This is one of the movies selected to the FIFTY WORST FILMS book by Harry Medved. And while I agree it is really bad, I'm not sure it reached the level of wretchedness needed to merit inclusion in the book--but it sure is close enough that I can't fault its mention. The only reason that I would not have included it is because although it's very bad, there are SMALL glimpses of actual entertainment scattered about. The problem is, is it worth slogging through all the awfulness and boredom to find it? I say "NO"!!! Avoid this film like the plague! If you don't believe me, read on,....

The film starts with Adolph Menjou screening his latest production to a preview audience. They are laughing convulsively--a real problem since the film is a romantic drama! So, aware that his instincts are failing him, Menjou goes in search of someone to give him advice on what people really like. He picks a lady who has nothing to do with the movie industry and blindly listens to everything she says even though she has no idea what she's talking about. So, in other words, millions and millions of dollars are delegated based on this lady who Menjou nicknames "Miss Humanity". This idea is stupid and the nickname totally annoying. It gets worse, believe me.

Then, the film becomes a giant "everything but the kitchen sink" extravaganza, where every few minutes, the action (such as it is) is punctuated by rather random song, dance, ventriloquism or comedy numbers. Ostensibly, the film is a variety show thinly connected by the plot. Oddly, however, the acts are generally just awful and probably won't appeal overall to anyone! After all, in some segments, there is opera, while in others it's Edgar Bergan and Charlie McCarthy, in another it's ballet or modern dance, and in others it's the incredibly unfunny antics of the Ritz Brothers. I honestly find it very hard to believe that all these incredibly divergent styles of entertainment will appeal to anyone--they may like some but hate the rest. Think about it--is there ANYONE who loves opera and ballet as well as the Ritz Brothers?! Frankly, I hate them all (especially the Ritz Brothers) and doubt if my opinion is much different from the average person. Yet, Miss Humanity seemed to like this and thought the average person would like this hodge-podge! As I mentioned above, the Ritz Brothers play quite prominently in the film. A couple times they were MILDLY funny, but most of the time they were like walking, talking migraines! I am a HUGE fan of silent and early sound comedy and think they were perhaps the most annoying comedy team ever. Their antics were far less funny and sophisticated than the Three Stooges and their act consisted mainly of annoying people! In addition, someone gave them a song to sing that is among the most UNINTENTIONALLY funny and obscene songs ever written--as they repeat the same word AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN--in fact, this is the entire chorus (it's a euphemism for BOTH a cat and part of a female's anatomy).

There's a lot more I didn't like about the film, such as the countless times Menjou said to his talent scout "Basil, drop it" (it was funny the first time but not again and again) and the "Romeo and Juliet" song and dance number. Don't watch this unless you are trying to watch all 50 of the films in Medved's book or unless you are a masochist--it's THAT bad!

PS--A final observation. So far, all but one of the many reviews for this film were either negative or extremely negative--with most scores being in the one to two-star range. So, how does this movie have an overall IMDb rating of 5.4 (as of 1/31/07)?! Occasionally, I think some people are deliberately flooding certain films with overly negative or positive scores to unduly influence the ratings. I observed a BAD Humphrey Bogart recently that actually had a much higher percentage of scores of 10 than CASABLANCA--even though the overall score was still quite low. This doesn't make any sense. Believe me when I say 5.4 is WAY TOO HIGH A SCORE to be believed!

PPS--Look close--it's a very young Alan Ladd who is singing (badly) at the piano in Menjou's office.


Sam Goldwyn did this movie to imitate the Ziegfeld follies and (hopefully) rake in millions. Boy was he WRONG! Adolphe Menjou plays a producer whose movies are failing. He meets sweet, wholesome Andrea Leeds and hires her to be "Miss Humanity" and tell him what the public wants. (No it makes no sense to me either) She tells him all these howlers like "Romeo and Juliet should have a happy ending" and "love is the most important thing". Menjou manages to keep a straight face and says "That's brilliant" to all these pearls of wisdom. One day Leeds goes to a hamburger diner. She walks in to see sweet, wholesome Kenny Baker cooking hamburgers while singing "Love Walked In" (with a full orchestra being heard). Naturally they fall in love. That's when I gave up.

Seriously this movie is just unbelievable. The dialogue was full of campy lines and groaningly bad jokes (my eyes hurt from rolling them so much). This movie is full of "speciality" act: Edger Bergman and Charlie McCarthy manage to get out a few good jokes; The Ritz Brothers (a comedy group that makes the Three Stooges look subdued) throw in some "comedy" bits that will have you gaping (in disbelief)--their "pussy cat" song is truly a jaw-dropper; Romeo and Juliet is done as a ballet--with tap-dancing too; there are THREE musical numbers from "La Traviata" worked in; Phil Baker pops up as a seriously untalented accordionist and a LONG dull ballet is shoved in.

Acting doesn't help. Menjou manages to keep a straight face; Leeds is given nothing to do but look beautiful and wholesome and Baker is SO nauseatingly sweet that you just want to slap him. Beautiful Technicolor photography doesn't help. This is worth watching just for some nice visuals and the hysterically bad dialogue. Example: "Fill my bath with whipped cream" (????). This falls in the so bad it's good area--but still it's just a 1 all the way.


This movie should be called The Goldwyn Floppies! It was a lame attempt to present some of George Gershwin's music, shortly after his death, in a plot less musical. The movie itself looks like it was filmed in someone's backyard. The Ritz Brothers were wannabe Stooges. They're skit about them rowing in a boat in a pool was utterly pointless. Also their song about the pussy cat can make a modern audience cringe. The Charlie McCarthy bits were better suited for younger audiences, however, Charlie was no Howdy Doody. Avoid this movie at all costs. If you're a fan of Gershwin, buy his albums or watch the classic movies "Rhapsody in Blue", and "An American in Paris."


I've been on the lookout for this film for over 25 years, since it was given the honor of inclusion on the first (and at the time, only) bad movie book, Harry Medved's The Fifty Worst etc. One man's meat can be another man's poison, but a combination of curiosity and masochism has driven me to seek out and view over 30 of the films on Medved's original list. The list doubtless includes films that some do not consider bad (two films on Medved's list are also in Roger Ebert's Great Movies) but I have not disagreed with any of Medved's selections after sitting through them. Individually and collectively they are painful to watch, actually make you either angry or nauseous or some other disagreeable sensation, with a moment here and there of entertainment (taken out of context) not nearly enough to balance the ghastly experience of the remaining bill of fare.

So has Medved's judgment continued to bat 1.000? You bet, the streak continues. This film is chock-a-block with jokes that are not funny, beauty that comes off as ugliness, hopeless misuse of Gershwin material, dancing that comes off as forced, dialog that could have been written by a robot, aesthetic pretension that could provide a textbook definition of inanity. The color photography might look better in black and white (what with the subtle gradations of green clashing all over the costumes and scenery). And yes, there are moments with Charlie McCarthy, and a coloratura Siempre Libre, both done well enough to point up the vivid contrast between truly entertaining and worse than nothing.

Sometimes a kind of negative serendipity is responsible for a bomb of a movie, but there is much premeditation here. George Gershwin was in the process of dying as he worked on this film. Sam Goldwyn, ever understanding, cut him from the payroll when he failed to show up for a couple of days. After George died and there was no original ballet music, Goldwyn passed up on the chance (offered by brother Ira) to film a ballet of American In Paris, instead having hack composer Vernon Duke compose his pale imitation of Ravel's La Valse which became the background for the Water Nymph ballet. So while watching the movie it may appear that Goldwyn had to make do with the likes of Phil Baker and the Ritz Brothers, but in fact he had other available resources which he foolishly chose to employ.

This film is an atrocity. I can only thank Turner Classic Movies for disagreeing long enough to put it on their schedule. And for the scorecard, I've seen one of the two movies that grace both the pages of Medved's 50 Worst and Ebert's Great Movies: "Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia." While I usually see Ebert's point, I must agree with Medved on that one. Some day I hope to see the other homologous entry, "Last Year In Marienbad". Turner Classic Movies, take note.


Whew, what a mess. They don't make 'em like this anymore and we should all be thankful that they don't. Samuel Goldwyn pulled out all the stops to present a movie with a bit of everything and created one heck of a mess. Any film with a talent like Adolf Menjou sharing the bill with an act like The Ritz Brothers should be an indication that something here isn't quite right.

And who are The Ritz Brothers? A weak attempt at imitating the success of the Marx Brother's that failed miserably.

Watch if you're curious but if you're in the mood for the best that era had to offer rent the "That's Entertainment" trilogy from MGM, a studio that really knew how to put on a show.


This is the most ludicrous and laughable thriller I've ever seen. Oh....where to start....

Plot (what little there is): Clayton Beresford Jr. (Hayden Christensen), a young billionaire, with a bad heart is desperately in need of a transplant. Clay has been secretly engaged to his mother's PA, Samantha, played by Jessica Alba. On the night that these two secretly get married, it just so happens that a heart donor with the same rare blood type is found. Go and figure the odds of that one! Once on the operating table, Clay finds out the anesthesia isn't working, and he can feel everything and hear everything.

Fortunately Clay seems to be able to filter out the pain of a razor sharp scalpel cutting open his chest by simply concentrating on his memories of Samantha, which we are told he's doing through an annoying voice-over which never seems to stop.

If you didn't burst out in laughter yet, you will surely start to when you see the surgical scenes.

How could a young billionaire agree to have a heart transplant performed by one surgeon, one nurse, an attending physician and an drunk anesthesiologist? There were more people in the room when my wisdom tooth was getting pulled. Not to mention the medical behavior, which is too preposterous to be taken seriously...the operating room isn't even kept sterile...people are practically able to just walk in and out of the room without even having washed up... During the operation the viewer gets to hear Clay's thoughts, none of which are too fascinating. Ah...but here's what it's all about ...the doctors are trying to kill him in order to take his money. Believing him to be unconscious, the villains speak freely. Gosh! What will happen?

Well... at least there's no interference from anyone else in the hospital, while an incompetent doctor who's got four malpractice lawsuits running against him is performing major heart surgery. Not even Clay's overprotective mother seems to be able to check on his status. The only one interested in keeping updated is Samantha...but oh no...could sweet Sam be in on it....You'll quickly find out through some Scooby Doo dialog...

In the end, it wouldn't even matter whether or not Clay underwent anesthesia awareness, because the end would have turned out the same way in both cases.

If you can ignore the feeling that the director/writer is trying to make fun of the patients who fell victim to anesthesia awareness, maybe there's some dumb fun to be had...

Enjoy...


I just saw this movie last night and, being someone who had very low expectations to begin with, was still disappointed. The most glaring error in this abomination of a movie is that the main plot point (the guy being awake during the surgery), had NOTHING to do with the outcome. It would have ended the same way regardless. So, what was the point of this? Who knows. Also, this surgeon had 4 malpractice suits against him and he didn't think people would ask questions if a patient died on his table? Give me a break. Jessica Alba is completely talentless and Christiansen is almost as bad. The whole thing was just laughable from start to finish. I'm fairly certain that if you could feel someone cutting through your chest with a scalpel, you would be in more pain than that.


First of all, the big named actors must need the money... The surgical scenes were laughable.... and surely they must know that people who have a little knowledge of medicine would find this utterly absurd......Anesthesiologists do not leave the room during a heart transplant....nor do they do the surgery in a tiny room devoid of instruments, heart lung equipment and sterile techniques... just a joke... couldn't concentrate on the story line because of all the stupid surgery scenes... no blood, no personnel and then the hero doc coming in and taking over... it is not a film for thinking adults....Also the budget must have been limited... the street scenes were OK but who was the technical adviser....Seems like it was directed by a total idiot.. Save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD and Don't rent it..


From the beginning this movie did have a few flaws. The main character played by Hayden Christensen is a the rich young mogul who has inherited his father's considerable wealth and power, and he is struggling to both fill his father's shoes and cut the apron strings mother (and co-executive) keeps too tight. He also has the problem of having a heart condition and waiting in the limbo that is the organ donor registry. There are also minor back stories which your first instinct is to mostly ignore that become important later, such as his friendship with his surgeon (Terrence Howard) and his romance with a middle class girl (Jessica Alba). Uncreative story lines, but not bad enough to ruin the movie. The only real "oy vey!" moment was the name of Lena Olin's character. Overbearing woman named Lilith...subtle!

The surgical scenes are not at all censored. I appreciated that, people who find surgery scenes scary might not. The horror of being awake during anesthesia was done well at first. You watch in emotional agony as Christensen screams inwardly through the chest incision and the rib spreader. The moment of irony from the trailers then comes where while he is one of the unlucky few to be awake during anesthesia, he is also luck in that it helps him learn that his surgical team is planning to murder him.

The big twist, however, is very predictable and sends the film delving into the conspiracy and his memories of the little signs which were there but he, like us, initially missed.

There are two more twists at the end involving his relationship with his mother. One is an impressive gesture by Olin, which comes of as unimpressive due to poor writing. The other is a secret about the family's past which seemed very tacked on and pointless.

The initially well done anesthesia awareness drama gets lost in the poorly written conspiracy drama. There is a one final attempt to bring it back which falls flat, taking the entire movie with it.


I was very surprised to see that this movie had such a good rating, when i checked it on IMDb after seeing it. This really is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i have seen many bad movies. It looks like a good movie in the beginning, but when he comes into surgery i couldn't believe how bad it got. This voice-over destroys EVERYTHING! Just imagine you are being cut open like that and then listen to what he says. I saw the movie in German so i don't really know what he said in English, but ironic stuff like "Yeah right, it doesn't hurt.."?...what is this? Telling yourself "think about something else" and then forgetting your pain by just thinking about your girlfriend is just...stupid. And his mother...how the hell does she figure something like that out? Someone comes to tell her, her son died in surgery (what she kind of had to expect). Plus she found some letters in Jessica Albas bag. plus that "she knows the hospital" stuff... and then it takes her "one second" to figure it out? What the hell?^^ And the ending...why does the police bust them? The patient died in surgery, thats all that happened. That drunk doctor doesn't know anything else either...and then they bust them all, even the girlfriend??? Why??? Despite all that i think Christensen did a bad job, but that doesn't really count for me...those mistakes and stupid things i wrote about above are the problem. I watched this movie with some friends and we all were VERY disappointed... As i said, one of the worst movies i have ever seen... Just don't watch it ;)


Hayden Christianson and Jessica Alba two of my least favourite actors of this century team up in what is quite possibly the flattest attempt at remake the already dire The Butterfly Effect. Awake is so dull and so utterly uninteresting that you'd be better off asleep. Terrance Howard still recovering from the diabolical August Rush puts up a decent fight as the sadistic doctor who seems hell bent on killing Christianson and after viewing his performance I would gladly assists.

Alba, still recovering after Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver surfer. Is naturally disastrous and equally unwatchable as she always was. Only once has she ever been rather brilliant at that was in the safe hands of master director Robert Rodriguez in Sin City. Could it possibly be that Jessica alba isn't as poor of an actress as most give her credit for and is is possibly that her acting abilities are being weight down by a poor script. If so then that would explain Awake. What with a script that would shame that of Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Jessica Alba, Hayden Christenson, and Terrence Howard star in first-time director/screenwriter Joby Harold's nerve-jangling psychological thriller about a man who experiences the frighteningly common surgical phenomenon known as "aesthetic awareness," in which those laid out on the operating table remain acutely aware of what is going on around them despite remaining completely paralyzed and unable to cry out for help. When a successful young young man (Christenson) goes under the knife and realizes that the anaesthesia hasn't quite done its job, the horror quickly sets in as his worried wife (Alba) waits anxiously and a terrifying drama unfolds in the operating room.

Hoping to do for operating tables what Final Destination did for planes, this first effort from director Joby Harold pivots on a blood-frosting conceit. The pre-credits sequence tells us one in 700 people suffers from a phenomenon known as 'anaesthetic awareness', where the patient remains conscious but paralysed during surgery. One such unfortunate individual is Clayton Beresford Jr (Hayden Christensen), who finds himself wide awake during a heart transplant... and he can feel every single slice.

Intermittently inventive as it probes away at his tortured psyche, Awake fails to inject true terror into its novel premise. Spiralling from chilling simplicity into absurd conspiracy, it's hindered by stilted turns from Christensen and Jessica Alba. You'll wish you'd popped a sedative before watching

VERDICT: Awake is at very best extremely undemanding. A pull no punches film that undoubtedly looked better on paper. As a film though its awfully generic and extremely derived. Awake fails to inject terror into its novel premise. The end result is really quite lousy. Alba and Christian are the very least of your worries as the films main flaw lies in its inability to scare its audience. Awake is a film you'll most likely sleep through.


After watching Awake,I led to a conclusion:director and screenwriter Joby Harold made Awake with the intention of laughing at the spectator,for the simple fact the movie is full of ridiculous elements.Awake has a lot of plot holes and it is full of absurd and ridiculous elements(for example,the hospital uniform the spirit of the main character uses...did the ghost of a doctor leave it in the floor ?).The concept behind this movie is slightly ingenious but all the plot holes and the absurd things make of this a stupid and crappy film.With the exception of the great Lena Olin,all the actors bring bad performances.Hayden Christensen has zero expressions and the same applies for Jessica Alba.The extraordinary actor Terrence Howard is enormously wasted on his role.Awake makes a laugh of the spectator.It's so ridiculous and full of absurd things that it's impossible to take it seriously.My recommendation is:skip this crappy movie.


Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.

(spoilers, sorta)

The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding).

The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.

Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen.

Kind of boring, overall.


I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.

This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.


Viewers will find it easy to criticize this low-budget, no-name effort found only on the dusty backshelves of a few video stores. It suffers from the flat dialog, so-so acting, haphazard scripting, and awkward pacing so often found in these Grade-Z productions.

And yet there's something about the merger of nightmare and reality in "Night Wars" which gives it an odd, almost haunting quality which softens the edges of all its many faults. Or, putting it another way, considering the vast resources spent on "Pearl Harbor" versus the scant resources spent on this movie, which one is really the more satisfying achievement?

Aside from that blurring between waking and dreaming, the most distinctive feature here comes in the form of two torture scenes occurring in Vietnamese POW camps. In the first scene, Cameron Smith has a red-hot metal rod pressed against his bare chest while he's tied between two posts, and in the second, Brian O'Connor -- tied between two trees -- has strips of barb-wire tightened around his naked torso. Unlike many Hollywood movies in which the hero suffers stoically, these two men scream with open-mouthed agony. (You can even count the fillings in Cameron Smith's teeth.) And unlike many Hollywood heroes, these two men don't have perfectly-chiseled physiques. (O'Connor especially shows signs of middle-aged flab.) The result is unnerving because the torture seems to be inflicted on real men rather than movie actors.

Top-billed Dan Haggerty has little to do in his part and Steve Horton overdoes the wild-eyed look as the sadistic villain, but Jill Foor invokes suitable sympathy as Brian O'Connor's bewildered wife. As for the two tormented ex-POWs, O'Connor is earnest and almost even appealing and Cameron Smith has the born-to-be-tortured look which is just right for this part.


Trent (Brian O'Connor) and Jimmy (Cameron Smith) are two Nam vet buddies who escaped a POW prison camp only to face worse horrors at home when the past literally comes back to haunt them. They're harassed by a soldier they left behind and a sadistic traitor who helped torture them, and when they're attacked in their dreams, they emerge with real scars (a la A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET). The two deck out in cameo and carry high-powered machine guns into their dreams to fight back after one's wife is raped and killed by a ghost. Dan (GRIZZLY ADAMS) Haggerty is the top-billed guest star. He plays a psychiatrist who tries to "help" by holding them at gunpoint, drugging them and tying them up in his office!

The premise is somewhat new, but the unconvincing Nam flashbacks look like the stars are playing War Games in the woods behind their house, the dialogue ("Let's do it!," "I'm scared, man!") is annoying and the action and horror scenes just aren't very exciting.

Prolific director David A. Prior also combined the war and horror genres in THE LOST PLATOON (1989) and also directed KILLER WORKOUT (1987), MARDI GRAS FOR THE DEVIL (1992) and MUTANT SPECIES (1995) in between all his cheapo action movies. He scripted from a story he wrote with his brother Ted Prior and William Zipp (both of whom acted in his previous films).


Dan Haggerty has sure been in some fine movies. Elves, and this...and maybe some other equally fine movies. Grizzly Adams stuff, I reckon. I guess you could call this Nightmare on Elm Street meets Platoon, but that's an insult to Nightmare On Elm Street and I've never seen Platoon, but that's the first war movie that came to mind. Some Vietnam vets are having realistic dreams about their experiences during the war. They actually look rather young to have been there at all considering the war ended a good 16-17 years before this movie was made? I found this to be a very flat movie, little in the way of excitement or scares. It does have the "Nightmare on Elm St." thing going on though with trying to stay awake or having someone watch you so they can wake you up if the dream gets too bad. I could identify with the trying to stay awake part, I was having a lot of trouble with that myself. One absolutely ridiculous scene consists of two guys lying on a double bed in a suburban bedroom, dressed in their combat fatigues, firing their machine guns while asleep. What the hell? Anyway, I passed this one up time after time at the "used" store, but finally broke down and got it because I was intrigued. Nothing to be intrigued about, guess I should go with my gut feelings. Ptooey.


The movie was alright..The used car man was hot! The salesman..those eyes. They don't make men like that in the 2000's. He is played by David Ott. Are there any other films featuring him (topless hopefully).

The car chase doesn't last long enough.

He's cute.

Acting is OK but he is quite the comic relief.

At first glance he looks like the late Michael Hutchance from INXS.

Would like to see him today.

Thought I caught him uncredited in Vanilla Shy but that is some years later.

Possibly has short role in "Sex and the City"


This film seems to have more takes in the title than it did during filming. Give and Take and Take has obviously been a labour of love to make. It's just a shame that it's more of a labour to watch. Performances, Plot and characterisation are laughable. It's just a shame the jokes aren't. Avoid.


We've been here so many times before. A couple of tasty cock-er-knee lovable rogues, a mix-up / rip off with drugs and a nasty east end big man. To be honest it could be 1998 and the release of Guy Richies ode to all things east end.

This film is like frankensteins monster, with its component parts ripped intact from older works and then sewed together to make a whole. The problem is that someone forgot that strike it with a lightning bolt and it's just a corpse decomposing on the table.

Yes it's an early effort and yes the budget is low. These are things that can and should be forgiven, the acting is acceptable in places from the unknown cast and it's done with a sense of humour. The problem is the script which is so clogged with cliche and rip off that nothing else is given a chance. Ultimately the troubled children film makers are going to have to grow up and stop playing with other childrens toys.


Brilliantly directed, superb camerawork, great script! Whoever owned the multi-story carpark used in the amazing climax must be thrilled to have given their permission for it to be rammed by a car! I've heard on the grapevine that this film was made on a very low budget - surely a sign that the director and his company "Troubled Children Films" are capable of so much more! I happened to stumble across the film-maker's website, and hope to see more of their back-catalogue - The silent snooker film in particular seems just as well-scripted as this masterpiece! I stand by my fellow impartial reviewers and say "Well done! 10/10!!!!"


When I first got a copy of this film I was so excited. A film shot in my area, by a local film group portraying a realistic group of problems and people. Instead I was treated to yet another Cocknee Mocknee crime film, the same as all the others to be released in the last few years (except with even more silly running about, badly filmed gun fights and many many jokes from The Simpsons) Rarely have I found myself laughing so hard at not just bad acting/script/directing (take your pick) but also the preposterous presumption that this is what present day London was really like. The writer has obviously never travelled the streets at night or picked up the local paper to see the harsh reality of such a crime ridden area. The last two-bit crook I had the misfortune to meet wasn't a likeable cheaky chappy. Still it did make me chuckle a couple of times, laugh once and cry lots when after ten minutes discovered it still wasn't over...


Last night me and 3 of my friends were kind of bored, and i was going through my friends dvds. I came across this huge box set called "night terrors" or something like that. i picked it up and read on the back of the box, the titles of movies. At the end of the list of like ten movies there was this "Sorority House Vampires". I read the tag line aloud which said "death, demon's, and D-cups". We said lets watch it it can be like stupid funny (like the time we watched "the divine secrets of the ya-ya sisterhood" and ran around screaming YA-YA all night) well we put the DVD in and sat back. The first thing we saw was this freakin Chinese lady that was naked (she had pretty big boobies for a Chinese lady)she was dancing to rock music for like 10 min for the opening credits. I said "What the hell this is retarded" but we stuck it out like men. The rest of the movie was this weird vampire whore sucking peoples blood.

If you and your buds are looking for a movie with great T&A this isn't the one. I does have some but its not too great.

If you are looking for a compelling thriller, this isn't it also. it shouldn't even keep a couple of stoner's attention

So the only reason you would want to see it if you're a total goth and your looking For some tasteful goth porn


This movie is so bad that it would stand with the likes of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and other schlock epics. If you like good movies, then stay away from this one. But if you like your movies extra cheesy with a high count of boobies, then this is the one. Highly recommended!


This movie surpasses Redneck zombies and Puma Man! I love "Le Bad Cinema" and this one the worst that I have had the pleasure of viewing. This movie joins the ranks of "Wade and Gordon Bumpter's Movie review" show with special guest Sinead O'Connor. It is to love.


The Plot had Less depth than a gold fish bow. A trained monkey could have more vision and art direction. Some one should stop this guy from making movies... This man has to be on the FBI's "priority watch" list(s)...the girls WERE hot though...


Familiar story of nice guy Scotty (Tom Laughlin) and his sweet girlfriend Janice (Rosemary Howard) being taken in by a gang of hoods led by Bill (Peter Miller). This is the type of movie which shows bad behaviour as being smoking, drinking and starting fights. I know I was in trouble when it starts off with a narrator telling the audience that this is a cautionary tale of where their kids might end up! I saw this only because it was Robert Altman's first film--he wrote, produced and directed it. It was made on a VERY low budget and it shows. It's horribly edited with inappropriate music cues (there's some thundering music when Scotty just comes out of a cab!). Also the script has lapses--especially when Bill inexplicably wants to help Scotty. Why? There's no rhyme or reason. For some reason Bill acts like he's sexually attracted to Scotty! All the actors were unknowns when this was made. The only one that went on to become famous was Laughlin when 15 years later he did "Billy Jack". As it is his acting here is actually pretty good. He's obviously WAY too old for his role but he's handsome and muscular and has a lengthy shirtless scene. Howard as his girlfriend is just awful. Whiny and obnoxious. This was her only film--it's easy to see why. Miller wasn't bad as the head of the gang and everyone else was OK. This is really of interest only as Altman's first film. Other than that it's just a run of the mill "bad boys" film that was done countless times in the 1950s.


I realize this was written, produced, and directed by Robert Altman. (I guessed it when I noticed it was supposed to be taking place in Kansas City, Altman's home town.) But, man, what a lousy movie this is.

None of the performers went on to notable careers with the exception of the good protagonist, the nice kid who refuses to join the gang of suburban white delinquents. That would be Tom Laughlin, who had a brief period of celebrity about 40 years ago through the instruments of the Billy Jack movies, confused but well-meaning attempts to illustrate the good life.

There's a reason for the careers of these actors, male and female, to have sputtered out. I've seen better performances in high school productions of "Our Town." Hardly a spoken word is believable, and it doesn't help that the characters are shackled to stereotypical roles.

The fact that it's so awesomely dated isn't necessarily bad. Artifacts are of their period by necessity. But all the "warning signs", of which much is made in the narration, point in the wrong direction. The middle-class white suburban kids all went to community colleges and became X-ray technicians. But in the cities, the baby boomers entered their teens and went ape as they found out that, gee, crime sometimes DOES pay and furthermore it's FUN to outwit or outgun the victims, even if the material rewards themselves were modest.

As a sociologist I couldn't help noticing that "Juvenile Delinquency" rather suddenly disappeared from college curricula. I suspect that part of the reason was that so much of the data showed a disproportionate number of African-American kids and other minorities were involved, so it became politically incorrect. About the same time, an interpretive position called labeling theory became popular, which I won't describe but which, in essence, allowed us to shift the responsibility from the miscreant to society. Books appeared with titles like "Blaming the Victim." Eldrige Cleaver's career as a rapist became a political act.

Anyway, back to the movie. Some movies have a reputation of being so bad that they're fun to watch once in a while. "Reefer Madness" is kind of amusing. But other bad movies are just excruciatingly dull. This one joins John Wayne's "The Conqueror" in belonging to the latter class.


I've never been compelled to write a review of a film, but after watching 108 minutes of people saying "ummm" I feel I have no other choice. Seriously, someone should count how many times "Umm" is regurgitated throughout this piece of work. One of the most infuriating aspects about reading reviews of this film is the constant reference to Cassavetes. Give me a break. Is it because it's black and white film and hand held? Or is it because the actors improvised their lines? Does that make something in the vein of Cassavetes? Please, it's insulting to John Cassavetes as an artist.

The main difference between this film and any John Cassavetes film is that Cassavetes made intense, compelling films with STELLAR performances. Not to mention, his actors had SCREEN PRESENCE; it wasn't just a bunch of bumbling noncommittal "twenty somethings" sitting around talking about the most mundane minutia, like whether or not their backpack has one strap or two. That's not even realistic, no one talks like that. And if you were around someone who did talk like that you'd get bored and leave the conversation. It's like being stuck at the worst party imaginable without a ride home.

I love improvisation, don't get me wrong, but improvised dialog isn't inherently interesting just because it's improvised. Cassavetes improvised in rehearsals and would write down what worked and formed it into a script, yes a SCRIPT, something Andrew Bujalski should experiment with. Having someone else edit his films may not be a bad idea either.

I appreciate the fact that the filmmaker made a film, but give me a break... groundbreaking this is not. It's not even honest to the milieu it is posing to represent. 20 something hipsters are assholes: they fight, they screw, they argue, they have conflict. The fact that the main "rock star" character doesn't even have sex with the leading woman is just dishonest, boring and, to me, shows that the filmmaker has either never been laid or doesn't know any actual musicians.

108 minutes dedicated to the idea that two people were "thinking" about sharing a kiss it just a waste of time to everyone involved, me especially. Maybe would have worked as a short; emphasis on short. Mumble core is not only the most ill named film-making movement, it's just plain ill conceived and poorly executed. On a positive note, it gives hope to every half-wit film student who lacks the ability to be rigorous and self-critical. Ummm... well, ummm, like, ummmm...thanks Andrew.


If this film represents the voice of the twenty-something generation, we are in trouble. It's disturbing that so many claim to find genius, humor or even originality in this film. Comparisions with Cassavedes, who is riveting, Rohmer, who is profound, and Woody Allen, who is both funny and original, are insulting to those directors. The film is a colossal bore. It is not enough to be raw and real if your actors are unimaginative and your characters are given almost nothing interesting to say or do and your script shows little intelligence or originality. (The mole-must-be-removed motif has already been done, to much more hilarious effect, in Nichole Holofcener's "Walking and Talking.") I find it telling that in one of the user reviews, the writer feels compelled to apologize for falling asleep during the film. No, that is an entirely appropriate reaction.


Mutual Appreciation, by Andrew Bujalski, is the type of film which really causes me to have to step back and question my love of cinema. Its story (that might not be the appropriate word, let's say premise) is of a young "musician" who comes to New York. He talks to his friends a lot about his boring life and search for "love". He also tries to find other band members, and plans for his big show. That's it.

Bujalski makes what I suppose could be labeled a "sincere effort" with this film, but all through it's incredible almost 2 hour running time I felt that I was watching a wanna-be French New Wave film by someone who had never actually seen a New Wave film.

The film is full of awkward, possibly improvised dialogue segments which don't really flow. This could have worked to the film's advantage, adding to its attempt at cinema varite, but it makes the audience more uncomfortable than the characters.

The painfully simple camera work and the far overused, and rather barren, apartment set make the film less than visually stunning. At points during the long, uninterrupted, dialogue pieces, I felt like the cinematographer just dumped the camera on a tripod and took a cigarette break.

More so, the dialogue rants are not interesting and end up saying essentially the same thing over and over again; perhaps this was the filmmaker's intent, but if so it wasn't well thought out. The characters are also dull and very one-dimensional. They sit around, smoke and complain, none of which is at all interesting.

Mutual Appreciation is part of an ever increasing breed of film which attempts to emulate the style of "art films" from the 1960s and 1970s while simultaneously trying to be modern and cutting edge. Andrew Bujalski is not a talented enough filmmaker to pull off an effort like this and the haphazard approach here becomes infuriating by the one hour mark.

Despite its near epic length, it still feels like at least a good 20 minutes of the running time were added simply to make the film longer. For example, I really don't care about seeing a five minute sequence in which the lead character performs a couple awful songs on stage for around 20 swaying hipsters in the audience.

If Bujalski had made this film 30 minutes shorter, or better yet, a 45 minute short feature, I might hold a very different opinion of it. But given how little actually occurs in it and how long it takes for it to occur, I was quite put off.

Here here to the future of art.


Bring a pillow, a receptacle for excrement so you needn't stir, sign your will, and take your nemesis on a dream date.

Under acted, entirely improvised on the fly dialog. and mise-en-scene that leaves the camera unattended explores the boring spontaneous utterances of undergrads trying to make a really deep art film by saying a lot of "Like" and "So I go..." or "So I''m like..." . If they'd been black the most common utterance would've been repetitive "y'know what I'm saying ?"

Oh... and it's poorly filmed ...B&W.

Sound guys did workmanlike work. I hate this pretentious crap and was pleased I could turn it off. If at a cinema I would've assaulted a crippled ticket kiosk on my way out after 30'.


This film is total zero (nula, nada...): no story, no (sensible) dialogs (concentrate on dialogs just for a try!), no acting (just ever smiling Alan), no action, no nothing... Some directors can tell an interesting story in the usual 90 minutes, while Andrew Bujalski spends 110 minutes to tell you ... nothing. The film looks as if it was made by a group of high school students after they had got their first movie camera. Get a group of students and let them make shots of their ordinary life  and I am sure that such a film would be better than Mutual Appreciation.

Maybe some people like such films  but then these films should be described and labeled as such - this film is NOT a comedy - this film is boredom (or should we call it "boredy"?), so that those who don't like it can avoid it on time. And before declaring this film a masterpiece, let me remind you on the Andersen's story about the emperor's new clothes.

I don't like Hollywood's unreal, highly sophisticated, artificial films full of action, shooting, special effects, etc. I see that this film has gone into the totally opposite direction (maybe even as a protest against Hollywood junk)  but it went too far; I suppose the state somewhere in the middle would be just right.

In short: unless you are doing a survey on the most boring films - avoid Mutual Appreciation.


Hot rods and gila monsters! - now there's a mix that absolutely demands attention. "The Giant Gila Monster" opens ominously enough with sinister music but quickly turns into "At the Hop", at a pace that is repeated enough times in the movie to keep you off balance.

It's difficult to get a fix on just how monstrous our title monster is in the early going, as frequent close ups of the creature merely reveal a rather normal lizard. As the film progresses, the creature seems to grow in stature, as when he's sized up against oncoming vehicles or when he manages to destroy a railroad trestle causing a train wreck. Presumably this beast was responsible for the disappearance of two teenagers and an oil rig driver in the early going, as crack detective work by the local sheriff fails to uncover their whereabouts.

The movie actually has a lot going on, the film's hero Chase Winstead (Don Sullivan) befriends a local disc jockey by getting his car out of a jam; the DJ repays the favor by cutting a demo record for the would be singer. Chase's little sister needs a pair of braces in order to walk and they're provided by Chase's girlfriend Lisa (Lisa Simone). Comic relief is provided by the town drunk Harris (Shug Fisher), who happens to witness the creature up close and personal a couple of times, but who's buying his story?

I remember as a kid watching any number of TV shows and movies of the 1950's in which nitroglycerin was a major factor in the outcome of a story. With four quarts of nitro just hanging around, young Chase manages to steer his souped up hot rod into the path of the looming monster to insure a successful and fiery finale.

Even back in 1959, it seemed that corporate sponsors were a factor in movie production, you'll need more than one hand to count the number of times Mobil Oil gets it's message across.

With all said and done, "The Giant Gila Monster" is one of those campy 1950's gems that requires at least one viewing so you could say you've been there and done that. Try to get your hands on the DVD box set of fifty sci-fi and horror films neatly packaged with a mix of downright terrible offerings like "The Beast of Yucca Flats" along with screen classics like "Nosferatu". You'll enjoy yourself for weeks and increase your knowledge of "B" and "Z" grade films to the delight of your friends and neighbors.


Freak, giant lizard terrorizes the fun-loving people of a small Texan town.

Cheap drive-in fare is what you would expect from a B movie for its time. The cast's performances are laughable, the special FX consists of a real gila monster walking around on miniature models, and the 'pop music' is wildly inappropriate, although the atmospheric score isn't bad.

All together, it's a bad movie, but it's B-movie gold that genre fans might enjoy and will certainly laugh at.

* 1/2 out of ****


The Giant Gila Monster is the story of a former child star named Scotty Beckett going under the name of Don Sullivan in an effort to salvage his career and someone named Ken Curtis who made a decision that being an actor is far better than being a horror movie producer. I couldn't help noticing those facts when I watched this movie. It's always fun to look behind the scenes and see a another story unfold over the present one. But going back to the movie, it was another one of those grade B- "quickys" meant to try and cash in on the teenage monster craze of the late 50's. Cheap sets, a pet lizard and a bunch of nutty teenagers make up for just about all of this show. The story was routine with the hero coming out ahead. It's not a bad movie if you like cult shows. If you see it around, go ahead and watch it. It will make you laugh and think about the good old day's.


This movie has it all--bad plot ,bad script,bad acting,bad special effects ,bad lighting...and on and on.What a total waste of film this thing was.

A small town in maybe Texas is terrorized by a giant Gila monster for some reason.The local sheriff,who mostly talks on the phone a lot,and a kind hearted young dragster,Chase,set out to rid the town of this threat.Chase races around town in his souped up car and beats the sheriff to all the wrecks and bad stuff that the monster does.Save this tidbit for later---Chase,for some ungodly unexplained reason, also has access to nitroglycerin that apparently comes in what looked to be coffee cans with "XXX" stenciled on them.

This movie was clearly trying to capitalize off all the teen trends of the late 50's---kids and their hot rod cars and their music,Elvis was mentioned, and all that.Chase is a good wholesome teen who is helping his single mom raise his crippled little sister.This cool cat is also trying to get a singing career off the ground.Anyway there is some singing and some DJ comes to town for a dance party and all the while this giant Gila monster is walking around.

Now the giant lizard is never really explained...the sheriff and Chase have some lame talk about gullies and washes and 'salts' that could have caused this lizard to grow to be a monster.But we never really learn how the lizard got so big and why it seemed to be the only lizard who was so affected by the 'salts'.

None of these people could act whatsoever....well one little guy could ..Shug Wilson ,I think was his name and he ended up on a few episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies and some other stuff like that.Everything else was terrible in this movie.....a shot of the monster crashing through the side of the building at the dance party was clearly just a lizard with it's head through a piece of cardboard.

A train wreck caused by the monster was simply a model train rolling off the end of the track down into some dirt.No grinding of metal or massive dust clouds thrown up or anything,just a little train flopped down in the dirt with some dubbed in screams from the 'passengers'.Anyway after the sheriff sits in his office a whole bunch Chase goes out and ends the movie in a really implausible silly finale.

I don't want to give too much away but there wasn't really a giant Gila Monster in this movie,it was just a regular sized Gila monster shot really close up amid some really crappy looking little models of stuff.

This is just a bad mess by people who had no clue about any facet of movie making.It isn't so bad it's fun either.It's just plodding and boring and a waste of time-not entertaining in the least.


Terribly made, pointless, ultra-cheap '50s monster movie that tries to cash in on the hot rod/monster/rock n' roll genre and fails miserably. The gila "monster" is a normal-sized animal plopped down on miniature sets (that, like everything else in this picture, are tenth-rate) which slithers around trying to figure out where it is (and what the hell it's doing in this awful movie). The acting is sub-grammar-school level; veteran stuntman Fred Graham as the sheriff is one of only two professional actors in the cast and he can't do much with the stilted, senseless dialog he's forced to recite. "Star" Don Sullivan has absolutely no screen presence whatsoever; he's apparently going for the Robert Mitchum "sleepy eyed" look, but manages to seem more like he just woke up. Even more irritating, he warbles (badly) two of the most insipid, brainless "rock" songs ever written. One is called "And the Lord Said Laugh, Children, Laugh", which consists mostly of that particular phrase repeated for three solid minutes, and the other one has lines like "my baby rocks me when she rocks and rolls me when she rolls", whatever the hell that means.

In any case, the movie is an exercise in boredom. It fails as a teenage rock movie (the music's awful), it fails as a teenage monster movie (there's no "monster", just an over-sized lizard on an undersized set), it fails as a teenage J.D. movie (all the teenagers are sickeningly clean-cut, freshly scrubbed and law-abiding), it fails at everything it tries to be. Good for an unintentional laugh or two, but that's about it.


Country bumpkins try to find out what the hell has been causing all the recent accidents in town.

With the help of several local dweebs, the dip sheriff reconstructs crime scenes but finds out nothing until a 'giant' gila monster stumbles back into the county looking for a midnight snack.

Lowest point of the film is when one of the town's leading idiots tries to sing a stupid song while pathetically twanging a ukulele, first for a crippled little girl, then for a group of moronic teenagers. Too bad the gila doesn't eat every one of these slobs before the closing credits.

Not worth the time... the U.S. Farm Report is more interesting than this.


When undergoing the viewing of a film called The Giant Gila Monster, suitable expectations should already be established. Could one reasonably expect the film to be a wrenching, affecting work of human drama with award worthy performances and writing? Obviously not, and the film is far too aware of its B-movie trappings to ever aspire to be anything more than cheesy, kitschy entertainment. What makes The Giant Gila Monster so noteworthy as opposed to the masses of similar giant monster films is how unexpectedly (for lack of a better word) good the film is, with the anticipated unintentional laughs often displaced in favour of a surprisingly sturdily constructed and cheerfully entertaining monster romp.

While the film could hardly hold a candle in comparison to even the average A-list release of the time, when considered in comparison to the similar monster sci-fi films of the era, the quality invested is unexpectedly exceptional for the genre. No matter how pulpy the subject matter, director Ray Kellogg (who would later go on to direct, of all things, John Wayne in 1960s propaganda film The Green Berets) demonstrates a suitable awareness of horror thriller conventions, favouring a slow, meticulous build up of narrative tension in favour of cheap shocks (the laughably over the top opening narration notwithstanding), making the inevitable lizard mayhem all the more welcome. However, this approach may not sit well with viewers watching the film with the sole intent of seeing giant lizard destruction, who may find the film unnecessarily slow and generating insufficient tension to warrant holding the creature off-screen for so long. And it is true the film carries an undeniably leisurely, laid back tone, overly so to generate any lasting thrills, let alone scares, but the effectively eerie, very 1950s theremin theme is sufficiently edgy to at least evoke a continual sense of unease, if not outright fright.

Even the choice of unnatural antagonist itself proves in keeping with the film's 'slow and steady' tone, with the slothful, lumbering Gila Monster being too slow and cumbersome to generate more than a semblance of a threat. The special effects hardly help the matter; while again, hardly as laughably atrocious as they could be, never once create a convincing impression of the lizard actually being 50 feet long, alternating between shots of a life sized reptile hissing its way through underbrush (with twigs poorly substituting for tree trunks) and an enormous foot closing down upon its prey. These sequences provide the bulk of the film's campy pleasures more in keeping with the genre, but to a surprising degree it is the expository narrative which proves the most compelling, a true rarity for such a film.

However, the film is even bold enough to allude to social commentary, with its association between sex and death (teenagers alone in "lover's lane" are clearly destined for a grisly fate) predating years of genre conventions, as well as a continually reinforced 'moralistic monster' message of not to drink and drive. Even the depiction of 1950s teen culture is hardly as cringe-worthy as it could be, far from taking the condemnatory stance of many of its contemporaries (crucially, it is a teen who finally saves the day) and even the inherent racism in the genre is challenged, by having the sole non-American (the teenaged protagonist's French girlfriend) act as the proverbial voice of reason, the only one feeling uneasy when the Gila Monster lurks nearby. This paradoxical alternating between the campy and surprisingly plausible is arguably what makes the film not as memorable or effective as it could be, but despite the lack of outstanding specifics, the film's earnest charm continually keeps the film from being as downright terrible as it easily could have been.

Even the acting, often fated to be the low point of the genre, does not outright disappoint, delivering surprisingly credible and even relatively fleshed out characters. Don Sullivan delivers sufficient charisma and screen presence to keep his "gee-wiz" 1950s teenager enthusiasm from becoming sickening, and even allowing for subplots with his girlfriend and handicapped sister to ring surprisingly true (although Kellogg's comical attempt to worm in song numbers for him underscores the credibility of the character and film simultaneously). Fred Graham is also a sturdy presence as the honest sheriff daring to look beyond the conventional answers when examining the disappearance of missing teenagers, and Lisa Simone laudably resists melodramatics as Sullivan's girlfriend, managing the two rarities of providing an intelligent female lead, and not spending the entire picture screaming.

For all of its very predictable flaws, the film's cheerful charm for the most part carries it through on a sheer sense of fun, and at only 73 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome, overall making The Giant Gila Monster easily worth a watch for any who get a kick out of classic monster B-movies.

-4/10


One of a pair of memorably awful sub-cheap monster flicks produced by Ken Curtis in the late 1950s. (Yes, *that* Ken Curtis, of Gunsmoke, Sons of the Pioneers, and John Ford Western fame) Like its mate "The Killer Shrews", this one held a special place in the hearts of all grade-Z cinema lovers long before MST3K took their crack at it.

Begin with some of the most unappealing rural locations ever captured in lifeless black and white, and a soundtrack apparently recorded with equipment which was state-of-the-art (in 1929). Combine these with sfx featuring a Gila Monster torpidly slithering through sand and twigs and crude miniatures. Stir in hot rods, misunderstood teens, a DUI deejay, a would-be singing idol and his French girlfriend, a rock-and-roll theremin score (trust me: the concept sounds far better than the reality), and a much-too-liberal helping of town drunk. Voila! You have one fabled hunk of drive-in movie cheese.

(As an odd side-note, the director Ray Kellog must have decided early on that one of the defining characteristics of the Southern white male of that era is a seemingly irresistible urge to put one of their legs up on the nearest object. Seriously: The guy was in love with the pose. You could make a great party game out of taking a drink every time a knee goes up! Just be sure to have a designated driver.)

I won't bother with the plot (such as it is) and the producer is actually more notable than any of the film's "stars".

Looking stolidly determined to get the thing over with, long-time Western bit player Fred Graham sleepwalks the role of "Sheriff Jeff". There's also Ken Curtis' old colleague from the "Sons of the Pioneers", singer, musician, "comic" and long-time Western bit player "Shug" Fisher in an excruciating performance as the town lush, "Old Man Harris".

Except for those two, though, this movie seems to have terminated the brief careers of every other actor associated with it, including Don Sullivan. Too bad, really, as he was quite natural and even charming in the lead role -- if you can get past one really annoying tune and another so sugary that diabetics should hit the mute or leave the room, immediately.

This is a prime example of a movie that's so bad it's good. It may not have the preternatural, almost otherworldly incompetence of an Ed Wood film, but it manages to conjure up a certain uniquely goofy and slipshod ambiance of its own.


"A rural Texas town finds itself beset by a series of mysterious disappearances and deaths with no seemingly rational explanation. The local sheriff is faced with an angry community leader demanding an end to the matter, or his resignation. Through the combined efforts of the sheriff and a quick witted mechanic, the source of the problem is discovered, a fifty-foot Gila monster who has run out of food, and is now preying upon the local populace," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

God's unexplored wilderness (aka Texas), as shown in the film's beginning, includes no sign of food; so, it's only natural to have its "Giant Gila Monster" leave. It starts off by eating two tasty teenagers, who are trying to enjoy some "submarine races". The director, Ray Kellogg, seems to have a thing for actors putting their legs up somewhere. Watch for both hero Don Sullivan (as Chase) and Sheriff Fred Graham (as Jeff) to put their legs up together, in the auto-mechanic shop (Compton's Garage).

The characterizations are interesting. Sullivan is an older "influence" on the younger and more rebellious "gang" of teenagers; and, he has turned from hot-rodder to auto-mechanic. He is supporting his mother and crippled little sister. Sullivan also sings well; although, his choice of material definitely does NOT rock. Not as much is revealed about Mr. Graham's character; but, he is refreshingly non-confrontational with the younger cast members.

The movie is at least two legs up over awful, and is fun to watch with friends.

*** The Giant Gila Monster (1959) Ray Kellogg ~ Don Sullivan, Fred Graham, Shug Fisher


Sody pop and hot rods and teen lingo. This is definitely a movie out of the 50s.

No snakes or dinosaurs or alligators, but a giant gila monster snaking on delicious people.

Sheriff Jeff (Fred Graham) is at a loss and the town bigwig (Bob Thompson) is on his case. But, there is one teen (Don Sullivan) around that seems to have the knowledge and gumption to do something.

For his first two films Ken Curtis ("Gunsmoke") calls on special effects whiz Ray Kellogg (The Green Berets, The Killer Shrews) to direct his own story.

Not a bad tale for the time.


There are two types of bad horror films--those that are so dull and atrocious that no one likes them (except masochists or mental patients) and those that are so inept and silly that they are great for a laugh (such as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE). I would put this one in the second category, though it is a bit duller than some of the cheesy old horror films from the 1950s. I would say that it's more fun than watching ROBOT MONSTER but not quite as much as TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

The film is about, you guessed it, a giant gila monster that terrorizes a small town. One by one, it causes auto and train wrecks and then feasts on the inhabitants! While this all sounds very ridiculous and funny, the film actually plays most of the plot very straight. However, inexplicably, it also chooses to insert a lot of 50s rock and roll into the film--even at moments where it makes absolutely no sense at all. For example, near the end of the movie the sheriff finally realizes that the accidents were being caused by the giant lizard but doesn't warn anyone. So, naturally, the teenagers stage a big dance right where the gila monster resides. But to make things worse, even though many people have just died, the lead actor begins to sing (a la Arch Hall, Jr. in EEGAH!)! Huh?! About the only decent thing about the plot was the role of the sheriff. Aside from the big brain lapse mentioned above, he seemed like a nice guy and actually liked the teens and listened to them--not like MOST sheriffs in these sort of movies (like the cops in THE BLOB and INVASION OF THE SAUCER MEN and countless other films who ignore the warnings).

Considering how slowly the gila monster moves in the film, it's a great metaphor for the rest of the movie. Not exactly action-packed but still silly enough to provide a few chuckles to bad movie aficionados--but probably of no interest to others.

By the way, in one scene late in the movie, the sheriff and another local jump into the leading man's jalopy. As they pull out, the shadow of the boom microphone is very clearly seen in the foreground. Considering the low budget and lower expectations for this film, it's not too surprising that they didn't edit this out or re-shoot the scene!


It's got a big lizard, it's got drag racers, it's got sock hops, how can it lose? Well it's also got interminable Hot-Wheels-In-The-Terrarium sequences, plus the most insufferably wholesome drag racer of all time. He keeps bursting into this song on his goddamn ukulele which goes "God wants all his children to be happy happy happy" - over and over and over again. The sock hop - which was rocking beforehand, let me tell you - screeches to a halt and everyone stands gape-mouthed at this dolt. It's like going to a hip hop show in Toronto, and it's a pleasure when the gila monster busts through the wall mid-number. And don't miss the hilarious nitroglycerin transportation sequence: the guy is like, "careful, that's nitroglycerin!" then throws it into his jeep and drives at top speed across a field.


The opening credits state: 'special songs by Don Sullivan', the main star of this Texas-produced B-flick.

We have a Gila Monster walking between some dinky toys, which is not scary, not funny, just plain silly and boring. The whole film apparently was made for the benefit of Don Sullivan who belts out a couple of songs on the strangest moments and shamelessly plugs his records for the drive in audiences. What am I talking about here? There is some kind of a story, but the execution is so terrible and without any imagination whatsoever, it doesn't matter really. After an hour, when the film is almost over, the Sheriff is asked: 'Have you heard the stories about a giant lizard?' 'No, I can't say that I have.'

Neither did I.

Some amusing songs save this from being a total bore. I must say, the score is quite effective, but otherwise a perfect mess. Just awful.

Camera Obscura --- 3/10


If you're looking for a movie about giant lizards, this is one you're going to love. It may not be Godzilla, but in some ways the Giant Gila Monster is even better.

Admittingly, the special effect of having a giant gila monster is rather weak. If you can't tell, the film merely shows a regular gila monster and uses a few small models of cars and such. People don't like to share the screen with the monster. (One character comments that any number of things could hide in the underbrush, but this monster is so big I'm not sure where he was hiding!) There's no nudity, no gore and it's not really scary at all (the sci-fi eerie music is kind of nice, though). The first characters disappear without ever really showing us anything about their disappearance.

And yeah, a large part of the movie focuses on hot rods and kids just hanging out (with some clever editing, you would never even know this was a so-called "horror" film). But the film is in the 1950s, and gives you a 1950s feel... which is nice.

You won't want to see this if you're looking for a scare, but for a fun time and a bit of nostalgia, this is a good choice. (I think there's a "Mystery Science Theater" episode, as well... maybe you'd prefer that.)


Two dating teens have gone missing without much of a trace, and the father of the son orders sheriff Jeff to do something to find them. Since his a one-man show, he receives help from the teens' friend, the local nice-guy mechanic, Chase Winfield. Soon, enough Chase discovers his friends' car, but there's no sight of the bodies. Not too long there's another accident and then another one. What's causing these crashes might be mystery to the towns' folk, but for us we know that there's a giant Gila monster on the loose. But in a matter of time the sheriff and Chase finally pick up on what's causing the mysterious accidents.

Oh my! From the very opening scene, you'll know you're in for one real tacky experience. This is one blundering, bad monster feature that I found hard to hate because it's so lovably, goofy. Like the users have already mentioned, this film wears its heart on its sleeve by being so terribly sweet and clean-cut. The sincerity and that of moral judgment gets shoved down our throats with such brute force that I couldn't stop thinking this film had more on mind then churning out some monster goodness. Well, I hope you can get some good lessons from it. The story is mostly centred around a guys and gals melodrama with our boy Chase who's having a rough time trying to support his crippled kid sister, spending time with his French girlfriend and driving about in his done-up hotrod. Ah, yeah there's a giant monster lizard bringing chaos to unexpected people too. Yep, the monster element feels like it's a wraparound story to Chase's life, which is filled with redundantly, overwrought situations that really had nothing to do with the bigger picture. But, this kid is one talented musician, well I think he likes to think so. Because throughout we get him plugging his music every now and again in the most rib-tickling, cheesy fashion. Boy, now we know what really ticked off the gila monster. After a while, I knew what the lizard was thinking, because my ears were damn sore from this constantly, corny hollowing. His singing really did slow up the already sluggish pacing. When he wasn't busy he would find time to help out the sheriff in his investigation.

Now this is one incompetent sheriff who at times is a real pushover, but also he manages to get other people to do his work for him. Most of the time he's standing about asking questions and that's about it. Damn, is he waiting for some sort of written invitation to get thoroughly involved, because he spends his time waiting about for something to happen then actually trying to prevent it. Here's a case that needs to be solved that the sheriff should give a go; No one seemed overly worried about the disappearance of these people. Why's that? I think they should give Chase the sheriffs' badge because he makes more headway in the investigation and fixes the overall problem. Oh, Chase what would the sheriff do without you. Actually, what would the film do without you, because they always seem to make you the talking point when they get the chance. Whoops, how did I forget the monster, well with Chase's charm you'll forget there's a monster on board. I think the film-makers did too.

Though, its hard to call it a monster since it's a ordinary sized lizard 'slowly' knocking over model sets and toy figurines. You can see that FX has come a long way from these primitive origins. Though, the question you gotta ask Is it any better, compared with the likes of some awful CGI. The (not so) special effects were disastrously, atrocious that I had a blast with it. Even though the lizard and actors never shared the screen, it supposedly stalked its victims amongst the scrubs, in which they had no idea they were being prayed upon. *Hmm* how wouldn't you notice an enormous lizard hiding around dead bushes. Probably one gripe is that the lizard will rather watch and roam about more so then cause mayhem. The never-ending hissing coming from the lizard became increasingly irritating, but not as ear-splitting like that of our hero's inspired tunes. You could see that lizard had enough of his singing when he decides to disrupt the dance, where Chase is having a good time spreading his talent and making some time to dance with his gal. That's right after hearing the sheriff come up with a abysmally lame theory that there's a giant lizard involved. Kudos! The sheriff finally did something of importance, but his explanation of it is far from convincing. When it came to the climax wow! What a show stopper.

The bloated performances are ridiculously campy. Don Sullivan a true role model plays the reliable all round good guy Chase Winstead and Fred Graham plays the useless you can do the work for me sheriff Jeff. There are a couple of amusing roles involving a drunk disc jockey and a comic relief character who has always something smart to say. But hell, it looked like this was dubbed because what they were saying was totally out of sync with their mouth actions. I couldn't help myself from gawking at their mouth since it was terribly bad. And what passionately, amazing dialogue rolled off their tongues ah, not really. The only thing that I thought was effective was the score that builds upon with some eerie penetration. Though, that in mind there's nothing remotely chilling about all of this. It just too silly to rise above its overload of well-mannered camp, which for some might be truly horrifying.

A REAL light-hearted monster piece that's passably, entertaining.


What's good: Alan Webb's Gloucester and Jack MacGowran's Fool both threaten to steal the picture. Webb is immensely touching in his attempted suicide, but then, I have trouble thinking of a bad Gloucester. Cyril Cusack as Albany and Tom Fleming as Kent should also be praised, and Patrick Magee is creepy as ever as Cornwall.

Henning Kristiansen's cinematography is stunning, rendering Jutland in winter the most inhospitable Learscape ever, and this is the same fellow who shot the lush "Babette's Feast" in the same general location! When Lear and friends are outside being battered by the storm, we see the ungrateful villains inside basking in the warmth of a gigantic roaring fireplace. The visual contrast has never been greater. When Poor Tom's cold, he's really cold in real snow, not just clasping himself and shivering on cue.

Peter Brook's productions often involve wholesale cuts and rearrangements, plus hefty doses of non-authorial content. Yes, this Lear is cut to the bone, the style owes much to Bergman, Beckett, Brecht, etc.

The criminal waste is that Paul Scofield was a major Lear of his generation, and it's gutted here. His magnificent voice is thinned out to a thread, and much of the time the character is distant, veiled and under-energized. His disintegration arouses pity, but no audience involvement. We watch him die from a million miles away, and lose more than we gain with this application of alienation technique.

By the same token, Irene Worth's whispered Goneril is not the volcano we want. For example, she is incapable of expressing lust for Edmund, and that's a crucial omission, not in the text, but in the performance. Two fine actors are caught at considerably less than their best, giving the director what he wanted.

The energy level all around is a bit low, which kills much of what remains of Shakespeare's language, but what really hurts is the leaden pace. Considering half the play is missing, we start slowly, and after Gloucester hits the beach, grind to a complete halt. Entropy is total. Even with the text gutted and filleted, the last half hour of the film feels longer than many complete plays.

For DVD versions with complete texts, don't overlook Jonathan Miller's neurologically-informed production for the BBC with Michael Hordern and Brenda Blethyn. The more mainstream, star-studded Olivier video is an automatic choice for many.

However, another abbreviated version directed by Peter Brook features perhaps the best reading of Shakespeare's Lear of them all, from Orson Welles. This 90-minute condensation from the early days of live television also features Alan Badel, Beatrice Straight and Micheal MacLiammoir. First you must get past the resourceful but limited visuals, two cameras in a single studio running the whole play live without a break. The reward is that no one, no one does Lear's poetry more clearly, simply, powerfully and beautifully than Orson Welles.


At first the idea of of a world where "gay" is normal and "straight" is "perverted" seemed silly but interesting.

A few minutes into the film you start to think "why am I wasting a minute of my life on this rubbish?". The story is so contrived and the alleged acting by everyone is so wooden it almost defies description. It's been a long time since I have seen such poor performances.

The movie has no idea what it wants to be - social comment? comedy ? farce ? drama? and fails miserably in every aspect.

The ending says it all for the whole storyline - a complete and total disappointment. I really think that all involved should be ashamed of this abysmal piece of cinema and I doubt if many involved would want to show it on their CV for future work.


As a Greek I have to say that if this is where Greek culture is heading, then Greek culture is in very serious trouble. The characters are wafer thin and the plot is a 95-minute extension of one joke that wasn't funny to begin with.

Yiannis is a straight man in a gay world, who secretly goes to straight clubs and has fallen in love with a gay woman. On the surface it seems the message of this film is that when you reverse the roles 'gay people are just like straight people', which would be perfectly fine if: a) it were true that all people are alike b) society was progressive enough to have reached such idealistic levels Equally objectionable is Yiannis' 'seduction' of Sofia. Basically he gets her drunk and sleeps with her and upon realising her confusion, kisses her until she 'turns straight'. Though this certainly isn't the first film whose would-be couples are one-dimensional cardboard cutouts with nothing in common, this oral assault sequence that uses 'love' as a justification is something I find frankly disturbing.

I can't begin to explain on how many levels this movie is wrong. Just because everyone is gay and the straight people are in the minority in this warped 'comedy 'doesn't make sick bigotry any more acceptable.

When you re-invert the premise, fundamental biases in the ideologies of directional/writing team become patently obvious. Is prejudice OK when the oppressed become the oppressors? Is being gay acceptable 'as long as you act just like everyone else'? That's what this movie is trying to assert and it's not a happy feeling.


Even though the idea is interesting (a society where the Gays are the majority and the straights are the exception), the implementation of this subject on the movie was awful. Characters without any cause of existence (the two fathers, the "funny" friend of the boy etc), a REALLY NAIVE plot, caricatures who scream all the time without knowing why (it is supposed to be funny in Greek movies), and a very bad approach lacking any comedy characteristic. I didn't laugh at all, and at the end of the movie I felt like an idiot (the end is VERY-VERY naive). At the pros of the movie I only add the photography and the good production. Don't see the movie and waste your time like I did.


OK first things first, everything just looked so fake, it was the most pointless movie i ever had to watch , there was barley any story line and the main character looked about 40 at the start anyway, then wen she got changed to look older . u could hardly notice the difference, i watched this movie 4 times because i thought that there may be something to get that only i was not getting, on the final time i watched it with a friend and she was sat there like :S errrrr why are we watching this.. and then it dawned on me ... i really do not know why i would watch this once let alone four times.. this probably will not be useful but all I'm trying to say is. Do not watch it, don't waist you time, its not worth it . you could make up a better movie in your head.


I was excited to see this mini series, because I had seen a couple Gaiman films. I was pretty impressed by the visual mastery in Mirrormask, so I was looking forward to it, as the synopsis was reminiscent of "alternate reality" stories, like "Weaveworld' and many others by Clive Barker. Well, the first few seconds were so excruciatingly bad, I was seriously hoping it was preview for something else.

Alas, no. This was the movie, and I was looking at, what...a million hours in dog years to suffer through it? No thanx. I forced myself to sit through half of the first disk, since I pad good money for it, but that was it. I HAD TO stop. I don't know what happened, other than he was given a Mac'n'Cheese budget and two weeks in which to finish the film.

I couldn't believe how many great reviews there were on this film online. I mean, did I get a different DVD set by mistake? I don't think so, the box sure looks the same.

I hate being so tough on a film for having a low budget, and I do like many low budget, indie films, but this one flat out stank! I couldn't get into the plot, because the sets, costumes, and acting was so awful.

So, if you are a HUGE Giaman fan...or just like low budget indie films, bu it....of course if you want to throw money away so bad, mail it to me.


Yikes.

First of all, I would like to say that unlike many people here, I apparently am on of maybe 3 people who are capable of reading the BACK OF A BOOK. Yes, kids. When we are the slightest bit vigilant instead of gazing with gaping maws at a television set, we notice things.

THIS IS A SERIES THAT SPAWNED A BOOK, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. SERIES FIRST, BOOK SECOND. Get it? Now that that is out of the way... I was one who picked up the book first and then went to the series. I had great interest in tracking it down to compare the series with my imagination. My boyfriend, in his kindness, found it for me and bought it as a gift.

With all respect to his kind endeavor, I almost wish he hadn't spent the money.

After crafting characters in your imagination from reading a book, it is expected that your perceptions will not measure up with a visual/audio representation of the same. I was shocked to find Richard to be a clumsy fool who is painful to watch, let alone sympathize with. Door becomes a character with little to no mystique about her, far removed from my perceptions of a charming and oddly elegant ragamuffin. Similarly, the bravado of Hunter is turned into that of a psychotic cave woman, with the brilliantly deadly Croup and Vandemaar far less like their "wolfy and foxy" counterparts that I had dreamt up which amazed and terrified me.

That aside, I do realize that there is little sense in comparing the latter to the former and expecting to have something made *BEFORE* the previous medium I had read be considered the thing to be changed.

It is for this reason that I beg people who have seen the series to not give up on Gaiman. His novelization of this series is far superior in terms of storytelling, character development, presentation, etc. I do have to say that it was a darn shame to have all of the beautiful characters I had imagined and the intricate world that captivated me so reduced to this. PLEASE read the book if you want a better presentation to a wonderful story. This truly would be unwatchable if it weren't for Gaiman's inventive story and charming dialogue, even if it is utterly butchered by mediocre acting and very poor budgeted sets.

All in all, please read the story if you want a great adventure and steer clear of this series unless you are unshakably a Gaiman fan.

And I DO mean unshakable.

However, if you did get past all of the above problems and loved it still, I highly recommend running headlong from you television sets and diving in to American Gods, The Sandman, or any of the other fine written works of Neil Gaiman.

In short, please, just save yourself the time and money and read a book.


I started watching this series with keen anticipation. By the end of the second episode I was hugely disappointed.

Have you ever watched something and felt that it could have been so so much better? There's no doubt that Niel Gaimans story is very imaginative, but this series makes it seem unforgivably cheesy.

I'm all for a low budget, so long as some creativity has gone into the use of it. Unfortunately, the combination of disgraceful acting, and boring, DIY, cinematography make this a challenge to sit through.

Maybe one day a director with some talent 'll have another crack. Until that day comes, do yourselves a favour and read the book instead.


Neil Gaiman wrote an excellent book, Neverwhere.

Someone decided to make a TV mini-series out of it.

Unfortunately, they sucked.

The director didn't go to film school apparently. Even with the obviously very low budget, there were very, very, very basic errors that could have been easily fixed. For instance, at the end, where Richard marks out a door - the Marquis opens a door that is an entirely different shape from the one Richard marked out. Now, even though they most likely couldn't afford a special effects shot to show a dissolve from the drawing to the door opening, they could have easily made the door they built resemble the one Richard drew. Or far more easily, have had him draw a door that was the same shape as the one they built.

Really simple errors like that are rife throughout the production. The concept of 'lighting' was obviously never studied by the director - it comes off looking like a live stage play in some spots, with very, very bright spots and very, very dark spots. While that may work on a stage, it doesn't on film. Any director worth his salt would understand this. Heck, high school students in America understand this. There's no excuse for it on this level, no matter what the budget. And in other spots, it can't even be excused by the idea that perhaps the director had only done lighting for live theater before this - it's simply bad, bad, bad, bad.

The sound is incredibly hokey all throughout - it comes off as if someone scored the movie with a 1980's casio keyboard on demo mode, with very tiny electronic drums and problems that indicated time and time again, whoever did the sound had never studied sound design. Or that if they had, that they were just really, really, really bad at it. If that was true, why were they being paid to do it in the first place?

The actors are... OK. Some of them have talent, others very obviously do not. None of them do a very good job of it, though the odds are that half of it is more the fault of the director than it is their own. However, that's still half on their part that they suck at. As a previous commenter noted, they make mistakes that belong in high-school level plays. People who get paid to act shouldn't be making those sorts of mistakes.

The set design was another abortion in the making. While it's obvious they didn't have much money to work with, what they did have could have been done much better. The London Underground just looked... Bad. It's not hard to fake something that looks like a sewer city. If they had used less, they actually would have made it look better.

Good writer, good story, horrible production. If you're a big enough fan, you can sit through the thing, but... 'Sit through' is the best you'll do.


Neverwhere is a good concept hampered by inept handling on all fronts. Though a little gothy (as opposed to Gothic) for my tastes, I was willing to appreciate the story of a second London existing below and alongside the proper one, and the intrigue that happens there. Unfortunately, there are easily fixable slip-ups at every point in the production.

One: the acting is ridiculous. Not hopeless, necessarily, but it is melodramatic and theatrical when it should be subdued and forceful. Case in point: the two main villains are silly when they should be chilling. It is especially bad when anyone has to act as though experiencing extreme emotion, as during Richard's ordeal.

Two: the writing; specifically, the dialogue. A world like this should enfold as we are immersed in it. The characters should emote through their mannerisms, not their tortured diatribes. Look at Dark City for a similar movie that was handled expertly (save for the terrible ending).

Three: the direction. It is compared to soap opera direction on this site. I agree, but I would add that it is unforgivably bland beyond belief. The underground setting alone should be overflowing with great shots (and indeed many of the sets look wonderful; it is the way they are used that wastes them). Look at City of Lost Children for a movie with a similar setting that looks appropriately beautiful and eerie. The fight direction is also amateurish, as when Hunter fights the Black Friar.

I think that the best thing to happen to the SF/fantasy genre in recent memory is the explosion of special effects technology. Movies like Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia, et cetera, have show us that it is possible to fully realize a foreign world. Do I expect a 1996 BBC production with a budget that wouldn't feed the crew of those movies for a day to be able to compete? No, but it does seem like a waste of time to have tried to do it without the resources necessary. Neverwhere is not as disconcertingly podunk as the BBC Chronicles of Narnia (think the letter from the wolf in the first installment), but it is in the running.

I'm sure that Gaiman apologists or pale Wiccan wannabes will disagree with my assessments, or my comparison to films with much more talent and money involved. Unfortunately for them, the last twenty years have shown us that anyone with enough drive and vision can make a movie with next to no budget, such as Primer or even Cube, which maintained its otherworldliness with one square room and enough of another room to make it look like there was another cube beyond it. A minimalist fantasy miniseries, i.e. one involving a second London under London utilizing the underground tunnels, could work impeccably, but not when it is weighted down with boring light filters, ugly art design, grating actors, uninspired direction, appalling dialogue, and bad production. A waste of three hours, and innumerable effort on the part of the cast and crew.


When others here say that this thing has cheap looking production values, believe them.

Beyond that, I still don't see what everyone loves about Neverwhere. The story doesn't seem particularly original or interesting and the performances weren't too hot, either. Maybe if you live in London and know the locations they are referring to, you can get more out of it. Unfortunately, I do not.

Between the laugh-inducing freeze-frame editing during monologues, the poor video quality, and the goofy music, I had to fight my way through disc one and refused to watch disc two. I read that even Gaiman didn't like it. I certainly can't recommend it. In fact, stay far away.


I borrowed this DVD set from my local library and had to turn it off ten minutes or less into the "programme." The dialogue was written so unnaturally, immaturely, and talentlessly, it felt like the author was spitting barbed-wire insults into my ear with each half-shat, incredulity-spawning utterance of the script-cursed actors. I loved Lenny Henry in his show "Chef" -- he's obviously an intelligent and witty man. Neil Gaiman, on the other hand, has proved throughout his publishing career that he possesses no more literary talent than one would expect from a prancing-penned, new-age, semi-goth, leather-jacket-and-sunglasses twit who apparently missed the musical bulletin that Bela Lugosi is, in fact, dead. (To speak more precisely, "twit" in this man's case should be spelled with an alternate vowel of the species "a.") The urinary outpourings of Gaiman's clammy handed word processor make me want to reach for an Ebola-spiked cyanide capsule. May he be cursed with a Tori Amos lunch-box full of shame for having sprayed the gullible reading public with his nonstop stream of poorly chewed mythological magpie stew.


Bruce Leddy tried his best giving the budget to make 'Shut Up And Sing' aka 'The Wedding Weekend'.

The problem lies in the plot, Some moments are interesting, but usually bland.

A group of guys who sang together in a college a Capella group reunite 15 years later to perform at a friend's wedding and discover how their lives have progressed -- and in some cases regressed -- since their college heyday, an idea that seems dated and the lack of face-value, disappoints all the way.

Acting wise: Molly Shannon is the only actor who does her part well, while all the others try hard, though some manage.

on the whole 'Shut Up And Sing' isn't what you expect.


A lacklustre seventies movie in the mold of Carrie or Willard, only time the demented loner strikes out with her pet tarantulas instead of telekinesis or rats. Kiss of the Tarantula follows this formula of the misunderstood loner with a power and doesn't really do enough differently or with enough flair to stand out or to really engage the audience. Made in minimalist seventies style the movie is left to hang on the performances of the cast and the strength of the script which aren't that strong. The story basically revolves around the heroine killing off with her pet spiders those who wrong her in some way, such as her malevolent spider hating mother, her sleazy uncle and the 'kids' (It's hard to tell how old these guys are. The script refers to them as being of school age but they are clearly are far older) who pick on her and kill some of her pets as a prank. It's a simple story structure that could work if some suspense is created as to who lives and who dies, whether of not our heroine gets away with it etc. This is where the script and acting fail. Whilst Suzanna Ling is somewhat convincing as the unhinged heroine she is not particularly sympathetic or interesting as a protagonist and little time is spent in the script developing the character or going into the details of why she is the way she is beyond her contemporaries thinking she is weird because she lives at the morgue with her mortician father (shades of Six Feet Under). Suzanna Ling, whilst she is convincing and creepy is not a strong enough an actress to bring anything extra to the role beyond that which is the script. The other characters, such as the sleazy uncle, are not very sympathetic or interesting either. You won't care who lives or dies or if the heroine gets away with it and there are really no surprises in the story.

There are other plot issues. There isn't even a hint as to how she has the control she does over the spiders and it unclear as to whether the spiders actually kill anyone. The mother dies of a heart attack it is clear and it seems like some of the youngsters who die later on might have died by accidents prompted by the spider attacks although this less clear due to the shoddy way the scenes are shot. All the later victims effectively dying by chance like this seems contrived and extremely silly, although if they did die by spider venom the forensics department in this town is really bad for not picking up on it. There also a few plot threads introduced that don't go anywhere such as a potential boyfriend character who is introduced but disappears and the sleazy uncle's aspiration to run for some form of public office which doesn't lead anywhere. On the whole the script is quite underdeveloped.

Not much else is provided on a more visceral horror movie level. The spiders are good movie nasties but they are not really used to much effect here. Others than a few short scenes here and there the titular creatures don't get a great deal of screen time and pretty disappear from the movie after the halfway point leaving the audience to watch a flaccid melodrama/thriller minus what is presumably the movies hook. The movies climax in which our heroine finally deals with her sleazy uncle does not involve the spiders at all, although the way in which she deals with him makes it the best and creepiest scene in the movie. Beyond this the movie is lacking in gore, suspense or anything juicy or exciting.


I would say that this was inspired by the success of Willard which came out the previous year but the action is provided by spiders instead of rats. How about the scenes at the drive-in movie theatre? A volkswagen contains four victims who are screaming at the top of their lungs and no one comes to investigate. Were they and the spider woman the only ones at the drive-in? The spider woman spends time fending off the lecherous advances of her uncle, played by Eric Mason, whose acting style reminded me of William Shatner.


The fact that anyone likes this movie is a complete mystery to me. I have watched it several times and I see no merit in it whatsoever. I can not even figure out its genre. It is not a drama and I am shocked that anyone would describe it as a comedy. It is a full length feature film about a stolen kiss. Beautiful scenery, music and clothing are used to disguise the fact that there is no story, no suspense, no emotion, nothing. I can only conclude that the people who like this movie like movies about nothing. It is the Seinfeld joke in the form of a movie  a movie about nothing. I also think there are people nostalgic for the innocence of this bygone era. The fact that this movie has never to my knowledge appeared on any sort of great films list, not even for the 80's, is just proof of the fact that it was over-rated at the time and now has largely been forgotten. This is I think the fate of Merchant Ivory films, to be forgotten.


This is another one of those rambling, pointless mid-1980's comedies that keep going on and on, without having anything to say, and without caring if the viewer is still amused or interested. The teaming of Matthau and Williams may appear promising, but it doesn't pay off, and the film is scarcely funny. Halfway through, the thin script has run completely out of steam, and there is nothing for the viewer to expect...apart from the redeeming "THE END", of course.


This was a major disappointment for me. I have always been a fan of Walter Matthau and Robin Williams and director Michael Ritchie, but not even the three of them together could breathe any life into this dry film. Williams' character, Donald, is a neurotic, bumbling idiot who is unforgivably paranoid, and his relentless struggle to make some sense out of his life simply isn't funny nor interesting. Sonny Paluso (Matthau) is a sour old fart who, of course, eventually warms up to Donald (aaaaaaawwwwwwhhhhhh). I went to see this with a friend, and , aside from two other people, we were the only ones in the entire cinema--not a bit surprising. The World According to Garp is a much better representation of Williams' early '80's efforts. As for Matthau and Ritchie, stick with The Bad News Bears.