This ought to be frightening, but it isn't. It's just a sequence of U.S. propaganda films about the cold war and The Bomb. There is no commentary and no effort to supply context. The produces just assumed that the propaganda would speak for itself.

This could be outstanding if only it mentioned why these propaganda films were made, what the state of world affairs was at the time, how truthful the propaganda was, how effective it was, and/or any relevancy it might have to modern affairs. What they have now is simply a montage with no insight and nothing new to say.

As it stands, this documentary works only when seen in your history class and followed by a lecture explaining it. I can't give it anything higher than 3 out of 10.


The Fail Safe 2000 version simply does not match the 1964 film masterpiece's acting or drama.

I'm an USAF veteran who worked with the real Fail Safe system (not the correct name by the way) and the 1964 version rang all too true to me.

Henry Fonda's acting was right on target, so to speak, and brought back some memories of a very tense time in world history.

The 2000 version just seemed like a half-hearted remake without the compelling drama and performances of the 1964 original film.

Food for thought: The USAF command and control authority kept the largest arsenal of weapons in the history of mankind under perfect control for decades--without a glitch--until it was no longer needed after the Soviet Union's collapse. The movie dramatized the effects of accidental --or deliberate--use of nuclear weapons which is commendable. It is not a topic to be taken lightly.


I preferred the original, it was much more gripping. There's not a lot

of great acting here, with the exceptions of Harvey Keitel and Brian

Dennehy. Everyone else seems to be posing up a storm, like they cast a

bunch of models, led by Gorgeous George Clooney, still tilting his head

and smirking as though that made a character come to life. I was

disappointed by this and angry that they remade a great movie into a

ho-hum one. Skip it.


I have read 'Fail Safe' (the book) by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler about 10 times and seen the Fonda movie about 5 and both were fantastic. I waited with anticipation for the "Clooney version" and counted off the days till it was to be aired ... I put Post-it notes on my mirrors and doors so I wouldn't forget ... and when I finally saw it I wanted to throw up. They played around with the original script and characters and generally screwed the whole thing up ... In my opinion it was a mess.

The book was best and I very much encourage you to read it if you liked THE movie (Fonda version). The writing (narrative) in the book is almost like a character.... IT WAS ABSOLUTELY GREAT!!!!!

The Fonda version was EXCELLENT and I would recommend it to anyone. But this film still did not do perfect justice to the book which I still think was better.

The Clooney version should be taken out and burned. They tried SO hard to copy the Fonda version even to the extent of showing it in black and white like the original. The Clooney version came up WAY short of either the book or the Fonda movie. Americans in our zeal are always trying to improve on things that need NO improvement ... and we generally screw things up when we do. This was a good example of a massive screw up. Keitel and Dreyfuss overacted their parts to the point of silliness. When compared to the cool and professional style of Fonda (The President) and Dan O'Herlihy (Gen. Warren Black) in the 1964 movie they weren't even on the same planet. The subtle acting of most of the characters in the Fonda film actually HEIGHTENED the tension. Dreyfuss was doing everything but somersaults in the bomb shelter apparently not knowing when enough was enough. Though I think Dreyfuss, Keitel and Clooney are superb actors they simply didn't work in this televised live performance ....I couldn't in good conscience recommend this presentation.


As a member of the "Baby Boom" generation I lived as a child with the specter of nuclear war hanging over me. As I type this I remember how, at 12 years of age just how frightened I was during the Cuban missile crisis. Just before this global crisis occurred a book was created which was so well written that I do not believe it will ever be improved upon in ANY medium. That book was 'Fail Safe' by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler.

The movie version released in 1964 faithfully represented the book as it was written and you felt the coldness of what I believe is the best third person narrative description I have ever read. The third person narrative of the book was almost like a character in the story and it was palpable, cold, and horrible in it's indifference and was captured in the 1964 movie perfectly.

I was very very disappointed with the liberties taken with the TV version, not only did they change parts of the story (an unforgivable crime when presenting a masterpiece), but to my taste the casting was WAY off the mark. For instance, Henry Fonda played an excellent portrayal of the president in the movie version .... Richard Drefuss wasn't even on the same planet with Fonda's performance and his over-acting ruined the seriousness of the situation - Fonda's cool disposition in his performance (like the book) was like fingers on a chalkboard that increased the nervous intensity of the '64 movie to the sublime.

I think the TV version was a desperate attempt to remake the movie and employ the same effects .... but it didn't work. I cannot in good conscience recommend the TV version as much as I would the 1964 movie version or better yet - the book, but I feel the TV version did score one home run ... it made people aware of this little gem . I feel sorry for those who had never read the book or seen the 1964 movie before because as you know (without including spoilers) you can't experience this story twice the same way.


Well, frankly this is virtually a carbon copy of the fantastic 1964 version. Once again, we're in monochrome and the script is almost word for word, with just minor changes. For instance, when General Bogan and the Russian General are discussing their time in London (the 1964 film), here the location has changed to Paris. I really can't see the reason why.....

Having seen the 1964 version,it is impossible not to compare the two as you are watching. The film tries hard, but ultimately comes up short through the inability of the actors to match the originals' screen presence. Fonda, O'Herlihy, Matthau and Hagman have no peers in this version.

The fact that it was filmed in real time is to be applauded, but it is ultimately unsatisfying. Maybe if this is the only version you have seen, you will be impressed (and apologies for harping on about this), but this is one of those times where you can put two versions of a film together and one will knock spots off the other.


Previous comment says comparing this to the '64 film should not be considered, and for good reason. It pales in comparison. The fact that it was live did not help me get interested in the least. I felt I was watching actors playing roles. Not that it was their fault that Henry Fonda was unavailable, but I never felt I was watching the President. I felt I was watching Richard Dreyfus playing the President. Why would Clooney remake this? Did he think he could do it better? Did he think the story needed to be retold? The Cold War ended 20 years ago and such a situation today seems completely implausible. Contrarily, the impeccable timeliness of the original kept you riveted. If the viewer, unlike me, is somehow able to remain seated throughout this whole production, there is little doubt they will ever sit through it a second time.


Let me add to the other unbiased, glowing reviews posted here by stating that this is truly the greatest achievement in motion picture history. The reviewer who suggested that some of the handful of positive reviews posted on IMDb might be written by friends of the filmmakers or the filmmakers themselves is way off base. Those reviews were clearly understating the massive achievement of this motion picture. To say this is "Way better than Shutter Island" is an insult to DreamKiller and the folks who made it comparing it to the minimally crafted "thriller" if you can call it that! Dreamkiller is so beyond that. The word Thriller barely describes the awesomeness of this masterpiece. The twists and turns just keep coming and coming. I was exhausted at the end. And it's got connections to Nazis. Name another movie did THAT! And the performances! Wow. Dario Deak sizzles as the dreamy-hunk scientist who solves the mystery and saves the day. He is perfectly cast as a super-intelligent doctor who is the object of all women's desires. And the production values? I couldn't believe this movie was made for less than $100 million. If these actors aren't household names, soon donning the covers of every entertainment magazine in the country, I'll be shocked.

And another thing, if the other reviews were written by the people who made this movie, would they ALL praise the story, the lead actor, and the director and talk about specific details of the movie that only someone who really loved it would remember? Obviously the film resonated with people enough to get five reviews and 13 ratings.

I had the sheer pleasure of seeing this at the Beverly Center about a week ago and I could tell by the stunned silence at the end and the way the other audience members quickly exited the theater to spread the word about Dreamkiller, that the two other people in the theater experienced the same life altering effects as I did.


It could have been a great movie, all the elements were there: an interesting story, intriguing characters, beautiful landscapes. Yet something was missing. Inspiration and talent, maybe? For two hours I was waiting for this movie to surprise me (you can guess what the mystery is rather quickly) and move me, and was disappointed. I wonder if anyone is thinking of remaking it...


I remember the buzz about this movie when it came out. The sexuality, the ethereal, metaphysical theme. Sounds intriguing, no? Therefore I was surprised to see Maltin call it "unwatchable" and "a stinker". That was all before I watched it. Now that I have, I tend to agree with Leonard. Ebert's review is interesting because he "didn't get it" either, and seemed to say that the movie had accomplished something by puzzling him. You're too kind, Roger. This could have been a great movie. Each scene was well shot. Unfortunately, the whole was less than the sum of its parts. I was going to blame the Director but perhaps the Editor was more to blame. The faults: 1) the mystery, when revealed, didn't ring true. 2) the sex was totally un-erotic. 3) the visions were confusing and hokey. 4) [perhaps most annoying of all] All of Meg Tilly's lines were delivered in a whisper and with a horrible attempt at a german accent, 50% of her dialog was unintelligible.


Alan Desland is a cultivated English bachelor who has taken over his family's antique porcelain business. On a business trip to Copenhagen, he meets and immediately falls in love with Karin, a stunning German beauty. After only a couple of weeks they marry, honeymoon, and settle into life in Alan's hometown. At first their erotically charged relationship seems like paradise, but this, of course, cannot last. Karin has told Alan virtually nothing of her past, and her dark secret eventually manifests with supernatural trappings and threatens everything.

"The Girl in a Swing" is based on the 1980 novel by Richard "Watership Down" Adams. The film has one thing going for it; the script does an admirable job of lining up and hitting a good number of the novel's main plot points and scenes. Otherwise, this overwrought melodrama has little to recommend it.

There is so much to criticize--from the passionless direction to the insipid soundtrack, awful costuming, and poor casting. Meg Tilly in the role of Karin is particularly troublesome. While she is a fairly attractive woman, she does not project the sort of unearthly eroticism that the character requires. Worse, her muddled, affected German accent obscures most of her dialogue. When Tilly isn't screeching "Alan!" she is mumbling and slurring her most important lines. Director Gordon Hessler does little to salvage things, as he opts to film most of the important supernatural and erotic sequences in one of two modes--either flat or melodramatic.

While very few films adapted from novels can attain the dense subtext of their source material, such a film might at least evoke the essence of the story by establishing a strong mood consistent with the novelist's vision. This film, however, aspires to nothing so worthy. It neither succeeds as an adaptation of Adams' complex novel nor as a worthy cinematic effort in its own right.


Although Robert "Knox" Benfer has his fans, I'm not one of them. His films are asinine and amateurish, and and just not very funny, unless you're a 14 year old with an underdeveloped sense of humor.

He's certainly not famous, as him immature fans would like you to believe, by harassing people at Wikipedia, or stuffing the ratings votes here at the IMDb. He's certainly not been profiled by any major media outlets, which speaks volumes about his and his creation's "fame".

Benfer does have some slight skill at limited animation, but he needs to get away from his young sycophants and learn to write some actual funny material before he'll be taken seriously as a real entertainer. As of this moment, though, he's just a kid with a camera, and it shows.


boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is.

The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.

Maybe next time knox.

Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good.


I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.

Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.

This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you.


Fairly amusing to begin with, this film quickly descends into realms of implausibility bordering on the absurd. The simple fact that Dustin Hoffman required hours of make-up work before each scene should be enough to make that obvious. Despite the film's flaws, Hoffman actually does pull it off and makes a convincing female soap-opera actor. The ending brings the whole film down to the level of a soap-opera, perhaps intentionally so. Enjoy Hoffman's performance but don't expect anything profound; this movie does not aim at gender politics, merely cliches and predictable audience tittering.


The Old Corral starts out a whole lot like the Bing Crosby Paramount classic, She Loves Me Not. If you'll remember chorus girl Miriam Hopkins witnesses a gangland murder and flees from the mob. Here it's Irene Manning who's a nightclub entertainer who sees John Bradford do the same thing and flees out west.

Well, those big city gangsters are way out of their element when they're tangling with Gene Autry. Of course not everyone in the west is as friendly as Autry. There's Cornelius Keefe and Lon Chaney, Jr. who recognize who Manning is before Autry does. They own the local saloon and under the guise of giving her a break, hire Manning to entertain, but in the mean time call Bradford hoping to curry favor with the gangland boss.

If that's not enough sheriff Gene has to contend with the Sons of the Pioneers and their lead singer, one Leonard Slye who play a brother singing group who take to being outlaws as a way to gain notoriety and a radio contract. Of course in two years that lead singer left the group and started putting out his own westerns for Republic and Herbert J. Yates under the name of Roy Rogers.

I agree with a previous reviewer that Manning's soprano and Autry's western twang don't exactly mesh. It might be why Gene mostly didn't go in for singing co-stars throughout his career, unlike his famous rival at Republic. Of course Gene didn't marry a co-star the way Roy did.

The scene where Manning is trying to make a go of saloon singing and falling on her derrière until Gene helps out is reminiscent of Jeanette MacDonald trying to sing for her supper in Rose Marie. Jeanette had a co-star though who was more suitable to her voice.

The Old Corral is kind of dopey, especially the bit about The Sons of the Pioneers. Still it's a great bit of history, an historic meeting between Gene Autry and Roy Rogers.


I just watched this movie on the The Movie Channel about an hour ago, and frankly, I must say that I am shocked to see that the 18 people who voted for it here averaged a 7.0 in their ratings of it. The plot is already explained here so I won't go into it, but I really must voice that I thought this was a truly awful movie. I understand that that may be "part of the point", the "in" joke on independent filmmaking, but what I viewed was a thoroughly - and at times, painfully - bad film. The art of satire is to mirror life while leaving an artist's touch (of opinion); however, if this is dir. Evan Oppenheimer's genuine take on indie films, he is missing something big. The basic idea for "The Auteur Theory" really isn't bad, but the script and acting are so genuinely awful that they really make it impossible for this film to convey itself as any kind of a legitimate satire. Maybe I'm just missing something, I don't know, or perhaps I don't know enough about the inner circles of independent film-making to be able to see how this film succeeds; but if that is the case, then what are we supposed to think of a film so "smart" that its audience doesn't even get it?

Or maybe, this was simply a bad film by a bad director who failed to convey his criticisms, let alone cast them as satire. If this is the case, then bam!, you hit the mark Oppenheimer.


I will keep this short and sour. I'd like to get into the sheer horrors that this movie lays out there, but there is a one thousand word maximum, so that would be impossible.

First of all, any effort to make exposition any less painful than it became was clearly abandoned in the early stages of the writing process and replaced with painful "into the camera" sequences. Not only does this device show an astonishing lack of creativity, but it also grates on your nerves after an hour and a half. I'm not saying I expected this film to be some fine accomplishment of cinema. Or even less than a total embarrassment for everyone involved, including the viewer, but to unleash this on an unsuspecting public is just cruel.

On a totally superficial side note... How short is Christian Slater? I never thought him to be a tall man, but unless everyone else in the film is roughly the size if Shaquille O'Neal, Mr. Slater should inquire about membership to the lollipop guild.


Wretchedly directed, dully written, with no characters, just situations, KUFFS is not improved by the addition of grotesquely inappropriate Three Stooges-like comedy (complete with sound effects) and stupidly flamboyant directorial touches. Avoid as though it were deadly poison.


My roommate in college dragged me to this piece of crap, and I'm ashamed to say I actually paid top dollar (maybe $6 in 1992) to see it. It's the first movie I ever walked out on. Or it would have been if my roommate wasn't such a big Christian Slater fan. That and the fact that he had the car. When the IMDb top 250 and it's ugly step-sister, the Bottom 100 first came out a few years ago, this movie was in the latter. It was right up there (or down there, more appropriately) in the top 10 with Manos, The Hands of Fate (which really wasn't that bad if viewed via Mystery Science Theater 3000). This truly was a horrible film. In a year that also produced Reservoir Dogs, Army of Darkness, A Few Good Men and the Unforgiving, this movie should be "The Forgotten" and for good reason. It stuck.


First, to get something out of the way; nhendley-1, did you even watch the movie? Or were you sleeping and just caught bits and pieces? It would be understandable that you could have been sleeping 15 minutes into the movie because it is awful, but doesn't help your argument. The police even stated that there were no fingerprints on the gun and if you would have watched the scene in the church you would have seen why. Second priority is to outline what I thought about the movie  oh, it was awful. It was an obvious attempt to just be a fun movie but it was far too frustrating with horrible dialog and acting to be tolerable, let alone fun.


Kuffs is a truly awful film that contains one of my all-time favorite show-stopping plot points. Slater's character walks out of a church where his brother is praying. Hears gunshots. Runs back into church to see thug standing over his dead brother, smoking gun in hand. At the police station, Slater is informed that the police can't press charges because-quote-"You didn't actually see the thug shoot your brother. Therefore, he can just claim he saw a gun and picked it up."-unquote. Of course, the police let the thug go...

I know Kuffs is supposed to be mindless, but this scene caused my jaw to hit the floor. Evidently, the San Francisco police have never heard of fingerprints, ballistics and testing for powder burns. Much less, questioning a suspect, as to why he was standing in a church with a smoking gun in hand and body on the ground (with bullets in it that no doubt match those fired from the gun).

I never knew that modern-day police had to rely solely on eye-witnesses to secure convictions.

awful awful awful - avoid like the plague


I have a theory about "Chattanooga Choo Choo".

This was a made-for-TV movie (look at the cast!) and somehow the cans made their way to movie theaters instead of the network and inadvertently got shown at your local theater. That's the only explanation I can offer for why such a stupid movie got released.

Eden's first major release in a decade is certainly nothing Major Nelson would approve of. With speeding trains, laxative, purple clothes, glue in peepholes, stuttering cheerleaders and Joe Namath, there is plenty of goofiness but nothing special. When George Kennedy in his underwear doesn't make you laugh, you know there's something seriously wrong.

This "Choo Choo" is just a time-filler between an episode of "Taxi" and your local news.

Three stars. No go, Joe.


Strangely watchable, but not at one sitting!!!! Just look at the cast and story - NFL owner dies, leaves team to son-in-law (Kennedy)if he recreates travel of Chat Choo Choo to song (leaves Pennsylvnaia station at a quarter to four, etc) who is married to Hanley (Here Come the Brides, remember?), mistress is Eden, coach of team Namath, etc etc etc. Maybe if I could get a pan and scan edition of just Hanley?


Wonderful colors.... Hmmmmm what else can I say..... awful storyline, awful comedy, awful acting, just plain awful... even back then.... I'm always surprised when actors of the caliber of George Kennedy and Barbara Eden have their names associated with such turkeys as this movie.

It is well filmed, in glorious, almost surreal colors, which I think is it's only saving grace... I sat through this tripe hoping(nay, praying)that it would somehow lift itself out of the mediocrity that is established in the first few scenes.... But no, I was disappointed... This waste of celluloid will remain just that.... and I'm truly amazed at how rubbish like this actually gets released.... But the colors were wonderful.


Even rail buffs will be turned off by this waste of celluloid. A non-connected, early-'80s "Porky"-style adolescent string of puns and bathroom humor that is an insult to anyone who has rented this expecting some railroad action. In fact, the train itself is hardly seen. Get "Silver Streak" instead.


Me and my friends rented this movie about a year ago, because we thought it was going to be a scary movie... We were wrong.. There was nothing scary about it at all.. The first 30 seconds where the "witch" where on her way home from the supermarket where fine, but once she came in to her house and we saw the boy trapped in some kind of jailcell, we where like, "what the hell is this?". Anyway.. The boy starts reading "scary" stories so that she wont kill him, and the first one is about a mummy coming back to life and starts killing people and kind of making them mummy's too.. The mummy looked a little gross, but that was the only "scary" thing about that story.. The second story was even worse... It was about a cat who killed people(!).. I think that says it all.. The third story.. well, I think it was about some weird monster with wings.. I'm not sure if it killed people or not, because I was still laughing about the killer-cat, so I wasn't really paying attention to the third story at all.. One thing that I do remember is that the monster looked very strange and fake.. The entire movie was silly, and the ending of the movie was very obvious.. The only good thing about this movie is Steve Buscimi, but not even he could save this silly b-horror movie.. I give it 2 stars out of 10.. At least you get a few good laughes..


I only saw the mummy segment, but it was SO stupid. The plot makes itself unexplainable. Bellingham pries open the mummy's sarcophagus. The first thing he does is goes on about how the ritual of mummification calls for pulling out the corpse's brain. Then he finds the piece of paper in the mummy's stomach. He asks the other guy "You know how to read this?" Later that night, he reads it fluently, enabling the ancient Egyptian curse which wakes the mummy. Now, if I'm wrong, stop me, but he said the mummy's brains were pulled out. If that is true, the mummy cannot think. Hence, he could not have a had a solid working knowledge of the human anatomy, and the knowhow to steal that one guy's brain. Also, not that even a brain could help him here, if he is from ancient times, how does he know how to cause an electrical blackout? Finally, if he has no brain, his nerves wouldn't work. How can he move?


This horror omnibus gives us 4 tales of surprising unoriginality that will keep you guessing at what the next lame horror cliché is going to be, while offering some amusing 80's star watching. The first one, with Debbie Harry as a maniac housewife about to cook a kid for dinner, is actually the best. It's also the shortest, which is good.

The second, star-wise, is interesting because it features Christian Slater (about to be hot), Steve Buscemi (had a long way to go before becoming hot) and Julianne Moore (had a long LONG way to go before becoming hot). This features some silly nonsense about a mummy being reincarnated, without bothering to tell how such a thing could happen or why Buscemi would have such a thing in his room, or why the ancient knick-knack was stolen etc.

Thirdly, we have the inevitable troublesome cat story. David Johansen (!!??) plays a mobster hired by a wealthy pharmaceutical guy to get rid of a cat that has killed all the people in the house. The reason for the cat's revenge? Because the guy tested pharmaceuticals on cats! (this is what he says, the cat's opinion is never dwelled upon). Of course, after 4 murders, it never occurred to the old codger to hire an exterminator or maybe even move. Some good special effects, though really unexplained.

In the final story, we have a very interesting premise. After a struggling artist sees his friend get killed by a bat demon of some sort, the demon gets the artist to swear he'll never tell anyone about the creature. Which he agrees to. Shortly after, he meets Rae-Down Chong, not necessarily a good thing. Shortly after the meeting, he becomes instantly successful.. So you know where this is headed. So much so, I was predicting the dialog at the very end. Just plain shoddy film-making.

Excreable horror. You can do a lot better.


Although Robert "Knox" Benfer has his fans, I'm not one of them. His films are asinine and amateurish, and and just not very funny, unless you're a 14 year old with an underdeveloped sense of humor.

He's certainly not famous, as him immature fans would like you to believe, by harassing people at Wikipedia, or stuffing the ratings votes here at the IMDb. He's certainly not been profiled by any major media outlets, which speaks volumes about his and his creation's "fame".

Benfer does have some slight skill at limited animation, but he needs to get away from his young sycophants and learn to write some actual funny material before he'll be taken seriously as a real entertainer. As of this moment, though, he's just a kid with a camera, and it shows.


boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is.

The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.

Maybe next time knox.

Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good.


I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.

Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.

This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you.


Potter must indeed be an "aquired taste".I found this mini-series really hard going.I recall the 1930s and the traveling salesmen who led a hand to mouth existence,maybe unpleasant memories were evoked? The music held my attention-sort of swung along...I was glad to see Arthur swing in the end also:-)I'm probably not a Hoskins fan.He always seems to try to hard. I thought Cheryl gave a very polished performance .From the moment she appeared the viewer could sense a repressed self bursting to get out! (Quite a surprise when her alter-ego Bonnie Parker emerged,eh!)

I must see the movie version,maybe a change of principal actor might make a difference.It is not a memorable tale in my opinion.


"Hommage to Hitchcock"? Are you sure people? Hitchcock has been one of the greatest film directors ever, and his movies are still evocative and compelling today. This is something that we cannot say about "Entre las piernas", for mainly two reasons:

1)It completely lacks in imagination. The plot is very predictable at each step, except the last scenes, when we discover the identity of the killer. Overall, we are never thrilled by the story.

2)The main characters are flat, not to speak about the secondary ones... The story starts in the psychotherapy room, but it fails in really explaining the "why" of their illness, which could have been very interesting. The secondary characters are simply ridiculous.

Overall, I was very bored by the movie even if the content was meant to be pruriginous. The only notable thing is the skill of V. Abril and C.Gomez as well. You can simply avoid to see this movie, move to something better!


A difficult film to assess.

The cinematography is stunning---one of the most beautifully shot and constructed urban thrillers I've seen from any country. Visually it surpasses most American productions in its lushness and moments of brutality. In terms of atmosphere, it's unforgettable; the character in the rain, in the shadows of alleyways, the iridescent shimmering interiors (shot in some beautifully seedy Spanish settings).

A wonderful star-turn by Victoria Abril also carries the film. Her character, who cruises for sex in public places, is in turns pathetic and fascinating and drives the film forward even when the plotlines lag.

Without blowing the revelation of the film, this also proves to be one of the most virulently AIDS- and homo-phobic stories committed to film. The film's positing of a Gay character as a crux of the mystery and the final moments of the story leans on a highly questionable exploitation of audience prejudices and anxieties. Taken at face value, it's an entertaining, well-paced thriller. Behind the surfaces, though, it's reactionary trash which preys on hatred and misunderstanding of sexual minorities.

The audience I saw this film with applauded at the end, for the bravura filmmaking and good acting. I left with a bad taste in my mouth and ashamed that I had enjoyed the majority of the film until the last few minutes. Depending on where you're coming from and how far you're willing to scrutinize the context of this film, it will seem like a good, well-made movie or typically hetero-centric bashing of gay people, so common in movies from any country. Or perhaps both?


***Somewhat of a SPOILER***

I rented this movie with much anticipation. The title alone got me excited about it. I had also seen an interview with one of the stars on Fuse a while back and desired to see it then.

First off...I think "Manic" was not the right title for the movie. The main character in the movie, Lyle, shows some signs of mania...but he's more angry and obviously cannot control any sort of anger. It is possible I may be confused by what the title is referring to, however, since this movie is placed in a mental ward and the characters are taking such things as Tegretol and Depakote, I leaned towards the bipolar disorder basis before I even rented the movie.

I did not like the "token characters." They wore thin with "Girl, Interrupted." Let's see....we have the girl that is goth looking (because we all know girls that wear black lipstick are wildly depressed). We have the quiet girl who is always calm towards people, but has obvious problems and is always holding things back. We have the person that makes everyone angry because he is so mad about his own life, he must make things terrible for all the people there. We have the friend that there is no hope for, because he does not try to get better (I feel mostly because he does not know how to live outside of a hospital). We have the shy one with lots of problems and who stays mostly quiet until the main character can bring some sort of feeling out of him. And last, but certainly not least, the main character...the one that comes in thinking they have no problem, but in the end realizes and works to get better and tries and usually ends up making an impact on some of the people there. I think maybe I should label this with a spoilers...but it is so typical.

The jerky camera work throughout the movie gets really, really annoying. It's like the director is screaming, "THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!" The opening scene is done in an interesting fashion, that's about all I liked about it. I will, however, give credit for some decent performances. They were well calculated, but too similar to other movies dealing with mental illness issues.

2/4 stars


Manic wasn't a good film but it wasn't a horrible film either. There are many problems with this movie. If there's a few problems with a movie I can usually overlook them but Manic had far too many to just dismiss them. They bothered me the entire movie, especially since they were used to manipulate the audience and advance the plot.

Why would a psychiatric ward be co-ed, especially when some of the teenagers are seventeen and some are thirteen? And Joseph Gordon Levitt's character had access to the women's rooms without any problem? That seems kind of ridiculous. If he's a sociopath what's to stop him or anyone else from raping the girls? I also noticed that there were adults in the yard with the teenagers. I don't think that would be allowed. In all likelihood the minors would have absolutely no access to anyone of the opposite sex or anyone over the age of 18 who was also a patient.

This movie was self-indulgent tripe. It's too bad because I like Joseph-Levitt as an actor but all the characters were completely one-dimensional. Anarchy guy, Wigger guy, Goth girl. It was completely ignorant of teenagers and mental illness. What the hell did this have to do with being manic or mania or bipolar disorder? Joseph-Levitt was a sociopath. It was just more ultra-cool, hand-held, uber-indie tripe. Indie films used to be good before all this self-indulgent crap started coming out like Garden State.

Manic kind of comes across as a corporate public relations bulletin for teens. This is what we think you are. It couldn't have been any more wrong.


I loved the TMNT graphic novels when I was little. They were dark, they were even scary at times, yet it was charming and enjoyable by even the most discriminatory comic book and manga goers.

When I heard there was going to be a TMNT animated series, I was excited. That day in 1987 (or was it 1988), I tuned in to it for the first time. I was outraged and started seeing red after watching this show. I ended up watching this on Saturday mornings because I was waiting for the Super Mario Bros Super Show to come on.

This is like turning a PG or PG-13 comic into a G rated Disney fare. I can see why I liked the first live action movie so much better. Shredder in the comics is scary, menacing and just plain blood thirsty. I hate what they did to him in the cartoon. They turned Shredder into a goofy Disney villain wannabe with bumbling sidekicks Rocksteady and Bebop (who were NOT in the original comics). Krang was not scary anymore and was toned down to be a goofball with an annoying voice. Heck, the voice acting and animation was just intolerable, even by 80's standards. Oh and another thing, WHAT HAPPENED TO ANGSTY EMO RAPHAEL? And wasn't Splinter always a rat and never a human? If you want to see an experience close to Eastman and Laird's works, watch the first live action movie. This animated series is suck a friggin' joke. Or even yet, look for the original graphic novels (not the awful Archie comics version though). You'll enjoy them a lot more, I promise ^_^


I read the director said he made this movie because he wanted to restore Jim Dougherty's place in history. Of course, if his first wife hadn't become you-know-who, he wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.

All of her biographers have noted that Monroe was furious when Dougherty told Photoplay in 1953 that she was so in love with him, she threatened to jump off the Santa Monica Pier if he left her. Little wonder how she'd react to his claims that he created "Marilyn Monroe;" that she was forced to divorce him; and, even when she was the biggest star in the world, she yearned to return to him. How do I put this? Hogwash! Not only is there no evidence they stayed in contact, according to the 8/6/62 New York Times, when her "dedicated friend for life" was informed of her death, he merely said "I'm sorry," and didn't attend her funeral.

He also makes another claim: that he created S.W.A.T. It was, in fact, LAPD Officer John Nelson who presented the S.W.A.T. concept to then-Inspector Darryl Gates.

One of the posters said the film tells the truth; the only "truth" is the pack of lies Dougherty has been peddling for over 50 years in interviews, books, and now this movie. The director should have taken his cue from Norma Jeane herself, and kicked "Jimmie" to the curb like the loser he is!


WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS

The author couldn't decide what she wanted to tell her audience.

All the main characters in this film are, quite frankly, insane.

Mona, whose real name is Lisa, lives with her brother, Phil, above a pub called The Swan.

Much to Mona's disappointment, Phil has recently become a religious nut,and turned The Swan into a place for prayer meetings. What they're living on since The Swan is no longer a pub, I never figured out, but with this delusional mess, it doesn't much matter.

Mona, meanwhile has been messing around with a married man, who is a real jerk. Not only is he cheating on his wife, but he has sex with Mona and THEN tells her their affair is over.

Mona next meets the young, attractive Tamsin, a girl who has been temporarily suspended from boarding school, so is home for the summer, and living nearby.

The two develop a friendship and then a romance. Tamsin, however, is ever bit as unstable as Mona, and the two indulge in breaking out a car window, harassing Mona's ex-boyfriend's wife, conducting a semi-séance session, and eventually Tamsin even leads Phil into nearly succumbing to her seductiveness.

Phil, meanwhile, is running around like a nut-case, building a huge wooden cross and trying to force his newfound religious beliefs down his sister's unwilling throat, what time he isn't kicking her, shoving her lover Tamsin, or locking Mona up in her room. Yeah, this guy is really filled to the brim with the "gentle love" of Jesus!

Finally, when Mona tries to hang herself, Phil loses his religion, and Mona packs her suitcase and trots over to Tamsin's house. There she finds Tamsin packing her own suitcase and calmly announcing she's returning to school.

Disheartened Mona then encounters Tamsin's sister, Sadie, whom she and us, had been led to believe died due to anorexia. So what the heck was THAT ABOUT? And where was Sadie all that time? No explanation is really given.

After a near murder attempt, the film concludes with no real ending.

I gave this convoluted, nearly plot less film, with its nutty characters a 4 and that was being darn generous.


I translated this film for the Budapest GLBT cultural festival. So I expected something that would show lesbian love in a positive light. Instead, this was a rather depressing feature about a teenage friendship which turned into a love affair "by chance". Someone comparing it to Heavenly Creatures had a point. Lesbianism is presented here as an escape from the sordid reality of the girls' (especially Mona's) life.

Not that we see much of these lives, though. This was my major problem with the film. It was based on a novel which was clearly autobiographical, and some points got lost on the way. What part did the zealot brother play in the story? And Tamsin's parents? What was the point in the religious procession, and why was it important to include? Where are Mona's parents? A lot of questions that aren't answered. The two actresses are really superb, but they seem to exist in a void, without an even slightly realistic environment. Maybe this is how the author felt at the time of this happening, but it doesn't make a film. At least not a good one.


Ranks up there as one of the absolutely worst "made for TV" movies, and that's quite a feat. With a plot that's an amalgam of "Cinderella" and "Sound of Music" and fires off ridiculous clichés with almost every plot turn, "Au Pair" is terrible from start to finish.

Heidi Lenhart is tolerable in her role as the knuckle-headed fish out of water, but only wins in the end because the writers (I assume there were writers) penciled in a happy ending. From the boyfriend you know will cheat on her from the first scene, to the evil nemesis complete with wicked sisters, to the MTV video inspired make over that turns bland and boring Jenny into a hot vixen, to the kids she wins over through determination and pluck, this movie manages to take on every cliché ever made.

It also features a "twenty years older than her" Gregory Harrison as the children's father, who dumps the evil witch and marries Jenny, apparently on a whim, as there is no chemistry, no interest, and to that point, they'd spent maybe twenty minutes together. But she's hot, the kids seem to like her, and he needs some new eye candy, so it must make sense in his universe.

John Rhys-Davies is given the thankless role of the chauffeur who actually sees things as they are (in this reality anyway) and encourages Jenny to get what she wants. Thankfully, he'd see a better role in Lord of the Rings a couple of years later.

I can't imagine who this movie was meant to appeal to (elderly squirrels? bad movie fans?) but it lacks any redeeming quality at all. Avoid at all costs.


Sitting at home on a Sunday night, expecting an average sort of telemovie to come on and occupy my otherwise boring night. Well I definitely was wrong. Au Pair was probably the worst film I have seen in my entire life. Your traditional cliched plot was something with which almost made me run away, and the fact that you know how everything will happen right from the word go is unbelievably annoying. The acting in this film represents that of the 'BAD telemovie' community very well. I normally have some understanding with telemovies, expecting them not to be brilliant but slightly entertaining, but this really is HORRIFIC for the telemovie image. The fact that this film is advertised as a family flick repulses me to the extent of running away to gasp for air, and wash my self because it is so dirty. Not dirty in your sexual or violent way but for the fact that a film could be this bad, and yet still make it on to TV screens. If this is what families of today are meant to sit down and watch together, then I am afraid we are looking at a very simple minded and uneducated future, with appauling senses of humour.

If only there were a rating on IMDB lower than 1... Be Afraid of this film BE VERY AFRAID!


I hope no one tuned into watching this film with the idea that James Cagney married someone in Public Enemy and that Public Enemy's Wife is about his widow. This film has nothing whatsoever to do with the film that made James Cagney a star.

Instead it stars Cagney's friend and Irish Mafia member in good standing, Pat O'Brien. O'Brien is an FBI man who is on the trail of Cesar Romero, the number one public enemy at that time. Romero is an insanely jealous type and left enough incriminating evidence so that his wife, Margaret Lindsay, is implicated in his crimes.

She's served her sentence and tells Romero in no uncertain terms that she's divorcing him immediately. In his best melodramatic fashion, Romero tells her she's his forever and jail won't keep them apart.

Lindsay makes a life of her own as a mysterious socialite as she was careful to sock her money away in legitimate investments. She's got playboy Dick Foran panting at the bit to add her to his list of wives.

But Romero escapes and the FBI is brought in. The plan is for O'Brien to marry her and draw Romero out. Of course since the Code just came in it is abundantly clear this will be platonic and annulled the nano- second after Romero's capture.

If you're thinking this sounds like melodramatic claptrap you'd be right. Still somehow the able cast puts it over and it's somewhat enjoyable.


This story seemed to have a reasonable budget so I have no idea how it got such a terrible screenplay.

There were so many egregious plot problems that I don't know where to begin. Another reviewer mentioned, `cringing' through the entire film and that's a fair comment.

Let's just mention a few of the more glaring plot gaffs

Daniel has supposedly suffered some type of serious head injury in the past and yet he plays lacrosse for an entire season on a team that's never won a game to improve his `coaching' credentials?

A local mobster (whose son is the captain of an undefeated collegiate team) fixes the all too predictable match up between the teams. (How could he have thought his son's team could lose) The mobster fixes the match by kidnapping the official and substituting fake officials who make blatantly unfair calls. The mobster is apparently making book on the game (who bets on extra collegiate lacrosse?)

The kidnapped coaches escape when the two goons who have lured them into the mobster's limousine stop for gas and both have to go to the men's room just as the refs are figuring out what's going on. No worries though cause when the refs try to call the police on the limo's phone they find out that the mobster owns the phone company too.

I'm not sure why the `championship' team played the first half like a bunch of thugs. (Did the mobster pay them or something?) Maybe it has something to do with a speech by the mobster's son that ended up on the cutting room floor. When he tells his teammates at the beginning of the second half `forget what I said earlier' it's no problem for the audience since we didn't hear this kid make any speech. <br /><br />For some inexplicable reason the `fake' refs stop making unfair calls in the second half and the hero's team starts to catch up. Course it might be that his sister is now playing. Oh, did I mention that the mobster has bought the mortgage on the family store and is throwing them out? The mobster did promise not to if Daniel threw the game (was Mr. Mobster worried that a championship team playing nobodies aided by his fake officials was going to lose?)

I'm surprised that I rated this as highly as I did but even with all of the above, many of the actors were likeable and it was nice to see a sports movie about a lesser known sport for a change.


I generally think that all films have some merit. A couple of cool scenes, some enjoyable action, no brainer comedy or just a really interesting camera angle. I really did fail to find anything I liked in this film.

I found the acting very unbelievable. Lines were spoken without feeling and realism. The story line was basic, and nothing left to the imagination.

From the sporting side it looked quite poor too. I hate it in Football (soccer to the statesiders) films/programmes when one player gets the ball and runs past everyone to score... all the time. So I am sure it does not happen in Lacrosse.

I guess there is the mildest interest in what happens at the end of the film, though your expecting everything to work out alright. Apart from this I found nothing particularly good in this film. I was cringing all the way through. That was actually quite hard to say as people must have put some hard work into the film.


This film remains alive in my memory in the form of its emotional impressions (the term "bittersweet" may be overused here but is completely appropriate) as well as the final chords of the soundtrack, which darkly underline the story's conclusion. I'm with everyone here astonished that this film's still not available for personal acquisition. It's not as if it was a misstep for either of the stars, something to be kicked under the rug; if anything it's akin to "Harold and Maude" (but not an imitation...the resemblance is superficial). I can still feel this film in my blood, though it must be 20 years since I last saw it.


Another work of Zdravko Sotra who continued to make films for big screen as if they are TV films. Even worse than Zona Zamfirova which at least had a story, this one should get us closer to Serbian tradition, but failed to do what they advertise. Make as an adaptation of Stevan Sremac's novel, it shows that Sotra is awful script writer. There is no story at all. There are some entertaining gags during three days of feast (thanks to excellent actors) but that can not save the movie since there is no storyline! And, again, as with Zona Zamfirova, the camera positioning is like in TV film. Why then bother to go to cinema? My advice: don't waste time with this one!


Given the pronounced anti-Catholic bias of most contemporary English history, one might think that any attempt to redress the balance might be welcomed. Alas, Jimmy McGovern's drama, 'Gunpowder, Treason and Plot', proves this not to be the case. Its greatest problem is its unfortunate tendency to encapsulate complex political issues in slogans, and those slogans, in turn, in characters - the portrayal of John Knox (who does little more than storm about and utter his most famous quote) exemplifies this. This, and the number of historical liberties taken (James I, for example, discovers the Gunpowder Plot in person) make the story a less accurate guide to the past than even 'Braveheart'.

The series is not helped either by some substandard acting. Clemence Posey, with her bizarre French-American-Scottish accent, is mostly inaudible as Mary Queen of Scots and seems to take most of the cues for her performance from Mila Jovovitch's disastrous turn as Joan of Arc in 'Messenger'. Sira Stampe is robotic as James I's wife, while Robert Carlyle's James is as unconvincing as he is unhinged. Also detracting from our enjoyment are the understaffed battle scenes, the histrionic tone, and a decidedly anachronistic portrayal of sexuality.

Surprisingly, given McGovern's own politics, there's almost no hint of republicanism here, although within a few decades Britain was engulfed by a civil war that disputed absolutely the relevance of monarchy: perhaps this is ignored because it was a Protestant rebellion. Instead, we get a boring, linear drama of good queen Mary, bad queen Elisabeth and mad king James. I'm still certain that somewhere, behind the propaganda, there's an interesting story - how did hatred of Catholocism spread so rapidly when only a handful of years previously, everyone in England was Catholic? But this film does little to open one's eyes.


This movie was very disappointing and a major let down compared to the first and second Santa Clause films.

In my opinion this is without doubt one of the worst films ever made, it is vile, its is puerile, it is disgusting and I survived through the entire movie, that was enough to have me in a state of life threatening nausea.

The acting and story line is terrible and the plot isn't very creative. There should have been more action and adventure.

I am certain that some people of a mentally retarded predicament would appreciate it but even then they don't.

This movie is ridiculously unfunny and lame, i wouldn't recommend this anyone, it seemed as if a monkey wrote the script, its just a pile of garbage thrown together.


If you are over 13, then you probably won't like this. As a matter of fact it's more for 9 year olds since the best character in the film is Jack Frost played by Martin Short. Jack Frost was the only appealing thing about this movie. I'm not sure why Tim Allen continues to make these horrible sequels. I mean, he made enough money from his TV show. In this sequel, Santa's in laws come to the North Pole to visit. At first they are first tricked into thinking it is Canada. Sounds really funny, right? It's not long before they are told the truth. For some reason never told, Jack Frost wants to be Santa. He learns that if he can get Santa to hold his own snow globe and say he doesn't want to be Santa anymore, it enacts the Escape Clause. Scott is no longer Santa, and Jack can be Santa. The only worthwhile thing that happens with Jack as Santa is he turns the North Pole into an amusement park.

The movie is just plain boring and not funny and would only fascinate a 9 year old.

FINAL VERDICT: Definitely a sequel to miss.


Adapted from Algis Budrys excellent short story "The Master of the Hounds," TO KILL A CLOWN is an oddity of revenge cinema from the early 70s. While it serviceably handles the man vs. man with dogs scenario, it unfortunately never achieves full audience involvement due to unsympathetic leads.

Despite being based on a short story, the material here is still painfully underdeveloped with major dramatic portions of the story left untouched. Director George Bloomfield has altered Budrys' source story by making Alda's character a Vietnam vet (in the short story he was a WWII POW) and the young couple hippies. This dynamic of the war monger vs. the peaceniks should have offered some interesting social commentary but Bloomfield does nothing with it. It also doesn't help that our hero Timothy (Lamberts) is a really annoying hippie prone to acting like a immature child and talking about his career path as a clown (another variation from the story and source for the odd title).

Bloomfield was also obviously inspired by the previous year's STRAW DOGS and more interested in making a film like that. Not only is his lead Lamberts a dead ringer for Dustin Hoffman from that film, but Bloomfield changes the end of the story (where the crippled Major and his dogs invade the couple's house via underground tunnels) to outside assault that segues into a fistfight where the peaceful become the punishers. But Bloomfield is no Peckinpah and the end result is not as powerful as it could be.

If CLOWN does have any merit, it is for the pre-M*A*S*H performance of Alan Alda as the deranged Vietnam vet. At first he is subtilely creepy with his awkward questions and affable laugh but as the film progresses he becomes more unhinged. The scenes where orders Timothy around like a soldier are very creepy and by the end he is just a notch below raving lunatic (his speech about how buttons are the foundation of America is a keeper). In fact, all of the acting in this is good with fine turns by Danner (who looks so much like her daughter that it is creepy) and Lamberts despite the bad characters they are saddled with. The two Doberman Pinschers are also quite good and deliver all of their lines perfectly.


Okay. I have very little to say about this "movie" since I understand very little of what went on. But I will say, if you see this piece of crap on the shelf at your local video retailer, put it back and rent Strawdogs. This movie had a nonsense plot, a horrible script, bad acting, and the worst tanline this side of the pacific. Blythe Danner can act, but she must have been dealing with some personal issues during this movie (probably working on her clone, the one we now call Gwenyth). Alan Alda as a sadistic, cripple Vietnam Vet. Sorry, I just don't buy it. And you won't either. Please, do me one favor, don't subject yourself to this "psychological thriller". You'll just end up playing Scrabble anyway.


Okay, so I'm a big movie buff & I just HAD to say I've seen this movie at least ONCE! Unfortunately, once was certainly more than enough.

Really bad movie here with not even enough 'kitsch' or 'camp' to make it worthwhile.

While the movie is certainly presented tongue in cheek, it still relies to heavily on the idea that Mae West at 85 is somehow still a desirable sexy vamp.

Sorry but it just don't wash! Adding insult to injury is the fact that again, at 85, Mae West delivers all her lines in basically the same delivery: basically a parody of her earlier self.

So in many respects the movie comes off as rather gruesome.

If it had gone more over the top, PERHAPS it might have at least achieved some sort of John Waters sensibility.

As it is, it plays like one long boring Love Boat episode.

Really there is nothing in this movie that merits anyone wasting their time in viewing it.

So viewers beware, unless you're some crazy movie fan, who feels the need to cross a movie off his 'never seen list' (like me!!!) than do yourself a favor and skip it.

Instead watch Ms. West's films from the 30s. They're actually not all that bad.

Don't say you haven't been warned!


A lot of famous actors have ended their careers with atrocious movies, and this would have to be the high water mark. As a friend said, Mae must have been senile to agree to appear in this, otherwise how could she have let people put her through this?

The plot, for what it's worth, involves Mae's wedding night to a British noble young enough to be her grandson (played by Timothy Dalton) interrupted through the machinations of her agent by some of her ex-husbands, such as Ringo Starr, George Hamilton and Tony Curtis (who plays as if he truly appreciates the absurdity of the venture being undertaken), the search for a tape of her memoirs, and Mae somehow salvaging global peace at a diplomatic conference held at the hotel in London she is staying at. Cameos from others such as Rona Barrett and George Raft (Mae's first screen co-star in 1932, who grimaces through his scene with Mae in the elevator as though he regretted agreeing to do it) abound.

The story though is the least reason to watch. Rather, watching a mummified 86 year old hobbling her way through double entendres, holding herself up against candelabras during musical numbers and being treated by all and sundry as if she were Venus de Milo herself beggars description. A subplot concerning doubts about the sexuality of her new husband seems to miss the fact that doubts about any of the performers' sexuality would have to exist, not least a ludicrous number where members of the American athletic team cavort adoringly around Mae.

The director seems to have made a conscious decision to film scenes in such a way as to minimise Mae's screen time, and when she is in view of the camera it makes sure that it never gets too close. The fact that Mae appears to have dunked her head in a bowl of make up and is filmed through what appears to be guaze seems to indicate that all others concerned were at least trying to take pity on the poor woman while at the same time humoring her.

The musical numbers themselves are side splittingly funny (it's hard to pick a highlight, but one number which could best be described as Mae West does disco would have to take the cake!), Mae's costume changes look like an expensive Edith Head designed drag show, and Mae cracking unabashed double entendres while staring cross-eyed through heavy lids ("I want them to say the British are coming") is mind boggling. Mercifully the audience are spared a sex scene, or even a kiss between her and Dalton, which would have crossed the boundaries of good taste.

I can't begin to comprehend who thought this could be a good idea (if Mae wasn't senile, let's hope she was extremely self-deprecating) but I honestly can't understand why this movie isn't more of a cult classic. I gave it one star but it is so bad it's good. It's like watching a train wreck - no matter how bad it gets, you keep watching because you know it's going to get worse! I need to watch it again this time looking for the evidence of Mae using a cane and having an ear piece through which her lines were fed to her.


There must have been something in the water at the Studio where this one was made. How else to explain one of the most bizarre concepts in cinema history? Consider the following: an eighty-something Mae West is cast as a twenty-something sexpot who is hotly pursued by six (hence the title) young (or youngish) men. In the course of this, she interrupts a UN meeting, thwarts a gangster and makes goo eyes at a body building team (who all seem more interested in each other than in her - and who could blame them?)

But there's more! Mae sings! Well, sort of. Periodically the action, such as it is, grinds to a dead halt while Mae croons some totally unrelated ballad. Her romantic interested is played by Timothy Dalton, who mumbles a tone deaf rendition of Neil Sedaka at West, and who deserved an Oscar for keeping a straight face when he sings the lyrics "Young and beautiful, your looks will never be gone." All the while West is posturing like mad, looking like something they found in the wreck of the "Titanic".

For all of its ineptitude, its gratuitous cruelty and its blatant disregard for good taste, it is hard not to like "Sextette". It is amongst the most requested films in my video collection, and the poster hangs in my lounge room. I really have tremendous affection for it. It has a certain innocence to it; everybody seems to be enjoying themselves so much. And to be fair, West is remarkably well preserved for eighty five (though it is a long, long stretch to pretend that she's the platinum blonde goddess she's meant to be.) One should be revolted yet one isn't; it's all good fun, if not quite in the way it was intended. And if nothing else it took guts for West to make this movie. Nobody could deny that.


Sure, there's nothing redeeming here but I still love this movie. I have a fetish for truly bad cinema and this is one of my faves. We're all allowed our guilty pleasures, don'cha know? Would I recommend this to anyone? Heck, no. But I have to give Mae West credit for still marketing that same image at that age. You have to admire her chutzpa. And how can you NOT love the line referring to Timothy Dalton as England's number one spy who is "even bigger than 007". Pure camp, kiddies. That's all it is. It's like listening to Barry Manilow: don't expect anything and you'll be very satisfied! I first saw this movie when it came out. I was in high school at the time and I have not been TOO emotionally scarred by the experience. So, it's not really ALL that bad... or dangerous. LOL!


Of the multitudinous bad movies that have come out of Hollywood over the years, it would be difficult to pick the worst. This film would certainly be a candidate. West, having enjoyed a late film career resurgence with 1970's "Myra Breckinridge", made one final celluloid splash before her death (at least, it is widely reported that she was still alive while filming this!) This deadly, dreadful horror is the result. Sauntering (if that verb can be used to describe something so sloooww!) around in a variety of surprisingly flattering Edith Head gowns, Miss West cashes in on nearly every one of her memorable quotations from years gone by. Her face is pulled taut to reveal a row of buck teeth, slits for eyes and a platinum wig piled to the ceiling. There is no chance of her face being able to emote even the vaguest expression or reaction. The thin plot involves her wedding day (to Dalton!) being interrupted by several of her former husbands as she tries to prepare for a new film and...of course ensure world peace from a group of dignitaries staying at her hotel! She wanders around mouthing filthy double entendres about sex, but thankfully, never does get around to any. Hapless has-beens Curtis, Starr and Hamilton play a few of her earlier grooms. DeLuise tries earnestly to inject some degree of comedy into the utterly lame and ridiculous story, but his talents are wasted. The worst part is that several well-known songs have been carelessly planted into the script in a halfhearted attempt to make this turkey a musical! Waxlike West considers singing as she waddles around caressing her hair and stomach, Dalton is dubbed during a hopeless duet with her, a dozen or so fruity bellhops prance through the hotel lobby and, at the end, an unrecognizable Cooper pointlessly pops in to serenade West as she is about to leave. DeLuise has a spirited number in which he tap dances on a piano and sings in front of a cardboard cut-out of West. There is absolutely no difference between the cut-out and the real thing except that the cut-out is carved on the sides to make it look thinner. West even has a ghastly number delivered to various weight-lifting titleholders dressed in '70's Speedos. It all sounds like it's so bad it might actually be unintentionally funny, but it really isn't. It's just BAD. Raft (West's first cinematic co-star) has a brief bit in an elevator and Regis Philbin of all people has a cameo as a reporter. This was based on one of her decades-old plays.


I didn't even know that this one was readily available to watch but I immediately snapped it up when I saw it was available for rental from the local DVD store. Actually, I had watched the godawful MYRA BRECKENRIDGE (1970) on TV while I was in Hollywood a few months ago so I was really expecting the worst here. Surprisingly, it turned out to be a fitfully amusing affairif a completely embarrassing one.

Previously, I had only watched Mae West (with whom, I just found out, I happen to share my birthday) in her prime  SHE DONE HIM WRONG (1933), I'M NO ANGEL (1933) and MY LITTLE CHICKADEE (1940)  and I love all three of them. Despite her writing talents, West's main assets were always her figure and appearance so it's no surprise that she bowed out when she didwhich, of course, makes her eventual re-emergence as a heavily cosmeticized octogenarian all the more outrageous and baffling! Over the years there have been numerous surprising comebacks in Hollywood  not to mention lavishly produced ego-trips  but I'd bet few reach the level of preposterousness attained by SEXTETTE! Hollywood in the Seventies, among other things, was an era of catastrophic, all-star attempts to recapture past glories particularly its musical heritage and therefore it's small wonder that SEXTETTE ropes in some uncharacteristic cameo appearances by contemporary music stars like Ringo Starr (as an Erich von Stroheim-like director), Keith Moon (as a flamboyant fashion designer) and, weirdest of all, Alice Cooper (as a piano-playing, bellboy crooner sporting a curly-haired wig)! The Beatles also make another appearance of sorts when Mae's agent, Dom DeLuise bursts into an exuberant rendition of Lennon/McCarney's "Honey Pie"and guess who he was thinking of when he was singing it? Apparently, Miss West wasn't too keen on having these four stealing her limelight However, she did approve of her leading men who, of course, are requested to still be lusting helplessly after Mae  an aristocratic Timothy Dalton (who gets to sing a duet with Mae and whose remarks are frequently misinterpreted in the press!) and mobster George Hamilton (who is also seen pleading in broken Italian to his "Godfather" - cue the Nino Rota score from that film!! - for the sakes of "MarioIrving MozzarellaMarinara!"); other guest stars who make an appearance are Tony Curtis as a Russian powermonger(!), Walter Pigeon as a bewildered Chairman of the Board and a split-second cameo from George Raft - who co-starred with Mae in her very first film, NIGHT AFTER NIGHT (1932) - as himself.

Ken Hughes helmed some good films in his day  THE TRIALS OF Oscar WILDE (1960) and CROMWELL (1970)  but, I guess, the producers of SEXTETTE only knew him from his comedic, big-budget extravaganzas like CASINO ROYALE (1967) and CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG (1968) when they engaged his services for this misbegotten enterprise


This film is an embarrassment to watch. Seeing poor Mae West, who was near 80, trying to act sexy is pathetic. The script is terrible and everyone in it should have known better. Paramount Studios, where it was filmed, refused to release it. It was finally picked up by an independent releasing company and released (or should I say escaped) and quickly died. If you are a fan of Mae West, DO NOT SEE THIS FILM! It will break your heart.


This ill-conceived film must rank as one of the worst ever made. The soft focusing could not disguise 85 year old Mae West's age and frailty. To see her in love scenes with Timothy Dalton (a man nearly one third of her age) is offensive.


This movie proves my point that Greta Garbo was one of the smartest movie stars to ever live - Mae West, unlike Garbo should have wisely retired from films after her heyday in the 1930s.

Instead, West finished her career with this lousy flick.

Why do so many actors and actresses give in the temptation of making that one more film? For example - Why did Bette Davis not end with "Whales of August" - her SECOND to last film - instead of the terrible "Wicked Stepmother"? And likewise, why didn't Mae West end her career with "My Little Chickadee" instead of this bit of celluloid trash?

"Sextette" might be fun to watch on a boring, rainy day when you are home sick from school or work and want to see how many guest stars you can identify - or if you don't want to take a sleeping pill when you have insomnia - otherwise forget it!


Please don't watch this movie as some1 is saying this is an excellent movie, Imran and Genelia rocks, Aamir Super Production, etc. As this movie is the worst movie ever, though the storyline is very very common two friends in love, but their ego comes between, than then they find someone i n their life to avoid their friendship, but as I told you naa a very common story, in end they again meet, so please guys its a humble request don't go for this flick its a complete waste of time and money. If you guys remember than 5 years ago there's a movie named Tujhe Meri Kasam, tjis movie is complete copy of that film, though in that movie songs are awesome, good comedy and excellent performance by all character's. That's first movie of Genelia and Ritiesh. Except Paresh, there is no other character in the movie whom we call actor. 'Pappu can't Dance' and 'Hass De Aditi' are good songs, but not as good that you can go to see this movie in Theaters, so please avoid, I am sure this movie worst movie of the year.


UP THE JUNCTION is a "kitchen-sink" drama made in the UK in the 1960s. It is an adaptation of a novel of the same name by Nell Dunn. I have never read the novel so I am in no position to say whether it is an interesting read. I find it hard to believe that it could be more depressing than this travesty of a movie adaptation however,

The setting is London. A well-off young woman moves from Chelsea to Battersea. There seems to be nothing further to the plot of this movie - no indication of what could have possessed this seemingly bright woman to move out of swinging Chelsea. What is played out on the screen are a series of scenes highlighting the despair and depression of run-down Battersea.

The opening scenes with the depressing score by Manfred Mann (famous for such great upbeat hits as My Name is Jack) already indicate that Battersea is a run-down hell-hole who no one would want to find themselves in. Peter Collinson seems content with dragging this dreary theme down the viewer's throat through the whole of the movie. Characters are thoroughly nasty, mean-spirited, foul-mouthed and in some cases violent. A variety of social themes are raised here, including abortion. Unfortunately they are addressed in a way that fails to interest the viewer and instead just drags the mood of even the cheeriest of folk right down to a point where the depression simply becomes unbearable. Trust me, if you are fortunate enough to have never endured this awful movie you would be well advised to steer well clear.

Suzy Kendall has the misfortune of playing the main character - Polly. This was an early role in her career. But even still, I can think of no reason why such a talented actress had to stoop to something this low. After seeing this movie, I was very hesitant about picking up anything else with her name attached. Fortunately Ms Kendall's career picked up in the 1970s and she starred in some great movies, including THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, TALES THAT WITNESS MADNESS, CRAZE and one of my favourite giallos - TORSO. Trust me, she can act and she has starred in movies that are a million times better than the depressing tripe known as UP THE JUNCTION.

Dennis Waterman in his pre-Minder days is also an unfortunate actor. He was great in the TV series, MINDER. But in UP THE JUNCTION, he is stuck with a hopelessly dull role that he carries off without the slightest hint of charisma. I have to say that I don't blame Mr. Waterman for his lack of enthusiasm.

To make matters worse, an excellent supporting cast in the form of Adrienne Posta, Maureen Lipman, Michael Gothard, Liz Fraser, Alfie Bass and Michael Robbins are all wasted. The latter three names I have just mentioned are famous for comedy and could have brought some much-needed light relief to this bore-fest. But unfortunately the absent-minded scriptwriter decided otherwise.

The only actor who manages to hold attention here is Aubrey Morris - an actor famous for playing eccentric professor or doctor roles in TV shows and movies during the 1960s and 1970s. Mr. Morris feels at home here as an eccentric estate agent, but only because his character has very limited screen time and also plays no part in the unpleasantness that almost the entire remainder comprises.

Perhaps UP THE JUNCTION could have worked as a social message about poverty, hopelessness and social decay if it had been done in a satirical manner. Instead the result was perhaps the most depressing movie I have ever had the misfortune to endure.

Ironically, the director of this atrocity - Peter Collinson - directed AND THEN THERE WERE NONE - a truly entertaining and suspenseful adaptation of the novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. Mr. Collinson can direct and really came into his own with AND THEN THERE WERE NONE. I actually prefer his adaptation over the more famous 1945 one. I would instead advise readers of this comment to see that movie instead. It is executed almost entirely without humour but is highly entertaining, suspenseful and ultimately compelling. The DVD has finally been released in 2010 after years of dithering by Optimum Releasing. The transfer is great and the aforementioned DVD distributor can once again be congratulated.

Overall, I wholeheartedly advise everyone to steer well clear of UP THE JUNCTION. It will depress you to unbearable levels. I mean that literally. You have been warned!


A rich, posh young woman moves from a quaint part of London to a run-down area, where she dreams of living a social class existence and escaping the corrupt influence of money. That's it. That's the whole film. We watch a lady who had it easy giving it all up so that she can live in poverty, because allegedly poverty is better than being unhappily rich.

I find this film woefully unconvincing, and it's theory that there are lots of good points about being poor is hard to swallow. Most people I know aspire to get out of the gutter and to climb to a respectable status, but here that notion is reversed. The main character played by Suzy Kendall is downright annoying anyway, so it's awfully hard to care much about what happens to her during the course of the film.

After spending two hours of my life watching this film, I have no insights into its characters or its social and moral standpoint. The film was a waste of time. It is probably the worst film that director Peter Collinson has ever made, other than the horrid Open Season (1974).


Absurd adaptation of a dinner-theater perennial by Alec Coppel has television-writer Glenn Ford attempting to cover up a murder by burying the corpse underneath wife Debbie Reynolds' garden gazebo. This type of sitcom nonsense--featuring totally unreal supporting characters bursting into the scenario at just the wrong moment (such as the pushy real-estate agent)--doesn't usually work on film; the would-be eccentricities stick out as phony artifices. Comedy shows from television have since put a stamp on this kind of bungling silliness...but were over-the-top, frazzled-nerves-slapstick ever really fresh? Ford and Reynolds are actually a good screen match, but not when paired with this leaden script. Awkward, talky, and mercilessly unfunny. * from ****


Based on the Hecht-MacArthur play, a newspaper editor and his ace reporter battle each other while fighting civic corruption in Chicago. You better be in good shape if you wanna survive this one. Is it just me or did I miss something here? Nearly two hours of badly recorded shouting in this early talkie with barely intelligible dialog, absolutely exhausting. But perhaps it's just the bad transfer on the DVD.

The fact that this film received three academy award nominations, Best Actor, Best Director and Best Picture, is illustrative for the difficulties regarding sound in the these early stages of sound in film-making. These technical deficiencies came with the period and might be easily forgiven, if there was something of cinematic interest to be found, but this is not film-making. It's a filmed play and a bad one at that. Badly shot, badly lit and the stagy acting style doesn't help either, with just about everyone shouting their lines to the ceiling or the windows, wherever the microphones are hidden. I guess the material is OK, based on the later adaptations of he piece, but it's almost impossible to figure it out, so distracted is the viewer by the constant clamoring. I know it's an early talkie but that's no reason to ignore the far too many shortcomings of this film.

If you like the material, remade infinitely better by Howard Hawks as HIS GIRL Friday (1940), better but not brilliant by Billy Wilder as THE FRONT PAGE (1974) and yet again as SWITCHING CHANNELS (1988) with Kathleen Turner and Christopher Reeve. Save yourself a headache and watch these instead.

Camera Obscura --- 3/10


No one should except to see an Oscar worthy film here, but this movie simply ran with the standard "white man learns to love Asian culture" script, and it doesn't even pull that off well. Everything Scott Glen/"Rick" learns to love about Japan is just a cliché. Instead of showing the American audience what there is to love about Japanese culture (which could fill 16 hours, easy), we're reduced to stereotyped figures and situations.

I love Toshiro Mifune, and it pained me to see him have to dull his acting and swordplay in this film to suit the rest of the cast. Scott Glen is about as good of an action hero here as Ben Aflect is in "Dare Devil"... and that's bad. I normally like Mifune and Glen, even in his bad movies, but this time it was just painful.

"The Last Samurai" was successful where this turkey flopped- it explored the differences between two cultures that were clashing. It did this by refusing to boil everything down to simple stereotypes, as "Sword of the Ninja"/"The Challenge" did.

By the way, where was the ninja? I counted a few Bushido warriors (samurai), but no ninja. Hmmmmm... "Crap Storm" is a nice title...


The only reason to watch this movie is to see one of the greatest Japanese actors ever born (Mifune) in one of the dumbest "spaghetti-jidai-geki" ever made. The poor man must have got the script only after signing the contract. The story is truly imbecile, the direction and camera - very mediocre, and the movie looks like it's somebody's first try in cinema montage. How could anything like this ever get on the screen?


A crop dusting machine from the agricultural pest-control is emitting ultra-sonic waves that are re-animating corpses...

A lot have said this is underrated, granted it's overlooked, it atmospheric, moody, has great locations and is genuinely creepy. However, it's shares more with Fulci than Romero. The acting is just about competent, bad dubbing, it has an eerie musical score and a number of suspenseful sequences but it's far from an iconic or cult zombie film.

I watched it under the title of 'Let Sleeping Corpse Lie' but whichever name you see the film under don't be mistaken or mislead, it's an average zombie horror movie of its time with nice cinematography. That said, it's a lot better than the low budget DTV zombie films that there's no shortage of at the moment.


I was blessedly unaware of this version of the film until today. I am a great lover of the original starring James Stewart, and was today flicking through the TV channels when I came across this remake.

I cannot understand why the film was remade, especially with no real changes, just another cast and filmed in colour. The actor playing Elwood has none of the innocence and charm of James Stewart's portrayal and as far as I can tell is just trying to impersonate Stewart and failing terribly. The ultimate result is farcical, where the original is heart warming. The only scene that has any connection to the original is the taxi driver's speech towards the end, which verges on the magic of the original.

Leslie Neilsen gives a dreadful unconvincing hammy turn as the doctor, and the other actors are similar pantomime-esquire when compared to the 1950 version. If you have not seen the original I urge you not to watch this dreadful imitation first and see the real thing.

Pointless and an insult to the genius of the original.


I saw this for cheap at a used DVD store & picked it up, because I love the original "Harvey" and Harry Anderson certainly looks like he'd make a great Elwood P. Dowd. But when I started to watch this and got about halfway through, I realized that it has absolutely none of the charm or humor of the original, and that it wasn't getting any better as it went along, so I stopped it. Anderson is OK as Dowd, but this is a flat production with absolutely no soul to it. The story is kind of the same, but there were differences from the original that made no difference whatsoever, and no member of the cast particularly stood out. This can't hold a candle to the original & it's going right back to the store I bought it from to be traded yet again. 3 out of 10, you can't mess with a classic.


Limp and dire. I fell upon this dreadful TV version being shown one afternoon on ITV1. The brilliant original overflows with abundant warmth, charm, wit, humour and is beautifully acted. Alas the trash that I watched had the heart of the original ripped out of it, it lacked the pace, eccentricity and repeatability that the original film had and the acting seemed one dimensional compared to the outstanding original. So I was utterly disappointed when I watched the television version it is nothing more that TV fodder to fill a gap between two other television programs. Luckily I have a video copy of the original and watched the brilliance of Josephine Hull and James Stewart their performances are such an amazing contrast to the lack luster television production


I was flipping through the channels and saw this was on this afternoon. It is a very poorly done remake. Many of the lines were so poorly delivered that I got the impression that the actors new it wasn't going to be very good.

On the other hand, I highly recommend the original Jimmy Stewart version. It has all of the charm that this version lacks. Stewart's Dowd cannot help but be loved, while Anderson's Dowd feels wooden, and I ordinarily like Harry Anderson. When watching the original, you find yourself hoping that Harvey is real and you come to love him. In the remake, you find yourself not believing that any of the characters are real. They all come across as actors on a stage acting a part rather than actually being the characters. If you want to see Harvey, do yourself a favor and see the original. This version is not very good.


HARVEY (1996) *1/2

"Harvey" is such a lost, mismatched comedy it hurts to see so many familiar faces on the big screen making fools of themselves. It isn't funny or touching. It has a firm first act: the problem is that a grown man, named Elwood P. Dowd, has an imaginary friend that is a six foot tall rabbit-similar to the Easter bunny-named Harvey. But the film doesn't know where to go from there. Where it takes us is though a series of coincidences and mistakes, all of which the plot is built upon, and throws consideration into the wind. Now, that's not to say the movie doesn't make us laugh, because there are several sequences in the film that are down right hysterical, proving that a movie can be successfully made about an imaginary six foot rabbit, but most of the funny scenes accrue during the first twenty minutes, for the one joke this film has gets stale after a while. And finally, after the laughs die down and the movie's insanity begins, it follows a steady path going down hill into ludicrous-ville.

The characters are cute and over-the-top, but too exaggerated. The character development is absent, as is the explanation of why Harvey exists, or where he logically came from (oh, come on, they don't actually think an audience is going to buy that "found him at the bottom of a light post" thing, do they)? There is a romantic sub-plot that is way out of place. And the actors are completely wasted. And get this: Leslie Nielsen, the Leslie Nielsen who stars in "Wrongfully Accused," is made out to be a dead-serious psychiatrist. The slapstick king stars as a man whose pastime is daydreaming of a private island where he can go to have women feel sorry for him. This film is ridiculous in its use of him.

Geared toward a family audience, "Harvey" is slow moving and boring at times, assuring a loss of interest by children-and adults at that. I guess we're supposed to become involved with Elwood's defense, because people thin he his a nutcase. Well, I too thought he was a nutcase. I was thinking to myself that this man is disturbed in the greatest, and I think I was supposed to be wondering why other "sane" people would not except him. Gee. I dunno?

There is a particularly bad scene in "Harvey" that not only proves my point about how bad the film is, but also make's public an obvious flaw that the majority of an audience would miss the first time watching it. It consists of Elwood's mother explaining to someone about how Harvey is always in the way. The family has to make a place for him at the dinner table, buy him, tickets to movies, make room for him on the couch. Now those things are funny. But why, dear reader, why, did they explain the misadventures of having Harvey as a family member instead of showing them to us? Well, at least the filmmakers were aware of their mistakes. Otherwise, they would have not make them know to so many.

PS. See how a movie uses Leslie Nielsen in appropriate ways by reading my "Wrongfully Accused," review @ http://comments.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?Blake+French+(dlfspartan%40aol.com)/ us. Or by clicking on my name at the top of this review. I Think it will help you understand the failure of "Harvey's" use of him.


Four men with little or no acting skills pretend to be gangsters in this brilliant comedy.. oh thats right, its meant to be serious.. I forgot.. utter cheese from start to finish, bad acting, bad casting, bad movie.. was it filmed on a handy-cam? do yourself a favour and don't even borrow this film.. It will be a waste of your time. I want the 2 hours of my life back but its looking like a lost cause.. If you want to waste some time do anything other than watch this film otherwise like me, you will be left angry and vengeful..

Why would you waste your time making a movie this bad.. Its like a bad rip off of pulp fiction and reservoir dogs but lucky for them its so bad that Tarantino wont be suing them because he will be laughing so hard.. and why stop at robbing 500 million dollars? why not make it a billion billion dollars, or all the money in the world? don't give up ya day job fellas! hey did these guys write 'Hoboken Hollow' by any chance?


this is an awful film. Very low budget, wooden acting, and a story that is as incomprehensible,as it is dull. Avoid at all costs. I have seen student films that are better than this, after just a couple of minutes the complete amateurish production is obvious. My first hint was that the DVD said in was 1hour and 15 min. what an odd length for a feature film, well that one hour lasted what seemed like forever. Oh and don't believe the what you might read on the DVD as far as the story is concerned. Vegas, and the casino they are supposed to blow up, never happens. In fact it looks to me like they never left the back woods of Oregon where i wish they had left the DVD.

I would give it a zero if I could.


First off, I haven't seen the TV series about the same main character.

I know there is an audience for movies like this. But I tend to expect at least a small storyline that is been followed in the film. After watching "Der Clown" I am not sure what story was told there.

All I can recall is this: A guy, formerly a member of some sort of special forces, dropped out of that unit. Now he is free to break legal rules to successfully hunt down the bad guys. Of course his girlfriend had fought on his side and has been killed in action. We learn this in the opening scene.

The bad guys have the famous idea to rob gold bars (can money be more difficult to carry away?) and they do it with ease. It took just a grenade on the highway to get rid of all the chasing police force.

The Clown starts the hunt. A friend supports helicopters (yes, several of them, because they are wrecked one after the other). And a blondish journalist shows up, right in time to be taken hostage and later to kiss the clown. No other purpose for her to be in the movie. I already forgot how the bad guys were stopped in the end.

Action in a movie doesn't have do be explosions. But in this movie, everything explodes. And as in the German TV series "Cobra 11", cars tend to lift off in slow motion as soon as they hit a little obstacle. This is dull entertainment, destruction for the lover of brute force. You don't care for any character in this movie. The makers tried to make us feel for that poor man that had lost his girlfriend, but it doesn't work just by putting in the scene of her death in slow motion.

If you like TV productions like "Cobra 11", you will probably like this movie. But don't expect more. If you go to the movies to be touched and moved by the story, this is definitely not your film.


"Der Clown" is the movie version of the German TV  series by the same name, running quite successful from 1996 to 2001. The series was about some guy who is officially dead but in truth is sitting in his hideout, waiting for the bad guys to move. Whenever something is seriously wrong, he'll put on a clown mask and go rampage, vigilante  style. So far, so good, on to the Big Screen...

A merry bunch of bad guys with hockey masks wants to steal the German gold reserves. The guy who once was the Clown has retired after his girlfriend was killed in action, but now it's time for him to take his costume out of the vault, put on the smelly rubber mask again and kick some bad butt.

Boy, this has gone wrong. Big time trash bonanza! First of all, it was not shot on 35 mm, it does not even look like 16 mm, I have a certain feeling that they did it on video. Bad video, that is, with the predominant colours being red (explosions, the actors' faces) and grey (everything else). It looks terrible, but on the other hand, that fits quite well with about all other aspects of this production. The movie desperately tries in every scene to imitate big loud Hollywood action flicks (which is absolutely okay), but obviously the makers neither have the talent nor have they understood anything (not okay). Every five minutes there is a big, red (you know, video) explosion or something, our heroes escape one way or the other, with always the same pathetic piece of score. I would accept that those scenes do not have any kind of emotional impact, but the movie does not even work as an entertaining no-brainer, never! And whose fault is this? Yes. Send in the director, writer, editor and all the other clowns responsible for this catastrophe! May they lower their red video faces in shame!

The screenplay was obviously written by a chimp that was tied to a typewriter. It reveals a total lack of sense for pace, logic, characters, dialog, you name it. There is absolutely no storytelling. You could zap into this crap every time, stay with it for five minutes and change the channel again, without the feeling that you're missing something before or after what you just watched, it has made-for-TV written all over (Afterwards I even had problems to summarize the story at all...). This terrible excuse for a script is turned into an uninspired, uninterrupted inferno of hectic, shaky shots. Honestly, I saw home movies that had more virtuosity than this. Heck, not even the action sequences look good! The most annoying thing however is the extensive, completely unmotivated use of time warps and split screen effects throughout the whole movie (I don't mean two or three times, it is in almost EVERY scene). And for those who are still with us: The sound mixing is the worst I was forced to listen to in years. Bad, bad, bad!

But I wouldn't say that it is not entertaining. "Der Clown" features tons of incredible, unintentionally funny moments, e.g. a stunt, where at least a dozen burning police cars fly through the cloud of an explosion (red, of course) on a highway. Yes, this is a cool stunt. No, it is by no means a tragic, emotional scene which would maybe, and only maybe, justify the use of slow motion and pathetic syntheziser strings for two long minutes. It however gets really, really tasteless when the main character has a flashback of how his girlfriend died. This is edited like a music video, with the lethal bullet entering the girl's body within the rhythm of the music. My god, what were they thinking??

If you're into trash and maybe even survived last year's moron fiesta "Daniel  Der Zauberer", this is definitely a must see. If not, be warned. You'll probably feel the urge to go rampage afterwards, vigilante  style.