I'm not sure why I was asked to watch this film, but I don't think I will ever watch it again. At least, one can always hope. It was recommended to me by a young man who freely admits he could not stand it despite his love for George Clooney.

We have George Clooney as a psychologist who must go into space to examine members a of a space crew orbiting the planet of Solaris. Most of the crew is dead and then his dead wife appears. The remainder of the film seems to revolve around flashbacks of his wife, which are boring and seem to go nowhere. A great actor like Clooney and with the creative genius of Steven Soderbergh? How do we get this level of horse apples? I also want to mention George Clooney's tush. Because this film has the tush roughly three times. And while I respect Clooney for adding to the realism, I'm very sorry for the Clooney admirers who have to sit through this just to see a firm, shaved tush.

But seriously, I should have known this film was a dud as soon as Corey Feldman showed up. In his first scene, he's listening to Insane Clown Posse (Because obviously in the future everyone loves rapping clowns). And throughout the film, he acts like a lunatic with wild gestures. It looks exactly like David Duchovny's impression of Jeff Goldblum from Saturday Night Live's "Celebrity Jeopardy". Only in this film, Feldman is supposed to be serious.

If you want to watch this film, promise to let me know how you liked it because I would rather not have suffered alone.

(You should also be aware this film a is a remake of an older film with much higher ratings.)


This comment is on behalf of everyone who has watched Soderbergh's "Solaris", didn't like it and were told they didn't like it because they haven't read the book or seen the original.

I have not read the book or seen the original, and I didn't like it. A movie, even one intended to provoke thought and debate, shouldn't rely on its basis for enjoyment. I had never read Clockwork Orange, a Batman comic or Ring, but I enjoyed all those movies a great deal.

It must be said that the ideologies presented in this film were immense. The notions of regret, second chances and fear of the unknown were skillfully put forward, especially the philosophy that a physical manifestation of an object or being, no matter how accurate, isn't necessarily the object it represents. Rheya questioning this and Chris' refusal to debate it due to his scientific values was the highlight. Unfortunately, outside of this scene, Solaris lacks anything. Character, progression and empathy. Chris is almost emotionless and this renders his character (a low point for Clooney) isolated from empathy. There is no spark between him and the audience. Rheya is dull and undesirable, hence uncomfortable to watch for too long. There is no standout performance in Solaris. The idea of regret and second chance in a science fiction film (the deepest and most thought provoking genre) seems dangerously trivial in comparison to values in Bladerunner, 2001, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers among others. Overall, Solaris is a huge disappointment. There is no climax and the film is far too slow moving to incite any interest. The values and debates are terrific, it is just a shame that there isn't a great narrative or performance to go with them.


No spoilers, It is hard to spoil something that is already rotten.

All I could think is. "Wow, I bet George regrets doing this one." I am generally a fan of George Clooney, in fact O Brother, Where Art Thou? has got to be one of my favorite movies of all time and Oceans 11 was an entertaining movie by the same Director/Actor, But this flick stunk.

I would comment more on the movie but it wasn't really memorable.


What the hell was THAT all about? That HAD to be the most DISJOINTED, UNEXCITING, SORRY excuse for a movie that I've seen in a long time. I understand the concept, and I actually believe in another plane of existence. But this movie did nothing to bolster those beliefs. Actually, I'm not REALLY sure WHAT the movie was trying to tell us, except that sometimes you just have to let GO! JEEZ! I thought George Clooney was acceptably attractive, and LOVED the character of Snow. Very quirky, ala Dennis Hopper in Apocolypse Now. But WOW! Enough's enough already. Bottom line . . . BORING!


I really, really wanted to like Julian Po. I think that Slater is underrated as an actor, and that many of the supporting players here are better than they are given a chance to demonstrate in this film. I realize this is based on a short story which I have not read. So, I do not know if what I see as the film's faults originated with the story, or were imposed on it by the director/screenwriter. The premise is wonderful, and I loved the voiceover, confessional tone the opening narration strikes. But then...? Nothing! Several of the cliched local characters ask Julian pointblank to explain his intention to commit suicide. One could argue that he doesn't answer, because it's none of their business. But Julian is the one who, under only token pressure, blurted out his intentions in public. Then neither Julian nor the director/writer, despite the fact that the Julian character is keeping a tape recorded journal for God's sake, seem inclined to provide anything beyond the scant initial information on Julian's life. He says he was a bookkeeper. He says his family moved around when he was a child, due to his father's job. So what? There are several interactions with the locals which seem designed to illuminate Julian's purpose. But none of them go anywhere, because Julian seems to regard all these dopey locals as if they were aliens from another planet, as if he were the ultimate (and only) sane one among them. This might work as an allegory, if Julian Po had any defining characteristics or anything approaching wisdom to impart. The closest he comes to revealing anything about himself is in the scene in which he purposely humiliates the naive, religious wife of the mechanic. And what this scene reveals is not anything that would inspire empathy for Julian. I can only see the Julian character --as rendered--as selfish, petty, and totally condescending. Sort of matches the attitude of the director of this half-baked, contrived film. And poor Michael Parks, an actor who once had so much promise, is given nothing to work with here.


Quirky, independent, theatrical, Christian Slater--these are all teasers that made me look forward to spending an hour or so "discovering" a jewel of a film. Boy, was I disappointed. Julian Po never gets over itself. The film is relentlessly self-conscious. I found myself unable to suspend disbelief for even a moment. The overdone, obviously theatrical sets, the overdone, obviously theatrical acting, the overdone, obviously theatrical directing -- well, you get the idea.

Allegories do not need to be delivered sledge hammer style. And it's hard to feel much of anything for Julian Po because we never know much about him. The ridiculous girlfriend, the annoying townsfolk, the idiotic clergyman, the bratty kids -- why would anyone, particularly anyone with a life long ambition to get to the seaside (Slater's character), decide to stay in such a dismal place?


The beginning of this movie was good. It started to get really dumb after he told the people he wanted to kill himself. I think if I came from a little town like that I would be offended after seeing this movie. They made a lot of these people look dumb and crazy. How could these people have so little to do that they follow him around all day. A lot of times these people were telling him ways to kill himself like they were urging him to do it. How can so many people have little respect for other people? I also think they could have made a much better ending for this movie. There were some good parts to this movie also. Some people might like it, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.


Undernourished costume drama from writer Hugh Leonard and director John Irvin, with Natasha Richardson playing pretty war widow from 1920s England who comes to gossip-laden town in Ireland and gets on the wrong side of a surly spinster (Mia Farrow, looking wrung-out). This small Irish village is beset with the usual gaggle of hot-headed supporting characters, all sounding off on cue as if they were on stage. Poor in nearly every department: the color photography is bad, the twist at the finish is outlandish, and the handling is skittish and lumpy. One can only imagine the team of Merchant-Ivory expanding the central idea of this piece, giving that final twist a few more screws and applying more gloss and luster to the production. Alas, that panache just isn't present. *1/2 from ****


Widow's Peak is a sugar coated predictable girls' movie that did not motivate or excite me in the least. I just sat and kind of stared at the screen until it was done. I guess it did have its moments in humor, but I'm a guy and I need more action.


This is a mediocre film about fairies. While the history and nostalgia about fairies is, perhaps, somewhat interesting, there is never any rational argument used to justify their existence. Basically this is a fluffy representation of fairies whose only proof is a variety of photogenic sceneries and not so photogenic nutbars who are obviously deluding themselves. No reasonable person could honestly watch this and conclude anything but it was barking mad. Just because their are interesting hills and trees does not mean fairies exist. Shame on this filmmaker. Perhaps next time he will interview at least one skeptic or scientist who has an education beyond 3rd grade.


Just when you think we're coming out of the Dark Ages, along comes a film like this one ready to fling us back about 500 years or so.

I like fairies. What's not to like about fairies - delightful, imaginary, little creatures with wings. Not in this film they aren't.

The revelation of the past history of fairies as being malignant creatures of darkness and evil is interesting, and the scenery of Scotland and Ireland looks enchanted enough to really contain fairies.

But then the film wanders off into the weeds of ridiculousness, as we meet present day people who straight-facedly claim to have seen the little people. Yes, these people believe in fairies.

There is even a scene in a schoolroom where an adult visitor encourages the boys and girls to believe that fairies are quite real. I don't think that is what education is all about. We should be teaching children the truth about things not leading them back into superstition and nonsense. I personally was outraged that something like that was allowed.

I gave it 4 stars out of 10, only because the scenery is fantastic, and so is some of the artwork depicting fairies and other such creatures, but the position the film takes on this subject is all wrong otherwise.


I can't decide if I was more disappointed in the acting, the casting, the script, or the directing. Let's begin with the audio... much of the whispered dialogue is way too soft to be understood, making it difficult to understand and appreciate... this happened time and time again. The plot... for someone knowing very little about the history, there was insufficient development to make it clearly understood how Lady Jane became queen. Character development... there was very little; there seemed to be a severe lack of depth in defining the characters' personalities and not surprisingly a great lack of ability on the part of the actors to bring out anything but the most superficial qualities of their characters. The acting seemed contrived (example is the scene when Jane is being spanked... the crying is so fake). The directing/production... it seems as if nearly every scene ends without a climax... the pauses beteween dialogue exchanges are awkward; the scenes seem to jump from one to the other without flow. The script is mundane, boring... an example would be the scene where Jane and her husband are breaking the glasses "it is done" over and over with no sense of build or progression or climax. Ah, the music... alternating between something of a 15th century feel and then 20th century romantic fluff. I can only say that I wish I had that 2 hours of my life back.


I just watched this film for the first time after recording it recently on the Sleuth channel. Some years ago, there were two much better productions where the "real" Holmes was brought back in the modern world and both of these TV movies had much better quality scripts, both for good drama and for humor.

The key in the good Holmes stories are the many times Holmes astounds us with keen observations. Here, these observations really were elementary. Almost every clue he uncovered was painfully obvious to anyone. A key turning point involved the bad guy using an old plot in one of the original stories and it was so obvious I was calling it out to my wife before Holmes even started to recognize the same thing.

More troubling was the way Hagman's character believed he was Holmes, yet he wasn't troubled by the fact that his friend Watson was now a female, nor that his flat at 221 B Baker Street was now in Los Angeles. If he thinks he's THE Sherlock Holmes, than he ought to want to return to London. Or, at least NOT be expecting his old apartment to be in Los Angeles. The script was full of illogical matters like this, which rather kept it from being all that funny to me.

Another big hole-- (Here's my big spoiler, partially disguised) Someone in a courtroom scene sets off a smoke bomb, then slips into a bailiff's uniform to shoot someone. He was counting on witnesses claiming "The bailiff shot the man." How could he count on them seeing the bailiff's uniform clearly enough, but not seeing his own face through the smoke? If you can see the TV film "Return of Sherlock Holmes", you'll find it ten times as interesting and funny, with far fewer holes in the way the plot unfolds.


A movie that is truly a blemish on Bollywood. I saw it on the next day I saw "Gulaam" on TV. I kept wondering as to what prompted Vikram Bhatt to make a movie that made no sense at all. The opening sequence are straight rip-off from "Matrix" and "Crouching Tiger....". Once that is over, the picture takes turn for worse. The story line makes no sense, none of the actors seems to committed to the movie, comedy is crude and vulgar, music is torture to ears, and one can't help shutting of the VCR. I wonder what trash is imposed these days in name of entertainment.


Right from the first line you know that you are in for a bad experience.

The acting in this movie is truly awful and it beggars belief how the people responsible for this disaster could allow such bad delivery of lines.

There's a surprise just before the opening credits that should give you an idea of whether or not you are going to enjoy this film. I won't spoil it for you, except to say that I laughed out loud where I should have been shocked, thrilled or perhaps scared.

The overall movie felt home made and the kids left the room to play after 20 minutes of the most tedious 'action' Avoid this movie if at all possible - it's dull, poorly acted and you don't even want to KNOW about the 'swashbuckling sword fights'!!


I am eternally grateful to the people who wrote scathing reviews of The Pirates of Treasure Island--it allowed my son and I to actually enjoy it and not want our $4.99 back. I rented it thinking it was another version of the Stevenson classic (also, Pirates of the Caribbean was not available). Had I simply turned it on, I probably would have sent the remote through the screen. The acting is absolutely atrocious--it is almost as if the "actors" are TRYING to come across as being annoyingly amateur. Like others, however, I did enjoy Lance Hendriksen as Long John Silver, although his infamous handicap is conspicuously missing. The sci-fi inclusions are cute, as long as you know they are there. The plot follows the Treasure Island storyline ultra-loosely to a point where the title would have been better off being "The Pirates of Let's-Make-People-Think-it's-Like-'The Pirates of the Caribbean'-and-'Treasure Island'". Honestly, I don't think I have ever watched a movie that received such a low IMDb rating (1.7!!), but after reading people's comments I was able to reduce my expectations to near-nothing and have a good time. Thanks again!


Granted, this movie is so monumentally bad, that there isn't a negative review out there that is negative enough to be able to actually capture how horribly bad this movie really is. However, I'm going to make an observation and say that there must have been two conflicting parties involved in the making of this movie and they never really communicated at all during the entire film-making process. Either that or the editor hated both parties and decided to try and end everyone's careers all at once.

If you are in such a dire need to see a pirate movie because Pirates of the Caribbean is no longer doing it for you, and you find yourself desperate enough to rent probably the worst pirate movie ever made, by all means, rent this movie, but do yourself a favor and watch the version with the commentary with the director (who plays a small part in the movie and actually does a decent job at it) and some other guy. I think it was one of the PA's. I'm not quite sure. I just know the guy had like five small parts in the movie.

First of all, having no dialogue only makes the movie better. Trust me. The two guys talking on the commentary track are hilarious! This seriously could've been another episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The weird thing is that the movie you are seeing with the commentary is almost a completely different movie. It actually looks better then the actual movie! When I say 'better,' that term is relative. Whoever decided to cast the blond girl as the part of the pirate who had killed 17 men and was supposed to look like a boy, must have been doing some serious hallucinogens at the time because this girl was so bad, she was the epitome of the word 'suck.' She was honestly the worst thing about the whole movie. Even worse then the Tom Cruise wannabe costar who was also horribly bad. If they had cast the brunette with the curly hair and the French accent (who actually had some decent acting chops and was much more interesting to look at) to play the blond girl's part, the movie would have definitely been a little more salvageable.

I think it's obvious that this movie was intended to be a spoof on the pirate genre, only somewhere down the line, someone decided to make it a serious film, which was a really bad idea. The cinematography was excellent for the most part. The editing was horrible. The acting was also horrible, with exceptions of a few small performances. The story could have worked for a spoof movie, but definitely not as an action-drama. Finally, if you're looking to find a good performance out of Lance Henricksen, don't think for a second you're going to get one here. I seriously feel bad for the guy. You can almost see in his eyes how depressed he must have been after doing films such as Dog Day Afternoon and Aliens to subject himself to this kind of ungodly poop.


Ten lines minimum, eh. I'm not sure I can get ten lines worth of commentary on this one. The only thing that even makes sense as to how funding can be obtained for such a debacle is that it was intended to be a money losing project to bilk investors. (a la "The Producers" storyline) If that is indeed the intent (and it's probably painfully obvious to those in the know) then I have a suspicion that they may have succeeded. There oughta be a law.

Of course, "Lance Henriksen", on the box sucked me in but in the future I won't be so easily duped. In the "buyer (renter) beware" category, the simple fact that the The Asylum logo was on the box should have should have served as an, "I told ya so."

New rule: The Asylum = A nearly criminal waste of resources and time to create, view, and as I reflect, to even comment upon.

Never again.


This is probably the most amateurish commercial film I've ever seen. With the possible exception of Lance Henricksen as Long John Silver, acting isn't even passable. Costumes look more as if they were made with high school production rental in mind, although they are generally immaculately clean  even those worn by "pirates" of the lowest rank. Colonial wigs look as if they might have been included with Halloween costumes at Wal-Mart.

Avoid this one at all costs. It hasn't any saving grace except for a few good camera shots. The story lacks even the basic imagination of the Robert Louis Stevenson book. If you want to see a worthwhile and fun version, get the 1950 film with the great Robert Newton.

I'm still wondering who ever told these Asylum people they are movie makers.


I decided to watch this movie on a Sunday night because I had nothing to do and to be honest I expected a lot more.

The plot of the movie is the standard one for a movie that has pirates and a treasure in it- the treasure is hidden, the pirates fight among each other, beautiful women etc. There is nothing really surprising about the action in this movie- very boring. There are a couple of funny things that deserve to be mentioned here: 1. The acting is very bad- not surprising considering the low budget 2. The costumes are bad 3. The actors try to speak with British accent and they really fail in achieving it Avoid watching this movie


It's hard not to like Pirates of Treasure Island.

You know you're onto a winner when the same location (in this case, the treasure island of the title) is described on separate occasions as being, 'hidden in the bowels of Satan' AND 'the devil's playground'. Not only does it create a kind of glib, cartoon element to the proceedings, but really makes you wonder what ol' Beelzelbub's getting up to these days.

Other verbal highlights include 'Beware the one egg' (or something), 'All the powder in the world' (NOT in reference to cocaine), and pretty much every deathbed speech of the last ten minutes, as if being shot is now some open licence to soliloquise.

The plot is the standard affair from the perspective of a bored, insipid landlord apparently keen to throw of the shackles of the easy-going beverage industry (complete with large-breasted obliging barmaid) to don a bandana and shout 'argh' at the rain, in a predominantly-ship-based 'adventure' that often serves as a mere backdrop for grown men to compete in a 'most audacious headwear' competition, talk in embarrassing accents and - again - shout 'argh' at the rain. Fortunately, the large-breasted obliging barmaid tags along to produce one of several dramatic 'You're a woman?!' revelations which, by the climax, sees our young hero leading a quartet of inappropriately attired floozies in a battle against the male oppressors - sorry, I mean Pirates - in what can at best be described as an abstract, watery pimp-off.

Allegiences in this film may initially seem hazy, but allow me to elucidate: if a character has tits, they side with the protagonist. If they have a wig, they get shot. If they have a muddy face, then they're evil and must be stabbed by the people with tits. Easy.

I'll close with some drinking game suggestions. 1 finger when you're unconvinced by a CGI insect, 2 fingers when someone inexplicably gets shot, and 3 when the camera deliberately repositions for the best angle of our leading lady's bosoms. If no-one yet knows she's a lady, down it.


If you're into really, really, really bad films...this one's for you. It's so bad it's funny.

Low Budget - Check; Bad Direction - Check; Bad Production - Check; Ridiculous Art Direction  Check; Bad Acting - Check; Bizarre Plot Twist  Check; Costuming & Props  What the hell?

"Pirates of Treasure Island" is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. An average high school film student could make a better film on a $1500 budget.

After watching the opening segment as the opening credits began to role, I had to rewind the DVD to make sure of what I had just seen. I seriously could not believe my eyes; I thought, "No wayI just didn't see a giant insect attack Long John Silver." The only positive thing I can write about this "film" is that it was "only" an hour and 15 minutes.


all i can say is i fully expected the tavern wench/lady pirate to start removing all her clothes at every turn, as i have seen this caliber of acting before... in another genre. +++SPOILER+++ this is NOT a porn movie! tho it would make more sense if it was. i was about to wager that Asylum Home Entertainment was a company trying to break in to mainstream producing, when i noticed comments elsewhere that it appears their M.O. is to 'piggy-back' blockbuster movies by releasing 'C' movies with similar titles. this certainly would explain this release. i know better now. watch this expecting a 0... and u will be pleasantly surprised with a 1 by the way... why hasn't the producer or the grips' mother written in the lead review yet? usually they get it in fairly fast.


"Treasure Island, Pirates of" is how it should read. It's just another remake of RLS' classic novel with extreme artistic liberty taken in order to add a female "pirate" to the crew and really make it inane. Jim Hawkins is a bit older than the book had described and will probably not even attract the adolescent crowd. But what prompted this reviewer to post may become a future blooper trivia question. It was when Long John Silver (Lance) tells one of his crew that he would "put a bullet" in his head, and there is no way that a pirate would refer to a pistol ball as a bullet. I know, small detail but it makes this a B movie at best, and won't surprise this reviewer at all if it goes straight to DVD at release. It's a made for television movie if you don't care about accuracy. I feel it might just be an attempt to use the other BIG pirate movie popularity along with the title wording twist to leech some of the box office earnings. It was the worst movie of the year so far in MHO*.

*my humble opinion.


Hard to write 1000 words for this B movie. The plot skips around a lot, and doesn't make much sense. Example, Ling Jhon Silver just killed his Captain in the jungle, Long Jhon becomes captain and the crew cheers, they hear a noise overhead and start running, then out of nowhere Long Jhon is on a mountain or something fighting some huge ant or something. And then the sets were so terrible, the cable of the ship looked like a church. The boat changed in every shot, it went from a galleon to a junk to a boom. The Boat they were on was like sparkling clean as was EVERY SINGLE pirates outfit, even the man who had been trapped on treasure island for ten years, must have found a laundry mat right? And the pirates teeth, oh wow they must have some great dentist on bored the 17th century pirate ship. The props where ugly and misplaced. A lot of stuff looks like it was ripped off pirates of the Caribbeans. The guy who played Long Jhon Silver though did a great job, but the others actor where garbage, there's this guy who french accent alone is enough to make this movie a comedy. For little kids its a good movie, but to be trueful just buy pirates of the Caribbeans and then you can watch the movie with them without throwing up. Sort of like the barney of pirate movies, only Barney has a plot line that makes sense


I'm not going to summarize, as it's not worth my time.

There actually were some talented actors in this film, so I can't believe that it turned out this bad! The costuming was terrible--fake hair, mustache's and beards abound...I'm surprised that they didn't use elastic strings to keep them on rather than the standard spirit gum! I've never seen such bad costuming, ever! The sets were cheesy and obvious. The dialog was marginal at best. Good Lord! Did someone need a tax write off or something?

I even tried to call it campy fun, but the label just doesn't fit. I think I want the two hours of my life I spent watching it back...who do I have to talk to for that?

Don't waste your money...not even to rent the DVD.


This is one of the stupidest movies I have ever seen, its not funny, plot is dumb, comparing to a pirates of the caribbean for example its really nothing. Well, I didn't like the music either, its annoying. Maybe I can say the story or the idea of the movie is not so bad by itself, but the realization is awful. The fights in the movie are done pretty naive, but there is one definitely good thing: it lasts 1 hour and 15 mins, so that is good, one cannot get bored so much, but that is too short for a movie, because the story is cut to a bunch of scenes which go one after another without cohesion, well thats my personal opinion. And it is not very violent after all, no way its a horror, far from that. Special effects are also done bad. I expected from a 2006 movie to have at least acceptable special effects if nothing else. All in all, it could definitely be a good movie for a 5 year old kid. But compared to other kids movies like spiderman, its not even close to them judging by the overall impression.


How could this movie even have gotten released? I rented it on DVD today and did heavy leaning on the fast forward to get thru the bad acting, bad costumes and simply a rotten story that didn't connect. I was actually hoping the big bugs of the island would gobble everyone up to make this a half hour show or less to at least end the filming crews' misery. This one can't and shouldn't even be placed on the shelf for rental or sale let alone claim to be a pirate movie, unless that was the intent behind it to pirate/steal money from the public. Definitely avoid this movie, but if ya like bugs you get to see a few and they're the best part of the movie.


This DVD is on the TV now. Hired it for my kids.

Watched the trailer first. I lie. I started to watch the film, found the first 5 minutes totally incomprehensible then decided to watch the trailer. Released "summer 2006" said the trailer. That set alarm bells ringing since it's only April 2007 now.

I reckon this one went straight to DVD.

The sound level at the beginning of the film was overly loud. I figured out why after a while. It's because the sound engineer had screwed up and you couldn't hear any of the pathetic dialogue, so they'd just upped the volume in general to try to get round it.

It is terrible; like an amateur movie. The accents and pronunciation are lousy (worst British accents I have ever heard) and the acting is simply appalling.

I couldn't believe this film was made in 2006 - it seems much older because the general quality of the film is so poor. Honestly, save yourself the bother and don't bother hiring this film for your children, buying the DVD as a gift or watching it on TV. I think this is one of those films that went straight to DVD.

Yup, the worst movie I have ever seen. We are about to turn it off.


this is a film which almost looks like its made for ruining any future pirate films. why... because it looks like its a high school play gone bad. this movie should not be displayed to anyone below the age of 120. if u do try and bite thru the thick layer of rubbish acting and bad scenery and clothing you will surely be surprised to find it irresistible to try and peel the way to obvious fake mustache of the screen which i believe is worn by the main character. i am a fan of movie's even if the budget is low, but this movie is not only low budget but ill-spent too i couldn't bear to watch thru the whole thing. it makes me think that people are still searching for that dare to be unemployed situation because if anyone ever try's to sell this they will surely end up in the unemployed section of the world because of traumatic reasons.


This movie has nothing to do with Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island. Poorly put together with a terrible cast, and awful dialog. The actors can't even deliver a line with french accent.

Lance has come a long way from being "brilliant" in Aliens. The people behind this load of poop had to be kidding. Too bad there are no funny lines in it.

This is a plastic-bag with the label "Instant pirates, just add crap" This movie just hurts. Nothing more to say but to add this quote...

"Patience my dear, we're going to an island. I'm sure there be plenty of bitches for all of us"


The cover looked very nice, artistic. That was it. I'm sorry but I stopped watching this film after about 30 minutes. Scenes were long and drawn out, entirely shot on built stage sets. Acting was not bad, it is just that it didn't fit the film standards. I believe this acting style belongs in a theater...but in a high school theater. I've been acting my whole life, and now I am a film student, production, at University at Buffalo. I am 20 years old and I can say I do have some experience under my belt. Hell I was in a movie when I was 4, in Europe. It's called Psalm and it is actually on IMDb.com. Given this I can say this movie sucked. Actually sucked would be a compliment.

I just recently read the forum posted by Leigh Scott. He thinks zombie flicks are the last on the intellectual scale of movies. He might had some degree in film criticism or what ever, but he can not make a movie. Does he really think that DEAD MEN WALKING is on par with Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD, or NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, or the new low budget masterpiece FLIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. I'm sorry Leigh, but each one of these zombie movies has a social commentary, and it's more than just zombies. Have you ever thought of zombies as the terrorists. NO, think about it and you'll appreciate them more. And no, I am not a single punk male with nothing to do other than writing reviews.I simply take a moment of my life to write a review and save people some pain and misery. I'm sorry but I now a good movie when I see one, and yours are not.


This movie is simply bad. And not in an amusing way.

I'm amazed how they thought they'd earn money on this? It's simply too crappy.

In fact the costumes and overall quality of the movie is so low, that when we starting to watch this movie, I freaked out a little: I thought I'd mistakenly put on a porn flick. I'm sorry to say, but that's the only laugh we got out of this movie.

If you watch porn movies for the story -- then this movie is for you.

Don't waste your time on this one.

I've already wasted too much.


Don't even bother with this one. Lance is the only real actor out of this whole movie. It's basically the Treasure Island story but with the worst acting I have ever seen in one movie. Horrible and cheap looking costuming right out of a Party City store. And where did that giant cockroach come from?! I bought a used DVD for a buddy who wants to see it. But I warned him. This has to be one of the worst films ever made. Plus, where did the good looking babes come from? They wouldn't of been there as women aboard ships were considered bad luck. Very rarely did you ever see them. They were no Anne Bonney and Mary Reed! Too bad they can't be charged with "Wasting Celluloid"!


To begin I cant really say I am the best person to judge a movie from all directions and then I mean by acting, script, directing and so forth, but I can say when I see a bad movie and this is 1 of them. There are some actors in this movie I have often seen in other movies and do adore, and regret not seeing them in good movies for some time now - so I keep on waiting and hoping that maybe some day those actors will. But I am sure I would have liked the movie when I was a kid so maybe there is still hope for this movie for some age group but for those that are older then 14 or around that age and know the movie culture at some level will see those many flaws is this flick. I did not see all the movie but those few minutes of it that I saw was worth nothing more then telling me I should not see it all.

I apologies for my English for there can be flaws in my spelling or that I put the words wrongly together :)

PS: "The Asylum" produced this movie as well as "The Da Vinci Treasure" and I know that movie was as well bad so for "The Asylum" I am hoping that they are starting from the bottom and moving up or they have no hope of making a movie that all viewers like.


Pathetic movie. This is the second pathetic movie I have seen in my life. I don't remember the name of the 1st pathetic movie. This movie is so sick. I was expecting some really cool graphics work, but was disappointed. The story is OK. Had there been more twists and turns, I could have given a 5 for this movie. But I can only give this movie a 1. Very bad movie. The actors have done a OK job. Overall a pathetic movie. Don't recommend it to your friends unless you want them to suffer. The director needs to get a huge collection of DVD's so that he can get some inspirations of file making.

The story runs at such a bad pace. Being a pirate movie, I was wishing more thrills. The end is even more pathetic. The hero and heroine had been shot. They get up after some time without showing any signs of pain!!!


As I was watching the display of some of the most awful attempts at acting that I've likely ever seen, I kept wondering, 'Is this a spoof? Is this the Hollywood version of phishing?' OK. You go in and rent a movie for the evening and see the pirates splashed on the cover and think, 'Oh, a costume drama, as it were.' Besides, there's Lance Henrikson, the poor man's version of Clint Eastwood-- you know: tall, rangy with the same tight-lipped twang and contempt-filled scowl in the eyes-- it's gotta be OK. Well, even an old movie watcher like me can get taken in. This strange, discombobulated version of RLS's classic, with the name changed only slightly and the same list of characters slotted into different roles, with characters out of the rejects of a small town high school play, is not merely terrible, it's amazingly awful. I kept looking for a point in which it would be obvious that this was a lampoon but the whole thing kept lumbering on, taking itself a lot more seriously than it deserved. I mean they pulled out ever device you can think of, from snatches of Jules Verne's Mysterious Island with huge insects to jumping around on a staged deck, supposedly in the midst of a raging storm at sea. After viewing this debacle, my wife and I were both left wondering: "How they were able to create this parody of an attempt at entertainment with a straight face?"


My wife rented this along with Syriana. Guess which one is better. I'm a sucker for a good pirate movie, but this ain't it. Not by any stretch. Where to begin? Oh, the opening scene and dialog. That should have been the first clue. Maybe the second after learning Lance Henrikson was the only 'name' actor. Back to the dialog. Long John Silver and Co. are following their Captain through the jungle in order to stash their ill-gotten gain. Mr. Rogers would have sounded like a more menacing pirate captain than the stooge playing him. Mercifully, he was killed early. Good-bye to Pizzle Lips, as LJS called him. Look up the word 'pizzle'. I'm sorry, but my heart just isn't in a long review. This movie is not worth a 99 cent rental. Here's a quick and dirty: Dialog: Junior College Drama 101 level. Costumes: Ill-fitting, costume shop off the rack, not remotely accurate. Wigs: Standard wear in the 18th century, these were simply atrocious. Barbie and Ken have better hair. Accents: Capt. Smollet's raspy French accent made Pepe Le Pew's sound like Maurice Chevalier. Poor Lance tried, he even said 'Arrr' once. He must have needed a house payment to take this role. Sword-play: The Ginsu Knife demonstrator must have been the fencing instructor. Locations: Surprisingly, the exteriors were not too bad. The interior sets, about a D+. I think they even used stock footage of two, possibly three differently rigged ships for the long shots. I know a jib from a spanker and a spar from a boom. They messed up. I won't even get into the big bugs.


Okay, you might want to dismiss a review that claims "the worst I've ever seen", but I asked my wife to name a movie that she has seen that's worse and neither of us could come up with one...

I've seen better acting in soap operas. There aren't words in the English language to describe how painfully horrible the acting is with the exception of Lance H. as Long John Silver.

The story line is very poor (giant bugs???) and arranged in a way that just confuses the viewer. Characters are thrust into the story line without any previous mention. If you're not familiar with the story of Treasure Island and who the characters are, you'd undoubtedly be lost.

Due to the terrible acting, piecemeal editing, and terrible story line, I have come to the conclusion that this movie was or was intended to be a porn.


My pick for the worst movie ever made...complete garbage. I cannot even make one positive comment. This movie should be shown to prison inmates as punishment. A week in solitary confinement would be preferable to the torture one endures during the 88 minutes of this stinker. What the heck were Jason Alexander, Robert De Niro, Rene Russo, and Randy Quaid thinking? Are they so hard up for a movie role?


I watched R&B because Robert De Niro was in it. But his "Are you talking to me?"-scene couldn't rescue this incredibly stupid movie. I really can't imagine how anyone could enjoy watching this horrible crap. I felt robbed after watching. This movie stole some time of my life. I watched the second half in fast forward, so i didn't had to stand this annoying moose.


Cartoons are iconic incomplete images that require the viewer to use their imagination. Why does Hollywood insist on turning cartoons into live action which is much more specific in detail. These types of films like Scooby-Doo not only aren't funny because of this but also completely miss the point of the original. Scooby Doo wasn't Scooby because the ghosts were real and Rocky and Bullwinkle are not R & B because the celebrities gushing all over theses cg shadows are real. A real remake of the show's scatological humor would have been at least interesting. This movie was missing many of my favorite characters like time traveling dogs and dashing mounties as well as the Fractured Fairy Tale schmuck. This version was a bad TV movie with none of the show's wit or style. If given a choice between this movie & root canal, choose the dentist. The dialog will even be better.


This is my short review of Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. This movie blows big time! I'm a big fan of the R&B cartoon, but sitting through this live action update was like the most painful torture imaginable. Watching this took away precious time from my life that I'll never regain. The only part I enjoyed was the last minute, where Rocky and Bullwinkle are finally back in their cartoon form. Let's pray they never leave that form again.


Cartoon characters Bullwinkle Moose (voice of Keith Scott, who is also the voice of the narrator) and Rocket J. Squirrel (voice of June Foray) are yanked out of their endless re-runs by perky, hopeless FBI agent Karen Sympathy (Piper Perabo) in order to combat their arch-enemies, Boris (Jason Alexander), Natasha (Rene Russo) and Fearless Leader (Robert De Niro) when THEY are brought out into the real world. Fearless Leader's maniacal plan is to turn people into pathetic zombies by hypnotizing them with "Really Bad Television" (a.k.a. RBTV).

Curious and ultimately less than satisfying movie runs hot and cold too often. I think that writer Kenneth Lonergan succeeded in reviving the kind of wit that punctuated the old 1960's animated series but unfortunately it gets pretty tiresome. He tries to make it appeal both to watchers of the original show and modern audiences but I think that there may be people out there today who will just see this as stupid. It's an odd, awkward comedy with an assortment of guest star comic cameos, an appealing performance by Perabo, and a hilarious one by De Niro. I have to say, however, that an hour and a half of Bullwinkle's voice was way too much. I can only take so much of that voice.

There is an obligatory throw-away joke that I liked: why do the villains turn into real people but Rocky and Bullwinkle remain cartoon characters?

I found that overall I didn't enjoy it a whole lot. At least it's harmless.

4/10


The beginning of this movie is promising. It sets itself up for self-parody -- satirizing the old cartoon show and its absurdities while also managing to make fun of some clichés of cartoons and feature-film spin-offs.

Then it becomes its own material -- it turns into a disastrously unfunny, stupid kiddie movie with lame fart jokes and surprisingly none-too-subtle, eyebrow-raising sexual innuendo.

Robert De Niro is really wasted here. All he can resort to is mugging up for the camera and making fun of his old movies again -- here we get "You talking' to me?" which was funny the first time he did it. It's become his calling card now -- it's like the first thing he says when he walks on camera is "You talking' to me?" and the director expects everyone to laugh because, hey, it's Robert De Niro, and that's FUNNY.

Rene Russo is wasted too although then again I don't think she was put in the film for her acting skills - they just got her because she looked like the character. Ditto for Jason Whatshisname (from "Seinfeld"), who tries too hard -- I guess he was pretty desperate after the show ended.

Overall this is a disappointment because it begins so promising and turns into a dud.


Rocky and Bullwinkle: The Movie should never have been made. A complete waste of acting, time, money and paper. With who the producers had on board for this production, it should have carried over to the movie, but it never did. This film sure doesn't do the cartoon series justice. Just stupid, silly dialog, annoying characters, and the insertion of the cartoon characters into the movie doesn't help. It just looked like a desperate attempt to salvage a already sinking ship. The actors seemed to think they needed to over act like cartoon characters in a cartoon movie. Whatever- it didn't work for me. I expect some quality, and I never saw it. The movie was rocky, and the bull part...- I agree with that part of the title.


This movie made me realize why I didn't watch the cartoon as a child: It's not funny. I had hoped that any project with Robert DeNiro and Jason Alexander would be worth the price of admission and had thought that my kids (aged 10 & 5) would enjoy this film. Unfortunately, even my five year old thought it "just wasn't funny". I hope DeNiro made a lot of money because he lost a lot of my respect by involving himself in something so crappy. The only person involved in this "film" that merited any consideration was Jonathon Winters, who could have been funny at the Neuremburg Trials. A viable alternative to the death penalty would be repeated viewing of this movie. I rated it a 2 out of 10.


This had potential, but the script ran out of ideas after 10 minutes and became obvious and completely predictable. Billy Connolly is held back and allowed to show only a few glimpses of his great comedy and acting talent, while Sharon Stone goes way over the top as she tries to compensate.

A poor film all-round, where deus-ex-machina rules.


Billy Connolly stars a florist who finds out he has a brain tumor and that his wife wants a divorce all in the same day. Mr. Connolly's bad day is not over because he takes off from work in search of adventure and runs smack into Sharon Stone. Ms. Stone plays a woman with a gambling problem and drags along two kids with her that apparently have no father.

The only other movie I have seen Mr. Connolly in was an old Columbo episode where he was caught partially by the evidence of him marking the rum bottle with his thumbnail so he would know when he had enough. You will be marking your DVD with your thumbnail early on on this clunker because about 5 minutes of this stinker is 5 minutes too much. Ms. Stone's accent was almost enough to send my foot through the screen. It was the worst attempt at an accent since-well since Ms. Stone's accent in the remake of "Gloria".

Mild Spoilers

I think that anyone can figure out where this movie is going (Connolly will bond with the kids and eventually with Sharon Stone) but I did want to mention the silent kid. It reminded me of the old joke where the a kid has never said anything his whole life until he sees a bull charging at his father. He yells a warning out to his father who gets out of the way of the bull. He asks his son why he has never spoken before and his son replies that he never had anything to say before now. The boy in this movie speaks for the very same reason.

Last thought

If a DVD can have features such as different languages- can't we get one where it can remove a bad accent from the movie and we hear the actress in their normal voice?

rating 1 out of 10


Sharon Stone stars as Hush, a sleazy and irresponsible woman who has two children and lives in a small apartment. She is also in debt with a low-rate loan shark and, as a result, she is constantly being threatened by them. However, she eventually meets Joe (Billy Connolly), a man whose wife has just left him and also has found out that he has a brain tumor. They both fall in love while he helps her deal with her problems.

With such a story, one would think that this movie would add up to something good. However, the reality is that 'Beautiful Joe' is a film that does not work on any level. It starts out as a drama that puts an emphasis on a rather unconvincing love story between Joe and Hush. It then shifts to comedy (rather lame comedy that is) during the middle of the film. By the end, the film once again shifts back to drama. With such a lack of direction in a poor script and terrible acting (especially from Stone, whose career is definitely in freefall), 'Beautiful Joe' is anything but beautiful. (1/10)


What was Sharon Stone thinking. To see her in this sorry excuse of, well anything, is truly a terrible offense. The once sexiest woman in Hollywood starring opposite Billy Connely, (who, supposedly is very funny?) in a movie that doesn't know what to do with itself. One cliche after another, but the worst part is the acting. Gil Bellows, the guy from "Ally McBeal" is plain terrible, he singlehandedly ruins what's left of this fiasco. So there is absolutely NOTHING even remotely good about this crappy movie. Never should have rented it! 3/10


This is Cecil B. DeMille's third picture on extramarital relationships, following 'Old Wives for New' and 'Don't Change Your Husband.' I haven't seen the first one, but 'Why Change Your Wife?' is just like 'Don't Change Your Husband,' except the roles of wife and husband are somewhat reversed. So, if you like this film or that one, I recommend you watch the other. On the other hand, it's too formulaic, predictable and cheap for me. The light humour is enjoyable, including the witty intertitles, but otherwise it's too fluffy and superficial, just as with 'Don't Change Your Husband' and many other DeMille flicks.

An exception to the light mood is the excessive climax. Additionally, Thomas Meighan is lacking as an actor; for instance, in the opening bathroom scene, he glances towards the camera or director. It's too quick to be breaking the fourth wall, so for whatever reason that's in the film, it's a poor reflection upon Meighan and DeMille. As well, Sylvia Ashton plays the wise observer to the play, as she did in 'Don't Change Your Husband'--she's our surrogate. And, once again, DeMille expresses his fetish for exotic clothing and lush interiors. For a while, DeMille might have become a good filmmaker; he made this picture after that.


I worry that foreigners see simple-minded tripe like this and think it is representative of the American psyche. He is holding a real gun against her ribs after robbing a bank- are we supposed to believe that this is an appropriate setting for plucky cutesy music and Susan musing how she's never left town before or that she is really concerned that he's playing with her Keep-On-Truckin' pin? Or that he'd really be amused that she is concerned about that pin??? Made me want to VOMIT!


Wowo ... I am suprised to read so many positive comments about this movie that is soooooooooo predictable and gets dumber and dumber by the minute ... especially near the end where that annoying girlfriend of Dorff shows up ... God, help me ! Definately one of the most annoying characters I have seen in a long time !

I thought this movie was almost a waste of my time and give it a 1.5/5 mainly because I am usually a fan of Susan Sarandon (She was the only reason I was interested in seeing this movie in the first place !) but in this one she is really wasted.

What can you do with a story and some dialogues like that ... no one could save such a turkey ... Lame storyline and dumb situations made me cringe often ... I should have watched Dead Man Walking, White Palace or Bull Durham again !


A young gay man from the sticks comes to New York City in 1969 hoping for a better life, but finds the homosexual lifestyle just as stifled in the big city under police pressure, corruption and harassment. The legendary gay riots near the Stonewall Inn take up just five minutes of the film's running-time, the final five minutes. This low-budget, brightly-colored film is more interested in the lives that would soon be affected by the riots than in the aftermath of the violence--and so we get stock characters like the naive blond cowboy, the underworld group controlling the club, the straight-seeming activists for a Homosexual Alliance, and lots and lots of drag queens. Director Nigel Finch seems to make a concerted effort to equate homosexuality with drag behavior, and drag behavior with (ultimately) prostitution. Perhaps this was true of the times, but Finch's presentation (though not campy) has cartoonish leanings and nostalgic overtures that don't express anything more than what most people already realize: the cops were corrupt, the gays were not saints, and they clashed. There's a good movie to be made about Stonewall, but this one just scratches the surface. There are some sweet moments (a sing-along on a bus, a dance between a drag queen and a gay conservative), but just as many scenes where the tone intended hasn't a hope in hell of coming through. ** from ****


The plot of this movie (two ill children escaping the bubble they live in to take on an endeavour in the outside world) is very thin and failed to sustain my interest. Perhaps, the symbolism didn't get to me. Many times, I asked myself where all this was heading. The poetic aura left me emotionally disconnected and questioning the purpose of my viewing. It is however, a very unusual and gutsy film for which the director should be praised. For those easily offended, please take note that the children, portraying the title characters are nude for nearly the entire movie.


Neat premise, some nifty acting by Dorff and especially Reece Whitherspoon, but unfortunately, this film takes itself WAY too seriously to be taken seriously. This would have made an excellent comedy, and the talent was there in the two leads. Instead, it takes an interesting, original premise and turns it into a preachy borefest. With a lead character like Dorff's, one would assume there would be a little old fashioned, punk rock humor to the proceedings. If I wanted to hear a sermon, I'd start going to church or reading Noam Chomsky (the obvious inspiration for some of this film) books again. Truly a pity, because this could have been a great film.


It is one thing for a film to merely be bad, it is quite another for it to insult your intelligence. The latter happened to me in this non-attempt at filmmaking. How the likes of Stephen Dorff and Reese Witherspoon (one of my all time favorite actresses) got messed up in this I'll never know, but I hope they fired their managers afterward. This is, quite possibly, the single worst movie I have ever seen (Roger Ebert agrees!). Every character seems to be a ripoff of some celebrity who probably had the common sense to steer clear of this movie. Every situation seems entirely implausible. What's more, the writer seems to have a vocabulary that extends to only the three words in the title (you figure it out). This was a painful movie to watch, not because of it's depth, but because it is so inexcusably horrible. It may be the first time in my life that I actually felt sorry for the actors, who really were at the mercy of this doomed screenplay. I do not buy for one minute the notion that this movie may simply have been "too deep" to appreciate. Please, I do not need to be insulted again. Reese, I still think you are on top of your game, and this was ten years ago during your indie phase, so I don't hold you accountable, just please don't let it happen again.


I saw this movie on TV without much expectations, but it turned out to be worst than I could have imagined. In fact, S.F.W. is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. Both the plot and the characters are completely cliched to the point where it's almost painful to watch. It seems like this movie was made just for Stephen Dorff to act self-important in and appeal to the not-so-bright kids of the grunge generation.


The only reason I checked out this movie is because in the credits it states that China Kantner is in this movie. She might have been, but I didn't see her. I loved her in a movie called "The Stoned Age" (1994), so I wanted to see her again. She might have had a very very small role, but it wasn't worth my time watching this movie for a blink. I have never been a Reese Witherspoon fan, but I love Renee Zellweger and I rented "Dazed and Confused" (1993) just to see her, but just like this movie, I was disappointed to find out that she is only in it for a moment. I don't think they should list actors in the credits unless they have prominent roles, and if they do, then maybe the word "bit part" should be next to their names.


It is one thing for a film to merely be bad, it is quite another for it to insult your intelligence. The latter happened to me in this non-attempt at filmmaking. How the likes of Stephen Dorff and Reese Witherspoon (one of my all time favorite actresses) got messed up in this I'll never know, but I hope they fired their managers afterward. This is, quite possibly, the single worst movie I have ever seen (Roger Ebert agrees!). Every character seems to be a ripoff of some celebrity who probably had the common sense to steer clear of this movie. Every situation seems entirely implausible. What's more, the writer seems to have a vocabulary that extends to only the three words in the title (you figure it out). This was a painful movie to watch, not because of it's depth, but because it is so inexcusably horrible. It may be the first time in my life that I actually felt sorry for the actors, who really were at the mercy of this doomed screenplay. I so not buy for one minute the notion that this movie may simply have been "too deep" to appreciate. Please, I do not need to be insulted again. Reese, I still think you are on top of your game, and this was ten years ago during your indie phase, so I don't hold you accountable, just please don't let it happen again.


S.F.W. the concept was interesting the plot once watched was lame and boring a true waste of a casts time and a industry's money.

Once you see it you will soon forget it!!

Stephen Dorff & Reese Witherspoon just waste there time & talents in a really wasted script. With a better more talented screenwriter and a more talent director the movie could have been so much more mabey even some underground cult film. But what happens to a story about 5 people that are being held hostage in a convenience store for 36 days, & one of them demands from the hostage takers that all TV-stations should broadcast the entire situation live, turns into a boring little movie with nothing more than a loud soundtrack and really bad over the top acting in a really bad made for Tv movie of the week for the big screen.

Whats funny is that Reese Witherspoon is billed as a main character, she is on the cover of the DVD box but she is hardly in the movie, and when she is on screen she shows what talent she does have, but how much of it is wasted.

Stephen Dorff is a great actor, another of the under-rated talents in Hollywood today who seems to find really bad scripts that just really under-rate his talent and "S.F.W." is just another film that is a big mistake on his acting resume.

Rounding out the rest of cast that sseem to waste there talents is both Jake Busey and the very laughable not so talented Natasha Gregson Wagner.

One film I'm adding to my "Worst Films of 1994" list!!!

See it once, if you don't fall asleep, and once the credits roll you will soon forget it.


What a dog this one is! Poorly staged action sequences, lousy acting, terrible dialogue - and it's racist to boot. A ridiculous simplification of the political turmoil in Lebanon in the 1980s, this film would also have us believe that one American high-school basketball coach can defeat a whole army of Lebanese terrorists!!! And we are also meant to believe that the US Government would recruit this same basketball coach (and his friendly Lebanese taxi driver!!!) in an operation to rescue American hostages - a four man operation against hundreds of armed-to-the-teeth terrorists. The resulting rescue scene is almost as funny as the opening scene of "The Naked Gun". This sort of nonsense certainly does nothing to help US relations with the Middle East - and, as this was an Israeli-American co-production, it does little to help Arab-Israeli relations either.

On the plus side there is some excellent male eye-candy. Lorenzo Lamas, an even worse actor than his father (if such a thing is possible), is pretty easy on the eye. But even better we have no less than two Michael Pares - he plays twin brothers, and neither brother seems to be too fond of wearing shirts! It's a shame that Pare ended up in this sort of z-grade rubbish, particularly after such a promising start in "Eddie and the Cruisers".

With the hunk factor so high, maybe you could watch "Killing Streets" with the sound turned down, put something sexy on the stereo, and simply admire the view!


This film was a waste of energy, time and money. In a sense, this movie is interesting, but mostly intense. The four quarters of the film did a so and so job. The one I find the most disturbing is the part where a group of Hispanic youths decide to loot (a disgrace to Hispanics everywhere), along with all other riot scenes and junk. I find it hard to believe that one of the Latino kids would thank and praise Rodney King for this (looting). King didn't want this and he didn't say to riot. MLK Jr. would turn over in his grave. I can't try hard enough to understand this garbage (racism and riot). To Bse-1, it's OK to say your opinion, but try not to be racist you twit, OK. The Latino boy didn't suck, though he played the looter. I can't believe I wasted my time posting this, though it stinks. Some junk for your head.


Heat Wave, TNT's movie about the 1965 Watts Riots is a far better film than Riot and handles many similar themes far more successfully. Riot, on the hand does a lot of yakking but little is really talked about. In trying to say "everything" about the causes and concerns that lead to the L.A. Riots, it ends up becoming totally unfocused and rather tedious. This is too important a subject to be given such short shrift and lack of real insight.


I love intelligent horror. I'm not a fan of torture porn/slasher flicks. I love Hitchcockian subtlety, and nerve-jangling set-ups. This film has none of the above. It begins promisingly enough with a brooding college student accepting a ride home for the holidays from a stranger who's posted an available lift on the campus ride-board. How many times did I myself catch a ride home in this manner while in school...always feeling a tiny bit chilled by the possibility of danger. Her driver, an odd young man, is full of mystery. It appears that he knows a wee bit too much about his passenger. Interesting premise. Then all hell breaks loose. The script descends into horror cliché ("Penny Dreadful" did the trapped-in-the-woods routine much better) and inarticulation. In short, it makes no sense. Oh sure, there's the dime-story theology and philosophy that's supposed to make this mess look cerebral. But, it never quite delivers--leaving viewers scratching their heads and asking "who was that?"..."what was that?" and "huh?" Pity, because Emily Blunt is terrific. Unfortunately, her character has the IQ of a grapefruit, which makes her a tough gal with whom to sympathize.

Incidentally, comparing this film to the brilliant "Rosemary's Baby" is blasphemous. Polanski's masterpiece is still the gold-standard by which fright flicks are judged--40 years after its release. Who will be discussing "Wind Chill" six months after its straight-to-video debut?


Factoids: 1.'Short cut' road used is a clearly maintained county road.Never any maintenance, police or local use? Unbelievable.2. Sound of wind didn't match very light snowfall;hardly any snow falling which undermined the isolation one is supposed to feel.3.Very cold outside but no steam when they spoke?4.What did they not turn on the car heater?5.How could the battery last so long with the lights on?6.The guy early on mentions somethings spooky; i.e. supernatural: no tire tracks from car that runs them off the road. But showing his insight, no footprints are ever mentioned when the 'ghosts' appear repeatedly.7.Though in real life not too far removed from a college-aged kid, E. Blunt appears a decade older than the character she's playing.8.Overuse, with little payoff, of spectral figures fleeting by.9.Why not start walking back on road they just drove on? Irritating and periodic time reminders showed they weren't that far from the garage.10.The garage:Her being locked mysteriously into restroom with no one hearing her yelling?Does this mean that this is a warning from the evil vibes hovering many miles down the road?Why should this "warning" just be directed at her?11.Those periodic visits from spooks ultimately go from being mildly frightening to being irritating.AND SO ON AND SO ON. Main overall complaint? Too many story devices pulled in leading to confusion and its ultimate fate, irritable I-don't-care-what-happens-to-them syndrome.


Watching and reviewing Wind Chill has convinced me of the following: a) most unprofessional horror movie websites are not worth reading b) this movie was an incomplete project dumped into theaters for a quick dollar/pound/euro/krona.

I do not understand how someone involved in this project approved its release. None of the protagonists are named, the villains are numerous and without motivation, and the pacing is amateurish. Why wasn't it finished? George Clooney is an executive producer; he's been in good movies, so why didn't he lobby for this one? There are occasional scares to be had, but only as reward for tedious character interaction. You will be impressed by the bloodlessness of the picture, but remorseful of its lost potential.

Some random loser (credited as Guy) stalks his prey (Girl) enough to know where she lives. They attend some preppy northeastern liberal arts college and share Philosophy 101 class. They spend a lot of time talking about the theory of eternal returns. Guy likes her, but instead of confronting her, he creates a ruse to trick her into riding to Delaware with him. He doesn't bother to research anything about the state either. They arrive at a gas station where everyone is old and leery. Typical Wrong Gas Station pattern begins. The cashier tells them about a scenic path they can take so they do. Some other driver hits them and they are stranded and exposed to a series of bizarre events.

The film becomes a sequence of moving images without purpose after that. The Guy tries to walk back to the gas station but doesn't make it. So he and Girl spend most of the evening in the car. Various undead appear and walk aimlessly to an abandoned cabin. It's spooky but undermined by our inability to determine what they are. Some of them appear like rotting corpses, while others are "fresh." The spirits don't appear to do anything other than exist, and most don't even notice the youngsters. It's so odd and even the characters observe it. So they rest in the car, which has the best battery ever. They talk and waste time for vast periods of time but we learn nothing about them. Girl probably recognizes her role in this awful movie so she tries to walk back to Wrong Gas Station. She gets cold, sees more zombie thingys, and returns to Guy's now frozen corpse. A helpful old person (another staple of bad horror movies) appears at the last minutes to finally reveal the plot: ghost of murderous policeman wrecks havoc on passersby. Girl confronts ghost, escapes, and is lead to Wrong Gas Station by Guy's ghost. The end; no conflict, no resolution, and no reason to have watched.

It's actually similar to a slasher movie, but worse if you can imagine. There is a "final girl" who survives until the end. Admittedly, she doesn't have to do much. The villain makes only one distinctive appearance and isn't defeated. He isn't victorious either, he just is. My guess is that the theory of eternal returns (meaning evens will recur throughout eternity) is a metaphor for the ghost's rampage. I don't accept it. It's a fraudulent insertion with no justification. Wind Chill wants you to think it's an enriching horror film by including the theory of eternal returns, but it doesn't elaborate on this idea in any way. Ghosts, zombies, or whatever they are would be present in this movie even if there was no reference to philosophy. At least the filmmakers exhibit some knowledge of their film's terribleness by adding a pseudo-intellectual explanation. A better ghost (I guess since there is at least one ghost) movie wouldn't have to create a lousy reason for ghosts to be there. We don't care for a reason. Just make us tremble and you've succeeded.

This is yet another failed attempt at resurrecting the "creepy" horror movie which has disappeared from mainstream cinema. Most unsettling pictures are released in only in major cities or directly to DVD. It is worth you time to research new ones, and add them to you rental list. Don't add this title, though. Wind Chill, like last year's The Strangers falls flat on its face because it is incapable of suspense. All scares are instantaneous and therefore repetitive. A better screenplay would have ameliorated, but probably not solved this problem. Wind Chill is a terrible movie which shouldn't be as bad as it is. Audiences have proved their desire for terror cinema, as Karloff called it, (given The Strangers surprising box office return) and deserve a new horror film. For now, I recommend watching The Orphanage or May while you await better cult horror films.


Cheap, ugly, pointless. This movie in a word sucks. I fell a sleep watching it several times. I was astonished by the barrage of bad f/x, lousy acting and poor story telling. Be afraid, very afraid of this movie. It will totally waste about an hour and a half of your life. I just feel like i should get some sort of compensation for torturing myself with this abomination of a film. If i could do any kind of web design i would make a site dedicated to warning people about this "HORROR". One thing that could have slightly improved this was if the girl took her clothes off at any point. it is cold in the movie, but she could have shown something more than her nice belly, which by the way for me was the highlight of this poor project.


I like slapstick if done well, but it certainly isn't in this idiotic "comedy" about two twin brothers in different life situations switching roles (boy, compare "Trading Places"). Neither the slapstick nor anything else in this movie is funny. Perhaps the pie fight is a minor redeemer, for even tho it could be better in certain ways, it is so long and thorough that it is somewhat enjoyable. It is also tainted by the stupid antics, however. If you've seen "Spy Hard" and did not like it, do no see this. You gotta be nuts to like this film.


I bought this film from a local pound shop so I cant say I'm surprised at how bad it was,but I have had some enjoyment out of this film. But it has to be the most stupidly bad comedy film ever made, while watching the film you cant help but think that if the story was put in the right hands it probably would have been a good movie (with Jim Carrey in the lead and maybe David Zucker directing) but it is one of those films that is so dumb SO badly acted and directed that you actually cant help but laugh all the way through it, so does this make it a good comedy because its funny for all the wrong reasons?, NO! its absolute crap. You can definitely see why raimi took his name off the film.


Seriously, the Trivia for this film says that the writers/producers/whatever had their names removed from the credits 'after' they saw the result??? What about paying attention 'during' the filming...I cannot understand how 'anyone' could have needed to wait until 'after'the filming was complete to realize that this was a turd on the face of humanity. I don't know what that means exactly, but it sounds bad and that's the point.

I needed a random inoculation after seeing this film, not to mention the days, no 'weeks; of grovelling to my friends who I convinced to watch it with me.

Picture this....the lights are down, the popcorn is out, I've built the mood by describing the trailer I saw on another Video...the film starts....and within about 5 minutes I notice the sound of popcorn being chewed has stopped. Silence has filled the lounge room....

Of course, in hindsight I should have turned the video off, but like a train crash where the driver of the train turns out to be the conductor's pet poodle rather than a qualified individual, a certain fascination took place. Sure, I felt sorry for all of us knowing we would never be the same, but we were all unable to look away...yet no words were spoken. Stunner perhaps? It's possible, but 13 years on I still have flashbacks to the ridiculous sheep-like noise which echoed through the room every time the main character had a personality change...

Who can forget the looks on the faces of my fellow movie watchers who moved straight past blaming the film itself for being so bad to blaming me for renting it. I can still feel the stabbing pain of their dagger laden looks....the "Well...I'm going home" which was 'overlooked', simply for a swift and silent exit from my house. The empty feeling I was left with in a house full of sleeping parents in one room, sleeping brother in another, and me...alone in front of the television watching the credits (sans Writers/Producers mind you) roll up the screen, my thoughts bypassing the obvious "what were you people thinking!!" and moving straight onto "What the hell just happened!?"...

My life was never the same...(until of course I saw Jaws 4 when in fact it was 'exactly' the same as when watching this!) So, I highly UNrecommend this film.

Check out my 'other' UNrecommended films cos I sure can pick 'em!


For all the love I have for South Park, I must say this movie is horrible without even the redeeming factor of being horribly horrible. It just sucks! And no pun intended.

Juvenile, concocted (again no pun intended), poorly written, amateuristic direction and very predictable.

From the get go I felt no empathy whatsoever with our mormon idiot. Halfway through I was wondering why I was still watching this. And by the end I was wishing for my life back.

Even now I waste time writing this review, hoping to save some of you from this colossal waste of time.


So, when you hear that Trey Parker of South Park fame wrote, directed and starred in a comedy set in the world of porn you had to think this would be a movie that had the potential to be excruciatingly bad. Then as you watch it you may be pleasantly surprised for the first half hour or so and think this isn't so bad. But then as the movie drags on you'll find yourself thinking that, yeah, this is pretty bad after all. But it could have been worse.

Plot really is not important here as the movie's only goal is to make you laugh, which it manages to do only sporadically. Anyhow the plot such as it is, features Parker as devout Mormon missionary Joe Young, who through a series of unlikely occurrences finds himself starring as "superhero" Orgazmo in the most successful porn film of all time. Orgazmo, whose weapon immobilizes enemies by giving them orgasms, has a sidekick, Choda Boy, who runs around with a dildo attached to his head. Yes, the cheese factor in this movie is off the charts. And while some of this cheese is initially good for a laugh eventually it all wears very thin. Maybe the porn world is just too bizarre but the whole thing comes off as incredibly awkward and forced. They're trying too hard to be funny and they're not succeeding. Matters are not helped by some less than stellar acting, most notably from Parker who as a live action actor...well, let's just say he's really good in his cartoon. Here, not so much. The rest of the cast is not much better. When Ron Jeremy gives the most convincing performance in your movie you've got problems. And yes, this movie has problems. All in all, it's pretty bad but you get the feeling it could have been a lot worse.


I'm starting to wonder whether some of the comments below are genuine... I'm a big fan of South Park, but this is pitifully bad. The one joke that made me smile ("show me a sign.. any sign!") is lifted word for word from a far superior Steve Martin movie. As for the rest... it's painfully unfunny.

The only other thing this movie has going for it is cameos by a number of real-life porn stars; but when there's not so much as a bare breast on display, what on earth is the point ? Stick to adult movies if it's bare flesh you want to see, and rent one of the early Zucker bros. movies if you want to see a genuinely funny comedy.

A total waste of time in my opinion.


Although I am not by any means obsessed with "South Park," I do think it's a very funny show and the film adaptation was hilarious. Trey Parker and Matt Stone can be quite funny and I thought certain scenes of "Team America" were genius. (And others... not so much.) But their second film outing, "Orgazmo," has to be their weakest effort. I expected a clever and crude satire of the porn industry -- instead I just got stupid crude humor without many laughs.

I did chuckle a few times, at some jokes that were so obvious and over-the-top and juvenile that they hit the funnybone if you're in an amiable mood. But this is very selective taste and I'm sure most people wouldn't even find the silly jokes funny.

Joe Young (Parker) is a Mormon who is recruited to star in a series of porn films called "Orgazmo." Essentially the film is a kick in the face to religion and caused a lot of controversy when it was released. The MPAA tagged it with an NC-17 rating and it flopped on release.

It has a weak cult following now due to the success of Parker and Stone's reputations as funny troublemakers, but the fact is that "Orgazmo" really is just controversial for the sake of being so. It's not nearly as funny as it thinks it is.

On top of that, the new DVD is a huge disappointment also. The cast commentary track is inaudible and barely distinguishable. The "Wild" commentary track is similarly hard to hear and pretty poor. When I read that Kevin Smith and Weird Al Yankovic were on the track I thought, "Wow." Little did I know that they are split into separate groups and only on the track for about ten minutes each. Yankovic is the funniest but most of his jokes are lame. Smith has never seen "Orgazmo" and only relays a story of how he used to hate Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and his audio is recorded from a telephone conversation.

The documentaries are stupid and poor and the rest of the special features are just plain lame.

Overall, a really disappointing experience.


First off, I'll start out by saying that I am not a Mormon, nor do I believe in the Mormon religion, which is what this film was meant to bash and redicule. I started watching this movie already knowing it was going to be dirty, raunchy, and a bit on the wild side. With that in mind, I was ready to laugh. However, about every 10 - 20 minutes, Joe Young (a play on Joseph Smith and Bringam Young, two guys who started Mormonism) throws out some comment about how all of this is wrong. "How would Jesus benefit from me doing this?" And so on and so forth. It kept making me think, "umm...he has a point." For anyone with or without a sense of religion, the amount of comments made in this regard would start to effect anyone with a sense of morals into having second thoughts about finishing watching the movie. This is why I say it is a self defeating film. In what began as a kick back movie to have some laughs ended up in feeling uncomfortable with the whole movie because of the constant reminders. However, all in all, with that aside, the movie really wasn't all that funny. Maxxx Orbison was too outright profane and mean to be funny and made us wonder if this might be getting too serious. There were some good parts though, such as when they zap people with Orgazmo's working gun, (especially the dog, I got a kick out of that), and a few other scenes. They were just too far between. In conclusion, the constant moral reminders of the film killed many of the laughs because we are reminded that we really shouldn't be laughing at that. The laughs were few and far between and the film was much to profane to be all that funny.


One of the worst movies ever made. My friends and I walked out after an hour, so maybe it got better...but I doubt it. The humor is stupid and banal, but I knew that going in. What I didn't know is that no one in the cast would have any sense of comic timing, the production values would be close to nil, and that I wouldn't laugh. Ever.

The story idea (taking a sweet Mormon kid from Utah and throwing him in the middle of the porn industry) could have turned into a really funny movie, but the script is dull and the performances are duller. This isn't even worth a rental. Bleah.


'The Patchwork Girl of Oz' is one of the three Oz films produced by author L. Frank Baum's own production company. And, as to be expected, it's childish for sure. Supposedly, there's humour in characters jumping around and moving about erratically. Violet MacMillan plays a munchkin boy, but is very obviously a woman. Additionally, the static shots from a stationary camera make it a typically primitive film from 1914. But, there is also some inventive fantasy design--in the story, its odd places and characters, the costumes (even the silly animal ones) and the sets. The trick shots, such as stop-motion animation, are very basic, even for 1914, but nothing more was needed.

Children of today could still probably have fun watching this, but even for adults addicted to silent films, like myself, it may be too childish. Yet, they've transferred the fantasy from the book very well and that made it worth a look for me. And, the film's faithfulness to the book shouldn't be in question, as Baum obviously worked on the adaptation himself. It's also evident of how far back children's movies and fantasies go in film history. It's been sometime since I saw the two follow-ups to this film: 'The Magic Cloak of Oz' and 'His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz,' but I remember them as more of the same.


HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER 2- MASK OF SANITY (2 outta 5 stars) Uh, long enough title, you think? First things first: this movie is one of those In Name Only sequels... and has practically nothing to do with the original classic. It hasn't got the same writer, director, actors or even the same style. This film is of a distinctly lesser quality in every respect. (This movie has some of the absolute WORST, fakest fight choreography I have ever seen!) Neil Giuntoli stands in this time for Michael Rooker (the original Henry) and, while he has a couple of effective scenes of underlying, stoic menace, for the most part he doesn't make much of an impression. This time around Henry is on his own and looking for work. He gets a job cleaning and moving port-a-potties and makes fast friends with a co-worker, Kai (Rich Komenich). Kai and his very un-happy-looking but smolderingly sensuous wife (Kate Walsh) invite Henry to stay with them until he gets some money put together. They also have an emotionally unstable niece (Carri Levinson) who draws freaky pictures. You think, with the two women in the house making googly eyes at Henry and carrying all that emotional baggage, that the tension would escalate into something really interesting. Well, you'd be wrong. Instead, Henry finds out that Kai does arson jobs for extra cash and the two of them get sidetracked into burning down old buildings for awhile. Then Henry starts into his killing spree again, slowly involving Kai more and more. The finale is a big disappointment in all respects... hardly touching on some of the more interesting elements introduced earlier in the movie. No wonder that there hasn't been a Henry 3.


This movie was so awful that I watched up to halfway through waiting for it to "start" - for the plot, characters, and overall tone to start making sense - before realizing it was never gonna happen. As another viewer commented, Al Pacino seems like an old smarmy geyser perpetually supporting fawning pseudo-model 20-something girls who gaze into his wise, knowledgeable eyes. It's pathetic. The plot is completely inconsequential and the ending is formulaic and bland. The visuals are very blue, grey, depressing and support the overall unpleasant viewing experience. Don't waste your time watching this, no matter how big a Pacino fan you are. I don't know why he did this movie, but it's definitely not worth your time no matter how bored you are!!!


Despite all of the horrific reviews it has received, I went into this film expecting a flawed but entertaining thriller. Nothing could have prepared me for the disaster this film is. The premise is pretty simple; forensic psychologist Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) receives a call saying that he has 88 minutes to live on the day that one of the men he put in jail is sentenced to die. This sloppy, horribly put together plot unfolds onward with bomb threats, exploding cars and suspicious characters every which way and it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. The story is just ludicrous containing so many contrived details that I had to fight back the urge to bust into severe laughter. There's an ex-boyfriend that ultimately has nothing to do with the plot, sexual 'tension' with every single woman on screen and for some reason there are a bounty of young, immensely attractive females who want to bang Al Pacino even though he honestly looks like he's about to fall into his coffin throughout the entire film. And Leelee Sobieski gives what may just be the worst performance I've ever seen. Just terrible. Oh, and the twist? You know those thrillers where killers have sincere motives? Yeah, this isn't one of them.


Awful awful AWFUL - this film really was a stinker, and I'm quite astonished at the number of good comments it's receiving on here. What on Earth Al Pacino was thinking of getting involved in something this dire is quite beyond me - perhaps money, but damage to reputation alone I would have thought to be adequate reason to steer well away. The script was strewn with clichés which managed to bring out the worst in everyone. The actress who played his sidekick for the 3rd quarter of the film looked completely lost, struggling vainly to add some meaning to her lines, with the long, poorly composed two-shots only prolonging the agony. Character development was thin at best and the fast-paced attempt at storytelling only led to one farce after another, making the whole thing completely laughable.

My advice - avoid at all costs. Whoever put money into this turkey deserves to lose it.


Despite all the horrible reviews, I do recommend 88 MINUTES because the screening I attended was filled with so much non-stop laughter. Seriously, the film is frequently hilarious and the chuckles begin with Al Pacino teaching at the University of Beautiful Single Women. Every female, even down to the incidental characters, is a "hottie". A scene involving Pacino dancing at a club actually drew applause. What was funny is that the friend who took me already owned the movie on DVD, but wanted to experience watching it in a theater and he wasn't disappointed by the MST3000 response. Al Pacino truly stepped up by promoting this movie. I'm amazed he's working with the director again, but perhaps the second time is the charm. All in all, a very funny film that plays like an unsold pilot for a series you'd watch every week if they could maintain the laughs.


A thriller about a college professor who, while moonlighting as a forensic psychiatrist for the FBI, receives a death threat telling him that he has only 88 minutes to live. In narrowing down possible suspects, he frantically seeks to communicate with a problem student, an ex-girlfriend, and a serial killer on death row.

Like most "whodunnit" movies, this tries to be something new. It tries to be clever in its own way. It tries to be so original with the plot that it is all very stupid in the end. It needs you to suspend your belief at its most.

This sounds very familiar? Oh, wait. These comments were from my review for "Mindhunters", another movie that tries too hard to be original. Still, "Mindhunters" was entertaining. This movie was not. Al Pacino is not an action hero anymore.

Surprisingly, I expected this movie to have some action scenes but it had very little of it. Then about the twists and turns: They aren't believable. They don't work. They're just stupid. They are nonetheless very laughable.

Al Pacino gives a decent performance in this film. There wasn't anything really special about it. All in all, this tries to be a smart thriller but ends up being a doofy, dumb movie in its own little world. If you're a Pacino fan, don't watch it if you want to remain as one. Skip it if you like smart thrillers. It's just stupid from beginning to end.


I have an inclination; a strong intuition that the latest Al Pacino film, 88 Minutes initially incorporated a slightly longer headline. I guess it is not surprising however that they opted to cut out the latter portion of the moniker, as '88 Minutes of Your Life You Will Never Get Back' is not quite as zippy. Notwithstanding, of course the opportunity is lost to establish an ample warning for the unsuspecting audience who may not know well enough to swing far clear of this cataclysmic misfire of a film.

Al Pacino is almost always the best thing about a film, but in Jon Avnet's 88 Minutes, even Scarface himself can't punch up this material; in fact he doesn't even appear to try. He stumbles through this role, half sleepwalking, half comatose, which ironically suits the character he is portraying quite capably. That is certainly more then one can remark regarding his quaff of hair which looks like a Muppet left in the microwave too long. I imagine this is the last time Avnet will slash the budget of his hair and makeup department.

Quips aside, this film is an "action/thriller" devoid of thrills, and scrapes the bottom of what could be deemed action; note to director, simply having a gun in a movie does not constitute inertia, there must be purpose, and tension to give it all meaning. Even if you argue that this is a psychological thriller, Avnet also seems to have forgotten any semblance of intelligence that would raise this movie above the level of a gimmick. 88 minutes is essentially all about the ending, and this could be passable if I had not figured out who the 'surprise' villain was during the opening act. This dreck simply keeps getting dumber and more implausible, and less forgivable, until you simply sit back and bask in the incompetence and place bets about how much lower it can slump.

Al Pacino stars as Jack Gramm, a well respected forensic psychiatrist who currently teaches a University class, but acts more like a police officer the anything else, something of a hybrid between a member of CSI and Jack Bauer, brandishing his weapon, chasing suspects and being begged by the FBI for his assistance. But aside from being a John McClain wannabe with a suit and better vocabulary, after he receives a threat on his life, which is to be honored in 88 minutes, he is inertly passive, and wanders around aimlessly, unfazed; perhaps he is looking for a hair salon? The basis of this treat is spawned from Jon Foster (Neal McDonough) a convict on death row, and claims it was Jack's phony testimony that landed him in the slammer. After a series of copycat killings complicate the situation, Jack enlists the aid of some of his students played by Alicia Witt and Leelee Sobieski (who gives one of the worst performances of the year) and his assistant, played by Amy Brenneman.

As I alluded to, the action ranges from non-existent to being harshly neutered and you know when one of the 'tense' scenes comprises of jack diving out of the way of a random fire truck, this ship ain't coming in. The finale is cringe-inducing, and leaves the plot with more holes than Pacino has hair. (Last one, I swear) Sadly, this effort is egregiously forgettable, and is so intellectually challenged, that your brain quivers at its mere thought. When it comes to 88 Minutes, one minute was far too long.

Read all my reviews at: http://www.simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com


I found watching this film to be a dark,depressing experience. Not because of the hideous script, crass emotionally inconsistent acting (including Mr Pacino -Sorry Al!), banal-but-predictable plot (complete with by-the-numbers set pieces - someone had a checklist) or even because of the painfully inept direction but because it reminds you that there is a part of the film industry out there prepared to make and release terrible films such as this for a quick buck and willing to pull down A-list(ish) talent to it's grim level in the process. 5 minutes into this film you realise you've wasted your $5 rental fee and you feel the life being sucked out of you. Then you start to wonder how do films like this get made? Did they intend to make a turkey? And if not, why didn't someone (e.g. Script-writer, Director, Soundman, Mobile Caterer etc) at some stage stop and say "Hey guys, this thing we're doin' here is absolutely pant-wettingly, teeth-gnashingly, DVD-snappingly damn awful"? I would respectfully suggest the cast and crew of 88 Minutes find something better to do with the rest of their lives than be involved with films such as this. I shall attempt to do the same............


A curious offering. The premise that the film's star, a hot-shot forensic psychiatrist, Jack Gramm,is given 88 minutes to live by an unknown assassin on the end of a phone, is a good one. Pacino is a fine actor. The plot twists and turns, is fast paced, and has a dramatic conclusion as the dead ends disappear, and the "reveal" in the final act unfolds. Add in some salacious sado-masochistic sex scenes and you should have the ingredients of a "gritty" psychological thriller. But for some reason the total is considerably less than the sum of the parts.

Part of this is due to the fact that although Pacino is convincing as an experienced psychiatrist, his dyed hair isn't, nor is his ability to womanise with females around a third of his age. Furthermore, Pacino's strength is as an outstanding cerebral actor. Yet he slips into "action-cop" mode on a number of occasions in ways which seem out of character, and inappropriate.

Even the 88 minute premise is played around with as attempts are made upon his life within that time frame. I cannot imagine that the plot will be too popular with feminists either. The gruesome sado-masochistic sexual torture of one victim makes for uncomfortable, and explicit viewing, and the female characters around Pacino serve as little more than eye candy . At 108 minutes overall, the 88 minutes run in real time, the story only just stays within its welcome too. A sure sign that the characterisation has engaged with the audience.

The finale is dramatic, if preposterous, and the action scenes exciting enough. But ultimately this is fairly standard formulaic fare with Pacino having to work far too hard to make up for both the shortcomings of the screenplay, and the underwritten roles of those around him.


Man... Well, first off I promise I'm not a 'Troll' and I'm not going to say something brainless and general like 'worst movie ever' because it isn't : ) However... after thinking about it honestly, I THINK what this film is, is a good example of what probably could have been a good film and I don't know WHAT the hell was done to it, but man oh man... the result is literally STUNNINGLY awful. Immediately I thought that it's GOT to be the director, it HAS to be! But, I checked and I GUESS the guy credited with it did direct 'RIGHTEOUS KILL' which was quite good. Then I saw in the Trivia section that he replaced the guy who directed 'CONFIDENCE' which was a fr i gg'n BRILLIANT film. So, I'm rather mystified as to what went wrong.

Now, apparently there must have been serious trouble with the production because of it being delayed so much in addition to the change in directors. I can't even begin to surmise WHY the result was so poor, but something sure happened all right.

Well, for specifics, I mean, HOW can you possibly make Al Pacino look that bad... It wasn't really him per se but the more I'm thinking about it maybe it was whoever the hell put the thing together as the finished product. It's like whoever decided what takes to use and whoever was in charge of editing the damn thing I believe must be the one(s) that ruined it. Funny too, because there IS indeed a good film in here somewhere; the story itself is very good, the actors obviously are good. LeeLee is as stinkin' BEAUTIFUL as ever, although that is not really relevant : ) Even the production and camera-work in and of themselves were very polished and well done. But, I don't know... It's the way it's all put together that looks so damn awkward.

The scenes where there is SUPPOSED to be high drama come off as VERY amateurish; GEEZ, just check out the scene between Al and the cop friend of his. Can you say 'STILTED...?' 'AWKWARD AS HELL...?' I've honestly seen literally thousands of films, but I sure cannot remember one where a very good idea with good actors and supposedly very good directors (both of them) turned out so dang horribly... I was thinking 'Was it the script' because so much of the dialog and interaction was so awkward; but a good director can work around that and fix it enough so that it doesn't turn out THIS bad. I seriously would LOVE to know EXACTLY what the hell happened...