Tim Robbins and John Cusack are two actors I have appreciated throughout their careers, and that was the only reason for choosing to watch this movie. Well, all I can say is I totally regretted it! These two great actors humiliate themselves all the way through by performing a number of irrelevant, unimaginative and kitch to the extreme (not that this is bad on its own)sketches that are supposed to make people laugh, but fail to do so. The only reason I can think is that the director was their friend, and they decided to support his movie by starring in it-I can't think of anything else because this movie is SO cheap! Fortunately Tim Robbins and John Cusack haven't disappointed me ever since. I would recommend you to avoid this film, unless you want your opinion about the two actors spoiled.


One of my sisters friends lent me this game, and it is too damn hard! It carries the appearance of a kids game, but you have to learn how to do tons of intricate moves that require you to twist and turn your hands into all sorts of awkward positions, and you have to search seemingly endless levels for 100 notes, to improve your 'score'! You also have to find these impossibly hidden jigsaw puzzle pieces, that require you to do almost impossible tasks to get them! AND I AM ONLY UP TO STAGE THREE!!!!! Maybe if you have no life nad can stay home all the time you might get some enjoyment out of this, but otherwise keep away! AND IT IS DEFINATELY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR KIDS - THEY WILL PULL THEIR HAIR OUT WITHIN THE HOUR!


My complaints here concern the movie's pacing and the material at hand. While using archival film and letters lends the film a fresh and interesting perspective, too often the material selected to highlight simply isn't very interesting (such as when Goebbels complains about this or that ailment, &tc., or the ad nauseam footage of his small German hometown). Also, the movie crawls along in covering c. 1920-1939 and then steams through the war years. In sum, the film is little better than a History Channel documentary, with the exception that the filmmaker has a slightly greater sensibility than your average History Channel documentary editor and thus can more artfully arrange the details of Goebbels' life. Still, I found it wanting.


December holiday specials, like the original Frosty, ought to be richly-produced with quality music and a wholesome, yet lighthearted storyline. They should have a touch of the mystical magic of the holidays. Basically, they should look, sound, and feel...well, "special" and they should have a decent and appropriate December holiday subtext.

So when I saw Legend of Frosty the Snowman in the TV listings, I got my kids (6 and 8) pumped up for it by telling them the story of the original Frosty and passionately relating how much I enjoyed it as a kid. As my wife and kids cozied up on the couch to watch the movie the expectations were high, but 10 minutes into it my kids were yawning and my wife and I were giving each other "the look" and rolling our eyes. After 35 minutes my kids were actually asking to go to bed -- I guess they were fed up with the insensitive language and pointless, disconnected segments. I was actually embarrassed about their (and my) disappointment with this movie.

Unfortunately, Legend of Frosty the Snowman is more like a bad episode of Fairly Odd Parents crossed with a worse-than-normal episode of Sponge Bob than a classic holiday movie. Don't get me wrong...those shows are fine and I like them as much as the next guy, but when I watch Fairly Odd Parents or Sponge Bob, my low expectations (for mediocre, off-color, zero subtext, mind numbing episodes) are always satisfied.

We picked out some good books and spent the rest of the evening reading together. A much better choice than the embarrassingly bad Legend of Frosty the Snowman.


The John Goodman program was pretty awful, but this thing just plain stinks. The one and only thing in this mess that made me smile was recognizing the voice of Patrick Starfish as Frosty. The story is hopeless, written by somebody who has garbled memories of childhood rebelliousness but has never gained any adult sense of perspective in the intervening years. Paranoia rules the dark world that these characters inhabit. Everybody is unpleasant, and for no reason. The plot is predictable but the show lurches from one inexplicable, unconnected scene to another in such a pointless way there is no fun in watching it. The worst thing is nobody in the production crew seems to have ever seen snow!


I disliked Frosty returns and this one. Both of the films are absurd with poorly written characters and bad voices. The voices could have been done but Frosty returns was worst than this because of the unalike snowman they drew. Frosty's winterwonder land was great and so was the original heartwarming Drama. The only good thing about this film was Frosty the snowman was alike of the classic 60s and a funny line like when they were talking about things that are not real and then Frosty walks by the window humming, whistling whatever he was doing but everything else was badly written and badly animated and I barely got the plot. I saw the DVD cover at the library about 2 or 3 years ago and the art looked crappy so I didn't pick it up until this year because the pictures on the back looked a little touching but I played this film. It was a hassle poorly art characters just like the DVD and it was just terrible about what's going on. I watched this at night and found it dull that I fell asleep on the whole thing (Wait I always do that when I watch something while I go to sleep) But this movie was overall boring

Overall rating: Grade -C

This is like another holiday special bad rip-off in the frosty returns and this one. This one is the badly 4th sequel like Home alone 4 well i thought that movie was OK but home alone 3 was great. But it's like a bad home alone 3 and 4 people hate like this. My sister didn't watch it that much because when she came into my room to watch 2 minutes and a half of it, she walked away like "I hate the animation!" I agree to her just like the 3rd one Frosty returns. Plain awful!


A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in "Severed Ties" are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10.


A young scientist Harry Harrison is continuing his late father's scientific research into limb regeneration with flying colours, but his interferingly dominate mother and her doctor lover want to sell off the serum. When he finds out, there is an accident involving Harry losing an arm. So, he tries out the serum and what eventuates is a genetically deranged arm that has a mind of its own.

Oh we've seen this oh so many times before, but what lifts this very campy and quite rubbery shonky junk is the performance of movie icons Elke Sommer and Oliver Reed. Actually it's not a bad flick by Fangoria films; just there are better ones out there, which are similar in vein. "Servered Ties" simply lacks it own distinctive style. The oddball nature and unpleasant splatter resembled "Re-animator" and even a touch of slapstick stuck out like something from "Evil Dead 2".

The comic story is truly whacked out with it's black humour, but it can get melodramatic and a bit in dry in the fun factor. Surprises do crop up, especially the flick's final outcome. Which is well accepted, as I thought it could have copped out with something more accessible. For a low-budget production the FX makeup can look rigid and very goofy, but there's some grotesque moments that will make you smile than actually cringe. Even a brush of sexual tension streamlines the story, thanks to Elke Sommer's sternly juicy performance as the mother. Oliver Reed is quite humorously deadpan in a wicked sense and he pulls it off extremely well. They were both immensely diverting as the couple you loved to hate. Billy Morrisette is delightful in a erratic performance as Harry. Director Damon Santostefano briskly paces the film and orchestrates some stylish scenes of gripping and bamboozling horror.

Yeah it's juvenile and basically silly nonsense, but you got to hand it to it for some undemanding entertainment.


The TV guide described the plot of SEVERED TIES as thus : " An experiment on a severed arm goes awry " so right away I thought this was going to be about an arm that`s got a mind of its own as seen in THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS or THE HAND or someone getting an arm transplant as in BODY PARTS . Both premises are tried and tested , or to be more accurate tired and tested so I was curious as to how the producers would approach the story . I actually thought they were making an arthouse movie like PI down to the use of B&W photography at the start of the film but the makers seemed to have tired of this approach after 20 seconds and decided to make a splatter comedy similar to THE EVIL DEAD . I`ve very little to say on this except that I disliked THE EVIL DEAD movies and I disliked SEVERED TIES and it seems really unfair that films like this use an obscene amount of rubber when the third world is crying out for condoms


If you like occasional nudity with junior high school level slap stick comedy, then look no further.

Starting at about the halfway point, the beautiful and erotic Arielle Dombasle starts disrobing at every opportunity. That is the only thing that made this movie worth watching.

The story is both lame and preposterous, the humor is corny, and character development is basically non-existent.


Oh man, I know what your thinking: "With a title like that, I can't go wrong!" Uh yes you can. I too, loved the title, but man I hated the stupid kid that played "Satan's little helper" I hated the mom too, and the sister/daughter, and her boyfriend - I hated all those people! Man, it was agony watching this sometimes! The ONLY reason this doesn't get 1/10 is becuz condsidering the low budget, they did OK. But oh man did I hate those actors, so stupid! I knew it was going to be bad, I guess they saved a lot of money on just using halloween masks for the killer, and the Jesus costume at the end was really stupid too. Oh the agony, do not watch!


I'm going to say first off that I have given this film a 3 out of 10 after some thought. I was going to give it a straight out 1 but it got a couple extra points for the body count. But that would be about it. Let me explain. I paid literally £1 for this DVD in a supermarket because I tend to have a lot of faith in bargain horror flicks, B-movies especially. But if this film was aiming for B status as I suspect it was for a number of reasons (which I'll touch on in a sec) then it failed magnificently. Not only did it shoot for B and miss, it landed somewhere around F. This film had so many opportunities to be good and it pretty much failed on all accounts. I say above that it's likely this film was aiming for B status and it seems to try and achieve this by trying to blend humour with horror, which can either be very good or very bad. For example, later Freddy films (Dream Warriors onwards) are all about Freddy's style and nose-thumbing, which works out great! But this film completely bombed in that respect because the times where they tried to inject humour were mostly just stupid. I will admit though that towards the beginning of the film the humour was good. In fact, for about half an hour I liked this film and was prepared to congratulate myself on another good find. BUT what really killed this film for me was the inappropriate kills. For instance, when 'Satan' smashes the cat against the board and writes 'boo' with it's blood using its body as a brush. Or when 'Satan' slams the door into the helpless disabled elderly woman. Now I'm not usually too against senseless kills in films-hey, thats the point, right? But in those two cases I just found it grossly offensive and unnecessary to anything in the film-plot especially. For me, the film went downwards from then on. One major bad point about this film is that I hated every character in it. The kid, Dougie was just ridiculously annoying!!! I'm at a loss to explain how he could possibly write off all those bodies and people being killed in front of his eyes as a trick! I mean, come on!!! I completely understand that to be in a horror film a character does have to be somewhat stupid, like running upstairs when you should blatantly be running out of the house screaming for help, but this kid took the biscuit! I wanted to kill him myself by the end of it! It was completely unbelievable and if I had to hear him say 'duh!' one more time I was going to bang my head against a wall-because thats what watching this film felt like. Why didn't i just turn the film off? Mainly because I honestly believe an ending can sometimes redeem a film. But I was wrong in this case. The ending did NOT redeem this film, it further irritated the hell out of me and was inadequate to the plot line. I get it already! The killer is always going to come back dressed as someone else, be welcomed into the house by the stupid kid and go on a killing spree again because no one suspects him in that costume! I GET IT! This film made me physically angry because it was so stupid! And if by some foul mistake you do end up watching this film, watch out for the intestines. Frankly, if that guy actually did have intestines that looked like that, I'd be surprised he wasn't already dead, let alone until someones rips them out and ties them to a chair.

In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that the only character I liked at all in this film was actually the killer. Purely because when his 'comedy routine' worked, it did work. All in all, the plot line of this film dragged anything that might have been good down. Why was the killer killing? I don't know. I can live without knowing who he actually was, thats fairly typical, but without some kind of motive - hell i don't know, i'd settle for him having a bad Halloween as a kid! -it just seems more than senseless, just stupid. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. In fact, i hated this film so much that i specifically registered with IMDb just so i could comment on it. Save your money, save your sanity. Stay away from it!


with a title like this, you know not to expect a great horror movie. But this was really bad, even with low expectations. The plot is really insulting and stupid: an escaped criminal wears a Halloween mask, so everyone around him thinks he's someone else. this joke might actually work for 5 or 10 minutes, but not during the entire movie ! the actors are not that bad, but their characters are rather dumb and the story is boring and downright stupid. No suspense, no excitement and little gore (very cheap). Satan's Little Helper tries to combine horror (...) with comedy and fails dramatically at that. It became so boring towards the end, that I actually stopped watching 10 minutes before the end. I couldn't care whatever happened. Amanda Plummer was great in Pulp Fiction, but come on.. that was 13 years ago, and she hasn't done anything decent after that. So no wonder that she had to sink as low as this piece of crap.. Avoid or be warned..


Satan's Little Helper is one of the better B Horror movies I have seen. When I say better I mean the story. The film hatches a new plot, something that's not so cliché in the Horror genre - something fresh. But there are also some ridiculous questions that come along with it. Questions you will be asking yourself throughout the movie.

The film first caught my attention while I was cruising the Horror section in HMV. I was tired of all the so called "terrifiying" Hollywood blockbusters and wanted something different. The cover art for Satan's Little Helper immediately caught my attention. As you can see, the image draws you in - it's chilling! I knew it was a straight to DVD release - but I took a chance. I mean, I just seen "Boogey Man" the night before - so It couldn't get any worse! After I watched the movie, I was semi-satisfied. I loved the plot of the movie. It was really creepy how the killer was pretending to be the little boys friend, so he could kill. In some sick deranged way, he actually thought he and the little boy would become partners - a duo of terror. It was a great idea to set the film on Halloween night. This way, no one would think anything of a masked man beside a little kid. They would simply think he was his guardian. But, this is also where the "plot holes" begin to surface.

If your son came home with a "friend" he met trick or treating - that's fine. You wouldn't think anything of it - if he was 9!, or round about the same age as him. If however, he appeared with a strange man in a mask, you would be startled and protective of your child. You would ask the man to remove his mask and identify himself. You would ask why he is with your son. He doesn't know him. You would tell him to please leave. He isn't a family friend. He's a stranger. Now, we're supposed to teach our child not to talk to strangers. In this case, the mum is completely fine with it. Huh? They never seem to think it's a tad odd that the "man" doesn't speak - at all. Gruanted they think it's the daughters boyfriend, but after 10 minutes of not talking you would pull the mask off and ask him why he's not saying a word.

The film goes down hill from there. The thing that got me the most was, all the mum said was "Do you want some cider?". I can't count how many times she says this in the movie. It's like, oh you're dying - we have cider though, it's all good!! The movie started promising, and failed to deliver. It was more of a horror/comedy, and even as that it fails to deliver. I guess you could call it a "Dud","Flop" etc..

The best thing about the movie is the cover art. Though, something tells me that's not worth the 12 dollars!


The fact that someone actually spent money on such a bad script, is beyond me. This really must be one of the worst films, in addition to "Haunted Highway" I have ever seen. BAD actors, and a really bad story. There's no normal reactions to any event in this film, and even though it's Halloween , normal people would have bigger reactions when they're witnessing their father being killed, not to mention gutted, people with tape covering their airways, not being able to breathe (in a room with at least 50 people I might add) and some person dressed up as Satan dragging dead people out of his house, even an 8 year old would see the difference between a doll and a person. Not to mention the fact that no one could possibly be that naive and dumb to believe the reality of Satan and Jesus' appearances on the same day, like this kid does. When i was 8, I sure had more brains than that.

But, the really stupid thing is that everyone else seems to be falling for this mute Satan look-alike as well, no questions asked. The question throughout the film is, is it really Satan, or is it some crazy person killing people off whenever he feels like it? Well, he's got human hands, arms, built and whatever, so I guess he's supposed to be in the movie as well, otherwise they did a lousy job concealing it. Then, with this person being human and all, he was able to kill an old lady, a man and his mistress, 5 (!!???) cops (all with guns and training i presume), and a few other people.....and obviously everyone was just standing there waiting for him, or what?

The whole concept and way of telling the story is absolutely the worst thing I've seen, and I would never recommend anyone to waste 1 hour and 30 minutes of their lives to watch this total crap.


Worst Bob Hope comedy ever(and that includes some heavy competition). Hope, on an island with sailors, dreams aloud of being in a bathtub with a geisha girl "steering his ship". Somebody certainly steered this Hope-hackery over the cliff, as it features Phyllis Diller and Gina Lollobrigida and still can't work up any laughs or excitement. Where's Bing Crosby when you really need him?


The fifth "Black Emanuelle" I've watched has, potentially, the most intriguing plot line dealing as it does with the intrepid female reporter investigating the white slavery/prostitution racket which takes her from San Francisco to Rome to Macao and back to her own hometown, New York! The film is peopled with past veterans of the series which, inexplicably, play completely different roles, namely Ivan Rassimov (appearing here as a head of a United Nations committee for Third World countries!), Karin Shubert (as a feminist rival reporter) and Don Powell (as Rassimov's chauffeur).

Unfortunately, as usual with this type of film (despite their being shown in the dead of night), it is heavily edited and a particularly graphic scene (described in "Stracultr) in which an Asian slave trader gets his comeuppance by being sodomized by a dog is nowhere to be seen here!! Still, a harrowing sequence late in the film when a sleazy politician tricks a couple of girls (including, naturally, Gemser and Shubert) into a midnight rendezvous under a New York bridge with a group of bums (this is the way he gets their votes, get it!) - with his high society pals giddily looking on - seems pretty much intact.

The most ridiculous element of this entry - apart from Gemser's penchant to disrobe completely every time she enters a house (even in front of perfect strangers) - is her excursion to India to interview a charlatan/Guru (George Eastman made up to look considerably Christ-like!) who has found a way to prolong coitus indefinitely; of course, when Emanuelle calls him up on it, he ends up having premature ejaculation...!!


Cut to the chase, this is one of the five worst films that I've ever seen.

Not that they didn't try. There was some decent writing with some elements of structure in there, a good cast, some good acting. I'm not sure where it went wrong, but it went horribly wrong.

Some of the elements may have been bad structure and no substantive story, a lot of overacting by the lead (who probably is much better when restrained), some bad directing and editing. I had enough at about an hour, tearing my hair out at about a hour and a half and very agitated at the hour and fifty minutes it ran. There was also an insincerity about it all, being that I went with someone who used to be a heroin addict. He was agitated that it glamorized something that had nothing good to it. That was bolstered by the pretty 17 year-old girl who was in love with the 30 year-old junkie.

And the frantic nature of the lead was a turn-off enough. There were clunky plot points that were an attempt at a structure, but the end result was listless and unending (with uneven time lines). The characters were colorful but to no end, which made me feel bad for the quality actors who you've just not seen enough.

Skip it. I assumed that this was a first-time director who was enamored by his own turds, but he has done this before. I'm puzzled how this and many other really bad ideas find someone who will actually give them money.


Plot: an amorous couple decide to engage in some extra-marital hijinks in a flashy car. They then become stuck (literally) in a Compromising Position, while said car wanders aimlessly about the countryside until the hapless couple are rescued by the authorities.

That's it. That's the entire movie. There may have been some dialogue here and there, but nothing comes to mind. It should be obvious by now that this movie is not just pointless, but actually physically painful to watch. The fact that it starred two of the UKs best up-and-coming actors (one of whom is now sadly deceased) only adds to the horror.

Ian Charleson was outstanding in the very much deserved Oscar-winning 'Chariots of Fire'. Let's remember him for that role, and try hard to pretend that this particular celluloidal abomination never happened.


Ok, well I rented this movie while I was bed ridden hopped up on pain killers, and let me say, It didn't help the film any.

The film is about a man who buys a car as he is going through a midlife crisis, he loves the car more than anything around him, one day his wife decides to borrow the car. Since I don't want to spoil (not that there was anything to spoil) I shall let your imagination figure out the "Zany" (and I use that word lightly) antics that follow.

I had to fight to stay awake through this snore a minute sleeper of a film, and I would like to say that if you are venturing to the movie store and are thinking about being adventurous, please don't, it's a waste of the film it was printed on.

Then again I could be wrong...


Given the title and outlandish box art, I was ready for just about anything. Perhaps my expectation were forced just a bit to high, because I was left a little dry.

A film crew working on a soft-core sex movie end up at a strange house when they get lost in the fog and decide the best way to spend the evening is to have sex. Where hasn't this set up been used before? The difference here is the uber-perverse nature of the sex. Not allowed to show all the goods (groin shots were illegal in Japan for a long time, what is shown is fogged out) the movie tries as hard as it can to show the viewer just how unnatural sex can be.

Amidst all the kinky goings on, a mud monster (whose origin I can't fathom) shows up and begins murdering the men and raping the women...then murdering them too. Some of the sights are a bit much, most notably a woman having her intestines pulled out through her vagina or another woman spitting out a mouthful of...stuff, but otherwise the gore is pretty standard fare.

Ultimately the film is pulled down by it's own designs; it's too over-sexed to be a strait horror picture and too gruesome to work as a sex flick. The mediums can work, but there need to be a balance.

4/10


Maybe it was the title, or the trailer (certainly not the interview on the DVD, which is with the director as he keeps saying "hi, kids" into the camera like a buffoon), but I had expectations for Entrails of a Virgin to be at least a bit of sleazy fun with some good sex scenes and brutal, bloody killings by a weird Japanese penetrator. Turns out it's way too sleazy for its own good, or bad, or whatever. There's a problem- and one can see this also in the Italian sexploitation flick Porno Holocaust, similar to this in many respects- in not having balance to the sex and violence. Too much sex and it will turn into a prototypical porno, and not even with much production quality in comparison with most professional porno movies! And with the killing scenes, there has to be at least a little tack, and maybe just a smidgen of ingenuity, in creating the creature/killer/whatever. Entrails of a Virgin has neither. It's safe to say it's a pretty soulless movie, even if isn't one of the very worst ever made- it's there just for horn-dog Japanese fetishists to get off on girls in trouble and men who have all their brains in their 'other' heads.

In this case, we're given a photo team where the guys are taking some shots of some girls, nothing too salacious, and then by way of a dense fog they stay off at some house one night and are picked off one by one by "A Murderer" as he's credited. First off, the director Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu decides he has to put in a quota of random sex scenes early on- we get spliced in (or phoned in, take your pick) clips of one of the photographers having sex with one or more of the girls elsewhere. It looks like it's from another movie. Then once settled into the house, there's a 'wrestling' scene that's poorly choreographed and shot (yeah, we really need to see him 'all' there), and then on to the rape and killings. First the rape, by the photographers, who promise the girls some jobs for their time. Then the Murderer, who like D'Amato's creature is simply covered in mud and given a stupid facial, and who for an unknown reason kills the men and/or rapes the women one by one.

Now, the latter of those, taken by themselves, should be considered the highlights of the movie. This is like saying, however, that the croûtons are the best part of a wretchedly tasting salad. An eye-gouging scene, a spike thrown like an Olympic event (that scene, actually, is kind of cool), and finally the entrailing of the overly sex-crazed girl, whose inconsequential name I can't remember. Even *this* becomes disappointing just by not being correct to the title! On top of this, the sex scenes, which become tedious through 'Gaira' and his indulgence in long-takes-without-cutaways where everything by the Japanese censors is blurred anyway, are dubbed over by the actors (you'd think that they seem to be enjoying themselves enough, hence the need to let them 'speak' for themselves). But the overall feeling from Entrails of a Virgin is that of a lumpy one, where it's just there to be gawked at and without a shred of suspense or true horror (watch as the last girl left alive, the virgin of the picture, tries to stop the murderer from getting to her, which lasts five minutes as she keeps throwing sticks at him!) You just want it to be done with, for the 'I hate women' mantra to ease up or be rid altogether.


OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.

DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical Tailer

My Grade: F


Less self-conscious and much less pretentious than GUTS OF A BEAUTY, this Kazuo Komizu gore flick is worth a look (at least once).

Sleazy snapshotters escort wanna-be actresses/models to a remote house in the woods in order to sexually molest them. Unfortunately (for the horny boys), a long-schlonged demon, who lives in the woods, has already targeted the girls for fun.

The thing even ends up having fun with the boys -- that's IF you consider beheadings, dismemberment and masturbation with severed limbs "fun".

Once again, it all sounds better on paper than it looks and sounds on film.

Just as Komizu mangled LIVING DEAD AT TOKYO BAY with his ineptitude, he also mangles this effort and is only saved by some audacious violence and some great white panty shots.

Don't buy the hype, though, or you'll be sorely disappointed.


Entrails of a Virgin is so bizarre and incomprehensible that it allows the viewer to interpret it subjectively, applying whatever meaning he wishes to its inexplicable excesses of sex and violence. If this was an intentional characteristic of the film, it would be a work of postmodern brilliance-but of course it isn't.

Without getting too much into plot summary, let's take a quick walking tour of the events. At a secluded cabin, an orgy is in progress, which includes topless wrestling and diaper p***ing. A vanload of latecomers joins the orgy in progress, but they have unwittingly been followed by a monster I like to call "the muddy ninja." This monster precedes to slay orgy participants one by one, except the proverbial virgin (if you don't count oral sex) who receives his seed and consequently becomes so passionate with desire that she masturbates with someone's severed hand.

Finally she has her guts pulled out, and then there's a scene which seems to imply that she's pregnant with a baby muddy ninja. Got all that? If you're going to rent this movie, it's best if you don't speak Japanese and don't have any subtitles. In a season populated by boring Hollywood flicks, putting this in your VCR might be the cinematic equivalent of shock therapy. It will certainly be something different.


I guess I only have myself to blame for the gigantic disillusion that is "Entrails of a Virgin". You already know not to expect a cinematic masterpiece when you see a juicy and proudly promoted title like this and the first impression only gets extra confirmed when noticing the film is a mid-80's production from Japan. Now, there are quite a lot of demented and sick filmmakers active in Japan, but Kazuo Komizu surpasses them all with his thoroughly depraved and sickening trilogy revolving on nothing but aggressive sex and the sadistic abuse of young girls. Not even attempting to tell a story, "Entrails of a Virgin" simply presents a hodgepodge of UN-arousing semi-pornographic sex and truly poor gore-effects that wouldn't even please the most undemanding fan of cheesy 80's horror. Images of a bunch of photographers and their fashion models are inexplicably intercut with scenes of a filthy pervert having crude sex with a seemly under-aged girl. He dumps her not even a minute after climaxing (typical) and she begs him to stay, even if she has to share him with other women. I don't get it. Is this supposed to represent a general male fantasy? Because it's really clichéd and wrongful. Anyways, back to the bunch of horny photographers and docile models. Surprised by upcoming fog on their way home, the group entrenches themselves in an abandoned country house where they have more appalling sex and eventually fall victim to a ridiculous sex-demon who kills them all. The acting performances are amateurish, the dialogs inane and primitive and Komizu's direction is weak and uninspired. I can tolerate all that, including the woman-unfriendly portrayal of sex, but I came too close to turning the film off during the indescribably mean-spirited wrestling sequence. One of the males brutally hits, kicks and throws around one of the girls and calls her a filthy whore until she literally pees her panties and cries with agony. This sequence is, in my humble opinion, the absolute low-point of Asian exploitation cinema. One to avoid and maybe even boycott.


I LOVE Don Knotts, let me just say that up-front! He is an enormous talent and the best at what he does, which is portray a nervous, lovably befuddled loser thrown into a position of authority. He is fabulous in this role as Roy Fleming, the Reluctant Astronaut, but the film is pretty dull, really, even though as a kid my brother and I delighted in watching this and his other films. It's still worth watching but really it's a film that is best enjoyed by children. I'd categorize it as 100% family-friendly and something you could sit down and watch with your kids on a family night.

As with all of Knotts' films, there's a great cast of beloved character actors and you can't help but smile when Knotts gives one of his shaky, open-mouthed stares, no matter how old and jaded you are.

From an adult perspective, one thing I think that is great about this film is how it captures NASA in the 1960s -- all the new modern buildings, the hope, the optimism, the future! And I was surprised at how suave and studly Leslie Neilsen was back then. Only complaint about the story is Roy's love interest, a rather threadbare, unlikeable woman who can't give him the time of day until he becomes a big shot -- if you're like me, you'll be hoping that he gives her the shove-off at the end. Beware -- you'll be whistling the theme tune for days after watching, it's that catchy.


After leaving TV's popular "The Andy Griffith Show", Don Knotts gave movie stardom a valiant try with a series of inane but matinée-pleasing comedy vehicles. Unfortunately, "The Reluctant Astronaut", filmed on the cheap (as were most of Knotts' movies), is much worse than his others. Don plays a small town schnook who gets accepted to Astronaut Training camp...but not as a candidate for space travel--they want him as their new janitor! Some may say the weak satire capitalizes on Americans' then-fresh fever for the new age of technology, but the flick is really just a dim excuse to keep restless children occupied. It gets off to a good start, with an OK set-up and nostalgic locations, but it becomes increasingly more spiritless and idiotic. * from ****


This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in "Three's Company," was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like "The Dreamer of Oz," but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in "Pleasantville." Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in "Airplane!" and "Police Squad."

There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.

The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the "exterior" scenes of the "town" where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.

Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's "The Love Bug," for instance, at least had some interesting race action.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Juggernaut is a British made "thriller" released in the US by First National. Karloff is Dr. Sartorius who has to leave his research because his funds have dried up. Karloff is forced to retreat to France and start up a medical practice. He is propositioned by a conniving woman who wants to get rid of her much older husband. She knows Karloff needs the money.

Karloff agrees to the proposition and soon becomes the personal doctor of the husband. All the while, the wife is prancing about town with the local no good playboy. Karloff finally injects the old geyser with poison and he kicks off. However, his son (from another marriage) arrives a few days before the killing and finds out the will has been changed. When he spills the beans to the wife, she goes berserk and even bites the son's hand.

Meanwhile, Karloff's nurse has misplaced the hypo Karloff used to kill the old man. When Karloff finds out he isn't getting any money, he asks the wife to poison the son. The nurse suspects Karloff and finds the missing hypo. Analysis shows poison, but not quite in time as Karloff kidnaps the nurse.

To make a long story short, the nurse escapes, gets the police, and manages to save the son who is about to be injected by Karloff. Karloff instead injects himself and dies.

This movie does have some good points. Karloff is possessed and plays the type of mad doctor he did in The Devil Commands and the Man Who Lived Again. It is peculiar, however, to see him walk around stiffly and slightly hunched over. We never find out why he is walking this way. I suspect the director thought it made him more sinister.

The actress playing the 2-timing wife overacts something terrible. She has a French accent. Even though she overacts badly, you still manage to hate her (or maybe you hate her because of her acting...).

A little below average for a Karloff vehicle. If you buy the Sinister Cinema VHS copy, the audio is a bit choppy.


This has been put out on the DVD market by Alpha, and it's for die-hard Boris Karloff fans (like moi) only. It's not a horror flick, but a drama where Boris is a struggling scientist agreeing to kill a wealthy woman's husband in order to gain the fortune needed to continue with his work. But once the dying victim changes his will and leaves his spouse nothing, all hell breaks loose.

It's appeasing enough seeing Karloff as another selfish sinister type, and some of the acting is unintentionally hilarious (especially from the leading lady Mona Goya who is absolutely a laugh riot as the double-crossed wife).

But proceed with much caution.


One of Boris Karloff's real clinkers. Essentially the dying Karloff (looking about 120 years older than he was)is a scientist in need of cash to finish his experiments before he dies. Moving from Morocco where his funding is taken over by someone else he goes to the South of France where he works a s physician while trying to scrap enough money to prove his theories. Desperate for money he makes a deal with the young rich wife of a cotton baron who is dying. She will fund him if he helps her poison the husband so she can take his money and carry on with a gigolo (who I think is married). If you think I got that from watching the movie you're wrong, I had to read what other people posted to figure out happened. Why? because this movie had me lost from two minutes in.I had no idea what was going on with its numerous characters and multiple converging plot lines. Little is spelled out and much isn't said until towards the end by which time I really didn't care. Its a dull mess of interest purely for Karloff's performance which is rather odd at times. To be honest this is the only time I've ever seen him venture into Bela Lugosi bizarre territory. Its not every scene but a few and makes me wonder how much they hung out.


Way back when, the X-Files was an intelligent, thought-provoking show. A big part of its appeal was that the writers looked to folklore and science for their ideas, tying the plot to the spooky side of real life.

I was incredibly wary of the 8th season when it aired. The show had already provided two perfectly good episodes to bow out on ("One Son" and "Requiem"), and the 7th season had seen a sharp rise in episodes that scraped the barrel for ideas that were far-fetched, implausible, or downright silly. But I figured, hey, give it the benefit of a doubt, maybe they're bringing it back because they've got some great ideas lined up.

"Roadrunners" really was upsetting. Following "Patience", which at least offered an interesting angle on the vampire folklore that the show had done well to avoid, the episode sees a strange (alien?) parasitic slug with the power of mind control worshipped by a cult of backwoods Christians. Oh, and they think it's the second coming of Christ, but you only find that out in the last couple of minutes. Seriously. There's never *any* attempt to make sense of this, to explain what the slug is, why anything that's happening is happening, or anything. Even in the show's early years - in fact, *especially* then - you could expect a little bit more depth, a bit of background, or if not that then the opposite - a bit of mystery, some uncertainty about what this was all about.

It's Scully that really kills it though. You could put up with the silliness of the premise, but to have a character who has been developed over a good 7 years as a rational skeptic transformed into a gullible maverick purely for the sake of advancing the plot is bizarre to watch. You feel like you're watching some godawful teen horror, except that it's a woman well into her thirties throwing herself into the kind of creepy isolated community that she's spent the best part of a decade uncovering the sinister underbelly of, being either outwitted by very stereotypical hicks or utterly indifferent to her own safety. Oh, and by the way, Doggett, the new Mudler, isn't around. Scully just wandered off into the desert to look into a brutal murder on her own without him. He shows up at the end to save the day - I can't even remember why - but apart from that, he's not really in it. Again: seriously.

In short, it feels like either a generic script written for another show, or someone's pet movie project which they've been allowed to shove like a mutant leech into the spine of an existing, long-running show at a time when it was at its most vulnerable. It might've worked on a lesser show, where the characters are more archetypal and the audience expects less. But The X-Files had a good thing going, and Scully was one of the strongest and most idiosyncratic TV characters of the 90s. Deciding that you're going to change her personality for the sake of a story that they must've done on Star Trek a good fifty or so times is pointless.


Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said.


I find it hard to understand why this piece of utter trash was repackaged. The only saving grace in the whole thing is the body of Ariauna in her sexy uniform. Her humour is also to be appreciated. She is a definite plus but alas it would take a magician to salvage this garbage. However she must be positively recognised for her heroic effort & true professionalism. Can't say the same for her co star Lilith with her whining voice that grates on your nervous system. Appeared disinterested & gave the impression that just her presence on the set was all that was needed. All said apart from Ariauna's performance it is indeed utter trash.


It is difficult to find any positives in this movie. Seems as though the producer needed to make a buck without much effort & hence we are treated to a full showing of Galaxy which is the lamest excuse for a movie in history. The police girls looked extremely sexy in their little uniforms. More action shots of the two cops & a lot less of Galaxy would have been the way to go. Of course that would add to the budget so they decided to fill the space with that wretched rerun. Ms Albright does excellent looking sexy & her acting is first rate. Ms Stabs whom I had heard of but not seen on screen before also looked very desirable but seems to lack basic acting talent. Apart from Ms Albright this is real garbage.


A group of human looking aliens going to Earth to eat crash land on a planet of prehistoric beasts instead where they all eat physcedelic mushrooms and act retarded. Padded with footage from "Planet of the Dinosuars" and horrible jokes this is definitely one to miss. The acting is atrocious as well, and while this isn't as bad as "Chickboxer" (what movie can be?) This is still pretty awful repugnant stuff. It's 90 minute running time feels like an eternity and you will likely be cursing life so do yourself a huge favor and just move on, skip this crappy film, there's nothing to see here.

The film-makers try to resell this turd as a MST3K style making fun of the movie they made a decade before, and it works to an extent it's still nothing that watchable though, Ariauna Albright is hot, but Lilith Stabs has a pretty unattractive speaking voice.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Joke commentary, 17 Behind the scenes featurette; 7 minute Into the black featurette; Jessica Mills reporting; Stills gallery; and original trailer


Using footage pillaged from Planet of Dinosaurs this shot on video (except for the stolen footage) concerns a bunch of people shot into space who land on a dinosaur planet that is...don't wait for it, is really earth. Its a five minute sketch stretched to 90 minutes. Slightly better than Chickboxer (another in the Bad Movie Police series)-having a nostalgic home movie feel coupled with good stolen effects, this movie is still an impossible slog to get through. I'm left to ponder the question are we becoming so uncreative that we're now pillaging old movies not only for plot but also for mismatched footage? Clearly low budget producers are getting so desperate they really will give us anything to take our money


First of all let me say that I had to think a lot about writing a comment for this movie. The best review for this kind of Cinema can be just the silence. Movie addressed to housewives and to grandmothers. This movie tries to look "genuine" and the characters should be supposed "real people". An Italian could never think that the characters might be "real": they are just "low-profile" stereotypes. It gives a very misguised vision of what life is in the Italian countryside. The plot is weak (plot? which plot?) and the humour does not make laugh anyone older than 12.


Wow, after trashing the disk of Timo Roses "Rout City" after about 15 Minutes (South Park is about more than meaningless cursing... I guess some people just don't get it) I was interested in this movie. I read quite some positive stuff and the packaging and look of the movie seemed far from the total trash I expected after "Rout city".

Surprise: The movie isn't total trash but the problem seems to be exactly that. Timo Rose tries to walk in the footsteps of German Horror/Splatter Cinema like Olaf Ittenbach and the likes. That means "Barricade" is in parts extremely gory and detailed. The gore FX are not really believable but OK, the acting is OK but in some cases plain sucks. The hillbilly chick in the opening sequence is ridiculous and doesn't get better till she's shot.

So what is the problem... the movie is gory, has a typical German underground vibe (including the classic booby shots in blood), OK FX and a modern feel to it like the packaging already promised?!

1. The script is total BS. You get a typical hillbilly/lost in the woods story with some guys+gal camping out and meeting a degenerated hillbilly family. Everything is just leading towards the torture/mutilation scenes and seems unbelievably random and pointless. This is the first thing that makes "Barricade" half-hearted.

2. Random is also the perfect description for a lot of the camera work (I liked the repetitive cut to the tweezers in the extended booby torture scene... either they had no material or the editor works in a hardware store). Even worse the editing... sure, its modern and far better than a lot of other movies in the genre but its RANDOM. You got an overuse of that typical exposure effect everywhere and with no meaning ... its just there... all the time. Then there's some grainy/noisy film look which also is just thrown in here and there for the sake of it, I don't get the meaning.

3. Like the fore-mentioned effects there is a lot of repetitive stuff in here. For example most of the kills are edited with multiple repetitions of stabbing and punching. Its OK once but here its annoying and fake, especially towards the end. Annoying also attributes the "music" which is permanently used without any change in the background. It doesn't take long until it makes the movie hardly bearable.

4. From all this comes the biggest problem of this movie (and many others in my opinion). If you make a splatter movie with trashy feel its pretty idiotic to polish it with special FX and new school editing. It looks like they take it way too serious. Its no fun because the decent gore FX are plain wasted in this context. And where the classic gore FX are OK the computer FX in scenes like the stabbing in the mouth or the gunshots in the ending look rather silly(and 3D splatter mostly sucks to me even in movies with a budget and decent 3D artists).

I often wondered if the time of serious splatter movies is over and "Barricade" is just another example it might be time to put it in the tomb. Its no fun, has no character and is too trashy for its look. The script is a cheap try on "Wrong Turn" and "TCM" leading absolutely nowhere. You can take that literally... the ending is just there and as random as many other things here ("I love you" in a splatter flick... come on!!). "Barricade" tries to incorporate a lot and fails...you can sure fast-forward through this movie for some extensive disembowelment, acid face melting,nipple pinching and classic Friday the 13th style stabbing of a couple while fingering in a tent (bloody boobies hooray!). But its really hard to get through this. Total failure especially because you can see it could have been something.


Well I just gave away 95 minutes and 47 seconds that I'll never get back on this piece of trash. I heard someone online describe this movie's villains as "subhuman cannibals", and I thought it was promising because I thought it would be like the Descent. WRONG! The Descent was a psychological thriller with dynamic characters and strong storyline. These villains are totally unrealistic and no part of their performance is enjoyable to watch. This movie isn't so controversial, I've seen this level of gore in many films. This movie plain sucks. SYNOPSIS: A blonde who thinks she's real hot (but she isn't), her admirer, and her admirer's friend (no, I don't remember their names) go into the woods. Their car breaks down. They are warned to leave by a man named Mark. The blonde gets unreasonably hysterical and the next morning they can't find the admirer's friend. Admirer impales his foot (whoops!). Don't worry, he is much more upset when his car won't start than when he gets impaled by nails. After a nanosecond of coaxing, the blond leaves to find help. Events ensue that I cannot remember. During this and throughout the movie, we are shown grotesque torture scenes with no substance including one that made me gag. Blonde goes to save admirer from house of cannibals (even though all they are seen eating is intestines, which would logically be the last choice for real cannibals to eat since they contain actual food). Blonde finds admirer hurt and works very hard (unsuccessfully) to work up tears. Then you get a good laugh when the blonde is in the house and announces she can "out think them". Mark (the man who warned them to leave) has a remarkable change of character when he reveals the cannibals are his family. Then there is some shooting, they leave the house, the shooting continues, then a random guy shows up and says he's been watching them. Before he is shot, we are shown an acid-trip inspired scene of more killing. The blonde or her admirer shoots him because he did not help them. There's more killing, the admirer professes his love for the blonde. Then a mysterious hand covers the camera. What does that imply? I don't know, hopefully not a sequel.


A group of friends come face-to-face with a family of hideous cannibals whilst camping in the beautiful German countryside.

The 'mutant cannibal family' concept is almost as old as the hills that the inbred freaks often call home, so any director attempting to breath new life into the genre needs to come up with something pretty darn special in order to impress. With Barricade, Timo Rose tries to give the well-worn routine a Teutonic twist, by transplanting the action to The Black Forest and giving it the German low-budget splatter treatment. The result is a very bloody, but totally unoriginal effort that is made almost unwatchable thanks to some dreadful directorial decisionsin particular, the non-stop use of fancy filters and irritating editing techniques.

Had Timo Rose not opted to utilise every naff trick his editing software offered him, then Barricade might have been a reasonably entertaining gore-fest: his inexperienced cast do reasonably well; the bloody effects are suitably stomach churning; and there are one or two scares and even some well conceived creepy moments. All of this, however, is completely ruined by the awful camera-work, choppy editing, and overwhelming barrage of visual gimmickry used to give the film the distressed look that is so inexplicably popular with today's film-makers.

I give Barricade 3 out of 10 purely for the outlandish gore, which includes a nifty scene where a guy is forced to drink acid, loads of nasty wounds caused by a variety of sharp implements, and some pretty decent shotgun damage.


As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.

Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream "hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas.


Horrible. I see many user comments on how great this show is. It truly is a Wanna-Be-Friends - Made in Taiwan knockoff. The jokes are lame as...and the plot is ridiculous. The actors are obviously struggling to be funny and are probably cringing when they hit those awful punchlines (if you can call them that). The bulk of the other users who have commented are obviously from another planet (or at least another continent). There are obviously reasons that TV companies cancel shows...and none of then are when shows are doing well. Make sense? Anyway, steer clear - even if it is raining and there is absolutely nothing else on this planet to do...go stand in the rain instead - more fun.


this show is awful. no comedy, no plot no good characters. America are you blind give the award to real shows. i hate this show along with 30 rock. honestly I'm so glad they canceled this show. thank you CBS. keep two and a half men, keep Christine, keep rules of engagement keep how i meet your mother which really isn't funny but a lot funnier than this. this show is a rip off of friends. with the same director so thats okay. but keep this show gone and never bring it back. never ever ever ever. the only reason i didn't give it a 1 rating is because it keep my awake instead of asleep. those are the types of movies or TV shows that i give a one. the only reason i was still awake was because of the audiences laughter and i was looking forward to the next show. i really wish this show was funny sorry but my opinion stupid. very stupid. i don't see why everyone loves it. my opinion again. but i also find big bang theory kinda stupid. my bad smart. the class bye bye now i have a smile and it is not from watching your show.


The Class is a comedy series that portrays a bunch of 27-year-old former class mates.

I like the idea of the show. That's why it saddens me that The Class is not funny, even though it has the obvious potential. It's not enough corky, just dorky. (Haha.) This is due to a slowish tempo and the lack of actually hilarious punch lines. Also some actors have difficulties with timing.

Most inventively written characters are the twins Kat and Lina Warbler (Lizzy Caplan and Heather Goldenhersh) but even they seem just a little too square for the good of the show. On the other hand the characters I find most uninteresting are the main character Ethan and the used-to-be- couple Duncan and Nicole.

What bothers me with the series is that the only Latino character Aaron is being picked on for his accent (even though by a non-respectable character, but anyway).


If you have seen Friends, the writing will feel very familiar. Especially the last 3 or 4 seasons of Friends often share the same comedy setups.

The show is about a group of people whose connection is that they shared the same class when they were still rather young (about 10 years old I think). Now, they're in their mid-twenties, and they meet again on a class reunion. This is where the series starts.

A typical episode deals with multiple story lines at once. They're usually not connected in any way. Each story line is cut up into multiple sections, which are then shown in a mixed order.

The sketches is where my problems lie with this series. As in the later seasons of Friends, it's often a rather silly setting with hard to believe situations. One of the main characters does something really stupid that's hard to believe. The situation is then heavily exaggerated, as if it wasn't silly enough. If you're into this kind of in-your-face humor, then maybe you'll like this series. For me it is a great turn-off.

The reason I started watching Friends is because of the first few seasons. There are interesting and especially credible story lines, with some romance in it that makes you root for the characters. The Class has none of this. The characters are simply too forced and stereotypes are pushed too far. It's therefore not possible to relate to them and like them.

At least with friends, it took several seasons before it ran out of steam and the character traits were all milked out. But in The Class, it seems it has run out of steam before it even started.


You can't imagine how I looked forward to King of the Ants. As a massive Gordon fan, I awaited the European premiere with wicked anticipation.especially since I loved Dagon - Gordon's last achievement - so much. King of the Ants premiered here in my country and it was Gordon himself who came to present it. Unfortunately, I couldn't go and congratulate him for it afterwards. King of the Ants is his most uninspired and mediocre film to date. Really, the quality level never surpassed ordinary TV-thriller standards. The plot outline is terribly routine and with the exception of a few poor scenes, the typical Gordon-touch is never recognized. On top of that, the already weak script has more holes than a Swiss bowl of cheese! It involves a young wannabe-crook who's hired to commit a murder. So he does.and of course they're not paying him.and of course he falls in love with the victim's wife.and of course he avenges himself.. Only the sequences in which the guy descents in a spiral of madness are worth a mention and they're the only ones reminding you of the fact you're still watching a Stuart Gordon film. The acting performances are below average with McCenna as the heroic lowlife, George `Norm Peterson' Wendt as the chubby bastard and Kari Wuhrer as the good-hearted sex bomb. Extremely illogical things happen constantly and the dullness of the story becomes irritating very quickly, while the make-up effects aren't enough to even satisfy amateur-horror fans. I read a few other comments on King of the Ants, claiming it's Gordon's best since it finally is a thought-provoking and mature film.Well, if that's the case.I rather stay immature and give Re-Animator another viewing, thank you very much. Oh well, I guess every good director runs out of steam and inspiration eventually.too bad it also overcame Stuart Gordon.


This movie was an attempt to go into places most don't and perhaps shouldn't venture into. It was a similar trial at the bizarre, head-case perspective given to us in The Cell, although not near as in-depth and well portrayed. The plot is constructed simply with an initial campy feel to it. Then, as the movie takes its supposed "dramatic" turn, the plot falls apart on what few legs it had to stand on in the first place.

Basically the idea is that of a kid (Chris McKenna) who needs money. He takes on the role of a hit man, killing a city accountant. Then he doesn't get paid for his work but instead gets tortured for several days because he dreamed up the "brilliant" idea of trying to use a backup file he had as leverage for payment. This idiotic move at trying to force them to pay him backfires as he is horribly and endlessly abused. He begins to go crazy (some very disturbing scenes). Then, thinking he has paid for his sins and can start over, he visits the wife (Kari Wuhrer) of the man who he killed and wins her affections. Soon after she discovers who he is, tragedy strikes, and revenge sweeps through the air as the boy goes after his torturers (Daniel Baldwin, George Wendt, Vernon Wells) for their previous "kindness".

I got to ask though, what is it with Kari Wuhrer and horror/gore type films?

It seems everything she has put out lately has been in this genre. Granted, I liked her in "Eight-Legged Freaks" and she was okay in "Anaconda". But despite all her obvious cuteness and allure (wow, she's hot!), she can act much better and chose better roles. Or maybe, I'm wrong and that is just a misconception. For all you guys out there, you get to see the "fully monty" of her in this film, although it's rather bizarre and short-lived. I almost felt like she did some soft-porn after watching this film (something not foreign to Kari's career). The sex-simulation is such that it has to make you wonder what things really go on during filming.

Anyway, I will say there is some good acting. Just don't expect much of it from Daniel Balwin, whose career seems forever destined to second his brother Alex's. The film did bring out a few old greats though, George Wendt (Norm from Cheers) and Vernon Wells (Commando, Weird Science). Above all, Chris McKenna does the best job in playing the main character, Sean Crawley. His little acting experience and yet his believable nature as a naive youth, bring some elements of substance to the film.

I wouldn't go out of my way for this one. If you're bored and are tired of the same old episodes of "The Hitchhiker", then I might advise watching this.

And Kari, please start acting in some better films!


This movie is written by Charlie Higson, who has before this done the "legendary" Fast Show and his own show based on one of Fast Show's characters (Tony the car sales man). He's also written James Bond books for kids.

Actually I've seen before this only Gordon's movies that are based on Lovecraft's stories, and every one of those is marvelous. Here Gordon tries to do something different. The style is totally "contemporary", which means shaky camera, fast and strange cutting, cool chillout music in the background. It works quite well here, I guess, but it's still pointless and cheap. It makes me often think of the cameraman who's shaking his dv-camera in front of the actors/actresses and try to make stylish moves in the pictures (hoping that something tolerable would come out of it). The casting is good, and there is a whole atmosphere, which is the result of good directing. I think the main character, the "zero" young guy, is quite interesting in his "zeroness". The fat guy is also good. And the guy who looks like Alec Baldwin, but is not him. But pretty soon after the beginning the movie turns out to be something not-so-interesting: In this case I mean an endless line of scenes of sadism and sickness. There is not much humanity in this film/story: It's totally pessimistic, and every person in this movie is disgusting and hopeless, or soon dead. Needless to say that there is no humor either. It's a 1'40 long vomit without no relief in any moment. Anyway, Gordon remains to me one of the most interesting movie makers that are active today, and I think of this movie as an experiment, and as a failure in that. Everyone has to experience getting lost sometimes, just to learn and to find their way again. This might be Gordon's most uninteresting and empty work.


I must pat myself on the back for watching this movie all the way through because it truly was painful. An incapable painter becomes a fully capable hit-man? This movie was rife with absurdities of which if I mentioned them all I would be giving away the movie. Norm Peterson aka George Wendt must really be in a rut to have agreed to do this movie. The acting was deplorable and the story was even worse. As a sane minded and rational individual, I could not understand where the writer came from nor where he was going with this movie. There was ineptness on the part of every main character, there was a string of hapless and ridiculous events, then the movie ended. One absurd act after another with dialogue doesn't make a movie, it only makes a talkative train wreck.


I was p***ed when I couldn't see this one when it was screening at the Philly Film Fest last year, so when I saw that it was going to be on cable tonight, I put it on remind as soon as I could. So was it worth the wait? Well let's backtrack a tad as I have yet to give you the plot. Sean Crawley is a young man who doesn't know what his path in life is. Enter Duke (George Wendt) who introduces him to his boss Ray (Danny Baldwin). One night Ray totally hammered asks Sean to off the guy that they had Sean following around. And it goes on from there. Which leads me back to the question posed. Was it worth the wait? Yes and no, the buildup was pretty good and George Wendt stole the movie for me. He just took the ball and ran with it. But it's nowhere near as violent as I was led to believe and somewhere along the movies running time the ball is not only dropped, but fumbled and taken in the other direction. I know where this point happened exactly, but can't say without spoiling the film. But needless to say it happened. The ending doesn't save the film either. Poor Stuart Gordon nothing can be good like "Re-animator" or "Castle Freak".

My Grade: C

Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme

Eye Candy: Kari Wuhrer shows her ta-tas in one fantasy and then in the next more ta-tas and it pans down and...OH MY GOD MY EYES MY EYES!!!!!


A film without conscience. Drifter agrees to kill a man for a mobster for money. Then they double cross him. Meanwhile he falls in love with the dead man's wife, and, without her knowing he's the killer, moves in with her. Then he "accidentally" kills her when she finds out. Then, in a WALKING TALL kind of heroism, he gets revenge on the mobsters who double crossed him. The first problem is that, by agreeing to take on the murder by hire assignment, the drifter loses all sense of sympathy, worthiness, and heroism. We can't accept any goodness in him and as a result the rest of the has no moral center. We just can't care about that kind of guy. And the wife (nicely played by the fetching Kari Wuhrer - the sheriff in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS), a high class lady who runs a mission for homeless people, similarly loses a degree of sympathy by jumping right into bed with the homeless drifter (despite her evidently weakened state after the death of her husband). And, when she finds out he's the guy  what does she do? She locks him inside her house (as if ALL houses had locks you can't open from INSIDE) with her and proceeds to berate him. Stoo-pid. George Wendt, however, is terrific in a role as a beefy thug. Director Stuart Gordon did so much better with RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON.


I don't know anything of the writer's or the director's earlier work so I hadn't brought any prejudices to the film. Based on the brief description of the plot in TV Guide I thought it might be interesting.

But implausibility was piled upon implausibility. Each turn of the plot seemed to be an excuse to drag in more bloodshed, gruesome makeup, or special effects.

The score was professional and Kari Wuhrer seems like a decent actress but the rest was more than disappointing. It was positively repulsive.

I will not go through the vagaries of the narrative but I'll give an example of what I think of as an excess of explicit gore.

Chris McKenna goes to an isolated ranch house and pulls the frozen body of his earlier victim (Wendt) out of the deep freeze. McKenna had killed Wendt by biting a chunk out of his neck. Now he feels he must destroy the evidence of his involvement in Wendt's demise. (What are the cops going to do, measure his bite radius?) McKenna unwraps Wendt's head and neck from the freezer bag it's in, takes an ax, and begins to chop off Wendt's head. Whack. Whack. Whack. The bit of the ax keeps chipping away at Wendt's neck. The air is filled with nuggets of flying frozen flesh, one of which drops on McKenna's head. (He brushes it off when he's done.) McKenna then takes the frozen head outside to a small fire he's built. He sits the head on the ground, squats next to it, takes out some photos of a woman he's just killed, and shows them to Wendt's head. "Remember her? We could have really made it if it hadn't been for you guys," he tells the head. "Duke, you've always liked bonfires, haven't you?" he asks. Then he places the head on the fire. We only get a glimpse of it burning but we can hear the fat sizzling in the flame.

I don't want this sort of garbage to be censored. I'm only wondering who enjoys seeing this stuff.

There's no reason to go on with the rest of the movie. Well, I'll mention one example of an "implausibility," since I brought the idea up. McKenna has been kidnapped and locked in a dark bare shack. He knows he's going to be clobbered half to death in the following days. (He's literally invited the heavies to do it.) What would you do in this Poe-like situation? Here's what McKenna does on what may turn out to be the last night of his life. He finds a discarded calendar with a pin-up girl on it and masturbates (successfully). Give that man the Medal of Freedom!

A monster who looks like Pizza the Hut is thrown into some unnecessary flashbacks. The camera is often hand held and wobbly. The dialog has lines like, "Life is a piece of s***. Or else it's the best of all possible worlds. It depends on your point of view." Use is made of a wide angle lens that turns ordinary faces into gargoyle masks. A house blows up in an explosive fireball at the end while the hero, McKenna, walks towards us in the foreground.

Some hero he is, too. He first kills a man for $13,000 by bashing him over the head several times with a heavy statue, then a potted plant, before finally tipping a refrigerator over onto the body. (This bothers him a little, but not enough to keep him from insisting on payment.) Then, I hope I have the order straight, he kills Wendt by ripping out part of his neck. Then he kills the wife of his first victim by accident and blames the heavies for it, although by almost any moral calculus they had nothing to do with it. Next he burns the head honcho (Baldwin) alive. Then, having disabled the two lesser heavies, he deliberately blows them up, though one of them isn't entirely unsympathetic. And we're supposed to be rooting for McKenna.

These aren't cartoon deaths like those in the Dirty Harry movies either -- bang bang and you're dead. These are slow and painful. The first one -- the murder for $13,000 -- is done clumsily enough to resemble what might happen in real life. It isn't really easy to kill another human being, as Hitchcock had demonstrated in Torn Curtain. But that scene leads to no place of any importance.

Some people might enjoy this, especially those young enough to think that pain and death are things that happen only in movies. Some meretricious stuff on screen here.


I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.

The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.

Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad.

The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.

4/10


The proverb "Never judge a book by it's cover", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface.

As I viewed the artwork to,"King of the Ants" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.

"King of the Ants" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!

Now there are a couple of interesting "hallucination" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!


The wife of a stage producer in London hopes to fix up the American song-and-dance man starring in her husband's latest show with an acquaintance, an American girl who makes her living modeling fashions in society circles. Unfortunately, the couple has already met on their own, with the girl thinking the guy is actually the show producer married to her friend (the fact he's not wearing a wedding ring should have discouraged any misunderstandings!). Wafty Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers musical is eventually dragged back down to the earth by Dwight Taylor and Allan Scott's idiotic script, which is full of juvenile behavior. Astaire and Rogers don't just 'meet cute'--they meet ridiculously (he's tap-dancing like a madman in the hotel suite above hers and she complains). Audiences of 1935 probably didn't care how these two were going to get together--as long as they did so, and happily. Seen today, the central characters appear to have no motivation to end up in each other's arms: he plies her with flowers (after telling his friend he wants to remain "fancy free" in the love department) and she gives him the brush-off. Nothing that a little dancing couldn't cure! This glamorous twosome are as deliberately unreal as are the London and Venice settings, but we watch simply because the leads are Fred and Ginger. It's a fantasy for have-nots...ones who don't mind the dumbed-down plot. The musical moments do break up the monotony of the contrived scenario, yet fail to transcend the surrounding silliness. ** from ****


Having endured this inaccurate movie I will admit that it is a more modern telling of the story than previous versions. Yet, it is so inaccurate and has has been made so politically correct that it made me mad after watching it. Davy Crockett was very poorly represented by Billy Bob, who I thought would have probably been better cast as Sam Houston given both men's love of oratory. I think self-absorbed Dennis Quaid(an actual Texan) would have been a perfect Crockett and it would have definitely fed into his starved sense of self-worship. As a Texan and a true believer in the Texas mindset I feel Davy Crockett was the quintessential Texan even though not born here. Our unofficial motto is "It ain't braggin' if it is a fact" was made for Crockett. And that last scene at the Alamo where Crockett is the last survivor has to be the biggest insult to Davy Crockett ever made. To even suggest that this giant of a man and seasoned fighter would allow himself to be taken alive is ridiculous. Three different eye witness accounts place him dead amid the bodies of a dozen or more dead Mexican soldiers after undoubtedly fierce hand to hand combat. Finally, that lame ending to the movie supposedly depicting the battle of San Jacinto as a mutual battle of 600 Texicans vs 700 Mexican Soldiers when there was actually closer to 1,500 well trained Mexican regulars. Every Texas school kid who pays attention in their first Texas history class knows the battle took the Mexican Army by surprise during siesta time and the Mexican army was so confused they could not form ranks and fled as they were not trained to fight frontier style hand to hand.


A question for you : A family go to a new house and get stalked by demonic forces . Which film am I talking about ? Every horror film you`ve seen ? Yes that`s true but that`s not the answer I`m looking for . I`ll narrow it down by saying there`s a lot of teen angst scenes . Doesn`t help ? Well there`s lots of bits where the characters are stalked by a creature and you see the characters through the creature`s POV . No futher forward ? Okay there`s a dream sequence involving lots of blood ? Could still be any horror film you say . Oh gawd this could take weeks so I`ll say the film I`m talking about features loads of Aussies many of whom have appeared in NEIGHBOURS and HOME AND AWAY . Yes that`s right the film is THE THIRD CIRCLE ( aka CUBBYHOUSE ) and do you understand what the above exercise is about ? It`s about me pointing out how THE THIRD CIRCLE is absolutely no different from any horror film that`s been made


Suffice it to say that this substandard B has nothing to save it - not an interesting plot or even one tolerably decent actor. Josh Leonard of Blair Witch fame does little to help matters. Do yourself a favor and leave this one on the shelf at your local video store.


I had numerous problems with this film.

It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.

The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.

It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.

Avoid this film.

Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning.


As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.

Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.

I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.

This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.

Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.

My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.

I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.

At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."

This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."


This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the "scientists" and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliché ridden.

I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: "A Brief History of Nearly Everything." There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science.


It seems the makers of this film had trouble deciding what their message really was. Consequently, they had even more trouble delivering it. They began by poorly describing principles of quantum physics which relate to sub-atomic particles. Having established a fuzzy picture of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, they presented a barrage of talking heads who built a case of ridiculous logic intimating that every living person is an entity which follows the same quantum rules on a cosmic scale. Then there was a lot of talk about ideas upon which Stephen Covey and Tony Robbins have made their careers: positive thinking, interrupting bad patterns, always look on the bright side, etc. Next came a bit about how our brains can change our bodies through production of proteins: hormones which we more or less choose to create. If you are sad, you will create sad proteins. If you are happy, you will create happy proteins. It's just so simple, isn't it? Interwoven with our lessons we follow the fictitious life of Amanda, a photographer who pops anti-depressants and hates her thighs. The film makers slowly but surely were trying to get us all to say, "Hey, Amanda, just cheer up!" Why can't she cheer up? Obviously it's because the world is a BAD place where there is crime and poverty and religion, that's why. The conclusion of the film (which is basically the entire second half) brought on a barrage of contradiction. We are all a part of a whole energy where we are not beings, but a collective consciousness, but we are individuals who can change the world, but there are many of each of us because of all the different dimensions, but we can choose who we are, and we have a purpose to do good, but there is no god because there is nothing better than us, so there is no such thing as right and wrong, so there is no such thing as reward or punishment, so nothing good ever came out of religion, but we should still do good anyway, even though there is no such thing as bad and good because there is nobody to decide what that is, except for the fact that we each can make life good if we all meditate, and then crime will cease, and if we say nice things, our water will freeze into pretty shapes. Still with me? Good because there is more. According to Robert L. Park in his book "Voodoo Science", the whole meditation experiment put on by John Hagelin in Washington, D.C. was a farce, the numbers were doctored, and the murder rate was higher that year that any year before or since. And what about your positive attitude keeping you young and healthy? This was a message delivered by an older man who looked his age and a woman who was overweight.

So does all this work or not? I was lucky enough to see the film at a theater where Betsy Chasse, one of the film's three directors (yes, three) fielded questions following the show. I call myself lucky because I had first-hand confirmation that these people don't know what they are talking about. Several of the questions asked by audience members had her so stumped that her husband, a chiropractor, had to step in and recite the answer. I finally had to leave when the discussion inevitably turned political, and everyone, including Ms. Chasse, began speculating as to how wonderful the world would be if only President Bush could see this movie.


Anyone who has studied any physics or cognitive science will walk out disgusted after 40 min., as my wife and I did. The ignorant masses might be entertained by the hand-waiving arguments and the absurd "conclusions" drawn (without even an attempt at a logical reason) from real science. I'm offended by such nonsense presented under the guise of "science". I can only conclude that the writers picked up a quantum physics book, didn't understand a word of it, then watched The Matrix about a thousand times, and proceeded to write this movie.

For example, the Washington DC crime experiment was done by The Transcendental Meditation Program. A brief search will reveal the science of their methods. (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/dissenter.htm)

Save your money.


Remember the chain-smoking channeler exposed on 60 Minutes a few years ago? This is her. Lots of folks reviewed this movie without checking the bona fides of the filmmakers. The producers have been using phony "word of mouth" promotions very successfully without disclosing the financial and philosophical underpinnings for this piece of marketing tripe. If you believe in channeling, reincarnation, new age dreck and day-old baloney, this film is for you. If you want a discussion of quantum physics or reality, look elsewhere. The purpose of this movie is to convince you that Ramtha isn't a wacko, so you'll give her a bunch of your money. If you can tiptoe through the Ramtha website without howling in disbelief, then maybe you'll think the bucks you dropped on this infomercial for insanity was well spent. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN>


I created my own reality by walking out of the theater I was roped in by my girlfriend into going to this dreck with her mom. We (my g-friend and I) walked out about an hour into it. What a load of pseudo scientific new age jargon.

Sub atomic particles are thoughts? By taping labels to bottles of water and blessing it by a Buddhist monk it grew little pretty crystals? A drop of 25% in the murder rate in DC happened when a bunch of folks meditated. Wow, what a rigorous scientific study. I'm sure that someone ate cheerios for four days straight during the same time. Should we conclude that eating cheerios caused a drop in the murder rate?

Hogwash, hooey, bull pucky!

BTW- It was funded by the Ramtha cult, the leader of which was one of the "experts" which were interview by the filmmakers. No ulterior motives here, right?