Why do I watch movies like this ? - other than I have some weird misguided masochistic belief that one day I will find a true gem amongst all this dross I can't think one one good reason. This movie was dross from start to finish - but semi-hilarious dross. Where else but in a bad Italian dubbed movie could you find heated exchanges of surreal mangled English like this one between a honest military type and the sinister chief of a secret X-files like organisation dedicated to hiding "The Truth":

Man in Black: Silence is best for us until we are able to prove that the UFOs have no bellicose motives.

Military Type: In any event I find your interference abusive.

Man in Black: Whoever has to impose his will is.

I rewound the DVD (you know what I mean) a good half dozen times and I still can't make those lines mean anything sensible. My other fave line was:

"We can be quite hard on those who contravert our interests."

It's English Jim, but not as we know it.

The other highlights of this dull plonker of a movie for me were the totally spaced out acting of the photographer character at the start. Saddled with the worst haircut EVER in the history of everything, the man just wandered around looking like a stunned fish in a bad wig till kidnapped and forced to look at a piece of Plexiglas by some aliens. The aliens are most effectively not seen as a POV shot - hand held camera with a fish-eye lens - sort of spooky the first time but, used over and over again it lost its power (incidentaly, if it is a Point of View shot, it means the aliens always walk out of rooms backwards for some reason).

The film was set in "England". This meant the Spanish Italian set designers put some British number plates on a couple of English cars and put a Union Jack on our hero's press card... and that was about it. No other attempt to make it look like the UK at all.

Favourite moment? When the Foley artists didn't notice that characters they were foleying (is there such a word?) were no longer walking on gravel but were now on the lawn so their feet kept on making loud "crunch! crunch!" noises. Other than that, another total waste of 90 minutes of my life. I hope they prove those UFOs have no bellicose motives soon...


This film was not nearly as much of a chore as I expected it to be. There are a few seconds of brilliance in this somewhat idiotic hardcore UFO conspiracy paranoia-fest. Most of the acting is mediocre, but fairly typical for 1970s-style stuff replete with pregnant pauses. A photographer and a model witness some strange goings-on in the woods and soon fall victim to these same goings-on. Flying saucers are spotted, more people disappear - but is it the aliens or our own government's ultra-secret group of cover-up guys? Soon enough, a reporter and a "UFOlogist" (apparently modeled on the character of the writer-director) are drawn into this unraveling fiasco and become the target of the ultra-secret agents who are as menacing as they are improbable and witless. Then the fun really begins.

The movie, predictably, makes about as much sense as the average UFO conspiracy theory, but should be commended for taking itself so seriously. The camera work is OK for a low-budget film, the pacing is pretty good, the script is silly and absurd, and there are continuity issues which are fun to look out for. What are the few seconds of brilliance I mentioned? Honestly, I can't say much you without writing a spoiler. Suffice to say that the end of the film is, at least, worth fast-forwarding to if you can't take the middle.


For some reason, in the late 70's and early 80's the local CBS affiliated station in New York kept playing this movie in it's late-night slot on Friday or Saturday nights for several years, usually at 2 a.m. or some such time. It's a fitting movie for that time slot since it's really hard to follow and quite odd (see the other reviews for specific story info). Anyway, after catching it numerous times in those days just before cable TV (And even after it hit but before they offered much all night programming), I kept catching this little oddity. After not seeing it for many years I decided to see if I could find it on DVD. Well, it is only available (from every search i've conducted anyway)in a pretty lousy grainy print on the budget label "Brentwood Video" as part of a 4-pack of movies (4 movies on 2 double sided discs)called "Alien Worlds" if anyone is interested. It's usually available for around $10-but even much less if you shop around. The other 3 movies on this set are readily available in numerous other collections of public domain movies, so no need to comment on them here. But I haven't seen "Eyes" available anywhere else. Though hardly a "restored" version in any way, this print runs exactly 92 minutes, so for once IMDb's stated running time of 90 minutes is not correct. Even with the 92 minute running time it's not unusual for a movie dubbed into English from another language to also have some of the running time trimmed. It seems to be a common budget-conscience practice to sometimes save money by not bothering to dub some scenes at all if they are not considered to be important to the story. Would a longer version make in any less confusing? Who really knows-unless you've seen it in it's native language... By the way, my attempts to watch this during the day don't work and I end up just turning it off. There's something about watching this in the middle of the night that just fits this movie..or maybe it's just from my earlier experiences, who know??


In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like "Plan 9!") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks.


It's possible that A Man Called Sledge might have been done irreparable damage on the cutting room floor. Maybe someone will demand a director's cut one day, but I seriously doubt it.

James Garner decided to cash in on the spaghetti western market and in doing so brought a whole lot of Americans over to fill the cast out. Folks like Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, John Marley. And of course we have Vic Morrow who both wrote and directed this film.

Garner always gets cast as likable rogues because he's so darn good at playing them. But he has played serious and done it well in films like The Children's Hour and Hour of the Gun. He can and has broken away from his usual stereotyped part successfully. But A Man Called Sledge can't be counted as one of his successes.

He's got the title role as Luther Sledge notorious outlaw with a big price on his head. After partner Tony Young gets killed in a saloon and Garner takes appropriate Eastwood style measures, he's followed from the saloon by John Marley.

Marley's spent time in the nearby territorial prison and it seems as though gold shipments are put under lock and key there on a rest stop for the folks transporting the stuff on a regular run. Garner gets his gang together for a heist.

Here's where the movie goes totally off the wall. Usually heist films show the protagonists going into a lot of methodical planning. Certainly that was the case in The War Wagon which some other reviewer cited. But in this one Garner decides to break into the prison as a prisoner of fake US Marshal Dennis Weaver and cause a jailbreak at which time the gold will be robbed.

That was just too much to swallow. If taking the gold was this easy it should have been done a long time before. But I will say for those who like the blood and guts of Italian westerns, during that prison break there's enough there for three movies.

That's not the whole thing, of course the outlaws fall out and we have another gore fest before the film ends. But by that time the whole film has lost a lot of coherency.

The great movie singer of the Thirties Allan Jones is listed in the credits. But for the life of me I can't find him in the film. Maybe a chorus of the Donkey Serenade might have made this better.

Couldn't have hurt any.


Two kinds of movies we like are (1) westerns, and (2) movies from 30 or 40 years ago. We ought to have liked A Man Called Sledge; BUT.....

BUT... this picture is disagreeable, annoying and stupid from start to finish. Since there is nobody in the story (good or bad) to warm up to, there is nobody to motivate the necessary suspense to keep the viewer interested. No camaraderie among the guys trying to steal the gold, and no camaraderie among those trying to protect it. Sledge has a pretty girl friend, but there's no reason why she slobbers all over the guy or why she wants to be in the same room with this no-account pig.

The film also suffers from an intrusive and gawdawful musical score, and from extremely bad writing and direction by Vic Morrow.

Of the last 30 older movies rented from Netflix or Video Vault, this was the rock bottom, the only true dud in the bunch.


Although there are a lot of familiar "television" names associated with "A Man Called Sledge", there is nothing extraordinary about the film itself or about any of the performances. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes it from a 1960's-70's television series like "The Rat Patrol" is a bigger cast and a lot more violence.

James Garner is the biggest star and apparently thought he should try to break away from all the light comedy stuff he had been doing ("Maverick", "Support Your Local Sheriff"-"Gunfighter" etc.). Unfortunately his earthy likability works against him, as Sledge is a humorless character written to cash in on the popularity of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti western character. But Eastwood's stuff was not this flat and uninteresting.

I suppose that "A Man Called Sledge" could be classified as a spaghetti western although the pacing is too slow to really fit that sub-genre. Fans of the slow-paced "Combat" television series will feel an instant connection as Vic Morrow directed the film and co-wrote the script with Frank Kowalski. Throw in some then trendy slow-mo shots and cross-dissolves, which call attention to themselves rather than serve a story-telling purpose.

The plot is the standard "big heist" thing (insert "The War Wagon" here) with Sledge plotting how to heist a $300,000 gold shipment. His gang includes Claude Akins and Dennis Weaver. The problem is that while on the move the shipment is guarded by 40 outriders and while stopped it is locked in a vault inside the territorial prison. I think there was an episode of "Alias Smith and Jones" with the same plot.

The story would make a decent hour of television but gets old very fast as a very padded feature length film. Garner does not allow any of his charm to leak into his characterization and the film does not generate enough suspense to hold a viewer's interest.

The thing finally crashes and burns shortly after the heist when the gang engages in a contrived and totally illogical card game.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.

The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.

The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no "coming of age" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim.


'Maladolescenza' has the air of a dark fairy tale, with its child protagonists, forest setting, and the discovery of a castle's ruins. Yet at its core, the film is essentially an unusual psychosexual study of adolescents. Opening with a dream sequence employing the not-so-subtle metaphor of Fabrizio wrestling with his menacing hound, the film details his psychological persecution of Laura, the girl who has pledged her love to him, and his eventual romance with the equally malicious Sylvia. The film's psychological complexities do give the film merit, yet there's no doubting how unnecessarily exploitive the film is in its depiction of nudity and sex. The film's look relies more on its gorgeous locations rather than particular cinematographic skill, and there's no doubting the film's greatest asset is the creepy, children's choir-augmented soundtrack. With its odd dreamlike quality, the film is at best interesting, yet pales beside Louis Malle's surreal and brilliant 'Black Moon' from the same era. Certainly deserving of the art versus pornography debate, for unlike many banned films, Pasolini's 'Salo' or Larry Clark's 'Ken Park' for instance, the film is rather unremarkable from an artistic perspective. Cinema seems to be gradually losing its ability to shock, so perhaps 'Maladolescenza' should be admired for retaining that power thirty years after its release. However shock value is the one reason alone the film is memorable.

The film does have its defenders. Yet so does Nazism.


the tortuous emotional impact is degrading, whether adult or adolescent the personal values shown in this movie belong in a bad psychodrama if anywhere at all. This movie has a plot, but it is all evil from start to end. This is no way for people to act and degrades both sexes all the way through the movie. teen killing - bad preteen sex - bad emotional battering - bad animal cruelty - bad psychological torture - bad parental neglect - bad the only merit if any is the excellent color shots of contrasting red, blond and green leaves a bad feeling for anyone that respects life and peace, what a bad mistake to make, or to watch... it is UGLY


I rarely comment on films but I've read the other comments and I cannot believe that there are people applauding this celluloid rubbish. I know there are certain people who have their own agenda but lets take it on merit; poorly acted, badly shot and the story felt as the director was making it up as he was going along. I am not going to focus on the sexual aspect of the film involving little kids as the makers of the film obviously knew what they wanted and what their audience would want. All I can say is it is a terrible film, the content is poor and offensive, the production is amateurish and I am glad they could not make a film like this legally today


Would anyone really watch this RUBBISH if it didn't contain little children running around nude? From a cinematic point of view it is probably one of the worst films I have encountered absolutely dire. Some perv woke up one day and thought I will make a film with little girls in and call it art, stick them in countryside and there isn't any need for a story or explanation of how they got there or why they don't appear to live anywhere or have parents because p*rn films don't need anything like that. I would comment on the rest of the film but I haven't ticked spoilers so I will just say avoid, avoid avoid and find yourself a proper film to watch


In THE FAN Robert De Niro plays Gil Renard . Or is it Travis Bickle ? or Rupert Pupkin ? Or Max Cady ? You see the problem with this type of role is that De Niro has played very very similar characters in TAXI DRIVER , THE KING OF COMEDY and CAPE FEAR and unfortunately the characters were better developed and had better scripts . I found it slightly difficult to believe that Renard would have started out as a frustrated obsessive sports fan into being an out and out psycho

The character arc isn't the only problem with this script - It also lacks a character focus ( A problem I had with THE UNTOUCHABLES where De Niro should have been superb but ended up slightly flat ) , for several stretches of the movie I kept thinking that Bobby Rayburn was the main character then the story switches back to Renard . It also seems to have disappointed a lot of sports fans who seem to think this should have concentrated a bit more on baseball . I'm not sure if this was meant to appeal to baseball fans originally but again there are elements which hint it might have if the producers had made up their minds has to who and what the story should focus upon

I will admit I was entertained by THE FAN ( Especially by the soundtrack ) but it is a very flawed film and it should be remembered that by the mid 1990s characters being stalked by nutters as in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE , UNLAWFUL ENTRY etc had run out of steam a long time ago


One of the worst movies I've ever seen with Robert De Niro, The Fan is a pointless cliché of an exercise in slasher flicks. It tries to spin or twist the genre with preposterous plot lines of a a crazed fan turned psychotic - the movie meanders into nothing. (spoiler) We're to believe that a knife-wielding idiot has access to and murders a baseball player in a lavish hotel with no witness, security, or cameras? The movie is nonsense trying to tug at our heart-strings through the hoopla of baseball ending up mockingly unsophisticated and gimmicky. Not sure what all the actors were thinking when they got onboard this razzie. This is as big a dud as they come. Stay far away if you prefer thought in your movies


What a bad movie. I'm really surprised that DeNiro and even Snipes would be associated with something like this. If you're going to make a movie that involves baseball, and shows scenes of baseball, at least make the action look somewhat realistic. Why was the crowd always standing up for no particular reason during games? ***POSSIBLE SPOILER*** And the last scene in the movie....what was that? We are somehow led to believe that DeNiro has found his way onto the field in an umpire's uniform, and that the game is even being played in a torrential downpour....one of the worst ever scenes in a sports movie. 3 stars out of 10.


*MANY MANY SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW* This movie was horrible. I am a huge baseball fan so I thought I'd watch it, and I was very disappointed. It started out okay.. When I saw the bad influence DeNiro had on his young son, I was hoping that he would become a better father throughout the movie or something. Anyways, at the beginning it seemed as if DeNiro was supposed to be the protagonist. He was the only one that believed in Bobby, and he had his adorable son that he was losing custody of, which gave me a reason to feel bad for him. He wanted to help Bobby by talking to Primo, when out of absolutely nowhere he brutally stabs Primo to death... Not to mention that sketchy reoccurring song "I WANT TO **** YOU!!!!" at random unfitting moments.

Later, when DeNiro saves Bobby's son from drowning, I was hoping that the movie could redeem itself.. He could forgive himself for killing Primo if he saved Bobby's son. But of course this is far beyond the depth of the movie, because all he cares about is getting CREDIT for the murder, and does so by stealing Bobby's son, car, and dog and holding them hostage- Bobby just has to hit a home run and announce that DeNiro is a "true fan" while displaying a picture of him biting a knife.

Now we get to the completely unrealistic scene at the end... It is pouring like hell and we are expected to believe that the game hasn't been called. Then DeNiro somehow magically appears on the field in an umpire suit and calls Bobby out at home, proceeding to pull out his knife and start stabbing everyone that runs onto the field. There are seemingly no officers on the field (but the police are on their way), so DeNiro steps on the mound and prepares to pitch a knife to Bobby when he gets shot to death. But don't worry, this cheerful and pleasant movie has a happy ending, because Bobby find his son.

This is NOT a sports movie. It is NOT about a fan. As far as I know, fans are not rabid psychopaths that threaten, rob, and throw knives at their admirees. This is likely to be the sickest movie I will ever see in my life. The plot was shallow, the soundtrack sucked, the movie had no purpose whatsoever. I warn you not to waste your time on this disgusting excuse for a film.


DeNiro is a master...one of my favourites. And I love GOOD sports movies {not into baseball so much, but hey, its sports movies, right?. I was expecting MUCH more for this movie. It seems to start out well: DeNiro is what I expected, Snipes {whom I don't really like} is very good as the spoiled star. Barkin's role, to me, was OK. She's a good actress, but seemed out of place in this role. To me, they always seemed to rush the scenes, and then it drags a bit in places. It just seemed tio me to be so uneven! Considering the cast and the plot, it could have been so much better. I rated it a '4', and I was being generous ~ I'm a tough one with numbers!


To put it simply, The Fan was a disappointment. It felt like as if I was watching Taxi Driver, except Taxi Driver was much better than this. It seemed like the filmmakers wanted us to root for Robert Deniro's character 100 percent. This approach didn't work.


Tony Scott directs a thriller sports flick that should attract even the non-sports fan. And some say baseball is a dead sport...boring...too damn slow. Well perk up! On the outside he appears to be a disgruntled salesman(Robert De Niro) while on the inside he is a psychotic San Francisco Giants fan. Along comes a new slugger(Wesley Snipes)and designated savior from the doldrums. Our salesman harbors a murderous obsession when the hard hitting all star falls into the worst slump in his career and the Giants are feared to crumble along with him. De Niro is terror personified. Snipes seems very natural as the ballplayer. Other notables in the cast are: the still attractive Ellen Barkin, John Leguizamo, Benicio Del Toro and Patti D'Arbanville. You are a free agent...so enjoy. Violence and very strong language is to be expected and you get your moneys worth.


It never ceases to amaze me how you can take an excellent actor, and put him to waste in a film such as this. Robert De Niro is one of the best Hollywood stars of all time, but even he couldn't save this movie. In fact, his character is much the same as the one he played in Cape Fear, which was actually pretty good, but I can't stand it when actors do the same schtick over more than one movie. I believe it gets old, and that is the case here.

There's nothing surprising in this movie, but then, the story has been told a million times before. Wesley Snipes is your typical baseball player, and his conceit shows through in his characterization. De Niro plays the obsessed fan, but his role in this film is less than entertaining.

However, because De Niro is IN this film, that makes it a draw if you are a fan (no pun intended) who sees everything he does no matter how bad. But to see De Niro at his best, see "Midnight Run", "Goodfellas", or "Cop Land", or even go way back and check out "Taxi Driver" or "Godfather II". Don't waste your time with this drivel.

My Rating: 3/10


Vodka Lemon is a charming, yet extremely uneven Arminian film that will delight some and bore others. Though reasonably well-crafted, the film lacks any real "zing", relying instead on many scenes that will seem commonplace to the astute art-house viewer. The film contains a handful of moments of sheer cinematic brilliance, unfortunately, they deserve a film worthy of their genius. Too dark to be a dark comedy and to light to be a serious drama, Vodka Lemon will leave many views disoriented and ultimately disgruntled. You may laugh, but these moments will be few and far between amid a sea of washed out snow filled landscapes and a seemingly endless series of bus rides. A noble effort, ultimately done in by lack of narrative cohesion.


SLIGHT SPOILERS (but it doesn't matter anyway).

An exercise in gobblygook of catastrophic proportions not even worthy of the l0 lines I need to put these remarks on the netwaves. This is the single worst episode of the Masters series to date and the first that qualifies for the defunct Mystery Science Theatre treatment. Even if it took me a full half hour to realize the intended ironic angle, it was still a very lame mess. Its sole value lies in the perspective that forces one to realize that in addition to gore and ugly masks the genre only succeeds when the classic cinematic notions of photography and lighting, dialogue and acting, editing and timing are put to use. Here they are absent and John Carpenter is no master. Period. And no trite analysis of the easy social comment herein will change that. Oddly, Carpenter never has been anything more than a B director, but at least such films as 'Fog' and 'The Thing' had terrific atmosphere (the latter is one of my cult favorites).

Abominable acting. Camera angles stuck in cement. Tensionless rhythm. Yet perhaps the single most obnoxious element of the episode is the storyline which of course JC cannot really be blamed for (unless the writers were buddies of Cody.) The initial two minute slo-mo of a girl running through a forest only to be nearly run over by a would be Scully-Mulder duo is the first and last thing that works in the film. But come on, a girl hurtling through a deserted woods to nowhere in particular in desperate need of an abortion fortuitously rendez-vous with the fender of a pair of 'women's rights' MDs whose clinic just happens to be at the end of the road around the corner. Oh, and I won't even nitpick about how the doc whips the accidentee into the car and speeds away at 0 to 60 in six seconds. Does wonders for possible broken ribs or concussion.

Then things fall apart real quick. The vacuous dialogue "I just want to help you", the interminably sluggish back and forth at the gate, grandiose battle tactics like cutting the telephone line (in the age of cell phones?) followed by the the shoot-out: a born-again Ramboesque clinic director vs Ron Perlman and the high school bullpen out for a few kicks at Easter break. Another lovely line: "So what are we going to do?" from the kid who had just been sitting on a pile of assault rifles in the back of the van. Er, no it isn't yet pheasant season. So who needs those teen boys anyway. What about the good old tried and true method of the lone lunatic who bashes his way through the gate with his all-American SUV?

As for the exchange of bullets scenes themselves, the cuts here were as stiff as the staccato of a DC comics strip. All that was lacking were the Wham, Bam, and Whiz of the balloon titles. And all to the tune of a soundtrack worthy of an old Mannix episode.

At one point we learn that Daddy isn't really the daddy, but at this point we haven't been led to care much any more either. This story's single source of drama is the conflict between the pro-life father and his pregnant daughter who is only thankful she's not having twins. Yet there is not a single scene, flashback or not, where they are actually ever found together. They remain mere abstractions to each other throughout.

With the exception of the gatekeeper every single one of the characters is absolutely dislikeable. Bland, hysterical, dull-headed, macho. As perfectly flat as human wallpaper can be. None of the doctors seem to have anything medical about them. And there's that bickering Dad who rails at his pregnant daughter as though he himself were the stressed out boyfriend. He fortunately got his. There are two great MST-worthy comic moments: the gusher when Angelica's plumbing goes out and later the new-born lobster with a glued on baby's head. Also cute was Angelica's rugby ball belly before she finally popped the right-to-life little monster from Hell. As for that audacious male abortion scene...well, they should have retained Miike's episode and banned this one instead.

In short, a 3rd rate Rosemary's Baby meets Alien set on the turf of a M.A.S.H. episode. This stinker alone, appreciable only to today's permissive under-16 generation, will assure as someone else said here, that this series will not be renewed for a third season. A real shame, since there have been a number of brilliant productions, including such really decent spoofs as Dante's 'Homecoming' or McKee's deliciously quirky 'Sick Girl'. Not to mention the superb imagery of Malone's 'Fairhaired Child'.

Sorry John Carpenter, I believe your directing days are over. It's time to run for President.


I was looking forward to seeing John Carpenter's episode in Season 2 because his first, Cigarette Burns, was by far the best from Season 1 (and I did like other episodes from that season). Oh, how I was disappointed.

In fairness to Carpenter I think the primary problem with this episode was absolutely horrible writing. The characters, aside from the subject matter, seemed to behave and speak as though they were written for an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger. The acting was bad, and I normally like Ron Perlman a lot, but I can only blame them so much because the writing was so horrible. I'm not going to try to guess what the writers were trying to do because that would be useless but it appeared as though they were trying to mix horror (obviously) with some form of social commentary on abortion and religion. In this case, not surprisingly, it seemed a chance to bash a certain variety or religious nuts as well as fanatical anti-abortionists. And I am in favor of both aims but it was done so horribly that I was embarrassed to watch characters act and speak with such stupid inconsistency. This failed totally to offer any worthwhile opinion on the subjects and the horror element failed as well alongside such inept writing.

While I don't think Carpenter can be blamed for most of the badness here I will say he did choose to direct the teleplay and therefore has that to be held responsible for. There are a couple small bits that I found nice, hence the 2 stars I gave it.

The actual gore and monster effects were good, but the CGI gore (two separate gunshots to the head) were so obviously inferior quality CGI they should've never been given the OK. I'm generally very critical of CGI but not because I have a problem with it in principle. I have a problem with the execution of it. The technology, while amazing in some respects, is not good enough to match "real" effects, whether they be miniatures or gore especially when it is supposed to match something organic and/or alive, and therefore shouldn't be used until they are. CGI can be used well in small amounts or obviously if the whole film is animated.

I'll also take this opportunity to note that the show title, Masters of Horror, is a bad title to have. There simply aren't many actual "masters of horror" around. Maybe two or three. If the show were called "Tale of Horror" or something like that it would be fine. But as it stands the criteria for directing one of these episodes, and therefore being criticized for not being a "master of horror" is that they have directly at least one horror film in their career. And it didn't even have to be a good one.


I went into a Video Store and looked around to find some Horror Movies, after about 30 minutes I just rushed and picked out a few. I stumbled upon "Masters of Horror" which contained "Pro-Life" and "Right to Die". They seemed OK, same-old cheesy Horror crap, but I was interested for some reason. It said about Pro-Life on the case about being a classic, a return to form for John Carpenter (I loved his "The Thing", so I thought this would be good) and all that. So I turned it on thinking it would be something great and interesting, I was very wrong... It started off casual, just a girl running through a Forest, scared of something. A car stops and picks her up (just so being the people she needed to see, amazing?) They take her back to some Clinic and examine her, at the sametime all this is happening her Father appears at the gates and they don't allow him in, he isn't aloud near the area. Most likely from something he would of done in the past, but you don't know of any of this at the moment. He really does not want his Daughter in this place, an Abortion center. He is very strongly against such acts, believing it's sickening and not what "God" would want. He "supports" what I heard is called "Pro-Life". Acting against Abortions and going to extremes to allow the Babies to be born, they are sick. They don't like the Life of an unborn being taken, yet they've killed Humans in the past to allow the Birth? Justice is only a figment of the mind. Anyway, back on track, after the girl is examined they find out shes pregnant, but far ahead than what she should be. She is only a few weeks pregnant, but is months ahead. She keeps telling them they wont understand her, and that she wants an Abortion and all, but finally tells the truth that she was raped by a Demon from Hell, and that her Father wants this baby (but believes "God" wants this baby, not who truly does). He gets his 3 Sons (they arm themselves with Pistols and Shotguns), and begin to make they're way into the Clinic (shooting down anyone who won't co-operate). The head of the Clinic, who must of had trouble with them in the past, is well prepared this time. Ends up killing one the Fathers Sons, but in the end gets shot a few times (wearing a bullet proof jacket). The Father then performs what he believes is done to the Women. He cuts a hole, where the Vagina would be if he we're a Female, and sticks some sort of sucking thing up there and sucks out all this blood. Whilst all this is happening, the girl gives birth to some Demonic baby with many legs, and some Demon raises from beneath the Earth (not in the same room) and starts looking for its child. The Father sees this later on, and starts questioning why this happened, he did what he was told to do, and doesn't understand why it's like this. The Demon had killed both of his Sons earlier, and now goes for Father... Whilst the girl kills the baby, and the Demon carries it away (not in the same scene).

Yeah, it probably sounds pretty cool, and a thrilling Horror Movie, but it isn't. The acting is horrible and lacks enthusiasm, the script is boring and not even creative, they choose the wrong characters and don't even build on them; just everything put together, all the small parts, don't even add up to something great, a waste of time. I wouldn't classify this as a Horror, though it has elements of Horror, they ultimately fail at what they try to succeed. It felt more like a "Beginners" Short-Movie, than by John Carpenter.

Sorry for my lack of information, and detailed review, I just didn't have the time to waste to write something exciting. Also sorry if my spelling and details are incorrect, I couldn't really be bothered to research anything.


Well well well. As good as John Carpenter's season 1 outing in "Masters of Horror" was, this is the complete opposite. He certainly proved he was still a master of horror with "Cigarette Burns" but "Pro-Life" is perhaps the worst I have seen from him.

It's stupid, totally devoid of creepy atmosphere and tension and it overstays it's welcome, despite the less-than-an-hour running time. The script is nonsense, the characters are irritable and un-appealing and the conclusion is beyond absurd.

And for those suckers who actually bought the DVD (one of them being me); did you see how Carpenter describes the film? He's actually proud of it and he talks about it as his best work for a long time, and he praises the script. And in the commentary track, where he notices an obvious screw up that made it to the final cut, he just says he didn't feel it essential to rectify the mistake and he just let it be there. I fear the old master has completely lost his touch. I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong.

I want to leave on a positive note and mention that the creature effects are awesome, though. Technically speaking, this film is top notch, with effective lighting schemes and make up effects.


"Masters of Horror" has proved itself a poor arena for 'message episodes,' and while a definite case can be made for Joe Dante's 'Screwfly Solution' (one of the best episodes of the series, period), most efforts to do so have come across as anvil-heavy and unimpressive (nothing defuses horror more than a soapbox). And 'Pro-Life' simply fuses reactionary viewpoints with ultra-violence; young Angelique (Caitlin Wachs), seen running through the woods, is nearly hit by 2 doctors (Mark Feuerstein and Emmanuelle Vaugier) who just happen to be driving in to work at the local (and isolated) abortion clinic. Angelique's father, Dwayne (Ron Perlman), is a stone-cold, far-right holy roller who will do anything to prevent his daughter from getting an abortion. If for nothing else, 'Pro-Life' accumulated some buzz for its controversial issue, but John Carpenter treats this whole venture with startling indifference--he seems even less interested in making a movie than the script itself (which is admittedly poor); the slow pacing builds no tension, and simply brings the already ambling plot to a crawl. Even when Dwayne and his sons storm the clinic, guns blazing, it is a stunning non-event; later, when a doctor is tortured with a 'male abortion,' the scene comes off as gratuitous and unnecessary--an effort to pad out the underwritten film. The poor performances (Perlman is sadly wasted here) become an outgrowth of the script, and Carpenter's direction feels exhausted, as if 'Pro-Life' is the source of his next hot meal. By the time a spider-creature with a human head and a guy in a latex monster suit are prowling the hallways, you just have to wonder what the minds behind this mess were thinking...


Wow. The only people reviewing this positively are the Carpenter apologists. I know a lot of those. The guys that'll watch John Carpenter squat on celluloid and pinch out a movie and proclaim it a masterwork of horror. This "movie" is utter crap. It looks and sounds like a porno (good lord, the soundtrack is awful...), and has sub-par porn acting, which is shocking, because normally Ron Perlman is really a very good actor. I honestly have no idea what Carpenter was thinking when making this. Most likely "Beans, beans, beans.." until somebody fed him and rolled him up into a blanket for the day... They say nothing about the abortion debate whatsoever, when they could have had a very interesting central theme (how do religious zealot anti-abortionists feel when it's the devil's baby?) but instead they chose to have Ron Perlman and his terribly acted kids kill a bunch of people and have the horribly cast doctors try to calm the hysterically bad pregnant girl. Not a single person from this episode or what have you should come away unscathed. It's just awful. Like, Plan 9 From Outerspace awful. Like, good god please would somebody turn it off before I soil myself awful. Try watching this and The Thing in the same day and your mind will implode.


This installment of Masters of Horror was terrible. Apparently, Mr. Carpenter needs to learn a thing or two about pacing and decent, plausible dialog. There were times when I literally shouted at the TV for something to happen. Maybe he thinks he building suspense, but Carpenter needs to trim back that overdone, over-simplified musical score of his (or his son's) and advance the action a little bit. How many times did the girl say, "Oh no, I can't have this baby!" and "Oh, no here it comes"? Carpenter takes elements from much, much better films (Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing) and throws them in here as if we are supposed to acknowledge and appreciate his trademark style. What is lacking here is genuine suspense and energy. It's as though he's sleepwalking through the process of movie making.

For better Carpenter films, stick to the tried and true classics-- The Thing, Halloween, and They Live. For better masters of horror episodes, check out my personal favorites: Family, Jenifer, and Dreams in the Witch House.


There is this girl and she's running in the woods but she ends up at this woman's clinic and she wants an abortion. Her daddy is outside in a van and he is all angry about it. The whole episode takes place in and outside of this abortion clinic. I'm not really pro-choice but I wanted the choice to kill this episode. I was laughing when I saw the baby come out and it went into the corner. The part where they were doing the ultra sound was pretty funny too. I was really feeling sorry for the poor dad in this episode. He just wanted to protect his daughter and I couldn't really blame him for what he did. I don't know what happened to him at the end or what happened to the other father and daughter in the waiting room. I was just laughing too hard and I would suggest watching "Pick me up" instead of this episode. It wasn't the worst episode but it wasn't that great.


I have to say as being a fan of the man who created Halloween/The Fog/Christine/The Thing - probably his best films.

Then you got this POS. I can't logically think he put any effort at all into this like he did with Cigarette Burns. At least his son made a decent soundtrack.

You have to look at this from the standpoint that it didn't seem like a movie. It looked as if someone else directed it for one thing. I won't believe Carpenter put any effort into this at all.

I was just listening to his old school H2/H3/The Fog soundtrack and it was awesome, especially for the times.

He was using a style that no one had and it worked so well for his films.


A plot that fizzled and reeked of irreconcilable differences in opinions constituted a judgmental havoc with one side pro-life and the other a destroyer of a demon's seed. The horror was left out and replaced with an overall dull effect quite possibly meant to be horrific, but, instead demonstrated an ill dose of beliefs which ridiculed each other to death, despite the title itself. Being a fan of Masters of Horror since the beginning, this ridiculous plot twist with it's sordid depictions crashed apart like a spindly old rocking chair after being sat upon. I view this episode as being thrown together from the get go, never really taking off anywhere other than to see it through for what its worth and relieved when it finally came to "The End"..


Could anyone please stop John Carpenter from continuously and deliberately ruining his reputation? How low can you go? It seems this man has lost any self respect.

This episode looks like it has been done by a film student, it isn't even worth beginning to talk about WHAT was bad, because it was just a borefest, directed by somebody with no talent as a filmmaker or without any motivation...

Come on, Mr. Carpenter, please retire immediately with a rest of self-esteem and stop spilling out trash like this in a bad tradition from Escape from L.A. to Ghosts of Mars.

Get drunk instead.


To be honest, this film is another in a series of huge disappointments...most of these so-called "masters of horror" films are only horrifying in terms of their sub-par effects and laughable story lines...aside from Ron Perlman, everyone else in this film cannot act to save their life...the gunshots sounded like someone was playing Bop-it under the boom mike or something, and looked completely unrealistic...overall, this film is about as scary as Home Alone...the only good masters are Cigarette Burns, Jennifer, and maybe Pelts...I don't know how these directors can sleep at night knowing that they have ruined the very genre that some of them used to actually understand...


I originally gave this episode a rating of two- I now wish I'd thought more about it. I also wish they had negative rating options.

Watching it, I was amazed at how poor the whole thing was from start to finish. I adore Ron Pearlman, and John Carpenter... so what went wrong?? Last season episode 13 was pulled due to the way it handled the abortion issue. I think that this season Mr Carpenter managed to make something so grey-area that you can't immediately see if he is pro-choice or anti-abortion. It was only after I sat and thought about it that I realized he is very much anti-abortion- you get this most clearly in the end when the 'Mother' shoots the baby and kills it, to the dismay of the 'Father', who walks off in grief, leaving the mother unharmed. But you also see it in the way the Ron P. character is treated- I hardly think that if someone has proved themselves enough of a threat in the past so as to have a restraining order against him that they would not immediately be ringing the police. Instead we have the guard almost sympathetically dealing with him (only to pay for it in the end) I don't mind someone having a strong view on something, even if it isn't something I agree in, but I do think its a bit lame not to stand by that view, rather than trying to look like they're sitting somewhere in the middle.

But, political issues aside, this episode was beyond poor. The music was retro-70's and just plain didn't work. The acting (other than Ron P.) was poor. The effects were dreadful- it might have been better just to -not- show the monster at all rather than show the lame excuse for a monster they had.

All this being said, I'm glad they have the Masters of Horror- I don't mind sitting through some really poor episodes to find the good ones. Its a bit like renting horror movies from the video store- every now and again you get a good one and it makes it all worth while. I do agree with the poster that said maybe the name needs to change from Masters- some of these people just plain don't deserve the title. (Let me stress tho- even tho I hated this episode, John Carpenter TOTALLY deserves the title. He is a master thru and thru)


I'm not sure if Carpenter is looking to raise questions on abortion, and make the really heavy-handed and obvious point that a woman should be allowed an abortion if Satan is the father, but it drags on and on. Ron Perlman is laughable. The baby is really stupid looking, basically a crab with a baby head mounted on it. You can pretty much see the material on the Satan costume. What a mess. This episode has about five minutes of story and 55 minutes of tedium. Very, very bad. And the ending is just ridiculous. After learning his baby is dead, does the devil destroy the abortion clinic and kill everyone in a huge, bloody, gory, uproar? NO! He just puts his head down and sulks out of the room. Terrible.


absolutely trash. i liked Halloween and from then on johnny's been in a downward spiral. this is about the pits. we get it john. pro-lifers are scary! you don't have to make a shitty film that bores the hell out of me to 'tell' me.

The pacing is way off here. It feels like john didn't have much to work with here. to his credit it looks like he did not write this junk. There are countless times where the camera just sits and waits for the actors to look dumb or say something dumb. i love the long cut. too bad carpenter doesn't know how to employ it. he needs to bunk up with Herzog and Fassbinder 30 years ago. Please John, stop making a fool of yourself and boring me to death!


Despite its flaws, I enjoyed "Cigarette Burns", John Carpenter's Season One episode in the Masters of Horror series. Yes, the story seemed like a cheap cross between IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS and 8MM, but it was still quite good for the budget and time constraints given to it. With "Pro-Life", however, the low budget and time constraints definitely show more than anything else. There is solid directing as always from Carpenter yet there is a quality to the writing and whole production itself that gives the feeling it was made in a total and complete rush. The script isn't always clear, the message fuzzy, and the story is full of plot holes once you look back on them. Maybe had Carpenter re-written the script, it could have been a worthwhile episode. Instead, it's a mess that only hardcore Carpenter fans will find the slightest enjoyment in. Definitely the worst Carpenter has ever done. 2/10


urgh! 3 things a movie needs: a good script, a good plot and good casting. i watched this movie expecting it to be hilariously terrible and was unfortunately disappointed when it was just plain terrible. I lost the will to live halfway through. The only thing which stopped me from stabbing my eyes out with a fork was Rose Byrne (who was the reason for me watching it in the first place). She did a good job as Rastus and her appearance hasn't changed much since she was 13. it was a fantastic first effort in a movie. the dog was also very good. both did a great job with such awful material. Sandra Bernhard i think was the biggest mistake of the movie. she was completely miscast, and i don't think she ever quite got the character.

I give the movie 2 out of 10 - and thats only because of Rose.


I simply cannot believe the number of people comparing this favourably with the first film. It moved me to leave this comment! This is just an obvious attempt to cash-in on the success of the first film. The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.

The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.

How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in? The ease at which Doyle finds his guy is just pathetic. Like all the French Police were just drinking coffee until Doyle turns up from America and does some REAL police work. What a joke. Try going to a foreign city and unearthing the biggest crims in the place with a travel map and some tourist pamphlets. Pathetic.

A truly awful sequel, anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.


First off, anyone who thinks this sequel to William Friedkin's "The French Connection", is superior is most definitely completely insane or moronic or both. The problem with reviewing this film is that, a.) it's a sequel to a brilliant movie, which always makes watching it objectively difficult, and b.) it's directed by John Frankenhimer, one of the best American directors ever, so I wanted to like it. William Friendkin was the perfect person to direct a film about drug traffic in decaying new York city, because of his documentary-like approach to the action and story, Frankenhimer on the other hand is one of the most stylish directors ever, i.e. "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seconds", and with his "French Connection 2" it feels like someone trying to be gritty and not having the true understanding to pull it off. That fact that Frankenhimer was chosen to direct the sequel by Gene Hackman himself really tells a lot about Hackman's understanding about the original film too. It's well known Hackman hated Friedkin on the set and vowed to never work with him again, it's also known he envisioned the character to be more one dimensional, loosing weight and trying to play him like a straight character. it shows you Hackman, despite being a great actor, had no idea who to make the movie and the story great. The plot point of Doyle becoming an addict is interesting, but doesn't warrant the rest of the film. An unfortunate low point in Frankenhimer's filmography.


Even duller, if possible, than the original (I hope I may say that under the IMDb guidelines). THE FRENCH CONNECTION at least tried to absorb European influences, to complicate the conventional view of the American police detective, even if the attempt was foundered by Friedkin's ambivalence, Americaness and general indirection. The (relative) arthouse boom of the 1960s (especially with the nouvelle vague) allowed for a huge influence of European cinema in Hollywood. This lent a new vigour and complexity to a weary medium, and, in the best of them (eg BONNIE AND CLYDE, early Scorcese), a new subversion of received practice. The original CONNECTION was part of this movement, with its difficultly distanced style, and anti-detective figure. TWO is old Hollywood's right-wing reassertion of American values.

This is figured in the film's very tiresome America vs France dialectic. For instance, TWO is shot like a 70s French policier. It was the French, of course, who insisted on the greatness of American movies when they were ignored at home, and this, in a sense, is a reclamation, a warning against Gallic presumption. This can be seen in the pattern of the two movies. CONNECTION has French gangsters invading New York, with the French style smothering the American thriller - this leads to the dissolution of the detective figure, and irresolution of plot - the baddie got away.

TWO has the American returning to France, with American thriller values imposed on the native genre - the power of the detective is reasserted and conventional resolution is achieved. This is further dramatised in Doyle's relationship with French inspector Barthelmy, whose dominant influence he must shake off before he can control the plot.

TWO seems to follow the original by undermining its detective hero. From the start, Doyle's importance is diminished at every turn. Despite the ending of CONNECTION, he is considered a hero. But he is an American in a foreign land, and his inability to control language or customs means he cannot dominate the plot. He even misreads the signs of the police force, mistaking an informer for a criminal, and getting him killed.

A detective's power comes from his power as subject to see and interpret, but Doyle spends much of the movie being watched, controlled, an object, a body (literally in the scenes after he is dumped by Charnier) to be viewed and interpreted. In CONNECTION, he instigated the action, chasing the criminals, forcing the plot; here he is passive, tied to a bed, locked in a cell, an addict, a dependent.

This loss of phallic power is predictably symbolised in the loss of his gun, and the film follows a depressingly familiar Oedipal trajectory. In the heroin sequences, he is comforted by an old lady who says he looks like her son. His drugged state is like a return to the womb, robbed of adult pressures. Her taking his watch reinforces the timelessness of this state, doubly significant for a man whose career depends on timetables and precision.

Oedipus was the first detective, and to avoid his fate, Doyle must reject this false mother who is dissolving his unified identity, and kill the father (Charnier) so that he can take his accepted masculine role in society. Psychoanalytic theory was popular among academics in the 70s(ironically instigated by a Frenchman, Jacques Lacan), but it's rare to see a film so literally full of it.

If all of these facts tended towards the minimising of Doyle, then the film's style doesn't. Friedkin distanced us from his hero by refusing empathy or character motivation, focusing on the mechanics of plot. Here, Doyle is a very conventional Hollywood hero. Instead of being lost in murky long shot, he is made knowable and understandable to the viewer with the traditional devices - point-of-view shots, close ups, connecting shots etc.

TWO is all about the fall and rise of Popeye Doyle. Plot in this case is subservient to the acting, which is the usual Hackman showiness. The cold turkey scenes, therefore, despite their tediousness, are not disturbing. We are allowed to share rather than coldly observe; this a far less discomforting experience. The scenes are also shot through with a lachrymose manly sentimentality that is very American.

So while CONNECTION tried to imitate the complex thrillers of Jean Pierre Melville, TWO does the complete opposite. Melville's LE SAMOURAI featured a gangster who started the film whole, powerful, outside language, and charted his eventual disintegration. TWO starts with a disintegrated character, achieved partly through inability with language, whose dominance begins when he steps outside language - the concluding action sequences are largely wordless.

In the film, the locale and language are important as they fixed and undermined the detective, but as he regains his power (figured in the return of his gun, and the cathartic burning of the primal site of vulnerability, the tower block where Charnier held him), the Marseilles setting becomes more irrelevant, and the mythic stand-off, which could take place anywhere, takes over. Compare the endings of the two films: one admits ambiguity and despair, the other absolute certainty.


What made the French Connection work so well was the relationship between Doyle (Hackman) and Russo (Scheider). In this catastrophe directed by Frankenheimer (who also brought us such gems as Raindeer Games and the Island of Dr. Moreau) the movie focuses on Doyle and his singular obsession of capturing Charnier (Rey). The fictitious idea that the NYPD would allow Doyle to travel to Marseilles to find Charnier with the help of the French local authorities is laugh out loud funny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Charnier skip town with 65 pounds of pure smack!!! A street value of 32 million but yeah, let's send Doyle to find this guy, it was his pinch after all. Please!!! The story was weak. The acting was terrible (with the lone exception of Hackman, who completely overplayed his part). The direction was all over the place. Even the cuts between scenes were terrible. Do yourself a favor and watch the first installment twice and skip this one.


This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)

I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.


This is an interesting idea gone bad. The hidden meanings in art left as clues by a serial killer sounds intriguing, but the execution in "Anamorph" is excruciatingly slow and without much interest. There is no other way to describe the film except boring. The death clues are the only interesting part of "Anamorph". Everything connecting them is tedious. Willem Dafoe gives a credible performance as the investigator, but he has little to do with a script that is stretched to the limit. Several supporting character actors are wasted , including Peter Stormare as the art expert, James Rebhorn as the police chief, Paul Lazar as the medical examiner, and most notably Deborah Harry, who is featured on the back of the DVD case, yet only has a couple lines spoken through a cracked door. Not recommended. - MERK


A well put together entry in the serial killer genre that unfortunately gets mired down in its own pretentiousness to be really satisfying. Willem Dafoe is superb as a NYC detective trying to track down what appears to be a copycat using the same Renaissance art-related killing techniques used in a series of murders he solved years earlier. Scott Speedman is Dafoe's junior partner and they have pretty good chemistry (at least for a while). Other characters pop up to conveniently tie the two cases together. Clea Duval is the friend of an earlier victim and Peter Stormare is some sort of art broker/mentor to Dafoe...that's a bit hard to take, although Stormare is, of course, never dull. The film's ending is particularly disappointing. Look fast for Deborah Harry as Dafoe's less than forthcoming neighbor.


you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.


I should say right away that I checked the spoilers box only because I'm giving this comment the amount of thought proportional to what this mess of a movie deserves, and don't want to be held responsible for some plot point incidentally slipping out.

This comment will take the form of a tirade for the simple reason that I am still under the influence of this movie, having just watched it, and the unique effect this has renders one incapable of the sort of forethought and paragraph structure required for coherent, reasoned criticism. That is not a compliment. It isn't the narcotic effect of a truly hypnotic or thought provoking movie. The feelings it stirs up combine like some uncomfortable emotional Voltron, composed of a confusing mix of some form of rage, the vague desire to take a shower, the rudderless, sinking feeling of true betrayal one gets when they realize they have given 109 minutes of their lives into the hands of someone who would not only squander it, but do so in such a pompous, artless way. And I probably wouldn't have done anything super productive with that 109 minutes anyway! But even if I'd spent it on something trivial, like a power block of masturbation and online poker, I would have felt more fulfilled when all was said and done.

The problems with this movie are myriad, and in better times I'd articulate exactly what they were in a semi-adult fashion. But in keeping with what this movie deserves, I think I'll most likely stick to the realm of masturbation jokes and cartoon references.

The most irritating and terminal flaw is that while watching this movie one is keenly aware that the makers and participants think they are making a much smarter movie than they are. Demonstrating the depth of knowledge one could pick up in a one semester survey of Western art history at a community college or trade school, the art-jargon is piled on thick and from all directions, with much of it supplied by talk between our hero, the tortured detective Stan (Willem Dafoe, who I will forgive for this movie due to him being Willem Dafoe) and his accented antique dealer buddy Blair (Peter Stormare, taking a break from playing a sociopath for whom murder comes easy by playing a 2-dimensional plot device in a movie about a sociopath for whom murder comes easy). And talk they do. In fact, we are dropped into this story at a crime scene that may indicate the reemergence of a serial killer Stan thinks he killed years earlier, so all the back story is established partially through unclear flashback, but primarily through stilted conversations between Stan and his dealer, or Stan and his colleague, the unforgivably irritating Carl (Scott Speedman). And although I differentiate the character Carl (Scott Speedman) from the actor who plays him by using parentheses, I must admit that very early on in the film I despised this character so much that I actually found myself sincerely wishing harm on the actor portraying him (Scott Speedman). Not anything too fancy. Not death or paralysis, necessarily.. But maybe herpes? Or maybe a stage light could fall on him and crush his arm? This is a dangerous digression, but I'm not editing it out because I want to leave anyone reading this who's thinking about paying to see this train wreck of a movie with a clear impression of the horrible wishes and feelings it stirs in even the most peaceful man.

Well, I'm sort of running out of steam here.. over the course of writing this the sick feelings this movie brought up in a me have subsided, my head has cleared a bit. Realizing now that I'm still investing time in something related to this piece of sh!t is startlingly similar to waking up after a night of suicidally heavy drinking next to the heaving form of a still slumbering 200 pound college girl. Your first urge is a desperate desire to flee. This is natural.


This story about three women is a very sensitive study about: Muriël (Charlotte Van Den Eynde) the youngest, Laura (Els Dottermans) who is about 37 and Martha (Frieda Pittors) the oldest who is the mother of Muriël. They live together in the same building. They have different expectations of life. The vital Laura wants a child. Muriël comes from a village and wants to change her life in Brussels. Martha dreams about her youth when she was a young girl. In fact nothing happens in this movie so you wait for something - for instances an accident - which could dramatize this story. As times goes on, you discover that the director Dorothée Van Den Berghe only wants to develop a psychological portrait of the three women and nothing more. This movie is disappointing because you expect the women to learn from their experiences which is not the case, so one is left with a feeling of emptiness.


Where to start, this movie started badly and ended badly! It consists of extremely poor acting and unrealistic effects that had me cringing in my seat, seriously, my cat could have acted better than this lot.

Some of it was actually laughable because it was so unbelievable, i would of rated this lower but they haven't got anything else! So, heed my warning and unless your so bored your close to suicide and would like a good reason to continue with your suicide mission, don't bother with this one. I'm still in shock that this could actually be released to the public, this should be a crime and all involved should be arrested. I gather you've got the gist by now so i'll leave it up to you to decide.


The Legend of Bloody Jack is set in the Alaskan wilderness & starts as a relative of some murderous deceased occultist Lumberjack reads incantations (The Evil Dead (1982) style) from an ancient spell book in an attempt to resurrect him, he succeeds & not being a big believer in family unity the Lumberjack dude kills his relative. Two days later & Ray (Travis Quentin Young) along with his sister Dawn (Erica Hoag), her boyfriend Nick (Craig Bonacorsi) & four of their friends pull up outside a cosy log cabin (The Evil Dead style...) with a view to a relaxing weekend in the wilderness. Unfortuntaely the killer Lumberjack dude show's up with his axe & starts to slaughter the friends one-by-one...

Edited, written, executive produced & directed by Todd Portugal this is a pretty rotten modern slasher flick the likes of which are killing the horror genre for me, I'm just not a big fan of ultra low budget horror films with the production values of a holiday video. The script is absolutely terrible in every way for 80 minutes, it has every bad slasher cliché, the character's are awful, the dialogue is terrible & it's hard to care about anyone or anything in this pretty worthless excuse for a teen slasher film. The teens are even more annoying & stupid than usual, the script is more moronic, predictable & flawed than usual & the killer Lumberjack dude is just lame. Then there's the final 10 minutes or so which, if you make it that far & believe it's tough going, produces one of the worst twist ending in slasher film history which as far as I'm concerned pokes fun at us the paying audience who has just had to sit through 90 minutes worth of crap. I will now spoil the ending so anyone who doesn't want to know it stop reading now. Basically just before the end of the film it cuts back to Ray telling a story & it turns out he was telling the story of what we had just seen & Nick & Dawn & everyone else berates him for telling such a bad story (I felt their pain) & then proceed to pick holes in it & laugh at it. From saying why did they stand around & argue, why didn't they pick the axe up & such things, I felt like this was poking fun at the audience as those were the sorts of things I was asking myself while watching this crap & to have it shoved down my throat & made perfectly clear that the makers knew the script was crap & could see all the holes in it & went for a twist ending which unashamedly rubbishes the preceding 80 minutes (which we have just had to sit through remember) is just a little grating. Then to add insult to injury the Lumberjack dude turns up & kills everyone within two minutes, why didn't he do that to start with? It would have saved everyone a lot of time.

Director Portugal turns in a real mess, this has the worst continuity between night & day in a film I have ever seen. The whole film is meant to set at night & I suspect the makers tried to use the day for night process but it didn't work & most of it looks like it is set during the day. For example, look at when Lisa is trapped in the bathroom & she climbs out of the window. It is clearly pitch black outside when we are looking out from inside the bathroom but when she falls to the ground & the films cuts to an exterior shot it's bright daylight. Then there's the fact Ranger Vince says we can't get a search party out here until 'the morning' indicating it was supposed to be night, then several minutes later when he walks outside & it looks like it's the middle of the day he is actually carrying around a torch which is clearly on & he is clearly pointing it in the directions where he is looking like it's night. Anytime there is a scene set in the cabin look at the windows, it's pitch black outside & when the Ranger walks in through the door to start with is also another clear example. The continuity in this film is simply the worst I have ever seen. There isn't much gore, there are a few scenes of an axe going into people bodies but nothing memorable. It's not scary, there's no tension or atmosphere & the appalling day & night continuity is just so distracting because it's so obvious.

Technically the film is rock bottom, again the continuity between night & day has to been seen to be believed how bad it is. The special effects are poor & they couldn't even afford to show a car blowing up even though it's pretty vital to the plot. This has amateur hour written all over it from start to finish. The acting is absolutely brilliant & everyone involved should get an Oscar, nah only joking, not really they were utterly awful & even the girls who got their breasts out weren't very good looking.

The Legend of Bloody Jack is just an awful teen slasher flick, it looks like it was shot on a camcorder without the use of a tripod or steadycam, it has awful effects, is boring & has a twist ending which is either the most insulting in horror film history or I've got it totally wrong & it's the most clever. Not recommended, watch a decent slasher from the 70's or 80's to remind you how they should be done.


I had no expectations other than to be entertained for 90 minutes, and that is exactly what I was.

Of course it is campy, of course some of the dialog wasn't perfect, of course the "special effects" were a bit hokey. That is exactly why I enjoyed the movie so much. It is a perfect fit for this genre of a 70's Horror classic.

The talent needs to start some where, that goes for the actors and the crew, and what better piece of material to sharpen your skills on than this.

I for one look forward to another film from these producers and directors.


Moron and girlfriend conduct some ritual to resurrect the dead, in attempt to prove that the dead can not be brought back to life. Not surprisingly, they do resurrect a dead soul who commences chopping them up with an axe, and the next day some college aged people are telling the story around a campfire. The guy with the axe turns up and starts hacking up the idiots telling the story. The group calls the cops, the cop sees blood splattered all over and thinks it's a mountain lion(!?) and soon after is axed by some deformed killer who may or may not be a ghost.

Moronic little splatter movie which was filmed in broad daylight but where several characters are carrying flashlights and talking as though it were the middle of the night, and wanting to send up a signal flare to attract attention. One guy has a gun in one hand and bullets in the other but doesn't bother to load it, then after he finally loads it, he has several opportunities to shoot the killer but doesn't bother to, because that would end the movie too early. Then he throws the gun away! Also detrimental is characters who show no emotion and don't look the least bit concerned after their friends are chopped up into pieces and lousy effects (the human heart looks like a piece of chicken meat, the car blown up at the end clearly was a model car) and awful dialogue and some really ugly female nudity doesn't help. And in the end it tries to get away with it's incoherence by saying that it was all the invention of the same college aged people telling campfire stories at the start of this movie.

Then the killer turns up for real in the last scene hacks them into pieces. Again.

Mediocre of it's kind, good only for some unintended laughs.

*1/2 out of ****


Starring an unknown cast which seem likely to remain that way, this "film" is yet another cheap slasher flick which amazes me how this was released. I have no problem with horrors and slasher flicks in particular, in fact they are my favourites. But when they are done THIS BAD, it really does take the monkey and its no wonder the genre has such a hard time. The story is as clichéd and without imagination as possible with a bunch of people in a cabin out in the woods being slashed and hacked up by this zombie/ghost guy. Its not the story that sucks the most, its the atrocious acting and dialouge, home made directing quality and an awful soundtrack. Not to mention laughable effects and some incredibly lazy film making - these morons are outside in clear daylight yet we are meant to believe it's night?? What the hell was the director thinking with this move? What, he had only one day to film all this in? He was scared of the dark? ( Is hilarious seeing a cop walking around in pure daylight with a torch acting as if its pitch black, though)

I guess the positive side for the actors is they look like people who work in the local supermarket so at least they could possibly escape from this film without ever being noticed. Im sure one of the "teens" plays bingo down the local pub - but she's 40-45.

Anyway, good for a laugh but just another waste of film and time.


I really wish i could give this a negative vote, because i think i just wasted 83 minutes of my life watching the worst horror movie ever put to film. the acting was just god awful, i mean REALLLYYYY bad, the dialog was worse, the script sounded like it was written by.... i can't think of anything horrible enough to say. And the day "outside" and the night "inside" shots make you think the events took over several days. Terribly acted, directed, written, etc etc. all the way down to the gofer how gets lunch for everyone. STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE AT ALL COSTS. If my only saving grace to stay out of hell is by doing one good deed, it is to tell the world to not watch this crap. This movie is the exact reason why horror movies are never taken seriously.


Oh my, where to start... this movie was just awful. The writing was bad, acting was bad, special effects were bad. I think the only good thing about this movie is that it made me laugh! I was in the mood for a scary movie but certainly didn't get that! I thought it would be decent enough since i'm not picky. i've watched several bad horror movies. In fact, it is my goal to see all horror movies, not matter how awful they may be. At one point in the movie i made a comment about the "corn syrup blood" and in the special features they actually admit that it was Karo syrup (brand name corn syrup...) The movie had all the necessary things for a horror movie (blood, nudity, crazy killer, stupid moves) but it was just completely lacking anything to really make it good. The writer should either take some classes or just give up!


Guys who-ever even THINKS about watching this movie has already got some disturbance going through their heads.. This movie has NOTHING to do with Jack the Ripper (incase you thought) its another B, i mean E-Grade movie comprised of a bunch of horny teens in certain sex scenes being watched just before they get their spleens splattered on a nearby tree. Its not scary, funny or amusing. If you really feel like gory stuff with no plot, then watch Cabin Fever, at least the director did not fall asleep midway through directing this crap.only watch this if you absolutely have nothing to do in life & the only thing on TV is Oprah Winfrey crying on the TV set.


I'm a Christian who generally believes in the theology taught in Left Behind. That being said, I think Left Behind is one of the worst films I've seen in some time.

To have a good movie, you need to have a well-written screenplay. Left Behind fell woefully short on this. For one thing, it radically deviates from the book. Sometimes this is done to condense a 400-page novel down to a two-hour film, but in this film I saw changes that made no sense whatsoever.

Another thing, there is zero character development. When characters in the story get saved (I won't say who), the book makes it clear that it's a long, soul-searching process. In the film it's quick and artificial. The book is written decently enough where people like Rayford Steele, Buck Williams and Hattie Durham seem real, but in the movie scenarios are consistently given the quick treatment without anything substantial. In another scene where one character gets angry about being left behind (again, I won't say who), it seems artificial.

I realize as a Christian it's unedifying for me to say I disliked this film, but I can't in a good conscience recommend a film that I feel was horribly done. Perhaps it would've been better to make the first book into 2-3 films. Either way, Christians need to realize that to be taken seriously as filmmakers, we need to start by putting together a film in a quality way. I realize a lot of effort probably went into Left Behind, but that's the way I see it.


It's been a while since seeing this the first time, so I watched it again with the second movie in the series. While I realize there is a 3rd movie out that I haven't seen yet, I'll review under the original title...

Just from the standpoint of production value, screen writing, and movie making, this movie fails on many levels, though it succeeds on a few as well. What can you expect from a low-budget, "B" movie? Not much, and it works from the standpoint of production. However, the writing is certainly disjointed, with little in the way of character development...exactly what I'd expect when there is an agenda to a film. I didn't have a problem with the acting...the cast is solid; however, the screenplay in both movies gives the actors little opportunity to really stretch themselves. Because the film is "Christian," this is predictable, as you can't very well portray violent chaos of the "end times" without also breaking some of the ethics which are normally associated with Christianity. In other words, the mistake comes in making this into a G-rated film when the content, even in the most conservative of Bible interpretations, would be R-rated by any measure. So, if the purpose of the movie is to scare people into Christian faith, then the movie should be somewhat scary, right? However, you can't comment on a film adaptation from a book without commenting on the book, or in this case, series of books. There are certainly plenty of Christian materials worthy enough to be made into movies...but not the "Left Behind" series...and these movies ultimately fail because, while being best-sellers, they are poorly written novels based on bad theology.

As a Southern Baptist minister, I confess that the books were a guilty pleasure for me, though I have yet to finish the last two books of the series. I have described them as decent fiction, and if the books would take the point of view that this is one "possibility" or interpretation of the subject of biblical eschatology (study of the "end times), then I could live with that. However, this series is divisive in Christian circles because it promotes the "literalist" interpretation of all Scripture above a more proper hermeneutic. Inevitably, this leads to the "pre-trib, pre-millenial" dispensation point of view, which confines an all-powerful God far too by humanity's world. In other words, as I've always said, God shouldn't need our helicopters and bombs to do his ultimate work. But because many people, particularly unstudied Christians, can't think beyond their own world-views, we are left with a pro-conservative, fundamentalist stance with regard to Bible interpretation, and attempts to push it through as the "only" interpretation.

Thus, the books carry with them an agenda, not so much to get the "lost" to understand their need for Christ, but to state that the fundamentalist point of view is the only valid way to understand the Bible. I recall very clearly reading (several years ago) in the second novel a scene where the characters reference a person who was "left behind" BECAUSE of his non-adherence to this point of view; as if "real" christians worthy to be "raptured" couldn't possibly hold to another eschatology. This is disturbing for several reasons, the least of which is because a "rapture" is only briefly mentioned in Scripture and it's connection to real, end-time prophecy is tenuous at best.

But the real issue with these books is comes in the way they divide the Christian community and how they portray "true" Christian behavior. Ultimately, I feel they harden more people to an otherwise legitimate faith/religion instead of win people towards it. It turns all Christians into caricatures, equally disdained and laughed at by the world despite the fact that there is theological room for a wide diversity of believes within Christian thought and practice. As a Christian body, on the whole, we've done enough of that kind of damage to society over 2000 years of history...and we certainly don't need to promote it by film to thousands, maybe millions of others.

Thus, the "Left Behind" movies fail because the "Left Behind" books aren't worthy to be interpreted into movies.


Okay, now, I know there are millions of Americans who believe in The Rapture: that moment when all people born again in Christ will be raptured up to meet God and all the rest of humanity will be left on earth to perish in plagues and fire and the heartbreak of psoriasis as the Antichrist battles it out with Jesus (in an uncharacteristically warlike mode). And I know the books were best sellers. . .among believers, anyway. And I mean no disrespect to all that.

But I have to say, they stuffed this movie into a sack and beat it with the Suck Stick.

I'm sure the books are much better. Really.

The plot needs no reprising. If you've watched this movie, chances are you read the book. I may be one of the only people on earth who actually watched this just for the sheer bad-moving-making experience, and I wasn't disappointed. Especially not by Kirk Cameron, the creepy little "Growing Pains" gremlin, who came of age on that show, found Christ, and decided that the SHOW should reflect his Christian values. Well, Kirk, your career has gone to the dogs, but now you can be happy that you're spreading the word of God in movies so bad, they never even make it to theatrical release. Well, that's not strictly true: I guess this was the only movie ever made that went to DVD FIRST, with a voucher for a free viewing of the movie when it was briefly released in theaters! I still have the voucher! How many people do you suppose showed up? I don't know about you, but it never came to my town. Of course, I live in NYC, where we Godless liberals sit around tearing pages out of the bible and use them to roll joints. So there you go. In fact, I'll bet out of three million people on Manhattan Island, not one would be raptured.

Check out the supplementary materials on the DVD, where you'll learn the creepy behind the scenes details of these movies. . .the CAST and CREW all must be of the same religious mindset. They don't come right out and say this, but listen closely to what the filmmakers say. It's like a bunch of Pod People got together to make a Pod movie. How creepazoid is that? Honestly, this stuff just preaches to the converted, doesn't it? Can you imagine anyone who DOESN'T subscribe to the whole apocalypse thing watching this, slapping his forehead and saying, "HOLY HOOVER DAM! I better get saved PRONTO!" Anyhow, I'm hooked. I gotta see the rest of these Christian fiasco movies, especially the one with Gary Busey, which I think is TRIBULATIONS. At least Busey has an excuse for taking the part.. . .he cracked his head on some pavement when he crashed his motorcycle.

Oy.

Oh, and one more thing. What's with all the shots of poor,innocent dogs whimpering, their leashes dragging uselessly along the ground, because their owners have been called to heaven? What's up with that? Are we supposed to feel badly for the dogs, and if we do, what are we to make of God? Doesn't it IRK people that there's no room in heaven for man's best friend? Foo.

This is one more reason I'm agnostic. Good night and good luck.


If you are wondering where many of the conspiracy theories and paranoid ideas about the the UN, Israel, and international affairs come from, look no further.

This isn't a supernatural Hollywood film loosely based on some biblical passage. Instead, this movie was made by a company (Cloud Ten Pictures) with a political and religious agenda. As a movie, the end result at times more looks like clips out of a televangelism program (complete with family prayers and light breaking through church windows while harps are playing).

For mainstream viewers, it may be hard to believe, but many people believe in this stuff literally, as presented in the movie. And that, perhaps, makes the movie important. You probably won't find a more concise exposition of the bizarre views of a significant number of your fellow citizens. So, if you view it, view it as a social/cultural document. If you are at all media savvy, you don't need to be warned about the unsubtle attempts at propaganda and manipulation in the movie.


I am a Christian... and I feel this movie is awful.

Nobody but hard-core, Bible-belt Christians are going to like this movie. The message is just too in your face. If you want to touch a wider audience, you have to be way more subtle. You can't have the dad waving the bible around and carrying it with him in EVERY scene. RIDICULOUS!

Poor direction. The reveal of people missing should have been terrifying, but it was laughable. They leave their clothes on the ground? It reminded me of old Ed Wood movies: "Oh my God! People are missing!" That scene in the plane is just stupid. Think about it: if you found your relative's clothes next to you, you wouldn't just scream "oh my god. they disappeared! they're missing!" and start crying and yelling. You would first be in denial... you just wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Watch Jodie Foster in FLIGHTPLAN. My favorite shot is the dog sitting out on the lawn with a pile of clothes and boots sitting next to him. I about fell off the couch I was laughing so hard.

The music was so bad and so distracting. It was as if the composer was in his own world scoring his own movies. "here's my chance to do a thriller", "here's my chance to do action!" STOP TELLING ME HOW TO FEEL JAMES COVELL! A good score supports what's happening on the screen... this movie needed more of an UNDER score, but instead it was as much in your face as the message was.

The writing was bland. So was Captain Christian Kirk Cameron. Chelsea was the worse: "you don't understand! People are missing!". Brad Johnson was laughable. The two stand out performances came from the Anti-Christ and the older guy (sorry, can't remember their names) In watching the "making of" (to answer my question of "what were they thinking???"), the producers and filmmakers and actors are just deluding themselves... saying "we're gonna reach wide audiences" and "brad Johnson is amazing" and "this is just like a Hollywood movie". I came to the conclusion that they just don't know what the "heck" they are doing.

I commend the effort. Getting the message to a wide audience is a fantastic idea. Film is the best medium possible to do that. Look at movies like WIDE AWAKE, SIGNS, CONTACT, PASSION OF Christ, even O'BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? The bottom line is that the film needed to be made by people who have talent and vision. Unfortunately, it was not.


I grew up Baptist and I know the story this movie is trying to tell, although I no longer believe the story. I'll give the movie kudos for being as good as the average Lifetime Movie of the Week. Mildly interesting, mediocre acting, a bit slow, the script is predictable, the music is sappy, and it is a bit melodramatic. And all the people left behind have got to be the squeakiest clean non-Christians, ever. Not a single curse word from any of them. But I laughed out loud when the actor playing the man who runs the United Nations pronounced "nuclear" as "nu-cu-ler," just like Bush. Is there some Christian code of honor that mandates that since Bush claims he, too, is called by God, that all Christians must cover up his ignorance by mispronouncing that word the same way he does? LOL! I really had a difficult time taking the movie seriously at all after that. After the "nu-cu-ler" incident, the movie began to feel like packaged, manipulative propaganda. I was looking for something bold. Actually, I was looking for something that might make me think, but I didn't find it here. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, stop here - it's good for killing a rainy afternoon. But if you're looking for intelligence, look elsewhere.


*review may contain spoilers*

predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it!


Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.

Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****)


I watched about 30 minutes into this film before I finally got sick of getting bludgeoned over the head with this movie. The soundtrack, the so-called 'plot', and each and every actor. It's like they all think they're the main part of the movie and scream "NOTICE ME!" over and over again. The bad guy has his bad-guy music going on and says sinister bad-guy-like things, just in case you didn't quite catch on. The good guy does brave and noble things just in case you didn't know he was the good guy. And oh lord, the plane scene. "MY HUSBAND IS MISSING! OH MY GOD! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT HE GOT UP TO STRETCH HIS LEGS OR GO TO THE TOILET OR ANYTHING, HE MUST BE MISSING!" (And yes, I know, his clothes were still there, but honestly, she woke up and started to panic before she even had time to look at the damn seat he'd been in.)

As a religious girl, I want to apologize to the world for wasting the film this was printed on.

And I want my 30 minutes back.


This reminds me of when I was a born-again believer who was going to be a minister. I never actually thought I would be a minister or even graduate from high school because I was almost positive I would be raptured to Heaven before that would ever happen. That was before I discovered that Christianity was a bunch rubbish. I am now an atheist, and that just proves that the "once saved always saved" doctorine that Christians tell us is no more real than elves. If it were true then why did I leave after many years of being a devout born again believer? Yes, I really was saved. I prayed that silly sinners prayer with all my heart.

If Christians were to read their Bible they would discover that their god thinks like rape, genocide, abortion, and many other atrocities are alright according to him. They might be surprised to learn that no where is the word "rapture" mentioned.


I'm getting a little tired of people misusing God's name to perpetuate their own bigoted view on the world. Well I don't dismiss the idea of Armageddon, or the coming of the anti-Christ, I do dismiss the idea that only certain people who live truly good lives(They seem to be mostly white Christian children) will go to Heaven, while the rest of us must suffer through a millenia of Hell on Earth, just because we weren't good enough. God may be a judge, but I don't think He is going to measure every level of goodness. Give the Creator some credit.


I cannot believe that they managed to spend US$17million on this film. Spectacularly bad acting, egregious scripting and effects that you could do on your average PC, unbelievable plot contrivances...a reporter who can get an inexperienced stewardess a major job at the UN? What? Not only that, but the message of this film is so unsubtle that you come out feeling as if they've tried to batter you over the head with a full size crucifix. All this movie will do will preach to the choir and make everyone else laugh at such a ridiculous waste of money. If the makers of this film really wanted to sway people to christianity and show what it means to truly believe, they would have used the money to help people truly in need. Now, /that/ might have swayed some people into actually listening to them.


I like end-of-days movies. I like B-movies. I was hoping I would like this movie.

I could ignore the poor effects, the often atrocious music, the cringe-inducing lines. I could ignore the unexplained events, and the fact that the movie constantly relies on deus ex machina is excusable, given the subject matter. I could ignore the fact that the people who fight hunger and try to reach world peace are the bad guys. None of these things kill the movie. What kills this movie is that it's just plain and simple boring. Nothing actually happens; almost all scenes in the movie are designed to push the movie creators' morals on the viewers, at the cost of actually having a coherent story, or any kind of suspense.

If you're looking for an entertaining B-movie, look elsewhere. This movie is just boring.


This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what "dan7" in the computer graphic meant, said, "Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24." He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read "Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation" by Jim McKeever and "The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture" by George E. Ladd.