Rafi (Thurman) just got divorced and starts seeing a younger man (Greenberg), whose mother (Streep) is her Therapist. This is not good.

If I didn't know better I would say this is an bad infomercial for all Jewish mothers who are really concerned that their sons marry nice Jewish girls, have Jewish kids.well you get the idea.

I have seen Jewish mothers who are concerned about their sons marrying non-Jewish girls and they are not silent, or reserved about it. No way. Lisa (Streep) must, of course, show a certain reserve when treating patients. Okay, we know that. But, that aside, she should have been a raving lunatic about her son going with and getting serious about a non-Jewish girl, who is also quite older than her son. But, she doesn't play it that way. That would have made for a better show. I do believe she was miscast. Ooops, did I step on a national treasure?

Now, the chemistry between Rafi and David (Greenberg) was non-existent. I cannot fault Thurman. She did everything that was called for, but Greenberg needed more coaching. He acted too much like a 40-year old. His face never, never changed expression, never. Not that he should have been doing silly things because of his age, but because he didn't show the passion he should have. The jumping of someone's bones doesn't count here. The jumping was in the script. His passion should have come from him. Never did. Everything was played with a lump in his throat. Thurman had the passion, but not enough for the both of them. I think she should get some kind of award for this.

And, they call this a comedy? Where was the comedy? Where were the Jewish jokes? Even the tame ones? There was enough material here to keep me in stitches, but no one did anything with it. Where is Molly Goldberg when you need her?

For "comedy", I cannot count David's friend who smashes pies into the faces of girls who won't give him a second date. The first time was funny, shocking when you first see it. . After that it was pathetic.

Sometimes I wonder why certain movies are made. Here there was nothing, no impact, nothing. They could have used a better title too. Prime? Yes, I get it, just don't like it.


The lead couple had no chemistry. Uma Thurman is too posh to be in this role. They dealt with this situation in the simplest way, Meryl Streep just tell's Uma Thurman she is Uma's bf's mother. The movie then goes on and on and I don't care anymore, I just want it to be over. There is nothing really unique about this movie. The trailer summarizes the movie well. The breakup is a poor ending, and there's no great conclusion. This was just a temporary relationship, now that it's over, we can move on. We never end up sympathizing for any characters. The premise of the movie was good, how they developed it was awful. Meryl's character was limited by what she could say. This is hardly a comedy.


Introduction/Characters

I rented this film after enjoying Owen Wilson's comedy work in such films as Shanghai Noon and the Royal Tennenbaums. I was hoping to see a few sparks of what became his signature...interesting little bits of humorous, off-beat dialog. For that, I wasn't disappointed. As in SN, you can't help but like his character. Dignan despite the fact he is simply a petty thief. Through he little dialogs and mannerisms, he is almost able to convince you he doesn't mean to do others harm, but is really just seeking a place to be be recognized and to belong.

Like his brother, Luke Wilson also shows a little bit of what would come to be his stereotypical role. He plays Anthony, the earnest and honest follower who would rather settle down and find love then get involved in illegal activities. In this role he manages to convince us he only gets involved out of a sense of loyalty, rather than to actually gain anything for himself.

I was a bit let down by the Bob character, played by Robert Musgrave. He reminds me of a jelly fish, both in his character and in his acting: you see the vague outline of what he is trying to be, but in the end there is very little substance to hang on to. Bob apparently yearns for acceptance by his brother, but ends up looking like a man without a backbone.

Story

The loose plot revolves around the lives of three friends in their attempts to build lives for themselves. Anthony apparently is just looking for someone to love, Dignan is seeking a club to belong to and Bob desires a loving relationship with his brother. Together, they form a little "gang" with Dignan as the ring-leader.

Overall, I was entertained by the various vignettes that make up the movie, but disappointed with the movie as a whole. The overall plot line, if you can call it that, does not really lace the movie together in a tight package. I felt like the conclusion was an afterthought rather than a planned event.

Conclusion

I can't really recommend this movie. It is awkward and uneven throughout and you come away almost wondering "what was the point of this story?".


Apparently everyone likes this movie except me. Strange thing, too, because while I was watching this I couldn't find a single positive redeeming quality to raise my opinion of it - even the locations are not photographed very attractively. It's a boring mystery tale, that never manages to get you involved, and when everything is revealed you don't get any particular pleasure from the resolution. In fact, the movie takes so long to reach at wherever it's going that you may feel like dozing off on several occasions. Denzel Washington, in this particular role, doesn't show enough star charisma to hold the picture; his co-star, Robert Townsend, steals the show as the cheerfully irresponsible "victim of circumstances". (*1/2)


You will surely laugh at the awful singing when you watch this movie! And it was so stupid having Esther Rolle to play a witch doctor. I was so annoyed with Denzel Washington, Sheryl Lee Ralph, and Robert Townsend's phony Jamaican accents! They were not speaking Jamaican. They were speaking Jamaicinglish! I thought this movie was stupid when I first saw it when I was 14. And I still think this movie is stupid! Denzel Washington cannot sing! This movie joined my list of movies that received a one star rating!


The 2006 movie Boston Strangler is not a remake of the 1968 movie with that same name, since they have completely different perspectives on the historic basis of the respective stories, although both versions attempt to blend fact and fiction about events in the early to mid 1960s. The 1968 version accepted as fact that Albert DeSalvo, who confessed to the murders of 13 women, was the Boston Strangler. The 2006 movie (which this review will exclusively refer to from now on) raised doubts on whether DeSalvo was the Boston Strangler. The movie is a low-budget, independent film and you can tell it. If a person makes allowances for this, which I am personally willing to do, then the movie has some strong points. The movie is directed by Keith Walley. The character of Albert DeSalvo is played by Mauro Lannini and the character of Detective Riley is played by Jason David. DeSalvo was a real person who confessed to 13 murders and was subsequently murdered in prison. Riley is a fictional creation, used in the movie to raise doubts about the validity of DeSalvo's confession. Lannini gave a chillingly believable performance as DeSalvo and David gave a strong performance as a skeptical police detective. For the most part, the less important characters were portrayed in an adequate manner, although there were some lines that were delivered in a stiff manner and a few lines were overdone. Close to the end, the back story about Riley jerks ahead twice, giving insufficient information about what is going on. If we're given this fictional subplot, then it needed to be developed better. There are two anachronisms in this period piece that jumped out at me. In one scene, a character said, "They're all looking for their 15 minutes," an apparent reference to a statement by Andy Warhol made in 1968, three years after the time of the statement in the movie. I confess that I had to look up the time of Warhol's statement and it is a trivial point. To some people, the other anachronism might also be trivial but I found it highly annoying. The time of Detective Riley's first appearance in the movie was identified as March 1965, slightly more than a year after the Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan show, shocking most adults with their not-quite-shoulder-length hair. Not only did Detective Riley have longer hair than the Beatles wore on Ed Sullivan, it was highly styled. This would be roughly the equivalent today of a police officer showing up for duty wearing purple spiked hair and a red rubber clown nose. This bothered me so much through the movie that it lowered my estimation of the movie from fair to mediocre.


Right off the bat I noticed the same thing another reader mentions... the longish, styled 70's haircut the lead detective is sporting. NO police force allowed hair like that in 1965! Also annoying is the fact it is set in Boston, yet I hear ZERO Boston dialect! If you listen carefully there are a lot of phrases that didn't come into vogue until at least the 90's. I realize this is being nitpicky.. but c'mon these were obvious and very easy fixes. Who writes this junk anyway? The frequent night shots of the Boston skyline (same shot repeated over and over) were also annoying. If the set pieces matched the actual time frame I might have boosted this up a notch.


I'm from Boston and know people who were questioned about the murders. It was a little disappointing to see how this was put together. And I don't remember De Salvo having a foreign accent, the real De Salvo grew up in Massachusetts. Sure the actor looked a little like the real De Salvo, but his accent made the story seem fake. The overall feel of the movie was worse than a made for TV movie. The photography for the movie was very jumpy. The costumes for the time period didn't match very well.

If you are looking for something scary or gory, this is not it. It's more of a history movie you'd see in high school on the reel to reel during class. I didn't even watch the whole thing. Terrible.


This is a good example of a interesting idea horribly executed.

The only positive thing i can say about this film is that Mauro Lannini gives a credible performance as the unbalanced DeSalvo. This, however, can not save this low-budget effort.

The sparse sets are mostly dreadful - there is no period detail whatsoever and therefore very little atmosphere. Apart from Lannini, the quality of acting is mediocre and the script itself is uninspired and instantly forgettable.

The director relies too heavily on "flashback" sequences giving the film a disjointed feel and the numerous overhead shots of Boston in-between scenes soon got on my nerves.

On a lighter note, the film concludes with one of the most amusingly awful "aging" effects i've ever seen as Jason David wears a tonne of make-up to portray an old detective Riley.

Overall - definitely one to miss.


This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever tried watching. I only did about 25 minutes before I turned it off. It reminded me of a high school play. The actors seemed as if they were reading off of a teleprompter, the music was way overdone, they kept using the same crime scene photo over and over and over.... Everything was so cliché'. Don't waste your time watching this. You would do better to just read the story on the internet. I wish I had looked at the IMDb rating before I chose this movie. The cover looked very interesting, plus what a story line. But it failed miserably. I have never heard of any of the actors, I now know why. And I can't recall ever hearing of the director before.


I guess when you see the title "The Boston Strangler", you expect to see a remake of the 1968 classic, brought up to date, with modern film making, but no such luck with this title. This is just a Q&A with DeSalvo in prison, with flashbacks to his crimes, and it seems to try and say that DeSalvo may not have been the mass murderer, The actors and acting are dire, the direction is awful, i have no idea what he was seeing through the lens, how could you get a bunch of actors like these to make a film believable, in the original movie Tony Curtis played DeSalvo,with a career best performance, really an Oscar performance, and it shows what a great actor he was back then, Henry Fonda as a law professor, brought in to find the killer, and George Kennedy as the detective, these were Stella performances. In a film about a serial killer you expect, suspense, danger,twists and turns, a psychological thriller, in this remake i am afraid to say the only twists and turns, is when you switch it off.


Some extra-dark version of Samuel L. Jackson spends over an hour berating an investigator with severe cystic acne scarring. Annoying full-length shots of women being overpowered and strangled without any real sexual violation, even though the killer(s?) are supposed to be sexually driven. At some random point, some Tim Gunn-type man takes over investigation, advised by his distracting bowties. Flashbacks to the most lame murders of the movie. Boston has an ugly skyline and contributes nothing to the film. Accents change as drama escalates. Random clichés such as "innocent until proved guilty" randomly uttered by cast. Acting on par with that of my first play in elementary school.


I've always had a thing for 'serial-killer-murder-movies', so of course i jumped at the chance to view this one. I'm sure that it has it's qualities, but the music... holy cr... I mean, c'mon. There's this underlying synth-thingie that becomes more or less audible depending on what's being said. That may work in some cheezy horrorflick... but it really put me off this one. Sad but true.

I found myself listening more to the "crescendos" of the music rather that what was being said. So.. i cannot honestly say that I've seen the movie.

Am i being picky? mayhap, but since i could not get past the (sort of) music, there was little or no treasure for me in this one. :(


To begin, House Party 2 is no House Party. In fact, those that would like to compare the two are completely off their hypothetical film "rocker". These are two completely separate films. Do you know why? What originally began as a film about some soulful and youthful teens trying to get to the ultimate dance party has now transformed into this cliché morality tale that demonstrates the power of friendship and the strength of humility. WHAT! Is that why I wanted to watch this film? I apologize, but one of the few reasons that I liked House Party was because they followed the K.I.S.S. method (for those unfamiliar it is the Keep It Simple Stupid method) of film-making. In the original, becoming a lyricist, a ladies man, and having the best party in town was the root of the film. While there was a romantic side to the story, it fell second nature to the growing hip-hop scene. It was a dance film first, developed character story second. Honestly, that is what I enjoyed about the film. While I didn't think House Party was the greatest release of the century, it did have this genuine feel about it. In fact, after watching this poorly crafted sequel, I have a bit more respect for the original. Where was the dancing? Where was the creativity? Where was the same Kid & Play that I remembered from the first House Party? They were nowhere to be found in this trashy sequel.

Robin Harris. We all remember him as "Pop" from the original film, but what we do not realize about this humorous comedian is that he subsequently changed the image of the House Party series. In the original, he was this father trying to steer his son into a path of academia instead of rap and parties, in the sequel, he plays a spirit who annoyingly hounds Kid throughout the film with flashbacks from the original. Due to his death, he brings nothing new to the table, yet this entire sequel seems to be focused around those few short words that he used in the first film. I don't mean to be rude, but I never felt that the father was such a big element in the original. I thought that Kid trying to challenge authority to attempt to find himself was the underlying meaning of the original, while in this one it is Kid repressing his true self in hopes to make his dead father happy. Where did the lightness of the original go? I watched House Party 2 thinking that there is a limit that the writers could go without making Kid seem totally whipped by his father's words, but we never hit that limit. Where, anywhere in this film, was Kid trying to find his rap roots? I needed to see a young man still interested in becoming the lyricist that he once desired to be? Why did he have to grow up so fast? In fact, the rap side-story to this film seems to be the negative element. We have gone from loving the genre to completely disrespecting it in one film. Ah, the power of the sequel.

Martin Lawrence was again completely annoying to the point in which I completely tuned him out whenever he spoke. He brought nothing to the story and nothing to the main characters. Lawrence was nothing more than a familiar face for the audience to relate to. In fact, it is that dedication to familiar faces from the original that hurt this sequel. When the ultimate PAJAMA JAM finally does occur (one hour into this short film), we are hit with an barrage of repetitive scenes of aged rappers and comedians from the original who do nothing but repeat their lines, actions, and emotions from the first. While many may enjoy these familiar faces, I felt as if it were a cheap trick used to make me feel more comfortable about the film. If these minor characters had done more than just repeat their lines, than maybe I would have bought into the trick, but instead all I saw were cheap repetitive motions used by writers to fill time. I used the word "repetitive" several times in this paragraph because it demonstrated the annoying repetitive nature of this film and completed my point about using that element as a cheap trick. I hope it worked.

In most television series, especially the cheapened kind, we sometimes hear a laugh track or a sound machine used to create some "zany" or "wacky" sound that lightens the mood and creates the viable laugh point. In House Party 2, I do believe that the sound guy was extremely drunk or possibly working his first day in the booth. There were more sound effects in this film than in a Bobby McFerrin music video. Was this a child's movie or another urban comedy? Neither Kid nor Play could do anything in this film without a "zip zim" or a "whoosh" or a "ding dong" noise happening somewhere in the background. This was a fresh element to the sequel which direly needed to be taken away. There is a chase scene near the end of the film which felt like Pee-Wee Herman choreographed it with all the unsettling sounds that were happening. After the first twenty minutes of this, it because increasingly annoying to the point of insanity.

Overall, this sequel soils the original. The themes were sporadic (i.e. in one instance we are talking about the oppression of the African American, while in the other the directors seem to be building age-old stereotypes), the characters continued towards their bland downward spiral, those annoying, randomly placed racist police officers were back, and the dominating "father" element seemed too serious for the overall theme of this film. I hope this film wasn't an indication of the path of colleges in the future? House Party 3, don't fail me now!

Grade: ** out of *****


This is a comment rather than a review. The description on this title is misleading, i.e.,: "Tensions arise when a newlywed has her husband move into the house of her verbally abusive mother."

Although the mother has many emotional and mental issues and clearly has mistreated her daughter, the daughter has similar issues and marries a rock-bottom loser, who moves in with the mother, allows her to support them and verbally abuses the mother. The mother is appropriately shocked at her daughter's choice in a husband and shows more compassion and patience by tolerating their obnoxious behavior as they take advantage of her. In my view, this is a most unpleasant movie. I have not watched all of it, but I hope the mother and daughter can come to some resolution of their mental disorders and their relationship with each other. The acting is fine, it's just not a story that appeals to me.


This movie is defintley for tv, but it was acted superbly. The mom makes it easy for you to hate her. Nicholle who plays Ruth, i was surprised she took this role. I guess she wants to take on bigger movies and bigger roles, and producers can see her acting abilities. i remember seeing her only on "the nanny" and "beethoven". Well, its worth watching this movie...but i should warn u... can u say depressing. but something about it makes u stay watching. just like about every other tv movie iv'e watched. ok theyre telling me i need more then 10 lines so ill go on. Her husband is soo ugly and wierd why would she marry that hyena. her deluded mom makes her feel so worthless that she would even consider it. man he was crazy. and then the end just when u think things couldint get any worse they do. and its so true but sad how even though her mom treated her soo bad she still loved her and felt bad for --what happened-. although lol its probably obvious. Her kid is the only thing that keeps her going i think. i hate when guys take advantage of innocent girls its soo cliche. shiz at least if ur gonna be a man whore at least make it original so we wont die of boredom.


After a crappy opener for Season 3, the second episode proves to be just as crappy and annoying.

The episode is about a failure of a script writer who fantasizes about having a girl who is head-over-heels inlove with him. Then he meets this annoying failure of an actress and his landlord gives him a potion that makes her addicted to him.

After a while, he realized how annoying it is to have someone obsessing over you.

The episode is a mess, the dialog and performances are too over the top and the ending was just incredibly corny. Season 3 is off to a bad start.


I have rarely seen a worse movie than this one. What a disappointment from this cast. The production values alone are cheap cheap cheap! They couldn`t even afford proper makeup for the lepers, who look like they are suffering from acne, not to mention bad acting. What a waste of great talent Martin Sheen, Alan Arkin, and Ralph Bellamy. The sets are atrocious, most of it is painted back drops. Who would think of riding a horse through the desert? We never even get to see the face of Jesus, one can only assume he wouldn`t show his face in such a poor production. The music should also have been canned. Do not waste your time on this crap!


I've actually read some posts on various message boards saying that this is one of Lorenzo Lamas' good movies. The people who wrote that are either 1)joking, 2)extremely delusional or 3)Lorenzo Lamas himself. How it managed to obtain a 2.9/10 ranking is beyond me. It deserves nothing more than the 1/10 I so rightfully gave it. Why is that? When a movie is in the action/martial arts genre, you expect to see what? Do you know the right answer? Sadly, the people behind this movie didn't know it. (The answer is martial arts scenes/action scenes, btw.). Instead, we get a lot of pointless scenes from some very dark locations, an extremely slow plot development and I guess a lot of additional crap that I've already forgotten about. It's not as bad as Gladiator Cop, but it's close. VERY close.


"Poe's Law" is usually used to describe the confusion that results from a politician or religious leader being so "out there" that it is almost impossible to distinguish him from a parody version of the same type of person. I think we can apply Poe's Law to almost every bad action movie ever made (i.e. Steven Seagal, J.C. Van Damme, Lorenzo Lamas...Don't get me wrong, I love these films and sometimes the worse they are, the more I can enjoy them). This film is no exception with it's trite dialog and flimsy plot. Some highlights include the music score, which is slightly more creative than most films from this genre, but I laughed out loud when Lamas confronts an art museum tour group by pointing at a photo of a homeless guy and angrily yelling, "Do any of you see that the man in this photograph spends the night freezing, out in the cold?" They all shake their heads like imbeciles, "No, we can't see it". Lorenzo's character is soooo deep (uh, not)! I gave this film a 4 out of 10 within the bounds of the action movie genre.


Do not watch this movie expecting to see any monsters or vampires because all you'll get are some bats. Actually this film is more of an identity crisis drama and murder mystery rather than a horror movie. The best parts are the dream sequences which are reminiscent of surrealist experimental films (has David Lynch seen this?) and also LSD sequences from 60s films like HALLUCINATION GENERATION or BLONDE ON A BUM TRIP.


Remember the 1966 movie BLOWUP ? That's the movie that claims to be a murder thriller but is nothing of the sort . YOUNG SOUL REBELS is basically the same , it starts with a murder in a park then spends most of its running time going out of its way not to be a murder thriller except for the last five minutes which reveals who the murderer is . I'm surprised anyone is still able to remember or care about the murder subplot by the end of the movie since it concentrates more on the soul club scene of the late 1970s . Worse it features several scenes of men kissing and in one scene there's something a lot worse than kissing going on

Before anyone goes running to the admin screaming that a raving homophobe has submitted a review let me point out that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN has received massive critical acclaim ( Though it's unlikely to make more than 50 million dollars at the US box office ) so much for homophobia . What my main gripe the opening and closing scene revolves around a murder and very little in between has anything to do with the alleged main story . There is no main story as we see a rambling ill focused film concerning itself with the club scene of 1977 . Ironically enough there's no feel of time or place here and could easily be set in any part of Britain at any point during the last 30 years

This is just another cheaply made British movie that was produced by people who have no desire to make movies for a mainstream audience . If they had decided to make a movie revolving around a murder in a park that would have been fine , ditto if they had decided to make a movie revolving around the London soul scene but seeing as they've tried to combine the two YOUNG SOUL REBELS is a failure while the scenes of homosexuality is totally alienating for the average cinema goer . At least BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN deserves credit for knowing what it is


This film is a stinker. In an era when we can see SIX FEET UNDER and SCRUBS on the box, who would want to go to a cinema or pay good money to buy or rent this? It's set (with no real sense of place or time) in 80's Ulster. It's about toupee salesmen in irritatingly stupid situations with story lines wandering in a zillion pointless directions. It features music chosen at random from the Oirish songbook (and this was nominated for a music award!!!!!?????).

What on earth Billy Connolly is doing in the film is beyond comprehension? He pops up from time to time at the start, disappears completely in the middle and makes a pointless final appearance at the end. But he's not alone: A police detective makes a strong appearance then vanishes from the film too.

One suspects that this was a movie that came into the cutting room as a rescue job which never worked. It's a crying shame since there is a good comedy to made out of the conflict in the North of Ireland - but this definitely isn't it. Luckily, 4 years later, first time writer-director Terry Loane's "MICKYBO AND ME" (2004) filled the gap with style and higher production values despite being made on a fraction of EVERLASTING PIECE's budget.

Be warned - AN EVERLASTING PIECE is just what it says on the tin - it seems to last forever with a mere 95 minutes feeling like 10 wasted hours. See MICKYBO AND ME instead. (I have no connection with either production team or am in any way partisan.)


Barry Levinson is a clever director. Mr. McAvoy is a clever actor/screenwriter. In this case they combine for three wonderful ideas that would carry a short story or a half-hour sitcom episode marvelously. There is not enough here to sustain a movie, however. So after the first half-hour, An Everlasting Piece runs out of steam and attempts to reach the finish line with smoke and noise. A movie that begins combining wry whimsy and clever wordplay with offbeat characters quickly degenerates to a laboured farce that plays like a three stooges marathon.


On the surface, this is a lighthearted comedy. A Prod and a Catholic become best of mates, launch a franchise, some antics ensue, and in the end we can all laugh happily ever after. But look again and see what no one will mention...

By the 1980's, the Provos were being funded by Libya(!) and the Loyalists by South Africa to prop up a civil war. This is not, and never was about the ideal of loyal Ulster, or the ideal of Nationalism...ordinary working class folks were the tools in this conflict, and to this day the perpetrators on both sides remain unsanctioned. 3500 dead, thousands maimed or imprisoned...no 'rug' will ever cover that up.

Connolly, the Scot, sees through all this absurdity...apropos, he plays it like Brando in "Apocalypse Now" (swallowing the bug).


Terry Wogan, for those who don't know, is a veteran Irish broadcaster on BBC Radio 2 who is the closest UK equivalent to the legendary American sportscaster Howard Cosell, i.e. he fancies himself to death, and it's blindingly obvious to everyone that that strange thing on his head is not natural. Were he and his TOGS (Terry's Old Guys/Gals - what his audience is known as) to turn up at some point during "An Everlasting Piece," the movie would have been a lot better. (Was this really directed by Barry Levinson?)

Though the movie is set in the real Ireland and not some fairytale facsimile thereof, writer and star Barry McEvoy is still guilty of spinning a totally fatuous yarn that strains a bit too hard for whimsy while at the same time never managing to find the right tone; set in Belfast "sometime during the 1980s," the movie revolves around two friends and barbers at an asylum, one Catholic and the other Protestant, who get the rights to the only hairpiece company in Northern Ireland, and thereby hangs our tale. (No, honestly - was this REALLY directed by Barry Levinson?)

Movies about Irish barbers-turned-wigmakers certainly don't come around every day, but you will search in vain for anything resembling a point or a coherent plot; I was wondering if some key elements of the tale had been left on the cutting-room floor. It can't make up its mind whether it wants to be a comedy or a drama, and it frequently mistakes Irish people shouting "F***!" for humour - beware any movie that resorts to jokes about pulling off the clothes of a sleeping young man in belief that he's someone other than who he is. Basically, this isn't nearly as charming as it thinks it is. (You're sure this was directed by Barry Levinson?)

Anna Friel was the chief reason your scribe got a look at "Brookside" (until her character was killed off); watching her in this tosh as our hero's girlfriend is one of the few positive aspects, but even she can't turn this sow's ear into a silk purse. (We won't say a word about Billy Connolly. Not a word.) The sight of Pauline McLynn also brings up memories of "Father Ted" - and the comparisons to this movie aren't favourable to the movie. You wind up wishing that you were joining the characters in watching "Stop Making Sense" or "The Dukes Of Hazzard," as happens during the flick; and in any case, the premise is part of the problem. Be honest - even allowing for Anna Friel's legs, does anyone really want to sit through a movie about WIGS? (This must have been directed by the Barry Levinson who worked on the TV show "Storybook International," because it can't have been the other Barry Levinson.)

Other than Hans Zimmer's enjoyable score and the credit for "Hair Piece Consultant," it's difficult not to think that two words are missing from the title "An Everlasting Piece." And the first word is "Of." (Come on now, this can't be Barry Levinson! This is the man who did "Diner," "The Natural," "Young Sherlock Holmes," "Toys," "Sleepers"... Wait a minute. Maybe it was that Barry Levinson.)


Barry Levinson is a very clever director (and writer). He obviously gathered a lot of information and insight on the pressure-cooker known as Northern Ireland. He delights in the borough's eccentricities and predilections. And, he endows his main characters with appropriate peculiarities. The unfolding of events is true to traditions of the region's humor and the indigenous cast know their character well and eat and breathe the area's history.

But, we don't! Nor are we ever brought into it. Therefore the entire exercise seems contrived and self-important. It reminds me of being at a spouse's company party and hearing people reference people and projects that you know and understand nothing about -- yet you do not have the option of leaving the party. It is a series of inside jokes -- but we, the American audiences, are stuck on the outside.


Happy, crappy "feel good" (it made me feel bad) so-called comedy(I thought comedies were supposed to make you laugh?) I come from Northern Ireland and I found this leap upon the peace process band-wangon condesending and feeble. Even the great Billy Connolly and the gorgeous Anna Friel can't save this turkey.....avoid.


I got to tell you, when I saw this film last week. I thought it was a astonishing movie. I was left speechless. Miller's Crossing was one in a few Coen Brothers films that I haven't seen. Now I need to see tow more of their films: The Hudsucker Proxy and Blood Simple. When I first heard of this film and around the time I have heard of The Coen Brothers, I had no idea this film was directed by them. I thought it was directed by Martin Scorsese. Anyway, this is arguably the best film by the Coen Brothers. I mean, it was a good movie. This is my first time seeing this film so I need to see it again sometime. I hope someday it will be released on DVD. Because I have a Surround Sound so when the action sequences are on, the box will tremble. Excellent gangster movie. I recommend it.

10 out of 10


Evie (Lili Taylor) is a quiet and seemingly simplistic small-town girl living in a small town becomes obsessed with an ostensibly "deep" local rock musician (Guy Pearce). After carving his name into her forehead at one of his shows, she becomes his #1 fan, good luck charm, and lover. Lili Taylor is an exceptional actress and gives a fine performance with what she is given to work with here. The supporting cast also stands out, especially Sara Rue and Shawnee Smith. Unfortunately, the story is completely absurd. The dialogue is painful at times, and you have to wonder whether Evie is trying to be comedic or if she really is that stupid. While the music is good and written by respectable songwriters, the trailer clearly states: "featuring actor/musician Guy Pearce." You have been warned. My Rating: 4/10.


Tonight I watched "A Slipping-Down Life", Toni Kalem's film based on Anne Tyler's 1970 novel by the same name. It was originally released at the 1999 Sundance Film Festival, but just released commercially in May 2004. I saw this with a friend on the spur of the moment, not knowing anything about it, when the film we went to see was sold out.

The film takes place in a sleepy small town in North Carolina around 1962 or 1963 (based on the music we hear on the radio). Naive Evie (Lili Taylor), who lost her mother at childbirth, lives with her father (Tom Bower). She hears musician Drumstring "Drum" Casey (Guy Pearce) on the radio, is drawn to his ego and voice, and seeks him out at his performances. Other women flirt with Drum, but shy Evie can only take a quick photograph of him and then in a strange (and, I found, hard to believe) act, carve his last name on her forehead with broken glass. The story is of their relationship to each other and to life in their small town, where they fear nothing changes and their existence or non-existence is hardly noticed.

I didn't enjoy the film. I couldn't understand where it was going, and found the utter simplicity of Evie unrealistic. I found Drum to be rather wooden and two-dimensional as in fact I found many of the characters. The only characters commanding any admiration were the gentle father who seemed to indulge Evie, their gutsy housekeeper, Clotelia (Irma P. Hall), who told it like it was (reminding me just a bit of Dilsey in William Faulker's novel, "The Sound and the Fury"), and Evie's loyal friend, hairdresser Violet (Sara Rue).

I wondered about the raucous music of Drum's band, which seemed to me at least a 15-year anachronism in the early 1960s. I didn't find the editing to make a dull, uninspiring, and "so what" story anything but even more dull. Of course, my comments could be attributed to my unfamiliarity with Anne Tyler's novels or lack of attention to slow, sleepy, small-town southern culture (though I enjoyed the 1989 film, "Steel Magnolias").

 --Dilip June 15, 2004


3 stars out of 10 was the best I could do for this film.

It started out rather interesting - this very plain looking young woman seems to live a lonely sort of life with her widowed father in a medium-sized town. I got the impression she longed for romance.

She worked at some kind of carnival-like park, where she had to wear a huge rabbit head and rabbit costume, and her boss was kind of a jerk. So this character, Evie Decker, caught my sympathy and interest.

Then she hears this guy, named Drumstrings Casey, on the radio, and he's trying to make it as a singer. She becomes quite enthralled with him, to the point of carving his name on her forehead -- all of which was quite intriguing.

The film goes downhill from there. There was no interesting story as a follow-up to all this.

Evie Decker was played by Lili Taylor - who is pretty enough when she has her hair done and some make-up on - which she very seldom does in this film--but that works for the type of character she is playing. One thing I noticed, that struck me as odd, the peer group Evie hangs out with seem to be in their late teens or early twenties, yet Lili Taylor looks to me like she's kicking thirty or better.

Guy Pearce plays Drumstrings Casey--a character who apparently has never been introduced to water, soap, or shampoo. While Evie has hair problems, this guy has obvious hygiene problems. That being the case, it's a bit of a mystery what she sees in him. In addition, he's not very attractive, bearing an unfortunate resemblance to a baboon.


Film started simply and innocently enough but gradually proceeded to disgust me with its ignorance, sluttiness, dirtiness, whacko storyline and lack of anything special shown by the lead actors, Pearce and Taylor.

How these cheap indie films get made is beyond me, but someone gets up the money somehow. Probably an investment film made by a bunch of GenX similar types who have some money but no taste in anything and demonstrate it every day in the foul and useless way they live their lives, just like the characters in this useless film.

How could the director get so little out of these good actors? Answer: Take a totally terrible screenplay and let them run with it. That's all anyone could get out of anyone in this shltty film. It's a true waste of time and I want my $6.25 and 109 minutes back!


I have seen a lot of bad movies. However, I suspect "Vulgar" was intentionally bad. The film plays like a drunk nihilistic comedy that demonstrates an absolute vile contempt for humanity and life in general.

Brian O'Halloran is not a very talented actor and should especially steer clear of serious roles. Of course, "Vulgar" falls into that genre of "other". It tries to be a comedy, but there is no comedic value in rape, even if the raped is dressed as a transvestite clown.

Everything about the film equates to "vulgarity". Its mixture of sexual violence with children's television shows, its poking fun at psychological anguish suffered by a son mentally abused by his mother, and its apathetic attitude towards murder and death.

Films like "Vulgar" cause me to feel unclean, a filth that only the buffer of several days can rinse away. Even then, the film leaves a permanent residue.


Kevin Smith made "Clerks" on low budget with a little help from his friends. That movie became a hit, and smith earn a cult reputation with it. Smith has to be a nice guy, because then he helped few Jersey friends with their projects. One of that friends was Brian Johnson, and his project was named "Vulgar".

People are using words like original, shocking, vulgar, violent for this movie. And they are pretty right, but I add just one more  very bad.

Brian O'Halloran who's not a great actor to begin with, plays Will  blunderer, who works as clown at children parties. He doesn't earn a lot of money, he drives old ramshackle car, and live in a hovel, when everyday he can be beaten by his neighbors. This movie starts like avenger comedy and goes from there in direction not many movies have a courage to go. It ends like pulp fiction drama.

The problem is  this movie isn't comedy, this movie isn't drama, this movie doesn't know what it is, and most important the director doesn't know what moves makes a good movie, he doesn't even got the clue. At the end it taste like "bad acid-trip" that tries to be rip-off of "one of the pulp fiction rape story". Its not the idea is total rubbish, it had potential, but execution is so bad its almost depressing.

The one shining thing in this mess is of course Kevin Smith, playing gay TV-producer, he is really funny, and maybe Lewkowitz playing pretty scary villain. But thats about it. All of the stuff here, cinematography, editing, story are BAD, a not M.Jackson kind of Bad.

Just one conclusion at the end  responsible for this mess is no one else but Kevin Smith, because sometimes helping your friends can lead to creating a really smelly monster. So shame on you Smith, shame on you.


I don't know, maybe I don't understand what the director was trying to show us. When I was watching this movie, i thought, huh, maybe it will get better and when it didn't i though maybe it will actually go somewhere but no. This movie suckes the whole way through. Nothing made any sense. I can't think of one good thing.


What an odd movie. I have to say that this is in a category in its own. Besides the annoying homosexual theme that this movie had, it was very boring to watch. What's even worse is that this was a View Askew production, I've yet to see a bad one (until today). The story had no head or tail; it just went in a zigzag line. I'm not planning on summarizing this movie, but I just want to say that whoever is thinking of buying this should consider renting it first, it was a disappointment On a bright note, the acting was very well done


We rented Vulgar after seeing the trailer. The trailer promised a sardonic View Askew property. It looked like it was going to be tragicomic, but fun. Lighthearted. Maybe a little like DEATH TO SMOOCHY meets Jay and Silent Bob... Jason Mewes was in the trailer, we thought he was gonna have a significant role. But - Jason Mewes is basically a speaking extra... its just a little cameo for him... and oh what a shock, this film is brutal, gritty, intense...

Even the many reviews here liken the film more to the temperament of Tarantino rather than Kevin Smith - who has a gentle edge at the end of the day.

We sat through it, feeling utterly unclean. I had to fast forward through the really violent parts, I could only really watch a little of them, they were really harrowing. Not my cuppa joe.

It was intense, but the redemption was dishonest and spotty, and I am not sure what the final message is meant to convey. We feel a little ripped off because the trailer really set us up to expect something else.

Bryan Johnson and Brian O'Halloran are better together than any of these other reviews give them credit of. They have good chemistry and I'd like to see them buddy up again in a more mainstream storyline.

I don't feel like our watching this film was a complete waste of time, but I'm really wondering how we managed not to turn it off before the bitter end, especially since the ending was not exactly satisfying.

One last comment, the film really stirs people up. Scroll through these comments, I've never seen such a load of really verbose comments. Ever.


Lets see, some poor idiot plays a clown for a living and barely makes any money. Everyone hates him and nothing goes right for him. He lives in a dump, people throw bottles at him and even his own mother insults him. Then he decides to be a transvestite clown for bachelor parties and is attacked and raped by three men! And that's the first 35 minutes of the film! Low budget film is a wretched mess made only because filmmaker Kevin Smith has a heart for fellow filmmakers and helped produce this abortion. Smith also acts in it! I don't know what else to say about it but its awful. If you forgot why you hated clowns then this will remind you why.


I've seen better acting on cable access at 3am. Unbelievably bad. This 'movie' never would have made it to DVD if it hadn't been for Kevin Smith's name. And that's the rub; anyone who watched it was conned into 2 hours of crap by Kevin Smith. He should be ashamed. This 'film' appears to have been shot with an 80's era tube camera, lighted with bare bulbs, and edited with a rusty razor blade. And the audio! It isn't even synched to the video and varies in volume throughout. The only thing that could have been good is the script, but it takes intense concentration to notice that through the horrible production quality and the shameful acting.


...but awfully close to it. you know what other "dark" and "controversial" movies have that this one didn't?

a point.

...oh! and good acting. though i guess i wouldn't have minded the teleprompter-ish quality to the dialogue if what was on the teleprompters weren't so retarded.

also it might have helped if the sound were actually synchronized to the image, but maybe that's just me being picky.

wow, this movie was bad.

-f


When I saw this film at the 2000 Toronto International Film Festival it sounded like a lark and I knew I'd get to see Kevin smith, the producer, at the screening. I did but th film itself is offensive, poorly written, poorly acted and purely pointless.

The film fails on pretty much every level. The main character is a clown yet the actor who plays him has no sense of comedic timing. The film's pacing and plot change gears so often and so poorly watching it is like riding with a student driver first learning on a standard transmission car.

The subject matter of the film is far too dark to be treated comedicly. I'm not sure how long the film's rape scene actually is, maybe 10 minutes, but it felt like 30. And that's not even the most disturbing scene in the film. Yet 2 minutes later we are expected to laugh at silly trivial material. It doesn't work.

Even the soundtrack is so loud and grating it's physically painful and, at the screening I was at, the director overrode the complaints of audience members demanding it be turned down. That's inexcusable. No film should ever attempt to /physically/ hurt its audience.

In the end the film is forced to introduce ridiculous strings of coincidences in order to avoid a realistic response from its main character and allow a forced happy ending. It doesn't work, on any level, ever. The only positive thing I can say about writer/director/actor Bryan Johnson is that he saves the best, most realistic dialogue for the the character he plays himself. His character doesn't seem long he belongs in this movie but, then again, neither did anyone else, neither did I and neither do you.

Vulgar is what it claims to be, I give it a 1 out 10 and I think I'd rather gauge my own eyes out than see it again.


This a terrible movie with a terrible story. It's low budget, so, of course, I forgive the acting and production flaws. But there's no excuse for a bad story. A down-on-his-luck clown who is determined to make it as a clown, decides to become a stripper clown and market himself as a joke for bachelor parties. His first gig goes really bad. A turn of events makes him rich and famous, but that bad gig comes back to haunt him. I rented this movie because of the Kevin Smith connection, since I'm a huge Smith fan. Don't make the same mistake I did.


Sorry, but I don't agree with the people here. The acting was diabolical, it was like porn movie acting, it was terrible.

I fell asleep through it, it wasn't gripping, it wasn't impressive, it was a badly acted, thrown together film. and even though I had fallen asleep, it was like I had watched the whole thing, very apt there is torture in this film as it was torture for me to watch it.

This was referred to me by a friend, who incidentally had never seen it, but read reviews, possibly on here, where the gushing kissing of asses is so evident.

The lead actor is terrible, he cannot act, in fact none of them can act, Suplee does what he does best, plays weirdos and Mewes is doing the same role as usual, it's the sort of film that had been written in a day and then filmed over two days, it is that bad.

If you are an artsy fartsy type, then you may like this film, or you may just say you like the film to make yourself appear cultured, but you are only fooling yourself. Don't believe the hype.

A film about a violent sexual assault and I fell asleep, well it says it all doesn't it?


We waited five years for this?! It's kind of annoying that people are running around claiming that if you didn't like this fourth (discounting the unfinished SLEEPAWAY CAMP IV: THE SURVIVOR) installment in the series you're not a real fan of "Sleepaway Camp." Wrong! I really like the first three. Sure, they're just stupid/cheesy 80s slasher flicks, but there's something really fun and entertaining about them. I liked both the more straight-forward, gritty slasher feel of the original film, as well as the comic splatter of the second and third films. Both Felissa Rose (as the shy, confused teen) and Pamela Springsteen (as the one-liner-spouting 'moral' killer she'd eventually transform into) were both great fun in the Angela role and helped make the first three films very enjoyable. RETURN, however, is anything but fun. Well, unless you're a not-so-bright 10-year-old who snickers any time someone uses the "f" word.

Also, series fans can't help but feel short-changed by the fact that Angela (who IS the series if you ask me) is on-screen for such a short amount of time. It's like going to watch a NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET movie where Freddy makes a 5-minute cameo at the very end. Even worse, the majority of Angela's scenes have her dressed in this incredibly lame and obvious cop disguise with a horrible-looking fake schnoz. Her voice is also electronically altered. It never really feels like Angela is a big part of the film. In fact, disguise or not, she's not a big part of the film at all. By the way, if you didn't know that was her in the policeman get-up, sorry but you're every bit as retarded as the characters who populate this film.

Jonathan Tiersten (as Angela's brother Ricky) and Paul De Angelo (as head counselor Ronnie) get to reprise their roles from the original here, as well. Joining them are guest stars Vincent Pastore (of "The Sopranos") and the late Isaac Hayes. Unfortunately, none of these people are given much - if anything - of interest to do in this film.

These kind of movies need some kind of reprieve from all the constant screeching, insulting and nastiness, or else they become shrill, dull and monotonous. This movie had absolutely no balance whatsoever because the one person we're supposed to feel sorry for ("Alan") is such an obnoxious and hateful tool himself. In fact, every single character with a decent amount of screen time was an irritating moron. In the original, the action centered around Angela, who was shy, sweet and seemingly innocent. In the second and third, we had Molly and Marcia as heroines, and they were both nice gals. Even the Angela of the sequels - psycho as she may be - was polite and mannered. Of course, many of the supporting characters in these films were jerks who got what they had coming to them, but the earlier movies were somewhat grounded by having at least a couple of normal and somewhat sympathetic people in lead roles. In this one the action is all centered around a repulsive, loud-mouthed, vulgar, completely annoying slob who is every bit as much a bully as the people we're supposed to want to die. In fact, I wanted him to die more than anyone else in the film! Sadly, my wishes were never realized. Instead I was subjected to an hour and a half of headache-inducing screaming and overacting, with humorless profanities spilling from the mouths of uninteresting people who didn't die soon enough for my tastes.

I gave this movie 3 out of 10, and that's because a few of the murder scenes were somewhat creative. That's all this has going for it. I have no doubt that this will go down in history as one of the worst slasher sequels ever made. Now it's clear why it took five years to finally get this out on DVD.


Pointless, juvenile, absolutely worthless(..unless you just have an urge to see stars from the original returning to reprise their roles)sequel to the original Sleepaway Camp(..the second and third films featuring Pamela Springsteen in the "prominant" role of Angela are completely disregarded, which is probably a good thing, I guess)has a psycho-killer, in black hoody, targeting those who victimize and mistreat extremely repellent frog-devoted Allan(Michael Gibney), always the center of negative attention in regards to practically everyone, in constant disagreements, arguments, and skirmishes with the teenagers/adults in camp. He's either starting trouble or the recipient of it, but Allan is certainly a lightning rod towards the inner-workings of the plot..the film displays many embarrassing scenarios featuring the flabby whiner and people die because this. When the mean teenagers belittle and abuse him, Allan retreats into the woods to find refuge with his frogs. Allan has a crush on Karen(Erin Broderick)who assists her friends in playing a practical joke leaving him quite scorned resulting in quite the killing spree towards those who delighted in his misery. A penis is pulled from a counselor whose bound, by rope, to a tree. A female counselor gets her head and face twisted in barbwire while attempting to flee in a jeep. A black teen girl, often at heated odds with Allan, is squashed by a mattress of nails. The head counselor over the Camp has his head caught in a cage after awakening from a hammer blow to the head, tied, with rats to feed through his face, shown gnawing within his torso. One pot-smoking slacker is burned alive after being force-fed gasoline, with his stomach exploding. A real practical joker who often bullied Allan gets a wooden spike stabbed through his eye. And, a vulgar cook who ridiculed Allan endlessly, gets his face shoved into cooking grease. Lots of of-screen violence, but some gore should please those who found the original SC lacking in this department.

Fans of the franchise(..which I'm not)might find this irresistible, because RETURN feels positively dated, attempting futilely(..in my opinion, at least)at sophomoric humor, failing miserably. Cast of really obnoxious teens and profane adults couldn't die fast enough as far as I was concerned. Perhaps many will feel this captures the wacky spirit of the original, RETURN is an aimless exercise highlighting the crude and unruly behavior/shenanigans of the camp's teenagers..the adults who are supposed to be in charge of supervising these brats are about as bad, if not worse. The film feels like it was written by 13 year olds and we are witnesses to wedgies, lighted farts, fat-jokes/gags, and other grating activities. As I pointed out already, I'm pretty sure a whole bawdy crowd will embrace this with open arms just for it featuring returning "stars", Paul DeAngelo as counselor Ronnie(..still in stunning athletic shape, but still lacking in the acting department), Jonathan Tiersten as Ricky(..blond this time, still needing his mouth washed out with soap)and special guest Felissa Rose as Angela in a cameo(..and in another secret role as well). WE have a sheriff often popping up after murders take place trying to keep everyone civil as a killer is on the loose. The identity of the killer will surprise no one unless you are REALLY that gullible and/or easily fooled. Sad and unfortunate, this was Isaac Hayes' last role, playing a very disgruntled cook. Vincent Pastore is the lead camp counselor with a special fondness for his pet bird he often embraces with a kiss.


This is the worst sleepaway movie I have ever seen.What a travesty and even the killer was lame and overacted.The cast if you can even call them that couldn't act for nothing.Especially the so called victim who was too much of a jerk to care about to begin with .His acting was absolutely horrid as was pretty much everyone else's in the cast and the ending WTH was that made no sense whatsoever and just ended abruptly for no reason.It was hilarious how most people reacted when they were killed talk about BAD acting totally horrid.

I mean I've seen some doozy of some bad movies but this one takes the cake and not in a good way lol Granted some of the violence was like the rest of the sleepaway camp movies which was cool.But they edited it like crap because half the deaths you didn't even see just an aftermath which absolutely sucked I expected this sucker to be pack full of gore but I didn't see much of that which was also a disappointment for a Sleepaway movie especially.

The movie was unintentionally hilarious literally I was laughing my ass off throughout most of this movie it was as if all the actors were reading DIRECTLY off their cue cards it was hilarious lol

For instance 2 actors I can remember off the bat because they were BARELY ON lol

Girl: stiff lifeless and wooden delivery: Stop it Allen you retard. Guy: stiff lifeless boring and wooden delivery: Ronnie get Allen to stop.

Seriously this movie was a comedy not a horror movie ...to me anyways lol

Too bad I can't go any lower then a 1 otherwise this would get a -0 from me.


My expectations are rather low when we're talking about sequels. Let alone, when the budget is evidently low and the story looks predictable to begin with. Regardless, I was very excited about 'Return to Sleepaway Camp' anyway. I am a big fan of the original film and I was actually eager to give this sequel a chance. Leaving aside the fact that sequels tend to be very inferior, the fact that three of the original actors were willing to reprise their roles, was a good sign. I assumed that the story and the script were decent enough for that reason alone. Another good reference, was the fact that Robert Hiltzik, who wrote and directed the original film, was also in charge of the same tasks for this sequel. Unfortunately, my guess is that these three cast members and the director, only returned because they needed the money. I honestly didn't think I would be this disappointed. I'm guessing I'm not the only fan of the original film who ended up being actually furious after seeing such a horror classic being disrespected. My main problem with this film, is not the fact that it is bad. My main problem is that they connected the story to the original 'Sleepaway Camp', which should have been left alone.

I don't like to feel like I'm sabotaging a film, so I'll try to be a little bit more specific and enumerate the reasons why 'Return to Sleepaway Camp' is not exactly my cup of tea. The first thing that gave me a hint that this movie was going to be bad, was the fact that the so-called jokes and humorous situations, were completely unfunny. All slasher fans know very well that these movies usually have a modest share of humor. Fortunately, in most flicks, this 'humor' is at least tolerable. Well, in 'Sleepaway Camp', the desperate attempts to create any kind of humor, are simply terrible. All the jokes, situations and remarks seemed to have been written by someone who got stuck in the 80s or something like that. Everything sounds and looks exaggerated.

Leaving aside the bad attempts to create humor, I was also annoyed by the fact that the interaction between the characters was overly violent and exaggerated. I know we're discussing a movie and not real life, but the fact that all the characters were so incredibly mean and cruel, was unrealistic to me. People are not that awful in real life. In the original 'Sleepaway Camp', there were obviously a lot of rivalries between the main character (Angela) and the rest of the kids, but this is just too much. And the rivalries were poorly portrayed anyway. Even though I do acknowledge the existence of nasty people in this world, it's not realistic to fill a movie with people swearing all the time, constantly using physical violence and insulting each other 24-7... I just don't buy it. And the main character, who is the one we're supposed to emphasize with, is not even likable to begin with. How can we empathize with a character that is no better than his detractors? Alan (that's the main character's name) is everyone's favorite target when it's time to pull pranks. However, Alan is also a disgusting bully who goes around yelling and being a pain to everyone. However, Alan is not even the worst character in the film. The award to the most ridiculous character would definitely have to go to "Sheriff Jerry", which turns out to be... Angela in disguise! That is correct, ladies and gentlemen. Felissa Rose, who originally played Angela in the first movie, came back reprising her role. Unfortunately, this time, Angela walks around the camp with the tackiest disguise ever, which is a policeman uniform, a beard, a fake rubber nose and a voice simulator. I know it sounds terrible, but in reality, is much worse than that. The idea of putting Angela back in the road was not bad at all, but why did they have to make it so far-fetched? It was perfectly clear from the very beginning, that 'Sheriff Jerry' was obviously someone in disguise. While we're at it, I was also very displeased with the ending. There were several things to do and many characters to butcher, but way before you know it, the movie suddenly ends and everything is left undone. I admit that I very much enjoyed seeing Felissa Rose's maniac face again, but that doesn't make up for the lack of action and a decent denouement.

Now, I'm afraid I'm going to have to be fair and enumerate the few things I enjoyed about 'Return to Sleepaway Camp'. First of all, the killing scenes were pretty creative and gory to me. I enjoyed most of the murders and even though some of them were a little bit far-fetched, I still think they were good enough for the slasher sub-genre. I may be discontent with the film on the whole, but I can honestly say that the murders were a delight. On top of that, the image of the film resembles what the movies from the 80s used to look like. My wild guess is that this was intentional, which I highly appreciate. For moments, I felt like I was actually watching a flick from the 80s, which fills my heart with a strange horror nostalgia, if that's even a real feeling.

My summarized advice would be: watch it if you're really curious about it and you're bored. The movie is entertaining and watchable, but that doesn't mean it is good. On the other hand, if you are sensitive, please refrain from watching 'Return to Sleepaway Camp', because it's a major disrespect to the first film and it hurts a lot to see a sequel that is so incredibly inferior in every single way.


And lo! Shall it come to pass that amongst thine horror elite shall arise another Sleepaway Camp sequel. For his sins, Vincent Pastore shall be amongst thine above-the-line talent. Much cried shall be the squealing of "Your ass stinks!" by yon chubby mentally challenged but endowed with the gift of annoyance camper whom instant death shall be wished upon by all.

Looketh no further, guy-who-guest-starred-those-two-times-on-Flight-of-the-Conchords, ye fate shall meeteth thee in the fry-a-later with that one overdone french fry. Even though all you have to do is kick your legs to get away, you shan't do it and shall succumb to your transfatty fate! A miracle shall be imparted to this film! Whereas the kid playing Weed shall look and act like the kid who played Stewie on Malcolm in the Middle, but all shall find dread whence looking upon IMDb and realizing that though he did guest star on an episode of yon horrid series, he playest Stewie NOT! O Weed! Smokest not the manure-laced joint, lay down your joking ways and be saved! lest you meet your fiery damnation tied to a lawn chair with a bumper sticker across your face.

BEHOLD! T.C. shall be stabbed in the eye by the pointed rod of the Almighty! and from betwixt pairs of panties covering his head, another shall shriek a pubescent boy's shrill call of terror.

And the Angel spoketh to me and I unto you that fishing line shall be affixed to a counselor's man-junk as well as a bumper of a jeep! And the jeep shall pull away inflicting much castrations in a sequence that takes too much time, defying the conventions of editing to produce dramatic tension and story arc.

Sweet, virtuous Karen  ye knowest not the cock-teasery you inflict, and so shall be spared.

And there shall come to pass an inexplicable ending whenst the killer shall come to be revealed as a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man wearing a fake nose and beard that foolist no one! And then there shall be blackness. End.


i honestly expected something a little less amateur and experimental as this film seems to be... it even had the bonus of adding some of the original film's actors, but it simply went wrong.

poor dialogues, poor acting and very very poor makeup... the first 10 minutes can't mistake you, it's going to be that bad! there's no likable characters, Allan (the main character (???))can't even gather sympathy nor pity, he's simply loathsome and all the other characters... well, envy and hate can't justify their behaviour and we're left with no explanation for their actions.

watch it for yourselves, if you can...


OK, the original was cheesy but it was a good movie. the acting was relatively believable, the story was pretty good, it had a plot twist you didn't really see coming. it was a classic. even though the two sequels were even cheesier they were watchable movies and the second one is way underrated in my opinion. which brings us to the latest installment. i paid $19.96 for this piece of garbage, and after having seen it i wouldn't go through the trouble of picking it up if i saw it on the side of the road. how could pastore and hayes agree to be in this film? they musta gotten paid good money. i've seen better acting in elementary school plays. seriously. words can't describe how awful this movie was. and the "plot twist" was something i saw coming from the very beginning. i didn't have the greatest expectations for this but at least expected it to be as good as the third movie and i was terribly disappointed. there aren't many good things to say about this movie. no standout performances. not a whole lot to redeem the rest. and i'm not one of those bitter people who woulda hated it reguardless since it completely ignored parts two and three. i just call it like i see it.


Loathsome is the only word I can use to describe this aberration to an already weak series of films.

At best the Sleepaway Camp series has always been something of a guilty pleasure amongst horror film fans. This iteration not only undermines the silly B-movie cheese that fans have come to expect from the series but it also manages to create an incredibly unlikable cast of losers that you can't cheer for or care about.

Fan's of eighties slasher films should note that the gore here is weak at best. There is no nudity and the cast is made up of unlikable miscreants. The plot (if you can even call it that) leads to a completely out of left field ending that adds up to a miserable filmgoing experience all around.

Ignore this one like it never happened and you'll be better off.


This movie did EVERYTHING wrong. I just watched it 5 minutes ago, and now I want to put a gun in my mouth, to end the fail that is replaying over and over in my head!

I don't even know where to start. I hated the fat kid Allen, and wanted him to get shot, but that never transpired until the climax, or the lack thereof. The movie lacked plot, there was no real acting to be spoke of - it was as if the director picked a bunch of transients up at the bus stop of Salt Lake City, tossed them into the Oregon woods and said, "Okay guys, your motivation is you are angry and hate each other... ROLL CAMERA!" Now, in some horror movies, these sort of shortcomings can be forgivable. However, to forgive such monolithic cinematic diarrhea, there needs to be either,

A) Innovative and copious amounts of blood and guts, or B) Bewbies. This movie lacked both.

Do not watch. Do not let your friends watch. Liberate tutame ex inferis.


I usually give all movies a fair chance, but in this case, I'll make an exception. The movie was filmed in a classic way which was not very impressive. The acting was extremely sub-par, and the lines given to the actors were not much to work with. Most of the scenes in this movie were extremely cheesy and predictable. It seemed to me like the actors were brought out of a closet that they have been stuck in since the 80's Some of the themes of the movie were not approached like they should have been. A boy who seem to have a mental condition is made fun of throughout the whole movie, and hardly anybody did anything to try and help him with his problems. I have not seen the other Sleepaway Camp movies, but was thoroughly unimpressed by this one.


It amazes me how revisionist we movie fans can be. We love to look back on bad horror films and claim, in retrospect, that they deserve points for intentional camp. Where would Roger Corman's career be without this? Where would the SLEEPWAY CAMP franchise be? I should have known better than to watch this, as I found the original badly made/acted and offensive. But the RETURN TO SLEEPAWAY CAMP box had the look of a better than average sequel. And it had been twenty years since the original, twenty years that the writer/director had to mount an effort superior to his overrated debut.

Forget all that. RETURN TO SLEEPAWAY CAMP is as bad as cinema gets. It's amateurishly acted, badly scripted, and features some of the most obnoxious characters its ever been my displeasure to view. Sequences appear to have been randomly assembled. Even the death sequences, the bread and butter of the slasher film, are so badly put together that they're laughable.

There's also the basic plot (which is about as basic as you can get). Slasher kills. The problem is that the official red herring is such an obnoxious character that we never care whether he did it or not. I was actually hoping someone would just kill him fast and refund my rental money.

I realize that I've been overly critical of some films on this site, but this is not one of them. Contrary to anyone's assessment, the SLEEPAWAY CAMP franchise is not the result of high camp. It's the result of bad film-making.


Just as some kids can be so mean; some movies can just suck like this one does. Don't judge the whole franchise by this installment. Its time for summer camp again and Ronnie(Paul DeAngelo)returns as the junior partner of camp owner Frank(Vincent Pastore). Ronnie wants to keep everyone in line and it isn't easy. Alan(Michael Gibney)is a chubby pain in the ass and a major disturbance at Camp Manabe. He always leaves confrontations with nasty threats, but is he to be feared? When campers and staff members mysteriously become victims of frying, burning and skinning Ronnie can't help but think of the grisly murders two decades earlier at Camp Arawak.

At times pretty gross, but not as bad as the horrible acting. No sympathy to be had for Gibney, his character Alan possesses nothing to care about. This part could have been given to Rosie O'Donnell...and that really isn't much of an improvement. Music icon Issac Hayes plays Charlie the Chef, his last full role in a movie. Others in the cast: Jackie Thon, Jonathan Tiersten, Brye Cooper and the buxom Erin Broderick. There are as many tormented and unhappy campers as there are reasons this went straight to video.


I was actually excited to see this film especially since I loved the original. What can I say about this movie except horrible. I feel bad because there are people out there who wait tables work in restaurant cleaning just to get an acting gig. They go through schooling and acting classes. YET they manage to get the worst actors of all time. They all sounded as if they were reading the script. The dialog was horrible. The script was horrible which made it even more difficult for the actors to make it seem real so it's not 100% their fault. The ending was completely predictable and obvious as opposed the the classic what the hell ending of the original that still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand. The killings were basic repeats of the original primarily the first killing. The only reason I would give it a 1 is because of the murder scene in the woods (you know what I'm talking about) and the broom stick scene. The annoying fat guy was just horrible, I felt no sympathy for him whatsoever since he was a pain in the @$$ to others as well not mention the worst actor of them all. If you're a fan of the series, give it a look because everyone has their own opinion but don't say I didn't warn you.


This had to be THE WORST movie i have ever seen. Not only was the acting HORRENDOUS, but the plot made me want to punch a baby. I had to drink away the fact that i spent $1.08(NY sales tax) on this film. If i was given the choice to watch this movie one more time or pee razorblades for a week, i would gladly pee razorblades. Whoever casted the main character(the fat kid) should be mauled to death by a fully grown bear. Seriously, how does anyone ever think that this movie was remotely enjoyable. What was up with the line "Your a** stinks". ? What was that all about??? Now the fact that the DVD is one day over due, makes me sick to my stomach because not only could i get a 4piece chicken nuggets for the price of that DVD, i could have helped a starving child. worthless.


I am a huge fan of the original "Sleepaway Camp" film and its two original sequels.

Like most fans of the series, I was ultra-excited when I heard that the original director was going to make his own sequel to his film. Though I do like the "Unhappy Campers" and "Teenage Wasteland," they are tad to thick on the humor than I would have preferred. So, I waited and waited and waited patiently for this film to finally be released. Well, it was, and while I appreciate the nostalgic feel to the film, and the fact that is a slasher film through and through and knows its origins, the film, for me, was a huge let down for ONE reason alone: the character that we are suppose to sympathize with the most and who is by all accounts the main character of the film (Alan) has to be one of the most annoying characters in film history. He is rude, disgusting, nasty to everyone, and not likable in the least. When campers pick on him, we root them on and I really wanted him to be the first to die.

What made the first film effective was that Angela, who got picked on the very same ways Alan does in this film, doesn't deserve it. She is quiet, sweet, and introverted. She doesn't cause any problems for anyone, so when the people who harass her the most begin to meet their deaths, the audience can silently cheer. Having a unlikable main character can ruin any film, and this is a prime example.

If you can get past the annoying Alan, "Return to Sleepaway Camp" follows virtually the same plot as the original, but with less originality and more clichés. Ronnie, the counselor from the original, now owns his own camp. Typical teenage behavior is shown, and when the campers begin picking on Alan (who again, DESERVES IT!), they begin to meet grisly deaths. Ronnie quickly blames Angela, even going as far as to accusing another counselor who is OBVIOUSLY much to young to be her, of being Angela. Unfortunately, due to a pretty lame disguise, the killer's identity is not hard to figure out. The "Angela" aspect of the film is also played down quite a bit, so much so that this really could have been any typical camp slasher unrelated to the "Sleepaway Camp" series. Yes, Angela is mentioned, but she is hardly a crucial component to the plot, and even the ending is abrupt and explains very little and certainly isn't the return to glory that one of the most interesting slasher film killers in history deserved.

There are some creative kills, but I honestly thing the original sequels are better and more brutal in this department. The acting is atrocious by most involved and the script is just really bad. In the end, I wanted more from this film and expected the original director to really bring it. Unfortunately, he didn't and the film pales in comparison to the original and even to the original sequels.

I only hope that if "Sleepaway Camp: Reunion" DOES happen, it is much better than this. The series deserves it.

My Grade: D


After waiting so long for this title to be released I have to say I was rather let down. It did not have the feel of the other films (aside for the chronic overacting)and thus left me feeling as though I was watching any old "camp in woods, people dying flick". Nothing felt right about it. The mean kids were not mean enough by a long shot, the lazy camp staff just plan pointless and useless and the horror, well Maybe I watched the sanitised version but it was all but non existent.

The one saving grace of this film, the Cancer Inflicted Cop. I am not sure if his character was meant to be so intentionally funny but I found it hard not to laugh each time he had screen time.

Oh and no prizes for guessing who Angela is after the fist 10 minutes.


This is a terrible movie. It just sluggishly plods along, subjecting us to annoying characters, until it reaches its ridiculous end.

The story is insipid and the editing atrocious. (The scene with the Jeep and tree goes on far too long, extinguishing any tension or morbid humour the scene might have had otherwise.) There is an amusing bit, involving a hole in a floor; that scene, with the wonderful stupidity of the characters involved, is the closest the film ever gets to matching the original in terms of gore and humor.

Isaac Hayes seems to be cast only for the joke of being billed as "The Chef," and then disappears after three short scenes. His character serves no other function (unless we needed a black guy to say "motherf*cker" to liven things up a bit.) There is no mystery as to the killer's identity once all of the main characters are established. Alan, who for some unfathomable reason is the film's lead character, is so irritating that his quick death would have perhaps made the film tolerable. However, there he is, in scene after scene, in filthy clothing, telling people that their ass stinks, and then throwing himself pity parties because the other kids don't like him. (Think of Shelly from "Friday the 13th: Part III" but with none of his sympathetic aspects, only the annoying ones, multiplied by ten, and with body odor and a mean streak, and there is your Alan.) (I thought that at least his "your ass stinks" line would serve some purpose, some foreshadowing regarding his or another character's death - death by stinky ass! - but no, it's just his cringe-inducing recurring line, as lacking in purpose as Isaac Hayes' role.) Any fan of the original is going to want - to HAVE - to see this. Just don't blow $20 of your own money on it.


My Take: How could such a decent cast get sucked in to this mess? A boring, so-called "adventure" with unintentional laughs.

After creating the passable, but at least good-looking, "King Solomon's Mines (1985), the guys from Cannon Group/Golan-Globus production rushed this low-budget sequel (filmed back-to-back with the original) with the same lead cast, Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone. The results in this sequel that's probably the least interesting adventure picture ever made. It's bad, but actually pretty funny. I can see the first film as a parody of the INDIANA JONES series, but this one just bad because... well, it's bad. Chamberlain and Stone (oh, the horror!) reprise their roles, this time even with an evident boredom. Chamberlain is as uncharismatic as ever, while Stone hams up her performance in ever way possibly. James Earl Jones is decent as an ax-wielding Umslopogaas, but his dialog is just as bad as the other actors. Robert Donner (Who's that guy? I don't know!) is funny, but even he is a disaster. Silva is bad bad (and talk about a bad hair day!). The sets are low-budget (the Lost City of Gold wasn't even that much made of gold), the action sequences are badly staged and the script is pale.

But the film is still really funny (mostly unintentional, of course)so I would recommend it to any viewer who is scrunched in a seat with nothing to watch.

But if your looking for an old-fashioned adventure romp, even like those in the same league as its predecessor KING SOLOMON'S MINES, your find yourself yawning after the first "action" scene unfolds. Ironically, the trailer for promoting this film had more action than the actual film. And the trailer's only 2 minutes! It's short, but sure is better than 99-minutes worth of boredom.

Rating: *1/2 out of 5.


"Half of Africa's been explored on rumor, hope, legend" "And blood" The same could be said of the film industry. The 'recupero,' as the Italian film industry dubbed it, was one of the most forlornly hopeful forms of film-making: offsetting part of the cost of the film you wanted to make by filming another on the cheap back-to-back with as many of the same cast, crew and locations as possible in the hope that at least one of them would be a hit even though just about the only recorded case of that ever happening was when Il Magnifico Straniero, shot back-to-back with Bullets Don't Argue to 'use up waste materials,' became a surprise hit after changing its title to Fistful of Dollars. Much loved by exploitation merchants, it was no surprise that Cannon films would adopt the practice, especially after their two back-to-back Missing in Action pictures proved surprisingly profitable. Having ripped off Rambo, Indiana Jones seemed the next obvious target, but their back-to-back sequel to 1985's King Solomon's Mines, one of their least unsuccessful films (well, it lost less than most of them), proved a disaster on every conceivable level. While H. Rider Haggard wrote enough unfilmed Allan Quatermain novels to keep a franchise running for a decade, Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is one of those films that's so bad it's just bad, making you glad they called it a day after this one.

On paper it has everything you need for a somewhat average movie except enthusiasm and belief, as Haggard's Great White Hunter Allan Quatermain (Richard Chamberlain) postpones his wedding to a hyperactive and very loud Sharon Stone to find a lost city of gold in search of his missing brother (Freudians could probably read something into the fact that Quatermain's brother is played by Chamberlain's longtime companion Martin Rabbett), battling hostile tribes, booby traps and the elements en route and braving the most pathetic backprojection seen this side of the original Dr Who in a comically cranked-up log ride through an underground river. All of which happens in the least interesting way possible  this is the kind of film where they don't even try to hide the wires on the stunt performers and where the extras just look bored in the final battle. Even the score is just barely edited musical selections from an uncredited Jerry Goldsmith's score for the previous film (mostly just the crescendos) with the odd synth drumbeat linking them the sole audible contribution from credited composer Michael Linn.

There's not much gold on display in the lost city either, but then Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of White doesn't really have the same ring to it. Not that it's a city: it's obviously a Zimbabwean tourist hunting lodge that bought a job lot of white dressing gowns. You know it's a pretty screwed up place because one of its twin queens is played by Elvira and the evil high priest is Henry Silva in one of Diana Ross's old Afro wigs that's seen much better days (as indeed has he). At times it plays like a Who Can Be the Most Annoying competition, with Razzie-nominated Sharon Stone forfeiting her early lead to James Earl Jones' too-bored-to-bother warrior only for Mork and Mindy regular Robert Donner channelling Spike Milligan and Carry On Up the Khyber's Cardew Robinson at the top of his voice as an 'Indian' holy man to steal the prize. It's a surprise to see that it was shot in post-independence Zimbabwe since it has many of the hallmarks of the kind of film that used to shoot in apartheid South Africa  blacks are expendable children, Indians comic buffoons with silly voices, whites are the master race and everyone would stay happily in their place if it weren't for foreigners stirring up trouble.

Where the first film had the director of The Guns of Navarone and the original Cape Fear, J. Lee Thompson, to keep things professional enough, this has to settle for the director of The Black Hole, Gary Nelson (with 'additional scenes directed by Newt Arnold'), who is singularly unable to motivate his cast and crew. Chamberlain is barely making an effort here and clearly gives up near the end, though it's no surprise in a film that looks like only the rehearsals were shot, and only one take at that. The closest it comes to charm is when the real cold that Stone is obviously suffering in one scene is clearly caught by Chamberlain in the next. The biggest curiosity about the film is that most of the action in the trailer doesn't appear in the film at all despite looking rather less inept that what made the final cut, leaving the feeling of something that's been patched together in post over the weekend on an Ed Wood budget. If you ever wondered why Haggard's other Allan Quatermain novels have never been filmed, this utterly dire and nigh-unwatchable venture provides ample explanation.


I rate this film as about average for the genre at the time of production, although its major failures are from its adherence to the premise of the 1950 Stewart Granger version of King Solomon's Mines. King Solomon's Mines is a 20th Century modernization of the H. Rider Haggard novels set in the 19th Century. As a VERY LOW BUDGET African project, the two movies maintain the consistency of an imaginary Africa that may have seemed reasonable to a 19th Century English audience.

I especially enjoyed some of the quips that reference a not so hidden casting of Hollywood camp in serious roles. Elvira is cast as Sorais, and Richard Chamberlain as Allan Quatermain declares on meeting her, "I've seen some amazing things in my life, but never anything to compare with this!" The films are full of the cliché scenes that filled Tarzan and earlier jungle films, clichés that have since become attached to the Indiana Jones films by those unfamiliar with the earlier genre. Some of the earlier jungle films were produced under extraordinary duress, and attempts here to produce tongue in cheek replicas of the earlier works can certainly be missed by those whose only familiarity with film is through the post 70s media.


Allan Quatermain and the lost city of gold is the sequel to King Solomon's mines that came out and flopped the year before.

Richard Chamberlain is back as Adventurer Allan Quatermain, this time he along with lover Jesse (Sharon Stone) are back in the wilds of Africa searching for his long lost Brother after he disappears seeking a lost white race.

But having seen this I can say there is NO lost city of gold - It's a building that looks like a Hospital and the 'race' consist of about 50 people in white dressing gowns, and there is no gold to be seen apart from a cauldron of sludge which is presumably Gold and the villain of the piece played by Henry Silva hamming it up in a pathetic Diana Ross wig.

Many people on here has asked how Quatermain manages to melt the Gold at the end through a Mixture of Axe hitting the roof & some Lightning, I have NO idea and nothing is explained.

How they managed to hire Oscar nominated James Earl Jones to appear in this I'll never know.

'Lost city of gold is yet again made by the prolific masters of mindless action Golan/Globus and their B Movie studio Cannon Films.

Most people seem to despise this and it's predecessor, because they seem to ask too much of a B-Movie - This, like the last is NOT supposed to be of Indiana Jones quality for Pete's sake - All a B-Movie has to do is Entertain, something which this does from start to finish.

Yes you can argue It's got a low budget, poor acting, plot holes and cheap and cheerful visual effects, but give it a break, and I'll say it again - All that Golan/Globus films attempt to do is entertain.

'Lost city of gold was another flop which put paid to this franchise, which if taken in the right frame of mind, is cheesy fun.

** out of *****


Why they made this sequel is anyone's guess, the first one was not exactly a huge hit or anything. By today's standards it may have warranted a direct to DVD sequel, but an actual movie release would have been out of the question. Quite frankly this movie should have been out of the question. Or at least maybe they could have worked on it a bit more before its release as it definitely has a rushed feel to it. The story has Alan Quartermane and his new wife (both of which played by the same actors) going in search of Alan's brother who had set out looking for the lost city of gold. Well they go in pursuit and go through some jungle adventures and some traps and the movie has the same fast pace as the first movie. It looks like it is going to be a cheap action movie, but one packed with enough thrills to keep one entertained, and then they make it to the city of gold and the movie just stops being entertaining. The story and everything about the movie bogs down in the city of gold as does the whole Richard Chamberline as Alan Quartermane series. Though one has to wonder how did such obviously low budget movies get their hands on some rather respectable actors and actresses. Granted, Stone is a rather newcomer at this point, but Chamberline and James Earl Jones are not.


Some films are made so bad that they are funny. "Allan Quatermain And the Lost City Of Gold" falls under that category; this is far beyond the most awful film I have in my collection. The script I'm sure disappeared on the first day of shooting, the acting is even worse and the special effects look if it had a budget of a couple of pounds. This is all elements which becomes the force of the film. You're not laughing because it's fun, but because it's bad. Maybe that's why I can still be entertained by it.

"Allan Quatermain And the Lost City Of Gold" is the adventure genre's "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (though the special effects are slightly better), and I can still enjoy watching this delightly dreadful disaster of an adventure film.


What a mess! Almost everything about Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is a complete and total disaster. In the movie, Quatermain puts a group together to search for his brother in the wilds of Africa. After facing several dangerous and near-death obstacles, Quatermain finds his brother living in the seemingly idyllic and Utopian Lost City of Gold. But appearances can be deceiving as the city is really under the control of a ruthless warlord intent on making the citizens his slaves to mine the gold he is taking out. Can Quatermain and his band of adventurers save these people?

If I were to just make a list of everything that doesn't work in Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold, my list would go on for pages. I'll begin with the acting. To put it bluntly, it's terrible. I've never thought much of Richard Chamberlain as an actor and this movie does nothing to change that. As for Sharon Stone, I'm sure she would like to see this thing buried. I doubt she considers it a highlight on her resume. James Earl Jones is an actor you can usually count on to give a quality performance regardless of the material. Here, he just comes across as embarrassed to be associated with this drivel.

Technically, the movie is train wreck. Direction, editing, and everything else you can come up with are as bad as I've seen. But the special effects take Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold to a new low. The blue screen effects are as bad as I've ever seen. The rear projection used in the 1930s is 10X more realistic than the blue haloed actors on a bad looking backgrounds seen in this movie. The puppet snakes make Kermit look like a real frog. And, wires, harnesses, and the like are readily evident. Like I said when I started, it's a mess.

I haven't even gotten to the plot, but why bother? It's as poorly written as you can imagine.

The only thing that keeps me from rating this movie a 1/10 are the groovy outfits worn by Cassandra Peterson. It's too bad she's only got 10 or so minutes of screen time because I dig some of those costumes.


Not even Sharon Stone's breathless performance could save this movie from itself. Apparently most of the movie's budget was spent on transporting crew and equipment to Zimbabwe for a few outside shots, then back to the LA Public Library (aka Temple of Gold) to shoot the important scenes. And, of course, the big shiny axe, wielded expertly by none other than a dentally impaired James Earl Jones.

Do we even need to get into the finer points of Elvira acting as the wicked temple queen? Save yourself the trouble, and channelsurf until you find a Tony Danza marathon - the acting will be better and you might find a plotline you can follow.


Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is a sequel to the 1985 J.Lee Thompson bomb King Solomon's Mines. Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone are reunited for this abysmal follow-up, which somehow contrives to be even worse than the already-awful original. In fact, this movie goes beyond mere badness and earns itself a spot in the list of all-time clunkers occupied by other such embarrassments as Tarzan the Ape Man (1981), Inchon and Myra Breckenridge. I would place this in the worst 50 films of all-time, possibly even within the worst 30!

 Quatermain (Chamberlain) and his sexy sidekick Jessie (Stone) set off in search of the former's long-lost brother, who vanished while trying to locate a mythical lost city of gold deep in the Amazon. Their quest takes them through jungles, undeground tunnels, and along river rapids. Eventually they find the city, but find that its inhabitants live in fear of the cruel, tyrannical religious leaders. Quatermain leads a revolt and helps the inhabitants of the lost city to win back their freedom.

 There's a real cheap 'n' tacky look to the film which reminds one of low-budget TV movies on the same theme (e.g Robbers of the Sacred Mountain). Furthermore, everyone is guilty of giving lazy performances, especially Chamberlain and Stone who merely trot out the characteristics they built in the earlier film without trying to find a way to develop their characters further. James Earl Jones looks distinctly uncomfortable as a fierce warrior, Henry Silva wanders around looking dazed and confused, and poor old Robert Donner is reduced to the most embarrassing mugging imaginable in his humorless comic relief supporting role. Every jungle quest cliche in the book is resurrected for this dismal jaunt, but the effect is simply awful. At several points, you might actually find yourself grinding your teeth with despair! Even Trader Horn (1973) is more original than this!


Is it just me, or does this seem like a bad takeoff of Indiana Jones to anyone else? Exploring jungles..... looking for treasure..... near-death experiences..... sound familiar to anyone else? I just thought this was a cheesy, idiotic movie. At first, I thought it might be interesting, but after the rather hard-to-follow introduction, it just kept going down in my view. I find Indiana Jones much more satisfactory movies. They're easy to understand, have action that is a bit more believable (I said a bit more, not totally!!), and better actors. But then I may be a bit biased as I was forced to view this movie, I didn't watch it by choice. Just my views!!


Richard Chamberlain was the reason I watched this movie with my wife and two sons ages 10 and 13. Not only was he a disappointment, but the entire movie was idiotic, pointless, and a monumental waste of time. We spent the entire movie wishing we were doing something else (ANYTHING ELSE) and chastising ourselves for seeing it through to the awful end in the fruitless hope it would redeem itself somewhere along the line. My wife, both sons, and myself agree that we have not seen a worse movie to this day, and that has been FIFTEEN YEARS!


Take every bad Africa legend and stereotype, sift carefully to remove all traces of logic, place in food/word processor, top with stupidity, mix crudely and serve with a thick garnish of corny. It wasn't that there were dumb stereotypes of Africa in this movie; it's that there were so *many* of them, strung together with a plot as rich as your average porn movie and horribly overwrought sound. The beginning was kind of cheesy but maybe could go somewhere. As I watched, it did indeed go somewhere - downhill. It just kept getting stupider. I was hoping for fun and campy, if somewhat stupid, in an Indiana Jones & Temple of Doom sort of way. Nothing big or fancy, just an entertaining action/adventure flick. But I had been hoping for something somewhat less formulaic and thick with clichés.

I have some pretty stupid goofy movies in my collection, for when I want something mindless. But this is going straight in the garbage. I don't ever want to see it again as long as I live. I picked it up for a pittance at a thrift store and clearly spent too much money. Thanks to IMDb for at least giving me the pleasure of excoriating it in public.


Someday someone will take two competent actors and make a worse picture. The true tragedy of this film is that it's not even camp.