I had to watch this film recently and expected to see HORROR film. A SEVERED HEAD!? h-e-l-l-o? Only to find out this is a comedy... I THINK? Very dry, very British. The confusing title would be explained at the end of the film as the character Honor quotes: "Go back to reality Martin,... I am an object of terrible fascination to you, A Severed Head such as primitive tribes used putting a morsel of gold on it tong to make it out of prophecies, as real people you and i do not exist for one and other" I know, huh? I didn't get the correlation either. Seeing there are only 3 user comments I feel bad for so many films like this. So many thousands of films that took so long to make and so many actors gave great performances only to fall into the abyss of obscurity. Worth watching though if only for Lee Remick who is absolutely stunning and quite a skilled dead pan comic.


I loved Westworld, so I was excited to find out Futureworld was being aired on a local UPN station. I'd read reviews that Futureworld was disappointing, but sometimes futuristic '70s movies are a blast to watch regardless of their flaws. :-) Well, Futureworld was a real stinkeroo. I actually had fun laughing at many parts that weren't meant to be funny. I could go on for days about the ridiculous plot holes and unanswered questions, but here are just a few of my favorites:

Why did they lead us to believe that Clark, the faceless robot "friend" of Harry the mechanic, *could be* The Gunslinger? Clark seemed pretty harmless, but I was waiting for an exciting moment at the end of the movie when he revealed his true, merciless character (The Gunslinger)! Instead, Clark was more of a paperweight in his scenes.

What the heck is with the dream sequence between The Gunslinger (Yul Brynner) and Blythe Danner's character? That was so ridiculously bad that I had to turn away during parts of it. I understand it was a dream and dreams can be really weird, but that doesn't mean filmmakers have to put all our bizarre dreams on film! Before I saw the dream sequence, I was hoping so much that Brynner's cameo would add something to the movie. Instead, I was embarrassed for him. They could have cut the entire dream sequence and it never would have affected the film.

Fonda's and Danner's characters started punching buttons on the white chamber and suddenly three ninjas materialize out of nothing! First of all, that occurred before we knew the Delos scientists were engineering human clones of the world leaders. So when I saw the ninjas magically appear fully clothed and with weapons, I was thinking, "Since when do mechanical robots and their trappings materialize from nothing?" Then, when we find out that these new insidious creations are flesh-and-blood, that still left me thinking, "How on earth would you create a human clone from thin air?"

Why did Fonda's and Danner's characters agree to run to Westworld to hide? Did they think they could start a new life in the abandoned Westworld? We learned in the first movie that Westworld was surrounded by the Mojave desert, so there wasn't an escape route in that world. If they hoped to escape Delos, Westworld was certainly not the way out.

Oh yes, if Delos spent millions fixing up and expanding all the worlds, even adding more worlds, why did they leave Westworld untouched? That would still be a world that people would want to enjoy, and the tragedies at Delos weren't any worse at Westworld than they were at the other worlds (in the original film). It seemed to be a strange oversight in the film.

The big finale. I have to say I was a bit disappointed that the movie ended with Peter Fonda flipping off the evil and conniving Dr. Schneider, with Dr. Schneider responding with a melodramatic slamming of his hands on the railing of the platform he was standing on. Maybe it would be have been good for a laugh if Schneider had held his fists in the air and yelled, "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" a la Darth Vader at the end of Episode 3. ;-)

I do want to note that the computer-generated 3-D faces and hands were pretty advanced for 1976. I also enjoyed the '70s decor and architecture -- one of my favorite parts of '70s TV shows and movies. :-)


Jim Jarmusch is a lucky man. His movies are anything but original in concept, the most memorable dialog is generally improvised by his actors, and his shooting style is slow, 2-dimensional and predictable. Even through all of this, he manages to net a cult following and is able to assemble all-star ensembles, such as with this film, "Coffee and Cigarettes." What started as a sub-par, decidedly "who cares" short film skit in the eighties, has ballooned into a much-too-lengthy farce on social interactions in diners and bars, featuring a handful of similar and droning bits all revolving around one topic: What you talk about over coffee and cigarettes. After the first bit, you get a feel for the rest of the film quickly: Awkward, dry banter full of esoteric references and cute statistics. After the third and fourth, you get that the interactions are awkward and playing off of the actors' real-life personas in an ironic way. It's like a knock-knock joke; Yes, Jim. We get it, but we're only laughing because of who's telling the joke--not who wrote it, and certainly not because of the joke itself. My recommendation for you, the potential viewer, is this: If you're a rabid fan of anyone appearing in the film, then go for it. Fast-forward to the bit containing Jack White or Iggy Pop, and don't bother watching the rest. Trust me on this one. Go to a diner and actually HAVE a conversation, instead. It'll be much more enlightening.


What a drag! I must admit at first that there were some funny moments in the film -- most notably a coffee-guzzling Bill Murray, but it wasn't enough to save it. There were several shorts that revolved around (you guessed it) coffee and

cigarettes, with rather awkward encounters between cafe dwellers. Most of the

dialoge was unremarkable pretension that just wasn't funny, or interesting. Some performances were good (Cate Blanchett, Bill Murray, and Tom Waits) and

others atrocious (Jack & Meg White). A great idea -- poorly executed. Don't

waste your time with this -- go grab a cup of coffee with a stranger.


It's been a really long time since I've wanted to stop a movie mid-way through and bring it to the store to demand my money back. This movie made me want to do that. The repetition of random lines from scene to scene was probably supposed to be poignant, but it didn't even make sense. This movie is a disjointed mess. Obviously whoever made this movie has some friends in high places because I have no idea who would think making this movie was a good idea. And how in the heck did they get so many decent actors in this movie? Also, the preview was totally misleading and made it seem as though the movie was actually going to be interesting and not a snail-paced confusion. Maybe you have to be a smoker to understand this movie? It's only redemption was the Cate Blanchette vignette.


Watching 'Coffee and Cigarettes' is analogous to sitting through 96 minutes of teeth pulling. 11 vignettes specifically designed to highlight the general public's inability to indulge in meaningful conversation (or basic communication for that matter), the dialogue is little more than moronic jabbering. If this is even a vague (comic? don't talk nonsense!) representation of what people do in coffee-houses then they should be banded as oxygen thieves. It was so bad that I was compelled to stay until the end to get my sadomasochistic fill - constantly asking myself: how bad can this thing get? It is unfortunate that the soliciting of refunds from multiplexes is so impractical; my only recourse was to walk into a screen showing 'Shaloin Soccer' without paying. This film is founded on little more than pretensions, the content is insipid and vacuous, the result is annoyance.


At its best "Coffee and Cigarettes" is a fun premise, with a constellation of stars with hip characters in hip locations. At its worse "Coffee and Cigarettes" is the worst improv you're going to see this side of amateur drama school.

Despite good stories by two old working class men and mafiosi, and great performances by a wide range of actors, comedians, rappers and rock stars, you'll be bored to tears with at least three-quarters of the whole movie. Some guidance by the director wouldn't have hurt. At least the most boring stories aren't that long.

This is a hipster film that had the potential of becoming a pop culture phenomenon. See it if just for thinking of all the possibilities that were missed.


Jim Jarmusch disappointingly falls short with his latest offering of Coffee and Cigarettes.

Although visually attractive and with a great cast to support, the series of shorts unfortunately are let down by the series of poor scripts.

On first viewing I found myself fast forwarding through the film, looking for "the good parts", though really I didn't give it a chance .... Then with time to spare, I gave it another go. There were a couple of highlights, fans of Steve Coogan (Alan Partridge, 24 Hour Party People), will enjoy the 'cousins?' conversation with Alfred Molina (Chocolat, Spiderman 2). And Iggy Pop gives an amusing performance playing himself in the company of the intimidating Tom Waits.

Maybe this would have worked better as individual shorts, shown over a duration of weeks "Jim Jarmusch Presents", rather than as a complete collection.

As a whole it just didn't work as a film ... JJs worst effort to date.

You'll need more than Coffee and Cigarettes to stay awake through this one.

For more insight into the reasons behind the film, you maybe interested in this article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4972055/site/newsweek/


This self-obsessed Hollywood piece of crap is barely worth seeing. If you're a shallow, worthless Hollywood cult worshiper, you may find this lousy piece of cinematic trash worthy viewing because you hear the name of someone who knows somebody who knows someone who once may have heard of you mentioned. If you're not totally irredeemable, you'll avoid this worthless waste of celluloid like the plague. Jim Jarmusch has made decent, worthy films before (Dead Man especially) but this ain't one of em. Sad to say, I laughed at the cheaper shots in this film. Doesn't mean the film's worthwhile. Avoid. Avoid. There's a reason that RZA, GZA, Tom Waits, and Iggy Pop aren't movie stars. Seems like Jim called everybody he knew and said, please help me make a movie on your names, cause I can't make it on my talent. Lame, failure, pathetic... You'll have more fun becoming intimate with a vinyl doll, all things considered. ~spoiler~ There is no plot whatsoever in this flaccid piece of gutter streamer.


One of those 'documentaries' about death. Apparently meant to show how awful and brutal people sometimes treat each other, but you have to wonder if its not just pure nasty exploitation. One thing is for sure, if it doesn't affect you get to a shrink fast.


This documentary is badly edited to the point it is a complete failure. To say that it should be shown in schools is lunacy. It is not for the children. Adults only. It is disgusting. I accidentally watched it in 1998. The footage should be held and used by the police, army, medical services, security services and forensic departments. Some of the footage casts serious question upon certain actions that may have historical political relevance in war crimes which should be studied by the appropriate authorities who are responsible for investigating such atrocities. It is clear that other footage may give truthful accounts of history not commonly upheld as a common truth by many communities, therefore these instances should be separated and studied in there self so that realistic conclusions may be arrived at and actions taken to educate the public about what is really happening in the world. It is a sick and very emotive to the level it can make you sick. There are some specific points that are definitely important to be aware of in a democracy that may be inserted either to shock or to educate by drawing on the shock level of other included footage, the effective educational value of these particular diatribes becomes diluted by the rest of the documentary. I see this collection of footage as counter-productive to itself due to the idealistic idiocy demonstrated by the editors who have most probably either been in shock by the footage or have assembled the film in such a fashion as to deconstruct the viewers mind in such a way that they may question their own countries values and ethics to the level of becoming isolated in ones own beliefs. The footage gives a serious look at what many do not know and what many turn a blind eye to, it should only be viewed by those experienced in such areas as the unexperienced could well find themselves with a subconscious ticket to an asylum. It is a sad day when footage from a film like this becomes public, an even sadder day when people want to watch it. It is not nice and to be quite honest it makes me a bit angry, unfortunately it is as real as it gets. Watch it and say goodbye to a priceless piece of your own mind. You have been warned! They say you get more feeling from reading a book before you watch a film, if Executions was a text I doubt you would want to ever see a film of it as you would then understand that sometimes the graphic components ARE stronger than written text. It is somewhat interesting from a historical context if you are a criminal investigator or anyone involved in the study of serious psychological / neurological disorders or any areas of research that may involve violent dictatorships without any remorse to humanity. Don't burn your soul, please. At least watch Cannibal Ferox first!


First and foremost, I find it incredible that back in 1995 this film got an 18 cert in the U.K, and films like Straw Dogs or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre were still being refused.

I saw this film in 1995. It is a film I would never choose to watch today, but as a 15 year old I was curious about its content, and was constantly in search of shocking horror films. This is not a horror film. It is not a documentary. It is a collage of gross video footage of people having their lives ended in brutal fashion. The people behind the cameras are probably as sick as the people conducting the executions.

Maybe some of the people who were executed had been fairly tried and found guilty of terrible crimes, but this is not explained in the 'film'. And even if it was, would it really make any difference?

I have read some of the other comments on this film, and find it laughable that people have praised its content, and have even suggested it be used for educational purposes! This film tries to justify itself as exposing mans inhumanity to man. No, this film is for shock value only, and I suspect that most people who seek it out are naïve thrill seekers, or just plain sick. I was a member of the former group!

If you want sick blood and guts, get your kicks from a horror film, and when you leave the cinema you can be safe in the knowledge that you have just been shocked and exhilarated by the skill and genius of a special effects and make up team.


This documentary should never have been released,it is sick,vile,horrific,shocking and disturbing.The film should have been banned in the UK as it shows real-life images of people being shot by firing squads,it shows a man executed in the electric chair and shows a man have his jaw blown off by a gun.I can't understand why this was released or even made, who would want to watch real-life footage of people dying in such horrific ways?This film is a very disturbing documentary and should never have been released to the public.


In the early days of sound films, studios really didn't know how to use the new medium. Instead of normal speaking voices and normal actors, Hollywood felt a need to overwhelm the audience with sound. A lot of vaudeville comics who spoke a mile a minute were shoved in front of the cameras to take advantage of the fact that audiences could now hear the actors speak. Some of these early talkies are downright dreadful while some others are just odd curios. RAIN OR SHINE falls into the category of just plain dreadful.

Most of the blame for this film being so terrible and tough to watch falls on the shoulders of its director, Frank Capra. While Capra did great things for Harry Langdon during the silent era and from the mid-1930s on he made some of the most iconic American films of the era (IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, MEET JOHN DOE and many others), but even great directors have their duds--and this film was definitely a dud.

The film is nominally about a circus that is chronically on the verge of bankruptcy. However, the entire show was the vaudevillian, Joe Cook. While one of the reviewers thought that Cook was hilarious, he was simply too much--like a giant migraine. He talked and talked and talked and talked. If you liked this sort of in your face routine again and again, then you'd probably like the film. However, I didn't think he was funny and felt the director should have placed more emphasis on the talented members of the cast. That, or simply punched Cook in the mouth and told him to shut the heck up!! Terrible pacing, annoying dialog and nothing to like--this is truly one of the most painful films I have seen. I only kept watching because I assumed it would get better---it didn't.


Think of THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (1952) done on the cheap and a small scale, very small scale. RAIN OR SHINE (1930) is based upon lead actor Joe Cook's Broadway Show of 1928. In which Mr. Cook single handedly performs as if he was the entire Circus. That is recreated in this Capra film along with all the clichés of the Genre. Bankrupt Circus, Sheriff at the door and the inevitable Fight and Fire. Plenty of stereotypical characters, so if you are P.C. thin skinned you had better skip this one.

Joe Cook as SMILEY JOHNSON saves the Circus for Louise Fazenda as FRANKIE, 'The Princess' only too see it go up in smoke in the last reel. Cook's style was that of VAUDEVILLE, where a rather overbearing character is the center of attraction and supposedly well liked. Cook is unremitting in hammering the audience with his act which does not let up for the entire picture. In fact he probably acted this way 24/7 which makes me feel sad for his significant other.

By 1930 VAUDEVILLE was on its last legs. Beginning in Circa 1880 it was a popular live entertainment particularly for the 'middle class'. By 1920 though Silent Pictures had been established as a major threat. Then mid-decade came Radio, home entertainment provided for free which many Vaudevillians took advantage of, transferring their talents too the new medium. The Great Depression and by 1930 the perfection of the Sound Film, created the death blow. The theaters that supported VAUDEVILLE either closed or converted to movies, those who could cut it either moved too film or radio. As for live performance, you were either on Broadway or you did not count at all. Cook continued with success on Broadway where his style of acting could be tolerated. Film definitely was not his medium.


I was very disappointed after seeing this movie. In theory this could have been a strong, political drama. Instead it became a pointless sequence of rather boring events. The camera is mostly handled in a documentary style. This gives the movie a certain realistic feeling but unfortunately, this does not endorse the story, simply because there is no story, no real plot, no evolution in it. The result is 100 minutes of atmosphere, trying to hide a very weak plot with no layers or subplots. It seems the director never asked himself if watching this film a nice experience. To me it was not.

This film was not able to touch me (the attempt of being emotionally touching was way too obvious), it was not intellectually challenging (the message is simple and mundane), it was never funny and there was no real tension because it was very slow and the film leaves the public absolutely uninformed about the odds for some plot change. Which never comes.

Summarized, this could have been nice as a short movie (30 minutes at max) that shows the story as it is: somewhat tragic, yet uncomplicated. As a viewer, I registered what happened, but the events had no function in the greater whole. They were simply events. Rather irrelevant ones, really. I almost fell asleep and to me it was a waste if time and money.

Sometimes less is more. In this movie, less is just less. You have been warned.


I hated this film so much that I don't even feel like writing an intelligent analysis...how about, horrible acting, shaky camera, shove reality in your face kinda movie? avoid at all costs....I am not a big fan of movies that re-enact real life events...I thought Munich was an absolute piece of garbage movie...this one is right up there...maybe they could have filmed the cast being taken out back and beaten once the film was over for such an abysmal performance.... Now I upset myself...toss this one on the fire, along with House of Sand and Fog...and quite frankly, even if I were a journalist with heroic delusions, I would definitely stay out of a hellhole country like this couple was in....Angelina has done nothing to ever recommend her as a good actress...without her looks she would be nowhere, like this movie...


The best thing about this move is the performance by Angelina Jolie ( I think I smell nomination). Way better then if Jennifer Aniston (the original choice, thanks to Brad) was chosen.

However, this should of been a Sunday Movie of the Week. It's really no different then other movies that we all know the outcome of.

I thought it was more of a low budget flick, with Jolie's paycheck probably the largest expense. Nothing being blown up, no armies of whoever, no traveling to all over the world. Basically in a few different sets. A lot of talking, some screaming.

I really wouldn't recommend it. Wait for the DVD, and then you may still think about renting it.


Its a sad day in Hollywood when important media events are exploited as soul vehicles for Academy Award Nominations...It is very sad to see the most conspicious consumers in Hollywood pretend to have a heart to place a Golden Statue on their Mantles in the name of Art and Intellectualism...Film is the avenue to the consciousness of the world we live in...My Hope is that people run out of the theatre and cringe in dismay at the abysmal performances of a technological facsimily of Acting this film gives its audience...Hollywood should be disturbed at what is considered good Acting among its elite and rein in the obvious exploitation of story, plot and heart...This is truly a disappointing and non-academy award winning film.....................


2 marks for acting quite well Ms Jolie Pitt but minus 10 for taking on a story that is only there to glorify YOU. There is no point to this movie - we saw it all on the news 1000 times better. We get what we really want to know about this from news not movies. The widow of Pearl has a big problem too as far as I see it - why would ANYONE want the life of their executed husband made into a Hollywood movie? Starring a mega glamorous star as oneself? It is sick if you ask me. Well no one asked me and all the other sensible people in the world so meanwhile the Jolie Pitts, the Clooneys, the Bonos, the Bob Geldorfs etc etc of this world go around wasting TONS of money for pointless films and concerts on the pretence of illuminating the world about all the bad things happening and actually are just on a MASSIVE ego trip about themselves. It is shameful.


At the time of this tragedy it was international consensus that Pearl had a death wish going into Pakistan with an obvious profile as an American Jewish Journalist at a time when Muslim Extremists and terrorists were at their most volatile state. Pearl took outrageously foolish risks for money and fame in a country where the Bacteria even want to exterminate Jews and paid the price with his life , very stupid and cavalier. Brad Pitt has taken a risk in producing this movie for his arrogant spoiled no talent wife who appears in every scene as if she has just walked of a Vogue magazine shoot except for all the obvious failed cosmetic surgery. The cinema veritas style of hand held camera is overused and cost saving. The film is generally very cheap in few location shoots and obviously cheap extras level actors.

The Film offers nothing in terms of offering any value about the human condition or Political Insight. Angeline Jolie's three screaming fits during the investigation , the news of her husbands death and child birth punctuate mindless one line arrogantly performed mumblings throughout the film and she expects us to believe this great acting let alone academy award winning stuff.

This movie is terrible and boring and just another self aggrandizing performance for Jolie and Mrs Pearl should be ashamed of herself capitalising on her Stupid and Foolhardy Husbands horrible murder.


This movie is glossy and a seemingly realistic portrayal of Pakistan and the effects of terrorism on a victim's family and friends.

But what a dismal story. The outcome is no surprise. We saws it on CNN, remember? The character of Daniel Pearl comes across as rather unlikable. He pursues a really dangerous story without regard for the fate of his pregnant wife. When he disappears, he becomes the Center of the Known Universe, but the movie fails to justify the effort put into the Search For Danny. Still, there is not even a pretense of suspense. We KNOW he's doomed. We saw it on CNN.

So, I'm left wondering why this movie was made. We gain no information we didn't already have. We "learn" that Karachi is a large and chaotic city. So? We learn that terrorism causes horrific pain in its victims and their families. And? Cops use all sorts of unconventional means (even torture!) to get information about terrorists. Sorry. I think that's been covered on "24". And some victims die. Hmmm. They are called victims, right? Oh, and high profile cases draw huge packs of intrusive journalists. Well, both Daniel and Mariane Pearl were journalists, so why would this be a surprise? Why does this case rate a Major Motion Picture when so many other journalists, soldiers and civilians have been kidnapped and killed over the years. What makes Danny so special?

After subjecting myself to this 2 hours of futile angst, I have no idea how to answer that question. So, why bother?


Despite the excellent acting performances, this movie merely narrates its events step by step, peppered with flashbacks of Danny and Mariane's happy moments. There is no character development or exploration, no substantial background on the setting, and little depth in the story. On a minor point, Angelina Jolie's hair is pulled up whether she is awake or asleep, in or out of bed, all the time. What actual person has her hair up literally 24/7? Overall, the film is boring.

If you want to watch Angelina Jolie for her skillful acting, you may want to see this movie. The other actors do a great job as well. Otherwise, it is not worth the time.


Co-scripted by Dylan Thomas, this tale of three ageing and infirm, although philanthropically inclined, spinster sisters presiding over a crumbling mansion in 1930s South Wales is an oddball post-War slice of Welsh Gothic. In their hermetically sealed universe, the sisters' otherworldly formalism is threatened, firstly, by a landslip caused by the family mine which destroys part of their small village at the outset and, secondly, by the return of their wealthy and apparently hard-hearted pragmatist brother and his primly efficient secretary, whose modernity further unravels the web of antiquity which has preserved their world. The narrative clunkiness is swiftly apparent from the somewhat obvious symbolism of the structural cracks and fissures which fracture the sisters' home at the beginning of the movie, and the stateliness of the family's surroundings is matched by similarly ossified pacing; Dylan Thomas' occasionally poetically barbed and witty insights notwithstanding. It's not just the old dark house that creaks here; even a nick of time climax does little to shore up the cracks of this crumbling edifice.


When a mine collapses destroying the homes built on top of it, the three sisters of the the family that owned the mine promise to rebuild the homes. This doesn't sit well with their brother who now lives in the city and is the real source of money for the family. Returning home in order to straighten out the situation, he soon finds that all is not well in the old homestead, and his life is in grave danger.

A post war-Gothic tale with a great deal on its mind this is a movie that never really works. Graced with a script that was written in part by Dylan Thomas the dialog is often very literate in a way that real people never talk. The writing does provide for some very wicked exchanges between the characters but it never really comes to life. Some of the miners are just a bit too poetic about the tragedy that has befallen their small town.

Thematically the film is about the clash of the old and the stayed with the new and the modern. I mention this because the film seems much more interested in ideas than it is in any real action. We have the three sisters who never left home and want to rebuild things the way they were battling their brother and his secretary who have come from the outside and want live in the present and deal with the situation as it is. Its a battle that forms the basis, in one way or another, for almost every scene often to the detriment of the drama. Everything seems to be arranged to have some deep meaning from the aliments of the sisters to the crumbling nature of the manor house. I wasn't watching a movie so much as a dramatized argument for the modern; there aren't people on the screen rather they are ideas.

I applaud the filmmakers for wanting to make a movie that is more than a Gothic drama, but they went the wrong way and forgot the drama. Honestly this is a tough movie to get through, its 80 minutes long and feels like twice that in the lecture hall. As good as the basic plot line is the execution makes this a film I doubt I'll ever watch again.

Worth a shot if you don't mind seeing a literate drama that tries too hard and just misses being something special


!948 might have been a tad too late for this Poe-faced Gothic outing just as the poetry masquerading as dialogue and penned by Dylan Thomas was a tad out of keeping with realistic speech. Thomas tips his symbolic glove in an early scene when a collapsing mine triggers falling plaster and cracks in the walls of the 'big house' in the mining village, which is home to the eponymous sisters, who pledge to rebuild the homes in the mining village destroyed by the collapse. They make this pledge despite not having change of a match but (so they think) secure in the knowledge that their half brother (Raymond Lovell), who long ago left the village and became a successful businessman, will underwrite the repairs. Lovell decides to mark their card and journeys to Wales with his secretary, Nova Pilbeam, and anticipates Ann Robinson by a good 50 years with the question, 'is this hell, or Wales. Once ensconced in the house he begins to resemble Bob Hope in The Cat And The Canary with the three sisters blending into Gale Sondergaard. I can't think of a single reason why you would want to watch this but then what do I know.


In my opinion it is a film without any grace. It is incredible to see the great and funny film "Amici Miei" has the same rating as this awful "Fantozzi". It's horrendous repetitive succession of sketches. It is a horrible movie and i don't understand what kind of people may like this movie. But what surprises me is that so few people have been suspended it.

In Spain there are also similar films as the films of Paco Martínez Soria for example. It is very difficult to stand and watch the entire movie. There are moments when it seems incredible how bad it is. I write this review because I love the comedies of all sorts and I was completely disappointed with this film.

All in all, a complete and total waste of time.


My one line summary pretty much said it all for this movie. It is a pretty typical horror anthology, where college students sit around in their a**hole professor's house and tell "the scariest story they know". All of the stories were original (well, I've heard them as urban legends before, but I never saw them done in a movie before) but this doesn't mean they are enjoyable. In fact, after about 5 minutes into each of them you just want them to end and hope the next one is better.

The only really worthwhile things in the film are the special effects, including a creepy skeleton and a talking severed head, and the ending was, I have to admit, really rewarding, like something in a TWILIGHT ZONE episode. So if you find yourself watching this for whatever reason, just keep telling yourself to stick around, because the ending really pays off.


Flat horror anthology framed by story of college students being taught "The Psychology of Fear" by creepy professor Edward Derek (Ramy Zada) who invites them to his house one night so they can swap scary stories.

Story number one is about husband and wife (Nadine Van Der Velde and Marc McClure) who take the long, scenic route home late at night and when the inevitable car trouble takes place, they venture inside the obligatory Spooky Mansion Where Grisly Murders Happened. Mostly just lame, this story is however not totally without tension and does feature a sadistic final twist.

Story number two is about some air headed teenage girls who hope to have a night of fun but end up lost in the "bad" part of town, pursued by a degenerate predator (Luis Contreras) and his three killer dogs. Not scary at all, nor very involving, but it has a literally incendiary finale. Horror buffs may recognize Judie Aronson of "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter" and Penelope Sudrow of "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" in this story. At least Ms. Sudrow doesn't get her head rammed through a TV here.

Story number three is the mild best of the bunch, with a message service operator (Marg Helgenberger) being menaced by pathetic yet undeniably dangerous loony (Alan Rosenberg, Helgenberger's real-life husband). The bad guy keeps working his way back to her, leading to a decent final shot. Helgenberger is pretty good in this segment - in fact, she's one of the best things in the whole picture.

The framing story wraps up with the arrival of an uninvited guest and this leads to some of the film's more outré horror. However, the denouement struck me as dumb and annoying.

Probably one of the things that bugged me the most was Jillian McWhirter's underwhelming work as the film's prescient central character.

Overall, lightweight and forgettable genre fare. Its stories are not particularly memorable, and it is never at any time even remotely frightening. The writers / producers / directors, Jim and Ken Wheat, couldn't really pull this off.

3/10


They say that a student is only as good as their teacher. If this is true, then we the viewer as student have failed miserably. This hilariously dated 1980's film on a college class facing fear straight-on is interwoven with poor 'horror stories' and is mediocre at best. Overacting, clichéd scenes, and 80's fashion fail this film. If you lived the 80's then this may be a fun albeit painful remembrance for you. If not, then you'll cringe not at the horror stories but of the hair and clothes of the actors. There's plenty of other anthology movies out there that far surpass this film. A nude scene here or there might have moved the film to the head of the class, but there is none of that, and without it - and more importantly real writing - this movie flunks for the term.


and that particular year says more than you can think of. and the year is probably the only reason that i first started seeing that awful movie. the plot is about a group of students coming too their psychology teacher's house, who get his kicks in telling "scary" stories. every one of them on his turn telling his spooky stuff. and add to that crap, - while the whale thing is going, there's a stranger with an ex outside. oh well, that movie is a great example of just nothing interesting. the story's are all boring one after another, and the outline happening is lame too. so there some walking talking skeleton effect.. so do the 1958 "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" do, and it looks much cooler. one of the inner story's is on four girls looking for a place that they can get into, because of their young age, after failing in that, they are find themselves in the "bad part of town", well that just could be a real cool story, but that bad part of town, isn't really as you might expect, it's just a typical warehouse area. now that's a real shame.


After Midnight (1989) is a bad 80's horror flick. It's one of those total cop-out movie. I hate these type of movies. Ramy Zada reminds me of Bruce Campbell's evil doppleganger for Evil Dead 3. I can't stand this picture. Lame movie based on even lamer "urban legends". Nothing to recommend about this flick. The movie's not even a "good" bad movie. It's just Bad, with no redeeming qualities, the film makers tried too hard to make a movie that's "scary". But in the end, all you wind with is a terrible film that has no meaning or substance.

You wanna be scared? I mean really scared? Then don't watch this movie! You can see scarier stuff on the P.A.X. network. For real.

No recommendations.


In 2004, I went to Anime Weekend Atlanta. At the convention, Cartoon Network was having a panel on some of the new shows coming out, like IGPX and Tom Goes to the Mayor. To quote mc chris (who was a programming director for Adult Swim) "This is one of the funniest things we've ever seen." So when the show premiered, I watched it. I gave it 3 episodes to not completely suck...and wanted to drive to Williams St. to beat up the entire comedy staff at Adult Swim. Then came this flaming pile.

Look, maybe I don't get it. Maybe it's so funny that it isn't funny. Or maybe not.

It's terrible. How they get people like David Cross, Tenacious D, and various other celebs to do the shows is beyond me. Check the AS message boards and you'll see what I mean. This show is not "avante-garde", it's not "Kaufman-esqe", it's just a joke. It's Tim and Eric's joke on anyone who watches it, and they're laughing. The only good part of this show is the cute busty girl in the episode "Abstinence", and as soon as the faux-porn set-up ends, the shows goes back to a huge vacuous waste of time.


Randomness can be funny when done correctly, however just being random doesn't automatically mean that something is funny. I watched numerous episodes on many different occasions to try to give this show a fair chance and to see what all of the fuss was about. What a waste of time. This show seems to be compiled of sketches where the writers feel that if they put down the first thing that pops into their head then it will automatically be funny.

I've heard people describe this show as being "genius" or "ground breaking" and telling people that if they dislike it they just don't "get it" and must be into lame, predictable comedy. Hardly. This show is typically liked by hipsters who fancy themselves to be on the cutting edge of comedy and think that the more absurd or nonsensical something is, the more intelligent and genius it is. Kind of like people who go to modern art shows and rave about what a genius someone was for putting a snow shovel out on display as a work of art.

The series is filled with just a bunch of random things happening that are supposed to be funny just because they're random. Here's an example: Two men are sitting in a restaurant having an orange juice drinking contest. One man, a plumber, drinks so much orange juice that he turns into a giant chicken. The other man, dressed as a graduate, drinks so much orange juice that he begins vomiting uncontrollably. Then the plumber-turned-chicken runs across the room and dives headfirst into a stack of yellow rubber duckies. The end. That was something I wrote off of the top of my head that is in a similar vein to the skits shown on this horrible series. Hardly genius, just completely stupid.

As I stated earlier, randomness can be funny when it's done correctly (examples are Stella, Aqua Teen, and of course Monty Python, etc). Simply throwing a bunch of random things out there and calling it a comedy sketch is anything but funny or genius.


Though this review might not be all that long, I hope those who read these will not skim over it. I am writing this review to spare many people of the pain that is this horrible show.

Anywho, Tim and Eric have tried for ages to be funny. They started with Tom Goes to the Mayor, which, honestly, was rather funny. However, once they decided to try to parody what feels like just about everything that (they think) needs parodying and start to dabble in the crap-fest that is "anti-humor", they tank horribly.

The problem with anti-humor is just that: It's not funny. When you start to get into the meta side of comedy and humor, things get very much confusing and too muddled. As far as your average human being (or even some of your above-average) goes, any joke that you have to think about for more than 10-20 seconds is a bit much. And that is exactly what Tim and Eric try to do.

For those that actually feel like contemplating comedy and reading up on the subject, you might find some form of humor in the show. However, for your average viewer of Adult Swim, it's just not a great show. It's extremely sad to see the directors of the network start to drift from blunt humor like The Oblongs and Mission Hill to this absurd, abstract trash.


I really don't know what to say about this. I was mildly entertained by Tom Goes to the Mayor. It had its funny moments, but it was no great show.

This one is just bad. There's really no intended purpose to any of this. It's simply a mashing of incoherent and obscurely done live-action sketches without any jokes, and with attempts at humor which fail miserably. It just seems to be Tim and Eric's attempts to broadcast their obsession with weird noises and things to other people, like the way they like to make noises with their mouths, and dress up and talk like other people (it would be called acting if they were any good at it).

I just can't believe how awful it is... it's not even like bad like Tom Goes to the Mayor was, this has nothing in it. No substance. I couldn't even smile watching the last episode involving David Cross without genitalia and a fat woman in fake porn.


I get it, I really do. What is not to get? This show is a sketch show that attempts to parody local public access and cable TV. Tim and Eric go out of their way to "appear" to be incompetent, bumbling fools. OK, message received. But that is all you get. 4 seasons (and counting for some unknowable reason) of awkward silence, broken by miscues and babbling incoherence. And vomit. Lots and lots of vomit. Drippling down chins, or being propelled across the room. And don't forget the homo-erotic overtones, which I am quite fine with by the way. The problem I have with their treatment of it is that it is in no way funny. Instead it becomes awkward and painful to watch. They are not laughing AT homosexuals, and they are not laughing WITH them either. In fact on one is laughing at all.

I loved Mr. Show, Bob Odenkirk, and David Cross. I like everything these two fine comedians have ever done. Which is why I am baffled that Mr. Odenkirk would let his name, and face, be associated with this monotonous drivel. His appearances certainly do stand out against the backdrop of failure. But to compare this show to Mr. Show is a stinging slap in the face of true comedy.


This show stands as a just insult to the entire comedy genre. It's the bastard child of the parody movies and Tom Green if it were born retarded. There is nothing but reoccurring skits and jokes that were never funny in the first place and lame improv skits from lackluster people. I have nothing against sketch comedy and find others such as SNL and the Chappelle show amusing, but where Tim and Eric when it comes to actual humour? It would seem they just stand around and make incoherent juvenile jokes and skits that only make you laugh if you are only drunk enough or dumb enough. This show is utter garbage and should stick to youtube or something where its lame demographic of pathetic 30-45 year losers can watch this on their own convenience and not make other viewers suffer slogging through this waste of space.

In summary, do not watch this show if you enjoy life.


This show is absolutely one of the worst things anyone has ever spent money to make. Tim and Eric are NOT funny, the sketches have NO subtlety, and the jokes seem to be aimed at a 3-7 year old audience. These people think their humor is "fresh and inventive" and "comic genius". What is genius about two guys getting as naked as cable will allow, and throwing up all over each other? They try and play off the angle that they appear incompetent, intentionally acting poorly and screwing up line delivery. The only thing funny about a terrible show is that someone actually thinks it was good. When you do it on purpose, we all know its a gag, and their is nothing left but a lame show that retards would easily identify as stupid. Totally awful, do yourself a favor and never watch this crap.

And if Adult Swim keeps going down this road, I'd stop watching that cheap garbage and wait for the next "smart" network to pick up the good shows. Its bound to happen, adult swim had to come from somewhere.


What can one say about a TV show whose main objective is to be as deliberately awful as possible, and that somehow is supposed to be brilliant comedy? I barely made it through this disc, and I was astonished at how truly awful this stuff is. The only time I laughed out loud was when John C. Reilly showed up as Dr. Bruse. Reilly is a very good actor, and it was the only time during the show that I actually laughed heartily. If I was John's agent, I would recommend to him not to do this show anymore, as it belittles him as an actor and artist. Fred Willard also shows up, and while I love Mr. Willard's work, he can't rescue the scene he's in, which is pretty lame. The series isn't completely devoid of laughs, but aside from John Reilly's work, I laughed maybe 3 times during the whole season. The series is more creepy than funny.

It's a pretty poor indication of a show's quality when the episodes are a mere 11 minutes long, and I kept checking the DVD to see when it was going to be over. The eleven minutes seem longer than Gone With the Wind at times. The targets of the satire seem to be local cable commercials, which are actually funnier than most of the stuff here. The "gravy robbers" is one of the dumbest (not "funny dumb") sketches I ever saw. The "editing", if one can call it that, is not done with any rhyme or reason, even in an artistic sense. It's all just random, and it isn't funny or interesting.

This is not brilliant comedy, as some say here. I'm getting really tired of people simply thinking since this show (and others of its ilk) polarise people, that automatically makes its art. Some nimrod here on IMDb actually compared this show to Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, in terms that when The Rite of Spring first appeared, the audience was shocked at the performance of it, and it split the audience. That comparison is so mind bogglingly off that one staggers at it. A couple of rules of life...

1. Just because something is controversial doesn't make it brilliant. 2. Just because something isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's good. 3. Just because something like this is weird doesn't make it good. 4. Just because someone doesn't like this doesn't mean they watch Friends or Two and a Half Men. 5. Just because something polarises people doesn't make it art.

Some have said it's deliberately surreal, but it isn't. It's just lazy and incoherent. It has some similar qualities to MTV2's Wonder Showzen, except Wonder Showzen had some real creative transitions in the first season (the 2nd season wasn't as good...the drugs they took must have worn off). I think many who think this show is some sort of misunderstood artistic masterpiece are just reading way too much into it, and it's the product of their own imaginations rather than any brilliance on the part of Tim and Eric.


This IS supposed to be funny, right? Bearing that in mind, where are the jokes? Where are the punchlines? This show has the Carlos Mencia disease: no comedic talent. Don't try to coax me with "It is what it is" and any other self-serving explanation because you want to find brilliance in something you like (which blinds the ability to objectively comment on how good something really is). I don't know the guys who make this show, so I can't say my objection to it is personal. It really is bad. There are many people who have been able to make foolishness, absentmindedness and idiocy very funny (Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd are the best place to start). John C. Reilly couldn't find something else of higher quality with which to occupy his time? While it's novel to use the "I just don't get it" argument, but I know what there is to get. This show doesn't have it. This show is not funny.


Tom goes to the mayor was alright, but this show is the most uninspired piece of crap I have ever seen. There is absolutely no skill or ability shown whatsoever. I even like a lot of things many would consider revolting but this is just moronic. Of all the quality shows Adult Swim could be showing how they picked this thing is beyond me. I mean here let's write a typical sketch together- Tim and Eric meet in a public bathroom and start making out. The next seen Eric is pregnant, they both look sad then go to the grocery and sing about corn. There, another one knocked out. OK or how about a "live" sketch where Eric is on the street wearing a sign saying "Handy Twenty" then when people think he's going to give a H-job he really just wants to give hand shakes- brilliant! Or how about a "Beaver Boys" sketch where a bloated Tim eats shrimp while getting it all over his face for no reason. But wait! It's secretly laced with cocaine and he goes into a feral rage and runs downstairs in the hotel beating elderly men with a large fillet of tuna. It's a gem! Or they do a horrible rap song about corn left in fecal matter while covering them selves in chocolate pudding-WITH REAL CORN IN IT!! How could you not film that!?

Because it sucks that's why.


OK, I have officially given up on Adult Swim! If the execs over there are idiotic enough to run this, then they obviously hate their viewers. When Tom Goes To The Mayor (the first Tim and Eric project) first aired, I gave it chance. Really I did. I kept thinking, "hey maybe they just need to hit their stride." They never did. The show was so universally hated, that it's gone from the Adult Swim schedule.

Then came this show. New show, new premise. Maybe they'll be funny this time. Right? Apparently not! This show is nothing but these two talentless nitwits trying to be funny by not being funny. Memo to Tim and Eric (and to the cast of SNL as well): Not being funny doesn't make you funny! This is a show for teenage boys who think it's cool to like a show that everyone else hates, so that they can go around pretending to be "in" on the "joke" (ever notice how these fans can never point out what exactly makes these two talentless hacks funny? They just ridicule you for not "getting it.") Then they run around and act like there's something wrong with normal people who see this crap for what it is: crap.

Lots of fans of this program like to say that us haters can just change the channel. So I've done just that. I'm not watching Adult Swim ever again. It's become nothing more than a shell of its former self. This program (and other similar programs) is the reason that scripted comedy is dying and people are being sucked into the vast reality TV wasteland.


How can people even like this crap. It wasn't completely horrible with humor only a 2 year old could laugh at. Didn't laugh once, instead, I spent most of the time shaking my head in disgust of the stupidity that this show is absorbed in. Don't get me wrong, I like my potty or dumb humor if you will. I like as much as the next moron (yes I am a moron) but there is a line to everything where it's just no longer funny and instead, completely moronic and a waste of time. This is one of the two shows that Adult Swim needs to cancel ASAP (the other being Superjail) Two horrible shows, and they canceled Harvey Birdman (one of the best shows ever) to make way for shows like this. Ugh. I wouldn't even wish this hell upon my worst enemies. I'd rather listen to Jonas Brothers than have to watch an episode of this ever again.


To call Tim and Eric's Awesome show good job genius or edgy, is to fall victim to their singularly humorous and successful joke, which is convincing people that their extremely shallow, lazy, transparent act has some merit.

There's nothing innovative here. Tim & Eric are hardly breaking new ground in their show, they are simply taking satire and intentionally subtracting things like timing, characterization, storytelling, insight and humor(essentially all the things that make satire entertaining)in favor of randomness and gratuitous gross out shots.

The show is based on the premise if that the mere act defying conventions while ridiculing them in and of itself is interesting or entertaining. And that is where the show fails because at the end of the day its even more vapid and than the conventions it is trying to satirize.


I give this show a 3 for what they are attempting to do. I watched this show for a full season every night. It was my job to watch certain t.v. shows and then write a synapses for my film class. I would sit by my t.v. every night, boot up my Tivo and begin watching. I went through the semester and finished the season. I would be forced to break down the plot lines (when they existed) the humor which was being pushed upon everyone. but i had to do it in a neutral view. In the end I received a high A on my paper about the show. after class my professor asked if i enjoyed the show. At that moment I was at a loss for words, though I had watched the show night after night, and I fully understood it, I couldn't truly say I enjoyed it. There where some parts of the show occasionally that would make me laugh a little, or might make me stop and think for a moment (public access part) but most of the time I did not even care that I was watching TV. To me it wasn't something I could enjoy. I honestly dislike the show so much now that I can't even let my TV be on AS while i am doing something else. I know there are some die hard fans of this show out there, but don't think just because someone doesn't like the show doesn't mean they don't get it. once you have been in a play of the bizarre. There isn't much comically that you can't understand. My comedians are Robbin Williams stand up, George Carlin, Lewis black, and some Emo Philips, so attack there if you will. I think this show is horrible, I hope I never see it again, and i have lost faith in adults swim for putting it on.


This is a bizarre one. Somewhere in here is a very disturbing, very good movie. The traces of it are so strong, it must have just left the room, and it's almost as though if we hurried we could catch it. But we got distracted in this room full of perversities that we're stuck here only with a sickening sensation deep in our stomach. In other words, I can't really tell if this movie was successful at what it was trying to do or not. The back of the DVD box promised "camp", but there's something different going on here.

Basically, this movie fits smack-dab in the middle of Psycho and Peeping Tom conceptually. A sexually frustrated young woman, escaping from her abusive roommate, goes to stay in her aunt's hotel. This hotel is filled with various unsettling characters, including a gay priest, a half-dead alcoholic, and a obsessed photographer. It's a Wonderland without an Alice--and quite literally, a character named Alice is alluded to, a woman who inhabited the hotel but is already dead. Without Alice we're given Cheryl as our protagonist, but herein lies a problem: Cheryl is just about as insane and perverse as the other people in the hotel are, meaning there's very little real sanity to be gleaned from this movie.

Now, there's this whole theory about storytelling that says you can only have a sane person in insane situations or insane person in sane situations, but not both. I'm not too sure I really agree with that philosophy, but this movie makes a good case-study for comparison. The thing is, Cheryl is a believable character by all means--remember that one woman who married the stalker who almost killed her? These things do happen. But she's NOT relatable, and so its hard to really understand what we're supposed to get from this movie. Her relationship with George is disturbing, sure, but to what purpose? And I'm not really getting the point of the transgendered twist.

I think the filmmakers had watched precisely those movies Psycho and Peeping Tom, along with other sexploitation and horror movies of the time, and decided to make their own exploration into sexual anxiety. However, I'm not entirely sure what they were to have discovered and revealed, here. There is, however, the lingering sensation that they were attempting SOMETHING. At any rate, neither am I too sure I want to know what that is, either.

--PolarisDiB


You know a movie cannot be too good when the headliner is Ayre Gross. Best known for his role as 'Gordo' in the stinker "Soul Man", Gross doesn't impress here. Playing David Crowne opposite a rare pre-Friends cinematic appearance by Courtney Cox, Gross painstakingly delivers his dialogue to the audience. Kevin Pollock and Julie Brown are simply not funny.(this begs the question: when is Julie Brown ever funny.) The characters constantly pan to the camera as if to have conversations with the audience explaining their predicaments. Pollock's character, Eli, is a rote "Ladies' Man" while Julie Brown plays 'Zoe' thus accentuating her quirkiness. I ask myself was Judy Tenuta too busy during this shoot? Zoe's role in the movie is the zany-yet-supportive friend. Cheesy lines and generalisations about the Boston singles scene abound. Women are objects and men do not fare much better. The movie attempts to analyse all the phases of a relationship, and barely achieves its goal; I would recommend you turn the opposite way when you see "The Opposite Sex" on tv or the video rack.


Ah, friends. Come sit with me as we experience the Quickening. If we both stick our hands into a puddle of orange, shiny goo, we'll be shocked, and yet, united. Then we can battle the evil Katana and save Zeist from ... from what?

This is the effect of HIGHLANDER II.

HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING is set in the future. Well, at least, I think it is. The film begins on Earth in the year 1999. Then, it heads off to the planet Zeist 500 years before. Following that, we're back to Earth in the year 2024. I'd say the film is pretty much divided between being on Earth in 2024 and Zeist 500 years before, but I think it was meant to be on Earth in 2024.

Now that that's cleared up ...

Imagine, if you will, that most of what they told us in the original HIGHLANDER was crap. Immortals don't come from nowhere, they come from the planet Zeist. The entire original HIGHLANDER movie was lies! Lies! Lies!

And if you believe that, I've got some $200,000 property for you down in sunny North Carolina.

Connor MacLeod, the main character of the original film (played by Christopher Lambert), is old and dying. When, in 1999, the Earth's ozone layer was nearly completely gone, MacLeod created The Shield Corporation, which then created a shield which would protect the Earth from the sun's violent rays. But in 2024, the world is a dark dungheap, and MacLeod's pretty much to blame.

Now let's go back to the planet Zeist. General Katana (Michael Ironside) is pretty pissed. MacLeod's still alive. So he sends his two retarded minions to kill MacLeod. The extremely elderly MacLeod somehow starts dancing around like Dean Martin and beheads both of them. The power of their lifeforce makes him young once again and free to kiss terrorist Louise Marcus (Virginia Madsen) and then try to take down the world's anti-Ozone shield. Oh yeah, the ozone's healed, by the way.

So then Katana comes to Earth to kill MacLeod, who is suddenly super-cool and ready to kill Katana. But for some reason, he needs help. So the producers paid Sean Connery $3.5 million. Behold! Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez is resurrected from the dead and comes back (for nine minutes of screen time) to help MacLeod shut down the shield.

If you haven't figured it out by now, HIGHLANDER II is completely messed-up.

I haven't seen a sequel this bad in who knows how long. It contradicts the entire HIGHLANDER mythos, and thus was ignored in every other sequel and television series that followed.

But there is a good side to the film. I think Ebert said it best in his review of the film: he describes HIGHLANDER II as being "a movie almost awesome in its badness". How awesome do you hear that? But that's exactly what HIGHLANDER II is: almost awesome in its badness.

It may be one of the worst films ever made, and it may be the worst sequel, but it is also a very fun and frequently (unintentionally) funny film. In the words of the Immortal Ramirez, "If you can summon it all up, at one time, in one place, you can accomplish something glorious."

Whatever that means.

NOTE: There are two versions of the film. The theatrical version, called the Quickening, has just been reviewed here. The director's cut has been re-named the "Renegade Version" and changes much of the film's story. The film has also been completely re-edited. The Quickening version runs 89 minutes, while the Renegade version runs 109.

HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING by Russell Mulcahy. * 1/2 out of ****.


Never in the field of human endeavour has there been an act of such instrumental, destructive, diabolical folly as this justifiably reviled, quasi-sequel to the original 1986 fantasy in which immortal warriors duelled throughout the ages until one remained. Yes, its Highlander II - a film so bad that Robert Mugabe refused to show it to white farmers on the grounds that it would be "exceptionally cruel". Needing to grasp on to a strand of optimism, perhaps only the thickness of a human hair, I long ago decided that the film existed purely as a textbook demonstration for future filmmakers on how not to make a successful sequel to a hit movie. This theory alone explains the cynicism on screen and the ham-fisted, slapdash, car-crash handling of the material. Don't misunderstand; I'm not saying this thing is poor - poor would be generous praise for a Frankenstein fantasy in which all the invention, both visual and conceptual, inherent in the first film's appeal is frittered to nothing. In fact, the totality of the words already used are only the merest fraction of those required to accurately portray the near total devastation that washed over me as I sat through it (I'm ashamed to say not for the only time) on a stormy night 14 years ago. Russell Mulchay deserves to be poisoned and broad beaten with a tent pole in the male ruminations for his decision to helm the whole sorry affair and grind his original good work to dust. It hardly needs saying but the problem for anyone scripting a Highlander II is that Highlander I concluded business comprehensively with no outlet for a second episode. To get around this the makers of The Quickening simply decided to ditch the back-story of the original film and invent a new one which would enable them to write around the fact that all the immortals, bar M.Lambert were, not unlike themselves, dead from the neck up. So although McCloud was originally born in Scotland and Ramierez in er, Egypt, now they were aliens from a planet called Zeist; handy, because this new ancestry meant that all that was needed to reengergise the concept was that another visitor showed up on Earth and the games can begin again. To fully appreciate how awful an idea this is you need only imagine a Star Wars sequel in which the action is suddenly set in present day Earth for reasons of plot convenience or a second instalment of Titanic in which it's revealed that Jack and Rose are actually time-travellers and are thus able to prevent the disaster and save all their friends. Thus Highlander II is effectively the one line joke in the Player in which the writer of the Graduate pitches the terrible sequel writ large and for real. We can only imagine that the owners of the original film were desperate for more because nothing but desperation could possibly explain how this made it to the screen. If blame were slurry and required apportioning by EU agricultural directive then you'd need roughly 6 tankers worth, each containing somewhere in the region of 40,000 tonnes. The shame of Sean Connery and Christopher Lambert is palpable and everyone who felt any enjoyment during this picture is consciously and deliberately complicit in its evil work. As a purely commercial enterprise with no respect or consideration for the 1st film or its fans, we can only hope that all involved lost millions and that having lost their deposit they were forced to sell themselves into sexual slavery. Highlander III, not exactly itself a great sequel, ignored this one completely as ironically it left no outlet for a third episode but it too was a cynical cash-in and could only continue the first film by ignoring its ending whereas the forth in the series simply didn't bother with the first film at all, opting instead to go with the spin-off T.V series. That's the way the rot spread but here's where it started - now please Hollywood...never again.


This has to be one of the worst sequels ever made. Not that "Highlander" was a great movie to begin with. But still, destroying a concept so completely is almost enviable.

It's the year 2025. The whole earth is covered by a shield that stands in for the ozone-layer that has been destroyed. Connor McLeod has killed all the other immortals and is slowly dying of old age. But something happens and immortals are suddenly starting to show up again and Connor must fight once again.

I don't want to know which drugs the script-writers were using when coming up with the plot for this movie. How DO you start with a movie about immortal warriors on the Scottish highland, and end up with aliens fighting each other under a red sky in 2025?! Do we even want to know? It has to go down into movie history as one of the worst ideas ever. Taking something that was almost a solid story and destroying it completely by introducing weird elements like aliens and shields in the sky.

So, apart from that? Well, even if we do overlook that major flaw this is still complete garbage. What did they pay Sean Connery to appear in this? Either he was well paid or the man doesn't take any pride at all in his work. The action scenes are pathetic, the effects are awful. Christopher Lamberts wheezing voice makes the VIEWERS want to slice his head off.

I consider myself quite the connoisseur of b-movies. I can actually enjoy movies purely because they stink. But this is just so bad that it's not even funny. I rate this 1/10.


You think Plan 9 from Outer Space is bad. It can not hold a candle to this one. A stupid, mind numbing, poorly acted, badly shot film that never should have been made. The story makes no sense and has bad pacing. The fight scenes are slow, infrequent, and poorly done. I can not believe Sean Connary agreed to appear in the movie. His part is about 6 minutes and he did die in the first one, not that the writers payed any attention to that little fact. It may have been explained but the movie is so dull I was probably asleep. Please spare yourself and avoid the movie.


All true Highlander fans will simply not acknowledge the existence of Highlander 2, wih good reason: Planet Zeist.

if you were to see part 2 and not the Original, it would be ok, cuz it would make sense in its own way. H1 and H2 are effectively unrelated films. But Highlander was quite an original story. H2, unfortunately, is a bit goofy and out of sync. Quite laughable in its own way.

If you want a good laugh, check it out. It's high cheese. If you're a Highlander purist, it DOESN'T EXIST. The intention was probably good, trying to show the aftermath of McCloud's mistakes after winning the original "tournament", but the premise is ruined by Planet Zeist, and Michael Ironside is just rehashing the Kurgen. He's a bit funnier in the villain role, but it doesn't save the movie from being silly


I've heard alot of bad things about this, but being a fan of the Highlander film and TV series, I had to check this out. That was a mistake. This movie has almost nothing to do with the first movie, and even by itself sits on laughable premises. The writing is terrible, the characters are one-dimensional (at best), the effects look like they were done out of someone's garage. Hey, let's summon back dead characters for no apparent reason. Hey! Let's pretend everyone's from another planet! You know what? Let's through in a conspiracy for the hell of it! This movie seems like it didn't leave the script-writing process until they finished shooting, and then they skipped editing. I shudder to think the horrors I would have witnessed had I not been watching the directors cut.


i saw the premiere of this film in edinburgh at the odeon. the theatre was packed and having really enjoyed the first movie, like i guess most of the audience we were all really excited to be seeing the sequel. you can imagine our dissapointment. lots of ppl, including us , left 20 mins before the end, quite a few patrons were quite angry at how ineptly bad it was. having recently seen it again on cable it is still utterly woeful. i would rather go and clean the toilet than sit thru it again. on second thoughts i'd rather come and clean your toilet and i don't like clieaning toilets and don't know you. get the idea???


Worst sequel ever, bar none. If you are a fan of the original Highlander (a great movie in my opinion), and for some reason haven't seen this yet, for pity's sake, don't! It will contaminate all the good memories you have from the first film. *SPOILER ALERT* (As if this piece of muck could be spoiled) This movie tells us the immortals from the first movie, steeped in mysticism and ritual, are actually...aliens. Yep. You heard me. For some reason these exiled aliens become immortals when on Earth (sounds like a pretty good exchange to me - exile for immortality). Sounds stupid? It is. No real reason is given for this ridiculous twist. Oh, and Sean Connery's character from the first movie (Juan Ramírez) manages to come back to life for a little while, to help Conner MacLeod. How? Magic...but didn't they just tell us these guys were aliens and not the mystical warriors we were led to believe in the first movie? Maybe they're magic aliens - that must be it. I actually saw this farce at the cinema, much to my chagrin. Have I mentioned that I am a big fan of the original Highlander movie? If any film ever made me wish we had the technology to selectively delete portions of our memories, this is the one. Avoid at all costs.


SPOILERS

In 1986, with a Queen soundtrack to be proud of, there was "Highlander". With Christopher Lambert as Connor McLeod of the clan McLeod, 80s cinema had a hero worthy of our attention. With that in mind, it feels obvious now that a sequel was always going to appear. This sequel eventually would make an appearance in 1991, but to this day, I'd be very surprised if anyone felt this film was a good idea.

In "Highlander II: The Quickening", Connor McLeod is an old man. Having become mortal at the end of the original feature, McLeod saved the world with a "shield" to protect the world from the typical 1980s terror that was Global Warming. Twenty five years later and the shield has become a plague upon mankind, covering the skies and leaving the world in eternal darkness. With the help of his old friend Ramirez (Sean Connery) and Louise Marcus (80s icon Virginia Madsen), McLeod does battle with old enemy General Katana (Michael Ironside) as he attempts to fix his old mistake.

There really is little good that can be said about this second Highlander film. Simply put, it never should have been made. Rather than trying to think up any good points, let's just look a few of the problems with it.

Firstly, the plot of "Highlander II" destroys elements of the original film. Whilst in the original, McLeod was born in medieval Scotland and Connery's Ramirez was an ancient Egyptian, in this film they are exciled rebels from a different planet. Sent to Earth as punishment, they are told they may only return home once there is only one of them remaining. This new twist to the Highlander idea is hideous and quite frankly, farcical.

The second truely awful thing about this film is the acting. Whilst not a massive fan of Sean Connery at the best of times, in this film he is particularly attrocious as the Egyptian Alien with a Scottish accent who dies to the sound of Scottish Bagpipes. Alongside him is the tedious Christopher Lambert who speaks so softly during the film that the volume needs to be raised to a degree that any sound effect deafens the audience. Whilst a novel if unbelievable partnership in the first film, in the sequel Connery and Lambert are generally awful.

The final problem with this film which is worth talking about is the colours and the lighting involved. As a result of the "shield" being bright red and blotting out the Sun, the vast majority of this film is set in either pitch black or in a brain haemorraging red and black mix. It is impossible to follow the events in this film, not just due to the abysmal plot, but also because if you look at the screen for too long, you find your retina burning inside your skull.

In an attempt to summarise, whilst the creators of "Highlander" produced a simple action film which was simple to relax and enjoy, when they created this first sequel to it, they created an abomination. "Highlander II" is in the worst 100 films of all times list on this website, the only criticism to be made of this is that it isn't in that list at number one. Avoid this film like the Black Death.


I understand the CIA is going to be using this movie to interrogate suspects now. The amazing part is that everyone along the chain of command thought it was a good idea to release this movie into the general public. This movie needs warnings on the cover to stop people from renting it.


I have cried in a total of 3 films in my life... Number 1, Bambi, when his mum dies.... Number 2, City Slickers, when Norman the Calf gets dragged down river and nearly dies... and finally, Number 3, Highlander II, as it soooo bad! Remember Highlander? The Locations, The Soundtrack, The Kurgan, The Plot...

Now, take it all away and replace it with...

Awful red sky effect throughout the film, Couple of old Queen songs from the 1st film, Michael Ironside doing a bad Kurgan impression and a "plot" that doesn't have any relevance to the original plot...

That is Highlander II.


They should have called the third installment "Highlander 2: forget about that last thing, will ya?" You can't just change the premise from the first film of what the immortals are, then bring back one that was dead. But aside from that, the screen play was awful. What? She gets out of the bullet ridden trunk without a scratch? (Bad casting there, by the way.) Ramirez holds up several tons of spinning concrete, then dies again? The bad guy? (Bad casting there, by the way.) Someone told me "save your time, you will regret seeing it". I thought "but I have to, I loved the first one so well". Well, I should have listened.


Although it is true that most sequels are not as good as the original movies on which they are based, it is truly rare to find a sequel that is so bad it actually tries to undermine its original.

Unfortunately, Highlander 2 is one of those movies.

Highlander (the original) is a great movie. It is one of my all time favourites. It may have some laughable details in the depiction of the swords, such as swords being able to hack through steel girders, but I can forgive these silly little details in the original movie, because it is such great fun to watch.

The same can not be said of Highlander 2.

This movie is bad.

It is so bad one can hardly believe it is anything more than some kind of sick parody, as opposed to a true sequel, and, if one is stupid enough to watch it, will leave that person in a shocked stupor wondering just how the makers of this film could have corrupted the themes and characters of the original film to the outrageous extent that they did.

I will not bother giving you any details about this movie. I have seen it, and I can honestly tell you that you are better off not knowing anything about it. I kid you not.

Even Christopher Lambert threatened to quit during the making of the movie, because it was so bad.

Highlander (the original) is an excellent movie. I would highly recommend it.

Highlander 2, on the other hand, is a painful and grotesque abomination of the original movie's concept with no entertainment value what so ever. Avoid it at all costs. Trust me on this.

***ADDENTUM: Looking through the comments, I can see a great disparity between people who give this movie good reviews and those who rate it as downright awful.

This is not the contradiction it seems to be however. Upon closer inspection one will notice that the majority of bad reviews, like my own, are based on the original theatrical release (The Quickening), which is truly awful, while the majority of good reviews are based on another version of the movie (The Renegade Edition), which, I am told, is actually quite good. I have not seen the Renegade Edition, so my review is based on the earlier version.

The Renegade Edition of Highlander 2 is quite different from The Quickening, because the original director went back, and completely re-edited the film, restoring it as closely as possible to the way he had originally intended for it to be, as opposed to The Quickening, which had been heavily meddled with by various people within the studio that produced the film. ***


This whole review is a spoiler, but if there ever was a movie that needed spoiling, this was it. I could also argue that this movie spoils itself and nothing anyone could say will change that. That was the only movie I ever saw where I walked out went down the line asking people if they were planning to see it and begging them to cash in their tickets and do something, anything, else with the next two hours of their life. I actually made my fiancé, her sister and her sisters boyfriend wait to eat until I finished warning everyone in the line, I was on a mission to make the world just that much better. I think I was successful in most cases, many people thanked me. New Yorkers, standing in line in January, thanked me for telling them they were more than wasting their time, they were sacrificing it to the unworthy. Highlander II: The quickening and Serenity mark the ends of the scale upon which all SF movies can be measured IMDb doesn't have a zero rating or I would have used it. It is the cinematic equivalent of absolute zero, and I saw both Toxic Avenger and Battle beyond the Stars in theaters on their respective opening weekends. SPOILER WARNING: This next paragraph contains the spoiler I mentioned up front, skip to the "YOU ARE NOW BEYOND THE SPOILER" message to avoid double spoilage. They must have offered Sean Connery a couple of shipping containers full of unmarked bills and the promise that his character would die early in the movie to get him involved. YOU ARE NOW BEYOND THE SPOILER I continue to recommend the original Highlander as a great movie to introduce people to good Science Fiction, but always with the caveat that they must never see the sequel, "There should have been only one"


Truly a disappointment. A testament as to how to destroy nearly everything appealing in the previous film.

I saw the director's cut at a dollar theater thinking that it was odd I hadn't noticed the film's debut at the regular theaters. This was the only film I have ever seen that left me feeling violated. Somehow I struggled through the entire length (it seemed an eternity) of the film, constantly bolstering myself up with optimistic phrases like, "It's been so bad so far, that it couldn't possibly get any worse." and "Well, the whole thing can't be bad, there's got to be something good before the ending." I was wrong. This film was torture to watch. I left the theater feeling that I had been brutally robbed of my dollar, and worse yet, that I had lost a portion of my life (the time I took to watch the thing) that I would never be able to recover.

Don't even watch it as a joke. Please don't watch it to see how bad it truly is. You won't get that quirky fun feeling that can be found in other famously bad films. This won't find a niche as a cult film. It will only be useful as a measuring stick for very, very bad films. Someday, someone will say, "The worst film I've seen in twenty years, almost 80% as bad as Highlander II, The Quickening".


Mulchay was NOT the enemy here. He was forced by the producers and the film company to release the abomination that resulted. He even walked out of the premiere within 15 minutes because he was so disgusted with what the movie company did.

It wasn't until a few years ago that he went back and "fixed" it as best as he could and released it on DVD (the Renegade version).

In 2005, they released it again, called the special edition, which had minor "fixes" but other than that, it was the Renegade version which is by far the better version to watch.

But, to say Mulchay should be poisoned is going to the extreme. True, he could have stopped, but for whatever reason, he didn't. Even Lambert was about ready to walk off the set, but he couldn't due to contractual agreements.


What the hell is going on in this movie? Apparently, someone forgot that there can only be one. Both versions, theatrical and "renegade", suck. Now, the renegade version does suck slightly less. The other world plot line is abandoned, thank God, but the main problem is still there. You have to assume that God or whatever force has some rule over this world and you can't just have someone get "the prize" if they aren't "the one". So what the hell was supposed to have happened at the end of the first film? False alarm? The improved Renegade version has the new immortals coming from the future. Yay, I care. The only thing worth watching is Michael Ironside. No one does wide eyed crazy quite like him and this is his field day.


Sure the original theatrical version was bad but that was not due to the makers, it was due to a financial company that backed the production. Here (in the directors cut) is the way that it was supposed to be made. It has great action, great production value plus the return of Sean Connery. It gives some explanation as to how the competition began and it shows how Connor used the "prize" from the first film. It's a lot better than any of the Highlander films and series that followed. If this had been the version that was originally released on the theatre's in 1991, then the series would still have been alive today.


Based on R1 DVD 109 mins - Renegade Version

Ten thousand imdb voters cannot be wrong, well I should have heeded my own advice.

Basically it's rubbish, badly edited, poorly constructed rubbish. Scenes are out of sequence, the Alps are in the middle of Nevada, no ones ever heard of a weather balloon - I could go on but I'd prefer to forget everything I know about this movie as quickly as possible.

3/10 - it could have been worse but not by much.


This has to be one of the most contrived plots for a movie since Star Trek 3, the Search for Spock. "Let's bring back all the characters we killed in the last movie so they can fight again".... doh!

This is such a huge letdown after the first movie, which is an absolute classic.


why, oh why I wonder is HL II this bad for me (and a great deal of others)? I asked myself this question many times, and I believe I found the right answer: it's an 80's action b-movie with very lousy bad guys, that was expected to live up to the Highlander myths. Having the immortals come from an alien planet is kind of making "Scent of a Woman 2" with the main character a vampire. just not right.


This movie should thank God for "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", because that's the only thing that's keeping it off the bottom of the list. I rented this a few days ago, seeing it in the store and wondering how they made a sequel to a movie that had a definite end to the story. I found out, it's by making up a bunch of complete drivel that makes no sense, and adding a bunch of stupid characters who apparently don't have the slightest hint of logic to them. Like the main bad guy, who, realizing that McLeod is about to die of old age, decides he can't wait two weeks and sends some guys to kill him. This, of course, makes him immortal(again). And, somehow, brings Sean Connery back, who looks remarkably good for a guy who's been dead for 500 years. I'm still not sure why they apparently have gotten rid of jet engines, but apparently they have, because there they are, flying across the Atlantic in a small turboprop. Not to mention the whole enviromental scare thing about the ozone layer that is the basis for the movie. If you're planning on seeing this movie, even out of curiosity, hit yourself on the head with a frying pan until you're unconscious. It'll save you a couple bucks on the rental, and it's probably more fun.


Hadley, MA. The Mountain Farm Cinemas. 1991. Me sitting with a pile of friends, eagerly clasping their hands and gazing at the blank screen, eyes shining, all the while babbling to me that I (not having seen the first movie) was in for a total treat.

Ten minutes into the movie, they were wringing their hands and en masse apologizing to me, and I was laughing my head off. No, this isn't the worst movie of all time - it's "funny"-bad, not bad-bad, like Moment By Moment. But my, what a steaming incoherent pile of dreck. Did NO one during its filming step back and ask "What in the hell are we doing?" Did no one graduate from film school and remember that the purpose of a scene is to advance the plot? (e.g., that ten-times overlong train scene ... we'd already figured out that Ironside's character was a nutcase, thank you ever so)

I don't give 1s except to the very worst films of all, but this movie deserves it, if only because the producers and directors ought to have known better.


As a standalone movie "Highlander II - The Quickening" is definitely a bad one, with uninspired plot, ludicrous scenes such as the one with the accelerating metro train, and pretty bad acting performances. Maybe not bad enough to become an unforgettable classic of bad film making, but certainly awful and ridiculous all the way. However, this movie deserves a special place in the realm of modern disasters in the film industry, because as a sequel it is absolutely abysmal, out of place, and an utter disgrace to the first one (and to the whole series, which never recovered after the atom-bomb that this movie dropped on the plot).

This flick could well be a warning for any director who wants to direct a sequel to any movie: if you're not absolutely sure about what you are doing, think again. This movie was so incoherent and inducted so many plot inconsistencies in the whole series that even the credibility of the first one came out irreparably damaged. It put a truckload of trite sci-fi elements in what was just a fantasy story, it denied everything that happened before... literally. The first time I saw this I was totally puzzled, I almost couldn't believe it.

As a standalone movie (and if I felt like being generous), I would rate this a 2 out of 10. But as a sequel, this gets...

1/10


I absolutely loved Highlander part I, but when I saw this movie, I didn't understand the story at all! I've seen it more than once, just to make sure I wasn't crazy, but I still don't get it.

spoilers coming your way!!!

In H1 it was all pretty normal. Okay, so it's a story written with a lot of imagination, but you could understand it. In H2, everything changes and Conner and ramirez show up somewhere out of space and must return to earth to save the planet. First, I never heard ANYTHING of them leaving earth and second, wasn't Ramirez killed in part 1???!!!??? And another thing, what was that with Conner having to become immortal once again? I didn't get that part, call me crazy if you want to.

Oh yeah, for all those who have also seen part 3, I think there's a huge mistake made in 2 and 3. Conner's wife from part 1 dies two times! First in part 2, because of the ozon-thing and in part 3 they mention that his wife had to be scraped of off the road in Scotland somewhere.

speaking about part 3... This was a Very good part. Okay, it wasn't as good as part 1, but it made sense (besides the power thing that immortals suddenly owned).


...this thing would be well-nigh unwatchable. Honest to Isis, 95% of this movie is just as bad as you've heard. The plot makes virtually zero sense and half of it (the Shield) is both scientifically impossible AND utterly unnecessary. There are broad, hammy performances, jarring leaps, and inconsistencies by the carload. And has anyone got any idea how/why the Zeistians ever evolved their bizarre immortality code? If I ever make a list of the ten most jaw-droppingly stupid movies, this will definitely be there. BUT....

I give it a three [and not a two or below] solely for the charm and humor of Sean Connery's performance as Ramirez. Unlike others who, having apparently decided to play their roles here for laughs, went totally overboard into eye-rolling panic or guffawing villainy --Connery plays every one of his scenes in this strange new century with delightful lightness and panache. Whether gracefully bowing out of a stage performance of HAMLET, paying off a snooty men's tailor with his pearl earring, experiencing his first airplane ride (a wonderful sequence!) or giving his life to save MacLeod & girl from a Nameless Evil Machine, Connery is the definition of the gallant cavalier, and saves what otherwise would be an unsavable film. I salute him.

Watch it for him if you think you can stand the rest of it....


An evil atrocity forced upon mankind. Need more details perhaps? The original was a great movie and is one of my all time favorites. Highlander 2 butchered the story, had pathetic villains and so many plot holes and continuity errors it's pathetic. Some movies are fun to watch despite their overall poor quality.. but not this one. Don't watch it. Not even as a joke.


Easily one of the worst films ever made and one which ignores the magic of the first movie.

Okay, the 1986 original was erratic to say the least but the law of any sequel must at least be faithful to the characters.

Avoid.


Many great artists have composed masterpieces under the heavy influence of hallucinogenic drugs. That is no excuse for Highlander II. This is among the saddest movies ever made. Artificial ozone? Sean Connery back from the dead? The PLANET ZEIST?!?!? This movie is a low point in human history. What surprises me the most is that they actually dared to make a THIRD movie. Don't even bother with The Quickening, just watch the first movie and then skip to the third one (after all, that's what the producers did). Highlander II will be immortalized as one of the true failures of cinema.


One of the worst (if not the worst) all around movie I have ever seen. Bad effects, horrible acting, unbelievable dialogue, cheesy sets, bad photography....

The biggest mystery to me is that Sean Connery allowed his name in the credits on this turkey.


Valuable life lesson: You can't always judge a book by its cover. Usually that means beautiful things may be hidden by a ugly exterior. In the case of 'Unspeakable' it is the exact opposite. It actually hurts to write the following review because it pretty much admits I'm a superficial person who was suckered into watching a movie that was stashed in the box and write-up of a much more interesting looking film.

'Unspeakable' is a very nearly perfect storm of bad movie-making. Hampered by any number of problems, one of the worst is a ham-handed anti-capital punishment message that tries to put a human face on the issue. The problem is that it has a lot of competition and 'Unspeakable' does not stand up very well to it. In fact, it doesn't stand up well in a light breeze. Granted many movies aren't going to compare favourably to 'The Green Mile,' but in 'The Green Mile' similar themes are dealt with. Prisoners in 'The Green Mile' are treated compassionately and it becomes deeply effective in decrying capital punishment through the actions of a sadistically incompetent guard. In comparison, every guard in 'Unspeakable' is both sadistic and incompetent. The problem is that the film seems to believe that if one mean guard is good, 100 mean guards will be great. This, I assure you, isn't the case. If you were going for satire it might work. The tragedy (for the film makers -- and comedy for us) is that it takes itself extremely seriously and begins to implode at every opening.

Pavan Grover wrote the screenplay and there are glimpses of good ideas. There is an unfriendly look at religion, the nature of good and evil, the capacity for cruelty and the psychological and philosophical motivations for it. Finding these blurred and hidden themes though isn't worth the effort. There are clever aphorisms scattered like breadcrumbs for Hansel and Gretel but they don't lead anywhere.

I already mentioned 'The Green Mile' and that it is one of at least three superior films that 'Unspeakable' unsuccessfully compares itself to. From 'The Night of the Hunter' comes the tattooed knuckles of love and hate as well as an attempt at the cool charisma and menace of Robert Mitchum. From 'The Silence of the Lambs' there comes a psychiatrist and serial killer playing an information game.

There are many failures that contribute to 'Unspeakable' and its near total collapse. The dialogue is comically horrendous. The music sounds like the theme song for clowns at a carnival and it plays with full comic effect. As weak as the Grover driven script is, the Grover driven performance is even worse. He's dreadful and it spreads through the rest of the cast like a virus. The director needs to take some of the blame for his failure to reign in the actors and the script (although when your lead actor is also the writer and the producer ...). It is a vision less and clunky mess. The only bright light is Lance Henrickson. No matter how bad the film, he always approaches it with stoic and reliable professionalism. I'm amazed he didn't get swept up like Dennis Hopper and Jeff Fahey in the sea of bad things. Fahey turns in at best a bemused performance and is clearly remembering the good old days.

There was an exchange of dialogue near the end of the film between Henrickson and Meyer.

H: "You were really fascinated by him weren't you?" M: "Yeah, grotesquely fascinated. I probably could have studied him for years." H : "Yeah, but at what cost to your psyche?"

That's really what 'Unspeakable' is all about. Yeah, you could watch it. But at what cost to your psyche?

Lance Henrickson is far too good for a movie like this. Dennis Hopper is too good for a movie like this. Dina Meyer is too good for a movie like this. Jeff Fahey, I repeat, Jeff Fahey is too good for a movie like this. And let's be honest: you and I are too good for this. Life is too short. Go hug your kids and promise to protect them from all the bad things in the world. Start with 'Unspeakable' and you could do a lot worse. Take my word for it and avoid this dog at all costs.


After searching the video store for 10 minutes - I settled onto this little gem of Hollywood barf.

There is no redeeming value to this movie at all - the scenes with the worm coming out of his ear and the one found in dead Dennis Hopper's brain are not even worth the paper that they were written on.

As for using the electric chair in a room full of guards who blindly watch the "warden" go insane, rip his face off, and be autopsied in a matter of hours is so unrealistically stupid that I find myself wanting the actors in this movie to be lined up together and pimp smacked for agreeing to appear in such a piece of drivel~! Writer, Producer, and Star of the movie...what can I say...he has the bad boy looks that Hollywood likes, but he better keep his day job as a doctor in order to have something to fall back on....because there is no way he should ever be allowed to write anything again! And if he does want to write something...collaborate with me, I've had better nightmares after eating Mexican!


Oh, c'mon, everybody, where is the love? First of all, when you slide some title off the shelf that never made it to theatrical release with a cover that features Dennis Hopper staring out at you in all his squinty-eyed, slightly soulful I-Am-a-Raving-Lunatic intensity. . .brace yourself for the possibility that you may be making a terrible mistake.

Since the plot and writing credits have been hashed out already, I wont go into them, except to say I haven't seen so many people frothing at the mouth over a movie since they announced Michael Keaton was playing BATMAN way back in 1989.

Sure very little of it made any sense, but was it fun watching Dennis Hopper rip his own face off? Sure! There was a pretty woman for the men to look at, a hunky guy for the ladies to look at, a decent cast, sadistic prison guards, a crazed warden, bogus science, a corrupt politician, a real electric chair, an autopsy, brain maggots, falling brains. . .my gosh. Fun galore on an evening when you've got nothing better to do. Are these my standards for great movies? No, but I didn't rent this title to see a great movie, or even a good movie. But my idea of a totally irredeemable piece of crap is NAIL GUN MASSACRE. So I'll save my venom. Couple of stars for the rating, at least.