I lived in Ontario, Canada in 1997/1998 and one day in 1998 CKCO-TV (owned by CTV) ran a special report called "Abduction in Lake County" it ran for roughly 35 mins and another 30 mins afterwards was the Sheriffs reports, expert interviews about the tape, etc.

This is not what was originally shown in 1998! This movie is clearly done by actors (I recognize them from multiple shows) and the original was terrifying, literally terrifying! This one isn't, it's a complete mockery. This is clearly a re-make of the original footage.

Anyone who saw the original would know this.

This is what happened in the original. A farming family is getting ready for a dinner, the son is playing around with the video camera, within minutes the power goes out, they think its a lightning storm, the father and 2 sons (1 has the cam with him) go to check it out outside, they notice a nearby transformer is sparking and sustained damage, they walk closer to see it, they look down under the transformer and notice 3 aliens slicing a cow with a laser, they get spotted, 1 alien fires the laser at them (no beam is seen), the other son is injured, they run back to the house, tell the family, the family immediately panics and wants to take the son to the hospital, the father and the son go to the truck (a really old beat up truck) and cant start it, they notice the engine was completely melted, they run back to the house, and they hear them upstairs, the father and son walk up the stairs and hears a alien in the bedroom (the door is closed), the alien fires a laser through the door, the father fires the shotgun, kills the alien (presumably), they run back down, the family is panicking even more, they attempt to run out of the house, an electrical bolt/laser comes through the window above the door, injures another family member, they run back to the dining room, a loud noise enters the room, they fall in pain, the sound stops, then they notice they all have nose bleeds and what appear to be radiation burns on their bodies, the little girl (no older than 5) says (in a monotone voice) that everything is going to be OK, she seemed zombified and keeps reassuring them everything will be OK and not to worry, she doesn't move or say anything else, the father finally goes out of the house to try to get the truck working or find some other transportation, they hear shots fired, they all run out and notice he's gone and the shotgun is melted, they run back to the house, the son with the camera goes upstairs to change his pants (because he peed himself) he goes back down and notices everyone is gone, he runs back upstairs in the bathroom sits on the toilet, sets the camera to point at him, he says he's scared and doesn't want to die, he starts crying and he says he doesn't know what's going on or why are they doing this, then you see a 3 fingered hand grab the camera lens, a alien grabbed it, looked at it (meanwhile the lens is facing it so you see the alien)it then puts the camera down in a different direction, and that's all you see. (all this happened in roughly 35 mins) These people were not recognizable, not actors, they were kind of ugly in fact.

This movie (Warning: Contains spoilers) was nothing like the original. This movie lasted over an hour, and it includes family arguments, bad acting and a lot of soap-opera style drama. This family sits down and eats dinner while they know aliens are outside, no one panics, the little girl is a lot older in the video and is too active and talkative. She takes shells out the gun and hides it (didn't happen in the original). This movie includes elements of racism (again which didn't happen in the original). The truck is newer. The battery is destroyed, not the engine. The eldest male person is an older brother, not a father. You see a red light hit the son. You see a ufo and 2 aliens in front of it (which look like terrible Halloween costumes) they are not under the transformer. There is no electric bolt/laser ever shown. Aliens are heard on roof, not upstairs. A alien is shot upstairs in a different room. They go through a whole ordeal with walking in the room, looking at the body, tying the door, putting a bookcase in front of it. The whole family comes upstairs (again not original). The family sits and eats some more, the mother drinks heavily and is only talking about the dinner and having dinner. Everyone is relaxed and not panicking. The African American actor is a lot taller and plays a major role in the film (in the original he was a quiet guest that was terrified and wanted to leave). There is drama where he making out with the other guys wife. The son with the camera runs upstairs to his room to change his pants and that's when he encounters a alien that seems to hypnotize him, but somehow he ends up going downstairs to eat dinner again. He places the camera on a kitchen counter, they eat dinner some more, a red light enters the room and it shows 2 aliens (obviously costumes, its awful) begin taking the family members away and then the camera slowly gets static on it and fades out, then it goes to credits.

Seriously, did they think that people who saw the original and remember it would honestly fall for this film?

The real footage is gone forever I assume!

This movie is not worth seeing because it's not the original.


If your after a comedy - this might be your cup of tea.

If your after a high quality 'fake-o-mentry' or mockumentry horror... this isn't one of them either. I'm not sure the footage itself even knows what it is.

In the 1970's a great 'fake horror doco' was made called "Cannibal Holocaust" - the latter is a great example of how these shows in this genre should be made.

In the 'so called' films defense it is strangely engaging - but in a bad way. In a way like when you are really bored and find yourself watching "days of our lives" just cos the 'over acting' is quite odd.

This is what it is - Odd.

If you love films - do not go out of your way to see this. It may even offend you its that bad.

If you stumble upon this on TV at 3AM and you cant sleep, then you might find yourself getting through half of it before you get bored and fall asleep.


I almost like this film, but for all the wrong reasons. It's about a family trapped in their home during an alien siege. I stumbled across it about ten minutes in, and found it so bad I had to keep watching. I love the fact that for a supposed 'documentary' I recognised two of the actors straight off.

The overall acting is pretty dodgy, (I love the girl yelling for Kurt every five minutes, who wisely leaves very early in the film) apart from maybe the son, (who's recording the whole thing) he's not too bad.

But special mention has to go to the mother, who at no point was seen without a glass of wine in her hand, even when the family try to escape! By the time I actually got a glimpse of the aliens, tears of laughter were streaming down my face. How anyone who isn't a kid thought this film was real, I honestly can't understand. But I'll still give it a 2 out of 10, one, for making me laugh, and one also for the mum, for dealing with an alien invasion by getting completely blotto.


I thought it was a brilliant film, it was well shot, and very suspenseful. Although the actual aliens themselves were very crappy, they compensated for this by only shooting them with he camera out of focus, or in darkness. A minor triumph in independant cinema, for a tv film, I was thoroughly entertained, and even scared on occasion, which I don't think I actually have been before when watching a movie. (and i've seen ALOT of movies)

Late night gold :)

Watch it if you catch it, but i wouldn't buy it personally. Not to knock it ro anything, just not the kind of thing i like to watch over and over. Mistakes are numerous, but quite frankly I don't give a damn, this is a cracking film.


This movie is based on a supposedly genuine piece of film which depicts a family being terrorised and eventually kidnapped by aliens. As to whether or not this movie is based on TRUE EVENTS I cannot say, but i can say that as a believer I think that all the people represented in this movie by actors were abducted by aliens. My decision may be biased due to the fact that I believe in aliens.

The movie is basically a typical thanksgiving dinner gone horribly wrong. Aliens begin to attack! All of the events are taped on video by a 17 year old boy. Eventually as two of the sons go missing one of the group goes into a comatose-like state and eventually dies. A young girl whom is seemingly possessed then unloads a gun and at the end supposedly opens the door for the aliens. The group also retreat outside and are followed. One character in particular is felt sorry for and that is the old lady. She is in a state of distraught and denial in several parts of the movie and ends up speaking to her dead husband. This was not a review but a list of key events that may interest you enough as to make you see the movie for yourself. The actors also are very convincing because they do not take turns to talk but argue and debate over each other. The best actor in this movie by far is Gillian Barber who plays the eldest of the characters.She is truly a master of sending the message that she is TRULY scared. I really felt sorry for her during the course of this movie.BRAVO GILLIAN BRAVO!


I tuned into this on late night TV a couple nights ago, without having a clue about what it was. I thought it might've been one of those documentaries about a family, or a really low budget soap opera, but I knew it was different once...well, once the aliens appeared. After a kind of average beginning, this movie only gets better. The performances are realistic, the action and thrills are intense, and, even though the budget is obviously very small, the director does a great job of keeping the aliens out of view. Along with all this, the story keeps twisting and turning, and although it's a movie about aliens abducting people, it could make the biggest skeptic believe some of this stuff. It's one of those movies that, after it ends, leaves you kinda (or very) shaken up. And it's not like I get freaked out easily by movies or don't watch enough of them--I watched The Shining the night before, and Alien Abduction at least equals it in suspense and intensity. Apart from being the most clichéd basic idea EVER (average American family is abducted by little green men), this is a surprisingly great movie. Low budget doesn't mean low quality.


I just watched this on my own last night and it certainly made me think twice about going to bed. I only found out afterwards that it was made pre Blair Witch which makes it even more appealing in my book although I didn't fall for the "this is the real film footage" line. However as a film I really enjoyed it, yes the acting isn't brilliant at times and the effects aren't great but the real joy comes with the suspense that the film generates. There are moments in the film, especially when they go upstairs for the first time to look for the alien where the suspense is almost unbearable. This is also heightened at times just before a crucial moment when the film halts and a message appears to warn you about the following scenes, very effective. On the downside the aliens aren't particular scary and remind me of the ones in scary movie 3, and also the so called experts are pretty wooden. However, the premise of the film is excellent and the fact that it has convinced so many people that it was genuine is a tribute to the film maker. Its a shame that this didn't enjoy similar success as Blair Witch because between the two, Alien Abduction is certainly more scarier.


OK, this has to be one of the best films I have ever seen, I saw it about 5 years ago when I was eight and can still remember it so well! I have been absolutely dying to see it again! It was because of this film that I had to get rid of my rabbit because my rabbit lived in the shed and I was to scared to go there by myself! I was searching on the internet for it and then walked into the next room and saw the closing scene on the TV! Am absolutely gutted that I missed it and would be grateful if anyone could tell me when it was next on Sky.

A few people have commented on the young girls acting, I thought her calmness added to the atmosphere and suspense of the film. As I saw it so long ago, I find it hard to remember it perfectly and OMG!!! I have just got a phone call off my friend telling me it is on!!! That is sooooo creepy! Anyway, an amazing film and I'll comment in a few days when I have fully watched it! Peace x


You may agree or disagree with the vision this documentary exudes. I certainly thought the steps taken where a bit rash at some places. I do agree however, with the message which is given as a whole.

Regardless of what your opinion is on current day socio/economic/political society. This documentary is of such outstanding cinematographic quality, that it just cannot be ignored. It looks like they went through all the pieces of film of the last 4 decades to make this! And the use of sound is simply astonishing.

I usually loathe the 'leading' documentary, like Michael Moores cheap propaganda I just refuse to watch out of principle. However, 'What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom' is very direct and conscious about it guiding the viewer. To redeem itself it simply contains so much facts and correct historical reference, it doesn't become a 'mockumentary'.

If you do not agree with the vision that we are all trapped in a system of numbers and targets, just see this film document as you would a riefenstahl. Commend it on it's graphical excellence supported with great sounds, a vicious style and sublime directing. See it anyway if you like (political) documentaries.

If you are a person that does connect with the message this document conveys: Try to see it as soon as you can and be enthralled.


Much like his previous work, THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES, Adam Curtis' THE TRAP takes an intriguing and complex idea, the idea of freedom used by western governments, and expands it to three superb and detailed episodes, that looks how this idea has been developed, through cold war strategy, American psychiatry, political ideology and eventually to the Blair government and its use of free market ideas and target strategy's in public services. There is a lot to talk about, but all i would say is that, you need to watch it. If you want to watch a series that questions the state of things in the world and allows an intelligent and sensible argument as to how we have fallen into this false sense of freedom, that has led to the rise of social inequality and the disastrous attempt to establish democracy in Iraq, which has led to a rise in violent factions in the country itself and the rise of the threat of terror attacks in Britain, Europe and America, this series will draw you in as it is both revealing and eye opening, and the sort of intelligent documentary film making that we need more of. Naturally what sounds like a subject that may seem boring to some on paper, is perfectly handled by Curtis, who inter cuts talking head interviews along with a mountain of archive footage that is funny, revealing and disturbing. This is essential viewing.


As he researches each new movie, you can hear folks whispering in Adam Curtis' ear, "That's OK as far as you went but this is what is the underlying philosophy is about". Like any good series, while each stands on its own, you will get more by following Curtis' entire path down the rabbit hole starting with "Pandora's Box" to "the Mayfair Set" "the Century of the Self" and "The Power of Nightmares" (research to collect the names shows more, but I have not managed to find them).

At each step along the way, he has long interviews with the actual people, stating plainly what is well understood to be their positions, so it is hard to lay a claim of subterfuge, or twisting of facts.

The spoiler if there could be one is that while a dichotomy grew up as a discussion about "Positive vs Negative Freedom" the discussion was one sided and delusional, and in the end based on the mathematics of the brilliant but paranoid schizophrenic John Nash, whose beautiful arithmetic had only one flaw, it only worked if everyone was at least as much a brilliant paranoid schizophrenic as he was. Despite much research that demonstrated that the results were in error, the math was so compelling that an entire Ideology grew up around it.

As much research published elsewhere on the web (Google Authoritarian RWA SDO)has demonstrated, RWA's are very attracted by the comfort of easy ideology, and SRO's are very attracted to anything that will attract RWA's, and that same research has shown that this is always a bad thing. Perhaps I jump ahead of Curtis here and suggest the next movie he should do, but it is directly in his trajectory.

In reading and in part a response to IMDB-5601, his response has many classic RWA examples. Curtis makes a point about the flaw noted above, and gives examples of research that demonstrated the fallacy. Googling the points above will give many more examples.

As to the origins of Islamist extremism, his previous "Power of Nightmares" dealt with that in great detail, but as he points out, the Iraqis were never a part of the Islamists and were hated by them. And despite the invasion might have made a go of it had the extremists in the Bush Administration not tried to play Mad Scientist and experiment on them with their Social Ideologies, that failed utterly, creating the expected reaction of an outraged populace, thus opening a place for the Islamists to come in.

On the home front Curtis makes the point again that the Ideology is destroying both Freedom, and the Economy, and ultimately Civilization itself, and will not be stopped without a clear understanding of the complexities that were understood, but have been discredited in the rush to fit everything into the narrow Ideology.

My own Blog at http://freedemocrat.blogspot.com/ follows many of these intellectual threads and offers a vision of an alternative to the Neocon Ideology that is not the classic "liberal" ideology though most progressive ideals end up in the results. Mostly it does this by addressing a central flaw in Libertarian logic.


I think this documentary series should be release on DVD, along with Curtis's previous series "The Power of Nightmares". I found them both very interesting, but the ideas are sufficiently convoluted and arcane to require several viewings. Please release them, BBC?

Apparently I have to leave ten lines of text as part of this comment or it does not qualify. So perhaps I can continue by saying that this programme left me feeling quite unsettled - a bit like watching a David Lynch movie - but made more potent because its all probably quite true. I say probably, because one cannot be entirely sure. But it all makes rather a lot of sense, and not to suspect that there are people who spend their lives trying to figure out the perfect system for a stable and obedient society is like saying the military are not working on invisibility techniques, or cloning, or ever more effective bombs. Of course they are.


This series proposes a pair of arguments: That ( 1 ) the principles of Game Theory applied to domestic policy resulted in a loss of freedom and ( 2 ) the same principles applied to foreign policy, specifically in Iraq, caused Islamic extremism making the West a target for terrorists.

The second thesis contradicts historical facts. The invasion of Iraq took place in 2003. The destruction of the World Trade Center happened in 2001. The first attempt to destroy the same complex using a giant truck bomb, killing and injuring several, took place in 1992! The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards took the 50 American hostages in 1979.

Regarding personal liberty and the effect upon it of Game Theory, the argument is advanced via two tactics: avoiding difficult questions and the assertion as fact of contentions without evidence.

The film-maker repeatedly asserts that a central assumption of Game Theory is the self-interested behaviour of individuals. It is repeatedly asserted that this is a "bleak" vision, as though that bleakness were itself sufficient reason to reject it. Never once in the entire series is it asked whether this bleak vision is or is not correct! It is as though in the mind-set of this film-maker and his intended audience the mere undesirability of a thing is sufficient reason for us to regard it as not true! This is, indeed, instructive. It does explain a great deal about the behaviour and posturing of Western "intellectuals" who endorse freedom and the revolutionary pursuit of the liberation of oppressed and minorities yet who consistently support those movements and institutions that most obstruct such trends: previously the Soviet Union, today reactionary Islam.

As far as asserting facts unsubstantiated by evidence, the series contains numerous examples but one, in particular. It is asserted as a fact that a result of the widespread use of objective assessment and diagnostic criteria in psychiatry is that an entire generation of people took to applying such tests to themselves and as a result presented for psychiatric treatment of their behaviour. Thereby producing a self-imposed conformity effect. The only support for this assertion in the series is an anecdotal comment by a psychiatrist, in his office, that this was his personal observation. This clip is shown twice in the series. No other support for this contention is offered.

A contention, easily contradicted. Ask yourself, have you ever set yourself a formal diagnostic test for psychiatric disorder and gone to a doctor as a result? Do you know anyone in your family to have done that? Have you ever heard even indirectly of any person in your wider circle of associates who has done that? Have you ever before heard of such a thing at all? I have observed psychiatry throughout the entire three decades that the claim applies to. I have never come across such a bizarre assertion other than in this series.

If I try to argue the case for the assertion, I can only imagine that it refers to one of two things: The popularity of quizzes in magazines along the lines of "Take this months test to find out if you are a workaholic". Or the widespread phenomenon of the "worried well" who present at therapy for the treatment of non-existent conditions, in effect, life's dissatisfaction.

As far as the latter goes, it has been known for about a century that such "worried well" form the multitude of those who seek "therapy". Such behaviour has nothing whatever to do with either objective diagnostic criteria or Game Theory. Nor do such clients but rarely alter their behaviour in any significant way.

On the other hand, pop-quizzes of a self-questioning kind have been popular for almost as long as the kind of magazines that they appear in. A long time before the emergence of objective diagnostic criteria in psychiatry and owing nothing to either that or Game Theory.

I do not know if these are what the film-maker refers to but they offer no support for his contention that Western societies have become in some way self-straight-jacketed by conformity as a result. It seems, rather, that this is merely what he would like to believe, and hopes that by asserting it boldly, repeatedly and each time quickly passing on to something else, he will like an after-dinner illusionist convince us that something has happened that in reality has not! Only in the last few minutes of this series is any alternative vision to the "bleak" contention that Human behaviour is self-interested offered. It is that we...may...instead... assume... and act upon the ...assumption ...that Human Nature is capable of change! Not only is this a major contention, offered as an assumption without any supporting evidence, but it implicitly concedes that there is substance to the "bleak" contention, such that an "alternative" is warranted, whilst yet again dodging the real issue: is it or is it not true? The "retro" montage of archival material is edited for the most part according to principles of affective consonance or non-rational association. Images are mainly matched to the narrative according to the associations that they evoke, rather than to illustrate facts. Typical is the repeated use of a pairing of reference to post-war ideals of personal freedom with what appears to be a snippet from a film of housewives at a workshop for jive-dancing from about 1965. Why? The function of such a technique is to massage the viewer into the acceptance of assertions whilst de-potentiating rational engagement. It is like the "programming" scene from "The Parallax View". The effect is the unpleasant sense that the film-maker is attempting to make us accept that against which we might otherwise be guarded.

Replace that monologue with a sound-track of dance-music and the programme would look little different from that one-time staple of late night viewing "The Trip".


Back in the Stone Age of cable television, this was one of the few programs that worked as enjoyable, reliable nightly entertainment. You could depend upon it when you tuned in. Good times.

"Night After Night" aired opposite the "Tonight Show" and snagged a younger (and much smaller) audience. It deserves to be released on DVD. I would gladly pay to see it again. Allan Havey never found a better outlet for his talent.

The Audience of One was a cute bit that worked well. I also thought the running gag with Dave, the weird Weather Guy, was priceless. The banter between Nick Bakay and Allan was comparable to that of Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon, or David Lettermen and Paul Shaffer.

"Night After Night" is sorely missed.


It's a crying shame that this show doesn't occupy its rightful place in the pantheon of late night talk shows. Sometimes, large swaths of the show would go by without a single laugh, but you would still turn off the TV feeling you'd watched something entertaining. It's hard to explain; it was humor as dry as it comes. And when the show was hitting on all cylinders it was an absolute riot. The standout episode to me was the one in which Lily Tomlin came on to promote her movie "The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe". Instead of answering the questions as herself, she portrayed a Manhattan socialite who had been a financial backer of the film. To top it off, the character she played despised Lily Tomlin. Yet the interview seemed so real, with Havey appearing to actually get upset at the woman's snootiness. I've not seen a situation like this on any other show (except Tuesday Night Titans). I hope some network rolls out re-runs someday.


There may not be a more ironic scene in film than henry fonda's confrontation with the priest at prison's gate...or a more pungent line than his 'they made me a murderer'.....or a more fatalistic ending than you have here...the point is that the best ingredients of film noir are present in a film made 10 years before film noir's peak...that's how far ahead fritz lang's vision was...sure he went on to make 'the big heat' and scarlet street' among others...but 'you only live once' is his starkest glimpse at man's small place in a vast, oppressive society where good intentions are powerless in a black universe.


This is one of the lesser known Fritz Lang flicks, and is a good representative of its era : it basically is about how blood-thirsty society misjudges and mistreats some of its members, "making them murderers" (my favorite one of that kind must be a little later "The Talk of the Town" with Cary Grant).

You can see why Lang is regarded as one of the masters of German Expresionism - some shots are really weird (check the shot of the courthouse somewhere in the beginning of the movie) and he uses strange camera angles, which will later be repeated in many film-noirs.

Unfortunately the film suffers from several plot holes. It is not really clear how the gun ends up on Taylor's hospital bed, etc. But I can recommend the movie despite its shortcomings. If you're a Fritz Lang fan you musn't miss it. If you're a film-noir fan, you shouldn't miss it because of some of his elements that will be found is such masterpieces as "The Scarlet Street" or "The Big Heat". If you're a movie fan in general you are strongly advised to see it, and you will not waste the 85 minutes of your life.


Director Fritz Lang helms this well mounted drama of a struggling couple. Henry Fonda is a petty crook attempting to reform when he is framed on a murder charge. He eventually breaks out of prison and tries to escape to Canada with his wife (Sylvia Sidney) only fate seems to be against them. A nice blend of drama and romance with Fonda and Sidney most impressive in the starring roles. The fine supporting cast includes William Gargan, Barton MacLane, Margaret Hamilton, and Ward Bond. Unfortunately this gem of 1937 is not available on video and is seldom shown on TV anymore.


Fritz Lang did a great job with this well-acted, uniquely photographed drama from the '30s. It's not anything to see if you're looking for a lift, though. Henry Fonda and Sylvia Sidney, so young it's unbelievable, play a husband and wife escaping the law. Sidney is a secretary who falls in love with a convict and marries him as soon as he gets out of prison. He's a three-time felon and has a tough time getting back into society. Ultimately, he's convicted of a crime he didn't commit and sent to death row. He escapes with Sidney and they become sort of a Bonnie and Clyde on the run for the Canadian border.

There are some plot problems, for instance, how Fonda got the gun in order to escape. Also, the boss at the trucking firm where he works is over the top in his dislike for Fonda and refuses to give him another chance.

The acting is very intense from both Sidney and Fonda. Looking at the young Fonda, one can really see where Jane got her looks. This isn't a big film, nor is it a happy one, but it's worth seeing.


Upon release from prison an ex-con (Henry Fonda) tries to go straight and start a decent life with his new wife (Sylvia Sidney). However, he is sacked by his former employer and increasingly desperate considers returning to a life of crime.

An impressive film with excellent direction by Fritz Lang who brings his unusual camera angles to bear on a bleak story. The film is said to be somewhat inspired by Bonnie and Clyde, but more than anything is an interesting exploration of how fate and circumstance can lead to disaster and tragedy. Moving at a crisp pace the film delivers plenty of suspense and surprises as Fonda is framed for murder not long after his release and, interestingly not long after he is fired, threatens to return to his miscreant ways. This keeps the viewer guessing as to whether Fonda's proclamations of innocence are true when he is arrested. The film is quite bleak for its time and contains quite an uncharacteristic performance from Fonda as a man desperate and disgusted by the callous treatment given him by society. Fonda doesn't entirely convince, but the film is still very good.


Joan Graham (Sylvia Sidney) is the efficient secretary of a public defender Stephen Whitney (Barton MacLane) and is in love of the smalltime criminal Eddie Taylor (Henry Fonda). Her boss and friend Stephen helps Eddie to leave the prison on probation, Eddie promises to have a straight life and immediately get married with Joan. He finds a job as truck driver, but is unfairly fired on his first day. While trying to find another job, there is a heist in a bank with six victims and Eddie is accused. Joan convinces him to go to the court and prove his innocence, but based on circumstantial evidence and prejudice of the jury, Eddie is sentenced to the electric chair. On the night of his execution, the FBI finds the real criminal and Eddie grants an indulgence. However, Eddie is trying to escape from prison in a hostage situation, and kills his friend Father Dolan (William Gargan), who was trying to help him. Eddie meets Joan and together they try to reach the border and escape from justice.

"You Only Live Once" is the second American movie of Fritz Lang and a tragic melodrama. The depressive story of love and prejudice discloses a tough criticism to a very unfair, corrupt and hostile society, where losers do not have the chance to recover their dignity and common people are corrupt. The screenplay is visibly influenced by Bonnie and Clyde, who died on 23 May 1934, ambushed in their getaway car - therefore less than three years before the release date of this film. Henry Fonda and Sylvia Sidney show a great chemistry in good performances in this minor movie of this great director. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Vive-se Uma Só Vez" ("You Only Live Once")


This film is the perfect definition of a masterpiece. A good story (not so different from others of the same period) perfectly developed by Lang, restless, intense, beautifully played by the characters, with a memorable end.

I will always remember the image of Henry Fonda (outstanding as ever!) blaming of his fate to Sylvia Sydney just by looking at her and framed by the little window of the visiting room of the prison; it reminded me to the speechless films of Lang where all the dialogues were replaced by the looking of the characters. No words and so much being told: pure art.


In this doomed love story of an ex-con (Henry Fonda) trapped in a world that won't forgive or forget and the woman (Sylvia Sidney) unconditionally bound to him, Lang sees the criminal potential in everyone, from the neighborhood cop who swipes apples from an immigrant fruit-seller, to the station attendants who exploit the couple's gunpoint gasoline theft for a payday of their own, to the guards who leer over Henry Fonda's supine form as it awaits escort to the chair. The whole world is on trial, and found guilty. Heroes and villains are splintered into categories of those who are punished for their crimes unto mortal eternity, and those who persist in petty, under-the-table wrongdoings within society's aegis. In the former category are the protagonists: Eddie, just notified of his exoneration from bogus murder charges, kills the kindly priest in a moment of disbelieving panic; Jo leaves her baby behind to prolong the adventure of a fugitive romance. Prior to these events, Eddie endeavors to go straight and set up a homestead, but his attempts to reform are blocked at every turn by exploiters and busybodies who forbid his dream of a quiet, quotidian existence. His life is reduced to the confines of a spare room, existence an unending rebuke. Lang empathizes with Eddie and Jo not because of their purityanathema to Lang's worldviewbut because of their faith in one another, which transcends the human birthrights of petty malfeasance and self-interest.

The film's structure is dauntingly clear yet purposeful, provocatively reenacting one crucial decision in order to illustrate the immutability of Eddie's fate. Following a rain-soaked bank robberyone of several violent, weather-determined setpieces, Lang rhymes a wipe edit with the getaway car's flattening of a copall evidence points to Eddie's involvement in the crime, which resulted in six casualties. Innocent but determined to flee the fourth-strike rule and certain death, Eddie equivocates just long enough to be apprehended. His jailbreak on the eve of execution is punctuated by his first murder, necessitating his going on the laman initially voluntary choice recast as mandatory destiny. Innocence leads to a death sentence; guilt leads to literal death. A miracle is offered, but it arrives when he's distracted, at his most hopeless. And death becomes all, as an outcome of running and not runningliving is the farthest idea from mind.

But it's living, Lang finally expresses, even at its most miserably futile, that affords grace. Jo resurrects Eddie from his boxcar tomb with exhortations to live for as far as roads will take them, perhaps all the way to border freedom. Those back roads open up to country vistas, Eddie's predominant mode of physical confinement recedes, and life is simplified to necessities of the moment. This serene Spartan outlook radiates through the film's last scenes, as Eddie and Jo suffer their last trial, as Eddie gazes off inscrutably from a hilltop, still trying to elude his pursuers. Piercing through this tragedy is the return of the once-unnoticed miracle: Eddie's moment of grace revealed as deliverance from humanity's mudded reflection into spotless rebirth. At once a relieved affirmation of the film's titlei.e., the Langian notion that in death we will all one day blissfully escape mankind's stark judgmentsand stunning evidence of a heretofore unseen Christian sensibility, Eddie's contented exodus from a damned life gives the priest the last word: death is renewal.


One of my very favourite films and further proof, if needed, that Fritz Lang did not leave his best work behind in Germany when he fled the Nazis for Hollywood in the early 30's. I could eulogise all day about the cinematography, but that would do a disservice to a strong narrative which seems to give a mild contemporary nod to the recently slain Bonnie and Clyde and some terrific acting especially by the two leads. There are so many shots to savour, I'll name just a few which caused me an admiring intake of breath;- for example the scene early in the film with a reflected image of the at that point still optimistic newly-weds sitting by the frog-pond, the expressionist use of shadows seemingly radiating out from Fonda's cell as he paces it in frustration and what may have been the first cinematic use of the three possible "Hold the front page" headlines in the press depending on the outcome of Fonda's trial plus of course the rightly famous eerie smoky set-piece where Fonda panics and shoots his friend the prison priest. Even simple framing shots (one of Sydney to camera looking into the runaway couple's car from Fonda's viewpoint, for example) are delivered with style and finesse, there's no question there's mastery at work here. The acting by Sydney and Fonda is great, passionate, completely in character and utterly convincing in conveying the depth of their relationship, crucial considering the incredible demands Fonda's character makes of the law-abiding Sydney. Who got the Oscars in their stead this year, I wonder? The bitter-sweet ending (the couple find release only in death) is absolutely right as is so much of this bravura Fritz Lang feature. Students of film noir can learn much from this dark and compelling work, all delivered in 86 engrossing minutes.


During the Depression, a young couple goes on the lam after the man is accused of a crime. This gritty drama is an early example of film noir, expertly directed by Lang, the great Expressionist filmmaker, although he sometimes goes overboard with the symbolism. Lang explored similar themes in Fury (with Sidney in a similar role to this), made a year earlier, but this one is better, not marred by the melodrama and overacting of the earlier film. Fonda and Sidney are excellent as the unfortunate couple, helped by a fine supporting cast. Memorable scenes include the escape from prison, tinged with irony, and the finale, as the couple makes a run for the border.


In Fritz Lang's second American movie, 1937's "You Only Live Once" (not twice), Sylvia Sidney, aka "the Face of the Depression," plays what must be the loyalist girlfriend/wife in screen history. Her man, three-time loser Eddie Taylor (played by a pre-"Grapes" Henry Fonda), has just been released from prison, and wastes little time getting himself into all sorts of trouble again. But Sylvia is all forgiveness, and even takes it on the lam with him in her gravid condition, in one of Hollywood's earliest instances of criminal lovers on the lam...a genre that would later produce such classics as "They Live By Night" (1949), "Gun Crazy" (1949), "Badlands" (1973) and, of course, 1967's "Bonnie and Clyde." Although "You Only Live Once" creaks a bit here and there, I must say that this in one very involving film. Sidney and Fonda make a marvelous team, and it is nice to see Barton MacLane playing a nice guy for a change, instead of his usual growling bully. Lang's roots in German expressionism are evident here, as shown particularly in the design of Fonda's isolated prison cell, during a fog-enshrouded prison break, and in that final, heavenly shot. The film is a bit bleak and depressing, as decent characters fight futilely against their fates, but the filmmakers leave little doubt whose side they're on. And, to its credit, the film shows very vividly how dangerous it can be to give in to the temptation to purchase a pack of smokes! Oh...this DVD is in fair condition at best, revealing a damaged print source, and with zero extras to speak of. If ever a film warranted a restoration...


Henry Fonda gets the role of a lifetime as Eddie Taylor, who gets out of jail, only to go right back for a crime that he didn't commit. Practically the only person on his side is his wife Joan Graham (Sylvia Sidney). They have to spend the rest of the movie trying to flee the law.

"You Only Live Once" not only looks at the flaws in our criminal justice system, but also shows hope amid desperation. Fritz Lang uses the same kinds of camera angles that made "Die Nibelungen", "M" and "The Big Heat" so great. Also starring are Barton MacLane - who later played Gen. Peterson on "I Dream of Jeannie" - and Margaret Hamilton (aka The Wicked Witch of the West in "The Wizard of Oz"). A perfect movie.


Joan Graham is the secretary for Stephen Witney, an honest and dedicated public defender, who succeeds in doing something he would almost rather not do: get Joan's sweetheart, Eddie Taylor, out of prison. Eddie is a good man, but Joan's sister, Bonnie, and Stephen both agree that he is no good for Joan. Eddie was born trouble. Joan and Eddie get married and set out to prove the naysayers wrong. Eddie gets a good, steady job as a truck driver; but a series of disasters sends his life spiraling out of control and the fiercely loyal Joan's along with it.

Fritz Lang directs this hard-hitting melodrama and, as always, fills it with striking images. The shot of Eddie (Henry Fonda) in his cell, with the shadows of the bars reaching out to meet the bored and uninterested guard, stands out. The shots of a wide-eyed and desperate Fonda asking Joan (Sylvia Sidney) for a gun are a triumph for Lang, Fonda and Lang's cinematographer, Leon Shamroy. Lang also gets excellent work out of his editor, Daniel Mandell, who helps Lang to juxtapose images in a suggestive way, e.g. the shots of the frogs with shots of Joan and Eddie.

Standing back from the film and looking at is as a whole makes it something of a marvel. We begin with light comedy, proceed to an adorable romance and then follow the characters as their lives - and the film itself - grows steadily darker.


In 1937 they knew how to make good movies, with story, characterization, et cetera. Indeed, 1937 was the start of Hollywood's true Golden Era, circa 1937-1941. In 2007, most movies don't bother much with silly ideas like plots and story. And in 2007 we ain't got no directors like FRITZ LANG.

Henry Fonda knew the secret to getting and keeping a pretty girl: Get thrown in the slammer and when you get out take her to a few good bank robberies. She will love you forever. One of the best parts of this crime drama is the absolute lack of liberal political spin about how "society" supposedly mistreats criminals -- the typical spin of 1970 thru 1980. False, stupid and silly, such pictures "justified" crime and contributed to its increase.

This picture was produced by Walter Wanger --- one of Hollywood's greatest independent film producers in the 1930's and 1940's. His studio went belly-up following the personal scandal that wrecked the box office of his big budget JOAN OF ARC. His film library was the very first A-list library to be sold to television. The current DVD has his company eradicated from the credits -- suddenly it's Castle Hill Productions --- but they missed his trademark marble eagle, coming on at the very end.

Fritz Lang made better pictures, but this one holds up well after 70 years.


You Only Live Once is Director Fritz Lang's second American film after leaving Nazi Germany. The first one Fury was a tale of mindless mob violence against an innocent man caught in circumstances not of his own making.

This one however has a career criminal trying to go straight, but with no one willing to give him a break. Arrested for a bank robbery that he didn't commit and the resulting deaths from same, Henry Fonda is on death row awaiting execution. His girlfriend, Sylvia Sydney helps him escape and in the escape, prison chaplain William Gargan is killed by Fonda. Gargan was one of the few friends he had and now Fonda and Sydney are fugitives.

To be sure there are some plot holes. For one thing I'd like to know just what Fonda had done before that made him a three time loser in the first place before the action of the story takes place. Nevertheless it's a good piece of film making and the stars register real poignancy in their performances.

This barely got made. Henry Fonda hated the dictatorial Fritz Lang during the making of this, almost walked out several times. Later on they had equally bad relations during the shooting of The Return of Frank James.

The real life exploits of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker influenced the writing of the screenplay. Of course the Barrow/Parker duo were hardly the innocents that Fonda and Sydney are. But then again this was the heyday of social liberalism during the New Deal when it was believed all of life's ills could be cured with the right government social program.

Barton MacLane as Fonda's attorney delivers one of his few performances as a good guy. During the Thirties and Forties MacLane played tough and ruthless gangsters and police officials, some of the latter quite corrupt. I'm so used to seeing MacLane as a bad guy this was something of a revelation to me.

It's a dated story, but full of poignant tragedy and worthy of a look.


It seems that I am in the minority in thinking this isn't that great a film. Despite being directed by Fritz Lang and having some excellent actors, the plot seemed totally ridiculous and preachy. In many ways it reminded me of a poorer version of the film THEY LIVE BY NIGHT, except that realism and believability were completely ignored. The bottom line is that this seems to be a very poorly written film that's full of holes that only scores as high as it does because of the actors and director! Without these, I probably would have scored the movie a 2 or 3!

Despite the good actors, there were still some problems with their performances. The biggest disappointment was Barton MacLane. In most of his films from the 1930s and 40s, he plays a "heavy"--often a gangster or villain in cowboy pictures. While his role here is a welcome change from this stereotyped role he usually played, he plays the most boring and wussy defense attorney I have ever seen. Seeing this tough character actor reduced to someone with the magnetism of a piece of lint was very frustrating, as his character was never really developed and could have been played by almost anyone. Also, while Henry Fonda was okay as the two-time loser accused of murder, his character was so unlikable in the last part of the movie that the impact of his being falsely accused of the crime was greatly diminished. In other words, if he hadn't resorted to KILLING PEOPLE to avoid the death penalty, we might have cared what happened to him! If only he could have escaped without murdering the priest, then I wouldn't have lost interest. Or, if it had somehow been an accident, then maybe I would have cared. But, as it was, he'd knowingly committed many crimes in the past and kills a man to escape, so WHAT exactly is the point of the film? If it's that the death penalty is bad or that people should give ex-cons a chance to succeed, then it is completely obscured by the time the movie is finished. Plus, although at first I liked Sylvia Sidney's character for believing in her man, after she knew he was a murderer and STILL followed him, she just seemed totally stupid. As a result, she seemed more like a plot device than a real person.

With a re-write, this could have been a great film. As it is, it's very skipable and a film that Lang and the cast probably didn't want to remember.


Saw this film at the International Horror & Sci-Fi Festival in Tempe, Arizona last night. This is the first film that I have seen from the "Project Greenlight" series. Since the film was made for only a million bucks, I expected "Feast" to be loaded with lots of things that would show that it was shot on a low budget. Well, there wasn't any CGI special effects and 99% of this film was shot inside the bar, but other than that, I didn't feel anything else was compromised that would affect the quality of the film. In fact, this film kicks more butt than most multi-million dollar horror and sci-fi flicks! "Feast" takes place inside a bar in the middle of the California desert. At one moment, a bloodied man shows up with a dead creature in his hand. He says there are four of them, he doesn't know what they are or where they came from, except that they devour and kill anybody they see. Within minutes, the creatures suddenly show up, the carnage begins and all hell breaks loose.

What I liked most about this film was the comical intros for all the lead characters: "hero", "loser", "expects nothing in life" etc.

Director John Gulager and one of the writers, Marcus Dunstan, chatted with the audience after the screening. According to John, the film was scheduled for a January 2006 release. Unfortunately, the turmoil at the film's distributors has put "Feast" on the shelf at least for now. Hopefully, something could be done to get this film out to the public, word of mouth is already out and "Feast" stands to make millions at the box office.


I saw this movie last night at the Chicago Film Festival. This movie is not one that will change lives or addresses pressing social issues. Though it would be easy for somebody to say that it is a metaphor for our day and time with terrorist threats and all, but somebody even could do that with Cheaper by the Dozen. So anyway about Feast, it's a great film to watch.

The premise is very simple a bunch of strangers are locked in a bar for the night as monsters try and get in. There really isn't much more to it and that is where the beauty of this film lies. I have heard that Marcus, one of the writers described this as a movie that you start watching on TBS at 2 am and you don't finish, which is a great description for it.

The performances are pretty strong because the actors seem so relaxed in them. The best performances come from Balthazar Getty, Duane Whitaker, Clu Gulgar, Krista Allen, and Josh Zuckerman. The work of the Thomas L Callaway the cinematographer is great, especially in the final showdown scene, some may complain about not being able to see but the red color that covers the scene is great. The final shot of Krista Allen behind the rising sun is just beautiful, even if it is only a simple horror movie.

The main credit goes to John Gulager, whom despite all the "drama" shown on Project Greenlight, has crafted a really enjoyable film. He took all the raw elements of the production and crafted just an amazing final product. This is a movie that I will suggest to people who just want to enjoy themselves in a theater.


I just saw this at the first annual Fantastic Fest Film Festival in Austin, Texas and I liked it so much I felt compelled to write a review of it.

This is simply one of the best horror movies I have ever seen. I don't know much about film distribution, but it amazes and saddens me that this isn't in wide release ranking somewhere in the top 10 current films. Horror movies usually don't scare me, but this one genuinely did. It was also really funny, and the way the movie plays with character stereotypes had me guessing as to which character was going to get it next. There were moments when I was seriously shocked by the blatant violation of standard horror conventions. It takes real talent to play with clichés so effectively. Don't make the mistake of thinking this is a straight to video deal either, this is a well crafted and filmed movie. If you like genre films like Evil Dead, Tremors, or just like horror in general, you HAVE to check this one out, if you get a chance. Unfortunately, you may have to wait for DVD.


I had a chance to catch a screening of "Feast" at the Chicago Film Festival. I hadn't caught the latest installment of Project Greenlight and hadn't even heard of the movie until a week ago, so I came in without any expectations.

At the least, it's got cult classic written all over it: --campy, smart writing --quirky characters that are developed enough to give them dimension without plummeting the depths of their personalities (it is a horror flick) --a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously --outrageously funny (more than you can say of other cult classics that have somehow survived)...I haven't laughed out loud that much since Meet the Parents (the original!) --totally scared the crap out of me numerous times --a plot that defies predictability, but doesn't collapse as a result of it

And for all those reasons, there's got to be a good chance it's at least going to be a sleeper hit...one that certainly appeals to the horror flick crowd, but is smart enough to draw others (like myself) that are just looking for a great, well-written, well-produced movie. Add the project greenlight junkies to that eclectic mix of audience draw...and, tell me again, why are the studios having trouble releasing it?


I saw this film tonight at the Savannah Film Festival and I loved it. I'm not really into horror movies but this was just a good movie. It was funny, suspenseful, and well-made. I watched Project Greenlight and was not really expecting much tonight and I had a great time. This movie should definitely be released in theaters very soon. The entire audience of probably 800 people was very into it and gave it a standing ovation at the end. The studio made a big mistake not releasing it in time for Halloween. John Gulager, Mike Leahy, and Dianne who played Harley Momma have been here all weekend trying to get the word out about the movie and they have definitely been the toast of the festival.


This movie was an unexpected hit for me. I really enjoy every minute of this film from start to finish. It had a feeling of From Dusk to Dawn to even a Quentin Tarantino film. It's the first horror/monster movie that I have seen in a really long time that was actually good. I do not understand why it's having a hard time getting distribution. There are so many crap films out there right now that get distribution, especially films in the horror genre. Please people if you get to see this movie go and see it. It's worth your time and money. It's very funny also and never takes itself too seriously which helps the movie in the long run. The monsters never are called anything else but monsters and that's refreshing. No drawn out back story, just right to the point action, comedy, and suspense. Please again if you get a chance to see this film go see it. Spread the word to help the director, writers, and producers of this film to get it some distribution. If you were a fan of the Project Greenlight television show then actually go see the movie.


I was lucky enough to see this film at the Savannah Film Festival on Halloween and hopefully it will be lucky enough to get show in theaters. The film is the result of the TV show Project Green Light, but don't let that thwart you. I went in with the skepticism that I give all the horror movies these days and was pleased that it did not involve an evil child that glitches around the screen. This movie tears down the clichés of its predecessors and is provides non stop excitement from beginning to end. A great mix of horror, action, and comedy. The diverse cast is as good as the ways they are off'd. Well, reality TV has finally done something for me, now it can go away.


This little gem has just been released straight to DVD in Britain which is a travesty. It deserved to be seen in a cinema. The film shows that horror and comedy do go hand in hand if done well and this film does it perfectly. From the great character bios some of the more gruesome deaths this film has its tongue firmly in its cheek. The cast are top notch with some of the best comedy moments coming from watching the surprise deaths. It breaks a lot of the horror rules with who survives and who doesn't. The gore and special effects are fantastic. The film itself is paced perfectly with very little explanation as to why or what exactly is happening. I love finding a film of this calibre. It shows that you don't need to remake a Asian film with a huge budget in order to make a good movie. Watch it and enjoy it!!!


Getting right to the point, this movie was a huge letdown in my eyes. I have been making my way through some horror movies I had not seen yet (May, A Tale of Two Sisters, etc...) when I ran across this title. It was ranked on a lot of top horror movie lists, but after watching I can honestly say I don't understand why. The filmmakers seem like they can't figure out what sub-genre they want to end up with. This movie struggles between being a gore horror (succeeding in some parts but overall trying too hard), a dark comedy (a bad one at that), and a deeper movie than what it is by trying to develop character depth (epic fail).

I gave this movie some stars because it does manage to introduce some elements that could have been good, if the movie wouldn't have had so many negative qualities. The gore succeeds at times, but as I said before overall it feels forced and given the attempts at comedy and character development, doesn't feel like a gore horror. The movie also gives brief biographies of each character, but this becomes redundant after the first 3-4 and by the time they are all done, you're wondering why they did so many. The cinematography is good in some areas when it is not shaking from cut scene to cut scene so fast that it makes you wonder if you are having a seizure or watching a movie.

Sadly, the monsters in this movie look too much like the creatures from the "Alien" series to give credit to the filmmakers. For the life of me, I still see no reason why the monsters decide to wear clothing and bulls heads when the bull skulls don't even cover where their heads are located. Though a small gripe and not a defining factor for my rating, it still bothers me that creatures which hump items at random, eat humans whole, and throw up on people have some sort of issue with not wearing clothing.

If you're looking for a good horror movie and have not seen many, I would recommend looking elsewhere. If you're simply a horror movie fan like myself who has seen many and is looking for something that has slipped through the cracks.....I'd still suggest looking elsewhere. If you're trying to prolong going to get that root canal done but have ran out of other things to procrastinate with though, this is less painful. I give this movie a 4/10 because it simply takes itself too seriously to write it off as a dark comedy, but not seriously enough to be a good horror movie.


So ignorant it could be true if it wasn't so stupid. Pumping baby beasts, sick and a waste of time and brain power. Actors were needing a payday so the producers must have felt sorry for them. Film had no plot just gorry action that was at a D level. Executive Producers must not have anything else to do than this. Where did they get the creatures from, the Bruce Willis movie about the future cab driver that used to be a soldier but now helps the savior of the world? To be a horror film of Wes Cravens this is awful. Where did his style go? His artist touch? Man I don't know how many things I can write bad about this film just to get 10 lines . Well ONE MORE TIME, this film is awful, gross and substandard.


this movie was just violence for the sake of violence! it was boring,with an un original story line! Also.. don't bother trying to eat anything while watching this movie! u would think Hollywood would be getting tired of making movies like this! being a big movie buff myself!!...i can tell you i have seen them all. this one didn't do a thing for me and i have to wonder how it would for anyone. they could have done better if they had just thrown fake blood all over an old house and filmed it! One has to wonder if Hollywood is running out of imagination or just getting lazy! the money for this film would has served better going to a charity! there was nothing impressive with the acting,storyline,or even visual effects for me. So in all this movie gets a poor rating in my book.


I tried to indulge in Feast: Unrated, the latest Project Greenlight, umm...project from Matt Damon and Ben Affleck (co-created with Wes Craven, the horror movie genius behind the Nightmare on Elm Street saga and the Scream Trilogy--still one of the best mystery-slashers ever made, even with the degenerating quality and originality that is seemingly inherent in sequels). The movie starts out on a good note, with frighteningly funny character profiles, including name, occupation, useful skills, and life expectancy (which, with giant, skinless, ravenous monsters heading their way, won't be very long). Otherwise, the few scares are predictable and the presentation of the film indicates more influence by Kevin Smith than Wes Craven. Among the more obvious pieces of evidence for this are a severed monster-penis flopping around the barroom floor like a hooked salmon, the constant Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back-style stream of F-bombs, and (one of the only meaningful chips off the Smith block) the banding together of various freaks, stoners, ass-kickers, and other aggrandized specimens of dysfunctional human normalcy to pursue the common goal of living whatever life there is to live. It's quite fascinating how many weapons one can find or make in a bar, but if you're looking to be good and scared, don't waste your money; Evil Bong is a better investment.


If you look at the credits, FEAST has 20 producers.

20.

TWENTY!!!

And even with all these producers, none of them could have come up with a better film. FEAST is disturbingly awful. Disturbingly awful because there's simply no point to this aside from the fact that it screams "hey, we're doing a "horror" film here, folks". It's not scary or anything but just flip and showy.

The characters, or I should call them types, are devoid of anything resembling human beings. They see people being killed all around them and most go on as if nothing happened. Limbs are cut, heads are ripped from bodies and most people, not all, but most just stand around, unfazed. Please. The basis of horror is how people react to what's going around them and what might happen to them. If the characters do not react in a remotely normal way (even for a supposed "horror comedy" like this piece o' crap), there's no "horror" just plain stupidity, which this "film" has in spades.

I'm glad I didn't have to pay to see this piece of crap.


I've never thought after From Dusk Till Dawn that someone would try to make a clone of that movie. Actually, Gulager and Project Greenlight did.

This movie is about monsters invading a pub full of miserable losers. Well, the fountain of my problems is found in the last two words. Yes, the characters! Totally indifferent people, whose fate is totally indifferent, whom we don't care about if they survive or not. Awful dialogues and a truly miserable plot describes the whole movie - every element has been seen elsewhere, mostly in Romero's NotLD and Rodriguez's From Dusk..., but they've been put together to make a totally indifferent film, that makes you think: who cares who dies? Who cares what happens? Why didn't they just all die, it wouldn't have done anything different for you.

The other problem beside the high level of indifference and the pathetic characters is the bad editing. During action scenes this makes the movie so quick we don't even know what happens, can't see a thing. The only good point is gore, which is not limited, that's why I give more than 1 star. But avoid this movie at all costs!


Can someone please tell me what the "heck" this movie is about? I am a HUGE blood and gore fan but this was thoroughly a disappointment. It had no "real" plot....no story line.........it wasn't even worth the DVD rental of $4.00! HUGE, HUGE disappointment. I noticed that it had some "names" associated with it like Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Did these guys even bother to read the script? and if they did...they should have just taken the money they invested in this and burned it....at least they would have gotten more from it. I definitely would not recommend this movie to anyone! In fact it was so bad I actually took it back to my video rental place and requested my money back. Horror fans...stay far away from this one. It's just a waste of time.


In the middle of nowhere at a bar, the costumers including Barkeeper (Clu Gulagar) are enjoying the booze until a mysterious man breaks in and warns them of creatures coming to kill them. They don't believe in him until a bizarre creature kills one of the costumers as each person must try to stay alive and inside the bar as possible to ward off these flesh-eating beasts.

Exciting and gory-as-hell action-horror comedy is one of the better horror flicks of late. From executive producers Wes Craven, Chris Moore, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon this is an adrenaline pumping roller-coaster that harks back to the old school style monster movie days. Sure the movie may seem plot less even with no explanation of where the monsters come from until the sequels, but it's good quality entertainment for fans of the genre. The film co-stars Pulp Fiction's Dwayne Witaker, Judah Friedlander, Henry Rollins and Balthazar Getty ("Alias") as they give all great performances. I love how the creatures are more traditional style then CGI which doesn't seem to be realistic, i do admire CGI unless it's well done. The gore is non-stop in a cartoony "Dead Alive" or "Re-Animator" kind of way as you see Eyeballs ripped out, heads blowing up and so much blood you need an umbrella.

I highly recommend this throwback to old school horror movies to any fan, it's great fun.

Also recommended: "From Dusk Till Dawn", "CHUD", "Re-Animator", "Evil Dead 1 & 2", "The Toxic Avenger", "Basket Case", "It's Alive (1974)", "The Mist", "Pumpkinhead", "Demons 1 & 2", "Dawn of the Dead (1978 and 2004)", "Night of the Living Dead (1968 and 1990)", "Hatchet", "Slither", "Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead", "Diary of the Dead", "Street Trash", "Day of the Dead (1985)", "The Blob (1988)", "The Descent", "The Pit", "Bad Taste", "The Thing (1982)", "Grindhouse", "The Host" and "The Hills Have Eyes (1977 and 2006)".


'Feast' is one of those horror movies that redefine a certain genre.In this case, 'Feast' redefines the man eating monster genre.The monsters in this film snatch up their victims one by one in grizzly and gory fashions.Even a young boy meets his own brutal fate.The monsters move so fast when they kill someone that you can hardly see them.Maybe you can see glimpses of them, but that's about it.Now that was a problem for me.'The Descent' managed to show the monster's faces and they were pretty ugly.In this movie, You can only see their whole face either near the end of the middle or in the end.I must admit that I had some fun with this movie.I will plan on seeing the sequels even though they did not get as good reviews as this one.


The movie started off with some funny promos at the beginning introducing the characters and letting us know who will probably die first. Very original.

I think of Clu Gulager, and I think of westerns, but in his more that 150 roles, he's done it all, including the bartender in this film and the two sequels. yes, there is more of this coming.

The action starts hot and heavy when Eric Dane walks into the bar with one of the creatures. The blood is copious and decapitation is immediate. There is also a lot of disgusting slime. The patrons in the bar spend the next 90 minutes battling the monster family. Continuous action throughout. This was excitement to the nth degree! Those creatures sure were ugly! Can't wait to see Feast II, but, unfortunately, it won't have Navi Rawat, but Jenny Wade will be back.


Since a lot of movie buffs seems to have seen this film, and gave it mostly positive reviews. I decided to give it a try, and I sure wasn't disappointed. The film starts out with all these guys at a bar and they aren't the typical type of people hanging out at a bars either, they are a bit awkward and unreal but at the same time hilarious. And it gives a introduction for each one of the characters even if they won't last a minute, which at first I found to be a bit annoying but once action gets started, you actually really start to appreciate the introductions it showed. Another aspect that sets this horror film from others is that the action starts, almost right from the beginning without the tedious nonsense in some horror films to get the audience to somewhat care about the characters that are trying to survive. This film is a ambiguous, ballsy and hysterical gore fest that will keep you grinning from beginning to end and to top it off the action starts real quick. What I really liked about this film is that it broke just about every rule in the survivor horror genre and sort of does a parody of it making fun it. Also just about every character in this film that are trying to survive isn't really normal but actually quite memorable, cause they go over the top with the generic survival horror types of characters. This is a film you gotta watch with your buddies to get the most enjoyment out at night with it's crude humor, it's a B movie that is most definitely worth checking out, especially if your a horror movie fan.

7.6/10


Im actually watching the movie as I write this, I felt compelled to pick up my laptop and vent my frustration out on how CRAP this movie is. It tries to be funny and fails it tries to be Scary and cocks that up too. True 3 of the cast are very good looking women but the story is Bollox and the acting is awful.

I saw Matt Damon and Ben Afleck's names associated with this flick? why? what did they do, walk past a guy who went to see this god awful sh~%t flick cos they never looked at the script thats for damn sure. I am now off to take a dump which I know will be more enjoyable with a better ending than Feast (a bag of W.a.n.k)


Having seen the Project Greenlight series about the making of this film, I had very low expectations for the final product. The director was portrayed as amateurish, and his stubborn attempts to cast his unproven actress girlfriend in the movie seemed to support that charge.

In retrospect, it seems that the Weinsteins sacrificed any shot at successfully distributing this film theatrically in favor of exploiting it as TV fodder. A rare misfire from the usually brilliant media moguls. Had they been brave and supported this movie, they might have ended up with a mega-million dollar theatrical franchise like Nightmare on Elm Street, instead of a straight-to-vid release.

A classic B horror film, FEAST serves up heaping helpings of cheap thrills in lieu of long-winded "back stories" which thrill development girls and story editors but leave horror fans snoring in their popcorn. The character development is clever and perfunctory, introducing a dozen characters with minimal fuss and maximum efficiency--colorful characters worthy of a (good) Tarantino flick.

The script is fast-paced and the direction captures the tone of it perfectly. The real fun starts just a few minutes into the first act, and keeps on pumping throughout the film, with just enough lulls in the action to reset the audience for more.

The cast is superb all around, with luscious ladies and hunky guys playing it for all its worth. Thankfully, whatever humor there is is not the insipid one-liner crap or tedious reflexive humor that's dragged the genre down for the past twenty years.

The EFX are topnotch, and the cinematography is outstanding, giving the film a bigger budget feel and greatly enhancing the limited number of sets.

Although some may disagree with the lack of a "back story" of the monsters, they were no more mysterious than the creatures in ALIEN, another film in which there was no way for the protagonists to learn more about their foes without contrived and boring exposition.

I can't wait to check out John Gulager's other films, and hope he gets a chance to expand into bigger budgets which he deserves. I also hope he stays in horror and doesn't lose his edge, because there are far too few consistent directors in the genre.


In a overview of Feast. I can at least say this....

Don't expect your average run of the mill claustrophobic horror movie.

This movie has way too much sense of humor for it to be politically correct. Don't take this movie seriously.

Creatures kill whoever is convenient for them and don't expect anyone to be safe. Attacks are random and could keep you at the edge of your seat.

Don't expect abuse of CGI. Classic monster costuming and effects are used.

Expect the unexpected.

Feast does its best to throw all Horror clichés out the window yet it doesn't try to be anything it is not meant to be.

Henry Rollins is in this. Haven't seen him in a loooong time.

I recommend this movie for the above reasons mentioned. Don't take this movie seriously and enjoy.


A bunch of people in a bar are slightly distressed when a blood-covered, shotgun-wielding "hero" bursts in and warns them all about ravenous, speedy creatures travelling not far behind him. The patrons are rather disbelieving until one creature gets inside and proceeds to try and eat as many people as it can.

This film starts off quickly and doesn't really let up for it's duration. It's a lot of fun and I loved the mix of humour and nasty gore moments (the brief bios of each person were particularly enjoyable). The editing was a little bit choppy at times but everything else was well done. And kudos to a real mixed-bag cast (including Balthazar Getty, Henry Rollins and Jason Mewes playing . . . Jason Mewes) who embrace the material with gusto and totally go along with the humour of the project. It's a bit of a no-brainer with no comment on our society of today or underlying, deeper story strands. Sometimes, that is just what you need from your horrors. I'd happily recommend this to any horror fan and was glad to see it at last.

See this if you like: Tremors, Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight, Slither.

NB, this review was adapted from the original written under my old RockySchlockyRobot ID that I have long forgotten how to access.


Feast was super cool to watch. A local rundown bar in the middle of nowhere is a barfly and lowlife hangout with one out of town slick talker. Little does the motley crew inside getting tanked know whatsa coming there way. A family of creatures hungry for human flesh flavored with beer. A ton of blood for fans of gore. Feast don't try to be no Saw. I LMAO for real at a jokes they said. It was way funny how the own of town talker gives those lame pep talks you heard in high school about being a team player. I never took my eyes of Feast. Didn't wanna miss any gore or jokes. Coolest was when whatever those creatures were had porn sex outside, Funny as all hell. Tell a friend about Feast.


Feast is the brain child of Project Greenlight--a horror film which attempts to capture the essence of classic horror films while at the same time putting a contemporary and gory spin on things. I am a fan of B-movies, whether they be over-the-top gorefests, in which the hero or heroin must overcome impossible odds, or the slapstick humor that sometimes accompanies such horror flicks.

The reason Feast fails is because it did neither for me while watching. I never found myself intrigued by the monsters save the very beginning, never found myself laughing, and never once said "Wow i have never seen that kind of death before!" While there are various hints of humor through out the film, none are intelligent to illicit even a slight smile. The plot and mysteriousness of the monsters is abruptly ruined, and the viewer is left with horrible special effects--which is okay--but absolutely no lead up to an action filled moment, IE: It is not scary.

The director's attempts at surprise fall painfully short, as the ending is just as predictable as any other B-movie out there. The only redeeming quality in this film is the highly stylistic approach from the director as far as characterization goes, as well as a Scanner esquire head explosion. It is as if the director tried to capture the B-movie demographic, but went so over the top the movie failed miserably.

This review is from a true horror fan, and I am giving it a 3/10.


I actually enjoyed this a lot. It is not your average horror flick, and it does have some elements of surprise in it as well. The characters are nicely played and fits well into this movie. It has a lot of great gore scenes and some good humor too. The monsters are not too bad either. Even though there are no explanation to them, it still does not matter, as the movie just circles around the characters, and their battle to survive... which in fact never gets boring.

All in all I can definitely recommend this for horror buffs, especially if you are looking for something more than just "Hi, I'm Candy, I'm a teenager, and I like to go down to basements and get naked before I get killed by the big scary serial killer" kindda movies.

Well worth my time. I can only hope the followup will be as good as this.


From start to finish, this movie was a cartoon. It was like watching an episode of "Courage the Cowardly Dog" or the Halloween episodes of all the other Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon regulars. But it was live action, without toning down any of the gory moments for children, and that made it amazing! This is a sad day in all movie genres. Originality is dead. People hail horror movies like The Descent and The Mist, ignoring the fact 95% of the movies could have been copy/pasted from the last monster movie that held its run. The fact that this movie takes those clichés and actually laughs in their face, I can't help but enjoy it. People sit around and say, "Oh, it's not original, but what is anymore?" instead of taking a risk and making something that IS original.

Feast isn't original, but it challenges movie makers to be original by making fun of them. Contrary to the countless "gory" movies like 30 Days of Night, the makers of Feast honestly have balls because they do what the others don't: be different.

That's not saying this movie is gory; it really isn't. It's pretty genetic and family friendly. I'd be hard-pressed to say the gore in this movie is much more over-the-top than the new Indiana Jones movie. Simply put, the gore is more than most movies, but it's so generic it really isn't that gory.

That's the only complaint I have. The rest is cartoony, art house fun.

3/10


WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

I thought Feast was a satisfying film.I will say I was just a little disappointed, because I was expecting a tad bit more, but still, it was very enjoyable, and even though at some parts I felt as if they overdid some stuff a bit, it contained cool action scenes, and I believe really lovable characters.Also, they kind of throw you off guard, and do some of the things that you least expect, such as how they killed of Heroine, which when I thought since she was like, one of the most important characters of the story, they would've kept her alive, and also at the part where one of the creatures devours that child, I wasn't expecting that either, which I believe was clever that they were able to do that.There was even pretty laughable comedy, which one of the best mixes of genre is Horror/Comedy, and like I said before, I was really into the characters, like the old woman and Tuffy were some of my favorites in Feast.This was a good movie, and I think it has a pretty reasonable rating, so I have nothing further to say, except that if you absolutely flat out hated this movie, you DEFINITELY need to watch it again, and maybe you'll see the error of your ways.


I've only just got around to watching this film - 3 years after its release but it was worth the wait.

I wasn't too sure what to expect. I'd heard good things about the film but it seemed that it was a little bit of a horror genre cliché. So I was ready to give up before it was halfway through. Im glad I didn't.

If you're a fan of the genre then you wont be expecting Oscar nominated performances from the cast or a script that will stand the passage of decades. That said, the performances are all above par and the the script is quite clever and amusing in places.

If you're like me than you really need to relate to the main protagonists or there has to be a 'hook' which piques your curiosity. The first 10 minutes where you are literally 'introduced' to the main characters is a fantastic hook and I knew then that I was going to enjoy the film.

The film starts well and it doesn't let up for almost an hour and a half. You really do have not a clue whether any or all of the characters are going to get out alive. And yes there are several stereotypes on show but that clever script I mentioned earlier throws up surprise after surprise. Just when you're thinking 'I know whats going to happen now ....' it doesn't.

For those that like their blood - there is plenty of it! And although its a little OTT in places it never quite gets too silly.

All in all its well worth catching and is a welcome addition to the genre.

8 out of 10


Wow, see this film as soon as you can and as many times as you can! It is worth it just to see Black Flag's punk rock supper star Henry Rollins in this now cult classic. This film kills and puts your mind on a stick to shock and awe you into submission. It is the perfect date-movie if you don't like bugs and you do like blood, booze and boobs. John Gulager is the next Alfred Hitchcock for the Y-Generation. This film marks the return to the screen of the Director's brilliant Father, Clu Gulager, it is as if "The Last Picture Show" met "Phantasim" on No-Doz & DMT. This film has more depth then "The Blair Witch Project" or "Shawn of the Dead" and it's just as brutal and sick as "Jacob's Ladder" but funnier then the fire extinguisher scene in the French film "Irréversible". This is the vomit-fest magic roller coaster ride that horror fans still go to the front row of a theater to see. So enjoy this well crafted vis-queen splattered masterpiece that the Director, Production Designer, Cast and Crew worked so hard on. Remember that this movie was made with the added stress of a reality television show looking over their shoulders. Ultimately though it is the performance of Diane Goldner, the real heroin of both this film and the TV show, that made this the first big hit of "Project Green Light" and I eagerly await her return... in the up coming "Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds" (still in production) as the Biker Queen this time instead of the Harley Mom in "Feast"(2005).


I must say I wasn't expecting much from this when I bought the DVD, but ended up having an absolute blast. Matthew Nelson gives a surprisingly sympathetic performance. I found myself feeling so sorry for the character, and wanted things to work out for him and his love interest. Suffice it to say he finally slips all the way into madness, and seeks bloody retribution on his numerous tormentors. The best moments in this film come from Nelson really showing the characters pain. Nothing goes right for him, and literally every single person in his life is abusive to him in one way or the other. The dark humor here is hilarious, although some may find the side characters who torture Monty, to be way over the top. Still that makes all the more amusing when the movie goes all out slasher in the final 20 minutes or so. One negative a couple kills showed the films' low budget. Most of it is actually quite effective, but the sprinkler scene for example doesn't quite work. Still Delivery caught me off guard, and entertained the hell out of me. Definitely check this one out.


I rented this DVD last night and actually really enjoyed it.It was a good realistic movie with a believable plot and real ordinary looking people.Even though it's a horror,I haven't laughed so hard in my life. Even though the humor was dark and cruel,it was hysterically funny.For a movie made on a very low budget,this was impressive.It began with a gory scene in a thunderstorm and then begins years later.The actor that played Monty was perfectly cast.I loved it at the end when he got back at his tormentors since they sure had it coming! I enjoyed the original gruesome deaths.That pizza scene really stays in your mind

since it looked so real.I hope there will be a sequel to this movie and that it doesn't end there.


I got this through dvdempire.com. I saw the cover and though this would be your typical slasher low budget flick (the kind I love to watch).

What I got instead was a well written and developed character for the first hour or so, and then a cheesy but extremely fun finale that reminded me of the best low budget horror films I grew up with.

Not many filmmakers have the cojones now days to just tell a story in detail, without MTV cutting or ADD narrative. That is why I guess some people were turned off by the film.

I loved this film!

I think Jose Cassella is a triple threat, he scored the film, he shot it very, very well (for DV24p), wrote the thing and directed it. The film looks better than your average $100,000 grade B film ( I am told this thing cost $3500!, try that somebody!).

I like to discover little treasures like this, it restores my faith in the new generation of filmmakers.

Is it silly and cheesy?...yes, is it insulting for some?...yes, is this for everyone?...nope, but for my money this was a fun ride, a surprising well acted (by the lead), written and made low budget film.

I'll be looking for more work by Jose, with a bit more money and a bigger script...who knows? He could throw one right out of the park.

Congratulations, you have made a great little film.

Luisa.


If you know what you are getting into, you'll enjoy this. Sick,perverted, twisted, cheesy and funny.

One of the best independent horror flicks I've seen in a long time.

Many recent "B-films" decide to show everything from the start, this film has the balls to develop the character, to take its time, I kind of liked that.

Matt nelson is dead on balls perfect for the character, Kevin O'Neil is hysterical and newcomer Tara Cardinal brings some heart into this sick film.

Even though the special effects are cheesy (as expected with this budget), the cinematography is great, good angles, a clear effort to create a "bigger"looking picture, with scenes that look so close to film that one forgets we are seeing a DV 24p project.

Very good effort.


This is one of those little films that one finds on the bargain bins, I found it that way, the DVD box got me hooked. Shot, as mentioned in the commentary track, for $5000. I am shocked. It looks just like the average $200,000 B-movie horror flick.

I am not saying this looks like Lawrence of Arabia, but it is a great indie horror film, with actual character development, it takes its time, that is ballsy.

Matt nelson is amazing in his performance, I mean, the guy threw himself into this role and that is admirable. A great film, great concept and a fantastic effort by Jose Cassella and his team.


I actually dated one of the girl in this movie (Karla Podewils). She was given a free copy, so I watched it. Her part was not too big - Naked sorority girl. I may not have her anymore, but I now have a digital copy of her topless that will last forever. LOL. I am sure her super religious parents would be proud of their daughter! Oh, I guess I should review the movie too. The movie is funny. Don't even try to take it seriously. Ridiculous amounts of gore, Cheesy lines, strippers. What more to you want out of a mock horror film. I'd watch it again! It is also really cool that it was made by a group of students for next to nothing. Props to Full Sail.


I rented this with very low expectations and thought i would at least have a good laugh or two. But 40+ minutes go bye and absolutely nothing happens except terrible camera work along with worse acting. As i further watched this "film" i became aggravated and eventually turned it off. If you are looking for a horror movie that could possibly make you pee yourself out of laughter. This is not it. One that i would personally recommend because it is very comical throughout is Mr. Jingles. Better camera, Just as corny but keeps your attention throughout and doesn't cause you to want to shoot your self in the foot.


I got this in Canada, through Amazon.com...

They say that "Automaton Transfusion" is the "Holy Grail of indie horror films". And that it was a miracle for being shot for $30,000. I guess those folks didn't see THIS movie miracle.

I think Delivery was shot for around $4500?, somewhere in that range. I mean..they spent what producers spend in sodas and bubble gum in ONE day of shooting in a real film set.

And the film looks great, in fact, better than most $60,000 and up micro budget films.

Character development?, in a horror film?, who knew there were people that still used that.... Delivery takes its time, it makes you work for it, but if you know what you are getting into, you'll find something there, you'll find true smart film-making behind the silly situations and cheesy effects.

An awesome performance by the lead, who is dead on perfect for the film. Lets see what these guys can do with an actual budget.

Very good, very entertaining, very well done for the budget, huge congratulations!


DELIVERY definitely falls into the low-budget, done on a shoestring, splatter flick category that seems to be all the rage these days. I've seen plenty of these digital horror flicks over the last 5 years and I have to say that Delivery ranks up there amongst the better ones. This is way more than a bunch of dudes running around their backyards with a video camera. This is cheap done with skill.

High Points: character development! Finally a low-budget flick where characters aren't just setup to service a killing. Monty the pizza guy has a dark family history, and you get to see his life slowly unravel... Hilarious politically incorrect supporting characters, including a belligerent transvestite and her gay swimming pool mafia... Good performances by the leads (Matt and Tara?)... Notable technical work- good lighting, camera-work, direction... The last 25 minutes is a cathartic, kill all the a**holes climax just as satisfying as "Carrie." And lots of NAKED SORORITY GIRLS! I'm female, and love this great American pastime. More jugs the better! Low Points: The pacing is VERY moderate. Basically Monty the Pizza Guy getting sh*t on by a series of jerks for an hour got a little tedious. Some weak performances here and there, but forgivable.

Overall, a commendable feat accomplished with little resources. A fun flick when you have the gang over with a fridge full of Pabst. Have a ball!


This is the best looking $4500 film I have ever seen. Not that I have ever seen a film with that budget.

Great performance by Matt nelson, great cinematography and cool editing. Very happy to hear that Warner's/ Polychrome picked it up.

Your average slasher film begins with a body count, this one actually has the balls to have some kind of character development. We truly feel for the lead character and understand why he ends up doing what he does.

I still cannot believe how Jose Cassella captured the images he did on such a low/ nothing budget.

If you go in thinking this is Schindler's List, then you will not get this. This is a gem designed for late 70's horror fans, a must see.

great job. great flick.


If it wasn't for the fact that the male and female leads had triangle ears and long bushy tails, they would've been mistaken for Mickey and Minnie Mouse (maybe Walt Disney did and threatened to sue so Leon Schlesinger told his cartoon directors Hugh Harmon and Rudolf Ising-former Disney animators-to stop making Foxy cartoons). Anyway, Foxy rides on his horse to a bar in a desert town to see his girlfriend play the title song. This being pre-Code (and no stigma of cartoons being only a children's medium then), there's lots of drinking of alcohol treated in a humorous manner especially of the horse at the climax. Historically important since this was the first Merrie Melodies short after a year of Looney Tunes with Bosko as the star. Highly amusing though a long way from the classics that starred Porky Pig, Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, etc. Still, worth seeing for any animation buff especially of Warner Bros. cartoons.


The first credited Merrie Melody is a poor effort. The animation is repetitive, the gags poor -- one involves a character's dentures coming out on an armature and acting like a castanet -- and the songs -- "Lady, Play Your Mandolin" and "I Am A Gay Caballero" are sung in annoying cartoon voices.


I recently rented this game for the PlayStation 2, because it was around $70 and I wasn't sure whether I wanted to buy it. At first, it seemed a little dull and boring, but as the game progressed I got more interested in the game and so I kept playing. It took me about 5 hours to complete the story, and the overall the game is quite good, but after Spider-Man 2 (and, in particular, Ultimate Spider-Man) I was hoping for better.

New York City is my first major complaint; the city is supposed to be bigger, but it felt small and unwelcoming. It was not very busy, and there were near to no noises in the background. Also, if you climb a tall skyscraper, the materials on the buildings further away disappeared, unlike Spider-Man 2. And it's not as accurate as the New York in Spider-Man 2, which wasn't entirely accurate, although this one is still a major disappointment compared to the SM2 one.

Swinging around New York is as fun as ever, and the Web Zip is more powerful in this game than in the last game. This means that if you are in a hurry for a mission, it will be helpful to zip around instead of swinging, because the swinging is slow and even the booster (which arrives at the end of your swing as you launch through the air) doesn't help much. This aside, the swinging looks very cool, and is in the same sort of style as Ultimate Spider-Man, where he moves with the web.

The story is roughly the same as the film's; Peter Parker/Spider-Man gets a black costume that makes him more powerful and aggressive. He tries to use his new powers the way he used to, but they take him over and so he must fight to control himself. Meanwhile, a new super villain, Sandman, is on the loose and it is up to Spider-Man to stop him. However, when the Black Suit gets to be too much power for Peter, he takes it off and it bonds with Eddie Brock, creating Venom.

This story is changed before the fights with Sandman, and so the main movie fights are not until the very end and don't take very long to complete. This is disappointing, as Sandman and Venom were two of the super villains I was most looking forward to fighting, and yet the only fights with them are exactly the same as in the movie - and less! The other super villains are the Lizard (which is fun as long as you don't keep dying, because then it gets rather boring) and Morbius/Shriek. Morbius and Shriek take up most of the story and make you wonder if you're ever going to get to Sandman and Venom, and I got a little confused when I read on the box "CHOOSE between 5 different story lines". In the end, this was a false statement; you can only follow the game, not choose any story lines, and I was a bit worried at first that I had accidentally chosen the wrong one! Basically, the Morbius/Shriek part of the game is not very fun, and takes up a lot of time. The only reason you'll want to play it is to get to Venom and Sandman, although those fights aren't everything you'd hope them to be either. Venom looks incredibly fat and isn't appealing to the eye at all (despite the fact that he's not SUPPOSED to - see the movie to see what the game creators were trying to make). The fights with him are long and difficult, and his taunts get very annoying after the hundredth time (and he repeats them about 50 times in one fight, so you end up playing the level, dying, and then repeating the level, which equals more annoying taunts).

The best parts of the game are the three Sandman fights, although even these are not all they're cracked up to be. Mostly you just repeat the same thing over and over again, and it doesn't seem very action-y.

I did enjoy this game mildly, though; the graphics were okay, and the boss fights weren't all too bad. I haven't yet played Spider-Man 3 for PC (which is a port of the Xbox 360 and PS3 version) but I am sure it is better than the PS2 version. I can, in a way, recommend this game, but only for the Sandman battles.

4/10.