In The Bat, top-billed Vincent Price brings his silky, sinister elegance to the second remake of the hoary "old dark house" stage play. But the real stars of the show are Agnes Moorehead, as an eccentric mystery writer who decides to pull off the million-dollar bank heist, and the steel-clawed killer known only as "The Bat." Price's devious doctor is but one of a rogues' gallery of suspects that include a Johnny-on-the-spot police detective, a chauffeur turned butler with a checkered past, and a housekeeper with echoes of Rebecca's Mrs. Danvers. Moorehead is a kick as the spirited author, and makes the most of her expanded role, but fans of the early film productions (1926's The Bat and 1930's The Bat Whispers, both directed by Roland West) will be less forgiving of other changes, especially writer-director Crane Wilbur's decision to draw the story out over a succession of nights. Wilbur loses the tension and claustrophobia of the originals with a rambling pace and handsome but airy photography, more appropriate to an episode of Perry Mason. Moorehead and Price bring a little spirit to the otherwise bland film, but not quite enough.


Normally, I find Vincent Price comforting. He's an old friend that never lets me down. Sure some of the movies he's been in were stinkers but they were always watchable. This film is the exception to the rule and along with Shock, is a film so bad that even Vincent Price can't save it

In theory this film is based on the old play of the same name that was a tent pole of the "old Dark House" genre of plays popular in the 20's and 30's. The original play was also the source of two earlier and better screen versions. Having recently watched both earlier versions prior to watching this film I'm left wondering if it wouldn't have been easier to just make something up rather than pay royalties for a source that the filmmakers were going to ignore anyway.

This film looks like it was made for TV. Worse, it looks like it was made for the bad TV channel, which people are forced to watch for some terrible crime. There is nothing resembling direction so even the normally good actors like Price and Agnes Moorehead seem to have decided not to show up and phoned in their performances. The script is terrible and takes a perfectly good story and adds all sorts of unremarkable twists.

Not worth your time, even to review or talk bad about. Forget it and move on to something else.


I'm surprised the screen writer's efforts were listed under the term "credits". He trashed the book, he trashed the bats, and everyone who was involved in the making of this film should have been sued for wasting the viewers' time and money. Rinehart's original story was a (dated) but interesting and entertaining tale of suspense, nothing that involved misinformation about little animals. Considered by some as the author's best work, this deserved better treatment. As for the acting, well...it's not that Vincent Price was incapable of a decent performance - "Shelby" was delightfully slimy in LAURA, but he seemed to need better direction than he got in this stinker. Read the book - or watch the paint peel from the ceiling. Either would be a better use of your time.


Vincent Price was, as always, splendid in this movie. Unfortunately, he's only onscreen for about 5 - 10 minutes. Everything else about the movie is boring and hackneyed. Its one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Strike that, it _is_ the worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen part of Battlefield Earth.

It'd get a big fat 0 in my book, except that rating isn't a choice and any movie with Vincent Price should get at least a 1.


I was eagerly awaiting the release of this movie only to be dropped flat. Excellent actors, lousy parts. I didn't get attached to anyone in the movie, except for George Clooney's son, who was more of a plot device prop, than a character. There are extra, pretty useless characters, like the drunk brother that waste the viewers time and don't really pay off in the end. The same set up could have existed without the extra family. I'll allow one coincidence to every screenwriter, but this movie is chock full of them. Clooney just happens to have a brother on the police force. He just happens to run into the lunatic lawyer who's hiding from everybody. He just happens to pull over to look at horses when his car blows up. And so on. We have to see this stupid scene not once, but twice. Why does he stop to look at the horses for crying out loud? The first time I see it I think surely its a set up that will pay off later. But no. Not to mention, the writer would have been wise to sit up for an all night marathon of CSI to think we would buy that his throwing a watch, wallet and cell phone in a burning car would equate to somebody thinking he was dead. Hello? the most basic forensically challenged would realize these items would burn up. Yet the absences of a corpse, well, that wouldn't throw anyone off. And the killing of the lunatic lawyer, well, gee, an "apparent suicide" for overdose would include an examination of his stomach contents, which, surprise, would not have included all those pills since his killers injected him with the drugs that kill him. Somewhere in all the hacked, arty story telling there was a half way decent plot that got wasted on this dreary, boring, annoying product. I was so far ahead of everyone in it, I wanted to just stand up and announce what was going to happen so we could all go home. Everybody in the theater groaned at the end. Maybe a few simple people that are in love with George Clooney will enjoy it, but I'd rather watch repeated reruns of ER.


This is not a good movie. You never find out what exactly Michael Clayton does or why he is needed to do that thing that he does. The story has a bad plot and fails terribly in continuity. Just who are the bad guys anyway? There are better movies out there to watch rather than waste your time and money on this one. Example of bad thought out ideas --- Bad guys use a GPS, that does not work correctly and has nothing to do with a car bomb that is triggered with a cell phone --- DUH!!!!! And what will Michael do after this movie??? This actually looks and feels like a TV pilot that was rejected, but they had too much money in it to let it go on the floor. Do not feel too bad if you walk out of the theater after this movie and ask "What was that all about?" The movie keeps you waiting for something to happen and then disappoints when it does. If there is a book, maybe reading it first may give you some idea of what is happening in the movie.


You can just imagine the scene in some movie producers office :

" You know that movie set in the 1980s where Christian Bale kills his colleagues ? "

" Yeah vaguely "

" Well I just wrote the sequel "

" Is that the one where both Bale's character and Bale himself don't make an appearance , instead we have a teenage bimbo bumping off people she doesn't like ? "

" Yeah "

" Then why's your screenplay called TEENAGE BIMBO GOES ON KILLING SPREE ? Shouldn't either the words American or Psycho appear if it's a sequel ? "

" Hey I never thought of that "

"And it's probably illegal to call something a sequel if it has absolutely no connection with the original movie "

" Thanks for pointing that out boss . I'll rewrite the opening scene even if it contradicts the first movie . Let's do lunch "

I'm sort of guessing the producers had what's known in Britain as " A liquid lunch " or possibly they had something even stronger . As many people on this site have pointed out AP2:AAG not only hints that not only does it have nothing in common with the original movie it also seems to contradict AP . The story centres around Rachael Newman who would have been about four years old during the events of the first film . Why did anyone have to use the character of Patrick Bateman to set up the story here ? It's not even a plausible set up and it's not a plausible story in the first place . Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is how on earth Rachael would be physically able to commit these crimes because Mila Kunis doesn't look an inch taller than five foot , doesn't look an ounce heavier than ninety pounds and yet is able to commit acts of extreme violence with a sharp object . Realising this unlikely scenario the director wisely often cuts to a different scene when Rachael bumps off a victim . But this doesn't stop other massive plot holes like the police not checking for DNA when the victim of a car crash is found at the end of the movie

AP2:AAG is yet another cynical attempt to sell a stupid movie as a " Black comedy " but this is done in an even more cynical manner since it's a serial killer screenplay marketed as the sequel to a totally unrelated movie . It might have funny moments but these I'm sure are totally unintentional . If you saw the original you will hate this , if you haven't you will still hate this . Perhaps the motive behind it was to make the original appear much better than it actually was . If so then the producers have succeeded


...they're a dime a dozen. "American Psycho 2" is a terrible desecration of Bret Easton Ellis's novel and the original film. I had my doubts about this even before it saw release, but my assumptions turned out correct--I masochistically sat through this idiotic mess, even though I felt compelled to turn it off at least once every five minutes. Humor, satire, and violence here exist on a very elementary level--the "plot" (college girl kills to become a teacher's assistant) has no link, in tone or character, to anything established in the first film or book. As a matter of fact, the budget's so obviously low that the filmmakers attempt to pass off the homicidal goings-on as flat-out 'comedy.' "American Psycho 2" is an incredible waste of celluloid, videotape, and DVD space. Rent this only if you're a vapid teenybopper who still thinks the "Scream" films are 'hip.'

Zero/10


Why did movie have to be made? "American Psycho 2" is a terrible "film". It may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Mila Kunis should immediately fire her agent for even informing her of this script. Most of the murders were implausible. There is no way her character could have killed all those people. I advise you to avoid this film and check out the original "American Psycho" instead.


For those that are huge fans of the Christian Bale masterpiece should whole heartily avoid this film at all costs. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing connecting these two films together outside of a title and a slight beginning reference to a man that never should have existed in the first place  one elusive Patrick Bateman. From the beginning the story makes no sense, supposed serial killer Patrick Bateman kills again, leaving a small girl to finish what he started. From that point forward, she decides to do whatever it takes to kill/capture all the serial killers of the world  thus becoming one in the process. Again, what should have just been in Bateman's mind destroys the concept that this film is balanced on  so, all we are left with are views, images, goofy music, and acting that honestly came from a Cracker Jack box. Our lead this time is Mila Kunis, of "That 70s Show fame", jumping or should I say "bubbling" right out of her character on FOX to a nearly identical character for this film. Her goal for the film, become William Shatner's teaching assistant so that she can get into Quantico and thus fulfilling her dreams to capture serial killers. What actually happens in the film is that she kills everyone in her way (everyone else is oblivious to the pile of bodies) to get that respected position. Nobody is safe, and as we prepare for the ending, a twist so predictable is thrown our way that we could care less about her, the story, or the semi-terrifying ending. Our only hope is that they decide to end the series with this film. What could the story be next? Patrick Bateman's ghost returns for more non-existent killing?

From every angle of this film, I was disgraced. I was such an enormous fan of the original film (the insanity, the characters, the violence), that to be handed a stick of bubble gum after eating veal just felt insulting. There are those that actually enjoyed this film, which just boggles my mind. How could anyone, either a fan of the original or not, enjoy this cookie-cutter film? In the commentary, director Morgan J. Freeman even admits to being a "director-for-hire", which means the story was already in place all he needed to do was put that "direct-to-video" feel to it, and it was ready for packaging, sealing, and delivery to those unsuspecting viewers who were tied into just the title. Nothing worked in this film. The music took me away from the horrors that were happening, and made me feel that I was camping at a carnival. The selection made me want to shake my hips and chew some bubble gum (odd, this is transforming into a theme to this film). The cinematography was juvenile at best. Errors erupted with leaps and bounds, and again, during the commentary the director wasn't afraid to point them out. From these low points, the only place to go was further down with acting that somehow connected well to the carnival music. Shatner tried his best, but just couldn't pull off the womanizing teacher with connections to Quantico. The chemistry between him and the other ladies felt scripted and old. In just a short twenty days, one probably doesn't have the chance to get to know the rest of your cast, so just read your lines and pray for the best. For those wondering how Kunis did with this role, just listen to her in the commentary. Pathetic would be a good word, amateur would be another, and just to give you that third scoop, she was unbelievable at best. Freeman attempted to make her this convincing detail oriented killer, with a killer body, but the result was anything but scary  in fact  one could go so far to say that it was "killer funny". Can I say it one more time? Nothing in this film worked. I don't mean to be lacking detail, but from the initial scene it was obvious that we were on a downward path  did Morgan J. Freeman even see the original?

I have no sympathy for this film. "American Psycho II: All American Girl" was a debauchery to the series, to the words that Bret Easton Ellis put on the page, and to cinema itself. I have no respect for those that say that this should not be paired with the original, but instead should just be watched on its own. The original "American Psycho" was well acted, nail-bitingly genre bending, and continually asks me to question the value of a male dominated workplace on Wall Street. In the original, the question became what happens to a man that has everything  in the sequel, the question transforms into "What would a girl do to get everything?" The themes are even the same. This film is a prime example of Hollywood looking to capitalize on a cult film by merely selling the title. Oh, what a horrid experiment gone wrong.

If you wanted a cheap version of the original, I suggest this one. It contains no artistic value, no moral thought-provoking moments, and definitely nothing that could be called unique or creative. The word original was never in Morgan J. Freeman's dialog. Listen to the audio commentary if you don't believe me, these Freeman and Kunis give hope to the aspiring director (who doesn't mind selling out for a paycheck) as well as a disgraceful taste to the human race.

This was cheap  with a capital C.

Grade: * out of *****


I had a feeling this was going to be a bad flick. I admit, the only reason I even watched the video was hopefully because Christian Bale would be in some scenes, but he wasn't. The link to the original is awful, I did however enjoy William Shattner's performance (I hope I spelled that correct) he was pretty funny and pretty goofy throughout.

But the movie was just too darn spaced out to think anything good of. It makes you relize just how good the original AP was compared to this.


(3/10). The first thing that meets you in this film is a voice belonging to a darkhaired girl. And it is an annoying voice that is. There is plenty of voice overs in this film and this F***ING annoying voice is going at it. Bla, bla, bla. How the hell could they cast Mila Kunis for this movie. How the hell could they make this movie. I guess they just wanted to make more money and fool people who liked the first. Thank god it didn't cost me anything to see it. Let this be a warning: If there is a sequel made by people who had nothing to with the first it's probably going to suck. Which probably means that Terminator 3 is going to suck... too bad. All in all this is a stinker. And if you didn't figure that out just look at the tagline: ANGRIER. DEADLIER. SEXIER. Says it all.


If you liked the first movie, don't see this. Actually nothing is good in this film. It's the first time I feel this way about a movie, I just find it ridiculous. I like American Psycho because of the entire environment that really is. We've got the thing about Dorsia and their calling cards and all the different expensive brands. This film got nothing of it. For first it takes place in some kind of American college environment, and the head actress is Mila Kunis, that's the first warning sign. And then there's a different director. How many follow-ups with a different director have actually turned up good? I don't think I can mention any. And what's charming with the murder she does? Nothing. And who seriously believe that Patrick Bateman would be slaughtered by that tiny girl? And where's all the nice music that was played in American Psycho?


American Psycho 2 is a disgrace to the movie American Psycho. This seems more like a girl power movie with over acting characters then a horror thriller. Every thing about this movie sucks. It is a waste of money to rent this movie, it would also be a waste of time to download and watch it. The movies plot was written by morons. The starting of the movie shows the main character as a girl watching her baby sitter about to get killed by Patrick Bateman. Later on the movie you find out her baby sitter knew Patrick Bateman was a serial killer. Why would see be their? This does not make any sense. You will also see the main character killed one of her friends and left her in a closet in a dorm room. You can smell a dead dog from a mile away but a dead human in a dorm room right by the entrance. Hmmm. That must be a dormitory for people who can't taste or smell. Not only that, I highly doubt a scrawny girl could move bodies across campuses in a smart amount of time without any one what so ever noticing. Who ever wrote this movie should get slapped in the face. American Psycho 2 should have involved Patrick Bateman again not some girl obsessed with joining the FBI. The movie did not have any funny parts at all. It was not scary or funny, it was boring.


This pretends to be a sequel to the superb American Psycho. It isn't. it's an insult. It simply exploits a spurious association and in so doing drags down the earlier work.

Right from the very start to the very last second we are hammered with the leaden narration of the lead character, nothing is left for us to see. It might as well be a "talking book for the visually impaired". Maybe the director is visually impaired: how else does he fail to see the absurdity of the illustration on the cover of a book about a murder being a photo taken a few minutes after the incident for which there were only three witnesses without a photographer among them?

The plot makes no sense. Sure, the stolen identity idea works, just about, but even that falls apart when we consider that college records usually include photos of the students. What is worse is that the narrator tells us she kept quiet about seeing a murder to avoid years of therapy, then goes to a therapist anyway, doesn't actually tell him anything, but invests great effort in inspiring fear in him, a character who had no relevance whatever to the protagonists plans. Except that, coincidentally, he happens to be the professors friend. Which suggests that this entire chunk of the plot is simply a cack-handed way of tacking-on an external viewpoint to the professors death. How incompetent a method of storytelling is that?

In a work where it is used to serious effect we might tolerate the gross and extreme violence that begin with the very first frame ( a severed head ). But in this context, a ridiculous piece of chirpy teen-twaddle, that explicit violence becomes offensive.

Speaking of teen-twaddle, the music is unremittingly awful throughout. Apart from the incidental score. But hang on, how come the movie's own incidental music is actually playing on the girls car radio? Remember, she actually turns it's volume up! This detail is a POS of the highest order.

Tip: Morgan Freeman, stick to "acting", I mean, smoking cigars and looking soulful!


"American Psycho 2" is a bland dark comedy about a female college Freshman majoring in sociopathology (eg: serial killers) who is determined to get a position as a teaching assistant with her professor as a stepping stone to a career with the FBI and will kill anyone who gets in her way. In spite of the film's somewhat sardonic tenor and dark subject, there's little violence, gore, sex or nudity, and over all the film is lacking in verve, style, and creative edge of the original American Psycho. Save this one for cable. C-


This movie could be forgiven if it was, say, a spin-off of "Cruel Intentions". That would make it bad, still, but not necessarily awful. However, having been linked to "American Psycho", it commits an unforgivable travesty! There is next to nothing good I can say about this movie, considering its precursor. If I had watch it in isolation, I would have assumed that the first one was similar; but I assure you it is not. Think of this is a high-budget, flashy thriller based on a murderous, whining teenage (?) girl who's planning to go into, of all things, law enforcement, and you've got the gist. It could easily have been an episode of "Law and Order : Criminal Intent", plot-wise.

However, the budget behind this film shows: it was very pleasing to the eyes and, by forgetting its lineage, I was able to find it amusing. But it is still very disappointing.

Films I like better: "American Psycho", which seems to have been developed by vastly superior beings, and is only related by marketing ploys, "Wild Things", which features more entertaining female psychotics and murders, "Bible Black: Lance of [...]"(its still in production, so I'm not sure of the title, but it is going to be good. It's Bible Black, after all), and even "Thursday". All of those have some of the same things, but much better executed. Plus they don't tarnish a good film's name.

Heck, I even like "Drive" and "Mean Guns" better, although they're of a totally different genre (and most people didn't seem to like "Mean Guns", especially).

So, don't make my mistake. Do not watch this movie. Unless you've watched everything else I've recommended, and everything else you can, and have nothing - absolutely nothing - better to do with your time.


they would have realized that the the murders were all in his head!!!!!!!!!!!! he was an "American" psycho...a fraud...a tacky, tacky fraud, as most people were in the 80's...as being the purpose of this book...to comment on the American condition during that time(and in my opinion it is still mostly apt) thus negating the premise of this entire movie...unless your an idiot and completely missed the point of either the book or the movie...then the movie will still suck!!!!!!!!!!!! i still can't believe when business in America count on American stupidity...they win...because it's true...how could anybody misinterpret such a concise ending...how exactly do you feed a kitten to an atm anyway...arrrrgghhhh. read a book!!!!!!!!! (note IMDb would not let me format this comment as i wished so imagine this all in caps and i'm shouting in outrage)


This American Psycho 2 movie gets its audience of its name, which is one of the appealing ones int he field today. The name is just a lame attempt to cover up a bad movie, which worked for me, because i rented it. Having not seen the first American Psycho, i thought this would be as good as the Psycho-series was said to be, but this was just a lousy sequel for a lousy series. AP2 is a generic teen-slasher without the intensity of any kind. Murders are done without a feeling, and are often cencored using different camera angles.

The acting itself isn't bad, but the characters are left shallow and predictable. The main character's actress was simply not beliavable in her role of a psycho.Who can honestly believe that some 18 -year old college girl could be a cold-blooded murderer?

In fact the whole idea of having a cute Mila as the psycho is not from this planet. It just don't work! She's from the 70's show for crying out loud! the folks who wrote the story have lost their sense of reality and it shows.

In Carrie 2 the character was much more believable, but then again this movie plays in the same league of bad movies. At least Carrie 2 looked professional...

The motive for killings are unclear, and if there was any black-humour in this movie, i didn't catch it. More importantly it felt like the murders didn't take place at all, because the murder scenes didn't have any intensity or feelings involved. Every murder was such a cliché, and very predictable, just like the dialogue, the places and the plot.

The music was poor, it didn't create suitable atmosphere for the movie in overall. There was something very American in this movie: it was stupid. In some part there is some really patriotic song playing, something in "God bless America" - style. If that was the part when you were supposed to laugh or cry, i'd not know which one to do! I'd do both, I laugh and then I cry. It's just too stupid! Don't let your intelligence get hurt.

I don't know why i tend to pick up the bad movies, this simply put me off watching movies for the whole month! I'm saying my money! I'm a damn student!


Warning may contain spoilers

Since this didn't make theatres (thank God) every DVD and VHS with this movie on it deserves to be axed, chainsawed, stabbed, nailgunned and everything that Patrick Bateman did to his victims in the movie and book. Whereas the original had originality, humour, sharp wit, and good script writing, great direction and acting talent, this movie lacks all of them. Harron, Turner, Bale, Sevigny, Dafoe and others made a great movie. Of which both the making and finished product was put through the ringer with locations withdrawn at the last minute, shooting having to keep a low profile, and banning attempts. The result was a work of art. But this film undoes all the work of the original.

The acting is wooden, characters are played lamely, and lack any emotion, charisma or personality. Wit is non-existent, and the attempts at humour are so lame that if I were to laugh I would laugh at the patheticness of it all. The music is awful and the voice over (unlike in the true American Psycho) is annoying. And while there seems to be an attempt at sending up campus life and politics, it is not a redeeming factor at all and the writers appear to give up on it after not too long.

It is simply a teen slasher movie that has (for reasons unknown) added the name American Psycho to itself, and brought in the Patrick Bateman angle. It is like this scenario; Artist A does a painting, Artist B does their own painting, but then places scenes and subjects from the work of Artist A. I am not sure how long this sequel was in planning or when it was decided, but thats the situation as I see it. All that differntiates from teen slashers is that we know who is doing the killings, but that was taken out of the "first". So theres no originality there.

What is really bad about this film is that it tells you that Bateman actually did the killings in the true American Psycho. The only person who has the right to say whether Patrick really did commit the murders or not is Ellis. He was the author of the original American Psycho story, therefore only he should decide. I read that Ellis in fact, stated that in the novel, all that actually ever happened was that Bateman might have horrible thoughts of you and draw horrible pictures as well. That the killings didn't really take place was also conveyed (as I saw it) in the original. So don't all we who executed the sequel feel silly now? And even though I have called this a sequel (for ease of writing) I do not recognise it as such. As far as I am concerned we left the world of Bateman in the novel when the final page was turned (even though I never read it properly), and in the film when the end credits began rolling. Until Ellis writes a continuation of American psycho, to me Bateman is alive and kicking.

See only if you're absoloutely desparate or want to write a critical review of a movie. Otherwise avoid at all costs.


American Psycho 2 makes the predecessor, American Psycho look like an Academy Award winning film. I hated this movie. Mila Kunis should immediately fire her agent for getting her casted in this piece of trash. I found many of the murders in this "film" hard to believe. William Shatner's appearance didn't help. If Kunis wants a career after "That 70's Show" is off the air, I suggest she be more selective with her film roles.


This is nothing like the original American Psycho. Where the first movie had humor (although a very dark kind of humor) and it's own kind of sick style that I think worked very well; this is just as weak as it can get. The acting delivered by Mila Kunis is exceptionally poor and just doesn't work... at all.


After the brilliant adaptation of the Bret Easton Ellis novel, we have a real stinker here. This is an insult to an excellent and original prequel. The only thing that was positive about this movie was the gorgeous girl that played the Psycho. Other than that, I am insulted as a huge fan of American Psycho. They should be ashamed of themselves for tainting the name with this piece of s%$# sequel.


I can honestly say that I'm easy to please with movies - I'll sit through a mediocre film and at least watch it to the end.

I'll also praise and mention at least once a week movies that I love, such as fight club, the matrix, amelie and other very good movies (my opinion of course)

This movie however I can honestly say was so bad I couldn't sit through it, the acting is nothing short of atrocious, the lines are terrible, the realism pathetic and the fact it "stole" the name from the original is actually insulting!

The original was a fairly good movie, but this is HONESTLY a 2/10 movie - the ONLY saving merits is the fairly attractive girl who stars in it and....... i think that's about it.

SERIOUSLY do yourself a favour and see something else - quite possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen (hell I even sat through 2 fast 2 furious and THAT blows this away!)

Infact it's SO damn bad they could almost MST3K it!

UGH!


I want my 88 minutes back.

A B movie with B list "talent" and a screenplay that deserved lighter fluid and a match. A selection of bad horror movie hacks pieced together by contrived twists. You don't see the ending coming in the same way that you don't anticipate the pain of dental surgery until after the novocaine wears off.

After Bill Shatner's dot com fiasco he should have retired. He could do great self-deprecating roles. Instead he is not even reading the script before doing the movie.


This might honestly be the worst movie I've ever seen. Sequels, Sequels, I mean WOW!!!! I can however honestly reccomend this to all you asipiring actors/writers/directors. Watch this... and take notes, this is what NOT TO DO!!!! I mean really, it's so bad you just got to see it.


This movie is absolutely nothing like the first one. Bateman is gone, and instead of a main character living in a complicated, fractured, psychotic world, we have one who is merely ambitious and kills people. She never really seems crazy. Or evil. Or believable, really.

William Shatner does a typical job as the professor she's stalking.

Every character in this movie was trite and done to death. There wasn't a single scene that had any originality or edge. A sad, sad legacy for a very interesting first movie.

2 out of 10.


First of all, Alex Sanger and Karen Craig should be loathed and possibly incarcerated for ever writing this. In fact, everyone involved here deserves a, if not physical then atleast a verbal, lash or two.

The plotline; Mila Kunis (yes, That 70's girl) plays Rachel Newman, who, thanks to the fact that the writers who obviously never quite understood the original flick, as a child witnesses the final murder of serial killer Patrick Bateman. After growing up, she attends the FBI Academy for serial killer profiling. However, it soon becomes clear that she is quite the psycho herself and starts to hack 'n' slash her classmates that seems to pose a threat to her. Very soon it's just a brainless teen slasher, and not even as a teen slasher is it worthy of your time, however little your time may be worth. Fast forward.

There are not many highlights in this movie at all. If you have seen American Psycho, do not, under any circumstances watch this, the flagrant script is enough to eject this straight-to-video release. I don't think that the original screen adaption surpassed the book in quality, but for this sequel the term "art pollution" comes in handy. Heavens no.


"American Psycho 2" just came on HBO, so I am currently writing this as I watch it. The only question I have about the movie thus far is if I can even stand to watch it til it's inevitably horrid conclusion. So far I've subtracted 2 points from my rating for the opening sequence, an amazingly bad tie-in to the original "American Psycho." Might as well go ahead and subtract another 2 points for the terrible acting displayed thus far. And let's just go and subtract another 2 points for the absurd plot. I enjoyed the original "American Psycho"; shame they've destroyed any chance of a quality sequel. The way they attempt to link this movie to the first one should be a crime.

**SPOILERS**

The movie itself is about a college student with aspirations for working at some special division of the FBI. An almost guaranteed way of getting into the program is by becoming a Professor's teacher's aide. The problem is that this is a much-coveted position and the competition is fierce. She figures the best way to land the position is by killing off all her competitors. Uhhh, right.

Mila Kunis (from tv's "That 70's Show") stars as the murderous college student. She does a truly excellent job of showcasing the fact that she has NO acting skills whatsoever. Her voiceover narrative is sub-par and rather grating. This may be the most unconvincing portrayal any actor has given in a role since Freddie Prinze Jr. played a fighter pilot in "Wing Commander." She should be a role model for pretty girls though. No woman has gone as far as she has on looks alone since Pamela Anderson made her meteoric rise to the middle. And Mila didn't even have to take her clothes off for Playboy.......yet.

William Shatner is the Professor of Criminal Profiling or whatever. He gives a...Shatneresque performance for the film. I happen to think Shatner is a talented actor whose career has been hindered by playing iconic roles in a couple of television shows, not that he or his accountant have been complaining. In recent years he has been reduced to playing caricatures of himself (the Priceline.com commercials, "Showtime"). Here, he does as fine a job as ever doing just that. In fact, he is the only watchable person in the movie. At least he's still working.

The rest of the cast is disposable, much like their murder-victim characters.

An hour and 10 minutes into the movie I'm prepared to give this a 2/10. If you get a chance to check this out for free, and there's absolutely *nothing* else on television, you may want to give it looksie. If nothing else you may get a kick out of seeing Mila Kunis in her jogging outfit and low-cut dress.


William Shatner is the acting high-point in this vapid, phoned-in excuse for a film. If that doesn't send you running to another aisle of your video store you should be looking in the S&M section. Related to the first film in name only, it has none of the style, the irony, nor the plot to say nothing of one shred of the acting. And I didn't even like "American Psycho." Lose the catchy soundtrack and there is no reason to even listen to it. Mila Kunis, while pleasant, is a flyweight made-for TV actress and this stinker does nothing to expand that role.

Skip it. Sitting in a dark room for two hours would be infinitely preferable. I bet the echo of the last "Cut!" had not faded before this was on its way to the video plant. What a waste of tape.


A fan of the first film and the novel that preceded this, I did not expect much from this film as neither the author of the book or director of the film was on board for this "sequel", let alone cast. On a lark, I taped it off HBO so it did not cost any $$ and tried to be understanding and treat it as a "B" movie, hoping for laughs. No such luck. The film is a poorly written attempt at black comedy, like someone wanted ot combine "Election" with "American Psycho" but came up

with what would be an insult to the "Devil in the Flesh" movies it more closely resembles. I apologize for being mean, but it's a bad idea to have a voice-over narrative when your actress has a terrible lisp. (and can't act). Anyone who was involved in this film should take year off to carefully evaluate what they are doing with their careers and why they wanted to be in the entertainment

business.


This movie claims to be "The Sequel To The Box Office Hit", so the tagline goes. That's complete nonsense. This movie just is a random offshoot of the original "American Psycho," which is an amazing movie. It tells the story of Rachel Newman, played by "That 70's Show'"s Mila Kunis. Rachel is apparently the one who caught Patrick Bateman and killed him when she was a young girl, something that was never mentioned anywhere in the first film. And also, weren't the murders in the first film just a crazy dream the Patrick Bateman made up? I guess that's just my interpretation, but if it is correct, than this whole movie is just a dream. William Shatner is poorly cast as Rachel's adulterous professor and he just simply looks like he doesn't want to be there. If you're looking for a good laugh, look no further. But if you're looking for the sequel to the original "American Psycho," than keep searching.


this is one bizarre movie.it's sick and twisted and perverse.and it has to be dun tongue in cheek.there's just no way this was s opposed to be a serious movie.i guess you could call it a black comedy/horror-if you really wanted to.most of the movie is atrocious,including the very hammy overacting,the even worse dialogue and the even worse than that script.yet it is oddly(very oddly,)entertaining at points,and very boring at others.it's between 95 and 97 minutes,depending on whether you watch the rated or unrated edition,not including credits.the one positive thing about this movie is that the makeup effects weren't half bad.still,i'm glad it ended when it did.i don't think i could've taken anymore inane dialogue.the most i ca give this thing is a 4/10,for it's entertaining moments.


1st watched 7/12/2009 - 3 out of 10 (Dir-Anthony Hickox): Lame and silly attempt to spoof horror movies in this story about a possessed wax museum visited by brainless teenagers. A couple of them get swept into the exhibits and the story that revolves around the exhibits, and then they get killed and become permanent parts of it. This is the basic storyline but they add a "rule the world" theme concocted by the leader of the museum. He believes that once each exhibit has had it's chance to kill they will all come to life and conquer all !! Mu ha ha!! The movie has a campiness that makes you think initially it will be a comedy but it really just turns into a slow moving horror movie. The exhibits include the werewolf, a vampire, the Marquis de sade and an alien that isn't really explored. This is where the movie tries to pay tribute to these type of movies but fails. At least the movie didn't turn out to be a kill all teens slasher movie and they tried a different style in the storytelling to put away the worthless teenagers but it still doesn't really work as an interesting movie.


Warning: this review MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. But there's a good chance you're not going to want to see it anyhow.

This is a boring movie. Exactly why one of the characters had to find a doorway out of a waxwork is beyond me because it would at least have ended the movie quicker.

What happens is a magician invites six teens to his wax museum, which houses waxworks of scenes from famed horror films like "Dracula", "Frankenstein", "The Wolfman", "Return of the Living Dead" and...........*drum roll*..........."Little Shop of Horrors". The scenes have one character missing and the teens are able to enter the waxworks. For each waxwork, there is a sequence based on the lead-up to whatever the waxwork represented. At the end of each sequence, the waxwork is completed (using a nice edit that is the only thing I can applaud in this movie). With that premise, the film could have been A LOT better

Unfortunately, one of the waxworks is, as I mentioned, based on "Return of the living Dead" or some other zombie movie, and there is only one thing you can do when faced with a horde of zombies. Pity. This movie could have been over a lot quicker.

As you've gathered from the above review, this movie was a disappointment and not worth wasting the $4 on in the rental store


David Lincoln(David Warner)sells his soul to the devil and murders the ancestor of Mark(Zach Galligan)at the beginning by putting his head in the fireplace as it was burning wood. Mark, Sarah(Deborah Foreman), China(Michelle Johnson) & Tony(Dana Ashbrook)decide to got to a Midnight showing of a Waxworks..this is a "museum" whose proprietor is Lincoln who hasn't aged a bit. Each museum exhibit is actually a gateway into another time where the classic monsters of horror await those who enter and are gullible to believe that these creatures can harm them. You have the worst Dracula in the history of cinema in Miles O'Keeffe, horrible werewolf costume representing John Rhys-Davies, J Kenneth Campbell as the Marquis de Sade turned into a cartoon, and the Mummy. Other creatures such as an alien, zombies, and Frankenstein's monster never get their full due because director Hickox can not slow the movie down enough to provide us with any kind of substance to hold a hat on. I swear this film is held together by plywood and string. Poor Patrick Macnee must do with a character called Sir Wilfred who has been planning an attack on Lincoln for sometime.

The film is episodic showing what each character faces as they enter(..or are thrown into)each exhibit. There's plenty of gore and the lovely Deborah Foreman is probably enough to give this film a go. Obviously lovers of the classic Universal horrors might find some worth in this drivel, but I have a feeling they will find the make-up work of these creatures as laughable to the point of disrespect.

The whole film ends with Wilfred's unit of "soldiers" doing battle with the monsters once they are released from their "cages" after the museum is provided with enough souls by those who venture into the other world. It's a mess of bodies and violence that can become unbearable.


Unwatchable horror flick about a group of teens who are invited to a wax museum and are viciously attacked by monsters is just as dumb as the other B-horror movies. A wasted cast and an unsatisfying premise are enough to make this movie extremely pretentious. Very typical and totally empty. A movie that's not worth watching and should be avoided like the plague.

0 out of 5


Sigh, OK let me be blunt...this is a movie that only a strict horror movie fan would watch and a movie that only a drunk horror movie fan could enjoy.

The concept and idea is decent but the film's overall plot is so absurd that by the end of the film, if you are still awake, you are squirming in your seat hoping none of your friends find out you watched it.

The movie starts with a good setup and heads in the right direction. But it doesn't take long until it finds itself so over-the-top that it is insulting. The audience is left shaking their heads at some of the poor acting and silly dialog. While gore fans will be pleased by some of the effects, that isn't enough to make it a decent horror film. The ending is so absurd that it takes a real trooper to keep from turning it off.

There is nothing scary, nothing interesting, nothing entertaining about the film. It to poorly written, toooo silly (unintentionaly), and toooo much of a waste of time to recommend.


German produced horror. Directed and written by Anthony Hickox. Not exactly interesting, so it really takes an effort to sit through this. Some preppy students are lured into a neighborhood wax museum. Some veteran actors lend their talents, half heartedly I would imagine. This is just not intense enough for me. If you like bland horror...relax and enjoy.

Cast members: Zach Galligan, Deborah Foreman, Michelle Johnson, Patric Macnee, John Rhys-Davies and Miles O'Keeffe. Kudos to the set designers that provide at least an anxious atmosphere.


you mean most manipulative? misleading? keep in mind Jin's flashbacks served no purpose but to be a red herring they had nothing to do with the story being told, it's bad writing. They can't justify showing that.

Try watching the episode again and not getting irritated knowing he's buying a panda for a stranger.

And whats with the children's comedy music going on during that slapstick scene with the cell phone?

gimme a break ridiculous, waste of LOST-time Hopefully next weeks will be better, and carry us through til April.


Oh dear, this is one of the most worst TV shows I've ever seen. Actors are suppose to scare innocent victims while being filmed by hidden cameras. But the whole show is obviously fake. All the so- called "victims" are lame actors without any feeling at all. Can't you tell by the look of them? It obvious that they're all acting, and they're not even good at it. It's so pathetic.

The only good thing about this show is the host Shannen Doherty, known for her role as Brenda Walsh in "Beverly Hills 90210". I do love her. I just wish she would have skipped this kind of crap because she is worth so much better.

Beware of this show! It's trash! Trust me, I'm a horror fan.


OK, I love Shannen and everything. But this show is just so wrong. Some of the victims get so scared that they cry and are traumatized for a long time. Some of them have important psychological problems after the "joke", and you don't have to be a psychiatrist to see that. Non of them are scared voluntarily. I used to like this show cos it's very entertaining, but then I started to feel more and more disturbed and guilty for those poor people, I couldn't watch it anymore. It felt simply WRONG. The jokes are very well done, but some of them are just too much. Don't be fooled. Something entertaining is not always good. And sometimes funny it's not that fun.


Scare Tactics was entertaining for the first two minutes of each show when Shannen Doherty was on. The rest of the show was purely for people who had brain damage from too much drinking and/or drugs. The kind of nasty stunts and scares that were pulled on the supposedly innocent victims was usually moronic or else just crude. At the end of each show Shannen Doherty would be back for the re-cap. I saw a few shows all the way to the end, but it was hard to believe that anyone who was of normal intelligence could believe the silly situations that were contrived. A couple of times, they pulled some crude stunts like women who were bleeding from private areas or people that had heart attacks. Those "scare tactics" were only believable because they were so crude. Once Stephen Baldwin became the host, the show aimed totally towards the dumb factor. At that point they were raiding Special Ed programs in order to find victims for their pranks.


Jack King's 'Hollywood Capers' is a very early Looney Tune which stars several of the characters who were introduced as potential new stars in earlier short 'I Haven't Got a Hat'. The character that finally became a star from that cartoon was Porky Pig but he does not feature here. Instead, 'Hollywood Capers' gives top billing to Beans, a mischievous cat. It also features cameos from Oliver Owl, Little Kitty and teacher Miss Cud. 'Hollywood Capers' is convincing evidence as to why none of these characters caught on with audiences. They are cute but largely devoid of personality and the times when 'Hollywood Capers' comes to life are when they are not on screen. There are a couple of fun but ever-so brief skits with caricatures of W.C. Fields and Charlie Chaplin at the beginning of the short and when Frankenstein's monster enters the narrative he gets to perform a camera-eating and self-repairing routine which is the highlight of the cartoon. Unfortunately, Beans keeps coming back with limp antics which give the cartoon a stilted feel. Conceived as a possible replacement for the lacklustre Buddy (Warner Bros' previous attempt at creating a star, many of whose cartoons were also directed by King), Beans was not much of an improvement. While it's not especially funny, 'Hollywood Capers' is a fascinating artefact in which some early characters are auditioned but ultimately lose out to a stuttering pig who had the good sense to opt out of this particular film!


Horror movies buffs will be very disappointed with this flick.It is never never frightening,and the derivative screenplay borrows from "the exorcist" "Rosemary's baby" "the tenant" "the omen" and more.The first scenes ,notably the moment when the young couple enters their brand new flat (complete with a fountain in the yard) where a man committed suicide directly comes from Ira Levin/Roman Polanski 's story.All in all it is rather a -very soft -erotic movie where Lisa B. tries her best to be at once sexually attractive and threatening.The lines are very vulgar and use the word "f...." a lot more than they should.Do not bother.


Excuse my English, I'm speak Spanish, but i do my best. I had a big expectation about this film, i spend a lot of time seeking this one, and finally i See, and i have to say ¡¡ this sucks!!... The acting was poor poor, the direction poor too, and the sound awful... literally hear the wind blows again the mics... and the story was stupid, even if was a true story, the gore and violent is very bad, the movie has no strong scenes like the title says... i expected intense violence and stuffs like that, but noooooooo..... Really, if you want to see a bad movie, see this one. Low budget is not equal a low quality, but the director of The great... think different.


I hired this film out because it sounded interesting. Being a fan of serial killer films I thought this film would be at least interesting or watchable. Boy was I wrong. Completely amateur made film with horrible acting and rubbish "gore" effects. I probably could've made a better movie in my High School Film & TV class. Also, at the end of the film they show a sequence which is apparently a real snuff film made by the serial killer the film is based on. I highly doubt it is a genuine snuff film because there's no way the censors would let it get released. They'd want it cut. If they throw a fit over the animal killings in Cannibal Holocaust they would've outright banned this film for having a genuine snuff film in it. Avoid this movie like the plague!!! I've rated it one star only because there's no option for 0/10...


I have submitted comments on this film a few times and they never get posted. Here's the deal, I belong to a horror yahoo group and the director/producer joined and constantly harassed us about this movie. I argued that there is no way this was based on a real serial killer (never heard of him before or after....do a look for William Allen Grone on your fav search engine) and there is NO real snuff footage on it. The idiot claimed it was all real and that the last few minutes were the actual (ie real) snuff film in it's entirety. I got the flick, fast forwarded through the extremely bad acting and low budget special effects and went to the "real" snuff footage. It was so fake and cheesy looking that I can't stress it enough. Then after it's over and the credits run it says "This film is and all characters in it are a work of fiction". Stay away from this one it's junk.


Horrible acting.. rigid and without a single strand of imagination or panache. But more horrible than the acting is the sound. I played this thru my surround sound and it sounded like the Dx was recorder thru a bullhorn at the airport. The cinematography is creative for what it is..which basically is video. But that is where it ends on any sort of creative level. The story is non-existent and the so-called gruesome violence is horrendously dull which makes this film experience extremely tedious... OK, these so-called killers are set up to be so psycho and inbred.. yet the girls keep their clothes on thru out the whole damn thing.. come on, were the two psychos gay?? Was this an attempt at a horror version of Brokeback Mountain? All the scenes draaaaaaag on and on and on and on.. the blame for that is that the so-called director is also a wanna-be editor.. an awful idea all together. The film has no pace and no plot that engages you to any sorta level even boredom. The violence is at a kindergarten level.. chicks in cages being burned with fake cigarettes don't cut it. It's phony and feels PG-13 which is too bad cause with the right execution it could have been done disturbing as all hell. When you have untalented amateurs doing the job then this is what you will end up with - a pointless dreary mess that will make you YAWN while your ears are bleeding. Please someone out there hear our pleading cries and take away this filmmakers camera before he attempts another merciless waste of time.


OK, this is NOT a film with superb acting, clever direction or high quality sound or production values...but hey, it doesn't claim to be. It clearly states at the beginning that this is a dramatisation of entries from William Allen Grone's journals, with the two-and-a-half minutes of Super 8 film recovered by police, thrown-in at the end.

The fact that the 84 minutes preceding the "real footage" is b-grade quality, adds to the realism. Its gritty, dirty, rough and raw - and because of this you are more easily affected by the events that transpire. I agree that the added Super 8 footage at the end is it's biggest selling point, but if you love films that challenge the concept of what film should be, than you will appreciate this film.

Overall, not the most shocking of films, but a worthy entry into exploitation cinema.


After reading about this notorious film i finally managed to get my hands on it.In some ways it lived up to my expectations but in several ways it did not.The female acting was good, male acting was bad, the sound was bad but the music was superb and spooky.Although still quite disturbing and gripping the violence displayed was quite poor and very overrated, and without giving anything away the supposed real footage at the end, wasn't worth waiting for (one reviewer even suggested that the footage was fake, surprise, surprise!!!)I'm glad I've seen it, just to say so but its not by far one of the most disturbing films I've seen..............unfortunately.........if it did not have the end footage to sell the film i would say stay well clear nothing new, but the fact that the film makers added this, give it a go. Fans of gore sites on the net will watch this film and think...and?????????????


The Great Ameican Snuff Film starts as two sick freaks named Roy (Ryan Hutman) & William Allen Grone (Mike Marsh) kidnap two young girls named Sarah & Maddy (Melinda Lorenz & Holi Tavernier), they take them to the junkyard deep in the desert which Roy owns miles from anywhere of note. There Roy & William intend to make a snuff film on super 8 film with Sarah & Maddy as the unlucky stars...

Going straight-to-video after sitting on a shelf unreleased for a number of years where it should have stayed, written, produced & directed by Sean Tretta The Great American Snuff Film is crap, I'd call it pathetic filth but it's not even that good. The script was apparently based on the real life case of William Grone & the 2 and a half minutes of footage that was found when police raided his house, this footage is supposedly presented at the end with a warning that 'veiwer discretion is advised' but this so-called real footage is probably the most fake & unbelievable scene in the whole film. Plot wise it is as bare-bones as they come, you can basically work out the entire film just from the title. There'sonly about seven people in the entire film none of which are particularly likable. The Great American Snuff Film seems to be a ultra serious attempt to get into the mind of a sick f*ck like Grone as it almost relies totally on his constant tedious & clichéd monologues for it's narrative even though not much happens anyway. The whole film goes to plan exactly as one would expect & when there's a clichéd flashback that suggests Grone's current state is down to childhood abused you realise there really is nothing here that you haven't seen before & that The Great American Snuff Film really isn't going anywhere new or revolutionary.

Director Tretta manages to evoke a certain sadistic & nasty tone throughout the film simply because of the subject matter rather than what actually ended up on screen. Now I don't mind torture, gore & violence in the films that I watch, in fact I actively encourage it, I cannot & will not enjoy the constant sadistic torture, both psychical & mental, of women by retarded men for entertainment. While I know it's just a film I really cannot understand anyone who genuinely enjoys watching this crap as the torture & degradation of these two girls is the only thing this film seems interested in. I wouldn't call it scary or creepy & surprisingly there's very little gore considering the subject matter, in fact I can't think of any apart from some blood splatter.

Technially The Great American Snuff Film is pretty poor, the colour seems very bright during daytime shots which give it a distracting & unrealistic look & then there's the awful music which plays constantly during the first half of the film & to make things worse sometimes it's louder than the dialogue spoken by the actors which is not a good combination. There's also the baffling instances of being able to hear the wind blow against the mike & since certain scenes were probably shot over a certain period of time the wind from one shot to the next in the same scene has different levels of this noisy blowing wind. The acting isn't too bad especially by the girls.

The Great American Snuff Film is the sort of film I hate, it provided zero entertainment & I found it abhorrent from start to finish. Total crap as far as I'm concerned & it's as simple & straight forward as that.


As a true connoisseur of horror, exploitation, gore and such, I greatly looked forward to seeing "The Great American Snuff Film." I mean the reviews contained phrases like, "Stay away," "This is torture," "This is one brutally hard film," and "Can easily crush the spirits of unprepared viewers." Sounds good to me! So I buy the DVD, pop it in and wait for the delicious disturbing pall to wash over me. Didn't happen. All those people so shocked, disturbed and disgusted by this movie must only watch family films and the freakin' Teletubbies. Maybe, just maybe, if they had actual actors in the roles it could have given me pause but really - and I don't want to sound catty - the kids in the elementary school plays I participated in gave better performances. I even laughed at a few things in this film that were supposed to make me recoil in disgust. Maybe that makes me one sick fella - but I don't think so. I've seen the best and worst of the exploitation and torture genres and this one falls not as the worst but as pretty darn bad, sitting close to the bottom for sure. As a comedy... not too bad at all. I mean when I think of all the people naive enough to believe that this movie contained actual snuff footage, I laugh my ass off.


Having become interested after slowly being drawn in, by the tease of what was to come I battled through poor acting and sets, for the end finale. Of course, what does this say about me? However, reading so many of the comments here about the authenticity of the tape and the characters, I would point out this. At the end, in the credits, it does say that all the characters and events are fiction and any relation to any real character or event are purely coincidental.

The premise for the film is good, based on how voyeuristic we, as cinema goers and a society, have become but it doesn't do itself any favours by being so badly made.


I wrote an entire 4 paragraph review of this "film," only to delete it upon realizing that I could talk forever about how absolutely crappy this thing is. I know that this film had no budget, but there is NO excuse for this thing. You don't need money to tell you to use more then 3 shots in an entire 20 minute scene, you don't need money to tell you that the wind is blowing in your boom mic, you don't need money to tell you that your actors are COMPLETELY half-assing the roles.

You don't need money to tell you how to make a film.

If you read this and still want to see this "film," I encourage you to go on youtube and watch just 5 minutes of the thing, you'll see what I mean.


So there is this stupid, skinny nerd and he has this big dumb friend who murder people. They really like to torture women and one day the stupid nerd decides that he is going to make a movie of torturing and killing women. The two stupid men should have removed that nail in the wall because it would have saved them a ton of time and tape. I was laughing at the nerd because he was so funny looking. When they show the real deal at the end, the killer is fat! What is going on? No one should be treated like this and this is a stupid idea for a movie. Of course they get caught and I was really cheering her on at the end. It doesn't get any better and I would recommend watching something else.


The Great American Snuff Film, such an awesome title and cover and heck the movie even to have some real footage of people the guy actually killed so it must be real, Right? F!$%&* NO! This movie is utter garbage, trash, crap, you name it any horrible label and you'd have described The Great American Snuff Film. To me this is the worst attempt at making a snuff film, to tame in terms of violence/gore (almost none), very poor film making and just an atrocious movie all together. Avoid this movie at all costs! Just stick with Snuff, Cannibal Holocaust, or the Guinea Pig movie's, those are more of a snuff film than this will ever be!

Movie Rating 0-5, Gore 0-10

The Great American Snuff Film ** (2)


Miserable, off-the-wall film dealing with Arthur Miller's supposed masterpiece.

Let's get something straight. This idea that the idea of the film is to emulate the witch hunt of the 1950s is absolutely ridiculous. It's a totally different genre, people, places and misery.

Are we to believe that Daniel Day-Lewis and Joan Allen are the equivalents of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? Are we to believe that Allen is not to be put to death for practicing witchcraft right away because she is with child and we know the church's position on abortion?

With it all, there is a very good performance by Paul Scofield as the chief magistrate.

Hypocrisy is shown by most of the characters here, especially Bruce Davison. He portrays a priest who is as phony as they come.

I love the way the town people turn on one another. Perhaps, Elia Kazan should have directed this film.

Among other things, this film is boring, Winona Ryder screams like the holy lunatic she is supposed to be. What's so magnificent about Daniel Day-Lewis here?


Okay my opinion may be much different because I played the role John Proctor in theater-form just a few months ago. I find the story to be one-tracked and boring. D-Day Lewis dominates and Joan Allen is top notch. I know the story has very solid metaphors for fearful discrimination but after awhile it's like we get it enough. It's almost to easy to pick up on character motivations in the film, play, or novel adaptations. You know where the story is pretty much headed. It's always thoughtful and mildly interesting but as a film form it's boring and tedious. I also had a problem with Ryder because she was convincing but I saw my four teenage friends play her much scarier, and portraying her for the crazy-messed, kooky, demented bitch she was not just someone like Ryder who showed she was mildly disturbed and only motivated to get Proctor in trouble not because she actually thought she was doing the right thing in her own world. I cant overlook that they seriously all out-performed a "star" like Ryder (in my opinion she is so over-rated and now people realize it) Like I said I had a different experience. Aside from Lewis(I learned so much watching him) and Allen I was bored to sleep.


This episode might be the worst episode of the series. As others pointed out it was like a bad soap opera. I won't lie I never was a fan of the Starbuck character and hated that they wasted an entire episode on a plot that was going nowhere. I rather watch an episode about a ship full of cylons, at least they are interesting unlike the forced Apollo/Starbuck romantic tension*yawn*.

Not to be picky either I hate how the show has Starbuck boxing with males at an equal level. Chances are guys who work out a lot(such as military men) will over power a very strong female, but Starbuck seems to be a Mary Sue in that regard that she is easily defeats Hotdog. How come the other girls on the Battlestar had to fight other girls, but Starbuck gets lifted to this unbelievable level.


The show Battlestar Galactica is like a roller coaster ride and I don't mean that in a positive sense. There are some brilliant episodes such as episode 4 of this series (Exodus: Part 2) and there are ones like this one with all the pointless and constructed drama of a soap opera.

There were more of those long slow scenes with Admiral Adama and President Roslin staring at each other. Unfortunately some might call this great acting but to me it seems like they're just filling in time.

I cannot surely be the only person dreading having to watch through more of the tedious Apollo vs. Starbuck melodrama. Starbuck is a train wreck and seems to be eternally heading for her comeuppance but never seems to get it. She is just a poor replacement for the beautiful and pleasant Anastasia Dualla and Apollo is obviously an idiot, but then a lot of the characters on this show are idiots.

The episode was also inconsistent. At the end of the second series just before the arrival of the Cylons on New Caprica there was a feeling as if everyone more or less hated living there. It was cold, there were strikes and it seemed that people were dissatisfied. In this episode one got the feeling that life on New Caprica was good and they were all loving it. Oh, and one other thing, Chief Tyrol's baby was not born on the Galactica, as indicated in this episode. Since his wife was pregnant at that union meeting just before the Cylons arrived (which was led by the then-civilian Tyrol), his baby was obviously born during the Cylon occupation.

Perhaps the idea with the boxing match was original and a change but all in all, a poor episode.


This was the first episode that I not only didn't like, but actually hated. I thought about deleting it halfway through, and it was an effort to watch. I can't say too much without "spoiling" this useless episode, but let's say that the same information we learned could've been presented in five minutes, instead of an entire program. And I watch this show for drama, politics, sci-fi, and, usually, good scripts and plots - NOT to watch boxing matches. What a complete waste of time! And why is there a ten-line minimum for writing comments here? OK, here's another thing - NONE of the Cylons were on this episode. And by inserting this episode in the middle of the escape from New Caprica, and the dying Cylons, the momentum of the series was completely lost. NOW do I have enough lines for this comment? What do YOU think of the episode?


Let's see.... take one of the more infamous literary staples, namely the Gor books by John Norman, convert it to film and you'd think you'd be onto a winner. Why? Well, the Gor books, for those of you who haven't had the pleasure, or pain, can be summed up as follows: Conan with pornography. Each and every novel was chock full of porn, sado-masochism and bondage. In short, a "raging-hormone-male-teenager's" wet dream. Hidden amongst the sleaze and thinly-veiled attempts to make the reader think of women as nothing but objects, there are actually some pretty good action-adventure stories. So it would seem that converting them to celluloid would be a winner, even if only on the soft-porn circuit.

Sadly, Outlaw of Gor is nothing like the books. Given my description above, some might breathe a sigh of relief at that. Unfortunately, by taking away the sex, having a budget less than that of the average teenager's weekly pocket money and doing some awful re-inventing of the novels' original ideas (yes there were some!), the filmmakers literally killed the golden goose and replaced it with a prize turkey.

Outlaw is just horrendous throughout, from the acting, the sets, the laughable "costumes", the editing and dialogue right down to the fight scenes that appeared to have been choreographed by the Marx Bros. But the worst thing is seeing how little they used the original material. Nevermind the porn, they plucked names out of the books and didn't do a whole lot else. Tarl Cabot, the hero of the novels, is translated into a weedy vegetarian who is totally against slavery - a complete reversal from the novels. Likewise the Priest-Kings - In the books alien insectoids who ruled the planet. In the movie we get.....Jack Palance, who doesn't seem to be in command of his own lines, let alone the planet. And yes, Jack leers and mugs his way throughout the movie, at least having the grace to look embarrassed at several points.

The plot is feeble, centering around an evil Queen's attempts to take control of the city of Koroba by murdering her husband and blaming it on Cabot. There then follows interminable amounts of wandering about in the desert by Cabot and his midget henchman (I kid you not!). We're also treated to far too many shots of the midget's rear end during the film (I mentioned the costumes were rubbish, didn't I?) and awful moralising dialogue by Cabot about the evils of slavery.

There are no special effects to speak of - the budget was too miniscule for that, just the heady excitement of one lame swordfight after another. At the end, which really sums up the whole movie and had me in hysterics, Tarl Cabot makes as if to snap his sword over his knee - a symbolic gesture of peace. Would have been good too, except that the sword does not break - it bends into a U shape like it was made out of thin tin. Yep, that's Outlaw of Gor for ya - all bent out of shape.

Even on MST3K this is one of the lamest excuses for a movie. It really is best avoided.


Ah, Gor. I really used to think Cave Dwellers was pretty crappy, but Outlaw of Gor makes me wish Ator could skewer Cabot while Thong pummels Watney Smith into submission. Having seen Outlaw several times, I must admit, it does tend to get better and you catch even more hilarity. The strange thing is that the humor is so unintentional since the actors really play their roles so seriously! Also, add to the fact that Outlaw is preceded by Gor which makes following the plot (what plot??) a difficult task indeed.

Jack Palance really looks annoyed in almost every scene he's in. Maybe it's those really goofy hats he wears and his facial expression which says "I have more talent in my pinky fingernail than all these scum actors combined." Urbano is less than mediocre as Cabot, but is less painful to watch than Russel Savadier's portrayal of sex starved Watney. Try not to regurgitate during his massages (EWW!). The barely clad nymphs in the film add a little (and I do stress little) enjoyment to the film especially the terrific acting of Donna Denton whose "Get out of here, you disgusting worm!" speech may be the highlight of the entire movie. That or any scene with Nigel "Kermit" Chipps.

There must've have been so many Seymour Butts jokes during the making of this film.


Outlaw's plot comes straight out of the Sword and Sorcerer Handbook  an evil queen kills her husband and blames it on the innocent hero, Tarl Cabot (Urbano Barberini), so she might take control of the thrown. Cabot spends the rest of the movie trying to clear his name, undo the queen's evils, and return to his true love.

Overall, Outlaw is one of the poorer examples of the Conan "inspired" rip-off I've seen recently. While the movie has a number of weaknesses, the most glaring is Barberini in the lead role. He makes for one of the most nondescript, unexciting heroes I've seen. He's completely unconvincing. And what's the point in announcing quite proudly in the movie that our hero is a vegetarian? Was Outlaw funded by PETA? What's the point in adding that to the movie? It takes what is an otherwise namby-pamby hero and makes him even more so. Between the emasculated Tarl Cabot, scene after scene of a midget's hinder, an annoying side-kick named Watney, and an embarrassed looking Jack Palance wearing one of the goofiest looking hats imaginable, you've got the recipe for one bad movie.

Yet I haven't rated Outlaw as low as I could have. Why? Well, I have a weakness for this kind of movie. I tend to enjoy most sword and sorcerer type movies, even the bad ones. That, plus some of the outfits worn by Donna Denton, seems to be enough to warrant a point or two.


My theory: The producers of this film first made the movie "Gor". It only took them four days. Then someone noticed that they still had three days left on their equipment rentals, so they decided to film a second movie. Someone put together a script while on a potty break. They used the same sets, the same props, and much the same cast. The end result was "Outlaw of Gor".

Jack Palance must have been hard-up for money to do this. It ranks up there with the biggest wastes of talent in movie history, right next to Max von Sydow in "Strange Brew" and Sir Lawrence Olivier in "Clash of the Titans".


OK, so someone took the basic outlines of the infamous "Gor" novels and used them as an excuse for this amazingly threadbare, slipshod excuse for a feature film. I want to blame John Milius and Arnold Schwarzenegger for this mess, since it came out in 1989, but in actuality it was probably just another piece of product grunted out by the "Sword and Sandals" division of the Italian film industry/sausage factory, and it (or something very similar to it) would probably have been made even if "Conan" had never existed.

So let's see what we've got here. Acting? Well, somehow they got hold of Jack Palance and dressed him up in choir robes and a series of goofy hats. Even sleep walking through his ridiculous part, he's got more talent than the rest of the cast put together. This Urbano guy...well, he's handsome, and he's buff, and he knows how to pose, and that's about it. Everyone else can barely get their lines out without stammering or chewing the scenery, and the guy who plays "Watney" will probably never live down his role in this turkey if he lives to be 210 years old.

Writing and screenplay...sorry, you must be thinking of some other movie. There is no such thing as "writing" on display anywhere here. I am trying to make allowances for factors such as dubbing and translation but...no, even allowing for that, this thing obviously wasn't "written", it was assembled from the random output of 1000 monkeys sitting at typewriters, and then carefully edited to remove all trace of human feeling or dramatic veracity from the results.

Costumes, scenery, etc.??? Nope, no such thing here. Oh, the actors don't wear their own clothes to the shoot, and they aren't standing out in a vacant lot, but the things used here were thrown together in an afternoon on a budget of about $29.98, so they doesn't really qualify. This is just some stuff they used to avoid having nude actors pantomiming sword fights in an empty field. Hell, they're ANTI-costumes...you've never seen so much un-sexy skin in your life. (My favorite example: the 60 year old balding, flabby guy in the leather bustier).

I don't want to hate on this film too much, such it doesn't really deserve venom or hatred....just contempt and dismissal. Compared to a lot of things put out by the Italian film industry (say, "Machiste Vs Hercules In the Vale of Woe", a film so bad that it actually drives strong men to tears), this isn't all that bad...it's just dull, lifeless, uninspired and goofy without being funny. The Urbano-whosis guy, you know, the romantic lead, survived this movie...he even went on to do dozens of other film roles in Europe. That puts him one up on people like Kurt Thomas after "Gymkata" or Ben Affleck after "Gigli".

Watch this once, preferably with the MST3K coverage to get you through the roughest spots, on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you are too hungover or sleepy to watch anything more ambitious. And if this sequel is any indication, don't seek out the first "Gor" movie, not if you value your brain cells.


Agghhh! Why do the Italians continue to make these horrible cheap knock-offs of American genre films? To ship them directly to video over here and makes tons of filthy lucre, or Lira, or whatever, off the poor unsuspecting American public's pain. In this awful serving, which is a sequel to a film that I haven't(thankfully) watched(I actually saw the first movie to Cavedwellers, much to my horror), an idiot professor by the name of Tarl Cabot(what kind of stupid moniker is that, anyway?!) is drawn once again to the planet called Gor. Along for the ride is his 'friend' and fellow professor, Watney(again with the ridiculous name!). This guy is one of the most annoying characters ever put onto film. He has a contest with himself early on in the film to see how many times he can say Cabot! in the space of five minutes. Four thousand and twelve, I think the total was. If only I'd had a shovel and a way to get into the movie, that sucker would have been toast..

Anyhoo, Cabot arrives at the capitol city of..umm...the country? Planet? Or whatever, of Gor, called Koroba. Here this turkey is greeted as a hero(did the good citizens have nothing else to do that day?) by one and all and taken into the castle of the King. He's in love with the King's daughter, although how she stood his open mouthed trout kissing is anyone's guess. There's a lot of misogynistic scenes with scantily clad women and, more disturbingly, an equally scantily clad albino dwarf(am I making that up? God,I wish I was). Apparently Cabot and the dwarf are 'old friends'(nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Enter at this point the venerable Jack Palance(what is he doing in this piece of crap? I mean, I know a job's a job, Jack, but come on!), dressed in a ridiculous costume with what looks like a split butter top loaf of bread on his head instead of a hat. He's supposed to be the second bad guy, along with the evil younger Queen that the King married(sure, seventy year old decrepit guy, she married you because she loves you! Yeah, right!).

Cabot's wormy friend Watney is seduced by the Queen(ewww!) into helping her frame Cabot for her husband's death by really sharp blade. He goes on the run with his personal dwarf, and we see them wander for days in the desert(or that's what it feels like, anyway). During this time, we get an immense amount of buffalo shots from the two men in their tiny loin cloths. I SO did not need to see that dwarf's butt cheeks the fifteen times or so that they showed them! They see a slave caravan where the slaves are wearing toilet seats instead of collars around their necks, and the dwarf unfortunately stops Cabot from drinking some poisoned water. Dammit, Herve, couldn't you just have let him die? We would all have thanked you, believe me!

They get out of the desert and save a slave girl from the market. Cabot gives her a lecture about loving freely(who does this guy think he is? John Brown Cabot?) then he goes back to the capitol city to try to rescue the Princess(who was in a wrestling match with a pair of lesbians) and stop the evil Queen and her creepy old High Priest adviser(Palance). Of course he succeeds, when in reality this guy would have had as much chance of winning the day as he would have had successfully hang gliding off of Mt. Everest. You'd at least think that the utterly infuriating little toad Watney would have been killed by the Queen, but no...the last scene is of this total moron walking down a road in 'America'(for America, read Italy), still wearing the lame ass costume he got in Gor. Once again I have to take my hat off to the Italians, who loved making films with scantily clad well oiled idiots pretending that they're big, bad swordsmen and wizards. These aren't even B grade films-they're more like Z-grade for the most part, although most of them do have the laugh factor going for them, since they're pure Italian cheese of the stinkiest kind.


The only reason I actually sat through this entire movie is because I happened to be an extra in it and was curious to see myself on the big screen. They shot some of the scenes in South Africa, in and around an old mine dump just outside my home town (Benoni). As poor students, my buddy and I thought it would be a fun way to make extra money being extras in movies during vacations, and it kinda was. We made a load of spare cash too, since the movie makers were exploiting the currency exchange rate at the time and paid pretty well (for us at the time anyway).

Anyway, the movie was laughable, and even during filming I could tell that it was going to be. If you ever happen to see this movie, there is a fight scene where the hero kills his attacker with a big (wooden) sword by clearly stabbing the ground next to his chest. Do I need to say more?


The first one was bad enough, and the short skirts, one take filming, and Jack Palance in funny hats just made me nauseous.


*shrug* I guess it's a sequel, and we see some sequences from the original, and some people have claimed to see it, so I guess it must exist. But why anyone would want to make a sequel is anyone's guess, much less _this_ sequel. Jack Palance is the big-name star, and he manages to embarrass himself fully as a priest in leftover Pharisee robes from Jesus Christ Superstar. he's given plenty of help by the amateur Italian movies who appear here, though. If you ever felt tempted to pick up the misogynistic Gor series of novels, watching this movie should convince you otherwise.


What we have here is another "modern classic" which looked much better when it came out, but failed to stand the test of time. Or probably it depends on the age of the audience, who knows...

Anyway, "Ghost" is a rather long and predictable story about supernatural love and vengeance from the grave. However the best part of the movie is what was probably meant as comedy relief, to build up the tension for the romantic moments.

It's not a good sign when the secondary plot takes the cake, relegating the core of the story to a role of pretty-but-shallow dressing.

Furthermore, the "mysterious killer" story was so predictable it ruined whatever interest it might have had.

And the love story, sorry, but I just couldn't find a good reason to care about Sam & Molly... Who are they? Why were they in love to the point of getting involved in a threesome with a potter-wheel?

"Ghost", as a love story, falls short in terms of characters' development. As a murder story is too predictable. So it's at its best as a comedy. Not totally intentional I suppose.

Whoopi Goldberg as the charlatan-medium is really funny, and she manages to give some depth to an otherwise stereotypical "fat black woman". And Oda Mae is the best character of the movie, by a mile, just to underline how poor the effort in character creation was.

The production is fine, and the script paved the way to a plethora of "romantic dramas" and "romantic comedies" in the following decades.

To this day, "Ghost" enjoys a vast popularity, despite its obvious shortcomings. A tribute to the smart people behind the movie, or to the gullibility of the public, always ready to reach for a Kleenex at the first hint of a troubled. yet formulaic, love story?

Either way, "Ghost" looks good but tastes worse at every further screening.


There is a lot that I love about John Lennon, and a lot that I don't like much about him. I was interested in this film initially, but was not all that impressed. I'll try to explain my problems with it. I suppose I should start by saying that it is not all bad, but anybody who looks at this as "the" documentary on Lennon is grossly misinformed.

In a nutshell, nearly everything in the film had all been said before. It was the first time I felt like I was watching a remake of a documentary! Some people claimed that it was the first time this part of Lennon's life was shown in a documentary, but there was absolutely nothing in this film that hadn't been said elsewhere, be it on film or in a book.

I hated the overused "talking-heads" format. I had no need to hear what Gore Vidal had to say, particularly when he went on about Lennon representing "life" and Nixon and George Bush representing "death". Whatever. I'm not their biggest fan either, but that was pure sensationalism. It's not clear which Bush he was talking about, but Vidal takes every chance he gets to make pompous, oversimplified statements like that.

Geraldo Rivera? You've got to be kidding!

I just wasn't always sure if the film had anything more to say than "John Lennon ruled and Richard Nixon sucked." Does anybody who is going to see this film really need to be told that to the degree that this film tells the audience? While I'm at it, I hated the film's ad campaign. It centered upon the above Vidal quote and counted on people who didn't do their own thinking to applaud it as wholly original and profound. The fact that it bastardized "War Is Over... If You Want It" by making it the film's tagline irritated me, especially since the film wasn't supposed to be about war! Even if you read into it and say that it was about a war between Nixon and Lennon, I still say that's a flimsy reason.

David Leaf is usually much more impressive than this. I, for one, value his work as Brian Wilson's biographer. This film, however, just seemed to be capitalizing on the current documentary craze. It used to be that a viewer could be enlightened and educated by almost every documentary that made its way into cinemas. Not anymore, though. This one simply staples together other, BETTER documentaries about the same stuff. Want to learn about Lennon? Read a book. Watch better Lennon documentaries like Imagine: John Lennon. That film wasn't perfect either, but at least it showed John at his best and at his worst. The U.S. vs. John Lennon is simply John worship that spends so much time treating him like a legend, it forgets to treat him like a man.

I probably would not have felt so negatively had I seen this one on television instead of in a cinema. It was partly produced by VH1, and that's really where it belongs. At least on VH1, it can be taken with a grain of salt alongside I Love the 80s: 1982 and Flava of Love. (Okay, okay, that last part was pretty low, I admit it. I apologize.) I can't say that I hated the whole thing. There were some pretty interesting interviews, particularly the one with John Sinclair. His contribution was the best part of the film. They also made at least some efforts (i.e. two or three I think) to bring in opposing viewpoints so they could say they were being objective.

Above everything else, it is always a pleasure to listen to Lennon, even when he wasn't thinking much about what he said. Yes, friends, even Lennons make mistakes. Either way, his interviews were pretty well used in this film. I walked away really wishing that John were still around to state his case for himself retrospectively.


The title of this film is extremely misleading. I figured that the documentary would cover the CIA, FBI, and federal government's investigations into John Lennon's political activities, revealing little known unclassified documents and giving us some idea as to the depth that the probe into Lennon's activities went. Instead, the movie dragged on for an hour and a half serving no other purpose other than that of a drive down memory lane for Beatles fans. All information presented in the film would have already been known by anyone who was either alive during the 60's or is functionally literate. Even the montaging is poor. The ceaseless clips of Lennon and Yoko could easily have been put together by a high school AV department. Essentially, I went into the movie expecting to learn something I didn't know, but instead came out bored stupid and amazed that even I, a child of the 80's who had no personal experience with the Lennon era, already knew everything the movie had presented, and then some.


As unpopular as this comment will be, this film is a total sham. It's so one sided and false that it would be funny if so many people didn't buy into it. John Lennon was a fascist who supported the communist Russian, Chinese and North Vietnamese governments through personal and band proceeds from their shows. His support of the guerrilla movement of the vicious Black Panther's is covered but oddly enough it is glorified. Let's remember that the Black Panther's were one of the largest violent anti American groups during that time period. They shot, stabbed and beat people for disagreeing with their views and bombed businesses and government buildings. No surprises here, this is to be expected out of Hollywood. I just wish that more of our young people had the benefit of the truth of historic record instead of relying on these kinds of factual inaccuracies to guide their thought process.


> After reading the other comments I decided to watch this movie. What a > mistake. The script is full of holes (e.g. Gibbs never reconfronts Stamos > after discovering he's not a cop, Stamos' family protects him even after one > of their own is killed, etc.,etc., etc.). The movie is just plain slow and > boring. Don't waste your time.


Many Lifetime flicks contain the spouse with the "hidden past," the psychotic neighbor or babysitter or student, who usually whacks a few folks and at the climax wields a carving knife at the hero or heroine. Most of the balance of the network's offerings are like this one: all sorts of romantic, sexual and family angst amount the personnel in the cast.

Here, Gail O'Grady (moving-up on Meredith Baxter in this genre), and her daughter deal with all sorts of feminine romantic problems, but if there is any relationship to "real life," I didn't see it.

Everyone has problems, and they all have a significant depth to the person(s) dealing with them, and one has to deal with them as they occur, and proceed onward.

If real-life problems can sometimes occur in what might be termed "ten-foot square by a mile deep," Gail's problems here, as with most femme leads in this type of offering, seem to be "a mile wide and three feet deep." One follows another, and there is no way to empathize either with her or her daughter in any realistic manner.

And where the female characters here are shallow and somewhat vacuous, the males (typically on Lifetime) are doophuses, and (if possible) even more shallow.

The actors are pleasant in appearance, C-level in terms of material and performances, and while the subject matter is not unimportant, the way it is presented here is.

P.S. I saw this flick on a weekend morning. Was doing some other things, and another person was watching, and my fascination was in it mediocrity. The sequel, "More Sex..." had begun, and about a half-hour into it, I noticed the former lover who had impregnated her, and had earlier announced his returning to his wife (but only after "messing-up" the bed clothes with her in their hotel room) appeared at her door, announcing a now impending divorce. He was in process of wondering why she hadn't informed him of "his son," and wimping about, just as we had to leave. However, had I not had to leave the set then, I'd have changed channels. From this point I'd have preferred somebody stick a knitting needle into my eye rather than having to endure whatever the remaining 1-1/2 hours had in-store.


Absolutely inane Martin and Lewis film where Dino is the doctor and Lewis, a railroad employee, supposedly comes into contact with a radioactive car. Dean, at first, feels that Lewis is terminal but soon reverses himself. That reversal doesn't come before N.Y. newspaper lady, Janet Leigh, arrives and gets the two to come to N.Y. for a sympathetic last trip with the hopes of increasing the newspapers' circulation. Fred Clark, as the editor, is his usual cynical self.

What makes this film so ridiculous is that it could be obvious to anyone that there is nothing wrong with Homer Flagg (Lewis.) His antics are as silly as ever. The attempt at slap-stick comedy with the three doctors is nonsensical at best.

Even some of the dance sequences are out of line here especially the one with Sheree North playing herself.


An average tale of a guy who, out of desperation, chooses the wrong drinking buddy and gets into trouble. Estevez is great in this movie, and the real laughs start when he gets busted by the cops. Before that, the parties looked boring and the partiers acted like they were trying too hard to be cool. Many situations were predictable for me, I knew he would get busted on the rooftop as he was about to kiss the girl and I knew he would get held up right after he said he was 50 feet from the police station. At times I was having more of a time picking out who I recognized from other films....the wanna-be pimp was the gas station attendant from Dusk Till Dawn, the drunk at the bar was the head of the jail from Bad Boys (Sean Penn flick, NOT the Martin Lawrence one with the STOLEN name), the bartender is a bit player in many films. This movie reminded me somewhat of Blind Date with Bruce Willis in that everything was going wrong on his night out too and he also ended up getting busted.


I'm not one who goes in much for direct-to-cable to direct-to-video flicks, because there's usually a significant reason why it wasn't released in theaters--and usually a very good one. But I saw the previews for this movie and they sold a previewed copy of it for 5 bucks, so I decided to take a try at it. Even for 5 bucks, I got gypped...heavily.

Emilio Estevez is a fairly good actor, and he's good at what he does, as long as the script is right. He seems to be extremely bored in every scene of this movie. And I like Steven Weber. He's a talented comic actor, I thought he was terrific in Sour Grapes. I even liked him on Wings, he has a great, unique way of delivering comic dialogue. He was totally wasted in this role.

The whole film has this dark, unpleasant aura which makes it impossible to enjoy. It all centers around drug use and prostitution and things like that. It's like if Taxi Driver tried to be a comedy. This movie does try, but very little, in very cheap doses. I mean, there's an erotic dance scene between Leah Lail and her hooker partner, and even that was boring. That's how dull the atmosphere of this whole movie is.


After watching this film I had to wonder one thing. Why was this over two and half hours long? A very simple and pedestrian story of a few relationships between a group of adults. Nothing out of the ordinary or unique about the story and it's woefully too long! I did like all the actors especially Jeanne Balibar who is the central character but I would like them even more in a more interesting film and the main problem comes from the fact that the script doesn't really let viewers know who these characters really are and instead the focus is just on their immediate problems. This had the real potential of being something really interesting but unfortunately the story doesn't allow for some needed details.