This is an incomprehensible horribly low budget piece of awfulness.

I don't even have the vocabulary to say how dire, turgid, boring, confusing, and just plain strange this effort is (Hey what d'ya know I do....) Set in a post-Apocalyptic America some guys meet on a beach and slaughter and chaos ensue - it was all so incomprehensible I couldn't make head or tail of any of it.

Seriously how this got picked up by National Lampoon totally defeats me: it really is awful.

And not in a its so bad it's good cult way.

It is just awful, awful, awful, awful.

Honestly. If you still don't believe me then watch it with every intention of loving it then come back here and tell me what you think. Even gerbils on acid couldn't hope to understand this.

Avoid or even better destroy...


I love all types of films, especially horror. That being said, Survival does not live up to ANY of the hype surrounding it.

I can't give it any points on originality. There is nothing wrong with exploring the same themes, or remaking what others have done. It has just become a cop out for indie films to take us on a slasher journey through the woods, a crazed killer, and as of lately, throw in some crazy family. On those lines I have to compare it with the likes of Texas Chainsaw, Wrong Turn (though the twist in that one is obvious), and others. Survival falls up way short against comparable films. The plot was just not original in ANY way. Some films can get by with a weak (and way over-done) plot with superb acting, special fx, or a slew of other factors. Survivial doesn't have any of that to bank on. If you will, note the following: The acting in the movie never took off. I don't knock or blame the actors for that, nor the director. The dialogue was at best mediocre, and the actors involved never showed (not saying didn't HAVE) the talent to pull it off. I mention 2 standouts. The leading man in this film certainly has the look, but I seriously thinks he needs to consider more training before he is ready to carry a film. The actor who portrayed Greg also had potential, but we never got to see any of it (watch the movie to see why, you won't believe it..).

The grainy film look. Ah yes, that little tid-bit of film making magic designed to take us to the glory days of "Grindhouse" films. In today's film making, that has become a gimmick. It either works or it doesn't. In this case it just does not work. There are too many other flaws going on, so it winds up distracting from the film, not adding to it. That being said, I think they did a good job of adding that grain. That is some good, quality grain. I think with a different script, better direction, and possibly actors, they should try another "Grindhouse" attempt. They will probably pull it off.

As far as the tech aspects, in my opinion, they never quite gelled for me either. Better care could have been taken with audio (sounds like it was fed directly into the camera, but there is nothing wrong with that) and for being shot on DV, it was too soft for my taste.

That is all I have to say about that.....


I think the Croc Hunter is a pretty cool guy! I know I wouldn't have the nerve to go even 5 feet away from a croc.

But, everything in this movie is bad. Farting jokes, people getting eaten, and the skit about the President all make the movie one of the worst of all time.

It's a really bad film that you have to stay away from. All the "jokes" are so juvenile that you will find yourself laughing because they are so stupid. The plot is so bad that you wonder if the screenwriter is 4 years old.

I'm surprised the Croc Hunter did not beg the crocodile to eat him after he saw this.


On Steve Irwin's show, he's hillarious. He doesn't even try to be funny and he just is but his movie wasn't even what I would call a movie-I mean when that guy on his car is trying to kill him he's just saying 'Oh, this is one nasty bloke!' and looking straight into the camera. He put his face in the camera too much! And then when the guy falls off the car wouldn't you expect him to be dead? And Terri had the worst acting I'd ever seen! Like when the crocodile almost ate Steve she just says 'Steve'. She didn't sound scared or anything, it was just 'Steve'. I mean I hate to sound mean but that was not worth seeing. I love Steve Irwin but his movie was just too stupid.


A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.

This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.

A high 4/10


I would love to have that two hours of my life back. It seemed to be several clips from Steve's Animal Planet series that was spliced into a loosely constructed script. Don't Go, If you must see it, wait for the video ...


If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!


I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more?


I have absolutely no knowledge of author Phillipa Pearce or any of her novels and if TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN is typical of her work I probably would have had little interest in her books as a child . When I was a child I wasn`t really interested in litreture unless it had soldiers fighting monsters complete with a high body count

Judging by this film version of TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN I guess Pearce writes for lower middle class kids since much of the story of revolves around protagonist Tom Long moving to a house with no garden then suddenly finding a metaphysical one . Having a garden of your own was no doubt something that working class people didn`t have in the 1950s so I guess there`s some political class ridden subtext there somewhere . There`s also a romance involving a young girl called Hattie but again are cynical kids amoured by love stories ? Perhaps the worst criticism is that very little in the way of excitement or adventure happens within the narrative

This is a childrens film that seems dated by its source . It`s inoffensive but I`m surprised by its high rating by the IMDB voters . I wonder how many of them would have given it so many high marks if they were 10 year olds who`d just seen the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy ?


Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie.


OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...


My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast  even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it  what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by.what else.extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.

When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade  when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.

It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one Don't say I didn't warn you!


Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from ****


Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess.


I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an "Elvis" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs.


One of the worst films I have ever seen. How to define "worst?" I would prefer having both eye balls yanked out and then be forced to tap dance on them than ever view this pitiful dreck again. Somehow, One-Hit Wonder Zwick manages a film that simultaneously offends Elvis fans, Mary Kay saleswomen, Las Vegas, gays, FBI agents and the rest of humanity with any intelligence with a shoddy, sloppy farce so forced it deserves to be forsaken ed. How Elvis Presley Enterprises could allow the rights of actual Elvis songs to be used in a film with a central premise that seems to be "The only good Elvis Presley Imitator is a dead one" is beyond me. The worst part of this mess - and that takes some work - is the mangled script: In 1958, Elvis' words and songs that he would speak/perform in the 1970's are quoted! Worst special effect? That Oscar would go to the moron who decided that Elvis' grave, potentially the most photographed/recognizable grave in the world, resembles a pyramid with a gold record glued atop and is situated in the middle of a park somewhere. Potentially, this film's biggest audience would be Elvis fans. However, the rampant stupidity (Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge, not FBI credentials...and I could go on and on) actually undercuts THAT conventional wisdom. Ugh. I used the word "wisdom" to describe this stupid movie. This is truly a horrible, horrible film.


The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay?

In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid.

Jason Vanness


It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.

And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.

For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.

But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.

Maka


I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking "hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??" and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.

When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.

...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about.


I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.

I don't recommend this movie.


I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."

Forget my money, I want my TIME back!


I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind.


I am a youth pastor's wife and we took some youth to see this film. We then spent an hour trying to explain it to them. They didn't get it and I didn't enjoy it. It is based on a concept that has run through all three of the major religions of the world (the Bible Code, the Torah Code and the Code in the Koran) and is so questionable as to be laughable. This is not a step forward for Christians in the arts, it is a step forward for those who believe we check our brains at the door.


The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best.


I went to see the Omega Code with a group of other Christians totaling about 15 people. We all expected a good piece of Christian film-making. What we got was an excruciatingly painful, drawn-out, and pretty boring attempt at a film. It has good looking production values but also has poor acting, a weak script with lousy dialogue, and no real sense of direction. From the first 15 minutes we all knew it would be a long night. We all hated it, and some people in our group placed this movie as reeking of more cheese than "Anaconda." None of us could believe that the movie lasted less than 2 hours. Flashy effects and crisp looking cinematography can't save this bad, bad movie. I'd give it a 3 out of 10, and the rating is only that high because I rented the abominable "movie" Werewolf (1996) the night before I saw this movie.


I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.


Quite honestly, The Omega Code is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. During the first 30 minutes I sat stunned in my seat, trying to decide if I should demand a refund. But since I hadn't paid to see it in the first place (passes), I figured I might as well stay. And I didn't think it could possibly get any worse.

It did. I will quickly run through the low points (includes some spoilers): The horrible miscasting of Casper Van Dien as Gillen Lane, a motivational speaker with two PhDs. The characterization was inconsistent; for example, Lane, despite his credentials, is a complete nitwit. Then there's the lame-o depiction of the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies; we see a bunch of sensational news soundbites accompanied by ridiculous computer print outs of the translated Biblical Code. Also, terrible "action" sequences: Lane escapes from tough situations without explanation, and the one time Lane actually does seem to be in danger, it turns out to be a dream sequence! That's cute for grammar school writing assignments, but it's an inexcusable plot device in a motion picture. The pacing was bad: after a long opener, the first third of the movie changes scenes every 90 seconds. Later, the pacing improves, but there is still far too much unnecessary jumping around. And as someone else mentioned, years pass yet no one (not even Lane's young daughter) ages. That was disconcerting.

There are a few good things, though. The quality of the film (e.g. lack of graininess) is high and very attractive. The outdoor shots were well done and the location shooting added a touch of realism. Also, there are a few moments in the last part of the film when Lane calls on God (finally) to help him - this proved to be quite exhilarating - even to me, someone who does not accept Jesus as a personal savior. But I liked this because it struck me as being the only genuine scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was followed by major incomprehensibility.

The characters, dialogue, direction and acting were ALL poorly done. Michael Ironside had nothing to do, and Michael York was just weird. I think the producers wanted to do too much; if the plot had been tighter and more focused, and the characterization more fleshed out, the film would have been far better.

In a nutshell, The Omega Code disappoints. Definitely do not pay to see this. I give it ** out of ten stars.


What else is left to say?

I've read all the reviews here and most are right on. . However, one person even went so far as to call this movie evil and that Satan tainted it (or something along those lines). Evil?! Wow, what a shocker. . I mean, TBN basically made this film. Open your eyes please.

Anway, this was the very lowest grade of propoghanda nonsense that has come along in years.

The most terrifying thing about Omega Code is how much money they spent to make it. If this movie can be made, there are no limits, and therefore, we have no choice but to get ready for "Yentl 2", and "Ernest Loses the Omega Codes."

For those of you who are into the biblical stories, the new movie Dogma will pickup where Omega Code never started.


Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.

The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.

I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it.


I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film.


If there was ever a call to make a bad film that reflected how stupid humanity could become, this one would take the prize. The plot centers around bible prophecies that lie in hidden messages of the scriptures that prompt a group of power-seeking thugs to attempt total control of the world. Just how stupid does this writer believe people to actually be?

 The acting was bad at best. Casper Van Dien wasted his talent doing this film. Michael York's work was a fair match for the role, since he was the center of the film, and did a good job.

 This plot was sickening and very disturbing. No tender or immature minds should see this film. This is how a basic good vs. evil plot can go astray.

 There must be a lot of mental disease floating around the film circles, who look for ways to market this type of junk. There must have been something censored out to get a PG-13 rating, but it was still awful.


The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the "The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him "Tell your master that we are here!". Dominic(Ironsides) replies "He already knows" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family

. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying "We're not going to talk to you any more!". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short.


I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...


This movie is not based on the bible. It completely leaves Christ out of the movie. They do not show the rapture or the second coming of Christ. Let alone talk about it. It does not quote from scriptures. The end times are called the great tribulation. The movie does not even show bad times. The seven bowls, seven viles and seven trumpets of judgements are boiled down to a 15 second news cast of the sea changing it's structure. The anti-Christ was killed 3 1/2 years into the tribulation and that is how the movie ended. The only part they got correct was there was two prophets. The did not use there names of course because that would be too close to the truth of scriptures. The worst part of it was I really wanted it to be a good movie. I wanted to take unsaved people to it. I feel that the movie is evil. It is a counterfeit just like everything the devil does. I just hope it does not take away from the upcoming movie based on the left behind books.

The second problem with the movie is it was just bad. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot and poor character development. I have seen better episodes of Miami vice.


This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good.


What was this about ?? Pre-destination, you can not change the future cause it has already been written ??

I'll give it this much. I did want to see what happened next and therefore watched the whole movie. This movie took a concept and made it watchable.

If you're looking for a recommendation, See it at matinee prices. No thrills but an interesting concept. They should have left the Y2K reference out....


Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money...


The idea had potential, but the movie was poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly shot and poorly edited. There are lots of production flaws ... for example, Dr. Lane's daughter who never ages despite the passing years. Wait for video, but don't expect much.


Disjointed, unclear, bad screenplay, poor photography and direction...all in all very obviously an ill-conceived first effort at commercial film-making by the good people at TBN.

TBN Pictures has had great success in the past by helping to bring "China Cry", the story of Nora Lam, to the big screen. But "The Omega Code" is an unfortunate miscue. As a Christian who supports TBN and a lot of its programming and who loved "China Cry", I still find it impossible to recommend this film to anyone. They do much good with their ministry, but this isn't an example of it. Don't waste your money...go rent "China Cry" instead.


I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."

Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.

From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.

I give it a 2/10.


What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.

There are three potential draws to this film:  The comedy of the situation;  The horror; and  The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane.

Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.

Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.

Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".

I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?


I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.


$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.

Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.

Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.

The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.

In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".


when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.

what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary

why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly

take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!

sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.

i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie

the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time

expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.


This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say "I'm rick james b!tch" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear "I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.

Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie


I saw the 10p.m. showing and I must say that this movie was nothing special. Although I did not leave the theater wanting my time back (as I don't actually pay for movies anymore) I didn't really find any redeeming qualities.

There were a few lines and such that made me chuckle, but mostly the film seemed to consist of rampant fan service to the younger (in mind more than age as this film is rated R) male audience. The fan service seemed out of place and rather distracting as well. I know you all want to hear Samuel L. say his infamous line, but let's be honest, it's a whole lot of hype for very little pay off. The only truly horrible part of the film was the CG, which looked very digitized and did not mesh well with the live action on the screen.

Now I am a reasonable man, I knew going into the theater that I wasn't going to be seeing "Casablanka," and I am at least thankful that this film is an original (albiet inane) idea and not some re-make or franchise spin off. However to be honest, if you are not a part of the cult following you are probably better off spending your money elsewhere and seeing the film either in a second run theater in a few weeks or renting it in a few months.


I am sick and tired of all these little weenies going on about how this movie "rocked". It is pure CG over-acted CRAP! Don't send an Assassin, it's much more sensible to smuggle hundreds of brightly colored, aggressive, venomous Snakes on a Plane! The only reason people like this movie because they feel they have to. It is not "so bad it's good" It's so bad I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick then be subjected to this again. I honestly thought was going to be a COMEDY like AIRPLANE! A spoof! Was I wrong. It's that whole "It sucks, get it!" Or Samuel A. Jackson yells "Snakes on the Plane! thing. Well I'm sorry, I don't get it. It looks like a bunch of wimps gave the movie industry more money to make more movies like Triple X and Die Hard. If you what spend money to watch a movie in the company of the same people who bought William Hung's CD, still live in their mommies basement, and stink of plastic chair sweat from days on the computer playing online games and looking at porn, then rush to the theater and ask for one (since I doubt you have a girlfriend) ticket for Snakes on a stupid-butt Plane. To hell with movies like Full metal Jacket, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Clerks, etc. There's no irony in watching good movies. The true decline of the western civilization. Calling this a cult film is an Insult to true Cult classics like Repo man, or even Orgazmo. I've said enough here.


This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.


This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.

David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.

Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.

So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.

The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).

There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.

This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.

In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman.


Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.

So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.

Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good.


I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.

Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.

To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away!


B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.

"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy."

"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher."

"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"

Dr Price is the snake expert.

Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area.


This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.

I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute.


the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!


I saw an early screening of this film in New York and I, along with my friends and pretty much the entire audience, were vastly disappointed. The movie wasn't even so bad it was good; it was as lifeless as a snake-bite victim. Samual L. Jackson looked surprisingly tired through most of it and the snake effects were lame. It reminded me of one of those cheesy SciFi movies, except the cheesiness of this movie was not funny or even campy. It all seemed worn, flat, and overtly formulaic. I'm shocked to say I actually think Anaconda was more fun. It's easy to understand that SOAP realizes it's a piece of s*it and plays along with it, but what the film fails to embark on is a script that has any scares of suspense. It's the worst kind of lame movie: it's joyless.


All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog.


I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started "taking over" the plane.

At first I thought maybe it should get a "one" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more!

Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.

This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only "victim" is your dumb ass.

If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash.


Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.

Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.

No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.

I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10


I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!

I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:

1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpoint

I can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie.


the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...

the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel.


Admirably odd, though mean-spirited comedy-drama about a strange young man who hopes to fly like a bird through the Houston Astrodome. Robert Altman-directed quasi-comedy with eccentric characters is so overloaded with weirdos that it starts to creak early on from the weight. Some of the cinematography is evocative, Shelley Duvall is a stitch in her debut as a tour guide, and Sally Kellerman looks every inch the glamourpuss as Bud Cort's vision of a "mother bird" (imagine Altman and producer Lou Adler explaining that role to her!). In the lead, Bud Cort is--once again, after "Harold & Maude"--a true original; not off-putting like, say, Michael J. Pollard, Cort manages to be geeky, wacky and inoffensive, a tough act to pull off. Unfortunately, this is one of Altman's misfires. He can put together a cast and a showpiece like no one else, but let him get fired up with some misguided inspiration and he spirals downward. ** from ****


The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.

The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.

One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.

'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.

The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.

I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.


With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it.


Did I step in something or is that bad smell coming from Daybreak 1 + 2? God was behind everything? What has God got to do with Sci-Fi? God is only the answer when you can't think up a sensible explanation for something. In fact, this is exactly the problem with the series finale - they obviously couldn't think up sensible explanations for the multitude of big questions that were raised throughout the series such as how Kara Thrace come back from the dead in a brand new viper, how her old viper and charred body ended up on Earth 2, why Baltar has an imaginary 6 in his head, why 6 has an imaginary Baltar in her head, etc. so they explain it with "angels" or just don't explain it at all.

The plot of the last 2 episodes had holes big enough to fly a Basestar through. For example, why does Galactica and its crew go on a suicide mission to rescue one girl (Hera), particularly after Adama said there was no way he'd attempt a rescue? Because they found out the location of the Cylon base? That's not a good reason to sacrifice the crew's lives. And how did Anders know the location? And what was the point of the flashbacks to the major characters' lives before the war? It's like they forgot to do it earlier so they threw something in at the last moment.

The people who wrote the last two episodes could not have been the same writers who created what has been so far a sensational series. Feels like the script writing was take over by evangelical Christians on a mission to spread 'The Word'. Forget trying to tie up the loose ends in the plot, the important message the writers wanted to get across is: don't put your faith in technology as it will lead to your destruction; God is your ultimate salvation (tough luck if you have an illness that needs medical treatment).

Imagine in the final movie of the Star Wars series they tell you there is no "force"... instead, a Jedi actually gets his power from Jesus. Then they fly their spaceships into the nearest star and go live in the forest with the Ewoks. Would this be a good ending? No it frakken' wouldn't.


The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice.


Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.


I loved the first season. The quality went down a little bit in the second season, which however had a great middle (Pegasus!). Third season was fairly novel and original and was OK. Fourth season started going downhill fast, because they never even began giving us any explanations, when by now we were really starting to need them. What the hell was the Cylon plan? Why were there two Cylon factions? What was the point of Angel-Kara leading the fleet to a devastated Earth-1? What kind of a past did the last five Cylons have, and how did they survive, or were they reincarnations? Questions everywhere, answers nowhere.

And then comes the end. Earth-2 (our Earth) in the past. Well, okay. But destroying the fleet?! Giving up technology and giving up any kind of urban life, and spreading a few thousand people paper-thinly across the planet?! That's not only anti-science, it's anti-reason and anti-life. And the philosophy of the show then seems to be that humanity is forever trapped in a cycle going from nature romanticism to a decadent capitalist society inventing destructive A.I. that ruins everything. It is without vision, without hope for a grander future for humanity, and it is antithetical to proper science fiction. And don't even get me started on the angels! Religious claptrap of the worst kind! The ultimate disappointment!!

The whole "all this has happened before and will happen again" thing should have related to the previous incarnation of the series, not just to Earth as we know it. Making the new show somehow consistent with the old would have been the definitive stroke of genius. Frakkin shame.

1 out of 10.


There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.

That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.

Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.

What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.

Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.

All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.


The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb.


Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.


Well, they say nymphomania leaves you unsatisfied. I don't know if Stella James (Sean Young) qualifies as a clinical nymphomaniac, but she certainly is in to sexual relations with men. She's still exploring, trying to find "more data" so she can see what she wants from life and the men in it, though it seems like at her age she should have a pretty good idea by now. (I can't agree, however, with anyone who says Young is too old for the role. If she is, we should all age so nicely.) For the most part this film left me cold, though it's by no means the worst of its type you'll ever see. And unlike the recent 'Eyes Wide Shut,' at least something happens in this one.


I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.


This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting.

Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me.

This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash.


i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you


so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck.


Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend


I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0)


OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.

We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.

I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.

If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.

So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.

Hope this helps.


Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:

1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.

The only thing I liked about this film is the song "'Bright Eyes".

If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.

Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live...


THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!

This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).


This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.

Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!

Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.

If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.

This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.

IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.

Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.

Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.

Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.

Don't say you weren't warned.


Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.

I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.


2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.

I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.

I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.

This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.

You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.

In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.

Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.

Not that anything else was really working anyway.

The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to.


This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.


There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason than that!


this film is in the MANDINGO & DRUM type

they were both dreadful BUT they are 100% better than this tripe,

Badly acted & made Oliver Reed is the main name & Eartha Kitt also is in it. Tis a pity. Rating is 1/2* about as low as yu can get

as always

jay harris


It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films.

I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.


This is a confused and incoherent mess of interminable scenes of boring dialogues and monologues. That is no exaggeration: you have to make a tremendous effort to even try to become involved with it.

I sincerely thought Fassbinder would make something interesting in order to tell why does Erwin/Elvira suicides at the end, but instead of this, in every scene somebody is trying to explain: "when he was young, this happened..." and "he just came back from Casablanca and ordered to cut everything down there...", etc.

Soon in the movie, Erwin/Elvira is in a slaughter house talking with a friend prostitute (certainly a slaughter house is the best place for a pleasant little chat), and while telling her the story of Elvira's life, Fassbinder shows the killing of one cow after the other. It is difficult to choose between giving attention to the disturbing images or what the transvestite is saying. Of course we come to the very forced and coarse symbolism of "I have suffered much in my life, and am about to die".

In one of the sparse moments where actually happens something, Erwin/Elvira encounters a former lover, that only after performing a extremely gay choreography with two other guys (as if going for the necessary level of homosexuality) is that he recognizes Elvira.

There are some interesting shots and ideas, I must admit (such as when the nun tells the story of the young Erwin), but everything on the movie is wasted due to Fassbinder's self- indulgence.


As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?