oh so dead" killer at the end, the frame job ... It's all so predictable it's not even amusing anymore. I give it 4 out of 10 for a few nice lines and the fact that some of the girls actually look kind of nice.


I think that a filmmaker who decides to make a slasher flick has two choices : having a lot of faith on the screenplay and to trust that he found a new perspective for making that formula interesting or making a completely mercenary film which is full of clichés for finally making a cheap movie.The crappy film Steel Trap belongs to the second style.The slasher films became popular thanks to Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th and,since of that,we have seen hundred of movies with similar structures,characters and story.The details change,so every slasher movie tries to be different by using a curious location or a new mask,just to mention two examples.I do not pretend to find a lot of originality on slasher films but what I pretend to find is even the minimum effort for giving the known formula a special element,making it interesting and entertaining.Steel Trap could have chosen that difficult point but,instead of risking,director and co-screenwriter Luis Cámara and co-screenwriter Gabrielle Galanter wasted that opportunity so Steel Trap is a tedious experience with an extremely weak screenplay,repulsive characters,a boring and generic killer without any personality and a forced and arbitrary ending.I usually do not like to criticize an independent film from my favourite genre but,even on some incompetent works (like Return to Sleepaway Camp),I appreciate some energy and enthusiasm which on some way compensate some fails of the movie.But Steel Trap does not even have that.Plus,to add more negative things,Cámara's direction is completely insipid.In other words,it seems nobody involved on this movie was really interested on it.The characters are so repulsive that I was glad when the killer started to kill them.Steel Trap is a very crappy film.This is one of that movies in which I feel I really lost the time with it and that's the worst sin a movie can make.If you wanna see a very good modern slasher flick,I recommend you the Norwegian movie Fritt Vilt.Skip Steel Trap,a very bad horror film.


I had been curious about "Steel Trap" for a long time. Because with a name like "Steel Trap", you would think it would either be a bad "Saw" knock-off, or a good "Saw" knock-off if that. So when I went to watch it for the first 10 minutes I began to get a little discouraged. Like I don't particularly like it in horror films(with some exceptions) where for the first 10-15 minutes they immediately introduce the main characters and try WAY to hard for them to automatically be likable. In "Steel Trap" for the first few minutes it unfortunately is that way. So I sat there expecting it to be a very slow movie. However as it gets more into the story it becomes more entertaining, or at least enough to keep you watching. When it went off I must say that I was satisfied, and that it over passed my original judgment from the first 15 minutes. However the main problem with "Steel Trap" is it's dullness, and even if you did like it, you have to admit it was a bit dull overall. Like the writing is just a little rushed, and it tries WAY to hard to make it seem original, likable, and good. Unfortunately the pacing, and timing is wrong. Also the story had it's good share of flaws, and it was filled with predictability at times. Plus even if the plot holes were to be fixed, you know they would fix the logical things with cliché'ed stuff. The acting is nothing to brag about either, but it was passable. My last argument is that the writer and/or writers just made almost everyone of the characters faceless, and bipolar. Like the couple for instance one minute they fine, next minute they were boastful, and arrogant, in situations that didn't call for it. However I must admit the resolution to "Steel Trap" while it's very simple, is still very good, and very sinister, and for me pretty much made up almost any problem I had with it, to where it is no big deal. Overall even though I might have expected a little too much from "Steel Trap" it nevertheless is pretty mediocre, so would I truly recommend it? No. Would I say it's worth a shot at watching? Yeah, why not?


crap...my fiancé fell asleep.... bad acting, predictable, nothing to waste your time on. REALLY don't waste your time or $$$.Even the gore scenes aren't that gory. The main character is a wannabe Rachel Ray I guess and the end result just disgusts at the small attempt at a twist ending.LAME LAME LAME. This movie didn't even satisfy my B horror movie cravings and I can deal with even cheese with gore but they were actually serious when attempting to create a "HORROR" movie. The cover art doesn't even have ANYthig to do with the movie. NOthing to do with the movie and technically there is NO steel trap so inaccurate title also. TOO bad it may have had potential.


A New Years Party on the top of a plush abandoned building. A group of spoiled success types(..rock singer, newspaper columnist, television exec, celebrity cook, entertainment lawyer, high-maintenance slut)find themselves trapped in the isolated wings of the abandoned building after following a riddle to a properly prepared party by a psycho. The psycho haunts the rooms, hidden behind his prey who wander aimlessly trying to survive as he captures them one by one when certain individuals make the mistake of getting separated. Booby traps await equipped with riddles. A list containing the names of the group given an invite are labeled with specific titles(Kathy-loser, Nicole-heartless, Adam-pig, etc)and when each victim is dispatched a red X is marked through them. The killer's weapon of choice is a hook. But, other methods of execution include used an ax splitting the forehead, end of a knife stabbing a hole in the neck, a sliced throat, heart removed from a chest with it beating in the killer's hand(..not elaborated in grisly detail, the director uses sounds, only displaying the beating heart), the back of a victim's head crushed repeatedly into the floor during a scuffle, and a vicious attack with a meat tenderizer. The gore-murders lack bite and slasher fans who watch this genre passionately will find them merely adequte. This is a rather tedious slasher with a lot of the film showing this group trying to find an exit while bickering with each other. The characters like to insult each other constantly, fighting often over superficial stuff..their antics are at times playful, other instances nasty. Regardless, the killer couldn't plunge the hook into their gullets fast enough for me..but, alas, we spend a great deal of time longer with these sleazy egomaniacs which is unfortunate. There's of course a twist(..does the killer have a partner in crime?), but "Steel Trap" is little more than a tired Saw retread set in a building that lacks atmosphere, no matter how often the lights blink on and off. The killer should be creepy, but he's merely a walking kill-device whose motives for committing these acts is embarrassingly uninspired. Some slasher fans might get a kick out of who's *really* behind this mind trap, as the film closes with a warped comic tone mimicking cooking shows. The riddles used in the film are corny instead of witty, leading the characters in a maze of doors and rooms with the killer knowing exactly where to strike almost at all times.


Duped! Yeah, totally duped... You know Dimension Extreme has given us all some really great stuff, but they have also given us some really, really, REALLY bad stuff - Steep Trap falls into the latter. Now coming from someone who is very much into the horror genre and can usually find some shining moments in the worst of the worst gore or scare flicks, I really can't think of one nice thing to say about this one except for - It was so bad I laughed a few times... But not in the way a Troma movie is so bad it made you laugh. No, no, no, Steel Trap was just really bad. At a upscale New Years party on the top of an abandoned high rise, several extremely annoying individuals are invited down a few floors to where the "real party is at". The unlikable ensemble quickly find out that this is no party at all as one by one they all begin to suffer very uninventive and forgettable ends to their miserable lives. They all must play the killer's game till the end or suffer an ill fate at the hands of a truly laughable silver masked maniac. Horror fans, do yourself a favor and skip out on this one. There are no inventive deaths, no well built suspense, no likable characters, atrocious acting - good and evil, and worst of all the dialouge is so forced it will embarrass you to no end.


I agree with much of the previous stuff...bad writing, dialog, etc., but what I really found most shocking was how ugly the cast was. I mean...in a horror? Don't you really want to see pretty people being killed, maimed, raped, tortured, etc.... Here, it looks like they went around to all the plastic surgeons' offices in town and took all the "befores" and threw them in the movie. Old ones at that. Everyone appeared to be at least in their 30s.

***** Spoiler -- sort of ***** That "prettiest girl in the room" line just killed me!!! I think it wasn't as much an exclusive party as where the rest of the town hid out all the ugly people.


StarCraft is a real-time strategy game (RTS) set in the early 26th century in the Koprulu Sector at the edge of our galaxy. The balance of power is a stake as three of the most powerful species in the Universe go head-to-head. The nomadic Terrans, brutal Zerg, and stalwart Protoss each seek the ultimate prize: survival of their species and domination of the galaxy. This game is truly a milestone in RTS development. The graphics are great, play control is intuitive, and the storyline is top notch. Blizzard Entertainment takes an interesting approach by telling the story from the perspective of each race in three separate acts. Thus, the events from Act I (Terrans) are then referred to from the other side in Act II (Zerg) and are acted upon. All in all, this game is worth its weight in gold!


This game is a riot! With a little practice, you can have hours and hours of fun. Build up an army and save the universe. Even if you've never tried a strategy-type game, this one is definitely worth your effort. You can play the provided missions, go one-on-one vs the computer or go online and play with friends or strangers.


I first got hooked on StarCraft from my friend. The day after, I ran out and bought it. This game has a great story, great cinematics, and great units from all the races; Terran (Human), Protoss (Alien), and Zerg (bug-like critters).

If you like StarCraft, then I suggest getting the expansion (Brood War). I would be grateful if they came out with a second expansion.

I reccomend, again, that anyone who likes good graphics, real-time combat, great story lines, and sci-fi action get this game!


What seems like eons ago now, I used to invite myself over to my best friend's house at least twice a week just to play WarCraft. I was completely taken by the whole bird's-eye-view-real-time-war-strategy thing. I soon became a master of defensive formations. Then came Command & Conquer. It was ok, but somehow lacked the addictiveness for me (it also didn't help that it was nearly impossible to cheat!). After that, WarCraft 2, which seemed a little more cartoony than its predecessor, but was no less addictive, and the numerous new characters, including the one-of-a-kind heroes, were a very welcome change. What made it even better was the built-in map editor feature, and, more than the icing on the cake -something more like an entire new layer to the cake- the fact that it was the most fun, most addictive multiplayer game ever.

Then came StarCraft.

Where WarCraft 2 had two races to choose from, StarCraft has three. Where every WarCraft 2 character had its equivalent character in the other race, StarCraft's three races are so distinct and so painstakingly designed that it's practically impossible to draw any parallels whatsoever. Where WarCraft 2's storyline was excessively simple, and the Orc and Human campaigns were concurrent (that is, they're just two different perspectives on the same story, happening at the same time), StarCraft's storyline is as rich and detailed as a sci-fi novel, full of dissention, assassination, and alliances made and broken. Further, in StarCraft, the campaigns are meant to be played in a specific order, because they are not concurrent, but rather entirely different chapters in this wonderful complex story.

The multiplayer aspect of StarCraft is the best part of all. StarCraft, like WarCraft 2, has a built-in map editor, although it is more difficult to use, simply because the game is more complex. Unlike WarCraft 2, StarCraft includes everything you need (except an internet connection) to join the exciting world of on-line StarCraft gaming on 'battle.net'.

I first played StarCraft at another friend's house, from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. in the morning. Suffice to say I was too tired to figure out what was going on, and was baffled by all the complexities of the game. A week later I said 'Give me your copy of StarCraft so we can play online'. And the rest is history. Once again, just like with WarCraft and WarCraft 2, I'm not much good at strategic attack, but I've become an expert at defensive formations. Once again, I prefer to use humans - I suppose I understand their technology better than aliens or Orcs. Blizzard scored another winner with StarCraft, and as technology gets better and people's hard drives get bigger, many aspects of computer games improve accordingly: StarCraft has better sound, more in-game sounds, a longer storyline, better between-level graphics, more between-level videos, more characters, more races, more buildings to construct, more upgrades to make, etc.

In closing: buy this game. (And the Brood War expansion ... I don't know where I would be without my medics and my nukes!)


Starcraft is a definite winner for one of the best RTS (real time strategy) games. Fantastic graphics and are put to scale; not like other try-hard games like Tiberian Sun (which I might add was released one year after yet it was worse!)

The storyline is fantastic, from the Zerg, to the Protoss and the Terran, it will keep you wanting to find out more as you complete missions. All units have at least three different sounds that are produced and the music is fantastic (eg. a different track for each race).

*THIS IS THE GAME TO BUY! STARCRAFT BY BLIZZARD 100/10*


I've never been a big RTS fan. In fact Starcraft and it's expansion have been the only two RTS games I've ever played. Having said that. Starcraft is the only RTS game I need to play. I have a feeling that most other RTS games would pale in comparison.

You get to play as three species. Terran are humans, Zerg which are ferocious "Alien" inspired creatures, and Protoss which are unique no mouthed aliens. Each species has their own ups and downs in combat, but that's what makes the game so diverse. Trying to build your base and protect it while building an army for war is a fun challenge.

The storyline is great. Really sets the mood that all three species are at each other's throats in one way or another. It's set up so that the player has to play an individual campaign of each species. With each species getting their own storyline that eventually brings everything full circle. If there's one thing I have to give this game above all else. It's a really difficult game in the later levels of each campaign.

In my opinion it still holds up today 8 years after it's creation. Great game. Good graphics. Intriguing storyline. A fun challenge. This game has a little bit for everybody if you're into RTS games.


I've honestly never been much of a fan of RTS(Real Time Strategy) games... I generally find them to be uneventful and unimaginative, most of the time. The better part of them are essentially the same, when you break them down to basic elements: Build up a base, collect credits through some kind of natural(or unnatural) mineral, build an army and defeat the opponent who has more or less the same type(s) of army/units/buildings as you. Well, this one is something else... here, you have three species... each unique. That's different technologies, units, strengths and weaknesses. There's a larger-than-usual single player part that has 10 missions per race. Most of them are fun, and they grow more challenging, so you won't tire of it before you're done, either. Music is fitting(and it's even differentiated for the three, as is the color scheme and HUD design). The game-play is among the best that the RTS genre has to offer; it's quite open-ended, allowing you to experiment to find out what works best for you. There are an awful lot of drastically different units and abilities for the three races. I have to admit, I've experienced several RTS games which unfortunately have one inferior army, which can only defeat the other army through means of drastically superior numbers. The model this utilizes has been used other times(since), recently in the Generals game in the C&C series. The graphics are excellent, and still hold up well today. The animations are smooth and positively bursting with detail. For better or for worse, compared to, say, the Command & Conquer franchise, this allows more for a higher number of bases... as soon as you can build, you can pretty much build yourself a new base. Also, I would say that this is a game where you have to expect that you may need to spend time finding yourself more minerals... or making what you get last a while. Take note, those used to there being credits aplenty throughout the RTS titles they play, as I can't off-hand think of another game that isn't pretty much like that. There is a limitation on how many units any player(human or computer-controlled) can control(clearly shown, in any given level), which rules out the often applied strategy(for other RTS titles) of just attacking the enemy with a swarm of powerful units, and necessitates proper strategy. The game also has a magnificent story(and well-told(partially through rather marvelous voice-acting, and some through beautifully animated video sequences), complete with three perspectives, and well-written characters). Usually, when playing single player in a RTS game, you have to lead the army you've chosen to victory... the campaigns contradict each other, or simply don't relate to one another. In this game, you lead each of the three races through the three parts. This way, you feel like a much bigger part; you're the one fighting the hardest battles of the war, and making the biggest difference in the plot. Each race has a final mission where they have to destroy an enormously important, heavily defended building, making for an awesome ending to that part of the game. Of course, once you've beaten the single player portion of the game, you'll want something else to entertain you... so there's multi-player, which can be played both over the Internet and over LAN. There are several different modes of multi-player, allowing for many hours spent without it getting boring. The multi-player is also reliable, with no errors during play. And if you tire of that, there's even a level editor. No, in fact it's a *campaign* editor. You can make entire series with this tool, and it's about as easy to use and packed with features as such editors get. Believe me, I've been making levels(well, trying to) for several years, and this is one of the best, most compact, and most easy-to-figure-out editor I've tried(others include the ones for Max Payne(which allows for much greater freedom, but doesn't allow much easy tweaking, and the interface of which more or less immediately weeds out all but the most well-versed in computers) and Heroes of Might and Magic III). You can make extensively programmed levels and completely redefine the game-play. Even if you don't fancy yourself a creative type, this is to your advantage if you get this; there are tons of websites with new levels, custom-made, for more or less any purpose(single-player, multi-player, various separate ones, etc.), and all you need to do is download and put the file in the map folder. It does not get much easier. Heck, you can even download more tools to customize, if you want to do something that the regular editor, that comes with the game, won't let you(though there is precious little that fits into that category... it's incredibly open and, as stated earlier, jam-packed with features). The interface is better than that of contemporary titles. This is undoubtedly one the best RTS games out there... but there are a few minor complaints. Some of the programming does leave a little to be desired... at times units go the long way around obstacles, sometimes they don't go exactly where you tell them to, just somewhere in close proximity, and finally, there are examples of units 'acting up' as a side-effect of certain magic/special abilities. Also, though the games does have a number of in-game tips, it can be fiendishly hard, and there's only one instructional tutorial, and it doesn't cover much. Finally, the three races don't have equally interesting story-lines, and they have to be beaten in the preset order, so if you're stuck on a dull and/or hard mission with an uninspired one, there's really nothing to do, except to just do your best to get through it and hope for the next one to be more interesting. Of course, that is a minor complaint. All in all, the game is an accomplishment. I recommend this to any fan of RTS games, and most gamers and sci-fi fans in general. 8/10


1998 was an absolutely monumental year for gaming. Two of the greatest titles ever were released- StarCraft and Half-Life. I never cared for WarCraft, I found it's lack of an original premise and compelling story to be a major weakness. StarCraft did everything a game should. It's graphics were beautiful, the vibrant artwork lends amazing detail to the futuristic battlefield even today. The soundtrack fits the atmosphere well, when traversing the cold vacuum of space it only lends to the atmosphere when you here the creepy tunes of starcraft. Then the gameplay itself. Each race is unique, and works in different ways, but is perfectly balanced. The difficulty is just right- not too easy, not too tough. Then there is the story. WarCraft didn't have a very compelling story; nor did Diablo or many other Blizzard games. StarCraft has quality writing that makes the campaign even more amazing. Each race has it's rich history, and you can't help but take interest in at least some of the things they engage in. The game also has multiplayer, and StarCraft also excels here. Multiplayer is just plain FUN. If you get bored of massing and destroying your friends in a 1on1 or crashing the computers party in a 2 on 2 compstomp, then all you need is to select 'Use Map Settings'. The variety here is amazing. THere are brand new games and minimods created in this area, hell, there are even MOVIES that are often times very funny. StarCraft has NO flaws WHATSOEVER. There's thousands of maps shipped with the game that can be used in multiplayer and in your own skirmishes. The editor has all you need to make a brand new campaign or new game modes for online, the story is amazing, the graphics are amazing, the whole entire package is worth your time; and as long as Battle.net exists StarCraft will keep you entertained till time stops.


One of the best Rts ever, and one of the best game ever made, everything in this game is almost perfect, the story, the characters, the playability, the soundtrack, the graphics, the videos, everything.

"Starcratf" is one the most well succeeded internet game ever,it moved millions of people to play in the internet(battle-net). Starcraft have three races: Terran(humans), Zerg (a primitive race of alien) and Protoss(an evaluated alien race), they fighting each other to take control of the entire universe.

Personally i like all "Blizzard" games, but this one its special. If you like Starcrat\BroodWar i recommend: "Warcraft 2 and 3"(Blizzard), "Comand and Conquer: Tiberian Sun" (Westwood)


The music, the sounds, everything in this game is PERFECT.. I wish i could tell what Starcraft means to me.. But its much more that what words may define.. I bought maybe 20 copies and all the copies are stolen by my friends who hated Starcraft once (and they became fans too) I LOVE THIS GAME..

The game is about 3 species; Terrans , Protos and Zergs. You have to gather the resources of the planet and fight against the other species. Each unit has its advantages and disadvantages against the others.. The species are nearly equal in force and in tactics. All you have to do is focus on the strategy.


I'll start off by putting all my cards on the table, I'm a big Command & Conquer fan and am extremely biased when looking at any other type of RTS game. That being said, I actually found Starcraft to be a very different type of game and not really strictly comparable to C&C. Starcraft has a much bigger emphasis on micro-management as most units have some kind of special ability. Also armies are generally smaller with more emphasis on balance and researched abilities than size and power.

I am a sucker for a good storyline and here Starcraft delivers wholeheartedly, the manual reads like the first chapter of a bestselling science-fiction novel and throughout the single player there a number of interesting plot twists, I'm a bit bemused that nobody ever bothered to make a Starcraft movie! Also the developers can be commended for creating 3 opposing races with different strengths and weaknesses, but with no race that are clearly superior. This has certainly been attempted before (unsuccessfully) in other games but the Starcraft developers got it more or less right.

The area Starcraft didn't won me completely over was in the actual gameplay, your army are limited by available resources and most individual units are rather fragile and can quickly be destroyed by enemy fire, I spend lots of time fixing and replacing my battered army rather than planning battles! I also felt that the whole idea of researching abilities really slows the game down and because the AI opponent always start with a big head start you spend a lot of time waiting for research to be done to be able to match you AI opponent. Speaking about AI, Starcraft AI is certainly not up to scratch but this is true for most RTS games.

Overall, this is certainly an above average game and it's legacy and success speaks for itself. For me C&C is still the king of the hill but I won't miss Starcraft 2


Starcraft is undoubtedly the most popular Real-Time Strategy (RTS) of all time, with the possible exception of Age of Empires. It follows the time tested RTS pattern: harvest resources with "villagers," upgrade your production and military units with a "blacksmith" structure, build up an army and go trounce all opposition. That's RTS in a nutshell.

Starcraft was above all an outstanding single player experience. The storyline was excellent, with fantastic cut-scenes and top quality acting. It placed the gamer right in the thick of the plot, starting with peripheral missions and leading to a crucial role in the struggle at hand. Each race was unique, with completely different units and play styles. Herein was perhaps Starcraft's greatest strength. So many RTS games have either identical units or a very close facsimile thereof.

Although fun, Starcraft did not necessarily bring anything new to the table. The terrain was rendered in 2D, the resource system identical to Warcraft and Age of Empires, and otherwise felt in many ways similar to other contemporary RTS games. I also didn't feel that the game was as good of a multiplayer experience, lessening it's replayablity. There were a limited number of strategies and tactics to employ with the units available.

Although I got my money's worth out of the title, I did not feel it was groundbreaking, nor did it deserve the popularity it enjoyed. There are many superior RTS games, but one certainly would not guess that judging from it's sales. It's appeal is wide and any RTS fan, or beginner, will be pleased.


Living a Zombie Dream: 1 out of 10: I know this kind of movie. We all do. That kid or two in high school who wanted to become a famous movie director and got some friends together to make a film. Raised some cash from local business and parents and showed their masterpiece in the local theater one Saturday night. One of the best documentary films ever made "American Movie" is about kids just like that. The difference is that those kids's movie, after being viewed by friends and family, went into a trunk with the Boy Scout pictures and old report cards. This film was released on DVD.

The other difference is that those kids probably had more talent. A lot more talent. Living a Zombie Dream is a youthful (and not so youthful) embarrassment to all involved. The script is a mishmash that is almost completely without dialogue or logic. After hearing the "actors" line readings one can at least understand why the director Todd Reynolds stayed away from actual conversation.

Instead we have a soundtrack that sounds like something a World of Warcraft clan uses to promote its best battles on Yourtube. The director also seems to be afraid of light. Every scene is bathed in darkness rendering any attempt to follow the wordless story even more difficult.

Also a personal note to lead actor Amon Elsey that's not how you kiss a girl and the less said about the sex scenes or your haircut the better.

So if you are related to director Todd Reynolds or own the house whose front yard this movie was filmed in I'm sure you have already seen it. Everyone else should stay very far away.


now, i LOVE zombies, & have sat through some terrible films in the search for a lost classic, or even just something remotely entertaining.

This is some school kids attempt at a "cabinet of dr caligari" type movie,without the abstract sets - about 50 words are spoke in the whole film & repeated "visions" replayed over & over again from the main character, shot on video, the film makes less sense than a Jess Franco movie (that's saying something) there is one scene that's clever (the eat me scene) but really, i had to fast forward through chunks of it after 20 mins.

Very hard work & probably the worst movie I've ever seen (& I've seen pot zombies & zombiez & zombie night, which are BAD!)


A man who witnesses his brother plowing his wife, takes him out driving in order to kill him, with the help of some random psycho wearing only a loincloth, whom the cuckolded brother then kills off. But the psycho rises from the grave to kill him. My god this film was atrocious on every level. I think it might have been going for aventgarde, but failed miserably.Even at little over an hour, the movie still succumbs to massive repetition. I consider it to be among the worst zombie film that I've ever seen and trust me if you've read my other reviews you'll know I'm not prone to mindless hyperbole. So trust me and stay away from this waste of celluloid.

My Grade: F


This could have been such a much better movie in much more capable hands. But it's too obvious this was done on a shoestring budget--I take that back--shoestrings are more expensive than that. Grainy, dark film quality does NOT make for an eerie atmosphere--in fact, it's downright annoying. Especially when you can't understand 90% of the dialogue, and what you can hear is the same lines over and over. Put these in Memorable Quotes: "What, no kiss goodbye?" "You're home early." "Do you still love me?" And put "repeated line" over each one. That's pretty much it for the only female in the movie. And the plot has one major hole: how does the lead male become a zombie? I can understand the others, but it's like he just woke up from his "zombie dream" and decided to start eating people--he never died! Too bad, so sad, I'm glad it was a free rental. Remember, folks, a good plot is a terrible thing to waste.


A very messy (as the video box states) and interesting horror movie. Has some flaws, such as slow-paced action, and the 'video-look', but still, for a movie with practically no budget, it's very strange off-the-wall, yet enjoyable. If you like zombies and gore, check it out.