It was a painful experience, the whole story is actually there so I won't go into that but the acting was horrible there is this part in the very beginning when the scientist brother goes to work he actually wears a white coat at home before leaving to work, I thought working with biohazard material meant that you should wear sterilized clothes in a controlled environment and the lab itself looks like a school lab there is this monitor on top a file cabinet that has nothing to do with the whole scene its just there to make the place look technical and a scientist is actually having breakfast in the lab and next to him is a biohazard labeled jar and his boss walks in on him and doesn't even tell him anything about it...not to mentioned bad acting very bad can't get any worst than that my advice don't watch and I thought nothing could be worse than house of the dead apparently Uwi Boll's movies look like classical Shakespeare compared to this!


This movie is about a young scientist who creates a serum that re-animates the dead. He first uses it on his brother when he is shot dead in a drive by. His brother then infects the other gang members.In some scenes the zombies are seen walking very slowly and in other scenes they run pretty fast which makes little sense. The acting is mediocre but the story doesn't help the film. The makeup consists of blood on the face of the zombies. The budget for this film I'm sure was very limited. I believe the film could have been better made had the story been more original and with a better budget. If you wan't to see a good zombie flick don't see this one.


I watched this today, partially attracted to the all-star cast and partly because I have enjoyed so many other films of this ilk. However, this is one to avoid. There are dozens of badly cut scenes where the continuity just does not flow, the billiards challenge at the start, for example. The fighting scenes with the natives are about as good as you would remember in those old black and white Tarzan movies, you know where you see a spear fly through the air and camera cuts to a dead native lying motionless on the floor with it sticking from his thigh. Is that instantaneous death? There are also several quite unnecessary scenes which have nothing to do with the plot, like the little girl being rescued while collecting flowers. The really badly animated clay toys are too painful to watch. If you do see this movie the crabs which inch forward at about 5kph are the highlight. Somehow one manages to creep up on David Mccullum and give him a nip. Its as if there was no time to get out of the way, like when the obelisk in the city falls over, the native has all the time in the world to take a 2 step to the left, but no he screams and it falls on him. I only give this a 2 because of Ekland. And why does Mccullums voice develop a stutter as the movie progresses?


From the mind of Harry Alan Towers comes another piece of cinematic sludge. Supposedly based on the work of H. Rider Haggard, the only similarity it bears to anything Haggard actually wrote is that it takes place in Africa (albeit an Africa that has dinosaurs - which our intrepid adventurers use to pull their canoes!), and has some characters with the same names.

Our heroes (David McCallum, Patrick McNee and John Colico) set out to seek treasure, armed only with a medallion, and end up precisely where the treasure is, purely by chance. On the way, they meet a motley assortment of extremely lame monsters, pick up a French chef, and McCallum has an affair with the Queen of Phoenicia.

It's so ridiculous, it's a hoot. That's the only reason I didn't give it a 1.


This movie deserved a working over on Mystery Science Theater. Even though it has nothing whatever to do with King Solomon it's worth a watch because it is an unintentional laugh-riot. Really! It's worse than "Destroy All Monsters." Be sure to check out the following: the cheesy medallion (looks like the Shriners have been here), the obviously polyester Norfolk jacket on "Allan Quatermain," David MaCallum's badly done stutter (which does draw attention away from his even worse acting), the incredibly bad process work on all the "monsters," the monsters themselves - the hand puppet which menaces the little girl, the giant snake that menaces Macallum while he sinks in oatmeal, the red-lighted eyes on the motorized crabs, the amazingly hilarious boat (oh, brother!!) which appears to be made of plywood mounted on an old sand dredge and looks like a leftover from a Jr.Sr. prom ("Voyage into the Future with the class of '71"), the Phoenician city - where they wear Roman Imperial armor but which inexplicably has Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions -(the Phoenicians invented the alphabet-come on!),and worst of all, Macallum and Ekland (with her fright wig) playing smoochy-face -oh the horror! The best parts are that the intrepid explorers manage to lose the comic Frenchman ,and the African guy -Snuffleupagus or whatever - evidently chose to die heroically rather than be in any more scenes.


Man, was I disappointed.

1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends'

2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.

3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.

4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.

5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying "Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!" This was a bad attempt at making another "Love At First Bite".

I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed.


Whack!!! I got this movie because Elizabeth Hartman was in it. I was disappointed to find out she was in like two short scenes towards the end. Other than that I was basically hitting the fast forward button the entire time. Some teenager goes on a trip to Romania with his Dad and gets bitten by a wolf and turns into a werewolf if there's a full moon. He kills his father and friends. About 30 years past but he doesn't age a bit and enrolls in a high school. There he meets a shy teacher whom he ends up biting and then has kids with her. This movie sucked and I don't recommend it to anyone. Read War and Peace instead. Only Ms. Hartman did a great job. Check out a very young Bob Saget in this one!!


A surprising misfire from the usually reliable Larry Cohen (God Told Me Too, Q, etc.), Full Moon High tries so hard to be funny and fails miserably, even with decent turns by Ed McMahon(!) and Kenneth Mars. Alan Arkin looks embarrassed throughout his performance and son Adam simply looks numb. This makes Teen Wolf look like a comedy classic.


I've seen better teenage werewolf movies in my time, this one however, takes the cake. More comedy than horror, "Full Moon High" puts the "c" in cheese-fest. The star quality in this movie is not bad. Just the way it was made just sends in rolling downhill. Adam Arkin plays Tony, an all-American high school football player of the 50's who ends up not aging due to a werewolf bite in Transylvania. The most annoying part of the movie was the violin player. He drove everyone batty! Ed McMahon plays his ultra-conservative father who met his end of his own bullet. Adam's father Alan plays a shrink who seems to be not top of his game. After all these years Tony seems to be very out of place due to the attack, and then he'll get the chance to catch in his state. More laugh than blood shed, this movie is just a start in the 80's, "Teen Wolf" was an improvement from this! 1 out of 5 stars.


No, this wasn't one of the ten worst films of the 1980's, but it certainly skirts the bottom 100 somewhere. This movie looks like it was put on the shelf for two or three years and then released in 1981. How else would you explain special effects pre-dating "An American Werewolf in London," disco still being considered cool, and Ronald Reagan not being the 40th President of the United States? While we're at it, let's not overlook those 1970's hairstyles in the 1950's and '60's. I've seen more of that here than in "Happy Days" & "Laverne & Shirley" combined.

The one woman who elevates this movie to the "so bad, it's good" category was the late, great Elizabeth Hartman, but just barely. Biff plays as Miss Montgomery, the mousey high school teacher who becomes a sexpot, a stereotype that's been done to death and is still being churned out by Hollywood today, but even as a "hot chick" she retains her mousey qualities. Her call for help is evidence of this. She also looks much better as Miss Wimp. "Seven bucks at the beauty parlor, shot to hell." She wasn't kidding.

This isn't to say that there aren't any good parts elsewhere, they're just few and far between, and I'm not just saying that because I like Hartman. Incidentally, "Teen Wolf" was better than this. "Teen Wolf Too" was better than this, and that wasn't even so good.


What is this?! Is it a comedy, a horror movie or just nothing?? This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Especially the scene in romania when he becomes the werewolf, that must be the worst scene that has ever been made. This movie isn't funny, it isn't scary and not entertaining at all. Please do yourself (and me, i don't think anyone should suffer through this movie) a favour and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!! If you get is a present, just throw it away and chop it in to pieces.


Being a fan of movies like "Fire Sale", "Where's Poppa", "Airplane" I saw this because it was mentioned favorably in the context of real comedies and satires like the aforementioned. Well, WRONG CONCLUSION!

Not only is this not funny, it makes you angry because it isn't bad in a schlocky, likable way but in a really bad way. It's bad-bad. The script does not contain a single funny line which is rather in the way when you're trying to entertain your audience with humour.

Adam Arkin's speech impediment is probably the single most annoying thing in this movie. Still this cruelty of nature doesn't prevent him from being smug throughout the movie and he has a hard time not looking into the camera. This amateur without charisma fits in nicely with the constant continuity errors and bumbling along of the story - if you can find one.

Ed McMahon - I had to think of Jay Leno, another late night talk show person, who always refuses to call himself an actor. Well, I've seen a few Leno movies and he's Laurence Olivier compared to McMahon.

Kenneth Mars is good, though. In the few lines that he's given. I'm not easily frightened by bad comedies so I kept watching and looking for all the quasi-jokes every 5 minutes or so.

The movie actually becomes sort of a comedy as soon as Alan Arkin takes over - he literally does: Starting 75 minutes into the movie he's in every scene. But it's too little, too late.

When movies try to fool you into believing their lack of professionalism is the reason you're supposed to like them because they have the right intentions they remind me of pupils that haven't prepared for an exam. In those cases you have to remain strict and the grade has to be an 'F'. (But please don't assume I'm a teacher. That is a profession with a respectability somewhere between politician and child molester).

If you actually look for a likable schlocky horror/scifi movie that is fun to watch and does contain jokes try "Man with the Screaming Brain" by Bruce Campbell. Or watch Sunshine/Core if you prefer modern loud shallow SciFi Schlock. Those are equally funny, albeit involuntarily.


Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever . <br /><br />You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie <br /><br />People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen

Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie


Just saw this movie on TV and I have to admit, I was a bit surprised it was even on. There were so many goofs, mess-ups, and bad editing that an old episode of Sesame Street would have been better to watch. The acting was OK, but please, you can really feel the "Straight to Video" feeling. The cast/crew made this movie a bad melodrama. Yes, there is a message in the movie, but just wait until ten minutes before the ending to hear it. Trust me, you wouldn't even tell the difference.


Could this be by the same director as Don't Look Now or Bad Timing? Poorly

acted, clunkily edited. You only have to compare the various accident scenes in this with similar ones in Don't Look Now to see how much Roeg has lost his

touch.

Even the generally reliable Teresa Russell (looking a bit chunky these days, I'm afraid to report) cannot save this one. The plot is pure pseudo-religious hokum, the acting is wooden and Roeg's attempts at his trademark dislocation of time are pitiful.

Avoid this one like the plague.


This movie was strange... I watched it while ingesting a quarter of psilcybe cubensis (mushrooms). It was really weird. Im pretty sure you are supposed to watch it high, but mushrooms weren't enough. I couldn't stop laughing.. maybe lsd would work. The movie is a bunch of things morphing into other things, and dancing. Its really cheesy for todays standards but when it was released im sure it was well... one of a kind. I could see how some people would think this movie was good, but I didn't think it was very interesting, and I was on mushrooms at the time. If your having a party or something and everybodys pretty lit, pop it on you'll get a few laughs.


I read Tom Robbins' EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES as a teenager. I loved every word. It was sexy, funny, and full of glamorous scenery and beautiful writing. But when I saw the movie, I could not believe what a dull, sour, joyless piece of junk it was. How did this happen? I think someone in Hollywood read this book and filed it under "GAY PRIDE -- WOMEN -- LESBIANS." (That's the Library of Congress subject heading.) Now anyone over 12 who reads the book will know it has NOTHING TO DO with real lesbians, any more than STAR WARS is about real space travel. The book was obviously -- and I do mean OBVIOUSLY --written by a heterosexual male who loves the IDEA of lesbians (in the nude, all the time)but has never really met one.

Still, someone in Hollywood said, "uh oh, better give this to a Gay director or Gay People will make trouble." So they handed it to Gus Van Sant. Nothing against the man, but -- however Gay he may really be -- he has not a clue as to how to make a funny film. Gus Van Sant took a straight man's playful fantasy of guilt-free girl/girl action and male voyeurism turned it into a dull, literal-minded Lesbian Power Recruiting Poster. It's like turning an Oscar Wilde comedy into an Arthur Miller tragedy. Not pretty.

The main clue that Gus Van Sant had absolutely no idea what to do with the source material is the riotously bad casting. His clout allowed him to hire the very best. His ignorance of the novel's real subtext (a straight man's fantasy, not a gay pride recruiting poster)caused him to make choices that were not only bad, but bizarre.

Let's meet the cast of EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES.

PAT MORITA as "THE CHINK" Okay, there are few name-recognition Asian actors. And Pat Morita, in HAPPY DAYS, was fairly funny. But casting him as THE CHINK was wrong, wrong, wrong. Pat Morita has no idea that the Chink is a very funny man. (Gus didn't tell him.) Pat also doesn't seem to know that the Chink is . . . well, SEXY!!! In the book he's not wise old Mr. Miyagi. He's more like Hugh Hefner! He's a randy old goat and he knows A LOT about pleasing the nubile and responsive Sissy AND Bonanza Jellybean. (You see, in the book, they aren't REALLY lesbians. Do you get that this is a straight man's fantasy yet?)

JOHN HURT as "THE COUNTESS." Okay, he's a gay friendly man. But he is a SERIOUS, SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR!!!! You need someone who is fun, and camp, for this role. For John Hurt to be cast as a goofy guy like the Countess is tragic and sad. I kept expecting Paul Scofield to wander in all dressed up as Thomas More, and sadly shake his head. "Now, Richard, you know you've lost your soul entirely. For shame, my former student!" And yes, John Hurt was funny (and pretty gay) as Caligula. But that was BLACK humor, not playful and breezy humor like the book.

RAIN PHOENIX as "Bonanza Jellybean." No talent, no training, no problem. Except that in the book Bonanza is funny, playful, cheerful, (mostly) heterosexual, and loving. In the movie she's sullen, passive, expressionless, and dull. As for her taste for women, Robbins in the book puts it like this. "God knows I love women, but nothing can take the place of a man that fits." Uh, Gus? Did you read this book?

UMA THURMAN as "Sissy Hankshaw." This is a tough role. In the book Sissy really is an unusually passive and timid heroine. Still, a more accomplished actress might have manufactured a twinkle in her eye, or a sway in her walk, to imply some sort of hidden strength or hidden enjoyment of her adventures. Uma doesn't pull it off, probably because Gus never told her Sissy is supposed to ENJOY being a hitch hiker with a beautiful body and giant thumbs. Uma plays it more like she's in a TV movie about a girl dying of leukemia.

This movie is sour and dull. And I accuse YOU, Gus Van Sant!


We actually watched this twice in the theater because we could not believe how bad it was the first time. Maybe we'd missed something... nope, what's missing was missed from the beginning of preproduction. I actually went back to Robbin's novel to see if I could find the problem, and I discovered that what I thought was funny and exciting back in the day is now just so much disconnected and fuzzy-headed junk.

So, the initial problem with the film was deciding to do it at all, and the rest of the train wreck progressed from there. Absolutely nothing works - not a blessed thing. Some beautiful exterior photography gets steamrolled by random camera placement in interior shots. All of the actors look at least uncomfortable - Angie Dickenson looks positively mortified - except for Rain Phoenix, who gives the impression that she is too unaware to realize how awful her performance really is. The dialog is one, long, unwavering cringe. Scenes don't make sense from second to second, and the connections between them are nonexistent. And yet, the movie stumbles blindly on, convinced that it is saying something profound.

This is too bad to even be funny; it is simply excruciating. Gus Van Zant has done other good-to-great movies which I encourage you to see, and I'm happy he survived (and appears to have learned from) this mess.


I love movies. I love independent efforts and major studio productions. I love films with stars and I love those featuring unknowns. I love dramas, comedies, action-adventures, science fiction, mysteries, westerns, any genre except horror. I love foreign films as well as those in English. I love good movies and I even love bad ones, because almost no film ever fails to entertain or amuse on some level. Except for "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues."

When I attended a late-night showing of "Cowgirls," I joined an audience of around 10. Less than halfway into it, I alone remained. Soon not even I could tolerate the disturbing mess unfolding before my eyes, and I left as well. To this day "Cowgirls" remains the only movie I have ever walked out of.

I don't quite know how to describe this incoherent, vacuous, trashy, meaningless film, or how to adequately convey its lack of redeeming value. Suffice to say that it ranks as one of the worst major films of all time, preposterous and inexcusable on every level. It tries to be clever, but its conception of feminism seems hopelessly anachronistic. It tries to be funny, but its humor is coarse and cringe-worthy. This is one of the few films which manages to profane its own ethos, by depicting protagonists in so off-putting a manner that you revolt against them and their values. If you want to watch a movie, watch "Waterworld," "Ishtar," anything but this. Except for the new "Alexander." If you're choosing between that and this, read a book instead.


I absolutely love all of Tom Robbins books, so I was very excited and interested to see a movie made after one of his books. I knew that there would be no way that the movie would capture even half of Robbins' magic, but after seeing the movie, it made me never want to read the book again. The movie Even Cowgirls Get the Blues doesn't include an eighth of the content in the book, and it seems to focus more on the love connection between Bonanza Jellybean and Sissy than anything else. Along with the incredibly weak plot line in the movie, I think that better actors definitely could have been chosen to play the characters. The only actors in the movie that I thought played their roles fit to Robbins' descriptions in the book were Julian's friends, in their five minute clip in the beginning of the movie. Those who haven't read the book might enjoy the movie, but as a huge Tom Robbins fan, this movie was nothing but a disappointment.


Uma Thurman plays Sissy, a young woman with a gypsy spirit (and freakishly large thumbs) who hitchhikes cross-country, eventually finding her true place amongst a group of peyote-enlightened cowgirls on a ranch devoted to preserving the Whooping Crane; Rain(bow) Phoenix is their lesbian leader, Bonanza Jellybean, who falls in love with Sissy, thumbs or not. Gus Van Sant directed and adapted Tom Robbins' book, but his satire has no primary target and just skitters all over the map, like Sissy (maybe that was his goal, but it's not involving for an audience). Notorious box-office flop wasn't so much panned as it was ignored, and one can see why: it's a series of sketches in search of a plot, and the performances, directorial touches and cinematography are all variable. Thurman is a stitch posing alongside the highway trying to get a ride, but this pretty much put the kibosh on Phoenix's career. Writer Buck Henry (who didn't write this, but perhaps should have) gives the most assured performance as the doctor who works on one of those thumbs.

Two thumbs down.


No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.

Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries.


I couldn't believe how lame & pointless this was. Basically there is nothing to laugh at in the movie, hardly any scenes to get you interested in the rest of the movie. This movie pulled in some huge stars but they were all wasted in my opinion. I think Keanu Reeves must've taken some acting lessons a fews years after this movie before he stared in The Matrix. Uma Thurman looked very simple & humble. Luckily i got this movie for a very low price because its certainly not a movie to remember for any good reasons. I won't write anything about the story of the movie, but as you should know that she is meant to be the most famous hitchhiker across America because of her huge thumb. I would give this movie a 2 / 10. Before I watched this movie I was wondering why this movie has only got a 4.0/10, & now I know why. A very disappointing movie. Don't buy it even if you see it for under $5.


I missed this movie in the cinema but had some idea in the back of my head that it was worth a look, so when I saw it on the shelves in DVD I thought "time to watch it". Big mistake!

A long list of stars cannot save this turkey, surely one of the worst movies ever. An incomprehensible plot is poorly delivered and poorly presented. Perhaps it would have made more sense if I'd read Robbins' novel but unless the film is completely different to the novel, and with Robbins assisting in the screenplay I doubt it, the novel would have to be an excruciating read as well.

I hope the actors were well paid as they looked embarrassed to be in this waste of celluloid and more lately DVD blanks, take for example Pat Morita. Even Thurman has the grace to look uncomfortable at times.

Save yourself around 98 minutes of your life for something more worthwhile, like trimming your toenails or sorting out your sock drawer. Even when you see it in the "under $5" throw-away bin at your local store, resist the urge!


I watched this film because I'm a big fan of River Phoenix and Joaquin Phoenix. I thought I would give their sister a try, Rain Phoenix. I regret checking it out. She was embarrasing and the film just has this weird plot if thats what you want to call it. Sissy was just weird and Jellybean just sits on a toilet who both sleep with this old man in the mountains, whats going on? I have never been so unsatisfied in my life. It was just total rubbish. I can't believe that the actors agreed to do such a waste of film, money, time and space. Have Sissy being 'beautiful' didnt get to me. I thought she was everything but that. Those thumbs were just stupid, and why do we care if she can hitchhike? WHATS THE POINT??? 0 out of 10, shame the poll doesnt have a 0, doesnt even deserve a 1. Hopefully, Rain is better in other films, I forgive her for this one performance, I mean I wouldnt do much better with that film.


Certainly one of the dozen or so worst movies ever released in any form, featuring a bizarrely abominable performance by Rain Joan of Arc Phoenix (River's sister, inevitably), as Bonanza Jellybean plus inconceivably awful voiceover narration by Tom Robbins, the author of the novel, which had/retains its peculiar sweet/loopy charms.


This is a candidate for the single most disappointing movie experience of my lifetime. Cool title, excellent director (I saw "To Die For" and "Drugstore Cowboy" before this), and hey - Uma Thurman in the cast. How can you go wrong? Well, that is a question that throbbed in my temples for hours after I watched this turkey.

Disjointed and unfunny in an attempt to be offbeat, this is a dead-zone of a movie that should be avoided at all costs. Its critical lambasting was well deserved. You have here one of those rare films that does not contain a single redeeming quality. Zero out of ****.


There are movies like "Plan 9" that are so bad they have a charm about them, there are some like "Waterworld" that have the same inexplicable draw as a car accident, and there are some like "Desperate living" that you hate to admit you love. Cowgirls have none of these redemptions. The cast assembled has enough talent to make almost any plot watchable, and from what I've been told, the book is enjoyable.

How then could this movie be so intolerably bad? To begin with, it seems the director brought together a cast of names with no other tie than what will bring in the 20 somethings. Then tell them to do their best Kevin Costner imitations. Open the book at random and start shooting whatever is on the page making sure to keep the wide expanses of America from being interesting in any way. Finally give the editing job to your brother-in-law, because the meat packing plant just laid him off. He does have twenty years of cutting experience.

This movie now defines the basement for me. It is so bad, it isn't even good for being bad.


I´m not surprised that even cowgirls get the blues if this movie is anything to go by. I expected something better from Uma Thurman, which was the reason I suffered my way through this experience in the first place. An awful film with only the music as a redeeming quality. It´s just a shame that we are incapable of giving 0 out of 10 in these reviews. This movie deserves it.


When it comes to movies, I am generally easily entertained and not very critical, but must say that this movie was one big flop from the start. I gave it 30 minutes and then rewound it. What a waste of some great talent! I was very disappointed with this movie, as it was not what I expected.


i'll admit. i think Uma Thurman is the most beautiful woman on the planet and have made it a mission to see every movie she has been in (unfortunately that includes the horrible films Batman and robin, The Avengers) and this one.

this has to rank as the worst movie i've ever seen. (yes it ranks even lower than The Avengers). everyone looks lost in it and it is incoherent beyond belief.

even if you think Uma is a goddess like i do, PLEASE PLEASE don't subject yourself to this movie. you'll hate yourself the following morning for it.


Why would any legitimate actor having read the script participated in this piece of crap? My god it is actually embarrassing to even watch it. I can't imagine the shame these people must feel for being a part of it. Also, there is apparently some controversy as to whether River Phoenix had a cameo in the movie. He was uncredited but his list of roles here (IMDB) does give him credit. BTW... Rain is his sister for those who have were asking before. This film is proof that no matter how many big "names" you have. Sow's ears don't make silk purses. I love Lorraine Bracco but this was just sad, sad, sad... Maybe somebody someday can explain to me the reason for this kind of film. It has no endearing, entertaining, or even comedic properties in comparison to it's bad everything else.


This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!


George Brent is a reporter sent to interview an heiress. She is supposedly the heir to a face cream fortune. He interviews her on her yacht. They fall for each other in bathing costumes.

It turns out (quite early) that she is not an heiress. She part of an advertising campaign for the cold cream.

The movie follows the ups and downs of their romance.

The supporting cast does little to buoy it up. Davis and Brent carry the picture. Though it's fairly predictable, it is also fairly entertaining. It's far from her best. But, especially considering its obscurity in her oeuvre, it's not one of her worst, either.


Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, the sixth installment of the Nightmare on Elm Street series and once again another bad sequel. I think this is tied up with the last sequel of the Dream Child. I was lucky enough to get the Nightmare on Elm Street series box DVD set for my birthday, so I got to see all the sequels. May I say that I'm just getting more and more disappointed though with these sequels, at least the past two, it just seems like Freddy lost his edge. It's almost like the writers were trying to give Freddy a soul and they're just destroying it instead of reinventing the story. This was a sequel that wasn't needed, sorry to Robert Englund, but this was very much below what Freddy Krueger represents.

Freddy is back, but he's got something we don't know about, a daughter. Maggie, she's not aware that he is her father, but soon she finds out what his dark secrets are and he wants her help. She has to do her best to resist his powers, but it's hard with all the good memories she has of her loving father. Ironic, isn't it? But Freddy isn't giving up without manipulating her into his ways.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is also presented in 3-D, radical, huh? Note the sarcasm. This is one of the worst sequels, it's tied up with the fifth sequel of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, I'd rather watch the second Nightmare on Elm Street to be honest. This just had bad acting, stupid editing, and just over all a bad idea for a story. I didn't like the concept of it and it just ruined the whole idea of who Freddy Krueger really is, the death master of nightmares, not Father Knows Best.

2/10


Actually, they don't, but they certainly did when trying to think of a singular line that adequately summarises how terrible this entry in the series really is. There were some moments that could have been good, but they are mostly outweighed by their own conversion into missed opportunities, and don't get me started on the bad.

The wasted opportunities are pretty obvious, but I will recap them here in case anyone cares. Anyone who hasn't seen the film and genuinely gives a toss would be advised to stop reading at this point. The first, and potentially the biggest, wasted opportunity, was the plot with Freddy's long-lost child. Now, the extreme mental illness that Freddy appears to suffer (and I might hasten to add that less than one percent of mental patients are a threat to other people, leave alone to this extent) is HEREDITARY, so why not a mystery-type slasher in which Lisa Zane's character dreams of Freddy murdering the teens, only we later discover it's actually her doing all the killing? Sound like a good plot idea to you? Obviously it was above the heads of Talalay and De Luca.

Then there's the trip to Springfield, where the entire adolescent population has been wiped out, and the remaining adults are experiencing a kind of mass psychosis. Funnily enough, said mass psychosis was actually depicted in a realistic and convincing manner, although this has a fair amount to do with the fact that we are never shown too much. We are just given quick visual hints of the massive loss of connection with reality that would stem from the grief of every youngster in town dying for reasons beyond one's comprehension and control. The essential problem with this plot element, however, is that the town is abandoned too quickly, and with no real answers. This collection of scenes would have been far creepier with ten minutes of say... one sane citizen explaining to these visitors why the Springfield fair looks like a horror show.

Of course, horror films are never noted for their character development, unless they're the kind of horror films John Carpenter used to direct, but how are we supposed to really care when characters we know next to nothing about die? At least Wes Craven took the time to set up his characters in the original, and used a few cheap tricks to draw the audience in. That, in a nutshell, is probably the biggest problem with Freddy's Dead: it just doesn't try at all, leave alone hard enough.

On a related note, I feel kind of sorry for Robert Englund, now that he is more or less inextricably linked with the Freddy character. He has played far better characters in far better productions (the science-fiction miniseries "V", for example), and to be forever remembered as "the man who played Freddy" is selling him rather short. It seems he will never break the mold of horror films now. As for the rest of the cast, well, I think their performances here speak for themselves. They deserved to be permanently typecast as little more than B-grade horror props. Even Yaphet Kotto doesn't escape this one unscathed, as his character is one of the most childishly written in the history of B-films.

All in all, Freddy's Dead gets a 1 out of me. I'd vote lower, but the IMDb doesn't allow for that. FD is really a testament to how a writer's inability to exploit a concept to the fullest extent can ruin not only a film, but an entire franchise.


WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS

A couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it  I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels  Dream Warriors in particular  weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.

An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.

Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out "we know this is garbage  but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few "haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr  har  har  hars" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.

Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written "you're f**ked". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds "well the map says we're f**ked". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?

Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin  a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. "Nice hearing from you, Carlos", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.

The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with "shut the f**k up, man" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun.


Unimaginably stupid, redundant and humiliating closure to the "Nightmare on Elm Street"-series! Part 6 is so incompetent that it looks like director Rachel Talalay intentionally wanted to turn Wes Craven's initial premise into one big bad and tasteless joke. This isn't just the worst entry in the "Elm Street" saga; it's also one of the most embarrassing horror movies ever made and it downright offends fans of the genre! The story is dumb, the character drawings are ridiculous, the structure is all murky and  most of all  the special and visual effects resemble those of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. The sequences in which Freddy Krueger murders his victims are endless and very uninteresting. Were we supposed to be petrified when a jabbering Freddy turned Breckin Meyer into a video game-character and pogo-sticked him around the walls of a house? The story takes us back to Springwood and it appears that Freddy all of a sudden has a middle-aged daughter. You'd think he would mention that in one of his previous adventures, but no There's only one teenage-survivor in Springwood and Krueger uses him to get into contact with his long lost daughter. Another reason why this final installment is so awful is the completely illogical structure. The John Doe-boy is introduced as the leading character but then all of a sudden he dies and the plot continues to revolve on two adults! How about that: Freddy Krueger, who spent five entire films killing nothing but teenagers, eventually gets beaten by two adults wearing 3D-glasses! Sort of like ruins the whole essence, doesn't it? As far as I'm concerned, "Nightmare on Elm Street" has always been a dreadfully overrated series but, up until now, even the weakest entries had at least some redeeming elements. "Freddy's Dead", however, is simply unendurable and nobody should waste his/her precious time watching it.


I'm not a huge Freddy Krueger fan,but that doesn't mean that I don't like Robert Englund and his other Nightmare on Elm Street movies.I think that Robert is a very good actor.Nobody plays a better Freddy Krueger than he does.But,no offense Robert, this movie sucked.The acting is terrible,the plot is really weak,and Freddy Krueger is the only part of the cast that's even worth watching.Sometimes sequels can be better than the first,such as the Friday the 13th franchise(I thought the remake was the best in the series.)But this isn't one of those movies.The original was good,the 2nd in my opinion was better,the 3rd was okay but I haven,t seen the others.Whatever you do,don,t make the same mistake I did by watching this piece of crap.


Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare starts as dream demon Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) leaves a teenager (Shon Greenblatt) on the outskirt's of Springwood with no memory of himself, who he is or why he is there. The local police pick him up & take him to a youth centre where child psychiatrist Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane) interviews him, she finds a newspaper cutting in his pocket which leads the two to Elm Street in Springwood where they discover that no children live there & therefore no victims for Freddy kill anyone. It all turns out that it's an elaborate plan by Freddy to find his daughter & use her to escape Springwood. When Maggie realises what Freddy is up to her & some kids decide they have to kill Freddy once & for all...

Directed by Rachel Talalay this was made with the intention of being the final A Nightmare on Elm Street film which by this time had reached five, of course as any horror film fan know's if there's still money to be made from a franchise or a character then there's no way in hell Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was going to be the last one which, of course, it wasn't. The A Nightmare on Elm Street series has been a franchise of diminishing returns as the films dropped in quality as the series progressed until we got here & Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare which for my money is probably the worst out of the lot of them. The film moves at a reasonable pace & it's rarely boring but it's so silly, childish & feels like some sort of live-action cartoon with some awful set-piece horror scenes that seem a million miles from Wes Craven's suspenseful & effective early 80's original. The sequence where stoner Spencer is trapped inside a video game being played by Freddy is terrible on it's own but then we are treated to shots of his body back in reality bouncing around the house from wall to wall & floor to ceiling which is quite the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while, or maybe the early scenes when the John Doe kid falls from a plane down to the ground just like the Coyote cartoon character in the Road Runner cartoons or the absurd sight of Freddy threatening the deaf Carlos with pins that he intends to drop to the floor to make a loud noise or when he eventually kills him by scraping his knives across a blackboard. You can't take this seriously & I was just sitting there not quite believing what I was seeing. When they do finally try to kill Freddy the hero is given a secret powerful special weapon, yeah that's right a pair of cardboard 3-D glasses! The character's are poor, the dialogue is poor & the plot is confusing, it doesn't really stick to the Elm Street continuity & overall the film is a bit of a mess, the best thing I can say about it is that it has quite a bit of unintentional humour & you can certainly laugh at it.

The film has major tonal problems as it tries to be dark, scary & sinister yet it's so silly & simply looks ridiculous at times that any attempt at being serious falls completely flat. There's not much gore in this one, there's some cut off fingers, some stabbings, someone falls on a bed of nails & that's about it. The body count is extremely low here with only three death's. The final twenty or so minutes of Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was in fact shot in 3-D although the version I saw presented this part as normal so I can't comment on how well this does or doesn't work but you can definitely see shots which are meant to be seen in 3-D which take advantage of the process. The special effects vary, some are quite good actually while other's are terrible & Freddy's burnt make-up this time looks quite poor.

This apparently had a budget of about $5,000,000 (it had an opening weekend box-office take of $12,000,000) & the film has a few nice visual touches & gags which makes the thing feel even more cartoony than it already is. The acting is really poor from the main leads although there are a few odd cameos including Tom Arnold & Roseanne, Johnny Depp & rocker Alice Cooper.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is probably the worst of the entire series & apart from some unintentional laugh value there's not much here to recommend or enjoy. Fans of the series will probably like it & defend it but for me this is about as far from Wes Craven's original classic shocker as it gets. Followed by New Nightmare (1994) which tried to take Freddy Krueger & the series in a new & different direction.


Sixth escapade for Freddy Krueger in which he has finally managed to kill off virtually every youth in Springwood; now he wants to broaden his horizons and (**SPOILER**) needs a family member in order to do it.

A failure as a horror movie because it simply ain't scary at all. Works better as a dark, macabre black comedy, to tell you the truth. Freddy Krueger has now been stripped of all of his ability to chill this viewer. (Too many wisecracks, that's for sure.) The actors aren't interesting (save Robert Englund, as always, and an obviously slumming Yaphet Kotto) and there are simply far too many visual effects. The finale is OK but doesn't provide as many sparks as I think one might hope.

In adding a new twist to the familiar dream killer's story, it provides Englund the opportunity to do more non-makeup scenes than ever before.

There are cameos worth noting: a joint cameo by then-couple Roseanne and Tom Arnold that is devoid of entertainment value, an appropriate appearance by veteran shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and a funny cameo by Johnny Depp that also sort of acknowledges the pop icon that he had become.

Film debut of Breckin Meyer, who plays Spencer.

One of the best things about it is the replaying of key scenes from earlier entries during the closing credits.

4/10


Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the "last" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.

I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.

GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.

BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing.


This movie had a good story, but was brought down because it didn't have enough horror film elements and violence. It was like watching a live action cartoon. It would of been better if this story is what they planned from the start of the first movie so they could of played seeds for where the series was going.


I am a fan of the Nightmare series but this one is horrible. The deaths are so trendy. If you were to watch this 20 years later the whole nintendo scene is outdated. I did like the flashbacks. I think they should have just made a prequel about when he was still alive. That would have been more interesting. This is a movie you can take or leave. Depends on how much spare time you have.


This movie is just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I feel better. This movie is poor from beginning to end. The story is lame. The 3-D segment is really bad. Freddy is at his cartoon character worst. Thank God they killed him off. And who wants to see Roseanne and Tom Arnold cameos?

The only good thing in the movie is the little bit of backstory that we're given on Freddy. We see he once had a family, and we get to see his abusive, alcoholic father (Alice Cooper).

Other than that, all bad. There are some quality actors in here (Lisa Zane and Yaphet Kotto), and they do their best, but the end result is just so bad. The hour and a half I spent watching this movie is and hour and half I can't ever get back.


"Freddy's Dead" did the smartest thing it could've done after the disappointment of the fifth film. It started from scratch. Sure, this "final" film in the saga is silly but at least it's original. Some of the visuals are even a bit breath-taking. And the story of Freddy's kid (Lisa Zane) returning to town to face her evil father is unique.

Overall, the movie is nothing but another cartoon made to get kids in the theater. It has a bunch of good actors (Zane, Yaphet Kotto, and Lezlie Deane) who basically look dumb and wander around like sheep ready for slaughter. It's one-sided, it's a magic-trick, and, in the end, it's nothing but goofy, childish entertainment.


This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.


The first in the series was brilliant, easily one of the best Horror films of all time. This is the crappiest. When I sat down to watch this, I was actually thinking that how bad the fourth and fifth ones were, this would have to be good after the previous terrible ones. Boy was I wrong. Incredibly wrong.

When I watched the first ten minutes of it, I was actually really tempted to turn it off, but I thought no, maybe it'll improve. It didn't.

Not only is this just a dire film by itself, it didn't need another sequel, because the last two (fourth and fifth) had already been terrible enough! Also, how many times can you bring Freddy back!? The acting in it was TERRIBLE, the story-line was predictable and crap and it also had flaws in it as well. The way they made Springwood was just totally wrong. Pays no respect to the first one at-all. To add to this, the whole thing seemed really over-the-top.

Some people are saying that this film was "funny". This film is not "funny" at all. Since when is Freddy Krueger supposed to be "funny"? I would call it funnily crap. This film is supposed to be a Horror film, not a comedy. If Freddy had a daughter, wouldn't that information have surfaced like in the first one!? The ending was also just plain stupid and cheesy, exactly like the rest of it. This one completely destroys the essence and uniqueness of the first one. Just shows itself up.

Such a shame that Wes Craven created something so good in the beginning, yet it has to be dragged down because of this trash that belongs in the bin. They shouldn't have even bothered making this film. Nor any of the other sequels, except the third one. The third one's the only decent one out of all the sequels.

If this was a DVD by itself and not part of the Nightmare On Elm Street DVD set that I got, I would have chucked it out when I got it.

Summary: A pathetic and poor attempt at a sequel.

- a complete MOCKERY of the first film

So please, don't waste your time on this worthless junk.


This movie is easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a "Looney Tunes" episode.

Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.

I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film.


This is going to be the most useless comment I have ever put down, but yet I must do it to warn you about the atrocity to cinema that "Freddy's Dead" is. It is not only the very worst chapter of the Nightmare series, but is right up there with the worst horror sequel of all time! It was boring, pointless, and nearly death free. The horrible 3-D ending and over-the-top CORNY kills are enough to drive this "film" into the ground. However, it doesn't stop there, just add bad acting, a terrible script, and a number of cheesy cameos and you've got yourself this heaping pile of guano! It's no wonder why Freddy, as always played by Robert Englund, has made two postmortem appearances. I would too if I went out like that. This is a strictly fans only movie, don't stare at our shame.


It WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first "Nightmare" movie was his first).

Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see "Freddy vs. Jason" again.


In the future of 2001, Freddy is after the last surviving teenager of Elm Street. Forsaking ANY scares whatsoever for unfunny attempts at humor and needless celebrity cameos (come on..Roseanne??? Tom Arnold??!!?? WTF?), this is tied with part 2 is the worst the demon child rapist ever got. Wow was this a piece of crap. Not even the great legendary Alice Cooper could make the stench of this movie go away. And when they hell did Freddy ever have a daughter?? The whole film is severely retarded in ever single conceivable way, shape & form. Rachel Talalay, you stink to high heaven, babe.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Cast and Crew Bios; Jump to the 3D sequence and Jump to a Nightmare options (more extras for the film can be found on the seventh disc of The Nightmare Collection DVD set)

DVD-Rom content: Trivia game; Screenplay; and web link


Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance by

Tom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special.

And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his "look" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun.

It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts).

So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film.

It rates a 3.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.


The film was made in 1942 and with World War 11 around, the movie industry decided to capitalize on the fact that spies were around.

The film is fun to watch due to the fabulous dancing of Eleanor Powell. The late Miss Powell was certainly a great hoofer in every sense of the word. She is again paired with a very young looking Red Skelton here. The two of them also starred in "I Dood It."

Moroni Olsen, who 3 years later, was superb as the interrogating police officer in "Mildred Pierce" again appears as an officer asking Powell to deliver an item. Trouble is that Olsen and his rogues are really the Japanese spies.

Bert Lahr is his usual brilliant self here and he gets ample support from Virginia O'Brien.


I've almost forever been against the inclusion of songs in a movie. My belief was that the quality of the film would automatically be improved if only those extremely annoying songs would be axed. However, things have quickly changed after watching that horrible Black (no songs) & this movie, Page 3 (plenty of songs). While Black was weak to an extreme, Page 3 delivers a gripping story with some strong acting & good direction. The songs were almost incidental & blended in almost seamlessly with the film. There certainly weren't any women getting sprayed with water for no apparent reason from mysterious water sources while gyrating wildly on the streets at night.

I was pleasantly surprised with the bold and unabashed approach used by the director. There was no glossing over of anything and almost every scene was completely believable.

I'd recommend this films for Hindi-speaking people with at least a slight understanding of Mumbai life. The former because the English subtitling was below par and contained many errors which, at times, completely reversed the meaning of the actual statement. The latter because you'll definitely appreciate the accuracy of the depiction once you've lived it yourself.

I'd definitely rank this as a work worthy of international recognition. The scenes with the gossiping drivers was a nice touch and it served simultaneously as a source of genuine humour as well as another perspective on the whole mishmash. The movie does fall short in a few places though, where the characters sometimes say the most inexplicable things which detract from the overall direction of the film.

I also thought that a couple of the sadder scenes were not done very well. It was a touch amusing to watch, rather than arouse any feelings of sadness & the whole scene tended to come across as a bit foolish. These are minor issues though, because the film, on the whole, is truly a rare treat to watch.

Overall, it's a cynical, pessimistic outlook and a refreshing one at that! Actors, not 'heroes' - that's the key. A chance to glimpse believable human beings in an extraordinary setting - everyday life. A behind-the-scenes look at the extent of the depravity and a rare ray of hope for Indian cinema.

8/10.


I do not even want to call this thing a film - it is a movie that should not have won any awards. The acting was horrible as were the silly scenarios. This is exactly the sort of film that so many folks think caters to an NRI audience but is in fact loathed abroad for its awkwardness and the overwhelming sense of "trying" throughout the movie.

I find it strange that so many actors conversant with the English language have such a hard time doing so convincingly in front of the camera. I'm sure many readers know what I am talking about - all those token English phrases thrown into a movie, in Hindi and in regional cinema for cool points. There are few Indian movies in which the English seems completely genuine - Being Cyrus was a recent one. Although not a great film, it was a good film and the language did not seem "put on".

I feel ashamed that P3 was awarded the NFA in 2005. The only semi-enjoyable parts of this rubbish were Konkana and a somewhat catchy background score. Other than that, do not even waste your time with this film.


Madhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK.


Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less movie.


I have no idea how anyone managed to stay awake during this show. The acting was ham-fisted and amateur, the story was old news, and plot development (or lack thereof) invariably had my eyelids sagging less than halfway through each episode. That's about all there is to say of it, because it genuinely lacked substance of any kind.

How can you people like crap like this? It's freaking stupid, it's an insult to your intelligence. I don't even know how to further explain it... It's as if some of you will stare mindlessly at junk like this solely because you like the way some of the actors look, or because, for whatever crazy reason, you haven't seen the same formulas in dozens of shows a million times before.

I just.. forget it. This show sucked, and thankfully it's gone forever. I wish they'd get to work on demolishing The O.C. once and for all.


This show was laughably bad. The writing sucked, the dialog sucked. The guy who played Craig couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. Being it was on Thursday night, this was definitely great to watch with some beers. Cool music, bad acting, poor writing, all came together for my entertainment.

It was a drama/unintentional comedy. I don't care what happened to any of the characters, they were all boring and stupid. The first five episodes were the worst, since they couldn't reveal who the victim was, they had to write the dialog around it, which was terrible. I mean, the eulogy at the funeral was ridiculous. Actually, all the scenes that occurred in the present were utterly horrible.

So, let's review. Everything happening in present time sucked. The flashback scenes, only the writing, dialog and Craig's acting sucked. The music ruled though.


There was a great film to be made about Steve Biko. Sadly this wasn't it. Denzel Washington - never the most flexible of actors - is totally unable to convey the great charisma that Biko had. Attenborough's big crowd scenes are laughable. The Soweto massacre wasn't like this, three neat lines of children ( some doing cartwheels!) marching happily into the guns of the soldiers. With Biko dead the film rapidly descends into farce. If the struggle against Apartheid was anything it was a black people's struggle yet somehow we are all supposed to be gripped by the escape of a white man and his family. I'm sure Donald Woods was a decent man and he would be the first to say that Biko was important while he wasn't. Penelope Wilton's accent is pure Hampshire and she seems completely unaware that she is in South Africa at all. at all. The Wood's family dog gets more lines than the black maid. As the family make their escape one the women I saw the film with - incidentally one of only about a dozen black people in a large, full cinema - whispered "This is like the sound of music." She had a point.

Overall this is a film by a well-intentioned if somewhat inept white liberal about a radical black people's struggle. And really South Africa needs well-intentioned white liberals like it needs a hole in the head.


Ashley Judd, in an early role and I think her first starring role, shows her real-life rebellious nature in this slow-moving feminist soap opera. Wow, is this a vehicle for political correctness and extreme Liberalism or what?

Being a staunch feminist in real life, she must have cherished this script. No wonder Left Wing critic Roger Ebert loved this movie; it's right up his political alley, too.

Unlike the reviewers here, I am glad Judd elevated herself from this moronic fluff to better roles in movies that entertained, not preached the heavy-handed Liberal agenda.


First, let me state that I am a big fan of Ashley Judd; that's why I was curious to check out this, her debut role. No argument that her talent is apparent and her performance excellent. I guess I can also see how the professional critics liked the aesthetic content of the story. However, I like to think that movies are meant to entertain us and that is where this movie fails.

By the halfway point, I found myself thinking, "How much longer do we have to watch a bored shop girl, idly standing around a deserted souvenir shop, rearranging the merchandise?" It seemed to go on forever!

Then, I thought, maybe this is one of those movies where the director tries to lull the audience into a relaxed state before hitting them with some dynamic event. No such luck. The movie continues it's bland, boring, uneventful story all the way to the end.

I'm not saying this because I'm an action-junkie. I like all kinds of movies, especially romantic-comedies. But I expect to be entertained.

Add the fact that the cinematography and sound quality are comparable to your neighbor's bad home movies. Depressing!

I just don't get how anyone could like this movie. Zero-entertainment value. The longest 114 minutes of my life.


I saw this film for the first time not too long on TCM's "Essentials" series. The eye of the beholder cliché was never more apropos. This beholder saw little of value in this one. I was puzzled by the infinite attraction that Lucy (Lauren Bacall) possessed. Granted, Ms. Bacall was a beautiful woman, but in this film her character comes off more mousy than attractive. I would think men like Mitch Wayne and Kyle Hadley would more likely ignore Lucy than fall into an instant infatuation with her. In Bacall's defense, this film was made at the time of Humphrey Bogart's last illness and the weight of his deteriorating health may have affected her performance. Of course part of this mousiness on the part of Lucy was to contrast her to slutty Marylee, played to the hilt and beyond by Dorothy Malone. The scene where she engages in a wildly sensual dance while her father wearily climbs the stairs to a fatal heart attack is far and away the best scene in the film. Malone's performance outshines the rest, although Jasper Hadley's weariness at the disappointing behavior of his two children is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Keith. Generally, though, I would have to say that I'm just not much of a fan of melodrama. The cartoonish behavior of the characters just makes for a story too implausible for my tastes.


I watched Written on The Wind starring Rock Hudson,Lauren Becall,Robert Stack & Dorothy Malone- Robert Stack was terrible- just bloody horrible- he was supposed to be a charming jet-setting millionaire- instead he came off like a jerk from the word go- the plot was stupid and overwrought and the 3 "romantic" leads had no chemistry. Somehow Dorothy Malone won an Oscar for best supporting actress- although her campy tramp character was boring- think the older sister from Splendour in The Grass filled with malice and bitterness and lacking charisma. Director Douglas Sirk has the entire cast overact their way through dialogue that felt forced and the end result was a waste of 99 minutes. Had a cameo by the actor that played the chief on Get Smart


To me this just comes off as a soap opera. I guess any depiction of profligate people can be considered "social commentary." But in the final analysis, I simply don't care how you characterize this film. None of the characters are very likable or engaging. I felt no chemistry between Hudson and Bacall. If there is a love story here, it is lost in the malaise. And despite the twist ending provided by a complete and immediate (and therefore, incomprehensible) reversal by Dorothy Maguire on the witness stand, the story is insufficient to hold my interest. No matter how much Freudian symbolism and psychology are throw in, this story is sleazy, melodramatic and trite.

Rock Hudson is nobly wooden. This is Lauren Bacall's least engaging role and one of her poorest performances. Dorothy Maguire and Robert Stack deliver more inspired performances, but her character is vile, and his is pathetic. Robert Keith, as the loving, out-of-touch father of two miscreant adult children, is the most sympathetic character. Most interesting of all, however, is the severe-looking Robert Wilke in a small role as the bar owner. He is best remembered as a nasty henchman in countless Westerns, but here he is an honest, likable fellow.

I take my social commentary with an interesting, engaging story and a few likable characters, thank you.


What we have here is a classic case of TOO much patriotism. This is what happens when you live in a small country with very little (next to none, even) cinema history. Whenever somebody does come up with a slightly more ambitious film project  other than the usual dramas about struggling farmer families or long feature slapstick movies of local comedians  everybody feels obliged to love it and even responsible to spread favorable reviews across the countries' borders. This is especially the case when the writer/director of this particular film is already a nation's sweetheart, because he's also the founder and lead singer of a popular rock band. "Any Way The Wind Blows" is by no means a bad film, but it's definitely overrated (if that is even possible within the boundaries of a small country) and has absolutely nothing new or even remotely original to offer. This is basically the Flemish version of classic movies such as "Short Cuts" and "Magnolia" and illustrates a mosaic of characters whose daily lives initially appear to be unrelated but eventually come together in the end. The only thing that seems to unite the eight protagonists at first is the city of Antwerp, where they all live and work, but gradually the deeper relationships between them become transparent and near the climax they all gather for a party. The main problem with "Any Way The Wind Blows", at least according to yours truly, lies with the characters. They really are random, uninteresting and honestly don't experience anything that could be considered out of the ordinary. It was presumably writer/director Tom Barman's intention to depict the average & regular inhabitant of Antwerp but then, seriously, what is the point? One of the characters gets fired from his film projectionist job, another one is a failed novelist struggling with a marriage crisis, two siblings recently lost their father and the most "mysterious" one of them all is followed by the wind wherever he goes. There are a couple of more characters regularly walking through the screen, but they're even less worth mentioning. These people simply drivel on and on about very random topics (like life in the 80's, dates and each other's bowel motions) and philosophy about matters nobody cares about. Some of the dialogs do evoke mild chuckles, especially the interactions between the two twenty-something guys from Ghent, but still nothing extraordinary or even memorable. The film actually works best as a touristy video to promote the city of Antwerp and as an extended & versatile music documentary. There are several stylish & nifty sightseeing images of Antwerp and there's always beautiful music playing, whether really loud or subtly in the background. Generally speaking "Any Way The Wind Blows" is a competently made and stylish effort, but too mundane and slightly boring, and I honestly wonder most of its fans would even had bothered to watch if it weren't a Flemish production.


I don't know what would be so great about this movie. Even worse, why should anyone bother seeing this one ? First of all there is no story. One could say that even without a story a movie could be worth watching because it invokes some sort of strong feeling (laughter, cry, fear, ...), but in my opinion this movie does not do that either.

You are just watching images for +/- 2 hrs. There are more useful things to do.

I guess you could say the movie is an experiment and it is daring because it lacks all the above. But is this worth 2 hrs of your valuable time and 7 EUR of your money ? For me the answer is: no.


Okay... it seems like so far, only the Barman fans have commented on this film - time for a counterpoint. Beware, this writeup is *LONG*.

For those not in the knowing (mostly the non-Belgians) : Tom Barman, director of this film, is the frontman of dEUS, one of the better known rock bands of the late 90's here in Belgium. Basically, they made a couple of very adventurous and innovative albums and quickly rose to fame on the national scale. Then, egos started hurting and the band basically fell apart, with Barman and a couple of others remaining to go on making albums under the dEUS-monicker. The way it always happens in such cases, the post-breakdown dEUS was a lot tamer and less interesting than the original. They tried to go for an international breakthrough with their album "The Ideal Crash" in 1999, presenting a much diluted form of their earlier style of songwriting. They didn't quite make it. However, egos were still pretty big it seems : big enough for Barman to consider himself enough of an artist to try on movies.

More often than not this sort of thing is a VERY big mistake, and this film does not make the exception. And Barman clearly went for *art* on this one, another very big mistake. For one thing, he's a musician, not a movie director. For another, dEUS at it's best made fun and provoking music, but never anything close to what I would consider *art*. It shows.

So, what's this movie about? Basically, it tells the story of a bunch of completely uninteresting people, doing equally uninteresting things over the course of a totally uninteresting friday in Antwerp, as even more uninteresting stuff happens to them in the act of being uninteresting. The characters are shallow, the plot totally pointless and the film just doesn't have any other redeeming qualities to make up for these shortcomings. Humor? The whole film made me smile (slightly) about 3 times, and actually managed to provoke a single 5-second laugh (not quite loud). Mood? The film just doesn't seem to show any kind of emotion or feeling at all. Mystery? Well, (*MINOR SPOILER*)the idea of the "wind-man", inspiring the name of the film, is as enthralling as a banana pepper pizza - not very, and has been done a thousand times before (anyone remember Johny Destiny - one of Tarantino's worst appearances on film to date)(*END MINOR SPOILER*). And well, its *artistic*, so don't expect any kind of real action to make up for all the previous. In other words, except for the few smiles, it bored me out of my shorts.

So what remains? Well, the soundtrack is pretty good, though it suffers from some of the same problems that other OST's have shown lately : first, it makes the movie seem like nothing more than a commercial for the CD. Second, it gives the impression that Barman is trying to hide the weaknesses and lack of emotional content in the film behind the content quality of the songs, which simply doesn't work. In the end, it makes the film look like nothing more than an illustration to the songs. And sadly, it's Barmans own contribution to the soundtrack which gets the most attention, though it is the weakest part of the whole soundtrack as far as I'm concerned. All in all, it just stands to show that Barman knows more about music than movies. Camera work is okay as well, though not anything that would make you scream out with joy.

The only thing about this movie that kept me watching was the sight-seeing factor. Since I originate from Antwerp, it was fun to play a kind of "guess-the-location" game. I would hardly consider this as a quality though.

All in all, another chance lost for Flemmish film. I keep on noticing that lately, the best Belgian movies have been coming from the French part of the country. This is mostly because at least, they have something to tell and manage to tell it in way that is both sharp and emotional (the brothers Daerden come to mind). Maybe the Flemmish art-house filmmakers should try that too.


The story is about the life of common people from Antwerp, living their lives. So I said it, and there is nothing more actually to tell about the story. The movie is fast, like an MTV-flick, and well photographed and we feel that the director is talented and should do more films. So let's forget about this one and hope for the best with the next Deus-Barman picture.


This whirling movie looks more like a combination of music-clips at MTV than as a real movie. There is no real story and as the movie goes on you ask yourself: "What is going to happen?"; but nothing happens. The story around Eric Cloeck, the frustrated writer, is the only good thing. The other persons seem to have nothing in common: then why bring them together in a movie. With music you can make watchable the worst movie. When I open the tap and there comes water out with the music of Bach then most people will like to look at it but this is not a movie. The director should learn how to write a script for a movie of 100 minutes or more before starting to direct a movie.


How is it possible that no journalist or critic reminded us of the resemblance with that other better Flemish movie "Congo Express (1986)"? There are also some characters in congo Express put together without having really a relation to each other: Jean, (de Congolees), the workman, the two taxi-drivers, the street-singer, Roger, Guy, Lucienne and Gilbert. Of course, Tom Barman is a star and Luc Gubbels wasn't. That should not be a reason to pardon the flaws in the script (if there is a script) of Anyway the wind blows. The joke (the only one!) at the party about the ice in the refrigerator is taken from that great Flemish movie "De Witte (1934)" where De Witte is putting too much salt on the potatoes. Some accidents happen in the movie but there comes no explanation after. Tom Barman delivers us here a movie that is more like an experiment to watch at the television than a movie for the theatres. Another missed chance for Flemish Cinema.


I dunno what the hype around this is... This is really a bad movie...it did nothing to me, the only descent scene is where everyone comes together at the party, and a nice song is playing, uplifting beat and nice cinematic shots that make you move....that was the best part of the movie... Otherwise this film lacks everything to suck the viewer in There's no story, there's nothing to think about like some people say, there's no cohesion between the different stories...it was more of an attempt to re-do Anderson's 'Magnolia' which was brilliant, but it fails blatantly... Okay it's light and easy to watch, but that are movieclips too. Maybe first write a story before you make a movie... 4/10 One of the worst Belgian movies I've seen


I read some gushing reviews here on IMDb and thought I would give this movie a look. Disappointed. On the plus side the male leads are good, and some interesting photography but as a whole this movie fails to convince. Seems to be full of its' own self indulgent importance in trying to say something meaningful but falls way short and all in all the picture is an unconvincing mess.

It is one of those films classified as a film noir which can be defined as follows:

"A film noir is marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, menace and cynical characters".

Well that is the story here: 3 losers stumble upon each other with their collective problems that include mental illness, alcoholism, laziness, indebtedness etc and together they conspire to kidnap a child and outwit each other.

Would have been a much better movie if the story was confined more to the kidnap instead of the character failings of the kidnappers. I thought the female lead was way out of her depth and came across as an amateur actress.

Whilst some good moments, I finished up feeling I had wasted my time.

4/10.


A film so insecure the creaters perhaps hoped to milk an original film noir classic title, "Farewell My Lovely", thinking the gullible would assume it a remake. The characters are so foul and unappealing that it deserved its cold reception when first released. Time only adds to it its absurdity. Having none of the guile, cinematography, desperation or despair of classic noir it relied instead on a convoluted and senseless crime plot that would have easily resulted in several arrests within hours. As if that weren't enough it threw in an utterly sexless attempt at erotica in which at least one of the participants hadn't bothered to bathe in several days. This only made this mess all the more painful to watch. Find a good classic forties or fifties film noir instead of wasting two hours on this failure.


This had high intellectual pretensions.The main lead intends to give a "deep" "meaningful" rendering(with voice over for his frames of mind naturally) and he was certainly influenced by the fifties/sixties "method " -which,when the script and the direction were worthwhile did give stunning results (see Clift,Newman,Winters).But here the story is abysmal.Besides it moves too slow,you could edit at least 20 minutes -including pointless flashbacks-and the plot line would not be changed .At times ,it's very doubtful that Bruce Dern believes in his "Uncle "character and his portraying often verges on parody.An interesting side is only skimmed over:the relationship young boy/hero -if we admit that the hero is himself some kind of child- When he says to the young kid that he would let nobody do harm to him,some welcome tenderness emerges.But it's botched and only the final scene returns to it.

Word to the wise:Take Foley's "at close range" instead:it has two great actors (Christopher Walken and Sean Penn together!),it's also an offbeat movie ,but it's gripping,suspenseful.Here my hitchcockometer points sullenly towards zero throughout.


A dreary, hopelessly predictable film set in a most unpleasant setting (lower Coachella Valley). Acting is as amateurish as any I've seen. Looks like a screenwriting 101 script. However, it does function as a great sedative.


What was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep.


I wouldn't rent this one even on dollar rental night.


I liked how this started out, featuring some decent special-effects especially for a film 50 years old. There was some pretty impressive scenery. However, the film bogs down fairly early on with some very dumb dialog as the males all try to flirt with Anne Francis "Altaira Morbius.")

Viewing this in the '90s after a long absence, it was fun to see Francis again, an actress who has done mostly television shows since this film was released....and is still acting. It also was interesting to see a young-looking Leslie Nielsen ("Dr. John J. Adams"), who I wouldn't have recognized had it not been for this voice

I watched half of this movie before the boredom came almost overwhelming and I had a strong desire to go to sleep. I appreciated them re-doing this VHS tape in stereo. but it was a weak effort. This is one those overrated film where "elites" think is so "heavy" and "thought-provoking." That's nonsense. It only appeared "intelligent" because the rest of the '50s sci-fi films were so stupid!!

Some if the early scenes would have looked great on wideescreen, which I didn't have at the time of this writing. Perhaps another look - this time on the 2.35:1 widescreen transfer would make me change this review.


When they killed off John Amos's character they killed the show. He was the vital part of the info structure. You had a story of an inner city family's struggling to make it the best way they knew how. They were poor, they were black, and they were living proof that if you have Jesus and your family that nothing is too hard. Sure James would lose jobs and JJ would fail in school but the family always managed to find a way.

James was the strong male role model that earned the income and disciplined the children. Florida was the strong lady that would everyone including James when he needed a shoulder to cry on or hug to make it. The kids had personalities and input which made them important as a family unit. Their neighbor Willona was also a key element because she represented not only a friend but some dear enough to be family. Things were bright, gritty, funny, and honest until they changed the course of the program. James dies and JJ took over the show.

Flo was still mom, Thelma was blossoming into a lady and Michael was still the militant midget but JJ was the show. We were expected to believe that the family with no father or prominent bread winner was going to be able to stay in the apartment. I guess James's paycheck didn't do much for the family. They were only threatened with eviction because they said they were moving and not because no one in the house was working. I know that JJ, Flo, Thelma and even Michael eventually got jobs but come on here be for real. James worked so much that you could feel for him but the others weren't realistic at all and that's a shame.

JJ was the comic relief but I felt the show need substance. It's OK to be funny but they had a chance to show a real family and what it took to survive in the real world and they threw it all away on a few laughs. Michael's character almost disappeared while the rest of the cast slipped into the shadows of the JJ Evan's show. I mean really, here was a guy that was failing in school, he kept getting laid off, and he painted for money in about two episodes. James had always been there to encourage his talent but Flo and the rest of the family didn't seem to care.

Why did it take him so long to understand that painting was what he was meant to do? He could have sold painting's on the street or worked for people that print billboards and cards. (He did but something went wrong with that.) Why did he not make it and why did the others give up on their dreams? I'll tell you why, it was because they didn't have a father in their life to care and to cheer them on and their mother stopped being their to support their dreams. The show stopped teaching us about growing, building and learning and started teaching us about gimmicks and catch phrases. They should have kept James. If any show needed a father it was that one.


I saw this recently and I must say, I was moved by the factual basis of the story. However, "Holly" as a movie did not quite work. I am however, looking forward to watching the documentary which the producers who organised this project had made because I think that would be a much more compelling work than this film.

The international cast was composed of B-class actors but their acting was appropriate, and I must give a special mention for the young actress who played Holly. This was her first movie role and she did a very nice job, considering hers is the most challenging part.

Ron Livingston was adequate but bland as Patrick, the American whose quest is to "save" Holly, but Chris Penn was good in this, his final role. Unfortunately, despite my mostly favourable opinion of Virginie Ledoyen and Udo Kier, both of these actors were very much forgettable and did not do their best work in this film.

I believe in the film's message and intention, but I have to be fair, so I rate "Holly" 3 stars based on its shortcomings as a movie. But I think the subject matter deserves serious consideration and I am pleased that the people behind this movie have made a documentary as well which I hope will have its debut on BBC and other TV networks.


This motion picture comes straight out of the dark dungeon of Full Moon Entertainment. This production company gained fame and fortune during the first half of the 90's by producing terribly bad and cheesy horror movies. The most famous disasters in their ouvre are "Subspecies", "Seedpeople" and "Trancers". None of these are recommended and neither is Doctor Mordrid, actually. Hyperactive director Charles Band did come to the right company for his film. Doctor Mordrid is amazingly dumb and cheesy and almost completely humourless. I only saw it because it stars Jeffrey Combs. I learned that it can have several disadvantages if you're a fan of him. For every good movie, it seems like he has made 5 inferior ones. Anyways, the story is about the battle between 2 ancient sorcerers. One good one who's here since 150 years to protect the humans ( Jeffrey as Dr.Mordrid ) and one wicked one called Kabal. He wants to destroy every form of human life for some reason I already forgot. Combs gets his instructions from mentor. That "guy" only exists of a pair of eyes in space. Very very cheesy, that is ! Every once and a while a blinding lightflash is shown on the screen but that's about the only form of Special effects this movie has got. The whole thing is just a piece of whining and nagging and when the two wizards finally face each other, it's over before you know it...I would have expected for the wicked wizard to at least fight back a little, but nooooooo.... In some scenes, you really can detect some originality and creativity ( like for example Jeffrey's lecture about the influence of the moon on criminals ) and if you really pay attention, you might even find some very small but nice aspects ( like the raven which is called Edgar Allen) but overall, it's a terrible waste of time and energy. I'm a big fan of Jeffrey and maybe he is a superhero in my eyes...but he sure doesn't have to put on a stupid maillot for that.


Dr Mordrid is terrifying. I would not recommend any adult or child see this unless they are rampaging murderers already. There is so much filth in this movie it hurts my yes. Speaking of eyes, there are eyes in the sky, against a backdrop of stars. Only the devil himself could have imagined such a wicked thing. I rented out every copy i could from local video stores and crushed them with a 5 pound crucifix. That movie should remain locked in a cellar behind the 4th dimension with all the other disgusting beasts of hell. That is where this movie belongs. I suggest if you want some scandalous entertainment, go and rent All Dogs Go To Heaven, or Angels In The Outfield. Those movies are worth seeing. If you want to commit a sin and love terrible movies, you need to see Dr. Mordrid.


the first Scanners may not have been a great movie,but at least it was original.there is no such novelty to this one.the acting is worse,in my opinion,and the story is slower and nothing special.i also didn't like the dialogue.and the special effects are no better than in the original.this is movie is inferior to the first one in all ways.the only thing different about it,is that it is loud and chaotic at times.but that doesn't make a good movie.if they had done something better with the story and made it interesting,this could have been a decent movie.i actually couldn't get through it all without fast forwarding through it.to me,this is a forgettable movie,and not much more.despite all that,there are worse movies.being in a generous mood,i'll give Scanners 2 a 4/10.


I agree with other users comments in that the two main roles were well acted, that being the guy that played Gary Gillmore and Giovanni's role. Too bad the story was so boring. Not hearing about the story I knew nothing of Gary Gillmore before the movie so I didn't know what to expect. I thought it would be something like Dead Man Walking or The Chamber but how wrong I was. The whole movie was just talking, talking and talking about their mom and dad. The only cool scenes were the flashbacks where the dad would lose his temper. That was the only interest I got from this borefest.


Jim Belushi is having a mid life crisis, nothing is going right, when his car goes out on him..he goes into an empty bar where Michael Caine shows him what life wouldve been like if one event in high school had come out differently.. A good premise with some moments..but mostly flat and uninteresting. on a scale of one to ten..3