"New Best Friend" is another entry in the "steal another woman's life" sub-genre; the best of which are "Single White Female" and "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle"; the worse of which you can catch almost any afternoon on the Lifetime Channel. For some reason this type of identity theft happens exclusively to women.

There are just two basic ways to play this type of story. You can make the woman evil at the beginning and let the audience watch knowingly as she hatches and implements her evil scheme. Or you use misdirection to make her appear a good person, as a seemingly unplanned series of events break in her favor until she is revealed to be evil in the climatic scene. Unfortunately the makers of "New Best Friend" could not decide how they wanted to play it and things crash and burn early. We first meet Alicia (Mia Kirshner) scamming the college's financial aid office for scholarship money. We now know that she is a bad person and will view all her subsequent activity with suspicion. But the director and editor apparently forgot that this revelation had been made and spend the next 50 minutes laying misdirection to make us think that Alicia is a good person. This introduces the only element of suspense, not about whether she is evil but about when the director and editor will wise up and stop wasting our time with transparent misdirection.

"New Best Friend" suffers more than most from the teen movie curse of a cast too old to be portraying undergraduate students. There are really only two big parts, Hadley (Meredith Monroe) and Alicia (Kirshner). They were 31 and 26 respectively at the time of the production. It almost works for the 26 year-old Kirshner when she plays the mousy version of Alicia but it becomes glaring when she is transformed into the glamed-up version of Alicia. Monroe's casting is simply a joke, about like having Nicholette Sheridan try to pass as a classmate on "Lizzie McGwire". She looks much closer to a mid-life crisis than to a term paper.

The producers must have owed a lot of favors because this age issue extends to most of the supporting characters. Taye Diggs who plays the town sheriff is younger than most of the students.

The basic setup is that Hadley and two other rich party girls (played by Dominque Swain-age 21 and Rachel True-age 35) are undergrad roommates at college. They share (as their student residence) a mansion that is nicer and better furnished than the mansion on Real World-New Orleans (a premise more believable than soccer moms playing students). Alicia moves into the mansion and begins to take over Hadley's life. At least that way Swain finally gets a roommate from her own generation so the two can have a lesbian scene. Swain's supporting performance is the only good thing about "New Best Friend" and her love scene with Kirshner is fantastic, so cool and artsy that it doesn't fit with any of the other segments, maybe it was subcontracted out to a good director and cinematographer.

The unintentionally hilarious story is presented in a series of dreary flashbacks of rampant sex and nonstop parties, each proceeded by a shot of a comatose Alicia in a hospital bed. About half of Kirshner's screen time is spent lying motionless with a tube in her mouth. Not a good career move Mia.

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


Unentertaining, uninvolving hybrid of "Cruel Intentions" and "Wild Things", but it isn't nearly as good as either of those trash min-classics. It's about the acting sheriff, Artie (Taye Diggs) being called in to investigate a near-fatal drug overdose at a posh upper-class Univesity, but to keep it on the down low. As he digs deeper he thinks it's much more than it at first glance seems to be. We follow Alicia, the girl who overdosed in flashbacks as well. At about 90 minutes, if this film was welcomed to begin with, it would have worn it out. This film brings absolutely nothing new to the table. But it IS the only movie thus far that has Miss Swain topless so the grade is higher just for that.

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Dominique Swain gets topless( fixing a mistake of "Happy Campers"); another girl is topless

Anti-Eye candy: more men ass than girl tit


Small college town coed OD's? (Why do we care?) Acting sheriff investigates the incident. (Why do we care?) The interviews show us the comatose subject (Kirshner) as different as the opinions of the subjects being interviewed. (Why do we care?) Result? A mess of flashbacks in this mess of a movie featuring a handful of one-hit wonders and B-flick divas which begs the question...Why do we care?


I totally disagreed with those comments which said this is a good movie. This is a totally SUCKED movie. I mean SUCKED - S.U.C.K.E.D. The story development is strange. Mia Kirshner changed from an innocent girl to a party-fun seeking chick for no convincing reasons at all. In addition, all the actresses looked way too old for being college students - College students looked like about 30 years old - you figure out the rest. I watched only about first ten minutes and started fast forwarding to look for sex scenes. all the sex scenes are lame, hasty and, most importantly, no frontal at all. All the sex scenes are laughable, considering how many clothes they had on. Do yourself a favor - put it down and save yourself a few bucks. Conclusion: Story - 0, Sex - 0, Acting - 0, Score - 0 out 10.


Interesting film about an actual event that took place during the Civil War in Vermont. It kept my attention to the end and I don't regret viewing it. I haven't ever read any on this raid incident so I was curious to see if the rebels pulled it off. I enjoy historical films from that era.

My major complaint is with the Confederate uniforms. They look too good!!! The acting was a little stiff at times. I like the old man eating the mashed potatoes because he didn't have any teeth. The wounded soldier playing fetch with a hound was a little strange. Overall, it was a descent film.


(Avast, slight spoilers ahead) I got this tape from my local library, which keeps a copy for obvious reasons.

I once went to the town of Matewan, West Virginia, and in a little museum there I saw the schedule for the town theatre citra May 1954. Movies would change at the theatre each day. As there would be no TV for another decade or so in those parts, this was much of the available entertainment in the town. "The Raid" seems to have been made for towns like Matewan in the 1950's. Although it wasn't listed for that month, I am sure showed there some Monday or Tuesday night for an audience which probably wasn't too demanding. The historical raid - daring and remarkably successful - didn't seem to have been very well researched, so the movie is full of Hollywood embellishments, including a loose cannon played by Lee Marvin. Marvin uses the opportunity to practice being Liberty Valance. And St. Albans seems to have had more Yankee soldiers coming and going through the town than Washington D.C. had.

What really made me snicker was when the raiders change into their Confederate uniforms. Only in tacky Civil War paintings do Rebel uniforms look so pristine. When Anne Bancroft's son catches Van Heflin in his uniform just before the raid, I expected the boy to think it was Halloween.

And then there's Anne Bancroft herself. While watching the movie I actually looked on the IMDb to see if there was a second Anne Bancroft. The then-studio contract actress looks nothing like in her later films, and has none of the presence she would later have in "The Miracle Worker," "Agnes of God," and of course "The Graduate."

Worth seeing if only 1). you live in St. Albans and 2). you have a couple hours to kill on a Hollywood fictionalization of your home town's biggest news story.


I read the reviews for this and while not expecting a saving private Ryan I was expecting a film of some substance.

The film starts off very lob-sided with the usual intro of history and how the unit came into being. But immediately it's 1944 and you are not sure where everyone is. The accents etc are very poor as this unit is supposed to be Hawaiian/Asian American but everyone speaks in a very poor take on Harvard English imitation of a Japanese person.

I gave this film 3 out of 10 as after 10 minutes I couldn't watch any more of it. The characters were 1 dimensional and even though they were most likely based on real people I had no feeling for them and this left me not caring about them. Very poor direction of a very average TV movie which will be shown at midnight on some cable channel. I'd avoid and look out for better efforts.

This is a good story but it was deserving of a better telling. You got a sense the director had seen band of brothers and thought that that was enough to sell his movie. My advice, avoid and watch band of brothers, Tuskegee airmen, Glory or any other movie like when trumpets fade...


In my opinion, this movie's title should be changed from "Only the Brave" to "All About Lane". I went to a screening of this film a few months ago and was quite disappointed with the outcome. Although, I appreciate that the director made a movie about the men of 442nd - a subject matter that long deserved addressing in the film industry - the acting in some parts of film was quite stale. The performances of Marc Dacascos, Tamlyn Tomita, and Jason Scott Lee were all great. However, the director should have NEVER put himself as the main character in the movie. Sorry Lane, you are just not a film actor. Stick to what you're good at - theater acting. Gina Hiraizumi's performance in this film was also horrible. She should never have been given a speaking role and her looks were unfit to play the part of a Miss Nisei queen. There were other young actresses in the film who were naturally beautiful and whose performances were wonderful... Why weren't they cast for that role? Another major problem with this film were its action sequences. The Japanese-American soldiers don't look like they were fighting German soldiers... let alone anyone. Granted this was a low budget feature, but since this was a war-based film, isn't it important to show some actually fighting? This film was a worthy attempt, but definitely not worth a major distribution.


While I totally disagree with one reviewer who described Charley Chase as unfunny, in this film he certainly is. It's a shame, as I suspect the other reviewer must have only seen a few Charley Chase duds and assumed the guy wasn't funny. Films like MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE and WHAT PRICE GOOFY? are very good Chase films, so he COULD be really funny given good material. Unfortunately, in this film he's given absolutely nothing. Even the inclusion of the usually good Oliver Hardy as a foil isn't any help because the basic premise (boy wants to marry girl but girl's father thinks the boy is a wuss) and the gags are so poor. It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this film but couldn't.

By the way, for those used to the look for Charley from the mid-1920s on, you'll be pretty surprised as Chase sports no glasses or mustache--and looks very little like you'd expect.


I've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.

Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.

There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement?

Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.

I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing.


Max had the V-8, Trace (Wheels of Fires last and only hero) has a jet engine on the back of his car allowing him to make unintentionally humorous faces as he rockets around the halfway desolate wasteland. Be amazed as Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) is dissected and spliced back together as a new movie albeit filmed in a lackluster manner with bad actors and lousy stunt work.

Why is WoF set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Simple, The Road Warrior was! Actually any questions can be answered by: it was that way in the Road Warrior! Except for the out of work mutant actors from the original 60's The Time Machine film that make a cameo appearance for sake of giving the audience some non-vehicular action to chew on for a few minutes.

In typical 80's fashion, all cars driven by bad guys that are bumped or slightly jostled explode in a huge billowing explosion. Inevitably all car chases will happen near convenient cliff sides and cars will unavoidably fall off of them. Along with this 80's cinematic wild ride is the general rampant misogyny in this style of cheapie film. Generally I waited for Trace's rocket powered car to accelerate and shoot flames so there would be another shot of him scrunching up his face like he is supposed to be tough, which comes off more as him looking constipated. Badly choreographed action coupled with bad acting makes this film a true sinker. The unintentional humor value even manages to wear thin.

Rats: Nights of Terror by Bruno Mattei is superior. And that in and of itself is saying a lot! By this count 2020 Texas Gladiators is a cinematic masterpiece compared to Wheels of Fire. A poor Road Warrior knock off that doesn't have near enough cheese factor to make the film watchable.


It's curious that the two stars of Meet The People were a pair of movie stars who went into the new medium of television and became even bigger successes and who both went into the production end of things and enjoyed tycoon status on the small screen. Lucille Ball however was not a major star, that would come with television. As for Dick Powell he desperately wanted to get out of doing films like Meet The People and his career salvation would be coming in his next film.

I think the only reason that Dick Powell did the film was because a young player from MGM was cast in a specialty number and he was seeing her at the time. His private time with June Allyson was far better than what we see on the screen. Powell looks crashingly bored and can't summon up any kind of emotion at all.

He was probably tired of doing these musicals with silly plots, the kind he ran from Warner Brothers from. The original show Meet The People was not a book show, it was a revue and it ran in the 1940-41 season on Broadway for 160 performances. When MGM bought it, they scrapped everything but the title and the title song. The rest of the score was patched together from various and sundry songwriters, none of the songs is memorable. Odd when you consider some of the source material is from Burton Lane, E.Y. Harburg, Harold Arlen, and Rodgers&Hart. These guys just must have emptied the trunk for material.

The plot is sillier than even most of the musical propaganda pieces of the time. Powell is the writer of a revue called Meet The People and he's a shipyard worker who wins a lottery date with movie star Lucille Ball. She's interested, he's interested, they're both interested in the revue, but creative differences keep them apart of course until the finale. That's the film in a nutshell.

MGM did give Powell and Ball some good musical acts which are the main reason for watching Meet The People. The big bands of Vaughn Monroe and Spike Jones are here and the highlight of the film for me is Bert Lahr dressed in a commodore's suit like Lou Costello had in the dream sequence in In The Navy. The song Heave Ho is written by Arlen and Harburg who wrote for Lahr, the Courage number from The Wizard Of Oz. And as just about everyone in the world has seen that film, you have an idea of Heave Ho is like.

Dick Powell's next film was Murder My Sweet in which he finally bid a not so fond adieu to musicals. And Lucy would have to wait for television before the world got to see what she really could do.


I went into this movie hoping for the best. I like wartime musicals in general. Dick Powell and Lucille Ball did good jobs with their roles; however, the writers gave them boring dialog. The love-interest between the two of them was not given any real growth; just suddenly it was there. I did not think much of the music; the best number was the snippet we heard of Spike Jones with "Der Fuhrer's Face." The one complete number that Spike Jones did had little of his great musical comedy; pretty tame stuff,even with the monkey. Bert Lahr's comedy skits were interminable.

There were parts to enjoy: Lucille Ball was quite a looker, and there was a good selection of bit players who really deserved more time on screen.


I watched this movie after having so much of trouble in downloading it through rapidshare. And I have to say, it did not deserve it.

Parinda was so hyped, that I was really looking forward to watch it.

Parinda is one of those movies which fail to satisfy the standards set by other good Indian film-makers, despite having a great story. It was even more pathetic to know, that the story itself was not original, it was loosely based on the classic "On the Waterfront".

Anil Kapoor was irritating, especially when he comes from America. The direction lacked quality many a times, except a few in-between scenes.

Give this script to any of them - Ram Gopal Verma, Deepa Mehta, Mahesh Bhatt, Sudhir Mishra, and I'm 100% sure, they'll make a mind-blowing movie out of it.

I'm not saying Parinda was bad. It was just not good enough.


This movie is chilling reminder of Bollywood being just a parasite of Hollywood. Bollywood also tends to feed on past blockbusters for furthering its industry.

Vidhu Vinod Chopra made this movie with the reasoning that a cocktail mix of "Deewar" and "On the Waterfront" will bring home an Oscar. It turned out to be rookie mistake.

Even the idea of the title is inspired from the Elia Kazan classic. In the original, Brando is shown as raising doves as symbolism of peace.

Bollywood must move out of Hollywood's shadow if it needs to be taken seriously.


This is one of the worst movies i have seen to date, the best part was Christian J. Meoli "Leonard" attempting to act jumping up and down outside the bar, kind-of like i wanted to do on the DVD, to spare the rest of humanity the agony of watching this shitty film. It has a great cast so you keep watching waiting for it to get good, i mean with Sean Astin "Andrew" (played his part perfectly, did a great job, too bad it was in this film), Kyra Sedgwick "Bevan", Ron Livingston "Chad", Renée Zellweger "Poet" (they put her name on the cover she has a total of 1 line and less then 4 seconds in the whole movie...

If the cast had any dignity, they would go out and buy all the copies of this film and burn them along with Writer / Director George Hickenlooper and Writer John Enbom


Bugs Bunny accidentally ends up at the South Pole while trying to vacation in Florida. Where he meets a little penquin, which he tries to save from an Eskimo. This short tries and the penquin is adorable, but in the end it's a bit too light in the laughs department. The Eskimo isn't really that great of a foil for Bugs and I just seen a lot better Bugs Bunny cartoons frankly, even other shorts when he's paired with other unknown antagonists. So I can't in good conscience recommend this one. However it is nice to see it in it's uncut form. This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1"

My Grade: C


You can tell a Lew Grade production a mile off  distinctly British in style; epic in conception; peopled by international all-star casts; usually set in exotic climes. It's a formula that Grade and his company ITC employed throughout the 70s into the early 80s, resulting in titles like The Eagle Has Landed, Firepower, and Raise The Titanic! In 1977 Grade produced March Or Die, a remarkably old-fashioned Foreign Legion adventure that models all the characteristics mentioned above. Directed by the usually dependable Dick Richards  who helmed the acclaimed Farewell My Lovely just a couple years earlier - March Or Die is an unfortunate disappointment.

A company of Foreign Legionnaires led by the harsh disciplinarian General Foster (Gene Hackman) is sent to Morocco shortly after World War 1. Their mission is to protect an archaeological party fronted by the dedicated Francois Marneau (Max Von Sydow). The archaeologists are carrying out an excavation at the ancient city of Erfoud, but fear an attack from Arab tribesmen following the decimation of an earlier archaeological group. Foster is not happy with the assignment  he does not consider historical artifacts worthy of his men risking their lives. This creates ongoing tension between himself and Marneau, who believes that the legionnaires should sacrifice their lives to make the excavation possible. The problems heighten when a beautiful woman named Simone Picard (Catherine Deneuve) tags along with the legionnaires. She is hoping to find out what happened to her father, a historian abducted by the Arabs when they wiped out the first archaeological team. Her presence arouses desires amongst the legionnaires, none more so than gypsy thief Marco Segrain (Terence Hill), a charming and courageous rogue who initially shows indifference towards his legionnaire colleagues but gradually grows in stature. Things climax with a huge battle at Erfoud, with swarms of united Arab tribes charging against the handful of legionnaires as they desperately try to defend their lives.

On paper the star duo of Gene Hackman and Terence Hill seem a mismatch  Hackman is the heavyweight Oscar-winning character actor, Hill the handsome but limited Italian heart-throb from numerous low budget spaghetti westerns. One expects Hackman to act his counterpart off the screen. Yet, bizarrely, it is Hackman who gives the weak and uninvolving performance, while Hill raises his game to surprisingly high levels. The film is attractively shot on desert locations, but the pacing is awfully slow and few of the characters are worth caring for. Maurice Jarre's music is uncommonly flat too  very disappointing from the guy who gave us the Lawrence Of Arabia score. It is remarkable that anyone had the nerve to try an old-fashioned adventure of this type in the 70s (it was a genre that peaked in the 30s, and had been all but forgotten during the intervening decades). Sadly, the gamble doesn't really pay off  this homage to the legionnaire flicks of old becomes more of a plod than a march.


The opening sequence is supposed to show the Legion arriving in Paris on 13 Nov 1918. The troops pile off the train -- wearing the uniform in which the French Army, including the Legion, marched off to war in 1914! This a sure sign that the war flick you are about to see will be a turkey. (The French Army realized by 1915 that going to war in red trousers and dark blue overcoats was not working. Metropolitan French troops were put into "horizon blue" and Colonial troops were put into khaki.) The Claude Van-Damme (sp?) remake at least got the uniforms more or less right. Really is too bad when directors make these sorts of mistakes when they then go to all the effort to get other things right.


"Shadrach" was not my favorite type of movie. I found it overly sentimental and the acting was below par. Harvey Keitel and Andie MacDowell were good but some of the other actors weren't at all believable. I also did not believe that Paul's parents would go away and leave him with the Dabney family, especially when they had a housekeeper living in the home. Their social classes were too far apart to consider this believable. It seemed the Dabney's lifestyle was too exaggerated. There was a scene in the beginning of the movie that showed Andie MacDowell getting out of a car after having sex with someone. Who was it? Her son? What was the scene supposed to show us? Why was the scene even included? It had nothing to do with the rest of the movie and was in fact never alluded to again. It seemed gratuitous and not fitting into the story at all. There were too many inconsistencies in the movie for me. The story concerning Shadrach was nice but I wasn't convinced that the Dabneys would have been as kind and generous as they were portrayed.


My girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap


We rented five movies for New Year's Eve weekend and watched this one first. All I can say is that there was no place to go but up after watching this one. It was pointless and vulgar. Harvey Keitel's script must have been easy to write -- just make two out every three words a curse word. Andie McDowell is surprisingly good in a character roll, but the movie has nothing else to recommend it.


Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.

OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.

The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.

My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.

For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.

The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.

I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.

Here Kitty, Kitty...

Tom Willett


I bought this on DVD for my brother who is a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan. I decided to watch it myself earlier this week.

It is a reasonably entertaining piece containing two completely separate story lines. The section with Michelle Pfeiffer was by far the more interesting of the two. She plays a rising Hollywood actress who has had many short unfulfilling relationships. She literally bumps into Brian Kerwin (A regular married guy with Kids)after driving her car into the back of his. After being initially hostile to one another he offers to drive her home as she no longer feels comfortable to drive. Romance develops eventually leading to tragedy when his wife finds out. What happens at the end I was not prepared for but the slow pacing and routine TV direction takes any drama out of the plot.

The other section involves an old Studio boss played by Darren McGavin. This section actually has the better cast with Kenneth McMillan, Lois Chiles, Steven Bauer & Stella Stevens. They all want something from the studio boss but in the end when he is asked to resign, they all realize their careers will now be going nowhere.

It passes the time but is not all that interesting and I am glad this was not bought for me. I am not a Michelle Pffeifer fan but she was admittedly the only actor worth watching in this film and even in 1983 she was a decent actress. Overall though unless you are a fan of hers avoid this as it is very routine.


So the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.

1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.

2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.

To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did.


I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.

Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good.

I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand.

The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief.

I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.


Years after the fall of the last of the great corporations, the world has fallen into a new dark age where cyborgs are harvested for their parts. Cash, a female cyborg, travels to a wasteland doctor to receive news that she is pregnant. On the run from Recyclers (bounty hunters who hunt cyborgs), Cash tries to find her way to Cytown, the mythical refuge for cyborgs.

"Cyborg 3: The Recycler" is the third (& last so far) entry in the CYBORG trilogy. The first film was originally planned to be a sequel to MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, but was quickly rewritten into a standard post-apocalyptic martial-arts fest that became something of a cult classic due to its cheesy action scenes. CYBORG 2: GLASS SHADOW was a sequel that actually improved upon its predecessor but was not widely seen (& was dismissed by those few who saw it as cheap fodder).

This film, for one thing, tries to be a meld of the first two films (the first was a cheesy action film while the second was a smart Cyberpunk story) but unfortunately falls short on both counts. The budget was obviously lower than CYBORG 2, with the film being set in the desert wastelands (like so many post-apocalyptic action films of the 90s were), shot around old industrial buildings to conserve costs.

The film's story centres on a plot device, that of a pregnant cyborg, that is as interesting as it is absurd (this film is not the first to try that idea; the anime OVA series ARMITAGE III uses it to a greater extent). But the film falls into the same trap that so many low-budget sci-fi action films fall victim to, in the fact that the snags (synthetic organisms) featured are nothing more than androids. The visual effects amount to nothing more than prosthetic arms & makeup effects.

The acting is pretty standard for this kind of film, with the lead actress (Khrystyne Haje) being the single worst performer on display. Instead of being joyed at the news she is pregnant, she acts all whiny & sullen. Her co-stars are much better, Malcolm McDowell being the usual gangster type who enlivens the scenes he appears in & Richard Lynch has a lot of fun as the chief villain. Of particular note is Andrew Byniarski, playing Lynch's right hand man, who would later appear in THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake & its prequel.


Cash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.

*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)


A study in bad. Bad acting, bad music, bad screenplay, bad editing, bad direction and a bad idea. Pieces of schlock don't come any cheesier or unintentionally funnier than this... thing. By the end of the "movie", you are left wondering why did they bother in the first place. Poor Malcolm McDowell, was he short of cash or something? Still thinking of seeing this? *SPOILERS AHOY*: If you haven't died of laughter in the first thirty minutes, by the time you'll see the cyborg-populated town named "Cytown", you will. Avoid this, my movie-loving friends. Avoid.


I almost made a fool of myself when I was going to start this review by saying " This movie reminded me of BILLY ELLIOT " but then I looked up the resume of screenwriter Lee Hall only to find out that he was the guy who wrote BILLY ELLIOT so it's Mr Hall who's making a fool of himself not me

Am I being a bit cruel on him ? No because Lee has something most other aspiring screenwriters from Britain don't have - He has his foot in the door , he has previously written a successful British movie that won awards and made money at the box office and what does he do next ? He gives the audience more of the same

Young Jimmy Spud lives on some kitchen sink estate . He is bullied at school and no one loves him . The only thing keeping him going is that he has aspirations to be a ballet dancer . No actually he has aspirations to be an angel but considering his household he may as well be a ballet dancer . He has a macho waster of a father who thinks " Ballet dancers are a bunch of poofs while his granddad says " Ballet dancers are as tough as any man you could meet . I remember seeing the Bolshoi ballet ... " Yup Ballet is a main talking point on a run down British council estate those days - NOT . Come to think of it neither is left wing politics which seems to be the sole preserve of middle class do gooders who live in nice big houses , so right away everything about this set up feels ridiculously false

Another major criticism is that this is a film that has no clue who it's trying to appeal to . I have often criticised Channel 4 for broadcasting movies at totally inappropriate times ( THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT at 6 am for example ) but they showed this at 2 am and for once they've got it spot on . Considering the story involves politics , ballet dancing ( Gawd I hate it ) lung cancer and poverty there's no way this can be deemed suitable for a family audience but since the main protagonist is an 11 year old child and features angels and ballet dancers ( Don't blame me if I seem obsessed with the subject - there was no need to refer to them ) there's not much here for an intelligent adult audience either .

Of course if Lee Hall had been told at the script development stage by the producers that he should write a story featuring a schoolboy and an angel and had flatly refused saying that he wanted to write about other themes and stories then I will apologise but throughout the movie you do get the feeling that once the film was completed it was going to be marketed to the exact same audience who enjoyed BILLY ELLIOT


Not that I want to be mean but this movie really surprised me a lot. During the whole film, I was like...erm...what is this movie all about? I don't get the animations at all. Probably this movie will only be suitable for those who belongs to the 1980s. During the film, there is a group of people walked out. After the movie, many people said, "That's it?" Frankly speaking, I cannot believe that this movie was awarded the best children film award. If you are thinking of watching this film, I strongly recommend you not to. You will regret it. I'm not joking. You will find that you are just wasting both your time and money of you go and watch it.


If you're watching this without an inkling of an idea what the story is about, then you're in for quite the surprise. Even then the synopsis has painted a picture of a rather sane storyline, but the actual film is anything but.

As the synopsis went, it tells of an obsessed mountain climber, which you'll see as the prologue before the opening credits and text crawl, which tells you of the presence of Chronopolis, an imaginary city that exists in dreamy manuscripts of the mind (note to self  this spells trouble with flashing lights), where its inhabitants are immortals yearning for a change in their omnipresence. They can see our world, and notice of all persons this mountain climber, and the synopsis explained that they decided to contact him through alchemy, creating an intelligent sphere to meet the man.

What that translated to, is a repetitive piece of animation that a 5 year old kid could produce. Have shapes created, though credit goes to the stop motion style, and put it through a mind-numbing loop. And repeat until your eyes start to close, then move on to the next scene. If anything, the Chonopolisians (if this term exists) really love their sticks and balls, constantly playing at conjuring up that magical sphere, and having a field day playing with it before releasing it to the "other" world. It gets no better as well, when the man interacts with the sphere in yet another hypnotically boring and sleep inducing sequence.

Thank goodness of course that the run time is shorter than what's advertised, which is 57 minutes (or less) against the 70 stated. While firmly dated, its dull colours, non-existent story, scratchy soundtrack and repetitive pictures will win over no fans. Don't waste time.


Well, you might not actually SEE any women in love in this movie, but you'll certainly hear women TALKING about love, and men talking about love, and women talking about men, and men talking about women, and men talking about men, and everyone talking about death, and talking, and talking, until you yourself will want to scream and do something that requires no talking at all, like paint your bedroom or water your plants.

Welcome to the world of D.H. Lawrence, where psycho-babble reigns supreme, and where no one can get down to living a productive life because everyone is too busy talking about how unproductive their lives are. Spending time with the characters in a D.H. Lawrence novel is like being locked in a closet with a group of your most self-absorbed acquaintances who you would run away from if you met them at a party. When I read "Women in Love," I so desperately wanted to strangle every single character in it, but since I couldn't, I was hoping they would at least strangle each other. Alas, only one of them dies, not by strangulation, and I won't spoil it for you by telling which one, in case you actually give a damn about this story or any of these people.

To give director Ken Russell his due, he makes this filmed version about as entertaining as it's possible to make this essentially unfilmable novel. He throws out much of the psychological mumbo-jumbo that Lawrence adored, and focuses instead on all of the naughty parts, so we get lots of histrionic lovemaking in beds and fields, two buck naked men wrestling by firelight, and one embarrassing scene featuring Alan Bates (yup, buck naked again) roaming around in a meadow making love to bushes and grass (I'm not kidding). Glenda Jackson won an Oscar for her performance as Gudrun, the more dominant of the two sisters at the story's focus, and she certainly tries her hardest to do something with this material; anyone would deserve an Oscar simply for having to bear Russell's decision to give her a scene where she has to dance wildly in front of a herd of mystified-looking cattle. Oliver Reed has one expression, an intense glower. The whole thing is over-written and over-directed, and it's deliriously campy. Indeed, this vies with "Mommie Dearest" as perhaps the most unintentionally hysterical movie I've ever seen.

Grade: D


The old axiom that bored people are boring people is well demonstrated in "Women in Love." The script, taken from D. H. Lawrence's novel, contains an endless flow of concepts that are, at best, sophomoric.

What a pity so much effort went into so vacuous an exercise; what an empty array of characters given such attention. In spite of high production values, this film comes across as tedious as its personnel.

A revisit in 2001 merely confirms a 1969 impression of juvenille minds in adult bodies, dawdling nowhere, and fumbling every step of the way.


Practically the only other actor who would be less likely to play Evel Knieval than Hamilton is Anthony Perkins, yet somehow Hamilton manages to turn in a reasonably effective portrayal (and as producer of the film, he wasn't likely to be fired or told he wasn't right for the part!) The early life of the daredevil motorcyclist is recounted here in multiple flashbacks. The film opens with a rather silly prologue with Hamilton in his white-leather, star-spangled gear spouting the world according to Knieval as if to say, "Don't worry. This film is about my youth, but I'll be back in my familiar costume by the end of the picture." Hamilton is preparing for a huge jump, yet is still licking his wounds from the previous one as devoted wife Lyon both supports and derides him. He recalls various vignettes of his childhood and delinquent teenage years along with his early days as a stunt rider and blossoming celebrity. This flip-flop approach is pretty abrupt and sometimes disjointed, but it does prevent the movie from sticking to one of its inexpensive sets for too long a time or from getting into a rut with the fairly pedestrian characters. Hamilton, usually a suave and debonair persona, does a very fine job of enacting the tiny details of his subject's mannerisms and demeanor including his walk. His hair is a shade lighter and longer and he works hard to give the right inflections in his speaking. (He even pays minor tribute to Knieval's many injuries by appearing in a skimpy towel while his shoulders are covered in "scars" from the multitudinous accidents.) Facially, he looks nothing like the real cyclist, but he does suggest him in his physical performance. Lyon is excellent at playing the young girl he loves and then the more worldly wife, though her 3-pack a day voice does threaten to give her away at any given moment. She and Hamilton strike up an easy chemistry which goes a long way in putting the film over. Other nice supporting turns are given by Freed as his jaded doctor, Cameron as an early influence and Taylor as a flea-bitten sideshow barker. The film was made on a low budget, but the story is a rather low rent one anyway, so that doesn't affect it too badly. The makers wisely used actual Butte, Montana locations to give the film a proper small town ambiance. Several of Hamilton's antics are amusing, though the character is certainly reckless and inconsiderate of other people's property! Some of the real Knieval's completed and failed stunts are included in some blurry footage, one of which features a mind-boggling "splatter" in which the man is rolled up and snapped around like a rag doll. Hamilton's then-wife (Stewart) appears briefly as a nurse.


I paid one dollar for this DVD and at first I was feeling ripped off, but then I started thinking about it and I should be grateful. I have found a holy grail, a real touchstone of bad cinema. If you think the opening dramatic shots of an empty stadium successfully fizzle with Evel's awkward camera address monologue, then wait until the opening credits roll on the chauffeur's butt. The script seems to be pasted together from press clippings, and ESL textbooks. But..... I just can't believe how bad George Hamilton is. He seems to have absolutely no connection to anything he says, the only internal monologue I can detect is "gosh I bet they think I am cute. really cute!". This is an epiphany! I now know how bad it can get.


The 1990's begun to have day time talk shows sprout up left and right. Every network had one, and they all lacked one thing Originality. Ricky Lake was just another show to entertain the obese trailer park mother with a Marlboro cigarette hanging out of her mouth while breast feeding one of her dozens of toothless, illiterate children. The English language and other cornerstones of mankind where ruined by this shows existence. Titltes ranging from Girl you a Pigeon Head and so on. How could anyone want to watch this pure and utter garbage? Has our society really became nothing more than a bunch of hill billy's and dead beat fathers? The people who appear on this show were Trash. The people who watched this show were Trash. Anyone that wishes to see this show re aired or put onto DVD is TRASH. People wonder why Americans are becoming huge piles of lard and too fat to even get jobs, its having shows like this tell them Its OK to be 500lbs overweight, and have 12 year old girls act like prostitutes. Having such trash on TV has ruined morals.


The person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy.


60 minutes in the beautiful Christina Galbo tries to escape the isolated boarding school she's brought to at the beginning of the movie. Is she running from some kind of fate too horrible to contemplate, a monster, black-gloved killer, or supernatural evil? No, she's running from a bunch of bullies. For the OTHER 40 minutes that follow, various figures walk around the school in the dark holding candelabras and looking alarmed or distraught, which doesn't say much in itself perhaps because great movies have been made about just that but if you're going to have characters walking around corridors and staircases you better be Alain Resnais or you better know how to light that staircase in bright apple reds and purples like Mario Bava. We know a killer stalks the perimeters of the school but his body count is pitiful and sparse and in the absence of the visceral horrors one expects to find in the giallo, we get no sense of sinister mysteries/unspeakable secrets festering behind a facade of order and piety and rightness which is the kind of movie La Residencia wants to be but doesn't quite know how to do it. We know something is off because girls are reported missing but we never get the foreboding mysterious atmosphere that says "something is seriously f-cking wrong here, man". When Serrador tries to comment on the sexual repression of the female students, he does so with quick-cutting hysterics and detail closeups of eyes and parted lips while high pitched "this-is-shocking" music blares in the background. None of the aetherial beauty and longing of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK to be found here. It's all a bit clumsy and aimless, with no real sense of urgency or direction. A number of people are presented as suspects but there's little reason to care for the identity of a killer that goes unnoticed by the characters inside the movie. I like the first kill, the image of a knife hitting target superimposed over the anguished face of the victim as a lullaby chimes in the background, but the rest is too inconsequential for my taste. I have to say Serrador did much better with the killing children and paranoia du soleil of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?


I can't believe that so many are comparing this movie to Argento's. His work is far more imaginative and vicious--and a lot more fun.

The director simply lacks the ability to build real tension. The murder scenes--and let's face it, that's what this genre is all about--aren't interesting. It was not hard to guess who the murderer was, and I really didn't care when it was revealed. The cinematography isn't memorable, and the much-praised 19th century Gothic atmosphere just didn't draw me in. Several of the actors are quite good (especially the headmistress and the sadistic girl who lords it over the younger students), but they're given very little to do.

Yes, there are undertones of incest, sadomasochism, and lesbianism, but amazingly, they add very little spice or suspense.

If you're looking for a good horror movie, look elsewhere.


If this could be rated a 0, it would be. From the atrocious wooden acting to the dull, plodding pace, the puerile exploitation angle and the sophomoric pseudolesbian titillation added purely for the sake of the sad viewers, this is a disaster of a film.

The plot is predictable, as from the beginning one is absolutely certain of what will happen to all of the characters and how the plot will commence. From a boring, unexceptional beginning to a pathetic and bleak ending, every single presence in this film is wasted, and every meagre scrap of talent dug up for this turkey is squandered.

If you want to watch something as relentlessly bleak with plenty of the same childish titillation, watch one of the Ilsa films. At least they're unapologetic and up-front about what they're trying to do. How something this horrendously bad ever managed to be rated above a 5 is a miracle of how people with no taste or discerning standards can sometimes come together for the most dubious of purposes.

It's not scary, it's not interesting, and above all it's not arousing in any sense of the word. It is, in my opinion, a crime; it is a crime that such a horribly offensive and incompetent piece of trash was ever conceived of and given the resources to come into existence, and even more a tragedy that it is still defended by some woefully misguided viewers.

Not even Elvira's cheerful personality and joking ways could soften the blow that this horrifying travesty of film is. Avoid it at all costs.


Reading my review of THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED, many may assume that I'm some 14 year old who thinks SCREAM is considered "classic" horror. This is not the case, as I'm 30 years old and have been watching horror films for most of my life. But admittedly, I'm a child of the 80's that grew up on slasher/zombie/ghost/cannibal, etc...types of horror films - so I do typically prefer horror films that are more graphic and faster-paced. Just like someone who can appreciate different music, painting, or in this case, film - but not necessarily like them - I can appreciate why some people may enjoy this sort of film...I just don't...

THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is an exceedingly dull and tedious film about a school for wayward girls. The heavy-handed mistress of the school rules with an iron hand (or whip in some cases...) to keep the girls in line. She has a young son who creeps around and peeps on the girls while they shower (in their nightgowns no less (?!?)...), and meanwhile, girls are disappearing from the school as they are the victim of a murderer who's lurking about the campus...

I can see why THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is often compared to SUSPIRIA (which is a masterpiece of a film in my opinion...), in terms of the atmosphere of the school itself and the interaction between the girls and their guardians - but this film is so dull and uneventful that I could barely stay awake. I'm all for "tension" and "suspense" in horror films - but this film held neither for me. Luckily, I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this one, so I can't say I was really disappointed - THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED just reinforced the fact that I personally don't typically enjoy most horror films much older than from the 70's. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but those that I HAVE enjoyed definitely seem to be more of the exception. Probably a "must-see" for horror fans who enjoy more understated and suggestive horror films - but as I don't really know too many fans of that sort of material, I can't really recommend this one...4/10


First be warned that I saw this movie on TV and with dubbed English - which may have entirely spoiled the atmosphere. However, I'll rate what I saw and hope that will steer people away from that version. I found this movie excruciatingly dull. All the movie's atmosphere is lost with dubbing leaving the slow frustration of a stalker movie. I'm sorry, but the worst movie sin in my book is to be slow except when the movie about philosophy. I didn't see any deep philosophical meaning in this movie. Maybe I missed something, but I have to tell it like I see it. I rated it a "1". What can I say, U.S. oriented tastes, maybe.


This DVD appears to be targetted at someone who will just put it on and play it in an endless loop in the background. It's organized as a series of music videos of the Grand Canyon set to various pieces of Tangerine Dream music.

Unfortunately, the TD music is dull, and the transfer to DVD looks rather blurry and dim. Too expensive a DVD for what it is.


A spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.

There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...

I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo.


This sci-fi adventure is not the best and by no means the worst. I agree with the statement that bad sci-fi is comical. Bizarre pink tinting and unusual special effects make this a favorite for the late, late, late show viewers. Space explorers on the planet Mars fight off strange giant amoeba-like monsters and other strange creatures. Pretty cool.

The cast includes Les Tremayne, Naura Hayden, Gerald Mohr and Jack Kruschen. Get comfy and enjoy. Don't feel bad if you nod off for a moment. I agree with adding this to the list of cult classics to not miss.


It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good "B" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you.


The film begins with people on Earth discovering that their rocket to Mars had not been lost but was just drifting out in Space near out planet. When it's retrieved, one of the crew members is ill, one is alive and the other two are missing. What happened to them is told through a flashback by the surviving member.

While on Mars, the crew was apparently attacked by a whole host of very silly bug-eyed monsters. Oddly, while the sets were pretty good, the monsters were among the silliest I have seen on film. Plus, in an odd attempt at realism, the production used a process called "Cinemagic". Unfortunately, this wonderful innovation just made the film look pretty cheap when they were on the surface of Mars AND the intensity of the redness practically made my eyes bleed--it was THAT bad!! Despite all the cheese, the film did have a somewhat interesting plot as well as a good message about space travel. For lovers of the genre, it's well worth seeing. For others, you may just find the whole thing rather silly--see for yourself and decide.

While by today's standards this isn't an especially good sci-fi film, compared with the films being made at the time, it stacks up pretty well.

PS--When you watch the film, pay careful attention to Dr. Tremayne. He looks like the spitting image of Dr. Quest from the "Jonny Quest" cartoon! Plus, he sounds and acts a lot like him, too.


First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.

If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!

Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times.

Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.


**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink-the "Cinemagic" process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties.


This movie is funny and painful at the same time. The "Cinemagic" almost gave me a seizure. Despite what they imply, "Cinemagic" is not some innovative technical procedure. It was "developed" as the result of an accident, and they used it because it disguised the fact that their "monsters" were so stupid-looking. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the writer is Sid "Pink".

This movie is good for a laugh, if you are really looking for a movie made in 9 days on 200,000 dollars. It is entertaining; at least I can say that about it. The bat/rat/spider is the highlight.


Very bad but watchable science fiction film that suffers from abominable special effects, poor acting, and a ridiculous story. The film opens with a spaceship returning from exploration on Mars with a woman and a man with green slime on his arm. She, through some hokey plot contrivances, begins to tell what happened on this fateful trip as almost all the tapes seemed to be magnetically wiped off. Four astronauts take on this journey: a military type played by Gerald Mohr, a poor man's Humphrey Bogart who enjoys saying the word "Irish" and has the acting savvy of a codfish, then there is Naura Hayden, a beautiful redhead and only female crew member on flight with three men wearing the most formfitting suits possible to accentuate all her curves, next, Les Tremaine, a wonderful character actor from cheap sci-fi films like this as the egghead, and last, Jack Kruschen as Sammy - the guy from Brooklyn with jokes and doesn't seem too bright although chosen for his expertise in electronics. None of these performers are really any good, and all of them say their dialog with little conviction. Watch Tremaine as he utters that scientific nonsense! Really, the best out of the four is Kruschen - and that really says a lot about this film. But bad acting aside, the movie just falls apart when they land on Mars via flashback. The Angry Red Planet had a real cheap budget because Mars is really the American Southwest with a heavy red tint over it. When the story calls for something that might look Martian, there are drawings placed with a heavy red tint over them. You can tell they are drawings The monsters are perhaps even worse as we get a Bat-rat-spider with a size upwards of 40 feet that looks like some kids got together piecing dead animals together. The other significant creature is a giant amoeba with an oscillating eye. Whew! These are bad. There is a nice drawing of a Martian city, but there just was not enough of this in the film. Despite all these big problems, The Angry Red Planet is a fun bad film. It is really fascinating to see how far we have come as a civilization. Most of the stuff they used in the movie is so outdated. One guy is using an electric razor with a cord and I thought they can get to Mars but they are still using cords. Director Ib Melchior gives an interesting look to much of the film even with the budgetary constraints, but the story by him and Sid Pink doesn't fly. And how bout that ending with the music and the psychedelic colors? Groovy man!


There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.

This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.

Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.

Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Direction: Non-existent.

Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.

Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.

In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close.


Not one of Keaton's best efforts, this was perhaps a veiled attempt to revenge himself on the family he married into - the Talmadges. A Polish/English language barrier and a series of coincidences leads Buster into a marriage with a large Irish woman, who (along with her father and brothers) treat him shabbily until they think he may be an heir to a fortune. Mistaken identities abound here - gags are set up and but for the main fail to pay off.

This Metro short does have at least two real laughs - Buster's cleverly turning around his lack of dinner by using the calendar on the wall and the basic ignorance of his adopted family to literally bring the meat to his plate. The other is a family photo, with the entire group slowly collapsing to the floor as the tripod of the camera loses its stability.

The yeast beer overflow could have been the catalyst for a massive series of gags built upon gags, but stops short (for all the buildup) of development.

Kino's print is crisp and clear and the score is one for player piano, drums and sound effects. Not one of Buster's best efforts, but worth a few laughs.


A good cast (with one major exception) pushes its way through Epstein's smart light satire. Mansfield was never better, or funnier, than she is here paired with Walston, who's a veteran who's determined to become a congressman to get out of the war. He and his buddies -- including suave con-artist Grant -- head to San Francisco on leave and start the city's swinginest party while conniving to escape the service altogether through industrial speaking tours. The only thing about this movie that's not delightful is Suzy Parker's one-note performance as Grant's love interest, which takes up too much of the film's time and slows down the pace in the second half. Walston and Mansfield have good chemistry; the gimmick is that she's set on making love to every serviceman (to do her duty for the war effort, of course) but he's a married man who, nonetheless, loves his wife. They steal the movie with little trouble from Grant (who's amusing here in the first part of the film, when not paired with his non-actor co-star.


This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.


There is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.

Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.

The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.

This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels.


Oh dear, oh dear...

For JM fans, this was the nail in the coffin as far as her A-list Hollywood career was concerned. After solid turns in Girl Can't Help It, Wayward Bus, The Burglar and Rock Hunter it seemed Jayne was well on the way to becoming one of Tinsel Town's hottest stars. However, an obsession with racy publicity and an appearance in this clunker relegated Mansfield to the sidelines, namely cheap Euro loan-outs until Fox could drop her contract at the earliest opportunity.

This movie really is a diabolical waste of everyone's time with the exception of Suzy Parker who is the only thing in this movie bad enough for the material. Many people blame poor Jayne and her grating performance for this film's poor returns at the box office and while she is a pain in this film, she can only do her best with the material. After all, Cary hardly sets the screen on fire does he? After a handful of very good dramatic and comedy turns Jayne takes 10 steps back in her pursuit as a serious actress by agreeing (simply for the sake of appearing with Grant) to portray this squealing, idiotic menace. Her character of Alice is a complete cartoon bimbo and although she looks good enough to eat in a boiler suit, her every appearance in the film jangles your nerves. We all know Jayne could do so much better than this dross and yet here she is parading around like a prize pudding. A real shame.

Steer clear of this so-called comedy. It's more depressing than funny.


While I recently gave OPERATION PETTICOAT a positive review, I really didn't like this film even though it had so many similarities. Both were made just a few years apart, both starred Cary Grant and both were WWII comedies. However, the overall tone and style of the films were quite different. KISS HER FOR ME, overall, just seemed like a cheaper film--with poor writing, little energy and some VERY broad performances--even when compared to OPERATION PETTICOAT. I think that at least much of the blame for this lies in casting Jayne Mansfield. The combination of her ample talents and limited acting ability really made this A-budget film look like it came from a 3rd rate studio. Plus, there wasn't much chemistry or energy in pairing her with Cary Grant--an actor generally loved for his grace and class. It's sort of like pairing Sir Lawrence Olivier with Marjorie Main.


I wanted to love this movie. How could I not love it? Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Stanley Donen; all icons in their own way. However, the train wreck that was Suzy Parker ruined the entire experience for me. Her acting was so appalling that I sat there with my jaw hanging open, not believing my eyes or ears. I could barely make it through one viewing, THAT'S how hideous she is in this.

Cary? Gorgeous and in fine dramatic form. Jayne? Adorable, endearing, and obviously having a ball. The supporting cast does alright, and the city of San Francisco is captured in all its stunning, retro elegance.

Then you see Suzy Parker attempting to speak her lines with a woodenness, a deadness, a cluelessness that simply defies belief. Who told this creature she could ACT?? Oy VEY, people.


I was quite pleased to find this movie in the local video library - Cary Grant in a comedy set in the services, director Stanley Donen, so far what's not to like? It's the sort of film that has me wondering two things - when did all involved (including some well-known names) realize they had a turkey on their hands, and what's the worst thing about it among a number of contending aspects? Still pondering the first, but my vote for the latter goes to the meandering storyline, ahead of the wordy sometimes pretentious script, the uncertain tone, the lack of consistent and well-developed characterization, and the lack of rapport between the characters. You have to add very uneven acting to the criticism but it's understandable that the actors were struggling with this stuff and in addition seem under-rehearsed. Quite often they can hardly get their lines out quick enough. Cary Grant tries to portray his usual charming and urbane persona but at times seems uneasy and staccato in his delivery. I have to say however that I was relieved when the initial suggestions his character will be paired with the unspeakably vulgar Jayne Mansfield go away with the appearance of Suzy Parker. What's to like about the film? - for me chiefly the beauty of Parker who also acts with restraint and a Grace Kelly-like dignity. Generally speaking the film is nice to look at. The naval characters are very smart in their uniforms - however you have to truly wonder at the ghastly black Fu Manchu tunics they don in their luxury hotel suite. Even Grant can't look elegant in his. Back to the credit side, Ray Walston does a commendable job with his character and for me there was an interest in hearing a pre-Hogan's Heroes Werner Klemperer speak without an assumed German accent!


As an avid fan of Cary Grant, I expected to watch this movie and howl with laughter, as AMC billed it as a comedy. I have never been more disappointed with a film! Cary's usual charm and effortless comedy are AWOL from this entire movie; he comes across as strained, bored, and just not himself. Mississip's character ranks among one of the worst stereotypes I have ever witnessed - his accent is terribly exaggerated (and incorrect, according to which part of Mississippi he claims to hail from), and whenever he does deliver a line, it's several decibels higher than any other cast member. Mississip tried to make himself stand out in the film as a lovable, country-bumpkin goofball, but in the end, he manages only to detract from the already weak plot. Mansfield looks more like an obscene blow-up doll than a Hollywood sex kitten, and while she was never known in Hollywood for her acting ability, this film screams that she never had that ability to begin with. Ray Walston's character was sugary and ultimately contrived. For four men on shore leave, it was the tamest leave I've ever seen. I watched this nightmare until its very end, and while I won't spoil that for anyone, I will tell you that it's the most absurd you'll ever see. The film tries to spark patriotism and a sense of debt to the fighting men, but the film misses that point totally because of its weak plot line and weak cast. Sorry, Cary!


One of the most common entries in the 'goofs' category is anachronism. Though I'm beginning to believe that anachronism and other goofs are more acceptable, even ignored, in very good films, but are found front and center in rotten films. KISS THEM FOR ME is a rotten film and reeks of anachronism, yet when watching it closely, I found almost nothing specifically anachronistic.

The shots of aircraft which bookend the film are certainly out of place. The big 4 engine transport seen after the title "Honolulu 1944" appears to be the post war C-97 Stratofreighter (in MATS colors). The combat planes seen taking off from the carrier at the end are Douglas Skyraiders which entered service after WW2 and were made famous by their service in Vietnam.

But excepting these two pieces of film and, of course, the hairstyles, everything else is very possibly period authentic. It just 'feels' so wrong. I'm an admirer of Stanley Donen, we share the same birthday. In his co directed ON THE TOWN (1949) there is a car chase at the end with the police driving 1949/50 Ford's yet there isn't the slightest feeling that this is out of place in a WW2 period film. In fact, as I reflected later, there isn't anything which says that this is supposed to be a WW2 period film. It just feels that way. Based on a wartime Broadway musical which was based on a ballet (Fancy Free) which may have been based on the work of artist Paul Cadmus (The Fleet's In! 1934) its a great film about sailors on a 24 hour pass in New York and, so heavy with wartime associations, its merely assumed it takes place during the war and yet these contemporary cars do nothing to break the spell.

The first problem is old Cary Grant. Though far too old to represent a Navy SBD dive bomber pilot, it is a Hollywood tradition for stars like Grant, Gary Cooper (Lou Gehrig), Jimmy Stewart (Charles Lindbergh) to play younger. It was the role which he is miscast in, not his age. He plays an operator, as they used to call them. A guy who gets things done and breaks all the rules while doing it yet remains admired and loved for it. A hustler. A wheeler dealer. A de rigueur character in a service comedy. Grant is the comic center of what is after all supposed to be a service comedy which is contra to his comedy style.

Thinking back on the great Grant comic performances like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) and he is the great reactor whose comedy is to be reduced by his context from dignity to a befuddled puddle of inert jelly. IN KISS THEM he is expected to be the comic spark plug which just isn't him. People had already been exposed to the type, most recently to comic Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on television. The role would be perfected later by James Garner but here Grant just isn't funny and appears to be a bully getting his way by aggressively pushing his Cary Grantness rather than cajoling and finessing.

But the thing which really stinks the place up with anachronism is the lead women. There can be no more echt 50s women than Suzy Parker and Jayne Mansfield. They are unique to the decade. Marilyn Monroe can be placed in a continuum with Carole Lombard and Marie Wilson and any number of dumb blonds, and Grace Kelly was another high class dame (think of Mary Astor), but there never could have been an anatomically exaggerated woman in films like Mansfield. Sure there were the 'sweater girls' (e.g. Lana Turner) of WW2, but Mansfield was stretching the point. Suzy Parker was THE model who revolutionized the model business, who changed the mannequin like poses to become the first natural girl who moved and whose personality was captured by the camera (see FUNNY FACE (1957) also by Stanley Donen).

Of course in high 50s style, there seems to be a lot of gender mixing at 'wild' parties but never even a hint of sex (think of the 50s TV shows Bachelor Father or The Bob Cummings Show where dinner jacketed men returned from 'dates' alone). The original book, which I haven't read, was published during the war and appeared as a play on Broadway at the end of the war and the nuances of the situation must have been inescapable for contemporary readers and audiences, but broken down, bowdlerized and reconstituted a dozen years later and fatally miscast, it remains a once forgotten stain on otherwise exemplary careers until the invention of the VCR and cable television resurrected this petrified turkey.

So the lesson here is whatever the 'goof' it will be ignored in a great film like CITIZEN KANE (who actually hears Charles Foster Kane say 'Rosebud'?), and tolerated in fun dreck like WESTWORLD ( why were the robots given live ammunition in the first place?) but absolutely despised in a rotten film, even if the goofs are really non existent.


So, back when Herbie made his first appearance, I was perfectly happy watching Dean Jones mug away. I only wanted to be entertained for a few hours and eat overly buttered popcorn. Now, unfortunately, I have expectations of a riveting/delightful story whenever I watch a movie, if I'm not on some sort of medication. And this is another good movie for the medicated. There are no major laughs, no complex plot lines, no difficult twists. Herbie Fully Loaded is great for the fully loaded.

This was the first time I had seen La Lohan on the screen since she swapped places with Jamie Lee Curtis (I thought she was excellent in that), and I can't say I was terribly impressed this time around. Aside from her constantly changing and distractingly unnatural hair color, she just didn't ring true as the kid next door who had spent a lifetime hanging around road racers. Her 'need for speed' wasn't portrayed consistently in the film - perhaps it was elsewhere - she looked older than her part, and seemed to always be looking for something (a party? designer togs? new place to spend money?) off set. I couldn't see any chemistry with Justin Long; that romance seemed obligatory at best. The only time Lindsay appeared engaged was when she was interacting with Matt Dillon, who I thought was appropriately over the top as Evil Bad Guy Trip Murphy.

It was great to see Herbie again, and I loved the movie intro with material from the old movies. If Disney had popped out with some Car 53 jewelry, I might have worn some just to be loyal. His new feature (?) was a little inconsistent (does he channel the thoughts of his driver? Does he now skateboard?) but whatever. We all knew how it was going to end, but I do wish he had ended up with someone a little less dopey than Maggie. And my head still hurts from that lesson Maggie and we viewers had hammered home.

What would have made the movie worthwhile? Have the old Herbie in a real story with a real plot - at the very least, Herbie's as good as Lassie - but clearly that's asking too much. Why is it that Disney always goes back to the same well as "Herbie Goes Bananas" and "the Computer That Wore Tennis Shoes" when it comes to innovation?

I'm sure this was a great movie for kids and those with no expectations. For the rest of us....it's for when you have the 'flu and just can't take the suspense of Rear Window.


There are few uplifting things to say about this, but I can mention Matt Dillon doing his best to make something out of nothing and the many split screens and graphics that are worthwhile. As most race movies suffer from the premise that car lovers are not that intelligent, we end up with movies like this.

Lindsay Lohan who surprised so much in Mean Girls has to make better decisions which roles to take. Here she can only fail.

Children will only be mildly entertained because it tries to appeal more to adults than children (although still pretty dumb). The ones in the theater I saw it with showed no real interest after a couple of minutes. And as a family sports movie this is horrible. The better moments are in the beginning at the scrapyard creating some sentiment and later in the car-bash fest creating some tension. If you develop a car as a central character you have to develop it better than here. After a few obligatory race scenes you are in for the best part: being able to leave the multiplex in your own car.


I went to see this movie with my 17 y.o. daughter. I insisted we go the matinée showing, not because I'm a tightwad, but just feeling I had. In the NASCAR spirit, this is a sponser's dream. SO much blatant advertising, it almost qualifies as an info-mercial, if it weren't for the so-called acting. Keeping with tradition, the Herbie franchise continues with its cheesy story lines, the car is only a 'vehicle' (no pun intended)for this cornball of a motion picture. Earlier Herbie installments (although cheesy as well) were produced during more serious times, making them a little easier to digest. Ms. Lohan, Disney's reigning drama queen, has little acting ability. I was surprised that Mr. Keaton and Mr. Dillon would get involved in such a project. Only the snack bar, was a bigger ripoff!


A failure. The movie was just not good. It has humor that 5 year olds that will not even giggle at. I mean, sure, some parts were amusing, but most of it is not. Lindsey Lohan is a great actress (and a bad singer,) and she should be working on better movies. The movie should have been aired as a Disney Channel original movie, that is FREE.

The only thing that was well done about this movie was the music. Nothing like a remade rock soundtrack to brighten up your day. These songs are so good. Especially Alyson and Amanda's Walking On Sunshine and Caleigh Peter's, Beach Boy song, Fun Fun Fun.

4 out of 10. If I gave it a ten, 9 of that would be the music and 1 will be the movie. Not worth your money, but the soundtrack is.


Herbie, the Volkswagen that thinks like a man, is back, now being driven by Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan), a young woman who hopes to become a NASCAR champion. The only thing standing in her way is the current champion, Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon), who will do anything to stop them.

The original love bug wasn't that good. Even as a kid, I remember not liking it very much. I had some hope for the sequel though. I mean the cast is pretty good and the trailer makes it seem like a pretty fun movie. Unfortunately, Herbie is no better now than he was before. The film is defiantly weak for people over the age of 12. It will probably entertain the kids but that's all.

I realize it's a kids film and all but they could have made the film a little more interesting. There were very few laughs and it got boring near the end. Most of the actors seemed dead in their roles too. Lindsay Lohan was alright as Maggie Peyton. She usually gives better performances like in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Matt Dillon gave the best performance out of everyone. He was very good as the bad guy even though he didn't have a lot to work with. Justin Long, Breckin Meyer and Michael Keaton are really just there and they don't do anything special.

Angela Robinson directs and she does an okay job. She tries to keep the film interesting but she's working with a weak script. Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant wrote the screenplay and would it be any surprise to you that they were also responsible for Taxi and The Pacifier? These two make light films yet they fail to really make the stories interesting or enjoyable. It's not completely their fault but hopefully next time they will try harder. In the end, Herbie is a safe, predictable family film that's worth watching if you're a kid. Everyone else is better off skipping it. Rating 4/10


I can sit through this movie once, but I doubt I could make it through a second time. Mildly entertaining mainly for the physical presence of Lindsay Lohan. The fun of Matt Dillon(think Something About Mary), and the re-emergence of a more serious acting Micheal Keaton. This is not the fun romp The Love Bug was but it is watchable. One of my main detractions from the movie was the fact that Herbie had evolved into R2D2 antics for the most part. I was bored with the headlight eyes effects about the second time of the 30 or so times they were used and the bending front fender caused the same reaction from me. Go see this with your little ones, i.e. the "single digit bracket" kids and don't expect a lot from this film.

_X


You probably heard this phrase when it come to this movie  "Herbie: Fully Loaded with crap" and yes it is true. This movie is really dreadful and totally lame.

This got to be the second worst movie Lindsey is ever in since Confession of the Teenage Drama Queen. The only good thing about this movie seem to be the over talent cast which by far is better than the movie million times and is the only selling point of the movie. I don't see how such a respected actor like Matt Dillon could be a part of this movie, isn't he read that horrible screenplay before he sign on to be in it?

What I didn't like about this movie is also base on how Herbie is surreal and fantasy like extraordinary ability and climb on wall and go faster than a racer car after all it just a Beatle. I know it is a kids movie but they have gone overboard with it and it just turn out more silly than entertaining. Little realism is needed plus the story is way too predictable.

Final Words: Unless the kids are actually 5 -12 years I highly doubt that any one could enjoy this senseless movie. What wastage of my money. I feel like cheated.

Rating: 3/10 (Grade: F)


*Spoilers* Some people claim that Natural Born Killers is brilliant criticism of the media obsession with violence. But this contention ignores the actual content of the film. Oliver Stone could have shown his serial killers as vicious, inhuman murderers of innocent people and contrasted this with a morbid media fascination. Instead he lends them justification. The movie portrays just about every victim as someone who deserved to be hurt. Engaging in vicious stereotyping, Stone presents the victims as unpleasant caricatures - dumb rednecks, broken-English speaking immigrants, lazy fat people. The one person that the homicidal lovebirds is also a stereotype. Of course they befriend the old, hallucinogen-using American-Indian - because they're trendy, dude? Let's make him an admirable character. Fat, Chinese clerks and "hicks" are uncool, so let's make it seem like the deserve to die. Instead of twisted,hateful that are corrupted by their misdeeds, their rampage makes them happier and more in love. Mickey and Mallory are made sexy and cool and surreal visuals are bound to entice more impressionable people. Justice is mocked. The police and prison officials are portrayed as brutal, ugly and scowling compared to the GQ murderers. Again, this is not in the media reports within the film but in the "reality" in the film. There is no nuance or subtlety in the film - just overblown performances and visuals. The film says nothing new or specific about the obsession with violence. The proof that the film fails in its message lies in actual real world reactions to it. Some impressionable young people who saw this movie cited it as inspiration for murders that they committed. The film's "message" is a failure because it inspires people in the opposite direction with horrendous real-life results. The clever message is nowhere to be seen.


NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)

Cinema Cut: R

Director's Cut: NC-17

It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.

'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers

Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.

The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.

The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.

Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.

The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).

The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.

'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...

Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.

4/10


God, what an awful thing ! Oliver Stone probably wanted to experiment or something (see the terrible use of music and pictures here) but what for really ? The whole thing behind "Natural born killers" seems to be a "clever" look at how medias can turn into complete trash but unfortunately the movie turns into trash itself. Please Mr. Stone, next time you want to criticize the fascism of tv shows using violence to get high rates, avoid doing the same with your movie ! Michael Haneke said quite cleverly about this film that it was denouncing media fascism with fascist cinematographic ways. How true... Only he forgot to tell us about the massive headache you get after sitting through this overlong load of crap !


This is the kind of film that everyone involved with should be embarrassed over. Poor directing, over the top acting and a plot that rambles on with no point other than to show violence. I thought when I first saw it that it would be perhaps a satire of the media and how it shows violence but it's not. I'm not sure what makes the film worse. Oliver stone does his worst directing ever. From scenes where Woody Harrelson's face morphs for no reason or Robert Downey Jr's dreadful performance as Wayne Gale who is a reporter who seems totally bonkers, this movie is simply a mess.