This is probably the worst movie ever made it is just to bad the name of Roger Corman is associated with it. I could've understand it in his early years when he had lower budgets but nowadays there is no excuses for giving birth to this! I'm a "B" movie pervert and from certain people point of view all the flicks I love are put aside by "regular viewers" but take my word on this one, Vampire club makes the top of my list of the best of worst.It's hard to Imagine, vampires with no fangs, the music score is totally out of place,the sound effects are just not effective and finally Mr.Savage doesn't seem to know he is in a vampire movie at all witch is too bad 'cause he had a "not to bad" career over all. Let me know i'f I'm to hard on this one cause when I don't like a movie I tend to forget about it's good side.


I will never be a member of any club that would have me,

especially this one.

Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a

female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for

blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's

wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage

is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire

family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who

attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this

up).

The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr

and Starr's kid.

Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He

spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than

Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like

he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the

most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes

for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster

and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid

also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching

violence against children is really entertaining.

The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like "Killer

Tongue." Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.

It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's

coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the

background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include

vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.

Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's

"Martin."

Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at

arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one

tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,

you will need it.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual

violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual

references, drug abuse, and adult situations.


Dakota (1988) was another early Lou Diamond Phillips starring vehicle. This film is similar to the later released film Harley. There are a few differences but they're both the same. I don't know which one came first. I guess it'll remain one of the mysteries of life. But they both are troubled "kids" who are trying to turn there lives around. Instead of bikes this one involves horses. They're basically the same movie and they're both cheesy as hell. If you're a serious L.D.P. fan then I recommend that you watch them both. You get some extreme mugging and posturing from L.D.P. if you're game then go for it.

Not recommended, except for L.D.P. fans!!!


This film is too skeletal. It's a fairly low-budget film (I hope!) which excuses it somewhat, but the lack of a decent cast and a fleshed out plot hurts it too much. Phillips is quite believable in his role as a torn-apart son of a well-off family who's searching for himself (though his family is...er...well, a little too white...), but the rest of the cast is grasping at straws. Every moment that has potential is ruined by excessive melodrama, and there are *way* too many sub-plots (which is an obvious sign of plot-deficiency. They needed filler...) I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who isn't either a hard-core Phillips fan, or who has absolutely *nothing* to do. 4/10.


Yes, this film gets a lot of attention and is considered a classic in the adult film genre. Still, I did not like this one at all. About a woman who commits suicide in a scene more fitting a horror movie, she is given the opportunity to return to earth briefly to live the life of lust she never did before in her mundane life. Crappy sex scenes to follow. Why are they crappy, for one they try so hard to be artistic that they take away from the actual sex act. I mean we watch porn for the sex do we not. Little Girls Blue also does things in an artistic way, but it is still very erotic and nice to look at. Of course the girls in that one are very cute. Here we have a rather unattractive lead actress and that does not help things. If you find the lead in your adult film unappealing there is no amount of artistic vision that is going to make me enjoy the film. The sex scenes range from yuck to bizarre...I mean there is a snake in one of them people. So for me this movie just fails as it does not excite me at all, but rather turns me off.


There is a DVD published in the UK in 2002 Code HRGD002 on the cover, no ASIN, VFC 19796 on the disk, no IFPI code in the inner rim.

Probably a straight transfer from VHS.

There is no much point is commenting an adult film. But this one contains a minimal plot, and the characters are believable. It was shown in the United States in normal cinemas.

I've seen it In Pensylvannia way back in 1975.

As such it deserves a place in an Encyclopedia of Movies. The DVD has no special features and no subtitles, and was probably made using a VHS tape as source


a friend gave it to me saying it was another classic like "Debbie does Dallas". Nowhere close. I think my main complaint is about the most unattractive lead actress in porn industry ever. Even more terrible is that she is on screen virtually all the time. But I read somewhere that back in those days, porn had to have some "artistic" value. I was unable to find it though. See it only if you are interested in history of development of porn into mainstream, or can appreciate art in porn movies. I know I am not. But the director of the movie appears to be a talented person. He even tried to get Simon & Garfunkel to give him permissions to use his songs. Of course, they rejected.


One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."

Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.

Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan.


After watching some of HBO's great stuff - Band of Brothers, Rome, etc. - I must say I had pretty high expectations before watching the first episode of "True Blood". Jeez. Often the script seemed to be written by an 8-year-old, some parts are just horribly filmed, (The scene in which she "saves" Bill, I mean come on. She throws a chain at the guy and ow! it goes around his neck and it magically chokes him! That was pretty embarrassing if you want my opinion. Or a few moments before that scene, when she finds out that the couple is gone with Bill, ridiculous. She hears them plan their stuff, and like 5 seconds later, magic! The 3 of them are gone, and without any struggle or noise or anything!

I mean the idea of the show seemed interesting, mysterious, intriguing, vampires co-existing with human in our modern society... but honestly I don't think they really wanted to make more of this than a petty soap show, that the average teen girl watches all the time but that nobody else cares about... Unfortunately, the script is written poorly, mediocre at best. It's shallow and extremely predictable. Often I thought that this was some kind of a joke or something.

The actors deliver really unconvincing performances, if you want my opinion. They seem to take the show very lightly, as if it were some kind of a regular, low budget family TV show (well maybe thats what it is, if you take away the family part). The only actor that seemed somewhat good to me was Stephen Moyer in the role of Bill, considering the poorly written, extremely short replies he had to say "What are you..." "Can I give you a call sometime...", I think he did good in bringing out the somewhat mysteriously scary part of a vampire that anyone with a vampire role must have, actually. Anna Paquin was okay as well, but not more. But the guy, playing her brother though, jeez, he's horrible. The scene in which he gets arrested is just simply a shame to modern television. The acting is bad, the construction site looks fake to the bone, and the two other guys "Why is he getting arrested? Uh.. I dunno..." That was pretty embarrassing.

Another thing that I think was completely missed was the way they presented Sookie's psychic powers. They make us hear what people think AND speak both at the same time and thats just wrong. Often it just seems unnecessarily chaotic, as if people's thought were some sort of an annoying radio channel, and that when she comes close to em she hits the right frequency level and has to hear everything that they think.

And finally, the sex scenes are just plainly unnecessary and that vampire sex tape thing was just totally disgusting.

Don't get me wrong - I wrote all these comments not because I thought the show was BAD, but because I was very disappointed. I expected quality stuff. I didn't think it was going to be like that. It's definitely not a GOOD show though. Mediocre at best.


This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.

Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).

Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks "vampire politics" are more important than her.

Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.

It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion.


For every series that makes it to television, a 100 ideas are formed, 50 scripts are written, 15 pilots are made, and one, just one, actually makes it to production. From such a selection process, we are lead to believe that the final product must be the cream of the crop, for what other reason could so many ideas be rejected to give us a single television series.

And so it goes with True Blood; all the stars were in alignment and what started as a series of novels was transformed into an idea, a screen play, a pilot, and finally a series. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be a long journey and along the way there are many turns that ultimately change what was good and pure into and show that production people feel would be best for ratings. Oh how wrong they so often are...

True Blood is an example of a creative concept that has developed into one of the poorest story lines, worst acting, and silliest subplots as anything in recent television history. Its international cast of relatively unknown actors struggle to find their voices but keep tripping over their fake southern accents. Alan Ball's not so secret desires for Ryan (Jason Stackhouse) gives us a fresh nude shot each week although it often has nothing to do with the storyline. Tara's angry black woman characterization fails to connect and you find yourself secretly hoping the vamps take her out quickly before she goes into another speech about white suppression while attend a ceremony for the Glorious Dead of the Confedercy. Sam finds suppressed love for Sookie and suddenly we are to believe he needs to watch over her morning, noon, and night despite years of working with her and avoiding any such relationship.

As for Bill the Vampire, his moral high ground is quickly surrendered at the first chance to make love with Sookie and has no issue with make a quick snack of her (although she remains somewhat unharmed). We find the other vampires not so mainstream as Bill but greatly desiring to become accepted by a public as they look at the living as Happy Meals with legs.

Despite my best efforts of suffering through the first six episodes, I have come to the realization that no matter how long you watch a bad show, its still bad. Somethings die for a reason, even vampires. Maybe this show should to.


When I first watched the show, the first few episodes seemed promising. Bill Compton introduced himself as the stereotypical "mysterious" vampire and Sookie presented herself as an independent woman. However, the show went downhill from here and the once interesting characters are as entertaining as a cardboard box.

As the story progresses the main characters lose their original personalities, along with their acting abilities. By episode 5, Bill's furrowed eyebrows are so low that his face just consists of a forehead. Sookie, or rather the actress, is even more dead than her vampire lover. All these tragic events are surrounding her and she only reacts to how enjoyable it was losing her virginity. Personally, I think they made the main characters sleep with each other too early in the show. The way they teased each other was something that had me hooked and could easily be toyed with a bit more. As soon as Sookie loses it she struts around like a total ditz, only thinking of Bill's libido and the size of his appendage. Bill also loses his debonair attitude and well, he just gets plain silly. His actions are never really explained except he does it for Sookie. Why? Their love for each other is never delved into, if there is any love. So far it just seems to be sex that is the core of their relationship.

Yeah, yeah, vampires usually equal sex but come on. Every five seconds I see some sort of humping going on. It wasn't that much of a surprise, since HBO always tries to pass of a soft core porno as a decent TV show. Bill popping out of the dirt and just getting it on with Sookie with no reason what's so ever? I laughed so hard I almost peed myself.

The plot is just a stream of consciousness. The characters never go into detail about anything. All the events that happen are usually left unexplained. The only thing that is constant is the sex.

The only thing I can say that I do like are the minor characters. Tara and her drunk mother are far more interesting than the major characters. The only reason why I continue to watch the show is for the development of the minor characters.

Minus the sex and the main characters the show would be much more worthwhile.


Man, I really find it hard to believe that the wonderful Alan Ball had anything to do with this mess. Having seen the first two episodes thus far, I think I can safely say this show isn't going to be on my must see list. It's just got so many things working against it.

None of the actors cast are particularly good. Anna Paquin as the lead character Sookie, is just awful. I remember her being better in a lot of other things I've seen her in so maybe it's just the writing. She's not really much fun to look at either, there are moments where to be honest she looks downright ugly. The actor who plays Bill is marginally better, if only because his character is supposed to be sort of wooden and aloof. The other actors do their best but with the cliché characters with difficult to perform accents they are given it's a tough job. Tara is an absolute misery to watch, Rutina Wesley absolutely murders the accent. It's like nails on a chalkboard bad. Almost as awful is Nelsan Ellis, it's difficult to understand what he's even saying sometimes. Both his character as well as Tara's also seem a bit racist to me. I don't know, having a character say 'whycome' on an HBO show that isn't The Wire just seems a bit odd. Rounding out the cast so far are Sookie's doddering grandmother, her sex addict brother, and the only bit of genius casting I've seen in William Sanderson as the sheriff.

The story seems to be meandering towards it's destination at this point, with no real worry about keeping the viewer interested. The romance stuff is very Dark Shadow-sy. Although this show ups the camp factor from something like those old Dark Shadows episodes times about ten. At times it seemed so campy to me, that I just have to assume it was intended to be. But unlike a show such as Buffy, that pulled camp off masterfully, this show does not. Out of place with the campiness is the extreme gore and graphic sex of the show. I'm not averse to either of these when they are done well, as they have in many other HBO shows but here at least they prolonged rough sex scenes involving Jason Stackhouse seem a bit over the top and pointless.

About the only nice thing I can really think to say about this mess is that I liked the opening title sequence. HBO has had a string of bad luck with their shows lately, I hope they cancel this after the first season and try to get something better on the air.


As a fan of the Sookie Stackhouse books, I find this series to be a totally crass representation of them. Vampire Bill is not very good looking and looks much older than described in the book. I found that they have made already wonderfully colourful characters seem very course and vulgar. One of the things I loved about the books is that despite all the crap that she is going through Sookie is always a lady, and yet in the TV series she doesn't seem like that at all. Not only that but the prejudices displayed in the TV series are not nearly as wide spread in the books. I didn't expect an exact replica of the books but I at least expected the feel of them to be used for the series.


I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).

The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.

Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.

Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's "not coming back" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.

I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.


For those of you who've never heard of it (or seen it on A&E), Cracker is a brilliant British TV show about an overweight, chain-smoking, foulmouthed psychologist named Fitz who helps the Manchester police department get into the heads of violent criminals. It's considered to be one of the finest shows ever to come out of England (and that's saying something), and was tremendously successful in England and around the world back in 1993.

Now, the original stars have re-teamed with the original writer to knock out one more 2-hour episode. I've loved this show ever since I'd first seen it, over a decade ago. The DVD box set holds a place of honor in my collection, and I can quote a good deal of Fitz's interrogation scenes practically word for word. The idea of Robbie Coltrane reteaming with Jimmy McGovern for another TV movie about Fitz filled me with absolute glee.

I'll start with the good. One of the many things that impressed me about the original Cracker series was how quickly Fitz was defined as a character. Five minutes into the first episode  with his lecture (throwing the books into the air), his drinking, and his cussing of the guy after him on the gambling machine queue  and you knew, simply knew, who this character was. You could feel him "clicking" in your mind, the kind of click that only happens when a great actor gets a great role written by a great writer.

Coltrane, of course, remained great throughout the show, but I always felt that some of the later episodes  those not written by McGovern  mistreated the character.

So the good news is this: Fitz is back. As soon as you see him in this show  making incredibly inappropriate comments at his daughter's wedding  you'll feel that "click" once again. It's him: petulant one moment and truly sorry the next, always insightful, sincere to the point of tactlessness but brilliantly funny in the process. If you love this character as much as I do, you'll be delighted with how he is portrayed in the movie. And this extends to Judith and Mark: in fact, everything having to do with the Fitzs is handled perfectly.

The problem I do have with this movie revolves around the crime Fitz is trying to solve. In standard Cracker fashion, we know exactly who the criminal is in the first five minutes  the suspense lies in seeing Fitz figure it out. In this case, we have a serial killer who is out for American blood. And the reason for this, unfortunately, is not due to any believable psychological trauma  rather, it seems that the murders are here simply to allow the writer to display his personal political beliefs.

It's difficult for me to write this, as I truly believe that Jimmy McGovern is one of the greatest writers in the world. Nor do I have a problem with movies that are about current issues, or movies that take a political stand. But in the Cracker universe, we expect to see the characters behaving like human beings, not like caricatures. Instead, the Americans in this movie are all depicted in an entirely stereotypical fashion. They're know-nothing loudmouths who complain about everything, treat the locals like crap and cheat on their wives  one of them even manages to do all of the above within less than 5 minutes. I honestly thought I'd mistakenly switched channels or something.

But it doesn't stop there. We get constant reminders of just how badly the war in Iraq is going  reminders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story and appear practically out of nowhere. The killer is so busy ranting about how Bush is worse than Hitler that he almost forgets to get on with the killing; but more to the point, he is such a mouthpiece for the writer's political views that he forgets to act like a believable human being, and thus we  as an audience  don't buy his sudden transformation from a happy family man to a tortured serial-killing soul.

I can't say that this ruined the show for me  it's was still good TV, better than almost everything else in the genre (mainly due to, once again, Coltrane). But its constant politicizing made it impossible for it to be as good as the real Cracker classics like "To Be A Somebody"  an episode that was just as "issuey", but one that was handled with far more subtlety and psychological depth.

Two other small points: Panhandle not being around is a disappointment, but what's worse are her replacements. The entire police department  which for so long filled with such great characters - is now full of vanilla. Completely interchangeable cops who lack any and all personality (how you could drain Coupling's Richard Coyle of personality is beyond me, but it is indeed missing here).

Also, there are couple of moments where the show lost its believability for me. One such instance revolves around Fitz having to narrow down the entire population of Manchester from 1 million to a hundred based on some very strange criteria (French windows? How does the computer know if I have French windows?)  he not only succeeds in doing this, but he succeeds in less than an hour. I don't think so.

So, all in all, I was a little disappointed. It's recommended viewing, but remember to leave at least some of your expectations at the door. Still, if there's new series to come after this, it would all have been for the good: I'm convinced that McGovern can still write great stuff, and maybe now that he's got his politics out of his system he can go back to writing about people.


I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.

Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...

Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.

A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.

Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.

Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline.

Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?)

Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.

To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case."


As a huge fan or the Cracker series, I have been waiting 7 years for the next addition. This Episode I'm afraid just does not live up to the legend.

Fitz returns to Manchester after 7 years for his daughters wedding and gets involved in a murder investigation were a soldier, tormented by flash backs from his tour of duty in Northern Irland, goes on a killing spree.

What I did not like about this episode is the extremely convenient way it is all set up and how fitz is led to the murderer. It is all fat to far-fetched.

There are however some good scenes in flash backs from Northern Irland which are filmed great.


A major disappointment. This was one of the best UK crime drama / detective shows from the 90's which developed the fascinating title character played by Scotland's Robbie Coltrane. However this one-off has little to add and perhaps suffers from an inevitable let down due to raised expectations when a favored show returns after a long hiatus. Coltrane isn't really given much to do, much more attention is spent on the uninteresting killer, and in what he has to act in, he seems uninvolved, almost bored. The ex-soldier's story is written by the books and the attempt to update us on Coltrane's family life seems lightweight. Perhaps if the writers had a whole series in front of them instead of just this one two-hour show they would have written this with much more depth. As is, skip this and watch the old Cracker from the 90's which is far far superior.


The social commentary was way overblown and the mystery itself is built and solved through a series of implausible coincidences that were entirely unbelievable. Nothing has changed in Fitz's personal life in the past decade that makes it remotely interesting.

I even had trouble understanding why he was complaining about his stay in Australia as compared to the opportunities to solve mysteries that he has in England. Can he not insinuate himself on the Australian police? It seems like a very artificial plot point to get him involved in a crime investigation.

The latter episodes of the original series were pretty melodramatic and implausible, sometimes bordering on silliness, and this one picks up that mantle rather than returning to the focus of series one. Sad.


Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was!

The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.

No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.


I enjoyed "American Movie", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.

What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.

I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel "real" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the "real world."

Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??

A big problem is our "hero"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.

I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the "this-is-an-important-film" stuff. "American Job" doesn't work.


I must say that I was disapointed with this film. I have never been a huge BNL fans, I find their songs kind of childish and obsessively nostalgic (this is me in grade 9, if i had a million dollars, shoe box of life etc). However, I have seen clips of their live show and I really like the improvisational and goofy nature of the show. I was hoping that this movie would highlight this which is, unfortunately, the most interesting part of the show because their music is well played yet somehow bland and not that compelling (there is a standup bass solo in the middle which was completely pointless and boring, despite how much Jim Creegan was digging himself). The film does not and shows only a few minutes of it (and you know they've had better moments, as in the Afgahnistan concert "Koffee Anan, he's the man in charge, my name's Steve Paige and I'm really large") .

BNL are kind of like when I went to Europe a few years ago and heard that godawfull "Blue" song by Effeil 99 or whatever every 2 minutes, I came back to Canada and then a month later that song was all over the place *again*, I nearly chewed off my own arm. BNL is like that, years ago I remember many a fond memory of sitting around campfires in Canada listening to people play "If I had a million dollars". BNL was a cult phenomenon in Canada, and much of their humour has a particular Canadian slant to it (Kraft Dinner is a staple for many students up here, and the name "Gordon" is quintessentially Canadian) a few years went by where they slipped into obscurity and I was somewhat gratefull. Then all of a sudden they become huge in States, and everyone down there thinks they are this brand new band (yeah, they're brand new, but they're all in their 30's!) while the rest of Canada is going "Oh geez, I thought those guys folded years ago, do I have to listen to 'million dollars' again?"

The concert footage is not bad, but I would have liked to have seen more of their stage routine, the shooting is not that great, and things like clips from their massive free show in Boston are glazed over much too quickly. The interviews are surprisingly dull for such a funny bunch of guys, I think they're all old and they have families and houses and stuff and have settled down a bit. There are times when they go into Spinal Tap type of material, where they deliver deadpan satire, then they break into laughs and giggles that kind of ruins it. The interviews with Moses Znaimer (a Canadian media mogule) and Terry David Mulligan (Music dude) are extremely pretentious and verge into Tap territory unintentionally.

This movie doesn't really document very much either, I mean, it's basically one show and at the start of the film, they are already huge and have a massive touring entourage, it's not like we see them rising from obscurity and "surprise" they are popular, it's a methodically planned out event, so in the end it's rather lifeless, kind of half live concert, half documentary, and not much of either.


Can you say "All shock, no plot?" There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an "hour" countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.

How about the fact that all the ghosts looked "Digital", and things "winked out" before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.

Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but "shock after shock". It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The "Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't." And, if the room was "evil", why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.

Additionally, there was no background information about "The first book" that he wrote. Just some vague information about the "dad was a jerk" and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? "You'll be in my place".

Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.

My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the "Cheap"; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, "seen-that-before" effects.


After spotting the high rating on IMDb, I decided to go see this movie. Beyond that high rating, I intentionally avoided reading any of the reviews. I wanted to go into the theater with a clean slate, without knowing the plot or having predetermined expectations.

Given my rating, you can see that I was disappointed. I enjoyed the development of the main character Mike Enslin. I also enjoyed how the hotel manager attempted to talk him out of entering the hotel room. By the time Enslin entered the room, I was ready for some scary stuff.

First chocolates appear on the pillow and the toilet paper is folded. Enslin reacts in a believable manner. He's freaked out. I'm encouraged and think to myself, this is going to be good. The people who made this movie understand that less is more.

But it's what happens next that was a big let down. The subtleness is quickly replaced by the predictable shotgun approach... Just blast the audience with every Hollywood scary trick in the book and hope that something works. Let's see, a clock radio that turns on by itself? Good, that's always scary. Objects that move around in the room? Good, you can't complain about that. Blood dripping from the walls and sink? Great. Ghosts that commit suicide? Good. Anything else? How about loud noises, shaking, fire, more shaking, messing up the room, more blood, etc etc. It's all good. And it's all been done before. Overstimulate our Attention Deficit Disordered audience with all kinds of stuff in quick succession, and they won't be able to look away.

Well, it didn't work for me. And you know what else? When I go see a horror movie in a theater, it's typical to hear several groups of girls in the audience yelling in fear at scary moments. But this movie had no scary moments. The audience was silent and disinterested. I felt no chill down my spine. Nothing. The Shining was 100x what this movie tries to be.

So who are all these people who are saying that it is one of the best horror movies ever? Friends of the director? Sorry, I just don't get it.


I don't see what everyone liked about this movie. The set-up was too long and talky, and when it was done, the main character remained as flat and opaque as he had been in the first scene. After the film finally got Cusack into the eponymous hotel room, I had to wonder, well, what's going to happen here for the next hour or so to keep me engaged. The answer: not much, just John Cusack having a long, drawn-out, mental breakdown.

Maybe if the Cusack character had more depth . . maybe if his freak-out were a more thorough reworking of his everyday life . . . maybe if the film had either better developed its half-baked themes about loss and faith or had not tacked them on in the first place . . . maybe if the film had made a choice to be either psychological horror or thrill-ride horror and had fully embraced one of these styles . . . I dunno. All I do know is that I saw this movie with two other horror buffs and none of us much liked it.

Except for the disquieting episode on the hotel ledge, the alarming crazy lady with the hammer, and the so-stupid-it-was-fun crypt keeper in the air duct, all three of which account for no more than five minutes of screen time, this film was a bore.

By the way, this story seems to steal ideas from The Shining and use them here to much less powerful effect. Is Stephen King now reduced to stealing ideas from himself?


'1408' is the latest hodge podge of cheap scare tactics. The kind that might make date-movie styled horror fans occasionally jump in their seat and scream in your ear, but disappoint audiences searching for a little depth and direction.

John Cusak plays a writer who's made a career of writing books describing his experiences of staying in rumored haunted hotels. Despite assurances by patrons and owners that ghosts roam the halls, there is little to make him a real believer in the paranormal. When he learns of the history of Room 1408 at the Overlook Hotel--no wait, I mean, Dolphin Hotel in New York City--he decides it would make the perfect closing chapter to his latest book. But, Samuel L. Jackson, playing the hotel owner, strongly attempts to dissuade his guest with narration of the atrocities that have occurred in theat room since the hotel's opening many years ago. The story is simple and we, as possible skeptics, must sit through Jackson's lengthy foreshadowing ramble.

In other words: be afraid! Be very afraid!

Of course, it would be easy to convince audiences that they've just paid to see an edge-of-the-seat thriller if it didn't take so long to build up to this point. And also, if what followed was a lot more than cheap "boos" that become so frequent and arbitrary that eventually, you might soon expect them. The temperature in the room changes automatically. The walls drip with blood. The fearless writer can't open the door, etc. And after nearly an hour and a half of delivering these to audiences promised big thrills, you might sit and hope that at least you can be wowed by the ending. With suspicions of dream sequences and other derivative time-wasters, even that fails to quell our doubts that before the movie is over, we might finally have something to make the movie a little less than completely forgettable.

Despite grand performances (as always) by Cusak, who essentially is the entire film, most everyone else of note is wasted (i.e. Samuel L. Jackson) in insignificant minor roles. The true mystery here is how this movie received such a high viewer rating. Ballot-stuffing ghosts?


I am a huge, huge fan of John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, and Tony Shalhoub. I'm slightly less fond of Stephen King, but I like some of his work.

This said, I should have LOVED 1408.

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT****

I walked in eager. I walked out disappointed.

This is not the fault of the actors. Shalhoub and Jackson both have very small roles because the premise of the movie puts Cusack in the "guy in a locked room" scenario.

This wasn't a BAD movie, but I can't call it a good one either. It was a muddied mess that had moments of "ouch, that's just WRONG," combined with moments of "ouch, that's just painful," and moments of "oh, now THAT'S just unfortunate" with very little continuity-connectivity between them. Eislin's father shows up once, and there's no seeming connection to the rest of Mike's personal life that we see displayed while he tries to survive the room.

A previous commenter described the Olin/Enslin argument as worth watching, and I very much agree. But other than that, aside from some clever musical cues (the room almost playfully torments Enslin a little bit, and gives him one chance to get out before upping the ante...at which point it gives him the one-hour countdown clock and the titular line from the Carpenters "We've Only Just Begun.") it's mostly "stuff jumps out at you when you least expect it!" type horror that was fun when I was fourteen, and surrounded by friends my age, clutching each other in the summer while Jason stalked Camp Crystal Lake.

The rest of the movie was "let's make him relive some of his most painful experiences" mindgaming, with "let's animate the paintings in creepy ways" cliché cheesiness.

******END SPOILERS*****

I expected better from this movie with Stephen King's name attached to it, as well as the actors I mentioned above.

We never find out the origin of the evil. We never get to see the evil defeated, though we can presume maybe it was defeated.

And the ending was just a jarring "What?!" moment.

Wait for it to come on cable. I wouldn't have minded paying for it as a matinée, but I'm feeling a bit shortchanged for having paid opening night prices for it.


This movie was exactly what I expected, not great, but also not that bad either. In my opinion PG13 movies aren't scary enough so that's why I already knew I was going to be bored throughout the entire film. Sure there were scary things going on in the hotel room, but nothing we all haven't already seen. I guess I didn't like it because I thought there were too many twists and turns happening; it got old and repetitive. I also didn't understand if all the things Cusack was experiencing in the room was real or not. There is no explanation for any of the events that occurred. The movie just drags on and when it finally does come to an end you want it to keep going because you are still waiting around for someone to tell you what the whole movie was about. What I did like was the special effects. Other than that there wasn't much enjoyment from it. Maybe its just me but I thought this was below average.


Director Spike Lee is famous for making films pointing out racism. In many of films, such "Do The Right Thing," most of the white people are all brutal racists. In this movie, interracial marriage is the subject, with racism once again being the entire issue.

What Lee does, however, is once again demonstrate his bigotry against Christianity. It's amazing the double standards that exist in the film world. If Lee or anyone else ever produced this kind of bias against another group he would be vilified, but Christians? Hey, it's "open season" on them.

Ossie Davis, a reverend in this film, shoots his son and then puts the smoldering gun down on top of his Bible. They zoom in on that for another closeup just in case you missed it. Hey, folks, here's another Bible reader and look what he''s like! Lee does this sort of thing in just about every movie he makes.

He shows the same hatred when dealing with race relations. Who could argue with portraying racism as an evil thing? However, Lee perpetuates it in this film as he has in his other films. His obvious bitterness toward white people doesn't help the situation. It only adds fuel to the fire.

Hey, Spike: start "doing the right thing" and leave your prejudices in the closet. Better yet, "get over it."

This is too bad because the subject matter could have made for a thought- provoking film if it had been done with objectivity and intelligence.


I'm not sure why Spike Lee made this train wreck of a movie and conned poor Stevie Wonder into eternally pairing his beautiful music with this theatrical mess. I also resent the way he uses profanity as a part of the normal prose of professional Blacks. The abuse of his hold on ethnic movie goers is a shame. Scenes which seem to be contrived out the blue and have nothing to do with the theme or sub themes, play as if some college kid wrote this. I especially detest the ludicrous scene where the two leads are playfully sparring for no reason at all and the cops come and rough up Snipes. The overacting of the leads makes one feel as if Spike has no respect for his viewers or he has no clue what a movie is all about. The final scene appears to be thrown in to justify the use of a sledge hammer to tack a point in. This movie also supports the myth that all people of culture use the F-word in casual conversation. I am hoping he will realize that the rest of his movies are in the same pool as this one where he is not growing as a film maker. I think his union with Scorcesee in Clockers was a wise move. He should stick to making documentaries like the Four Little Colored Girls. Shock movies do not an Oscar make.


Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across as essentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there was no chemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there's plenty of talent in this movie, it's mostly wasted because the parts are reduced to little more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racism for the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it around like a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it through most of the film but I couldn't quite finish it, and that, for me, rarely happens.


Who in their right mind plays a lyrical song at the same time they are portraying an emotional scene between two people? When Flipper confronts his wronged wife in the dressing room, the song sung with lyrical content is as loud as the dialog, so one can hear neither, diluting any emotional impact the scene may have had. The scenes of Annabella getting beaten by her father with his fists, a lamp and then a belt was so cartoonish as to be absurd. This entire movie is a cartoon, the rampant prejudice against whites is literally astounding. The discussion by the black women after flipper's wife finds out he has cheated on her with a white woman - as if it were a discussion by an oxford debating team, is ridiculous. The rampant racism might be possible to endure, but the soundtrack and the sound mixing during this 'movie' is too much. It was a technically poorly made movie. There is no understanding of the basic craft of movie making, the sound track, the editing and the desperate attempt of great actors trying to keep this movie afloat. I actually felt sorry for Anthony Quinn, wondering why he had accepted a role in this flick - his appearance in this is painful. This is the first movie I have seen by this director and it will be my last.


In short:

Spike Lee clearly has a lot on his mind. He's thinking about racism color-ism, media and hegemony, consumerism and capitalism, religion, sexism, 'hetero-sexism', politics of the drug war etc etc...

That level of consciousness on is own is great. I think it is a blessing that more and more people are choosing to critically examine fundamental aspects of our daily lives; the silent and invisible forces that govern our societies. However, just because Lee is making contentious films does not make him a good film-maker.

What comes across in "Jungle Fever" is a superficial understanding of these socio-political forces. This is largely the result of two main failures:

firstly, Lee is simply trying too hard. He seems to be desperately trying to accommodate every political/social statement he can think of into the 90mins. And as such, the end result seems confused and irresolute as he allows himself no time to develop characters that can fully embody the ideas he hopes to present. And so he exhausts stereotypes and we are left with rushed testimonies and very loaded dialogs. The end result is very staged and unrealistic.

Secondly, by attempting to make statements about such a wide variety of societal functions, he appears to have no concrete or original interpretation of the social/political issues presented. What comes across is a puddle of regurgitated non-sense. You feel that he bought an elementary level sociology text book and spewed out all 500 pages.

These are highly problematic features because the artistry of film is sacrificed and the work is transformed into a loudspeaker for the voice of the voice of the filmmaker. He is unable to distance himself from the work, and allow it to speak for itself.

It functions neither as a piece of art nor a sound political argument.

Although I still do appreciate Lee bringing up these important issues, I must say:

Two thumbs down.


I have walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since "Birth of a Nation". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee.


When I refer to Malice as a film noir I am not likening it to such masterpieces as Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity or The Maltese Falcon, nor am I comparing director Becker to Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer or Luis Bunuel. I am merely registering a protest against the darkness that pervades this movie from start to finish, to the extent that most of the time you simply cannot make out what is going on. I can understand darkness in night scenes but this movie was dark even in broad daylight, for what reason I am at loss to understand. As it is, however, it wouldn't have made much difference if director Becker had filmed it in total darkness.


Flat, ordinary thriller about a conniving woman who deceives all those she supposedly loves in order to boost her bank account. Nicole Kidman plays the deceptive Tracey, married to the doting Andy (Bill Pullman). When an old school friend of Andy's named Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin) turns up as the resident surgeon, trouble is not far behind him.

Script fails in that it does not carefully develop the promising premise into an effective, tantalising thriller, and the severe lack of character motivation, background and development leaves the whole show reaching. None of the cast are able to generate interest in their shallow characters, especially Bill Pullman, whose own inexplicably curious Andy is impossible to believe.

Poor director Harold Becker is left trying to resurrect an impossibly dead project, and is unable to make entertainment from any of it. By the time the 'secret' of the plot is revealed, you just won't care.

At least the cinematography has Massachusetts looking good. Also stars George C. Scott, Peter Gallagher and Josef Sommer.

Sunday, February 25, 1996 - T.V.


I saw this movie a few years back on the BBC i sat thru it. How? i don't know,this is way up there in the "so bad it'Good " charts Kidman ,Baldwin,and Pullman must cringe when they see it now.I think Woody Allen would have worked wonders with the outlandish plot, and Baldwin's part could have been played with gusto by Leslie Nelson.it was on again tonight i tried to watch it again but life's too short. the few minutes i watched was for the lovely Nicole she was so hot around 93, has Baldwin ever made a good movie? Pullman played his stock in trade "nice but dim" character the F-word coming out of his mouth when the lady from "frasier" miscast ed as a detective accuses him of murder sounds so wrong. stay well away.


Irene Dunne finished her illustrious career with this so-so movie. She should have gone out with a bang, being the classy actress she was, not in this unmemorable, almost unknown film.

This lightweight comedy is okay, but nothing special. The first half of it is far better as it gets pretty stupid in the second half. Maybe Irene could see the handwriting on the wall and quit. Even her high-pitched voice got a bit annoying in here. Rumor has it she was not happy with this film. One can see why.

The story reminded me of a 1950s television sitcom. Speaking of that, I thought David Nelson from the Ozzie & Harriet TV show was in this movie but it turned out to be a very young Richard Crenna. He looked and sounded just like Nelson.

Overall, so-so at best and a sub-par ending for a great actress.


For the love of god please don't see this movie! Its a waste of time, the plot is predictable, as are the romantic scenes. Trying to build too much with very little, this film and its evil predictable villain is just lame. The characters aren't developed, and most of the film is padded out with shots of Rome, which is much more interesting than the actual film. To top all of that, the acting is a disgrace. I know everyone tries to find their niche, but this is truly a disaster. I can't believe that someone actually paid however many millions of pounds to put this film on screen. Don't waste money or time on this film, go see your grandma or something worthwhile instead.


This movie really has no beginning or end. And it's really VERY unbelievable. Mary-K and Ashley are supposed to be interns working in a mailing room for an Italian fashion company. But, for some reason, they're put up in a 5-star hotel (conveniently located across the street from the Coliseum), and all of the other interns they work with are just as abnormally model-looking as they are. One thing that I found obvious in this movie is the way that one of the twins DOESN'T end up with the guy. I guess they tried to twist their usual plot a bit. Nice try.


No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!


OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less.


When In Rome is a definite improvement on Getting There. Getting There I found too predictable, contrived and slow, and to this day I still consider it as the Olsen twins' worst. However, while When In Rome isn't a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. If I had to sum it up in one word, I would say passable. It is good fun for teenagers, but I think adults won't find much to go on.

When In Rome does have its good points. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are actually quite decent actresses, certainly very pretty as well. I will admit when I was 10 or so, I really liked them, and in general I kind of like them still. And I have enjoyed some of their movies like Passport To Paris and New York Minute. Back on target, both girls don't do that bad a job, in fact they are very appealing. Plus their outfits are to die for, and the scenery of Rome is absolutely breathtaking. The soundtrack ain't half bad either.

However, where the film is brought down is in the plot and the script. The script is on the most part clichéd and has hints of deja vu. The plot, like most of the Mary Kate and Ashley movies, is very predictable, and anyone familiar with any other of the Olsen twins' work, will find some rather unoriginal elements to it. Most of the characters are cardboard thin, and you don't learn very much about them, and sometimes the pace is uneven. Sadly, the breathtaking scenery is spoilt by rather slapdash camera work, that looked rushed constantly.

All in all, does have its good points, and certainly watchable. However, for my taste, it is harmless and predictable teenage fluff. 4/10 Bethany Cox


Identical twin sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen climbed to fame in sitcoms like "Two of a Kind", I had never seen them in anything before, but I had an idea of what to expect, but it was much worse. Basically the Hunter sisters Charli (Mary-Kate) and Leila (Ashley) are in Rome for a Summer Intern Program, but not long after starting their jobs they are immediately fired for a series of mishaps. But the man who owns the company they are working in, Derek Hammond (Julian Stone), gives them their jobs back, and they they do slowly prove themselves useful assets, and talented (fashion) artists, and help stop a mean man taking over the company. Also starring Leslie Danon as Jami, Derek Lee Nixon as Ryan, Ilenia Lazzarin as Dari, Archie Kao as Nobu, Valentina Mattolini as Heidi, Michelangelo Tommaso as Paolo and Matt Patresi as Enrico Tortoni. You can tell that this film was made to go straight to video, the camera-work is completely mismatched, and it doesn't help when you want to admire the sights of Rome. In fact the background is the only good thing to watch, the twin sisters are two of the most annoying celebrities around, I knew before watching that they weren't going to interest me in any way (their not even that pretty), this is awful gush of rubbish film. Pretty poor!


The plot was dull, the girls were sickening and the supposed Italian male lead had clearly never heard an Italian accent.Someone said the boys were cute in this film but it just seemed to be filled with mediocre people. There were literally no redeeming features about this film.

I think this is a graveyard for actors that will never work again, with the unfortunate exception of the Olsen twins who seem to fascinate people for no discernible reason.

I hope the Olsen twins find something out of the limelight to keep them away from the entertainment business. They have no place in it.


1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then.


I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z)


Acting was weak, but in a horror flick, I can live with that if the story is good. It wasn't. The initial event was an clumsy and obvious ploy to exploit most people's adoration of kids. OK, fine. Fast forward to the "place in the country" where they will recover emotionally. I like the revelation of the ghosts. OK, cool--this will be a supernatural kinda horror story, with rotting things partly in our world partly in...where ever. Then the action starts pulling like a three headed dog in a flurry of cats and birds--Is there an evil force trying to attack them directly? Is there an evil force trying to attack them INdirectly--make people do awful things they wouldn't really do? Oh, wait, no, maybe the whole REGION is some kind of psychic echo chamber where ambient discord can reverberate into murder? OK, hold on--maybe it's really just one little mentally tangled "Delbert"-style redneck boy who misses his Mommy and is on some kind of spree like a K-Tel Norman Bates knock off? Oh, yeah--extra points off: the only Black character seems to be the grandson of an "Our Gang" pullman porter. The actor plays it as straight as he can given the crummy dialogue, but the fact is, his purpose is "Y'all done betta get outa heah, Boss!" At least they wrote him smart enough to GTF outta there. The bit with the little girl being silenced and pulled away was definitely creepy, as was the chick in the shower. Those were just two of quite a few really delicious tidbits in this movie. The problem is that they are combined in disharmonious ways, like a bite of steak, a bite of chocolate and a bite of a Gummi bear. Each is great on it's own, but mixed up? Bleah! Such potential. Wasted.


Grieving couple move to a cabin on a mountain after the loss of their daughter, discovering that there may be ghosts haunting the place, restless spirits of past occupants who committed suicide. Julie Pyke(Cheri Christian)blames husband Allen(Greg Thompson)for the horrible death of their daughter due to leaving the door unlocked and the marriage has deteriorated because of it. Julie remains in a zombie state, eliciting next to no emotion, remote and numb, only photographing a nearby abandoned prison, finding a startling image of a ghoul girl clinging to the bars of a cell. Though Allen doesn't see anything out of the ordinary, Julie continues to take pictures and we can recognize that something isn't quite right. A local handyman, Jim Payne(Scott Hodges), a rather distant fellow who harbors a secret becomes a dangerous threat when it is revealed that his dead mother might have something to do with the haunts occurring to the Pykes. Meanwhile the neighbors who sold the Pykes the cabin find themselves victims as well, alcoholic Mr Booth's abuse to his wife coming back to haunt him. Allen will conduct an investigation into the history of his cabin, attempting to unravel the mystery about the place.

Plenty of ghosts moving about in the background in this somber supernatural tale with practically every character miserable. Cheri Christian remains so vacuous and lost, it's incredibly hard to connect with her despite the fact that you understand her plight. The acting, as is often mentioned, remains frustrating because none of the characters exactly are easy to latch on to. I guess it's supposed to be this way, under their circumstances, but the trouble I had was never being able to properly embrace the Pykes due to their constant state of aloofness. Cheri comes off as cold and detached, as I figure a mother would tend to be when you lose a child in such a way, but the icy nature left me pleading inside to embrace her which I just never could. I think the right performers, even if the characters are going through an emotional turmoil, can grab the hearts of their viewers, if a humanity reaches out to us..in this movie's case, the leads are unable to do so, for whatever reason. It could've been me, I don't know. I wanted to care for them, but nothing in the characters tugged on my heart strings. Anyway, as the film continues, Allen slowly uncovers certain truths and must defend himself against his wife who has convinced herself that their daughter is among them and she won't lose her little girl again. Jim, the unstable neighbor who believes that to stop the hauntings plaguing the area he must kill the Pykes, becomes a vital threat. The ghosts remain a central part of the movie, their presence, particularly Jim's mother, established throughout, off in the distance. The finale reveals all of them as Allen must find help for his wife while trying to thwart Jim's mission. I had a hard time getting into this one due to my unease with the leads and their characters.


Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said


Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat...


I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.

A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The "suspense" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.

To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy.


If you have ever seen a movie by Brian Avenet-Bradley and compares it to the feedbacks it gets on IMDb, you know that most of the comments and votes are faked. TRUST ME: you will be bored! People of the production team write their feedback themselves (sometimes they even admit it). But that's not enough: They also click constantly "no" whenever there is a negative comment on the movie. That's why negative critics are always placed behind the hyped ones.

The movie itself is bad, bad, bad: bad acting, bad lighting, bad script, bad ending. Believe me now! If not, you will believe me later!

Brian Avenet-Bradley might be quite a good business man. Otherwise it cannot be explained that he finds people who still finance his movies. (Okay, they are cheap, but nevertheless.) But as a creative person, he is a complete failure.


This is the weakest of the series, not much of a plot and a rather odd-looking Wallace. But it's still pretty good, considering. A sign of greater things to come!

6/10


For those of us that lived thru those weeks of filming in town and around the Valley - lest we not forget the tedious days of road closures and "film-making". As a reminder to those that live here - locales include Boulder Creek, Bonny Doon, Davenport, Big Basin. etc. The bank was the BC firehouse; chase scenes included Moon Drive off Hwy 236, Empire Grade Rd, and Hwy 1.

Production: Jeffrey Jones was the most approachable, Matt Broderick was above us all - even back then. As far as the film goes - a joke of a script and even a bigger laugh regarding acting and plot - but who cares at this level. A nice time capsule for those that enjoy our coast and valley scenery.

Additional notes; Joe's Bar (Jed's Tavern in the film), original name of the film was Welcome to Buzzsaw - the Old Erba's parking lot was the town square, the backyard shots were off of Grove Street in Boulder Creek; turn off the thinking cap and see a few actors in their early days.


Quite possibly. How Francis Veber, one of the best comedy directors in the world (at least when sticking to his native France), managed to turn in a film so completely unwatchable is beyond the reason of mere mortal man to discern. It's not just that the characters are so unlikeable or that the film is so utterly devoid of even the lowest form of wit: it's genuinely physically painful to watch, such an endless parade of inept writing, acting and film-making that you cannot believe this is the work of experienced - and talented - filmmakers. For once the near-eternity spent in the cutting room and on the shelf before its blink-and-you'll-miss-it theatrical release tells the whole story. What were they thinking?


A short review but...

Avoid at all costs, a thorough waste of 90mins. At the end of the film I was none the wiser as to what had actually happened. It's full of cameos (Stephen Fry (3mins), Jack Dee (30 secs), the "Philadelphia" girls) and some vaguely recognisable people but it just doesn't make any sense. Whether the story just got lost in the edit I don't now but jeez...

Put on a DVD instead or go to bed and get some rest!!!

2 out of 10 (for the cameos and a Morris Minor car chase)


This is an amateur movie shot on video, not an "electrifying drama" as the DVD liner notes falsely boast. I have seen much better stuff from undergrad film students. The bulk of the story unfolds with an all-nite taxi ride around Jakarta. This movie could have been made using a single video camera, but there are a few sections where two cameras were used and the content was bounced together later. The editing is extremely rough. The final edit was probably done with two cameras, bouncing content back and forth, instead of with a proper editor. Perhaps they did the editing in the taxi too? The English subtitles were written by someone not fluent in English, e.g., "Where you go now?" To say the production quality is on a par with Blair Witch is generous. If you're not scared away yet, this film was an ambitious and creative endeavor, with lots of cool and funky images from all over Jakarta.


This isn't one of those reviews about poor special effects or technology, or being dated, issues that only the dorkiest people could relate with, but rather a review on the story telling, which most of us are truly interested in.

The plot is about a combination of WWII Allied and German Navy members, and two civilians (the hero and heroine), who are thrust together on a German U boat and wind up in a savage land of dinosaurs.

The manipulations aren't so bad by film standards, and we know from the plot that realism isn't going to be high. What films like this need are credible and likable characters, along with some semblance of reason in the actions.

This film lacks both. For a full length film, only 6 characters are given any time, and 3 of them are barely looked into. McClure's hero is beyond "routine", and doesn't make much sense in any era.

The female seems to be looking for an answer to a riddle about the land of dinosaurs they entered, but the riddle is not much of a riddle, and we could care less.

A lot of failure in a film that should have been better, even for its time.


This was recently on AMC's vibrant movie classics and I had to laugh. I had high hopes for this adventure that follows in the vein of "Voyage to the Earth's Core" and "Mysterious Island". I was sorely disappointed not only in the acting credentials but in the silly story line that reads from a five year old's comic book. Be sure to catch sight of the wires that are holding on to the Pterdactyl's wings when they grasp "Ogar" a half idiot pre-modern man who befriends the lost adventurers. The ending left it open for further rehashing of the same effects in "People that Time Forgot". Don't waste your time.


Another day stuck indoors, another film to watch. Having finally completed my Christmas shopping yesterday on a cold and foggy afternoon, I had nowhere else to go to escape "The Land That Time Forgot". Or rather, I had nothing else to watch.

Doug McClure, that bastion of leading-man actors, leads a handful of Allied sailors sunk by a U-Boat somewhere in the Atlantic in 1916. Capturing the U-Boat (in a scene that defies logic and reason), they eventually find themselves on a strange island, apparently untouched by human hands. Together, they explore the land and discover dinosaurs and Neanderthals! Can they escape before becoming a permanent resident of the land that Time forgot?

Despite being made few years before "Star Wars", these films are light-years apart in terms of special effects. The model shots are little better than anything you would expect to see in an episode of Gerry Anderson's "Stingray" and the creatures aren't much better either. When the T-Rex (I'm assuming that's what it was) was killed, it fell in the same way that zombies do when you kill them - frozen in mid-walk and collapsing, arms and legs held out like a sleeping cow that's been pushed over. Granted, the sets aren't too bad but the lousy acting and endless explosion noises (which all sound the same) do their best to ruin credibility and your enjoyment of the picture as a whole. Characters are neither believable or worthy of your sympathy as they fire their guns at seemingly anything that moves. In the end, I just didn't care if they got off the island or not and by the time the end came, I was more relieved than entertained.

Costumes are authentic enough until the cavemen arrive and it is bear-skin bikinis and loin cloths all round. And although it was fairly obvious from their actions, you wouldn't have known that some characters were German from their accents. The whole thing just lacked some polish and cohesion, leaving the viewer confused in places and nonplussed in others. Overall, this film barely registers a ripple of excitement these days although you can find some small amusement in trying to work out where Colin Farrell is. I spotted his name in the credits and half expected a baby to appear with an Irish accent and suspect facial hair. Oh well. Nothing particularly great here to see then, but just about OK if you're eating your lunch and the weather is preventing further activity.


I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.

Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.

The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom ("You're not drinkin' again area ya's?"), but he's a "filmmaker" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky "inadvertently" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or "Mac the Knife" whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.

The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest same guy who just now calls himself a "poet."

Spare me. "I'm an artist," "I'm a filmmaker." Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a "creative" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great.


Having just wasted a couple of hours watching this and for 80% of that time in complete disbelief, I can give this garbage the turkey of the year award, no problem. To say the plot was unbelievable is some big understatement. Frankly I am lost for words to describe this utter tripe. Not only are the characters completely and utterly without any semblance of originality (this sort of stuff has been done much better in dozens of 'serial killer flicks')but the acting was dire. For those who pay to see this, I hope you get your money back, for those who were paid to do this, I hope you GIVE your money back. Believe me folks there are many new releases out there that are much, much better. Go see.


Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock.


The beginning of this movie is excellent with tremendous sound and some nice humor, but once the film changes into animation it quickly loses its appeal.

One of the reasons that was so, at least for me, was that the colors in much of the animation are too muted, with too little contrast. It doesn't look good, at least on VHS. Once in a while it breaks out and looks great, but not often Also, the characters come and go too quickly. For example, I would have liked to have seen more of "Moby Dick." When the film starts to drag, however, it picks up again with the entrance of the dragon and then the film finishes strong.

Overall, just not memorable enough or able to compete with the great animated films of the last dozen years.


About 4 years ago, I liked this movie. I would watch it over and over and over. But now... I don't. Actually, I think this movie would have been great for Mystery Science Theater 3000. It has a bunch of comment-heavy actors (Macaulay Culkin, Christopher Lloyd, Patrick Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg), and a pretty cheesy plot. My favorite part is when Culkin is riding his bike and he comes across a gang and a gang member says, "Hey, Tyler! Where ya goin'? The MOON??" Also look out for the classic line, "Do you have feeling in your toes?"

On the other hand, it's better than "The Good Son".


Richard Tyler is a little boy who is scared of everything. He doesn't like riding his bike or climbing on his tree house because he knows what kind of accidents might happen to him. So one day he is riding his bike and because it is starting to rain, he decides to wait in the library until it stops raining. In there the whole story takes place. He experiences all kinds of staff and in the end he is not scared any more. But the whole story is unbelievable and even good actors like Macaulay Culkin could not make the story better than it is.


"I'm a cartoon!" "You're an illustration!" what does that suppose to mean?! This plot could not be worse as a boy, who's afraid of everything, becomes very brave at the very end of the film because he went into a library. The only purpose of this waste of celluloid was to encourage American kids to read, when a cheaper, and more effective way of doing this could have been a series of adverts! Even the talents of Macaulay Culkin(as the kid), Christopher Lloyd (as the so predictable "that he's a the Page Master" librarian), could save this pointless film from the dull plot. Even the voices of Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart,(even) Leonard Nimoy, or the Hollywood God of voices, Frank Welker as the cartoon characters don't save it ever. I can only describe it as a 1990s equivalent to the even ghastly 1978 adaption of the Water Babies, because the bland animation makes the film worse, not improving the dull plot!


There is a really good movie lurking just beneath the surface of the layers upon layers of cheese that is "the Pagemaster".

I found this out when I watched this again this morning after neglecting it for years and years. I remember hating it with a passion when it first came out, but this time, I found that the special effects are quite good. The plot is just "the Neverending Story" with a creativity-endectomy, but it's an okay little flick for anyone who just wants some really awesome eye-candy. The animation is amazing, and I especially liked how the animators let their characters look and act a bit more surrealistic than the norm. I'm giving it a grade of three as I *would* have given it a two (just for parody value) if I had ever decided to watch this movie expecting it to absolutely blow my mind story-wise.


Ghost Town starts as Kate Barrett (Catherine Hickland) drives along an isolated desert road, her car suddenly breaks down & she hears horses hoofs approaching... Deputy Sheriff Langley (Frank Luz) of Riverton County is called in to investigate Kate's disappearance after her father reports her missing. He finds her broken down car & drives off looking for her, unfortunately his car breaks down too & he has to walk. Langley ends up at at a deserted rundown ghost town, much to his shock Langley soon discovers that it is quite literally a ghost town as it's populated by the ghosts of it's former residents & is run by the evil Devlin (Jimmie F. Skaggs) who has kidnapped Kate for reasons never explained & it's up to Langley to rescue her & end the towns curse...

The one & only directorial effort of Richard Governor this odd film didn't really do much for me & I didn't like it all that much. The script by Duke Sandefur tries to mix the horror & western genres which it doesn't do to any great effect. Have you ever wondered why there aren't more horror western hybrid films out there? Well, neither have I but if I were to ask myself such a question I would find all the answers in Ghost Town because it's not very good. The two genres just don't mix that well. There are plenty of clichés, on the western side of things there's the innocent townsfolk who are to scared to stand up to a gang of thugs who are terrorising them, the shoot-outs in the main street, saloon bars with swing doors & prostitutes upstairs & horror wise there's plenty of cobwebs, some ghosts, an ancient curse, talking corpses & a few violent kills. I was just very underwhelmed by it, I suppose there's nothing terribly wrong with it other than it's just dull & the two genres don't sit together that well. There are a few holes in the plot too, why did Devlin kidnap Kate? I know she resembled his previous girlfriend but how did he know that & what was he going to do with her anyway? We never know why this ghost town is full of ghosts either, I mean what's keeping them there & what caused them to come back as ghosts? Then there's the bit at the end where Devlin after being shot says he can't be killed only for Langley to kill him a few seconds later, I mean why didn't the bullets work in the first place?

Director Governor does alright, there's a nice horror film atmosphere with some well lit cobweb strewn sets & the standard Hollywood western town is represented here with a central street with wooden buildings lining either side of it. I wouldn't say it's scary because it isn't, there's not much tension either & the film drags in places despite being only just over 80 odd minutes in length. Forget about any gore, there a few bloody gunshot wounds, an after the fact shot of two people with their throats slit & someone is impaled with a metal pole & that's it.

I'd have imagined the budget was pretty small here, it's reasonably well made & is competent if nothing else. Credit where credit's due the period costumes & sets are pretty good actually. The acting is alright but no-ones going to win any awards.

Ghost Town is a strange film, I'm not really sure who it's meant to appeal to & it certainly didn't appeal to me. Anyone looking for a western will be annoyed with the dumb horror elements while anyone looking for a horror film will be bored by the western elements. It's something a bit different but that doesn't mean it's any good, worth a watch if your desperate but don't bust a gut to see it.