Poor battle between Vampires flick.

Paycheck job for the names (Tony Todd, Jason Connery and C Thomas Howell) this is one of those movies you look at and wonder if anyone was taking it seriously or whether anyone was doing it for more than the money. Okay Tony Todd maybe took thing a bit too seriously (he's way too intense) and the cinematographer was very serious about America Olivo's breasts, but other then that this seems to be a joke...except its not, or if it is it never signals that it it is. I thought after the opening attack on the feuding couple that we'd have some laughs after that but it never gets funny, at least not intentionally so.

Only worth seeing if you have to see every vampire movie ever made.


The Thirst: Blood War is set in modern day America where college teenagers Will (A.J. Draven) & Jayne (Allison Lange) decide they want to take their friendship to the next level & start dating, however local jock, bully & tough guy Darren (Cameron Zeidler) isn't happy about the nerdish hippie Will dating the hot Jayne & starts to make trouble. Late one night by a pond Darren attacks Jayne & Will comes to her rescue & in a struggle Will stabs & kills Darren who is in fact the son of a centuries old Monk sorcerer who calls himself a sentry & who are sworn to fight & kill Vampires. Now the head of the Vampire clan Julien (Tony Todd) has competition from his right hand man Cladius (Jason Connery) but the only way Claudius can snatch power from Julien is to kill a sentry & if he can't do that kill someone who did kill a sentry which is Will. Will & his friends are plunged into the ancient war between Vampires & sentry's...

Known under the title Blood Wars on DVD in the US this was co-produced & directed by Tom Shell & I had a quick look through the IMDb user comments section & a couple of external reviews & I can't really find anyone who says anything good about The Thirst: Blood War which isn't too surprising since it's awful on every conceivable level. First off the title is a lie, there's very little blood in it & as far as I could tell no war either. The first thirty odd minutes of this focuses almost entirely on Will, Jayne & Darren & feels more like a teen soap opera than a horror film & when the horror elements do eventually kick in they are pretty lame with Will trying to be turned into a Vampire & a bit of bickering between Julien & Claudius to see who is harder but they both come across as wimps anyway & really don't put up much of a fight at a very weak climax. There's these Monks as well who total three & are able to shoot blue 'stuff' out of their fingers for no apparent reason, we are never really sure if there are more or not or where they came from or the story behind them & we are never really sure if Julien is head Vampire in the world or just his clan & there are other clans out there & apart from sit in a room he doesn't seem to do anything else & he has no plans or ideas & we don't really know if a Vampire bite turns you into a Vampire or kills you since at the start a bite will turn you into a Vampire but at the end it kills you so it's hard to care about anything as it doesn't make much sense, there's no threat or grand plan or anything to keep you watching really & I do not count three Monks & about half a dozen Vampires as a war, maybe I'm being too tough here but I just don't. To make matters worse the character's are one dimensional stereotypes, the dialogue is awful & at 100 odd minutes it's far too long & feels more 100 odd hours while watching it.

There are no special effects in The Thirst: Blood War at all, none. All we get is a bit of blood on someones hands, some fake blood on some fake fangs & some fake blood pored onto someones neck. There's nothing in The Thirst: Blood Wars I couldn't stage myself with some fake blood & a camcorder, nothing. There's no nudity either. The film looks as cheap & low budget as they come with a very point & shoot look to it, the fight scenes are brief & contain no real excitement & the whole thing is just a tedious, dull mess of a film that feels like a cross between a teen angst film & a cheap Vampire flick but without the merits of either.

The IMDb reckons The Thirst: Blood War had a $1,000,000 budget which I find hard to believe unless it went on Todd & Connery & if it did indeed have a million dollar budget than the film get even worse in my eyes as the production values are awful with most scenes shot outside on a random path or in front of a tree or something. How on Earth did the makers convince fine talent like genre favourite Tony Todd (who is dressed in an awful costume complete with cape) & the son of Sean Connery no less Jason to appear in this? I wonder if Jason has shown this to his dad & what the one time James Bond star thinks of it?

The Thirst: Blood War is terrible, I haven't given a film a lowly one star rating in a while but this throughly deserves it. One to avoid, even Vampire fans might find it hard sitting through this.


Wow, where do start with this pile of shiz..

1. Who the hell plays on a PS1 in 2008?!

2. Tony Todd has officially extinguished all the goodwill he mustered by playing the Candyman and Captain Sisco's dad. He isn't so much slumming it here as eating fish bones from the dumpster.

3. This well oiled six-pack hunk in the lead might be able to fill out a white T-shirt, but an actor he ain't. Evertime he opens his mouth, you want to curl up in embarrassment. Oh. dear.

4. Who writes this dialogue anyway? Someone call child labour on these producers: I think they're illegally employing a bunch of kindergärtners to do their screenplay for them.

5. Where's the 'sexy seductress' promised in the plot synopsis? You don't mean the ugly old tart wrapped in cling-film, with more botox than Jane Fonda do you? Whoops.

6. The fight scenes are ssoooo pathetic, they should play an instrumental of Kung Fu Fighting in the background, and pretend it's supposed to be a comedy.

7. There is a highly camp black best friend who calls everyone dawgs and has a secret funky handshake with Mr Muscle. He might as well have STEREOTYPE tattooed on his head. But get this.. HE DOESN'T DIE. AMAZING.

8. Tru Blood, Twilight, Vampire Chronicles.. ENOUGH ALREADY. Especially when the end result is as dismal as it is here.

9. The Thirst: Blood War? That title.. SUCKS (Pun intended ho ho)

10.Seriously guys.. what's the deal with the PS1?!

The director is called Tom Shell, which is quite apt as you'll feel like a shell of a person after submitting yourself to this drivel. It also concludes with the threat of a sequel, to which I can only respond with the Wilheim Scream our hunk unleashes just before the end.

It's probably started filming even now, after all it shouldn't take Mr Shell too long to muster up the 7 new pence and half a packet of wine necessary to complete production. And that would still be more than they spent on the original.. 2/10


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***

This story had great potential (young salesclerk wrongfully convicted of stealing gets sentenced to 3 years in prison, then emerges from prison seeking revenge on her boss and the prosecutor who sent her to prison). However, the execution of this story fell far from reaching its potential.

Mary shows up at her prison pal, Aggie's, place. Aggie, too, is freshly out of prison, but based on her clothing and surroundings we see she is doing well. Aggie has a couple of other "gang" members with her (including Joe Garson, head of the gang). Mary shows up, looking like a skinny wet kitten in need of taking in. Thus begins Mary's association with this "gang". Joe takes Mary to his place and it's pretty clear that he's willing to take her in and take care of her in return for her providing him with sex. He realizes while trying to kiss her that she's a virgin, then respectfully backs off and gives her some money for a cab. This is just the first of many implausible scenes between Mary and Joe.

Unbelievably, Mary goes from scared little waif to implied head of the gang in a matter of scenes. Also, somehow the apartment she showed up at when looking for Aggie has turned into "Mary Turner's apartment", as one of Joe's goons says when he answers the phone. Later in the movie, the police refer to the gang as the "Mary Turner Mob", but I'm getting ahead of myself.

The first scam we see Mary, Aggie and Joe pull is extorting $20,000 from an old man for writing love letters to "14 year old" Aggie (right - Aggie looks about as much as a 14-year-old as I do!). The old man's lawyer drops $20,000 on the coffee table and turns to leave. "Oh no, take your marked money with you. We'll see you at 4:00 in the lawyer's office and do this all legal-like" Mary says. We see Joe's eyes bug out when Mary says "marked money" ... incredibly this naive virgin waif is all of a sudden more street-smart than longtime hoodlum and gang-head Joe?! I just had to roll my eyes! It's never explained how Mary got so savvy, and why Joe turns operations over to her ... I guess we are to assume she "wised up" during her 3 years in the Big House and Joe, still full of admiration for Mary for her virginity as well as her smarts, willingly lets her start calling the shots. Who knows -- that's the best explanation I can come up with based on this poorly developed script.

In another scene, we see fur-drenched, sophisticated Mary show up with a young man at his apartment. The young man brought Mary to his lair with the intent of pouncing on her and getting a little piece of her. She's still a frigid little virgin, as he suddenly realizes when he tries to kiss her (just as Joe had earlier in the movie). All of a sudden, Little Lech Junior turns into Mister "I'm Soooo in Love With You" when his virgin Mary grabs her coat and heads for the door.

As a little aside, Little Lech Junior (who we only later learn is Robert Gilder, son of Mary's ex-employer and the man responsible for sending her to prison) treats his Asian servant like something other than human, even referring to him as "yellow peril" at one point. I know there was no such thing as political correctness in 1930, and I have little patience for most things PC myself, but come on! Even in 1930, that had to have been distasteful!

I'm probably running close to my 1000-word limit, so let me just wrap it up by saying the ending was schmaltzy and improbable and left me bitter at wasting over 1 hour watching this dreck. Mary and Robert Gilder (now man and wife) are at the police station, being questioned for the murder of a police stoolie. Joe Garson did it, but with his long criminal record, if he gets arrested one more time he's going to the chair. Mary and Robert try to protect Joe by claiming Robert shot the man in self-defense. Joe, seeing how much Mary loves Robert, doesn't want to ruin HER life so he confesses to the police that he did it, knowing full well he's going to the chair (riiight!). Mary is crying, upset that Joe is going to fry. Joe and the police lieutenant share a knowing look and nod, as if Joe is saying "tell her I'm not going to the chair, so she won't be upset" and the cop nods in assent. "Aw, don't worry Mary, Joe's not gonna fry", or words to that effect. Mary is still crying, but clearly relieved. Of course we know full well that Joe *IS* gonna fry. Fade out, "The End".

Puh-leeeze.

Good performance by Joan (a little hammy at times, but what JC performance isn't?), as well as Marie Prevost who played Aggie. You might want to watch it once, if you don't mind wasting 1.5 hours of your life. Otherwise, stay away.

My rating: 3/10


Gwen is a totally unsympathetic character who goes from ballistic to sweet and back in just about every scene she is in. He father is lazy and drunk most of the time and only her mother is a fully functioning person. It seems Gwen's sole motivation is to screw and screw around, but she has neither sense nor sensuality. Lise has a mother who goes to pieces when her ex-husband dies, motivating Lise to run away to see Gwen. Lise, thus far not experienced in the ways of the flesh, has a crush on Gwen that is not returned, and then punishes Gwen for spurning her interest by sabotaging Gwen's "romances". A much more rewarding film is "Lost and Delirious (2001)" where the girls have full-fledged and sympathetically drawn characters and the angst is real and realistic.


On the box it put this film in the same company with greats like Night of the Living Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I completely disagree. For one thing, I was expecting to see at least a little gore in this film and there was almost none, other than a scene where the male character cuts himself shaving. For an "erotic" film, there was very little actual sex, apart from the first scene, which incidentally does not feature much nudity, and a shower scene. OK, so there wasn't much sex or violence, that doesn't mean it's a bad film. Some of the best films simply imply sex or violence. This however is not one of them. The acting is not bad, but the characters are written really flatly. The male character's mother who is dying of cancer is unconvincing. The wife is even less convincing. She doesn't seem to have any past at all. Where did these people meet? I still don't understand why the mother does not like the wife. The relationship between the vampire and her mistress is confusing. What is the mistress' purpose? It seems as though there is a symbiotic relationship, but what is the nature of that symbiosis? Overall, a disappointing film.


Namely, the cinematography is gorgeous, the acting either overblown or wooden, the dialog absurd, and the story - well, the writer should be patted on the head and sent back to school, with the script posted proudly on the refrigerator.

What I liked: as I said, the camera-work was marvelous, Delphine Seyrig does a marvelous job as the 'vampire' who wears her heart on her sleeve, and her secretary, played by Andrea Rau, is beautiful, with perhaps the best actual acting in the film. There's plenty of sensual nudity, tastefully done.

However, the story leaves many threads dangling, the dialog leaves us wondering why the characters are acting as they are, and the editing is typical for European art films. As my daughter said at one point, "Okay - the car is driving past the pillars - we get it already!" The pacing is slow. No, really - it's slow. For most of the movie, you can run out to the kitchen to grab a snack without missing anything of import - it'll give you something to do while you're waiting.

The story involves several red herrings - the protagonist's ambiguous relationship with his "mother", whom he's intending to spend his honeymoon with, looks to be one of those mysteries that we'll understand in the final reel, but after a very mysterious telephone conversation (in which we learn that "mother" is male), it's left to dangle. The concierge and the retired policeman clearly remember the Countess from her visit, 20 years earlier - but that's never fleshed out, either.

The newlywed husband snaps and beats his bride with a belt, but his motivation is never clear - is he a sadist, is he in need of anger management training (and what was he angry about?), or is he just desperate for something to happen? The wife leaves, but is stopped at train-side by the Countess. Apparently, by being remarkably pushy while trying to look vulnerable worked in 1971 - perhaps I should have tried that at the singles bars.

The ending sequence is awful - the Countess is being driven through a wooded road at night, urging the other survivor from the hotel to drive faster, faster - so they'll get to their destination before daylight, while distracting them with love chat and fondling. Suddenly, the sun is well overhead - amazing, how fast it rises in that part of the world. The crash is almost a relief. How the sole survivor actually survives this gives us one more mystery to contemplate.

However, this is an art film, not a Hollywood production - it's much more about mood than story or realistic people. In this light, it works. Were I more fond of "arty" films, I'd perhaps have rated this higher.


A sadistic husband (John Karlen) and his wife (Danielle Ouimet) are staying at a seemingly deserted European resort. There they meet mysterious and sexy Countess Bathory (Delphine Seyrig) and her companion. It turns out she's a vampire and wants the wife to join her...

I caught this years ago at an art cinema in Cambridge MA. I heard it was a cult film and a horror film. At first the audience was quiet and respectful but (when it became clear that nothing was happening) they got restless. There was some laughter when Seyrig seems to be seducing Karlen and people just roared when a detective pops in for no earthly reason. By the end the audience was basically laughing at it and making fun of it. I can see why! The movie moves slowly, has many inexplicable occurrences (even for a horror movie) and is just basically deadly dull. The movie thinks very highly of itself and seems to think dullness = art. There's nothing worse than a film that thinks its better than its audience--the contempt comes through loud and clear.

The acting ALMOST saves this. Karlen is terrible and Ouimet isn't much better. It's really hard to care about two such lousy people. Seyrig gives a great performance--she single-handedly saves this film from being a total disaster. She's sexy, smart and dangerous--she pulls it all off. It does have kind of a nice ending but, by then, I was so totally bored I didn't care.

This does have its defenders but I can't see why. Sure cure for insomnia here. I give it a 3 for Seyrig alone.


A thoroughly pointless film; the pretentious, pseudo-artsy direction doesn't match the kinky, trashy material. You can't make an "art" film simply by presenting a series of carefully designed pictures; you must have something meaningful to say. And you just as sure can't make a horror film simply by dealing thematically with vampires; you also need some scares (the movie's one potentially scary scene - in a shower - is badly edited). I'm sure the lesbian overtones had seemed daring back in 1971, but today they can't make the film worth your effort. (**)


This is a very silly film. All the female characters never walk or run or stand, they mince, flounce and languish. The lesbian vampires of the title are easily the most ineffectual vampires ever to grace the silver screen. This whole movie is just too European for me. And, while the lesbian vampires might have a taste for blood, there sure is very little of it in this film. All the above said, I did enjoy this film, because it is so easy to laugh about. About the only thing thing this so called erotic horror film is good for is a laugh.


I have watched all "24" episodes to date and have enjoyed them, however that being said let me continue with the reasons this show has overstayed is appeal and gone the route of The X-Files and similarly "thrown together for ad revenue" shows.

It used to be fairly well matched to the running clock, yet now we are fed some completely unrealistic timelines, one of the several that annoyed me from ep01 last night was the 2 and a half minutes Jack had to steal a car, call into HQ, hotwire the car, drive somewhere (for arguments sake I'll say half a mile) park the car, find the right house, slip into the back yard, wait for the guard to come out, k.o. the guard, go inside the house, start a conversation with the target and let him know that in another 2 and a half minutes the house was going to be blown to pieces, lol Other completely unrealistic actions include doing complex computer operations in a mere few seconds, doing impossible computer operations in a mere few seconds etc etc.

Also, wasn't it nice of the guard standing watch, to not struggle while his neck is being chomped on and to die in 5 seconds without a noise or spurting any blood............

What used to be somewhat watchable and enjoyable (yet always somewhat far fetched) has turned into a complete joke of unrealistic moves, actions and timelines, just another good series gone bad due to poor writing and what probably amounts to the almighty dollar from the advertisers over content.

I will not be watching any more "24" and will be happy with the show on DVD of all earlier seasons, maybe I can forget I started to watch the new season altogether.


As the granddaughter of a coal miner who was also a union organizer, and having been born and brought up in Appalachia, I was highly interested in the theme of this film. What a huge disappointment. Holly Hunter grunts and twangs like a deranged Daisy Mae, almost unintelligibly at times. Her accent is not at all mountain, but cartoonish. One could expect much more from an Academy Award winner.

Also, it might come as a huge shock to some, but people in Kentucky and West Virginia have had electricity, running water, and indoor facilities for at least 50 years now. Not only that, but--hold onto your seat, now--most women there don't go around dressed like a Dorothea Lange photograph (and didn't in 1973, either!); nor do the children all go barefoot; nor does everyone live in rusted-out shacks.

For a much more realistic picture of mine families, try "October Sky". The story is set earlier, in the 50's; but you can see that even then, people had more semblance of civilization that the dismal one-step-up-from-HeeHaw that "Harlan County War" portrays.

A strange irony that this film, supposedly sympathetic to the plight of families suffering because of corporate greed, was shot in British Columbia during the film crew strike. Shame on them. Shame on me, too, for wasting money and irreplaceable time on this letdown.


I'll keep this short. Martin Ritt's "Norma Rae" was a more original, less stereotyped study of exploited Appalachian workers and their tribulations, and so was Barbara Koppel's documentary of this confrontation between union organizers and the evil company they labor for.

The acting isn't bad. Holly Hunter is good, as she usually is, and Stellan Skarsgard is fine as always. He's a remarkably relaxed performer, whether the role calls for villainy ("Ronin") or sympathetic understanding, as in "Good Will Hunting". Hunter's Southern accent may sound overdrawn to some, but thirty-five years ago I imagine it fit the template well enough.

It's the story that sags. There are good people and evil people and none of them are particularly complex. That's more or less how Koppel's documentary rolled along too, but it's nevertheless not how life on the ground is structured. The conventions followed here are those of a soap opera, except that instead of a deceitful and vicious husband, we have a nefarious corporation.

It doesn't matter that the film was shot in Canada. That has little to do with its quality. I only wish the script had given the audience a bit more to chew on, just a little food for thought, a ham hock or two, rather than Pablum.


Harlan County Kentucky is a beautiful place not Vancouver in Canada were the movie was filmed.

The people of Harlan County Kentucky do not talk like Granny of the Beverly Hillbillies as Holly Hunter did.

Why were the people of Harlan County Kentucky left out of this movie.

The coalminers strike in Harlan County Kentucky was alot more than what this movie portrayed.

I was embarrassed for the maker of this movie.


As most films made in Hollywood are, this film had a certain degree of fiction attached to it. Even so, I did enjoy the acting and the scenes moved along very nicely.

However, as much as I enjoyed Holly Hunter's acting, I really don't enjoy seeing her on screen considering her extreme left-wing views and hate of anti-communists. She was one of a handful of actors that refused to honor the great Director, Elia Kazan, when he was honored by the Academy. What did Kazan do wrong in her mind? He identified known communists in the film industry when ordered to do so by not only the film companies but also under penalty of perjury by Congress. Kazan did his Constitutional duty by identifying those that were acting in the capacity as agents of the Soviet Union. So, Holly Hunter protested Kazan for something that happened 50 years ago.

I think there are many fine actresses that could have played Hunter's role and because of her anti-American positions, I think the role should have been given to someone else. Otherwise, I would have rated the film higher.

Lastly, the closing epilogue states that only half of coal miners are Unionized, as if that was a crime in of itself. The reality is that non-unionized coal workers prosper as well if not better and clearly the film makers were trying to suggest otherwise inspite of this fact. So, yes, the film was made as partly a piece of propaganda. The fact is that since the 1950's the UMWA (the Union in the film) has been steadily losing ground in a very quiet war against non-union coal producers. By 1980 the industry of coal production amounted to more than fifty percent of non-union workers.

However, even with the little propaganda and Holly Hunter's inclusion in the film, I still recommend this film.


This film was truly awful, its a shame i read a review saying it was like true romance, "true romance being a 10 and this an 8". As true romance is my favourite film i thought i'd given it a go. I wish i'd watched true romance instead. Christian Slater is the only good part in this film and the only reason he is in it is because he must be a bit hard up for cash. The whole way through this couple are disgustingly cheesy and its an extremely cringeworthy film to watch. Also i just kept thinking, why? Why on earth would you do that?! Hated it and cant believe i watched it till the end. I gave this film a 2 and to be honest even thats being a bit generous. I don't blame the actors for the cheese in this film because they weren't overly that bad, but the writer, some lines were terrible. This film is nothing like TRUE ROMANCE.


The lead characters are just plain stupid to the point that the plot is totally unbelievable. Almost every scene reeks of morbid stupidity making suspension of disbelief impossible except to wonder how bad can it be right to the end of this abysmal quagmire. I agree with anyone who hated this movie. Anyone who claims to like this movie must own shares in or be a shill for the production company. If not, please have your head examined, immediately. The character Duke is an absolute puke in this film. The actor who portrays him gives a Rassie worthy performance. I kept waiting for him to show something to no avail. I couldn't bear to watch this stupidity right through to the end. I had to switch to another movie and switched back to see if this disastrous entity had any hope of redeeming itself in the end. It didn't. Dumb and Dumber make this the Dumbest movie I have ever seen and the least worthy of watching, ever.


Spare yourself from this travesty. I don't think I've ever seen a movie this bad in my life, honestly. I don't know what else I can tell you, but please, just avoid it. All I can muster is rhetoric, it's REALLY JUST THAT BAD.

Acting is awful (especially Brian Geraghty, who is always stone like for no apparent reason), in fact, even Slater (which was a bit of a surprise) seems to struggle to play the role convincingly (it's just too over the top retarded I suppose). Dialogue is bland, cheesy, and just all around makes me cringe with every line. I still can't believe I watched the whole thing. It's one of those movies that you want to turn off from the beginning.

Predictable plot, sloppy and uninspired cinematography, etc. It's just all around poor. The way the characters flip-flop back and forth (about what to do with the money) when their lives are at stake is laughable.

I will never write another review unless I see a movie poorer than this one. I would usually never write a review in the first place, but if I can spare someone 1.5 hours of their life then writing this will have been worth it. In fact, I am so disgusted by Brian Geraghty's performance that I will never watch another movie that he is ever again. They should have just cast a sock puppet in his place instead.

AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!


I don't see how anyone can give this film a good rating and to compare it favourably with True Romance is an insult to that movie and film-making in general. The plot is you're standard 'couple stumble across wads of cash and go on the run'. There's nothing new in this story but that is not what makes it a bad film.

What makes this cringe-worthy viewing is the absolutely sloppy writing. The characters (all of them) are made to do such stupid things like leaving bags of cash wide open for all to see, not once, not twice, not thrice...And other things like buying a massively conspicuous getaway car, not locking a car with wads of cash in it. Our heroine in a maid's uniform with a massive and fresh gash on her head allowed to walk past a Police checkpoint who are on the look out for such a person.The list is absolutely endless, and there's even an apparently abandoned but fully functioning, rust and dereliction free power plant.

I had given this 3/10 but now that I've written about it I realise that is too generous 2 is all it's worth despite the odd amusing reference to True Romance that has been slipped in.


This film was average because it resembles True Romance too much. A couple looking to make a better life for themselves, stolen cash, bad guys and Christian Slater. The couple are in a rut, he finds some dirty money and the couple set off across the U.S., get married and visit a casino. Bent cops then chase them to get their money. Local law enforcers get involved and a whole load of people all get shot. The likeness to True Romance was evident from the start and the constant 'I love you' between the couple added to this. However, it wasn't as good as True Romance and the fact that it seemed like it was meant to be just like true romance made it worse.But worth a watch if not doing much else. The film was very average and to be honest not worth talking a whole lot about. Having said that, to grade it a 2 out of 10 is unfair and it deserves around a 4. If True Romance had never been made then it may achieve a 6 or 7.


I don't know what Christian Slater is doing on a movie like this, his career must be as bad as it gets. The plot is old, simplistic and don't go anywhere so the director had to make this non sense scenes where nothing happens just to waste more of our time. I rented because I had a credit to get a movie free and because Christian Slater was on the cover, so I thought this could be a nice movie, nothing too good but at least a regular movie.I have to say that I'm thankful that I didn't spent money on this. The main character is the most stupid person I've ever seen and sometimes I even cheer for him to be caught. If you haven't seen this movie yet, don't lost 90 minutes of your life with it, I did and I regret it!


This awkward piece of celluloid garbage was allowed to escape the cutting room floor. The directors, producers, production company could have done so much better. The actors should have been shot on the spot. This is not the level of incompetence we want to release to the public. I have seen better on a county college film school. Not to be nasty, but you have to get nasty to the people who release this type of manure. High in nitrates, carries across three fields, able to induce DiarrhEEEAR !!

get a video camera, invite your friends over, and drink some beer; you can do a better job yourselves.


This is my first review as I felt compelled to write to say just how bad this film is.

The acting is awful. The direction is awful and this type of storyline has been done to death.

What was Christian Slater thinking ?

I always watch films to the end of the titles but I was sooo glad when the, "Action", finished, I couldn't bear to see the names associated with this monstrosity.

If you have 94 minutes to spare, just go and stare at a wall, you may find it more entertaining.


THE KILLING HOUR is an American movie made in the same vein as an Italian Giallo.

Whilst many may assume by the director's Italian name that this movie is a giallo, I can most assure them that it is not.

The director of this movie also directed HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE. Having liked that movie and also being tempted by the attractive DVD cover depicting a gloved hand over a woman's face, I had high hopes for THE KILLING HOUR.

How wrong I was.

The plot of this movie is actually very interesting. A police detective and a TV show host form an unlikely alliance in tracking down the "handcuff killer". Also entering the scene is a young clairvoyant with the ability to draw pictures based on her premonitions.

But the interesting aspect of the movie finishes here. The plot is really all that it has going for it.

In the hands of an experienced Italian director - Dario Argento, Mario Bava or Lucio Fulci - this movie could have made a great giallo.

Unfortunately, the movie was placed in the wrong hands and the superb concept on paper degenerates to a crashing bore on the screen.

The director of this movie obviously failed to understand that there is more to making a giallo than just the mere presence of a glove-wearing killer, a few arrogant cops, and occasional nudity and sleaze.

The movie is severely hampered by Mr Mastroianni's pedestrian direction that is without suspense, tension or the ability to invoke emotion.

The few killing scenes to be found are nothing to write home about and most last too short a time to have sufficient impact upon the viewer - or even the plot for that matter!

Without revealing spoilers, I can reveal that there is a killer in this movie - mostly unseen. But the killer shows very little threat or menace and as such it is almost impossible for the viewer to attach themselves to situations that should be tense, frightening and horrific.

Without revealing spoilers, I can also mention the presence of another scene in this movie outside of the killings but was clearly meant to be disturbing. But even this scene lacked any impact.

The two lead actors are incredibly bland with one-dimensional characters that can be found in any random American movie of this period.

Kenneth McMillan basically "phones in" his performance as a police lieutenant. Believe me, he was more interesting to watch in the infinitely superior SALEM'S LOT, a movie in which he had several great scenes.

On a positive note, Elizabeth Kemp delivers a good performance as the clairvoyant. But she is clearly restrained by a script lacking inspiration and a director lacking a coherent vision for the character.

Overall, I do not recommend this movie at all. I would, however, advise people to see HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE because I believe the director did a much better job on this earlier effort. Or even better, check out some genuine giallos such as DEEP RED, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, TORSO and DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING just to name a few.


Since this film is a thriller directed by someone with an Italian sounding name, I was expecting something like an American version of Italy's finest export - the Giallo. The film certainly has elements that resemble the Giallo, but it constantly falls down as everything in the film is just so DULL. The plot opens with the discovery of a dead body making its way down the Hudson River. We than follow the investigation into the crimes, which is a joint venture between a police detective and a TV talk show host. The story also gets an extra element of mystery through Virna Nightbourne; a clairvoyant who draws the crimes before they happen. Obviously the idea of someone being able to draw crimes before they happen is more than a little bit preposterous, but to be honest I could live with that if the resulting film was entertaining. However, the film is not entertaining; we've got a couple of decent murder scenes, and that really is the only point of interest. The way that the film plays out is far too serious given the silliness of it, and by the time it ended I was thoroughly bored! Not recommended.


How could one go wrong with a film about a masked cult in an Arizona desert town that worships someone called Bryan? The premise sounds pretty good, the execution, though, leaves a lot to be desired.

This is mostly video-taped "archive footage" from a man who was investigating this cult. There's a bit of creepiness to the proceedings but mostly it's just plain dull. A classroom full of kids with Bryan masks is probably the most effective scene in the movie, but after that, well, there's nothing to hold one's interest. Even the presence of a few "cult film" types, like Tony Todd, George Wendt, Brinke Stevens, and even Lloyd Kaufman, can't save this, because their roles are pretty nondescript and brief. I can't really stress how disappointing this whole thing is, and it sounded so interesting. It's not.

Anchor Bay used to be one of my favorite movie companies, and now its reduced to putting stuff out like this....pretty sad. Were they not making any money with the classic horror films that they used to put out? Very sad.

Anyway, "Bryan Loves You" is not a good film, by any stretch of the imagination, and the box art even states that it's "eerily reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange". Like hell it is. Avoid, avoid, avoid. 2 out of 10.


If, for even a brief moment, you are considering seeing this movie, STOP. I have already made that mistake for you, let my pain be your gain. I hate this movie with a passion as it goes no where, says nothing and is purely a waste of life to watch. I am amazed that there were actors which actually signed on to do this. I can sit through some pretty bad horror movies and laugh at the cheap production value or even the bad writing, but this movie can't even be held in the same category as cheesy horror flicks. It is simply that bad. I thought my wife was going to leave me just because I rented this movie, yes it is that bad. This is not a misunderstood film, it is not some sort of noir that no one gets, it is just the worst film ever. I can't stop saying it, sorry, it really is that bad.


"Bryan Loves You" is the allegedly true story of an Arizona cult that takes over a desert town and converts its people into Bryans. These people worship Bryan, the son of a king who was killed many, many eons ago. They don masks and go after anyone who doesn't submit to their will, which seems to be no more than one or two people.

Let me lay it on the line: "Bryan Loves You" is possibly the most disappointing film of the fall 2008 season. I had been excited about this one since it was first announced... especially with this amazing list of guest stars. The love of my life, Tiffany Shepis. The biggest star in horror, George Wendt. Scream queen Brinke Stevens. Troma head honcho Lloyd Kaufman. And more. However, what this list of names failed to mention was how little any of them were in it (Stevens and Kaufman, under one minute... Shepis maybe five or six minutes, and Wendt five minutes maximum). So if you're watching the film for any of these people, prepare to be let down.

Also, the film works on a "found footage" premise, like "Blair Witch Project" (which it is compared to on the box and likely in other reviews). But the problem is... it doesn't work. There's too many camera shots, too many cases of scenes they wouldn't film, and many, many scenes where a camera wouldn't be found where the footage was shot. So, its attempt at realism fails miserably on that account. (Of course, as soon as you put real stars or known actors in your film, the amount of realism already decreases... Norm from "Cheers" being unrecognizable? Hardly.) The film was still watchable, and while it's not one of the better films I'll be seeing this year, it has some redeeming qualities. The writer-director-actor (Seth Landau) is clearly a talented guy. This film helped him perfect camera shots I'd love to see in future films, and his acting is the cream of the crop. He's pretty much the only actor who comes across as believable, with the possible exception of Brinke Stevens (who has too little screen time to judge).

I'm unclear how available the film is. Fangoria wrote a review -- far more critical than mine -- so the word is certainly getting out there. But without their approval, what stores will carry this one? Best Buy? Your local video store? Wal-Mart? I have run into it at Wal-Mart in a special Halloween section alongside other recent -- and better -- Anchor Bay titles such as "Breathing Room", and I suspect other stores may follow suit... this could turn into Anchor Bay's little mistake of 2008. Anyone who buys the film on a whim is likely to be let down. One reviewer summed it up as worse than watching a "six-hour musical version of 'Ben Hur' performed by a class of third-grade special-ed kids", and I think that pretty much says it all.


Is this meant to be funny? But no, cuz it's not even really funny in that TOTALLY NOT meant to be funny way.... I like the premise but I'm so offended by it's lame follow through. Could be way better. I almost wish someone would remake it. But no one ever remakes movies this bad. Which is mistake, yes? Why remake good movies? Remake this one.

OK - you need more. Well, there are 3 good actors in this movie and the writing is pretty good actually - tho, obviously, so rarely well delivered. I hate the fake/real quality of it. Like: it doesn't look fake and it doesn't look real. And like I said: I keep waiting for a big belly laugh. JUST as I think something's going to make me laugh it's not funny anymore. And it's just never dramatic enough to be compelling otherwise.


Frightened, vulnerable refugees, escaping the political tensions permeating Europe in 1930 (and, we are to assume, the escalating prominence of the Nazi party), come to stay with friends in London; seven years later, having received their British citizenship, the younger sister embarks on a dancing career while the older sister reconnects with her handsome fiancé, now a newspaperman and leader in the political underground. Well-meaning, but drab melodramatics from Britain's Ealing Studios. Late plot-twist involving plastic surgery seems to belong to a different film altogether. Audrey Hepburn, two years before her breakthrough in Hollywood, received her most substantial acting role up to this time playing the dancing darling; she's charming and poised, but the part doesn't offer much beyond showcasing her youthful eagerness. *1/2 from ****


Without a doubt, this is the best Roddy Piper/Sonny Chiba movie EVER. Not many people know this, but these two great action stars made over 200 films together, although this was the only one released stateside.

That's probably not true. At all. It would be funny if it was, though. Roddy Piper, a wrestler that knew his own acting limits and stayed within them (no "suburban commando" for him. just dumb and violent stuff, thank you very much), stars in this film that is kind of about immortal bad guys. I say "kind of" because this movie manages to veer away from the dumb-but-enjoyable premise of fighting the unkillable for almost two hours and needlessly complicate the matter by involving power-hungry white-collar bad guys. Who cares about the mortal baddies when the immortal have to be killed? Certainly not this movie's target audience: drunk college kids and boys under the age of ten.

My problem is this: former American Gladiator Malibu (Derron McBee) is the immortal bad guy. He has all the acting chops one would expect of someone who has been paid to joust with large Q-Tips on TV. Still, he's a ridiculously cartoony bad guy who makes the beginning scenes fun to watch. Then he's gone for about an hour, until the very end. Huh? Who plotted that? Does the audience care about Roddy Piper's sort-of romantic interest that doesn't get naked? No! Do they care about the non-immortal non-combatant bad guys? No!! Do they want to hear Roddy Piper fake a Southern accent? Well, maybe. It's pretty funny bad.

Sonny Chiba is in this movie, too. He's credited as Sonny "J.J." Chiba an his character's name is "J.J." too. Presumably, J.J. is his real nickname and he plays himself in the movie because the movie is based on events from his life. Sonny has a Caucasian daughter in this movie. There is some sort of drama involving her being surprised that he's not her real dad or something. It's hard to pay attention to all of this movie. I'm lucky to be able to recall even that much. This plot just sucks the interest right out of your body.

Oh, remember the wrestler Zeus? He's in this movie, too. He makes friends with Roddy Piper after he watches Rodddy break a guy's nose for pestering a woman. That isn't integral to the plot, mind you. It is, however, exactly the sort of thing that I imagine Zeus likes in his acquaintances.


This film was the first one to star Boris Karloff that was in color. As such, it illustrates that to be the first of anything is meaningless if the film lacks coherence, intelligence, and a decent script. The plot begins by taking the viewers into an old theater, where Karloff is shown coming night after night. He has the sympathies of the staff of the theater. It seems that ten years earlier he was engaged to the prima donna singer at the theater, and they were to get married. But on the night before the marriage she vanished, and he - broken hearted (apparently) - has returned every night ever since as though waiting for her.

Now this could have been the start of an intriguing film. Unfortunately the scriptwriters did not see fit to leave the audience tantalized by Karloff's apparent tragedy. Instead, he falls asleep in his chair and we see his subconscious revealing what happened. The prima donna broke off the wedding in a bitter argument, and Karloff killed her (but as they were alone, he was able to hide the body and cover his tracks). So instead of playing with audience support for Karloff, the script writers show he is up to his typical evil roles.

The only one who suspects that Karloff is not what he seems is Gale Sondergaard - she remembers what her former mistress was like that night, and there were signs that she was uncertain about the wedding. But she never had anything concrete to work with.

The theater impresario is Thomas Gomez. One of his musicians/composers (Turhan Bey) is interested in furthering the career of a new singer, Susannah Foster, whom he is dating. Gomez is willing to put her on. But Karloff, who is the theater's doctor, sees Foster (who reminds him of the dead prima donna). Fixed on her, he decides to pursue her (although she is increasingly frightened of him).

This is the set-up for the plot, and how it eventually leads to the revelation of the fate of the dead woman. It is a tired plot, mostly because there is little chemistry between Foster and Karloff (although that is not a fatal flaw - he is fixed on her, she need not show any type of fascination towards him). Sondergaard is wasted (occasionally, as the film progresses, she reveals her suspicions). Gomez, normally a considerably good villain himself, plays his jovial side as the impresario. As for Turhan Bey, he shows great interest in Foster - and she is shown singing in one of his new operettas (the music of which is a steal from Schubert's Marche Militaire).

The end result is that the viewer is not deeply interested (after awhile) in the fates of these characters. Even when Karloff (at one point) knocks out Ludwig Stossel, our lack of interest in the "little old wine maker" actor prevents us getting too concerned (Ludwig recovers by the way). Given that the film was supplied with a grade A film gloss (by using color stock) it is ironic that the whole effect is basically thrown away. It does not help matters, to the fans of Boris Karloff, that one year after this color-film flop, he gave one of his greatest performances in Val Lewton's THE BODY SNATCHER as Grey the Coachman - in a black and white film with a meaty script. Instead of Technicolor, the production people should have concentrated on good writing and plotting. I will give it a "3" only because it is visually good, but otherwise it was a waste of time and money.


How can you fix a film that has... -too much opera for horror fans, -too creepy ending for opera fans, -too little action for Karloff fans, -too much Karloff for melodrama fans, -and a director who seems content with showcasing his lavish sets and the relatively new Technicolor process?

After giving the question quite a bit of thought, I don't think you can fix a project like "The Climax". It was ill-conceived from the start and the film they made was probably as good as could be made with the story they had to work with. But ultimately, the film is unsatisfying for all of the reasons listed above.

Watch it if you must,... but you've been warned.


My summary, if you knew me, is quite sarcastic, as I am not a fan of opera. And, when I watch a horror movie (with the exception of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA), I tune in to watch horror--not see song after song after song. While technically this is a Boris Karloff film, you'd never know it unless you paid attention. It looks much more like a musical--something fans of Karloff probably were not happy to see.

When the film began, I was immediately struck by the vivid Technicolor. Karloff rarely performed in color until late in his career when most films were in color. But, for 1944, it was unusual to see color films--particularly horror films. Also, the spectrum of colors they used were unusual--lots of pastels like mauve, rich purple and aqua as well as gray. It was very striking.

A decade ago, Karloff argued with a prima dona at the opera and strangled her. However, her body was never found and Karloff has remained free. Now, a new singer, Miss Klatt, arrives and she reminds him strongly of dead woman, Marcellina. And, since Karloff is a bit touched, he feels strange impulses towards Klatt. He tricks her into being hypnotized and gives her the suggestion that her voice is gone! Apparenly now that Marcellina is dead, Karloff won't allow anyone else to sing like her or sing her music. In many ways, this film is like an anti-Phantom of the Opera or anti-Svengali--where the mad genius guides a woman's career to failure instead of great success.

The young lady's fiancé, Turhan Bey, is worried about her and the odd influence that Karloff is having on her. So, he sneaks her away from Karloff's home (where she is staying while she "recouperates"). Bey is surprised to find that the medicine that Karloff has given her in an atomizer turns out to be nothing but colored water. What gives?! Somehow Bey gets the idea to help his fiancée get over her inability to sing can be cured by arranging a command performance before the very young king. This plan made very little sense and I have no idea what Bey's reasoning was. The king, it turns out, is pretty swell and agrees to the plan.

Somehow Bey also gets the idea that by destroying the atomizer in front of her, that his lady friend will regain her voice. It's as if he read the script! Such amazing "insider knowledge" is an inherent weakness of the film.

When Karloff discovers what's happened, he once again tried to persuade Klatt not to sing. But, just to make sure, plans to either kill her or destroy her vocal cords--it's hard to tell which he's about to do when the housekeeper confronts him--of course, with no backup or witnesses!! She KNOWS the truth and will stop him (how?!)! Fortunately, as Bey read the script, he knew to appear just in time to save the lady and rescue Klatt from Karloff's clutches.

In the end, Klatt goes on and is marvelous (if you like that sort of stuff) and Karloff overacts as he and his dead Marcellina (who he kept embalmed in a hidden room in his house) catch fire for no particular reason.

Overall, it's hardly fair to call this a Karloff movie, as he's really just a supporting playing to a bunch of warbling. Unless you are a glutton for opera (very high-pitched opera, by the way), then this film will be, at best, barely a time-passer and nothing more. That's because there is almost no suspense, no twists, Bey apparently always has ESP (how else can he do what he does in the movie?) and in the end, Karloff catches fire for no apparent reason other than it's the end of the film! Truly, despite looking nice, this is a very badly written film that wastes Karloff's considerable talents.

And to think that Karloff's first color film was this dull song-fest.


The Climax would be more aptly named The Anti-Climax. It marked Boris Karloff's return to movies after three years on Broadway and touring in Arsenic and Old Lace. His name alone led many to believe The Climax would be a grand, shivering horror fest, especially as it would be Karloff's first color film. Instead, The Climax is a sad tale of an elderly doctor who has a thing about a singer he strangled ten years previously. For some, it might have promised a delightful Technicolor movie of Viennese operetta and Hollywood soubrettes. Instead, it's a weak re-make of The Phantom of the Opera, without the Phantom, which was released the year before. At the very least, ticket buyers would have expected, based on the lavish sets and art design, all in Technicolor, a passionate story of behind-the-scenes Old Vienna, complete with everyone wearing evening dress or gilt-braid uniforms with red breeches, with gas lights and wet cobblestones, with jealous prima donnas, excerpts from operettas and dancers in pastel tutus. We get the tutus, all right, but the lavishness is from the Minnelli school of garish over-kill. More than anything else, we get a story of aged obsession, hypnotism and throat spray that is as flavorless and stale as a slice of month-old Sachertorte.

Dr. Friedrich Hohner (Boris Karloff), an aging and dignified doctor, serves the medical needs of the operetta singers at Vienna's Theatre Royal. Count Seebruck (Thomas Gomez) runs the theater and the opera company with firmness and humor. One day the doctor chances upon an audition Seebruck is giving to a young student, Angela Klatt (Susannah Foster). She has a marvelous voice, and Seebruck immediately gives her a role in an upcoming production. Hohner is horrified. Angela sounds just like the great singer, Marcellina, who disappeared without a trace ten years ago. We have already learned in flashback at the start of the movie that Hohner loved Marcellina obsessively, and blamed her refusal of his love on her ambition...caused by her extraordinary voice. Hohner solved that problem by silencing the voice. An unfortunate by-product of his action was the dead body of Marcellina. And now it appears that the same voice will star again at the the Theatre Royal. For the rest of the movie we have Angela being pulled and pushed between Hohner, determined that Marcellina's voice will never be heard again, and the young man and fellow student who loves Angela, Franz Munzer (Turhan Bey), who is determined Angela will sing and be a great success. Lurking around the doctor's lavishly decorated medical office and home is his assistant and housekeeper, Luise (Gale Sondergaard). Luise is playing some game of her own, but what could it be? Could it have something to do with the steel, locked door at the top of the stairs in Hohner's home, a door which leads to a room we dread to see what it might contain?

What makes a movie dull? The Phantom of the Opera the year before also starred Susannah Foster. It was a Technicolor knock-out of a movie, and featured a fine performance by Claude Raines, all the behind-the-scenes stuff you could want, an amusing light comedy performance from Nelson Eddy, aided by his rival for Foster's affection, Edgar Barrier. The sets were lavish, including some of the creepiest below-ground scenes ever filmed. It is no classic, but it isn't dull. The Climax uses the same sets, same story line and has a fine actor as the main threat. But there it ends. The story is too familiar and drags on and on. Inexplicably, Karloff is under-utilized. When Karloff says in that deep, sincere voice of his, "I've come to help you, my dear," we hope things will pick up. They don't.


This movie was terrible compared to the sequel. The sequel actually made sense and was interesting. I never laughed so much in my life when Kate got what she had coming to her in the end of the sequel. But in this one, I thought I was going to die just watching it. Don't get me wrong, this movie did have some good moments, because why else would a sequel have been made.

If you saw this movie and hated it, then you can redeem those two hours of your life by watching the amazing sequel on youtube.com. Just search for parsley days and click on "the return". It will not disappoint. If you haven't seen this movie and want to, then save two hours and watch the five minute sequel.

-Parsley Days: The Return Fan


This is really one of the most boring and useless movies I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. Generally speaking, I enjoy it when film makers expose a fringe subculture that is basically unknown to the general viewing audience. However, in the case of this klunky flick, that subculture is so intensely boring, so contrived, so unbearably drab and elitist that the film becomes almost unwatchable. Unless you are completely turned on by androgynous and asexual, white, thirty-something maritimers who wear vintage clothing, ride refurbished bicycles, and who enjoy long directionless conversations in a stilted and emotionless vernacular, than this is not the movie for you. Nothing about this movie seemed real or important, and I found it impossible to relate to anyone or anything within it.

 To sum it up, Parsley Days made me feel like I was lying in a patch of dirt, in a stranger's backyard, wrapped in a cold, wet, musty smelling towel, while eating a bowl of plain white tofu, and listening to Ani DiFranco.

 Avoid this movie.


this has got to be one of those films where the trailer is 50 times better than the movie itself.I first saw the trailer in 1991, it looked great.Since then i have always wanted to see it but could never find it.....until today, yes, 14 years later.

lets just say I was so disappointed its unreal, OK i knew it wouldn't be an Oscar winner but still had hopes that it would be a fun no-brain film in the bloodsport mold. Unfortunately it was not, it's Pooh

whats with all the American rock and roll music and the acting was so bad it was quite frightening.

The fight scenes were rubbish and look fake.

this DVD only cost me £5 and I believe I was overcharged by £7

Now I'm sad as I know that I will never get that hour and a half back.


I'm a big Michael Jordan fan. That's a fan of Michael Jordan, the basketball player, not the actor. He's good in one-minute commercials, but he's bad, very bad in this movie. This movie was nothing more than a large advertisement for Michael Jordan and the product he endorses.

I love sports, and have a few favorite sports movies. But most sports-related movies are terrible and this one falls is one of the worst of the worse.


This movie was really bad. The only saving graces are Bill Murray and Larry Bird's all to brief appearances. We have definitely found something Jordan can't do and that is act. That is kind of bad considering he is playing himself in this one. Though most of his costars weren't there, so it might have been difficult. At least he stopped after this one unlike Shaq who made four or five pictures...Thank God Phil Jackson came along and refocused him. As for the plot being like a Muppets movie it is. A few appearances here and there from a surprise celebrity, the whole working with live actors. It just did not seem to be a Looney tunes movie. Though they stopped being Looney a long time ago. I liked Daffy Duck when he was, well, daffy...he has been smart aleck duck for a while now. It just doesn't feel right. All the Looney Tunes on one team, some being life long enemies...and what is the point of introducing the bad guy voiced by I think Danny DeVito. The Martian has always been trying to take over the world, why not just let it be him. Also, what is up with the girl bunny? Why introduce a new character? I guess we just had to be politically correct. Well this one may be good for the kiddies, but most of us are going to recognize it for what it is...one long commercial. I saw a clip from the next Looney Tunes movie and it is even more Muppet looking than this one


Okay, Okay...Jean-Luc Godard and Woody Allen; two great names of cinema; two unique, idiosyncratic artists...this has promise. These two great minds could dissect for us deep insights into their films, or at least Woody's films...

The problem is, they just don't, really.

They don't talk about much. There are even a few moments of misunderstanding. The interpreter at times doesn't seem to explain Monsieur Godard's questions (ramblings) very well. There is a distinct sense of Woody Allen being vaguely bamboozled by it all.

At one point, Godard brings up a point, posited somewhat eccentrically, about cultural overload stifling original creativity: Godard refers to it as "cultural radioactivity" disgorged upon us by TV. But because of the rambling nature of his question, the context regarding TV, and the bumblings of the interpreter, Woody misunderstands and takes it as literally referring to cathode tube radiation from the television set. It's all kind of embarrassing. And also unfortunate, because what would have been an interesting question is then quickly brushed over.

Perhaps this was all Godard's intention. Perhaps he's saying something about communication. Perhaps that's why some of his inter-titles don't seem to make much sense. I don't know. What I DO know is, if you want to learn about Woody Allen and his films, this won't help very much.


Out of an extremely interesting pairing of influential film personalities comes the most obnoxious interview I have ever seen. Godard cannot refrain from "intellectually" strong- arming another filmmaker if in contact with them. I have never seen an interview as terrible as this one. Not only does Godard torture the viewer on purpose, beginning right after he questions Allen about his then recent release of Hannah and Her Sisters with abrupt recurring title cards meant to scoff at Allen's film and segueing without direction into random and exasperatingly repetitive moments where music swells to the point where it drowns out the clearly uncomfortable Woody and displays inexplicable freeze frames of indeterminable screen time. Godard shows no respect to Allen at all, yet Allen shows a great deal of politeness and respect to Godard even when Godard belts out questions in French without allowing his off-camera translator to catch up or be heard over his voice. Woody makes the effort to mask his discomfort, while Godard seems determined only to sustain that discomfort by employing indirect tactics designed to catch him off-guard.

Godard has now to my knowledge brandished immature affronts to two of the most talented filmmakers working today, Steven Spielberg, accusing him of capitalizing on the tragedy of the Holocaust with Schindler's List, and Woody Allen, for an unclear reason, not to mention Jane Fonda because of her political activism, just subsequent to directing her in one of his films, which itself served as political activism. I believe that, based on what I have seen of Godard's work, which is entirely self-regarding and faux artsy even when it is good, that he is a jealous intellectual snob. He snipes at superior filmmakers for reasons that are only projections of his own faults. Guilty of selling out in order to market his film Contempt in the United States, he falsely blasts Spielberg for selling out. And frankly, Woody and Fonda have potentially similar personalities, people who make artistic careers out of pushing their audiences further toward a more progressive collective conscious, whether incidentally or on purpose. This is something Godard wants to do with his work, if only in his own condescending way, and I believe he finds their similar prompts to be challenges.

What made me anxious to see this film, the longest and most frustrating 26 minutes of my life, was my interest in seeing two greatly admired filmmakers make each other's acquaintance and interact. I believe that they are polar opposites of each other, not in their innate personalities but in their intentions. Out of Allen's entire filmography, including the movies he has made since this terrible episode, he has never made a pretentious film, but strangely the aim he claims with an indifferent attitude are behind his creative process are admittedly self-indulgent. Godard's every effort, no matter how dormantly, panders only to him and leaves the audience to concede to the humble illusion of being below it, yet he claims with suavity to be making social, political and cultural statements as well as the idea inherent in the French New Wave movement, which was to challenge the convention of cinema and perhaps reinvent it. Why is it that Allen almost always succeeds in doing what Godard claims to do without purposely incongruous editing, contrived defiance of sincere film techniques and unfocused stories? Inversely, why is it that Godard succeeds with Allen's claims but has never made a film without a pompous affectation? And then why does Godard have the big head where Woody knowingly demotes himself?


First Knight is not a particularly good film of King Arthur. It tries to talk a more realistic approach, not focusing on the magic, but I think that it fails on that level. The King Arthur legend hasn't transferred to film that well. Firstly the film is well written or well directed. The casting was poor. Sean Connery was not a good choice for playing Arthur, they got a Scot playing an English King and even though I'm a Bond fan, Sean Connery is a particularly good actor after that. Richard Gere is the most wooden actor in history and just can perform. He shows no emotion and can't even be a good action hero, seeing that he doesn't tend to play action roles. He can't even do a British accent. The relationship between Guinevere and the two leads was not believable. I didn't like the fact an older actor playing Arthur and that the two characters are meant to be a similar age. It was also hard to believe the relationship with Lancelot because of Gere's performance. I also felt that Camelot was not grant enough. The whole point of the city was that not other city could match it for beauty and was a symbol of England's glory. The film was also not particularly loyal to the Arthur legends and this is another example of Hollywood butchering an English legend, similar to Robin Hood films. A good thing about this film is the sword fights and battles were well done.

This film isn't worth watching, and is one of the reasons why I don't rate Richard Gere as a actor.


Though I really can't comment about the 'accuracy' of the story as I'm not a follower of the legend, as an entertainment venue I found "First Knight" to be lacking in most everything .... imagination, suspense, believability, emotion, depth, character/plot development, and any discernible dramatic conviction by the actors. I found myself neither liking nor caring about anyone in the film, though not for lack of trying! I kept watching, waiting for something good to happen/appear to make this film appealing, but salvation was a no-show. When the end credits rolled I gave up . . . but not before having to endure one of the most tepid, uninspired ensemble deathbed scenes 'performed' by name-brand actors I've ever seen. Upside of the movie? ... some pretty scenery and a few gorgeous galloping horses. Sad.


In my opinion, one of the worst movies ever. This movie shows how Europeans think the Americans like to see the middle ages. A Disney-like castle, weapons, machines and armory invented centuries later. If it would have been a pure fantasy-movie with no connection to reality it would be still a bad movie but perhaps not that bad. Richard Gere is totally missplaced as Lancelot (One of the funniest scenes was the one on the battlefield in slowmotion that looked more like a shampoo commercial than a historical movie). All in all totally stupid.


How on earth did Sean Connery, Richard Gere, Julie Ormand, Ben Cross, Sir John Gielgud, and other actors of note, ever get roped into making this awful atrocious movie? The word "hokum" is undoubtedly a compliment in this case. Surely it wasn't for money? Nobody's that greedy or hard up. Or did they all think it was a good idea at the time? If so, they were badly mistaken.

The supposed Norman armour looked like something that was dreamed up for (and thrown out of) Star Trek or Flash Gordon. Actually the styles of (designer) armour on display here range from the bizarre to the unbelievable with shades of the ridiculous in between. Disregarding that they were all made out of modern material, uniforms were not worn by any military in Britain until Cromwell's New Model Army in the 17th century. Until then recognition of both friend and enemy alike was by banners etc., and was all a bit of a hit and miss affair (just like this movie in fact). On reflection I can't recall seeing a single banner in the entire film.

The fabled King Arthur wouldn't have been Norman anyway. He was supposed (debatedly) to have been a 5th or 6th century Ancient Briton, some say with Roman ancestry, and to have lived long before the Norman Conquest was even thought of. One theory even puts forward the view that he actually was a Roman who'd remained in Britain after all others had departed. Whichever of the many theories you prefer, you'd have to agree that he certainly wouldn't even have seen a Gothic building let alone lived in one.

The moralising (or should I say demoralising) script was not only absolutely dire but downright silly. Almost as silly as the gas fire in the middle of the Round Table.

I don't think that Britain was actually mentioned in the script, so perhaps if this re-telling of a powerful story had been set anywhere (a planet somewhere in the far reaches of Andromeda comes to mind) instead of in and around Camelot, and with a different set of characters, the movie might have been acceptable. As it is, it has to go down in the comedy mode. Except that it wasn't meant to be one.

Richard Gere as Lancelot has to be the one of the worst casting mistakes in movie history, that is if you discount John Wayne as Ghengis Khan (and the "Surely this must be the Son of God!" Centurian), or a 30 yr old Robert Taylor as Billy the Kid. And Sean Connery as King Arthur doesn't rate much better.

The only good comments I can make about the whole production is that there's a rather nice musical score lurking somewhere behind everything, and Adam Greenberg's cinematography is rather good. For those two points alone I've given it an extra star, but it's still an awful movie.

In conclusion, this has to be a Follywood production that cannot be missed...otherwise you'll never know how bad it is!


This is a painfully bad retelling of the Arthurian Legend. The bad guys use crossbow pistols and wear black leather ala Road Warrior, The good guys look like a high school production of Camelot. Camelot itself looks like part of Disneyland.

The story centers around Richard Gere as an unappealing Lancelot, Sean Connery as a doddering Arthur and Julia Ormond (Guenevere) who, despite being the high point of the film, is completely unable to convince us that she has any affection for the wizened Arthur.

Bad guys grimace, music sweeps heroically, rousing speaches and predictability ensue, followed by a forgettable conclusion.

Not worth it even for fans of the genre.


Oh my this movie was bad. It might have been better had Richard Gere not played the part of Sir Lancelot. Someone should have had a talk with the casting director. It is the story we have come to know for those of us who have followed the King Aurther and the Knights of the Round Table myth. Sean Connery plays the role of Arthur but brings nothing to the part that is interesting, and walks around stiff and delivers his lines like he wants to speed things up. Julia Ormond plays Guinevere and also brings no charm to the part. Ben Cross is the villain as Prince Malagant and really is the only interesting character in the film. Gere well, just hangs in the woods a lot.

Want to see a better film about King Auther and the knights of the Round Table? See John Borman's stylish Excalibur.


The first time I saw this movie I thought it was great. A little background. I grew up in a household that viewed TV as sinful. This was the first movie I ever saw. I loved it. Recently I was in the mood for some nostalgia so I rented First Knight. I cannot say enough bad things about this film. Here are the things I disliked about it in no particular order. 1. Not faithful to the Arthur legend. 2. Their idea of sword-fighting is two people standing still and swatting each others swords. Pathetic. 3. Way too much blue. Everything is blue. If the Smurfs told the story of King Arthur there would be less blue used. 4. Richard Gere? In a period piece? With an American accent? Really? 5. For living outside and fighting all the time Richard Gere certainly is clean. 6. The tactic that the attackers use to draw the defenders away from the coach is literally the oldest one in the book. However the commander is not reprimanded. Anyone who fell for that should have been immediately demoted back down to his level of competence. 7. Period incorrect armor and weapons. 8. Mindless drivel that passes for dialogue. 9. Julia Ormond is a pathetic actress. 10. The directors seemed determined to undermine all suspension of disbelief. At every moment of the movie they remind you not just that it is a movie but also that it is a bad movie.


An ex-girlfriend insisted we see First Knight when it came out in 1995. Since then I've done my best to put the painful memories of both behind me. Unfortunately, on a recent Saturday morning, when my FIOS package let me down again (oh, for reruns of MST3K!), TNT reopened those old wounds.

I have nothing against the Arthurian legend. In fact, I actually enjoy it and there have been some well made movies on the subject (see Prince Valiant (1954) for a lost treasure). However, First Knight is not one for the ages. Why Jerry Zucker chose to step out of his successful Top Secret, Airplane, Naked Gun, etc; comedic comfort zone to produce this joust wreck is as mysterious as Excalibur. Although, people were laughing in the theater during some of the fight scenes and a bizarre scream in a church. And why did screenwriter William Nicholson sandwich such a woeful tale in between Nell and Galidator? Throw in industry nobleman like John Gielgud, Jerry Goldsmith, and Walter Murch how could this movie miss the mark so badly? First Knight does not work on any level. The plot is weak and contrived, the dialog is unbelievable, the costumes out of historical place, and the pristine "period" sets perplexing. Now some observations on the performances of the principles:

Julia Ormond: At least in those days they were still actually casting British born actresses to play British characters, sparing us from having to spend two hours listening to the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow or Texan Renee Zellweger blather on in their phony English accents. For that alone, I'll give her a pass in First Knight.

Richard Gere: First of all, I've never really got this guy. I can remember when he made a splash in Paul Scharder's American Gigolo (1980). The movie and the character perfectly captured a moment in time and culture in America as did Saturday Night Fever, albeit to a lesser, if not more seedy and shocking, extent. He followed that up with more success in Officer and a Gentleman (1982), which is not holding up well by the way, but then what? Can you name another memorable role Richard Gere has played since? (And Pretty Woman does not count. You could have put Richard Petty next to Julia Roberts in that puff fest and still made mega box office). Yet, every year they trundle him out again for another big budget shot. Like I said I don't get it. Anyway, casting him in First Knight made as much sense as allowing him to present at the Oscar's. I'm sure it looked good on paper, but what you got was something totally repellent. At least he had the decency to keep his Philly accent.

Sean Connery: In 1988 Connery won the Academy Award for his supporting role in The Untouchables. To his credit, he was able to parlay this into a major jump start to his sputtering career and carry it right through the 90's. His performances seemed to fall into two categories; well crafted, as in Medicine Man and The Hunt for Red October, or "mailed it in." His work in First Knight was definitely a quick trip to the Post Office. There were scenes when I thought he was actually in danger of nodding off on his sword! He probably realized early on this was a loser. But a true professional (see Gene Hackman) will step up his game and make the best of lesser material. He might have made it tolerable had he tried, but trust me, watching Sterling Hayden run about in a wig is much more compelling then enduring Connery's uninspired speeches in a "medieval" hair piece!

Next time I see First Knight peek above the parapets, I think I'll just call my ex-girlfriend and start a fight instead. It would be much less painful.


Yes. A 1.

And as other commentators have noted, it feels like you are watching a medievalized version of Star Trek. Everyone is giving Patrick Stewart like performances, talking about democracy and human rights---

What is this, a 16 year old girl's vision of the Middle Ages?

I don't feel fear, I don't feel fear, I don't feel fear, this is the damn mantra repeated by Gere throughout the entire movie . . .

So--

Apparently Dare-Devil was a medieval American knight, who had memorized every line spoken by Commander Ryker---

The only thing good about this movie---it is hilariously bad.

To imagine a middle ages like this, no dirt, no toughness, no rape---

Just a Fabio-like fool running about, putting himself through a gauntlet of swinging blades to kiss the hand of the Queen---

Not to be taken seriously you say? Well, if I am not to take it seriously,I am sorry.

There are two hours here of silliness to laugh at and foppish villains who talk like Italian designers--

But I would say see this movie, if you want to laugh---

Because it is certainly funny.


I'm baffled by the number of people who actually liked this movie. How anyone can watch this crud is beyond me. Aside from the blatant attempt to cash in on the popularity of Arthurian legend (this story has nothing whatsoever to do with King Arthur, despite the use of some recognizable names), this movie is just plain terrible. There's nothing worse than a bad movie that passes for a good one. The campy "B-movies" of the '70s and '80s were bad and everyone involved with them knew it. First Knight could fall into that category, but it doesn't. It's just bad. The look of the film rivals some of the best after-school specials of the time period. When I came across it on TV, I thought it was an episode of J.A.G. until I saw Sean Connery. The script reminded me of coffee commercials and the acting aspired to such. What was up with that swinging sand bag and sword "gauntlet" thing? It looked like it should have been the thrilling climax to "Revenge of the Nerds VII: Nerds in Camelot." Avoid this stinker like the black plague.


What woman would ever have trouble choosing between Sean Connery, even an old one (James Bond!), and Richard Gere (American Gigolo)? Guinevere's "dilemma" becomes ridiculous! Besides, the point of the Arthur tragedy is that Guinevere and Lancelot DO betray Arthur. Here, they just think about it and kiss once. (An abstinence-only Camelot legend?) On top of that, the movie is hideous. The costume designer should never be allowed to work again. Everybody wears some combination of blue and yellowish brown. Why would Arthur and his wife and his knights all wear the same colors? Why such ugly colors anyway? I agree with most reviewers that this movie is a terrible waste of some decent actors.


Perhaps the WORST attempt to tell the story of Arthur, Lancelot, and Guenevere ever made. From poor costuming to a complete inability to follow even the most basic fundamentals of the Arthurian Legends, this movie has it all.


I was disgusted with this movie. The characters in the movie were not believable at all, nor did they have any similarity to the people you find in other tellings of the story of King Arthur. What happened to the relationships between these people? What happened to King Arthur in this movie to turn him into such a horrible person? I have never been so disappointed in a movie character before. The King Arthur I know would not have been leading the charge to execute Guinivere. He should have loved her, but this King Arthur had no feelings at all except for hatred.

And it wasn't just Arthur; there was no depth to any of these characters. There was nothing to make you feel any sense of connection to them at all. If you don't care what happens, why bother watching at all? This movie was just a waste of time.


The only thing I want to say about this movie is this.

I never left the theater before a movie had ended. For the first time in my life I had the urge to leave after having only seen a quarter of it.

Bad movies normally become very funny. "First knight" even surpassed this criterium. For me, this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, alongside some low-budget Chinese ninja movies, which were hilariously funny.


Richard Gere in this kind of movie? Na-ah not good. The acting of the movie isn't really that good, although Connery is okay. There is so many movies about Arhtur, Lancelot etc and of those I've seen this is probably the worse. Gere ruins it all. He doesn't fit to this movie. Gross! Not a very interesting movie at all...

The music was okay, but that was about it. Movie got boring quickly. Camelot looked like the Disney castle thing. The ending where Arthur is dead on a float against the sunset is beautiful, but that's about it.

It could be better cast choices because as said, Gere is too... what can I say? Modern! His face is totally wrong for Lancelot...


I don't think any of what I wrote qualifies as a "spoiler", but I don't want to get blacklisted, so I checked the "spoiler" box.

Watchers is my all-time favorite book. When I found out they had done a "blockbuster" movie based on the book, I went out and rented it. About 5 minutes into the movie I turned it off. Then I put it back on and watched it. The only plus about any and all of these movies is the dogs they use. They are very well trained animals (I wonder how many dogs they used in total!) and they are gorgeous. The outsider in every one of the movies is lame, nothing like the book (and I know, if they tried to make it like the book says they would have to spend a lot of money and it still wouldn't be up to par to Koontz's imagination) but at least make him like the 3rd movie, more reptilian looking with big claws (that don't dangle!).

Anyways, if I won the lottery I would hire a team to make a mini-series (maybe for the sci-fi channel?) based WORD BY WORD on the book. The way Einstein and Travis meet, all of the k-9 human interactions; the way they meet Nora, the entire book and how it flows compared to any of the movies is just.. sad and pathetic.

So, I wish I won the lottery....


Seriously... if you have "Mein Kampf" or the communist manifesto - sit down and go through them rather then wasting time on this movie!!! It's a shame that one of the world's best fiction author (Dean Koontz) will have one of his best books turned into a movie as awful as this one. The acting is terrible, the story is so predictable and stupid (not at all like the book), and it's just BORING. All the excitement is over after 5 min. and you'd wish you had never made it to the video store...


There is no aspect of this movie that I was not completely embarrassed to behold.

30 minutes: Welcome to Thailand. Thailand is beautiful. Buddha is our only advocate. We are Thai. We love Thailand sooo much. Thailand is great. We are peaceful.

30 minutes: Random thugs out of nowhere capture a village, annihilating 100 children in the process.

10 minutes: Remaining villagers wailing. But whatever can they do?

30 minutes: THEY REMEMBER THEY ARE THAI. They listen to the Thai national anthem. They squeeze images of the good king of Thailand in their sweaty fist and say patriotic things. Then a village of completely twiggy people have some insane battle versus thugs with automatic rifles. The villagers are not unarmed, however. They attack with daunting weapons such as wicker balls, grapefruit, and a tea kettle. And of course, there is a dopey villager running back and forth through the carnage waving the Thai flag.

45 seconds: Character development and crying.

NEGATIVE TWELVE STARS


An absolute waste of time. This kind of movie reminds me of the late 70's early 80's American movies. A lot of violence some cool stunts and lots of stuff blowing up. The main thing is that they forgot about passable dialog (Some loss in translation too I imagine) it is just plain embarrassing. I imagine in about 20 some years or so their films will actually have a decent story w/the cool fight sequences. But until then the Weinstein brothers will continue to bring these pretty stupid films to other Audiences other than just the Thai nation. I am probably being harsh, but just like all kinds of white rappers showed up after Eminem took the world by storm, so has some other wannabes trying to become the next Tony Jaa, (even though his success here in the states has at the very least been limited) Granted this kid did O.K. but I doubt anything will translate to money in the future. I imagine if I was 12 and had never done martial arts myself, I would think this was just the best. But just as I thought "Karate Kid" was amazing when I was a kid (I laugh at the lameness of the fight sequences now) I imagine most adults will laugh at just about everything in this film. Oh if you do decide to jump into these murky movie waters, whatever you do, either mute the English dubbing (it's some of the worst I have ever heard, especially in this day and age)or listen to the Thai track and read the subtitles. Yes the dubbing is that bad, and the generic Rock music is torture too.


Oh, I have an idea. Let's build a village, put some people there and then some evil men who shoot them. But here is the thing: They have athletes among them who will fight. Oh, and in the end let's blow up the village. That way we don't even have to tidy up a set. Let's call it ''Born to Fight''. If you want to see one and a half hour of people getting killed then this is your movie. They didn't waste time for something called a storyline or dialogue. OK given, the stunts are brilliant, probably some of the best ever filmed. But if I only want to see stunts I watch a broadcast of a martial arts tournament. The ''actors/actresses'' have nothing more than a few lines before the killing starts. No character depth, no development and no acting. There are probably 15 minutes without killing, not even done ''nicely''. You can't even memorize the names before the ''action'' starts. Also, I don't call it fighting but killing, on purpose. The movie is like an ego-shooter, like a scene from Rambo. The basic story was actually OK and you could see that the actors/actresses would have been able to act if given the chance. The characters just didn't interact at all with each other. Everyone says hi and that's it. Bum, bam, shot people falling down, an explosion here and there. The End. What a waste.


I'm not asking for much here. The plot doesn't have to make sense (communist boy-scouts sending crystal-clear broadband hostage-killing footage out of some dingy village and patriotic fervor that would make Rambo 3 blush), as long as the lead dude is kicking bad guy after bad guy in all the places it's supposed to hurt. The exposition doesn't to be need more than 10 minutes at the most. Even cheesy songs are allowed (this is Asian cinema, after all), as long as they're during the love or the grieving segments. But what I do ask for is good ACTION.

Quick plot rundown: Main guy witnesses cop partner die in line of duty at the hands of evil general. Main guy sad, so to forget his sorrow, main guy goes to poor village with sister to hand out sports memorabilia. Coincidentally, evil general's No.1 henchman & terrorist gang decide to hold poor village hostage so government will release evil general. Somehow, a nuclear missile is also involved...

Here, I expected to see some kick-ass Thai boxing. I didn't. Maybe Ong-Bak set the standard too high. But I should've known when I looked the lead dude up and saw that he was in Ong-Bak's credit nether regions as 'bodyguard #4'. Sure, he could do the flip kicks, throw his opponents into pottery, and every once in a while deliver the crushing elbow-drop, but it all just falls flat. Part of the fun of watching the fighting in Ong-Bak was the sense that Tony Jaa is a real badass. He didn't need to hit people more than the viewer's sense of belief found necessary. He was almost untouchable - seeing him dodge limbs and obstacles was just as fun as seeing the beatings. This dude, on the other hand, should've been dead after the first 30-45 minutes (which became the most infuriating plot hole). Pretty much every time someone tried to hit him, they did. His kicks were weak and flabby-looking. His skill truly was at the level of an extra. If they had made the balance-beam chick the star, the whole thing would've been 3 times as entertaining. She had the most gracefully choreographed scenes in the entire movie. For those who absolutely need to see this, fear not: there were plenty of explosions, gun violence, and moving vehicle stunts. But just like the fighting, all of it felt forced and had no heart. Worst part is, they absolutely tried, which brought the whole movie to a comedic pitch not too long after the mayhem started. I wish I could rip on individual scenes, but that would be considered spoiling...

In conclusion: Tony Jaa is back to kick some ass in Tom Yum Goong, so we can all forget about this rip-off and send it to the DVD bins in supermarkets and Walmarts where it belongs.


I give this 1 star out of 10.

This is the second movie I have seen from Thailand and so far, it has been a mixed picture. The first movie from Thailand that I saw was Ong-Bak. That movie had terrible story and terrible acting but the action was so awesome that it overwhelmed the terrible acting and story. The action in this movie, however, could not compensate for the terrible story and terrible acting. Don't get me wrong, the action by itself, was good but definitely not enough to overwhelm the other deficiencies in this movie. I am just glad a friend of my loaned me his copy of this movie because if I had to pay money to see it, I would be really incensed.

The story is about a drug kingpin who is captured by the main character, who is a police officer. Despondent over his partner's death during the capture, he accompanies a group athletes who go to some shanty village to distribute goods for the needy. However, as fate would have it, the followers of the kingpin storm into the village and take them as hostage for their leader's release. The villagers take as much as they can before they rise up and fight their occupiers.


CHET, played by bill paxton in a career starting role, is awesome. chet rules! he is the best part of the movie, and without him there is nothing to go on and it's a weak bratpack john hughes movie. the premise is interesting and fun to watch but it's sloppily done. i like that david lee roth had a part in making the girl's personality. i wish she'd have taken over the band instead of sammy 'mediocre' hagar. she is pretty (was?) but she's very annoying and her jaggerish lips get in the way when she talks and that accent is so thick. anthony michael hall is good but the story doesnt hold him up. i liked seeing robert downey jr. he is cool but looked too goofy for a bully; i think he walked off the set of 'back to school' and didnt change his clothes; or rather vice versa. there's a part in the movie where some bikers ride into the house of hall's buddy during a party and it's very dumb. the iatolla of rockinrolla from 'road warrior' (a movie that i refuse to rewatch because the dog dies) is in it and anthony hall and his buddy must fight them to be popular. but this is after the party is already destroyed by a giant atom bomb growing from the earth up into the house. dumb. but bill paxton is great especially when he is pointing his rife at anthony m. hall and his pretty blonde girlfriend, and he bangs hall's head with the nozzle and then bangs the girl in the head. we all want to be mean to hot chicks (out of our reach) and we can all relate to chet's character in a way, atleast we crazy, lonely, 80's reject people can...


When this movie first came out, the reviewer in my local newspaper began his review with "This offensive mess..." and finished by giving it an F minus. He was being way too generous. So was Leonard Maltin when he gave it 1 and 1/2 stars, although his use of the word "appalling" is pretty much on target. The boys wear jock straps on their heads; the sadistic older brother/military school cadet refers to the 2 main characters as donkey genitalia (not a direct quote; I'm too much of a gentleman to use the correct word here and if I did use it, it would probably be expurgated); and one character gets turned into a three-foot-tall clod of steaming manure (how symbolic). The TV series on which this movie was based was marginally better; possibly because the censors were on duty. John Hughes wrote this thing in two days? I'm not surprised. This is the worst piece of garbage I've ever seen. Take my advice and pass this by; THERE IS NOTHING WORTH SEEING IN THIS WRETCHED EXCUSE FOR A MOVIE!


I am afraid that this is without any shadow of a doubt the very worst film I have ever seen.

It really is truly appalling and has no redeeming features whatsoever. I am certainly not averse to watching junk, indeed some films are enjoyable precisely because they are bad. But this was is quite unbelievable.

The acting is utterly abysmal - particularly Kelly LeBrock, who is totally talent-free. The storyline stinks to high heaven and is so politically incorrect it would make even the most severe male chauvinist blush. The dialogue is truly ghastly and made me cringe on many occasions. "Time Out" said that it was as though two adolescents had been let loose with a camera.

I dare say many will think I am taking it too seriously. Believe me I am not. It is obviously meant to be a joke - it's just that it fails dreadfully and does not seem too aware of the miserably obnoxious underlying message it conveys.


Lonely teenagers Wyatt (Mitchell-Smith) and Gary (Hall) decide to make a woman that fits all their requirements from a computer, only to find not everything fits perfectly.

There were two words that attracted me to this high school comedy, John and Hughes. The mastermind behind the conceptual excellence of skiving school to live in Ferris Bueller's day off to the film that showcased how teenagers really felt about their suffocating parents in the Breakfast club, the man seemed to have his knowledge spot on regarding teenage life.

What emerges is a pretty standard and very degrading depiction of lonely lust, containing two teenagers who are the good guys, but are hard pushed to maintain that.

Anthony Michael Hall, a hero from the Breakfast Club, feels repetitive and loud in another role for Hughes. Mitchell-Smith likewise feels weak and a stereotype of high school repression and against Hall, we have the most conventional and boring comedy duo ever mastered, which is a great shame for a director and writer who also created some of the best teenage comedy ever.

The premise for the story sounds promising, two lads attempt to break science through some technological mastery in an attempt to fulfil their lust on a weekend away from their parents.

So after some degrading and embarrassing perversion by the lead duo on cheerleaders and a head turner away from dropped pants do the duo retreat to their sanctuary and form an hyperbole of illogical science to fulfil their uses and gratifications. Through some fast flowing wires and a bemused science guard to the pair get their just deserts.

One thing John Hughes usually does perfectly is introductions and Kelly LeBrock's opening shot is the equivalent of Megan Fox in Transformers, a slow panning from her legs upwards in a small Barbie styled costume, a beautiful introduction which is maintained through the nest few scenes as she jumps into the shower with the two lads, uses provocative gestures such as late drinking and kissing practice to keep any horny male teenager hooked.

Certainly LeBrock hits the nail on the head, acting flirtatious and forward to justify her character as perfect female, until the inevitable outcome the plot always has in mind, there is more to a person than looks tag.

Through some careful shots and repetitive music we see the story pan out as any other romantic comedy would and there are minimal surprises to generate a good watch, particularly when the humour is gross out and shamefully degrading to the actors.

The final nail in the coffin is the change in personalities of the final act and as predictable as the coming of next year will have you shaking your head.

Certainly not too much consequence came from this film as there were Ferris Bueller's amongst others to follow and create a reputation of teenage comedy mastery.


I don't understand how two teenage boys that put paper into machine instantly come out with a woman. It doesn't make any sense at all to me and that was the whole plot of the movie. All the boys wanted was to have a girlfriend and she ended up being ten years older than them. Plus they didn't know what to do with her. Then why did they create her in the first place? If I were Lisa, I would be running away from those two as fast as I could. The music is horrible and the special effects are the cheesiest I have ever seen. Then the piano comes out of the chimney and I don't have a clue what that has to do with making a human woman out of paper. This is one of the dumbest plots I have ever seen. Take it from Milhouse, nerds are smart.