Q: The idea is to have something interesting happening in the first ten minutes to keep the audience hooked. Late Night Shopping manages to avoid interest for much longer than that. When we do get to a point, it is so monumentally moronic that I kept thinking I must have misunderstood it. But I didn't.

Sean tells the story of an Osaka landlord who rented the same apartment to two people at the same time who worked different shifts and so didn't realise they were sharing. His friend asks "But what about the weekends?" Sean doesn't have an adequate explanation. Sean then tells the story of his own similar problem, which is that he isn't sure his girlfriend is still living at home as he works during the night and she works during the day so they never see each other. This has been going on for three weeks. But his friend doesn't ask: "Yes, but as I said before, what about the weekends? You must see her then. It doesn't make sense. What are you going on about, Sean? Are you on medication or something?" But let's be generous and assume that they both work seven days a week.

We see Sean checking to see if the soap and towels have been used. (In fact, bizarrely, he starts to carry the soap around with him.) But what about his girlfriend's conditioner and shampoo, sanpro and moisturiser, toothpaste and toothbrush. Let's go to the kitchen. What about food and drink? Is any missing? Has any been bought? In the bedroom, has the shared bed been made or not? Are her clothes being used and exchanged for clean ones? Is the laundry basket fuller? In the toilet, is the seat up or down? I mean, good grief!

And to cap it all Paul arranges to leave work early to see if his girlfriend is still living at home. Why doesn't he just phone her?

But it gets worse. In the last act although no-one told Vincent where the rest of the group are going he manages to find them. Lenny's love interest and Sean's girlfriend conveniently appear to be best friends and also manage to find the group. There isn't even the slightest attempt to explain any of these extraordinarily unlikely coincidences.

To be fair the dialogue is OK but not nearly good enough to make up for the weak characters or annoyingly lame story.

I heard one of actors interviewed and he promised "no guns, no drugs, no corsets." I thought, "great". But after half-an-hour of tedium I was yelling at the screen: "I want guns! I want drugs! I want corsets!"

It wouldn't have taken much to sort these problems out but on the official website the director boasts that the film wasn't script-edited. That's all you need to know.
A: negative
Q: I watched this today, partially attracted to the all-star cast and partly because I have enjoyed so many other films of this ilk. However, this is one to avoid. There are dozens of badly cut scenes where the continuity just does not flow, the billiards challenge at the start, for example. The fighting scenes with the natives are about as good as you would remember in those old black and white Tarzan movies, you know where you see a spear fly through the air and camera cuts to a dead native lying motionless on the floor with it sticking from his thigh. Is that instantaneous death? There are also several quite unnecessary scenes which have nothing to do with the plot, like the little girl being rescued while collecting flowers. The really badly animated clay toys are too painful to watch. If you do see this movie the crabs which inch forward at about 5kph are the highlight. Somehow one manages to creep up on David Mccullum and give him a nip. Its as if there was no time to get out of the way, like when the obelisk in the city falls over, the native has all the time in the world to take a 2 step to the left, but no he screams and it falls on him. I only give this a 2 because of Ekland. And why does Mccullums voice develop a stutter as the movie progresses?
A: negative
Q: I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.

But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.

It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...
A: negative
Q: From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu "I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the 3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt.
A: negative