Christopher Guest has quite the resume and reputation for his quirky, awkward satirical mockumentaries, but "For Your Consideration" simply doesn't measure up with the rest.

It's hard not to judge "Consideration" by its predecessors such as "Best in Show" and "A Mighty Wind." With the same cast, the same satirical (though not full out mockumentary) style, it simply asks for that and it doesn't succeed the way those movies do.

The premise of "Consideration" is on the set of a movie (a ridiculous) movie and the overblown Oscar hype that the film gets. The film contains everyone from the actors to the producer in the cast, as well as a couple Hollywood-focused TV show hosts. The characters are still quirky and amusing in a subtle way, yet something is off. Their depth and the interest in what is happening to them is non-existent and it makes it harder to laugh at the them in the long run and considering characters tend to drive Guest's films, that makes it tough from the get-go.

The plot is simply not as intriguing as well. This perhaps lies in the fact that the focus is not on something obscure like dog shows or traveling folk musicians, but instead on basic Hollywood, which offers less genuine interest in subject alone. Compound that with the weak characters and you have a huge Guest disappointment.


Wow. I loved "Best in Show" and "A Mighty Wind", so I was really looking forward to this one. It was dreadful, though. I don't think I laughed once during the last half hour, and precious few times before that. I think the biggest problem was this: in "Best in Show", "A Mighty Wind" and "Waiting for Guffman", there was a certain sweetness of spirit. Even though the characters were the jokes, Guest never seemed to dislike them, or make us dislike them. There was always an underlying fondness of them. Not in this film, at least for me. A mean-spiritedness seemed prevalent, especially in the final scenes, with Fred Willard going to interview and make fun of the people who didn't get nominated. Unfunny, nasty, and not even keeping with the reality of the film. It was the first time I was glad that Christopher Guest's films were so short. I certainly hope with his next one he's back to form.


Christopher Guest is a creative spirit who has been able to make some very funny films like 'Best In Show' where his technique of avoiding a script by giving his cast of actors an outline as matrix for a scene, letting them ad lib the idea a couple of times, then accepting the second or third take as the final product - pasting all the bits together in the edit. Sometimes it works: sometimes it flounders. Or to quote a famous advertisement 'Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't'.

For this viewer this mocumentary about a very bad film company churning out a very bad film with a rather pitiful cast of actors falling victim to Internet rumors that an Oscar is in the air works as a funny idea and social comment for about the first half four and then sadly falls apart painfully as it proceeds to its wholly predictable end. Guest uses his usual company of actors (Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, etc) and they seem to have a good time making fun of themselves ultimately. Yes, there are funny moments, but the further the movie plods the less funny the moments become and ultimately the result of the 'rumor of greatness' shows us the shallow lives of the sad sack troupe of actors and producers and writers that started out with a pretty awful idea.

Guest usually pulls these capers off nicely, but perhaps with such films as 'The Producers' musical on the screens simultaneously the joke is stale. It is a good film to watch as Oscar time is upon us - and there is some pungent jabbing at awards concepts floating through the film. This is a movie for Guest fans, but not a good start for those who don't know his work. Grady Harp


I'm a big fan of Christopher Guest and his movies. For Your Consideration doesn't deserve any consideration. What a waste of time! Rather than viewing For Your Consideration, watch any other of his wonderful movies for the first or hundredth time and spend an enjoyable evening.

The characters are all flat and uninspired. The comedy is weak, tired, and very far from being fresh. It was all so predictable and boring.

I was so very disappointed. While many others walked out of the theater, I hung on hoping it would improve. It didn't. It is one of those films where you find yourself checking your watch to see how much more must be endured.


Christopher Guest has been making great comedies for years, his true to life warts and all mockumentaries have not only been the source of much amusement but have also paved the way for shows like 'The Office' so it no surprise that his latest offering has Ricky Grevais in it. Based around the buzz for Oscar glory and the extremes people go to it is simply hilarious and full of the usual bunch of crazy characters. Using many of the same actors he always does and his unique improvising technique of not sticking to a fixed script it gives people the chance to shine and really make the roles their own. The humour ranges from in your face laugh out loud to brilliantly subtle and never let's up, so much so I thought at one point I would choke. Not quite as good as 'Best In Show' but much better than 'A Mighty Wind' this film is the first he's done that is a straight story instead of a documentary style although he has cleverly woven elements of that in to this film through the actors doing interviews for various television shows and specials. It is a clever and funny side swipe at the industry and all its winners and losers and it puts Guest and co-writer Eugene Levy back at the top of the pile. Not afraid to poke fun at itself this film should delight fans and hopefully gain a few new ones. A triumphant return to form for all involved and it proves that you don't have to gross out and be extreme to be funny.


For a great bunch of writers and actors, who gave us Spinal Tap and Best of Show they have "Jumped the Shark" with this film. It had no plot so I can't spoil it for you. I did fall asleep in the theater so maybe I missed the good part. However, a friend did awaken me to be tortured by the rest of the show. I have always noted that good acting will not make up for a bad story and so it is with this "script". And now I have to write more lines to fulfill the 10 line minimum. Ten lines is way too much to spend on this film, maybe if it had ten lines of plot, I wouldn't have to ramble on this way. Now I still do not have enough lines, so once again I have to pad this awful review with more words.


Tired. Retread. Pained. Another smug, self-congratulatory and masturbatory film from Christoper Guest. Really, haven't we already seen this film several times over? Levy, always slightly creepy and disconcerting to watch, is excruciating in this one. The same could be said for Catherine O' Hara, who with Harry Shearer should stick to animated films. Parker Posey appears to be either painfully constipated or passing a kidney stone the size of Jupiter's Great Red Spot throughout most of the movie. And isn't everyone just tired of seeing Jennifer Coolidge in any role other than that of Stifler's mother? All in all, a wretched follow-up to A Mighty Wind.


I walked in "For Your Consideration" with a broad grin, eagerly anticipating the next ingenious Christopher Guest film. What I got was an unbelievably awful pile of odds and ends tied clumsily together by a script that allows little room for Guest's actors to do their trademark improv work. Guest has always been able to transform everyday topics into absurdist slices of hilarity, but here, he fails miserably. His great cast (Fred Willard, Ricky Gervais, Eugene Levy) struggles to squeeze some pizzaz out of a mirthless screenplay, but bomb doing so. This is simply, the year's unfunniest movie. For a film about Oscar hooplah, "Consideration" sure won't be seeing the little golden man this year.


Having been a fan of Christopher Guest since Waiting for Guffman, I was extremely disappointed in his latest "For Your Consideration". Come on now Chris, the embedded yiddish is now no more than cheap schtick that does make Jews like me chuckle but is lost on the rest of the audience. In "A Mighty Wind", the schtick was an integral part of the picture, here, it's silly, contrived and totally without any underlying humor or meaning. Eugene Levy is getting old, and tired, and Catherine O'Hara was frightening in that horrific post-collagen, face lift, botox masque that she had done in anticipation of winning an Oscar. The storytelling as in "Best in Show" was not there, nor the cohesive underpinning of Guffman or Wind. It resembled a series of outtakes that were somehow strung together without any rhyme or reason. I rarely comment negatively about a movie, but in this case, a second choice to "The Queen" which was having projector difficulties, it was a total waste of time.


This was rated a mere 1 based on sheer disappointment. I love all of Guest's movies but something happened or I should say didn't happen here. The movie was over before it stated with a running time of slightly over an hour and it appeared as though Guest just plain gave up and quit so the studio called in a editor to finish the project. Here we have one of Hollywood's most consistent and greatest ensemble cast and it is wasted on the scale of "The Thin Red Line". To top it off we have many many more faces everyone will recognize, too many. You just didn't care about any of them. The only saving grace was the take on Inside Edtion with the magnificent Judy Lynch and the clueless Fred Willard. But these were not scenes but bytes. The whole movie bytes. Go see "Stranger Than Fiction" and see a real movie. Just to write this makes me sad, I so loved all the other movies Guest and company have done. As Willard's character kept saying in the "Mighty Wind": "What happened???????????"


WAITING FOR GUFFMAN is my favorite movie of all time, so any new project from Christopher Guest has very big shoes to fill. But this one is so busy being pleased with itself that it doesn't even try.

It starts very, very well indeed. In fact, there were times that it seemed as if the script were being written with me in mind as viewer and the heck with everybody else. But then it starts to go off the tracks.

The centerpiece here is the filming of an independent film called HOME FOR PURIM about a Jewish family in the American South in the 1940's. The premise for the film within the film has struck some reviewers as preposterous, but let's remember that this month a major studio released a romantic comedy starring Russell Crowe so we're assured that stupidity is the one thing that there's a limitless supply of.

The scenes from HOME FOR PURIM that we see are wretched (strike one) but somehow buzz arises on the internet that the film is Oscar worthy. Incredibly enough the majority of characters in the story are clueless about what the internet is or how it operates even though the story seemingly takes place in 2006 (strike two).

The buzz builds to the point where the Evil Studio Executives take over the film and decide to "tone down" the Jewishness and it becomes HOME FOR THANKSGIVING, thus robbing the film of what little subtext it had.

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Nobody connected with HOME FOR THANKSGIVING gets nominated for anything. And it's here that the screenplay turns, for want of a better word, nasty. There's a bitterness in the final scenes that just left a bad taste in my mouth.

This is the kind of movie that comes out every once in a while that seems to have been made for a specific purpose- to assure the people who stayed on the farm in Nebraska or wherever that they didn't miss a thing by not having moved to Los Angeles. It tells us that there are people in Hollywhood who have big egos and are deceitful. Oh my God, no! I never dreamed such a thing. Next thing I know the National Geographic will tell me the world is round, or maybe Popular Science will tell me water is wet.

I would say that I'm very forgiving and will be there opening weekend for Guest and company's next movie. But at the showing I went to there were a grand total of five people in the audience counting myself. Maybe the buzz has gotten out on this one and it's not good. Despite what the movie presents, pretty much everyone in America over the age of eight does know how to use the internet.


Anyone with an erect sense of humor will tell you "This Is Spinal Tap" was one of the funniest movies ever made. It single-handedly introduced the "mockumentary" format, a style that actor/director Christopher Guest has revisited, most notably in his glorious "Waiting For Guffman." "Guffman" was about delusional theater director Corky St. Clair and his cast of local performers who dream of Broadway stardom. It was great... and if you've ever done community theater, you know it was absolutely true.

Since then Guest has directed "Best In Show," a muddled mockumentary about dog pageants, and "A Mighty Wind," a film about faux-folksingers that verged on a traditional Hollywood narrative. As a logical next step comes "For Your Consideration," a classical-narrative comedy about Oscar hype and Hollywood buzz.

I'll keep it short and sweet since the movie was just that. It's painless but forgettable, amusing but never cracklingly funny, enjoyable but inconsistent. It's a mixed bag of about 6 different movies (within movies) and actors perform without any unifying style: you have the broad buffoonery of Fred Willard as an oafish TV host and Guest himself as a caricature of a Jewish director negating the down-to-earth believability of Harry Shearer and Catherine O'Hara as earnest, aging actors aching for a comeback. It doesn't gel.

Add to this the fact that Guest has added to his ensemble with each of his subsequent films... at this point that group has snowballed into an unmanageable size. Wasted in tiny roles are Michael McKean, Don Lake, Michael Hitchcock, Larry Miller, Ricky Gervais and the great Jennifer Coolidge: "What about telling people NOT to see our show?" We're also stuck with actors who are less-than-hilarious: Ed Begley Jr, Jim Piddock, Jane Lynch, Bob Balaban, and a woman who has gotten progressively worse in every Guest film to the point I now consider her completely talent-free: Parker Posey.

I hate to complain about appearances but it doesn't help that the majority of Guest's troupe are up-there in the age department. It's starting to become a distraction, especially when said stars are getting "funny" make-up jobs, like Willard's bizarre bleach-curl and O'Hara's plastic-surgery parody cheeks. The Carnival Factor is considerable...

Even if all of the above had somehow magically coalesced it wouldn't have mattered: Guest did this story of fame-hungry hopefuls much better with "Waiting For Guffman." It was a lot more exciting to watch the town dentist come alive as a stage actor than watching a Hollywood actor pine for a trophy. Leave the Hollywood scripts to the hacks, Mr. Guest, and get back to what you do best: the mockumentary. I bet you still fit into Corky's dance pants.

GRADE: C


I was ready to love this movie as I was already sold with Guest's previous works. His comedy and characters have always been on the "edge" of being irritating, but so far he has managed to balance it towards lovably ridiculous, and in turn hysterical. This time the balance fell the other way and what a heavy thud it made. It is almost painful to watch. The whole scene it tries to make fun of is already a ridiculous one and in this Guest makes his characters so over the top that it completely separates him from the actual Hollywood, making his satire pointless and outdated. It is not even hard to say where he has gone wrong: the characters he created before were quirky, offbeat, but ultimately lovable. The ones in FYC are not not not. I flat out hated them. I was ready to punch, slap, or spit in the face any one of them, and it is hard to laugh at the same time. I still liked Willard though. He brought the 3 stars. Otherwise there would be none from me...


This movie sucked balls. I was totally hyped up to see it. Christopher Guest is usually reliable when it comes to hilarity. His characters are original and funny. Good thing I rented this piece-o-shat because I would've bought it had it been for sale. I don't understand why it was such a horrible movie. After watching it I felt dirty and used. There was one funny scene but I can't even think of it right now. I sure hope the next one is good, otherwise I'll never get hard for Parker Posey again.(just kidding. she is too hot.) DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. Trust me, it's that bad. I would rather watch a Steven Segal movie than watch this steaming pile again.


To date, my favorite among Christopher Guest's projects is "Best In Show." I had seen "Waiting for Guffman" which is also good. And I finally got a chance to see "Spinal Tap" directed by Rob Reiner but which features the majority of Guest's ensemble cast. While it was okay, it certainly wasn't all that. "A Mighty Wind" is probably my least favorite though it had its moments.

Nonetheless, his stalwart ensemble cast is quite simply flawless and most of the regulars return to make "For Your Consideration" quite a funny send-up.

The standout performances here are undoubtedly Catherine O'Hara & Fred Willard. While Catherine is most funny, there are some very tender and very poignant aspects of this performance that really kinda grab you. Fred Willard who plays the jerk reporter, extraordinare to perfection is actually sorely needed here - I could not imagine how the flow of the film might have fared had he not been.

Watching the transformation of personalities as a result of an internet RUMOR makes for some delicious fun - the cast appears to be having a blast as well.

If you are indeed a fan of Christopher Guest and his projects, this will not disappoint in the least.

Definitely recommend!


I rented this on the strength of the crew's previous works: this by far is the weakest. A character uncomfortable in his/her own skin is only funny if the lines are funny. They aren't. I was severely disappointed. I understand Guest's formula: get talented actors together with a concept and minimally scripted lines, put them together and roll the film. It has worked before (Waiting For Guffman, Best In Show) but not here. What the viewer gets is talented actors begging for material. They don't get it and neither does the audience. Other reviewers have loved this film and I think I know why. They remember the actors' brilliance in other films and are trying to re-live that experience. They have loved the film before they saw it. For me; this is a very boring film made by people who should and do know better.


In spite of his incredible talents as an actor (especially comedic), Christopher Guest has essentially fizzled as a director to the point that his most recent (and best-known) films have been largely-improvised mockumentaries along the lines of Rob Reiner's "This Is Spinal Tap" (in which Guest acts, quite brilliantly), which require little of him as a writer or director, instead relying on the cast. "For Your Consideration" seems to be Guest's attempt to move back toward more-demanding film directing, as it leaves the documentary style behind in favor of more typical visual film fare, has more narrative structure than his previous films ("A Mighty Wind" and "Best in Show"), and even seems more comedically designed in that the scenes are built to a single joke rather than the rapid-fire succession of them in his mockumentaries. Guest even throws in that he's making a movie about the movies, perhaps the most satire-ripe subject on earth.

However, he is not quite up to the task, though the film was a large improvement on his last traditional film, "Almost Heroes." It seems that Guest was still somewhat caught between traditional film-making and the fly-on-the-wall sort of technique that his mockumentaries used, as he often struggles between the angles that emphasize his points and simple medium-to-long frontal shots of characters speaking. He also seems to have scripted a larger amount of the film, since the scenes are almost all structured for the delivery of a single joke (which is true of most comedic films). The characterization is also dull and uninteresting, including none of the over-the-top stereotypes of his previous films (which I assume are meant to satirize said stereotypes and their use in film) and instead pushing the same characters (without the exaggeration needed for humor) we see in all self-referential films. We meet the unorthodox, somewhat disconnected director (played by Guest himself, of course, in another obvious joke), the over-emotional young actress, the aging actress trying to hold onto her youth, the studio suit trying to prove he understands the art, the smarmy agent, and the wise older actor. Overall, Guest's script and direction are so derivative that it's almost painful. It's like watching a first-year film student trying to cover the same ground an old master, Robert Altman, covered so capably in "The Player," while the student never quite understands what makes the master's film work.

The acting in the film is quite good, though the characters require little. The only character who really does require a decent amount of work is Victor Allan Miller, who is played to perfection by Harry Shearer. (This characterization is also the subject of the best line in the film, as Catherine O'Hara tells Shearer, "You play the actor very well.") Overall, it's tough to read Christopher Guest's "For Your Consideration" as anything other than a satire-by-numbers by a director still trying to find his way and possibly fearing that his past success has come only because of his much-liked troupe of improv actors. If you are a fan of these actors (especially O'Hara, who is undoubtedly the star of the film, and Ricky Gervais, who is inexplicably given the big star part), you will probably enjoy the film. If you were hoping for an intelligent, witty comedic examination of the film industry (as I was), the film will disappoint. Let's just hope that this film's failure is enough to make Guest either stick to the mockumentaries or stick to acting.


The gang from Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show and A Mighty Wind are all back and raring to go. Each actor once again comes up with their own unique character quirks and personalities--some, of course, more outrageous than others. Stand-outs in that department include Higgins as the uptight, militaristic publicist Corey; Willard as the bombastic TV host with a "faux" Mohawk, with the plastic Lynch, smiling sweetly--and completely insincerelyby his side; and Coolidge as yet another dumb, hat-wearing, push-up bra-strapping blonde who delivers some of the funnier lines in the movie. But the real surprise is O'Hara as Marilyn, the veteran actress who has all but given up on the dream of making it biguntil she gets caught up in all the excitement and starts to believe again. It's actually more than a little heartbreaking to watch, as O'Hara provides an emotional core amidst the sea of cut-ups.


I saw this movie the night AFTER the Oscars which raised some interesting questions. It was a scathing if hilarious indictment of the entire Hollywood system in general and the Oscars in particular. It was obvious why the Academy completely ignored the movie, but I wondered why host Ellen D. couldn't have gotten in at least one mention of it, as a dig at the system.

The dramatic arc of the film concerns Catherine O'Hara's character, who begins as a well-respected, serious actor who in late career has been reduced to taking minor parts in mediocre movies, and who ends as a botoxed, pompous, frankly insane drama coach because of her obsession with getting an Oscar nomination. The final scene is not only NOT humorous, but is really quite devastating.

Of course the whole thing, like all the other Chris Guest films, is a mostly improvised riff on some American institution with many laughs and bizarre yet recognizable characters. "For Your Consideration" is probably more surreal, dark and cruel than the others, which is appropriate for any movie about movies and the "dream factory," but for me had just as many funny bits as Guest's stock company find the intrinsic humor in their characters. And in O'Hara's case, her performance runs even deeper and sadder than the rest, and should be a lasting icon of Hollywood movie movies like Norma Desmond, whom she greatly resembles by the end.


Alas, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION will elicit sleepy "no thanks'" responses from most audiences. An 86 minute in-joke for the film biz but not the audiences who pay, this skid-mark in CG's career is adequately spelled out in other comments on this site. I was very disappointed and ultimately, bored by this slight joke movie lampooning what should be a sure fire winner comedy. Probably the one really funny gag is Catherine O'Hara's plastic surgery. I also have a complete aversion to Parker Posey. Every role I have endured seeing her including this one is tedious. She cannot act. The 'role of a lifetime' in SUPERMAN RETURNS was another lame result. She might stay home along with Casey Affleck and Denise Richards and spare us moviegoers from more wasted time. FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION needed a proper script and tighter direction and a 75 minute running time. I did consider, and my answer is NO.


You really would think that no other film musical documentary could possibly top THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT. Come on--it's got personal appearances by a host of stars, and some of the most famous and best-loved clips ever. Including, you know, the singing in the rain bit from SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. Could it get any better?

Well, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT II certainly tries its darned hardest to be better. Not a single clip is repeated from the first film in the trilogy, and watching this film really makes you realise just how much talent was all focused in the one studio from the 30s through to the 50s. Judy Garland admiring Fred Astaire's Easter bonnet in EASTER PARADE, Garland and Astaire sailing up the avenue as 'A Couple Of Swells' in the same film, Gene Kelly and Garland dueting on FOR ME AND MY GAL, Ann Miller and Bob Fosse in KISS ME KATE, a montage of musicals before colour, a Garland tribute, a Spencer Tracy/Katharine Hepburn love-fest... this film unabashedly brings them all (and much much more) together. There are a couple of clunkers, of course, like Bobby Van hopping like a maniacal rabbit-freak through the town, or the token Esther Williams number. But as you listen to Garland sing 'Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas', or Frank Sinatra croon his way through 'I Fall In Love Too Easily', and see Gene tap dance on skates as naturally as if he had been born with them strapped on... again you're struck with just how special an era this was in film-making, one that unfortunately is lost to the rest of us except through video and DVD.

And I know that this isn't the most popular of opinions, but I think THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT II not only matches but far surpasses the original. There was nothing special about the first film--its only gimmick was the coup it had managed in bringing all these glorious film legends back together to talk about their work. The only caveat was that the incredible personalities behind the stars just couldn't shine through except with some pretty special people... otherwise, they were all reading off a pre-written script. Kind of dampening, really.

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT II, on the other hand, is a small but successful exercise in creativity: from the title sequence through to Gene Kelly's direction of the new footage between himself and Astaire. It's also a delight for fans of both Astaire and Kelly when these two dancing men, you know... dance together again. Sure, they're not as nimble and quicksilver as they used to be, and some of the lyrics they're singing are--well, the only word for it is corny. But there's no denying that both these men have a kind of screen charisma that doesn't disappear with time, and having them both onscreen together, singing... now that really *is* entertainment as it should be. In the final scene they tell us that the best films have the audience leaving the film with a glow. How right they are.

Quite simply, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT II is sheer, perfect nostalgia bottled and kept simmering, just waiting for an audience. About the only flaw with it is that it simply couldn't be better than its source material... but that's also what's so good about this film. It makes you want to go out and rent all the others... and still watch it over again just to revel in Astaire and Kelly being onscreen together for the first time since 'The Babbitt and The Bromide' in ZIEGFELD FOLLIES almost three decades ago.

What more could you ask for?


Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire introduce more wonderful numbers from MGM musicals. This time drama and comedy clips have been added.

OK--there was no way this could be as good as Part 1. Most of the good material had been used there already. Also Astaire and Kelly were given some dreadful new lyrics to classic songs to sing and their introductions to segments were just terrible. It was NOT a good idea to have them dancing either. And I could have lived without the travelogue of Paris. Still, there's plenty of incredible material here.

Among the highlights: Wonderful opening credits (done by Saul Bass); Eleanor Powell tap-dancing; Greta Grabo dancing (!!); Robert Taylor singing (!!!); the Marx Brothers stateroom sequence from "A Night at the Opera" (unfortunately edited); From This Moments On from "Kiss Me Kate"; early Bing Crosby; Abbott & Costello; Tales from the Vienna Woods (which is actually pretty funny); Judy Garland singing "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas"; clips of dramatic and comedic stars; the I'll Build A Stairway to Paradise number; Bobby Van from "Small Town Girl"; etc etc.

The clips are put together without rhyme or reason--but that helps. You never know what's coming next. Worth catching but try to see the first one too.


This particular TE! is very much trapped in time. While it does have a bunch of great songs and pieces, the musical interludes in between old footage are almost embarrassing. The other 2 TE!s were much better.

That's More Entertainment! on the other hand, was absolutely hideous.


This film was another excuse to look through those old MGM film vaults and get out some old film reels, to enjoy once more. This excuse cetainly pays off with over 2*hrs of stunning musical/dance performances. It is even more enjoyable than the first, as Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly even entertain us with numerous dance numbers during the films intervals - the last time they were to dance together on screen. The clips are indelible as they are precious, which includes rare footage of Greta Garbo dancing!, Robert Taylor singing!, and Esther Williams Skiing!.

Overall it is action packed enjoyment throughout, simply bursting through the screen. Fans of musicals and any of the old stars, will relish with the opportunity to see the talented MGM stars in action once more. Lots of MGM glitz and Glamour thrown in too!!!


Following the surprising success of That's Entertainment in 1974, Gene Kelly was the driving force behind this sequel, which not only further highlighted the M-G-M musical, but opened the door for wider range of genres.

Showcased along side the great musical numbers, comedy and melodrama are given equal screen time with stars like Kathrine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy realising that together they could lick 'em all, John Barrymore begging Greta Garbo to stay when she so obviously and characteristically 'wants to be alone' and Clark Gable showing us exactly why he didn't give a damn!!

Vintage footage from The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, Robert Benchley and William Powell and Myrna Loy keep the laughs coming, while deeper delves into the musical archives, link this movie to it's predecessor.

Ann Miller, Fred and Ginger, Gene Kelly, Bobby Van, Lena Horne, Bob Fosse, Debbie Reynolds, Mickey and Judy, Cyd Charisse and many more are all featured, picking up where the first movie left off, and for lovers of Frank Sinatra, there is a special segment of the movie purely reserved to spotlight his talent, narrated by his long-time friend, Gene Kelly.

Kelly himself is not only seen in the archive footage, but he also directed, and choreographed all the new scenes and dance routines that link the classic clips together as well as pulling presenting and narrating duties with another old friend and M-G-M stalwart Fred Astaire.

The two had only performed together on film on one prior occasion, dancing to George Gershwin's 'Babbitt and the Bromide' in the penultimate act of Zeigfeld Follies in 1946 and now thirty years later these two screen dancers were set to have the time of their lives.

However although it was a rare treat to see them nimbly treading around their props, it looks sadly like two old men going through the motions as Fred and Gene who were at the time 77 and 64 respectively, have neither the speed or agility they both once had, although if I could perform even half as good at either of their ages I'd know I was wearing the years well. This was Fred's last ever dancing on film of which he said later, "that wasn't dancing, that was just moving around"

I especially liked the finale when they reel off a long list of the movie stars who have featured in the compilation all done to music and all done in rhyme.

However, the real treat from these guys are not what they were doing in the link up's but rather what they did way back when, and fortunately in That's Entertainment Part II there are more classic clips than you can shake a stick at.


I really enjoyed That's Entertainment II just as much as the first one. It's got some great material, some of my favourite scenes in here! I really enjoyed seeing the Art Deco musicals - they are my favourite! A good thing about this movie is that anyone can enjoy it - young and old because there is something that will appeal to everyone. It is so fun looking back on that golden era, but it is sad that we will never capture that sense of glamour that was. What else can I say - it's a great movie fit for the whole family to enjoy. However, I find the material a bit corny and unnecessary, but still good to watch Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly - I hope I'm in that good of a shape when I'm that age! And like other reviewers, I feel there is no order in which the footage is shown. It seems to be sprawled about and it is a little confusing. But nevertheless, a movie I can watch over and over again.


This was certainly a surprise choice for the folks at Reel 13 Classics. It's not so much a classic as it is a retrospective of classics, which I guess qualifies if you look at it from a certain vantage point. Still, I couldn't help but be a little disappointed when I saw this film on the May schedule. Generally speaking, as a film buff, I enjoy retrospectives. More often than not, they offer unique perspectives on their subjects and insight into film history.

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART II is different, however, for three reasons. One is the series was made by MGM/UA and so they primarily feature MGM musicals/scenes. While MGM had a lot of great stuff, narrowing your retrospective to one distributor over a two-decade period is a limitation. Second, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART II is an afterthought of a sequel  they already used their best clips in the first film, so we get the leftovers here. Finally, the intros to clips by Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly are inane and offer absolutely no valuable information or tidbits (Where was Neal Gabler when we needed him?). They are great performers, but Kelly, who also directs, insights on these pseudo-clever song introductions to each sequence of clips, which is a waste of time. As I mentioned, part of the joy of retrospectives such as these is that they give us insider information, production stories or something of that ilk  a kind of structure that tap dancing will not replace.


This compilation isn't as good as the original, but it's still fantastic.

One of my favorite things about this movie is the hosts: Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. I'm a fan of both of them and seeing them together is so rare that I had a huge smile on my face every time they shared the screen. Throw in some short dances by them together and that alone makes this worth watching.

This movie corrected two oversights from the first movie: we get to see Cyd Charisse's Singin' In The Rain dance (in the green dress) and Kelly's dance on roller skates from It's Always Fair Weather.

I did enjoy the non-musical clips in this movie, although I thought there were some omissions. The most glaring was the absence of a clip from Woman of the Year (the movie that brought Tracy and Hepburn together both on screen and off).

I was also disappointed that when musical clips were shown, the movie they were from was not always identified. I knew most of them, but there are one or two that I didn't know and wish that I did.

Bobby Van's bunny hop dance was odd and at first I didn't like it. But, as it went on, I was amazed at how long and intricate that dance was. Yes, it looked simple, but I suspect it was actually very difficult.

This movie stands on its own, but I think it's best watched along with the original.


Objectively speaking, it's hard to argue with those who believe that 'That's Entertainment! (1974)' towers over its sequel. Indeed, the first film naturally had all the classics to choose from, and so director Jack Haley Jr. was able to throw all the very best bits into his film. When Gene Kelly arrived on the scene to direct 'That's Entertainment, Part II (1976),' he found no shortage of interesting clips in the MGM archives, but occasionally had to settle for the secondary musical numbers from the most famous musicals, for example, having to settle with "Good Morning" instead of "Singin' in the Rain." Nevertheless, I think I enjoyed the sequel even more than the original, not because of the nostalgic clipshow, but because of the interludes in between. Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire, performing together for the first (and only) time since 'Ziegfeld Follies (1946),' light up the screen with their lighthearted theatrics, proving  at ages 64 and 77, respectively  that time has done little to dim their talent for entertainment.

For all its nostalgic spectacle, 'That's Entertainment!' had still been a rather impersonal affair. Plenty of faded stars appeared on screen to briefly recount their experiences, but their monologues were obviously tightly scripted and lacked the intimacy and insight that they might have had. By 1976, Gene Kelly was already an experienced director (most notably in his collaborations with Stanley Donen) and so he decided to dress up his newly-shot interludes, sacrificing wistful recollection for just one more opportunity to see two of cinema's greatest sharing the stage, all to the tune of Arthur Schwartz and Howard Dietz's "That's Entertainment!" {from the film 'The Band Wagon (1953)'}. Both stars, incredibly, dart across the stage with all of their usual exuberance, and, in his final filmed performance, Fred Astaire apparently still retains the liveliness of a man two decades his junior. Kelly also breaks up the film with a brief vignette on location in Paris, where MGM Oscar-winning blockbusters 'An American in Paris (1951)' and 'Gigi (1958)' were set.

The most exciting element of the 'That's Entertainment!' series, I think, is that not only can we relive all those precious classic moments, but we can also learn of the more obscure musicals about which we would otherwise have known nothing. For my part, the film added 'The Band Wagon' and 'Easter Parade (1948)' to my must-see list {yes, I am still a novice!}, and piqued my interest in many others. One hilarious sequence from 'Small Town Girl (1953),' frequently disparaged by reviewers, sees Bobby Van bounding across town like a kangaroo/pogo stick hybrid  where did that man get so much energy? All in all, I found 'That's Entertainment, Part II' to be a supreme piece of musical entertainment, mostly due to the newly-shot footage featuring Kelly and Astaire I know I'll be humming the title song all weekend. I'm now interested in watching Part III, if only to find out how Bud Friedgen and Michael J. Sheridan, with a dwindling selection of numbers, managed to keep the series fresh.


The received wisdom is that sequels don't work but against that we need to consider French Connection II, Godfather II etc. That's Entertainment II works in the sense that for musical buffs a That's Entertainment XI would work if it offered MORE clips of musical movies even of the most dubious quality. This sequel rightly makes the point that 'entertainment' is not exclusively words and music and backs up the point by including snippets of comedy and drama at which MGM also excelled. Although in my book Astaire leaves Kelly for dead, always has, always will, it was still great to see them getting the lion's share (ouch) of footage as co-hosts even if - as more than one poster has stated - they were saddled with some of the most inept and cringe-making parody lyrics. A welcome addition to the genre.


I am old enough to have seen this movie first run. At the time I was blown away by this film because it had every thing in it any city kid would want to be able to do, which mostly was race horses and have a pretty girl interested in the same thing as a friend. Since this film was so important to me I feel compelled to correct an error in the cast listing by IMDb. Currently Jeanne Crain's character is listed as Char Bruce which is correct, but June Haver's character is listed as Cri-Cri Bruce which would make them sisters which they are not! Cri-Cri is the daughter of Godaw Boole, the owner of the horse farm where Char's father is the head trainer, soooooo Cri-Cri's last name should be Boole, not Bruce! I have no idea how this casting error crept into IMDb's data base, but as a movie fan interested in accuracy I'm requesting that IMDb correct this mistake. I know I am right in this because I've seen this film at least 20 times over the years and have read the book that the film is based on (The Phantom Filly).


Home in Indiana is a wonderful movie. I saw this on AMC when I was a kid and still remember it. It's a film about a troubled youth who comes to live on his aunt and uncles farm. At first he doesn't want to be there but then he makes some friends and eventually gets involved in some kind of chariot horse racing. The music score and talent makes this film a classic. Another movie called April Love, with Pat Boone and Shirley Jones , came out about 20 years after Home in Indiana and copied the premise of the movie. Jeanne Crain is the one I remember most in this film, I think it was her second film. I think Fox released this movie and I hope they release this timeless movie on DVD soon, along with other Jeanne Crain films.


This feature accomplishes perfectly what GREEN GRASS OF WYOMING failed to do four years later - both deal with similar subjects: adolescents training to bring horses to trotting race success. This film however is filled with poignancy, beauty and self-assuredness. It was the first starring role for Lon McCallister, a young man who made 42 films but only nine after this one, retiring from the screen at 30. It was Jeanne Crain's fist starring role as well, being only her fourth film. Both are absolutely radiant in the leads and so appealing you want to adopt them. Lending able support are Walter Brennan and Charlotte Greenwood (doing a prototype Aunt Eller-like job). Willie Best and particularly George Reed provide additional fine work. Reed is a find and one wonders why he was not the choice for Disney's Uncle Remus. This is a film full of beautiful color cinematography (it earned a deserved Oscar nom in this category) that is also extremely accomplished in the difficult tracking shots that put us right IN the races. The Academy failed to honor Hugo Friedhofer's excellent musical score but it deserved a nom as well. This is a radiant film that is perfect for adolescents to watch, especially those in love with horses and racing. I am astonished it is not available on video. Do seek it out.


I picked up this movie short, with 7 other titles, at a library discard sale and I'm so glad I did. "Singapore Sue" took me by surprise as I got to see a young and up-coming Cary Grant and a delightful Asian actress Anna Chang. You can see the "raw" Cary as he portrayed a sailor looking for love. His character looks so odd compared to the way we think of him today. But the most charming part to me was seeing Anna Chang sing and dance around in her little outfit that was risqué for the period. She and the other Chinese singer/actor, I believe to be Joe Wong (the only other Chinese name in the credits), were great! A very charming and entertaining short film not typical for the period because of the use of prominent Chinese actors in an American film.

Kino Video "Rhapsodies in Black & Blue" vol. 4, VHS with other musical shorts including Eddie Cantor, Rudy Vallee, Louis Armstrong, Ethel Merman and more. If anyone has any of the other three in the series, let me know!


That's about all of note in this otherwise forgettable film. At least, I hope it's forgettable. The songs are standard period fare, ponderous and somewhat shrill. Cary's frightening makeup makes him almost unrecognizable, but who could mistake that voice! Interesting as a bit of history, I don't recommend picking up the digitally re-mastered gold disc limited collector's edition (if it should ever come out).


I used to remember when b-grade movies used to have at least some redeeming quality about them, be it the effort that some actors went through to do what they must to make a buck, or even something about the story that had a certain charm. Phobic isn't one of these.

In it, Joey Walters, played by Billy Parish, (who would pass for Brandon Lee were it not for the dumb look on his face) has agoraphobia- fear of socializing and the outside. In this case, every time someone opens the door, he starts to space out and see double. Well, we see double and the camera pulling in and out and the brightness turned up too high- we have no idea what Joey sees. Perhaps it's that crazy lunatic that killed his sister that still haunts him- who calls him on the phone, and eventually enters his house, that's driving him crazy? Perhaps he has schizophrenia instead? And what is it with all these bodies showing up? At one point, we see a single little gleam of light that may not save the movie, but show us a surprise. But no. Who cares.

Bad synthesized music, sound levels that are not audible enough, cheap camera tricks that's supposed to pass off for special effects, and of course really bad acting. If you're looking for gore, you won't find any here and what's supposed to be scary isn't. If you're in the mood for a spooky man living in your house, see Hider in the House. If you want to see I'm a crazy person seeing things, see Spider or a Beautiful Mind

2 out of 10


I can't believe people were actually paid for this film. I have never laughed so hard throughout a film. Billy Parrish, the guy who played Joey, where was he found? And the rest of the cast, did the director go out the day of shooting and ask random people on the street... "Hey do you want to be in a movie... no just wear what you are wearing right now that's fine... no, there's no script, just say whatever you want." Also, was the special effects guy paid? Because I'm sure you could have found someone who would have done it for free, then again, you'd have to pay me to add my name to that film. And the camera shots made me feel as if I was watching a soup opera movie. My friends and I want to make the sequel, we plan on using my hand-held camcorder (which I'm convinced the director for this movie used). So does anyone actually own the rights to this film, because I can't imagine anyone would want to.


Not bad not good this movie is a 1001 rip-off of Stranger in the House and many other to date, but with a twist. the actors act like there acting in quicksand also it remind me of Home Alone 15 years later... All in all it o.k to watch if you have nothing to do and I do mean nothing.. One more thing if you're Brandon Lee fan, the main actor could pass for his long lost brother bad-actor-Lee... Bruce Lee be glad this guy isn't your son.....


Phobic is not a big-budget studio production, or even a mid-budget indie production. That should be apparent from the credits on the video box, although the extremely negative posts about this film seem to have missed that fact. While consumers of mainly studio fare should probably skip this title, those who take an interest in the passion-fueled world of low-budget film-making may be surprised by the story. There's smart writing, some nice character interaction, and humor as well. I will fault the distributor, though, for marketing this title as a horror film; rather, it is a psychological thriller that relies more on the slow building of suspense than on blood or gore. Its weakest point is the poor lighting, but that is more a reflection of the budget than the story itself. If you see this film, keep these points in mind and you may appreciate what the cast and crew, largely on sweat and tears, managed to accomplish.


Phobias fascinate me. Great movie, very nice. I love it. The ending is such a twist you'll never guess it.

Turn back now or know the ending: When the killer is e-mailing, calling,in the house,killing people, all that? He runs outside to save his mother from the killer and fights with the killer until he realizes it was all a big vivid hallucination!!! No one ever died that day his mom went to work late! He takes flowers to his sister's grave and gets back with his girlfriend, no longer an agoraphobic. The killer was in police custody the whole time, like the news said. I love this movie. If you decided to read this far, you still might want to watch to see how severe a phobia can be, and an extreme example of how love for a family member can possibly cure it. Joey would've died for his mother, and this movie touched me deeply.


Though many will avoid this little film because the title and DVD cover suggest a mindless mélange of sexual encounters, those who can get past these flaws will find a well written (Miles Brandman) examination of young people's concepts of relationships and how to keep them. Brandman also directs this stylish charmer and has at his disposal actors not usually associated with a more serious type of story.

James (Macaulay Culkin) and Heather (Alexis Dziena) are young, attractive and in love, though Heather is finally able to confide in James that she is unable to achieve orgasm in their otherwise satisfactory sex life. Ellis (Kuno Becker) and Renee (Eliza Dushku) are another couple whose intimate life has lost its sparkle. Each of the couples (who have never met) hears about sex therapist Dr. Wellbridge (Joanna Miles) who supports the concept of group sex as a means to strengthen relationships grown stale. Each couple meets with the doctor, reveals their insecurities and fears and Dr. Wellbridge arranges a 'session' for the two couples to share an evening of intimate interaction. How this 'change' alters each couple's relationship is the message of the film: some surprises are in store that are unsuspected.

Yes, there is comedy here and yes, there is thoughtful dialog, but the pleasure of the film lies in discovering the expanded acting abilities demonstrated by these four young attractive actors. The film may not be deep, but it does entertain and it most certainly has some useful information about love and relationships we all need to know. Grady Harp


I didn't have any expectations for this movie, but 52 people have it a 7.9, it was free, so I figured I'd give it a go. Blah. The good news is Eliza Dushku has nice legs, and now I want a Denver omelet. An hour and 20 minutes of poor acting, weak lines, and a forced pill of controversy don't do much for me. Macaulay's mannerisms seem terribly forced, but at least it seemed like he tried. He failed, but he tried. The rest of the cast was forgettable, there are several pointless scenes and what's more, the film tries to focus on sex. The awkwardness was decently conveyed, but without spoiling a movie short on content, the ending really just treats it as a red herring. Sex and relationships, at least make up your mind what your movie is about before you shoot it, because whoever wrote this obviously wasn't talented enough to include both. Eh, at least there was some Sea Wolf in there.


unlike the other 3 guys who did not like the movie, i did, many will make the mistake and expect a normal comedy where this is most definitely a drama, as its not the jokes or story what makes the movie interesting but how personalities of characters are react and develop to the story given challenge. in this case 3 in general monogamous and 1 poly capable person decide the 1st time experience group sex, the expectations they have and the mistakes they do. i have a unique perspective as i do live for a long time sexually open/poly, so for me its very interesting to see how others see this issue, the acting is brilliant and the reactions of the characters reminds me on people i known in the past who got in to similar situations, its rare to find a movie on this subject. the only reason i cant give this movie a 10 is because the story-line is pulled out to thin, sometimes it becomes boring because absolutely nothing happening for minutes, they filled those long minutes with "everyday" conversations that do not build on the story-line nor are in any way interesting nor funny


It's just far more complicated than it appears. It tells a story about two couples , who due to longterm relationships decide to try something new.They go to this therapy, where couples change their partners- polygamia or something.In the first couple the women is sorry for the term but whore in my words. she just wanted wild sex, but her boyfriend was conservative but they love each other and everything seems to be fine. The second couple presents a woman , who wants to try out with other women and pure alpha man. These two couples change the partners. Fot the man in the second couple and the woman in the first it means nothing, cuz they were closer like characters. But this was very bad for the other two. They felt unsatisfied not sexually but mentally. They were not ready for such thing. The first couple breaks off after and second one seems to remain together but he film is with open final. I 'm hoping as an expert in the field to be in your help.


This film failed on all counts. While I accept that couples of any age can experience the problems that these couples are dealing with, but throughout the film it seems that their real problem is that they are bored.

The ending was the only part of the movie that I thought made any sense, and then only just.

My wife and I almost never agree 100% on movies, our tastes are completely different. We both 100% detested this film.

So, to summarize: * No Plot * Bad Writing * Actors who seem disinterested in the material, or they were poorly directed * Zero nudity

There are much better movies that cover similar territory, find one.


The 2 stars go to Eliza Dushku - without her I wouldn't have bothered to continue with this snooze-fest!

Firstly this looked like a low/no budget movie and reduced it to looking like a student film. That, and also it felt like the concept may have been an idea for a short but was then stretched out into a "feature"... It really doesn't work because there is no real drama here - I didn't feel like I could know the 4 main characters - the only character who seemed to have an attempt at becoming multi-layered is Renee.. From the mention of wanting to be with a girl and then befriending the waitress, who seemed like she could be a lesbian, a new layer began to unravel for Renee. Ellis who felt threatened by this didn't react the way Renee (and possibly the people in the audience) expected. It was supposed to be a turn on but it back fired and their relationship inadvertently came under scrutiny.

I liked the ending for Renee, in that she left the waitress' number behind and we don't know if it was by accident or if on purpose to commit to her relationship with Ellis. There was something endearing about that...

But this in itself was not enough to make this movie worth a see - I think Dushku fans (including myself) will watch this just for her and will be glad to finally see her in something, anything... however it makes one wonder why on earth she did this! She is capable of so much more and it's sad to see her career not really going anywhere :( The rest of the cast were just okay - Macaulay Culkin is miscast, you can't help but see the home alone kid only he's gotten old and ugly! There is no attempt on his side to change his look and to be taken seriously as an adult actor either. The other two who I have never seen before are quite wooden and contrived.

Final thought - don't bother! Sorry Dushku but what were you thinking?!


I don't see how anyone saw this as only sex. Sexually charged. Sex as a goal. The emotions of sex. All those but not 'just' sex. Relationships. Couples pushing limits. Rules we have for each other that maybe are not that. Maybe nature breeds into us what we will and will not accept -or maybe it's only culture. Tough to say much more without spoiling. I'll agree the dialog, especially near the beginning was rookie. Crude. Trying to shock and instead sounding like 11-year old's trying out new words. But somewhere in there it became what it needed to be to make this an interesting movie. No problem recommending this one. Decide for yourself what it's about. Maybe it's quite different for each. Suggestion: unless you're willing to put your own relationship out there for scrutiny you maybe don't want to watch this with a girl/boyfriend. Better an opposite sex friend that you are not in a sexual or emotional relationship with.


OK i wont be long but i gotta say this, i watched this movie because of the other recommendations (i.e. The eternal sunshine of the spotless mind) but i ended up wasting one hr and a bit of my life. As the others stated, the movie has no point no story line and has absolutely no life into it...it does nothing other than selling sex like many movies these days but yeah besides that the actors seem to force themselves into acting, it just doesn't look natural. And i just want to restate what the other 2 comments say, what couple so young (oh btw Alexis Dziena looks like shes 15) already have problems like that...anyway i could ramble on and on but i think i got my point across


I am very sorry if someone did like this movie, but I found it awful. How many % of population would think about this solution if a relationship wouldn't "work" properly? From the beginning to the end. No sense, no logic, no reality. I don' t think that in real life people who find having problems in their relationship should not look for extremely strange solutions for save the relationship. I believe that maybe there are some examples that do that, but not for the same reason. sessions to long without any word or sound. pretty boring. no dynamic. it seems very unreal. I expected much more. actors are OK, their contribution is good as it can be in their role. scenes of sex are difficult for them, they are too young. everything is extended. hard to stay focused because it is not interesting at all. I wanted to watch until the end because of commenting otherwise i wouldn' t.


War between Constantinopolis and the Turks; a good looking Christian warrior and lustful damsels; and castle intrigues. Good elements for an adventure and love story. Package this with a rich production, luscious imagery, elaborate carnivalesque costumes, and famous actors. Sounds good? Alas, this titanic effort meets its iceberg in the form of dumb and Disneyesque bombastic dialog. The intellectual level is that of children, though young teens may find pleasure in the action. I could tolerate such dumbing down for just an hour. A wasted evening.

I felt sad for Giancarlo Gianini, an actor for which I have great admiration. To see him in such a wreck! I guess the pay must have been good. He redeemed himself when, after one bit of shaggy-dog dialog, he looks askance at the perpetrator of the utterance with a disgust filled sneer. Yes, Giancarlo, that the way I felt throughout the time I endured this albatross.


I hadn't read the book prior to seeing the movie, so I can't compare them. Honestly, I expected it to be deadly bad. And I was really surprised. The story is beautiful, filled with both humor and drama. It's not the "Troya" kind of film, the battle scenes are somehow poor (maybe due to a bad production?) yet Aranda gives them a personal touch. Aranda surprises again with his ability to investigate love, passion and human feelings. I loved the fact that Tirant is not the typical hero. Shame that the actor is sometimes empty...specially in comparison to the women of the film. Sure that Esther Nubiola is a discovery, we can read everything from her eyes and she's the perfect image for sensuality. Leonor Watling and Ingrid Rubio bring brightness to the movie, as well as Victoria Abril,able to catch the eye of the camera even from the back. A special congratulations to Giancarlo Gianini, this guy is always perfect whatever he does. Amazing dresses,by Ivonne Blake and beautiful music, with those breathtaking child chorus. The only shame, that Vicente Aranda didn't have the right producers and sometimes you can feel it through the movie.


Excellent costumes, three times over. The story may be weak, but frankly, I didn't care, lush colors and beautiful women in beautiful apparels, - that was more than sufficient for me. Those who enjoyed Greenaway's experiments such as "The Baby of Mâcon" and "Prospero's Books", should enjoy "Tirante El Blanco" as well. 8 out of 10.

I'm not sure why other reviewers give so many low marks for the film, but I guess that's typical for productions of one's own country. Like the famous "Goodbye Lenin", where literally everyone but East Germans praised the film, Spanish reviewers here create a picture as if the film doesn't worth a look. I think this is completely unfair, and the film deserves to be known better.


Tirant lo Blanc is a brilliant satire on the conceits of European knighthood, as well as the absurdities of the Byzantine empire which were responsible for its paralysis and downfall. Many who have seen the film seem to have missed this point, probably due to the fact that the satire is entirely solemn and straight-faced, as it should be. The knights and the Byzantine court nobles do take themselves very seriously, but the audience gets to see them for what they are (just as readers of the book do.) It's a lush and lavish film full of surprises;Tirant's absurd courtly love for the shallow, vain Princess Camesina, the doddering old Emperor reduced to entrusting the defense of his country to a foreigner, the lusty cougar Empress who can't wait to bargain away her daughter, even to the infidel Turk, and the lover who is young enough to be her grandson!-these are some of the characters you'll meet. The ladies of the court are very active schemers and plotters in the course of events, culminating in the incredible sight of Tirant forced to lead his knights into battle when he has two broken legs suffered from a fall, attempting to breach the princess's bedchamber.


I have looked for a long time for this movie. But a great disappointment. Story has nothing with historical facts. Acting is terrible. During war scenes it is not possible to understand what is happening. Beauty of Esther Nubiola doesn't help to much. OK, costumes are very nice but not according to the tradition of that time.This movie can be much shorter then 122 minutes. I accept that a movie is not a history book, facts can be changed according to the point of the director but there should be a respect to the history. Or at the beginning it should be clearly indicated that the facts have nothing to do with the history. Movie is based on a story of 15th century but it is shot in 21th century. The director has forgotten this .


I hate when people say that about a movie, but hear me out on this one.

This movie is so good, only a classic dubbed voice-over could do it justice, but I'll still try here. I first saw this movie 2 weeks ago(today is 25/05/07), and now I've seen it ten times, and own a copy. I had gone on a Kung Fu binge at my local video store which has a small but semi-decent selection when as I was nearing the end of their selection, and I picked this up. Now I have had these binges in the past, but with Kung Fu( NOT TOTAL WIRE-FIGHTING; The Real old-school stuff), once you satisfy the urge, you can go eons without watching, or wanting to watch another kung fu flick. Anyways, I'm at home and have 2 other rented kung fu's, 'Fists and Guts' and the 'The Bhuddist Fist', 2 very decent movies themselves. I tried to decide the best order to watch them, because it's hard for a mediocre Kung Fu Movie to follow a really good one. Since it had Carter Wong I thought well this could be something, but the title was too boastful for me to take seriously - It went in the player 1st, lead-off batter.

30 seconds into the movie I stopped it, pressed eject, and bumped it up to # 3, the money spot; It just gave me "that feeling". Now I watched 'Bhuddist Fist' and thought it was really decent. 'Fists and Guts' was great too and funny(The fight scene in the Leper Colony is classic). Then I settled in for what I hoped was the clincher movie.

From the classic intro voice-over which describes the nurturing and the nature of Carter Wongs character (not to mention why his voice is the way it is in the movie ), I had goosebumps and a grin.( sidenote - The "cheesy" dubbing makes Kung-Fu movies BETTER if you don't understand Cantonese or Mandarin, and if you have watched a lot and can understand the nuances of the voice teams{since they used the same general group for like 25 years}. The same people would be the voice of villains, the same were the heroes, the same people would be the avenger, the same guy would do the restaurant/noodle stand owner. Basically they help define the characters since Kung-Fu movies generally were always about the same types of characters.)

So the movie starts proper and then Hi-Pei Killers come in and start kicking butt; Until First brother is called in. From that first fight to the very end, this movie is everything - EVERYTHING - an old-school "Kung-Fu Movie" should be. Great Lines ("Give this one 'The Quick Trip to Heaven'" - Classic), a killer pair of villains(Carte Wong and Lo Leigh - Awesome), amazing choreography (Yuen Woo Ping is so good), classic "trying to find the weakness training sequences", classic climactic fight sequencing i.e. vs. 1st brother > master > Grand Master, just everything.

Thanks for listening, and this is just my two-cents, but this is a must own for every Kung Fu Movie Enthusiast.


Yeun Woo-Ping inspired movie madness. This film, especially its R2 DVD English dubbed version, is the funniest kung-fu movie I've ever had the pleasure of watching. Do not take this film seriously as it certainly doesn't.

Plot revolves around an evil falsatto shaolin master who has the ability to contro his 'invincible armour' by locating his weak spot in a certain part of the body. It's simply ridiculous... One of the most amusing demonstrations of the ivincible armour includes someone jumping from the second storey of a building directly onto the stomach of a super hard dude...

You must see this...


Okay, so first things first, the prosthetic make-up provided by Optic Nerve was great (except for the scene where the costume had big gaping holes in the leg, and the skin underneath wasn't blue like the rest of the character). The problem, was that the actress underneath the make-up was atrocious. All of the actors in fact were just god awful. The film itself isn't half bad, with a very impressive scope given its budget. The plot though, is hacky and takes nonsensical twists and turns (we see the main character fooling around with the blonde bimbo in the hot tub, then later she tells the girlfriend nothing happened, its just silly). Any why didn't the guy on the outside of the avalanche just call someone else? Or ya know, call back over and over? The last battle is perhaps one of the most awful things I have ever seen. A wonderful make-up throughout the movie, is reduced to the sum of its parts. Literally. The "melted" ice queen, amounts to nothing more than the actual foam latex prosthetics floating in some water. For a film that had some impressive (albiet budget) fx up until that point, this climax was just sad to no end. In short, great make-up fx on the antagonist (and nowhere else unfortunately), but thats about all this movie has on the plus side.


This movie was a great idea, but a brain-dead director, seriously low budget and acting worse than a high school play, seriously let this movie down. The special effects are a joke, and most of the time, I wasn't sure whether to either burst out into tears or laughter. Like the scence showing the crash air plane inside the hotel, does seriously look like the plane was put there, with fake foam scattered around it, than having crash into the building. In many scenes inside the resort which is bury beneath tons of snow, its well lit up, despite no power is on. The main actresses in this movie, obviously wasn't given the roles base on their acting, more like the size of their boobs. The Ice Queen is more scary than a broken down car, and she seriously reminds me out of those z-grade 1950's horror movies monsters or aliens.

The Ice Queen at first shows up as a naked woman, in excellent condition, despite been bury under ice for thousands of years.

I do believe high school students could be a far better job, than those behind making this stupid movie.

The director seriously needs to go back to directors school, or find another job.


This movie featured a cast of possibly the worst actors and actresses ever to grace the big screen.

After a plane crash that turns an already dying (or maybe dead -- I can't recall) woman into the "Ice Queen," there's an avalanche that strands a group of young men and women.

One of the first indications of this movies lack of quality is the obvious use of TOY CARS for the avalanche scene! I can do better with photoshop. The Special Effects crew needs to get out of the movie business and fast!

I'll skip the midsection and move right to the ending: The "Ice Queen" begins a sexual dance (if you want to call it that) to attempt to lure Johnny and he goes along with it in order to pull her into the hot-tub. Apparently the all-powerful "Ice Queen" can be easily defeated by a pool of hot water -- she is now a pile of crappy rubber parts that look like my 8-year-old brother made them with playdough.


First off this movie was not quite as awful as some are saying. For a movie in general it is 2 stars, but for horror cheese (a guilty pleasure of mine) it is more like 4 stars. It had the potential to be more, but was not. Okay now let the ripping and spoiling begin! This film has big problems with continuity and creature effects (two big no no's in monster/horror cheese films). An electrical short that happens during flight does not explain creature transformation. I love the fact that Jennifer Hill's character is running around the entire time in very thin material and no one gives her a jacket. Hill is attractive, but personally I thought Noelle Reno was much more attractive and she gives a darn good performance that stands out in this film, showing that she has that rare blend of good looks and talent. Hill, Harmon Walsh and most of cast deliver decent performances. But, the creature's look and acting were horrible and unneeded. This would have been a better movie if creature killing people was the hot chick she started out to be and not the short circuited, latex, mystic wanna be, walking red eyes commercial she turned into. The avalanche sfx are solid given budget. However the solid acting, lighting, and fine exterior sfx could not make up for bad creature make up and acting, bad acting by scientist, the bad ending (he's dead), and the major continuity flaws. All in all it's a moderately enjoyable horror slice of cheese - you could do much worse and you can do a Whole Lot Better!


So, the set up for this thing is that some scientist has found a cave woman from prehistoric times frozen in the ice. She's the Ice Queen of the title. While en route back to civilization, the Ice Queen comes to life and rips through the pilot's throat, causing the plane they were traveling in to crash into the side of a mountain. The crash causes an avalanche, which deposits the plane, along with several tons of snow, into the main lodge of a ski resort.

It's late in the season, so there aren't a lot of people in the ski resort, but the few people that there are get stuck in the main lodge with a newly revived blue monster lady. The Ice Queen gets free and starts prowling around, killing ski bums and bimbos until she comes across this one ski patrol guy that she thinks is cute or something. He does his best to stop her rampage until they can put her back into cold storage.

This is like a low budget version of THE THING made by people that have seen too many Godzilla movies and teen sex comedies. The worst scenes of the movie are when the granulated sugar avalanche consumes all these little train villages, and the wet t-shirt contest that takes up the first twenty minutes of the movie. If you're looking for a movie that combines gratuitous nudity with really cheap production values, look no further. Ice Queen is for you.


The head line should say it all and to go off on that, it's true. To create a monster nowadays is hard enough, and when you do come up with one that can potentially scare the paste out of someone, it's usually wasted in horrible "horror" movies or commercials.

Let's see, the reason why I rented this movie was because I've kept seeing it popping up at all the rent franchises for 3 months and finally gave in.

Now in terms of already expecting a disappointment, I am not not disappointed but still throw up my hands when pondering if cheap CGI is the all sum total future of movies, then I will cancel all my memberships of the evil celluloid corporations and just buy the classics and F the rest.

And yes, Jennifer Hill is a lovely slice of lemon mering pie but that was not the reason why I had rent this and her lovely synthetic ta-tahs couldn't save the movie even if they busted out of her Victoria Secrets strap case.

Now let me get into the movie. If you don't know what the movie's about, well it's about a doctor and his archaeological team finding the find of the century, a frozen woman from the ice age who has genetic structure solely made out of liquid that is meant to be kept below 30 degrees. The doctor plans to fly his novelty via private charter plane which was infiltrated by some money hungry mercenary type guy while in route get's frozen and kill mid flight, leaving the doctor to steer the plane in a mountain peak causing an avalanche that destroys the small skying community below. In the midst of all of this, all the characters who've survived meet up and try to lead a caravan out of the submerged town, getting killed by the ice queen. And in the end, the two main characters survive with the would be ex-alcholic uncle and his bitch (hehe) who's playing red-cross searcher above.

Okay, for the monster, in the beginning of her introduction was very good for me. The way she moved (writhed) and growled and flicked her tongue made the actresses performance very believable but too much of it made it get played out quick.

As for the brother in the movie, well it's typical for this character type to have the persona of being around white folks through out most of his life but tries to talk black or say a few lines that sound black but very unconvincing. I mean for real, I know that there's brothas almost everywhere but I highly doubt they make collards in the killingtons, if you know what I mean.

The doctor is some kind of crack pot, weirdo which is typical of these doctor types, who some how survives the monster's attacks as if they share some sort of union which compromises the character because the logic is, if you raise a baby croc, it will eat you so I think it would apply here as well.

Also, if such a discovery was found, I don't think the U.S. government wouldn't be involved, since such grants for such things are granted by the U.S. of A and since they know everything, I think some agent would be sent to see how their money is spent. So in reality, there would of been a military personnel present throughout but then again, there wouldn't of been a movie.

Also, the part where the ex-alcholic uncle used emergency services to call for help was turned down by the operator because she'd thought the uncle was going through one of his drunk rants of madness. WRONG-if this were real, that person would of gotten fired because all emergency calls have to be taken seriously, but then again if this was the case, there would be no movie.

Now in summary, I can understand that a lot of things in this movie was poor due to a serious lack of budget but if that's the case, then a movie (no matter how promising) shouldn't be made.


I'm a big fan of horror movies that are so bad they're good, as in hilarious, but Ice Queen is just so bad it's bad. Bad acting, bad script, bad costume for the monster, etc. - all those are expected and they're what make a bad horror flick hilarious. And Ice Queen has them. But nothing happens in this movie for about the first hour, and then there's about twenty minutes of 'horror.' Okay, yes, there are some pretty ridiculous and hilarious moments - as when the monster gets momentarily taken out by a common bathroom fixture, or anytime the monster is shown just standing there going "blaeh! blaeh!" looking like she's about to go into convulsions - but overall it's not enough.


Ice Queen starts as a military convoy is attacked by someone or other, the film doesn't think such details are important so why should we, & a unique prehistoric humanoid shaped female Ice Queen (Ami Chorlton) creature recently discovered is stolen. Scientist Dr. Goddard (Daniel Hall Kuhn) decides to transport the Ice Quen to somewhere not far from the Snowshed Ski Resort Lodge by plane, unfortunately the cold temperature outside revives the Ice Queen & she kills the pilot, the plane crashes, causes an avalanche which buries the ski lodge trapping Johnny (Harmon Walsh) & his buddies. Besides having to survive the avalanche Johnny & his buddies also have to contend with the Ice Queen who kills on sight...

Co-edited, co-written & directed by Neil Kinsella this is yet another brainless straight-to-video/DVD low budget piece of crap horror film with lots of unintentional comedic moments. The script by Kinsella, producer Peter Beckwith & David Williams is boring, dull, clichéd & full of plot holes. The whole Ice Queen thing is wrong, no explanation is given as to what she is, when the equipment in the back of the plane stops working there would have been all sorts of alarms going off as is the case with medical equipment, if Ed phoned the emergency services to report an avalanche they couldn't just say 'we don't believe you' & not bother to investigate, the emergency services are obliged by law to respond to a call for help & that's a basic fact. I could go on but you get the idea, the script is dumb & had little thought put into it. The character's are awful, they do stupid things, they split up, no-one seems that bothered about being trapped under an avalanche of snow or that some of their mates have been killed & are dead & they are just plain annoying. The film seems to go on for ages, it's boring, it's predictable, it's stupid & it's not a film I enjoyed.

Director Kinsella doesn't do much to liven things up, the direction is poor & the film has pacing problems. The Ice Queen herself is awful, she has these spastic looking exaggerated movements, she stares, sneers & wiggles her tongue at the camera & she just looks retarded. It's not scary, there's no excitement, tension or atmosphere. There's no gore either, someone has their hand pulled off, there are several scenes of the Ice Queen sticking her hand into people's chests & that's it. I will admit though that the avalanche scene is quite well done even though it steals footage from the film Avalanche (1999) so I can't give it that much credit since the best sequence in the film was at least in part stolen from another film. Also, when Johnny & his mates crawl out of that air vent at the end there's no snow anywhere & the ground is dry, where did the snow that covered the building go all of a sudden? Also, why didn't the avalanche destroy the jacuzzi & who left it on?

Technically the film is alright, it's nothing special but it's reasonably well made. Apparently shot in Vermont. The special effects are OK & better than a lot of low budget horror films of recent times. The acting is poor by no-one you've ever heard of.

Ice Queen is one of those dumb low budget shot on a camcorder type horror flicks the kind everyone seems to think they can make. I didn't like it & I doubt many will.


I honestly don't know where to start when summing up this film. Each actor is had the ability to make me instantly hate them both as an actor and a person. They had as much acting talent as a blind man calling balls and strikes. You could've walked down to the nearest grocery store, picked out five people, and told them to act in this film, It would have had the same effect. The special effects looked like they were done by children who had no hands. There are too many goofs to count and the best actor in the film was the dog, and even he screwed up his lines. The moans of the ice queen were equivalent to having actual ice shoved in your ears over and over. This movie was as convincing as trying to tell someone that the blonde's breasts were real. Never see this movie, period.


Watched the movie through my free pay-per-view cable subscription. I would have definitely not purchased this movie. I needed to kill about 1 1/2 have hours but was only was able to stomach about 3/4 of the movie. Special effects were like 1950's Godzilla. The movie viewers were intoduced to the monster during a sequence where a poor copy of a Cobra Gun Ship helicopter, attacked a military convoy carrying the monster in a 55 gallon drum. Why was the military transporting an archaeological find? Why Am I so concerned by this? The acting in this movie was similar to low budget B movies. Got a big laugh when my son compared the ICE QUEEN Monster to BeetleJuice. The monster, to me, looked like a combination of BeetleJuice and the Monster from SPECIES. There was a little entertaining T&A but not worthy of the lousy dialog, lack of plot and cheesy special effects. Stay away. Please Stay away.


When you consider the horrible script and bad grammar, nonsensical "science," run on sentences Dr. Goddard had to try do something with, anyone who has any intelligence at all will conclude that the actor who had to speak these lines did an incredible job. In fact, he may be the only true actor in the film! We can only hope someone gives him a good script so those who can't see beyond bad scripts and directing can see how talented he truly is. I saw another review of this film on another web sight in which the review was dead on. I don't recall his name, but he commented that at first you may think the actor playing Dr. Goddard is a bit awkward, but when you realize the horrible lines and situations, and direction he had to deal with, you will also realize he must have the spirit of Brando in him to pull it off half as well as he did! Kudos to Mr. Kuhn for what he was able to do with lines no one could could do anything with. Someone give him a good script!


A scientist has found a cave woman from prehistoric times frozen in the ice. She's the Ice Queen. While en route back to civilization, the Ice Queen comes to life, causing the plane they were traveling in to crash into the side of a mountain. The crash causes an avalanche, which deposits the plane, along with several tons of snow, into the main lodge of a ski resort.

This is a generic monster movie. A moronic plot with unnecessary happenings to fill up the length of the movie, below average actors and I can't say anything good about the characters as they are as emotionally thin as paper. The only time I was interested in watching these horrible actors/characters was the pointless sex scene with big fake boobs filling up as much of the screen as possible (it really is my favorite scene from the movie if I had to name one). To sum it up, bad acting.

Gore effects, whilst sometimes extremely amateurish, are quite a bit of fun to endure. It's definitely fake but funny, sometimes Evil Dead type funny. There are some decent crashes pulled off on the screen but are usually followed by horribly crafted CG imagery. If only they had kept this movie totally prosthetic and can the CGI, it may have been able to hold some kind of merit. Alas, they tried to get too Hollywood and make it worse.

Wardrobe design for the Ice Queen and miscellaneous characters are pretty bad, the make-up for the Ice Queen is bearable but only because it makes you laugh. Tee-hee-hee, she look funny.

All they really needed was some more talented people behind the scenes. If only they had a director who could hide that TV movie feel, if only they had a few more decent actors so it doesn't look like a movie filmed by a high school class. It could have rivaled such movies as Pumpkinhead, The Unnamable and Rawhead Rex but falls too short due to its lousy production values.


This was so bad that If it hadn't included a hot tub scene with Jennifer Hill, it would have been one of the worst movies of all time.

It has a good monster in The Ice Queen, but she was wasted with her incessant screaming, and the set just didn't allow her to really develop. The battle with Audrey (Tara Walden) was set up for a promising scene, but it just didn't develop.

There was really no one you could care about in this film. It really didn't matter who came out. The pair that did were probably the least likable.

Despite giving us her all in that hot tub, Elaine (Hill) didn't fare too well.


I don't even think that this movie should deserve 1 star. I wish they gave the choice of .5 rating. anyway, the movies plot has less substance than a 1st graders creative writing paper. It is horrendous. I've seen better acting by Steven seagal. He would have made this movie at least a 2/10. The worst part I think was the special effects, I mean this movie was made in 2005 and uses TOY cars and fake model houses and power poles in avalanche scenes. The ICE QUEENs costume looks like a spandex suit from the consignment shop, covered in rubber tubes and grey spray paint. I estimate the budget of this movie was probably between 500-1000 dollars including the actors they picked up from the unemployment office. HORRIBLE, not worth paying for. though I did laugh from time to time, so if you can watch it for free and want a good laugh by making fun of all the goofs, then I recommend it.


This movie makes me pee with laughter! I am not even kidding. If you are totally into really bad funny horror movies, this one takes the cake. There are a lot of bad ones out there that are not funny, but this one (along with troll 2) is amazing. The acting, the screams, the ice queens moves are hysterical. The acting - they are just all play there part so bad. I think tori is the worst Ice queen gyrates and jerks around so much she looks like she's having seizures I watch about once a year and it gets me every time. I am telling you as soon as i turned on the DVD and valley by gregory douglas came on, I knew it was going to be a really bad movie.


The reason I rented this video was because the cover seemed scary enough to me, a hideous woman, who somehow reminded me of Lordi's keyboard player, awakes from the ice and goes on a rampage. The movie started out nice though, since me and my friend have a little gag going around that there are three things that a good movie needs: a helicopter, breast and a midget (preferably one that gets kicked away, or kicks himself in the head). The first scene of the movie contained a helicopter, the second one contained Jennifer Hill in a wet t-shirt, and the fourth scene contained Jennifer putting it all out. Heck, I was honestly thinking this could be a good movie, and was the edge of my seat awaiting the midget.

After this, things went bad quickly. The Ice Queen looked pretty ugly, I'll give you that, but the horrible nonsense that she is put me off from the beginning. We are being told that she is a Homo Erectus, which still seems plausible. Now, it could be because I'm a High School teacher of History, and I might be more critical about historical incorrectness than others, but I do believe more people will hear their skin crawling when they claim the Homo Erectus (which only lived in Africa by the way) has a body temperature of -30°. I don't know if that's Celsius or Fahrenheit, but anyhow, it would mean that our ancestors had ice for blood. One could overlook that silly comment of the professor, but then he tells me that the Homo Erectus had the unseen power of being able to slash open its opponent, and freeze them from the inside out. When I heard this, I nearly fell from my chair, the idiocy and unrealism really are going over the top in this movie. Why does the Ice Queen need this type of power? She could just slash her opponents with her huge claws, and still be scary. Seeing how I'm a history teacher, I've had my fair share of 13 year old boys laughing about the name Homo Erectus like Beavis and Butthead, but those little pervs at least had a better idea of what the Homo Erectus was than the makers of this movie.

If this was all the silliness in the movie, one wouldn't mind so much, but the madness goes on. Not only did our ancestors have freezing powers, for some reason they have heat vision, which can be compared to the way "The Predator" looks at this world. At a certain point in the movie, she sees main character Johnny (Harmon Walsh) standing, and somehow his body turned colder than the walls, which seem to be on fire right now. This makes our Ice Queen fall in love with him, and I can tell you that this is the point of the movie, where you just stop trying to see it as a horror movie, and just accept the rest of the movie will be a comedy. Seeing the vicious Ice Queen biting on her 5 inch nail/claw as if she were a porn diva acting out a naughty 16 year old school girl just has to make you break out in laughter.

Now, on to the character of the Ice Queen, the only character that is not flat out cheesy, dumb or annoying. Some say they dislike the scream she makes, I liked that aspect of her. You could see she still was a beast and somehow it gave me the feeling she was afraid. That's one of the only good things done in this movie, somehow, you feel bad for the Ice Queen. She's not pure evil, she's just a creature put into an unfamiliar environment that is panic stricken, kinda the same thing as Cloverfield probably was.

********************* SPOILER - END OF THE MOVIE *********************

Now, I have to tell you about the end of the movie too. I was only finishing the movie since I wanted to see if the end was as ridiculous as the rest, and boy it was. Never have I seen such a stupid ending in a horror movie, and remember, Freddy Kreuger was killed initially because somebody didn't believe in him, while he was standing right in front of her. Now, the Ice Queen seems almost "get lucky with Johnny", but then he pulls her into the hot tub and she melts, and turns into a cheap plastic eyeball. Really, in this day and age, you should be able to make something better than that final prosthetic. When Jennifer Hill's rack isn't the most obvious fake prosthetic in your movie, something is plain wrong.

All in all, this movie is one of the most horrible horror movies ever made, but I gave it three stars, because the last 20-30 minutes were just so plain ridiculous that they made me laugh, and that means the movie entertained me, although not intentional.


I'm not going to recap every flaw in this movie, others already have and it would take way too long. I'm just going to hit a few of the most memorable moments and ask some questions that the movie didn't answer.....

Who was that military unit and who was attacking them? Was that even in the script, or just some leftover footage from another movie? Who was the guy who killed the pilot? Where'd he come from and what made him decide to fly the plane?

They spent way too long in the bar scene, who walks around a bar with a wet t-shirt before the contest? How much money did she really need for "law school" anyway? her story keeps changing. I'm guessing she keeps using her tuition on breast implants and trashy clothes.

Any chance to believe anything in this movie vanished when the 911 operator hung-up on the bartender after calling him a drunk. Why didn't he keep calling? or call someone else? Why were there 7 people at the lodge and 30 cars in the parking lot?

Who was the Dr? What was his story? Why did they stay in the same part of the lodge, just going back and forth? Why didn't they try to escape? Why didn't they start a fire, with all that wood laying around, to stay warm and scare the ice queen away? No point in trying to be logical now.

The only reason to watch this movie is seeing a bimbo in the thinest possible clothes, a tight top, a short skirt and high heels running around in the snow and freezing temperatures, with no winter clothing and she never makes an attempt to find any. It's obviously not really cold, she'd have gotten frostbite on her toes in a few minutes in those shoes! Even before the avalanche, who dresses like that at a ski area in the winter?

I could go on, bad special effects, lame sets, no real snow, horrible continuity, bad acting, but my review is starting to look like the movie, a disorganized mess. This movie should get zero stars, can we have a zero star choice please?


A resort is destroyed by an avalanche caused by a downed air craft carrying a female creature from the Ice Age(..hence her official title)who destroyed the pilot while a scientist miraculously survives. The crew, in charge of the resort, are pursued by the she-beast who can freeze humans from the inside out burying her hand into the bellies of the victims. The scientist wishes to keep her from harm but the Ice Queen can not be contained.

Cheap sets, poor CGI, lame characters, and tepid performances in this worthless creature feature. There's some moderate gore and lame love triangle sub-plot that goes nowhere. Ami Chorlton is buried under hideous make-up, sharp finger nails and fangs, green skin with yellow eye contacts.

Harmon Walsh is Johnny, who works under drill sergeant Audrey(..she pretty much orders him around like one, although the hapless guy doesn't do himself any favors)exploding snow which collects on hills. His pals Devlin and Jessie(Peter Wyndorf and Demone Gore)are his co-workers(..which means, they are mincemeat for Ice Queen). As Audrey, Walden is stuck with seriously bogus wise-cracks which are groan-inducing, particularly when she challenges Ice Queen to combat. Daniel Hall Kuhn is the scientist who gets all excited and enthusiastic when discussing his specimen..he's the kind of tool who attempts to thwart our heroes' mission to kill the bitch, and save themselves. Johnny is currently dating Tori(Noelle Reno), a member of the resort staff. Johnny was making out with a big-breasted bimbo, Elaine(Jennifer Hill), not realizing that she would be interviewing for a job at the resort. These complications soon mean little as they focus on ridding themselves of Ice Queen and finding help. John Romeo is rotund Ed, the bartender of the resort's bar. Ed is a reformed alcoholic who fights off the urge to chug-a-lug seeing that the resort is in shambles and the small number of guests / vehicles were buried under snow.

I don't know what was up with Chorlton's stride as she seeks fresh victims, but she has a nice figure, even under that costume and grotesque mask. The avalanche and initial destruction it causes is obvious, dismal CGI. Hill's big jugs and excruciating acting might be worth sitting through this disaster, but I doubt it.


High school students could make a better film than this. I just wanted to comment on the way the ICE queen died in the hot tub. First, if her flesh disintegrated, why not her skin and eyes? And the whole sequence was filmed like a Geico commercial, you know, where the guy is wrestling with the fake deer and it's MEANT to look fake? I thought we were beyond making movies this bad. And the release date here couldn't have been correct. They don't make cameras this bad anymore. Even a $200 digital camera would have looked better. I've seen better images on Americas Funniest Home video. Couldn't they even correct the color and contrast while they digitized it?

Did we watch the whole movie? Heck no. We just skipped to the parts with the Ice Queen. If those weren't the worst parts of the movie, God help these untalented people.