I can see that this films is mostly rated and commented by girls under 15. No one else could say one phrase to this rubbish. The movie was (as usual) higly boring, stiffly acted, predictable, like a big musicvideo. I simply can´t believe how anyone can write this unpleasant film and how can those two girls, Mary-Kate and Ashley with 14 years of acting experiense, want to act in a film with this kind of plot. It´s stupid. And why in the world can´t the eVeR hire other actors with good talents?? I had never seen those other actors and..well..they were newcomers with not so much talents, at least yet.

I tried, I really tried to watch this movie from the beginning to the end but I couldn´t. I knew what was going to happen in it and the acting was just so hideous it wasn´t worth it! Maybe you´ll still watch it, despite my and other people´s words, that´s what I did because I was curious to see if the Olsen twins had finally grown up...but it isn´t worth it, trust me.


"Winning London" is the story of a girl named Chloe who is the captain (?) of her high school Model UN club. After doing well in a tournament, her team is invited to the giant, international competition is London, England. However, when one of her team mates cannot attend, Chloe's twin sister Riley step in (mostly so she can hook up with some guy on the team).

I've never really loved or hated the Olsen Twins and their movies. But, a little while ago, I got suckered into watching this on TV by a friend of mine. This is a relatively harmless, but bad movie. The plot is pretty typical, and unimaginative, with nothing very interesting, creative, or unique about it. It relies heavily upon cliché jokes, plot devices, and, of course, stereotypes. Also, there are times when you can see how low budget this movie is. When Riley and a her boy toy are crawling through the air ventilation, it's really tall and wide and looks like a crappy set.

The acting is also pretty thin. The Olsens are blah, and really I felt nothing for either of their characters. They both seem rather unpleasant and whiny. One is willing to step over anyone and be a (for a lack of a better word) bitch just so she can win. The other is continually whining and making a big deal of how her crush isn't remembering her the way he should. The side characters also got on my nerves. That annoying kid with the camera (I forget his name) and the rather bland and boring fat girl. Even Jesse Spencer, who I rather like as an actor, wasn't that great. The accents were also pretty bad. Really, I found it sad to see the British people in the movie being portrayed as uptight posh individuals with accents that were garbled and couldn't be understood.

But really, though I didn't like this movie, and there were a lot of things that bugged me about it, it wasn't really anything terrible. In fact it's pretty harmless and dull. I don't think that I will forever have the horrible images of "Winning London" emblazoned in my brain. Probably, in about a week, I'll forget all about it. Besides, I'm not the intended audience. It's good if you have younger girls, they'll be entertained. Also, if you're an Olsen twins fan, then of course you're going to love it. If you're anyone else, I say just skip it.


This movie was quite terrible - it shows the English as terrible snobs! Practically no British teenager speaks that poshly - apart from the royals. Not even the royals youngsters wear suits to discos! What normal guys wheres one of those riding jackets! The Olsen twins displayed their total lack of knowledge of Britain - and referred to every single wrong stereotype they could find. This film is stupid and childish - and will send all the wrong messages to the USA about us Brits. We do not dress up-tight to ALL occasions, we CAN dance, we do not all live in stately homes, we do not all have up-tight parents and we can have fun. The film does do us one favour however... we ARE integral and we DO have morals. We also DO NOT negotiate with terrorists. We can definitely give the Americans a run for their money like that.


Well there is not much you can say for his film. From the one's that I have seen, I think this is the worst yet. At least the others are watchable. The film follows the same general plot as the rest; the girls go to another country and meet boys, with a nice little story to help you tell the difference. You would think that since they are in England they would be able to find an all English cast. Instead they force on us an Australian (Jesse Spencer) with a fake accent, and I was surprised to see some people who made comments actually thought he was British. My advice is, if you ever decide to watch this film, don't.


I think that the comment of "zwerr" is far too over dramatic for this tiny little bit of film. This is not a blockbuster or mega-production like "The passion of Christ" or something like that where you can discuss about several things contained in the movie. "Winning London" is just a relatively cheap made "The Olsens are on holiday"-video-clip. Of course the girls were only 15 an the boys over 20 at production date. This is not to good but to talk about pedophilia and snuff-movies in that context is inappropriate. As long as the girls don't show sexual intercourse with a teacher or parent I don't care about that. Also: US censors tend to look at sexual things in movies. But this one is completely clean. To be honest: This movie tries to be funny but it's not, the hostage-scene is suitable for kids (I would call it boring) and the fact that The Olsen's were executive-producers of this film (at the age of 15) shows: "Winning London" is strictly for Olsen-fans. If you really like to criticize, watch programs like "Malcolm in the middle" where there is far more to find on the one hand and which is more fun to watch on the other hand.


This is the most awful film i have ever seen!Are Mary-Kate and Ashley dumb or something?As if us Brits speak really posh like that?!that guy who played James in it wasn't even from the UK he's Australian!and the clothes that they were all parading in like arseholes pretending to be British really annoyed me.I love going on shopping sprees and believe me WE DO NOT WEAR THAT LOAD OF CRAP!So to all Americans out there do not be fooled by this stupid film because us Brits do not speak posh like that (only the queen does) we are not snobby n strict (us Brits are totally wild!) we listen to the same music you Americans are into such as rap r&b rock pop dance etc we do not wear them crap clothes we wear normal clothes and designer clothes such as Gucci and most of all we are not into the sport polo only nerds are and we do not like Shakespeare at all Shakespeare is utter crap that nobody can understand and we do not say Ta-tar or would you like a cup of tea only retarded ones do!And that is basically what I've have got to say about this DO NOT SEE THIS film!Keep on chilling!


It is not fact that this movie is just bad that makes me angry and revolted. It is the fact that this movie openly promotes racism, bribery, dishonesty, meaningless relationships and other things that are unacceptable among normal people. But OK, you can't forbid one to state his opinion, it is shocking fact that this opinions target children, young girls who will take this opinions as they're own. It is not strange that US is leading so much wars, that it has so much drug addicts, teenage mothers and so on: when in movies like this you may see that it is normal to bribe people with magazines, video-games and jerseys to win a competition; black people with dreadlocks have never seen computer in their lives; nobles are evil; relationship between 15 year old girl and 22 yearn old boy( or should I say man) is normal and socially acceptable---it is just a step from pedophilia, people. However this movie has opened my eyes in one thing. I now see why Americans have death sentence, just that it is used on wrong people. I frankly don't see difference between "snuff" movies and this movies, for it can have same bad influence on minds of people.


I've seen other Olsen Twins movies, and most of them were ok, (It Takes Two) And one, 'Our Lips Are Sealed', was probably the best, so I had high hopes when I saw this on TV. This movie is an endless string of overused material.This movie is basically the same as 'Our Lips are Sealed', but with a LOT less charm. It's very predictable, no suprises anywhere to be found here.The only good thing that might come out of this mess is that it's a perfect movie to MST with you and your friends.


I watched this as an Aishwarya fan. I think it's her 4th movie, so it's interesting for me to see her when she was "younger"--although that's only a few years ago! She looked really skinny--too skinny! In a couple of the songs, she does not even dance--what was the director thinking? That we don't want to see Aishwarya?? This was probably the worst Indian film I have seen in terms of the subtitles. First, they were in white letters, so they were hard to read. Second, they were often very stilted English--quite often humorous without intending to be. Third, sometimes they repeated the subtitles, sometimes they put on a long subtitle for .1 of a second. Fourth, sometimes they were just nonsense--A great example is when they go to the "Grapp Family Lodge" towards the end of the movie. Of course it's really the "Trapp Family Lodge" in New Hampshire, and yes, it's the lodge owned by the Trapp Family who were the subject of "The Sound of Music." I have a feeling all that was lost on the director--it would have been a great opportunity to have a song set in the hills above Salzburg, where Julie Andrews sang. It would have added a nice touch of humor. But no. Oh well, a great opportunity lost. Why not get a native Engish speaker to proofread the subtitles? Leaving the stereotypes aside, which the other reviewers have mentioned, I was more upset at the heavy-handed "lessons" in the movie. Yes, I have seen this in other Indian movies too, but not as many and not as awkwardly done. There was the "Pakistanis are really good Indians too" lesson, the "family is more important than money" lesson, the "women are more than tokens in the marriage market" lesson, the "forgive those as you wish to be forgiven" lesson, etc. etc.--every five minutes, and no subtlety at all. A movie can have a message, but when you have 35 different messages...well, it doesn't work. By the way, how about a lesson on illegal immigrants working on a tourist visa? To Indians sitting in India thinking they can just get off the plane on a tourist visa and start driving a cab or work at Dunkin' Donuts, forget it. You can't.

Reality checks: New Jersey boardwalk as an exotic, fun location? Please. Are there no hotels/rooms in New York? --why did Akshay and Aishwarya have no choice but to move in with the taxi drivers? Is India that disorganized that a millionaire would find it impossible to find the wife he left behind? And of course all the coincidences would make Dickens blush.

So, as a movie, pretty bad. As a showcase for a young (26?) Aishwarya, OK.


Why do filmmakers like Subhash Ghai show Indians as good people and NY people as bad people? Was a big question in my mind now even Rishi Kapoor feels the same in AALC which is very bad

I mean please the superficial way of showing America puts people off and in today's overseas audiences dominating times this isn't good

The first half moves in different lanes and the love triangle is done to death

and the second half gets better a bit Akshaye's realization is well handled and then the film ends well but the sudden change of the other son is too much

They are many problems in the film like the first half which moves in different lanes and not proper treatment is given to most of it

Rishi Kapoor directs some dramatic scenes well but he needs to improve his storytelling, overall a decent debut by one of the finest actors as a director Music is okay

Akshaye Khanna shines in his role, He was always a good actor but signed bad films those days Barring his receding hairstyle he leaves a huge impact as an actor Aishwarya is plastic as ever Rajesh Khanna is okay Kader Khan and Jaspal Bhati are good Satish Kaushik is funny Paresh Rawal is good


The story line goes thusly :

Abroad ! the term itself has a kind of honey-money reminding effect! Indian men are ready to wash dishes and be a waiter, drive cabs, sweep the Airport premises to keep it clean all this just to be in a foreign land as they get paid in dollars - which when converted to Indian currency makes him a rich and sought after groom in India.

Indian parents , of daughters especially, forget everything else when they see that a man is having a bank balance good enough to support their daughter for the rest of her life ! This happens probably in the following circumstances : 1. parents are illiterate and do not believe/ understand / know that literacy can help. So they never educated their daughter as its an age old adage that a woman is but a machine to continue with the progeny of whichever family she weds  be it Pandavs or Kauravs ! 2. Both parents along with children are foreign crazy.some habits die hard  or maybe genetically transmitted . Have you noticed dear Indians. whenever there is a movie showing struggle for independence, it is usually shown that one or two British officers are commanding and giving orders to their servants- the Indian subordinates  working as soldiers  and in fact they are the ones  Indians ie, who used to charge the freedom fighters (FF) with laathis and even gunned them down.now please do not give me examples of 2-3 such soldiers out of 500-1000 soldiers working as spies to the FF  I am talking about majority  Might is right ? Is'nt it?  here I would in fact like to appreciate the British officers to train the otherwise sluggish Indians and made them workfor them of course ! what motivation they must have had ..by the virtue of which they counseled their Indian soldiers (ie. working under their wing)  to kill the Indian FF.

3. Now dear Indian they must have also got married.what does one do after marriage  but of course ! no points for that.they give birth to a baby !- the reason why people get married in the first place !  to make a woman complete!  she ..it seems is incomplete without the experience of a baby crying at midnight for milk or nappy change - anyways suffice to say that even their generation has grown  and probably they are the ones who indulge in all the things which cause general ruckus and unrest in the country  like  boozing, mid-night partying, womanizing  collecting wine, wealth and woman in their database  not bothering about anything else  just following the drain culture and copying the foreigners in every possible way.as taught to them by their forefathers ! Select few might not be so..the ones who used to be spies to the FF 4. Continuing with the circumstances which cause the Indian parents wed their daughters with foreign based men ..in spite of several told and untold miseries such marriages bring about !  Basically lack of knowledge and education and also probably lots of greed for money  which can buy one new expensive dresses and jewelry another set of necessities required to make a woman completeor look good enough in order to turn on the husband who will eventually part with his secretions (refer movie "Look who is talking too" title sequence - where the fertilization is shown in 3-d animation made the sperms look like devils traveling through the fallopian tube & later only one succeed in invading the wall of the ovum ) and give the greatest opportunity to a Woman  motherhood !..to be later kicked by them,as shown in Bagbaan Anyways story of Aa ab laut chalen  So the hero wants to make quick easy money  gets hooked on to a rich girl  who has shown a lot of her skin , cleavage etc.- who boozes and drinks  dances with other boys and treat him as dirt  but greed keeps him clinging to her.

In the meanwhile Aishwarya (heroine) also lands up in foreign  she had also come to try her luck in marriage  the only vital reason of human birth, meets him and falls in love with him ! He turns her down as is has a better deal in hand  a rich, well endowed, beautiful , seductress looking woman for whom all men yearn ! Ash, in order to win his heart tries to look voluptuous and seductress by wearing skimpy outfits as suggested to her by Indian cab drivers, and others of their category, but it does not work ...she sings thusly: dear dear turn around your sight  your heart is here  where else are you looking ! its night there  its only here (with me) that's broad daylight) Heart broken she joins as a nurse to a multi billionaire who is Akshaya's (hero's) actual father actually  had humped his mother and later had settled down in foreign and was living happily ever after with wife and child. His mother , who was a pure, chaste, innocent & religious Indian woman kept the child  which she had conceived out of wedlock ( a momentary lapse had made her forget totally about chastity, purity, innocence and religion btw.).


This was one of those horror movies where you hope all the characters get killed quickly, because they're so annoying. They're not just annoying, they are annoying clichés of characters.

Obnoxious frat boy? Check, he's here, let's hope he gets knocked off first. Sexy lesbians? Yup, they play that for the little bit it's worth. Logical, level-headed survivor type girl? Yeah, you'll spot her in the first two minutes. Screaming teenagers? Sure enough.

This is an attempt to get some of the atmosphere of other horror movies and make it work in a mix. It doesn't work, it just comes across as a blatant ripoff without humor or originality of any kind. During the first ten minutes you'll find yourself hoping that the bad guy mops them up quick and then goes to Cancun for a vacation with some margaritas and maybe beach babes. That would have been a huge improvement over what you get, which is the worst and most predictable elements of the last ten slasher movies you saw.


I saw this movie with the feeling that it probably wouldn't be good. But there are movies that are bad but still kind of good if you know what I mean. As in B-movies, they are done with a sense of style and they are charming that way. This movie didn't even achieve that. So why do I feel this way?

Well, let us begin with the acting. The actors, or the people as I would like to refer them as, were horrible and I don't mean horrible as in horror, I mean that they really and utterly sucked. For example, if my friend got chopped in half I would be shocked and devastated. I got the feeling that these "actors" didn't deliver that. In fact, they weren't even close.

But, bad acting is something I can live with. We have all seen that before. But does it end there? Hell no, there is more. Let's look at the special effects. The FX in this one is way below average. In one scene we see smoke coming out of the woods in a distance. My question: Was it necessary to animate that? I can understand the need of computing animation in such films as Star Wars, X-Men, King Kong, Hulk and so on.. These guys didn't have the time or the knowledge to make a real fire to deliver real smoke. No, they animated it! And guess what.. it didn't even look good. The gore wasn't good either. In fact, there was no innovative ideas at all. The murder scenes was something that we have all seen before in other movies. This leads me to my final and absolutely most important argument.

I wonder how much of the script that was written by hand. I guess that 95% was done with the "Copy & Paste" method. Being influenced by other movies is nothing new. We have seen this phenomenon numerous times. BUT, you can show your influences with style. As a tribute to the old classics. It is cleared beyond every doubt that this movie didn't have the motif to give tribute to these movies. This is clearly a ripoff in order to make money. It's bad enough if a movie has 1 ripoff but this one has more and that makes it a whole lot worse.

Let's start with "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". We can see resemblances clear as the blue sky in this one. How about The Butcher himself, this character is very much like Leatherface. In one scene he even use a chainsaw just to ensure the audience that this is a RIPOFF (as if we didn't noticed that). There are scenes that are completely and directly adapted. While I was watching this abomination, right about 20 minutes I said to my friend that this movie will probably end up with the exact ending as in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and guess what, it did and I'm not a psychic. That sure says a lot. Oh man, it doesn't end here, no no ah ah, there is more. We see huge resemblances to "The People Under The Stairs" and there is probably even more ripoffs if you just think about it.

The only thing that was good was the title. But, the bad thing is that the title doesn't go along with the story at all. The Butcher could have been a good horror movie if we replaced the director, the whole film-crew and all of the actors. Then, only then, there would be a chance of success. I'm still amazed that this movie got distribution and a release.

Don't support the people behind this movie by spending money on it. Instead I encourage you to download it so that you can enjoy deleting it.


as a big slasher film fan i have to say this one, fulfill it's complement: be a horror movie. But there's just something about and it's the fact that: it's just wrong. When i was watching it at one point i though i was watching, wrong turn, then i star thinking about the Texas chainsaw massacre, then hills have eyes and finally i know what you did last summer, the movie it's basically a mix of all these other movies but unsuccessfully did what those other movies did, it's just so predictable, the scrip it's so weak and far beyond scary, instead of that it's so lame, with this thousands of clichés like "don't go in there" "what it's this place" "he's gonna kill us all" you basically know who's gonna die first and why called it "the butcher" there is no butcher in the film and there is not even a good slaughter, they should have call it "i know what the Texas hills wrong turned last summer" or something, honestly i don't know what a company spend money into making this crappy films. I give it a three because, well it's a horror movie after all, invite some friends over and watch it with pop corns in a boring Saturday afternoon. And for the record i should give this movie a zero but the lesbians really help it.


Can this be possibly the worst movie ever put to celluloid? OK obvious over-the-top characters, frat boy, lesbian's, lonely guy, black token actor and female lead, was this script pulled from the are you smarter then a 5th grader.

SPOILERS: 1.first off what was with frat boy not changing the flat 2.who closes the sunroof on there friends while they are hanging halfway out.

3.exactly what patch of road did frat boy hit to cause him not to stop the vehicle safely, never mind at such a long distance, unless he was looking for the nearest branch.

4.even as obnoxious as frat boy was not even he should have been so callous as to be concern with the car then his friend being cut in half.

5.why would everyone leave the car and leave the one girl behind with half a lesbian? 6.why were these supposed young people so winded after running a few feet.

7.when the lesbian was running away why couldn't she leave limp-along in the dust? 8.why would frat boy having noticing what was producing the smoke not share this bit of info with his girlfriend at the very least? I can go on and on about the well I won't say plot holes u really need a plot to have holes to begin with, and besides Sophie's Choices (pun intended) going off on her own and not having the strength to fight off some tired old hag, oh yeah never mind having been drowned for all about 20 seconds and her so called friend not even trying to resuscitate her.

But what was the deal after having grabbed the sheriff's keys and running right passed a perfectly good escape vehicle? I don't comment much here, actually this maybe my second time, and it's often said there are much worst movies out there, but this is the worst I've ever personally experienced!


I was glad I was exercising at home while this mind-numbing piece of drek droned on and on and on. Otherwise, I would have completely wasted an hour and a half of my life  90 minutes incidentally that felt like 90 days.

I was reminded of some really bad low-budget sci-fi/horror flicks from the '50s, like The Beast With 50 Million Eyes. The Butcher contained some of the same, uh, qualities: no plot, bad writing, mostly annoying characters consistently blurting out stupid, senseless remarks. The director showed no ability for pacing (the film just sat there, congealing) or suspense or character development, i.e., there was NO pacing NO suspense NO interesting characters. As for the latter, it was hard to tell whether the actors & actresses could be any good, seeing how they were given so little of substance with which to work. As it stands on film, though, they either showed the emotions of a cardboard cut out or thrashed about in over-the-top fashion. And, yes, like some other reviewers, I too could not wait for several of the characters to meet their demise because they were SO annoying.

I cannot think of anything redeeming about this dawg. It could never be a guilty pleasure for me, like Wrong Turn, for example. The filmmakers had two left feet and empty heads  and they forced their characters to wander around in the same way, dazed and dumb, with nothing to say. I felt tortured. Don't let it happen to you. You have been forewarned.


Did you saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre, See No Evil, Wrong Turn, Hills have eyes, Wolf Creek, House of 1000 Corpses, 1001 maniacs? If yes - you wont see anything NEW. Again some teenagers going into trip and of course their car is broken... YES - it happens in the woods, in isolated place, and YES - they're haunted by some ugly freak... I rated it 4, but if I would never saw those movies that i mention in the beginning, i would give 6. I think that Texas Chainsaw producers should do something with that... almost all movies i watched past 2 years are similar. Aren't laws protect the story? I got tired of this... I guess within 3 months I will see another "edited" copy of same story.


Once in a while I manage to stumble across certain movies that, despite the cool box art, seem to go out of their way to appear unoriginal. Not only did "The Butcher" turn out to be another tired "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" ripoff, it was also as dull as dirt. A group of college friends on their way to Vegas to party, are in a car accident, resulting in the ridiculous evisceration of their fellow lesbian sun-roof flasher (the high point of the movie, might I add). They, of course, set out in search of help and come across a secluded, as well as boarded up farmhouse (closely resembling the Devil's Rejects house, I noticed). From, there they are killed off one by one by a deformed, psychotic madman and his wife while wandering through the house. "The Butcher" contains a handful of the usual, no-talent actors, no gore effects, no surprises or suspense, and enough cliché moments to fill TWO movies. If you still decide to rent - or God forbid - buy this movie just make sure your fast forward button is working.


A bunch of REAL annoying college students are driving to Las Vegas. Their car breaks down on a deserted road and they search for help. They find a big old ranch house, in the middle of nowhere, with a VERY strange family who love killing...

Sound familiar? Absolutely pointless rehash of "Texas..." minus the story, characterization and scares. This also has the gratuitous female nudity and the now requisite lesbian couple (notice we never see a gay male couple?). This is incredibly cheap with glaring continuity errors left and right--notice how one girl runs past the exact same tree twice in a row!!! The story is entirely predictable with some extremely stupid "twists" in it. Also these kids are killed off...for no reason whatsoever! Granted they're ALL annoying but I would at least like a reason!

The acting, at first, was so bad I almost switched this off. Worst of all is Alan Ritchson--he plays such a totally obnoxious character (and badly) that I wondered why all these people hung out with him. As the movie progressed, Tom Nagel (as Adam) and Catherine Wreford (as Rachel) actually improved and ended up giving two not bad performances. Everybody else was hopeless.

Stupid, sick, sadistic and utterly worthless horror movie. The only truly scary thing about this is that it was made. Skip it.


There is no doubt that seeing Tiffany Kristensen flash the Butcher is the highlight of this film. Everything else has been seen before in other horror movies.

Obnoxious frat boy, token African-American, lesbians, and, oh-my-gosh, a chainsaw. How original! At least it was put to good use getting rid of the most irritating characters.

Oh, that flash in the beginning, that's it for the nudity. There really isn't much gore in this film. I would have given it a PG-13, instead of an R.

Stay on the main road, people.


There is absolutely nothing original in this movie.

First Rip: The Girl in the road who has escaped from the psycho is ripped right out of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Second Rip: Use of a chain saw for graphic death was once again ripped from TCM

Third Rip: The group of kids going strait to the killers house is yet again from TCM

Fourth Rip: Their college Kids! Horror movie's off college kids left and right. come on please. How about some originality.

Fifth Rip: The set up car accident is a possible rip from the GOD AWFUL Wolf Creek.

Though I never saw wrong turn I have heard that there is a wrong turn feeling to this movie. Bottom line people this movie holds nothing original. It can be avoided but it's not a complete waste.


It wasn't too bad but i have seen so much better, you can bet i wont be watching it again, once was enough for me, needed more gore, then maybe it would have been a little better, but it really mainly needed a little bit of originality, it was too much like other slasher flicks like Texas chainsaw massacre, wrong turn, hills have eyes... the same movie over and over again gets kinda boring...but it would probably be an alright movie to watch once, but there is no way that there could ever be a reason to watch this more than that.i give this movie a 4, but it could have gotten better had it had a little bit more gore and originality...... ......... ......... ........


Boy, oh, boy, did I learn that recently with this piece of crap! I mean, what the heck, they're being chased by a deranged killer, and one of the chicks starts singing a lullaby in the house?!?!?!!? I mean, you would think the baby crib dangler made of dead black crows would freak her out, but, no...she starts singing a lullaby she remembers from her childhood...all the while looking at a baby crib dangler made of dead black crows while being chased by a chainsaw killer...exactly how I'd react in that same situation! Or anybody, for that matter! I did like the part, though, when that dyke's body splits in half just because she smashes into a tree branch, that part was both stupid and hilarious at the same time! Yeah, smash into a tree branch while showing your tits outside a vehicle's moon roof, that will cause your body to split in half!! I about fell over on my rear end laughing when that part came up! And then, after she splits in half and all the characters are on the run from the big, bad killer, the guy in the Stifler role ends up in the killer's barn looking in his fridge for a tall, cool one! Yeah, that's exactly what I would do if a chainsaw killer were chasing me, go look in his barn fridge for a beer! And the whole while he's doing it, it's like he's all calm, cool, and collected!! I don't know if IMDb.com would consider what I've written here a spoiler, that's why I checked "Contains Spoiler," so as not to be blacklisted, just to be on the safe side. Another idiotic part of the movie (possible spoiler) is when the cop gets killed, the dude and the blonde get the keys to his police vehicle off his key chain attached to his belt loop...and...they...RUN. Like...the police jeep...is right there as they leave the house trying to escape from the chainsaw killer...jeep is not damaged in any way, shape, or form...and still...they run. On foot. No explanation even given as to why. Oh, man, I should have known...this is a new release to Family Video, and the fact that it had already been moved to the 2 for $1 rack had red flags going off in my head, but I thought, "Naw, it's Lionsgate, surely it rocks!" Wrong! I saw another Lionsgate film recently that sucked, too, but IMDb.com guidelines say to stick to the movie you're reviewing and not comment on other films. I'll be sure to come check out IMDb.com every time from now on if I want to read reviews on a movie, Lionsgate or not. Stay away from this stinker! Two thumbs way down!


Are you freakin' kiddin' me? There's a lot of bad horror films out there and this is one of 'em. Sometimes the filmmakers choose to make 'em bad by purpose due to low budgets etc.. That way at least you can be entertained. "The butcher", I'm not sure about. Did they make the film this bad by purpose or do all involved crew members really suck. The acting is below average. Not the worst performances I've seen but they're not good. The director seems to have no idea on how to build suspense or how to direct for that matter. The photography is okay. Not the best but okay. The budget of 750 000 $ is spent badly, I think. With a little imagination they could have spent it much better. But all this is not the worst thing about this film. The script, oh, the script. How in Gods name a production company ever picked this script up, I'll never know. The script is just terrible, awful.. well... not good. I'll rate this film 3 out of 10. It's possible to sit through it. Just don't get your hopes up for any scares. Prepare yourselves for laughs instead.


Stop me if you've already heard this one before: Six extremely annoying and unappealing college kids -- sassy blonde Rachel (Catherine Wreford), obnoxious, insensitive, and spineless musclehead Mark (a supremely terrible and insufferable performance by Alan Ritchson), sexy libidinous lesbians Atlanta (cute blonde Ashley Hawkins) and Liz (foxy brunette Tiffany Kristensen, who at least bares her breasts prior to getting bumped off first), bumbling nice guy Adam (decently played by Tom Nagel), and token black Sophie (Myiea Coy) -- on a cross country road trip run afoul of a vicious family of deadly and demented hicks after they get a flat tire in the middle of some nowheresville sticks. Gee, isn't that a remarkably fresh and inspired premise for a fright flick? Of course not, man! Director Edward Gorsuch, working from a pitifully trite and by-the-numbers cookie cutter script by Michael Hurst, manages to maintain a fairly brisk pace and delivers a handy helping of nasty gore, but crucially fails to create any suspense or spooky atmosphere. Worse yet, the main protagonists are so uniformly cardboard, irritating, and underdeveloped that one simply doesn't care whether they live or die. April Lang as deranged hag Ms. Mayhew, Bill Jacobson as hulking disfigured brute Franklyn Mayhew, and Annie MacKay as tongueless daughter Angel are reasonably creepy, but they still aren't anywhere near as scary and disturbing as the cannibal clan in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (a horror classic that this crud shamelessly copies to the grating ninth degree). Dennis Smith's generic shivery'n'shuddery score, the headache-inducing blaring alternative soundtrack, the variable acting from an attractive, but charmless and unlikable cast, and one of those always unwelcome groan-worthy "it ain't over yet!" (non)endings all add further abject insult to already appalling injury. Hank Baumert, Jr.'s slick cinematography makes this schlock look much better than it deserves. A real dud.


This movie is a typical teens get into trouble on the road story. While going off to Vegas to celebrate graduation, 6 teens in an Escalade take a short cut and exchange road rage with the disfigured father of a reclusive family named Mayhew living way off the beaten path. In typical teen fashion they make some really bad decisions and wind up unknowingly invading the home of the Mayhew's where they run from the clan and try and find a way back to reality. During their ordeal 'some' of them are killed in semi-goriness. With a title like The Butcher, it could have been a lot worse. The editing, continuity, and other technical aspects were pretty good. The end holds a few twists that were not totally unexpected.


How crushing, to be confronted with irrefutable proof that naked people singing and dancing aren't REALLY enough, per se, to make a film entertaining. Who'd have thought? Unfortunately, if those naked people are singing and dancing in something like "Waiting for Guffman" without the parody, it gets tragic. The movie's a broad spoof that winks at itself, actually it pretty much elbows itself in the ribs and guffaws, unlike the audience, which is likely sitting there furtively checking its collective watch every few minutes. The nudity is entirely wholesome and non-pornographic, Cindy Williams is cute and very funny, a couple of the production numbers are clever, and the plot and dialogue just reek. The whole thing would appear to have started out as a terrifically cute stage play, sabotaged on its way to the screen by compromise, timidity, and tired schtick. Still, as with everything in life, there is a lesson to be learned here; in this case, the novel truth that it's possible to be far more embarrassing in clothes than out of them.


I saw this when I was 15, in the theater... I think we paid for something else and then snuck into this theatre. There were 5 people in the theatre and 3 left half way through.....Do you get what I'm saying. It was the first time I ever saw a fully naked women, I was male and 15.....and it was still only marganially entertaining.

Some of the songs were good... This is a product of the 70s when movies like this and Fairy Tales, Flesh Gorden and such were taking almost adult movies(no plot lots of skin) to the mainstream theaters.

While I am a major movie freak, I am not much on musicals, so if you like musicals and skin......Maybe.

4/10


Yes, folks, in the 70s world of the double feature, this was the show at my local cinema. Of course I went. Somehow I thought the letter kid had forgotten to add the T after BUS thus making it a rude duo. Both films were very funny. Both films were completely ignored in first release. Both films are now cult faves. Other comments will tell you the details, but MUSICAL is a low budget indie that uses this constraint well to create a plausible storyline and suitably tacky musical production numbers. In the 70s there were a lot of farce sex / musicals like ALICE IN WONDERLAND and THE CASE OF THE SMILING STIFFS. Some compilation skit sex comedies about D grade film studios too: LOOSE SHOES and THAT'S ADEQUATE. This film, NUDIE MUSICAL sort of rolled all the ideas together. The idea of a comedy sex musical was not really new and was also re imagined here in Australia in the mid 90s: we saw a very similar locally made farce/musical/comedy created in 1997 called MONEYSHOT which unbeknownst to the producer with whom I later became friends, alerted him to MUSICAL which saw him flabbergasted at the similarities. It was originally called THE VENUS FACTORY... see IMDb for details. This parallel production of OZ and USA happens a lot: see PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT vs TO WONG FOO, TWO HANDS vs KNOCKAROUND GUYS, and recently WILLFULL vs Almodovar's VOLVER


For anyone who has suffered through this movie , you have my sympathies. Cindy Williamns in a porno musical ? Ouch:Look for the quick cameo of Ron Howard as an acting hopeful.Sheesh what was he thinking of doing this filth. It tried to make fun of the porno industry by camping it .Dancing Dlldos, songs about perversion , a man and woman dancing naked and singing an explicit song about intercourse and homosexuality.

Various other stupid scenes , a woman auditioning who just drops her dress ,shes nude under it and starts simulating an orgasm assuming thats all she needs to do to get the part.When they ask her to sing the musical scales, she starts singing the word scales over and over , i mean i wanted to scream. Only thing that kept me watching was my dumb friend who paid for the pizza and rental. I left the room only to walk back and see him actually enjoying the garbage. Other scenes , they call for a stuntman to take over when another actor cant perform. This movie isnt funny its just total filth. Cindi Williams did this during her Laverne and Shirley days for some dumb reason. Another reason why she probably wont get many decent roles anymore.She was typecast and took some bad movie roles. She should have gone to directing like Penny Marshall or Ron Howard .I think this movie was done by idiots.


Ever since I was 12, I fell in love with SpongeBob, and could imitate his voice very well and liked the show for years. But now it has changed significantly in the middle of 4th and 5th season and has gotten worse. SpongeBob has changed in a bad way, and also the humor has changed. What's with SpongeBob's new smile? It freaks me out, his original smile was just fine. The plots of the newest episodes seem pointless; SpongeBob and other characters seem to becoming more stupid. The studio has got to get their heads together and redeem the show or it will lose its high ratings and come to an end. However, I will still like SpongeBob in the early years.


This show was once one of the greatest Nicktoons ever made. I remember coming home from school and watching Spongebob. It was genuinely funny and creative, and left me laughing every time. Sadly, that's not the case with the mountain of absolute TRASH that is the newer episodes.

Spongebob has been downgraded and turned into a mindless whining, idiotic perfectionist.His voice is now a lot more high-pitched. The plots, animation and dialogue show no effort whatsoever. (I think all the original cast might have left the show) A prime example of how Nickelodeon has sealed its own grave, ruining their greatest shows just so they can make a quick buck. If you're going to judge this show, judge it by older seasons 1 through 3,not the current episodes, because that greatness can't be compared to what Spongebob is now.


I know you people are going to flame me, but I had to review this since I've been bombarded with the show's overratedness. What do I think: I don't really get Spongebob's popularity. I can understand why South Park is popular and I can understand why Ren and Stimpy is so popular. They are both gross and crude humor shows that grow on you the more you watch them. Gross and disgusting humor sells, PERIOD. But Spongebob is like a watered down Ren and Stimpy with none of the gross, disgusting charm that I love so much.

In fact, now that I think about it, I think Spongebob is basically the cartoon equivalent of Star War's Jar Jar Binks. Both are immature, stupid and childish characters that can pass off as offensive stereotypes (Jar Jar= black southern people, Spongebob= gay men). But I don't get this...people who hated Jar Jar (as well as the SW prequels) love the Spongebob character and think the show is genius (which it's not). The two characters are so much alike that it's sickening.

So in my books, if you want funny cartoons that deserve the hype they get, watch "South Park", "Ren and Stimpy" or even "Beavis and Butthead". I just bet Spongebob will come down with "The Simpsons" syndrome due it's popularity (BTW, The Simpsons syndrome refers to shows that never ever end).


What the hell happened to Spongebob?

The new animation SUCKS, his new voice SUCKS and the show just isn't funny anymore.

SB's voice is high and whiny, and the way he's drawn now is just awful. The humor used to be dark, quirky and funny. Now, it just looks like they're going through the motions.

It looks like the whole series has jumped the shark. There's just no passion left.

I wonder if all the original writers and animators have simply left.

Way to go, Nickelodeon, for ruining a once great show that I've enjoyed since the very beginning. I really, really hate you guys.


Nicktoons were an artistic medium in a way. They original, funny, and the first for-kids cartoons on a for-kids network on the air. Rugrats was a childhood favorite. Ren and Stimpy, while vulgar and gross, was one of the most original ideas on the air. Hey Arnold! and Doug were simplistic and had morals. This was a golden age of television. But in the late 90's, with Ren and Stimpy, Rocko's Modern Life, and other original Nicktoons off the air, Nick ran out of ideas.

This is where Spongebob came in. It was about a squeaky-voiced stupid character who should have been locked up in the looney bin along with his friend. Ren and Stimpy much? At first it was okay, but it just seemed too bland. The Dennis the Mennis relationship with Squidward wasn't funny, the ever greedy Mr. Krabs was like Big Bob from Hey Arnold, and it was trying to be random but never got it right (T.V. has never been able to do that). Patrick was thrown in for comic relief, as a stupid stupid character, like Stimpy. Nick jumped off a cliff, with spikes at the bottom, a rope around it's neck, and a award for "Most likely to repeat mistakes." And it did. With bad, unoriginal, stereotypical cartoons. Good-bye quality television. I never forget you.


I remember thinking Spongebob was the most stupid thing in the world when it first came out, but after my friend convinced me to watch one episode I found out that it actually was a decent show. It was cute and original. The episodes were witty and funny, having jokes that people of all ages found funny while still keeping it innocent and clean. My entire family loved the show. Each episode was fresh and new, while still keeping it's old charm; but after a certain point things turned for the worse. The episodes got shorter and used the same ideas over and over again. It soon became less silly and more stupid. The animation is more spastic, the voices have lost all of their luster and are now shrill and annoying, and all of the characters have lost their personalities that we once loved. Spongebob has lost all of it's value and all of it's charm. They should have stopped making new episodes a long time ago to preserve it's greatness, but it is too late now. Oh how much I miss you Spongbob... (And all other good kid's shows)


But I hate the new ones. They're getting worse and worse every time and I wish they'll take this show off the air. Not only did it show a homosexuality theme once or twice (i.e: When Patrick and Spongebob raised the clam) but it showed something I'll never forget...pantie raiding. What children's cartoon goes around and raids underwear drawers? WHO, I ASK?! No one except Spongebob. It was a terrible scene and I stopped watching the show right then.

And then, there was the episode where Spongebob and whats-his-face were cursing and it wasn't revealed. I wouldn't care if it was. It's sending the wrong message to kids and that's why I am forced to rate Spongebob THE worst show for kids on television.

Bring on the hate mail!


Normally, I wouldn't even bother giving this a review, but having been pushed over the edge by all those Spongebob key chains, sweatpants, etc. they're selling, I feel compelled to. Spongebob Squarepants is undoubtedly one of the most overrated cartoons of the 90s and 00s, indeed probably _the_ most overrated. I would say the characters are really my biggest issue, given their absurdity.

The titular sponge bares no resemblance to real sponges, essentially consisting of an artificial cleaning sponge with a face and legs (and those square pants) added. Of course, he has a pet, a snail that meows (no, that's not a typo). Other ludicrous characters include a crab who has sold out his own people and now makes a living running a crabby patty restaurant and a squirrel who, for some reason, has taken up residence under water.

In short, this is yet another silly cartoon that has gotten way more positive press than it deserves and exists mainly to drive the production of more merchandise. Strictly a show for children and even that may be giving it too much credit.


It's about a normal sea sponge, Spongebob, earning work at the Krusty Krab, Here are my problems about the show: Spongebob is very annoying, he's always been happy all the time, the humor is flat out weak, Everything about is just stupid.

Now the characters on the show are annoying, first there's Spongebob, like I said, its about a normal sea sponge working at the Krusty Krab, Spongebob is twice annoying than Patrick and Squidward, Spongebob is a lousy mouth, gotten himself a lot of trouble in every episode. Patrick however, is a starfish like person that hangs around Spongebob a lot. And Squidward is a grouchy neighbor who doesn't hang out with Spongebob or Patrick.

The new episodes are getting really cheesy and lame, It was made in 1999, would be like in the mid 2000's or something. it's just that bad.

Right now, I'm in high school, and it still sucks today!!! I gave up watching the show in 2006, I turned it off, got bored of it. I stopped watching the show on Season 3, that's it.

They made a movie five years after the show was released. That movie was terrible, I couldn't make it through it either. they both suck.

I know a lot of people like the show, thinking it was funny, hilarious, great, but for me, I just didn't care for it at all, I'm really not the biggest fan of Spongebob Squarepants.

The only good stuff on Nickelodeon are the game shows, and early nicktoons like Rocko's Modern Life or Doug. I recommend watching game shows more than this. I liked every game show that were Nick when I was little, and I still watch them today. Nothing bad or terrible about it.

But this show right here is a piece of crap, I wouldn't recommend it at all. Seriously, this show SUCKS.

1/10


I remember when I this show came out I was about 8 years old when I saw that bubble blowing stand episode. Since then Like looked forward to watching Mr. Squarepants. Until around 2003/2004, this show became

overrated!!!!!!! I mean I know this is going to sound stupid but liked it when it was underrated and not many people knew it existed! I mean during/after 2003/2004 sponge bob was a pain !! The episodes were getting repetitive tedious and wrong. It just pretty much got worst after those season!!! List of characters that bother nowadays!!! Spongebob-his voice is annoying and headache inducing (espacially in the later seasons) more immature and moronic than ever!! Patrick-A walking brain dead loser that hangs around bob like a idiot he is. Mr. Krabby-More cheesy and cheap to the point where he should have never exist. Squidward-God this guy is annoying! He constantly bickers about how he hates sponge bob and Pat and yet he still lives next to them.He's very pretentious and is very sad all the time.Every time I look at him he's gives you this suicidal mentality!! Sheesh Squid if you want me to I can end your life for you, you depressed idiot. The only character I can stand is Sandy! that's it!! so folks if you want to see this show you can but still stupid!!


Well, Technically because according to rumors had it that It was suppose to be an education cartoon about Homosexuals. Spongebob always Acts happy because He's gay Well, I don't know why but I think He and Patrick are boyfriends. I mean I know it doesn't seem true but 99% of time proves it all. Its show was for Teenagers and all, Most Parents Complain that it Influences Gay/Lesbian. But however its not really true. For some reason People Just Spread rumors everywhere saying that Its gay and all. I've seen a few Episodes of this Cartoon before but really Hate to admit it but I agree with the Angry Mob. There were some Episodes that May contain Themes that Encourages some sort of sign. For example The One episode that Spongebob and Patrick were Hugging each other. Besides from that Episode, There's another one about The FUN Song that made Some People Mad and Angry. Technically, Spongebob is Stereotypical gay person in the show. Even though He does karate in a way that makes people wonder "Why is he wearing those Things?" Let's face it, Spongebob acts different than most Cartoon Character in Nick and a better show other than this Show is "Danny Phantom" One more thing, People Shows like this is going to be a huge success Unless You tell your friends not to watch such crap. and your friends will spread Other People across the world...


I never have got why this show was so popular. I honestly never knew. I know that my sister is a big fan and she introduced me to this show. I honestly tried to sit down, watch it and tolerate it, but I just could not!

Not only did the animation and ugly character designs makes the animation in "Clutch Cargo" look like an animated film by Hayao Miyazaki, but the plots are oh so ridiculous. I just can't stand that obnoxious hideous Sponge. All he does is run around annoying and making fun of people and trying to be competitive and pull corny un-funny jokes. How anyone finds that appealing is beyond me, especially the ADULT AND OLDER TEEN audiences!

Here are some Animated titles I recommend:

Astérix and Obélix : A funny spoof of Franco-Roman history and those European "Mythical Sword and Sandals" epics I grew up on. And *gasp*, it is faithful to the euro-comics as well!

Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea (The Engulfed World): An original Sci-Fi Fantasy euro-animation series by the creators of "Mysterious Cites of Gold" and "Ulysse 31". Has interesting(!) plots and the humor is tolerable.

Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends: Yes, a good cartoon that's not so predictable and has likable characters.

My Gym Partner is a Monkey: Another good cartoon network show. Man Nickelodeon, I think CN has beat you hands down.


It is hard to believe how drivel like this not only makes it onto TV, but gets nominated for FOUR Emmys, and becomes one of the most loved kids' cartoons of all time. It is so sad (I mean as in pathetic) - death loses its sting after an episode of this, and it is so awfully predictable and unfunny that you feel insulted. This is really just drivelly nonsense for the 5 - 8 year old kids - there is real talent in other places. Expect nothing from Spongebob Squarepants - it is so awful that you may want to cap yourself in the head. "Over-rated" is the only word that describes this faeces - underwater fun for kids is much better done in Finding Nemo, and this is really just an example of the sort of cr*p Nickelodeon airs. Drake and Josh is also awful - bad American kids' comedy is now becoming a big business. Steer clear of Spongebob completely - unless you are a small kid who has not come to realise the true brains in the TV industry.

The Americans may make better feature films than us Brits, but we do better comedy - the case being further proved by this (as well as the whole Nickelodeon channel) - the worst cartoon of the past decade. 1/10


Saw this with several people. Was recommended. But this movie was really not my thing at all. To really get into a movie like Serpent and the rainbow, I think the subject matter just has to be interesting to people to enjoy this, but even then, I think many will have problems because it is simply to hard to follow and many parts don't make any sense.

The movie both meanders along AND moves very quickly(if that makes sense at all), or that is how it seemed to me, not a lot is explained along the way. And though I really TRIED to like it, as it had been recommended to me, there were times it just bored me silly.(many times.) The movie moved way to slow and was quite dull in certain places. Half the time one does not know what's going on and the other half I just wanted to leave the theater for yet another trip to the popcorn area.

I doubt I'd have enjoyed this even if it had moved faster but at least it may have been involving for a time. I really didn't enjoy this at all and would not rate it above a 3 or so.Wish I'd liked it a bit more but unfortunately this is the rare movie that my friends' recommended that did absolutely nothing for me.


The Serpent and The Rainbow has many ups and downs, but unfortunately the bad parts of the movie outnumber the good parts. The theme of this movie from the very beginning is being buried alive. The movie is boring up until Dr. Allen starts dodging the cult leader. Dr. Allen is ambushed in the streets right after his friend is killed, he has the secret potion blown in his face, and stumbles on the streets whispering "don't bury me, I'm not dead", truely creepy. The anticipation builds every second after that because of what the director has shown us what happens to those who have been given the potion, and we fear for Dr. Allen. The climax of this movie is the middle, which isn't a good thing at all, and that's when he is proclaimed dead by the doctors, and is sent to be buried in the graveyard, the same thing we've seen in the beginning of the story, but it hasn't touched a character we care about yet.

The first half is boring and useless, it could have been cut down. The dream sequences were stupid and numerous. The middle was great, but quickly ruined by an end that might appear in the cheesiest action flick you have ever seen with idiotic one-liners, voodoo, and people flying across the room without dying.

Most people will not like this, film buffs need to avoid, but the average horror fan should see this just for the shocking experience of being buried alive.


(For the record this film is based upon a story by AAV Creative Unit)

Bad 1980's ninja film. Its so bad its funny-but not in a good way. The basic plot has a white ninja battling a dark ninja group because the bad ninjas want to take the land where they think their secret wealth was hidden after it was stolen many years earlier (this doesn't take into account the fact the bad ninjas kill the good ninja's wife because she can't tell them where he is). There's black magic and zombies...and the white guy ninja wears heavy eye make-up.

Oh,its awful. Bad fighting (you haven't lived until you see the ninja moves behind the candles), bad plot, worse acting, frighting music...and lets not talk about the dub. Its all horrible. And yes, its funny, oh how its funny, but for all the wrong reasons. Unfortunately,after twenty minutes the laughter begins to wane because the movie is just so bad it over whelms any unintentional humor.

Words fail me. This is just an awful movie. Funny or no, avoid this movie.


Having seen any number of bad movies, I can state that this is significantly better than most of them, and even better in part than movies not considered bad at all. However, in those aspects in which this movie is bad it is not merely bad, it is awful.

We have the usual formula of two-fisted hero (James Best), damsel in distress (Swedish Ingrid Goude), the damsel's mad-scientist father (non-Swedish Baruch Lumet), and the villain (Ken Curtis). The formula in this case is less clichéd than usual. The hero is fairly articulate and the mad scientist is actually quite urbane, tossing off his creation of hundreds of giant, poisonous, man-eating shrews with the line "unusual experiments lead to unusual results". The dialog is competently written and the acting is above par (with the exception of the Swedish eye-candy, who is at least good eye candy).

The general concept is compact and dramatically efficient: a group of people are trapped first by a hurricane and then by an outside menace in a stronghold which gets less and less strong as time, ammunition and group cohesion all grow short.

However the execution is at times illogical. One problem is that the stronghold is made out of...adobe. On a rainswept island crawling with usable timber? The thrilling conclusion is also somewhat implausible.

The main reason for the film's abysmal reputation is the legendary and quite obvious use of ordinary dogs in bathmats to play the part of giant shrews. I suppose this just has to be overlooked.

As a sidelight, it is interesting to see Dukes of Hazard sheriff James Best tall and handsome as the hero, and it is apparent that producer/villain Ken Curtis labored long and hard in the trenches before gaining fame as Festus.


I won't recount the plot - such as it is - of this campy classic, because several others have already done so. I'll just give a couple of reasons why it's SOOOO bad that it's hilarious ... which makes it good, or at least entertaining, in a perverse way. First, the "shrews" are quite obviously dogs wearing mop-like wigs and/or bathmats. Easily the worst "monsters" ever put on film. Second, it's clear that Ray Kellogg was on such a tight budget that they weren't going to waste film with reshoots no matter HOW badly a scene went. At one point, one of the actors obviously forgot his lines, so Ingrid Goude prompts him on-camera, saying "Aren't you wondering about my strange accent?" Truly a great moment in cheesy movie history!

Rated "straight" this movie gets about 2 points on a ten-point scale, just above the all- time stinkers like Plan 9 and Manos: Hands of Fate. As unintentional comedy, however, it's pretty entertaining and might rate 5/10.


James Best and his friend arrive by boat at a small island in front of a storm. The island is the home to a scientist and his assistants who are working on prolonging life but accidentally create a race of giant shrews(?). Interestingly enough, these shrews look pretty much like dogs with cheesy costumes when they are shown walking or running, and in closeups they resemble nothing from this planet--they are just too weird to explain. Although all this was really cheesy, what I thought was funniest was when people were holding normal shrews and playing with them, as in real life, shrews are insane and would have probably torn them to pieces. If you look closely, these are actually mice (and it's a good thing for the "actors").

This is one of 10 movies that come on a public domain DVD collection of horror films. Pretty much all the films stink, but at least this one is very watchable but bad--sort of like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. The campiness and silliness of the whole thing hooked my attention. The acting was generally pretty bad, though Best wasn't too bad. However, if you are NOT a fan of bad but fun movies, avoid the film--it certainly ISN'T Shakespeare!


Killer Shrews is bad, the script is bad, the acting is bad and the production values are very bad. The "killer shrews" are dogs. The dogs are wearing collars with what looked liked seaweed attached. The shews alone make it worth watching. Add to that all the other "Z" movie elements, and you have a classic turkey. While is does not sink to the subterranean levels of Plan 9 or Robot Monsters, it is still a must see for all loyal turkey fans. Try to catch it at a turkey film fest near you. Those shrews really do deserve to be seen on a full sized theater screen.


From the makers of "The Giant Gila Monster" comes this incredibly dull, pointless movie, filmed in rich grey and grey and starring James "Death Mask" Best, best known (and rightly so) as Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltraine on "The Dukes of Hazzard". In several small but pivital rolls are dogs with odd bits of fur stapled to them, playing the titular Killer Shrews.

Boy, this movie eats it. First the black guy gets chased up a tree and eaten. No one notices. Then the Mexican guy gets chomped on and dies in the basement. No one cares. Eventually, towards the end of the film, the Caucasian characters start to get it. The only way to tell the characters apart is from their differing degrees of loathsomeness. Oh, and one of them wears glasses.

All these people do is stand around in their depressing adobe hut and drink and drink and drink and drink. Eventually they weld some barrels together to make a goofy-looking tank to evade The Killer Dogs With Bathmats On Them. It's a trip of only a few yards, yet they have to stop to rest frequently. Why? All they did was drink!

The movie ends with Roscoe P. Coltraine threatening to impregnate a Swedish woman while her German father looks on. Fun!


'Kay, it's like this: the captain of a yacht delivers boxes of alcohol to some nerdy scientists on a remote island. They meet him with a gun and offer him a drink. A hurricane comes and the black guy gets killed by dogs wearing carpet coz he opted to hide from them up a sapling. Back in the house everyone's having a drink. Rosco threatens to leave, so they have a drink. The Swedish doctor's daughter starts crying, so he offers her a drink. They confess their big secret about 200-300 mutant killer shrews, which is really funny coz there's only about 5 carpet dogs on the island. Rosco accepts the story about the killer shrews, and everyone has a drink. The Mexican dude wakes up Rosco because one  only one  carpet dog got in through the window and went down into the cellar. He knows this because the window and cellar door were open.

Rosco and Mexican dude go down to exterminate it, but Mexican gets bitten. He dies as if poisoned, and the carpet dog's saliva is tested positive for the same poison they put out to poison the shrews with, which seemed to be as effective as breath mints. They test the Mexican dude's blood for poison as well. What the hell for? What else could have poisoned him? Could it be possible that he might have swallowed some arsenic or something while no-one was looking? I reckon the scientists just wanted to do an autopsy for the fun of it.

Rosco has another drink. A carpet dog gets in and poisons the nerdy scientist man who spends his last moments recording his physiological symptoms on his typewriter. Meanwhile the carpet dogs are eating through the walls George Romero-style. A carpet dog manages to chew a hole through the wall and poke his head through, and instead of covering the hole with the liquor cabinet or upending the typewriter table, Rosco covers the hole with a SOFA. The carpet dogs will NEVER chew through that.

The Swedish blonde girl, who dumped Jerry coz he is an alcoholic, starts falling in love with the sailor (frying pan, fire). Jerry resents this so he tries to kill Rosco when they go check out the yacht. Rosco almost chucks him over the wall. They start welding metal drums together. A carpet dog pokes his nose through some wooden shutters, so Rosco cleverly attacks him with the blowtorch, coz that won't cause problems when the house burns down. They use the drums like a big tank go get to the sea and swim to safety. The Swedish doctor talks about overpopulation, but Rosco tells him that he isn't worried about overpopulation at that point in time, then Rosco kisses the Swedish doctor's daughter.


With the exception of viewing the lovely Ingrid Goude (I believe she was a 'Miss Universe'), this movie is a bore. 'Killer Shrews' are actually dogs with fake fangs put on them, as far as I can tell.

Although the shrews are at times humorous, I find this film quite a snore. And sadly, it's done just a little too well to be an entertaining 'bad' film.

So it lingers in that limbo of movies that is ultimately forgettable.

I only have it in my collection, as I remember it from my childhood of watching various bad b horror movies on TV. I think Sir Graves Ghastly used to show this from time to time.

Not good and not horribly bad, this movie is strictly 'dullsville'.


Ray Kellogg made some pretty cheesy monster films in his collaboration with Ken Curtis. Granted, Kellogg and Curtis went on to do some better projects, but this film and Giant Gila Monster were pretty hammy. I wouldn't say it's the worst that I've seen, but it's definitely not good. The acting was OK (although at times the actors were inaudible). The budget as probably next to nothing and it shows. The shrews are either puppets or dogs dressed up to look like shrews. To add to this, they use the same damn "trapped on an island with killer mutants" plot that was in every other movie at that time.

Captain Sherman (James Best) and his trusty first mate are delivering supplies to a doctor on a remote island. The doctor, his daughter, two laboratory assistants (one engaged to his daughter) and a butler. They've also got a problem with giant shrews on the island. Eventually, the daughter and scientist start to tell the captain about what is going on, but not after the first mate becomes the shrews' dinner. The pace doesn't start to pick up for a while. For about five or six scenes the plot seems to revolve around the daughters' fiancée being jealous of the good captain and drinking heavily. As a matter of fact, the entire cast seems to have a weakness for the liquor (I guess if you're stranded in the middle of nowhere you've got to do something). The ending wasn't that much of a shock or deviation from the usual monster movie tripe.

I wouldn't say that this film is a waste of time though. It's bad, but definitely fits into the so bad it's good category. Besides, it was made in the 50s, so there has to be a certain amount of forgiveness for the cheesiness.


(Warning: I mention some parts of this film that make it so unique in the comments below)

Go ahead and laugh but somebody in Hollywood is going to do a remake of this thing and pull in a ton of money. And you know it'll all be politically correct and probably have a female lead. Yes, it'll star someone like Jennifer Lopez (I mention her name because her pretty face is in one of the Celeb Photos on this Web page) and the person who remakes it will probably marry her too!

SO GO AHEAD AND LAUGH ! Someone will remake this movie **, make a ton of money, buy and move into a hellacious house in Beverly Hills, make the rounds on the talk shows, and marry miss J.Lo. And as for you -- you'll just be some unknown smuck who'll pay to see it and then write an IMDb user comment on it like I...like...oh,well...NEVER MIND !!

** The following comments are assuming it's a good remake and not done by someone like Tim Burton.

And I read through the other user comments and some of you admit there's a halfway decent story in this B movie.

I remember after viewing this movie when I was a kid I always wondered where I would run if the Shrews came running after me. You know they're hungry vicious b******s ! You can't climb up a nearby tree, you saw what happened, they just nibble away on that. Forget trying to outrun them. Is there water near by? How long can you stay up on a roof? And what's the deal with the poisonous teeth?

I repeat, go ahead and laugh!

(Note: I'm basing the above comments on a movie I probably haven't seen since 1968. I never knew its name and it took a few minutes to locate it in IMDb via its search screens. I'm also surprised by the number of user comments this thing has written about it.)


This movie was bad. Really. However, I still enjoy watching it despite the cheap props, lousy story, very horrid acting.

Basically, James Best plays Captain Sherman who is stuck in a rut on an island. There he meets the mumbling Dr. Milo who baffles you through the whole film by not being able to say one comprehensible word of English. His great lines include, "Let me fleschen your drink", "Life sucks", and "The shoes got into the barn." He does some experiment and the results are killer shrews (dogs with shaggy wool coats). Add his dimwit daughter Ann who frets around mostly and screams.

Don't get me wrong, but this cast party must've been a blast! This film could also have been called, "Drink Booze" since almost every other scene involves people drinking. Ken Curtis plays drunk comic relief Jerry who sloshes, mumbles, and stumbles around . Add Steve Allen fan Dr. Radford (Bathroom??) and Mario and Griswold who plays the best Dixieland jazz!

Don't miss the exciting Shrew escape scene. Comedy all around in this Jurassic Bark of a film.


Few things can be quite so entertaining as a bad 1950s horror movie. Then again, few things can be quite so paralyzing. The 1959 THE KILLER SHREWS is a bit of both, at time excruciatingly funny, at times, well, just plain excruciating.

The story, such as it is, concerns a the captain of a small supply ship (James Best) who finds himself stranded on an island with a few nutty scientists, a blonde bombshell, and a bunch of dogs dressed up like killer shrews. They're all hankering to get away, of course, but wouldn't you know it, there's a hurricane a-blowing. While they wait for the weather to settle they drink a lot and worry about the dogs, er, shrews, which are trying to gnaw their way inside for lunch.

It's hard to say what is more abominable about this film: the story, the script, or the human cast. On the other hand, the costumed canine cast is actually quite a bit of fun. Love those tails in particular! Even so, I still found the sixty-nine minutes of this film rough going. I mean, really, now: just how long can YOU be amused by dog costumes? Fans of this sort of thing will be impressed, but I was glad the DVD was inexpensive. The Alpha release seems to be the most commonly available; the picture isn't bad, but the sound is lousy. I give the whole thing three stars for the sake of fans, but I doubt I'll make any return trips to Shrew Island.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer


A tough rough sea captain named Thorne Sherman (James Best), love interest Ann Craigis (Ingrid Goude), hot-headed boyfriend Jerry (Ken Curtis), two scientists and a token black and token Latino guy are stuck on an island during a hurricane with large killer shrews running loose. The scientists developed them to deal with overpopulation (!!!) but they escaped. There is a boat offshore...but how will they get to it with the shrews running around? You won't really care.

Pretty silly with a stupid script (come on--large killer shrews???) and laughable dialogue. The shrews themselves look like what they are--either puppets or dogs with extra fur on them and fake fangs. Nothing is shown when the shrews attack someone and the first ones to die are (of course) the black guy then the Latino. If this were a good movie I would find that offensive. The sets are cheap (it shows) and the ending is howlingly bad.

Acting isn't that good. Best is terrible--he just stands around with a blank look on his face and yells orders. Goude is certainly beautiful but no actress. She tries but it's no go. However her wavering Swedish accent was amusing. Curtis is stuck with the stock villain role and he's not half bad. Everybody else are stuck in clichéd roles and play them out as best as they can.

This played constantly on a local TV station back in the 1970s. I was in high school then and thought it was silly but fun. Now it comes across as VERY silly and more than a little campy. If you're in the mood you might enjoy this for laughs. Otherwise stay far away.


Horrible fifties scare film starring mutant rodents gone bad, apparently Molemen and Giant Mantis weren't bad enough to scare folks. These shrews are nothing but greyhounds with poorly made costumes. The film is chalk full of racial stereotypes,bad special effects, and lacks any bit of sense. Out of all the creatures to experiment on why shrews? Our Swedish scientist tries to make the creatures sound deadly by assuring us that they will eat three times their body wait. The fake shrews weren't the worst part of the movie in my opinion. There is subtle racism at every corner. Our captain has an Uncle Tom African American counterpart and there is a helpful Mexican stereotype named Mario to assist our heroes. You know I never realized how influential Duane Jones performance in Night of the Living Dead was until I saw this piece of trash. Rent only if you want to turn off your brain for an hour or so. Works better as a comedy than a scare-film.


After delivering supplies to a desolate but inhabited island, Captain Thorne Sherman (James Best) wisely decides that with a threatening hurricane about to make landfall, it would make sense to stick around at least for one night until things blow over. However Dr. Marlowe Craigis (Baruch Lumet) and his daughter Ann (Ingrid Goude) seem intent on the Captain sailing, an ominous feeling in the air punctuated by an effective musical score. It won't be long before we learn that the island is home to a science experiment gone wrong, giant mutant shrews with grisly fangs and covered with dreadlocks running amok on the island. They run free because the alcoholic assistant to the doctor left a door open by which a few of the creatures made their escape, and with their prolific reproductive prowess, have turned into a couple hundred ravenous killer shrews.

This film is not so much bad as silly, almost as if the story was made up on the fly by giving each actor a piece of the puzzle and then telling them to wing it to see what happens. This is never more apparent than in the survivors' getaway using overturned metal oil drums strapped together to shuffle their way down to the captain's boat. It struck me as quite convenient that the scientific arsenal on the island included welding equipment just when it was needed.

The film overdoses on a lot of goofy close up shots of hideous fangs and eyeballs peering through holes in the wall. Speaking of which, the joint the good doctor and his staff inhabited was a venerable piece of architecture. At one point it was mentioned that the walls were made of adobe, so biting their way through at will was not really a problem for the "shrews". The animals themselves more closely resembled African jackals to my mind, canine in appearance with the aforementioned fangs and hair gone wrong problem. To add a touch more menace, their mutation included a high degree of poison in their saliva, so the mere break of skin meant you were a goner - nice touch!

Some otherwise fairly respectable character actors got mixed up in this turkey of a movie; James Best appeared at least once in virtually every TV Western of the 1950's and 60's. I always thought he had just the right look for beach movies as the hustling wise guy. Handling double duty as producer, Ken Curtis portrayed drunken Jerry Farrell, responsible for the escaped shrews in the first place. You just knew he was going to get his before it was all over. Funny, but he looked much more appealing as the bearded drawling deputy Festus Hagen on "Gunsmoke".

Hey, it's got excitement, it's got drama, it's got fun, it's got killer shrews! You owe yourself a screening if for nothing more than to see how far we've come with movie making technology. In fact, treat yourself to a double feature as intended by the Texas film company that produced this saga, you can do worse than a double header of "The Killer Shrews" and "The Giant Gila Monster"!


HAUNTING DESIRES (2 outta 5 stars) I don't even know why they bother with these "softcore" things. People who are into porn don't like them because they don't "show anything" and people are *aren't* into porn are going to be bored out of their minds. No stars, bad acting, bad dialogue, cheap sets and costumes and a bunch of writhing, naked bodies (with no reproductive organs in sight) every ten minutes. In any case... I *did* find some entertainment value in this... the movie is actually one of those rare flicks that is *so* bad that it's actually funny. The ending especially is a hoot! Cheesy special effects mixed with a jaw-droppingly ridiculous plot twist! Spunky newspaper columnist teams up with a grumpy detective to solve a series of vampire murders linked to a late night sex club. The lead male characters' performances are so awful that you'll be shaking your head in amazement. Detective Trout (Jay Richardson) resembles comedian Jay Thomas with all the talent bled out of him. Checking his bio on IMDb you will discover that this is far from his first movie... he's been in dozens! How does someone this bad keep getting work? I mean, he must be cheap... but still! The dude playing the "seductive" vampire leader (Evan Stone) looks like a cross between Fabio and Quentin Tarantino... and he speaks his lines in a garbled whisper so that you can never tell what the heck he is actually saying. That's just as well since all the dialogue form this movie seems to be stolen from other, better movies and TV shows. Lead "actress" Beverly Lynn is actually pretty good compared to most actresses in these kinds of movies... plus she's easy on the eyes, even in the scenes where she's clothed. She'd probably stick out like a sore thumb in a movie with real actors but, for what it's worth, she does a good job here.


Many a B-movie fan blame Jim Wynorski, David DeCoteau and this film's director, Fred Olen Ray (using the alias "Nicholas Medina"), for turning the low-budget horror industry into one big, dull, plot less soft-core sex romp. All three have some enjoyable flicks under their belt, but this one's unfortunately a prime example of their detractors' gripe; a vampire movie with awful acting, lame writing and a tired, boring plot about bloodsuckers working out of a strip club. Beverly Lynne, a short-haired blonde who used to be a pro football cheerleader and frequently acts in these things, is Jill, a struggling reporter for "Crime Beat" magazine. She goes undercover in the club to investigate a murder. Jay Richardson virtually replays his 'Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers' part as an aged detective who calls everyone around him "kid." The owner of the exclusive "Underground" strip club is played by long-haired porn actor Evan Stone, who proves he's an old-fashioned kind of vampire by keeping his pants on during his sex scenes. He talks softly, wears a frilly shirt, mascara and black fingernail polish, is seen for about two seconds as a winged monster, claims to be two-thousand years old and presides over a live sex show where everyone wears masks. One evening, he shows up at Jill's place and tells her to "give into the darkness," which results in an aerobic sex romp that seems more like a professional wrestling bout than a piece of erotica. Jill is bit (on her breast), but never becomes a vampire.

There are at least half a dozen time-devouring topless strip sequences and just as many sex scenes. We also get some S&M, a threesome, two token lesbian scenes, some awful computer effects (the slow-motion bullet is hilarious) and typical Ray movie in-jokes. The ending is as mundane as they get. I've also seen enough of these things by now to recognize that the music itself was even reused scores from 'Haunting Fear' and 'Sorceress.' The composer of those scores is a guy be the name of Chuck Cirino, who has been contributing great, catchy theme music to B films for twenty years and deserves some recognition for it. He's given a "special thanks" in the end credits, along with Gail Harris (the great star of Wynorski's 'Hard to Die' and 'Sorority House Massacre II'), Skye Blue, Richard Gabai and George Stover.


Whenever I watch a porno I'm used to seeing good looking guys and hot women. Well when I turned on my Dirrect TV sat box and saw that show I read the description and it looked good. It said that a woman falls for a vampire so I was possibly thinking something along the lines of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Boy was I freaking wrong. There was a hot woman in it. But the guy looked like the Ass End of a dolphin I mean this guy looks more like he would be good at working in the meat department of your local grocery store. Than there was a old man. YOU NEVER HAVE A OLD MAN IN A PORNO ITS LIKE A BIG NO NO. This movie was a joke from the opening credits to the very end all I can say is that they got it right when they picked the lead actress. She ain't no Nikki Fritz, Jenna Jameson or Brinna Banks but she gets the job done. My vote for this movie?

1/10


This flick was terrible, the only thing that I found haunting was this troll looking Fabio wanna be vampire that looked like he had a very bad face lift and terrible sex moves try to seduce a female into becoming one of his kind.

One of those low budget soft porn horror flicks which seems to be the norm in todays horror films really bores me to tears. This one isn't even erotic enough to be porn or horror. And the ending was even more terrible than the film itself. The leading lady suspects that her husband is cheating on her and ends up in a nightclub which provides entertainment such as lesbian acts, domination and live sex acts (all of which are so lame not even the cheapest porn star would do a better job) ends up talking to this weird vampire that tries to cater to her "hidden" desires by seducing her into lesbian stage dancing and making love to him. She is accompanied by a detective that happens to be trying to catch this vampire and is also lured into his cult of perverts. The detective is what spoils the movie; his acting is lame, his character is useless and his part in the ending was beyond laughable. Avoid this one.


Despite a very good cast and a clever idea, this film never happened. The acting was good but the director was self-indulgent with his filming technique.

The film was slow and built no tension, and by time Nick Nolte arrived, the film had already died on its backside. The film wasted time on juvenile political discussion. I literally thought that the American boy would accuse the French girl as being a cheese eating surrender monkey, but of course they just fall in love! Every single role was unoriginal from John Turtoro's poetry reading psycho to Juliet Binoche's cool french spy. Given such an important political possibility, the film said absolutely nothing.


"Quelques Jours en Septembre" is a very ambitious first film for Argentinian author Santiago Amigorena and it shows. Given a relatively big budget (by European independent standards) and a cast to die for, Amigorena squanders it all from the beginning.

September 5th 2001, a French secret agent, Irène Montano, is contacted by a one time American colleague, Elliot, and asked to bring his daughter to meet him in Paris. However when Elliot's secret American son and a dangerous hit-man, John Turturro, show up the meeting is canceled. Irène quickly learns that Elliot has secret information concerning imminent events in the US. The meeting is rescheduled for September 10th in Venice. Irène and Elliot's children head to Venice with William Pound in toe for a showdown with Elliot.

Amigorena's film is curiously lacking suspense. It is one of the least thrilling thrillers I have ever come across. The link with September 11th 2001 is an intriguing idea, but it gets bogged down and ultimately lost in the poorly developed narrative. But worse than that is the empty feeling the 2 major set-pieces leave.

The first involves the abandoned Paris meeting when William Pound arrives at the hotel to surprise Irène and Elliot. This should be edge of the seat stuff and set up the entire picture, however Amigorena fails to engage the audience with flabby editing and too many close-up shots. High jinx this ain't.

The second major set-piece is the final showdown between Irène and Pound. This is even worse. The director completely fails to make it thrilling and leaves the film with a flat hung-over feeling.

In between we are given a mixture of thriller and comedy with an odd family drama thrown in as Irène and Elliot's children try to meet up with the elusive American spy. The films few strong points can be found in these sections.

As played by Juliette Binoche, Irène is an interesting character in search of a better film. We learn that she was a French secret agent involved in Middle-Eastern activities in the early 1990s. Now she has an office job, or as she puts it she is a spy teacher.

It is refreshing to see a female character in this sort of film who is every bit as tough and interesting as a male counterpoint. Binoche grabs the role with both hands and is very different to her usual persona. Sadly she is let down by the script which actually has her making duck and sheep noises at one point and having a pillow fight in another. But when she is shown at work as a secret agent, gun in hand, she is compelling.

As William Pound John Turturro is undermined by the script. The character is entirely ridiculous. An assassin who phones his analyst after killing someone and who quotes Homer as he cleans his bloodied knife after garroting an Italian agent. It comes across as utterly ridiculous and too far out to be an interesting or powerful nemesis for Irène. Why he is so hell bent on getting Elliot is never properly explored.

As Elliot Nick Nolte has a few scenes at the end. He does add some gravitas to the film and embodies the enigma of Elliot the film has created, but alas it is too much too late.

The technical specs of the film are first rate, with DP Christophe Beaucarne doing top work with the visuals. Paris is a neon lit rain soaked city, while Venice is filmed from an intimate, non picture postcard point of view. The film often blurs in and out of focus, a visual trope of Irène's eyesight minus her spectacle, but also a metaphor for the blurred reality of international terrorism and the involvement of US and European secret services.

In the end "Quelques Jours en Spetembre" has very little to recommend it. A film that had the potential and cast to be something special is not realized on any level and Amigorena fails to put a distinctive directorial mark on this disordered hodge-podge.

The film ends on a breaking news report from New York city on the morning of September 11th. What Irène did next I suspect would have made a far more interesting few days in September than those we witnessed from the 5th to that fateful day in 2001.


I don't understand why a few people are raving about aspects of this movie - are they related to the film in some way perhaps? - because I really wanted to like this after everything I've heard, my love of French cinema, and the fact that John Turturro is one of the best actors out there. I won't give away any spoilers, but frankly, don't bother. I'm not sure who coined the description "thriller" for this but it ain't. And frankly there's nothing else in the movie to redeem it, everything gets at best nine out of ten. The actors turn in performances that they were asked to do - you can't really fault them here - but the director's pointlessly obsessive playing around with the focus is at best irritating, but mostly just tiresome. The word "dilettante" springs to mind. There isn't anything to "get" here that you might think you're missing, and anyone who puts this in the same category as Pulp Fiction or any other movie with a semblance of action, humour or even a decent narrative, doesn't know what they're talking about. Even the romance isn't worked properly. Sorry to disappoint, it's always a good thing for somebody's pet project to reach the screen, particularly a serious French attempt at grabbing an international audience, but this movie is ruled by a director who needs a tougher producer and an editor who has the capacity to say "no" more often.


In short: This is a very arrogant and unsuccessful attempt to be another Jean-Luc Godard, Ingmar Bergman, or Hector Babenco.

This movie was terrible. And, I do not dislike this movie solely because of the rampant anti-Americanism.

I also dislike this movie on its movie qualities.

Let's start with acting. Tom Riley as "David" was so completely ridiculous in his role. Here is a young man who goes to Paris to meet his father, is confronted by two people he doesn't know, has two guns drawn at him ready to fire, is subsequently told his father had a secret family in France and Sara Forestier ("Orlando") is his half-sister he never knew about. He sees a dead body, dripping of fresh blood, of the concierge while exiting the Paris hotel, and is now in fear for his life. Or he should be. How many 25-30 year olds (I'm guessing that's the character's age bracket) have seen a murdered body, especially in his demographics as a middle class white male? I mean how many of us have seen a murdered body ever? Or have had loaded guns in our faces? Or told about their dear father's second secret family that you never knew about? And this all happened within hours.

But how does Riley's "David" react? Like he stepped out of a shampoo-commercial - he's cooking fine cuisines, making jokes about cell phones and wanting to visit the Eiffel Tower? Either Amigorena thinks American characters cannot practice deep retrospection and emotion or Riley is really one of the most horrible movie actor's I've seen in a while.

The Direction . . . So self-indulgent. So "look at me". So "I can be so deep". It really was pathetic. The most pathetic, self-indulgent scene was one of the last where Juliette Binoche and John Turturro or "Irene Montan" and "William Pound" have the last gun-fight. In slow-motion with the sound turned off, the camera pans outside where we only see blasts of light every second and a half. Give me a break. That was such a ridiculous scene that the other people in the theater were laughing out loud.

The Writing . . . Is this a caper film? Is this a spy film? Or is this - a French romance? The brother and sister (well sort of) begin a romantic interlude because deep films have love scenes -- right? This guy is so deeped out, man. Such a ridiculous attempt to be better than anything ever filmed. Such arrogance in his film-making.

There was one part of the film which had humor and kind of worked. After Turturro ("Pound") would kill someone or come close he'd immediately get his psychiatrist on the phone. That was a little funny, and possibly more should have been done with this area.


A Cliché wrapped in an Amateur swallowed by a Poseur. ...The "laughter" of a sophisticated Binoche when a banality is uttered. ...The inexperienced director telling or allowing Reilly to play cute. ...The Reilly character not doing or saying anything in the presence of a person who plans on killing the 'father' he loves. .....Turturro embarrassing himself with the poetry bit (well, he does have a right to earn a living). .....Poor Nolte allowing himself to be photographed without heavy diffusion lenses. ....."Sincere" Nolte playing a beseeching scene with his daughter proving to the viewer that he's a sociopath. .....Clever Turturro being able to smuggle a huge cache of guns, ammo and a ton of sophisticated electronic equipment from France to Italy. .....The young girl, a geese shepherd, with a surprising knowledge of revolver and semi-automatic pistol use. .....Gee. The two kids go from her being hostile to him and then having sex. But millionaires to be, they talk about spending the rest of their lives together! ..... Also: what are we to say about the writer/director whore using 9-11 as a hook? And so on, ad-nauseum. I ask you: how does swill like this get produced?


There isn't much new I can add about this film. Take everything negative from the other reviewers and multiply it by ten. Whichever angle I look at it from (script, camera, acting, story, etc.), I can't say anything positive about it. The most incredible thing is that JB took on this role! What was she thinking!? Perhaps a new title "Die ALREADY!" would help. If you like art-house, DON'T watch this movie. If you DON'T like art-house, definitely give it a miss. The Teletubbies have more substance than this fart-house production. You've been warned. Go and have a root-canal procedure instead - it will be a pleasant experience in comparison.


Forget the obvious sources of annoyance: the fat and ugly girl, Binoche's toothless simpers and cigarillos, impossible characters, absurd pomposity passing for dialog, obsession with incest, plot holes, cookie-cutter stereotypes, annoying camera-work, poor direction, lame actingthe worst part of this film is the premise, which is that the older generation, in the form of a dynamic and responsible French-American duo, will teach the younger generation, in the form of a passive and irresponsible French-American duo, to get along. As if.

They want me to write some more. I will. Don't waste your time on this tripe. The whole movie I was just hoping for the characters to die.


Other than good performances from Juliette Binoche, Sara Forestier and the likable newcomer Tom Riley, this movie doesn't have much to recommend it. Aiming to be a "metaphoric" spy movie about the evils of secrecy and the wounds of childhood, the film fails for having plot devices instead of characters and a sloppy, unconvincing direction, resulting in an overall bore. We are also treated with highly annoying anti-American propaganda. Nick Nolte pops up in the last ten minutes like a poor man's Colonel Kurtz but his appearance comes too late to wake up the movie. For works playing successfully playing with the thriller genre, try some of Paul Austers'books or Wim Wenders'earlier films instead. Skip this one.


Routine Bette Davis and George Brent film devoted to two reporters, who love each other but work for rival papers, trying to scoop each other on a murder story. Davis becomes very good at searching for clues but Brent is in it to bag the story while getting the news before Garfield. (Davis)

As the film goes on, Davis acts as if she is one of her usual no nonsense broad. Rosalind Russell would have been far better for the role; although, Davis does an adequate job as well as Brent.

Roscoe Karns provides some funny comic relief as the photographer caught up in mayhem as well.

J. Carrol Naish is wasted as the brother of the eventual murderer.

This picture probably formed the basis for films such as "His Girl Friday" and reminds me of "The Front Page."