During my ventures into foreign cinema, I have taken a liking to a wide variety of movies that span different genres that include horror, action, drama, comedy, and romance, to name a few. Thus, I have enjoyed the thoughtful, serious tone of dramas as well as the mindless, popcorn fun of action films. With a wide array of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean movies under my belt, I am confident in my ability to recognize bright spots in movies to appreciate and complement. Unfortunately, A Man Called Hero has nothing to recognize. It is by far the worst Chinese movie I have ever seen.

Why, you ask? Quite simply, this film contributes nothing memorable whatsoever. It tries its hand at drama and action, but fails miserably at both. With regards to the dramatic element, it's boring beyond recognition. By boring I do not simply mean slow-paced, as I have enjoyed movies that are remarkably slow-paced, yet keep the viewer's interest. No, that's not what I mean. I mean that this movie is slow-paced AS WELL AS extremely boring. I was literally fighting sleepiness throughout the first half of the movie.

In succeeding to avoid falling asleep, I was rewarded with quite possibly the WORST action sequences ever filmed. In fact, I would not even classify such scenes as "action sequences" because the concept of "action" demands that someone actually DO something. They don't. Instead they stand still (facing each other), wave a hand or two, and shoot little balls of light that knock their opponents out. This isn't action; this is stupid. And for those who may feel that I am close-minded and therefore unable to appreciate different forms of action sequences, let it be noted that I found the sequences in Onmyoji  which use incantations and spell-casting  to be MUCH more entertaining than anything in A Man Called Hero. To top it all off, the final confrontation was perhaps the most absurd attempt at "action" that I can remember witnessing, using outrageously sloppy movements that send the art of action choreography back half a century.

BTW  Another movie called The Storm Riders suffers from the very same defects that this movie suffers from, but is at least a bit more entertaining. For those who loved this movie, you have a right to your opinion, but I have yet to see a positive review that makes a reasonable case for it. I'm not surprised.

Rating = A rarely given 0/5 stars


The cover of this film claims it to be 'In the spirit of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. How dare they make such a comparison?!? The film looks no more like Crouching Tiger or, for that matter, Hero (with Jet Li) than my granny looks like Pamela Anderson. 'A man called hero' is one of those cheap and cheesy Chinese martial art films that were produced by the ton, all with unconvincing action effects. Moreover, it's stuffed with flaws. The story is of a cheap emotional level, with a weak storyboard, dumb would-be comic attempts and bad acting. In short, it's your average China movie. It's trash and bad imitation, a waste of your time and money. Skip all the surplus reviews; you'll be deceived. Trust me: there's accounting of tastes. This earns no more than a 3 on a scale of 10.


As a fan of "Chinese Hero", it is very disappointing to see this movie. These are the reasons: 1.Acting is very very bad.

2.Story doesn't have anything to do with the original comic. Except the characters are in this movie.

3.Special effects are very very bad, except the scene with the swordfighting with water.

4.Story is very very boring...

5.It's directed very very crappy, totally not interesting. Bad usage of flashbacks.

6.Fighting scenes are too short

7.characters lack any depth. No personality...nothing...just saying their lines.

8.It was DUBBED!!! $^&%#@&(#@&^@#%^*

Even though stormriders was a bad movie, at least it was entertaining.

It's a shame they released this movie. The TV-series by ATV were much better.


i've heard of this movie, but i've never really paid attention to its review, for those who enjoyed this movie...by golly, i don't know how you guys manage to but we all have our differences.

this movie as most other recent HK martial arts movies (with young unexperienced actors when it comes to chinese kung fu movies) is too dependent on CGI, what's the point in watching a movie filled with CGI's??? (Computer Graphic Images), the actors gets to do nothing, the viewers is watching a bunch of incompetent scenes. they should just make the whole movie in animation, there's nothing great nor close to decent in these kind of movies (talking about Legend of Zu, Legend of Tekken, all bunch of crappy CGI movies).

now if it was wire fighting, it would've been better (like yuen woo pings movies). enough of how bad the movie is, let's move on to the plot of the movie

so Hero's parents are murdered and he decides to move to America, his wife becomes pregnant on the night before he moves and the wife and her brother decides to look up Hero to tell him the good news, on the day that she concieves her twins, one (the daughter) is taken away by a corrupted chinese guy co operating with the japanese ninjas that are looking for a duel with Hero and his master Pride. his wife passes away, and Hero is told to be "born under the star of death" which basically means all his dearest will meet a tragic end, which the movie has successfully implied. so he decides to stay away from all his dearests and live a lonley life.

the movie either intentionally leaves some of the things incomplete for whatever reasons or it simply forgot to explain what happened to Hero's daughter. this movie reminds me of a chinese fantasy movie because of Shadow

Shadow depicts the same character in that fantasy movie as he is armless and carries an identical mask to cover his face and his fighting style is based on footwork and his ponytail. anyhow all in all this movie is really bad, if you absolutely find NOTHING to watch or do then fine go ahead and give this one a shot, but beware of it's absolute ridicule plot and directing.

0/10, i'd rate it even lower if it had negative.


Weak at best. Overacting on Michael Ironside's part (and i usually really like this actor! Flashbacks overused in modern cinema and that is a perfect example. Conspiracy theories, please! Of all the Vietnam flicks i've seen it's the first one that bored me! Pretty images, but nothing special or breathtaking. The ending (no spoiler) is a big letdown and far-fetched. Really it's the perfect example of what action films shouldn't be. All and all, nothing special, weak, boring, the epitome of what certain people view as what men are (or should be?) i dunno, i wouldn't rent it if i were you, unless you suffer from insomnia and are looking for something to put you to sleep.


One of the worst films I've ever seen that purports to be about Vietnam or Veterans. No, wait... it's just a poor film in every way.

The writing is painfully bad, the acting is weak, and the scenes in Vietnam (or was it Thailand or the Philippines?) were wasted. If you could get back to Vietnam to film the Majestic hotel, why not something more than that? Virtually the entire film takes place in a hotel room in Saigon with some of the most painful dialogue you'll ever see on screen. It's as if it's trying to be a parody of all bad spy-war films.

They obviously did NOT bother is a military consultant or technical adviser for the combat scenes. It would be impossible to write a spoiler because by the end you couldn't care less what happens. It is just awful.


Usually I am ready to champion a film that's been pretty much slagged off by everyone else. I mean, it only had 215 votes and, besides, it has Ally Sheedy in it. Surely it can't be that bad?! Sorry to say but it was indeed exceedingly low rent at best. I was pretty unconvinced from the word "go". The opening cab ride, where a short news flash on the car radio takes the entire journey, suddenly had me seeing the flashing red lights that portend a real stinker. Nothing about any of the characters had any sense of authenticity and you could not really care about any of them. The war scenes were hoke and the whole thing is a badly written, badly directed and badly acted mess. There are plenty of ways to spend an hour and a half. I wouldn't waste it watching this.


I tried watching this show to keep my nephew happy, but I couldn't last through one episode. Not because of the story, music, humour... No. Because of the acting.

The acting was truly terrible. I suppose Drake Bell and Josh Peck could get away with speaking like retards in every line-if their supporting cast could act! But no-Miranda Cosgrove always uses the same facial expression and tone of voice. But what's worse is that the parents, played by Jonathon Goldstein and Nancy Sullivan were absolutely, 100% awful. In the episode I saw, something happened to Drake and they both stood there smiling, while saying lines (happily) which would suggest that they were angry. The father was slightly better in his part, although he just came across as an utter moron. But the mother...does she only have one facial expression??

I couldn't finish watching one episode of this show.

Oh, and the jokes were stupid, not funny.


Sometimes, while I'm watching this show, I actually begin to wonder if this was sort of a "how-not-to-make-a-sitcom" show. Every tiny little aspect of the show is unoriginal, and the same jokes are used over and over throughout the show, such as Megan's pranks, Josh's "speech impediment" or whatever you want to call it, and the whole girl thing with Drake. What makes it even worse it the fact that not one of these repeated jokes are funny. In fact, if it weren't for the laugh track, most people wouldn't even know which parts are supposed to be funny.

Not to mention, the show is very predictable. If Drake comes across a girl he likes, guess what's going to happen? He's going to end up with that girl by the end of the episode. And if Megan ever says to either Drake or Josh that she won't pull a certain prank on them, guess what's going to happen? She's going to do it anyway.

In addition to all of this, the acting and scriptwriting is terrible. Drake, Josh, and Miranda are all horrible actors, and most of the guest stars are useless when it comes to acting. As for the scriptwriting, the jokes and such are very bad and not very well thought out, and at some points the dialog just stops making any sense. In fact, if memory serves correctly, Megan, in an attempt to explain just how dumb Drake is, actually compares Drake's brain to a black hole by saying that they both "keep sucking things in and never let anything out". How that can possibly be meant to be an insult is beyond me.

The one thing that irks me the most about this show is the way Josh pronounces certain words, such as "huh", "whoops", and "nice". The makers of this show somehow got it through their heads that this is funny, but it really isn't in the least, and is actually somewhat annoying.

Overall I believe that this show deserves a 1/10.


It was really funny at first, like every show is. But after.. well.. Josh got skinny it stopped being funny. I mean, he yells so much, he does these stupid hand movements that are as annoying as anything. Drake is plain stupid, and Megan just doesn't know when to quit. The person thats aggravates me the most is, of course, Josh. He's just..UGH. I feel like I want to puke because he's so not funny, his jokes and repeating words have gotten old, and he just goes on and on about crap that nobody cares about. 1/10, thanks to Josh. I don't really mind Drake, although it gets annoying that all he thinks about is girls, and Megan gets annoying that she just can't leave Drake and Josh alone for once.


"That Man Bolt" is a film situated in that part of videoclubs, far away from new or famous films, and really really far away from classics. I take the box, read the synopsis and look for the cast, no one is known. So, one day I feel very unconscious and rent the film and what is that? A very, very boring film with some pseudo-martial-arts that extende its relaxant effects during two hours. The idea of this film is very, very similar to "Rush Hour 2" (Hong Kong, false money, Las Vegas...) but Jefferson "Hammer" Bolt has nothing to do compared with Jackie Chan martial art style or Chris Tucker sense of humour. Perfectly forgetable.


This 1 hour episode starts out OK, but falls off in the second half.

Initially, there's a kind of creepy buildup during which a couple of teens go to a funeral home for amusement. The first 30 minutes are actually pretty good and are all about ambiance. It is pretty difficult to maintain a suspenseful and creepy tone, so the director really succeeded here.

However, the downfall of the movie comes when the first laughably ridiculous decision is made: when a terrible thing occurs in front of one of the main characters, he just turns around and stands there thinking about what to do. By the way, he happens to be holding a phone. Do you know anyone who would do that? It's all downhill from there - the story never recovers and becomes very bland after such a good buildup.

This one is worth skipping.


Another less-than-enthusing entry in this erratic series concerns one of the most abused subjects in horror-film history i.e. vampirism  and, yet, it has rarely been dealt with such a visceral (and frankly off-putting) approach. The blood flows in bucketfuls here and rather than bite its victims, the creature tears open their throat like a werewolf or a latter-day zombie would! The chief vampire is played by Michael Ironside (as Mr. Chaney!) in full Jack (THE SHINING) Nicholson mode, while his victims/successors are your typical teens: one white and one black, obsessed with carnage-happy video games but who cringe in the face of real death  so they dare one another to enter a morgue at night and take a good look at the latest 'intern'and that is where their troubles begin. Their reactions, however, are different: while the black boy seems resigned to have joined the ranks of the undead (culminating in a predictable coda, down to the ironic closing line, as he sets out to 'infect' The Big Apple), the other resists  especially after Ironside kidnaps his kid sister to be the blood donor in his initiation!  and commits suicide, awaiting the dawn tied to a cross, in a show-stopping finale. Along the way, the film references NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968; a quotation of the famous line "They're coming to get you, Barbara!"), AN American WEREWOLF IN London (1981; the white kid who escapes the initial attack feels remorse for having abandoned his pal to his fate), BLACK SABBATH (1963; the black kid appears at the other's home claiming to be all right and pleading with his friend to let him in)  and, for good measure, we get various snippets from the Browning/Lugosi Dracula (1931) conveniently showing on TV!


Generally speaking, I am a huge fan of the great "Masters Of Horror" series, but one has to say that the individual episodes differ immensely in quality. While some episodes, such as Dario Argento's "Pelts" or Takashi Miike's "Imprint" are utterly brilliant, some other episodes are pure entertainment, and some episodes, such as Mick Garris' "Chocolate" or Tobe Hooper's "Dance Of The Dead" were, as far as I am considered quite disappointing. "The V-Word" directed by Ernest K. Dickerson (I wonder what qualifies him as a 'Master Of Horror' anyway), however, is by far the worst episode of this otherwise great Horror anthology. Not only is the story ridiculous and the suspense almost nonexistent, even worse, this quite poor attempt of an MoH episode was so obviously made to advertise a Video game, which the main protagonists not only play all the time, but about which everybody talks about throughout the episode. The performances are also quite poor, the only true reason not to skip this episode is the great Michael Ironside, who at least gives this thing a little bit of eeriness.

I won't bother to describe the plot, since it it so thin that even a short description would mean writing a spoiler. "The V-Word" is watchable for Michael Ironside, but otherwise it's a waste of time. Watch ANY other MoH-episode before giving this a try.


I have a feeling that strict horror fans are the ones writing positive reviews of the Masters of Horror episodes, as they have been mostly abysmal thus far. This episode in particular is particularly awful - the first half absolutely does not make use of its creepy setting. The reasons for why the kids go there is questionable, and the backstory surrounding the protagonist and his father is absolutely idiotic. Halfway through, the episode completely shifts gears and turns into a vampire story, and gets even more ridiculous when the revelation is made about who the head vampire is. The show practically caves in on itself by the time the end credits roll. What a waste of time. Avoid like the plague.


The second season of Masters is going downhill quick. After a strong start, John Landis started the downward slide with the hohum "Family" and it keeps on going with Ernest Dickerson's "The V Word". for starters, the v word of the title is for vampire. Strike one. The vampire subgenre is so overused that its just become blase. The story is pretty boring too. Two friends break into a morgue and accidentally unleash a vampire, becoming night walkers as well in the process. The best thing about this episode is Michael Ironside. He is one mean mofo. Its too bad that he's underused in the episode. There are some great scenes of atmosphere, but alone they are not enough to save another episode from getting weighed down by itself. Here's hoping the season takes a turn for the better since John Carpenter is coming up with his take.


This is a good example of why script rewrites are done up until the last minute. When not done right, the jokes just fall flat. I don't think I laughed a single time while watching this movie. The ending was obvious a few minutes in, and the way it all came about was so predictable. But, the thing that amazed me the most was the fact that whoever made this movie thought for a second that it sounded like a good idea. There are some actors that just shouldn't pick their own roles, and some movies that shouldn't have been made. This movie is definitely a good example of what happens when you let those things take place.

Avoid at all costs.


A poorly written, directed, and acted fluff with a couple of laughs. Kirstie Alley supplies the film's only electricity. It follows a rich New York couple evading the IRS, as they hide out in the home of an Amish family (a la Witness).

The humor sprouts from your basic clash of cultures fare. The forced sentimentality is dredged up as the New Yorkers realize they may have something to learn from the Amish. Actually, a fairer treatment of the Amish than most films. However, why one of them has a French accent is beyond me.


This movie isn't bad, but I wasn't impressed either. The usual flashback way of telling the story is slightly changed here: one character tells us what happened, the second one confirms the situations, but puts them in different context, giving them different meaning, and some crucial moments are told completely opposite. As the movie continues it becomes a bit boring, there are no real changes, plot is straight, clear and predictable: whole movie is built on only one question: whose version is a true one? And, unfortunately, the final answer isn't surprising...

This movie is an average, watchable and very forgettable story when you have nothing wiser to do. Zal was disappointing (so promising actress in her early movies like Testament or Amelia, I hoped she'll become something like Mare Winningham, but this movie maybe didn't give her enough opportunity), Perry was better in flashback scenes and quite inconceivable when dealing with her wife's death and being a suspect for her murder, Greene had too small part and I wonder how low can she fall, while Benzali was the only reason one could enjoy in this movie.

If it was written by Raymond Chandler it could be a masterpiece, and Hitchcock had made some great movies with even worse script. But, there was only one Chandler and only one Hitch - so sometimes we have to be satisfied with movies like this.


This may contain spoilers.

This movie is not as horrible, in my opinion as many before me had stated.

The movie itself is a little laggy with some boring parts that are hard to stay tuned to.

This movie has flashbacks in a his view / her view type of situation. But who do you believe? A student falls for her married teacher with murder in the end.

I personally don't think this is a must watch or even that suspenseful as many things give the ending away about 1/3 of the way through it.

If nothing else is on and you find yourself looking for 2 hours to kill on a made for TV movie then give it a chance. It is just OK for me.


I had the misfortune of having only one English language channel at my Croatian hotel. It was either another game of rummy with my wife or a reality show I hadn't seen before. Flavor of Love is a cynical, contrived and utterly useless show. Anyone with half a brain (obviously not their target audience) can see that the scenarios are faked, scripted and unreal. One show has a contestant serving Flavor Flav a raw chicken with vegetables stuffed out of its orifices and feigning innocence and ignorance. This show is an insult to Americans and women. I watched this on MTV Europe as were millions of other Europeans. The message we received was that Americans are insincere, vulgar, materialistic and phony among other things. Where is the pride of the contestants ? They made American women look shallow and willing to do anything in the pursuit of celebrity. Seemingly, their ten seconds of fame is worth the indignity of parading around like gold digging sluts.


Let me start off by writing that this show's concept of one of the most not very handsome people who's made some money in hip-hop/rap/social conscious music today and having him look for a love which is based on his good inner soul and not his millions ...is a great idea.

But this show flushes all of that down the toilet.

In a time when reality shows are "the thing" and most everyone is cute and pretty on these dating shows, it is refreshing to see a show where someone who isn't cute or pretty...but has a lot of money is looking for someone to love. This guy isn't looking for someone to love, he's looking for the next trampy, highly obnoxious, limited educated, utterly stereotypical 'street trash' this show can put together on a weekly basis.

Now, some find that entertaining, because its not as lily white and pristine as, let's say, "The Bachelor" or "The Bachlorette" but did they have to go ALL the way to the other side of the spectrum and drag out the alley cats??!? And instead of a rose...give them a big old clock to hang around their neck? (I know it's Flava-Flav's brand but they might as well give them a spinning hubcap!!!!)

Sorry, this show is more than a sin and a shame to me.

Again, I MUST question the powers over at the MTV Networks. Do they deliberately want to show that hip-hop/rap artists are sex-starved, Ebonics speaking, party all day and night, any female will do butt chasers? And African American women as big booty-shaking behind, non-bra'ed big breasted, pot gut, 3 sizes too short dressed, gaped/gold toothed, big hooped earring-ed, loud-arsed lazy, sex-starved, money hungry, two-timing, back-biting shrills? Because that is all I see. I know African American hip-hop music artists that have MBA's (Yes, there are a few) are wanting to throw up looking at this mess. But a well-educated African American hip-hop artist is not what is entertaining to show to the world or to advertisers, is it VH-1?

My goodness, don't ANY of these women have respect for themselves and/or others? I think the network deliberately LOOKS for women who are the loudest, most obnoxious, disgusting, ill-mannered and doesn't give a ditty WHO they sleep with as long as there is money involved. The women casted seemed to have been on a street corner only days before and was lured to this show with a promise of a roof over their head, a pool and a chance to'win' dates on TV, in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers with a 'big' star - Flava-Flav.

FOX Network kinda went the "beauty pageant" way with "Who wants to marry a millionaire" and come to find out the man was worth two nickles. This "Flavor of Love" is all about the money and the idea of women degrading themselves for the opportunity to be with a not so hot looking music star.

The argument will come in that, "these women know what they're getting into". This is true because after watching this, no woman with any self respect would degrade herself this way. Not under the guise of entertainment.

And Flava-Flav? What kind of a man is HE to allow himself to be paraded around like this week after week for entertainment? He too must be out of his mind to think he will actually find "love" among this bunch. Maybe the 'love' of paying doctor bills because just looking at these women through the TV makes me want to get preventative disease shots.

The people involved in this show should all have their heads examined. This is a travesty, it's a horrible view towards hip-hop, towards unsightly men in the music industry who ARE looking for real love, and degrading to women - ALL women.

MTV/VH-1 Networks are beginning to scare me. With entertainment fair like this to push onto a young demographic for alleged chuckles, I can just imagine what their next slate of shows will be like: Lassie finds a new owner via DIO and goes on a 30 city tour...or 6 Ex-Drug addict musicians are put together in a house for 30 days where they are told one kilo of cocaine is hidden and at the end after they all messed over each other to get it, it's actually baby powder...or several single surprisingly still-living 1960's/1970's era rock musicians get to vie for their own mail order bride from overseas...or Bishop Don Juan has a beauty-type contest where the winner will accompany him to the next 'Player's Ball'and get the chance to perform in front of that audience ... entertaining? Heck no! Yes, horrible, but so are these shows.

Sure, for low-brow entertainment and advertising revenue sake, get passé ugly musicians and help them find dates....but there's no need to go to the trash for it. Young minds are looking. MTV influenced a whole generation - now THIS generation you want to make their minds mush. Everything MTV was seemingly against. Now, they are the establishment.

So again I say, Shame on you for a network that used to be ahead of its time.


Okay, so first of all, this movie was made in 2008. It shouldve been better since we have improved with special effects over the years. Horror fans seek something new and different than all this "Re-imagining crap we keep getting of a lot of classic horror films. Anyway, throughout this movie, I saw a lot of scenes and themes from older, better and classic movies. For example, our "Killer" is bacially a phsycopath man who goes around killing teens in twisted and nasty ways. Just like the "Saw" series, except the dude is already dead. What the hell? So he is a ghost that is miracurosly alive and in good shape coming back for his so called "Revenge" just like Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th. Burke is the killer's name and he has the Kruegar/Voorhees/Black Christmas theme to him. Next...we have our "wonderful" death scenes. Which are just like Black Christmas with the gouging of the eyes, ripping of the lips and tongue, hanging someone hanging from a string, chopping a girls head off...typical nasty crap. It is also very much Nightmare on Elm Street. The killer appears to his victims after the lights go out and he is able to transform into people's parents and make them re-live their worst nightmare. Just like Freddy Krueger.

So I have made this clear that I hate this movie. Its plain stupid and retardedly messed up. I will explain more on the message boards.

Directors...don't mess with the classics!!!! ~Sam~


This must be the worst "horror" movie i've ever seen and i've seen a lot of horror movies.

Hmm i guess you could compare this crapp**y piece of shi**t to Disaster Movie if anyone has seen it. The main difference is that D.M. has its highlights where you can at least smile a bit, at Asylum there is no single scene where you could be just a bit frightened, well maybe just at the thought how much of good old money was spent for making this, while it could be put to better more not-stupid things, like i don't know THROWING IT TO GARBAGE! I apologize for bad language but see the movie and you will understand.


Can you make a film as bad as this? This is a film made by vacuous brain for the mentally retarded with an open mind. A film without consistency, without history, in which characters are fake, some comic situations pretending to fear. A movie that replaces the dialogue non-existent by noises to which most unpleasant and not come to story. A film bad, bad, bad to save credits and little else. Please no more movies like this which is a catalog of what imperfect, a manual of what not to do in the movies.Could be a few teenagers in college so stupid, drug addicts, mentally retarded, with so many traumas fools? If this is so poor and poor college students. But is there anyone who will explore thinking about the future? It seems that the only thing important is the alcohol, marijuana and sex and little else. Poor teenagers who have to be better this movie whose name they can give you is that is bullshit about the size of a piano.


This movie is the best example for what happens, when someone does not focus on the script while making a movie.

The DVD booklet says a lot about intimacy, about how this intimacy with the characters was developed while making the movie. I can only say: Thanks for wasting at least an hour of my life. The movie starts with a most brutal raping scene that made me wanting to puke. From there it staggers along, with a lot of scenes showing Jürgen Vogel naked exercising, masturbating, and similar, until the love story with Nettie (played very well by Sabine Timoteo) develops.

The movie is 163 minutes. With enough meat to make it 90 minutes. In an interview the director (who shows his semi-existent camera skills in too many shaky scenes) talks about the script becoming "a kind of map with a lot of blanks to be explored while filming", and thats shown in the movie. 5 minute long end scene with Nettie holding Theo at the beach, 15 minutes chasing Theo through Berlin, etc. No focus. No story. Very arty. Thanks for wasting German TV-fee money on that one.

And we see way too much of Jürgen Vogels penis. Some things need not to be shown. Art is too impress without showing. Too show it all just shows that the director lacks the means to create all the horror and disgust without the clear picture. On the contrary when Theo breaks into a woman's apartment to rape her we see him leave, but we have no idea whether his demons got the upper hand or not. So there is sadistic curiosity when someone is raped, but when the free will has it's short time, it's too much to just state the fact and the audience is left in the dark.

The camera is so bad that it hurts. Has no one ever told the director that a digital camera is not the right choice for dark scenes ? When a leg in the dark, or a face, consists of about 5-7 shades of grey, the camera might have been the wrong choice. And the movie has a lot of dark scenes. And they all look the grainy way which is the best such a camera can do in such a scene. Maybe some less intimacy and some more professional pictures might have been achieved by using a real camera man instead of doing it all alone.

So, after all, the movie sucks. The actors are great (3 stars for that), but thats about it. 3 years of research and writing, just to throw the script away as soon as you start filming. But hey, who cares, it's not as if this movie was supposed to make any money. A classical German.


I, too, saw this film at the Berlinale, and though the matter of rape was treated with maturity and frankness, the film itself was constructed poorly. More than anything, it was bland - camera placement and cuts were standard fare, non-diagetic sound was near non-existent, and the dialogue was highly unrealistic, comprising of long, drawn-out pauses interspersed with briefly-spoken lines.

The upshot of this was that I felt no attachment to the characters beyond a basic sympathy for their current predicaments - dialogue was stretched out to the point of losing its emotional resonance, and many lines were delivered with little feeling from the actors. I was particularly unconvinced by Sabine Timoteo's performance, whose talent restricted her to screaming rather than actual crying. Compared to Claire Dane's stunning depiction of anguish in Romeo and Juliet, I felt wholly unsatisfied by her performance.

It was these factors that made the characters feel less than human, failing to imbue them with life. This, coupled with the utterly bland direction and editing, meant that I felt no attachment to them, and I was left gagging for each coming line of dialogue purely to provide a break from the silent, expressionless moments in between. Drawing out the narrative to over two and a half hours simply rubbed salt in the wound.

The Free Will was not in itself awful, but there were so few points of interest that I found myself becoming restless within forty minutes, and when the credits rolled in what will doubtless be considered a brilliantly emotional finale, I still felt little attachment to the characters.


One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Inconsistent story line, way too long, camera shots that last forever, mute characters, scenes that have nothing to do with the story, etc. E.g. why do we have to watch the protagonist practicing his martial arts moves? Especially when it's a bad move like when he teaches his girlfriend to defend herself from being choked. I hope no female viewer will memorize that move, because it will not work at all but even put her in greater danger.

A typical poor German movie, I have seen many of this kind. Heavy stuff, always trying to explain the world to us, and/or trying to educate the audience when it is not called for.

The story could have been told in 90 minutes (max). But it drags on and on and on.

But the worst is the sound, there is a constant background noise. The sound editor should be put in jail for this masterpiece, at least he should not edit another movie.

What a waste of time and money.

Dr. Marre (ph.d.guy)


What do you get when you throw a 13-year-old girl and a fifty something old lady in a room together and tell them to churn out a script? Apparently, it's "Thirteen," which is in my opinion one of the biggest cinematic abominations of all time.

This garbage heap of silver screen melodrama tells the story of a 13 year old girl named Tracy who, over the course of what seems like a week, is turned into a drug-using, self-mutilating hussy when she befriends a "popular girl" named Evie (is it just me or is there too much business over who's "popular" and who's not in films about adolescence?). Throughout the course of all this, she begins turning on her mother and her family, who seem kind of unshaken by most of it until the last 15 minutes of the film.

Perhaps my hatred for this film comes mainly from the way the girls at my school talk about and how it was "Just like real life." Keep in mind that these girls are rich white suburbanites, not poverty-stricken kids in the ghetto like the ones in the movie. But putting that aside, I'd say that the film's biggest problem is it's script, in that it is entirely unrealistic and melodramatic. I watched this movie with people who said they loved it, and at times even they laughed at some of the dialog. Apparently for the girls at my school, "Guys I totally just stole all this!" "I don't think I've ever seen this much money in my life!" "Let's go shopping!" "Hell yeah!" is realistic dialog. The next major problem is the acting. Evan Rachel Wood's Tracy is entirely irritating and ridiculous, and while watching this film I found myself not feeling sympathetic but annoyed. I grit my teeth every time she speaks.

Most of the praise for this film moves towards Holly Hunter's performance as Tracy's clueless mother. I know a lot of moms in real life who are like her in that they try to be hip and let their daughters do whatever they want, but I can't see playing that role as much of a challenge. Tell me, when was the last time someone won an Oscar for acting stupid and clueless? Lastly, we move on to Catherine Hardwicke's pretentious style. The look of this film is mainly grainy steady cam shots that inter cut with one another. Granted, there are some sequences that look and sound pretty alright, but for regular scenes it's just annoying. This should be studied by filmmakers who want to make up for their abysmal storyline and acting with fake art-house cinematography that will land them a spot at that super-indie underground film festival, Sundance. You know, the one with it's own cable channel.

I'd say avoid this one at all costs, and if you hear someone say something nice about it, don't take their phone calls.


The fact that this was actually written by a thirteen year old girl says it all. The movie begs sympathy for these girls while the only people actually doing harm to them are themselves. That alone is an extremely frustrating fact. In addition to that, the story is terrible and lacking in actual interesting points, and is obviously made only for angsty teens as delusional as these characters. If you are a depressed suburban kid under the false idea that your family hates you or that your mom's boyfriend is irresponsible for recovering from a drug addiction then I'm sure you would love this movie. If you are reasonable and mature, It would be a very good idea not to waste your time. The stupidity of the characters is not at all compelling and only frustrates you.


In 1995, Sam Raimi had become known as the director of a rather quirky and original horror film that, in spite of being shot full frame with terrible actors, displayed a talent for composition not seen in some time. However, he had also given himself a rather large black mark in the form of an attempt to be "cool" with a horror-comedy where violence has no visible consequences, and everyone speaks like a reject from a teen soap opera. Individuals singing Raimi's praises will have you believe such was the best thing Raimi had done at the time. Unfortunately, what it really was was Raimi demonstrating that he had run out of ideas that he could call his own, and was now getting his repertoire fed to him by the most disingenuous money-men of the industry. In spite of a heroic attempt a few years later to return to the style of creating characters with The Gift, The Quick And The Dead can be labelled the moment where Sam Raimi, the innovative new voice behind The Evil Dead or Darkman, was gone forever.

While it is all but taken as read that a Sam Raimi film will be a hamfest with more clichés than a film-making class nowadays, nobody was quite prepared for how he displayed the fact in The Quick And The Dead. They say that when you put together a film in which the characters are the story, you best have good actors behind them. Unfortunately, with the exceptions of Russell Crowe, Lance Henriksen, and Gene Hackman, every actor in this film comes off as being utterly terrible. Even Lance, who by this time had the making of great characters out of terrible scripts down to an art, comes off as a complete non-entity here. Hence, I have no hesitation at all in placing a share of the blame upon writer Simon Moore. For all of his faults, Raimi at least knows how to salvage a character in the editing process. And when your cast includes the men who played Bishop or Lex Luthor, it is hard to blame the problem on the actors. Henriksen's performance, however, will get the more ignorant placing the blame on the cast.

Sharon Stone makes that an easy mistake to make, unfortunately. From the second she enters the town set, she makes it abundantly clear that she has seen one too many Sergio Leone films and thought "I can do that". And to be fair, for those who have not seen The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly or Once Upon A Time In The West, Stone appears to be doing a good job. Compounding the problem, however, is that neither writer nor director seem to have any idea which scenes they should not be stealing from. The final moment when Harmonica's flashback is completed in Once Upon A Time In The West is such a gob-smacker in its original form that smart directors know not to try and ape because it was more than just a means to an end. It was literally the final word. Unfortunately, Raimi tries to one-up Leone's signature scene in a flashback where Hackman forces Stacy Linn Ramsower as the young Ellen to shoot her father dead. Not only is the tone of the scene entirely off, the total absence of any proper lead-up completely undercuts the drama of the sequence.

Equally terrible is Leonardo DiCaprio as Fee, or The Kid as he is called during the film. DiCaprio has finally proved in such pieces as Blood Diamond or The Departed that he can act, but after The Quick And The Dead, anyone could be forgiven for thinking DiCaprio came straight from a high school drama. During the entire film, The Kid is only a whiny brat who starts to bawl when things do not entirely go his way. When he meets his end, the scene is so perfunctory, so devoid of weight, that while Hackman lends some much-needed credibility with his totally unmoved reactions, Stone destroys the whole thing with some incredible overacting. It is not entirely DiCaprio's or even Stone's fault, as the script gives them absolutely no development or buildup for this moment. DiCaprio is clearly in over his head playing a character that the writer and director apparently could not give two figs about. The sad thing is that with all the weight Stone was throwing around on the set, it would have done wonders if she had recognised this problem and addressed it.

This partly leads me to believe others may be right when they say that The Quick And The Dead needed another hour of footage (or script) in order to accomplish its goals. With more time and development in the early stages, the constant parade of characters both minor and major could have had some impact. Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, and minor ones at that, the deaths in The Quick And The Dead are merely a parade of images. Perhaps The Quick And The Uninteresting would have been a more appropriate title. And when one remembers that this film was put together by the same man who gave us such a haunting, creepy atmosphere in The Evil Dead, or such a horrifyingly real tragic hero in Darkman, it makes The Quick And The Dead such a bitter pill to swallow. Not that we honestly could have expected much more. The Western as a genre has been thoroughly tapped out, and it would take a truly incredible film to give it new life. The kind of film that The Quick And The Dead is not.

The Quick And The Dead is a four out of ten film. I have seen plenty of films that are worse, but in light of what its director used to be capable of, I have seen very few that are so incredibly frustrating.


Sorry but this is a vent more then a comment.

How could anyone call this a western. It may have taken place in western times but the stupidity of the plot is incredible.

A contest where people compete by a quick draw shoot out. Not very well done I might add. Oh please.

I admit the final shoot out at the fort was entertaining but you have to suffer through the entire move to get there.

I was offered a free copy of this movie but refused to include it in my collection. Maybe I should have accepted that way I could have trashed the DVD.


Not even Evil Deads' Sam Raimi could help this pitiful excuse for a spaghetti Western. Sharon Stone comes back to seek revenge years after the death of her father. Gene Hackman seems to be the only one not going through the motions and actually giving us a decent performance. However the script written by Simon Moore is so incoherent and dull. The characters are characters you've seen in every revenge movie ever. But Sam is a bit to blame as well. Holes in heads big enough to see the person who put them there and people doing backflips after getting shot were just a few of the very unbelievable things in this movie. Sam should just stick to Spider-Man.


I started out this movie with a positive attitude towards it. Rodney Dangerfield brings character to a character that is essentially a milder, toned down canine version of himself. The animation isn't good, though the opening scene is really well animated. As the movie drags on, more characters are introduced. All of them are clichéd are very poorly voiced and none of them are interesting in the least. It's good to have Rodney Dangerfield as the star character and main attraction of his movie, but that doesn't mean every other character should be boring and underused. But in the end, it was the little things that made this a real stinker.

Rover Dangerfield (Voiced by Rodney Dangerfield) is a gambling dog in Vegas and is owned by a Vegas show girl, Connie. Rover accidentally ruins an illegal deal being done by Connie's mean boyfriend Rocky, so when Connie leaves for a couple weeks, Rocky disposes of the dog, and Rover ends up on a farm. Now Rover must learn to work for his meals and learn to live out of the city. Along the way he makes some boring friends and falls in love with the neighbor farm's dog, Daisy. By the end, Rover must choose between the high life and the farm life.

There were quite a few things in this movie that didn't make much sense. First off, Rocky wants to get rid of Rover, so he throws him over the Hoover Dam? It seems like taking him a mile out and leaving would suffice, but instead he gets thrown over a dam. Earlier, Connie got mad at Rocky for showing up late to her birthday. What didn't make sense is, she was about to go on stage, and it seemed the other showgirls surprised her with this, so how was Rocky supposed to know to come. And even if he did know, he only came like a minute after the girls sang happy birthday. One minute late to a party he wasn't in on doesn't seem like that big of deal.

Connie shows affection towards Rover. She really loves her dog...maybe a little too much. She's living on a showgirl salary, and she feeds him steak and whatever he wants every day. Everything he does she laughs at, something Rover couldn't pull off for the viewing audience. She is constantly kissing and hugging him, and several times before leaving says she'll miss him. At the end, she drives what must be hundreds of miles to private property just because she thinks he might miss a female dog on the farm...that makes no sense. This movie is supposed to have the realism that humans are the dominant species on the Earth and dogs are their pets, but to me, it seems she is his love slave or something. It's creepy and weird. I almost expected a dog-human make out session from how much she loves him. Also, the farm people love Rover a lot, and are always hugging and kissing him, but why are they neglecting all the other more useful farm dogs?

The voices here are just awful. The little farm boy got to my last nerve with his scratchy delivery. He sounded like he's been smoking too much or something. The kid's dad has this monotonous voice that's hard to take seriously. Raffles, the sheep dog also gives some horrid deliveries. Overall, it just should be chalked up to bad voice acting, except for Rodney, and Sal Landi who was quite good as Rocky.

Characters and character traits are introduced, but by the end they add up to nothing. Rover is supposedly a funny dog, so you think maybe by the end he'd become a comedian, but nope. Just ditch the idea that everyone thinks he's funny. Rover meets all these dogs on the farm that have unique character traits, but not one of the dogs must've got any more than 10 lines in the entire movie, except for his love interest, Daisy.

What's a good way to pick up a mediocre cartoon? How about making it a musical. That usually works right...usually it does, but the music here is so run of the mill. The songs are boring and add nothing to anything. Most of them are random, too and express nothing. One song, Rover sings about not peeing on Christmas trees, one about liking living the high life in Vegas. Might as well have a song about Rover sleeping, and one about him eating. They're about as important as the actual songs.

My biggest pet peeve in animated movies was featured here. The farmer's son asks to keep the dog and the dad and the son are discussing this. Meanwhile Rover is saying all kinds of stupid things that are supposed to be witty, during their conversation. For some reason, every time Rover talks, their conversation takes a long pause, then they continue. They aren't paying attention to Rover, they're just randomly taking 30 second pauses after each statement. I seriously hate that in cartoons! Overall, this is a really cruddy animated feature, with voice work that would've been more lively if each character was voiced by Ben Stine, and inconsistencies throughout. Avoid this one, even if you're a fan of Rodney Dangerfield.

My rating: * out of ****. 70 mins. Rated G.


As others who've seen this film have mentioned, 'The Eyes of the Mummy' is not a horror film involving any mummies; rather, it's an insipid melodramatic tragedy. It was the first of director Ernst Lubitsch's dramatic films, after having started as a comedic filmmaker. The movie involves exotic places (this time, Egypt), which is poorly exploited here, compared to other such pictures. Pola Negri, in her first appearance as Lubitsch's star, performs some exotic dancing, too.

'The Eyes of the Mummy' is a generally uninteresting film. The acting, especially by stars Negri and Emil Jannings, is overdone. Lubitsch employs slight dolly movements to nice effect in the finale, but otherwise the direction is prosaic and theatrical. From the sampling of Lubitsch's German films that I've seen, he was an unremarkable filmmaker and more unimpressive as a dramatic director. With these dramas, however, he received attention in the US--leading to his emigration to Hollywood.


Considering that this film was directed by the famed German director, Ernst Lubitsch, starred the great Emil Jannings AND it's title talks about Mummies, I was certain that I would love this film--especially since I love silent films. However, in this dreary film, you see none of the famed "Lubitsch touch", Jannings is just okay, the film is NOT about mummies at all and the print from Alpha Video was so fuzzy that it was a chore to watch the thing! The film is set in Egypt, though you really don't see any mummies. Instead, it's an odd tale about a weirdo (Jannings) who has kidnapped a lady (Pola Negri) and has kept her locked inside a temple. When she's rescued by a Brit, he's smitten with her and takes her back to the UK to live with him. She is worried, though, that the crazed Jannings will follow her and exact revenge. No mummies, no curse and not a whole lot of action or excitement.

I wonder. With a different title and different people responsible for the film, I would have had lower expectations and therefore liked the movie more. But, as it was, it was a HUGE disappointment in practically every way.

PS--I've seen quite a few films from Alpha Video. While some of their offerings are rare and hard to find, their DVDs are rather consistently of dubious quality and are rarely, if ever, restored. They are inexpensive, but they're also no bargain thanks to fuzzy or scratchy prints. If you can find other brands, you may want to try them first.


I agree the film was not restored well at all. The music did not go along with the visual images. It seemed as though whoever wrote the score was just not paying attention to the movie. The music sounded rather chipper for scenes that seemed dark and a plot that is haunting. A new version is coming out March 28,2006 with a new music score. Hopefully that one will be much better. I heard that the new score is all piano and that the composer also did the score for The Mechanical Man. Which is a very rare old silent film that was found. Looking forward to seeing it. Hopefully the next version of Eyes of The Mummy will be much more better.


If, as promised, this movie was restored then the results are simply horrible.

A company called National Film Museum gave this film to another company called Hypercube IIc, in New York to digitally restore the film.

But, instead of a intelligent restoration what this people did was to tint every scene to red, probably with Photoshop, with disastrous results.

Douglas M. Protsik music is as unremarkable as the bad restoration. His accompaniment does not enhance the images at all.

In all, the available print shown on TCM is unwatchable and I had to turn off the TV set.


I have only seen the 7 minute version, so I may be missing out on a lot. Anyway, here is the rundown of events in "Rabbit's Moon". Somebody dressed in a clown suit is standing outside looking at the moon. A rabbit appears. Then a court jester appears and does a mime routine. Finally, a woman appears and does a terrible dance. The End.

 Maybe I am just too stupid to understand the artistic integrity of this short. All I know is that it is boring and, in my humble opinion, a waste of celluloid and talent.


ERMO

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

Warm, amusing comedy-drama set in northern China where the proud, stubborn Ermo (Alia) works her fingers to the bone selling home-made noodles in order to trounce her snobby neighbors by saving enough money to purchase the biggest TV in the district. Despite this slender framework, the film is rich in characterisation and incident, such as Alia's budding romance with a married man (Liu Peiqi), a narrative thread which is alternately funny and poignant, and genuinely affecting. The acting is restrained and believable, and director Zhou Xiaowen frames and edits every scene to perfection. It's a bit too laidback to really jump off the screen, and its pleasures are minor, but you simply can't fault the craftsmanship on display.

(Mandarin dialogue)


I went into this film with no expectations. Still, I was horribly disappointed. As I saw the opening credits roll by, I was pretty excited: Buscemi, Lloyd, and... Walken! As it turns out, the actors were just fine. They did what they could but no one could polish a turd like this.

The writing was staggeringly bad. All of the dialog fixated on the characters using cute little terms for things. It seemed like a very awkward effort to be hip. Half the time they made no sense at all. The whole "Give it a name" routine seemed like a very forced attempt to create some sort of catchy phrase along the lines of the "Fuggedaboddit" in Goodfellas. Jimmy the Saint's rambling monologues seemed like they were pulled from some teenager's diary. I loved the way he just sort of read those lines to the air and everyone pretended to listen. I felt really bad for Garcia. He's no Pacino and not even Pacino could make any of those lines sound like they made any sense. And what was with his wavering accent? All of the empty characters seemed like they were written with Kevin Costner in mind.

The epitomic moment of this film is when Critical Bill insists on playing a cop and Jimmy caves in and lets him do so with the insurance that he's not allowed to open his mouth. Jeez! I wonder if he'll somehow screw everything up... by... opening his mouth or something? The slightly-too-loud background music indicates that this is very possible! Let us continue to watch and see! Jimmy's whole fling with Dagney was so tacked-on-- as was his relationship with Lucinda. They had no bearing on the rest of the film. There were many little stories that all involved the main character but none of them had anything to do with each other and none of them had any development within themselves. There were no surprises in the movie and I simply didn't care for any of the characters except for, perhaps, the kids that got killed out on the highway. They, of course, were simply props in the film. For that matter, all of the characters were simply props. Lifeless robots with flashy nicknames who drift about with a single motivation: the script-- They must read the lines they have been given and hope that the editors make sense of it all.

What was with Jimmy beating up the dude in the office? That whole scene was pointless. Are we supposed to think that he's some kind of stand-up guy now? What was with those abrupt clips from the dying people slapped randomly through the film. How poetic. How deep. Not really.

I can't bear to think of it any longer. To sum up: bad story, flat characters, horrid dialog, poor editing-- A poor attempt to cash in on the Pulp Fiction popularity of the time. It would give it zero stars, but it gets one point for Walken and one point for Buscemi.


This movie is a failure in every sense of the word. It tries so desperately to aquire the praise tarantino deserved so well. Instead it comes across as being naive and pretentious. The dialogue is absolutely laughable. I didn't think highly of Garcia to begin with, but this particular 'performance' has finally thrashed every last bit of credibility he had. Keep your day-job Andy!


I watched this film at my husband's suggestion and hated it. There are "guy flicks" that I like ("Resevoir Dogs" for example), but this ain't one of them. The violence level is to be expected, and Steve Buscemi is his usual engaging self. So much for the good points. What really put me off this movie was the female characters. Each is completely one-dimensional and fills space with all the umph of a zero. Better not to have included any women in this outing rather than settle for such unworthy additions.

If you're a male who wants to have something stupid running in the background while you access your computer, you may enjoy this movie. All other potential viewers: avoid this turd.


1st watched 12/12/2003 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Gary Fleder): Andy G. is pretty, but it doesn't make the movie any good. This movie with Andy Garcia isn't quite sure what it wants to be from the beginning to the end. Is it a black comedy? Nope. Is it a Love Story? Nope. Is it a crime thriller? Nope. Is it a good guy always wins, story? Nope. What the movie is about is a bunch of old crooks, getting back together for one more job and it ends up going bad and then they are hunted down by the mobster who gave them the job. There are some interesting character actors who do good in their roles mainly because they don't take themselves or their characters too seriously. Specifically, Mister Shhhh played by Steve Buscemi and Critical Bill played by Treat Williams. A wasted narrator(Jack Warden) walks us thru the story like we're talking about some "classic" people but we're really only talking about gangsters who were out for a buck. Garcia seems to be giggling inside thru parts of this movie which takes away any semblance of reality and of course he gets a pretty girl but other than this there isn't much else to be said about this good title, but poor movie.


I wasn't thrilled by this movie, or even vaguely moved. I was

restless and listless and found myself looking at the scenery and

the camera movement, a sure sign that it is not working on any

level. As Emanuel Levy says in his book Cinema of Outsiders, this

film has a "senseless narrative and flaunts an arrogant style, but

like The Usual Suspects, it's hollow at the center." I agree. .


I'm not sure why films about the mob ever got so popular. I will admit that this film has a good cast. But since the characters are mostly lowlife criminals, why am I supposed to care about them? Organized crime is extremely depressing -- not something to make movies about. The story unfolds well enough, but the complete lack of moral compass that characterizes mobsters like these ruined it for me.

I think time will cast the entire crime/noir/neo-noir genre in a strange light, and people will start wondering why films that wallow in gratuitous violence and organized crime were ever considered entertaining. Any thinking person will realize that America's slow decline throughout the twentieth century was the natural result of rampant criminality getting the upper hand.


A friend recommended that I see this movie and I am sorry that I did. We start out with the excellent Jack Warden blabbing away for hours in a restaurant out in public about the criminal life of Jimmy the Saint, Andy Garcia's character. People involved in crime don't do this. We are introduced to a group of ex cons who have to do a job for a mob boss. These guys are supposed to be some sort of friends but I didn't believe it. First, one guy in this group is so crazy that I don't know why the others have anything to do with him. Next is the performance by Andy Garcia which just wasn't very effective. There is a hit man played by the great Steve Buscemi. He is supposed to be some sort of avenging angel but the role is ridiculous in this type of film. It would fit better in Terminator 3.

I could go on but I'll just add that many very good actors, Christopher Walken, Bill Nunn and Christopher Lloyd couldn't help this turkey. I guess the topper for me was that the film makers had some sort of anal fixation. They were very concerned about what went in, bullets also charmingly called "buckwheats" and what went out.

I understand that since Pulp Fiction, anything gross is supposed to be cool. Frankly, this Denver mess made Pulp Fiction look good. But if you compare Things to Do in Denver to the best crime films, Goodfellas or Casino, it is a piece of garbage. And since one character dies in garbage, maybe that is the best description of it.


I can't believe that 1000 of my fellow IMDb folk gave this movie a 7 or better. What is wrong with you? This is a terrible movie; if you don't believe me, read the reviews! The dialogue is infantile, the plot ridiculous ( why would Jimmy get 4 other crazy thugs, and split the $50,000., when he do it himself, or just hire one or two of the crazies for a couple of grand?)If you haven't seen it, please don't! I could go on for hours about how bad this movie is, and what a waste of acting talent, but I'll stop now.


This is exactly a film for the people who think that film history starts with Pulp Fiction. It's a cliche-ridden crime story with supposedly cool dialogues and sudden lapses into sentimentality. If one can watch Christopher Walker doing his psycho thing for umpteenth time and can buy Steve Buscemi as ruthless hitman, then one might enjoy it.


I'm completely stunned by the amount of praise people seem to be lavishing on this turkey. It's awful. It makes little sense. And worst of all, it's not even a 'fun-derivative' movie, a la the John Sayles-type of exploitation films of the late '70's, early '80's.

Ex-low life (now nicknamed "Jimmy the Saint") Andy Garcia plans 'one final job' for mobster Christopher Walken. For reasons that make absolutely no sense, he gets a bunch of idiotic misfits to help him. These sub-criminals are put together by the screenwriter for the sole purpose of having the viewer watch people yell and scream at each other. For instance, the black guy doesn't want to work with Treat Williams because he heard that Treat was a 'fecal eater' (a fact that doesn't exactly advance the plot) in prison. So for more minutes than we need, we see yelling and shouting about this.

The job gets botched because...if it didn't, there would be no movie. Walken tells Garcia that his crew will now be -- get this -- "buckwheats." What are 'buckwheats' you may ask? Good question. As narrator Jack Warden (who inexplicably spends the entire movie telling us poor viewers what's going on from inside the malt shop Garcia is prone to visit)explains it, 'buckwheats' means that you will die in a most painful way. Ooooh! The rest of the film deals with Garcia trying to get his brain-dead crew to leave town. He offers them plane tickets to exotic locations. No one accepts these tickets because...well, if they did, the filmmakers wouldn't be able to show us the various ways these people get tortured and killed by assassain Steve (have they made a movie without me yet?) Buscemi.

Lotsa wannabe hip dialogue is peppered throughout this movie in an obvious attempt to ape Tarantino. The only problem is, the dialogue doesn't make a lot of sense without Jack Warden to explain it all. A complete waste of time.

On scale of 1 to 10, give this one a 1...and that's being generous.


I watch a lot of foreign films. The problem I have with this film is the same problem that I have with a lot of Italian films of this era. It is the same problem that I have with Italian automobiles of this era.

The film is "high concept" and there is a lot of trendy sixties-style artistry in the colors and the camera angles. The plot is well-crafted but there is no shocking turn of events (a la "Sixth Sense" or "Psycho"). But the primary problem I have is with the execution.

Like Italian automobiles, the film is stylish but the mechanics are crappy and very distracting. One major problem is the dialog. Actors frequently switch between fluent accent-free English and fluent accent-free Italian. The only problem is that their voices are completely different in tone and intonation, which makes it jarringly obvious that the dialog is being dubbed. This actually makes the characters seem completely different when they are speaking English vs. Italian. The female lead is a ditzy hipster in English and a sultry temptress in Italian.

Of course, if Dario is your demi-god, you could argue that he was trying to emphasize some sort of emotional divide between the English-speaking and Italian-speaking cultures by creating such a jarring contrast. But Occam's razor suggests that it was just the standard sloppy execution that tends to characterize Italian films of this era.

This is supposed to be Dario's masterpiece, but my opinion is: If you want to see effective use of a dab of red, go to the Tate and look at the Caravaggio paintings. If you want a twisted plot, there are probably a dozen films a year now coming out with better ones, and that includes European and independent films.


So yes. Here we are at number 18 on our "Chilling Classics" Movie pack. And oh well, we might as well get right into it.

Allrighty. This movie begins with, that's right, you guessed it, somebody getting stabbed. Why they're getting stabbed? Who's stabbing them? i have no idea! well, maybe i will after the movie's over. OK. Here's the first problem with a slasher thriller. it's 2 hours long. The alternate title to this movie is "The Hatchet Murders" no movie with that alternate title should be over 90 minutes. if you make a slasher thriller and it's 126 minutes, you're just pure unadulterated evil.

So the movie is about this psychic who we know for all of 5 minutes as she's quickly murdered by somebody because she knows that person committed murder. Apparently that person thinks about it so loudly that it drowns out 200 other people in the audience. My opinion is that the killer was probably singing the meow mix song in their head while replacing the lyrics "i'm a killer, i'm a killer, stab my husband in the baaackk". And then the girl gets owned by a cleaver. several times. However our hero (a pianist) sees the murder take place and takes it upon himself to solve it. And the police kind of just step aside as he does so. Watch out men! he's a licensed Pianist! And to drive this fact home, they show a scene where he plays the piano, just in case you didn't believe him.

Then we're introduced to quite possibly the stupidest journalist in...well... okay, they are stupid in EVERY movie but you get the point. Not only does she barge into the crime scene to take photos, but she takes a snapshot of the only eyewitness putting his name and info on the front page of the paper. i'm sorry, that's...that's just stupid. So mr pianist and his new journalist spunky female friend (my brain hurts) try to figure out the murders. Why? i have absolutely no clue. Apparently it has a connection to a song or something, but then it doesn't? So after a grueling hour and a half of searching we discover that it's the pianist's friend. and granted his death is pretty badass. Getting dragged by a truck and head crushed is pretty nifty. and all is well....OR IS IT?! no! because the real killer is his mom! The reasoning behind that is that several decades ago she killed her husband because....he...wanted to take her to the doctor to get mental help. So she stabs him. Sorry but.... if you stab your husband...doesn't that kind of PROVE you're crazy? and that's all the backstory we get for the reason she killed like 10 people. and the son was just covering it up for her. And then she gets her head cut off because she was wearing gaudy jewelry. The End.

The biggest problem of this movie besides the ungodly length was the fact that i really didn't care about these characters or why they were doing what they were doing. i sort of just shrugged and felt like going about my business. They didn't draw me in, i didn't feel anything they were doing and i felt like the pianists involvement was random and i didn't believe it. i know i always say that a movie should be based on entertainment value and i stick by that. But if a movie drags on and on, you get bored and you begin to think about these things. Now granted there's some cool gore and it's not the worst thing i've ever seen, it's pretty passable, but other than a meh, i wasn't that interested. I was more than a little shocked when i saw the high ratings on this movie. I could see this movie maybe getting a 4-6, but nothing above that. that's just ridiculous.

Deep Red gets 4 Necklaces of death, out of 10


Thursday March 16, 700pm Metro Cinemas

Joyeux Noël opens with a moving prologue of school children from France, Germany, Scotland and America reciting the memorized dogma of war. The story builds effectively as the War To End All Wars begins with tearful farewells and marching troops. Unlike most films dealing with the same material, here is a very balanced approach allowing for sympathetic portrayals of all sides. Cinematography, editing, art direction, costumes and visual narrative are all excellent but the film fails to deliver effectively at the pivotal moment and instead fizzles out into inappropriate attempts at ill-conceived humor. Tiny votive candles on holiday trees perfectly and inexplicably light the night of the country battlefield as opposing sides agree to a cease-fire on Christmas Eve 1914. Joyeux Noël concludes with an overstated condemnation of nationalism and organized religion. Set in the horror that eventually cost millions of lives, this story seems far too lighthearted and superficial.


The two opera singers are SUCH bad actors, I wondered if they were out of budget for some competent ones. The lip-synchronization was TERRIFYING. They didn't bother AT LEAST watching some operas to see that a soprano cannot possibly sing all those high notes with her mouth almost closed and relaxed like she's singing Christmas songs in a family event. Even Kathleen Battle cannot do that.

I wouldn't even want to talk about how RIDICULOUSLY WWI was depicted. Honestly! People DROWNED in mud in Passchendale (sp?) and here's we've got solid ground, tidy trenches, healthy soldiers, etc....

Bad dialogues (i.e. 'I have lice')???!!!!! There are far too many fictitious characters. People had shell shock. Here, we've got plenty of characters that seem like Harry Potter counterparts. As somebody else also stated.

NOT worth watching. EXTREMELY overrated and boring. By the time I watched half of it, I thought it was an avant-garde movie because it also seemed so naive, but the directors were clearly striving for a typical, joyful Christmas film. And they failed.


One hoped that this was all over: Euro Pudding Films. Taking cash from many countries, and in return each country has to get a reward somehow. Here goes...

The story is a "natural" for this, involving three countries clashing. With a director and not an auteur this could have been a very nice basis for a decent movie. But the director simply struggles: Three story lines, one dimensional characters, questionable talent (Krüger just can't act, can't even dub her lines properly, Fürmann has been, is and will be a poser, and both of them can't even deliver proper lipsync singing performance. Rest of cast is OK, with Daniel Brühl again a brilliant stand out; the man's just got it, presence, you now what I mean. Technical credits soso, just OK for these days. In parts very bad editing (eg. going from mid shot to mid shot with different light set up on Krüger, awful). BUT the movie is just BORING. I found it difficult to sit through. OK for DVD. Don't spend money on a cinema ticket. It's a bomb in Germany and now I know why!


Ken Loach goes American and tells a story of illegal immigrant workers and how their 'rights' are trampled on. Whilst a good enough depiction of all-too unacknowledged systematized injustice, the moral high ground is unbalanced and self-congratulatory. As a simple documentary it might have been interesting - as entertainment it is a well-made film that fails to entertain.


I'd like to start with a positive note: I liked the performance of Elpidia Carrillo.

I did not care much for the rest of the movie.

It has been shown, again and again, that trade unions are bad for the American economy. The UAW union has been "successfully" destroying the American automobile industry; the teachers' union has been no less successfully destroying the American schools; et cetera, et cetera. But these minor details shouldn't matter, should they, when we watch "Bread and Roses"?

This movie, if you take it seriously, wants you to believe that without a union, the only way for a woman to get a job for herself or for her sister is to sleep with the boss; otherwise she can only support her family by becoming a prostitute.

The cute female lead, an illegal Mexican immigrant, robs a gas station, but we are supposed to sympathize with her because this is "for a good cause".

The male lead, a union organizer, steals the food from a table in a restaurant, and we are supposed to admire him for that and other examples of outrageous anti-social behavior.

The demonstrators, when asked for their names by the police, give the names of Mexican revolutionary figures, and we are supposed to laugh at the stupidity of the American policemen.

The illegals, oops, the undocumented workers, struggle to improve their lot in this country, instead of doing the same in their own country, or waiting in line to come here legally. We of course are expected to fully support them, to embrace them, to learn their language, to sing their songs. It shouldn't cross our mind that they have already broken the law of this country by crossing the border illegally and just for that alone should be treated as criminals.

And that's both funny and outrageously shameful.


Take a look at the biography of Paul Laverty on this site . A truly remarkable and gifted individual who has led a very interesting life . What a pity then that he didn't sacrifice some of his lust for life by reading up on what makes a good story . Sorry if I'm sounding bitter or personal towards Mr Laverty but is there any type of market for this movie ?

BREAD AND ROSES is the story of Maya , an illegal immigrant from Mexico whose sister Rosa gets her a job as a janitor . Being a non union service the work supervisor can hire and fire people on a whim so Maya with some others organizes " A Justice For Janitors " campaign

I do concede that not every movie can be LORD OF THE RINGS in epic scope , technical ability or just plain excitement but really who is going to stand out a cinema in the pouring rain wanting to buy a ticket for something like this ? One things for certain - There won't be a long queue in front of you if you do decide to see it

I do concede that Ken Loach directed movies are very popular . But only with people obsessed with " social realism " and once again Loach directs a movie with zero commercial appeal . Anyone who has attended any worthy film class will realise there is no longer ( If there ever was ) any type of market for this type of film . Of course some very privileged people who are professional socialists will scream that we need film makers like Loach and Laverty in order to point out the grave injustices of the socio economic divide but I suggest that India , a country that personifies the injustice between the haves and have nots , has perhaps the most successful film industry in the universe and there's no such thing as " social realism " in a Bollywood movie

The bottom line for Loach and Laverty is : If you want to send a message try Western Union


My God, could this movie get ANY MORE bleeding heart? Wonderful - a story of illegal aliens who sneak into the US and then complain that they're not getting enough from their illegally held jobs. Argh...

Sorry, Ken. It didn't work for me with working class Brits in _Riff Raff_. It's even worse when you try to do the same movie again in the US.


(There are Spoilers) Having been into the Black Arts all his adult life London antiques dealer Neal Mottram, Jack Palance, secretly has monthly, when there's a full moon, jam sessions with his coven of witches. These sessions are held in the basement of his antiques shop to bring him as well as his followers financial rewards in what ever business that their in.

Worshiping this African Idol named Chuku Mottram has to provide it with monthly human sacrifices to keep his luck going. That resulted in him getting out of debt and becoming independently wealthy with his shop used as a front for his murderous activities.

The local police are a bit suspicious of Mottram since he's suspected of being involved in two different murders of women who were known to him and ended up savagely mutilated, and in one case burned to a crisps, and found floating in the Thames River. With Chuku constantly needing new blood to be spilled to satisfy his gluttonous appetite Mottran comes up with a plan to do in his old and rich Aunt Louise, Edith Evens. Mottron orchestrates a night out and sleep in with an old flame of his the chubby and chunky Dolly Newman, Diana Dors, who runs a Bed & Breakfast in town and whom he hasn't seen in over three years.

Getting Dolly good and drunk on her favorite brew, Cherry Brandy,Mottran checks out of her place and travels 70 miles to Aunt Louies home. Hiding in the closet Mottran catches her by surprise wearing a Halloween mask scaring the sick old lady to death. For some strange reason Mottran later drives a wooden stake through the dead lady's heart, like she were a vampire, and then drives back to Dolly's. Mottran jumps into bed with her just as she wakes up, from the effects of all the booze she drank, making Dolly think that he spent the entire evening, and a good part of the morning, with her.

The police lead by this tough talking and no BS guy Det. Sgt. Wall,Michael Jayston, feel that it was Mottram who murdered Aunt Louise? How could that be! Didn't the coroner determine that Aunt Louise was already dead before the stake, the so-called murder weapon was used to sacrifice, not kill, her by the insane Mottram? With her death being the result of Mottran scaring her to death a fact that the police were totally unaware off!

The weak link in Mottram's chain of murders turned out to be his live-in protégée in his antique shop the naive and alcoholic prone Ronnie, Martin Potter. Ronnie when he finds out about his boss' dirty deeds comes apart and starts to hit the bar scene drinking himself almost to the point of passing out. At the the same time Ronnie gets up enough courage to smash to pieces Mottram's evil idol Chuku.

Being tailed by the police Ronnie leads them to Mottram's basement where Chuku is and where Mottram just came back after he offered another blood-sacrifice to Chuku, hooker masseuses and part-time dominatrix Sally,Suzy Kendall.

Wild final with Mottram going completely berserk as he tries to defend his Idol Chuku from Ronnie's drunken ax attacks. Beating him up and throwing Ronnie head-first through the store window with the police, headed by the rough and ready Det. Wall,coming on the scene to put the cuffs on the now crazed and hysterical Mottram. Mottram didn't go, or give up, willingly and it had to take a full load of lead from Det. Wall's revolver to finally put the homicidal madman down.


Slowly limping along, this movie is best used as a tranquilizer. The African god Chuku, fervently worshiped by a scene-chewing Jack Palance, apparently talks his victims to death. Some people get killed while Palance smokes cigars. The plot doesn't just have holes, it tears at the very fabric of space and time until "Craze" finally comes to an entirely predictable end. If you can keep from nodding off while watching this, you're a more determined viewer than I.

I saw this on "Shilling Shockers" with host Penny Dreadful. If you find yourself with insomnia then watch this movie and you will sleep. If it doesn't work for you... consult your physician.


I have this film on the "Slasher Cinema" box-set with some other films. I found it extremely hard to watch and had to turn off after a while. That's because the sound is too hard to hear clearly, and the picture is very murky. The film also seemed very boring during the 'talky' bits so I thought I'd fast-forward through a lot of them. From what I can gather, Craze seemed to be about the crazy antiques dealer who prays to an African statue and sacrifices people to it. The statue itself looked very weird and creepy and I liked it when the camera zoomed up towards its eyes.

However, I cannot really recommend this film at all, unless you can find a copy with decent sound quality. A tolerance for early 70's films will also help.


When I first saw Shannyn Sossamon in 'The Holiday', I wanted to see what else she had done. Well, she was great in this otherwise forgettable effort.

Perhaps it is just me, but after two viewings I have little idea of what was going on. We have this dirty cop about to retire and held over to finish out a baffling murder case. For unexplained reasons, he drives around in a 1969 Ford Galaxie convertible with a police radio. He is not undercover, so why does he drive his personal car? I suppose he was watching too many episodes of 'Miami Vice' and 'Nash Bridges' where the TV heroes drove their own convertibles.

Then we have the trainee partner transferring in from undercover work in Miami. Somehow, he is immediately familiar with New York City and the local criminal hierarchy. His understanding of police procedure and office politics is strangely uneven. His personnel dossier is strangely incomplete, but little interest is aroused by these discrepancies. The police chief probably was thinking about having meatloaf for lunch.

The plot has the dirty cop turning in his badge and sending a confession of his crime to the daughter of the undercover cop he murdered to save himself from exposure and death. Why our man is suddenly developing a conscience is never addressed.

After more murders and an attempt to question an informant who suddenly and inexplicably turned homicidal toward his police handlers, we are allowed to find out that the real transferee cop from Miami has been held captive and a ringer is about to use his position to assassinate a crime lord in his prison cell.

After killing his real target, the phony cop has no difficulty escaping from prison guards and a police dragnet and boarding a private jet to fly to freedom.

The final photographs that would incriminate the dirty cop never reach the police and he presumably retires to enjoy his pension. The ending of this film is just as incoherent as the plot. It would not have strained the film budget much to provide a better script that would allow the audience to know what is supposed to be going on.


I watched this movie because I like several of the actors, including Madsen and Shannyn Sossamon. Shannyn is likable enough that I am willing to watch her in just about anything. Which is helpful, given the roles she generally gets.

The mystery involves people turning up dead with Polaroid pictures left behind as clues. Kevin Harrison (Madsen) is the hardboiled, jaded detective who is retiring after this last case. Except that this case has connections to mistakes he has made in the past. There is a new cop working with him who behaves oddly, and the case also involves a link to Taylor's (Sossamon) missing father.

The narrative was somewhat difficult to follow. It included flashbacks that seemed to contradict each other and motivations that the viewer had to guess at. Except that it doesn't really add up to a compelling enough story to make me want to watch it again. Some movies may seem complex on first viewing, but are rich enough to go back and examine until you get it. I won't be doing that with Chasing Ghosts. I think I'll re-watch L.A. Confidential instead.


I'm sure we have all seen long movies we have enjoyed, but this one appears to be a 30 minute movie with 80 minutes of filling, it just has long pointless scenes, that add nothing to nor the movie or the characters, they are just there and you have to watch them. It even has characters that add nothing what so ever to the plot, they just appear do their stuff, say their lines and yes, you have to watch it.

I must admit after watching the first 100 minutes, the movie has an interesting twist, probably thats why i didn't give it a 1, but even the most twisted of twists could not save 100 minutes of nothing.

It has some pieces of action but for some strange reason the director might have thought you could get excited and he nicely inserted them in the form of flashbacks he could interrupt every 30 seconds and fit in a few minutes of reaction shots.

To finish this off i promise i was trying hard to think something nice to say about the movie but it happens to be so long and so slow, that when you get to an action scene or to an important part of the story you are so bored from what happened before that they go unappreciated.


Movie was quite boring, didn't bring much to the screen...

It is EXACTLY like a 2 HOUR version of one of the boring CSI episodes. Just drawn-out over 2 hours!. Now don't get me wrong, I LIKE CSI, but some of the episodes are just too slow to bare!

I would not recommend this movie, and it is mostly boring-police dialogue. If you are looking for an ACTION movie, you have chosen the wrong movie, this movie is more like a detective-drama.

If you are looking for a movie that resembles SAW, SEVEN, or Silence of the Lambs, this is not the movie to see. Unlike those three movies, Chasing Ghosts has a bad plot, reasonably bad cast (Madsen was fine as his usual self!), and watered-down action (when there was any action!).

MOVIE : 3/10 - Didn't like the movie.


As a devotee of movies about intrigues, conspiracies and white-collar crimes that turn ugly, I was predisposed to like any story set in the glamorous-but-devious world of Swiss banking. And I like John Saxon.

But with very bad sound, clumsy credits, actors not interacting, corny music, a confusing plot (though I guessed the bad guy right away), a subplot more about middle-aged lust than romance, literal-minded camera work and a script so full of cliches there was no room for anything original, I had to give it a 3.

If you like skiing see "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". If you like bank fraud see "Shawshank Redemption". If you like conspiracies, see "Parallax View". If you like untrustworthy older people having sex, see the remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair". And if you want to see all of these in one movie, this is not the one.

I think the makers of this film were trying to make some sort of cross between the plot of a Bond movie and the style of "The French Connection". If you like car chases, you should see it.

"The French Connection", I mean.


A decent thriller starring David Janssen as a security consultant hired by Swiss bank owner Ray Milland to find out who is trying to blackmail the bank by exposing secret account information. Janssen suspects an inside job and is charged with protecting bank customer Senta Berger. John Saxon, John Ireland and Elke Sommer pop up as various suspects. Janssen is his usual stolid self and Berger is stunning, though really has nothing to do but flirt with Janssen. Ireland and Saxon overact wildly in their brief roles. The direction (by Jack Arnold!) is strictly journeyman work, with a few car chases and one too many dull shoot-outs. The whole thing is tied together nicely in the end. The screeching and over-used music is by Klaus Doldinger.


What's up with David Janssen? I've seen any number of films he stars in and I've yet to see why or how the guy made so many films, especially late in his career. I know he made some good stuff early on like The Fugitive, but does anyone find the David Janssen that appeared in The Swiss Conspiracy appealing? Are we really supposed to believe the scenes of him in bed with Senta Berger? I'm not buying it for a second. He's got that greasy, unwashed look to him like he's on a three-day bender and has had one too many bottles of Scotch and just finished his third pack of cigarettes before noon. Actors like Clint Eastwood can scowl through a whole movie and look tough. Janssen just looks like he's got some sort of lower intestinal problem. And what's with that hair? Why in the world would anyone grow their sideburns long enough to comb them back over their ears? Did he really think that was a good look?

As for The Swiss Conspiracy, there's a reason you can buy it in the U.S. for $1 from every public domain company to come down the pike  it's not very good. It's amazing that you can take a cast that includes the aforementioned Janssen (regardless of my rant, I still like him), Senta Berger, John Saxon, John Ireland, Elke Sommer, Ray Milland, and Anton Diffring and make something this bad. Each of these actors appeared in any number of films that I enjoy. But not here. Part of the problem is that most of these actors are so underutilized that you wonder what made them want to do this film in the first place. Take John Saxon. His tough, Chicago hood character would have been great had he stuck around for more than 10 minutes. What a waste!


This movie was paced so slowly that even snails would be saying "Hello, I'd like to get there sometime today!" The best part of the movie is where this chef in a restaurant goes after someone with a cleaver. After that it goes downhill from there. So yeah, there's a conspiracy to forward the cause of bad films everywhere. I had to watch the ending a couple of times because I kept nodding off. If you are suffering from insomnia, pop this movie in and start watching it. It worked so well,that I almost got fired for sleeping on the job. If you want to see a better movie starring David Janssen, go watch Moon of the Wolf. In fact, the only reason I saw this movie was because it was on a DVD with Moon of the Wolf. It was in a bargain bin at a Walgreens near where I work. The sticker price was one dollar. It was one of those DVD's that are out there that are packaged in one of those slim jewel cases, and the DVD is double sided (a movie on both sides). Although I was surprised to see that Ray Milland starred in this movie. If you want to see a Ray Milland movie that's better, go watch Frogs. It has him and Sam Elliot.


David Janssen didn't seem to have had the best of luck in movies. He appeared in approximately 32 movies while at Universal International and post that he appeared in several to a few movies of varying quality. While several were passable (Marooned, Warning Shot) were passable--watchable if not great--several were plain embarrassments (like "My Six Loves" and "Once is Not Enough").

This movie seems to be among those that Janssen shot for television, where he seemed to have had better luck. If it was on TV, I question why the people that put this out on DVD presented a fouled-up copy with beeping out several words throughout. And it looks as if it had the life--whatever life it had--sucked right out of it. I object to these censored efforts. It is one thing to place cut up versions on television due to legalities. It is another thing entirely to put them to video that I rent or purchase. The people behind this thing really do not have much of an excuse.

The picture looks grainy, the score is badly dubbed and edited and the script and the performances look dismal. The atrocious score robs several scenes of whatever tension and excitement they have going for them. And Janssen looks as if he is merely walking through the whole thing, wondering what in the hell he is doing as a former government agent enlisted by Ray Milland to investigate several cases of blackmail or so you think. John Saxon adds what little life there is to this as a rival to Janssen but when he left, the picture became a boring slog.

It is too bad that the better movies David Janssen made are not! available, like the much better "Birds of Prey" or "Nowhere to Run". Now those are much better than this one.

I give this a 1, and the DVD a 0. Again, these may be low-budget but you can do much better, guys.


Kara Unger co-stars, and that's always good. But this film basically throws away everything it works so hard to achieve. The first 30 minutes or so are fairly engrossing (in a "Dark City", "Matrix", "Strange Days" sort of way) and the settings and characters are intriguing. Then things start to go down the tubes.

*****SPOILER ALERT

If you are watching the action fairly closely, you will see the entire plot of the movie foreshadowed at least three times in the first ten minutes. I kept expecting that the movie would end with some sort of surprise, but it didn't. This complete lack of suspense contributed significantly to my lack of enjoyment.

*****END SPOILER

Eventually, the art-house pretentiousness just wears you down. The plot has a few high points and there's a little bit of titillation, but not much else to keep your interest past the halfway point. By the one-hour mark, I just didn't care about any of the characters and (since I knew what the underlying plot point was) I just sort of gave up.

To give the director and crew some due, the film definitely has a "look" that belies the small budget. The apartment house is suitably odd, as are all the tenants. Sisto does a good job with what he's given.

Still, I thought this would be more worthwhile than it was.


I think this is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I kept watching waiting for a plot, my husband and I both missed a possible plot. So many things are left unanswered!! I feel like I just woke up from a bad dream and now I'll spend the rest of my evening confused and trying to figure it out. I don't even know if I can tell you what the movie was about I'm so confused but I'll tell you what I know. This guy is in this apartment building where no one acts normal at all. The neighbors are strange, and even the guy at the grocery store is strange. He pays high prices for small items at the grocery store....which is odd, who pays 90 bucks for a gallon of milk? He is trying to figure out what is going on around him and then comes this pretty lame explanation and a very strange ending to the movie. As you are still waiting for them to answer so many questions that have been brought up by the attempt at a plot.....the movie ends...we actually had to check the chapters left on the DVD to see if that was REALLY the end!!!

I wouldn't waste my time with this film unless you like "fill in the blank" movies!


Simon is a computer programmer who is being pressured to complete a code. He begins to receive unmarked, seemingly empty packages from an unknown source. These packages add to his already paranoid state, making him install a high tech alarm system and put pad locks on everything. His only real communication with the outside world is the currier that brings him the items he requests, including milk, which he begins to buy and drink in large quantities. As he looks into who is sending him the packages, he discovers one neighbor is stockpiling cola and making internet "cybersmut" films through virtual reality programming, another neighbor has been using the smut program on a regular basis and is stockpiling juice, and yet another neighbor is stockpiling meat. The movie goes on to make you believe SImon is really going crazy, until near the end they reveal that he is just a very advanced computer, infected with an invisible program delivered through the empty boxes. Simon's creator was also a neighbor who admits to him the glitches in the program have cause him to become sick and the best thing is to end it all. This movie was basically a waste of time, but if you have 2 hours to kill and want something hard to follow to watch, then this is the movie for you.


Don't waste your money with this piece of "work". Boring, underdirected, overplayed, overdramatized, inconsistent -- these are just a few words that come to mind when watching this garbage. The movie promises to keep you in suspense until the very end, however, half way through you realize that you are no longer interested in finding out what's going on. The dialogue is so bleak and uninteresting, you will find yourself nodding off after about 40 minutes. The producers have tried to combine suspense, horror, intrigue, sci-fi, gore, and romance, and they failed miserably. The actors' plays leave you wishing for Pauly Shore's return. To summarize: if you want to see a bad, yet somewhat entertaining movie, watch Biodome. Don't waste your hard-earned money with this garbage.


Matrix meets Kafka meets Eyes Wide Shut. On a budget. Without the cool. This is a painful film to watch, which unfortunately, I think was the intent. Take away the fact that the film has a very interesting Philip Dick type of premise and some very clever directing (the sound practically carries the movie!) and you are left with cryptic dialogue, shallow (but spooky) characters, kinky sex and an occasional beheading. Good enough for Sundance. But who wants to see this, really?