Though I don't really consider it a horror film, if you are one of many who happens to be afraid of rodents this film will terrify you. Hell, even you you don't mind rodents it might freak you out a bit. Peter Weller is always a great actor, and he stars in this film as Bart, a man who wages an all out war with one hell of an angry rat while the rest of his life begins to fall apart because of it. He is the only leading actor in this film, and he carries it almost completely on his own. His dinner table speech about the dangers of rats was both hilarious and a bit unnerving at the same time. I liked how this film was almost self-mocking in parts, though it always kept a straight face about it and never went to far. The rat's point of view shots really show this. The scenes with the rat were all very well done, congrats to whoever trained the rat. The plot was very original, and I liked how smart the rat was. Always a couple steps ahead of poor ol' Bart. I think I jumped a foot when the damn thing came out of the toilet. Last but not least, that was one heck of a bat he made near the end! Overall, this is a great film. Admittedly it's a bit cheesy in places, but it knows what it is and handles itself very well. Highly recommended.

8.5/10


Of Unknown Origin is an overlooked gem of a little movie. Not really a horror film, except that something does indeed go bump in the night, and often too. No, this is more of a psychological drama and Peter Weller bangs one out of the park with his performance as the yuppie forced to go to war with a rat. The movie gets down right primitive and to the point, and it's all Peter Weller and some excellent rat photography. I watch this movie about once a year and it's one of my all time favorites. The film isn't dated and the dvd transfer is good so check it out if you're looking for something a little different, something of quality, and not your normal run of the mill mindless horror flick.


Wall Street Executive Burt Hughes (Peter Weller) recently bought a sleek Mathattan brown house for his family and thinking that he is the king of his household. Suddenly his castle is under siege by a huge female rat. Bart takes a stand against the rat, after Bart accidentally killed the rat's babies.

Directed by George P. Cosmatos (Rambo:First Blood Part 2, Cobra, Tombstone) made a clever, technically well made thriller that has it shares of unintentional humor. The film has become a Cult Classic over the years, it is obviously One of the Best Rats films ever made. Weller is surprisingly convincing as the Wall Street Executive going though a nervous breakdown. The film takes place in New York City but it was actually filmed in Montréal. Actor:Weller and Director:Cosmatos work together again in the underrated but familiar science-fiction/horror/thriller "Leviathan".

DVD has an clean anamorphic Widescreen (1.78:1) transfer and an good-Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono Sound. The DVD does feature an entertaining commentary track by the actor:Weller and Director:Cosmatos. Although you can tell, they were not in the same recording session during the commentary but they put the highlights comments by Weller and Cosmatos. DVD also has the original theatrical trailer. This is Based on a Book by Chauncey G. Parker the Third, the book is titled "The Visitor". Screenplay by Brian Taggert (Poltergiest 3). Executive Produced by Pierre David (The Scanner Series). (****/*****).


Smug, anal, successful and ambitious detail-oriented Wall Street yuppie businessman Bart Hughes (exceptionally well played by Peter Weller in his first lead role) has his cozy and comfortable life thrown out of whack when a large and crafty rat invades his fancy brownstone apartment. When conventional methods of extermination prove fruitless, the increasingly primal, obsessive and paranoid Bart resorts to more drastic vicious and barbarous measures in order to rid himself of this loathsome pest.

Director George P. Cosmatos, who also helmed the Sly Stallone action vehicles "Rambo: First Blood Part II" and "Cobra," wrings plenty of tension out of the creepy premise, expertly maintains a snappy pace throughout and stages the ample jolting shocks with a considerable amount of flair and skill. Moreover, the smart and trenchant script by Brian Taggert offers a potent, gripping and provocative allegory on "civilized" man's latent capacity for extreme violence and brutality needing the proper stimulus to be activated (the incredible conclusion with Weller chasing the rodent around his posh abode while brandishing a spiked baseball bat is both disturbing and exciting in comparable measure). Weller's outstanding intense performance easily carries the picture, with fine supporting turns by Jennifer Dale as Weller's concerned secretary, Lawrence Dane as Weller's tough, but fair and equally worried boss, Louis Del Grande as the macho building superintendent, gorgeous "Playboy" Playmate Shannon Tweed as Weller's hot babe wife, and Maury Chaykin as a jerky co-worker. Rene Verzier's beautifully polished cinematography and Ken Wannberg's supremely spooky'n'shivery score are both on the money effective and impressive. The rat is one genuinely scary and nasty piece of repulsive work. A total powerhouse.


When you see four times a film and you discover new contents each time, evidence: this piece is worth-. I see my own evolution with this movie, my opinion growing, I notice concepts I hadn't before.

Martin (Hache) talks about life through incredibly deep characters, specially Martin (father), whose very balanced but also extremely dark side drives spectator into a superior intellectual world, in which you are overwhelmed by messages, looks, behaviors, feelings.

All actors are superb, there is a maximum connection with their characters, you forget you are in front of a TV, flowing in the story like a fish in the water, even understanding both sides of all the great and rich arguments they have. Everything is valuable, don't miss a minute!


Aristarain strikes back again.

After the beautiful "Un lugar en el mundo", he gives us this film which is nearly a theater work.

He repeats with two beasts of Argentinian's cinema. Cecilia Roth (whom half the Spanish talking world has been in love with), and one of the five best actors of all times, FEDERICO LUPPI.

It's impossible not to think about my own father seeing his personage, with this overwhelming love for his son and yet unable to communicate with. Maybe I've seen it over five times, and still I cry each time when Federico Luppi stands on the balcony talking about the desperation of life after the idea of loosing his son misunderstood. It's the nearest you will get to understand fatherly love if you don't yet have a baby.

The plot is banal, and the filming nothing complicated, just a camera fixed to let all the attention to actors........but then, the hit. What an acting!!!!!. You hardly are going to see something similar, Luppi is a monster, a giant, he fills the screen with a strength rarely seen away.

A must see in Spanish, where you can really judge their beautiful work. The pity is that it would surprise me a lot if the titles are able to reproduce all that complicated and quick talking.


Heche (which means letter H) is a nineteen year old boy that nobody wants. After his parents' divorce, his mother's got a new life in Argentina, and there's no place for him. After he survives an 'accident' that is believed by everyone as an attempted suicide, his mother asks his father to take care of him. His father agrees, even if he still does not think he has a place for his son. Only his father's woman and his best friend, an homosexual drug addict, show affection for this boy who is lost and can't find a way to really grow up and become independent.

Being raised in a family of people who flew Argentina before I was born, I was used, kind of, to the heavy Argentinian accent that the actors have, Federico Luppi especially. However, I agree it might be difficult for other Spanish speaking people who are used to a more 'orthodox' Spanish to understand parts of the dialogs, which is a shame. Dialogues are what makes this film so interesting and touching. The things that are said contrast with the things that remained unsaid, and you can only imagine by reading the character's eyes. Alicia, for example, is almost always laughing and having fun, but her eyes are dark, worried. Her happiness is just a mask she wears to avoid realize how much she feels bad about what she is missing for, a real family, with children. She only tells Hache about that, she wishes she were his mother. Hache apparently is resigned to being a nuisance for his parents, but he wants to escape this situation by living alone, even though he's not ready yet. He uses drugs and only his father's best friend manages to keep him away from danger.

The two main actors were great. Federico Luppi's portrayal of a father who is very disappointed for his son's way of life was so real I wanted to kick him! Juan Diego Botto was perfect, too. You could think he was portraying himself. I wonder if it's a pity he lives in Spain and his works are not known across the Atlantic Ocean, nor east of the Pirineos.


Martin (Hache) is one of the best films because the plot is about feelings, about the relationship between humans. Real people listening, learning and talking with real people.

Excellent characters with a lot to tell, to listen. A plot that we may live every day and we didn't notice, a plot that shakes to the point to think why you really are alive...

If you miss this, you will lose two hours of reflection.


This movie has the quality that not even Hollywood films got its based on the truth that most people will not even want to see on your regular day drug abuse, depression, selfish parents, friendship, love ,lust and people like you and me. Martin or Jay as he is called is a teenager from Buenos Aires, Argentina that overdosed himself with certain drugs for dogs then his father who lives in Spain comes worried to see him takes his son back to Spain (against his own will). the problem with Martin, H or Jay how he is called its that they don't get along at all except for Dante whom he is Martin's father best friend (best actor Eusebio Poncela). Dante a homosexual who lives in a hotel talks to Martin about every subject that not all friends will talk to one about(homosexuality, friendship, drugs, love, living up to be yourself). Then there's Cecilia Roth who plays the role of ALICIA the mistress of Martin Sr a classy performance on her part. I give this a 10 out of 10 right up there with NUEVE REYNAS.


After the kind and tender portrait of human condition made in so wonderful film as "A place in the world", the Argentine film-maker Adolfo Aristarain submerges again into the storming sea of human relationship, but at this time he does with a harder and scrawnier outlook in this "Martín (Hache)", played by a dazzling Federico Luppi, which character, marked by the contradiction between his longing of independence and solitude and his need of surrounding himself with his loved persons, swings in a continuing "pendulum" of affection and disaffection that marks deeply the life of two persons more important for him: his son, Hache (Juan Diego Botto), and his lover, Alicia (Cecilia Roth) -both in masterful performances, too-. And marks, of course, his own life, that he tries to do utmost in his working face but without getting it.

"Martin (Hache)" is the typical proof of the "cinema of the word", this cinema in which the script, strong and solid, is construed over a torrential, permanent dialog that the characters express what they feel, what they think, what they are in what they say...


This is the story of the relationship between a father (A movie director) and his son ( a young music ).

The actors are excellent, specially Federico Luppi. The performances of the supporting characters are really good too.

This movie is one of the best I have ever seen.


I love this movie, what more can i say?!.

Some people say that this is a theatrical film because of its dialogues and locations, and i think it´s true, but what´s the matter?. In fact i think it´s like a Greek tragedy with all the kind of characters you can imagine: Dante (good chosen name) is the pleasure, Martín is the fear , Alicia is the emotion, and Hache is the doubt. And here they are mixed in Spain at the end of twentieth century.

The performance is simply wonderful. Cecilia Roth (All about my mother) is splendid and what can i say about Federico Luppi who is one of the best actors in Spanish language that exists. I can imagine nobody except Eusebio Poncela as Dante. Juan Diego Botto is quite good.

But the best thing in this movie are dialogues. They are really deep and make you think about many things in your life, especially when you are in the age of Hache, and you don´t find ways to mature. And film helps you to take account that many people is not as mature as they are supposed to be - for example Martin father -, and other many people is not as crazy as they are supposed to be - for example Dante-. There are phrases in this film that i know by memory and i use with my friends when we are joking. There are many interesting thoughts about love, loneliness, family, money, sex, drugs, and, of course, life.

See it when you are sad.


The base for this movie is not only its acting and directing but the dialogs are an intricate web of poetry and filosophy. According to a part of dialogue in the movie drugs open your mind so you can see haw everything is relative to each person's point of view. This is the whole movie, all the relationships between the four main characters are relative to how each one sees them. Depending on the character each of the other three people are either love, truth and even recreation. You have to go way beyond the words for the movie tells us for itself: you have to look beyond the words to find the meaning. This movie is full of deep, poetic, philosophical meaning about life.

Watch this movie and live it according to you without listening to the words, but looking beyond. Also, notice the triangulation effects in the photography when there are only two people in the dialogue. Hint: watch where their eyes go.


An aging film director returns quickly from Madrid to Buenos Aires when he learns of his nineteen-year old son's drug overdose. When summoned to the boy's bedside, Martin believes his son has tried to commit suicide, although the facts are unclear. What is apparent, however, is that the director (Frederico Luppi), known only as Martin, has distanced himself from his family, hiding his emotions to those who looked to him for support: his son, his mistress Alicia (Cecilia Roth), and his gay actor friend Dante (Eusebio Poncela). Potentially melodramatic, Argentinean director Adolfo Aristarain's (A Place in the World) Martin (Hache), handles the material with skill and intelligence and, while the dialogue often sounds like tedious psychodrama, impeccable performances by Luppi and Roth make Martin extremely watchable.

Juan Diego Botto is Martin's son, known as Hache (Junior) or Jay in the English subtitles. Though quite intelligent, Jay does not work or go to school and his only interest seems to be playing the guitar. Feeling unwanted by both parents, rejected by his girlfriend, and thinking that he has let his father down by underachieving, he resorts to a potentially lethal combination of drugs and booze that almost end his young life. Martin is persuaded by his ex-wife to take Jay back to Madrid though he is leery of having to once again assume the responsibilities of fatherhood.

Taking on a new project, he soon leaves for the south of Spain to find film locations, leaving Jay with Dante and his girlfriend Alicia, both heavy drug users. Soon, Dante and Alicia meet Martin at a seaside resort, hoping for a new sense of intimacy. It is soon clear that not much has changed. Martin refuses to give of himself, distancing the people around him with outbursts of anger and cynicism and the result leads to tragedy. The conclusion, however, is a bittersweet reminder that transformation can come instantly once difficult choices are faced.


I'm not going to talk about the plot or the script, no no...that things are really good in this movie but the acting...oh, the actors are incredible. Federico Luppi as always, perfect, Eusebio Poncela, really great, Cecilia Roth, better than in All about my mother (won a spanish award goya by this movie) and the boy, Juan Diego Botto, one actor i don't like too much, is perfect too. The dialogues are terrible, and the actors perfect, what you can expect is a movie where you going to believe every word of the script. Really good. I rated 9/10.


Martin(Hache) drawed the relationship between a father (played as a giant for Federico Luppi) and his son (beautiful Juan Diego Botto). The story runs towards Madrid and Buenos Aires, mixturing perfectly the lifes of four people completely misunderstood. I love this film, because I do. But what I love the most is the dialogues. Scenes that nothing have to do with the movie shows the magistral scripters selected for it... But I´d rather prefer the original version, it´s purer than English one. Perfect directed, perfect performances, Perfect script (with a capital P). Just sit down, relax, and learn. You´ll really enjoy it.


That film ha a really horrible camera work! I saw other films with lots of dialog but none of these films had a camera work which was that bad. Like in a bad south American soap opera there wasn't much going on with the camera. The only nice picture in the film is when they move to the house on the beach. But since the house was looking very nice, even a tourist would have been able to get a nice movie of this house with his cheap camera. So that rather should be a radio play. But not even that - the characters are so stereotype that this film is not half so wise like it pretends to be. Also acting and cut are bad - especially the scene where the gay finds the women drowned in the pool. I thought "what the hell was that"? The actor doing just something and/or the cut was so bad in this scene that you have the feeling that something went completely wrong there if you see that.


This film is overrated, yes. The actors do properly their work, it's true, but the script and the realization are poor. The most of the times the story becomes unbelievable, and I miss dramatism. An example is the suicide of Cecilia Roth, I can't believe a suicide like that, so cold and nor impulsive. And the dialogues are pedant, in situations like the related ones no one can't talk like that. I'm not agree with people that blame Juan Diego Botto, in my humble opinion is the best actor in the film, but his labour and the labour of the rest of the crew is not enough to get a good film. I can only rate 2 over 10.


'Renegade' belongs to the classic series, a original story that is well carried out by fine actors who really are fit to do so, Reno Raines/ aka Vince Black is a great character, always looking for justice with his own unique style...

This series really represents something, it's a pity it's so hard to come by these days, it's certainly under-valued, it's actually a great series, but the most people doesn't realize that.

Over here in The Netherlands 'Renegade' was on TV for only a short while, but it has appealed many people here...

There is only one thing i don't like about this series, Reno's deep voice is getting one-sided after some time if you mix it with that overdone good and bad talk of him (example):'Yeah, but we must get the bastard, i can't allow that he gets away with this, we must stop him' (really deep voice)

But that's the only thing i can think of, besides that, it's a real cool series, the way he escapes again and again and the way he figures things out and takes matters into his own hands, is great too watch.

Renegade has good stories, but all of them fit into the overall story. the action is well worth watching, if there was a 'Renegade' Box that i could buy here i would buy it instantly.

I give it a 8 out of 10 star rating for it and that is entirely justified, no matter what others say...


This show came out when there were a lot of first run syndicated programs. I thought the writing and plots of the show were good enough to watch to week after week. Yeah, it had a couple of cheesy moments, but what do you expect from a show that doesn't have the budget of network shows? I remember them shooting in San Diego, CA. They even came to Southwestern College (a school I was attending at the time) to shoot some scenes.

Anyways, if you're an open minded person, and can overlook some "moments" and try to take in the plots of episodes, then you can enjoy this show.

If you're a big time nitpicker and that's all you do, then stay away from it and leave it alone.


I remember watching this on TV in 93 to 97 and loved it then and love it more now.It takes me back to a better time in my life. The show had great music, scenery, bikes, chicks, Hummer H1, great story lines and Dutch Dixon. The acting was subpar, but who cares? The bike and Bobby Sixkiller make up for that! Lorenzo played the part of Raines perfectly.. and has never had a role that good and never will again. It was a great show to watch and kept you interested throughout the year. They don't make them like this anymore. I highly recommend getting the seasons on DVD ( Seasons 1,2 and3.. 4 and 5 are not available yet) Long live Reno Raines!


Hmm..this was a Cannell (sp?)series = like "Wiseguy" was... Did Ray Sharkey use the name of "Billy Ray Sharkey" in bit roles? There's no activity for this "Billy Ray Sharkey" guy after '92-'93, and I think RAY Sharkey died in l993. NO photo exists of "Billy Ray Sharkey" either, as far as I can find out with a Google. If anyone knows, let me know = I'm a Ray Sharkey collector...

"Renegade" was a great series = with an excellent cast. We came across it and watched it with relish... it really entertained us for the hour it was on. DAILY.. (Mon-Friday) (watched it on USA network a few years ago).

Sad when Cheyenne left -sad when the dam series ENDED. "Dutch" Dixon was always a special treat...as far as I know, we saw the entire series. Highly enjoyable, Wish something (ANYthing) were this interesting these days on television.


Being a big fan of such of such classics as Knight Rider, The A-Team and Magnum, I would like anyone who has not ever seen this series to know that it is great! At the time of writing this, "Renegade" only appears to have one review and it is not a good one? Watch for yourself before believing any negative reviews of this series. This is the first ever Region 1 DVD that I've had to import to the UK as it's that good! Buy it now! Lorenzo Lamas is a brilliant actor and superb martial artist. The only problem this series ever had was lack of exposure which probably killed it off much the same way as "Tropical Heat". Think of it as a modern day Knight Rider but without the Sci-Fi of KITT and a hero who is one of the best fighters ever. Combine that with the constant threat of police capture (much like the A-Team) and you have "Renegade". Another absolutely classic series by Stephen J Cannell.


While I understand the appeal of escapist television, I never understood the fact that this show was ever aired. Utter tripe. Rubbish. A show that prompted bowel movements of such severity that the the sewage pipes cried "NO MORE RENEGADE....LAMAS IS KILLING ME !" Cannell really went downhill after his brilliant Rockford Files. It amazes me that the same human being could create both. Was he slumming ? Was this an attempt to appeal to those people in Spittle County, Arkansas who preferred Barnaby to Jimbo ? Who knows. Lamas is a pathetic actor and the dude that played his sidekick was even worse. This makes Quinn Martin Productions seem like works of Shakespeare.


This is one of the few sequels that is actually better than the original. Perhaps the bit bigger budget and better makeup effects are an asset there.

To the poster that claimed this is a "trainwreck" movie. I disagree. If you truly knew your b-movie history, you'd know that Hennenlotter NEVER takes his movies seriously. There is always a little nudge and a wink to his movies. They are equal parts cheese, dark humor and monster movie. they are played more for chuckles and giggles than scares.

SEMI-SPOILERS: This is a fun little movie about Belial and Dwayne (who didn't really die in the first one, rather ended up in the hospital) finding their way to a house of freaks, where they fit in. Eventually Dwayne starts to feel left out and wants to be "normal". He falls in love, as does Belial.

Along the way they get entangled with a tabloid reporter who wants to expose this house of freaks. They also run across a huckster sideshow scammer who's trying to capitalize on a fake freak show (he claims to have the bones of Belial) and of course gets a visit from the freaks.

The babies at the end is a great twist as are a few of the other twists (especially Dwayne's girlfriend revealing why she isn't "normal".

Another cheese classic from Hennenlotter. Rent this along with the original "Basket Case", "Frankenhooker" and "Brain Dead" (Not the Peter Jackson movies that is a/k/a "Dead Alive") and enjoy a Hennenlotter triple bill. I do agree the third one wasn't in the same league as the first one and this great sequel.


The first "Basket Case" movie looked like it was made on a shoe-string budget. It also featured some horrible acting and directing. But director Frank Henenlotter obviously had learned since and gained more experience. The movie is more consistent this time, also in its pace.

There was obviously some more money to spend this time, compared to the first movie. The movie is overall more professional looking and so is the Belial character. There is more movement and detail in the guy. It's professionalism also makes this an overall more effective genre movie.

Luckily the movie obviously also doesn't take itself very serious, which in the end also is this movie its strongest point. It knows it's ridicules and it actually exploits this by putting in more ridicules new looking characters and silly moments and dialog and the actors also seem to be totally aware of this. It's also a reason why this movie is a totally pleasant genre movie to watch. It knows it's a B- and cult-movie and it doesn't resists against it. Not in the least of course due to the later success and cult following the first movie received.

Kevin Van Hentenryck is still as horrible as ever before in his acting but they cleverly resolved this by putting in way more characters this time, so the entire focus of the movie this time isn't just upon Duane and Belial. It also lets Duane act more as a psycho this time, which also allows Van Hentenryck to do his bad overacting and make him get away with it.

The story is of course silly but it also still is a notch up when compared to the first movie. It's at least more layered, also of course due to the fact that there are more characters in it this time. But no, overall you can't really call the movie anything more than just plain silly. Fun but silly.

Supriningly much better than the first movie, due to the fact it was made with more money and people involved and because the movie luckily doesn't take itself serious at all. It makes sure that you as a viewer also just can't take it serious at all and therefor lets you sit back and just enjoy the ride!

7/10


I gave this flick a 10, because I'm a big fan of b-movie "train wrecks". Godzilla movies(not the Japanese ones), Ultraman and old kung-fu movies are enjoyable in much the same way as basket case 2: so bad that you sit there laughing hysterically because someone actually took themselves seriously when writing something completely asinine. Good fun if you go into it looking for the accidental humor rather than the intended fright. If your sense of humor is like mine, this is one disaster from which you won't be able to turn away.


I really like the first Basket Case back in (1982) as it was very Gory also really funny and a lot of Fun

And now they are back again and this movie start from by showing what happened at the end of The Basket Case, Soon start from the ending of the first movie

The twins are now main headline on the news , Granny Ruth and her Grandaugter are watching the news and know who these two are, as they rush to the hospital, Duane and Belial break out of the hospital after he killed one of the doctors.

Then Ruth hide them away from outside world with her family and then they find out that, Beiial is not one of a kinda as there are others like him in her house that she takes care of.

Duane now feel like a normal person, wants to be a normal person and wants to leave but he ends up getting seen by the Reporter and now he has to stay has he as put the rest of the Freaks in danger of being found out.

This movie not as Great as the cult classic Basket Case (1982). Is still great movie.

There are very funny scenes in this movie and gore was good not as gory as the first but then make up effect for the Freaks were GREAT, or outstanding and I really like the way the movie ended as it perfect ending for this movie.

I liked this movie as it was really good and the acting was great too I going to give this movie 7/10


If you have seen the first movie you'll probably be wondering how can another Basket Case movie be a continuation of the first! Well, it's easy enough, but I don't want to ruin your "surprise"!! Anyway it begins just from where the first end. Soon, just a matter of few minutes, you are introduced in a new character that will also link this one to its sequel: that's Granny Ruth, one of the most entertaining in the whole series! This little, mid-aged lady together with an girl help Duane and Belial to escape and shelter from the police, chasing them for the first movie's massacre! Soon you discover that they're not alone in Ruth's house: not only the girl helping Granny Ruth is there, but an entire freaks community! Seems like Duane and Belial found a family, but soon troubles arrive as a journalist discover the Bradley twins shelter! It's time for massacre again!

To be honest I found this one really entertaining, much more then the first one that was more like an"original" slasher movie! This time Gabe Bartalos give "tru life" to Belial, using an animatronic model instead of a still one animated in stop motion! It really looks great! Also the other freaks look really good, and there are really a lot! A social critic find place in this movie too: as Henenlotter did in all his movies, any "strange thing" you see here sounds like a metaphor of true life. So the freaks community been chased just for their "differences" from the mass seems to be a more intense and "intellectual" reading key for this movie, much more than you could have been thinking.

Crazy and really good special effects, technically much better than the average low budget movie, funny plot: it's got much more than you could expect from a movie of this kind!

I can't say if I prefer this one ore the next one, but sure this two are very different from the first Basket Case: here you will find true comedy painted in a gory way, but no suspense or thrills!


First, let me point out that I don't hate this movie. It's not bad. No, really. I mean, for what it is, Basket Case 2 ain't bad. That said, I really, really wish that this movie didn't exist. That pretty much sums up how I feel about the first sequel to Basket Case. I just can't understand how anyone who claims to be a huge fan of the original, could approve of this. And that's what I am; a HUGE fan of Basket Case. I saw that movie, as a kid, on USA Saturday Nightmares. An experience that would trigger an obsession for (almost) all that is B-cinema. I've already reviewed the original; now, I guess I should say something about this unfortunate, unnecessary sequel. This won't be easy...

Alright, so, Henenlotter is playing the "freaks" card for everything it's worth . Whatever. Somehow, Duane and Belial has survived. A friend of their dead aunt, Granny Ruth, rescue the bickering brothers from the hospital, and takes them back to her place, a sanctuary for... you guessed it, freaks!! Whatever. Like I said before, not a bad movie, at all. Just nowhere near good enough to be associated with greatness. Anyway, back to Duane and Belial. So, anyway, the brothers are stuck in a house with over a dozen irritating freaks. Seriously, these guys are a whole lot more messed up than Belial. Hell, even more than Duane. Duane wants to ditch these guys, and take Ruth's granddaughter with him, and Belial is cool with hanging out there, especially since he, too has found someone. When a tabloid reporter tries to expose the freak house, Duane, being the swell guy that he is, sticks around to help his new friends defend their turf. Whatever.

What I really hate about Basket Case 2 is that it's like a real movie. It's completely devoid of that grainy, sleazy, inept charm that the original just kinda ended up with. A quality that was pretty much non-existent by 1990. Come to think of it, nowadays would be a more appropriate time for a Basket Case sequel, with all the decent, modern Exploitation to come out of the last decade (Gutterballs). But, once again, if I had my way, there would never be a sequel. Much less, a part 3, where the gang take it down to Georgia, and whatnot. I never said don't buy Basket Case 2. Definitely support Henenlotter, simply because the guy is awesome. But if you just recently saw the original, and you got the Henenlotter fever, the next logical step would be to check out Brain Damage. Now, that you're hooked, now would be a good time to try out the sequel that never was. With hard feelings and resentment aside, I do have one last positive thing to say about Basket Case 2. No spoilers, but just so you know, the ending makes it all worth it... Almost. 7/10


Everyone's favourite surgically-separated Siamese-twins, Duane (Kevin Van Hentenryck) and Belial, return for more freakish fun in Basket Case 2, in which the brothers escape from hospital (after their near fatal fall in the first film) and find sanctuary at the home of 'Granny Ruth' (Annie Ross), who runs a haven for the physically deformed. Meanwhile, a reporter working for the gutter press is hoping for a major scoop by tracking down the brothers' whereabouts...

Frank Henenlotter's sequel to his demented debut Basket Case once again displays a very unique vision and some incredibly dark humour, but made on a bigger budget, and away from the the original's 42nd Street locale, it lacks the trashiness, sleaziness and general grubbiness that gave the original film much of its charm.

Also serving to weaken the film somewhat is the collection of grotesque freaks that reside at Granny Ruth's place, who include a buck-toothed, floppy eared creature, a frog-headed man, a living gargoyle, and one monstrosity with teeth as big as planks; these creations are inventive, but way too silly looking and childish in their mannerisms to be unsettling.

Fortunately the positives outweigh the negatives: the cast pitch their performances perfectly, imbuing the film with just the right level of deranged lunacy; there are some inspired touches of twisted humour (gotta love the disabled badge on Granny Ruth's van and Belial's hilarious sex scene); and Henenlotter manages to deliver quite a few effectively macabre moments, my favourite bits being a meeting between Duane and a reporter in an Irish bar that doesn't go as planned for the newsman, a photographer's unexpected encounter with the freaks in Granny Ruth's attic, Duane coming face-to-face with a 'baby' that refuses to be born, and a suitably disturbing finale that sees the psychotic siblings joined together once again.


Can't say I really condone Frank Hennenlotter's augmenting of the "Basket Case" concept, but the comedic advancement is prevalent in much of the director's film's around the early 90s and are all definitely worthy of acclaim. The original "Basket Case" is one of my top favorite 80s cult films ever - just a bizarre idea that is strengthened by a great grimy New York city look and "feel", as well as awesome gore - and "part 2", though it was made about 8 years after it's predecessor, picks up right after the "dramatic" plummet from the Hotel Broslin. Duane and Belial survive their ordeal and are sent to the hospital where they soon slip out undetected and seek refuge from the media in a half-way house for extraordinarily deformed people... Or "freaks", if you will. There, Belial finds a female with the same bodily structure as him and falls in love while Duane plans on finally heading out on his own. The problem is, a lone reporter is on their trail and desperate to leak the whereabouts of the much sought-after killers. The brothers and their freak brethren are then forced to defend their house from the nosy intruders... If you like Hennenlotter's films, like "Frankenhooker" and "Brain Damage", you will probably get a kick out of this. It's not nearly as dank and sadistically toned as the first one - actually, it has a more of a "sitcom" kind of atmosphere going on with the obvious sound stages and slight melodramatic touches - but there's some pretty crazy effects. The freaks are truly over-the-top - one having a giraffe-like neck, another with a crescent shaped head, a face full of noses, and there's even one that is just a giant mouth. Chances are, though, if you were not into the original "Basket Case" you surely won't like this sequel and you're probably not a Frank Hennenlotter fan in general... Overall, "Basket Case 2" isn't great, but it's a very silly and entertaining "cash in" of the indie- cult favorite from 1982. It's clearly unneeded, but it's THERE so have a look and enjoy...


If you loved the first film and thought it was a great movie with the exception of the low budget and occasionally bad acting then you might not like this film very much. I want to start off by saying Belial looks terrible in this movie. Did they think it would be a good idea to change what he looks like completely?! In the last film (despite the low budget effects) Belial looked good in a cheesy way. Switching off of that subject I would like to say that this film did have a higher budget and it was good that Kevin Van Hentenryck returned to play as Duane in this movie and that the budget was a lot higher in this film and the production value is noticeably better. Another thing is the continuity with the previous film is just bad. If you saw the first film first you would see that Belial tried to kill Duane because of jealousy but in this film they just brush it off like nothing happened and they tried to say it was an accident. I also didn't like the story about a house of freaks that was going overboard with the whole freak thing It was nice but these other freaks were just ridiculous. How Can a human be born with a frog head?! Overall this film isn't a good sequel but it isn't that bad.


As far as sequels are concerned, this tongue-in-cheek horror/comedy from the original film's director Frank Henenlotter is pretty good. The film picks up right where the original leaves off, has a few characters from the original returning, and just like "Halloween 2" it resumes inside the hospital right after the events of the original film take place. The only problem is that, since so many years have passed since the original, the actors have obviously aged quite a bit so the idea that this is the actually occurring the very same night is a bit over the top but since the film is a comedy it really does not matter. Duane Bradley and his brother Belail are 'rescued' during an attempt to escape from the hospital by Granny Ruth and her grand daughter Susan. They then take refuge in Granny Ruth's house of 'freaks'. This is when things really begin to get strange. The make-up effects are really good and there is just the right amount of humor and horror combined in the design of the 'freaks' that it makes for a highly entertaining flick. Each resident takes on their own personality and even though they later turn murderous the viewer finds themselves not only sympathizing with Duane, his brother and the rest of the freaks, but you will actually find yourself rooting them on as they seek revenge against several reporters from a sleazy tabloid who threaten to expose the Bradleys as well as a sleazy old man who runs a 'freak show' and falsely claims to have captured Belail. The make-up effects and the murder sequences are quite bizarre but highly amusing. All in all this is an above average sequel that just seems to get stranger and stranger as it progresses but will have you both terrified and laughing uproariously.


Henenlotter's long-awaited (no, really!) follow-up to the 1982 classic BASKET CASE received mixed reactions among horror/gore fanatics everywhere. Many people hated this movie, because they felt the big budget and intentional laughs ruined the campy spirit of the original. Others loved BASKET CASE 2, because they just couldn't get enough of that cute little monstrosity Belial Bradley. I happen to be of the latter category.

BC2 picks up right where the original left off: hanging from the sign of the Hotel Broslin. The twins survive the fall and are hospitalized, and their existence becomes the most hyped-up story in the media. Seeking refuge from the cruel outside world, our heroes end up becoming the newest addition to Granny Ruth's house of "unique individuals", a place where they are kept safely sheltered and their whereabouts remain a secret to the public. Oh yeah, the house is also chock full of dozens of friendly freaks, including a female version of Belial named Eve.

This entry certainly has a much different feel than the original BASKET CASE, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The story is clever and stays true to the Bradley history as explained in the first movie. The special effects and make-up are simply fantastic--Belial looks more sinister than ever! Also, added to the parade of freakish monsters and gory murders is a delicately interwoven, good-natured sense of humor that somehow fits well with the rest of the film. Kudos to Frank Henenlotter, and kudos to the rest of the cast and crew, who all did an outstanding job.


I don't understand why everyone else thinks the sequels are a waste, I've just bought the second and third movies today on dvd. I've just finished watching the second movie for the first time, it's really good! In my opinion it really improves on the original and beats Frankenhooker in entertainment value although some of the ideas in Frankenhooker were possibly more interesting. It leads on directly from the original movie and yes it does look like a studio made film rather than the location shot original but that doesn't matter, what matters is the plot is not as simple as the original which really just told how they came into being and then they went around killing a few doctors. This has more humour it's more creepy in places the special effects are better. In fact it is all just better than the original, except of cause it doesn't have the rough edge of the ultra-low budget original but this is replaced with a much more enjoyable to watch film. I wasn't expecting much from this but what I got was a very good hour and a half's entertainment which was even sicker than the original! The 'baby' part was surprising! Ignore the other comments trust me, if you like Henenlotter's other movies and Bryan Yuzna's Society you're pretty likely to gain plenty of entertainment from this. I think the original had more emotion but this has more action, take your pick. I give it 8/10!


After the opening credits which are over a cool black and white drawing of Belial where he looks totally different to how he looks in the actual film, Basket Case 2 picks up right where the original Basket Case (1982) left off with Duane Bradley (Kevin Van Hentenryck, who returns for this sequel) and his deformed mutant Siamese twin brother lying in Times Square in front of the Broslin Hotel having just fell from their room window. They are rushed to hospital. The bizarre event is widely covered by the media. In their mansion and hideaway for various freaks, Granny Ruth Smoeller (Annie Ross) and her granddaughter Susan (Heather Rattray) watch the news broadcasts and decide they should help Duane and Belial. Ruth and Susan find Duane and Belial in front of the hospital as they have just walked out more or less unchallenged. Back at their mansion in New Jersey Ruth and Susan take both Duane and Belial in, make them feel welcome, show them around and introduce them to the other assorted freaks who reside there. Meanwhile back in Manhattan Lou (Jason Evers), the editor of a newspaper called the 'Judge and Jury' is putting pressure on one of his journalists named Marcie Elliott (Kathryn Meisle) to keep the Bradley twins story going as it sells newspapers and suggests she visits an old lady they used to write loads of story's about and who they nicknamed Dr. Freak, real name Ruth Smoeller. Together with her photographer Arty (Matt Mitler) she goes and sees Ruth, while there she also sees Duane and the potential for a really big story for herself. However, Duane, Belial, Ruth and the rest of the freaky residents aren't going to let a snooping reporter expose them and plan to stop her and anyone else she has told, by whatever means necessary!

Written and directed by Frank Henenlotter who was also responsible for the original, and like the original I really didn't think too much of it. The script is slightly better paced but at points in the film relegates Duane and Belial to mere cameos, I must confess I did like the ending though, quite a cool sequence to end on. The acting is mostly awful again especially Annie Ross as Granny Ruth, she is embarrassingly bad to watch as she tries to act motherly towards loads of freaks she keeps in the attic and don't get me started on the scene where she delivers a 'rousing' speech to the freaks in her basement they get to via a secret elevator! Duane has really aged since the original that was made 8 years prior to this sequel and because the film is supposed to be set immediately after the events of the original, the way he looked just felt wrong. The make up effects credited to Gabe Bartalos are, in my humble opinion terrible. The freaks themselves are just rubber/foam latex masks that are very silly looking and have very little movement or expression. I just think they look like cheap joke shop masks, very poor. Belial looks totally different in this film too, and he still looks ridiculous. There is very little gore or violence in it, and no nudity or sex. Well human nudity or sex anyway, which brings me to one of the most head-shakingly awful sequences I've ever had the misfortune to see. The sex scene between Belial and his freaky girlfriend Katy! As they grunt and moan they have sex against the sound of romantic piano music, the whole sequence is really embarrassing to watch, not sleazy, not disgusting, not funny and not disturbing just plain cringe-inducingly bad film making by Henenlotter and his crew. The film is a lot more professional looking than the original, but maybe that's the problem as it's also far less entertaining and interesting. I'm not a fan of the original but I will concede it had a certain something about it, this on the other hand doesn't. One to avoid I'm afraid.


**(WARNING,SPOILERS CONTAINED IN THE COMMENTS.READ AT YOUR OWN RISK IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!)**Why isn't this on the bottom 100 with the rest of the cr*p?I mean this was so bad,it caused my brain to hurt and bleed.Here is how it began.It picks up where the first left off.Duwayne(spelling correction)and Belial have taken a steep fall from the hotel,and the paramedics pick them up; and place them on the ambulance.They arrive at the hospital to be treated,but they don't stay for long.A person disguised as a hospital worker kidnaps them both,and puts them in a van.She turns out to be Granny Ruth,and both she and her Granddaughter,run a boarding house for freaks.They're introduced first to a three armed gargoyle,with a really bizarre laugh.They are soon introduced to other creatures who are disabled in the "looks" department.One of them looks like it had an xylophone crammed up its mouth.Why does another one look like the symbol for "The Morton Downey Jr.Show"?Its basically a really large mouth that can sing opera,as Granny Ruth demonstrates.One looks like a giant maggot with glasses,another one looks almost like Swamp Thing.There's another one that was really hairraising,and one has to ask questions.What exactly did they do to Mac Tonight?He was a half moon man, that used to be shown on older McDonalds commercials back in the late 80's and early 90's.Was this supposed to be funny?Did they have something against him?It looks like they washed his face with a cheese grater,or an SOS pad.How rude!Then Belial is introduced to a female,reptilian freak named Eve who's an invalid.They later fall in LURVE with each other.Granny says she found her lying beside the road one day.I dunno,but I think she accidently backed over Eve with a Van,while she was crossing the street.Never mind.Duwayne develops a crush on Ruth's granddaughter,Susan,but she refuses his advances.We later see three other freaks,not introduced earlier.Two of them show up in a scene,where Duwayne is examining his scars.The male freak looks like a mouse,and his wife looks like something ripped off from "Troll".Another freak that really takes the cake is the frog one.This crossed eyed thing,is seen secretly looking at the reporter.Enough about the freaks,here's what I detest about the movie SO much.First, the freaks and monstrositys look down right stupid and poorly designed.Maybe it was intentional to be funny,or maybe the costume designer has the creativity and skill of a broom handle.Second,one has to question how some of the human freaks came to be;especially the ones like the mouse and frog.The story is weak with some plot holes,and scenes don't make any sense.The mouse freak says "Uh Oh!" when he sees Duwayne staring at himself.Why?Belial laughs wickedly after Duwayne explains about wanting to be normal.Again, I ask why?Sure, they had a nosy reporter trying to expose them,but not much else.Gore and violence seems like it was just thrown in, to keep the audience awake.But even the violent scenes are poorly executed.The one liners thrown in by Duwayne after a violent act,made me groan in pain.I wanted to throw rotten eggs at him.At least Freddy Kruger knows how to throw in funny oneliners.Then there is the scene that made me cringe(BRRR).If there's something I never want to see in a movie,its this.I never want to see ugly people naked or have sex,and I never want to see ugly monsters naked or have sex.It had belial and Eve having sex,ARRGHH!Eww, that was something I can live without.I'd rather have my toes cut off!And that painful excuse for violin music sounded like it was played by a dog.Woof!The musical score is Laurie Anderson bad.When Duwayne tries to get it on with Susan,we find out,(SURPRISE)she's a marsupial.And she has a disfigured sock puppet pop in and out of her pouch.The biggest pisser of all, is the fact this was a ripoff of "Nightbreed",a much a better movie that came out a few years earlier.The freaks in that movie were better made,plus the story and plotting were well written.Watch "Nightbreed" instead of this dreck.0 stars for this junk.


did any part of this film make any sense to anyone at any time?? bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad film and no-one should see it. it made no sense at all but it was so funny. some of the best lines ever were in this film and the man who played duane was so twisted. i have the second and third films and this was the most screwed up out of any of these films. It ranks alongside zombi holocaust, mountain of the cannibal got, toolbox murders and the convent as the worst ever films and can anyone please shed light on the frog freak???? i didn't understand any part of this and why did they get away with it for so long.


Where do these good reviews come from? With words and phrases like "accomplished," "mesmerizing," "visually stunning," "reminds me of the best moments from Blade runner and 2001," "Astin acts his heart out." Sounds to me like some PR people are doing damage control on the old IMDb in the hopes they can salvage some kind of life for this film on DVD. "I can't believe it wasn't theatrically released." Well, I can, and we should thank the studio execs who decided to give this movie a basic cable burial. They did so to preserve social harmony. If the general public had paid box office price to watch Slipstream, riots would have surely ensued.

Make no mistake, people, this movie is BAD. The amazing directorial technique some seem to be so inexplicably impressed by is nothing but hack. Slow motion is used to signal the slowing down of time before a backwards trip, but it's also just used any old time to signify nothing other than the total running time needed to be longer to qualify as a feature-length film. Then there's the rotating camera. Why use the technique so much? Well they bought the rig, and darn it, they were going to use it. Stupid, horribly staged bank shootout? No worries, we've got a rotating camera. Stupid, horribly written and acted bus bathroom scene? No worries, we've got a rotating camera. And here's a dilemma, we've got two versions of a scene, one with the actors inside a car and one where they're outside, both are horribly written and acted, but we forgot to use the rotating camera. What do we do? No worries, we'll just inter-cut the two separate takes, and the lack of continuity will jar the stupider viewers into thinking that we "have a visual style." Yeah, that's right, I've been saying horribly acted. No one, in this movie is a great actor, by which I mean, has a great range. To the Astinites out there, sorry, but your boy is a serviceable actor at best. Without an extraordinary director and extraordinary writing, the mediocrity of Astin's performance is an unbearable distraction. He's had the good fortune to be in a few good movies in his career, but, left to his own devices, he will pick insipid little things like Slipstream simply because the script uses the phrase, "String Theory." This is a dangerous trait for a less-than amazing actor to possess. If he wises up, he will accept the role of supporting, character actor with grace. He cannot and should not attempt to carry a film.

To give a little credit to the actors, including Astin, there's not much you can do with writing as terrible as this. There are no character arcs to speak of, just starting points and end points. How did they get there? What's the motivation? Who could be that stupid? Who cares! Have you seen our rotating camera? And, to all you aspiring directors, when faced with a script with no feeling and actors phoning it in, don't forget to use slow-motion. It saves the writer from having to write something compelling and the actor from having to emote. The slower you get it, the more emotional weight a scene can carry. And if you manage to have a rotating camera with slow-motion, whoa boy! Oscar can't be far behind. Or at the very least, a BAFTA.

I've never, before watching Slipstream, felt it my duty to so harshly trash a film on the internet. I registered with IMDb because of it. Believe it or not, this is me at my most humanistic. Mankind should not have to watch this movie. If I can prevent one person, then I've done my part to make a better world.

For the love of all that is good, go rent Donny Darko and stay far away from the abomination known as Slipstream.


This is the kind of movie that could be decent, but becomes unwatchable because the director's so in love with his/her techniques. The plot's not groundbreaking, but it is different from most time travel movies where you keep going back in time. Unfortunately, the director likes the soundtrack and sloooooow motion so much he keeps using it over and over, resulting in something you may enjoy if you love meaningless pontification on our existence or what-not. That is, the film doesn't provide for it but David what's-his-name probably wants you to ponder and reminisce during the frequent slooow-motion rewinding of history. The premise is hard to believe already. It's a shame he decides to be clever with techniques. Over and over and over again.


Slipstream obviously is a bad movie. Now there are two types of bad movies. The first is of the Steven Seagal-category: meant to be cheap fun, and that's what it is. Poor film-making, but somehow fun to watch. The second category is where Slipstream fits into: meant to be original, innovative and artful yet all you get is mere pretentious junk. A Steven Seagal-picture knows it's terrible but doesn't want to be any more than terrible. Slipstream tries to be terrific but is actually the opposite, so in the end it's annoying as hell. The whole movie you're thinking: whoever made this should be sent to prison for insulting the intelligence of man. To sum up some of the things that went wrong with this flick: 1) the director uses all kinds of advanced techniques, mostly derived from The Matrix, for no purpose at all (a little like Swordfish but a thousand times worse), 2) the acting is totally unconvincing, people dying everywhere and the protagonists behaving like nothing is the matter, 3) huge plot holes everywhere, 4) an incredible load of editing errors, 5) everything is ripped from other movies, 6) this is the worst thing I've ever seen, 7) you shouldn't watch it, 8) forget all the positive comments around here. Thank you.


As i am alway interested in a sf movie, i picked this one up at the local video rental store. Never heard of slipstream but the 10 minute time travel plot seemed interesting.

This movie however fits straight into the top 10 worst movies ever. It really got it all : Very bad acting, small budget, horrible plot and the worst directing ever.

The director seems to be in love with guns and slow motion, in this movie you get to see more close-ups of guns than of the actors. Enormous amounts of bullets are shot at each other while standing up and with the actors looking like they are watching TV. No worries however, almost all shots miss completely.

Then there is the bus scene where the bad guys take hostages. The bus is supposed to be on a highway. Due to budget restrictions the highway has about 5 other cars on it instead of 500. Furthermore the police action is totally unbelievable.

The FBI agent runs around with the main character she just arrested without any regard for his safety. The rest of the police is checking out their guns while the director zooms in on the guns triggers, red dots and what not.

The rest of the movie is equally bad and unintentionally funny. The director is only good for making gun commercials.

Waste of 80 minutes and 1,60 euro.


I saw Slipstream at its World Premiere in London a few days ago and I'm quite surprised it didn't get a general release. The film has its faults but it maintained my interest to the end and was both well acted and stylishly directed. The time travel concept doesn't altogether add up and there is one sequence which still doesn't make any sense to me but this is science fiction and how many action films make much sense anyway? The important thing is it's good entertainment and thought provoking to boot. I would have preferred less shooting and exploding, especially in slow motion which makes for some confusion with the time travel sequences, and less bad language but these are minor complaints.

The best thing about Slipstream is its strong performances. Sean Astin can always be relied upon to put in a great characterisation and he makes the scientist hero Stuart likable and funny despite being dishonest, cowardly and nerdy. A very pleasant surprise given the film's violence is how funny it is, and Sean Astin is the main reason for this. His subtlety ensures that for the most part there isn't too much of a clash of tone between the action and the comedy and the movie's generous use of close-ups takes full advantage of his facial expressiveness. Indeed the film is a real treat for Sean's many female admirers; he cuts a fine dash in pilot's uniform, not to mention some impressively tight jeans! He dominates the film with his charisma and charm, giving it most of its heart, proving once again his ability to carry a film despite so rarely being given the chance to do so. Nor is he let down by the rest of the cast. Ivana Milicevic (from Paycheck) does a good job as Sarah the tough FBI officer, interacting effectively with Astin. Most surprising was how good Vinnie Jones was as the villain, making an entertaining combination of malice and humour. This was the only aspect where the different tones of the drama sat together awkwardly however; the crooks are a seriously vicious bunch (I could have done without the exploding bus driver; I hope this wasn't meant to be funny) but humour is used to make them at least a little bit sympathetic. Nevertheless in retrospect this doesn't turn out to be too much of a problem because of how the film ends.

One of the best features of Slipstream is its strong visual imagery. Sometimes it overreaches itself and becomes a little self-indulgent and disorienting but sometimes it is so striking it's almost poetic, especially a truly remarkable shot of a plane paused in motion as it crashes vertically into a mountain offset by a full moon. The script is serviceable and frequently witty. There is plenty of action and some genuine suspense. The ending remains in doubt until the final denouement. This isn't quite convincing but it doesn't really matter. Unusually for an action film you do care about the characters, especially Stuart, even though they themselves seem to care little about the carnage around them, and want them to survive. The final shot is enigmatic but very satisfying both dramatically and visually (especially for the aforementioned Astin admirers) and sends you out on a high. I would certainly want to see this film again, and soon.


Just watched this on DVD. Potentially a good idea, spoiled by woeful direction and some of the worst acting I have seen outside of a school play. Sean Astin puts in a reasonable performance and Vinnie Jones tries hard, but the rest of the cast was appalling. It's almost as if the principal cast was signed up, locations scouted, and then they knocked on doors at their locations and asked people if they wanted to be in a movie. The story had promise but it all fell in a heap. Awful. Time travel movies can tend to be disjointed, but if it's done well it all makes sense in the end. This makes sense it just doesn't seem worth the effort of watching. I ended up sticking with it till the end and was not rewarded for my efforts.


I cannot believe that anybody would rate this movie as even watchable, as I found it unbearably annoying and felt like jumping out a window 20 minutes in. It stars 2 actors whom I've thoroughly enjoyed in previous movies, Sean Astin (lotr fame, Rudy, Harrison Bergeron) and Vinnie Jones (of the guy Richie films lock stock and two smoking barrels and snatch), but they are put to utter waste. First and foremost the dialogue is horrendous. I found myself rolling my eyes at at every line coming out of more than a few characters, and the impossible stubbornness of a character towards certain situations was likable to them needing a person to fly by way of flapping their arms, and not taking no as an answer. The most idiotic and annoying aspect of the film is something that happens all throughout, making it consistently stupid. imagine a gunfight with 2 people standing 6 feet apart, firing away at each other in slow motion, and both missing. stupid right? imagine another 2 people to whom self-preservation is obviously #1, running out of a pair of doors, guns blazing into a sea of armed individuals, with big grins on their faces. All throughout this movie any scene in which a gun is fired is filmed in the stupidest most unrealistic way. everybody opens fire standing right out in the open with no cover, not flinching in the least as bullets fly by their heads. The most disturbing scene I found was one in which a group of 5 armed individuals are on a stationary bus in which they have taken many hostages, open up fire on the police, and the police return fire with no regard whatsoever for the hostages! Like I said, stupid movie, I feel stupider after watching it, and I would recommend it to nobody.


The relatively bad rating didn't stop me from watching this movie. I like sci-fi movies and time travelling is also compelling! As many people have stated here, the movie was off to a good start and all was well. However, this ended when with the spinning camera scene inside the bank. Totally ridiculous and uncalled for.

After that the story never really evolved and instead all we saw was a bad action movie without a shred of tension... I agree - they totally wasted a good idea for a movie! As one guy said before me, I too would like to travel back to before I watched this movie.

There are a lot of good comments about this movie, most of which are suspiciously positive about things in this movie that there really cannot be any discussion about whether they're good or not... I believe these people are giving us their subjective thoughts derived from their involvement in this project and therefore they are not to be trusted.

If you're interested in irritating flaws in this movie, you should read some of the other negative reviews really. It's all been said before. However, there is one thing I was wondering about. I'm far from an airplane expert, but would a plane really crash if someone fired a shout through one of the windows? Sure, it might be a bit windy in the cabin, but even that shouldn't be a problem due to the low altitude at which they were flying at the time. No air masks would be necessary anyway. As I said, i'm no expert, but this just seems wrong.

Finally, I'd just like to say that when Astin's character managed to drop the time travel PDA thingumajig for like the eleventh time, I really started to hate him...

3/10


I really believe a fourth grader could have written better dialog and plot. The idea for this movie creates tremendous potential which is totally wasted on sheer stupidity of conversation and illogical plot. Movies involving time travel can be tricky but if done right, can also be very thought provoking. This movie doesn't even try to go there. This movie, like so many scifi's today, is overly focused on special effects with the plot and dialog treated as an afterthought. I'll have to remember the name, David Van Eyssen, and make concerted efforts NOT to watch anything directed by him. Foolish waste of time. I really have nothing more to say about this movie but the submission filter wants more lines. So here they are.


This film is fun. What a refreshing change from the usual po faced Sci-Fi time travel theme. That's not to say that it doesn't have a serious side to it though. I loved Sean Astin's speech at the beginning which reminded me of some of the best moments from Blade Runner or 2001 but I also enjoyed the sheer energy of the film. Another thing I loved was the strong character played by Ivana Milicervic. As a female Sci-Fi fan (not the only one surely!!) it's great to see a woman kick butt especially against a guy like Vinnie Jones! My favourite part of the film was near the end - don't worry no spoiler here!! - but suffice to say there are some amazing visuals that combine with a clever story tie up and soaring score to make for a pretty spectacular climax. Don't miss this one or you'll be sorry.

Laetitia


When I saw this film, i couldn't believe what I saw, whoever backed this film with money and finance needs shooting, its just awful, utter dire. The ex hobbit's acting is like something out of an Australian sitcom you see at 2pm in the afternoon!, He must have been desperate to shed his "Mr. Frodo" Role to take this. Vinny Jones??? Well after the performance he put in this, he doesn't deserve to act ever again, the over use of the obviously "Tring too hard" cockney accent was an embarrassment to watch, as was the bit where each bank robber says his "I'm hard" sentence. The girl who played the FBI agent's acting was a laugh, when she walled up the hobbit after her partner was shot, that was hilarious. seriously though there should be a agency or watchdog kind of thing, that prevents movies as bad as this being allowed to be sold / distributed to the public. I don't care what Market or territory this film is aimed at it's so bad it's a rip off to rent it on DVD or see it at the cinema.


I like Sean Astin and Vinnie Jones but they could not save this film. There is little if any explanation as to how the Time Travel device works, the actors just throw out the terms String theory and worm holes. Astin says he shaved a rat and sent it back and it came back harry... Who the hell did he send it back to, himself who didn't know the rats was shaved? The dialog is written for a comic book and there are so many small logic mistakes it really distracted from the story. There is also this spinning camera effect used during the gun fight and in the bus bathroom which is nothing more than distracting. I hope Sean Astin doesn't become the next star to finish one of the best movies of all time (LOTR) only to end up making crappy B movies like this one.


there are bad movies. slipstream happens to be a real bad one. the idea itself is cool. but that's it. really. bad script. bat acting. stupid characters. plot holes.

come on, the bank-robbers in the bus start to sing? i just don't believe this is real. i feel i've just lost another 80 minutes precious time.

the explanation, which characters can travel back in time, and what will remain the same (clothes, money, but not the bullets) is a joke. probably the best part is, when the time-travel-ipod-like-gadget gets hooked on via USB to a laptop, because it's screen broke. you can probably think, that this movie is a spoof of its own. avoid this one.

go and watch "the butterfly effect".


With such a cool-looking DVD jacket, 2 well-known actors (Vinnie Jones and Sean Astin), and a cool premise (time travel and a bank robbery), I expected something similar to Nick Cage's "Next", but different.

Instead, we get a film that thinks it is like the "Matrix" with rotating camera slow-mo gun battles (where nobody takes cover), unbelievable dialog and bad casting (the male FBI partner looked like he just came from a soap commercial, and Sean Astin cannot cut it as a "genius" scientist).

The only one who saves face is Vinnie Jones, because, after all, he's Vinnie Jones and lends his natural ferocity to any role he's agreed to take on, including this crap.

The worst part about this film, however, was that it was confusing and badly written. First, Sean Astin spends about 10 minutes of the film trying to hit on the female bank teller. His lines are so creepy, but his face and manner seems so normal, it is not convincing. The first 10 minutes and I already was disgusted by the hero, who kept using his time-travel device to go back 10 minutes and, (like Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day") think of better lines to pick her up. But the pick-up lines go from bad to worse: "You are like a peach. So ripe. I want to just eat you," to, " All I can think of is how you look in black lace panties". Some genius. Supposed to be funny, but it's not. This icky courtship by the wunderkind is just repellent to watch, and already in the first 10 minutes, I hated the main character (Astin)! The female FBI agent gets hold of Astin's time machine device (which looks like a hand-held clear plastic cellphone/compass), realizes its power, and then..even though she knows there's going to be a takeover bank robbery in seconds, proceeds to... arrest Sean Astin?? And why 2 FBI agents would stand up in a bank and start firing their pistols at 4 body-armored, machine-gun wielding robbers, endangering everyone else in the bank unnecessarily is beyond me. But they do, and the film makes this already unbelievable sequence last for about 15 minutes with Matrix-like rotating-camera effects which make the heads appear more like video game AI avatars that fire at you in slow-mo, nobody getting hit the whole time. It's surreal and stupid. The lead robber makes a getaway (purloining the device), and leaves his friends in the bank--NO--they're already in the van, OK. So they drive away with the loot (or without? who cares!!) and end up crashing the van even though they are not being chased! They survive a tumbling crash without a single broken bone, even though they weren't wearing their seat belts. They get out, and instead of carjacking someone, they decide to...hijack a busload of people until the authorities arrive! Meanwhile the van blows up, of course.

This movie makes Cage's "Next" look like Oscar material.

Avoid this turkey. 2 points.


I'm sorry for the people who liked it, but there's is absolutely nothing good about this movie. Actors are really playing bad, quotes are stupid (even when they try to have some scientific background), often in the movie we have these vomiting camera shot making circles around the characters (the bank scene is the worst scene I have ever seen in a movie, I laughed all along). So if this unreal scene was not enough, we have that strange bus driver who runs when the FBI agent tries to cut off the bomb.

As I know we can find a lot of funny bad movies in the 80's, it's the first time I see a recent movie being so ridiculous.

Everyone should see this movie at least one time in his life, really. All young directors should see it, and learn how not to do.


Is there anyone here alive that HAS experienced time-traveling and knows from the experience what it feels like? If no, our discussing the matter is but a mind game. I may be wrong, but the only suspicious thing about this feature is its alleged intention to become a blockbuster (yes, the rotating camera and the slow mo!). Now, i never question the way a movie i like came into being. And i love movies with unexplainable holes, exaggerated gags, unmotivated behavior, unsophisticated dialogs, clicheyed punchlines, clumsy acting, because they are SO funny you can laugh yer ass off! (Of course if you put aside the Humpty Dumpty's posture for the time being - the highbrow attitude is not always a must to make one smile!) Besides, Slipstream has an above average soundtrack. Talking about homaging, ripping and other forms of cross-reference, i saw this movie as Master Samwise's dream he was having with the Ring on (something not shown in the LoTR). Roars of laughter. Though in fact this one could easy be 30% shorter simply for the riddim sake.


I rented this movie a few weeks ago from a neighbourhood video store. I was interested in it because of Sean Astin. He was great in The Lord Of The Rings. Anyway, because I had never heard of it, I thought it would be one of those movies that had good actors but a bad storyline. But I was amazed when I watched it at how much fun I was having. The film starts out with Sean Astin talking about time and how great it would be to be able to travel in time. Right there I thought I knew that the movie would be bad. Then it goes to Sean in some kind of high-tech room downloading software on to a kind of palm pilot. After this it shows two people, male and female following Sean somewhere. They follow him to a bank, where he withdraws something like $2000, and then begins hitting of the teller. It then shows him turning on his "palm pilot" and follows by the teller throwing her drink at him. He touches the "palm pilot" and time stops. He is just able to touch her drink before time begins to reverse and it goes back to her giving him the money. After this, the movie becomes a fun-filled ride through time and, I personally really had fun with it.


This was a good movie worth watching. The theme was above average and acting was OK. It could have been a great movie if it had used a lot less jerky action camera shots, had way too many freeze frames, and reversals time shots that took waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy toooooooo long. An interesting plot and a unexpected nice surprise ending makes watching the movie worthwhile!

If you liked Millennium you will like this, not up to a Stargate, but still a nice plot. Sean Astin could have been less whinny, and the British accents better if toned down with not so much pointless yelling. Would have rated it a lot higher if the lengthy, jerky, and dizzying camera time lapses were cut to a smooth one second blur like the One Second Watch in Trancers.


Recap: Stuart Conway, a talented programmer, has designed a cell-phone looking time machine. As he is not very popular anywhere he works, he decides to use the machine in a fraud, to repeatedly cash a paycheck in a bank. Interestingly enough he chooses his one and only love interest as the teller (imagine how happy she would be when she found out that he had been tricking her). Anyway, the FBI suspects Conway is up to something and agents Sarah Tanner and Jake Hallman, an item outside work as well, is at the bank watching him. Unfortunately for them, Winston Briggs and his gang has decided to rob the place. At first, Conway get shot after Tanner tries to stop the robbery, but he, with the help of Tanner only rewinds time. Second time it is instead Hallman that is fatally wounded, and this time Winston steals the time machine, although he doesn't know what it is. Tanner's only chance to save her love is Conway's machine, and she forces him to come with her and go after the machine.

Comment: A very interesting idea this, with the time altering and the robbery and all. Time travel is very tricky business however, and not surprisingly this movie gets it wrong. And by wrong, I mean they contradict themselves. For instance it is said that all that touches the machine and those and that who touches the one holding the machine goes back in time. All other don't remember the time altering. This is how the fraud works. Conway gets the money, holds them (but not the check) and rewinds the time, and then cashes the check again, still holding the money for the first time. But in the end (do not read further if you don't want to know the end) Tanner is saved when Conway, who is shot, activating the machine. But Tanner is touching Conway and should therefore not be affected by the time travel. That is she should still be wounded after the time jump. In fact, Conway himself is returned from the dead in this way, and there it is very important that he didn't have any contact with the machine. There are more examples, very evident ones, that should have been detected and corrected by the crew if they had any intention in doing a movie of decent quality. Worse still though is the behaviour of the police. I don't think there is one gunfight were the officers in the line of fire tries to get behind cover. In fact, it is rare that they even crouch to make a smaller target (this is also somewhat true for the robbers) having absolutely no thought about surviving the fight. Luckily enough, all involved is the worst shooters of all time and wouldn't hit a house if they were standing inside it. So the casualty rate is surprisingly low. In addition to that, they seem amateurish enough that they don't search a robber that has actually been shot (maybe they were so surprised they forgot), making it possible for Tanner not just to retrieve a vital clue but also a loaded gun from a corpse about to be sent to the morgue. All my hopes for the movie disappeared then.

It should be said though that there are some positive things. As said above, the idea is brilliant. The introduction, albeit a little slow, is beautiful and thoughtful. And I have no complaints about the special effects, in fact most of them are very good. But it can't make up for all the flaws in the story.

4/10


If someone was firing a machine gun at you just several yards away, would you just stand there firing a revolver, in return? Most folks with common sense realize doing something so ridiculous will get you cut to ribbons! But not the filmmakers of Slipstream! I could not believe my eyes! And this was portrayed over and over again, ad nauseum!

Memo to Hollywood: Machine gun wins over pistol, not the other way around. When being shot at make sure you, at least, attempt to find some cover! Wow, did the filmmakers ever bother to take any courses in physics while they were in High School? I guess not!

Nor was there a single character I could empathize with! In fact, the story's hero was so shallow and obnoxious, it ruined any fun one could possibly get from viewing this dull, plodding, two-dimensional piece of trash!


I've read so many bad reviews about this movie that it's a wonder I still went to see it. But in the end, I just had to, because I'm an absolute science fiction lover- so I took the risk.

When the movie starts you immediately see that this is no B-movie. The special effects are of a high standard, the acting is like you may expect from Hollywood actors and the music is damn good. This movie could very well have played in theaters, in my humble opinion.

So, why do I give it a 7 and not an 8? I give an 8 only to movies that still make me think about them the next day; and when I feel that I have to recommend them to others in the confidence that they will like it too. The only reason, therefore, that this movie isn't an 8 is because I LIKED the movie - but I'll probably have forgotten about it tomorrow. The idea behind the movie: someone has a small device that can take them back in time a few minutes-- could have served for some master plot that gets more and more complex, with twists and Ooohs and Aaahs-- making you laugh out loud, thinking "Why didn't I think about that?" and "Can it get ANY more complex/genius?"... But instead, that doesn't happen. The movie doesn't really explore a new level of story line, only possible with time travel. Afterwards you have the satisfaction that you have when you just saw another good bank robbery movie, or a hijack movie. Fun, but no more than that. Still, I wish the reviews had been better; they might have made a TV series of this and I would have definitely enjoyed that.


This film makes no pretense about being anything except a fairty-tale fantasy about time travel. You can see it in the visual language of the film, Japanimation translated into live action complete with all the camera moves, larger than life characters and primary color scheme. If you have a chance to see it in a theatre, as I did, go.

Slipstream's not about the real world but an alternative universe where time lost can be time regained and all your past mistakes erased. But it's not Primer and it's not meant to be. It's not exactly a spoof either -- more of a celebration parody of the sci fi action genre.

While it's ninety odd minutes of fast-paced entertainment on the one hand it doesn't take a genius to detect something else at work here, beneath the surface, a straight to video title actually intended for the initiated, the film literate. Note the Sergio Leone style soundtrack during the bank robbery. The glint in the actors' eyes when they deliver their lines. Vinny Jones' performance says it all, deliberately cockney and spoofing the Lock, Stock persona to perfection. And Astin's not far behind -- anyone notice the line on the plane when they're all about to go to hell in a handbasket? "Oh, yeah.. the plane's about to crash so I better do something!". If you don't get it by then you really weren't watching.

Read between the lines and you'll begin to see that this is a film about the sci-fi genre and about action films in general. If you don't get that, you've missed the point. Restart the DVD and watch it again. And maybe you'll really enjoy it this time. Don't be fooled, this is imaginative stuff and not your run of the mill heavy TV scifi. The last thing Slipstream does is take itself seriously. And that's a delight, at least to this reviewer who, along with three hundred other people in the same theater, was gobsmacked by this unexpected display of ingenuity.


Oh, that was a really bad film. I like sci-fi very much, but this one... this is not sci-fi, this is a low-budget, low-story, low-acting "low-film". During watching the film I was waiting for something good, a good scene, a new idea, or... something. Unfortunately the end credits came before I found anything like this. Such a bad plot, the conversations... how could somebody write it down and make a film from it? Did he/she mean it really? I don't understand why such films are born, and why the people like it. Maybe I'am wrong, or something.

If you want to absolutely rest your brain and see something dumb, without humor, without actions or drama, then this is your film, go for it.


Poor old Sean Astin. Hot off the success of LOTR he ends up doing this dull excuse for an action sci-fi movie.

Slipstream is dull. Not boring, just dull. I had hoped for more seeing as how Vinnie Jones was in it. But he is horribly hamstrung by not being able to swear properly. Substitutions for the F-Word such as "flaming" just aren't funny when they come out of his mouth. Reminded me all to much of a network version of Aliens I saw some years ago, where Hudson kept saying "Frickin'-A!" in a completely different voice than Bill Paxton's. At least here they got Vinnie to do the words. But it still sounds just wrong! Because of this, Vinnie isn't remotely funny in this film. Sean seems terribly ill at ease and the rest of the cast do nothing spectacular. In short, the movie is just dull.

I don't mind the silly physics of time travel, but I do dislike lack of common sense when movies are made. Here, we are told that the time-travel window to the past is just ten minutes long - something to do, we find out later, with not having enough power. But dear old Sam - sorry, Sean - has no problem using his device several times over in those ten minutes, effectively going back over the same ten minutes again and again. So it begs the question....if you can use the device repeatedly, why not go back 10 minutes, then another 10 minutes.... and so on? All in all, poorly thought out and badly executed. Let's hope this film drops into obscurity and does no harm either to Astin's or Jones's careers.


Slipstream is such an inventive and exciting piece of film-making that it is impossible to forget about it. The casting of every character involved was absolutely perfect, and the performances were spectacular. One of the best things about Slipstream is that it really makes you think. You can have in-depth conversations about the plausibility of the story-line and spend hours discussing the film. The story is awesome, it is delivered cleverly and entertainingly, and the movie as a whole is just so much FUN that it can be forgiven whatever number of time-travel discrepancies that may be found in the plot. I cannot recommend this roller-coaster ride of a movie enough.


OK, this movie was just thrown together, poorly thought out, and well just lazy.

1. Why not keep jumping back in 10 minute intervals? Why not make 2 devices with two slipstream radio towers or whatever the hell that was that was reversing the entire world from a radio tower????

2. Anything you touch goes with you? OK morons, you're touching the ground which touches the person next to you which touches EVERYTHING.

3. At the very last scene when it reverses you see him get shot outside of the bus and also the shake is thrown on his clothes at the bank from the girl. OK, that was in the original time line that he ERASED!! The shake was the only decent special effects they even had in it so they just HAD to show it again even though the completely ignored that it doesn't make sense. Just lazy LAZY LAZY!

4. THE SPECIAL EFFECTS SUCKED!!!! Oh, look at me, I can push rewind. Let's pause it for 20 seconds and waste time then rewind, wow we're such geniuses.

5. Can't all these government officials tell that he is activating the device? It sits there forever warming up and is controlled from a radio tower. Can't they simply shut it down???

6. How does flying in high elevation make it possible to bypass the 10 minute mark? He said it was impossible, but all of a sudden realizes it's not because they're 10,000 feet in the air? Excuse me?

I could go on and on and on and on about the holes in this story but I've already spent enough time and my blood pressure is rising.

This is the crap that I would expect from someone trying to milk lotr for every penny. They advertised the hell out of having Sean Aston in the film, that's the only reason it was even on the air. I would give anything to have that 2 hours of my life back and I feel stupider for watching it. The story is just completely full of holes. It's all based on time travel but is poorly thought out and just does not make sense at all.

If you're going to make a time travel movie, at least put SOME thought into it. They basically decided "push a button, go back in time. Who cares if it doesn't make sense, it's so k-rad cool doood!". LAME


We saw the film last week at the London Sci-Fi Festival. Didn't know much about it but we wanted to see what Sean Astin had been up to after LOTR. All I can say is that from the opening sequence with it's stunning slowed down camera work, wonderful soundtrack full of strange electronic sounds and Astin's poetic voice over on the nature of time and space we were hooked! I'm surprised to read here that the director David van Eyssen worked on such a small budget but I suppose necessity is the mother of invention as they say. Maybe it helps to restrict the budget and what you have here is an interesting example of something between indie and full blown Hollywood feature that relies on performances, script and directive skill rather than throwing cash at a slim idea to make yet another bland effects fest. I'd call this film a crowd pleaser and everybody seemed pretty excited when they left the theatre which is always a good sign.


You know it's a funny place the internet. All kinds of people, all kinds of opinions, some useful some not. Reading through a few of the reviews here I had to ask myself had we seen the same film as some of the reviewers? Take it from me this is a great film. It takes you on a roller coaster ride through time, forwards backwards sideways - sideways? Well OK sometimes you have to follow the plot closely but the people who got confused might be better off watching a straight space blaster. This is clever film making no mistake. And what's with the crazy criticism of the director Davis van Eyssen? This guy obviously has talent in spades and manages to create something that is visually stunning and exciting but that also carefully defines real characters and emotion. Finally I'm shocked to hear somebody having a go at Sean Astin. He acts his heart out in this film and shows real comic genius in the way he plays the main character. A class act. Let's get real here.


I actually registered an account with IMDb JUST so I could comment on this movie. I never actually thought I would say this in anything but jest, but... I am dumber for having seen this film.

The gunfight scenes are anything but exciting, with the actors staring out into space with pained expressions.

The time travel details were screwed up on multiple occasions. The focus was solely on SFX at the expense of a coherent theory of time travel. Folks, you don't have to get time travel right, but if you're gonna try, then stick to your own rules.

The soundtrack was strange to say the least. Yes, some movies can pull off an odd song at an unexpected time to great effect. When you try to do it throughout the film, it just becomes sloppy and confusing.

Poor acting, horrible science, bad directing and confusing soundtrack... This movie takes a fun premise and turns it into a painful experience.


"They Drive By Night" is difficult to find (as are many pre World War II British titles) but well worth the effort. What starts out as a standard crime drama takes a startling turn into horror in the final reel.

Ernest Thesiger (best known as Dr.Pretorius in 1935's "Bride of Frankenstein") adds the most interesting element to the film and to share any more would ruin the fun.

Emlyn Williams as ex-con Shorty Matthews carries the film. Pity this poor fellow...he has the worst luck in the world. Upon release from prison, his intention is to return to the arms of his girlfriend. Unfortunately, someone has murdered her that very day. Naturally, police think he is the killer.

Shorty takes to the road, hitchhiking rides with truck drivers, hoping to stay free long enough for the police to find the real killer. One of the uncredited stars of this film has to be rain! The constant pouring rain accentuates Shorty's troubles as he tries to clear his name and (excuse the pun) adds buckets of atmosphere to the movie.

Don't confuse the British "They Drive by Night" with the later US version starring Humphrey Bogart. The only thing they have in common is the presence of truck drivers.


The 1938 British noir suspenser 'They Drive by Night' is one of the best films I've ever seen. First, let's address that title: is this movie related to the same-named 1940 Humphrey Bogart movie? Yes, but very distantly. The 1938 'They Drive by Night' was produced by Warner Brothers' British unit, and offered for distribution Stateside. Jack L Warner declined to release this film in the States (he must have been insane!) ... but he was impressed by its title, and he ordered one of his American production units to make a film with that title. Of all the Hollywood studios, Warners were the most efficient at cannibalising their own material: the American 'They Drive by Night' is partially a warmed-over remake of the earlier Warners film 'Bordertown'. Both "Drive by Night"s depict the culture of long-distance lorry drivers ... but the British film captures that dark world much more believably.

'They Drive by Night' (the British one) is occasionally compared to Hitchcock's 'Frenzy' (both films deal with a sex maniac who uses his necktie to strangle women, and both depict an innocent man caught in the middle), but 'They Drive by Night' more closely resembles the novel by Arthur La Bern on which 'Frenzy' was based. (Unlike Hitchcock's film, the source novel takes place shortly after World War Two.) Emlyn Williams gives a standout performance as Shorty, a petty criminal who has just been released from prison, and who goes straight away to look up an old girlfriend. When he gets to her walk-up bedsit, he discovers she's just been killed by a sex murderer ... and the circumstances of the murder make Shorty the logical suspect. In Hitchcockian fashion, he tries to stay one jump ahead of the police while seeking the real killer.

SPOILER ALERT. The scene in which Shorty tries to waken his sleeping girlfriend ... only to discover that she's actually dead, and THEN to discover that she's been murdered ... is one of the most powerful sequences ever captured on film. As the horror of the situation sinks in, Shorty stands silently ... and far away, elsewhere in London, we hear a church clock chiming the hour. Pure brilliant, that is.

That wizened old ham actor Ernest Thesiger gives one of his ripest performances in this film ... and it's giving nothing away to reveal that Thesiger plays the murderer. He makes his first appearance late in the film, but the first time we see him he's lovingly updating his scrapbook of newspaper cuttings concerning the Necktie Strangler. Later, confronted by some damp kittens, he fusses over them ridiculously. ('Oh, the little imps!') My only complaint against Thesiger's performance is that the character he plays in this film is so swishy and effeminate (just as Thesiger was, in real life), I couldn't believe that he had any sexual interest in women ... even as murder victims.

'They Drive by Night' was directed by Arthur Woods, whose extremely promising career ended far too soon. (He was killed in action during the war.) I've no doubt that, if Woods had made films for only ten years more, he would be recognised as indisputably one of the very greatest film directors. I rate this fast-paced noir thriller 10 points out of 10 ... but it really ought to be rated an eleven!


They Drive By Night is an amazing British classic. It has to be one of the most sombre British films of the thirties.It is also extremely interesting as as a timepiece

The truck drivers and their local pit stops are all captured well in this slice of early British cinema. Shorty , played by Emlyn Williams in a superb performance is released from prison and sets off to see his girlfriend, he discovers her dead body in an amazingly powerful sequence. Terrified he will get the blame he goes on the run hitching a ride from a sympathetic truck driver.On the way he encounters an assortment of various characters , all diverse and entertaining. This film is wonderfully acted by all the cast. If you don't blink you will see William Hartnell who played TV's very first Dr. Who as a bus conductor.

Much later as the tone of the film completely changes from gripping thriller to downright terror he meets Ernest Thesiger who in a remarkable performance completely dominates the last 25 minutes of the film as a very eccentric chap indeed.It is a tragedy that the director Arthur B. Woods died so young, he displayed a unique talent. If you can search this film out you will be highly rewarded with a film that you will never forget.


"They Drive By Night" (not to be confused with the Bogart) had a rare showing in a New York theater in 2009, as part of a series on British film noir. The only reason the theater screening matters is because of crowd reaction. And the reaction to this film, especially the final sequences, was absolutely joyous.

The movie is at least 2/3rds over before one of the main characters appears, the former schoolmaster Walter Hoover, played by the unbelievably urbane, stick-figure-thin Ernest Thesiger. The camera starts on his hands, so you only see what he's doing-- pasting newspaper clippings about lurid murders into a scrapbook-- but when his face is finally revealed, the whole audience seemed to sit a bit straighter, and we stayed that way through the end, reacting with open delight to this character's every movement, his every phrase.

I mean to take nothing away from the star of the film, Emlyn Williams (who wrote almost as many films as he starred in), but Ernest Thesiger was capable of turning a lousy movie into a watchable one, and a good movie into an unforgettable one. This is definitely the latter.