It is totally unbelievable films like this are allowed to be made and packaged I'm in total shock, like somebody mentioned here this is not a low budget horror, but a camera prank film, it seemed like everyone was a joke, nobody was an actor, these people are not actors. everybody was a shallow character, all the girls had attitude. and the film looked dull and grainy, the bit where the girl is run over will make you laugh forever, the shocks are ridiculous to the point of needing to by yourself a new television because your current one has just caught a virus. please don't go buy it, and ignore the positive comments about this film because its basically the cast writing reviews about there own shitty film because there out of work. Directors who produce this crap are money making scammers, where is the law against this tripe. look at the acting of the hotel landlady and tell me you don't feel insulted by this rubbish.


"My whole situation reeks of cliché." I knew I was in for trouble when that line was uttered early in the film.

I've been around for the start of this kind of genre way back in the 1970s. I've seen 'em all. Granted, it takes a lot for me to be scared, and basically it takes a bit of originality to do that these days. Call me jaded if you like. But when a film like Dark Ride comes along with no regard for originality or even any attempt to really be good, it just makes me angry. When I'm not impressed by a film, I usually just don't comment here. But when I feel insulted, I feel I have to speak up.

Expendable "college-age" pretty teens with problems sums up the cast, and as for the plot? There was not even an attempt to try something new. You've seen it dozens of times before, and even those other ones weren't that good. Teens with the typical cliché personalities go on the road to spring break, and stop by an old amusement park to stay the night at the dark ride there. Just happens to be the same night a psychopath from a mental institution shows up, seems he used to live in that dark ride years ago. Arguments, pot smoking, sex, look-at-my-boobs, and lots and lots of running around and around (like the cast of Scooby Doo trapped in a warehouse/castle/candy factory/etc.) The company that put together this film, My2Centences (though backed by Lions Gate), must have only put 2 cents into this project. Remember how the "ride" was supposed to have cars on tracks? Um, did anyone actually see any tracks when the teens were roaming around, going in all kinds of directions, rooms, etc? Though in the prologue the car seemed to have a direct route, some overhead shots showed fog trying to hide that there were really no tracks. Even though Bill warned a gal to watch out for the tracks (much later, at that), you could clearly see on the floor there weren't any, and while they went into other rooms there was no logic to the place, no real directional way that the tracks would be able to take a car around in them. There were plenty of shots of things hanging and dropping down, dummies popping up nowhere near where the ride would have been going....you get the idea. It was a set that was a bunch of walls, halls, and stairs that didn't have any use. Lots of fog too to make the set look more busy. While Jim (dufus guy) was in the basement trying to fix the power later, there was no reason electrically powered dummies and items would be there in the first place. Oh, yeah, actually just for the camera to show a close-up of to fill in time and "scares."

Surprises? None to speak of. When Bill ran off and was never seen again until the end, how could any viewer not be suspicious? Reminded me of Farley Granger disappearing early in The Prowler (1981) and even when a character in Scream 2 was just NOT there for 2/3 of the film and shows up again near the end.

Some that have praised Dark Ride (one person on here actually calling it a modern masterpiece!) go on about it being an homage to those 70s and 80s slasher flicks, including The Funhouse (which didn't scare me when I saw its initial run in theatres in 1981). Honoring other films that are supposed to be classics is one thing, but just taking elements from them to slop together a new film with no real care for its own personality is quite another. I could just imagine the folks responsible for Dark Ride saying "give the kids what they usually will go for: violence, gore, pot smoking, and boobs (well, usually ignoring what the gals would want to see nudity-wise). They'll easily be distracted by those things and probably won't notice there's not much else going for this." Frankly, I'm surprised I didn't hear the word DUDE throughout the film.

I like that the After Dark horrorfest opted for indie projects in 2006 (even if it was more economical), and some had real merit to them, particularly Unrest, Reincarnated, The Abandoned, and The Hamiltons (Penny Dreadful was fun enough, just padded though with extra victims). Dark Ride was the worst of the lot for me. I can forgive a film for being bad if they actually TRIED to do something creative, but Dark Ride was a clichéd, tired, and tedious disposable project. I have a suspicion that Lions Gate would have originally just released this as a DTV title, but since they were going to be involved releasing the After Dark titles, they forced Dark Ride into the bunch (notice how "A Lions Gate Film" was on the beginning of the credits, while basically the other After Dark titles didn't). They should not have touted that these films were too much or "too graphic" for most audiences -- if that were the case then these would all be NC-17. I don't listen to hype, and went into these films on my own, finding some worthy of being very creative and some just plain wastes of time (like The Gravedancers and Wicked Little Things being no more than "Sci-Fi Channel productions" that you'd watch on a Saturday night).

You win some, you lose some. Dark Ride showed that someone paid a lot of people to do a project that just doesn't show any kind of care was put into it: 'just get it done and chuck it out to the kids.'


Movie starts out in 1989 New Jersey. Two twin girls are murdered in a carnival ride called "Dark Ride"--a trip through various horror scenes. The killer is caught and sentenced to life imprisonment and the ride is closed down. Almost 20 years later a bunch of college kids decide (for no good reason) to break into the closed ride one night. And (wouldn't you know it?) the killer breaks out of his institution he's in. Three guesses where he goes.

This movie is positively insulting to any horror movie fan. The plot has been done to death and ALL the characters are by the numbers--there's the hot guy (Steve), the stoner (Jim), the movie quoting nerd (Bill), the hot blonde (Liz) and the hot brainy brunette (Cathy). They also pick up a blonde hitchhiker (Jen) who, for no reason other than to pad the running time, gives out a looonnngggg stupid monologue. Once these idiots get into the ride it just turns into a formula yawn-inducing mess with the killer stalking and killing them. Also there are these long sequences with these morons stumbling through the ride. They're not needed--they just eat up time. Really--this was done to death in the 1980s. Do we need a rehash of it? There's also a pointless nude scene which was so obviously and stupidly shoved in that I felt sorry for the actress. The gore scenes had plenty of blood but were incredibly faked.

Acting varies. David Rogers is terrible as Steve and Alex Solovitz as Jim wasn't much better (although he does try--Rogers doesn't). Renna is just OK as Bill and Andrea Bogart is WAY over the top as Jen. Her constant screaming and over acting got on my nerves fast. The only good acting was by Jamie-Lynn DiScala as Cathy. There is also a very good score and some cute directorial touches. But--all in all--this is a slow, boring horror film that you've seen hundreds of time before--only better. I fast-forwarded through a good portion of this. Skip it.


In 1989, in New Jersey, two sisters are killed in a ghost train in the greatest attraction of the Asbury Park, the Dark Ride. The police arrest the serial killer that is sentenced to life in a mental institution; finds fourteen other bodies hidden in the spot and the justice shuts-down the attraction. Fourteen years later, a group of five friends and a hitchhiker decides to visit the amusement park that is offering free lodging in its reopening. Meanwhile, the psychopath escapes from the asylum and while the group is inside the Dark Ride, they are chased and killed by the murderer.

The slasher "Dark Ride" is a boring collection of clichés. Whatever the viewer may expect in a B-movie of the genre, he or she will find in this flick: bad acting, poor screenplay and budget, breasts, screams, the victims splitting from the group and killed one by one, "unexpected" twist etc. In the end, watching this flick is a pure waste of time. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Trem Fantasma" ("Ghost Train")


Horror fans -- do NOT believe the hype and false reviews of this movie.

I enjoy horror indies. I enjoy campy horror. Campy can be great fun. This is not camp, this is CRAP.

Despite knowing that Jamie-Lynn can act under some circumstances, this movie has to have the worst acting I've seen this year. The actors have no screen presence, their fear is totally unconvincing, and they are only funny unintentionally.

A fan of campy horror can probably suffer through the distractingly horrid acting, but the worst sin this movie commits is that it doesn't even allow itself to be cliché. Where's the maniac-cam? Where is the beautiful, terrified, but somehow impressively heroic female lead? How about some nudity (the one sexual scene is offensively stupid)? How about having at least one likable character so we, as the audience, can care at all about what happens?

This movie was created by filming 70 minutes of fun house ghouls and fog plus 10 minutes of reality-show-quality acting plus 10 minutes of idiotic plot development.

This movie wouldn't be worth watching for free. It's so bad that it shouldn't just go straight to video; it should go straight to the garbage.


Aside from being a total rip-off of the Halloween series (escaped mental patient returns home; a sibling is attached in the plot line; the killer wears a mask and coveralls, doesn't talk, appears and disappears, gets purposely rammed by a car, etc), the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the whole crazy hitchhiker part; the main character escapes by jumping out a window), House of 1,000 Corpses (the neon lighting and the whole "horror ride" setting, the hitchhiker looking like Baby and wearing a cowboy hat and having an annoying laugh), the movie itself was cliché to hell! I was able to say lines before the characters because it was so obvious where the story was going (i.e. "they were my cousins"). I was also able to say, "insert tedious cheap scare... now" and it would always happen. The script was awful! The characters were saying the cheapest one-liners and moronic high-school dialogue that I had to wonder how it got greenlighted. Someone else wrote that it reminded them of an episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark - and it really did! The reason why for me was because it seemed like little more than a cheap Canadian kids sit-com slightly vamped up with some gore and a few breast shots. Did it seem a little strange to anyone that the whole ride was connected to a few wires? I mean, flip one switch and you have endless fog, strobe lights, music, etc? The ending was obvious too. Did the same people make this that made that Gawd-awful Canadian TV version of Carrie? I'm disappointed Christopher Young's name and music were attached to this. Looks like that girl from the Sopranos and the kid from The Sandlot have nothing to look forward to in the way of acting careers, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was a sequel, what with the way it was all set up. Hey Lion's Gate, I want my money back, and how about paying royalties to John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper and Rob Zombie while you're at it?


Absolutely wretched. Horrid acting, terrible story, unforgivable lighting, and not one of the victims was remotely likable. The villain was absent and undeveloped for so much of the movie one could not even even cheer for *him*!

The (so-called) story is about a bunch of (frighteningly aged) teenagers, who head out for a Spring Break vacation. They head out in an awesome van, run into a crazy old eccentric, and even pick up a crazy hitchhiker, before deciding to stay the night in a legendary 'Dark Ride', which is now being re-opened despite the fact that some nutjob murdered sixteen people there not even twenty years ago. Said nutjob escaped the loony-bin (complete with flickering lights and sadistic, stupid nurses)that very night! Unless you are as vapid, shallow, and stereotyped as the cast, you'll lack the ability to emphasize with any of them, instead praying for supposedly teen-aged souls to be snuffed out in horrible ways. Whomever conceived this abortion lacked the ability to create suspense, though, and instead you are simply bored to tears waiting for some sort of blood, mayhem, and pain. Please, hurt these people. Please. I can't.

"Each year, movies are produced which are never seen by the public..." Proclaims the Horrorfest ads. Yeah. For a reason. This cliché-ridden mess should never have received wide theatrical release, and instead lingered in the forgotten bargain bin of Wal-Mart.


I've been a fan of horror for decades. I have appreciated some attempts by some newcomers to the genre. Some fall flat on their face. Others hit the ground running. Some of the former have an excuse however. You can tell when production level is a hindrance to relaying a well executed plan and if some of these film makers were to get their hands on decent resources I'm pretty sure their final project would be much more enjoyable.

With Dark Ride we have the unfortunate opposite and it left me loathing the production for one simple fact. These people HAD the production value to create a very effective horror film and they spoiled it with a script that pretty much sucked from beginning to end.

Most people call it cliché. There's a fine line between cliché and stupidity. I read an earlier review that hit the nail on the head. Not ONE of these characters had any redeeming qualities about them. If you cannot make someone likable after 40 minutes of character development? There's a problem. It wasn't as much bad acting as it was lame dialogue. At times I could almost sense the cast being embarrassed with their lines as they were delivered.

Things were going so-so up until the part where the characters realize WHY they were at the park to begin with. At that point I started slightly cocking my head like a confused puppy while watching.

There is obviously a comparison to Tobe Hooper's early 80's Funhouse. Funhouse gave the audience the feeling that these people were really trapped. I couldn't buy the character's peril in Dark Ride since I knew that the door keeping them locked in was mere plywood and if even one of the girls put a boot to it, it would have disintegrated and that would have been the end. This is one of many problems that plagued this movie. If their confinement was actually impregnable after the cast exhausted all options of getting out, then the terror would have been present. Imagine how House on Haunted Hill (1999) would have been if the lockdown doors were cardboard and everyone panicked, scrambled to get out without trying to bust through it.

If I can end on a positive note it would be to say that the gore in the movie was very well done. We get lots of messy disembowelments, a nice head splitting, decapitation and more. The gorehound in me give props to the special effects people. This is the first of the '8 movies to die for' that I have watched. I'm hoping the others will be much better.


Okay, by now we all know that the whole "Horrorfest 8 Films To Die For" thing was a shameless ploy. They tried to get people to pay to see movies that, in their words, were "too terrifying" for normal audiences. The sad truth is that they were all mediocre horror films that couldn't find distribution and weren't nearly good enough to release on a wide scale. Apparently, some people did go to see them, money was made and the gimmick was fun for the horror fanatics. Long live William Castle.

But that was then. Now that they're on DVD, we can all rate and review them for what they are. I've just finished watching one of the eight, Dark Ride, and I have to say that I am astonished and amazed that this movie received ANY kind of release but not for the reason you might think. I didn't mind the dumb plot, the wretched acting, the stupidity of the characters and the retarded ending. I expect all of those things when watching a movie like this. It's part of the fun.

My amazement came from watching this and realizing very quickly that the people who made it have absolutely no idea how to shoot a movie. From a technical standpoint, it's an abomination. If you don't believe me, watch it and try to keep track of how many times shots go out of focus because the cameraman (or the director, who can say) has no idea what he's doing. Watch the scene at the gas station and count how many times the camera or the shadow of the camera creeps into the shot. I lost count. At one point, as Jamie-Lynn's character is wandering through the ride, she falls down...and the camera completely misses it. Here's some advice for the director: if you're going to make a movie, hire someone who can pull off the shots you want (by the way, Mr. Singer, you weren't fooling anyone with that awful cut you tried to pull off for the shot of the van's headlight). Most low-budget horror movies come off as amateurish but shoddy, careless film-making like this is inexcusable.

Look, I know that there are things that directors do to save time when shooting a low-budget film. One of them is to set the camera up in one spot and capture all of the action from one angle, zooming in to each actor so you can capture all of the coverage without a bunch of different set-ups. The dorm room scene in the beginning is a prime example of this (notice that we only see one side of the room) and so is the gas station scene (once they had the camera on the dolly, they obviously didn't have the time to do another set-up so everything in the parking lot is shot from the left). Why would this bother me, you ask? Because when a film gets ANY kind of theatrical release (even if it's only a week) and the distributor (especially a distributor as big as Lion's Gate) asks people to pay $9.00 to see it, I expect that film to adhere to a certain amount of professionalism. Calling this a professional film is like calling Adolf Hitler a sweetiepie. It just ain't true.

Just a couple of things on the DVD that I thought were hilarious. If you look on the back of the DVD box, you'll notice that the word "attraction" is spelled wrong (talk about inexcusable and amateurish) and just try not to laugh when, in the special features, one of the writers (the one with the man boobs) admits that it took him four months(!) to write the script.

Oh, and I've been around long enough to realize that most of the "great" reviews this movie has received on this site (A Classic! A Thrill Ride! Awesome! Old-School Horror At It(sic) Finest!!!) are all from people involved with the film or friends and family of the filmmakers. Guys, that is getting so old. It doesn't fool anybody anymore.


I have seen this movie about a week ago.And I can honestly say I never seen worst movie in my life!!I wouldn't recommend it even if it's the last movie you have.The plot is simple and I was able to make up what is going to happen next, and you know what I was right.I'm not going to write anything about the story itself because there is nothing to write about!!The one thing I'm going to say is that this is the first movie I couldn't stand and turned it off before the end!!Actors are trying very hard to make it work but there is nothing they could do to save this movie.For real, even if Bruce Willis,Al Pacino or Jack Nicolson were playing one of the main characters I wouldn't gave it one more star.


Many people might be under the concept that to make a good horror film there has to be lots of killing, lots of gore and torture. This is not true and a perfect example is Dark Ride.

Dark Ride has the gore, the violence and killings, but this does not make it a good horror film. It seems that they tried to give it a campy look "a la Texas Chainsaw" putting a group of young kids driving in an old Van, then picking up a hitchhiker... only to be slaughtered as the movie goes into its "dark ride".

The plot lacks originality, the acting is the worst I have seen, the characters have no personality or screen presence whatsoever. There is no connection between the characters and the audience. The dialogue is pathetic and in occasions falls in the ridicule.

I was truly disappointed about this movie as it only tries to copy other horror gems and lacks all the elements to make it a worthy or viewable film.

-Macabro


A bunch of kids of indeterminate age take a cross country trip to, uh, New Orleans? Because they end up in Asbury Park, NJ. They WERE going to New Orleans, right? But they end up in Asbury Park because one finds a pamphlet in a restroom that trumpets the opening of the Dark Ride, a boardwalk attraction that shut down many years ago after twin sisters got killed. So of course the whole gang detours to this place and guess what? Most of them get killed too, by this hulking loony that's just escaped from a psychiatric hospital. And this particular hulking loony grew up inside this Dark Ride, being that he didn't look right so he was kept hidden. Maybe this is a "loving" tribute the the slasher films of the 80's, like The Funhouse & all those, but it's a dull tribute and falls pretty flat. The killer wears a little tiny face pulled off of a mannequin, which is sort of a nice touch but there's your Michael & Jason...although this thing is called Jonah. And it also seems like perhaps none of this "detour" was random either, it was planned out by someone & therein lies the twist of this, which by the point it's revealed you are so bored you won't care or you already saw it coming. I though I'd seen the worst of the "8 Films to Die For" already but now that I've proved I haven't I think I'll just stop before I waste any more time on them. "Abandoned" & "Reincarnation" are worth your time, but it sure seems like most of the rest are not. 3 out of 10.


Dark Ride features a gruesome opening sequence, a young woman being decapitated whilst delivering a blow job, and an outstanding vertical head slicemoments of gore which would automatically earn a movie a recommendation from me. Unfortunately, the film as a whole is so stale that it ends up as just one more reason for me to be wary of Lionsgate releases.

A blatant rip-off of Tobe Hooper's The Funhouse (1981), Dark Ride sees a bunch of obnoxious teenagers (hot women, some studs, and a guy who looks like an unhealthy, ginger Elijah Wood) being murdered by a hulking psycho after opting to spend the night in an abandoned fairground ride. Whilst The Funhouse wasn't exactly the greatest example of the slasher genre, it could at least boast a modicum of originality and a style of its own; writer/director Craig Singer, on the other hand, clearly has very few fresh ideas, and is content to plagiarise both the look and feel of Hoopers' film.

Less savvy horror fans unaware of the film's obvious cribbing might get a kick out of Dark Ride, but for those in the know, my advice is to save yourself some time and money and just enjoy the best bits on YouTube.


Jamie-Lynn Sigler stars in the story of some friends on a road trip who run afoul of an escaped mental patient who was sent away for killing several people at a haunted house ride on the Jersey shore. By the book and by the numbers story of the sort that hasn't been made in the last twenty years. With echoes to House of 1000 Corpses, Funhouse and other similarly set films this is the sort of thing that we've all seen before, assuming we've been watching horror films for an period of time. Is it bad? no not really, but its far from gripping simply because its so similar to stuff we've seen before. There are some flashes in this film of what might have been-shots small sequences or an odd twist- that signal what might have been. Worth a look on cable (it runs frequently on SCIFI) I wouldn't go out of my way to look for it. This is the weakest, or perhaps the most disappointing of the four 8 Films to Die For from the first year that I've seen.


I love horror movies, I really do. But this film was pathetic. I can't believe it got into horror fest. It had no story. A few teenagers go in, almost everyone dies, that's it, that's the whole story right there. And also, it took thing's from real life and put it in a movie. The ending couldn't have been any dumber. I mean, This "Jonah" is the dumbest horror movie character I've ever seen. It has no moral, It has no plot, It's rising action is just killing and killing and killing. It almost makes you miserable the whole movie. When it's over, you don't feel like you learned anything, you don't feel like you enjoyed it, you don't feel relieved when it's over. I just wanna give the director, the crew, and all of the actors a few fists to the head.


Where to begin, OK easy. The gore was ridiculous and the "beheading" looked like it was planned by a third grader with no knowledge of human anatomy. The acting was bad I think, if any of them were acting and not just wandering through the picture. I believe that the middle portion of this was filmed by three different directors. Upon seeing what they had wrought all three committed suicide when they were overcome with deserved guilt. Along comes a fourth director with no conscience, probably one who makes the Disney tween shows, and he takes all three of the others' work and pastes it together. How else can one explain our "heroine" suddenly stopping and declaring she would find the others, but then abandon her friend and return to a simpering useless twit again. And the ending made absolutely no sense. Surprise who else is a killer, but then lets the girl go after she killed his brother, and after he killed a guy for facing his brother?!?


Okay, maybe a lot of you guys already mentioned this (I haven't read all the comments) but there is a story by Dean Koontz telling something similar. A funhouse, a bunch of young kids and a murderer, a freak of nature... Greaaaat! The story kicks in! I thought... this could be wonderful cinema. Well, it wasn't! I never saw a worse movie than this one (or perhaps if I count in I'll always know what you did last summer, this would come in second place)!! I can't understand why this title was in the After Dark Horrorfest? There were so many other good ones left out... I don't say there were no good parts in it... a loved the story 'bout the twins in the beginning and the sex scene was a big laugh (especially the climax) but that was it. No good acting, no good plot, a good story just turned into a bad movie! I wasn't scared at all... Maybe I ask too much of a movie... I donno...


Dark Ride is the story of a group of friends on a road trip who decide to take a detour to visit an amusement park called, fittingly enough, "Dark Ride". Of course, a murderous psychopath just happens to show up the same night (who would have guessed it?).

Dark Ride is a film that is full of clichés, presumably in some kind of homage to the '80's slasher films, but it just doesn't work for me in this one. The dialog at times is ludicrous. I didn't like any of the characters and we've seen them all before in so many other films (by different names perhaps). There were a few jump scares, a creative killing or two, and some interesting props.

Overall though, while it might be worth a watch once either on TV or at a friend's (when they've rented it), it's not one that I would generally recommend.


I was really rooting for this one. I was rooting for all the "8 Films To Die For" even though I thought they should at least have made them double features or something to give an incentive for going to them all (they were all full price for unproven films/filmmakers...huh?)

The idea is great--any excuse to show a cinematic version of a haunted house ride with stupid victims running around it, on the run from a deranged mutant is welcome. Yes, it has already been done (in "Funhouse," which this so obviously recalls it's a wonder they didn't get sued), but...umm...so has the slasher genre...again and again and again. The Japanese horror genre too. There's really little more to add to the genre beyond the individual vision of the filmmaker, which will make or break a low budget film. The budget of "Dark Ride" was obviously low but not THAT low; they got the universal back-lot and locations at the Santa Monica Pier and the dark ride itself is really pretty cool--even though technically it doesn't look like a "ride" at all--the tracks disappeared early on and never returned, technically the "ride" is a walk through then...isn't it?

And that's the problem here. I'm not sure if it's the inexperience of the director (he seems to have enough work under his belt to know better) or the lack of funds or something else but...this movie "feels" a lot cheaper than it looks. There's a generous dosage of gore, some great fx (the death of Andrea Bogart's character is genuinely alarming, if hard to...well...swallow...). The sets are cool, lighting. This isn't a z-grade film...but it FEELS like one. The acting is pretty weak overall. Not a big deal in a film of this kind and the cast is no less serviceable than a typical low-budget 80's slasher... but there's a point where acting becomes so bad it pulls you out of the film. Alex Solowitz as a would-be stoner-type seems to be trying to channel Christian Slater doing Nicholson and his method-y "sniffing" routine becomes wearisome, quickly. Really the only stand out is Andrea Bogart, and only because of a hilarious non-sequiter moment where she goes berserk in a van briefly. I look forward to seeing her doing similar business (much more of it actually) in future work, she's great, recalling "Baby Firefly" from "House Of 1,000 Corpses."

But again, the direction gets in the way of enjoyment of the film...it's inexcusable to have shots that are out of focus or framed wrong nowadays. There's a scene mid-way through where all the characters are in the dark ride talking in panic to one another and you absolutely lose your sense of place because of the way it's shot and edited...it reminds me of the parody short films shown at the beginning of the brilliant "The Big Picture" and I actually had to laugh after a certain point, it went on so long. Surely SOMEONE knew how to shoot business like this properly? There's some confusion with whether or not it's raining, there's some really poor choices of p.o.v. (the kids in the van could see the security guard in wide shot AND close up...and he wasn't aware of their presence?) and the usual plot holes and required suspension of disbelief. It also didn't look right...many shots had the appearance of high-def video and I was surprised to find, in the supplementary features, that it was actually shot on film.

Having said that, there was a lot going for this...some nice shock surprises (albeit totally unbelievable, if the killer is supernatural like Michael Meyers it needs to be established, how

else could he be EVERYwhere at the same time, and know the kids' next moves before they make them?). The aforementioned death of Andrea Bogart, the killing of the asylum workers, the set up (if not execution) with the twins in the beginning. I enjoyed watching the movie and that's worth something, it didn't make me angry like most poorly done low-budget fare. It delivered some solid splatter and that's worth the price of a cheap rental. I'm glad for any filmmaker who actually gets his film made, period. It's just that "Dark Ride" comes close enough without attaining its goals to not qualify as being "good" and I'm definitely glad I didn't pay full price to see this in a theater, I'd have felt cheated. This is not, in "technical" speak, a "real" movie that deserves to be paid full price for, it's direct-to-DVD/cable fare.

One last note--it was very confusing that this was supposed to be taking place in the southeast but the location was the Santa Monica pier...not quite the same as trying to pass off Toronto for New York but close.

The sound design, by the way, was as unfortunately clunky as the direction but the soundtrack itself was really beautifully done...chilling, inventive and very effective.


This is simply a terrible film. I noticed it was from the producers of saw and although it was a straight to DVD film I thought it couldn't be terrible due to the quality of the production team. How wrong I was... terrible actors who seemed to not have read the most basic of scripts which gave no background to the motivations of the killer but made it obvious that one of the main characters was the killer's brother!!! Wow, really original!!! Just on the whole a terrible, terrible, film which claimed it was trying to be a film like the old 80s slashers but the only thing similar was the minuscule budget. In my opinion the producers stole eleven pounds from me and I just hope it doesn't go towards a sequel for this seemingly improvised pile of mistakes.


I have seen most of the After-Dark Horror-Fest movies and this one is the worst. It is uneven and really does not flow well. The acting is stale and the story is a little unbelievable.

The only reason I give this movie more than one star is because the killer is pretty awesome. If there was more of the killer in the movie, it may have had a better result. There are a few scenes that work and the blood and gore is a plus. But, the movie fails to do anything but play on stereotypes and show the same teenagers do stupid things just to get killed in the end.

This movie is pretty bad.


The "Dark Ride" is a grisly terrifying amusement park ride in Asbury Park, New Jersey. Ten years after brutally murdering two girls during the ride, as well as hiding other victims on or near the premises; a sick killer escapes from his cell in a mental institution. The ride is being re-opened after all these years and the gruesome slayer wants to reclaim his former turf. A group of college friends on a road trip decide to save some motel rent by breaking into and staying the night inside the "Dark Ride". Unaware of what is really in store for them, they have little hope of remembering the night. The players include: Jamie-Lynn Sigler, Patrick Renna, Andrea Bogart, Jennifer Tisdale, David Rogers and Alex Solowitz.


There is really very little to recommend this film. It's like an extended episode of Scooy Doo with a bit of gore. A cast of relative unknowns (all of them, apart from the girl from The Sopranos) injured to some extent by their falls out of the ugly tree (a younger Paul Rudd lookalike with a wonky eye?)

You really don't care who lives or dies - in fact I was hoping they'd all be dead by the end. In a movie with a runtime of 83 minutes before the credits roll, you'd expect the first main character would die a little sooner than 60 minutes in. Instead we have to suffer an hour of overacting and bad dialogue. The main 'twist' is blatantly obvious from the point at which they give the first 'clue' (they may as well have had Bill holding up a sign saying 'I am the younger brother' for all the subtlety it contained). There is no tension, generic scares from things suddenly popping out at you (in a ghost train, who'da thunk it?) and some of the gore effects look like they were done 25 years ago. When Jen takes off her shirt for the obligatory breast-shot, the camera pans up and down her torso for NO other reason than to get a close up. It's not sexy, it's like watching a medical documentary, or when the woman runs across the screen in Airplane! - it's that pointless.

The ending is ridiculous, the film just STOPS, like they ran out of money and couldn't afford to film anymore. There are more plot holes than a graveyard. Don't bother with this movie.


This was an attempt to return to a genre that officially died in the late 90s - The slasher. Introduce teenage characters that no one cares about in any facet, make them doing "bad" things and getting killed for doing it. I thought about clicking the spoiler button, because that pretty much sums up the movie.

While this probably would have made a decent video game or short story, it's definitely didn't make the trip from screenplay to screen without introducing every slasher cliché imaginable. It's not worth your money for the DVD, nor was it really worth the rental fees. If you've watched any of the retro slashers, skip this one.


If horror films were graded on a curve and categorized into five year intervals, then I would say Dark Ride was average in comparison to what we've been getting out of Hollywood. Far from great, it still kept my interest and I made it to the end.

Much of the credit, I must admit, goes to the choice of female cast members. Jamie-Lynn DiScala is so easy on the eyes that her obnoxious character she plays is tolerable. Although not to quite the same level, the same could also be said of Andrea Bogart and Jennifer Tisdale. Of course, this is hardly a legitimate reason to score a lousy film higher then it deserves, but it doesn't hurt.

The film starts off intriguing enough and is pretty direct as to what you can expect as far as the film's gore factor. For me, too much gore does a a failed horror make. This film bordered on "give me a break" but didn't cross the line. Also, the fiend was sinister enough, and there was great use of various Dark Ride props, especially the mask.

There was a pretty decent story to work with here, but unfortunately it seems that either there was a small and mismanaged budget and/or the direction of the film was placed in the wrong hands. You could see the ending coming almost from the beginning, and that was a let-down. It was one of those deals where you say to yourself, "Surely they're not going to do this" but down deep you know they are. They're going to go for the cheesy, cliché' attempt at irony. It is almost insulting. Just the same, DiScala's character's reaction to the truth of her situation at the end did have a bit of a spooky ambiguity to it.

My advice: if you want to see this film, wait till it's released on DVD and taken off the "New Releases" wall.


Here in Europe, "Dark Ride" is simply just another low-keyed and cheesy horror movie that anonymously moved to the lowest and most neglected shelves of video stores, but in the States it's apparently a little more popular because it was part of the 'Eight Films To Die For'-cycle that played at the "After Dark" horror festival. I'm not exactly sure on which criteria the titles of this festival were selected, but originality definitely can't be one of them, as "Dark Ride" is hugely derivative of Tobe Hooper's "The Funhouse" as well as a dozen of other mundane 80's slashers. It's an entertaining film that offers quite a lot of gory make-up effects and nasty scenery, but the screenplay is absolute rubbish and doesn't contain anything you haven't seen millions of times before. I have to admit the opening sequence is awesomely atmospheric, creepy and even a slight bit controversial, because two children  twin girls  are slaughtered and barbarically dissected on screen by a mad-raving lunatic who hid himself in a theme park ride. These days it's rather exceptional to see children and/or young teenagers getting killed in horror, so "Dark Ride" started promising to say the least. Unfortunately the script then immediately reverts to all the known and dreadful clichés of the genre, as a bunch of insufferable teenagers decide to spend the night in the dark ride where the girls died more than 15 years ago. Coincidentally, the maniac responsible escaped from the asylum two weeks earlier, and he naturally will be waiting for a fresh shipment of teenagers to kill. The characters are all annoying stereotypes and you can even easily predict the order in which they'll die. There's the macho stud (who has a huge mouthliterally), the bimbo hitchhiker, the eloquent nerd and the likable chick who's most likely to survive the ordeal. The killer  named Jonah  is very colorless & uninteresting persona and he definitely lacks the charisma to become a new legendary icon to follow up Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers. There's an incredibly stupid and implausible plot twist in the middle of the film (and another one near the end) that make it simply impossible to reward "Dark Ride" with a positive rating. The theme park attraction itself is nicely sinister and horrific, with a lot of hidden death traps and morbid tableaux. The murders are extremely gross, graphic and relentless, so undemanding horror fanatics overall have few things to complain about. Worth a look.


"Un Crabe dans la tete" focuses on Alex, a handsome but selfish underwater photographer who undergoes a number of emotional, life-changing experiences while passing through Montreal. When all is said and done, however, writer/director Andre Turpin has presented little more than a rudderless narrative featuring a bunch of unlikable and uninteresting characters, characters whose patience for the boorish protagonist is nearly unaccountable.

Again and again, one finds oneself mystified by Alex's actions: If he's meant to be a selfish man, only out for himself and afraid of commitment--leaving his wife after the wedding without a word--why, on the other hand, is he so dangerously loyal to a pathetic female drug dealer? If he can thoughtlessly fall into the arms of his best friend's vulnerable lover, how can he suddenly be so completely (almost overly) ethical about a series of disturbing photographs his agent wants him to display? Great films have been made by examining "unlikable" or selfish characters and about people whose actions and motivations are almost inexplicable (i.e. John Cassavetties' films), but the confusion of this film's characters is never thematized or explored. Alex acts the way he acts only so the melodrama can take another "surprising" turn.

The film is sharply, if erratically, shot, but most paying audiences will surely lose patience with Alex and his associates long before the film has ended.


This is a really bad movie. Several of us watched it together and spent a lot of the movie glancing at each other with "What the hell is this?" looks. None of the characters are appealing, the main character is totally unsympathetic. At no point in the movie do you care about anybody. Performances are bad. The script is juvenile and silly..hard to believe it was written by an adult (Maybe it wasn't). It is not smart enough to be an art movie, not clever enough to be a cult film. It is poorly shot and poorly acted. AVOID!


Far Cry is one of the most overrated games in 2004. Some people say that this game is the best FPS game after legendary Half Life from 1998. I disagree. Far Cry is just an average FPS game with boring story, stereotypical characters and annoying game play.

Now, the game really looks fantastic. Most of the game takes place on tropical islands in South Pacific and the islands are just beautiful to watch, the sea, waterfalls and jungles look really good and breathtaking, but good graphics doesn't bring good game.

The story is boring and typical even for the worst FPS games: we have one guy with a lot of guns against the army of bad guys and (of course) genetic mutants. Most of the time you are just walking from one island to another, shooting and killing everyone you meet without having a clue what's going on. The enemies are ten times stronger than you, they can see you from a mile away, hear one little sound and they put the entire place on full alert, knowing exactly where you are, I even heard that they can see you threw the walls and rocks which is really stupid and unrealistic. There is no strategy while approaching to the enemy, all the time you are just shooting at them. And sometimes you'll have to shoot at them in different directions, because they can attack you from the air, water and jungle at the same time. The game become very boring after a few hours, because it's all the same; you come to the island, start shooting at the enemy, enter a base or laboratory, shoot new bunch of enemies, push the button or something like that and in the end shoot some more enemies. Maybe it's fun and challenging game for young players, but for me (I like the games with story and challenge, not "shoot to kill" games) it was just a waste of time. There are some cool things in the game, you can switch walking on foot and driving with jeeps, boats,... but that's not enough for a good game.

Far Cry is overall an average FPS game with bad story and terrible voice acting, annoying game play and after a few hours it become boring and predictable. Trouble in paradise for teenagers.


When the titles of METROLAND started it instantly reminded me of the Rachel Weisz black comedy BEAUTIFUL CREATURES which had been on the previous night. The title sequences were so similar it was uncanny as the camera travels along a rail track to a hypnotic beat . Mind you if I remember correctly things actually happened in BEAUTIFUL CREATURES , hardly anything happens in METROLAND

I think this problem isn`t helped by the fact there`s some French input to this movie , yes despite it being set in middle England METROLAND is an Anglo-French co-production not a very succesful combination at the best of times and even a bigger failure where film making is concerned . You see the French gave the world the concept of film study and analysis which means a French critic or a French audience will be able to strip away the veneer of what`s on screen and draw their own conclusions as to what the story is really about - An English speaking audience won`t which means this critic here can only see a slow moving romantic comedy with a very episodic nature. Have you ever been invited to a dinner party where all the guests know each very well and just talk amongst themselves making you feel very left out ? That`s how I felt watching METROLAND , and couldn`t help thinking it might have been far better if the story had been set in Paris with an entirely French cast


Gary is a guy who lives in a trailer and he is trying to be a writer. His girlfriend Maris works as a waitress and wants him to have a real job. Gary receives Ozzy, a relative `self- guest' in his trailer (by the way, this character has nothing to do with any plot along the story. Maybe he has lent some money for the `production' of this amateurish movie and required to participate somehow in the story). His best friend is Bud and his neighbor is a neurotic veteran from Vietnam. Gary realizes that persons in his community are being killed by The Sandman. This film is almost as bad as `Troll 2' and `Satanic Attraction': amateurish cast and direction, poor effects and locations. The greatest work on me is that Sandman made me sleep at least four times along the story and I, instead of going to the bed, used the `rewind bottom' to watch the missing parts. However, the screenplay with improvement, actors, actresses and director could be the basis for a reasonable movie. My vote is two.


Gary, a rather bad dime-store romance novelist, soon after watching a sensationalist tabloid news show about the recent rash of people that have been dying in their sleep, is worried about his girlfriend who is having trouble sleeping (he's an insomniac himself) So when his war veteran neighbor tells him about the Sandman he's frightened (not by the vet's story, more his demeanor) add to this the fact that Gary's worthless leech of a cousin has just moved in to his trailer. It's no wonder he's on edge. When he starts seeing the Sandman everyone think he's going crazy.....at first.

The pacing of this movie is so extremely slow that it desperately needed a great story to make up for it. Sad to say, the plot is supremely sub-par as well. I quite enjoyed the director's previous "the Dead Next Door" film, however this one is a stinker, and included way too much filler. The filler being so very bad (time spent on Gary's 'kooky' neighbors and a rather idiotic talk show being the chief offenders) To further compound my misery there wasn't any gore, nor nudity to attempt to liven the preceding up.

My Grade: D-


Story: A dream demon named the Sandman is killing people in their sleep. It's not a bad concept, it worked for Freddy, so it could work here. There is something inherently scary about sleep, as you are vulnerable and not completely guaranteed to wake again in the morning. The overall narrative isn't bad. The writing, however, is beyond bad. I suspect that the writer came from a background in prose, as everything gets way over explained instead of relying on the visuals to tell the story. D

Acting: The acting is bad, but I think it could have been salvageable in the hands of a better writer/director/editor. I think the actors must be from live theater backgrounds, as they are way, way overacting. It's painful to watch, especially the Viet Nam veteran, the old lady that's obsessed with toys, and the walking 90's stereotype "cool" surfer-ish kid. Basically, all the actors should have been told to turn it down a few degrees and the script should have given them less monologues and more visual stuff to do to advance the story. D

Visuals: Well, the Sandman man looks like a giant Jawa from Star Wars mixed with one of the creatures in John Carpenter's The Fog. The main message is that it looks cheap, but passable as long as it stays in the shadows and the audience never gets a good look at him. Unfortunately, this is not the case as we get to see every glorious inch of him. The end result is not good. D

Direction: This director knows what a wide shot is. That's about it. He also doesn't seem to be aware that he can use takes that are less than ten minutes long. Again, movies are not live theater. The camera can get closer to the actor, and we don't have to hover on one angle for eternity. Also, the director and/or the editor should have trimmed each scene down to the point where the message was delivered and moved on. The direction is the big failure in this movie, because the script and the acting, while they weren't good, they could have been fixed by a competent director. F! F! F!!!

Overall: I can't really recommend this movie to anyone except for those who enjoy watching bad movies simply to poke fun at them. There was potential here, and I hope the writer/director learned the right lessons from his failing here, but skip this movie. If you see it for sale, run, don't walk. F


Poor and superficial film, using disturbing images, playing with the American believe that Violence and Corruption only happen in other countries. This is a bad copy of other Brazilian movies, this people could be making Art with more social engagement , sensibility and respect for other cultures.

The worst part of the movie is when Kids are showed acting/playing as kidnappers. The director admitted that He asked the Kids to do the theater, but presents it as if it was reality, making the public believe that this is how kids play in the streets of Brazil. This is unetical, not a documentary, shouldn't be a reference.

I believe that it's time for the young Americans to start looking into solving their own problems at home. And not only look for sensationalism , violence and misery but, beauty and successful experiences in other cultures, not only they problems, feeding prejudices and fear.

It's time to exchange ideas , using art as communication, a Global believe of trust and enlightenment. Not only fear of the different, of the foreigner, the neighbor...


This movie was all over the place. Frogs, ears, ski masks & bad teeth, kidnapping, plastic surgery, etc. It was hard not to ask "hey, what happened to the frogs?" a few times during the movie. The subject matter is very interesting, but to me the director tried to look at different aspects of the film, and then bring everything together at the end. For me, it didn't work. The connection linking Magrinho and Jader Barbalho appeared thin. There was no "a ha!" moment that I think the director was gunning for. I also did not like at all how the plastic surgeon was portrayed. It appears that he has done some revolutionary work in the field and has greatly helped some people recover from brutal crimes. To show him enjoying himself at his fazenda with his dog frolicking in the pool implies that he is taking advantage of the system and crushing the little guy for his own benefit. This man works hard. The evil is Jader Barbalho, not the doctor. Overall, this movie could have been split in two, one covering the kidnappings of São Paulo, the other the corruption of Jader. Combining them was a mistake.


This film is a documentary only insofar as the characters are people playing themselves. Director Jason Kohn has no interest in exploring or understanding the issues the film purports to examine, rather pandering to the audience by prodding his subjects to tell their most shocking stories and judging them immediately after.

The corruption and violence are presented in a near total vacuum of context, adding to the cynical view towards the subjects involved. The absurdity of truth is pushed to its limit for the purpose of entertainment, effectively stripping away all meaning from the truly deplorable situation in Brazil. The reaction Mr. Kohn is after, and is quite talented at achieving, is a "Wow, that's f****d up!". Nothing more. There's something to be said of a documentarian whose sole purpose is to "Entertain people". There really isn't much more at play in this "documentary." It will be interesting to see what tabloid material Kohn tackles next.


Sure, there's much to say about the economic inequality that has turned Sao Paulo into a violent city. But Manda Bala isn't the place to hear it. Yes, there are facts that will shock anyone thoroughly unfamiliar with Brazil's political and social problems--and even some that might surprise those who are. But it's the treatment of these issues that is so poor. The focus is on the most exploitative, gut-wrenching images rather than on true analysis, and the director doesn't have the insight to conduct a truly incisive interview.

Plus, it's not well done as a documentary--those images may be stomach-churning but not necessarily well-composed or interesting in and of themselves. And the editing leaves a lot to be desired too. At only 85 minutes, it feels way longer.


now i'm not going to say this film is terrible but its not good in the slightest. with it being rated 6.0 on this site makes me laugh. the film is basically about a hair dressing competition in england, a little dismal i know.

the only thing stopping me rating it so low is the cast, even though they didn't do a good job its nice to see them all in one film. Josh Hartnett (Lucky Number Slevin, Sin City, 30 Days Of Night, Pearl Harbor and Wicker Park) is a brilliant actor but has an odd accent in this. Alan Rickman (Dogma, Die Hard and the Harry Potter films) is also a fantastic actor but doesn't really pull off being an English hair dresser. Rachael Leigh Cook (Antitrust, Josie And The Pussycats) Bill Nighy (The boat That Rocked, Underworld, Shaun Of The Dead) Warren Clarke (Clockwork Orange, I.D.) and Rachel Griffiths (Six Feet Under) are also in the film. so if there was any film with a cast like that you would definitely give it a second look. just too bad the film was poorly made and quite tiring to watch.

i would like to say that i'd recommend this to girls as it is sort of a chick flick but i wouldn't wanna give them false hopes on seeing a good film.......... 3.6/10..........j.d Seaton


Fairly average film. Fairly humorous but apart from that there was nothing else really going for it. The film doesn't really have much to keep you interested and it had the feel that I'd seen it a score or more time before. I'm sure there are films out there with the exact same plot but are about dancing or summat like. What really got my goat, though, was the worst Yorkshire accents I have ever heard in my life. Rickman didn't even bother to try and sound northern, whilst at times I thought Hartnett was trying to sound more like he was from Ireland, Italy or Kentucky than Keighley - sometimes all three at the same time!

All in all, forgettable film, unforgettably dreadful accents. I wouldn't watch it again, but if I were, it would only be to stare wistfully at Rachael Leigh Cook.


Some claim this is a BLADE RUNNER ripoff but I know the truth. In the distant future, failed filmmaker Ridley Scott built a time machine and decided to go back in time to film MUTANT HUNT, what many in this future consider the greatest film of all-time, before it is actually made. His plan worked and BLADE RUNNER hit in 82 while MUTANT HUNT's legacy was muted because it was seen a ripoff.

Seriously, what can one say about this classic? It is indicative of a cinematic time long gone, the era of cheapo sci-fi flicks shot in abandoned warehouses (the future!) on a 5-day shooting schedule (see also: Ray, Fred Olen). I'm glad to know that in the future cyborgs will be modeled after the band Devo. Tim Kincaid directs this as flatly as possible. I love the fight in Riker's apartment where the girls just sit and stand there. I also love the bit where the robot begins to severe its left hand. When the filmmakers cut to the hand hanging in the cuff, it is a right hand! And who can ever forget the couple making out in the alley? Awesome. To the film's credit, Ed French's cyborg puppet head is pretty impressive and actually emotes better than 3/4 of the cast. After watching this 75 minute insanity fest, the only natural thing to ask is, "What Kincaid film should I watch next?"


What in the name of God did I just witness? For anyone who is wondering if they should watch this movie (all 2 of you), leave it on the shelf unless you are planning on becoming a makeup artist. Let me explain. The story goes like this: Some evil woman is in this battle with some evil guy. Why? I don't know. This battle involves mutants/cyborgs. Why? I don't know. A foursome of heroes meet up with each other in hopes to disband the evil mutant army. Why? I don't know. They fight the mutants who seems to keep coming back to life and murdering civilians. Why? I don't know!!!

So here's the scoop: Either I'm an idiot who just didn't pay attention to this movie or this movie has absolutely no plot. This film is nothing more than a string of events strung together with cheesy music that sounds like something out of a homemade porno film and sound effects so bad, that they sound as if they were generated by someone slapping their hand against their knee and breaking some eggs on the kitchen floor.

The only saving grace of this film is the gore and makeup. This horrible picture really shows what the 80's horror genre was capable of when it comes to the blood factor. Some great stuff in here that still leaves me in shock of how it was pulled off, especially the mutant that helps the good guy; some great scenes with him. But otherwise, why bother with this crappy flick? The movie itself gets a 0 out of 10, but because of the gore and good f/x I'm giving it an overall 2/10.


Gee, where to start... Well, first, this movie is awful. From the very start, it is apparent that what is about to follow is going to be a true offence on the viewers intelligence. From the cheesy music to the horrendously bad acting, it is amazing that the film ever got made. Its main protagonist is the character Matt Riker, a mercenary for hire. The actor playing him ( of who's name I thankfully can't recall) is easily the worst actor I've ever seen. At many points you can see him reading his lines off a card behind the camera, and what's worse, for the whole first ten minutes of the movie, he gets around only in a bad pair of white underpants. The story follows a bunch of cyborgs, who due to a heavy intake of some drug, go insane and start killing people for pleasure (obviously). The cyborgs themselves are just a bunch of terribly stiff beefcakes in gymsuits, and are as convincing as they are menacing (ie not at all). Matt Riker and his band of comrades must track them down and destroy them, before they kill again. The continuity is appaling, the cheesy 80's synthesized keyboard music stinks, every actor is a joke, and the story fails to impress. In short, the whole package is a complete dud. I heartily recommend checking this one out if not merely for a glimpse of what I believe is possibly the worst movie ever made.


Caught this Movie on the TV early one morning. The synopsis sounded promising being a Los Anglino with some history in the music biz and having some first hand experience with "Has Beens" colliding with "Soon To Be Has Beens" and their actress girlfriends and wives.

This movie sucked on so many levels.

Bad writing, bad lighting, bad sound editing, bad make-up, bad.. bad... bad...

One scene where two fawning fans appear unannounced at a rockers door was just plain awful.

And (**spoiler, maybe**) when Ally Sheedy's character is talked into wearing a painters smock on a first date (she's a designer for God's sake!) by a just befriended "housekeeper" ( she can afford a housekeeper and is THIS stupid!!!?) The more I think about it there was a real dislike for women in general throughout this whole flick.

I will say that for one of these "Lookee, musicians acting like musicians!!!" vanity projects it wasn't as bad as Paul Simon's "One Trick Pony". But that ain't saying much.


none of the stories were very interesting, none of them drew me in or made me care about anyone in them. it was very implausible and unrealistic. very choppy. and nothing was resolved at all. very predictable. i loved 'grace of my heart' but this one was very disappointing. john taylor looks great though, god bless him...


Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian "sword and sorcery" item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier "giallo" period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least  seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bowso much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next  and thankfully unfilmed  adventure!


The plot and characters are ridiculous and barely qualify AS "plot" and "character". The biggest problem is the fact that everything is dark, out-of-focus, and blurry. The fact that Fulci filled the whole movie with mist doesn't help. On the other hand, the whole thing is completely bizarre and filled with sex and violence. The inconsistencies are pretty entertaining, one of the main characters says he has no friends, yet he latches onto the new guy in a minute of screen time, and has a whole gaggle of women on the side. Though he does show his anti-social tendencies by randomly putting an arrow in some poor b*****d who's just minding his own business!Images of blood or gore flowing get more attention than the characters but what do you want from Fulci. Maybe it ruined his career, but it wasn't really much more stupid than Zombie. Worth a rental if you like gory Italian flicks or are desperate for sword and sorcery or something bizarre. How do you sleep through someone getting sucked into a pit 2 feet from your head and screaming for help?


I like Fulci films, i really do and not in some boring ironic way either but i recognise that they appear hopelessly inept and garbled to lots of people.

Conquest is where Fulci tries his hand at the epic fantasy genre and doesn't really succeed. Structurally, it's like most Fulci films you've seen. Some stuff happens, some more stuff happens and occasionally one scene might be tangentially related to another. Really it's like Conan with no sets, no script, no real actors (yes, Arnold Scharzenfartz is hardly an actor either), no budget, stupid looking dog soldiers and a bunch of gore.

This one was a hard one to get through and i could've lived without the inch of vaseline smeared on the camera to give it that Hair Metal music video look.


Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is most

famous for "Zombie," and the absolutely unwatchable "The

Psychic" and "Manhattan Baby." Well, add this to the unwatchable

list.

The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a gold

mask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbed

stud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magic

because they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,

and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flat

action sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but not

before taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up with

my high school girlfriend.

Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen with

smoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make you

crave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects are

laughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo are

attacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches on

the film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have been

spent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurting

wounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in a

while, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.

I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anyway

just to see what the heck was happening.

There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let me

do a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,

you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does not

appear in the film in any context whatsoever. "Conquest" is a con

job. What MST3K could have done with this!

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, female

nudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content.


Shlock-merchant Leo Fulci takes a change of pace by making a trashy, barely coherent sword and sorcery fantasy movie instead of his usual trashy, barely coherent horror.

A wimpy Orlando Bloom type called Ilias, from some society vaguely resembling Ancient Greece travels across the ocean to caveman territory on some vaguely defined quest to battle evil, where he joins up with a animal loving hunter to battle the wolf-man and mutant minions of a vampiric topless evil sorceress. Wackiness ensues. The sorceress, is oppressing the local cavemen and wants the magic bow for herself. She sends various minions, each weirder than the last, after our heroes who win through in the end, striking a blow for oppressed cavemen everywhere. This movie contains a steady stream of WTF? elements and moments.

For some reason the entire movie is shot in soft focus and the picture is further blurred by the constant presence of mist on screen. This may have been an attempt to create atmosphere or to hide how fake everything looks. Either way, it failed. There is no atmosphere, unless it is one of scuzziness and mild bewilderment and there is no hiding how lame everything looks. The wolf-man minions look like a poor man's wookie. For some reason the director fell in love with shots of them leaping through the air in slow motion, Six Million Dollar Man style, toward our heroes when they attack. There are probably about a dozen of these shots throughout the movie and it gets goofier every time. The other minions of the topless sorceress, other than the generic leather clad humans, are some lumpy white mutants who appear to be covered in cobwebs. Needless to say they are slow and unthreatening and when they speak sound like gay Hispanic, lisping Daleks. The fights are stilted and unconvincing and the special effects are woeful. Oh yeah, the music is cheap synthesiser stuff that the makers of Doctor Who would have been embarrassed to have used.

Ilias, our nominal hero is bland and forgettable. He also looks a complete wuss, especially with his midriff revealing leather outfit and big hair, and is clearly a moron. Sure, he's a dynamite shot with his magical bow but he only takes about three or four arrows with him in his mission to battle this entire continent of evil. Needless to say he runs out of arrows within a few minutes and has to be saved by more traditional sword and sorcery hero, Mace. When he meets Ilias he establishes himself as the taciturn loner type, claiming he has no friends but no sooner can you say latent homoerotic subtext they are bosom buddies, traipsing the misty hills together. Mace promises to take Ilias with him in return for bow related favours. Ilias asks where he is going. "Wherever my legs take me," is his reply. Good enough for Ilias. Mace is also animal lover and outrageous hypocrite. He proclaims his great love of and affinity toward animals, citing the usual stuff about how he prefers them to humans because humans can be soooo mean. He says he would never hunt and kill an animal to feed himself but he will steal meat off other people who have hunted down animals. He is also not above randomly killing innocent passers by for no good reason. Not long after they meet, he is testing out Ilias' bow and the movie cuts to some random caveman, minding his own business, walking along and Mace shoots him dead. There is no indication this poor soul did anything to deserve this and even Ilias, who supposedly hails from a more moral and civilised society doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

The films villainess is quite unusual. For the entire movie she is completely naked except from a g-string and a golden mask that encompasses her entire head. It's like Fulci included her to make the movies obligatory T&A quotient but decided she was bit too much of a butterface at the last minute. She spends a lot of time seemingly being pleasured by her pet snakes and dreaming about being shot by a faceless bow wielding man who is dressed like Ilias. Wow, such symbolism! Later on in the movie she wimps out when she can't beat Ilias and Mace and promises to make herself the sex-slave of some ancient warrior dude if he kills them for her. Hardly the world's most scary villain and not really a step forward for women's rights. I think he sic's the cobweb creatures on our heroes and impersonates Mace in a situation where there is no no-one else around but Mace to fool. Was he really worthy trading your self respect for, Ocron?

There are quite a few other WTF? moments. Most of them come toward the end of the movie. Ilias wusses out, I forget why, possibly his permed hairdo got mussed, but realizes the error of his ways and returns to aid Mace in fighting the forces of evil. All of a sudden, for no reason, his bow can suddenly fire out multiple target seeking bolts of energy. The bolts can also shoot through solid rock when necessary. Needless to say his makes short work of the hordes of bad guys who have captured Mace.

The climax is also rather nonsensical. Mace decimates Ocron's remaining forces using the bows targeted laser attack capability. He then is able to shoot Ocron from a kilometre away using its shoot through rock capacity. She starts dying. Her mask is ripped of revealing a hideous Muppet head. She staggers around screaming and turns into a dog and wanders off with another dog. Mace smiles. Roll credits.

Strangely enough as far as these dodgy low budget sword and sorcery movies this one is reasonably lucid and focused. Any one who has seen Wizards of the Lost Kingdom can tell you how nonsensical and meandering these movies can truly be.


Warning: This review contains a spoiler.

 Wow. Almost impressively bad. Note I said, "almost". This is nothing more than lots of random scenes strung together in a loose attempt at a story. The protagonists (you CANNOT call them "heroes") shoot innocent bystanders for their food, and also rob same for similar reasons. There's also tons of homoeroticism, which was a turnoff for me. (SPOILER: It seems as if the villainess (who only is topless and not naked as other reviews claim) gets killed early on, but miraculously recovers, adding another 70 minutes of audience-torture.) I can't shake the feeling that animal abuse occurred numerous times in this cinematic abomination. If you're in a MST3K mood, you might find this watchable, but for the most part you can forget it. Go rent the original Conan DVD instead.


This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to "Conquest". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie.


I usually talk a bit about the plot in the first part of my review but in this film there's really not much to talk of. Just a mish-mash of other FAR better sword & sorcery epics. Lack of cohesiveness runs rampant as does banality. Even the main villaness refusing to wear clothing other then a loincloth is pretty boring as she pretty much has a chest of a young boy.Mildly amusing in it's ineptitude at best and severely retarded at it's worst. Lucio Fulci was scrapping the bottom of the barrel here and it shows.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Posters & Stills galleries; Lucio Fulci Bio; and US & International Theatrical trailers

Eye Candy: Sabrina Siani is topless throughout (some may consider that appealing, I did not); various extras are topless as well


Of course, "Flatley" is already not exactly the ideal name for a dancer, but I think Michael is really pushing the irony envelope with this new title: "Feet of Flames"

One really can't resist recommending Desenex Foot Spray to the retiring (and clearly, ailing) Flatley.

I might add that, much like that cheering London crowd (per review below), I too am enthusiastic about this being his last live performance.

"Hinting that it may be his last live performance, Flatley is cheered on by an enthusiastic London crowd." ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide


Good grief. Someone *paid* actual *money* to make this?

If you want to watch people having sex, buy a porn movie, and be prepared to put up with lousy acting, ghastly dialog, and a plot (if any) that a two year old wrote.

This is utterly bizarre. Lousy acting, ghastly dialog, a plot a two year old would have eschewed... and lousy sex. OK, someone wanted to make it, someone put up a budget, all this I understand. What I don't understand is - why is it on my TV screen?

(Except it isn't - I can surely find a channel with something better on. Even if it's white noise.)

Click


To sum it up right away : as far as I'm concerned , the script is very lame , plot is full of highly unbelievable events , dialog is clumsy and doesn't sound convincing at all , acting is mostly bad , story is plagued with one stereotype after another , there is not enough gore , violence and perversion to justify this pathetic , unimaginative exercise in bad cinematography ... I'm not saying that everything in this movie sucks , but it's mostly garbage . That's just what I think , I hope the fans of this completely irrelevant and inferior visual wanking will not be offended because this is nothing personal . I just hated watching this pointless little snot of a movie .

I love Japanese movies and cherish every opportunity to get my hands on them , especially if they're twisted . I hoped this was twisted , or at least watchable . What I got is something almost on the same level as the early Bruce Lee movies . I liked them when I was in primary school , but that passed almost 20 years ago .

" School of the holy beast " is good Japanese exploitation , and same goes for " Shogun's sadism " . " Sex and fury " is so pale , unimaginative , restrained and melodramatic compared to them that it makes me sick to my stomach . It would make me sick even if I hadn't watched those movies .

If you like watching naked chicks kill people so much that you can tolerate completely silly and childish story with no originality or depth whatsoever - than watch this . You'll see the main actress butt - naked , sword in hand , splattered with blood of her enemies - and not just once , but twice . Wow , what a treat . Too bad the movie doesn't consist only of these two scenes , because it would be much better that way .

2 out of 10 .


An unfunny comedy with a silly premise that moves arbitrarily from situation to situation with little or no regard for narrative sense. In short, a quintessential product of the incompetent school of filmmaking.

I won't bother with the story or character details, since they don't make much sense anyway. At points, the characters suddenly appear in some new setting and situation, with no clue where they are or how they got there. In some cases, the filmmakers apparently tried to correct this after completing the main shooting, adding some voice-over dialogue on top of exterior shots by way of exposition.

The comic and dramatic situations are hackneyed, contrived and unconvincing. The dialogue is uninteresting and unnatural. Some scenes seem to have been improvised (I mean that in a bad way). From time to time, it looks like there was no script for a scene, just "the characters argue about something, then stop."


This has a great cast, and a great premise, but unfortunately, Chris Kattan already did this, and did it BETTER! Unperceived family ties drag a young man into the gangster life. Unfortunately, this is pretty lame, in spite of the fantastic cast. What a monumental waste of real talent! Every possible stereotypical Sicilian mob element possible has been brought into this production, but instead of making the individual components work, it flooded the story line with unnecessary "Italianizations;" most of them ineffectual and out of place, clashing with one another, and rendering scene after scene nearly unwatchable.

Sorry, but I didn't derive much pleasure from this, at all. If you want a good mobster/comedy, please do yourself a favor and check out Corky Romano. While it's no masterpiece, it's light years ahead of this.

It rates a 3.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.


all i wanted to comment on was the fact that the creators of this film seemed to do absolutely no visiting of Toledo. wherever it was that they shot this movie looks nothing like Toledo and nothing referenced or shown in the film is in Toledo not even the skyline shown in the film. i mean couldn't they just shoot the film in Toledo for crying out loud or at least try to learn about the city before trying to represent it on film. the movie itself was horrible too but with a great cast. i just was so upset as a Toledo filmmaker myself that they would disrespect my city so much by ignoring it and using the name in its film.


My mom is a semi fan of Christopher Walken and this appealed to her I guess though I am usually baffled by what she picks up when I let her choose a movie to watch. I too like Christopher Walken and also so saw on the box that Nacy Allen was in it. I love her from her Brian De Palma days and the Robocop film series. So I went with it and watched this movie. Little did i know that Michael Rapperport would turn out to be the star of the film. I can take Rapperport in small doses like, True Romance, Bamboozled and Hitch. But a whole movie surrounding him, naw can't handle that, unfortunately I was forced too. Because if I give my Mom crap about watching stupid movies like this she will in-turn gripe at me for making her watch good movies like Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, so I this is how i'm forced into watching crap like this. My mom will never learn. The film however has only one saving grace and that is the appearance of Chris Walken as the second in charge of a mob family. Nancy Allen on the other hand has so little screen time it is a wonder she was involved with the film at all. She must have owed someone a favor. Avoid this film at all cost unless you are a Chris Walken completest.


Sirocco was one of those independent productions that Humphrey Bogart's Santana productions did for Columbia Pictures after Bogey's long term contract with Warner Brothers expired. Bogey had a mixed record of success and Sirocco didn't exactly set the movie world on fire.

The story takes place in Damascus after World War I with the French given a mandate by the League of Nations over the former Ottoman Empire territory of Syria and the Syrians not really too crazy about it. They've got a guerrilla war going against them and it is being led by Onslow Stevens as Moulay Hassan.

The French occupying troops are led by General Everett Sloane with Lee J. Cobb as the Colonel in charge of intelligence. They're having no luck even trying for a cease fire. And there's a lovely black market in weapons being sold to the Syrians.

Which is where soldier of fortune Humphrey Bogart comes in. Bogey's is at his most cynical here, too cynical probably to get a real rooting interest from the audience. He really has no inner core of decency that was apparent in Casablanca to which this film bears a superficial resemblance.

The Ingrid Bergman character is played by another Swedish actress Marta Toren who is Lee J. Cobb's girlfriend. Can you imagine Elsa Lund as a selfish slattern, than you've got what Toren is. Somehow her domestic problems also and fling with Bogart also don't arouse the audiences interest.

There are some good performances from supporting players like Zero Mostel, Nick Dennis, and Ludwig Donath as various Arabic types. You will enjoy them.

But I would also have to say that Sirocco takes place at a time when certain movements and issues were coming to the fore. Great questions were being raised and Sirocco answers none of them.


There's a general rule to follow about Bogart films: if he's wearing a bow tie, its going to be a disappointment. "Sirocco" is no exception.

Even Bogart himself called this film "a mess". He wasn't wrong. There's a lot of pieces here that sound great--Bogart as Harry Smih, an arms merchant in Damascus--Everett Sloan as the French commandant--Lee J. Cobb as the French officer who's trying to bring peace while losing his woman to Bogart--catacombs, mysterious events--but it never comes together.

The script is just a confusion of parts and after watching it again, Bogart seems to be playing second fiddle to Lee J. Cobb. Never heard of Marta Toren? There's a reason. She may sound like Bergman, but she does not have any of Bergman's charm, talent or magnetism. She actually gets a bit grating at times. As for the direction, I can only say this director also directed "Conflict" another third rate Bogart film.

There is no romance, no heart to what happens to Harry Smith at the end of this either. If at least he would have had a meaningful exit, this film might have been worth watching. But instead, it fulfills the bow tie rule quite nicely and is not recommended for anyone but the most hard-core Bogart fans who have to watch everything he's in...(sigh)...like me.


We know Bogart liked to keep working. The movies he made in the late Forties through the mid Fifties, however, sometimes give "work" a bad name. He veered effortlessly between fine movies that to this day continue to challenge, satisfy or do both and movies that are nothing more than nearly forgotten commercial hackwork. He knew what he was turning out; he called Sirocco a stinker. What an odd and undiscriminating selection process he and his agent must have had. In 1950 he makes Chain Lightening but then makes In a Lonely Place. In 1951 it's Sirocco and then The African Queen. In 1953 it's Battle Circle and then Beat the Devil (maybe a confusing failure, but not hackwork).

With Sirocco Bogart gives us Harry Smith, a gunrunner who finds himself in Damascus. The year is 1925. The French run things. A lot of Syrians don't like that at all. They're called "rebels." Harry? He doesn't care one way or another as long as he's paid. Harry is tired, sour, cynical and a skeptic. He doesn't believe in anything except money and the value of his own hide. He's Bogart. Harry quickly finds himself involved with a martinet of a French general named LaSalle (Everett Sloane) who thinks shooting five Syrians for every dead French soldier will be educational for everyone; a sympathetic French colonel named Feroud (Lee J. Cobb) who thinks he can avoid bloodshed if he can just sit down and talk things over with the rebel leaders, especially Emir Hassan (Onslow Stevens); and Feroud's mistress, a cool drink of water named Violette (Marta Toren), a beautiful woman who seems to be aroused more by the prospect of shopping than the prospect of making love. In other words, a courtesan to scriptwriters, a sophisticated prostitute to the more realistic; something akin to a wealthy CEO's trophy wife. Harry meets Violette, wants her and comes close to falling for her. This sets up some tension between himself and Colonel Feroud. All the while Harry is trying to extricate himself from an arms deal gone very, very wrong. By the end of the movie no one has gained much of anything, although it appears Violette will have the time to do more shopping.

At one point in Sirocco Violette says to Harry Smith, "What a man! You're so ugly! Yes, you are! How can a man so ugly be so handsome?" Ugly? Quasimodo, that's ugly. Bogart may not have been handsome, but he had style, a unique screen personality and the good fortune to star in three -- count 'em, three -- iconic career-making movies in less than two years. High Sierra, The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca carved Bogart's screen persona so deeply in granite that even hackwork like Sirocco scarcely makes a chip. When we see Harry we're really seeing Roy, Sam and Rick.

There's no reason to watch this movie unless you're fond of Bogart and have an hour and a half to waste. But if you watch, remember Everett Sloane. He was a fine, fine actor who seldom found memorable parts in Hollywood. He was a member of Orson Welles' Mercury Theater and came to Hollywood with Welles. He wound up in the Fifties doing a ton of television shows. He killed himself in 1965 when he was 55. My best memories of Sloane include Mr. Bernstein in Citizen Kane (1941); Arthur Bannister in The Lady from Shanghai (1947); Mario Belli in Prince of Foxes (1949); Dr. Eugene Brock in The Men (1950); and, powerfully, Walter Ramsey in Patterns (1956).


The film was awful went it came to the fighting between the French and the Syrians. There should have been a lot more gun fire between the French and the insurgents. There should have been a lot more explosions of French artillery shells bombarding the city. They show the city against the background of a early sunrise; however, there was no heavy columns of smoke that resulted from the French artillery shells exploding in the city There was also no sound of French airplanes and having them bomb and machine gun the Syrians' positions.

In addition, the way the French troops move around the city was terrible. In a combat situation, troops would have their rifles at port arms so they be ready to bring their weapons to a firing position just in case they get fire upon. They would not be walking around the city with rifles on their shoulders and walking in a parade ground formation.

One person stated that the American people during the 1920s never heard of the Syrian revolt. I suspect one reason why the Americans never heard about it that the American press was concentrating on Prohibition, robbers like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, organized crime like Al Capone, labor strikes that occurred after World War I, and the communist scare of the 1920s. Even if it was printed in the paper, it was just a sideshow event that never got much notice. I bet that today most Americans still don't know about the revolt in Syria. The only time we paid attention to Syria was during the various Arab-Israeli Wars and Syrian intervention in Lebanon.

It was and still easier to concentrate on doing war movies against the Japan and Germany since we won those wars.


Well, after reading the first 3 pages of comments, I can't believe anyone made it this far, but if you did, here is what I have to say....

"Sirocco" is a complete waste of time , unless you can learn what not to do in a film. dull and drift-less from the first scene, "Sirocco" literally BLOWS, right out of the theatre. A complete waste of talent, and paper for the scripts, Bogart, Cobb, Sloane Corey, Mostel,Mohr can't make this clunker work, WOW ! I can't believe I wrote that, but it is a FACT.

Aimless in its direction, Curtis Bernhardt(Director) , doesn't deserve to get paid for this sch-mucky remake attempt of "Casablanca."

He doesn't know how to blend romance with drama or action, I guess he read the script ?, and didn't know how to make dramatic changes.

Violette(Marta Toren) is the Ingrid Berman clone, and a very light clone at that. While lovely to the eye, she lacks the depth or skill in acting to create any chemistry between her and Bogey, incredible.

As I stated previously, this is how NOT to make a film, and just about anyone can these days. People are often confused if this movie was filmed in the bazaar or the catacombs, it should have been filmed in the dark, and kept there ! I gave this film 3 stars , just for the cast, a negative 10 for the script. Note: for future screen writers, use this a template to build against, maybe you can reedit the film to have some dramatic tension, or rewrite scenes that would build to a climax, just not the veritable collapse that it currently does.

All in all, Bogart should have saved his money, and credibility.


This is a slow moving drama with big name stars, but falls short of being memorable. Humphrey Bogart is an independent gunrunner in Damascus in 1925, when Syria is fighting off the occupation of French military invaders. Bogart is far from his best. Others in the cast are: Lee J. Cobb, Everett Sloane, Zero Mostel and Marta Toren.


This film is far more ambitious in its scope than it is successful in delivering its message. Despite the illustrious cast, there was nothing remotely spiritual in either the characters or the performances, save perhaps Forest Whittaker's scene of repentance in church towards the end, which nevertheless left much unresolved and was ultimately unconvincing. I think this is therefore inadvertently more a demonstration of the inability of the contemporary film industry to discuss spirituality, than it is about Jesus, the Apostles or Mary Magdalene. Juliette Binoche was feeble in her portrayal of Mary Magdalene, delivering a confused, slightly hysterical and nondescript portrait of a woman who is otherwise known to be both an extraordinary person and supposedly the film's central concern. The character played by Matthew Modine was the most convincing, in his cynical, hypocritical and totally materialistic egotism - and I think this fact alone says something about the 'spirit' which guides the whole movie. But even this admittedly interesting character was left sketchy and undeveloped.

Discerning viewers should be warned: not only is the film an attempt to justify heresies the church has known and rejected for valid reasons since the dawn of Christianity (as well as some new-fangled ones), but it fails even in its heretical intent - the whole film is a series of loose threads leading nowhere. It leaves one with a vague feeling of religious unease and a sense of the demonic gnawing monotonously away at Christian tradition; yet another rusty nail in the resurrected Body of Christ. I should mention that I'm not against free speech or even the misrepresentation of religious truth, here ably conveyed in their fictional 'interviews' by the purveyors of error themselves, Jean Yves Leloup and Elaine Pagels, would-be academics prostituting their respective disciplines for the broader public; but if you are going to make a movie with a heretical or blasphemous message, at least make it good artistically. In all, a waste of 2.5 hours.


I'll need to start at the end of this film. No spoiler, don't worry. Just me saying, "Huh?" Ferrara's rambling, affected film left me stranded at the end in a Dead Sea. I really wanted to find something to recommend in this film, but all I could think of was how unfocused it was, how miscast, and how dull.

One particular problem was Ferrara couldn't decide if he wanted to make an investigative documentary or a inspiring religious drama. On the one side we've got real theologians yammering away about Jesus and Mary, and clips of violence in Palestine. On the other side we have two stories about New Yorkers having spiritual identity crises, and an actress still neurotically lost in her role wandering through the streets of Jerusalem looking for something to eat, or something. In the end we get a murky, arty film with meandering plot lines that don't really go anywhere.

In addition we have a casting problem. Juliette Binoche as the ersatz Magdalene plays her role as a treacly, new-agey Christian proselytizer. She reminded me of the people who accost you on buses asking you if you've found Jesus yet.

Modine and Whitaker, both plainly uncomfortable playing their roles, end up giving us melodramatic performances that, when arriving at the moment of spiritual catharsis, cause them to start chewing up the scenery. I couldn't help thinking that Whitaker's appeal to God in a hospital chapel made him look like a subject in a Goya painting, but without the pathos that the artist's subjects engenders. Both actors were not able to evince any genuine feelings, which is due mostly to a plot that doesn't allow them to develop their characters in the first place.

Better to watch Kazantzakis, or even Gibson. Or see "Cammina, Cammina" by Ermanno Olmi.


My wife and I were trying really hard hard hard to see this piece of art to the very end, hoping that its endless boredom will end up, as it says "thriller" on its genre. No plot we did find, no interesting part, no good feeling of watching a movie but anger how wonderful stuff HBO showed up on Saturday prime time in the Czech Republic. Who pays for this "art"? The authors only stole some ideas from Da Vinci Code without making their final product interesting. Just non stop rehashing "Jesus this and Jesus that, and Mary Magdalene this and Mary Magdalene that", just good for priest seminary.

I understand that not every day is a holiday, isn't it? But why on Saturday evening prime time, HBO, why!?


During the 80's and 90's,director Abel Ferrara was one of the leaders of the independent cinema making amazing films which challenged the spectator.But,his recent works are far away from his previous works.New Rose Hotel and R Xmas were a little bit disappointing but they were interesting experiments.But,I do not know what was Ferrara thinking when he was making Mary,a tedious and boring movie and,by my point of view,a huge let down in his career.During 83 minutes,the movie shows us three stories which are totally boring and uninteresting.I think Ferrara wanted to make an analysis about the religion but,still with that,I think he had to do a better work to make a coherent connection between the stories.For me,it is very disappointing that Ferrara,who made excellent films with very little resources(like,for example,Bad Lieutenant,The Addiction,Ms.45 and The Body Snatchers),was behind this crap.I hope Mary is only an unexplainable false move in Ferrara's career and that,he will get redeemed soon.But I cannot recommend Mary,which is a tedious film.