THE BEST MAN is a hip and sexy re-thinking of films like THE BIG CHILL and RETURN OF THE SEACAUCUS SEVEN, this time with an African American cast. The film centers on a group of college buddies who are reuniting for a wedding. Things get sticky when one of the group has written an about to be published novel, where the characters are just thinly disguised versions of his friends and how revelations in this book alter and shake the foundations of these relationships. Taye Diggs is attractive as Harper, the author of the book and the best man at the wedding; Morris Chestnut plays a professional football player and the groom; Nia Long is sexy and funny as Jordan, a TV journalist/Oprah wannabe who hopes to rekindle a romance with Harper at the wedding; Harold Perrineau plays a grade school teacher caught in a stranglehold of a relationship with an emasculating female (Melissa DeSousa); Terrence Howard steals every scene he is in as this group's voice of reality; Sanaa Lathan plays Harper's fiancée who can't get Harper to commit and Monica Calhoun is the bride who is at the center of the explosion caused by the book. There's nothing terribly original here, but the cast is charismatic and works very hard at making the material fresh and appealing. It's predictable, but still fun is to be had here.


THE BEST OF THE BEST This movie is fast becoming a classic. It was well written, acted and the cast was beautiful. Though the cast was of African American actors, this is movie for all ethnic backgrounds.It tells of a group of college friends that reunite for a wedding, but the wedding itself is not the story, its a semi-fictitious book written by one of the friends. Why is the book so paramount? Its actually a true account of events that had occurred between the friends when enrolled in college. The movie also gives an accurate depiction of quality of the up and coming African Americans in the entertainment industry. Everyone did a masterful job! I could not imagine anyone else playing in their roles. The directing was great and the ending was expected but moving. I cried!Terrance Howard should have been nominated for an award for best supporting actor. He made this film as realistic as your reunions with your families and friends. Don't miss this!


Taye Diggs plays Harper Stewart, a writer who is just about to release a new book full of uncomfortable similarities between himself, his friends and the characters contained within. Can he stop people recognising the thinly veiled truth as he prepares to be the best man at his best friend's funeral or will past betrayals finally be brought to the surface at the most unfortunate of times? On top of that, his friends have their own problems and neuroses and Harper has to decide if he is finally ready for commitment with his girlfriend, who he loves very much but seems to keep distant from in certain areas.

Yes, it's a romantic comedy-drama full of moments that we've seen done before and while unoriginality is not a cinematic sin (or, good grief, we would rarely see any film released in cinemas) it isn't a good thing when everything has been done BETTER than the movie you're currently watching.

The cast is appealing enough (Diggs is fine, Morris Chestnut is very good, Nia Long is lovely, Terrence Howard is a standout and Harold Perrineau is great as the one "whipped" male of the group) and even the supporting members do well (Regina Hall is cuter than she's ever been and Sanaa Lathan makes the most of her limited character . . . the girl that Diggs should realise he wants to keep hold of) but this movie limps along thanks to a dull script and flat direction with nothing to really immerse you in the movie's environment.

A romantic comedy-drama with unfunny "comedy", romance you don't care for and drama that starts to unfold before you even get to know who's involved in it all. When the ball does get rolling you can already see how things are going to end up. A poor show.

See this if you like: Brown Sugar, The Brothers, Morris Chestnut.


Classy romantic comedies about African-Americans that neither deal drugs nor go on booty calls were unusual fare for Hollywood in the pre-Tyler Perry era. "Waiting to Exhale" (1995) charted this change of attitude in the depiction of blacks that caught on in later movies like "Soul Food," "Eve's Bayou," "Love Jones," and "The Wood." Director Malcolm D. Lee's witty, sophisticated, but dramatically well-rounded yarn "The Best Man" is the latest to capitalize on this trend. Despite some profanity and raunchy sexual allusions, "The Best Man" endorses marriage, fidelity and religious values. Nobody gets shot, stabbed, or coked up the nose. The characters qualify as intelligent, positive, upscale role models and stereotypes appear conspicuously absent in this seriocomic account of a weekend college reunion before a classmate's wedding.

Happily, "The Best Man" shuns racism either as a political issue or as a narrative theme. Actually, this lighthearted but occasionally down to earth comedy of errors looks and sounds like something Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw might have penned. The point is that "The Best Man" emerges as a polished mainstream comedy where the characters are first and foremost people with all of the foibles and frailties of mankind. A strong ensemble cast headed by charismatic Taye Diggs, who won over audiences in "When Stella Got Her Groove Back," distinguishes writer Lee's accomplished directorial debut. Unlike his famous, more often controversial brother Spike Lee, Malcolm sticks to the story and avoids tangents.

Chicago author Harper Stewart (Taye Diggs of "Go") has just written his first novel. Appropriately entitled 'Unfinished Business,' Stewart's about to be published story has been picked up by Oprah Winfrey's book club. Life couldn't be better for the novice novelist. The froth of Harper's success fizzles when he learns that his ex-college flame, BET-TV producer Jordan Armstrong (Nia Long of "Friday") has circulated an advance copy of his semi-autobiographical effort among his close chums. When Harper arrives in New York City for the weekend festivities surrounding the impending marriage of football star Lance Sullivan (Morris Chestnut of "Half Past Dead") and Mia Morgan (Monica Calhoun of "Love & Basketball"), he finds himself up to his ears in hot water.

Naturally, Harper's friends have perused his novel. They bicker about who he used as models for his fictional characters. Things come to a boil when Lance suspects the worst. He believes that his sweetheart Mia may have bedded down with Harper, the guy he chose to serve as his best man. Reluctantly, Harper confesses, and the once philandering football star blackens his eye at their stag party and then threatens to throw him off the balcony. Lance calls off the wedding without warning Mia and then storms out of the party. Harper realizes grimly that he must patch things up. The next day everybody shows up at the church in their finest garb, but poor Mia has no idea why Lance is tardy.

"The Best Man" is the equivalent of Terry McMillan for guys. They form a closely-knit group of friends who have achieved success of their own right after college. Predictably, their reunion sparks old rivalries and bitter jealousies. Harper finds himself in trouble long before he arrives in the Big Apple to celebrate with his friends. Just as his publishing career is gaining momentum, Harper's girlfriend goads him about a commitment that he balks at giving. Quentin (Terrence Howard of "Iron Man") is a cynical career drifter who cannot find a woman for himself but who doles out advice to Julian Murch (Harold Perrineau, Jr., of "The Matrix Reloaded") about how to deal with his prima donna girlfriend Shelby (Melissa De Sousa of "Biker Boyz"). Finally, Lance has decided to settle down now that he has inked a $5-million contract to play for the New York Giants.

"The Best Man" towers as a four-star romantic comedy in the tradition of "The Big Chill" with characters who never get short-changed and an ending that is agreeably believable.


I have been looking for the overnight bag Morris Chestnut had at the bachelor party in the movie. Someone please help me find it!!!! The movie was a must have on video and the cast was excellent! Nia Long was gorgeous!!! No matter how many times I watch it it's like the first. Are there anymore "black " films like this coming next year? Did this film receive many awards? How old is Nia Long in this movie? The female that slept w/ Terrance Howard was gorgeous also. What are her next movie project?What is her name? The girls at the party was fine!!!! Does the director have anymore projects pending? I give the entire movie an A+!!!!!!


I enjoyed this movie. The film well depicted interpersonal relationships in life. All of the guys were different, yet complimented one another. Although the movie was about four Afro-American college buddies, however, I think that everyone could relate to the episodes that often lead up to the wedding. Some are hilarious, and some can be disastrous! The female stars were good, as well. I enjoyed the last scene...everyone could finally exhale and truly have a great time dancing. Nice movie! A lot of fun! Reminds me somewhat of my sister's last wedding! It was 15 years ago, and the event is still fresh in my mind. The actors are a great group of young stars to be. Hope to see more of all of them in films.


"The Best Man" has one of the most visually attractive female casts that I've seen in recent years. Not only are they eye-candy, but also strong female roles played by excellent actresses. Often hard to find is a film that presents both so well. Equally impressive was the bond between the main four male characters who, while different, are all intellectual and successful men. The combination of the two gave me the real feeling of quality characters.

As a big fan of Sanaa Lathan and Nia Long, I heavily looked forward to seeing them together in a film, but I was surprised by many other outstanding actors and actresses who really gave the film its boost. Morris Chesnut was excellent as the groom-to-be, Monica Calhoun excellent as the bride-to-be, and Taye Diggs did a very nice job with a softer and more reserved character than many of his other roles.

A very interesting script, a quality soundtrack, and well played roles made this film a winner for me. In some ways I was almost disappointed by parts of the ending of the film, but it did not really affect my overall enjoyment. Great movie - 8/10


Taye Diggs makes a second dazzling preformance. He is the real deal. Morris Chestnut enterance was one of the best on screen. Nia Long shows why she has few equals. Terrence Howard gave a stellar preformance as Q. The cast performance was stunning. The only film that I never wanted to be an end to. Hopefully, Malcom Lee will do it again. A must see film in an industry full of lilly white trash.


This film is full of great characters, who are rounded out into real people,and despite any flaws in them, they were all still likable. It was nice to see all of the cast interact with each other as if they haven't seen each other for years. It's a just a great movie, and its replay value is above a lot of other movies out right now. Malcolm Lee has done a fine job with this film. Go ahead and see it! Now!


I never can find that many movies about black people. The ones I find are about black criminals or black people acting stupid. This is one of the first movies that I have found that are about black people being successful, and it was funny too!


This is the one of the few movies that I've ever enjoyed in my life. The cast is absolutely brilliant, the sound track is good. I bought the sound track, the song by Marc Nelson & Beyonce fits perfectly in the movie. Great one !


After hearing what a great movie this was I was looking forward to watching it. Not only did the movie fall far short of what the critics promised I found most of it to be unwatchable. We ended up fast forwarding through the movie to find out what happened. Definitely a movie to be skipped.


What a relief after the deluge of gravity-defying and morally reckless athletes that careen through commercials and the evening news. What a release from the exploitative and predictable portrayals of African-Americans in films such as Black & White, Any Given Sunday, I Got the Hookup, and Next Friday.

Finally, An intelligent thoughtful film about articulate, intelligent, upwardly mobile black people. A romance with enough sparkling humor to have me laughing aloud though I watched the film alone. In the vein of Waiting To Exhale but vastly superior to that film, we have young African-Americans struggling with love and friendship. Lee is able in elegant fashion to fulfill the greatest promise of film, which is to present a captivating fantasy that teaches us something about ourselves.

There were believable performances in every major role with Howard and Lathan leaving the pack. Beautifully directed and moving until the end, I can't recommend this film highly enough.


This movie was warm, funny, sexy, and smart. Mr. Lee's directorial debut was a success! The dialog was delivered perfectly and the actors were made for the roles. I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to sit back, relax and have a good time with the one they love.


While watching this film, I kept wondering how this ever made it past the pitching stage. I keep seeing the writer in the room saying, "But this really happened," for the plot appears to be a lame adaptation of some post-college celebrity's life experience.

What actually happens in this movie is unclear, and not made any more clear by the jagged, amateur editing and directing which (maybe for the best) distracts us from the first half hour of the film. Thence on, the viewer is subjected to a reunion of college buddies getting together for the wedding of a famous friend. Doubt and betrayal appear and disappear magically, as in all buddy-wedding films, but instead of adding to the cliched plot, Best Man takes away from it, destroying the charm and levity of the original. What is left is nonsensical anger, contrived forgiveness, and a waste of time.


I thoroughly enjoyed the entire movie and all of the characters. But I have to admit...I went back to see it two more times (so far) because of Terrence Dashon Howard. What can I say...those eyes and especially that smile! Oooooh, that smile! I saw the movie for the first time less than two weeks ago and saw it for the third time tonight. I'll be waiting for when it goes on sale. Please hurry!!


Malcolm Lee hit the nail right on the head with this movie. The casting was perfect, everyone did a beautiful job with this movie. Taye Diggs was able to show more of his dynamic acting abilities. Nia Long who played as Jordan Armstrong acted the part as though she lived it every second. Nia is definitely a work of art. Morris Chestnut really impressed me. He is a very talented actor, and after this movie he should be offered a wide variety of acting roles. So, go out and treat yourself to a well produced movie, you'll definitely leave out feeling happy and satisfied that you did.


This film was the best movie that Malcolm Lee produced. Nia Long, Taye Diggs, and other supporting actors and actresses have performed their roles so excellent that should be a part 2 to this film. If you haven't already, get the soundtrack to this film it sounds wonderful.


This movie is very well written and acted out. Taye Diggs does a wonderful job as does Nia Long and the other supporting characters in this cast. Malcolm Lee's directory debut is a good one. I was surprised at how good this movie was. Definitely worth the money to see this one.


This is an excellent movie. Well written, directed and acted. One of the few movies well worth the price of admission. See it, and enjoy... I have no idea how a movie such as this could receive ratings of 1. Which account for 10% of the total votes, obviously these people did not actually see the movie, and must have a hidden motive behind such a rating.


The Best Man was a good film. It was very enjoyable to watch. It was refreshing to see very beautiful African-American people on screen. They were not only intelligent, educated, goal-oriented and purposeful, the films portrayal did not conform to the typical white "romantic comedies." The film has been criticized by some as being too black or ethnic. The film has been criticized for using the term "n***ger." I found the style of communication among the gentlemen in the film as cool and laid back. There was something very eloquent in the way the characters carried themselves. I believe the film would have lost it's integrity if it had conformed to a "Notting Hill" like appeal. It would have made the film seem very artificial and pretentious. Rather, the fact that the film did not assimilate to a mainstream romantic comedy genre should be considered a credit. It shows that African-Americans can be intelligent and purposeful in life and yet remain integral to black culture. The film included humor, sentiments, and expressions proudly exemplified in black America. But then again some people like pretentious and artificial films. Finally, I think this film is more important for white Americans then black Americans. For black America it finally provides some equality to how the black American experience is being presented on film (not one gun or bag of cocaine). However, mainstream American society has an internalized and very limited view of what it means to be an African-American. And anytime an African-American escapes outside of the box (as this film graceful did), it holds he or she under scrutiny. Hopeful for white America the film will help de-internalize the mal-depiction of African-Americans in Hollywood and society. And then maybe through these films both blacks and whites can find some common ground and truly co-exist with mutual love and respect. I hope this film creates a standard for black film making. It looks like Malcolm Lee has started off on the right foot. I apologize if my comments sound too political. I know its just a film:-)


This was a story of love, lust, imperfection and redemption.

It was very funny at times, a tear-jerker at other times. Well acted. Reminded me a bit of the 1998 film "Woo" though this film was a LOT better. The story remains unpredictable throughout the movie.

Definitely a fun date movie.


For a few weeks now I've expressed interest in wanting to see "The Best Man." As a white male, when I said this, most people gave me a look as if I just said, "I'm thinking about investing money in 'Phat Beach II'!" There seems to be a belief that "The Best Man" is not a movie for me because I'm white.

If you were skeptical about seeing "The Best Man" because you're not black, ignore those fillings and go see the movie. It's slow at points, and yes, it does have some tired cliches in it, but it was nice to see a movie where people talked and developed relationships, regardless of their skin color.

"The Best Man" is not a black film. Yes, it stars black people and was made by black people, but it's more a film about one's friendships and how they develop as one grows older. Don't miss it because you don't think it's meant for you.


To say the least, Malcolm Lee's "The Best Man" is the most respectable African-American oriented movie to be released since "Soul Food" and "Love Jones." The movie portrays it's characters in such a way that people of all ethnicities can go home with the satisfaction that they may know someone exactly like someone in the film. It is a great movie that leaves viewers with a great feeling, and provides hope that the African-American film genre has risen above sophomoric story-lines of "Boyz in the Hood."


I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. This is more of what Black America probably wishes to see. These are the types of movies that keep it real for African Americans and it allows dreams to come true. We see enough of fake "Black" America on the news. This was one of the best movies I have seen in a while. And I go to the movies a lot. Kudos to Malcolm Lee and his thoughtfulness.


The movie is great fun, flaws or no flaws. I just sat back and enjoyed it from start to finish. I have seen Travels three times and still think it's great fun. I think it's a movie that will seem better and better with time. Any movie that remains entertaining after repeated views has got to have something worthy in it.


Dull stuffy bachelor meets flamboyant eccentric aunt, who seeks to show him the world's pleasures. Sound familiar? While based on a Graham Greene novel, "Travels with My Aunt" plays on screen like a subdued version of "Auntie Mame." Unlike the rowdy broadness of the Patrick Dennis play and the Rosalind Russell film, George Cukor's adaptation of the Greene work tries to be high-toned and literary, while simultaneously striving to seem madcap and funny. Unfortunately, the film succeeds more in its pretentiousness than it does in its comedy.

Alec McCowen is fine as Henry Pulling, the bank clerk who fusses with dahlias in his spare time and fumes prissily when cannabis is mixed with the ashes of his mother. Henry is a prime candidate for an Auntie Mame, although he's a bit beyond his formative years. Henry's out-of-character dalliance aboard the Orient Express with Cindy Williams, as a young drifter on her way to Katmandu, should have been cut. The tryst adds nothing to the plot and only confuses perceptions about Henry. Maggie Smith, at times stunningly garbed in luscious gowns by Anthony Powell, plays Aunt Augusta for all she's worth, and Maggie is certainly worth a great deal. Although the actress is clearly too old to play the younger Augusta and too young, even with the age makeup, to play the elder woman, Smith is always fascinating to watch. Despite her mannerisms, which at times overwhelm the characterization, Smith is generally convincing and should have taken a shot at playing Mame Dennis in either the comedy or the musical version of "Auntie Mame."

Although "Travels with My Aunt" was beautifully filmed by Douglas Slocombe against scenic splendor that stretches from Istanbul to Venice to Spain, the pace is often sluggish, and the plot preposterous. The proceedings are propelled by Augusta's need to raise the ransom money to rescue a former lover, whose minor appendages are being sent to her one by one as a warning. However, coincidences abound, plot holes deepen, and threads are left hanging all over. Without McCowen and Smith, the film would be little more than a stylish, if soporific, travelogue.


I was disappointed in this as so much is just great.

Cindy Williams is terrific as a hippy-dippy train passenger. Alec McCowan is wonderful as the bewildered strait-laced nephew who gradually allows himself to cut loose from his narrowly defined life. It was great to hear and see a much different Lou Gossett, with outrageous robes and an odd African accent that works in this. The location shooting was beautifully done, particularly in Paris.

Maggie Smith's performance (and I am a fan of Maggie's) was just too loud, too dramatic, just way too over the top, so that when her sad side emerged, it came across as equally phony. Her makeup as a very much older woman is flawless and when she played her younger self, it was a much more controlled performance.

I think Maggie could have used better direction here. A great story that at some time needs to be filmed again. Alec Mc Cowan's performance makes it highly watchable. He gets is just right.

I gave it a 7 out of 10.


This is a pretty odd movie that mixes drama with adventurous elements and yet somehow works.

The movie is definitely entertaining to watch, with a good cast, some fine comedy moments and a good solid adventurous story. Nothing too big or fancy, just a decent enjoyable movie quality movie to kill some time with.

The movie has a perfectly adventurous way of storytelling, meaning that lots of places around the world are being visited in short amount of time and many different characters come and go.

The movie obviously had some great production values, since the movie is set all around the globe, from Paris to Istanbul and everything around it and between. The movie is also looking with some lively, deliberately over-the-top looking sets and costumes (both nominated for an Oscar with the costumes even eventually winning.). But what else was to expect from a George Cukor movie. The man who is known for director cheerful and good musical mostly in the '50's and '60's including "My Fair Lady" but also comedies, like "Born Yesterday" and well known serious drama classics as well, such as "Gaslight", "The Philadelphia Story" and for some part, before he was booted from the set, also "Gone with the Wind".

He mixed all those previous styles he had worked with before in this movie. The end result is a quite unique and one of a kind movie, that works fine on the adventurous level, as well as the comical and dramatic one.

The movie is well cast with Maggie Smith in an absolutely splendid role. A role that even got her an Oscar nomination. She also had some great chemistry with Alec McCowen, who is obviously the least known actor of the main cast. His role even got him a Golden Globe nomination. Abolutely great and humorously entertaining was Louis Gossett Jr. in his role. He not only shows that he is a great actor but also how well he can handle the comedy genre. His character provides the movie with the most and biggest laughs. Too bad that his career has derailed so badly the last couple of decades, ever since his Oscar winning role for "An Officer and a Gentleman", from 1982.

But no, when you look at this movie you'll realize that it also is far from a perfect one. The story gets a bit too odd at times and the storytelling is just off. The movie also too quickly ends some potentially interesting or amusing plot lines and the different adventurous/comedy and drama elements don't always go together well.

Nevertheless it was a movie I mostly enjoyed watching and I wouldn't mind viewing it again.

A good entertaining movie, that definitely deserves to be seen.

7/10


I'm fine with filmmakers adapting books to the screen and doing what they need to do to make the source material cinematic. But I'm always mystified by filmmakers who adapt a book to the screen and change so much that it's nearly a completely different story. I wonder why they wanted to adapt the book in the first place if they felt that so much of it was inadequate.

This is a terrible adaptation of the wonderful Graham Greene novel, that even a dynamic performance from Maggie Smith in the title role cannot save. George Cukor directs this film like it's a relic from a different decade. Yes, the main character is stodgy and stuffy but that doesn't mean the movie has to be. And by the time the ending has rolled around, all vestiges of the source material have vanished completely, an unforgivable crime in my opinion when working with an author as great as Greene.

Grade: D


Maggie Smith is the aunt in "Travels with my Aunt," a 1972 film also starring Alec McCowen, Lou Gossett Jr. and Robert Stephens, and is directed by George Cukor.

The movie centers around an old woman, Augusta (Smith) approaching her nephew Henry (McCowen) at his mother's funeral and pulling him into her web. She's trying to raise money to ransom her current boyfriend, Mr. Visconti, from kidnappers as she is receiving his body parts one by one. Before stuffy Henry knows it, she's suggested he steal money from the bank (he won't), his mother's ashes have cannabis in them, and they are on the Orient Express shooting across Europe. As they travel, he learns more about his aunt's life as she tells her story in flashback, including when she first met Mr. Visconti.

This is a beautifully produced film, with gorgeous color, costumes, and scenery. Despite the production values and the cast, there is something not quite there with the story. Part of it is because we have no idea what's true and what isn't. Something like the Chinatown she's my sister/my daughter, Henry is either Augusta's son, her nephew, or she just lied to him at the funeral because she needed someone with access to money. Her stories of men, her time in the convent school and as a high-class call girl are either true, embellished, or complete lies. Mr. Visconti is either Henry's father or he isn't. Given the timing of this announcement - when Henry is wavering about pulling a scam - one wonders. So while we may like Augusta and think she's funny, she can't anchor the story.

Lou Gossett, Jr. plays Augusta's wacky assistant who's into everything from drugs to mysticism, with a personality that can change in a second. He is hilarious. Alec McCowen plays the uptight Henry perfectly, secretly loving the adventure and the worlds it opens up to him while being a nervous wreck at each new moment. Smith's real-life husband, Robert Stephens, is great as Visconti. He was a fantastic actor who should have done more films. Cindy Williams is very good as a young, free-living woman Henry meets on the train.

Maggie Smith is one of my favorite actresses. I am so privileged to have seen her on Broadway in "Lettice and Lovage," in which she was side-splittingly funny yet tugs at the heartstrings toward the end of the play. She's a phenomenal stage actress. Maybe a little big for the movies. Personally, I like performances that take a lot of risks, and her characterization of Augusta was out there. After all, wasn't Augusta? If we go on the premise that she's exaggerating and lying when it suits her, I think Smith's take on Augusta is excellent.

Katharine Hepburn was the first choice for this role. I frankly think the film, for all the faults it has, would have crashed and burned with Hepburn. She was a fabulous actress and as a young woman an expert comedienne with superb timing and rapid-fire delivery, but I think in this role she would not have had the necessary flamboyance. While Smith didn't necessarily pull off the youth in the flashbacks, Hepburn, 27 years older than Smith, couldn't have approached them or being a high-class call girl. I think seeing another actress do this role would make one appreciate Smith's contribution even more.

All in all, a film with some fun moments and fine performances, definitely worth seeing.


I have always thought that Cindy Williams was a fine comedic actress I have all 178 episodes of Laverne & shirley on tape. she was just marvellous as Touly in this movie. Good work Cindy! Also liked the scenery. It was a very Nice movie from a visual standpoint.


This was a bit different than one expected. There was no nonsense, no tongue-in-cheek humor or special-effects just for the sake of it: this was simply a humans vs. dragons story taking place in the future. No laughs and nothing hokey, which is what I expected. They played it straight, simply as a fight story between the two parties.

Yes, there were credibility problems with the story but overall, it was good escapist adventure. The dragons were realistic-looking, the scenery dreary but the story interesting and intense in spots.

I wouldn't buy it, but I would definitely recommend it if you are looking for a night of adventure on film. You could do a whole lot worse, especially with two young actors who have arrived as stars: Christian Bale and Matthew McConnaughey.


Sure, it was cheesy and low budget, but the indomitable Rob Bowman didn't pull any punches in this futuristic drama about dragons. Giving a scientific edge to a creature based in fantasy, this film proved to be a rather refreshing step in science fiction, which means it won't be a well received one. Even if this film barely makes its money back, at least it leaves the door open for other fantastic ideas in the science fiction genre.

As for the film, the technical side was excellent. Bowman, a former television director proves he can do just as well with a 50 million dollar budget (?) and a tough to sell idea. Both Christian Bale and Matthew McConaughey were believable as care taking heroes. Their bipolar dynamic was especially excellent, creating tension not just in beliefs but also in culture and devotion to country. McConaughey was especially good as Van Zant (which was well cast, considering he is an actual southerner), bringing a role to his resume which I had never seen. All in all, a decent film to watch. 7/10


This is the best post-apocalyptic action film since THE ROAD WARRIOR. Everything about it works: the story, the acting, the sets, the special effects. It amazes me that this film never found it's audience. I think it's fantastic.


The previews for this movie did not really interest or impress me at all. In fact, I went to this movie only half-interested with a friend who claimed that it would be a good movie. The PG rating worried me, and I was afraid it would be another poorly done movie. I mean, dragons in the future??

However, the previews didn't really say anything about the great acting, touching scenes, and great overall story and concept. What a surprise this movie was! Matthew McConnaughy does a great job, and I could only really half-believe it was him through the whole movie! He plays such an interesting character ... and then the highly rated Christian Bale lives up to his previous acting job... a brilliant performance on his part.

I really was impressed with this movie. It's a wonderful post-apocalyptic movie that explains the demise of the dinosaurs, and brings a whole new element to the evolution and recycling of life on planet Earth. Everything in this movie was great, and sci-fi fantasy fans, you MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!!

A few complaints though, no nothing too bad really.. just nitpicky: 1) a poor directing decision on filming parts of the dragon's eyesight perspective; this kind of technique is shabby, but luckily, it was for only 2 quick shots. 2) They should have explained how the tanks and helicopters get their fuel. 3) The end line was a little silly, something to do with evolution? Huh? 4) Where did all the female dragons go at the end? They just seem to dissapear... maybe an extra 2 minute scene there could have helped to explain the final demise of the dragons.

Overall, this movie is a winner! I'd rate it a solid 8/10 or so! See it! Finally, a post-apocalypse movie that is original, believeable, and doesn't have Kevin Costner in it!!!


Q: What's the difference between a fire-breathing dragon and a mid-summer movie?

A: One is a lumbering monster with a tiny brain that rains death and destruction, and the other is just a big lizard.

"Reign of Fire" is basically "Waterworld" with gasoline, with all that that entails. The story begins in London in 2008, when a tunnel crew unearths a massive underground chamber containing a dragon who, like most of us, is a little cranky first thing in the morning. The dragon, oddly, sleeps through the breaching of its den with a massive roaring drilling machine, and only wakes up when it is nudged. All of a sudden dragons are greeting the dawn all over the world and torching things with more reckless abandon than the U.S. Forest Service. The world is shortly destroyed, as we learn in a drawn-out opening sequence involving an unseen narrator writing in a journal, though he doesn't seem to be writing what he's saying. Most of the story takes place in 2020, where a society of refugees led by Quinn (Christian Bale) lives in a decrepit English castle, hiding from the dragons.

Things can only get so bad in Europe, of course, before the Americans show up, and show up they do, in an armored column of the Kentucky Irregulars, led by tattooed, bald nut case Denton Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey). He has a crazy idea that entails killing the boss dragon, since it is the only male dragon of the millions around the globe (must be a busy fella).

It's critical in post-apocalypse movies to establish a credible and vivid world, with a balance of the modern and the primitive, and a sense of how societal priorities have changed to suit the new reality. The classic case was the jury-rigged ingenuity of the "Mad Max" movies, where V8 engines were prized and gasoline more precious than life. They weren't necessarily realistic, but they were believable, because they established a set of rules and stuck by them. "Reign of Fire" is all out of whack in this department: the castle-dwellers are on the brink of starvation, but seem to have a limitless supply of electricity, without even a cursory explanation of where it comes from. As part of their security net, they use massive searchlights to monitor the night skies. Uh, way to keep a low profile, guys. Van Zan's people, on the other hand, apparently have an endless supply of fuel, enough to maintain a gas-guzzling tank and a helicopter(!) with again, no hint of how. Not to mention the fact that the world was supposedly nuked to get rid of the dragons, yet the word "radiation" never so much as passes anyone's lips. Plus, the movie can't even keep track of its own timeline.

All this could have been forgiven if we got some gut-wrenching army n' dragon smackdowns. Van Zan is supposed to be a fearsome dragon killer, so you would figure that he and his militia would have some savvy anti-dragon tactics figured out, from the painful lessons learned by the doomed struggle of the world's armies, but no. When they take on a dragon in the castle environs, their plan of attack is so suicidally ludicrous it would take a minor miracle to work just once. Without going into too much detail, it involves ground-based radar monitors, a high-tech computer tracking system, and skydivers, all to try and bring the beast to earth so McConaughey can kill it with an axe. Seriously.

The movie has its good points, though: it is capably directed by TV veteran Rob Bowman, who at least manages to imbue the ridiculous proceedings with some sort of dramatic tension. The climactic battle is pretty impressive, and there is an awesome scene of the dragon hovering over the militia while lines of tracers whip through the night sky and the smoke roils under his wings. Wolf Kroeger's production design isn't bad, the landscape is suitably scorched and desperate, though it looks like they might have swiped some sets from "Enemy at the Gates". The dragons themselves, of course, are amazing. They are truly mean hombres of fluid reptilian grace, whose jaws leak flaming liquid as they breathe. They (almost) convince you that they really could have destroyed the world, that they wouldn't have been swatted from the sky in two seconds by any F-18 pilot with half a brain and a rack of heat-seekers. But then you expect great effects from even the most dim-witted of movies these days.

Like most monster movies, "Reign of Fire" suffers badly when the monsters are offscreen catching a smoke break, and we are left with flat characters speaking silly dialogue in a tepid story. Bale is all right, though his character comes off as something of a weenie. McConaughey, meanwhile, has no chemistry with anyone or anything on screen. He's a buffed-out paramilitary psycho, but not an interesting one. You can't figure out how he became the leader (maybe he was the only one who could drive a tank). The most engaging character is Alex, the helicopter pilot, played by Izabella Scorupco (the luminous computer expert in "GoldenEye"), who isn't given much attention by the script, but who seems like she would have been a better choice to lead the militia. Too bad she wasn't the main character.

But the humans aren't the real stars anyway. I sort of picture a dragon, guzzling an Evian bottle of lighter fluid, and barking into his cell phone:

"I'm telling you, Marty, I've had it! C'mon, I can fly! I can breathe fire! That idiot T-Rex gets a three-picture deal with Spielberg, and what do I get? First "Dungeons & Dragons" and now THIS! Whaddaya doing to me? Get me a meeting with Katzenberg, or I torch Burbank."


I love this film. It shows the very human struggle to survive after they've been knocked from the top of the food chain. It blends medieval mythology with a modern era breathlessly. Definitely an original take on Man vs Dragon. Now to get this straight, this is a film about Humans, not about Dragons. The dragons merely supply the unique reason for the apocalypse. This is a film about the post-apocalypse, not the apocalypse. It's not about skies full of Dragons turning worldwide armed forces into ash on an epic scale. It's not about Dragons setting the world, quite literally, on fire. It's about after all that's happened.

Which is a shame this was advertised as a film about Dragons burning all life as we know it. Of course, everyone goes in expecting to see 90 minutes of Dragons destroying everything. If this had been advertised as a more human film about after these Dragons have completely wasted everything, I really think this could've been seen as a good film. It unfortunately set expectations high in the wrong sort of viewers by a mind-blowingly epic trailer.

Christian Bale, Gerard Butler and Matthew McConaughey all deliver their role superbly, and the script isn't as bad as it's made out to be either. The effects were great and the Dragons do look pretty realistic, to the point I almost believed this was a documentary. Okay, so there are some plot holes, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to fill those in yourself. I mean, does everything have to be explained so obviously? The only reason this film gets 4 stars and not 5 is because, being a film about human struggle, it could've done with a bit more character development. Other than that, it's a deeply entertaining, well-acted, suspenseful film.

Don't knock it before you see it for yourself.


Because of the B movie storyline--helicopters and tanks vs. dragons--many people will dismiss this movie out of hand. "Special effects-laden drivel," they'll say. They miss the fact that this movie is actually very well crafted. It's a decent script, with some good lines and clever little additions like Quinn's serial play based on Star Wars to entertain the children before bed.

The acting is well above average all around; Christian Bale and Gerard Butler are particular stand-outs. The story is more emotional than you'd expect, which makes the action sequences more gripping. The fist fight between Quinn and Van Zan is particularly brutal and engaging. The cinematography is quite good, but that's what you'd expect when you're filling the screen with dragons. And of course the special effects are incredible. The dragons are much better than Dragonheart or Harry Potter.

The music is well integrated--nothing over-the-top or grandiose, like Lord of the Rings, for example. It sets the tone well without being overbearing.

All in all, it's a well crafted movie, a labor of love by director Rob Bowman. While the plot isn't for everyone, the emotional impact and superior acting help Reign of Fire stand out among action and sci fi films.


This film was very well done. I had heard a lot of negative hype before I saw it but I was impressed. This film tells a great story about the human race becoming refugees and fighting the force that dominated them. The characters were played very well, they were hard people living in hard times. The children added perspective and even hope that humans could outlast the beasts. The visual effects are stunning, from the dragons to the wasteland the film has a dark beauty. The plot is survival of the fittest, and only one species will survive.


This film will have you believing in dragons. You'll wish there were no such creatures. These dragons have no fairly tale quality about them. They are big and nasty. They have risen up and have all but destroyed the earth. The few surviving groups of people are merely trying to survive this new reign of fire.

The acting by the lead cast is excellent. The story line is pretty intricate for a special effects type film. Most of the film takes place in Scotland, and this helps create the cold, dark, damp atmosphere.

Reign of Fire is a very ambitious film. I loved it.


Caught this on DVD recently and was happily surprised. It's a 'post-apocalypse' story where mankind is reduced to living an almost stone-age existence by a global disaster, but this time the apocalypse is brought about not by nuclear weapons but a race of dragons unleashed from the depths of the earth by over-ambitious mining! OK, it's a pretty silly concept, but the whole thing is handled with panache. Director Rob (X-Files) Bowman is obviously at home with this kind of subject matter and the visuals are excellent thanks to cinematographer Adrian Biddel, a dab hand at photographing the impossible thanks to his work on the two Mummy films and The World Is Not Enough. Critics here in the UK panned it when it came out, saying that it needed more special effects, but they completely missed out on the charm of the film, which was in the ingenious ways that it showed the human race had been changed by the onset of the dragons. I loved the scene where Quinn and his sidekick, having to entertain a castle full of children without the benefit of TV or video games, enact a scene from Star Wars, providing both dialogue and narration as they go.

Don't listen to the critics, this is definitely worth a look.


I think that even if I was not a huge fan of both leading men in this film, I would have loved it. It was entirely impossible to turn the movie off. It started off as a great concept and just got better with the characters' humor and realism. I am currently recommending it to all my friends and family (already a favorite of my mom, brother, niece, and nephew) Thoroughly enjoyable.


What can I say, two of my favourite genres meet - fantasy and war movies! I thought Reign of Fire was brilliant: great action, spectacular effects, a decent (if farfetched) plot, well realised characters and fantastic sets & scenery. The makers of this movie spent a lot of time researching various animals (snakes, bats etc.) to make their dragons more believable - and it shows. To me, this is the best vision of a dragon I have seen in any movie, even better than in Dragonlslayer or Dragonheart. Also, I found the post apocalyptic society presented in the movie very believable, complete with cultural references to the "before-time". I emapthised with the characters, and felt all in the movie did a very good acting job. One warning though: don't be misled by the trailers, this movie doesn't actually feature all that much "modern weaponry vs. dragons" action; it is a limited to a few short battles. The only other nit-pick I had was the solution our heroes come up with for the dragon problem - without giving too much away, I will say it was a pretty far stretch of the imagination to accept the facts presented which open the door for a final victory. All in all a very good movie, especially if you are a fan of dragons, or man vs. beast movies.


When I seen the trailer for this fillm I expected it to be loaded with action and dragons but to my dissapointment it wasn't. Ok you see a few dragons and get a battle with a dragon at the end but thats about it. As for decent action there is only one occassion where this can be seen. I would also say that it is far too short, it only lasts what and hour and a half where it could have easily been streteched to 2hrs at least with maybe showing van Zan killing his first dragon or whatever. Apart from these flaws I do actaully think this is a decent film, well worth viewing. Overall I give it 8/10


Reign of Fire *could* have been an excellent movie, but as it stands, it's only decent.

What we have here? An excellent, not quite often seen premise and overall not that bad idea, and excellent special effects to supplement that. And then they slap a boring, ordinary plot and bad logic on top of that. Oh dear.

The plot definitely could have been better - it really doesn't take that much brainwork to guess the ending. It starts nicely enough, no problem with that, but once the Great Plan to Rescue Everybody starts... sheesh. the latter half of the movie is very very ordinary. In the beginning, the transition to the opening to the main plot is rather sketchy and is probably the most potential-wasting part after the ending. Then there were some things about ecology and biology that didn't make too much sense. And Americans who didn't make whole lot of sense either, of course.

But even after all this stuff, I *still* thought the movie was neat enough. The movie was, even with its ordinary plot, surprisingly watchable. The bad parts didn't annoy me, they sometimes managed to amuse, which is always a good sign in my book... The setting is still fairly interesting.

If you're not expecting a great movie, it's definitely a good way to waste one and half hours. If you're expecting the sci-fi movie of the century, stay *far* away.

Wasn't sure whether this was 7/10 or 8/10. Settled for 7.5 and rounded that up just because I like dragon movies in general.


"Reign of Fire" is a cheeseball special effects fest that is a great time killer if you have time to kill. I recommend it only if you want to kill some time and brain cells in the process. Here are the reasons (spoilers herein): (1) The computer generated dragons are pretty neat. (2) Christian Bale did pretty good as the main scarred survivor. (3) The scene with the dragon attacking the castle was very poetic. (4) There was a tinge of a medieval mentality going through this film. (5) The mixture of recent, old-fashioned, and ancient weaponry fit together perfectly to give an idea of how combat flying, fire-breathing reptiles. (6) The Brits and The Americans fighting amongst themselves showed that cultural differences will breed a bunch of dissent and angst in situations where survival is at stake. (7) Amongst the Brits, differing views of survival were seen. Seven reasons gives a score of seven.

The downers in the film were (1) Matthew McConaughey as the tooth and nail American commander. He doesn't strike me as the tooth and nail type (watch "The Wedding Planner" and you'll understand). (2) The Americans are portrayed as if they are a bunch of marauders. Stereotyping anything sucks and it should be stopped. (3) The story had gaping plot holes and lots of tedious dialogue. The writing overall was lacking in many spots. Overall, this is a film that feels like cheesecloth. Watch it if you want to kill some brain cells but I suggest many other titles. Here ends my rant!


Don't have much to say. Most movies I like I tend to not to try and break down. If you like dragons, darker themes and that isolation feel (like in Waterworld) and you like to think to yourself "that is the most fuel efficient helicopter" (you'll know what I mean when you see it) go then, see it. ;)

I gave it an 8 for the original story. Things could have been better handled, but being the genre that it was, I think it got the entire plot off pretty well. I'm buying this one.


I really liked the idea for this film, of groups of people trying to survive in a dragon scorched world. It was very well executed to take this ludicrous fantasy and apply all the rules of logic etc to it.

I also thought that the film looked amazing, particularly the dragons, with the effects only let down by some shoddy looking explosions at times.

The only thing that let the film down was the cliched and sometimes pointless dialogue, especially from the Matthew McConaughey character.


Okay, this ain't amazing..... But look, for every "Close encounters...." there has to be a "Plan 9 from outerspace"!

I'll happily admit that this is bubblegum cinema at it's best, pure and unadulterated candy floss. But I can live with it.

Okay, saw the poster and thought: "YES!! Independence day in england, with Dragons! Burn London, Burn!" Safe to say I was disappointed. But what I did get was a "mad max" style fight for survival.

The dragons looked good and the acting was acceptable, if not sterotyping with Bale's 'pie-n-mash' cockney and mathew mc's 'Texan-gas-station-attendent'.

A more than acceptable film if you're not looking for an oscar winner. Oh, and the starwars story was more than worth the admission fee alone!


Not a bad film overal, but the feeling I got from it was dark and gloomy. It's fun of dank underground holes and the like and you only see the sun at the end. I found it rather depressing, even with the good ending.

Not bad, though. I'm not saying it's the top film of the year, but it's not a flop either.


I thought to see just another dragon movie in a row,but MAN was i wrong !!! Great story line and very very nice special effects.Also a little place for romance and a few jokes through the movie. Great Great movie to see Greets El Loco


I thaught to see just another dragon movie in a row,but MAN was i wrong !!! Great story line and very very nice special effects.Also a little place for romance and a few jokes through the movie. Great Great movie to see Greets El Loco


Mad Max meets the Dragons.

What a silly waste of film. A decent idea with a horrid film attached. And they could have saved a lot of money using B&W film; the rare color of note is only the flames. Grey, blue and black are poor tools. Maybe it's supposed to remind us of old WWII films?

The Disney version will probably be better.

A study in why simply adding fire and big booms to a movie is not enough.

And why, when in species danger, do humans have to dress up as medieval persons?

Christian Bale should have quit at 15 and become a tax collector, duller than the sharp end of an egg.

Don't pay for it, wait for it on Mystery Theater 3000.


Pretty good Sci-Fi flick. In the vein of "Pitch Black" and the last 2 "Alien" movies. Should've been R rated. That could have given the director/actors more room to really explore the true terror these dragons were inflicting and could've been more graphic/dark. Not enough dragon sequences. Also, would've been much more plausible had it taken place in the 1930's or 1940's. That would help explain how we weren't able to deal the dragons. Also the much overused ending of a small band of humans with almost no weapons left being able to defeat the supreme enemy - in this case the Bull dragon - would work better in 1942 as opposed to 2020. I give it a 7 out of 10. Definitely worth watching.


Matthew MaConnahagh and Christian Bale give good performances as two foes coming together to wipe out the dragon race. The start of the dragon race all starts off when young Quinn stumbles upon a dragon cave and awakes a dragon. While he and his mother try to escape, his mother is killed by that dragon. Now, 20 years later when the Earth is dominated by a race of dragons, Quinn (Bale) has become the leader of survivors from England. When Van Zan (MaConnahagh) and his group of surviving Americans come to Quinn's fort, Quinn must make the decision to trust Van Zan, or kill him. When he finally finds out why they have come to his fort, Van Zan asks for men. However, Quinn says no and sticks with his answer. But Van Zan gets men anyway and Quinn makes the decision to go along and try to eliminate the race of dragons once and for all. The special effects are a real treat and the story is interesting. It's full of excitement and action. Although this movie got negative reviews, I strongly disagree with them. This movie is a non-stop ride that leaves you begging for more. Great fun

*** out of ****


The premise is enjoyable, the effects are great, and the action is OK. Too bad they had to put a brigade of john-wayne-esque american heros in the film to ruin it. It was actually going along quite well until those loud-mouthed boneheads appeared. Problems with the general plot (of how, dragons that dissappeared because thier food was exhausted, managed to stay alive below London for millions of years - and come awake the instant a human touched them... and then only one male exists on the planet) can be distracting. Far worse, the M.M. character - not sure if its the screenplay or the acting that did that - though the screenplay should be blamed for putting them in there to begin with.

Its a good enough to occupy a couple hours of time.


Very enjoyable film, McConaughey is your average OTT American military man (always chewing a cigar etc), Bale's cockney accent is cringeworthy at best but they are two minor faults to an otherwise great film.

The locations are great, the dragons are superb, the acting is ok but its a great film and one that I will be definitely be watching again and would recommend anyone else to do the same.

Special note goes to the special effects man, some of the best fire effects I have seen in any film.


In reading some of the other comments on this movie people are talking about plot holes, bad accents, and lack of direction. To those who feel that way shame on you. If we were talking about The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, Or even Lord of The Rings those types of comments and thoughts would be justified, not that I feel that way about any of those movies, but not for a movie like Reign Of Fire. Some movies are made to be thought about and others to just watch and have fun. Reign Of Fire is one of the ones to just watch and have fun. Does it deserve any awards, no. Does it take itself to seriously, no. Can you watch it and just enjoy the special effects, sound, and premise, yes. So the bottom line go to Blockbuster, rent it, sit down and don't think just watch and you will have an enjoyable 90 minutes.


This movie is different in the fact it's about dragons and their rule of man kind.The acting was incredable for this film and the special effects were top of the line. The plot was a lil iffy but thats ok cuase its about human survival and not the dragons.( The dragons were very well done CGI and creature effects) It's a good movie and its very entertaining.


Well, what can I say? The cover art looked cool, the premise looked exciting. The SFX were quite good, actually, but the movie was very boring. I had to struggle to stay awake, and was left totally unsatisfied at the end. And that's about it.


i would have given this "0" stars if i had been given the option here. this was absolutely terrible. virtually everything was different and not one character looked or acted the way they should have. dimitri is Greek but has a British accent, lennie is initially portrayed as telling off colour type bad jokes - which is totally inaccurate, olympia was short/small/brunette and small chested. if you know this character at all you will know that her looks (blonde/voluptous/and pretty) had a lot to do with how she floated through life from man to man. one of my favourite parts was lucky & olympia in the south of France, this several week jaunt took up less than 3 minutes on the screen. warris charters does not exist and most confusingly of all lucky and dario do not hate each other later in life when they should. if you are a fan of the books you will probably hate this miniseries as much as i did! i hope none of this info is considered a spoiler but i was trying to illustrate just how far off it was. hope it helps!


Chances and Lucky are great reads, but to say that the miniseries doesn't do it justice is a HUGE understatement. It's not the worst thing ever made. I just wish that the powers that were had been a little more faithful to the book, at least in the casting part. I mean, blonde, blue-eyed Nicolette Sheridan as Lucky, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! That also goes for Sandra Bullock being cast as Maria and Shawnee Smith being cast as Olimpia. The casting director was either drunk or in a hurry. The closest that the casting people got was with Gino, played by Vincent Irizarry. There were also a lot of plots that were skipped, like Dario's homosexuality, Carrie's abuse and rape as well as how and why she came to be a prostitute, the stories of Gino's abusive father, and the list goes on and on. I would pay anything to see a "CORRECTLY CASTED AND NON-POLITICALLY CORRECT" remake of this movie, whether it be on the small screen or on the big screen, preferably on the small screen, or otherwise many subplots may have to be sacrificed due to time. Let me know if it ever happens.


Lucky/Chances is a good movie based on a good book. I read the books first prior to watching the movie and it does follow the book closely with a few minor chnages. Vincent Irizarry could not have made a better Gino and Nicollette Sheridan was perfect to play Lucky. The acting may have been a tad bit over-the-top, but many of Jackie Collins' books are and that's probably why the movie was done that way. I'd personally love to see a silver screen version of this book so that more details of the story could be shown (there was a lot that couldn't be shown on t.v.).


What a great collection of a great band, but you have to FF through anything Gary Cherone is on, it's just a terrible era that so many of us true fans wish would have never happened. If you can get your hands on a used copy, I'd recommend it, certainly not worth the retail price they ask for in stores.


I love this collection of there videos. "Jump" is my best music video in that video collection. Alex influenced me to play the drums and Eddie is just the best guitarist that ever lived. They rock and will never die. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK FELLAS.


This collection is okay but it misses many videos from both eras. I think if bands put out "greatest hits" videos, showing only half of their hit videos, it is a let down to their fans and to the casual watcher. This set only includes the 3 hit Roth Era videos from 1984. Notably missing is their MTV banned "Pretty Woman" video, the live video for "Mean Streets" and "Unchained", and any of their unforgetable appearance at the '83 US Festival. Missing from Van Hagar series is Live Without a Net videos, and "Feels So Good", "Top Of the World", and "Amsterdam". Perhaps those will be included on the second volume?


Blood Lake (1987) C-90 min. D: Tim Boggs. Doug Barry, Angela Darter, Mike Kaufman, Travis Krasser, Tiny Frazier, Andrea Adams. This has to be the most hilariously awful movie I have ever seen, and clearly the worst slasher film ever. A chunky killer begins murdering teenagers in a secluded house on the lake. Why? Who cares? Features probably the worst acting of any film in recent memory. Also features several long scenes in which nothing happens (such as the card playing scene). And what the hell is with that ending? RATING: 1 out of 10 (ONLY because you can't have 0 out of 10). Rated R for graphic violence and strong language.


Blood Lake (Quick Review) This particularly awful film revolves around a group of poor-acting kids in a cabin on the lake wherein somebody starts killing them. Good. I hated them all anyway. This film's title actually appears in the extremely harmless "Garfield" font. Yeah. That fat cartoon cat. I kid you not.

Well, geez, where to begin? The acting is repugnant and the atmosphere is weak. The story is unoriginal and the killer is really lame. How lame? Well, Jason wears a hockey mask and carries a machete, Freddy has the glove with knives for fingers, Chucky is a demented serial-killer infested doll. This guy is a fat hick with cowboy boots and one leg of his pants is tucked into a boot--and the other isn't!! F*cking scary!! Well, roughly 25 minutes of this film are spent watching the kids water skiing on the lake. I'm serious, here. They might as well have flashed the logo for the brand of skis they were using across the screen. We literally spent about 10-15 minutes watching a few of them water ski, then finally they stop, head to the dock and then.... go out water skiing again!! They didn't spend this much f*cking time on the lake in "Piranha." The kills don't even look good and there is really no gore at all. This movie is just a waste of time. And afterwards, you'll be so depressed that you may see your life as pointless if this is what you waste your time doing. Watching total sh*t like this. You just might kill yourself.

Recommended to: Absolutely no one should ever watch this film. There is nothing good here, nothing creative, nothing interesting, nothing new--except for the pants thing, and that's just retarded. Only if you're a real hardcore horror curiosity seeker--but if you really want a depressant, just try alcohol. 1/10 (I tend not to give zeros.) By the way, it's shot on video.

(www.ResidentHazard.com)


Blood Lake is, I'm sad to say a really quite bad film. In fact, were it not for the fact that I have seen some really, powerfully wretched films in my time I might be inclined to say that Blood Lake is one of the worst out there. Sadly though, I have suffered through some absolute abominations and so I actually found Blood Lake to be comparably watchable, its myriad flaws not proving as bothersome as they might. The first trouble that is instantly apparent is the weak, weak acting. I don't expect Royal Shakespeare Company standard work from a film like this but pretty well all the characters show the very barest minimum of commitment to their roles. Apart from the kid who plays young Tony that is, some young fellow called Travis Krasser or somesuch. Now Tony is (insert drumroll) perhaps the most teeth grindingly obnoxious, infuriating, angry making characters ever in one of these sort of films. He's a sex obsessed, lewd, crude and tedious little brat whose every word makes you want to reach into the movie and smack him in the face. Its hard to figure why he's even in the film with his equally young girlfriend, given that everyone else there is notably older and he stinks up the joint in spectacular fashion. He's so noxious its almost funny and his quest to get laid is more disturbing than any of th so called horror in this film. Speaking of which, the killing doesn't start properly till 50 minutes in or so and the lighting doesn't allow for any significant nastiness, though a couple of the kills are mildly satisfying in a rock bottom kind of cheapo style. Before that there is water skiing, card playing, occasional use of a typical but fun slasher score and some relatively rocking tunes by a group called Voyager. Most of which is redundant, but the sheer ineptitude and lack of point is somewhat comic in effect. There really is little going for this film, even by the occasionally barrel scraping standards of Eighties slasher films this is remarkably shoddy, about as accomplished as a cheap old home movie, but for enthusiasts of terrible films there are some bright spots. Not really recommended unless like me, your'e passionate about dreck.


This has to definitly be the worst horror film. Sometimes when i hear a bad review about a horror movie, I just blow it off because I like to experiene the movie myself, but this time I should have taken the advice. I rented this movie to see more than two gallons of blood, hence the title. What I got was a bunch of teenagers talking and eating food on a couch the most of the time. This is one of those fast-forward movies, where you have to fast forward to the good parts. In this case, it's the whole movie. Nothing happens until the last 10 minutes of the movie and even that ten minutes was boring. Trust me on this one. I'm surprised that any distributer would release this. Attack of the Killer Refrigerator is like 15 minutes long and still better than this one.


Another late 80's routine teen-slasher picture like there were at least fifteen per dozen around that time. "Blood Lake" distinguishes itself from the rest in absolutely  nothing! Prepare yourself to endure insufferable jock characters, overlong padding footage of teens water-surfing to the tunes of horrible pop music, bloodless massacres, copious WTF dialogs, lousy and shaky video-shot photography and sheer annoyance. Six incredibly irritating teenagers, two of them who have barely hit puberty, set out for a holiday resort near a lake. Before the opening credits, there was a brief sequence indicating the presence of a knife-wielding killer in the region, but he doesn't make a move until late in the film. "Blood Lake" is boring beyond words without any noteworthy highlight. Not even a boob-shot or an imaginative murder. These most be the most boring circle of friends ever, since all they do in the evening is sit around a table and murmur the entire time! There a sequence like this that goes on for nearly 9 whole minutes, I kid you not! I have nothing else to share on "Blood Lake" except the message: do not watch it. This dud found a spot in my list of absolute worst 80's slashers alongside: "Don't Go in the Woods", "Deadly Games", "Appointment with Fear", "Berserker", "Cardiac Arrest", "Hollow Gate", "The Stay Awake", "Blood Tracks" and "Hide and Go Shriek".


OK so I can agree with the other comment about the lake scene, yes it is like 15 min long. Also In the beginning for the opening scene for the credits all they show is the trans am driving on the road for like 10 or 15 min. That is way too long for a opening act! I mean yeah we get the point that there is a trans am with kids going to a lake. The killings in the movie are a big disappointment, all it is, is a guy walking around in cowboy boots. The acting is horrible and the movie is a big waist of time. I am a HUGE fan of the 80's slasher films, especially Friday the 13th. They even filmed it with a home video, so the lighting was horrible and was very shaky. Well I'd say I have to give it at least a 1 out of 10, for being part of the 80's slasher genre for at least trying. I just hope that they don't ever make a movie like this again.


I admit that the reason I watched this was because my cousin, Tim was involved heavily in its creation. That being said, it makes one very thankful to know that this was just a stepping off point for him on his long career in film production.

I agree with every commentator on here "Yes, it's horrid" and on so many levels. The true horror comes from the fact that you've given up over an hour of your life that you can't get back.

Like I mentioned before, I had a relative that contributed a lot to this movie. Since I'd never known anyone in the "business" I was really impressed that someone I knew personally made a film. Well, as my friends and I sat around the VCR with high hopes and anticipation, they were quickly dashed. Time actually seemed to stand still as we watched and we actually started thinking "a rousing game of chess would be fun" it became blatantly clear that not only was this film a total waste of time, but it was pure crap as well. You always want to say something somewhat constructive about your relatives/friends (if you like them), but I was completely dumbfounded. What made this project even worse, was the fact that there was an entire fifteen-minute segment that was repeated in its entirety for no reason whatsoever.

Tim has gone on to do some great and creative things since this came out. We all have stumbling blocks along the way, but I still want the hour or so of my life back...


I have seen the bottom 12 IMDb movies, and I can safely say, this is worst!

Some brainless people (most probably the makers of the film) have rated this a 10 out of 10, keeping it above 1.0/10.

This is the most pathetic film ever and is only good for recommending it to your deepest, darkest enemies as "the greatest closet horror film ever created."

I love horror films, and this is a disgrace. Not only to the movie industry, but to all mankind. Heck--to all life in the Universe.

I still have a bad taste in my mouth from watching it 4 years ago.

Please do not watch this film, you will forever be changed. And believe me, there is no coming back from this.

Prior to watching this film, I had 20-20 vision. I am now completely blind in my left eye. My left hand had been removed and was reattached to my right foot after it was cut off for severe frostbite.

Please help me.


This is awful. I get the sense that the director made this movie in an attempt to get his foot in the door to work on B-movies in Hollywood--and not very effectively at that. Surely he could see and sense the terrible acting taking place as he was directing; then I imagine him just ignoring it and focusing on just finishing the movie.

Some people comment that the characters aren't acting, that it doesn't feel scripted, and that it seems more realistic this way: however, this is not the case. The actors do not seem to be improvising to make it 'realistic'--they appear to be standing around not knowing where to move, what to say, getting in each other's way, etc. The little girl and boy are the worst, especially the girl. Half of the time, you can't understand what is being said because the characters chime in and say random things that drown out what someone else is saying, or the microphone doesn't pick them up. (This movie would apparently be the only movie Tim Boggs ever directed, but he did go on to work in the industry for some notable movies).

The baddie of this movie is some undeveloped old man character. Later on in the movie, we learn that his motive for going on a killing spree is because he never received payment for the house those teenagers are staying in from one of their father's. What kind of half-assed excuse is that? It comes to us late in the movie in one or two lines of dialogue exchange.

The editing is a travesty as well. Although it might be understandable given the format and the low budget, it still is quite bad. Cutting between different angles in any given scene is awkward: common occurrences are changed lighting, continuity errors, and general disorientation. Some of the shots in the movie are completely without meaning and seem to be primarily self-indulgent shots. Constant cutting to the moon, or shots of ducks swimming in the lake, leave you scratching, clawing for some meaning. But there really is none. One scene involves them playing a drinking game. The same shot is held for what seems forever, throwing in the occasional time-lapse effect, drawing the scene out much too long. And don't even get me started on the ending sequence..

During half of the movie, the characters are moving around in the dark. The movie was shot on some sort of video format, but not a home camcorder, mind you, so you know that issues of lighting will crop up. And they do. And it's annoying trying to make out what's going on. But then you remember that you don't really care. The least they could've done was to use flashlights or lanterns during the ext. night scenes.

The "original" soundtrack uses the annoying, cliche, synthesized, "tension" note, accompanied by rehashed piano tracks. There are a few rock n' roll vocal tracks, but nothing special.

This movie was so bad, in fact, it drove my friend to perform the terrible act of biting into an onion like it was an apple. Boy did he regret that, whining for hours. TEMPORARY INSANITY. To make a long story not too short, this movie can be watched, but you have to come into it with a certain mindframe. Once you see the format the movie was shot on, you want to find out just what they could possibly achieve with it...


A bunch of rednecks take a trip to a lake with their daddy's Firebird & boat to have an outrageous weekend of partying, sex, & fun. Actually, there is no sex, but we do get to see them play quarters for about 15 minutes (maybe someone left the camera on). So to be fair, there is some partying as promised on the box cover.

Anyway, some guy with one pant-leg tucked into his boot starts killing them with his yellow survival knife. I did get a laugh out of the knife though. When some of the kids make fun of him, why I don't know, he thrusts his knife in frustration into the boat dock and the compass on the top wiggles wildly. Ohhhh, scary. I also got a laugh out of the amazing camera technique the "filmmakers" used to let us know that the killer was on the prowl. Really, synthesizer noise over a red camera filter is scary no matter who you are.

Anyway, he kills almost everyone. The heroine escapes with the help of a water spouting wall fixture. The killer dies. That's it. I have seen this movie 5 times and I still cannot come up with an answer to a question a friend of mine had. In fact, I have the same question myself. Why was this made? Who knows, maybe they will release a special edition DVD and we can find out in the, no doubt, enthralling audio commentary.

Please do not rent this movie unless you really like bad horror movies. I, to this day, herald this as the worst movie I have ever seen.

4 out of 4 onions


This is one of the great war films, not because it shows some epic event such as "Pearl Harbor" or aspires to maudlin sentimentality and false realism like "Saving Private Ryan," but because it shows the ordinary plight of common people who happen here to be soldiers. It is similar to "A Walk in the Sun," another look at the men who transact the small change of large military transactions.

The details of the military action really aren't all that important. For what it's worth, a small band of ordinary US and Korean soldiers is sent on an ordinary day to take an ordinary hill during the Korean War. For no good reason except to make a point, the other side - the Chinese - decide to make a major effort to keep the hill. Badly understrength, the Allies manage to take the hill, but because of ongoing peace talks their superiors are racked by doubt about how much strength to commit. So, the odds against the Allied force, who are starved of reinforcements and supplies, become extreme as the military pressure on them mounts and the Chinese try every trick to make them give up the hill, including propaganda broadcasts.

In truth, this film doesn't even have to be appreciated as a war film, though that is the setting. It is a story of people put into an extremely difficult situation who have to make do. Not given the tools to accomplish the job easily, it has to be accomplished the hard way. And here, it is very hard.

This film is packed with character actors, several of whom later became stars and all of whom made their names in Hollywood. But it is difficult to recognize many of them beneath the mud and grime. Robert Blake, George Peppard, Rip Torn, Harry Guardino, Woody Strode, Martin Landau (his first role), Gavin MacLeod, Harry Dean Stanton, Clarence Williams III - if made ten years later, this film would have cost millions more and in truth been impossible to produce. Norman Fell, the most under-appreciated actor in Hollywood, here begins his startling resume of top films like "Bullitt" and "The Graduate." And not to mention star Gregory Peck, who plays a courtly leader struggling to maintain his composure while watching good men die for what both he and they realize is a big fat nothing.

One of the aspects I especially like is that you have a multicultural force that simply does its job. I dislike films that are obvious about the "we are all just brothers under the skin, so won't you just like me even though we're different because I am deferring to you" politically correct party line. This film avoids the clichés and the pathos and the racial grovelling and shows folks of all backgrounds stuck in a miserable hole together and just getting through the day. Everyone is facing a common enemy. In this film, the enemy is carrying guns, but it could just as easily be a corporate deadline or a sales quota or a fight to cure a diseased patient. The same principles apply in other walks of life. Who succeeds and who has difficulties depends on that enemy and their own capabilities and problems, not on each others' hangups. As it is, or should be, in ordinary life.

This is a film that should make you think. You don't have to be a big fan of military films to appreciate it. You should see it some time.


This, despite its weaknesses, is quite a good movie. There is little sentimentality and no romance. It's all dust and death on both sides, the dwindling American force commanded by Gregory Peck and the Communist Chinese enemy.

It's based on S. L. A. Marshall's book of the same name, which focused, as does the film, on small-scale operations while not ignoring the larger picture. The larger picture is roughly this. Pork Chop Hill is a salient in the dividing line between two opposing armies and the cease fire is about to be signed at Panmunjom. In itself it is of no military importance, and all logic -- not just military reasoning but common sense -- dictates that the cease-fire line be straightened out and the hill ignored. Instead, both sides pour troops onto this insignificant little mountain, denuded of vegetation by long bombardment, a heap of rocky rubble laced with trenches.

It's sometimes said that Gregory Peck is a wooden actor and I guess I'd agree he's nobody's idea of Cary Grant when it comes to light comedy. His specialty lay in radiating an understated sincerity and leadership quality. He never pulled it off in a mechanical way either. There were always at least a few lines in which we recognized the human being behind the mask, and that's the case here. When he's handed an order that means he must send back his recently arrived, desperately need reinforcements, he pauses and says quietly, "Well, they can't mean this," and we believe that he believes that they can't mean this. The rest of the cast has many familiar faces and none of them let the film down. One scene is perhaps the best that Harry Guardino has left on celluloid. The very air of the movie seems filled with fear, sweat, and dust.

But then there are the weaknesses. Marshall's book was unforgiving. When the higher echelons screwed up, Marshall noted it just as matter-of-factly as he noted the number of rounds expended by a given platoon during a given incident. In this film, somebody makes a mistake and turns on the searchlights at the wrong time. It's quickly corrected and the miscreants later explain that they mixed up Peck's unit with another -- and they apologize! And that's about it as far as errors on our side go. The later contretemps that deprive Peck of reinforcements and supplies are due to an unavoidable failure in communication, so it's nobody's fault.

Then there's the "Here comes the cavalry!" ending, which didn't happen, according to Marshall's book, if I remember it correctly. And sometimes the script spells things out in an unnecessary way. Guardino's friend is killed and Peck has to drag him away from the body, while he screams, "He was my BUDDY." Well -- we know that. It's already been demonstrated. So to whom is that line addressed? Audience members who don't know that stress generates fierce friendships? And there's a final, even more unsettling failure to stand back from events and view them objectively, an unwillingness or inability to step outside the box. We see the Peace Talks taking place. The representative for our side explains to the Chinese, "According to the truce, Pork Chop Hill is right in the middle of the truce zone. You know it has no value so why don't you withdraw your men?" (The Chinese negotiator turns down his ear plug.) The Allied negotiators step outside and mutter angrily that the Chinese just don't want to lose the hill for symbolic reasons.

Well, what kind of cockeyed moral calculus is this? Isn't OUR side equally willing to sacrifice lives for the symbolic value of the hill? If the reasoning of the Chinese is wrong, isn't our reasoning, which is precisely the same, equally wrong? Soccer riots are better justified.

Enough preaching. This is one tough film. Despite the injections from Hollywood of the 1950s, we get a convincing picture of what combat is like. Death comes almost at random, and it's not always pretty. Bodies don't always have neat bullet holes through the shoulder. Sometimes they're visibly mangled, although the visuals aren't in any way offensive. And Peck does a superb job. So this is well worth seeing.


They also tried to be correct, but Woody Strode wasn't the only race faux pas. The lieutenant portrayed by Rip Torn was an American Negro. He didn't know that Hollywood didn't know, or maybe didn't care, that he was a black man, so when he was told his character would be featured prominently in the movie he assumed a well known black actor would be cast in the role. He took his family to see the movie so they could get an idea of what he went through in Korea to win his medals. Surprise, surprise. When the word got out you could hear the movie moguls shrug their shoulders all the way to Malibu. As Fred Allen once observed, "You could take all the sincerity in Hollywood, drop it into a flea's navel and still have room for an agent's heart." Does it make you wonder what else they got wrong? Or overlooked? Or made up as they went along?


This is a very well made war movie, though I've got to admit that this is a genre that usually doesn't do that much for me. What sets this movie apart is its strong desire for realism--instead of a Hollywood version of war, this WAS war as it really appeared. Fanatics who love realism will really be pleased about this. Plus, it focuses on the Korean War, a period in our history that is generally ignored in movies.

Gregory Peck does a fine job in the lead, though I thought he looked a little old to be such a fine career soldier and only a lieutenant. At his age, he could have easily been playing colonels or even a general.

The supporting cast are a lot of then unknowns who later went on to more visible careers. Watch the movie and see all the familiar faces.

About the only negative of this movie is its pace. It involves one engagement and seems a bit "claustrophobic" or static at times, as you have trench after trench and explosion after explosion. Still, it's pretty good stuff.


Wow, is this bad film. You'd think with this cast it would be a great one. But you would be very wrong.

With lines like, "Have some raisins." Or, when Gregory Peck asks Martin Landau how many men he has left in Love Company. "Twelve." And then a cannon shell blows up 2 of them. "Bring along your ten men", is Peck's response. What depth. What compassion. This film is surely laughable.


The Texas Chain Saw Massacre can, and will, be reinterpreted by critics and theorists for decades to come. It was shot in the summer of 1973, during the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the Munich Olympics massacre, at the height of the Watergate scandal and the legal investigation into the shootings at Kent State. It was an era of plane hijackings, government oppression and dishonesty, racial conflict, terrorism and revolution. As a mirror of a dark period in American history, Chain Saw remains one of the best evocations yet of the era, as a group of young individuals, returning to the nostalgic home of their childhood, stumble into the raw and irrational cruelty of the modern world.

The movie has a weak, though functional storyline, one that has since became the staple for slasher movies; a group of teenagers get lost, stumble across evil and get stalked and killed. But Chain Saw isn't about storyline and plot; it's about creating an experience, a sensory overload. The cast and crew work tirelessly to create scenes and images that are raw and powerful and ultimately, against all expectations, beautiful. Leatherface's travesty of motherly domesticity as he prepares dinner, his child-like dance in the dawn light, the open door at the gas station, the van making it's slow turn off the road towards the derelict and ivy clad Hardesty residence are all images that burn themselves into your consciousness after just a single viewing.

The cinematography is exceptional. Watching the Special Edition, you'd never know that this was shot on 16mm in poor light. The picture quality is outstanding, the colors rich and vibrant, the blacks inky and menacing. The brilliant azure skies, the jade green of the grass, the bright red generator, the searing sunlight and stifling shadows. Every frame seems saturated in nicotine gold. Beautiful.

Though not always likable, the actors are always believable. Performances are universally startling, but special mention has to go to Marilyn Burns. Though she has little more to work with than the clichéd screaming heroine, she works it with remarkable conviction. It was a traumatic shoot, and it shows. Few actresses have so effectively conveyed mind-numbing terror.

The soundtrack is exceptional and deserves more recognition. It is a great testimony to the experimentation and risk taking attitude of the era that all melody is destroyed under an industrial ambient soundscape of metallic clangs, scrapes and screams, evoking the atmosphere of the local slaughterhouse and the Family's state of mind. Terrifying.

Despite the complete lack of gore or extreme physical violence, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre continues to horrify and holds up the countless, shot-on-video, slasher clones of subsequent years for the puerile crap that they truly are. Whether by accident or design, this one is a classic.

9 out of 10


With the recent box-office success achieved by the latest remake of 1974's `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' it's worth looking back at Tobe Hooper's original horror classic.

	The movie tells a fairly simple tale at heart. A group of five teenagers driving through rural Texas happen upon a deranged, cannibalistic family. Psychological terror and chainsaws ensue.

	Yet despite this simplicity, what is it about `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' that continues to succeed so with its audience? Outside of one memorial scene involving a meet hook; the movie is not particularly gory by today's standards. The film's characters and actual scares are not that remarkable.

	The power of `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' lies in its atmosphere and in what H.P. Lovecraft called `the oldest and strongest kind of fear': the fear of the unknown. The later of these two staples of great horror is often cast aside in modern horror movies-especially in those churned out by the great Hollywood engine. Instead, every mystery must be explained away, every mask ultimately pulled from a monster's face, and not a moment of exposition is spared. It is interesting to note that the filmmakers behind the latest `Chainsaw' film chose to implement all three of these stylistic vices in their remake.

	In the original, the feeling of dread and mounting paranoia creeps over the viewer in slow but steady waves. The first scene in the film depicts a desecrated grave with a voiceover of radio newscast, immediately followed by an opening credits sequence set against a backdrop of roaring solar flares. This, along with some idle astrological chatter on the part of one of the teenagers early on, leads to a feeling of cosmic disarray in the lonely Texas hills they traverse.

	Questions about the villain's mask or the field of cars under camouflage netting are left for the viewer to answer on his or her own. At worst, in the loss of any acceptable answer, they are forced to ponder that terrible and limitless gulf of the imagination: the unknown.

	In it's later stages, the film becomes a cacophonous world of throat-peeling screaming, blood-shot eyes, laughter, and grinding machinery. One is forced to recall the solar flares in the film's opening credits. In the climax of famous dinner scene, there is a feeling of cosmic forces pressing in on reality and warping it into some crude mockery of order, as if the world were but a TV or radio signal distorted into madness by flares on the surface of the sun.

 In the 29 years since `The Texas chainsaw Massacre' hit theaters, there have been countless imitators and four additional films in the franchise, three of them remakes. Yet as loved and influential as the original classic has been, many who would seek to emulate its vision seem to overlook its true strengths.


Those who have posted here comparing Tobe Hooper's (one and only) masterpiece with the dreadful remake are presumably young children with no real understanding of cinema. The 1974 film is the antithesis of the slick, MTV-influenced, cynical cash-in mentality that informed the later remake. The fact that the remake's target teen audience (well, at least some of them) appeared to lap it up is just a sad reflection of how far standards have fallen since the heyday of the horror film in the 70's.

But Hooper's CHAINSAW is more than just a classic horror film. With its print in the permanent collection at the NY Museum of Modern Art, it truly is a classic of cinema. I've shown this to Bergman fans, Tarkovsky fans and, yes, horror fans too - none of them have been prepared for its power, its inventiveness, its willingness to push the envelope of what cinema can do. And, with its simple story and powerhouse, unstoppable delivery, it is as open to interpretation as any piece of "modern art" - whether it be from the "vegetarian treatise" angle, or the post-Vietnam traumatised America school of thought. But, as I was on my first (of several) viewings, those I have introduced to this movie have been bowled over by the quality of the film-making, and the filmic techniques (soundtrack, editing, startling images) used by Hooper to capture his "waking nightmare" on screen. It is something I really don't think any other film has quite achieved, though many have tried.

Now, of course, there is a fluke element at work here. Hooper never came close to achieving anything like this again, and many, though not all, of the film's fascinating resonances are a product of the era and the filmmaker's unconscious sensibilities. What he obviously had as a director was the kind of daring to take the visceral power that cinema can deliver so well to the limit, to the the edge of acceptability, skirting on exploitation. That the film is so unrelentingly dark and so unbelievably sadistic in its second half, and yet fascinates even as it traumatises, is a definite testimony to the skill of its director. What could have been sleaze is instead a horrible nightmare experience, sure enough, but one that borders on the transcendental. Should be seen by ALL students of cinema at least once in their lifetime.


A group of teenagers on a road trip... OH BOY!!! HERE WE GO AGAIN... the typical horror movie set up. But wait.... something sets this one apart... IT'S SCARY... to be more precise, IT'S TERRIFYING!!! And I'm not just talking about the horrible 70's clothing and hairstyles. This film is one of the very few films I consider scary. Let me list a few reasons:

1) The gritty documentary feel the film has.

2) The excellent performances by Edwin Neil (the Hitch-Hiker), Jim Seidow (The Old Man), and Gunnar Hansen (Leatherface) as the psychos (in a film this low budget and grainy, performances this real feel all the more scary) and Marilyn Burns (Sally) and Paul A. Partain (Franklin) as the victims (we truly believe and feel their fear).

3)The atmosphere (the skeleton bone art... the freaky metal door in the farmhouse... Leatherface's mask and demeanor... even the way the sun sets in this film is spooky along with the sound of the farmhouse generator).

4)Relentless Horror (Leatherface RUNS not speedwalks after his victims with a live chainsaw... there's no time to trip and fall or your booty is chainsaw bait)

5)The ability the film has to scare you with almost a complete lack of gore (the only "gory" scene is when Leatherface accidently cuts his thigh with the chainsaw). The scares lie within the performances and atmosphere and pacing.

In closing... this is truly the greatest horror film (and one of the greatest films period) ever made. 15 out of 10!!!


I decided to get this movie for my annual Hallowe'en scarefest, a week early...as the new one was out in theatres, I felt a need to see the original first, and bow am I glad I did...

The whole movie just blew me away, I turned off all the phones, chat programs and so on, and just let the story hit me. I think what is still with me after this is the sense of fear and utter WEIRDNESS that emanates from the movie...

And it all seemed so realistic...no hokey fountains of blood, no running into the shower, or overused cliches, just a bunch of kids that need to get some gas, meet some very odd characters (The Hitchhiker is superb) and then fall into the wrong place at the wrong time...

I think Hooper must have had some divine inspiration, because each of Leatherface's scenes is exquisitely planned and executed, from the first guy who gets dragged down, to Pam, to the encounter with Franklin and Sally in the woods (how chilling and scary was that, and yet how clever, to chase someone in the woods equipped with...a chainsaw) to the end.

Very, very unsettling as well, from the beginning to the final dinner scene, to the unforgettable whirling dance by Leatherface at the end.

Simply put, the best horror movie ever...if this doesn't scare you, then nothing will, sadly.


Let me begin by saying that there are precious few movies that can actually scare the crap out of you, and this is one of them. The tension that this movie generates is overwhelming at times, and if you watch it with someone who's never seen it before, be sure to keep your eye on them. You'll probably notice a look of disbelief on their unsuspecting face.

Anyone who doesn't like being scared will end up being unable to finish this movie. People who have a taste for the brutally bizarre will probably hit play again after the credits roll. In light of all this, I must also say that in some respects, TCM's bark is much worse than it's bite. Being banned in so many countries for so long, and having a title that includes the phrase 'Chainsaw Massacre', has seemingly led many people to believe that there is an undue amount of gore in it. However, there simply isn't. Gore is not where the scares are in this one. The scares come from the absolutely brutal and bizarre scenarios that befall poor Sally Hardesty.

In closing, I'd also like to go out on a limb and make the following grandiose statement: TCM is the greatest horror film of all time! Not bad for Tobe Hoopers' first effort.