I went to see this movie prompted by critics that placed it up there in the pantheon of masterpieces. Never was I let down this much before! Apart from the on going dialogues that may or may not be profound or interesting, the art of cinema is not really present. I believe good cinema is what makes you want to see a movie again and again even if you do not follow the story/stories. "Breathless" is such a movie. This one isn't. When characters seem far more intelligent than those behind the camera we have a failure. It is as if they have escaped the movie-making process and every directors attempt to control his material seems futile.


A hilarious skewering of pompous French intellectuals. Godard does a masterful job of presenting this satire without even the slightest wink. The (several) scenes of the tortured artist leafing through a book of empty pages was a laugh riot! I can't wait for the American version!


I couldn't make it through the whole thing. It just wasn't worth my time. Maybe one-fourth of the dialogue would have been worth listening to (or reading -- since I don't understand French) if the pseudo-profundity and pseudo-wittiness of the other three-fourths of the film were deleted. Then it could be made into a short maybe 13 or 15 min long and then it might be all right.

I don't know why this movie even pretends to utilize actors. Actors are used as narrators of the script and little more. I could swear a whole 20-30 minutes of the film went by showing actors from behind while they talked and from across the street while they walked or sitting in low lighting close up but so that you could not see the expressions on their faces nor their eyes. There was little or no interaction between the actors on the screen except the most superficial for the most part.

Some of the lines were as profound (or lame, depending on your viewpoint) as those in Forest "Life is like a box of chocolates" Gump. Other pseudo-profundities were simply sad or dumb or poetic (depending again on your viewpoint), but singularly uninspiring.

Visually this film is INCREDIBLY boring, especially with the lack of actors. In fact some minutes of this film showed simply a black screen with the white subtitles and French audio. Altogether sophomoric. Don't waste your time.

If you like GOOD movies that are stimulating and profound just from listening to conversation while enjoying good actors, check out RICHARD LINKLATER's "Before Sunset" -- or make a double feature of it and watch "Before Sunrise" first. At least these films are interesting and enjoyable, which is much more than I can say about IN PRAISE OF LOVE (Éloge de l'amour). I give this film 2 out of 10 stars. Not quite offensive enough to rate 1 for "awful" (such as "The Devils" with Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave). If you still want to watch it, go ahead. But don't say I didn't warn you!!!


This film has almost no merit. It is the pseudo-intellectual, senile gibberish of an impotent, burnt-out one-time maybe genius. What some reviewers view as highbrow filmmaking is nothing but a compilation of name dropping (Hannah Ahrendt, Simon Weil, Iris Berry, - if you don't know who they were, so much the better, if you do, you ought to be verly impressed), vicious anti-American tirades so fashionable these days among the French ("Americans have no past, therefore they borrow others' history") semi-allusions to historical figures and events. The story (?) itself is incoherent and incomprehensible, the characters repulsive, full of bellyaching, Weltschmerz, negativity, lack of irony or humor. The only good thing is the stunning black and white photography of the first part of the film.


****possible spoiler***** It's a real challenge to make a movie about a mother and daughter both equally quasi-demented, deluded, and self-absorbed that holds our interest and makes us care about them. And this flick doesn't meet the challenge. I remember a critic saying once that the truest test of film-making is to make us care about the characters. After watching the insufferable antics of these two highly unlikable women for about forty-five minutes I reached the "why do I care" stage. I was strongly tempted to press the "stop", button, something I have done for a very limited list of truly awful movies, but by then the "train wreck" syndrome had set in; i.e. you know, it's a horrible situation but still you can't take your eyes away and you want to see how bad the damage is. I have not seen the original "Grey Gardens" documentary done by the Maysles brothers, but it is difficult to avoid thinking of them as two vultures, for salaciously poking into the lives of two women who, like so many others with less famous connections, have fallen into decrepitude, squalor and semi-insanity. If these women had not been related to Jacqueline Kennedy, would the original documentary have been made? But I digress. I did watch all the way to the end and the final "reconciliation" scene was to me neither moving nor convincing. Fuggedaboutit.


Drew Barrymore & Jessica Lange, two of our better actresses portray two exceedingly selfish, spoiled rich women who through their own stupidity fall on very bad times.

If the mother & daughter they portray were not related to Jacqueline Kennedy-Onasis, we probably would probably never have heard of them.

There was a documentary made about these two in 1976,which was popular.

Why I do not know, except that if I had seen it I would not have seen this very long 104 minute bore from HBO.

It won a few Emmy's this year, Ken Howard & Jeane Tripplehorn won for playing the husband & father to the 2 women. Jeanne won for playing Jackie Kennedy-Onasis. Again why I do not know.

Both Jessica & Drew play such unlikeable women,why would any one even care what happened to them. Daniel Baldwin plays the lover of Drew.

This is a well made film that to me became a big bore, because the 2 main characters were such hateful selfish nasties,I could not care for any of the film.

The only decent guys in the movie were the 2 sons & brothers of Big & 'Lil Edie. & they disappear after there scene..

HBO missed on this.I just cant figure why this has such a high rating on IMDb

Ratings: *1/2* (out of 4); 42 points (out of 100) IMDb 3 (out of 10)


I feel a sense of betrayal on behalf of the characters depicted in this movie.

I can say Lange did a good job portraying the younger Edith. Lange's portrayal of older Edith, documentary remake, was absolutely terrible with the exception of the "Tea for Two" scene. The real Edith, from the original documentary, maintained unique characteristics that were completely foreign and unreal to me. There was a sense of improvised and on the spot personality to the real Edith I saw in the original documentary that was not captured in this "reinterpretation." Barrymore fared much better than Lange in both the documentary imitation and earlier years. Although Edie's encounter with Jackie O was absolutely appalling, disrespectful and unnecessary...not to mention untrue.

All Baldwins act the same all the time in anything they're ever in, gross.

The documentary portions of this movie that were remade to model the original should have been exactly as they were in the original or completely different. Instead, they took specific scenes, swapped specific words, combined words and made it seem so scripted and dramatic! The Beales are beautiful in the sense of honesty and thinking in the moment, with reasoning behind anything and everything that is done. The movie took this admirable authenticity from the characters into a fantastical over-the-top melodramatic drama that should never have happened.

A reissue of the documentary would have been much better than this glossy fantasy that never happened

P.S. The word above with spaces between each letter avant-g a r d e is not accepted by IMDb.


Long-time fans of the original GREY GARDENS documentary were probably pleased that this "movie" treatment of the subject would fill in some gaps in the back story of these two unique denizens of Eastern society -- "How did they get to this?" is the question that always comes to mind when watching the Maysles Brothers' astonishing 1975 chronicle. But I doubt that anyone was expecting a movie that spends close to 70% of its running time wallowing in the most boring fictionalized melodrama seen outside of network television in years and which relegates the fading divas of the dilapidated, Gothic ruin we so knew and loved (or hated, as the case may be) to an afterthought. This is the kind of TV movie one would expect to be assigned to the likes of Melissa Joan Hart and Loni Anderson (or, perhaps, Delta Burke!). And maybe the likes of them could have turned this into a fun wallow for 90 minutes or so, upping the camp value considerably.

The two lead actresses, of course, are the draw for everyone who watches this movie -- and they are each, to different degrees, disappointing. Collectively, though, they're a disaster. Jessica Lange comes closest, as Big Edie, to a convincing portrayal, since she builds her character from the inside out and doesn't depend on impersonation, but still falls short because she holds back (as has always been her habit as an actress), especially in the later scenes. "Less is more" is an invaluable guideline for actors, but sometimes you just have go a little bit more over the top, even toward the grotesque, when it depicts a character more accurately. Drew Barrymore, on the other hand, depends on constructing Little Edie from the outside in, and obviously didn't get to spend enough time in that skin to ever own it. You get to see the gears moving constantly -- Accent! Accent! Accent! -- but you never get to see the force of nature that was the real Little Edie. The biggest problem, of course, is that these two opposite approaches clash in every scene they're in together and the two stars don't appear to be acting in the same movie.

The depiction of Al and David Maysles as cardboard cutouts was just appalling, too. That two such walking pieces of cellophane could have come up with a documentary that was so full of passion and truth is incomprehensible.

It was fascinating to watch the "Making of" featurette that is included on the DVD release, which repeatedly alternates between scenes from the original documentary and scenes from the HBO movie. There were several times when I got lost as to whether I was looking at Jessica Lange or the real Big Edie -- the *demeanour*, especially when she was languishing in bed, was so similar. The same thing never happened with Barrymore and Little Edie. Whenever the real Little Edie appears on screen the energy level shoots up 10-fold. Her cat-like nervous attention, the intense gaze in her beady little eyes, those Kamikaze lurches at the camera -- none of those things were present in Barrymore's performance.

I gave the film a rating of three here, just to acknowledge the excellent production values -- the costumes, especially, were spectacular (and unusually accurate in the '40s and '50s scenes). But I'll watch the real Beales of East Hampton a dozen times again before I sit through this travesty a second time.


My high expectations and enthusiasm for this movie eroded just like the lifestyle of Big and Little Edie......

To begin on a positive note, Kalina Ivanov and her production team deserve all the awards and accolades they can get. The attention to detail, the resurrection of pre-squalor Grey Gardens and period settings is amazing. Kudos to the beautiful costume design too.

From there, it's all downhill. Drew Barrymore is embarrassingly bad. Every line she spoke came across as if she had rehearsed it a few hundred times. It removes her spiritually from each scene. She never quite nails the accent, which becomes almost unbearable. There are a few moments where Little Edie comes through, but it's not enough to keep Drew above water. I wish another actress on par with Jessica Lange could have tackled the role. Alas.

Jessica Lange was fine as Big Edie. No one else could have done it better, but she too came across as over-rehearsed and sing-song. There are no excuses for her terrible singing.

The direction and soundtrack were very "made for TV movie."

It's like that disaster of a movie Titanic. It's bad, it could have been so much better, but it's never going to be re-made again. Too bad.

Stick with, and cherish, the Maysles documentaries.

I may watch this again to soften my stance, perhaps. I'm not going to make it a priority.


I admire the acting skills of Drew Barrymore and Jessica Lange, but I was disappointed by the uninteresting story, which I'd sum up as "Pampered socialite mother and daughter see themselves as victims of the Depression and are too passive to take care of themselves. Lacking servants, they are forced to become self-pitying, smelly cat ladies with an appetite for publicity." I wonder if this film would ever have been made if they had not been related to Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy.

The Edie's are boring characters with no gumption or insight or curiosity. Even great actors cannot make them interesting, only pitiable. It might have been a dramatic story if they had made an effort to clean up their own squalor or, (horror of horrors!) get jobs like ordinary people and create a new life, instead of waiting to be rescued.

The music, costumes and sets were great.


What a shame to see two fantastic artists disgraced by their (note to previous commenter: their is possessive; there is a location)participation in this depressingly foul diatribe. What a shame that the last 2 hours can never be regained.

Some will say that I hate this because it's a "Chick Flick" but I disagree. Only the truly lowest common denominator of women and men will voice their support of this depiction of demented female depravity wallowing in their overabundance of wealth. Why do they call it eccentricity with the wealthy and crazy with the poor? The wealthy have the money to put a different spin on their foolish behavior.

Please, someone remind me that Jessica Lange was sexy in King Kong!!


While the Iraq War certainly deserves its fair share of scrutiny, and history will surely paint a less than stellar picture of the politics behind the war and those leaders, Republican and Democrat, who led the United States into that war, those who served in it deserve at least the smallest measure of dignity in their portrayal. And filmmakers attempting to portray them owe them a small amount of integrity in their work.

Nick Broomfield's film has no such integrity. It misrepresents, lies, and sensationalizes at every turn, creating wholly unrealistic situations, and even making bald faced lies about Marine Corps policies, as well as tactics techniques and procedures (TTPs). The film claims to have used veterans of the United States military, however any of the "actors" used in this film who are prior service should be ashamed for participating.

It is the Iraq War critic's dream film: where every preconceived notion of what is wrong with the American occupation is true, every injustice levied against our troops by their own government is true, and every hyper-violent, baby killer, traumatized stereotype of the American fighting man is also true. The film describes an endless series of falsehoods before it even reaches the half way point in its run time. A Marine is told he cannot visit a doctor until after he goes home, and then only on his leave. This has never, ever been true. And while there is often peer pressure or doctrinal conditioning, and even sometimes situational factors that prevents Marines from seeking immediate mental help, none would ever be outright denied that help, let alone told that he could not receive it in theater. The film also shows a man clown up by a UAV for simply walking down the street with a shovel. This is also patently against US Rules of Engagement, and would never happen. Broomfield even chooses to sensationalize it more by showing moments before that the man had the shovel to plant a tree at a celebratory party, making the scene all the more despicable to include in the film. Marines are shown threatening prisoners by claiming to hold their families hostage.

If there is even the possibility that the events of November 19th 2005 were an atrocity, it can be said with certainty that this film is one. In his rush to capitalize on, and sensationalize, Nick Broomfield abandoned any pretext of credibility, and any sense of integrity. This film is disgusting. Whether you believe the war in Iraq was merely misguided, or you believe it was an outright lie and detestable, this film serves no purpose as a piece of war criticism. One does not have to lie to shown wrong in war. And Nick Broomfield is a liar. He's lucky that he cannot be sued for libel and slander by the Marine Corps. To refer to his film as a docudrama is a sick joke. There is no "docu" present here at all.

A note to filmmakers: Please, by all means explore criticism of the war in Iraq. It is important for future generations that Americans no longer blindly support military action and not get caught up in surges of war hysteria and revenge driven blood lust. But when you do it, do it honestly, or it makes you even bigger liars than those you seek to condemn.


As a former Marine I am deeply offended by this movie. It is nothing but an Anti-American, Anti-Military movie. This movie tries to portray itself as a factually based movie based on actual facts. It is not. Instead it is based completely on lies. All of the Marines have been acquitted of all charges. This movie was designed to make the Marine Corps and the US look stupid. It makes the insurgents look good.

I have gladly deployed twice as an infantryman to Iraq. We have done many good things. I can honestly say that as this movie is completely wrong in how it portrays Marines. We don't talk like that, we don't act like that and we sure as hell don't go around shooting innocent civilians. The "Peace Loving" Sunni insurgents on the other hand have slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians in the name of Allah. If this was a fair movie it would be 99 minutes of Insurgents killing innocent civilians and 1 minute of us killing insurgents with some innocent civilians getting accidentally killed because the cowards hide behind women and children and use them as shields.

This movie is a disgrace. If any of you believe that this is a portrayal of what actually happens you are either foolish or so biased that nothing will change your mind. This movie isn't anything like what happens over there. Insurgents are less than human. They are barbarians while American Soldiers are some of the most honorable people in the world.


I put watching this movie off for so long because I basically knew I was going to have mixed feelings about it. This movie means a little more to me (and my family) than most people seeing I am a sibling of someone depicted in the movie. Granted this was just a movie and everyone is entitled to their opinion...it just upset me to see how my sibling was depicted in the film. From knowing my sibling, the director wasn't even close. Pretty sure he would feel the same way if someone depicted one of his family members incorrectly just to make a buck.

I find exploiting horrible events to make money disturbing and disgusting. Movie says (synopsis of movie on back of the DVD case) that it was told from different perspectives...I want to know where my sibling and his comrades perspectives were in this movie?! Sigh..some will do anything and everything to make a name for themselves.


This is the worst movie I've ever seen! I ve been reading these reviewers who are cediting this movie and none of them seem to be judging the movie itself. They're all giving their own assessment on how they feel about the incident.

This film has got nothing to do with a battle of any kind. It is a short story about two al qaeda cooperatives who plant a road side bomb, blow up one American jeep and kill one American! The Americans then take it upon themselves to kill four innocent by-standers who are in the wrong place at the wrong time while the two cooperatives responsible easily get away between two houses, shooting behind their backs as they run. The Marines then go on a rampage, killing the occupants of three houses; women and children, all unarmed of course. And thats it! There is no exchange of gunfire, there is no military strategy. It therefore cannot be considered to be a "Battle" and the title, no more than a marketing ploy.

The acting is bad, the directing is worse. The filmic conventions of this type of genre are completely ignored; using Blare Whitch stlye photography and relying on video diaries in a vain attempt to acquaint the audience with the characters. If anything this makes the film more unrealistic.

If you expect something on the lines "Black Hawk Down" then look the other way. There's not enough content in this story to produce something of the same calibre even if the director and writer knew what they were doing and this wasn't a low budget production (which it clearly is).


In this review I will attempt to keep my personal political views out of it as much as possible. It's obvious to anyone who knows about the film that it is heavily political and expresses a strong anti-war and anti-US sentiment. Although this sort of thing is nothing new as films like Platoon and Casualties of War have expressed strong political sentiments about another unpopular war  especially anti-American sentiments, the subject matter of this film sets it apart from those and other war films as the events depicted are supposed to be based on real events that took place in Haditha one tragic day in November of 2005 where 15 non combatants were allegedly killed by Marines in retaliation for a marine being killed in a roadside bomb. In the media the event is called "the Haditha Killings" or the "the Haditha Massacre". Although made to look like a documentary the film is equal parts fact, rumor, speculation and outright fiction. The writer/director Nick Broomfield is famous for his documentaries such as "Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer" documenting the life, trial and execution of female serial killer Aileen Wuornos. I've always enjoyed Broomfield's documentaries and the way he breaths humanity into his larger-than-life subjects, especially "Aileen . . ." for its unflinching look at an obviously insane woman and the equally insane justice system that is about to execute her. But because of its documentary style, there is a certain amount of dishonesty in "The Battle for Haditha" that I find difficult to accept.

The film starts off with Marines driving around listening to heavy metal, and then goes into a sequence of 'interviews' in the style of Full Metal Jacket on what the soldiers think of the conflict. It is unanimous that the soldiers don't want to be there, and don't understand why they are fighting. Their training is portrayed as extremely brutal, and meant to encourage violence. "Kill kill kill!" is chanted many times. One soldier shows another soldier a war wound that he says could have gotten him discharged with 10% pay, but decided to remain in the service so that he could collect his full pay, even though he apparently hates the war and feels his country is neglecting him. I don't understand this logic; why would one risk their life for low pay in a conflict they didn't believe in for a country they resented, rather than simply take an out when it is offered and go get a job in the civilian world? Even a low paying job you don't like would be better than a low paying one that you don't like that is incredibly dangerous.

The most interesting part of the film is the portrayal of the Iraqis. While the Marines are demonized, and so to are the "foreign Al-Qaeda fighters", the Iraqis on the other hand are played as innocent victims. We're introduced to a young Iraqi insurgent who by day runs a video store that sells DVDs to US soldiers while leading a double life where together with his uncle (a disgruntled former Iraqi soldier) he smuggles weapons and plants roadside bombs. The uncle is "pissed off" by checkpoints, war and the damaged infrastructure of Haditha left by the 2003 invasion. Most of all though he seems angry that when the US disbanded the Iraqi army all he was given was fifty US dollars for his years of service. And so instead he decides to work for another group of foreigners who'll pay him one thousand dollars every time he successfully blows up an American vehicle with a primitive IED. The other characters we're introduced to are a young couple and their child who are on neither side, and are simply trying to live their lives as best they can in the midst of war and chaos. They see the insurgents planting a bomb, but instead of warning the Americans, they tell their Sheik, who tells them to pray. They are afraid that if they tell the Americans what the insurgents are planning that they will be targeted and executed by the insurgents.

Ultimately the morality of this film portrays the Americans not only as 'shoot first, ask questions later' types but also as plain bloodthirsty. They march and chant "kill kill kill" they sit in their bunks plotting vengeance, they're rude to the Iraqis whose country they have invaded, they don't understand or care about the cause they are fighting for and they blare heavy metal music everywhere they go. In reality American patrols spend far more time handing out food, water, medical supplies and gifts to the Iraqis than they do shooting at anyone. I'm not saying there aren't tragedies happening, and that there aren't soldiers getting out of line, but these are the exceptions. This film tries to portray the exceptions as the rule while ignoring the fact that insurgents routinely and as a matter of policy target civilians in market places and funeral processions. The worst part of this film though is that the tragedy that took place in Haditha is still under investigation, it is only a few years since blood was spilled there. This film presents an explanation and a verdict before the smoke has even cleared, and it stirs up sentiment that will not help end the conflict in Iraq. Even if there is a full US withdrawal from Iraq, the insurgents will still be there. If the US leaves Iraq in the state it is in right now, would the Iraqi people be better off living under a group that routinely slaughters innocent men, women and children as a matter of policy? Not dealing with these kinds of questions is an injustice to everyone involved in the Iraqi conflict. It is compounded by the fact that it is shot in a documentary style in an attempt to present itself as the truth when it is simply, like any other dramatic film: just one point of view.


The fact that the maker of this film is used to making documentaries should have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this particular film. As many other comments show, there are a ton of errors. In my opinion, the largest is calling this a "docudrama" because it is patently NOT true in almost every aspect. The Marines that this film pretends to portray were acquitted of all charges, but the film doesn't take this into account as it was produced prior to the situation being resolved. It totally ignores this fact and portrays the Marines as sloppy, paranoid hotheads with no organization or training. The Marines should be able to sue this film for slander. It would be one thing if this film were advertised as COMPLETE fiction, but they sell you a bill of goods when they make the claim that it is "based on actual events". The only "actual events" it is based on is the fact that a war is going on in Iraq and that there is actually a town named Haditha. Beyond that, it is reaching. This is the first film I have ever felt the need to comment on and I am doing so because I was completely offended by the portrayal of the Marines and I want prospective viewers to be aware. I also don't believe anyone involved with this film should make another dime from slandering our service men in this way. To profit from that is completely reprehensible. I have never had the privilege of serving but I know men who have served and men who still do and I pray they never have to bear witness to a movie such as this. These men do an honorable job and to portray them in this light is simply pissing on the freedom that they purchase for us with their blood. To leave any audience with the impression that this chain of events was not only possible but did happen is most irresponsible. I have never seen this man's documentaries and never will. If he is willing to not tell the whole story in this account while claiming it is based on actual events, then I can not trust him to tell the truth in his documentaries. Beyond that, I don't think it's artistic to make a fictional film in this shaky documentary style. Some call it "raw". I call it unfinished and shoddily put together. The production of this film could have been handled with a hand-held video camera and entry level editing software. Apparently he put just as little time into production as he put into researching the facts. This film goes to show that in film making, you really can get away with anything.


This movie was sh1t. Like most of the crap we see about the war, it's very one sided. Based on facts? Not unless these facts have been proved. You could say that men in black was based on a true story. Doesn't make it true. I seriously doubt this is an accurate plot. Marines are some of the most law abiding people I know. The acting was a little dry from the commanders. I don't mind that though. All these guys would just go on a rampage enacting genocide? No I don't think so. I gave it 3 points only because it looked good. I also liked how the movie made the marines have a prayer after the insane slaughter of civilians who clearly had no weapons. No one even twitched, or thought twice about it rofl. This guy makes Micheal Moore look good. If thats even possible. The brits here have had it so one sided and spewed down their throats by so many "documentaries" rofl that don't even try to keep a non-bias, it's no wonder some of the other reviews here think of this movie as non-bias. Very laughable. You have seen one too many Vietnam movies.


The film is speculation treated as fact.

While horrible things happened and continue to, to lead the viewer to believe this is exactly what happened is simply dishonest.

Where was the criticism of the residents?

After viewing the film it is obvious the films creator is against the US rebuilding Iraq, and has offered this film to help inflame the situation and promote further bloodshed.

A true documentary would have at least had real people from all sides putting their story forward without leading the viewer to the directors point of view only. As it stands we are left not knowing anything about what may have happened, and belittles the fact that people were killed.


Look I don't wanna say much about this movie..... Its great,Bachchan is superb....But it is a complete ripoff of Brian De Palma's Scarface....Just check out both and then tell me of there's difference.. A group of bandits are in a village.They kill Bachchcan's father and almost rape his mother. Swearin revenge he starts assassinating the bandits which his mother disapproves. Meanwhile he begins a relationship with a nurse and his sister with Bachchan's bodyguard... I know it doesn't sound same but first see Scarface and tell me if there is a difference.. But its a great movie and Bachchan's performance is awesome.


Well what can I say except dreadful. Having been a Bottom fan and Young Ones nut I have to say this is awful. If your expecting laughs a minute like the tv show you sadly wont find it here unlike it's first live installment which remains the best.

I'd also like to give some credit to the original tv show director Ed Bye, who was not involved here, that his direction with Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson was perhaps the key to the success of the series as with The Young Ones, Red Dwarf etc.

As for an arse odditty - it's a wonder the audience never got off them and demanded they're money back.

I cringed the whole way through the old jokes feeling sorry for the talented two.

2/10


I doubt this is on the air in America now (2008), but Star World network is touting this as a new show in their "family friendly" lineup. It goes way overboard to make every character have a serious hang up about something, and of course there is Jane Curtain's mental illness, oh thats always a great subject to laugh about! They all get together working in a restaurant and there is a lot of awkward moments, in fact the whole show is more soap opera with a load laugh track added to make you think it's funny, but it's just one awkward moment after another with a mentally ill woman thrown in for the gut buster (not!). There was a reason it only aired for 5 episodes, LOL. That may be the best joke this show provided! 4 stars because its in color I guess, I actually would rather a lame show like friends over this and I always turn the channel when Friends comes on, so there ya go.


Once again, here an Australian film that is let down utterly by its mediocre screenplay. Why isn't there more funding pumped into developing screenplays in this country? Several more drafts and this script may have turned out okay. As it is, the characters are one-dimensional and under-developed, as is the plot.

Unfortunately, I felt the casting was also pretty misguided in The Jammed. Accents were poor and, as a result, it was difficult to suspend disbelief enough to accept the actors as their characters. The actors did a fair job with the material they were given; it wasn't their fault that they were miscast.

Really, responsibility all boils down to the writer-director-producer. (Yet again, writer-director -- when are we going to see specialist screenwriters supported in Australia?) Four stars for effort, but it's a pity that more time wasn't spent tightening up the story before production got underway.


I don't know why this film picks up 2 these 2 Asian actresses to play the most important roles? because they are Asian looking? Because of low budget? Or may be the producer doesn't care what a real Chinese looks like.

Frankly, i don't finish this movie. but If there is something positive to say, it's the Veronica Sywak. She looks very pretty, and did a good job in the movie.

Well, this film is made for people, who cannot distinguish Asian countries. I suggest the people who interest in the topic - human traffic, to see the film Trade.


Saw the film tonight ans honestly cannot see what all the hype is about. It is not badly made, although it is very cheaply made, but it was just trying too hard to be something it wasn't.

I feel casting was what let this film down the most, the main character was utterly unconvincing as an immigrant with her forever changing accent. And the criminals in the film were such your typical stereotypes, no originality whatsoever.

Also, the locations used were far too overused, it was plainly obvious that they were just driving around the streets of Richmond and St Kilda as the same landmarks kept popping up.

This film is much better suited to network television as a miniseries.


OK. Let's start this by saying that I am from Belfast and although I haven't ever lived in a nationalist "district" like the one this film tries to portray I am fairly aware of what happens in parts of Belfast. With that out of the way - the acting isn't that bad, Daniel Day-Lewis is pretty good as is Emily Watson except for the occasional dodgy accent the rest get through unscathed. It's not the "Irish Rocky" - despite sporting some very striking similarities in the plot, Danny never really fills you with much confidence. But the most offensive thing is the patronising tone of the film. Perhaps I have been put off by the skyline shots of another town that quite obviously isn't Belfast and the look of a film that could have been shot in 1987 not 1997 but the politics was patronising - a boxing match could bring together 2 communities that have been locked in hatred for 30 years? Substituting one sort of violence for another, albeit a much less nasty violence, is the kind of logic that causes these unending wars. Give me a break Sheridan. He also wrote last year's corny Irish-American flick "In America". The picture is fairly dark and bleak, this can be the case for people living in fear, but this film skirted round the true issues that confine them there.


I didn't have much time for jim sheridan before i saw this movie, after seeing it i had none. This movie is pitiful. The script, direction and acting are simply woefull, it has a perspective of irish politics as viewed from a subway tunnel. it's an absolute howler of a movie with a rather nasty plot straight out of the joesph goebbels school of poltical dishonesty.

It's insidious, deceitful and downright dishonest. this movie is an insult to people in belfast and derry. I'd never thought particularly highly of jim sheridan before seeing this but after seeing it i thought even less.


After accomplishing masterpieces with "My Left Foot" and "In the Name of the Father", Jim Sheridan totally went in the wrong direction with "The Boxer". I don't think that the issue should be whether one views the IRA positively or negatively (this movie treats them pretty mercilessly). The issue is that, contrary to what this movie portrays, the Irish and English can't agree on things through boxing matches. And they really could have done without all the love stuff.

In conclusion, Sheridan, Daniel Day-Lewis and Emily Watson have all done much better than this. I don't know why they felt that they had to do this movie.


SPOILER ALERT! A not too bad blaxploitation film with a "happy ending." A reformed prostitute (Diana Sands) attempts to bring a fairly inept pimp down while the cops are on him like glue. Roscoe Orman plays the title role, a pimp who's seen better days, and he's woefully upstaged by his ridiculous outfits. It's all fast paced, sometimes stupid, even a bit campy but also fairly entertaining. Sands brings a lot of class to the film and Thalmus Rasulala is in it too. The faux-funk music is by JJ Johnson, who also contributed to CLEOPATRA JONES & THE FUZZ BROTHERS. Produced, inexplicably, by Zanuck/Brown (a year before they hit pay dirt with JAWS).


I've been a movie lover all of my life (which means almost sixty years of loving movies); saying that, I'm also one who tries to find something good to say about nearly every movie I've seen. I even defended such turkeys as "Ishtar" and "Mom and Dad Save the Universe." Sorry. No can do, this time around. "Magorium" was such a total disappointment, I hardly know where to begin. So instead, let me point out my disappointment by asking a few questions. Just who the heck IS Magorium? We learn almost nothing about him, most importantly, we get no back story as to his connection to the toy shop (most importantly, WHY a toy store.) Same with Natalie Portman's character. How did she get the job at the Emporium? Clearly she loves the shop and it loves her, so why does she suddenly find it so difficult to take over? Moreover, what is Bateman's character all about, and why did NOTHING happen in developing his relationship with Portman? So many more questions --- so little time. You get my drift. Dustin Hoffman is one of the great actors of our time. What a waste. Portman is more than competent, and there were brief flashes of character development. But a few flashes weren't enough. Jason Bateman had so much potential that the script clear didn't cash in on. Okay. Sorry about the rant. I'm so deeply disappointed. I gave up going to see "Fred Claus" for this? Especially giving that the movie just stopped. No wrap-up. No ending. It just stopped!!! Wha?


99 words or less:

Well-intentioned, but the writer/director Zach Helm has no faith in the audience, nor in film as a visual medium. There is no wonder here, only great swells of music where it says in the script. What little he has to say is spoon fed to you by the dialog and the voice-overs. Colorful SFX can't compensate for the walking clichés that replace real characters: Magical Guy. Blocked Artist. Lonely Child. Boring Accountant. Yeah, it's a Kid's Movie. Cap'n Krunch is Kid's Cereal. Does that make it good?

I feel better now.


This movie is really poor in script, bringing an ancient-over-used formula. Maybe the scene or the actors could save it, but, in fact, it reduced all the crew to a poor B-movie. I'm very sad, because this movie took my money, my time and got me in trouble with my family. I feel like a real dumb. I really like Natalie Portman's work, but in this movie she laugh like an idiot and act like a starter. I really don't get why she submit herself at a movie like that. Dustin is, as always an excellent actor, but c'mon, he didn't need a tittle like this one. The only exception of the crew was the boy, Zach Mills, he really put some color in the picture. My little daughter, 5 years, begun to kick the chair in front of us with 15 minutes from the start and my older, 9 years, got sickness in the middle. Don't watch it... Waste of time, money and others.


Pretty bad movie. Lots of hype, no substance. Have to say this is one of the worse yet this year. My 8 and 3 year old never got interested in it at all and they love most all movies. Sad. Feel ripped off and wish I could get money back. Oh well, live and learn. The plot is all over the place. Tries to make some sort of connection between man and girl and it fails. I still don't know what the plot was about actually. Was it about the store being magic? The girl being the reason for magic? The mutant being the helper. I just don't get it. They called an accountant a mutant all through the movie and he seemed to not care being called a name of hate. I just have nothing good to say about this. And I usually can say something good about all movies.


What a great concept, a magical toy store. Couple that with an excellent performance by Dustin Hoffman. Unfortunately the positives stop there.

This film was horrible written. Conflicts are introduced, plod along and then are never resolved. I'm not talking about leaving something hanging to open the door for a sequel. Several plot lines were just dropped cold. It's as if the writer saw the stacks of pages and said "Wow, I've to wrap this up now".

The magical toy shop has so much potential but never shines. It could be a character in the story but is just an extra in the background.

Portman's character is supposed to conflicted, even coming-of-age but just comes off as whiny. Her worst performance to date.

Bateman's character adds little to the story yet receives major screen time. Just as he's being framed as the man who learns to play again, the film ends, unresolved. Did the character learn anything? Has he changed? Or is he just humoring Mills's character? Who knows? And no, this isn't a film where conclusions are left to the audience. It's a bridge built 3/4 across a river than just stops. My nomination for this year's Razzie.


One star? Awful? Yes. Please, don't get me wrong, as I am a huge fan of Dustin, Natalie and Jason. But there is nothing these talented actor's could have done to make this mess something watchable. Oh, I know..you think I don't get it. Believe me, I get it..this is film for kids, you will say. Wrong! My 8 and 10 year old kids were BORED stiff..quickly. I was mortified, and I was not expecting Rainman or Willy Wonka.

Believe me, I know what whimsical, magical, wonder-mental is. This film is just plain..mental. And you and your kids would have to be that way to enjoy this. This movie would have been good for a Thankgiving or Holiday movie, gone straight to video or even TBS. But no, you have to pay dearly to take three people to see this one.

Okay, here is the nicest thing I can say about this movie: Forget it!


What? I watched this movie with my two young nephews (8 and 11 years old) and it very nearly put all of us to sleep on a Friday night before the sun went down (8pm). In fact, it put them to bed (they're asleep at 8:10 while I am babysitting with them at my place) - I guess that's "one" GOOD thing that came from this movie; it'll knock the kids out fast. This movie was a real bomb (by bomb I mean the original use of the word). We didn't get it at all. The two boys hung in there during the movie; patiently (although there was A LOT of sighing) and I kept thinking...something good Has GOT to happen because Dustin, Natalie & Jason would never haven taken a movie with such a dead beat theme and ending. None of the characters that were introduced were developed very far at all. I am still scratching my head...


Welcome to Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, the strangest, most fantastic, most wonderful toy store in the world. It's a tantalizing toy haven in which everything inside literally comes to life ? including the store itself ? and where marvels of every imaginable, possible kind, and beyond, never cease... that is, until now.

When Mr. Magorium (Dustin Hoffman), the store's extraordinary 243 year-old proprietor, announces that he will at long last hand over the reigns of his wonder-expanding store to his unconfident young manager, Molly Mahoney (Natalie Portman), the store decides to throw an unusual tantrum. As a skeptical accountant named Henry (Jason Bateman) comes in to audit the Legos® and Lincoln Logs®, not to mention the Whodathoughts and Whatchamacallits, the once sparkling, color-saturated Emporium is suddenly embattled by mysterious changes. The playful toys are all still there, but they've turned gray and quiet ? and only Mahoney and Henry can revive them if, with the help of a superdexterous 9 year-old (Zach Mills), they can find the source of magic inside themselves. Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium 2/10


This movie became a cult classic in Norway, described as one of the worst Norwegian movies ever made, so when I took the courage to watch it, my expectations where already very low. But even so, after I managed to get trough the whole movie I couldn't help but wonder how the actors willingly would humiliate themselves like this? It's not just the thing that it's really boring, and without a story, but it seems like they have tried to compensate with as much kinky sex as possible. This one sex scene lasted for about 7 minutes, no music, nothing but humping. Right... Acward... Fast Forward and... Urinating! Nice... Well if you are into that sort of thing, this movie still wouldn't be anything for you. Even porn have better storyline than this.

A solid 1, and come on, don't vote this 10 because both you and I know it's not worth it. The only place this film belongs is in the trash, or on IMDb's bottom 100 list.


Fortunately I bought a ticket for this film when it showed in 1988, without knowing anything about it. I say fortunately because otherwise I would have had another film on my "worst film ever list". This however beats them all. I remember people leaving continuously during the showing, my friend and I staying on just to see if it could get any worse - which it did. In the end there were 3 or 4 people left. Been a long time now - but if I remember correctly, Amanda asks, after having sliced of the cowboy's penis, "don't you think he wanted it this way?". You bet he did... Anything positive about this film? Amanda Ooms is pretty, that's about it.


This is truly one of the worst films ever attacking an innocent audience. So stupid you won't believe it. Avoid at all costs. It is useless to tell about all that is wrong with it. Bad directing, stupid script, lousy acting.... you name it.


This is a stylish Sherlock Holmes film with the best foggy-London atmosphere I've ever seen on film - just great photography with some wonderful, murky shots. I saw it on VHS and I wouldn't mind seeing it now that it is available on DVD. It has to look really good.

Unfortunately, the story doesn't match the cinematography. It just bogs down in too many spots. The script could have used some better editing. It's hard to watch for more than an hour without your mind wandering.

Christopher Plummer and James Mason make a good Holmes-Dr. Watson pair, respectively, with good chemistry. I could have done without all the religious exclamations spoken by Mason. A little too much credence is given the "medium" (Donald Sutherland) too, but filmmakers have always loved promoting the occult, especially in Britain, land of "Harry Potter." Sutherland's role was minor (but played up by critics, of course.) As another reviewer pointed out here, you'd never see a character like that show himself in a Conan Doyle piece of literature.

The ending is typical modern-day film-making in which the government is corrupt and the Free Masons are the bigoted villains. I'll stick with Basiil Rathbone versions of Sherlock Holmes where you don't have all the political agendas and they concentrated on just telling the crime story.


I adore Jeremy Brett. I love Basil Rathbone. I like a few of the honorable mentions, especially Rupert Everett. Christopher Plummer, not so much. What they probably told him was a sly grin looks like a smirk to me. And what is with the hair in this movie? The Plummer and Sutherland wigs must be the envy of Trump and Blagojevich, not to mention Gielgud's lower face. It's the small things that gnaw at your cuticles, but when I could tear myself away from the hair, I appreciated the set design, costuming and music. It was beautifully shot and had some refreshing non-Conan Doyle dialog: "You squashed my pea." And what a cast! By the way, the Clark commentary is good. In short, not a favorite movie but not a wasted two hours.


I am a big big fan of "Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain". In fact, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. A friend told me about Odette Toulemonde and since she loves Amélie too, I got the DVD and just watched it.

And I am feeling very sorry and most of all disappointed now. While the movie was clearly inspired by Amélie (to say the VERY least!), it never ever gets there. Not even close.

The story is totally made up nonsense. It's actually SO made up, the characters are SO two-dimensional and uninteresting, the whole thing is SO senseless and boring it actually started to hurt physically.

And while Audrey Tautou is just totally cute and lovable and Amélie Poulain is a multi-faceted, well constructed character, Caterine Frot - sadly - has no comedic talent whatsoever and her character Odette Toulemonde is dull, uninteresting and flat.

The acting in general is way beyond terrible, so at least it's not Caterine alone that makes this movie an epic fail in my book.

Forgive my rave, but I expected something soooo different - especially since it tries so hard to "be" Amélie. I realize, that (reading the other comments) not very much people will agree with me, but nevertheless it's how I feel.

And oh, I got a DVD for sale, if you are interested ;-)


First the positive sides: Some beautiful pictures/ shots, some funny moments, a lovely actress playing with charme and surely this will put a smile on your face. On the other hand, what comes along as "funny" is often rather serious in reality and so in my opinion, the movie wants or tries to be "lighter" than it actually is. The jokes can be foreseen (clever is something else!) and are sometimes a little forced, plus there is a lot of cliché, so the genre of "kitsch" is perfectly fulfilled. It reminded me a little of the movie "Amelie" which I disliked for similar reasons. There is better french humour, charme and "feel-good-movies" than this. All in all, this one was a bore to me.


Dreck heaped upon dreck and topped with yet more dreck.

The lady who plays Supergirl looks like her. But the screenplay is just total cutesy-wutesy cornball dumbness. And Supergirl just sort of ends up being more a naive dingaling instead of being a person from a very highly sophisticated culture. She's portrayed here as a dumb blond maybe slightly more intelligent than a box of rocks, but not by much. In the comics, Kara-El was no dummy, she was a happening gal who gives the baddies a very rough time. You may or may not be able to fool her once, but you'll never fool her twice. But here, Kara-El is so annoyingly dumb, dumb, dumb. She may have been inexperienced in earthly, human ways, but she wouldn't have been that damn stupid. I'm sure that the entire El family, if they were real and had seen this movie, would have sued the movie makers for libel and defamation of the El family.

Does anyone but me wonder how it is that Kara-El could automatically speak perfect contemporary American English although it's not likely she would have known a single word of English as she knew next to zilch about Earth as she was portrayed here?

Did the movie makers even bother doing any background research by actually reading the comics? Apparently very little if any. I'm a great fan of the stories of the various members of the El family, and this is definitely not the Kara-El i remember reading so many stories about.

On the plus side, the actresses playing the baddies were a hoot hamming it up being characters of unremitting egotistical sleazoidness. Without them, this movie would have been a total snoozefest.

Basically, i've found movies made of Kal-El and Kara-El to be of extreme disappointment. They've been overly cornball and so humanish. But Kal-El and Kara-El aren't human. They may be people, but they aren't human people. The movies keep portraying them as human, but they aren't at all, no matter what they may look like on the outside. And even if Kal-El grew up in human culture, Kara-El definitely did not. Kara-El was completely Kryptonian, born and bred.

The only actor i've seen who could pull off being a Kryptonian superhero was George Reeves. His Superman may have been human-reared, but still very much Kryptonian in his soul. And he had a sense of humor. Who says that aliens can't also have a good-natured sense of humor?

Final analysis: This was a chick flick with some of the worst failings that chick flicks tend to have. Like a lack of authenticity and believability. And getting from point A to point C without any defining and explaining point B in between. That effect can manifest without any cause.

If i were Kara-El, i would have put my super foot to super kicking some human movie maker butt for making me look like such an idiot.

And rather than just whine and complain, i call for a remake, but this time, let's do it right. Do a movie that if Kara-El were real, she would proudly say "That's me, alright!" (After she learned to speak English, of course.)


i found this movie disappointing.to me,the story had very little depth,and the villain for Supergirl is pretty weak.there is too much mysticism for this type of movie,for my tastes.plus there are some scenes which just feel like filler.the movie is very slow at times,in fact it can be downright boring. Helen Slater is hot for sure,but that doesn't make the movie necessarily good.the Superman movies,at least the first 2,had an epic quality to them.this movie just seems like it was slapped together with very little thought.if you're not gonna have a villain worthy of the hero,then what's the point?that's an element that should be essential in this type of movie.the scope of the movie is just too small.at the end of the movie,there is no real lasting impact.while it wouldn't say this movie is abysmal,it certainly is not very good either.it won't likely be the worst movie you see, but it should have been so much better.the most i can squeeze out for this movie is 4/10


I have seen this movie twice. While I agree Slater is Hot and all that. But It took Warners 4 years to recover from the critical and financial bomb that was SuperGirl. SuperMan was the final nail in the coffin for the reeves era Superman. IN 1989, Warners Realised rather late in the day that Rather than have a campy looking guy who wears his jocks outside his SuperSuit people wanted something darker and a hero who beat villains up.. Warners Re-invented a much darker hero called Batman.

The Keaton/Burton combination together with Nicholsons demand that he get a gross percentage of the Merchandise of that plus subsequent sequels was a masterstroke and revived not only WB but his own financial clout. Batman Returns made even more money as did Batman Forever and yes even the much reviled Batman and robin. Batman Begins Changed everything.

Because it made sense to bring Bruce back to his origins and the switch to Chicago made the film more real somehow. All filmmakers of Superhero movies are all going to do this. Superman Returns will be different in the sense that he returns to earth after being away for an unspecified period of time. They need to consider carefully about what story to give Supergirl.

Maybe they may do Smallville on her, have her come to earth as a baby. In Smallville, jor el used someone called Kara to tempt Kal-el in coming home. I don't think there was a connection to supergirl there because she was never mentioned again. Look at how much slagging the aquaman debacle has got over the decision to replace one with another. People Will not go to another Mushy romantic film as SG. To fit into the modern time, they will have to make her tougher, harder and dark. Just like they did with Batman.


Spin-off of Superman series from the same producers. The Salkind brothers wished to put the series after the failures of Superman III and IV but this in 1984 when he come out was a great box-office flop. The picture-idea is not bad: it's a superhero-movie with the women lords it: all the principal characters are females and the men are relegated to co-starring or to protagonist's love-interest role.

It's the story of beautiful blond young girl Kara from Argo city; a fragment of Krypton planet where the survivals are take refuge after the planet's destruction. Here the live is founded by a powerful sphere called Omegahedron invented by charismatic scientist Zaltar but one day the magical object for error gets lost and was re-sucked in the deep space. Kara takes a spatial device and goes to find of Omegahedron but the powerful object falls in down in the clutches of a evil terrestrial witch called Selena with dreams of world domination. Kara arrives in the earth and becomes immediately Supergirl: the maid of steal: with super-costume red-blue with the big S in the chest and then assumes the secret identity of school-girl Linda Lee and takes lodging in the local college; her roommate is Lois Lane's sister Lucy. The rivalry between Linda Lee/Supergirl and Selena is as for the Omegahedron possess as for same love-interest the muscle-man gardener Etahn. This rivalry remands me to contrast between Snow White and the wicked stepmother because also here the witch hates her arch-nemesis because she's more young and more pretty. In the final climatic battle, the witch evokes the dark powers and stirs up a monster against Supergirl. The maid of steal frees oneself from monster's grasp and wraps Selena in a whirlwind pushing her versus the monster: the witch screams desperately when is devoured by the voracious monster. The good triumphs, the peace returns in Earth and Supergirl takes finally the Omegahedron at Argo and saves her people.

Director Jeannot Szworc gives a decent job: the rhythm of the action is not particularly raging but he is able to render the mood, the atmosphere of comic-book perhaps also helped by the photography and the scenography that gives the right color to the images. The music-score by Jerry Goldsmith is really splendid and gives to movie that lot of adventure spirit that have. The real reason of failure is the poor screenplay of David Odell: the history is silly, absurd and truly unbelievable. Sure the difficulty of production not must have helped Odell: at the last minute Cristopher Reeve, that must have been Superman in a little cameo, leaved the project (perhaps because he their have realized the narrowness) and Dolly Parton that was the first choice for the villainies role disowned, judging truly grotesque and silly. Although the problems the screenwriter is guilty for dialogs among the worst in movie history, for a plot full of holes and nonsense but especially he's responsible for a villainess absolutely groundless and dull that represents the real movie's disappointment.

The all-star cast is interesting; the 18-old year Helen Slater in the title-role is wonderful; she's very beautiful when she flies with the mini-super costume and she gives to character the right mix of naivety and courage; she's the real perfect choice for the role; it is a pity that the picture's failure have run over her and have ruined her carrier still after to start. Then Slater will have in future only supporting roles in a little not important movies. As Marlon Brando in Superman movie Peter O'Toole shines as Zaltar and is splendidly camp; his hamming was funny and entertaining although the character and the lines are very poor. Peter Cook as the acerbic Dunaway's flame Nigel and Brenda Vaccaro as Selena's sidekick Bianca are campy and sarcastically funny; Hart Bochner as Etahan was embarrassing; he's very attractive but his acting is appalling. Marc McClure as Lucy Lane's boy-friend represents the only character that connects this movie to Superman's series. The rich cast is completed by Mia Farrow and Simon Ward in a little cameo as the Kara's parents.

A speech apart merits miss Faye Dunaway as the movie's villainess; she's the evil witch Selena and she's horrible in every sense: her acting is so hammy and over-the-top than in few moments she's very unbearable; the character is unbelievably bad and silly but Dunaway seems to be pleased with herself, she speaks few of the most idiot lines of movie history with a unjustified fanatical gusto. Moreover her appearance is dreadful; it's true that she's a witch but the movie history was rich of witches funny or seductive or regaling or menacing; Dunaway is nothing of all this but she's grotesque, clumsy and with her make-up, with a big wig red-shocking and her bizarre look, she seems a man in drag. Dunaway is a witch and like the true witches, she's really ugly and wicked; in a movie almost all-female her face continually furrowed from grimaces and smirks is horrid to watch. She bears the palm of the worst actress in the movie but especially this time she wins also the award as the most ugly woman in the screen although the presence of the fat Vaccaro. In few scenes this enormous ham female falls in ridicule ruinously: when Dunaway prepares the spell-love potion with a spider and a walnut she's really embarrassing or when tries to seduce Etahn painfully or still in the final battle when she screams clumsily before to become feeding for the monster.

This picture was considered one of worst comic-book movies ever but his ugliness it's such as was a sort of cult movie among the bad movies and most of merits are due to the uncontested queen of the razzie awards Faye Dunaway.


So very, very awful. You know how sometimes you rent a horrible movie because you expect to be amused by it's awfulness? This movie is the dreaded, actually bad "bad movie."

After naif space-blonde Kara (Helen Slater) caresses her orb with something out of the Xandria Collection and ruins her space-city, she takes to the sky in super-crappy looking bowling ball to retrieve it. And lucky earth gets her.

The big problem here is they strenuously avoided answering the question: What does a female superhero do in a movie-going culture that prefers it's women inactive, neutral and pretty? It would be difficult to create anything this numbing without having used a lot of drugs in the 70s. Nearly every strange, insipid frame of this inspires the thought, "This is a profoundly weird movie." The utilitarian script delivers functional scene after scene without regard to logic, human psychology, plot or intelligence. It does however excel at placing loud, stupid moments one after another until there's over two hours of crap on the screen; damned if you could offer a reason why.

Every frame of this is just objectionable. Slater's voice is weird. Everyone's hair is fried. Kara's dad looks like a lesbian. The Utopian Argo city looks as limp as utopias have looked since Lost Horizon. i.e. "We're all mellow wussbags, and we all lay around in pajamas." The city looks like a mall made out of macramé. Total hippy B.S. The cast is a weird, weird mix. The story is elaborate and incoherent. There are easily 5 characters too many. Everything learned about movie-making in the previous 50 years is forgotten.

They didn't get away with it here. But schlock like this paved the way for similarly bloated, stupid movies like Pirates of the Caribbean.

Horrid, misshapen... insipid.


Outside of this film's seemingly devoted fanbase (not counting the IMDb user obsessed with Siouxsie Sioux who keeps creating new identities and entering positive "10 star reviews" in an effort to convince the casual visitor that "Supergirl" is a film loved by everybody), "Supergirl" seems to have been box-office Kryptonite. Clearly the magic was gone in the franchise after the first two films, and perhaps "Supergirl" was seen as a means of taking the same idea in a new direction. It was a branch of the family tree that would have been better left unexplored.

Just about the only novel thing about this film is having a female superheroine as its central character, and I suspect it was this identification with young girls that gave "Supergirl" most of its audience. Wonder Woman's TV show had already come and gone, and a big-screen female contender was the next logical step. In 1984, it was an idea whose time had come. Unfortunately, it came in the form of this movie.

Part of the problem is that it's not very easy to understand exactly what's going on in the film. It's one thing to make the audience think and imagine, but it's quite another to make the audience confused; there are some serious blanks that should have been filled in if the movie were to truly connect. The version I first saw was the original American theatrical print, although even the extended cuts of the film don't help explain much. As the movie opens, we see what appears to be a large crystal shopping mall surrounded by bleak nothingness. We learn this is "Argo City", a fragment of the planet Krypton. Somehow it has survived the massive explosion that obliterated the original planet, and furthermore we learn that it exists in "inner space" instead of outer space. This is more than a little vague, especially when Kara makes her voyage to Earth in a spaceship, and emerges in a lake.

She has come in search of the Omegahedron, a whirling, glowing tennis ball that happens to be one of Argo City's main power sources. Kara has helped lose it, so she must reclaim it before everyone in her city presumably dies. Even with this kind of crucial time constraint, she still has time to do a flying ballet when she arrives on Earth (already in costume). She also feels the need to adopt a secret identity as a student at a local girls school and waste time going to classes.

Meanwhile, the Omegahedron has fallen into the wrong hands: Faye Dunaway's. She is an amateur witch named Selena who immediately senses the Omegahedron's power when it literally lands in her soup at a picnic. No, really. Selena intends to use the Omegahedron to achieve all sorts of lofty goals, like making a landscaper fall in love with her. She also wants to take over the world.

It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, but neither did the "Superman" movies if you think about them too much. The problem with "Supergirl" is that she doesn't exactly have a whole lot to do. There's a dull action sequence involving a runaway backhoe, as well as a scene where Supergirl uses a lightning-charged streetlamp to ward off an invisible monster that's after her. In the backhoe sequence, we're asked to believe that the entranced landscaper could wander around the crowded town without actually looking at anybody, because Selena's spell dictates he'll fall in love with the first person he sees. Of course the first person he sees is Supergirl. This infuriates Selena to no end, and she forces Supergirl to take on a supernaturally powered Tilt-A-Whirl.

Perhaps the biggest liability with "Supergirl" is the special effects. Putting it bluntly, they are awful. They may look alright on home video, but I just had the pleasure of catching "Supergirl" at a midnight showing on the big screen, and the audience was definitely not buying it. The matte visuals look fuzzy blown up on the screen, and an unwise sequence shows Supergirl changing clothes several times in a series of jumpy cuts as she walks behind trees. Argo City itself is a goofy concept. It's wrapped in what appears to be a clear plastic tarp that, when punctured, exposes Supergirl to the vacuum of...what? Inner space? Or the vacuum of this movie? It's never really clear. One tedious sequence takes place in the Phantom Zone, which has morphed from the flying plane of glass in the first films to a desolate terrain where it's possible to set up a roughly-hewn home, and they even give you controlled substances. Where IS Argo City, anyway? Why do Supergirl and the Omegahedron reach Earth by surfacing in a lake? Dunaway's performance, as well as a co-starring Brenda Vaccaro, helps the camp factor a great deal, but what is Peter O'Toole doing in this movie? It seems to me the producers wanted to lend some big-star weight to the cast a la Marlon Brando, but O'Toole's character winds up being mostly silly. Also note how Mia Farrow's credit appears early in the cast list, yet she has about four lines. Aside from Dunaway, whose scenery-chewing performance seems like a continuation of her "Mommie Dearest" routine, nobody really shines. Helen Slater actually does a great job as Supergirl, but the story is so confusing and dull that it doesn't really matter.

A very big help would have been a cameo appearance from Christopher Reeve as Superman, who is nowhere to be seen. Don't drop your guard, or you might miss the explanation for his absence, which zooms by when Selena's car radio suddenly comes on.

Apparently the international and directors cuts of the film helped to flesh out the ideas a little bit better, but the damage was done for this film once it hit theaters. It was generally considered a disaster, and watching it, it is easy to see why.


Fay Dunaway and Brenda Vaccaro are the only real reasons to watch this movie. Those two women steal the show.

Helen Slater as Supergirl was an okay choice, but it was her first film. She's come a long way (acting wise) since then. Still, it isn't her fault.

The story is trite and the action sequences are muddled with silly attempts at comedy.

The romance subplot was mind-numbingly ridiculous.

Even Jimmy Olsen from the Superman films (Marc McClure) had a few schmaltzy scenes.

This is so-not a good movie. Enough said...


I started out liking this film, with its fine cast and hippy-dippy Argo City, but the film eventually gets so boring and goes on and on and on.. Especially on the "director's cut" DVD - it has 30 minutes of extra stuff that should have stayed out. If this film were skillfully edited down to about 1.5 hours it would be bearable, but some of the lines are pretty stupid, and the Dunaway character is no more than a cardborad cutout villain, with a pointless Brenda Vaccarro running around squawking about nothing. Watch this and you will enter a Phantom Zone - of boredom...


The DC comic book heroes are so naturally interesting that it seems it would be very easy to make a good film here. However, they failed terribly. I found the film a little painful to watch. If I had another DVD on the coffee table I would have ended this one early.

If you had to look for good things about this movie you can find a few. The actress paying Supergirl was very good. She really came across as a teenager with super powers  a little awkward at times, not always very self-assured. She was really good and had great schoolgirl good looks.

However, it ends there. The dialog was strained. The story drug on, almost endlessly, with lack of action. The special effects were terrible even by 1984 standards (I often felt like I was watching the old Batman TV show). Someone else commented that they thought Faye Dunnaway was good. Sorry, I have to disagree. I felt the villains were just average, everyday, bad people  not the scheming, diabolical, evil but fascinating, super-villains typical in DC comics.

If you want a good super-hero movie you need a great villain and a riveting plot that moves at a fast pace. You won't find that here. If someone would have warned me off seeing this they would have done me a favor. Hopefully I am doing that for you.


From the Salkinds brothers, the same producers of "Superman" saga, comes the first and, for the moment, last adventure of the new heroine coming from DC comics: was Supergirl: the Superman's cousin. The movie is one of the worst superhero's pictures never made; director Jeannot Szwarc give very bad work, as on the hand we would expect from a subscriber to the flop like he. The screenplay by David Odell is really silly and campy; the history is absurd and full of holes. The plot: Kara(Helen Slater)is a blond young girl from Argo city. Argo is a fragment of the planet Krypton in "innerspace"; the survivor Community is powered by the Omega Hedron, a spherical powerful object invented by city's founder Zaltar(Peter O'Toole). Superman's cousin Kara is shown by Zaltar how to use Omegahedron to help inspire her art. But an insect she animates causes chaos and accidentally sucks the Omegahedron down a warp vortex. The magical sphere end up on Earth and falls into the clutches of a evil witch Faye Dunaway....sorry Selena(played by Faye Dunaway). Selena is a second-rate sorceress that lives in a converted amusement park with her sidekick Bianca(Brenda Vaccaro); the witch is studying black magic with the aid of her old boyfriend Nigel(Peter Cook); Nigel is a local math teacher and warlock. The eccentric Selena really is little more than a clumsy charlatan but she is really crazy and megalomaniac; her dream is nothing less than world domination! While Selena plans to use the sphere's powers to rule the world; Kara steals an experimental spaceship and on Earth, becoming Supergirl: the girl of steal; now the long-blond-tressed Kara enrolls in a girl-school as a brunette using the name Linda Lee, while searching for the Omegahedron in her spare time wearing the familiar costume of her cousin Superman. Selena is at that age where she's not the spring chicken; she develops lust for the handsome school gardener Ethan and spikes his beer with a potion that will make him fall for the first woman he sees and of course this women is Supergirl; she and Selena come into conflict. In the final crash the witch invoking the Burundi wand, she screams "Power of Shadow... Appear!" and she summons a huge demon. "Power of Shadow... Destroy her!" Flying up to confront the demon, Supergirl is captured in its grasp and it starts crushing her. Using her amazing strength, Supergirl frees herself from the demon and using her super-speed, Supergirl circles Selena and the wind she creates lifts Selena before the demon; Supergirl summons her inner strength to turn the tables and make the demon eat witch. Magically, the demon with her bore food and Bianca all fade away through the mirror to the Phantom Zone. Of course good triumphs over evil and Kara returns to Argo City with the Omegahedron. The movie's special effects aren't bad and the Jerry Goldsmith's score is wonderful. The majors guilty of this box office flop are Szwarc and Odell but the acting is another problem for this movie although the all-star cast. Nineteen year-old Helen Slater in her first film appearance is a perfect choice as Supergirl; she looked like she had jumped right out of the pages of the comic books for Supergirl, she's charming rather than sexy, graceful and convincing in the flying scenes with her little costume and her nice blonde hair. Supporting cast members include the completely wasted Peter Cook, the annoying Brenda Vacarro, a embarrassed Mia Farrow, as Kara's mother, the very attractive Hart Bochner that was quite good under trying circumstances and Peter O'Toole, who's always fun to watch when he overacts. All obviously were phoning it in for the paycheck. Faye Dunaway's acting is the worst in the movie. She is mostly dreadful as the wicked would-be witch Selena, it certainly wasn't all Faye Dunaway's fault, since she just got stuck with a terribly written character, but she was over-the-top hamming and overplays outrageously. Her character is idiot, boring and silly and Dunaway chews her ridiculous lines with unjustified gusto because her Selena remains the lamest and worst of all the villains from the Superman-related movies. Selena was the baddest evil witch of all time, with scenery-chewing of unimaginable proportions notwithstanding this Dunaway vamps like a enormous peacock but one thing is sure that she is not a charming and imperious witch like the glamorous Anjelica Huston in movie The Witches. Dunaway is really ungraceful and unattractive as a grotesquely middle-aged women that know some magic, gesture wildly, utter some made-up 'abracadabra' bullshit. She looks awful like a true classic witch from tales; with horrid red curly wig and a make-up that make her features coarse and more vulgar she seems a man in drag . But really Dunaway is the only reason for watch this movie because her camping is so over-the-top and her appearance is so bad than she becomes fascinating to watch in its terribleness. She likes herself in a way very narcissistic; I kept waiting for her performance to finally says -I ready for my close-up Mr. Demille-. But truly even cheeky Brenda Vaccaro as her accomplice Bianca reacts with comically exaggerated expressions over Faye's plans for world domination and her defines a horrid human being. There are few moments where Dunaway is really really ridiculous: when she was trying painfully to seduce the muscle-man Etahn; when she was prepare a love-potion with a spider and a hazel's shell but especially in the final when she rolls one's eyes and make terrible smirks and laughs. After her tour-de-force of overacting, her irritating wry faces and ways affected poor Dunaway end up really badly: a horrid monster bites evil Faye's head off. It's a just punishment for Dunaway's crimes against humanity, acting and fashion and it's a great relief for the audience.


I felt the script let this down, the story seemed somewhat pathetic. It would have made a good comic book, but surely there was something better to translate into a movie!

It is sad to see how the Superman franchise simply evaporated after the first 2 films. Thankfully rumours of a joint Superman - Supergirl film never materialised, and were possibly idol Hollywood gossip.


I saw this movie at a free screening and was so disgusted I wanted my money back! It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen--boring, poorly written and acted, and woodenly directed--and that is saying something. Please do yourself the favor and never pay money to see this, ok?


I can probably go on for days telling what is wrong with this movie. The movie starts out with the descendats of the planet Krypton living undersea. The movie does not explain how come Krypton people,who call themselves Argonanians, are living undersea. The next thing you know Supergirl loses the Argonanian power source (a crystal ball) and chases the crystal ball to Earth. Meanwhile Selena(Faye Dunway) using black magic and the power source tries to take over the world. Now Supergirl posing as college student Linda Lee makes friend with Jimmy Olson, and Lucy Lane, niece of Lois Lane. I lost track during the movie why Selena needed the power source to take over the world, but frankly towards the end of the movie I couldn't care. I was upset that producers did not have the decency to bring Superman or Lois Lane. Faye Dunway's acting in this movie is terrible, the only part of the villian Selena, Ms. Dunway got correct is the appearance. Dunway looks awful in this movie i.m.h.o. The only good part is 10 minute scene with Helen Slater and Peter O'Toole towards the conclusion, but even O'Toole acting skills can't save this film. My recommendation is that this movie is a cure for insomnia.


This awful, seemingly low-budget knock-off of "Superman" features Helen Slater as the titular character, fighting off evil Faye Dunaway and Peter O'Toole.

The movie is about as fun as a root canal, which will give you a good indication of just how enjoyable it is. It was definitely a cash-in on "Superman's" success in 1978, and the success of its sequels. However it lacks the solid style of "Superman" and is really, really low budget-y and cheap looking.

I suppose this is just ample proof that there needed to be no "Supergirl" movie--at least not one like this. The scenes with the "witch" still make me cringe.

Please, this deserves to be on the low 100. I absolutely hate it. It's even worse than "Superman IV." Yes, I know that's saying a lot, but it is--quite unfortunately--true.

P.S. I originally submitted this about two years ago but decided I'd revise a few of my sentences. I've gotten angry letters from the "Supergirl Cult of IMDb" giving me death threats telling me that it's an "under-appreciated slice of epic film-making on par with The Lord of the Rings and The Godfather." I didn't like Lord of the Rings too much.

Supergirl makes it look like the best film ever made.

So, don't send me letters, and don't threaten me. If you think I'm wrong, write your own review.


I felt this documentary about the Living Organisms of the Ocean was sloppy and rushed. There was some good footage but nothing earth shattering. Kate Nelligan was just OK as narrator. She had no pizazz. She was monotone and basically just going through the motions. Pardon the pun. The movie was short , only 35 minutes. It was just a lackadaisical effort . Seems like any amateur could get the footage that the makers of this documentary were able to get. I also felt the music was unnecessary. I love new age music , don't get me wrong , but I would have much rather have heard more of the natural sounds coming from the ocean. I am glad they mentioned something about some of the ocean plants that strive . Some of the facts about these plants were satisfying to hear. Still I can not give this movie any kind of kudos. I was simply; Very disappointed in this effort and would certainly not recommend this to others.


What can I say about this movie. My expectations were something along the lines of evil dead 2, as it advertised, and I was sorely disappointed. Some ingenious ways of killing our hapless campers has everything to do with a pick axe you ever wanted to know about, and I got tired of it very quickly. Maybe they had some left over from My Bloody Valentine or Trackman. Crispin Glovers usually good creepy acting seemed out of place in this, like he was trying TOO hard to be creepy. He doesn't have to try, it comes naturally, like in Wizard of Gore. There were a few admirable killing scenes,the spinning log to be sure, and some above average makeup and special effects, but just not enough to merit a rental, and definitely not a purchase. It's as if the director is working to achieve the scary horror of ED2, and Glover is on that plane half the time, but someone forgot to inform the rest of the cast. The movie appeared to be just a jumble of film clips stitched together. My hope is that you will read this and spend your money elsewhere. I'm sure some people enjoy it, but it just missed the mark for me. Also don't expect to rent this movie and see Blake Lively(Accepted) or Robyn Lively(Savannah) in any screen time, they appear at the end of the movie in sort of a cameo role after everything of importance has happened. Funny that this movie was produced Lively production. Perhaps he saw the preview and thought,"this movie sucks, maybe I can get members of my family to be in this and save it! NO, NO, NO. And for those who are wondering, at the end the twins have our heroine Kate trapped in a basement and have apparently engaged in some intercourse with her because I assume they have had children,(TWINS!). Hope this helps, but if not I don't care because you've seen the movie against my suggestion, and I've got better movies to waste two hours of my life with like (Insert movie of choice here). No evil dead, No Friday the 13th, no Nightmare, just crap. However, it is only MY opinion.


First of all I saw this movie dubbed in German and German dubs of horror movies most of the time are ridiculous. In this case it somehow fit the plot and the characters. You get you basic horror movie setting... a bunch of teenagers go out to camp in the woods (Good one: "You know a romantic place at the river? Something dark and creepy where serial killers walk around?"). After the characters are introduced... funny stoner guy, hunky football guy, horny annoying chick, naive chick and the smart chick that is supposed to save the day... they stop for fuel and meet Sicko Stanley played by Crispin Glover. Crispin plays the two brothers Stanley and Simon who are the same person after all because Stanley turns out to be schizophrenic and playing the role of his dead brother Simon (whom he obviously killed like everyone else). So when they get to the camping site the usual serial killer story unfolds. That is packed with as many clichés as the opening of the movie. Girls fall down when fleeing the killer, stoner guy walks into a freezer with corpses, hunk guy gets mixed up between two girls and Stanley walks around, killing people with his crazy pickaxe catapult, stomping dogs, stabbing people, building funny dwarfs out of corpses and having a relaxing dinner with his dead rotting parents. A lot of this stuff is absolutely ridiculous, Stanley seems to have supernatural powers when pinning people to trees with pickaxes and making a human shishkebab. Some party made me laugh and reminded me of the Freddy Krueger Horror-Fun like when stoner guy is killed with a giant spliff and then set aflame. Anyway, the acting of all involved is pretty medium and the movie is not horrifying at all, although there really is some gory stuff in there. To me it came across like an extremely clichéd horror comedy that in many scenes made no sense at all (for example the dead horse woman pointing somewhere) and was stolen from loads of movies you know anyway.


When I read the comments on this film and see the rating on IMDb I get to the conclusion that there are people who like this rubbish. Unbelievable I must say. If you are not a super fan of really bad bloody slasher movies, than don't see this movie.

Slither was a movie that was over the top and kinda stupid, but all with this tongue in cheek kind a way. Simon Say's is to straight forward simple to give me the same feeling. It's all about butchering people with pickaxes. It starts and it never ends. Dogs are being splattered and so on. It is gross, not funny because it is too simple. Killing people with pickaxes is not funny after 6 times. And that Crispin Glover dude. He seems to have a career in these movies, a cult figure so to speak. A guy who refuses a role in Back to the future II and sues Steven Spielberg is an extraordinary guy. But this is an extraordinary bad movie.


I'm a devout Crispin Glover fan, and will always give a watch to anything he's in. From classics to genre oddities to mainstream pap, he's had a career that touches many points.... while the productions he's in might not all be winners, at least he can be counted-on for an entertaining (and often unique) performance.

Not so with SIMON SAYS. This movie is just dismal. Obviously shot on DV and starring a cast of poorly-played stereotypes, SIMON SAYS feels like a student-film... it tries hard at times, but just keeps failing. Story - non-existent Characters - generic and stiff Dialogue - embarrassing SFX - way wayyyy too much (unconvincing) CGI

I wanted to just stop the flick early and end my pain, but ultimately I was drawn to know what on earth Crispin Glover saw in this project. I mean, maybe he did it strictly for the money (and if this production *DID* ever have a budget, certainly most of it MUST have gone to his salary). I have to presume that's the only reason he signed-onto this pile of crap.

Avoid this one. It isn't fun, it isn't "so-bad-it's-good"... it's just a p!ss-poor piece of crap.


When I saw all these positive comments and talk about different movie I was expecting something similar to what Scream did for slasher genre or something like it. Boy was I disappointed.

Granted movie does have and interesting and unconventional opening but then it falls for every horror cliché around. Location, obviously. Middle of nowhere, woods. Characters are your typical group of teenagers. We don't know why they choose to camp there, we don't know who they are or practically anything about it. And you have your typical tight girl, your "friendly" girl, stoner/funny guy and so on. And of course the typical "I know there is something weird going on around here but instead of turning around and running away I'll keep poking around so I'll find bodies and body parts." While first such case is somewhat understandable the second one is beyond dumb.

Then we have death scenes. Not that gory but between dumb and impossible. When you think about them a bit you realize this is just not possible.

The ending is interesting, I'll give them that but one good moment simply can't fix overall bad impression this movie makes.

Avoid if possible


The story of "Simon says" is nothing new. Some teenagers in the wood get hunted down by some sicko. So, I didn't expect much anyway in that regard. Still, the movie disappointed me. The teenagers are just your basic clichés for this kind of movie, which is not necessarily bad, but the main problem is the main character, Simon. In my opinion he's just way overdone. The acting is almost like a caricature. So, what should be a threatening character ends up being a (sadly bad) joke. The kills are good, but that's about it. Everything else in this movie just is below par, even for the genre.

Still, with a better Simon this movie could be fun. With that guy it's more a pain to watch than anything else. Avoid this movie.


You'd be hard-pressed to find any redeeming qualities in director Bill Dear's new film, "Simon Says". It's juvenile, cliché-ridden, and utterly lame.

Simon (Crispin Glover) owns a store in the middle of nowhere that sells nothing. He has an apparent affinity for pick-axes, with dozens adorning the walls of his shed/store. Whenever he comes across other humans, he sports his best retard voice and begins asking goofy questions. No matter the reply, he grins stupidly, mumbles "you forgot to say 'Simon says'", and then proceeds to kill everyone in the scene.

The characters take on the most banal forms of teen stereotyping. There's a stoner dude, a meat head jock, a prudish Asian, and two rank-and-file sluts. None of them contributes anything of significance to the story. The dialog is contrived and forced. The actors might as well be reading from cue-cards. Rent any porno and you're likely to find stronger performances.

One neat twist is that the laws of physics do not apply within a 1-mile radius of Simon's store. Axes have infinite momentum. Some people can jump and change direction in mid-air. Others can magically teleport into charred corpses.

Simon's many strange catapults, which he can reload at the speed of light, rain an impossible number of axes down on his victims. His single-ax launcher is extraordinarily precise, piercing the chest of a perfectly useless character from more than 100 yards away.

There is no actual plot. Just a bunch of sterile characters being killed in impossible ways by an aspiring loon.

There are attempts at humor. None work. By the end of the movie, I realized the joke was on me.

Grade: F Avoid at all costs.


The first in a poliziottesco trilogy featuring Maurizio Merli as Commissioner Betti; the first and last entries were directed by Girolami under the alias of Franco Martinelli and the second by Umberto Lenzi.

As such, this one certainly set the template for the others: its plot involves a gang of crooks who commit four armed robberies throughout the course of the film (from a bus, a supermarket, a restaurant and a bank) - where the culprits, sloppily, contrive to always leave behind a victim - which sends the iconoclastic cop (obviously inspired by Clint Eastwood's Inspector "Dirty" Harry Callahan) on their trail. The action sequences - which also take in several beatings, a rape (committed in front of the girl's ageing father) and car chases - are certainly capably staged which, propelled by a pounding score from Guido and Maurizio De Angelis (better known as "Oliver Onions"), give the film an unrelenting pace that ensures it never slips into boredom despite its being predictable at every turn!

The second half, however, is quite interesting: Merli quits the force after shooting a hood (John Steiner) in 'cold-blood' - apparently, it little matters to his superiors that the latter had done the same to undercover cop and Merli protégé Ray Lovelock, who remains paralyzed for life! - but is called into 'service' for a different kind of justice by a small band of former victims, led by lawyer Richard Conte, who have turned vigilante!!


I think my fellow reviewers are overstating things a bit. Roma Violenta is by no means a bad movie, but it does nothing any number of poliziotteschi films can't do better and it doesn't impress with what it does either.

Maurizio Merli plays another inspector, this time Commisarrio Betti. There's a healthy number of car chases, fistfights, gundowns and just about anything you would expect from a film of this kind, but it's all done with such a workmanlike air from Marino Girolami (Castellari's father) that I couldn't help but glance at my watch every now and then. Girolami does Roma Violenta with the get-it-over-with attitude of a professional instead of the enthusiasm of a fan. Get in, take the master shot, take the close-ups, get it over with cos there's a paycheck in the end. No imagination whatsoever. I can imagine him on set crossing things off a list: "Car chase? Check. Fistfight? Check".

Polizioto fans that need their fix will be satisfied by Roma Violenta, but if you haven't seen true genre classics like The Cynic, The Rat and The Fist, Almost Human or La Mala Ordina, then Roma Violenta can wait.


I had high hopes for this because: 1) It was called LEGION OF THE DEAD and had box art of some ancient Egyptian tomb king and a whole army of undead troopers.

2) It had Bruce Boxleitner in.

3) Putting together 1 + 2, and armed with the knowledge that Boxleitner plays the sheriff, it implies some sort of gigantic apocalyptic battle with hordes of mummies will occur, sort of like the battles in Lord of the Rings or even Army of Darkness.

Now without giving any spoiler information away: The actual plot of the movie is nothing like the assumptions you are lead to be believe from facts 1 and 2 above and the film was therefore a severe disappointment for me. Had they re-named it, it might have been less of a let down.

However, the acting IS poor, the plot is VERY dubious (in terms of the genre; I know mummies walking around is inherently dubious, but there are ways of doing it right and this film doesn't due to inconsistencies). That being said the comedic gore and the amount of breasts are about right.


With the exception of the newly resurrected Full Moon movies, the Asylum distributes and produces the absolute worst horror movies on the video store shelves. The Asylum's legacy of lousiness continues with their Mummy epic, Legion of the Dead.

This movie is basically like Queen of the Damned with mummies instead of vampires and with Bruce Boxleitner and the kid from Gremlins instead of Aaliyah. This tepid tale begins when a couple of dirt bikers stumble on an ancient Egyptian burial tomb somewhere in the mountains of Los Angeles. You heard me right, this ancient Egyptian burial chamber is in the foothills of Los Angeles. Somehow those wacky Egyptians managed to make it all the way to California with a bunch of their loot and sarcophagus with a Queen Mummy in it. The Gremlins kid (can't remember his name) is an archaeologist who is summoned to the site after the two dirt bikers tell the cops about what they found.

The Gremlins guy leads a team on an expedition into the burial chamber. There's ten minutes of Indiana Jones shenanigans as our intrepid explorers make their way through into the tomb. Poisoned arrows, cryptic warnings written in hieroglyphs and trap doors abound. They make it through a winding maze of styrofoam cave walls and find a sarcophagus with an ancient Queen Mummy in it. Of course, they awaken this mummy from her slumber and it turns into an episode of Scooby Doo. The Queen Mummy reanimates a bunch of her mummy pals and they make short work of our explorers.

As far as the story goes, it doesn't get any more cookie cutter than this. It's shot on someone's camcorder, just like all the other offerings from the Asylum. The acting is cardboard. Overall, it's just a complete waste of time. My hope is that all lovers of horror movies will stop renting and buying these cheap, irritating movies from the Asylum. Maybe if they realize that they can't make a profit churning out these foul flicks, they will stop making them. I sure hope so.


A real shame of a movie. Spiritless and full of clichés. What really got me angry was the inconsistency of the soldiers' ability to fight. They acted like powerless zombies when they fought the good guys, but pulled the backbone of some victims in one firm jerk! I mean, c'mon! It's the kind of movie you cannot watch even for laughs. Well, I did. And that only because I kept waiting for something to happen. It was so lame I could throw up. Even if you are a horror movies fan - trust me, this is an outrageous kitsch. It's the type of production that one does for money only, not because one has a real story or a genuinely artistic view to a story. It looks like five-year old kids playing in the backyard - although this remark may be offensive to the intellect of any five-year-old, or two-year-old for that matter! Omaldy.