It's been a couple of years now since I saw this astounding film for the first (only) time; actually, I don't think I'll ever quite recover from the experience.

The English language doesn't have enough negative terms to give an adequate analysis of what's wrong here, but let's give it a try.

First, the plot, which has more holes than my oldest jacket. We are asked to believe that Earth has been strip mined by the vicious Psychlos for 1000 years, yet can still produce useful quantities of valuable minerals. In all that time, the Psychlos never found Fort Knox, though gold is high on their shopping list, nor did they stumble on the jet fighters that the humans themselves find when the aliens send them out to find gold. The humans, by the way, though reduced to primitive servitude by their conquerors, learn to use those jets in about a day, with the help of a flight simulator that fortunately is not only in working order, but can draw on power from... somewhere.

The story is given appropriate support by some of the worst acting (what WAS John Travolta thinking???), dialog, and music you're ever likely to see or hear. A couple of acceptable special effects shots only serve to highlight the wretched standard of the rest. As for the camera work, well, I have nothing in particular against slow motion or tilting the camera, but was it really necessary to use either so lavishly here?

After a while, I stopped even trying to find anything good in this mess and sat watching in sullen silence, unwilling to admit defeat by walking out, but determined not to see the film again.

Since IMDb doesn't allow a zero rating, I guess it has to be 1/10 - which is at least 10 points more than this deserves.


"We'll use this learning machine to learn how to fly!" Huh?

"If I die, this will be sent to home office." Wha?

Distmantling nuclear bombs from a manual... stored right next to the bomb. Huh?

Gold reserves kept inside Ft. Knox have gone undetected by an advance superior species, that desires nothing but gold, for 1000 years. Wha?

An alien species teaching their slaves microbiology. What was that?

Helicopters that have gone untouched for 1000 years have remained fully fueled. What the...?

Destroying an entire planet with one conventional warhead. Wha?

Battlefield Earth: A Saga for the year 3000... Huh?


El Ron is a genius of Biblical proportions.

I learned the following: After mankind has descended into near extinction, he will begin to make animal sounds, grunting and what-not just as the apes do... or 'did'; however maintaining such catch phrases as "Piece of cake". Grunting is a universal language as well, just like English, which has survived 1000 years intact. Even the various tribes of man will speak the same dialect and have no trouble communicating and organizing a revolution. Grunting is instrumental in fooling your captors.

The only animal to survive the last thousand years besides humans are horses and rats, and the horses kept their saddles.

There is no humor in the future.

The only people who can survive an alien invasion and subsequent enslavement and/or isolation are Caucasian. Asians, Africans, Latinos and various others went extinct long ago. For some reason though, there are one or two in the movie without any explanation as to how they would come to be. There is no humor in the future. Those races do exist among the aliens, however; and as portrayed by Forest Whitaker, are complete morons and inferior to the Caucasians, and in his case, inferior to humans.

There are massive stores of gold in Washington D.C. close to where they keep the Harrier jets and suitcase nukes.

Euclidean Geometry is simple.

Having "leverage" over someone is everything. If you have "leverage" you can do whatever you like and they will stand dumbfounded while listening to you explain your "leverage" in great detail. Even if you show them your "leverage" and they threaten you with a beam weapon, they won't shoot because you have "leverage".

If you happen across a weapons warehouse, there will be power on to essential things like the flight simulator, the projector, and the nuclear weapons batteries will be fully charged and all futuristic looking. Be careful with the bomb though, the trigger is on the inside, somewhere around a fuse that says "warning"... (there is no humor in the future) but if you remove it you'll be fine for a few minutes; just enough time to show it to everyone.

Time and space are altered a bit; every now and then time will inexplicably slow down.

Sometimes the evil aliens race will use the beam gun, but most of the time they'll use the same gun to shoot a physical projectile. There seems to be no difference between the two, except for their marksmanship. When using the beam gun, they will hit you every time, you need not even try to run. When using the flash-bang weapon, they simply can't hit you; instead laying waste to your surroundings.

Anyone can fly a Harrier jet.

The glass that the aliens use for the dome appears to be almost a foot thick as it hits the ground, but this doesn't change the impact of a couple boxes of ammunition and explosives from causing a severe chain reaction when detonated from a central location on top of the dome. The dome will quite neatly implode and very little debris will actually hit the ground, just enough for dramatic effect. Time will be altered at these moments, so you can get a good look at how thick the glass is. There is no humor in the future.

I forgot to mention that when you implode the dome, various buildings will start blowing up... for no particular reason.

Blowing an aliens arm off will only perplex him and make him docile.

"Vaporize" means to kill or behead, and it's not funny because there is no humor in the future.

If you learn the alien language and you are the only human to do so, rest assured that humans have lost all intellectual curiosity and will never bother asking you what they are saying, or ask what you are discussing with them. They will stand by and seem content to let you handle everything.

When you blow up a massive planet, instead of turning into a star or imploding as you might expect, it will disintegrate completely. It's former mass will somehow alter space in such a way as to have no relativistic implications like causing a black hole or even leave debris.

Men will outnumber women some 10 to 1.

Batteries, fuel, and various other seemingly limited-shelf-life things - from our current understanding of them - will last several hundred or even thousands of years as long as they aren't used.

Because man is so primitive and needy, machismo is a thing of the past, so is humor. If there is a perceived leader, no one will question his authority. Not to mention, if you jokingly ask about his woman and where she might be, he will attack you. There is no humor in the future.

There is no humor in the future.

These are only a few of the things I became to know while viewing this masterpiece. No wonder Scientology is the greatest religion ever. One day I hope to be rich and famous so that I, too, can become a Scientologist. Once I am a Scientologist I will make movies about it. I will prove once and for all that all other "Science-Fiction" is nonsense, and incorporate everything I learned from L. Ron Hubbard into my movies which everyone will watch because I am famous. I will even act in these movies, I'd like to play the hero but if by the time I am rich and famous I am too old to do so... I'll just play the bad guy. Everyone will take me seriously because I am famous. When you are rich and famous it is implied that you are smart, therefore you are worthy of being listened to. Just look at Tom Cruise; he has plenty of "leverage".


After watching this movie for the first time I stayed staring at the TV screen completely numb with my mouth wide open by the sheer horror of it. Everything you heard about "Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000" is true!

"Battlefield Lame" is based on the novel written by L. Ron Hubbard, the creator of the (in)famous Scientology church(The religion of the rich and famous)

In the year 3000 the good old planet Earth is lay waste by a race of vicious extraterrestrial creeps called the Psychlos which have slaved the planet. Apparently 90% of the population of earth died laughing at their ridiculous visage: a sort of Cowardly Lion meets Chewbacca meets Uruk-hai warrior. A few of the non slave humans survive in the wild without any kind of technology, living as primitives. One of them, Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (Barry Pepper, who looks like Clint Howard with an anorexic Matthew Lillard combined) is taken prisoner.

(Spoilers)

In captivity he plans revolution and thanks of the sheer stupidity of the Psychlos, the crappy script and a healthy diet of rats (don't ask) he gets away with it, a final battle is set, primitives humans who knew nothing about technology learn how to fly combat jets in a few days in flight simulators with only repeating "Piece of cake, piece of cake" as a motto. Then is Psychlos v/s humans. Who will win?...

(End Spoilers)

According to John Travolta this is a movie he wanted to make for more than 20 years in honor of his dear mentor Mr. Hubbard. It seems that the wait was in vain. Apparently the filmmakers and producers were aiming high with this movie, they were dreaming another "Star Wars" trilogy in the making with thousand of millions wasted in merchandising, action figures and promotion, several spin off were planned before the premiere(including a sequel and even an animation series!) but after the box office and critical slaughter they wake up and realize they got "Robot Monster", "Plan 9 of Outer Space", "Manos, The Hands of Fate", "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", "Terror from the Year 5000" and "Mommie Dearest" all rolled into one.

This lifeless, cliche ridden waste of film is one of the worst movies ever made. No doubt about it. Everything that made the cinema art great is wrong in this one. Terrible script, inept direction, ugly photography and lighting, lame editing, overblown sound, obtrusive camera angles, run of the mill special effects and the acting MY GOD! the acting is incredible bad. The entire cast is making fool of themselves but it seems they thought they were doing Shakespeare in space. The urge of bursting into laughter after reading those lines must have being difficult to repress during the filming. And even under thousand of layers of bad make up you can still notice Travolta hysterical overacting (who takes his character waaaay too seriously, channeling Vincent Vega by the way of Danny Suko with a little bit of Tony Manero on crack) and Forest Whitaker face of complete embarrassment. I felt sorry for Barry Pepper who must have signed the dotted line thinking this part would be his big break. I hope his career recovers. And why is Richard Tyson doing the role of Tarzan in the future? Or is Deathstalker? Or Yor? My favorite is Kim Coates in the role of Carlo, world's biggest wimp and useless sidekick who spent the entire movie cowering in fear, arm waving, over reacting, and eye popping in extreme his green eyes, you'll swear he is Marty Feldman in disguise.

See it to believe it. And then exorcise your TV set.

1/10


I suppose this was an attempt to turn an L Ron Humbug...I mean Hubbard novel into a science fiction movie. Besides the evil Scientologists, um, I mean Psyklos, being absurdly laughable (dreadlocks and moon boots), the entire film just didn't take itself seriously.

There is so much potential in the story, but nothing was followed through, resulting in shallow, if any, plot, hollow characters who were merely caricatures, inept special effects and inane attempts at credibility.

Every copy of this film should be returned to the studio where it should be burned and the ashes swept up and buried in a deep, abandoned salt mine.


If you were alive in the year 2000, you probably remember the anguished screams of moviegoers all over the world upon the release of this cinematic abomination.

You've probably heard people say things like "It's the worst film ever. No, forget 'The Phantom Menace' - this one's even worse!" and "It tastes like burning!" and stuff, which may lead you to wonder: Is 'Battlefield Earth' really as bad as all that? Is it really such an abhorrent pile of horse crap? The answer to that is yes. Yes it is.

"But" I hear you say "The special effects are OK. It has action and stuff, and I know John Travolta is way up himself, but he can act, can't he?" Now, I ought to make it clear that what you see on the screen at any given time is never that bad. The acting is passable, as are the special effects, as are the sets.

The atrocities committed in 'Battlefield Earth' come from behind the camera.

The directing is nothing short of abysmal. So much so that I honestly don't know where to start. Combining yawn-o-matic cliché with pioneering new innovations in crapness, you will be lucky not to pinch a nerve in your neck as you constantly adjust to the fact that almost every shot is taken at a tilt. Slow-motion is overemployed in the action scenes to ensure that you definitely know that you are seeing something very dramatic. Wipe transitions take far longer than God, or indeed Satan ever intended.

On to the story. Nothing makes sense. There are plot holes here that you could drive a lorry through. However, I won't go in to details because these are best discovered as you watch.

Indeed, the story was so bad that I actually found myself pitying the cast. There was Barry Pepper (Jonnie) acting his socks off, taking it all terribly seriously, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the script was irredeemable. Seriously, the dialogue was so hilariously unnatural that I must toff my hat to him and the rest of the cast for not collapsing in to fits of uncontrollable laughter.

But what of John Travolta? Well, he camps things up as the delightfully evil Terl, and he didn't deliver a single line without leaving teeth marks all over the scenery. Wonderful.

All in all, 'Battlefield Earth' is so bad that it's good. The whole thing is so utterly abysmal that you'll be spellbound, waiting to see if it can possibly get any more ridiculous. And trust me, 'Battlefield Earth' doesn't disappoint.

So go see it. It really is something so awful as to inspire a perverted sort of admiration. You'll love it. Or maybe you'll lose the will to live another day.

Either way, it's an unforgettable experience.


I made the stupid mistake of renting this movie out of sheer boredom... 2 hours later, I am in the shower scrubbing myself like I bathed in toxic waste, yearning to have the worst 2 hours of my life returned to me.

Avoid this movie at ALL costs. I have seen so many movies that I would not even condescend to pirate (and I don't advocate piracy) and this I won't even condescend to continue writing about.

Clearly John Travolta was out of his mind, and while I am the kind of person who would like nothing better than to go on a religious tirade about the scientology undertones of this horrible cinematic abortion, I will refrain and instead urge everyone who owns this movie to break the disc in half without so much as an afterthought.


As someone who does his research, I find it hard to believe that Scientologists haven't done a mass spamming of 10-Star ratings to get this movie into the top 250. But then I remember there aren't enough Scientologists to counter common sense.

The story is based off a book that can best be described as pulp. It's cliché, over the top, unrealistic and the human hero is a self-insertion of L. Ron's on belief that he was the greatest man to have ever lived. And that's not true by a long shot, since I'm here.

So anyway, the idea is that in the year 3000 CE humans are dominated by a malicious race known as "Psychlos" (L. Ron instilled a fear of Psychiartrists into Scientologists, or "Psyches" as he called them, claiming they were behind the concentration camps in Nazi Germany) and humanity has turned into a bunch of pack animals that eat rocks and rats. The Psychlos are using people to hunt for gold (again, one of L. Ron's batshit crazy beliefs) and misuse them and treat them like animals.

That's about as far as I got. I watched about 45 minutes of this crap and couldn't finish it. What has is bad has already been said and is deserving of the critique.

But take a moment to think about this. L. Ron wrote this...thing...and was meant to have written the 'holy' texts of the Church of Cashmaking, er, Scientology. If people are taking this as fact, then there is something wrong with them. As I said. I did my research. People believe this is going to be a real future event. Pathetic.


This film is idiotic. Just idiotic. However, everyone in the film takes it seriously, and that makes it worse than laughably bad- that makes it pitiful.

Acting: Overacted. All the time.

Special Effects: great, if you like seeing jaggies in the slo-mo fight scenes or weird camera angles in the explosions.

Sound: cheesy "epic" music that sounds little better than random orchestra tuning sessions.

Camera/editing: editing is OK, but odd camera angles abound through the entire film- why do i have to look at some monster's double chin?

Plot: Stupid. A bunch of star-trek monster wannabes take over the earth to look for gold. (here come the plot holes). They haven't found fort knox in 1,000 years of habitation on earth. They are extremely smart, and their best insult is "rat-brain"? They call humans "man-animals" instead of the more logical term "manimals", and besides, if humans were considered on the same level, why not just say animals? Then a deviant genius human goes to the ruins of a city and finds working fighter jets from 1,000 years ago. All of them work and are even preloaded with missiles/etc. No rust or wear at all. Oh yeah, and the public records survived 1,000 years of mining, explosions, and bombardment in perfect condition. And, not only did a flight simulator exist in the city, conveniently located so that genius and his pals can train to fly those jets, it's also powered and working after 1,000 years, electrically supplied by .... umm......dunno. And, to boot, the primitive humans learn programming, computer use, hacking, piloting, weapon usage, and reading in 5 days. I'd love to see the school they went to. What luck for them, anyway. The ending is generic; good wins, happy happy etc.

Messages: Primitives can learn how to surpass thousands of years of advancement in the human species by sitting in a flight simulator. Oh yeah, and L Ron Hubbard is god.

overall, this film should be renamed and it would be very successful:

"How Not To Make A Drama/Adventure Film: Exhibit Vol. 1" i'd bet 1,000,000 copies


Very rarely do you see a film with this high of a budget being unilaterally bad, imagine Ed Wood with more money and far less charm. Imagine the stupidest scenes in Independence Day coupled with the worst of Michael Bay's films and you really don't get close to how bad this film is. Everyone involved in this project is doing the worst thing they've ever done. This includes John Travolta who was also in Staying Alive, Two of a Kind and Swordfish, which are comparative masterpieces.

The cinematography (though no evidence exists to suggest that cameras weren't held by blind apes who pointed towards wherever noise was coming from) is consistently awful. The 'script' is bad enough to make George Lucas look as subtle as Tarkovsky, take for example:

Chirk: I am going to make you as happy as a baby Psychlo on a straight diet of kerbango.

The acting, considering the fairly accomplished people involved is laughably hammy. Barry Pepper and Forest Whittaker (though behind the make-up you can't really tell) are both lucky to have made this film and not subsequently been relegated to making soft-core porn and reality TV.

Filled with plot holes, poor special effects, bad acting, worse writing, no direction and a soundtrack that would annoy deaf people, this 'film' has less artistic merit than a theoretical snuff movie written by Joe Eszterhas, directed by Uwe Boll and staring Brendan Fraser. Truly and utterly abhorrent.


Whenever I see a review that suggests something is the best or worst film ever I usually am inclined to dismiss the review out of hand. As such I don't say this lightly - this genuinely is, probably, the worst film ever made. It's mind-bogglingly, spectacularly crap. It is amazing. If it has a redeeming feature it is that it is hilariously awful. For a while. But even that wears off. I'd suggest everyone see it, just so they can stop making those comments about how this and that film is the worst ever made. This has gotta be it. Now I tried posting this review at this point, but IMDb insisted I have at least ten lines to a review. This is difficult, because there really isn't that much to say about this movie. I mean I could include an outline of the plot complete with a few spoilers, but the problem with this is that there needs to be a plot to start with.

I suppose I'll go with an anecdote. I was having a discussion with a friend about the worst movies we'd ever seen. I suggested Pearl Harbour, Titanic, Godzilla (the US one - the Japanese ones are happily crap), Jurassic Park 2 as memorable candidates. He shook his head and told me I had to see this. And yes, it does make those others look like veritable masterpieces.


Just don't waste your time. Seriously.

As a science fiction connoisseur, I am grading this film as just plain lousy. The effects are horrible. The acting is atrocious. The costumes make me yawn. Worst of all.... I felt no sympathy for either the supposed "good" guys or the supposed "bad" guys.. which means they failed on the most vital point of film making. To create empathy for the characters within. To cause the viewer to cheer for their victories and cry at their defeats.

I'm not going to bash the people involved in the film. The fact that they are in such an horrible mess is enough.

I've placed this as a spoiler comment, because the fact that it sucks is the whole film.


This is definitely the movie people need to see before they take "Scientology" seriously. This is the future you buy into, folks - a battle between (vaguely African descent) aliens and (mostly white) humans, for an earth that is little more than a wasteland, following a global disaster caused by poor eugenics. Oh, give us a break! The action scenes are just so-so, but everything else about this cheap imitation for a movie is just laughably bad - and that's the only charm in it - it is so bad it is laughable.

The primary source of amusement is the (supposed) "dialog" - I especially like the aliens hissing at each other, it's so, well... meaningless.

The explosions are cool. The prison scenes are stolen from every prison movie of the 1930s. whatever good is to be found here could be found - better - in the old Star Trek TV show. And John Travolta - ! ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, a laugh riot, if you don't take it seriously.


I'm not sure how close this is to the book by L.Ron Hubbard, I'm assuming its not very close at all, because quite a lot of the stuff in the film, would SURELY not escape the notice of the original writer, but might slip by the hurried screenplay writer.

A lot of the points have already been covered, but I'll recap the stupidity and some derivative aspects of the film of the film from my point of view 1). 1000 year old Harriers in perfect working condition 2). people learning to fly them in a simulator in a week 3). The ships look pretty much a rip-off, of the dropships in Starship Troopers. 4). Music during the film sounds like you've heard it before 5). The Psychlos (inspired name!) coming across as the most stupid aliens to conquer a world. 6). 1000 years and they still haven't finished mining the planet! 7). The assumption by the Psychlos that man (i.e. man animals as they call us) is weak and stupid and can't mine or do anything constructive, yet there is still the evidence of everything man built after the invasion. Who did they think built the skyscrapers... cats? 8). Buildings remain, though surely they would crumble long before 1000 years with no maintenance, and the cities would be overgrown as the grass and trees reclaim the earth. 9). Military bases still having power, surely the Psychlos would have destroyed any and all bases to ensure of no uprising?

If the film had been better, Travoltas performance might have seemed good, but in comparison to the rest of the movie, his performance is just another 'highlight' of tedium.

Just so we are clear, this is NOT the worst movie in the world, but Travolta and co sure tried hard to make it the worst one!

The story flips to and fro, with Terl making ludicrous choices that only serve to help the hero of the film.

Its called Battlefield: Earth, but it might as well have been called Battlefield: USA, because we don't ever get to feel the scope of the destruction of the planet that the title suggests it should.

Some of the special effects are good, others are worse than Television effects in their execution.

I still can't decide if I think the Psychlos look is daft or inspired, but definitely not one of Patrick Tatopolous' finest hours (Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla etc).

Frequently, John Travoltas character (Terl) constantly refers to Forest Whittakers character as being stupid, yet its Terl that makes all the daft choices that enable the hero to succeed!

The only good thing is this film didn't harm Travolta, because it would have been a shame to see him go down again after his resurgence after Pulp Fiction, I think Hollywood saw it as his one indulgence.

The film cost $80 million to make, and you have to question where the money went, because it certainly wasn't lots of mesmerising locations.

I'd be interested to know if the book is as bad as this, if its not, the scriptwriter needs taking out back and shooting, and then make sure they've got plenty of ammo, because they then need to hunt down every person that thought the script was good and worth filming.

A premise so utterly wasted, you feel flushing the money down the toilet would have been a more worthwhile use instead of spending it on this film.

Coming next week, Battlefield: Earth special edition...... you get a copy of Annie in the box instead!


I saw this at matinee prices, and feel that I overpaid. This movie is very predictable, and the plot hinges largely on completely implausible items. For example, after sitting in a warehouse for 1000 years, Harriers will still fly. And illiterate people can learn to fly them in battle in a week. And they carry enough fuel to get from Texas to Denver, hover interminably, and dogfight without refueling. And 1000 year old fuel will still be good. Oh, and igniting a planet's atmosphere will cause the planet itself to disintegrate into tiny pieces.


Battlefield: Earth By Dean Kish

	Dreadlocked aliens turn mankind into an endangered species. Guess whose their leader? Battlefield: Earth is the adaptation of the best-selling science fiction novel of the same name. Written by scientologist guru Ron L Hubbard, Battlefield tells the story of the universe conquering Psychlos who are bent on gathering as much profit for their empire as possible. Unthreatened by a `man-animal' named Johnny, the Psychlos decide to rape the Earth of its last natural resources. Once completed the entire population humans will be eliminated. It's up to Johnny to free his people and lead a revolt. I guess the best way to describe this film is comparing it to other sci-fi classics of the past. The world Johnny struggles to free is right out of that great classic cartoon series from the 80s called `Thundarr the Barbarian' or even `Planet of the Apes'. The Psychlos are a mixture of Klingons and Ferengi from Star Trek. The dogfight scenes are classically ripped off of films like `Independence Day' and `Godzilla'. It seems each and every element in this film originated somewhere else. Hubbard may have come up with this concept before these other references but with such a saturated sci-fi market they look like pale imitations.

	As I watch John Travolta walking around looking like a Jamaican trapped in a KISS video, it makes me wonder was this the project he envisioned when trying so hard to get this sci-fi film off the ground. He produced and had a huge take in this film's success. His character is devilish but so over the top arrogant I wonder if he is supposed to be laughed at throughout the film. I know I laughed pretty hard. As for other star Barry Pepper, he is able to unlock some charisma in his unoriginal `gung-ho' character. At least we feel a little for the guy. What bugged me is that when he sends one of his men to his doom we never see an ounce of emotion. I did however find that with every character in this film. Also some of the language and dialogue was so ridiculous you would often scratch your head in disbelief that it was actually said. For instance, they claim to have wiped out the human race in 9 minutes but they never think to scout the civilization for raw materials. How could aliens this dumb reign so supreme? Battlefield: Earth is one of those sci-fi films where you pray the novel is better than the film. If this is a classic story or novel no one ever told me. If this is a must see for you this summer, I recommend waiting for the next sci-fi flick. (1.5of 5) So Says the Soothsayer.


I saw this movie as a free sneak preview tonight, and it was terrible. Bad dialogue, bad acting, plot holes a mile wide, and a lousy story.

I don't want to spoil it (well, it wouldn't hurt it much!), but I have a sneaking suspicion that military hardware would not survive in an operable condition for 1,000 years without any maintenance. Heck, even with maintenance.

I thought John Travolta, as a Scientologist, would *like* L. Ron Hubbard and would want to put his best foot forward in this adaptation of his book, but UGH. The only highlights of the show were Kelly Preston's (Travolta's real life wife) one minute on-screen and the fact that all the aliens ran around in Gene Simmons KISS boots.

Don't waste your money. Not even worth a rental.


This is known as not only one of the badly made futuristic science-fiction action adventures, but as one of the biggest box office flops, I had to see why. Basically, it is the year 3000, and Earth has become overrun by the alien race from the planet Psychlo, making the humans an endangered species. The aliens, led by the powerful Terl (Razzie winning and nominated John Travolta), are stripping the Earth of all its natural resources, and the humans seem the only species capable of helping, in slavery. Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (Razzie winning Barry Pepper) is the only human that seems to want to do something to change the world back to what is supposedly used to be and that everyone left has forgotten. Terl, as human security chief, with deputy Ker (Razzie nominated Forest Whitaker) try to keep an eye on the human slaves, but it is obvious Terl wants to get off the planet with any scheme he can come up with. Tyler and fellow humans manage to go beneath the Earth to find the truth behind the rise of the Psychlos, and he leads his fellow men to fight for their freedom. Also starring Kim Coates as Carlo, Richard Tyson as Robert the Fox, Sabine Karsenti as Chrissie, Michael Byrne as Parson Staffer, Sean Hewitt as Heywood and Razzie winning Kelly Preston as Chirk. The acting ability isn't good enough, and the special effects and make-up look a little cheap, a big waste of millions, I got into it a tiny, but I certainly wouldn't see it again, it is awful. It won the Razzies for Worst Director for Roger Christian, Worst Picture, Worst Screen Couple for Travolta with anyone sharing the screen with him, Worst Screenplay, Worst 'Drama' of Our First 25 Years and Worst Film of the Decade. Pretty poor!


Not a great film. But then it does not deserve the relentless criticism. It is just clumsy and fails to really run anywhere.

It is somewhat an allegorical film in the way some religiously derived films intend to be. The short comings in the plot are not that important and really no different to Moses opening up the Red Sea ('hey! in that Ten Commandments they couldn't have escaped the way they did').

The Psychlos are an abstract factor which we often refer to in our society as the infamous Big Brother or International Corporations running wild. The human characters have to appear as they do so we can relate to them (no point in seeing futuristic cavemen). The Psychlos are ultimately back stabbing and self indulgent with little interest in human ideals such as common goals and even trust. An underlying philosophy is that of control (leverage), one element of the writings that this is derived from.

What happens is the humans eventually bond together and compete (fight back against the bad guys) to achieve a common future with benefit for all mankind (or whats left of it).

But they also use nuclear weapons (an apparent evil) and are ultimately protected by radioactivity and then gold (the basis of our monetarist ways). Elements of our current society that are so often criticised by those on the outside.

After seeing this for the second time all (most) the way through I am beginning to warm to it. Yes it's poor but it also has some symbolism and is not that much worse than many other films I have seen.


first of all i don't believe in the conspiracy theory..but i can not understand the 'intentional' repeated view to the Arabic and/or Muslim as a prepared terrorist from the first moment in his life instead of crying to breath he said death to America. well am not defending my people but i think we need some justice here. all the hate you see in the movie not because of the Islamic clerks control..or the Islamic barbarian nature -as they want you to think-it's simply a reaction for 54 years struggle to get the Palestinian rights back. we can accept Israel as a neighbor..but in return we can't accept that every Arabian house has a victim. the story as in many previous movies & in media told from the end not the start ..if you set back & relax & put it in the action &reaction contest you will be able to figure the general idea of the ultimate fighting is about. another question after all what happen in occupied Palestine is military resistance.. so why all the media & obviously the movie maker insist on covering it from an Islamic point of view while in regard to the brutal fights like in Latin America it's about the liberty & getting red of corruption. as long as the 'western world'keep suffering from myopia in the case of the Arabic character view no one can predict what the ship that carry us all in the unrest future sea where it will land.


Nine Months is a very poor excuse for a comedy. Scene after scene of sitcom-level 'humour' followed by gut-wrenching sentiment. The talented cast are really slumming it here but it does have one funny scene (Hugh Grant and the praying mantis) - pity it's only 30 seconds long. Worst of all is the incessant finger-wagging hostility towards a). not having children & b). responsible parenting. Grant makes an innocuous comment about not letting obnoxious kids run around screaming their heads off 24/7 and the parents pounce on him for being "selfish", like all other childless scum. Only Hollywood types who pay strangers to rear their kids for them could fail to see the logic in keeping them under control, lest they frolic in front of a passing bus.


This movie wasn't even entertaining enough to justify seeing it in the summer in order to enjoy two hours of air conditioning. It was immature and lowbrow, and relied way too much on slapstick (Tom Arnold and Hugh Grant fighting in a toy store; Julianne Moore's wheelchair plowing into a wall; etc.)

Why can't there ever be a movie where someone who doesn't want children at the beginning STILL doesn't want them at the end? Why is "I don't want to be a parent" seen as a character flaw to be overcome, rather than a personal insight to be trusted?

Lame, lame, lame.


In sixty years of movie-going I have sat through some clunkers but "Nine Months" is right up there with "I aim at the stars","Mrs Doubtfire" and "Johnny English" vying for the accolade "Worst of the worst".It is a movie with absolutely no merit whatsoever.It has Robin Williams, who clearly thinks he is one of the funniest men on the planet, in a small role. Unfortunately no one had the nerve to tell him it was a small role and he gives us his usual "lovable" foreign schmuck stereotype,shouting and waving his arms.His comical misuse of the word "Pussy" should have you rolling in the aisle.It has Tom Arnold in a rather bigger role.He too spends most of his time shouting and waving his arms in between "hilarious" attempts to kiss Hugh Grant.It also has Joan Cusack,a sort of madonna (with a small "m") figure worshipped for her fecundity.She too is very loud,her screams in labour are truly terrifying.And then there is Julianne Moore wafting through the movie half - heartedly,looking as though her mind is really on where she left her car keys.She is so disinterested she can barely be bothered to look at Hugh Grant,which is a sentiment I can at least have a certain sympathy for. Mr Grant never gets into first gear let alone out of it in the less - than - taxing part of the posh English shrink with a practice in San Francisco and a reluctance to have children without long and serious consideration,a remarkably sensible attitude that renders him an object of contempt and ridicule in this movie.He stutters a lot and closes his eyes to express deep emotion,furrowing his brow then,in desperation, resorts to shouting and waving his arms like everybody else. In the last reel Mr Grant gets round to seeing that "fatherhood",even if accidental, is a "Good Thing" and flies to Miss Moore's side to be present at what must be the most protracted and noisiest birth scene in the movies.Mr Williams dispenses with acting altogether,simply bouncing off various bits of scenery(the very few left unchewed)like a demented pinball. Un point then for "Neuf Mois",to give it the title of the French original,and,believe me,it struggled to reach that.


This film is as subtle a kicking a house brick with your toe, and deeply dishonest.

The comedic characters and events are from the era of the Keystone Cops; completely over the top. This film is from the genre of farce verging on melodrama, complete with music to make sure we know what we are supposed to think. It should have been honest enough not to pretend to anything more complex.

The life challenges faced by the characters are real enough but the plot is completely cliché and obvious.

The central characters are simplistic and are black & white (she all good, he all bad). The dialog is from the day dreams of a fourteen year old.

The fact that a film uses actor Hugh Grant does not make it sensitive, uplifting or funny. The fact that a film contains sex and slapstick does not make it a romantic comedy.


Of the 122 films I have rated thus far, Nine Months is the first film I have awarded a 1 to. Can you spell WOOF? My husband and I gamely watched the first hour, and finally could take no more. I was disappointed in Julianne Moore's performance, though she did not have much to work with given the awful script. Hugh Grant was whiney and annoying. Not even Robin Williams helped this mess. I could have cared less about Hugh Grant's character's arc; or any other of the rich, spoiled and petulant (supposedly adult) characters.


I guess the producers must have thought that the success of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" would make any film with Hugh Grant a goose with golden eggs. Well duh, this film is simply a waste of pellicule. The humour makes me cringe, especially the little number Robin Williams shows us with the gyneacological table. Tom Arnold was terrible too, a typical American stereotype. Anyone who can watch the scene with the deliveries without whimpering deserves a medal of honour.

I doesn't even deserve the 1 out of 10 I gave it.


Nothing special about 9 1/2 months. I saw it on the Lifetime Channel and I'm not sure how it ever made it to the big screen. There's very little chemistry between Grant and Moore. Grant's character seems quite inept at working through his emotions about being a dad. A good child psychologist would probably have some idea about his feelings for fatherhood. And he'd have collegues he could turn to.

Oh and did I mention the jokes are forced and not all that that funny? Well, the movie isn't hillarious. I like Hugh Grant in many movies...but this isn't one them. If you like romantic comedies or moives about pregnancy you might enjoy this. Otherwise skip it.


I happened to watch this movie on TV recently (January 2010) and it made me sick. It seems like a very immature fantasy of a very appalling and dull woman. The moral of the movie: A pregnant woman is ALWAYS right and should be obeyed no matter what. If the man she trapped doesn't want a child and certainly DOES NOT WANT TO GET RID OF HIS BELOVED 16 YEAR OLD CAT, then he is made out to be the prince of darkness or a pathetic fool. I am grateful that the majority of reviews are negative. But only one review mentions the cat. Is it really American lifestyle to dispose of your pets if you are expecting a child? I find it cruel and evil. This movie is the worst and most stupid I've ever watched.


Nine months may not be the worst movie in the world but, it didn't make very much of an impression on me. The humor is all slapstick-so Much slapstick-that I found annoying rather then funny. Hugh and Julianne have been much better in other roles, in fact I don't like Julianne as a comedic actress, her forte is definitely drama. There are a million movies around like this and I happen to be a fan of predictable romantic comedies(if their good) but I found the characters and humor very weak and even though the movie's not DECADES old or anything it looks dated now, especially the hairstyles. I wouldn't call this terrible but I wouldn't call it interesting either and all these wonderful incredible talented performers have done their best work elsewhere.


Nine Months can't make up its mind. Is it a romantic comedy? Is it fun-dumb slapstick? Is it a warm tale of family? Is it a comment on single yuppies? It tries to be all and ends up failing to be any. On the way, it is cliched, offensive, obnoxious, predictable, and DULL. Pity the poor cast, most of them respected actors, who must now find this idiocy forever on their resumes.

On a few occasions, Nine Months just lets go into full-blown, bull moose lunacy, and in those moments it's a lot of fun. The ten minutes or so from the time Julianne Moore goes into labor until she gives birth are hysterical, certainly the best part of the movie.

For the remaining 93 minutes, how many ways can I scream NO!? Shall I start with the relationship between Moore and Hugh Grant? They have been living together for five years, and both say they've been uncommonly happy, and yet they know little about each other. Grant THINKS, but isn't SURE, that Moore uses birth control. He has no clue that Moore wants children, nor does Moore have the least idea that Grant doesn't want them. They behave towards each other like a young couple in their first few months of getting to know each other.

What about poor Joan Cusack, who hasn't got a single line to utter that isn't a cliche pulled off a radio call-in show? Birth is a miracle.' Family is what it's all about.' Sometimes husbands are frustrating but they come around.' Never ONCE does she say a single word that couldn't have been read off of the cover of Redbook. Or Tom Arnold, who thinks he's successfully playing a funny `big oaf' but is really just a creep? I'd believe him in a horror movie (as the horror) but not in a light comedy. Then there's the ENORMOUS misstep of making Hugh Grant a child psychologist, despite the fact that he's painfully uncomfortable around children. This is meant as comedy, but is so unbelievable, and so obviously detrimental to his clients, that it's just painful. Finally, what about the fact that two educated professionals seem to know nothing about reproduction or their own bodies? That isn't a joke, it's a tragedy!

Finally, we have the hideous way that people treat each other, as though it's all funny. Is it funny that Julianne Moore packs up and leaves Hugh Grant, slamming the door behind her while he's trying to talk to her, because he's been distant and uninvolved? Yet HE is the one expected to apologize, `grow up,' and do her unreasonable bidding by the final reel. Yuck.


I am a PARENT and I cringed all through this movie. This slop belongs in the early 1900s where the stereotypical woman conned a man into getting them pregnant then guilted him into marrying her.

Why do men have to love the idea of being a father and aspire toward it? Parenting is a hard job and it shouldn't be trivialised, kids change everything about your life and you aren't you anymore. You're so and so's Mum/Dad or so and so's Grandparent for the rest of your life no matter how hard you try to keep your own life. People should be ready to have kids, not have it thrust upon them and be expected to change into Superparent on demand or be shunned like a leper.

There are already too many hurt kids in this world who were born so their parents could have what they wanted, then decided they weren't what they wanted after all. Enough.


This could be called an ideal film to turn men gay. Good grief, such an endless pile of heterosexual hogwash mixed with vaudeville pratfalls...Sorry, but I had to force myself to sit through this weak attempt at a comedy. And they even couldn't resist throwing in a line about the baby getting circumcized. Jewish fathers will love it. The rest of us, no thanks...


Very formulaic comedy in which most jokes bomb, especially the visual ones. Hopelessly clichéd sentimentality and schmaltz are quite annoying and the film really falls apart in the last third, mostly because of the double-birth scene which is incredibly lame and unfunny, clumsily "written" and directed; the gags in the birth scenes are so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Williams is solid. But I think Grant's charismatic-stutterer shtick is wearing a bit thin by now.

Leonard Maltin, U.S. film critic and famous nerd, describes Julianne Moore as having "radiant beauty". What?! She's not ugly, but RADIANT BEAUTY?? The only thing that's radiant is Maltin's heavily damaged radio-active brain.


When I read the last comment amongst others I realized that most of the people don't know that this movie is just a remake of a French one. I understand that this one is not good at all but try to watch the French one. Even with subtitles you will laugh a lot more. I know you will say I am French and I try to defend the movies of my country. You are right but "Neuf mois" is really worth it. Check out the comments of people from other countries. In the French version Patrick Braoudé is excellent. Hugh Grant is a very good actor and doesn't deserve to play in such a bad movie. They missed all the good energy and jokes that were in the original version. Also Hugh Grant cannot play like Patrick Braoudé. They don't have the same way of behaving. One is more discrete and acts with his eyes and the other one is just crazy. Patrick Braoudé as crazy as he is can make you realize that you would do the same as him in such a situation. So the conclusion is: skip the remake, watch the original one.


You'd think a movie making a point about treason would allow some room for depth and ideas. But this movie is a shallow, wealth and privilege-envy piece. Pretty boys traipse through this would-be drama that adopts the viewpoint of a petulant, oblivious, vain, homosexual snob away at school in Jolly Old. The twee goings-on advance the preposterous premise that Guy Bennett (based on Guy Burgess) went Commie because he was gay, and was thrown out of school before he got to wear his foppish upper-classmen vest. Oh brother! ...oh, and he received a caning once. He was OK with the canings others received as a routine part of the English school system, but HIS caning hurt. This is roughly analogous to saying Guy Bennett became a roadside bandit, a pirate, or an evil scientist because he had a bad experience at Cambridge. Yeah, everyone has a bad experience at Cambridge. As depicted here, Bennett becoming a Communist in response to his social structure is as likely as Martha Stewart becoming a Sumo wrestler after she burnt a soufflé. Bennett is interested in nothing but himself, as played by Rupert Everett.

"How dare you think about the script? Just look at those high production values!"


Unrelieved stuffiness, written by Julian Mitchell from his play, chronicling the true-life account of homosexual prep-school lad Guy Bennett in 1930s London who later became a spy for the Russians. Director Marek Kanievska chooses to sequence the film colorlessly in flashback, with aloof Rupert Everett posturing and pursing his modulated lips in continual pensiveness (he has one expression to express every emotion). The British play was very popular, for reasons which are not evident here. The burnished cinematography by Peter Biziou and fine supporting performances from Colin Firth (in his debut) and Cary Elwes do help, yet I found this picture extremely cold and rather indifferently-made. * from ****


"Another Country" is a hodgepodge of different ideas, social inconsistencies, and covered with an obscure layer of homosexuality. It is a film about nationalism, about education, about love  but it never even scratches the surface of any of these  it just puts them on the table and expects the viewer to "get it". As an outsider looking in, I was confused by the structure of the school, the intertwined love connections, and the purpose behind the bookends with the aging Everett. "Another Country" was dull, trite, and overly presumptuous of itself without giving the viewer any foresight into the world created. It is a dated film about a culture that doesn't exist everywhere, yet oddly the DVD does.

Insult my intelligence if you must, but what sort of education were these students receiving? For the course of 90 minutes, students read book nonchalantly, played dress up for the guard, insulted little boys, ran out of windows, spent money, yelled about Marxism, and made out with each other. There was no visible structure; outside of being caught doing something wrong would mean lashes by the "Gods" of the House. There were no teachers, there were no assignments, and there were no exams that one could see, merely the openness to allow these students to do whatever they wanted to with rules that seemed as archaic as this film. Twenty-four years later, being an American with a structured University understanding, I was confused by this example. This was a major issue with this film, because instead of focusing on the underlying themes, I was too caught up in the basic structure of this school. It starts with a "teacher" finding two students making out, but from there these "teachers" become mere spirits of the mind  looming in the background as threats, but never seen. From a believable standpoint, I was disappointed. The confusion muddled the point, and the misunderstanding of how anyone could choose to stay longer merely to become a "God" of a house left the central focus lost in my eyes.

With the unexplainable introduction to British education bewildering me at every turn, I must also question the validity of director Marek Kanievska's choice to bookend this film with an aging Everett attempting to explain his reason for being a traitor by using his boyhood school days as an analogy of life and love. Was it necessary to convey the story by using a real historical figure as the narrator? This initially gave me a false impression of what this film would be about. I assumed it would be about his turn to Russia, while instead it focused on his love of Harcourt (a very floppy Cary Elwes) and disgust for hypocritical friends. The use of the bookends felt like it gave the film a more authentic feel at first, but when they were revisited at the end, I felt slightly cheated and still confused. Did the reporter get her story? What story was she after? Should "Another Country" have this many questions upon its conclusion? Perhaps the play was better structured, but as a film adaptation, I must admit it fails.

Leading us through the murkiness of "Another Country" are currently well respected actors in the British community. Colin Firth plays the only strong character in this entire film, Tommy Judd. His hatred for everything really exemplified my feelings about this film, which is why I connected to him the most. He was the Salinger-esquire character that was well defined, strong, and understandable. The rest, well, the rest were as disappointing as this film. Everett was as weak as a wet paper towel. His character was unknown, attempting to be himself as well as a character, I kept seeing Everett be Everett  he was never Guy Bennett (Burgess  whatever!). The bewilderment of where Madonna was kept me at bay, but the sure comic genius of the film was that of Cary Elwes playing someone who caught the attention of Everett  somehow. Everett seems to attempt to play a smart, charismatic student that bends the rules and flaunts his homosexuality; Elwes is completely different  if one could even say that. He is awkward, boring, and honestly, a nothing. He is not a character, not Harcourt, not Elwes, nothing. During a first time dinner where Everett attempts to pour out his story about his romantic death of his father, Elwes responds with a grunt of a "No way" or something along those trivial lines. Elwes is reminiscent of a dog in this film, no real motive; he just follows Everett around pushing the plot into another dismal avenue.

Overall, "Another Country" was a disappointment. The lack of a focused direction, informative introduction, and defined characters sunk this film before it even had the opportunity to leave port. The characters were abysmal. A pre-Mr. Darcy Firth was fun to watch, but everyone else played themselves out of character, out of entertainment. This was a film about so many ideas that no real idea was able to surface. The onslaught of homosexuality was impressive to see in a film released in 1984, but midway through the feature it became cliché. Having recently viewed Alan Bennett's "The History Boys" as well as read the play, it was tough to watch "Another Country" sink into the water. Why couldn't there be teachers that understood, students that were less forceful with their homosexuality (perhaps just seeing it as the norm), and loves that broke the barriers, instead of jumping out of nowhere. Being a Cannes Best Film nominee, I had high hopes for this film, but the lack of everything solid soured it immediately. Kanievska's direction was more made-for-TV than worth of film. "Another Country" was just another cliché British schoolboy film that went nowhere, gave us lucid characters, and confused us by being too smart than what it is. Could not suggest it to anyone, nor would I!

Grade: * out of *****


Although there are some positive points in this movie (pretty few), I found it generally uninteresting. The small romance shown in it, does not fit the otherwise cynical character played by Ruppert Everet. The unveiling of the plot is slow, uninteresting and does not excite the spectator in any way. Humor, is also fully absent. The time gap between the scenes in Russia and the story telling in England is huge and should have been better managed and explained. This is not a total waste of time, however there are much better movies to see out there instead!


Dreamy European vampire art-film with a modern-day setting, but all the trappings of a more traditional period horror. Throw in a psychedelic pop score and various hippy motifs and the result is an awkward hybrid of themes and ideas.

'Le Frissons des Vampires' is basically a slow series of impressive images set to music, with limited dialogue and a disjointed narrative. The characters and performances are wooden but functional, although this is probably a deliberate method of enhancing the surreal aspects more. The allusions to vampire eroticism, with semi-clad females and implied lesbianism, are not unwelcome but the results are singularly uninteresting with little to excite the viewer.

The storyline - pair of newlyweds stop off at a Castle inhabited by vampires - meanders dreamily (drearily) along, with no points of interest to break up the monotony. Despite some individual images which are stunning - the female vampire emerging from the grandfather clock - it's difficult to find much to recommend here. I'm not sure how much of the film's strength was lost to the poor dubbing, but even so I can't help feeling that 'Lust for a Vampire' (1971), despite its lack of artistic merit is better entertainment.

For all its striking visuals, Rollin's film falls down on too many basic levels and as naked lesbian vampire films go, it's simply dull to watch.


Because I've always been a fan of vampire stories and I like to experiment with different genres, I bought three Jean Rollin films. Even though this is - in my opinion - the best out of the three, I really don't get their appeal.

For an erotic/porn film, the nudity is too scarce and tame. For a horror/scare film, there is too little suspense. For a drama, there is too little dramatic development. etc. Add this to the lack of a decent story line or decent acting and you really start wondering what the hell some of these reviewers are so excited about...

They say Rollin is all about atmosphere, but I wonder what atmosphere they're talking about. I guess they're just talking about seeing naked women in a Gothic surrounding. If that's the case, they better find themselves a girlfriend/wife who's into the whole Gothic thing (like I did). It's far more worth it ;-)


Leave it to the French to make an artsy-fartsy vampire flick. A heavy emphasis on atmosphere, decor and sex while devoid of any substance. Pretentious acting, weak direction and a mediocre script. On the plus side, the score is kinda groovy and the naked babes (it's a French film, after all) make it easier on the eyes, though not enough to recommend.


It seems axiomatic that the more cruddy a movie is, the more variant titles it will collect along its merry way, and this pretentious, self-conscious mix of "horror" and "sex" is tedious, dreary and almost embarrassing in its desperate attempt to appear "meaningful". With hammy acting and posturing substituting for emotional expression, what little plot development there is, gets padded by longeurs which, whilst evidently intended to convey some kind of "significance", merely provoke a yawn and a glance at the clock. What this film seemed to be aiming for, and so miserably failed to achieve, was so much more successfully captured in DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS, so, give this one a miss, and fast-forward to that title instead if you want a vampiric theme pregnant with dark sensuality and sexual energy.


This movie is simply horrible. Something closely akin to morbid curiosity kept me watching it until the end, despite the fact that I knew within the first minute that it was going be nauseous. I can't believe that Suzanne Pleshette, Debbie Reynolds and Courteney Cox, all of whom I like very much, would ever have involved themselves in anything so very, very bad.

The script made Pleshette's and Reynolds' jobs impossible. The poor things probably did the best they could with the material they had to work with, but that material led inevitably to silly histrionics from Pleshette (as International Musical Glamour Queen) and hokey cutesiness from Reynolds (as Bubbly Hairdresser Who Wears Tacky Clothes). Courteney Cox was fortunate that her character was far more believable, and she was likeable in her role. English actor Leigh Lawson provided another oasis of realism, portraying Pleshette's conductor and love interest.

The worst thing about the story is that, early in the movie, the viewer is given misleading information regarding the relationship between the two main characters. That early misleading information is credible, but what turns out to be the true back story, which we discover only near the end, is ridiculous. The second worst thing about it is the absurdly improbable web of relationships between the characters, which grows more and more laughable as the movie progresses. And the third worst thing about it is that it goes to pathetic lengths in its melodramatic attempts at heart-strings-tugging. I lost count of how many times I rolled my eyes.

I actually recommended that a close friend of mine watch this film just to see how bad it is. It is to movies what high kitsch is to home decor. Poodle lamp, anybody?


The 1999 remake of "Gloria", is an insult to the great John Cassavettes, who wrote and directed the original in 1980. Sidney Lumet proves that he is not even in the same league as Cassavettes. This new version completely lacks the energy and the intensity of the original. Ridiculous melodrama and overblown sentimentality is the only thing Sidney Lumet has to offer. And Sharon Stone's acting ability seems laughable when compared to Gena Rowlands, who originated the role in 1980. Rent the original and skip the remake. Make Cassavettes proud.


Sharon Stone with a Bronx accent? British actor, Jeremy Northam, copping same accent to sound like a mafioso? Ridiculous. Sharon must have agreed to do this movie to make a statement about her maternal side, wanting a baby, who knows! She plays a gangster moll who rescues a 7 yr old from being rubbed out (truly!), after which the entire movie shows the pair bonding in coffee shops an running from armed henchman. Will she leave the kid in an upstate Catholic school where he will get good care, education and A LIFE? Or will she be forced by the tug of her heartstrings to raise him herself in spite of having nothing but a criminal record to offer? What do you think? Ugh.

Might be a good rental for those playing Spot-A-Movie-Cliche-Take-A-Drink game.


The original "Gloria", a 1980 John Cassavettes film starring his wife Gena Rowlands, was an instant classic; be it his direction, the acting (particularly that of Rowlands, who so deserved her Oscar nomination for her performance as the titular character), the gritty look of the film, the authentic New York City locations in all their pre-Guiliani glory, or the screenplay, the film worked on just about every level. This remake, however, stands in pale (VERY pale) contrast in virtually any aspect one can think of. When the film opens, Gloria (Sharon Stone), a gangster's moll, is released from prison and returns to the home/hangout of her lover, Kevin (Jeremy Northam). By the time she arrives, she meets a young Latin boy, Nicky (Jean-Luke Figueroa), whose family Gloria's lover has had killed. Seems the young boy's father worked for this gangster and not only "knew too much" but was about to tell all. Having believed her lover's story that there would be money set aside for her while she cooled her heels in prison, Gloria soon finds out there is nothing, so, enraged and knowing the boy's worth, she kidnaps him at gun point and off they go, on the run from the mob. Poor Sharon Stone: trying SO HARD to match Gena Rowlands but constantly tripped up by a "Noo Yawk" accent that's often downright funny. Still, it's so apparent she's trying so hard that, throughout, you can't help but feel for her, a feat helped by the fact that she is obviously the only cast member who tries to create a character, though as written it's still the "hooker with a heart of gold" type, which is NOT the case with the 1980 film. In the original, Gloria is indeed a former gun moll, kind of ballsy but classy, never really hard-edged; here, as written, she's little more than a cheap, hard floozy. Jeremy Northam, a talented British actor, is slumming here, complete with laughable accent that rivals Sharon Stone's. As the boy Stone goes on the run with, and with whom she is supposed to bond with, Jean-Luke Figueroa isn't necessarily untalented, and in a better-made movie he might even be good; however, be it the dialogue or direction, he makes very little impact, a fact not helped by the lack of ANY chemistry between he and Stone. Bonnie Bedelia (as Stone's sister) and George C Scott (looking very ill, as a Mafioso head) are featured in small supporting roles but are essentially wasted. Sharp-eyed movie lovers will also notice the ubiquitous Mike Starr as a 'heavy' (he's the one who hangs on to the car Stone is driving); like character actor Dan Hedaya, Starr seemed to inhabit just about every film Hollywood made in the 90's, though here, Starr's part is strictly dramatic and not his usual comedic one. Behind it all is Sidney Lumet, a once-talented director who has helmed a few masterpieces in his time; however, whatever muses guided him towards those masterpieces has, in the last decade or two, abandoned him, for here he is again, delivering yet another celluloid stillborn. Not since 1982's "The Verdict", with Paul Newman, has he given the world a solid success. He isn't helped any by a screenplay that manages to ape the original while making absurd "updates" and taking liberties that cleanly toss out such things as believability and common sense. For instance, at the end, Gloria meets with the Mafioso head and asks that she be absolved of any wrongdoing AND to have the kid. He agrees. And off they go, into the wild blue yonder. In the original, Gloria has to shoot her way out to keep this young boy alive. One doesn't have to be particularly wise to mob life to understand that a Mafia capo isn't exactly going to let someone with that much knowledge just walk away. I absolutely adore the original film; I think it's exciting, moving, thrilling storytelling. If you feel the same way, avoid this picture at all costs. I happen to like Sharon Stone; I think in some ways she IS underrated as an actress, though one wishes she'd choose pictures that didn't suck. If you like her, you may enjoy her performance, if not the film. She tries, perhaps too hard. But like so many remakes, this one's a bust in every respect. Stick with John Cassevettes' original and understand why they shouldn't have even bothered with this new one.


This lived DOWN to all my expectations-being simply rotten. The best scene involves a car chase through a park, the only suspense consisted of finding out if Sharon can run on high heels for an entire movie without falling flat on her face.


Even though I was a kid when I saw the original, I can remember it being much more endearing and convincing than this Sharon Stone remake. It's not great, it's not bad, but Sharon does not ever convince me that she is a "mother-figure" to the orphaned boy she wants to help. She's always just a little too abrasive, too tough, and trying too hard to be sexy in this role.

The boy who plays one of the lead characters comes off better than Sharon. I'm wondering what kind of recruiting they needed to get George C. Scott and Jeremy Northam in this movie. My advice is to stick to watching Sharon Stone in her usual glamorous, sex-pot type roles. They are much more suited to her style.


The movie is not that bad, but it's still a waste of time. It's the classic drama about a tough woman who is released from jail, gets stuck with a 7yo kid who just lost his parents and of course discovers her sensitive side... Deja-vu is written all over this film, cliches are all over the place and it's too predictable... not even Sharon Stone's well acting could save this film. I can't give it more than 4 out of 10.


One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know why such a movies must be made. May be studios don't know how to spend their money. Sharon Stone's character as a mother is very, very ridiculous. It doesn't worth watching even for one time. Don't waste your time.


This movie has no business connecting itself with the great movie made in 1980 called "Gloria" and starring Gena Rowlands and directed by her husband John Cassevettes. That movie's opening credits sequence is better than the entire thing here - the paintings and the beautiful music set the mood for the movie.


I rated this film a "2" because Sharon Stone wants soooo bad to give a "great", "oscar-winning" type performance.

So many gaffes in this production and I am surprised what with Sidney Lumet's track record that he allowed it.

See the first "gloria" with Gena Rowlands - it is much, much better. However, if you like Sharon Stone, she is okay in this movie.


GLORIA / (1999) *

Starring: Sharon Stone, Jeremy Northam, Jean-Luke Figueroa, George C. Scott, and Bonnie Bedelia Directed by Sidney Lumet. Written by Steven Antin. Running time: 108 minutes. Rated R (for strong language, violence, and brief nudity).

	"Gloria" is a movie of such horrible proportions it is tough explaining in words the incredible ineffectiveness it presents on screen. The movie is robbed of almost all good qualities. There is no substance, style, or creativity here. It's all flat, contrived, and boring. The scenes consist of nothing but talking heads. "Gloria" is easily one of the year's worst movies and undoubtedly will place on many critics list of least liked productions.

	The film's opening is extremely week. We meet the title character, who is supposedly our hero, as she is being released from a hardened prison on parole. As she cusses at security guards walking out dressed as a cheap prostitute, this woman's attitude and condition of living make us sick.

The second part of the first act has a family killed at gunshot by a gang led by a man named Kevin (Jeremy Northam), who murders these people because they withhold a computer disk containing information that could put every member in prison. Before the family's demise, however, the man of the house gives the valuable disk to his son, Nicky.

A good movie usually begins with the introduction of its main character after the development. After the first act setup, the characters' morals and intentions should be clear. "Gloria" takes none of these preparations. The audience never becomes accustomed to any of the characters--thus we could not care less about what happens to them. This is especially true for the Nicky character, who is only a plot device. He has no interest, intelligence, important lines, or memorable scenes.

The story's conflict revolves around Gloria adopting Nicky after Kevin threatens to kill both of them in order to recover the secret disk. Throughout the plot, the characters chase each other like a cat and mouse, with several key events leading the film's direction in the wrong way. The conflict's introduction with some proper material is good--although begins a little straight forward and seems jump started. The movie contains good structure throughout. The film features dialogue that is so straight forward and non descriptive, and the subtext is so blandly dumb, it is literally unbelievable. The conversations have no impact or meaning. They are just there, contributing nothing to the story. When Gloria exchanges consultation with Nicky, she talks to him like an object. This is exactly why the two characters share no charisma.

	The performances are wooden and uninspiring. What is Sharon Stone doing in this picture? Movies like these are way under her league. None of the characters are believable or interesting. Compare the young actor Jean-Luke Figueroa with the much more talented Haley Joel Osment from "The Sixth Sense."

	There is no emotional context here, nor is there any depth, energy, or involvement. The picture does not take any of the characters, situations, or actions seriously. I never once believed a character's life was at stake. Not much happens in the film, creating struggle for the advertisers and producers. Anyone like well-known Sharon Stone may draw some audiences in, but before long word of mouth should sink good old "Gloria" faster than the Titanic.

Brought to you by Columbia Pictures.


This is set in a small railroad town, and follows the exploits of a preacher. The preacher's congregation appears to be a bunch of thoughtless, accident-prone people who seem to hate getting hurt but can't stop themselves from doing bodily harm to themselves. Pretty bad acting and boring narration shoot this one down.


It's hard to imagine railroad workers watching this short film without thinking that their company is trying to blame them for all the industrial accidents that occur. It correctly argues that workers should always keep safety in mind while working, but implies that the company would willingly allow people to take time off for simple dizziness or not penalize workers for falling behind in their work. It also insists that the company "does everything in its power to prevent accidents", which in my corporate experience is exactly as likely as *individuals* doing everything possible; that is to say, not at all likely. And by casting this as a kind of sermon by a company-town minister, Union Pacific turns human error into a sin against the company and one's loved ones. Safety, of course, should be regularly emphasized in dangerous industrial environments, but this message appears to be rather one-sided and heavy-handed.

The MST3K version of this short, shown in its "Amazing Transparent Man" episode and available on its "Shorts Volume 2" DVD, is filled with well-timed jokes and entertaining silliness. It's quite funny, unless you've encountered some of the tragic accidents that occur in the short, which would make it hard to be amused by the banter. But it's possible to laugh at the goofy MST3K lines while remembering the short's message: that safety must be consciously and continuously practiced in hazardous environments.


This short was featured on episode 623 of Mystery Scienc Theater 3000 and boy did it ever need the treatment. To put it simply and to quote Mike Nelson, by the end we discover that accidents are caused, "by joy, sex, and old age." This is particular to accidents on the railroad. This documentary short shoots you with more irrelevant metaphors than the regular Coleman Francis feature, and it leaves you feeling depressed and empty knowing the greatest joys in life always lead to the death of you and your loved ones. I recommend this documentary only in its mst3k format, where it is excellent fodder for m&tbs. I leave you with the vision of a minister strolling his congregations neighborhood, pointing out all the accidents that were caused by the grace of god as a consequence for living the days of their years.


Sitting through this movie made me realize just how gullible I am by believing a good tag line. This movie, on paper, looks good. I liked the idea, and am not biased toward poor cinematics, poor dialog, and poor acting if the plot or narrative of a story is really original and fresh. Often times all those overcome a poor plot in Hollywood, and sometimes, a superb plot can overcome them.

Sadly, it doesn't happen here.

This movie is a metaphorical train wreck that I kept hoping would reach the destination no matter how horrible the journey - and it doesn't.

Just skip it and watch "The grand canyon" again if you're looking for enlightenment of the human condition.


this movie is lame... I'm an absolute rabid Hammer horror fan, and this little movie comes nowhere near their great quality(this is NOT a Hammer production). Some of the attraction of B-movies is the cheezy horror, unrealistic premises, and downright bad acting... well, the bad acting is here - and the requisite breasts & bums, but there's no actual conflict going on. Again, we don't expect fabulous scriptwriting in these films, but come on, throw us a bone here, please! Something happen already! How about the witch cult kidnaps nubile daughters from the local villages for their 'infernal rites'? Nope, no such luck... Two sisters want to break free of mum & daddy, go to the big city - one finds a modeling agency, modeling agency has witchcraft rites... that's it! Then one sister decides she wants to be High Priestess after one day in the coven, using a magic spell to kill the lesbian HPs that's been hitting on her the whole weekend(she learns fast, eh?). It's basically a few terribly inaccurate occult trappings as an excuse to show some Brit boobies... don't waste your time.


How could a film with such a provocative title be so drab and boring? Released at the height of the seventies exploitation boom, Virgin Witch sadly falls by the wayside of many other similar films. The film sort of like your standard lesbian vampire film, except this time its lesbian witches and instead of being interesting and erotic, it's slow and boring. The plot follows Christine; a young virgin who travels to a modelling agency with her sister in the hope of getting a job. However, it turns out that she wasn't being headhunted for a job after all, as the head of the agency wants Christina to join her witch's coven! Any hopes of this being a gory lesbian sex-fest will not be fulfilled, as the film doesn't feature much in the way of either and director Ray Austin seems more keen to show photo shoots and religious ceremonies than blood and sex, which is odd considering that the film is from the seventies and is titled 'Virgin Witch'. Overall, this film won't do much, even for fans of this sort of stuff. Good elements include the fact that the lead isn't bad looking and that the film isn't on for long. Not recommended.


I expected alot more from this film, I thought it was going to be more into lesbian witchcraft or something weird like that with all the shocking suspense that most 70's films give us. This film was about two young girls that go out and look for a job and one of them finds a job modeling for a lesbian agent. The agent takes her on her first job as a model at a resort home that is run by a group of witches. One of them a perverted old man, another one is a lady that looks like a man but dressed as a woman that comes up creeping on the young girls from time to time, another is a geeky photographer trying to loose his virginity and another one is a man that wants to get the virgin first before the cult does. The agent falls in love with one of the girls and the only lesbian scenes in this movie are two in which she looks at the girl in a mirror as she undresses and the other is when she kisses her. the girl does not care for the agent because lesbianism isen't her style and therefore sets her goals in taking the agents place as high priestess in the cult. the two of them end up using powers against eachother for the title. This movie was slow and unmoving. This was hyped up to be about some lady that is the head of a cult and was supposed to be a sadist or something. It wasen't what it was supposed to be about and therefor I found it disapointing.


I was half-expecting this to be even worse than THE BODY STEALERS (1969) and, my viewing of it, certainly proved my fears right! This one's the pits: the title promises nudity and scares (or at least diabolism) - it provides the former in spades, though none of it is erotic, but the latter is only present, if so it can be called, in some silly late-night rituals with nude dancing en masse of old and young witches alike!

Tigon only distributed the film and, really, there are no redeeming features to this low-brow venture - whose director was actually an English aristocrat! The premise offers no surprises whatsoever and, in fact, here again we have sisters as the leading characters - one virtuous, one wicked (around this same time, Hammer Films made TWINS OF EVIL [1971] - which were played by Maltese actresses, by the way - and which, alas, I've never watched!). The other characters are stereotypes and the only one who provides any interest is Patricia Haines (formerly Mrs. Michael Caine and who died, at a fairly young age, only a few years later!) as the lesbian High Priestess of the coven.

Perhaps the most hilarious scenes are the afore-mentioned rites, Ann Michelle's photo sessions (a modeling agency serves as a front for the coven) and especially when she, a newly-inducted witch, puts a spell on her rival Haines - having suddenly become an expert in the occult merely by reading a book on the subject (Michelle burns a photograph of Haines, and we see the latter's expression in it change gradually to reflect the pain she goes through!). The film was actually shot in 1970 but the BBFC refused it a certificate - realizing, perhaps, that it was pure exploitation and not really a horror film at all; in fact, it only got released when the producers took the film to the apparently more lenient censor boards of individual towns, after which the BBFC relented!


Robert Englund - Good Over the top gore - good And thats about it you'll probably only have seen this if your a horror fan and if you are i'd wait till its on TV the two above mentioned is a bout all the positive to be said for this lame rerun of Shocker. Outcast female lead, terribly unscary killer, clunky dialogue and about the worst ending you could imagine....tornado please!!!!

Nothing interesting happens in the first quarter of the movie then gorehounds get a good solid 10 minutes of splatter and gore then the story powers on to its conclusion with about as much intelligence as a lobotomised sheep and a plot thats about as interesting as watching your fingernails grow.

All in all a pointless experience.


Heartstopper: 4 out of 10: After twenty minutes this movie really had me psyched. A true Eighties throwback it begins with two characters, a Death row inmate who has trouble being electrocuted (Shocker) and a good looking suicidal shy girl who is called whore by a bunch of teenage cheerleader vixens (Carrie). They meet in an ambulance and the Death row guys tattoo transfers to the suicidal girl. And we all know what happens next don't we.

The girl goes back to high school and takes revenge on the vixen sluts and her mother and everyone else and there is violence and nudity and sexy high school girls kicking ass. (Okay let me calm down for a moment) And had the movie actually done that I would have been happy. Instead it remakes Halloween 2. Yup an abandoned hospital, (The staff is about 5 people) and the serial killer comes back to life using his patented heart through the chest maneuver (hence the name) which looks silly the first time and gets progressively sillier as the movie goes along.

In the Jamie Lee Curtis role we have Meredith Henderson who is surprisingly bland for a suicidal girl being chased by a serial killer. The killer is played not by title actor Robert Englund (Who is an Amish Sheriff and leaves the movie fairly early) but James Binkly whose serial killer won't shut up.

In fact dialogue is a real problem in this film. Nobody talks like real people. All the conversation is either a witty rejoinder or a plot point or god forbid horrible self-conscious foreshadowing. Needless to say nobody has been crying out for a Halloween 2 (or Visiting Hours) remake.

And while the sets are unconvincing and understaffed and the script and story derivative and pedestrian this is hardly the worst direct to video horror movie I've seen. Its biggest fault seems to be it does nothing I haven't seen done better dozens of times before.


Heartstopper wasn't to bad for a low budget B slasher movie. Took a large number of queues from Halloween with events taking place in a hospital. The film is about a killer who is hit by lightening while getting sitting in the electric chair and becomes an unstoppable killer after he's taken to the morgue in the hospital. The acting was pretty good and the effects were a little on the silly side, but it held together. Some religious connotations as the killer seemed to be living a life of eternal torture and was taking souls. Lots of gore and blood as plenty of people get their hearts ripped out as food for the killer. About an average B slasher movie. Nothing terrific, but nothing really bad.


I'm a sucker for gross-out splatter flicks, or over-the-top horror of any kind, so I end up watching a lot movies I later wish I hadn't wasted the time on. Such a movie is Heartstopper. An over-the-hill Robert Englund heads the rest of the no-name cast, playing a sheriff who watches a serial killer fry in the chair. Englund sends him to a hospital morgue where the killer, possessed of some kinda demonic power, comes back to life with an urge to rip out hearts. Englund is killed by minute 30 or so in the film, but he only has about 10 minutes face time with the viewer. I guess he made his money and left. There is absolutely no plot, no drama and no thrills in this flick, not to mention zero acting, and we are subjected to a series of about 6 or 7 heart ripping scenes for about 85 minutes. If this is enough to make you want to watch this movie, have at it.


Not the greatest by any means; but decent for a low end budget horror flick. Sheriff Berger(Robert Englund)watches a vicious serial killer named Chambers(James Brinkley)die in the electric chair...twice. At a going out of business hospital morgue, Chambers arises and does his thing...rip the heart out of the doctor doing the autopsy. Two young patients, Sara(Merideth Henderson) and Walter(Nathan Stephenson)struggle to stay alive as the hospital soon fills with blood. The ruthless killer makes it proof positive that he relies on souls of others to survive.

Henderson out acts Englund in this creep thriller. Also in the cast: Laura DeCarteret, Michael Cram and Lori Hallier. HEARTSTOPPER does have some special effects that neither makes or breaks this bad scary movie.


In the tradition of flicks like Wes Craven's "Shocker" and 2001's "Dark Asylum", "Heartstopper" is a mildly suitable "hospital horror" flick that delivers on the gore but flat-lines on plot (pun rightfully intended!). A notorious killer's death sentence is carried out by means of electrocution, though things don't go entirely according to plan. 'The Chair' takes a little extra juice and the guy doesn't stay dead for long. He becomes inexplicably linked to a suicidal teenage girl whom he goes after, following his resurrection and complete bodily regeneration during his autopsy. He proceeds to rip the hearts out of basically everyone in the hospital while stalking the one girl whose body he wants to inhabit - using his, also unexplained, demonic powers. Yeah, of what little plot there is, the details don't make a whole lot of sense - like the hospital being mostly empty aside from a small group of people and a tornado popping up at the end to ultimately vanquish the "evil"... Robert Englund plays a small but highlighted role as the sheriff who put the psychotic organ-snatcher away and is killed off FAR too soon, while the rest of the cast does nothing but provide clichés that move things along until the film's end. All besides the killer, who is actually pretty awesome and highly vicious and quite effective with all of his blasphemous lines. To be honest, the movie was just far too thin on plot, even for a "slasher film" - seeming to somehow waste the majority of it's 92 minute running time with repetitive hallway chases and needless dialog that fails to develop the characters even enough to make you want them to not die AS SOON! The bloodshed amount is hefty, however. People are gutted, burned, gashed and beaten which is a sure "quencher" for gore-hounds. "Heartstopper" has a nice look, but just didn't feel complete...


This was seriously a bad movie. I didn't get the whole story....I don't even think it made any, any sense, especially with the tornado at the end. Acting was bad, story was bad, gore was bad, just PLAIN BAD. It's another of those movies you dislike for not being what you truly expected, and it's because of these movies that people think that the horror genre is trash. I gave it a 3/10, because it was at least a little bit entertaining and it had a few funny moments. Overall, the cast was good looking, but the continuity of the movie sucked! If you have an afternoon to loose, watch this movie and I will guarantee you will regret it!


I just watched it and I am angry. How can they be allowed to produce such a bad film! For your own sake, don't watch it!! You'll save yourself a irritating ordeal. There is nothing with this film that is good.. I normally Like low-budget horrors and slashers like the ones from Troma, but this is a new low. The acting is really poor, the directing sucks, the story is laughable but the worst thing about it is the dialogue. Save the world and burn every copy ever produced of this piece of S***. If I could rate it lower, I would!! Minus 10 is more suitable. An advice to all the actors in it; Stop try to act. You are terrible!! You don't have to take my word for it. But you should. //An angry Markus


"Heartstopper", directed by the always-reliable special effects wizard Bob Keen (he worked on the effects for no less than "Hellraiser", "Candyman" and "Hardware"), is a sadly forgettable effort that combines the plot of a typical late 80's cheesy flick with the outrageous gore and brutality of nowadays 'Torture Porn' movies. The concept of a serial killer with supernatural powers who desperately attempts to transfer his murderous spirit into a new body after his own execution is dreadfully unoriginal and already featured (more or less) in at least four movies, namely Wes Craven's "Shocker", the atrocious third entry in the "House" series, the criminally underrated film "Prison" and the overall lamentable film "The Chair". This movie has absolutely nothing new to tell in its plot, but at least it remains somewhat entertaining thanks to the incredibly high body count, explicit on screen bloodshed and the cast of clichéd characters. A young interracial couple have to defend themselves against the sneering and overly talkative psychopath Chambers (who enjoys ripping hearts out of people's torsos whilst they're watching), and they receive little to none help from an indecisive nurse and from the Sheriff, played by Robert Englund. "Heartstopper" is never really scary or disturbing because the plot is overly grotesque and incoherent. The setting of the nearly abandoned, ramshackle and soon-to-be-closed down hospital adds some morbid atmosphere to the wholesome. The surreal elements in the plot are totally ridiculous and the ending sucks, but hey, I'm sure you've seen newly released horror films that were a lot worse.


Well, I would suggest a simple test for my recommendation for this movie. I presume that you wanna watch a good horror movie. Stand in front of a mirror, and make some scary faces. Now, if you got scared by looking at your own scary face, then you should watch this movie. And if looking at your face made you laugh, then don't go for this movie, because it wont even make you laugh.

Very poor dialogs, worst casting (esp the killer who is terribly unscary) and a lots of technical mistakes.

I am still trying to think of at least one good thing about this movie...well I am done thinking...Nothing Good ! I mean it


I watched this movie just because of Robert Englund (best known as Freddy Kruger from "Nightmare on ElmStreet"), but I was disappointed! This movie looks just like cheap 80's slasher movie (exaple: "Nightmare on ElmStreet" latest 4 sequels). This movie became a disaster at the end, when Chambers has been taken by tornado.

Young actors acted nice. Meredith Henderson and Nathan Stephenson had show, that they can act very good, so some producers had to take them to better movies. Other actors acted fair. Robert Englund is still a good actor, but this movie has not been watching, if you're the fan of Roberts character Freddy Kruger. Plot of this movie was average (except ending).

So, I give a 4 to this movie, but I was thought about 2 or 3.


What a B movie this turned out to be, maybe even C; no wonder it never made it to theaters, but with all these bad "scary" movies coming out, it would fit right in. The acting is just plain bad. Even Robert Englund wasn't too good, but maybe it was just the bad role he got to play. The script just lacked any depth whatsoever, no real character development, no real storyline, very little plot, and worst of all, where were all the bloody scenes? Sure there is blood and some gore, but a little more drama from the victims would have been nice. All in all, I found this movie to be quite bad. Robert Englund is a great actor, and unfortunately chose a bad scripted movie to take part in.


Very predictable, but entertaining. Dr. Van Tasset(Barry Livingston)is an American expert on chemical weapons, who is kidnapped following a military coup in Iran. An elite squad of the Navy Seals called the "Steel Sharks" are assigned to rescue him. The "Sharks" are led by Lt. Zambroski(David Roberson)and last minute new member Bob Rogers(Billy Warlock), who has doubts of living up to the Seals standards. Capt. McKay(Gary Busey), commander of the submarine the USS Oakland, draws the assignment from Admiral Perry(Billy Dee Williams)to take the "Sharks" to Iran. Van Tasset is rescued, but along with the "Sharks" are captured and held prisoner on an Iranian submarine. Thus comes the expected underwater duel. Very few surprises. I still don't get the prudence of a gun battle on a submerged submarine. Also in the cast: Anthony Griffith, Tim Lounibos and Matthew R. Anderson. I have always been a sucker for submarine flicks.


Full of flaws, stiff acting, bad effects, bad plot and very silly stereotypes of non-american soldiers. This is a bad movie but somewhat exciting a second or two with Gary Busey, excellent as always, in one role but this does not save this silly movie. Not even watchable for a laugh. Not recommended; 3/10.


i'll be honest i only picked this up 'cause Busey was in it...usually like his roles, but i don't think I've ever seen an actor wing it in like Gary did here. Every single scene he's in he stands emotionless reading off his lines, an easy pay-day for Gary is suppose but sheer torture for his fans.

this film is basically a crap submarine rescue film, nothing interesting happens, the action is tame, the story is child like, the acting unspectacular.

avoid this forever, even if your a Gary Busey fan please do not watch this.

why do they bother?


I had the displeasure of attending the NCSU premiere of this two hour ego-stroke of a film. Brandon Tweed has zero artistic ability, and fails miserably as a director and a writer. Rather than attempt something unique, Tweed instead opts to rip off numerous cinematic devices (most notably, from Requiem for a Dream) and attempts to string together four poorly-written stories into the longest two hours in movie history.

As noted earlier, Tweed attempts to make use of every "neat" shot in Requiem for a Dream, and misses the mark completely, his reasoning being that such shots will add "depth" and "meaning" to the picture, when instead they come off as merely baffling. Take for example, the first scene in the movie: a young man eats a bowl of cereal, and his actions are shot in the same manner as the cocaine/heroin usage scenes in Requiem for a Dream; i.e., as a series of quick, disconnected shots. This adds absolutely nothing to the movie. After all, this is merely a young man eating a bowl of cereal (this scene also goes on for far too long, I should add).

There were also numerous technical flaws with the film. The audio levels varied wildly (in one scene where a telephone is ringing, the sound effect is almost deafening, yet the music was almost inaudible throughout the movie). The audio also sounded heavily quantized. In addition, there are numerous scenes where interlacing artifacts are clearly visible, and so on. Tweed maintains that all of this was "intentional", as if such amateur technical errors in some way contribute to his "masterpiece".

Movies like Matchbook Morning reaffirm my belief that the sale of camcorders to college students should be banned. Avoid at all costs.


To begin, and to be brutally honest, this film is absolutely terrible. Even for a movie made by college kids, with limited time, budget, equipment and resources, this is still an absolutely horrible film. I am sad to say that while I was in college, I helped work on this film and am therefore privy to certain inside information. Basically, if we judge this movie as an independent film made by students we can forgive certain flaws, but only to a point. Ignoring other flaws, this movie completely fails at the basic level of any movie, and by that I mean the story.

The story for this film is awful. In a nutshell it chronicles the four separate problems of angst filled 20 something's in four separate stories, and then tries to connect the stories together with a confusing, pretentious and pseudo-intellectual metaphor of an author writing a book. Besides the fact that this plot format has been done to death and is already cliché, each story itself is a teenie bopper cliché. These include teen pregnancy, over coming a failed dream, suicide and depression and finally an unachievable love. In each story there is no real character or story development, no dramatic buildup, no real climax and finally no resolution. Not to mention the pacing is agonizingly slow and the dialogue is terrible and each story is just plain boring. Basically this movie offers nothing new or insightful nor does it even portray old ideas in an entertaining or original manner.

It was my idea during the initial pre-production of this film to focus one on interesting developed story rather than four under developed ones, but as the original idea of a group project was hijacked by three egomaniacs, group input ceased. Also, Tweed the director was completely unresponsive and outright hostile to any real criticism or suggestions. So, what we are left with is the failed project of three egomaniacs instead of the group project that was originally intended. Which is sad, because the group had many good ideas as well as talent, but went unused. Also, as a director, Tweed fails terribly. His pacing and scene times are awful, he rips off tricks from movies such as "Requiem For A Dream" and when he isn't stealing ideas from other movies his camera work is boring. He also would not allow the films talented composer Calhoun the appropriate time to score the film properly, so what we are left with once again is the wasted talent of the composer.

How this movie even won an award at a film festival is beyond me, but I suppose that some artsy fartsy Indy movie people eat up this kind of junk. But even on an Indy level this movie fails. It is not high art or even artistic, it is not poetic, it is not intelligent, it is not new, it is not edgy and it is not cutting edge in any way. To sum it up, this movie is cliché, dull and pretentious because it thinks it is everything that it really isn't. This movie is a complete waste of time.