If you want to see a truly bizarre '30s flick, catch this one. Wayne Morris and Priscilla Lane star as a couple who work in the city and then move to the suburbs. He keeps working, she stays home. She has a maid. She picks him up from the 5:15 train each day. She hates it and leaves him and goes back to work in New York. Then she informs her husband and the world she's leaving for Paris with a friend. Morris chases after her. The friend, by the way, is Bogar before he became a star. This film was a programmer, slotted in as a second or even third feature on a single bill. Morris is a horrible actor and thoroughly unconvincing as a businessman. Lane channels Ginger Rogers throughout, which is unsettling. Bogart merely treads water. And the film is poorly written. While it was billed as a comedy, it is more of a drama -- with cartoon music constantly playing in the background. Filmed almost entirely on the lot, it gets a little jarring during a brief car chase, the footage of which doesn't match the rest of the photography. If you watch it, take it for the curio that it is. Better yet, watch a BLONDIE flick instead. Better plots, better acting, more believable. Blondie was played by an actress named Penny Singleton, who just so happens o appear in this flick.


The opening credits of this movie really had me fooled. So many names that led me to expect delightful entertainment. OK, Wayne Morris is obnoxious with his immature, boisterous, steamroll-over-everyone-with-no-regard-for-their-feelings, routine. But this movie's also got: Priscilla Lane, who's always charming. Penny Singleton, very funny but sadly underused apart from the Blondie series. Hugh Herbert, that giggly goofball. Oh yeah, Humphrey Bogart's in it too. Plus, the script is based on a story by Faith Baldwin, and I've enjoyed other movies based on her work.

So I was all set to enjoy this one, until I realized early on that it was gonna be one of those movies where the Ambitious Career Gal is taught to stop fighting her True Womanly Nature, which of course means she lets an aggressive doofus wear her down 'til she agrees to marry him, then sublimates and channels her ambitions through him, to help him get off his lazy butt and make something of himself. 'Cause women should stand by (and behind) their man and use their intelligence and talents to help *him* succeed. Be content in your supportive role and never seek glory or take credit. Also, be a mother to your infantile husband. Sounds fun, right? Nice moments of truth where she expresses her boredom with suburbia, the cozy/stifling home, and simple-minded neighbours inane converstions she must put up with. She's wasted there. Her brains and vitality require big-city opportunities and more stimulating company. After he squanders an opportunity she's arranged for him, she leaves him, supposedly to make him take *his* career more seriously and win her back. What then? He'll have more drive, and make her "proud", but she'll still be bored hanging around the house waiting for him to return from work. (And can't even help him openly because his ego must be preserved!) Wouldn't envy and frustration set in? Living vicariously through somebody else is never a good idea. I did like that she wasn't portrayed as a Greedy Wench, pursuing wealth. They were comfortable. Which was part of the problem because she didn't want to be comfortable or complacent. She was bursting with ideas, ambitious to DO something, to create, invent, give life purpose and meaning. And then - inexplicable, implausible "love".

Probably the most disturbing thing about Men Are Such Fools, is the way Wayne Morris "woos" Priscilla Lane. Basically he's abusive but we're supposed to find his persistence cute. Pursuing the poor woman no matter how often she says no (girls never really mean "no", they just wanna be chased!) and acting like a petulant child whenever she pays attention to something other than him. But my favorite example of his touching devotion? Maybe the part where he risks her life driving like a maniac and ignores her pleas to slow down. She'll have to agree to marry him first! Tee-hee! Followed by the scare-tactic of stopping the car on the train tracks, just as a train's coming. But don't worry, he knows the train will stop before it hits them. (He didn't know another would come along from the opposite direction and almost kill them for really-real, but it's still funny right?) If the silly stubborn female would just know what's good for her and do as he says, he wouldn't have to go to these lengths! He finally wears her down in this hilarious, heartwarming scene: They're at a pool party and he dunks her *repeatedly* underwater until she agrees to marry him. Any possible humour you might find in this situation is undermined by the fact that he's yanking her roughly by the HAIR and barely giving her time to breathe between dunks. While the other partygoers stand around laughing. Nobody seems to think this might be a tad dangerous or, um, PSYCHOTIC. It's truly disturbing to witness. Trust me, the level of brutality in this scene goes WAY beyond "playful" pool hijinks.

After literally making it impossible for her to breathe, he takes her breath away some more, by forcing a kiss. Naturally, she's starry-eyed and ready to set a wedding date! So we get a nice juxtaposition of sex & violence with that wonderful message that women are slaves to their hormones AND enjoy being roughed up - This is the best way to make a woman obey, er, I mean, show a woman you love her. Yes, women stay with abusive men and believe their possessiveness/controlling behaviour/violence = love. Gotta blame movies like this one, for helping to brainwash both men and women into thinking these kinds of relationships are, not only normal, but *ideal*. I just love being confronted with disturbing, depressing issues in romantic comedies!

It's bizarre how this couple alternates between excessive "comic" violence/forced almost manic "joy", and other moments where they glare at each other with what seems to be intense hatred/resentment. I wonder if the author or actors were trying to sneak in subversive hints that this is indeed a scary, unhealthy relationship...under the surface veneer of obeying the Hays Code and enforcing gender role "norms" and the illusion of romantic comedy. I'd like to think so! I only recommend this movie to fans of the cast/crew, or students of film history. My goal is to watch every single (existing) movie from the silent era to 1959. Everyone needs an ambition in life, right?


There are some movies that try so hard to hit a certain target that they miss by a mile. This movie is one of them. It tries so hard to be a martial arts epic that it kills itself in the praxes.

The basic plot of the film is that anyone who would marry Princess Ukyo would rule the world. She is already married to Lord Hanzo (ok, so why isn't he ruling the world?) A rival, Lord Danjo, enlists the help of an evil wizard named Kashin to help him win the hand of Ukyo. So Kashin sends his aides to kidnap the Princess' twin sister Kagaribi, whose tears are required to make a "love potion." That really pisses off the fiancée of Kagaribi, Jotaro, who vows bloody revenge. The rest of the story is too hard to explain.

A movie needs more than a intricate plot to be an epic. Ninja Wars accomplishes nothing. It is too confusing to entertain, and too schizophrenic to have any meaning to it at all.


I love watching horrible movies in general. From Shaq to Manos to ninja movies, I almost always cry from laughter.

Not this time.

This movie was not even close to funny bad, it was just painful. It was boring, except for the few fighting scenes, and the plot (whatever there was of it) made NO sense. The climax is utterly inexplicable, and I wouldn't mind if someone could explain exactly what it was all about.

The scenes showing ridiculous ninja powers (eg, flight and toxic barf) are hilarious, but far too few to save this movie. I'll never watch it again.


I can't do enough to dissuade anyone from seeing this movie. Oh yes, it's bad. Evil bad. And I've seen plenty of bad movies. This one's even worse than Hootch County Boys-and that's bad. You want to know how bad?

Okay. The plot involves this guy who wants to seduce a high-up lady in society, so he needs this aphrodesiac-making kettle thingy, but he also for some reason switches the heads on these two other girls...see, it's all very confusing, and makes little to no sense whatsoever. Yes, like all ninja movies, it has the prerequisite cheezy fighting scenes, some of them quite hilarious (like the barfing coolie-hatted ninja and the guy who shoots blades out of his eyeballs) but they are not numerous enough to assuade the pure monotony of most of this picture.

Unlike Hootch County, you cannot even put this movie on if you want to go to sleep soundly, as it is too distrubing for this. Oh, just don't see it under any circumstances, and you'll be all right. No, it's not even funny bad! Okay, well I warned you...


Great is Schoolhouse Rock stretched out to a half hour and with not even one percent of the talent. IK Brunel was a pretty cool guy and there's no denying that, but the movie is way too long for it to work effectively. And the songs are really, really annoying. There are simply too many of them and none of them are even very good. Had it been shorter and maybe been about the length of a Schoolhouse Rock video it might have worked. Instead it just goes on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And I could go on, but I don't want to, because just bringing up this cartoon seems to be very painful. Out of the fifty-seven Oscar winning shorts I have seen, Great is the worst.


I realize I'm taking on an icon here, but honestly, this is the most disgustingly boring and over-rated film to come out of the 1970's. It is unfortunate that the rather pathetic Woody Allen, an admittedly intelligent man who alas squanders his considerable talents, firmly believes that the cosmos revolves around his legendary neuroses. Even more unfortunate, is the fact that he has succeeded in persuading a large percentage of the Western world to agree with him. Frankly, it does not speak well of our culture.

This (yawn) movie revolves around a pair of self absorbed lovers...a neurotic New York comedian, Alvy Singer (played by Woody) and a would-be singer, Annie Hall. The two, both in analysis, move in together so they can exchange tales of their professional, paid for navel gazing. I certainly wouldn't want to imply that it might be simply for the convenient sex. The rest of this so called neurotic romance is far too inconsequential to bother detailing here.

Annie Hall is played by Diane Keaton, an actress who is actually very competent. Her movies are frequently not my favorite, though I did enjoy the cute Baby Boom. Her only memorable aspect in this film is her Ralph Lauren clothes, now of course quite dated, which supposedly caused a fashion revolution at the time.

That classic comment of Woody's regarding sex, "This is the most fun I've had without laughing" doesn't particularly impress me with its brilliance. Fear not, Shakespeare, Woody serves as no threat to you as master of the English language. It is indeed sad that so many people seem to praise this mindless, uninspiring, unoriginal, and not even particularly amusing pearl of wisdom as though it had virtually descended from the gods on Mount Olympus.

Annie Hall isn't the absolute worst movie I've ever seen, but it really doesn't have much to recommend it. I normally adore romances, but neither one of these two selfish neurotics captured my sympathy or even remote interest. Furthermore, the supposed witty banter between the pair failed woefully to either entertain or amuse me. Back in 1977 when I saw this movie at the theatre with my husband (then boyfriend), we both sincerely wished we'd found some paint and watched it dry instead. I guess this intellectual comedy was just far too complicated for little old us to appreciate.


This was one film i wanted to watch always when it released The promos were eye catching and Govinda in a negative role was a surprise

But the film isn't that good

It has lot of flaws

The start is good and till the murder everything goes well but the film falls flat when the romance track starts between Govinda and Karisma and the songs that follow

Then the twist about Govinda and Tabu being in love leaves more doubts and flaws and then How come Govinda turns into a rich criminal from a poor villager?

The last flashback too is prolonged and also the entire clash between Govinda-Karisma and Tabu

N Chandra disappoints Music is okay, Bahot Khoobsurat stands out

Govinda tries a negative role and does very well in it though he overdoes it too much at times Karisma is good but irritates at times with her cries Tabu is okay Nirmal Pandey still doesn't know the difference between loud screaming and acting rest are okay


i am a big fan of karishma Kapoor and Govinda. I watched this film after i had seen Fiza, which was absolutley brilliant.

There are films that are bad, and there are films that are cr*p. but this film just takes the biscuit.

We were so annoyed that we were conned out of paying our money expecting a decent film.

avoid at all cost, dont even rent it.

1/10


This film version of one of the Arthurian legends is badly done, with cheesy special affects, stagey acting and a green knight with an enormous green-tinted wig and false beard that must be seen to be believed. All I can say is that the members of Monty Python MUST have seen this before they sat down to write The Holy Grail (Gawain was released in England 2 years prior), and decided to make fun of it.


This movie is so mediocre, it's depressing. It's not so bad that it's unwatchable, but it's not good enough to be even remotely interesting. It's a long, dull movie with nothing to recommend it... except for one thing that is worth noting:

Almost every other review points out that this movie seems to be the inspiration for "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." However, I am surprised to see that no one else noticed something very interesting: Ronald Lacey plays a guy who gets his hand burned to a crisp by a hot medallion. Strange that the EXACT SAME THING happened to him eight years later when he played a Nazi in "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Other than that fun bit of trivia, the rest of the movie contains unnerving landscapes that look like something Dr. Suess would draw if he was on LSD, ridiculous costumes, dull fight scenes, creepy characters, and the overall feel of a fever dream. It's definitely weird, but not in a so-weird-you-have-to-watch-it way, just a so-weird-you-better-just-skip-it way. 3/10 stars.


You need a score card to figure out what's going on with "Bad Seed."

A woman confesses to her husband that she has been having an affair. Just then the other guy calls. Her husband storms out of the house and returns to find her dead. After the funeral, he finds a letter with the guy's address. He goes there and he thinks he has killed the guy only to find out that he murdered his retarded brother instead. Speaking of retarded!

The movie dissolves into a one big chase thing. Our "hero" finds detective played by Denis Farina.

Wait, if that's not enough the retarded guy who was killed actually killed the girl after all.

We've got a fire by suicide to deal with. Complex! More mishuga to me.


This movie has some interesting characters and started off pretty tense. But eventually, I got worn out by the endless stupid chase scenes on foot through (maybe the same) forests. I chase you; then you chase me; then we chase him; etc. The same for the "grab the gun from the other guy." Endless.


I saw "Preston Tylk" at the San Jose Film Festival and was actually excited to see it. The program billed it as a neo-noir thriller and described its interesting premise. A guy goes out for coffee, comes back and his wife is dead. After that, things get weird. Unfortunately, the premise doesn't hold the film together. The acting is poor, the characters are reaching (striving, in fact) to be more than cliches, and the story is boring and played out. "Preston Tylk" proves a sad fact that just because a film is independent doesn't mean it has something interesting or new to say. Skip it.


And by that I mean the now almost countless bad TV shows with directors who think shaking the camera at everything is cute.

NYPD Blue started that awful trend, and while NYPD Blue was strangely still a hit (but not as big at it would have been had it been well shot!) thanks to its great writing in the first season, its progeny is stinking up the airwaves.

Film is an art form and doing that with the camera makes a mockery out of it.

A sad legacy for Steven Bochco who should be remembered from the epically well-produced L.A. Law.


Solar Attack is about a large coronal mass ejection (CME) from the sun that threatens to ignite the atmosphere and kill everyone. The president must try and make the right decision and he only has one chance. The scientists and advisors are split, but the president errs on the side of caution and authorizes some dangerous operations. While this film deals with a lesser known extinction level event, the science is still dubious as presented. For the most part, the performances aren't convincing and seems rushed. I think this has more to do with the directing rather than the acting. Dialog is common with little snap. I doubt that even big name actors could have pulled this out of the C+ range. Special effects were nonspecific, general, and unrealistic.


This movie as you can see by my rating, was complete drivel. Almost every plot event was coming a mile off. Satellites falling out of the sky cannot happen. There is something called "the Atmosphere" surrounding the Earth, which makes anything falling from space heat up to insanely hot. The SFX were mediocre bordering on bad, but they were brilliant compared to the acting and the plot. Blowing up the Arctic with nukes. Doesn't that just sound stupid, because that's what they did. I mean is spraying thousands of tonnes of ice into the air going to put out huge fires in the atmosphere, and then ice starts raining from the sky and everyone goes all happy-clappy. Its most redeeming feature was the unintentional humour at the actors trying to make the plot seem believable. I mean the whole atmosphere exploding due to methane. Methane can only burn at concentrations between 5 and 15%, and there are 1,745 parts per billion, which is about 0.000001745% of the total atmosphere. Just a little bit below 5%.


Coronal mass ejections from the Sun are the gimmick the makers of this film use to get you in front of the TV (or worse, inside a theater where you may have paid to see it).

Extinction level events are the hack screenwriter's new refuge from the demands of serious drama and this is no different - except that coronal mass ejections are much less plausible as an extinction-level event than, say, impact by a large asteroid.

Apart from this most obvious flaw in the movie, we're also expected to believe that these coronal mass ejections somehow keep satellites from burning up on re-entry, so they can take out streets full of people (for example, if the Soviet spy satellite which scattered itself all over the Yukon Territory back in the late 1970s had done so over downtown Detroit instead, the carnage could have been impressive).

In this film, methane (and not carbon dioxide) is contaminating the upper atmosphere. Pockets of methane unaccountably ignite, causing atmospheric chaos for no real reason. And according to this movie, we can also dispense with all the money we're spending on ballstic missile defense - F-15 fighter planes can handle terminal stage ballistic intercepts just fine. Has Boeing been holding out on us?

I keep harping on the problems created by stupidity in plot details because they damage willing suspension of disbelief by the audience and make the movie hard to enjoy. The factual errors in the plot of "Solar Strike" aren't points on which reasonable men of science can disagree, they're a series of clinkers which anyone who passed high school chemistry (or even "general science") will have trouble setting aside in order to enjoy the film.

And the film needs the help. We enjoy "Society of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "Van Helsing" despite the campy Victorian "science" because the actors and screenwriters do a good job and the story recruits the audience as a willing conspirator.

The writers and director don't get Lou Gossett and the other "name" actors close enough to the goal to score. Even Lou Gossett can't sound intelligent when the lines he has to deliver are palpably foolish. There's nothing in this plot, the characterizations, or the dialogue to entertain.

This is a dismal, dismal, dismal waste of the viewer's time. You have to wonder if SciFi Network shows garbage like this because of a special dumb movie discount or something.


Again earth is in severe danger and needs to be rescued - so far, so good. Again the rogue scientist is up against the establishment... well you know the rest. All this could make up a good movie, but as all normal, unlikely disasters have already been put on screen, a new event needed to occur... Put short: I would fire the scientific adviser (if there was any at all) - science fiction usually does not need to care much to obey existing science but when a story is being formed around known scientific processes, errors in logic hurt the educated viewers ears and eyes.

Some of the flaws (taken from the German version, maybe some are just translation problems?): No methane has ever burned without oxygen - certainly not in 80 miles altitude with a partial oxygen pressure in the range of that of a normal (not a high) vacuum on earth... No ozone layer ever has saved earth from any coronal mass ejection, nor could it ever do that, nor does it have ANYTHING to do with the effects described in the movie (it "saves" earth from EM UV radiation, nothing else)... No magnetic (->Van Allen) belt is located below the altitude the MAV ever obtained... and so on. The list of obvious factual errors is endless, very disturbing for any sci-fi fan who has an interest in real science, rendering the "PhD" guys in the movie to clowns.


I will give you two reasons for watching this sci-fi potboiler about a solar burst that threatens to wipe out all life on our planet: martial artist Mark Dascascos as a disgraced scientist who figures out how to save the Earth and Lou Gossett Jr. as a black (!) U.S. president who decides to go along with Dascascos' seemingly harebrained plan. I will watch anything with Dascacos, and being a Baby Boomer, I will always give Mr. Gossett the benefit of the doubt (IRON EAGLE, anyone?). The rest of this is pure crap. Terrible special effects, terrible dialog and way too much talking and standing around. Dascascos does not get to kick much behind in this one. So if you want to see Dascascos in action, watch the French thriller BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF.


This is a poor remake of Irwin Allens poor disaster movie Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea. All the same ingredients but done in a totally soulless way. The acting is so wooden it would not look out of place on Gerry Andersons Thunderbirds. I thought that they stopped making rubbish like this back in the 70's. Obviously not! IMDb says I must post at least 10 lines of text in this comment, but its difficult to type anything that is just not negative about this movie.

Basically I just cant be bothered its not worth it! so! Rubbish! Rubbish! Rubbish!

Waste of time!


Yet another Sci-Fi Original and not that hard to watch. We're not talking award-winning or anything. Some of the computer-animated effects with the world coming to an end and all a bit more than par for the course. Far fetched story line, but then this is science fiction...not reality. The largest solar emissions ever are detected and are about to set the whole damn world on fire. To save mankind, hurried scientists are forced to take risky steps to counter the sun's shooting flares breaching the ozone layer.

U.S. President Gordon(Louis Gossett, Jr.)calls upon a multi-millionaire maverick scientist Lucas Foster(Mark Dacascos)for help as the clock is running down and the world is facing assured Armageddon. Is this a pulse-pounding action thriller? Let's just say there is no urgent need for Xanax. It is kind of funny that Detroit looks a whole lot like Buffalo. And if Dacascos looks familiar; you have seen him in his role as the Chairman on Food TV's American Iron Chef. Gosset, Jr. the acclaimed actor he is could have phoned in his role. Also in the cast: Joanne Kelly, Conrad Coates, Damir Andrei and Sugith Varughese.


You probably won't be able to sit through this movie, I wasn't. It's good for a laugh though.

This is the plot, from the part of the movie I was able to endure: There's basically a big solar flare, and it's somehow going to set the atmosphere on fire. The solution: We'll blow up the ocean! (I'm not making this up). The water thrown into the air will put out the burning atmosphere, or something.

The president is portrayed as naive for thinking that blowing up the ocean is too rash and/or stupid a move. Really, I'm with him on this one.

Also, meteorites are falling at cities for some reason. Fortunately shooting them with fighter-launched missiles makes them completely disappear.

Maybe they shouldn't have tried to make a serious movie based on a Homestar Runner cartoon. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out this link: http://www.homestarrunner.com/cheatcommando.html


I guess this is totally enjoyable entertainment if you are uneducated and uninformed. Comments by other viewers are shocking "A good theory??? "The sun catches fire???" My god I hope that is not the level of intelligence being produced by todays education system. This movie is the biggest load of BS I have ever had the misfortune to witness on a TV screen. The kind of screenplay I would expect from an 11 year old and if it was an 11 year old writing the screenplay I would understand and say; 'Not bad kid. Keep on trying.' If it wasn't for the cheap production and obvious low budget I would say that this movie reeks of global elitist scare mongering for their global warming campaign to have even more taxes implemented on an already overtaxed population. But surely they could afford a much higher budget and overall better actors (With the exception of Lou Gosset Jr and a few others - indeed the fact that they can keep a straight and serious demeanor through out the film shows that those few actors really are outstanding in their craft) but I suspect this film is aimed to appeal to the truly stupid people. The types who get robbed by Nigerians offering them millions for the low registration fee of $300 and their bank account details..... I would recommend film students (screen writers, directors & actors) watch this film as an example of what they should aspire not to create regardless of how much money they are paid. I was going to rate this film a 2 but I opted for a 1 because a 2 would really be stretching the bounds of truth, reality and justice (just like this film does from start to finish).


Avalanche, Buried Alive, Days of Destruction, Magma, War of the Planets, Volcano in New York, etc, etc, etc. Now this one.

My boss loves his b-horrors and especially his b-sci-fi movies. This movie is pretty much the sane as The Day after Tomorrow but even more predictable (and worst effects). The acting wasn't very good but not the worst and just led to the typical plot: Save the world! Now you sci-fi fans might want to see this but seriously, you might want to skip this. This is another typical sci-fi. Seriously there really isn't much point watching this. I know what your thinking. It can't be that bad. The special effects are cheesy. Go try something different and watch Hard Candy or Stay instead. If they don't appeal to you than go back to your Sci-fi's.


Just caught this on Fox Movie Channel, and can only wonder what the execs were smoking! Bad enough this turkey is stuffed with unnecessary exposition, but the ending destroys the whole point of the story! Folks, it doesn't get any sillier than Sgt. Schultz coming to the rescue!

In the original, Lola Lola was a heartless bitch, but Dietrich made her utterly captivating. Britt, OTOH, was dull and annoying. And she was tone-deaf! How this got past Dmytryk and his music director is beyond me! It was Rath's vanity as much as his lust that caused his downfall, but Jürgens is too busy trying to look pathetic. How else can I put it? Everything about this Angel is wrong, all wrong!


I have watched Y&R for more than 25 years and I can say with absolute certainty that Y & R has lost its way. Whatever it once offered in the way of life lessons and good storytelling is gone. In recent years, story lines are dragged out f-o-r-e-v-e-r and clearly the only motivating factor working here is to keep the addicted viewers coming back day after day. Despite a larger population, its ratings have been slowly slipping for years.

Once upon a time, Y & R was a fairly entertaining piece that included decent drama, a touch of humor and glamor and tried to make some points about what was happening in the world - dangers that young people could be exposed to, the consequences of making bad decisions that forever impact your life and so on.

It hardly does that at all anymore and these days virtually every character is so flawed that there are few to relate to or even like - if only a little. Ruthless ol' Victor is so evil and corrupt that he should have disappeared years ago. Good guy John Abbott Sr. was dumbed down and then eliminated only to show up as stupid, clueless ghost criticizing his only son ad nauseum. The females are all messed up.

New characters come into the story and often disappear without explanation because they do not attract a following. Sometimes, they don't disappear fast enough.

The stories are stretched out to the max. A single day can actually be played out over 2 weeks! The bad guys rarely get punished and the writers keep bringing back psycho-Sheila every time they need a villain and can't come up with a new one.

Over and over, this show has repeatedly tried very hard to promote interracial relationships even though they are statistically rare (about 3%) yet oddly enough - they never address the racial component of a relationship.

After many years, especially the last few, I have concluded that this show is a waste of time. The next time you may be tempted to watch Y&R, ask yourself, "Is this the best way to spend the next hour of my life?" You'll never get that hour back again.


Cliff Robertson set out to make two films in J.W. Coop (he worked on the screenplay as well as directed and starred), but in this case his effort winds up as only half a good movie.

He starts with an interesting premise -- a former rodeo cowboy emerges from prison c.1970, tries to pick up where he left off, and finds that both society and the rodeo game have moved on. The first half of the film is pretty good, dealing with J.W.'s efforts to adjust to his senile mama (Geraldine Page) and to a society where "the kids, the commies, and the unions" (so says one character) are ruining the country.

But when J.W. actually starts rodeoing, the picture shifts to an underdog-making-good-in-a-cutthroat-world scenario, as the old cowboy becomes an unlikely dark-horse contender for the national rodeo championship (competing against a younger rider with more corporate savvy). The ending of the film is unsatisfying and leaves us feeling incomplete -- there's more story to be told, but Robertson leaves us to feel sorry for a guy who, frankly, is not beaten down so much by "the establishment" as by his own pride.

Also unsatisfying is Page's role in the film. She appears in one scene toward the beginning of the movie, and then she disappears. Maybe that's reality, but art provides the opportunity to inject more of her story and her relationship with J.W. into the film. That opportunity is missed. We do learn some more about J.W.'s family as the film progresses, but there's no closure on his mom-and-pop issues, although I suppose one could argue that the lack of parental comfort has something to do with the end of the movie.

Robertson the actor is pretty darned good in this film, capturing J.W.'s initial bewilderment, suspicion and frustration with the '70s, and later his delight at having gained the love of a younger woman (Christina Ferrare). And Robertson the director has a nice eye for small towns and "the sticks" (there's a scene at a rural crossroads that's beautifully shot). But he's undercut by Robertson the screenwriter -- it's just difficult to buy J.W. as a contender for a major championship right out of prison (even if he has been rodeoing successfully there). And the film bites off more than it can chew in trying to comment both on social change and the rodeo life. This could have been a far stronger movie if it concentrated on one or the other -- and, to be honest, the encounter of a '50s guy with the early '70s was the far more interesting part of the film.


I am fully aware that no film adaptation of a novel can remain completely faithful to its source. It is just not possible to do- most novels are too nuanced and large to be comfortably fitted into a two hour movie. However, it is possible for a film to capture the message and tone of a novel by keeping true to its narrative. Yet Disney's film adaption of Esther Forbes 1943 novel for young and old, "Johnny Tremain," failed to stay true to the narrative of the book and the result is a thoroughly mediocre and bland movie.

Set in Revolutionary era Boston, Forbes' novel is the story of a bright, talented, and cocky fourteen year old silversmith apprentice, Johnny Tremain, who because of an accident which cripples his hand finds himself without a profession. Without a future as a silversmith, Johnny must find a new life and career. Along the way he finds himself swept up in the events around Boston in the mid 1770's that culminated in the American Revolution. Johnny becomes involved in the clandestine activities of the Sons of Liberty. He participates in the Boston Tea Party, spies on the British, and mingles with such patriots as John Hancock, Sam Adams, and Paul Revere. The strength of the novel is how Forbes so effortlessly weaved the fictional story of Johnny in with actual historical events and persons. It is just a brilliant work of historical fiction.

One would think that a film studio could not make a complete hash of such terrific source material. Yet Disney did. Disney did what is usually expected of film versions of novels- it jettisoned "minor" characters and subplots to streamline the story. That's understandable. What is not forgivable is completely changing the message and tone of the novel in order to have lots of action scenes and a happy ending. In the book, Johnny only hears of about the fighting at Lexington and Concord- in the movie Johnny is shown in the thick of the fighting. That's understandable (film's need action), but what is not forgivable is the ridiculous joyousness of the battle scenes- Johnny and his friend, Rab, hide behind trees, shoot at redcoats, and seem to be having a grand time! They also occasionally break out into song- "Oh, we are the Sons, oh, we are the Sons, the Sons of Liberty!" (It's just as bad as one could imagine.) Disney selling war as a boys' adventure is exactly the opposite of what Forbes intended in her novel.

Forbes was not cynical about the ideal of American Revolution- the war was fought so that "a man could stand up." However, Forbes let the reader know that that simple hope came at a terrible price. The character of Rab, Johnny's best friend, is a remarkable seventeen year old boy. He's smart, handsome, fearless, and oozes charisma. He's a boy destined to be a great man. Yet it's not be. At Lexington Green, as Rab stands among the Minutemen confronting the might of the British Empire, he is mortally wounded in the first volley. He never even got a chance to fire his own musket. He dies the next day, propped up in a chair with blood pouring from his mouth. Forbes wanted young readers to know that war is not a boy's adventure- it robs the world of its best and brightest at a very young age. By having Rab walking around, alive and well, and singing that awful song at film's end, Disney succeeded in completely botching its film adaption of "Johnny Tremain." This is one book that is crying for a remake!


I saw this movie originally on the "Wonderful world of Disney",long before I read the book for an education class in college. I also taught my 8th grade language arts class part of James Otis' wonderful speech about the price of independence. I do not remember if the speech is in the film,but if it was it was wasted because the powers that be at Disney in 1956 decided to change the ending. A previous review mentioned the same thing... by not allowing the character of Rab Silsbee to die after the Battle of Lexington, the entire perspective of the film disappears. I once had a father ask me if it was OK if his son,who did not want to read the book, watched the movie , I told him sure, if he wanted to fail the class.... the teacher would have known immediately that he had not read the book,because he would have no clue about "that a man can stand up".

That said, the movie is well cast,especially the characters of Dr Warren, Paul Revere and James Otis.(Jeff York as always was wonderful).

Hal Stalmaster, who never to my knowledge made another film is just fair as Johnny.Dick(Richard)Beymer is a little goofy as Rab and has fun with the part(unfortunately it doesn't go anywhere.)Luana Patten as Cilla was too old for the part. A previous reviewer said that this film is ripe for a remake. I totally agree. Lets make a film(made for TV or otherwise that really does this literary treasure justice!


First off the book Johnny Tremain is both one of the greatest children stories and one of the greatest revolutionary war novels ever written. Published during the Second World War it has never gone out of print since and rightly so. As source material it is perfectly suited to be given a movie adaption. And when the movie sticks to following the book it is rather entertaining in a 1950s Disney sort of way.

The first half hour is close enough to the book to entertain the fans. The character of Johnny has been changed from arrogant and cocky to pure and innocent in the best tradition of Disney films which can hardly come as a surprise but to expect anything else out of a kid's movie is to be let down. The second half hour loses the mood but keeps near the plot. The Boston Tea Party is entertaining although the singing after it is unforgivably Disney. But by the last half hour the book is thrown to the winds as we see the war first hand. Something about seeing laughing children dancing around the countryside shooting at redcoats struck me as kind of disturbing for a Disney film. Obviously war was a great adventure that people could enjoy in a typical '50s fashion where nobody but the bad guys got hurt and everyone could share a nice drink afterward. Oh, and somebody who is supposed to die, whose death gives the entire book meaning, doesn't. That would be too dark for a Disney film.

Now if I thought that any of those additions were beneficial to the movie I couldn't really complain but none of them worked. The first battle was alright but the psychotic killing kids having fun was just awful. The producers probably couldn't see why this might be considered 'creepy'. The acting from the lead is awful and he doesn't seem to have been in anything else afterward. The guy playing Rab seemed to bring a little of the distant charm described in the book but the script doesn't give him more than one or two moments. Walter Sande as Paul Revere was good as were a few of the founding fathers but nothing to write home about.

On the plus side the sets are marvelous. I've never seen colonial Boston come to life so well since, largely due to an absence of Revolutionary War films. The Battle of Lexington is moderately well done rather obviously leaving open the question of who fired first. And the first half hour entertains. So in conclusion: good book, good sets, bad everything else. Remake anyone?


First off, I have to say that I really like the idea of Rock-a-Doodle. The basic story of the rooster having to save his farm from eternal darkness and rain by crowing the sun up could have made for such a great movie. But I feel that, as it was, it wasn't nearly as good a movie as it could have been.

A huge part of my problem with this movie was the main character, Edmund. This kid/cat is so darn annoying. His speech impediment got very old very fast, and it just felt like he was trying way too hard to sound cute. Also, as another reviewer pointed out earlier, he belabored to death the fact that he was "too little" to do pretty much anything, which became irritating.

It was also bothersome that this movie couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a full-blown musical or not. The Chanticleer/King songs were fine, because they were part of the whole singing rooster story. But it seemed that the other random songs were pretty unnecessary. The owls' songs were bad enough, but did they really feel the need to have the bit with the bouncer toads' song?? These random musical numbers felt like they came out of some particularly bad Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. If they really wanted to make this movie a musical, they needed to have some real full-length songs instead of those short musical snippets given to the villains.

But by far, my biggest problem with this movie is that it's just not very good at storytelling. It was fine that Patou (Phil Harris in his last role!) narrated the story. However, at times, they relied too much on the narration to tell us things instead of showing us. This is especially true in the whole Goldie subplot. Patou told us that a) Goldie was a lot smarter and nicer than she seemed at first and b) that she was really falling for Chanticleer although she was only supposed to fake it. It really would have helped Goldie's character development if there had been scenes where she was gradually acting smarter and nicer. And the movie would instantly have been better, I believe, if there had been a scene showing the moment where Goldie knew that she was in love with Chanticleer for real instead of just having narration. As it was, it felt like Goldie was just tacked onto the movie so that Chanticleer could have a love interest.

There's a good movie somewhere in Rock-a-Doodle. And I won't deny that it was a special part of many people's childhoods. However, for the reasons above (as well as others I don't care to bore you with), it just didn't live up to that potential, and turned out to be just another mediocre-to-bad kids' movie.


This has to be one of the worst movies ever made. I don't care if it was made for kids; it is excrement. Let's go through this travesty, shall we?

1) Wow, I was not aware that apparently owls EAT such animals as cats and pigs! No, you've really seen it all when you see a pig scared of being eaten by an owl. Wouldn't it have made more sense if the villains had been hawks or vultures? Okay, then they wouldn't have hated the sun so much, but having owls wanting to eat pigs doesn't make any more sense!

2) Story logic: Everyone believes Chanticleer makes the sun rise every morning, but then they see it come up without him, so they think he's a fraud. But then it turns out it DOESN'T rise without him. So what the hell? Why did the sun come up without him that one time? Is it able to come up by itself a single time, but then needs him to continuously do so? I saw this movie when I was 7, and was confused by that.

3) Okay, so the sun can't come up and it's always night; why does that make it rain and flood as well?

4) The live-action scenes are shot so terribly! Seriously, they look like a bad home movie.

5) Edmond can't act, but if you think about it; his entire storyline is really unnecessary. You could just cut him out, cut out all the live-action stuff, told the whole movie as just a straight cartoon, and still have the same story.

6) With all respect to Phil Harris and his long resume of animated voice work, I think he's one of the most annoying narrators in film history. "Well, shucks. Just imagine if one day the sun just didn't come up, but went back down." Then he just KEEPS ON TALKING, sometimes over very dramatic scenes.

Patou: (narrating) If Edmond wanted to bring Chanticleer back to raise the sun, the Duke was going to have something to say about it.

Grand Duke: Kittens are more digestible.

Patou: (narrating) Young Edmond was about to have the most amazing adventure he'd ever dreamed of.

Just SHUT UP! You don't need to tell us that the Duke is mad, we can see that. You don't need to tell us that Edmond is about to go on an adventure. Just let us enjoy the movie!!

7) The climax: after going on this "amazing adventure," it all comes down to a stupid climax of convincing Chanticleer to crow, but he doesn't feel like it. So they chant his name over and over until he feels like it. Couldn't they have come up with something more dramatic than that?

8) And what does his crowing do? Make the Duke shrink. I don't quite understand that logic.

So in conclusion, the story is badly conceived, the execution is even worse, and the result is a mess of a movie.


Plot of "Rock-a-Doodle": A rooster named Chanticleer crows every morning to make the sun come up, only one day the sun rises without him and he leaves the farm in disgrace (this part is based on an obscure play by Edmund Forster). Only it turns out he really WAS responsible for the sunrise and it begins raining nonstop. This causes an evil owl to move to the farm because he wants to live in permanent darkness. A real-life boy, who lives with his real-life family amongst the cartoon animals, knows Chanticleer can bring the sun back and sets out to find him. Only the owl turns out to have magical powers and transforms the real-life boy into a cartoon cat. The cartoon cat then sets out with the other animals into the big city (which is populated by cartoon animals even though the farm has a human family) to find Chanticleer, who has turned into an Elvis parody and is being seduced by a sexy chicken. Meanwhile, back at the farm, the owl has inexplicably grown to the size of a skyscraper and is planning to eat the other animals. Or something. Also, there are evil frogs.

If you can read through all that and tie those events together to make any sort of vague sense, be my guest. This is the most nonsensical movie in the history of animation. I watched it countless times as a kid and I don't think I ever knew what was going on, and I just realized I still don't. I don't remember ever liking it, either.

However, I was strangely fascinated by the crazy little owl (nephew to the evil magic owl) played by Charles Nelson Reilly, and thought he was the funniest damn thing I had ever seen. I can't explain it, but even now the thought of a tiny owl running around with weapons made out of can-openers and shouting "ANNIHILATION" is hilarious to me. I was so fascinated that I actually did research on Charles Nelson Reilly, so for many years I was the only kid in elementary school with an extensive knowledge of Charles Nelson Reilly trivia and could tell you all his appearances on game shows and stuff. This is the sad effect this movie had on my life, and I deeply regret it.

Besides that, it is sort of notable for Glen Campbell's role as Chanticleer/The King and for containing Phil Harris's last role, but anyone over the age of 8 will probably find it extremely tedious and annoying. It has nothing on the classic Disney cartoons.


Why do I review (or even watch) Don Bluth films? They're so depressing. I haven't been happy with the man since The Land Before Time (Though I briefly smiled for Anastasia. If only it weren't for that darn Pooka...).

Our story begins in a book on a farm. Right away, The Farm is identified as the perfect place to be, although there's no farmer, no crops, and I don't recall seeing a barn. Everyone on this little farm has a job. Of course, Chantacleer's job (to bring up the sun) is the only job identified; everyone else just lays around or joins in when he randomly belts out a tune.

You can imagine how obnoxious this can be after awhile, what with all this random singing on the farm with no farmer. So obnoxious, the Grand Duke of Owls has decided to kill them. Normally, this would be bad, but after five minutes, it's pretty obvious that they'd probably be better off dead. So he gets Chantacleer kicked off the farm, causing the sun to down, and darkness to fall. Meanwhile, this Duke planning to eat all these 'cute' creatures. For this, he's bad guy? Sounds pretty noble to me.

Meanwhile, in the real world, it's raining. This is somehow connected to Chantacleer leaving in the story, but only Edmond, son of the missing farmer, knows this. Everyone else figures it's just a random flash flood (Oh how foolish. Don't all monsoons have to do with barnyard fowl?). So he goes to the window and starts to scream for Chantacleer at the top of his lungs. Who's the villain now, huh? Anyhow, he hits his head, gets turned into a cat, goes on an adventure in the city, finds the rooster (but not the farmer), and wakes up muttering, "You were there, and you were there, and you were there..."

There are several problems with what I refer to as the Beginning-of-the-End for Bluth. But I beefed an awful lot in my Thumbelina review, so I'll start off with the good: Some of the voices, particularly Eddie Deezen (Who later immortalized Mandark) and Phil Harris (Who deserved a better last bow than this.) are quite good. Unfortuantly, they're undermined by Edmond (More on this later.). Rock-a-Doodle does the thing Thumbelina never did: Make me laugh, and that's why it gets a two instead of a one. One scene. The kitchen with Hans and the Duke, where Uncle Dukie utters the line, "If I kill my nephew, will it be murder or charity?" The pint sized pipsqueak and her prince never even came close.

Now the bad. Edmond is completely unappealing. His speech impediment is merely distracting as first, but by the "We'll all dwown." speech, he's annoying as red ants up the butt. At times, you can't even understand him (I have mixed feelings on that.). Hiring a kid with a speech problem, just for the 'cute factor' is always a bad idea (Do you see Mara Wilson and her lisp on the cover of People? Dakota Fanning, on the other hand, talks clear as a bell, can actually act, and is worth ten times her weight in gold.), unless it makes sense to the script (such as in 'Paulie' where Paulie the Parrot helped the little girl with her stutter.).

Hans the nephew, 'The funny character', isn't. The movie practically forces him on us, and when it becomes obvious he's not working with the script, we are actually reminded that he's supposed to be funny ("He was more a hoot than he was dangerous." or something along those lines.). Never, never, NEVER tell who your funny character is. Let the audience find out for themselves. Or better yet, don't have a specific 'funny' man, but let everyone be humorous on their own in different ways (Such as Monsters Inc.).

I guess the worse part is, we don't care. If I don't care about at least one main character, or a character's motivations, or even what's going to happen to that character, then the movie's failed. Rock-a-doodle failed. I'm not sure it ever had a chance. And maybe that's why the farmer ran away.


Rock a Doodle is one of the worst cartoon films ever for many reasons.

Firstly it has terrible animation, the animation looks as if it was made at the same time as say "The Aristocats" which was made in 1970 and the animation in that looks better than Rock a Doodle's.

Then the characters were annoying with the exception of Chanticleer. The mouse looked so stupid and her lisp was so irritating and the bird had an equally annoying voice and was a pointless character.

Patou the dog looked like one of the typical Don Bluth characters with over-exaggerated mouth movements so when they talk they look as if they're struggling to talk and their lips are stuck together. Phil Harris did his voice well but the narration was overused so much.

Edmund is the most annoying character in the film because the scene where he gets turned from a real human into an animated cat was weird and stupid. Also he was made to try and look cute like Fievel from American Tail but it was so clichéd even down to the over-sized jumper and the voice is even more annoying than Fievel's it makes you hate him.

Then the story of the Grand Owl wanting to make it dark permanently so he could eat the farm animals was stupid. Some of these farm animals are pigs and cows so how can something as small as an owl even dream of eating some of them.

To top it all off the film had really unbearable songs to add to it so overall it is a very bad cartoon. not recommended at all.


I don't know what Don Bluth was thinking when he made this silly, nonsensical animated musical about a singing rooster, but I know what I'm thinking: "Why?" ROCK-A-DOODLE isn't as depressing or dreary as Bluth's previous ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN, but it's not much better.

The film tells the story of Chanticleer, a barnyard rooster with a golden voice whose crooning -- sorry, crowing -- makes the sun rise every day. One morning, however, Chanticleer is attacked by a bully rooster; in the process he neglects his crowing duties and the sun comes up anyway. After being laughed at by his friends, the disgraced rooster heads off to the city. Then it starts to rain, and before long, all the animals are terrorized by both floods and the evil Grand Duke of Owls, who, it turns out, actually set up the whole thing simply because he dislikes the sun. In arguably one of the few memorable lines this movie offers, he also sneers, "I positively LOATHE rock and roll."

Naturally, the animals head off to the city to find Chanticleer, who, by this point, has become a famous star dubbed "the King," with a greedy manager and a reluctant girlfriend, Goldie. If the animals can bring Chanticleer back to the farm, the sun will once again rise and the floods will stop. To prevent this, the Duke sends his clumsy (and unfortunately not very funny) nephew, Hunch (whose vocabulary mostly consists of rhyming with the word "annihilation") after the animals.

The plot, such as it is, doesn't make the least amount of sense and is likely to baffle even the most intelligent of grown-ups. Working against ROCK-A-DOODLE as a whole, however, is the haphazard and confusing execution. It also suffers from the problem of a major identity crisis: on one hand it tries to be a simplistic fairy tale, on the other it attempts to be a musical parody of Elvis (Chanticleer's rock star persona and his songs are very closely modeled after the legendary singer, from the slick hairdo to the deep voice and the mannerisms). However, it ultimately comes across as a hodgepodge of ideas crashing into each other.

Furthermore, the characters, in addition to being unattractively designed, are not particularly compelling. Chanticleer, while supplying a dead-on impression of Elvis Presley down to the voice and the singing (courtesy of Glen Campbell), is a two-dimensional lead. His barnyard friends, which include Patou, a droopy canine unable to tie his shoes, Peepers, a bespectacled and lisping mouse, and Snipes, a zany magpie, do little to emerge as anything memorable, although the first two are well voiced by Phil Harris and Sandy Duncan, respectively. Hunch, as mentioned, is unfunny, and useless. That leaves the character of Goldie, Chanticleer's love interest, who is supposed to be a tough girl that eventually falls in love with our hero, but the screenplay doesn't give her much to do. One suspects that she was included in this film just for the sake of a love interest. As for the Grand Duke, he's little more than your typical scary, nasty, scheming bad guy, despite having the voice of Christopher Plummer. And don't even get me started on where his supernatural powers (that enable him to grow to enormous size or transform anybody) came from.

Where ROCK-A-DOODLE really falls apart is in its attempt to bookend the movie with live-action sequences. The idea is to include a real-life little boy, Edmond, as one of the story's major protagonists. Actually, he spends much of the film transformed as an animated kitten (a transition that feels very awkward and unnatural). And whining about how he is unable to do anything as a result of being small. Constantly. This subplot feels like it was tacked onto the story, hence one gets the feeling that it came out of nowhere.

There are also two live-action/animation sequences in the movie, but unlike WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, they come across as very patchy and unconvincing--the real-life surroundings don't mesh well with the drawings, and it looks especially bad at the song and dance finale when the kid actor playing Edmond, Toby Scott-Granger, is brought back to the cartoon world. Speaking for the animation itself, it's pretty much below par, even for a Bluth production.

Equally distracting is the narration that supplies most of the film. Phil Harris has a great voice and does a credible job (although some might find it strange that the dog is recounting the whole thing). The problem is that he narrates CONSTANTLY, even going far to chime in over some catchy songs sung by Chanticleer. Considering that this film is supposed to be a musical, having Harris chime in every two minutes proves to be very distracting. (The narration was apparently added on to prevent audiences from being confused, but why did they have to overdo it?)

Probably the only things that come clean out of this mess are the voice work and the musical score by Robert Folk. Campbell, Harris, Duncan, Plummer, and squeaky Ellen Greene (as Goldie) all do the best they can with their characters, although Toby Scott-Granger's childish speech impediment does get in the way of his portrayal of Edmond (although considering how weak his character is, it's no surprise he doesn't give a memorable performance). The underscore, as mentioned, is also beautiful, far better than this movie has any right to be. T.J. Kuenster's dozen songs, on the other hand, are mediocre to bad, particularly the owls' Bach-style numbers, although the ones for Chanticleer are admittingly a lot of fun.

As entertainment, ROCK-A-DOODLE is mostly harmless fare for younger kids. It has its funny moments, but anyone else older will find this to be uninspired and chaotic. Considering that this is from the director of THE SECRET OF NIMH, AN American TAIL, and THE LAND BEFORE TIME, its a disappointing endeavor.


Even the least interesting Disney animated flicks are light years ahead of "Rock-A-Doodle". I cringed in terror during each and every single second of this crapola film.

Just when you think the movie couldn't get any worse, there's that atrocious song and dance number at the end. Why did Don Bluth insist on combining live action with animation (the only time it truly worked was in the excellent "Who Framed Roger Rabbit")? And what was the point of involving that little kid in the story to begin with?

"Rock-A-Doodle" is probably one of the worst movies in general I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. I'm sure the money wasted on this steaming pile of excrement could have better used to feed several Third World countries.


Before I get into this film, I'd just like to comment on the last few minutes, when little Edmund enters into his fantasy world of singing daisies, talking birds and day-glo skies for the first time (can I take some of what he's having)? Can you say WORST USE OF CARTOON SPLICED WITH LIVE ACTION EVER?! The black lines around the boy and the difference between his movements and the animation is so bad you expect to spot a blue screen any minute. Some advice: only attempt this difficult feat if you have the budget and the technical know-how. Roger Rabbit got away with it. Cool World survived by the skin of it's teeth. This, however is just embarrassing. Attempting it on a movie which isn't backed by the big bucks is like trying to purchase an engagement ring for 10p... you'll only end up with a cheap imitation. Seriously, Don Bluth should be ashamed of himself for the whole mess, and after watching how bad the effects are at the end it's almost impossible to remember the rest of the movie. But I'll try.

So here we go: A young boy turned into a cat by a wicked Owl, must venture into the the city with his animal friends and locate an escapee rooster from the farm whose crow every morning helped the sun rise. Without him, the weather has turned to torrential rain and darkness, which suits Mr Owl and his buddies to a tee. Only problem is, their rooster buddy has now discovered a new talent for harmonising Elvis Presley-type rock tunes, and his new manager won't let him go because the old miser has been rolling it in cold hard cash ever since. Does THIS sound like the sort of movie you wanna see? If so, then good luck to ya...

Mind you, at only 71 minutes long you could do worst things with your life. Going to sleep for instance, or working on your garden (Why do old people find weeding so stimulating?). But still, watching a loud, obnoxious cartoon feature with precious little to interest those over 9 is not really worth a chunk out of your day. Ever heard of Disney? Yeah, they might suck as a company, but they sure have made some quality films over the years. Unfortunately, but rather predictably, Rock-A-Doodle falls well short of those lofty goals. Ask yourself: in a world with Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio et all... why would you put THIS on instead? How ironic, that in the early 80's, Don Bluth left the Disney stable to set up his own production company, because he felt Walt and co weren't making very good films any more. Having sat through this, Thumbelina and (spit) The Pebble and the Penguin, and I can safely say he has become what he was seeking to avoid. Shame that... 4/10


Let me begin by saying that "the Secret of NIMH" is my favorite movie of all time. I've often wondered why Don Bluth has never made any movie that has been anywhere near as good as this one (granted "NIMH" is about as perfect as any animated movie can get, so it's sort of a tough act to follow). Then I had the Golden Moment: Bluth is a Hayao Miyazaki trapped in the body of a Michael Eisner. On the one hand, he wants to elevate animation to an art form capable of heart rending beauty. On the other, he feels like he has to make films that are marketable, and that will be hits. In short, he's been clipping his own wings.

With that in mind, watching "Rock-a-Doodle" made me physically ill. It is the one movie that has completely screwed up my "is it worse that 'Theodore Rex'?" rating system, because it is so depressing to watch. Why did Bluth greenlight this story (if you can call it that)? You can be a parody of the old Elvis musicals, you can be an adventure with some animals lost in a strange city, you can be a fantasy with an evil wizard who wants an eternal night, you can be a dumb little kids' movie with some stupid kid dancing with cartoon animals. You can be any *ONE* of these movies but you cannot be all four at once!


This movie is just really pathetic. It has a weak story and gets exceedingly cheesy at times. Even the most average of Disney films is many times better than this mess. It's hard to imagine that the same man who did the wonderful Secret of Nimh also did this piece of trash. While the Secret of Nimh was exceptionally animated and had vibrant colors, this had poor animation and very weak colors. The villain was also one of the weakest I've ever seen. The attempts at humor are pathetic and an insult to the audience's intelligence. This is possibly Bluth at his worst, although it's a toss up between this and A Troll in Central Park.


Ah, I remember the days of my childhood. Animation was the biggest thing at the time. I remember the advertisements this movie got and how much I wanted to see it. Why? I was 8. Why else? It looked cool. I begged my parents to take me and finally, my wish came true. We found a theater showing Rock-A-Doodle. Well, after seeing it, Mom and Dad obviously had to ask what I thought. I mumbled, "Yeah, good." Did I mean it. Uh, no. I was in a stage of my life when I never wanted to call a movie bad, so if it was, I'd lie. I sat through the entire movie, waiting to actually become interested and excited by it. Well, whenever it looked like it would get good, it just sunk lower. I hated how they mixed the real life characters with this storybook cartoon. I hated the ending. I couldn't stand this movie. If you've read any of my reviews, you'd probably know that I don't like all this bad talk on the Pokemon movie. Everyone that said it was "the worst animated movie you've ever seen," just rent this movie. The characters were hardly likeable. The story was dumb. You will throw your VCR out the window in a split second. 1/10 Recommendable to no one.


Every so often, the basest elements of the human race, from the Holocaust to the Great Leap Forward, gush forth and wreak havoc on the world. With the release of this atrocious work, they have struck again. OK, that may be a bit much, but I think I've made my point. Perhaps I'm being a classical snob, but I can't help feeling a bit of annoyance at the Elvis vs. Bach set-up of the movie. However, what really gets under my skin are the silly characters (talking animals as usual, one with a "cute", that is to say pointless, speech impediment), the dull, insipid plot, the heavy-handed narration, and so on. In short, when it comes to Rock-a-doodle, just say no.


To be fair there are funny moments, namely that we watch this in the knowledge that Sid is Cherie Blair's Dad and that Askwith and Co would have frozen their parts off as it was filmed in the winter (a fact that Askwith acknowledges in the voice over).

It's like some surreal time frame now, everyone smokes fags, Askwith is unintentionally racist with "Blackbird" (their listing's not mine!) but still has time for some interracial bonding later, proving that lust conquers all. Probably quite risqué back then.

Also it's weird to watch this and realise none of the ladies are surgically enhanced! Thats quite refreshing and earn's it a an extra point.


I saw this film in 1977, aged 21, stoned, sitting up the back of the Odeon High Street Kensington, with some friends, smoking. And we laughed. We laughed a lot actually. Seeing it on DVD, in my lounge at home, aged 52, on a cold Friday night, by myself - well, surprise, surprise, it wasn't funny anymore. Not only is it of it's time but also of it's place in history. It's cheap, written without much imagination, with no real laughs and with some (by 2008 standards) cringe inducing racism and sexism. But for all that, like Carry On and Doctor films, it is remarkably easy to watch and has a fascinating British charm all of it's own. I suppose the appeal, at it's basic level - is simple. It says that even if you're ignorant, thick and ugly, you only have to smile and sexy women will fall all over you, even to the extent of lining up, five at a time, to hide in your wardrobe. If only real life were like that.


sorry, haven't seen it but I doubt I will just because of the content and the prior reviews. But just tracking down a comment on youtube ... Caroline Ellis was "Joy" on the Bugaloos kids TV show, very popular in US early morning Saturday shows in the 70's... she was cute then ... guess she was tired of looking like she was only going to act in parts for the kiddie shows ... supposedly she has full nudity in this film, front and back, according to another. Kind of like Jessica Biel when she did that stupid photo shoot to get out of her contract on Seventh Heaven - but she got a good publicist that was able to keep it from ruining her career ... But that is probably STILL not worth a reason to rent this movie. Sorry about that. LOL.


This film really was pretty awful; some of the characters made me cringe! very poor acting, directing, etc., Could learn a thing or two from the 'Carry on' films. It was no better than any of the other 'Confessions'films; I only watched it to the end to read the credits - there were some well known faces; what happened to the little boy actor, I wonder. Was his name Robert Booth? I noticed that the Railway station had 'Hayling' on it; perhaps it was Hayling Island? Does anyone know which camp it was filmed at? I used to go to Coronation and Sunshine on the Island; those were the days! I wonder if PM watched his father-in-law! The likeness is quite uncanny. Yuk!!!


Fourth and last in the scuzzy 'Confessions' series, with charmless slut Robin Askwith working in the dreariest holiday camp you ever saw and getting up to all the usual antics with various guests. This isn't so much saucy seaside postcard humour as it is 'Razzle' letters page, with demeaning roles for women and a barrage of unfunny, and occasionally homophobic gags adding to the 'fun'. Askwith, as usual, mugs as if his life depends on it while the movie provides a masterclass in how to make a bunch of attractive women appear completely devoid of sex appeal. Aside from the rather off-putting shags, the movie is a succession of scenes that set up punchlines but never deliver.


I liked the others but this is truly unfunny.the only scene worth watching is two old guys talking a good fight while keeping away from each other.This is more soft porn than comedy.it lacks big names in the cast this time round.The jokes are just not funny.1 out of 10


This is the worst of the confessions of series. Robin Askwith shoud stop making these movies and start making new and better movies. Its a joke of a movie and i laughed all the way through, not because it was funny, because it just sucked so much. 1/10

If you like this try: Any other confessions of series


WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

It almost makes me cry to see Sidney Poitier shunted into a land of mediocre TV movies. His intensity, concentration and facial array are still finely honed, so what's a first-rate actor doing in dirge like this?

I love Sidney  love him, I tell you  and watching him work the cable circuit in what is practically a watered-down version of A Raisin in the Sun is disheartening indeed.

Poitier plays Noah Dearborn, a 91-year-old "carpenter God". No disrespect to carpenters, but pumping up such a glamourless job with aggrandising lines like "Nothing seems to interest him but his work. In my mind that makes him a noble man" just doesn't work. What next  the Lord of accountancy? The saviour of tax inspectors? Sidney Poitier as Tony Smith, Dental Research Technician? It's revealed that since the death of his family Noah has lived his life without touching another human being, and so spends his days playing with his tools. (Leave it!) Dearborn isn't perhaps Sidney's greatest characterisation as he sports a not totally convincing Southern accent. But don't hold it against him  Michael Caine and Bob Hoskins are ropy when it comes to assuming a dialect, and even Robert De Niro fails to engage as anything other than an Italian American.

Backing up Sidney are some cheesy TV movie actors delivering hackneyed TV movie lines. Gregg Champion is a TV movie director, whose groundbreaking technique seems to involve placing the camera down and then rushing off for a cup of tea while the actors say their lines in front of it. Even Poitier can't set alight clanky lines like "All you people come out here dressed as lambs, but you smell like foxes." Or how about "You folks are long-winded when a small breeze will do just fine" and "Some say when God comes down to vacation on Earth, he stays at Noah's."

The film's narrative is punctuated by four flashback sequences, each sentimental one of them delivering a trite platitude like "When a man loves his work... truly loves it... sickness and death will get tired of chasing you." But while the 'sell your land' plot is evocative of Raisin, there's no racial or social dynamic, merely a group of rich city businessmen trying to buy the land of the poor country worker. The recreation of a close-knit Southern community is also somewhat stereotyped and rose-tinted, with not a worried-looking rooster in sight.

Predictably, a psychiatrist (Mary-Louise Parker, better than most) starts to see things Noah's way. The title is also apt, because 'simple' perfectly describes the A to B plotting which could comfortably fit on the back of a matchbox. Breaking down the character name is also telling, not least the unsubtle Biblical reference of his first name.

The tacky conclusion sees Noah get Parker out of a car crash with some of his carpentry tools. Presumably if the crash had killed her, he'd have resuscitated with a hammer and chisel. For there's nothing that Noah can't do, a folk hero, Santa Claus and minor deity all wrapped into one.

That said, the film is quite sweet, albeit in an overstated, sickly way. But after In The Heat of the Night, The Defiant Ones and Lilies of the Field - to name just three  then why did it have to come to this? Make the most of him, Hollywood... he won't be around forever.


I'm not sure what I was expecting from this film. I suppose I did want to see some schoolgirls and some chains. And I sort of got both. There are maybe 2 scenes with chains, but they are like dog leashes, which is pretty silly. And after forcing myself to finish the abortive The Forest, by the same director,(and yes, I foolishly purchased The Forest, curse my hide), I have no idea why I wanted to see this. I read that this was up on the banned list for a while, not sure if it really was banned or what. Apparently the title Schoolgirls in Chains was substituted with Abducted, but some censors still found copies with the original title and flipped. Anyway... What you have here is your basic Psycho rip-off with a little Of Mice and Men thrown in. Two brothers, one a sort of regular guy(who sleeps with his mother, OK there is no sleeping going on) and another guy who is a simpleton who likes to play children's games, live in a house where they keep girls they have abducted under their home in a cellar. There aren't a lot of sex games, as one might expect with a title like this, but there is one rape scene which is rather mild and brief. Mainly, you have the idiot brother, John, playing games like Hide n Seek or Follow the Leader with the girls as the damsels plot for ways to escape. Of course, I was waiting the whole time for the "pay-off" which would come in the form of some good revenge on the part of the girls. Unfortunately, that didn't really happen. Frank, the "regular fellow," does get his comeuppance, but by his own hand, leaving John presumably to be a ward of the state again. Strictly speaking for myself, because I'm strange, I would have thought a much better ending would involve the latter-day heroine, Bonnie, and her boyfriend going into the upstairs bedroom and finding Frank and John in bed with their mother's dead body, or Frank dressed as his mother with John next to him and Frank talking like their mother. Or just shotgun the lot of them.

In short, you really have to have nothing better to watch than to sit through this one. Minimal nudity, no gore(except for a shot or two of a decaying body), sloooow pacing, bad acting, no violence to speak of, etc. But....it's still a lot better than The Forest.


It may be no coincidence that the title letters of this movie form the acronym SIC, and while it certainly isn't suitable for the mainstream prime time TV slot, serious students of bondage or porn will be disappointed if not downright bored by the film. That is, unless jabbing a girl in the buttocks with a needle, playing "doctor" or hide-and-seek, really turns you on.

The title would lead you to believe it is a heavy S&M number, but there is little in evidence apart from decorative dog collars and light chains as the "victim" is led (otherwise unconstrained) around. The two brothers who kidnap young girls and keep them prisoner are not the sort I'd like working around my local school, but they seem far removed from the likes of The Collector or Buffalo Bill (Silence of the Lambs) - too boofy if anything (tho capable of killing).

Any "drama" in SIC seems contrived or stilted. There is sex, a little of it forced, but generally quite tasteful and with little real conviction. Nudity likewise is limited and subdued.

Overall, the film falls well short of any potential hinted at in its title. It's neither an entertaining porn flick nor a serious insight into disturbed mental states, nor a horror flick. It gets a 2/10 from me.


"Schoolgirls in Chains", with its grotesquely provocative yet inaccurate title, may perhaps thrive on a series of ultimately controversial, shocking and politically incorrect themes, but the low-budget elaboration and lack of talent involved (fortunately?) prevented the film from becoming the nasty exploitation highlight it clearly hoped to be. If director Donald Jones would have been capable of gloriously depicting all the rancidness he suggests in the script (including rape, torture, necrophilia and incest), then "Schoolgirls in Chains" indeed would have been a genuine exploitation classic, but now it's just a mildly offensive & amusingly inept 70's trash-gem. The most demented aspect about this film (*** extra spoiler warning ***) is that the story's hero is a teacher who actually has sexual liaisons with under-aged female students. How incredible is that? Normally he'd be thrown in jail for that, but here he ends up saving the day! The story introduces two middle-aged brothers still living in their secluded parental mansion and filling their days with, well, nothing really except kidnapping random young girls and subjecting them to torturous games. Johnny is mentally disabled and doesn't fully realize his victims don't voluntarily choose to play doctor with him. His older brother Frank is more of a silent type, but equally disturbed and at least ten times more misogynist. His behavior was mostly triggered by an awkward mother/son relationship. The flashback sequence in which the mommy colorfully explains to his one and only girlfriend how she and Frank make love ALL the time is easily the best part of the film. The mother is still watching over her boys, by the way, though she can only seen from behind or heard in the distance. In other words, if you know your classics *cough* Psycho*cough*cough* it's easy to guess the final denouement. The atmosphere of "Schoolgirls in Chains" is overall sleazy and brute, but the screenplay lacks suspense and suffers from too many dull moments. There's nudity, of course, but no real vulgar stuff.


Just awful, I now know how Alan King died! When he found out that this movie wasn't a joke, he completely croaked! Thank God, by the way, that no one really likes this film and the film is a big joke anyway. It is the worst movie ever made, don't believe me? Watch this film for yourself! I mean, the director (who apparently wrote the film too!) probably half-assed the script thinking it was so great even though the movie was way too overrated, it's just such a terrible movie. Like I said, if you think it's good just because other people like it, then you're out of your mind. This movie is just so awful, and the songs in this are terrible! Pointless messages galore the genre should be horror because I was pretty scared watching this crap!


While the acting in this version of Stephen King's It, is for the most past good, (who can argue with Tim Curry as the clown), it none the less was stripped of a lot of its themes to be put to television. It follows the general premise of the book but omits huge sections of the occurrences that happen to the children, some of which are vitally important to the character development and plot. We lose some of the most beautiful aspects to their relationships this way. Also, the structure of the novel, which although overwhelming, is supremely successful, and is again lost in the film. While they could have made it much worse, I must urge people to read the book first. It's scarier, deeper, more complex, and a far better story.


The majority of the people I know who have seen It all say the same things. "I saw this movie when I was a kid and I'm still scared," or "It's the best movie ever!" After finally seeing it myself, I have to disagree. It is by far the worst book-to-movie adaptation I've ever seen.

Why, oh why did they have to turn Eddie into a Mama's boy? In the book he's married. MARRIED. The "I've never been with a woman and now I'm going to die a virgin" line at the end of the movie didn't make sense. Eddie is a great character. Why did the movie have to ruin him?

So many important things were cut. What happened to the house on Neibolt Street, the underground clubhouse, various characters that were left out, Eddie's leper, or Bill dealing with Georgie's death, just to name a few? And I just HAVE to mention the ending. The spider was so fake it wasn't even funny (okay, kind of). It wasn't dramatic enough either. Nobody looked the least bit scared. It was just, "Oh golly, let's go down in the sewers and kill It once and for all." It wasn't turned into a climatic moment like in the books. The characters acted as if what they were down in the sewers was as natural as walking to the corner store and buying a loaf of bread. Wouldn't most people be terrified, thinking, "Oh my God, I'm going to die!"

This movie was terrible, don't waste your time on it. Read the book, and then wait for the remake. I'm hoping it will be a lot better than this piece of garbage.


I couldn't believe someone has actually liked this movie. It's horrible by all senses. To say it's better than the book is a true atrocity. The book was wonderful, explaining the true nature of children and they're understanding of fear. The movie is more a stupid parody.

This may come as a spoiler, so be aware, and if you don't want to read it move to the next paragraph. I actually laughed at the end, when they exhibited that stupid spider-puppet as the final monster. if some thing like that would approach me, i'll just smack it right into the ground, although i'll probably need a bigger shoe. It was horrible, yes, but horrible not because it was scary, but because it was a huge joke at the author's intentions, i'm sure. a real amusement.

I'd be laughing if i hadn't known what a true master of horror Stephen King is, but i'm mostly sad that his best book never got to have a good movie. Sad, sad, sad. This movie shall get a minor 1, and never to be watched by me again. Nor anyone else, i hope. A true atrocity.


To start things off honestly: "It" is probably one of the poorest book adaptions I've seen in quite some time. After reading the book and finding an extraordinary piece of writing, an amazing work of art, I was thrilled to see the movie. I knew it couldn't be all that the book was, but I hope for some semblance...

And some semblance is what I got... and that's all. The deep, thoughtful construction that helped build the novel, where both the stories, the side of 1958 and the side of 1985 (the years are changed in the movie, but there's nothing wrong with that) are shown alternatingly, starting with 1958, moving ahead to 1985, and back again, creating a heartfelt atmosphere. The movie instead plays the older part in the first segment, as one full flashback that tries to cram way too many events into one bit, whereas they should have simply tried to organize their own way of telling, and the more recent events in the second half. It seems like every event in the children's section is segmented into 15 minute episodes, just trying to pile notable events in from the book, and it doesn't work. It might have worked better if they kept the construction that King originally established, but even then it would have hardly stood, as they took the events for no reason.

And even with this chronological sorting, they seemed to actually forget scenes and had to tack them on later as additional flashbacks that had little to do with the scene, but desperately needed introduction earlier.

Gone is the unifying theme of the group: They each escaped It. That's there, in a way, but it's moreover just tossed in for scares, and horribly stupid ones at that. Gone is the leper with the three-foot tongue that chased Eddie down the traintracks. Gone is any fear or tension when Bill rides off on his bike with Stan (it was Richie in the book, but that's not important...It's supposed to be a moment of escape, but they just simply ride away, ruining all reason for Silver to matter until the end, when the makers suddenly remembered that they needed it.

And then, the worst two bastardizations. It's OK if Richie encountered a werewolf instead of a giant statue. It's OK if the scene with Georgie at the start was during the day, stealing what could have been a truly horrific scene (maybe cause it was made for TV, that lightened it.) It's OK if the whole point of Henry's return is gone (maybe not... but I'd have let it slide.) And it's OK that they cut out the kids being lost after first believing they killed It (definitely because of the made for TV movie... hell, even a theatrical movie... I don't see that scene, even in suggestion, ever reaching film if this movie were to be remade and I'm not going to reveal it, you'll just have to read the book.) And gone is the origin of It. No, those things are forgivable... let's get to what isn't.

Personal Bastardization: I felt jipped when they finally confronted It and the whole deadlights business was dumbed down. It wasn't supposed to be hypnotic, it was a staring contest, that would eventually lead into the Ritual of Chud. This point is missed. And then the Turtle (don't ask, read) is also gone, losing the relation to the universe that Stephen King set up in the novel. It's no wonder that the scene of Patrick Hockstetter and his demented fridge (aside from it being made for TV and that scene would never be allowed), as the dealings of the Other weren't explored or even mentioned. I wanted to see how they portrayed the whole scene and they didn't even have it, which ruined the entire final confrontation at the end.

Universal Bastardization: The vow to return. In this, they easily walk out of the sewer and look outward, where Bill has them promise to return. In the novel, they crawl from there, exhausted and bewildered. Instead, there is no forced promise; they do it themselves, cutting their palms with a glass Coke bottle and making a blood pact that they would return if It was still alive. And the meaning disappeared as well, but I won't get into why, for fear of telling too much of the book, which I truly hope the readers of this review will read.

OK, I suppose I should get onto why I let this have two stars instead of one if I hated what it had done to the book, right? There are some beautifully horrifying scenes, such as when Beverly exits her childhood home and sees a balloon bouncing down the road, laughing. The sharkteeth in Pennywise's mouth aren't used well, but they look scary. And there was the great scene when they were children, where they hold hands in a circle and Stan suddenly finds himself holding hands with the clown. The acting is decent for a TV Movie and there are a few notable celebrities.

These few things aren't enough to make the movie good, and it really would only be scary for young children, who probably shouldn't be watching it anyway.

With the same budget and time space, a decent movie of "It" could have been made. Instead, there's this trash. I can only hope that someday, there will be another version of this created, one that captures the emotion, atmosphere, and incredible imagination that formed Stephen King's masterpiece of a novel, "It."


I am not known as a big reader and I never thought that I am able to finish a 1200 page long tome. But Steven King's "It" handcuffed me and after two weeks I completed the book. The most important thing in a book are the characters; I loved the characters, the story was frightening and it was consequential for me that I have to see the movie.

The film-version of King's "It" was exactly the opposite of the book. A total disappointment. The performance of the actors (adults as well as the kids) was poor and there was no scene which attracted my attention. I totally missed suspense, tension and horror. Tim Currry as "Pennywise the Dancing Clown" was OK but the rest of the cast was just bad.

Sure it is a TV- production and no big cinema but anyways this film is no dishonorable representative for the book. I had to laugh when i saw the rating: 6.5! .. I mean what the hell is wrong with you guys?


the book has thrilled me for many evenings and nights, so I wanted to watch the movie. But; what is this? This is horrible! One of Kings most gruesome books has been transformed to a story for children (rated 12+, I think it's PG)!! this will not stand!! That stupid clown is nothing compared to what It is in the book, and making It look like a giant spider at the end is just too bad for words, creating a monster that looks like a spider is plain dumb cashing in on an old human fear and not worthy a King-film. They lost most of the good scenes, reduced good scenes to bad or dull scenes and the 'deep thinking' of the book (It being an alien that landed thousands of years ago, other good aliens (the giant turtle), the cruel history of the town) are completely gone. If you liked the book, I don't think you should watch this piece of crap.


This movie was actually a letdown for me. The only thing that kept it thriving were the actors. Actually, only certain actors, such as: Jarrad Blancard, Seth Green, Ben Heller, and of course, Tim Curry. It could have been so much more compared to what it had shown. I understand that King's novel was over 1,000 pages long, and the writers couldn't fit all of those details in one movie, but I still feel strongly that they could've replaced some of the crappy scenes in the movie, with some of the horrific parts in the book. For example, they could've kept Patrick Hockstetter's death (killed by flying leeches) accurate in the film. I don't really see any reason to change how he died. Other parts, like the Smoke-Hole Ritual, those parts with the infamous house on Neibolt Street, and the part in the novel with Bill, Richie, and Georgie's album, were completely cut out of the film, without any recognition whatsoever.One of those parts could've been put in place of the cafeteria scene in the film, because in the novel, Richie didn't even see the werewolf in the school basement.

Many of the Losers' characteristics in the novel weren't as clear in the film. For example, Stan Uris' obsession for order and cleanliness. That characteristic was kind of mild compared to the novel's description. Oh well. This movie was still very terrifying to me, and it's one of my favorite films, as well as my favorite novel. Also about how Eddie broke out of his "mama's boy" shell and became stronger by being friends with the other Losers. This wasn't as unclear as Stan's cleanliness issue, but it was still a little blurry. Mister Richie "Trashmouth" Tozier's personality. This really made me mad because, after Stan, Richie was my favorite character. In the novel, both eleven year old Richie, and adult Richie were pretty brave. (Saying things like: "Yeah, hilarious for me too, after we blow your f***ing head off, baby" to It taking the shape of a huge Paul Bunyon statue.) In the movie, however, they made adult Richie (Anderson) kind of a pussy, with his constant complaining and wanting to go home.

In closing, if you read the book, I suggest you not see the movie, because it will disappoint you a lot, as it did me. If you haven't read the book, then go read it because there are many gaps that the movie created, that the novel will fill.


.............this is nothing compared with the book of the same name. Occasionally you'll get movie/ miniseries conversions that are better than the book (Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption, Misery, Stand By Me), some that are different to the book but ultimately on a par (Christine) but from the ones I've seen so far, more often than not they get completely lost in translation; this is a classic example. It would probably be a good idea to see the film first then read the book to note the comparison, and in doing so also raise the bar on the story. If you want to be entertained, I'd suggest going for the above title or maybe 'Storm of the Century'.


Around Christmas of last year I finally discovered the book It, written by Stephen King, and I couldn't put it down. It was one of the best books I had ever read. (I won't bother with the summary of the book/ movie because you've probably already read it.) I was pretty excited about the miniseries as well, which I had only heard about and never seen. I decided to rent It on Netflix in oder to get the best of both worlds, the silver screen and the book world. That proved to be a terrible mistake, as the miniseries was one of the worst adaptations ever made. Not only are the characters ill suited for their roles, almost every major plot point was edited out or completely changed. Most of the story was heavily filtered for TV, leaving little but the bare skeletal remains of the novel. When I say filtered I mean cut for time and for content - these changes were major errors, leaving the series with little support. Most of the miniseries is based off the creative writings of the screenwriter and not of Stephen King. What little there is left in this garbage they call a miniseries is a bunch of boring shots meant to be scary. The very material the director wanted to bring to a wider audience was destroyed, as was all decency of this movie. Even on a strictly miniseries basis, not even counting the disappointment of the failed adaptation, this movie flops. Shots are poorly filmed, there is little action or psychological terror, and the special effects are awful. Trust me, the book is amazing, but the adaptation is not, probably because Stephen King adaptations are almost impossible due to the mainly psychological aspects of the books. Save your time and rent The Shining, the only half decent adaptation of a Stephen King book.


This sagebrush story is out of the ordinary; and a memorable Roy Rogers vehicle. Trigger falls in love with a beautiful golden mare that has stolen treasure inside a specially made shoe by diamond smugglers. When Trigger watches the mare being abused by the villainous smugglers, he kills one of them. Roy takes the blame for his four-legged pal and ends up behind bars. Fans of Trigger will delight in this one. Also in the cast: Dale Evans, Pat Brady, Frank Fenton, Estelita Rodriguez, Chester Conklin and Riders of the Purple Sage. THE GOLDEN STALLION is directed by B-movie master William Witney. An action packed 67 minutes. Recommended for a nice twin-bill: BELLS of SAN ANGELO(1947).


HOT ROD GIRL is one of the many American-International teen oriented films that flickered at the drive-in and equally was part of those Saturday triple features in the ice cold theaters during the duck-tail days. A decent flick that has Chuck Connors playing a concerned cop that helps organize a drag strip to keep illegal drag racing to a minimum making the city streets safer. John Smith is a former champ who has quit racing and is happy to keep his friend's rods tuned. But he is forced to race again in order to avenge his little brother's death and win his sweetheart(Lori Nelson)back. The cast also includes: Frank Gorshin, Mark Andrews, Roxanne Arlen and Dabbs Greer.


I first saw Grizzly Rage, like so many other Big Creature Eating Attractive People films late one night on the Sci Fi channel with a large group of friends while the majority of us were downing sizable amounts of alcohol. As the sub-par Fast and the Furious style credits sequence shot past with a low rent nu-metal band playing in the background, I was still reasonably sober but could feel the effects of two purple nightmares (look them up) taking effect and knew that soon, I would be swimming in a haze of my own creation. For the sake of a cheap laugh or two, I found a pen and paper and wrote down all the things I learned from this movie. The results are as follows:

1. Bears pursue blood vendettas. 2. Americans graduate from high school at the average age of 24. 3. Bears can push land rovers over. 4. Being torn limb from limb by ferocious, man eating bears is nature's way of punishing you for minor traffic violations committed in your youth. 5. Girls tops can magically sew themselves back together after being ripped open. 6. Eating toxic waste makes bears bigger, stronger, more intelligent and far more bloodthirsty than average, rather than the predicted scientific outcome of causing malignant tumors and killing them. 7. Dressing like an extra from a Vanilla Ice video is no guarantee of survival. 8. You can get attacked by a bear, rolled off a cliff in a car, thrown spine first onto a bear trap and spend all day battling for survival on a sun parched strip of mid-western wilderness and still have better skin and hair than Andie McDowell. 9. Bears respond to sass. 10. Smashed land rovers will still run for miles if rolled down a small hill to gather momentum.

In other words folks, this is not great. In fact it's terrible. CGI blood, stock footage, awful characters and death scenes so pathetic they don't even make a group of five young men, drunk off their heads on aftershock concoctions laugh. Avoid.


And you will too if you see this, since the bear is probably the best actor, followed by the bear cub (and he was dead).

A bunch of dimwitted "Darwin Award" winners decide to take themselves out of the gene pool and get in a car, and (by montage sequence) travel several hundred miles down to some trashy looking enclosed private property. Smashing their way through barriers the "fun" begins. How they knew this place existed, why they thought it would be cool to go there, or why this movie was ever made are just some of the questions never answered. They mow down a bear cub and destroy their radiator, all the while howling and screaming along with their screeching tires.

Mercifully, the mommy bear comes along to exact revenge, and none too soon. She can't off these idiots fast enough, even though the footage of the bear is obviously some unused documentary footage from Animal Planet. Like all low budget movies, you'll know who's next to get it from the spliced in stock footage. The cabin scene is the only scene that was remotely well done, but then it's back to stupid behavior by the next victim who leaves the safety of the cabin when he hears the bear growling.

Moronic.