Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode.

Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.

Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here.

And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).

And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.

And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.

Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember "The One"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.

Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while.


This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, "Oh, silly you" style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess.


Little Mosque is one of the most boring CBC comedies I have ever seen. They have a way of producing the easiest comedy programming they can for the oldest most-easily-offended viewers which for CBC means 85 year old farmers in Saskatchewan. The jokes are all predictable and so deathly lame I can't believe it. The performances are very hammy and over acted but I don't blame the actors since those kind of one dimensional stereotyped characters are probably exactly what the CBC asked for and demanded. Very lame show with bad jokes they tried to present as "controversial" well it is less controversial than the other boring CBC comedies like The Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce and Rick Mercer's Report.


I was excited to see a sitcom that would hopefully represent Indian Candians but i found this show to be not funny at all. The producers and cast are probably happy to get both bad and good feed back because as far as they are concerned it's getting talked about! I was ready for some stereotyping and have no problem with it because stereotypes exist for a reason, they are usually true. But there really wasn't anything funny about these stereotypical characters. The "fresh of the boat" dad, who doesn't understand his daughter. The radical feminist Muslim daughter (who by the way is a terrible actress), and the young modern Indian man trying to run his mosque as politically correct as he can (he's a pretty good actor, i only see him getting better).

it is very contrived and the dialog doesn't flow that well. there was so much potential for something like this but sadly i think it failed, and don't really care to watch another episode.

I did however enjoy watching a great Canadian actress Sheila McCarthy again, she's always a treat and a natural at everything she does, too bad her daughter in the show doesn't have the same acting abilities!


If you're looking to be either offended or amused or both, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. LMOTP really isn't even very thought provoking beyond rehashing the usual silly clichés. At the end of the second episode I felt a little embarrassed that I actually sat through the contrived mess.

Beyond the thinly veiled gimmicky premise thats attracted all the initial attention to it in the first place it's just another lame, innocuous and anti-septic attempt at commentary and entertainment that the CBC typically excels at producing. And once the "ZOMG MUSLIMS IN RURAL CANADA ROFLMAO!!" hype wears out its welcome, the show is likely to follow into the ether of cancellation because it's so shallow when judged on its merits alone.

Unless you're obsessed with Muslim culture in the west and/or are easily amused by the most minute idiosyncrasies on the subject I really don't see how LMOTP is enjoyable beyond satisfying the curiosity that stemmed from the hype. Other shows have better addressed the issue of cultural/ethnic dichotomy in western multi-ethnic societies. LMOTP will never rank among them in entertainment or insight.


This show is terrible, the jokes are all terrible and just getting worse and worse. I am one of those people who was never a big fan of Corner Gas but at least I liked it at first until it got into a rut around season two, all the jokes had been played out and the characters had nothing to them. Well at least Corner Gas was good at first, Little Mosque on the Prairie is typically awful bland CBC comedy that had nothing going for it from episode 1. Who are the people who are watching this show anyway, I am being honest is it old people or maybe just people who actually live on the prairies? Maybe the jokes are for them and they work there? I don't know a single person who likes this show and can't stand it myself, the jokes are totally predictable and the characters are even less developed than in Corner Gas. Hopefully it won't last much longer because all the success this show has had seems to me to be based entirely on the premise of this show being Muslim which is different and could/should have led to a great show.


I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.

Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.

If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.

Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?


Unlike many, I don't find the premise or theme of this show the least bit offensive. Its execution, however, is another matter entirely. Like so many B-minus movies, all the decent gags appear to have been spliced into the trailers. For most of the 22-or-so minutes we sit in waning anticipation any morsel of real humor. Or at least something to keep one from fidgeting with the remote or counting carpet fibers. With a couple of exceptions the acting is awful; the comical over-emoting and gesticulating of some cast members might be well suited to a late-night infomercial, but not a primetime sitcom (even a Canadian one.) Notwithstanding the admittedly original cultural angle, I cannot help but think this is mainly a misfired shot by the CBC to replicate the success of Corner Gas. Unfortunately, they got the tone -- and the script -- completely wrong for the prairies. The final insult is that they apparently couldn't even afford to have the location work done in an actual small town (Why? are they so hard to find in Saskatchewan?) Did they think the audience would be fooled by the downtown Regina exteriors? As a proud Canadian I hope this thing goes away soon, and that the rest of the world, primed by the CBC's publicists, quickly forgets this colossal embarrassment of a sitcom.


Who likes awful "comedy" shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.

CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.

When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for "comedy" Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.


Up until this new season I have been a big 'Little Mosque' fan. However, the new season had absolutely RUINED it.

The new Christian vicar has destroyed the entire intent of the show. It has always been about living together to overcome prejudice. The new vicar ruins that premise and shows Christians in a very bad light.

I am neither Christian or Muslim, but loved watching the show and seeing the camaraderie between Amar and the Reverend. Not any more.

Just cancel it and be done with it. It's not worth watching any more.

It might still be saved, but a lot of change would need to be made.

Bring back the old format.


To be honest at the time i first heard of this show i though it may be a bad idea to make a show that makes Muslims use racial jokes on themselves but it is the Exact opposite. I realized that the show doing that can help people understand that if a Muslim uses s a word like this in real life it doesn't mean it is a terrorist thing. It also show's how people give the Muslims a bad name because they play on their stereotype, by watching the show regular people will realize that all though there may be bad Muslims out it doesn't mean we are all bad we just try to live 1 day at a time, like how hard it was for Amair to get on a plane and how he used words like "Blow up" or Yaser saying we'll blow away the competition, and people took it the wrong way. Being a Muslim i know that stuff like this don't usually happen, but they do and many people think bad things about Muslims or Afghanistan or Iraq, its not right things are not like that. people will see how we are poorly treated by watching this show and it may make them think on how the act. I am glad a show like this came on the air. There are many shows that Piotr Muslim people as terrorists,many people do find them funny to my opioion it is OK to do it now and then because prety much everything is made fun of who are we to say you can not make fun of that is unfair, but it is done to often and really gives Muslin people a bad name.


I can't believe that people thought this stinking heap of trash was funny. Shifting the attempts at humor among cruelty, disgust and stupidity, 'There's Something About Mary' leaves little reason to stay until the end. Sure, Cameron Diaz is very pretty, but that is never going to be enough to save a movie. Ben Stiller tries hard to work within the plot, and is obviously very talented, but the movie is a loser.

Not once were any of the scenes believable. The shots were badly timed and poorly framed. The Farreley brothers should be kept away from making films at all costs. I check IMDB to see what they are working on just so I know what to avoid.

2/10; the bonus is from the one time I smiled. It's not like I'm immune to humor or alone in my opinion. My wife hated it, too. The next day we saw 'Rush Hour' and laughed ourselves silly. This movie just stunk.


As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.

THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.

The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.

Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.

I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story.


This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing.


As an impressionable 10 year old, I liked the "love conquers all" philosophy of the 70s sitcom "Bridget Loves Bernie." I did understand the controversy, which was about the romantic complications between a Jewish cab driver (David Birney) and an Irish Catholic school teacher (Meredith Baxter) and both sets of parents (Harold J. Stone and Bibi Osterwald as Bernie's parents; Audra Lindley and David Doyle as Bridget's parents) who have issues with the young couple's interfaith marriage.

Looking at the show now with years of personal life experiences, I am amazed that the show was even a success for one, albeit, highly-rated season. Created by veteran TV writer Bernard Slade, who a few years after the show's cancellation would write the successful play "Same Time, Next Year", "Bridget Loves Bernie" was a very light, superficial comedy that collapsed under its own airy weight.

There was no denying the real-life chemistry between Birney and Baxter. But, in later years, both actors have shown that they are better actors in other projects (Birney in his short-lived role in "St. Elsewhere" and Baxter in "Family" and "Family Ties"). Here, they were trying to breathe life in a show that needed a much gritter comic edge, which might have given the complications more depth to a very controversial subject.

The show aired Saturday nights between two CBS powerhouses: "All in the Family" and "Mary Tyler Moore". Both of those shows were smart, funny and had enough of an edge (more so on the former that the latter) that kept my interest in the situation and the characters. "Bridget Loves Bernie" was not very smart and only had some occasional chuckles.

This was another example of a show that really was not as good as I remembered.


SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.

The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC


Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic?

* out of 4-(Bad)


"CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.

The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained.

Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.


This is really really bad. Lamas shows just how a second rate actor does his job. But what makes it worth watching is the scene where OJ angrily grabs a fellow cop by the throat as if to kill them while the jukebox plays a song with the lyric "I got the evidence on you!". (Makes me want to hear the rest of the lyrics - attributed to David Gregoli and Leslie Oren but i couldn't find it on iTunes). Talk about seeing into the future...Too funny for words. The rest of the movie is forgettable. The score and songs are more interesting than the script. Ditto the sequel. Which begs the question of why they would do a sequel at all. My understanding was that foreign sales drives a lot of these B movies. Doesn't say much for the world's viewing habits.


The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.

The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).

Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.

It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.

Totally ludicrous TV show.


After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.

First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.

Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.

Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.

As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.

For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!


As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.

But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.

The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.

If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.

Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars

Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.


here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??

this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch.


***Comments contain spoilers*** I was barely holding on to this show as appointment TV when they started the annoying music under EVERY SCENE, when Don Epps was averaging almost a shooting per case, when the very nasally Diane Farr was obviously pregnant (but we weren't to notice) and when Colby was a f*****g TRIPLE agent. But now, in tonight's episode,David is trapped with a paranoid, nut job who is an OBVIOUS amateur with a gun, in an elevator and....HE CAN'T DISARM HIM. A trained, experienced field agent who has been 1st through the door many times and is experienced in hand-to-hand fighting, CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUT JOB. Not when said nut job blinks, looks away, drops his head, closes his eyes; not even when he looks up at the fiber optic wire wriggling around the ceiling like a stripper on a pole for 20 seconds.

Then the scene came that let me know that as much as I enjoy learning from the chubby, frumpish but very charming Charles Epps and his sexy sidekick/love interest Amita, my Friday nights will be better spent otherwise engaged. Don gives David the "distress word" that is the code for "The s**t is about to go down"; David is ready, they kill the lights, drop the elevator, startle the nut job and......

David CANNOT DISARM/KILL/BEAT INTO SUBMISSION THE NUT JOB. The bad guy ends up with BOTH GUNS, David ends up SHOT.

I'm done. Hope the NUMB3RS are fun.


Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.

All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!

No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse.


It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.

NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:

Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliché. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters `crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as `Friends' (yes that show on TV).

Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.

How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together).


I'm a fan of arty movies, but regretfully I have to report this movie to be pretentious drivel. Agonisingly slow to develop a non-existent plot based on a promising premise, the experience is, shall we say, trying. Even after bad movies I feel that I learn something, or enjoyed some aspect, but there there was nothing to appreciate. The premise was not uninteresting, but the movie starts and ends there. The acting was OK, though the characters were utterly boring. For the protagonist to aim at such an audacious goal, she is mightily empty. Pity. I usually enjoy movies that are unformulaic, but lack of formula should not be confused with zero content.


I have to admit that I stuck this one out thinking something would have to happen, besides the dead body in the first scenes... and her disposal of him. I was wrong. It was a cinema verite of Betty hits the Beach encased for the first part by Mordant Morven. I really don't care what young lassies from Scotland do these days, who thy screw, what drugs they take. Visually, the stroll through the Cabo de Gata in Andalucia was pleasant and surely the high point for me. The nadir was the chop shop for her dead boyfriend. As the movie came to a close I had two thoughts... 1. That's all there is? 2. Now I see why her boyfriend killed himself. Rename it. "Bare Bitch Boredom, or What I did on my trip to Spain." I'm such a sucker for sticking these things out.


Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark.

Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.

That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any.


When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book "Morvern Callar" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.

This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.

The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series "Poldark". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, "Jesus' Son", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead.


It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.

I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.

Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette.

With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.

There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.

After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.


There are a lot of pretentious people out there who will pretend that this is endowed with some kind of beautiful meaning, and that ignorant fools like me don't 'get' it. Obviously this means that we should stick to Hollywood dross.

It has every, a-hem, artistic cliché in the book - I guess it is good that the director is one of the chosen few. Almost a self parody drowning in its own pretense.

The director of the (almost equally embarrassing) movie 'Ratcatcher' returns with another piece wallowing in artistic nonsense; it is difficult to understand and apparently is a study of alienation. The best way to describe this film is alienating for its viewers.


Nothing happens.

Then characters with no personality don't develop.

Then the end never comes because there's no beginning and no middle.

There are beautiful shots that are made not beautiful because they aren't even allowed to be, because this movie isn't even THERE. There's no "is" in this movie because there's no plot or characters or themes or ideas or symbolism or discussion or dialog or point. There's nothing!

There is a good point: it has a good soundtrack. But the sound editing is such and the movie proper is such that watching it isn't even worth your time, so if you're really interested, I'd suggest going and buying the soundtrack or something. You'll get everything you can from this movie without all the fatigue, headache, and impatience.

--PolarisDiB


My wife and I watch a film every night with no distractions, and mostly artsy films that require thought. I have tons of patience for films that are slow to blossom. My wife has double the attention span that I do. All that being said-- this film is just plain empty and BORING! It went nowhere. Never blossomed. It started fairly strong with a promising plot...then she bakes cookies...goes to Spain....she sulks, she stares....the credits roll. Uneven, full of holes, false starts & dead ends. We FF'd through several extended sequences of her just staring off into space. Artificial depth was implied when she played with the mud and cried. Zzzz...... It's like a beautifully shot chick-flick that's pretending to be deep or artsy. You never get to know nor understand Morvern at all. About halfway through you just don't care anymore. We just wanted to see at least one of the plot lines develop. Don't waste your time on this. I'm shocked it scores so high.


It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.

Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.

Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.

It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film.


80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.

The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.

What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.

Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong.


I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.

As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA!

Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick.

3 Stars (out of a possible 73)


This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.

It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.

Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.


First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.

I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.

There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.

The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example "how do the furlings look like" by creating that stupid "previously on..."......is simply embarrassing.

Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad.


This is available on a "Drive In Double Feature" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up "Barracuda", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.

We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.

It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.

Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the "young 'uns" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these "kindly folk" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.

But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.

The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.

So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.


Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.

This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like "Barracuda" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.

Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker)

My Grade: F

Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for "Bonnie's Kids" (features nudity), "the Centerfold Girls", "Part-time Wife" (features nudity), "Psychic Killer", & "Eaten Alive". The DVD also comes with 1978's "Barracuda"


Although, I had no earthly idea on what to expect from this movie, this sure as hell wasn't what I would have had in mind, had anything actually come to mind. Once I heard of its existence, all I knew was that I had to own a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies. unfortunately, I could only find a copy under its alternate title, Island Fury. Looking back, I guess I could call it a lose-lose situation. On one hand, I still don't get to be known as the guy who owns a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies, and on the other hand, Island Fury would ultimately reveal itself to be an awful, pointless, boring, unwatchable piece of garbage. Yeah, definitely lose-lose.

I'm not even sure what genre they're going for here. Just early 80's badness, with a flashback that might actually be longer than the non-flashback. First up, two teenage girls are being chased by two bad guys, once caught, the bad guys bring to our attention that one of the girls have a coin on a string, around her neck, and somehow, these bad guys know of a lot more of these coins hidden on an island somewhere. And this is where things start to get weird, somehow these guys know of a trip the girls took to some island, years earlier, when they were only 10. I guess this is supposed to mean that the girls should know exactly where this alleged treasure is. So, now, we're in the past, while the girls try to retrace their steps, so these bad guys don't kill them, although, I wouldn't have minded if they had. In the flashback, the 10 year old counterparts are on a boat trip with their sisters and the sisters boyfriends, eventually stopping by an island for some air, they get mixed up with some kid and his killer grandparents. Any potential suspense or reasons to keep on watching never shows up, but the flashback was undeniably better than the present, which, still, isn't saying much.

For a while there I had forgotten about the original story, At one point, I Ithought maybe the director had too, and when the flashback ended, that would be the end, which would have worked for me considering this disappointment would have been a half-hour shorter. This pointless movie within a pointless movie does eventually end, and real stuff does happen, but it's stupid. I guess I didn't exactly expect a movie filled with infants being devoured, or anything like that, but I did expect some form of outlandish B-entertainment, mostly just a confusing, inept storyline, unsure of its genre. My advice would be to seek out something worthwhile like Attack Of The Beast Creatures. If anyone, I would only recommend this one to serious B-movie collectors who must have them all, anyone else interested probably has brain damage. What really gets me is that I still have no idea why they called it Please Don't Eat The Babies. 3/10


Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).


I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.)

The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).

The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.

This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)

There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.

Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)


I wasn't expecting this to be a great movie, but neither was I expecting it to be so awful. I hated the mother character so much I had to turn the channel. I turned it back, hoping it was just one part of the movie, but no. And for the daughter to sit there take being embarrassed, or almost done out of a job, or driven to madness inside her own home? Are you kidding me? I was raised to respect (and even fear) my mother but I'd put her up fast in the nearest hotel if she proved that annoying in MY house. I was expected to follow a set of rules in my mother's house, after all.

I didn't buy any of it. I tried giving it several chances, I really did. Sorry.


Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.


Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie.


This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too.

The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).

Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors).


the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.


I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE.


So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, "Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30." Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of "Open House" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's "independent" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved.


The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.'


In Texas, seven friends meet in a bar to celebrate the Halloween night before going to a party. Meanwhile, they call the American Nightmare pirate radio for fun and confess their innermost fears. A serial killer, who is listening to their confessions, makes their nightmares come true, killing each one of them in a sadistic way. "American Nightmare" is a weird low budget movie that has a horrible beginning: without any previous explanation, a woman kills two couples in an isolated camping area, as if it were Friday, 13th. Then, the story shifts to a bar, where seven friends are celebrating Halloween. From this moment on, the story has a great potential, and the unknown cast has a very reasonable performance, showing also some beautiful breasts and naked bodies, as usual in this type of C production. However, the end of the screenplay does not provide any explanation for the killing instinct and motives for the behavior of the nurse Jane Toppan, giving the sensation that the budget ended before the finalization of the shooting. With a better beginning and conclusion, this weird story would be a good low budget slasher movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Agonia" ("Agony")


When it comes to horror movies, I am more than willing to suspend disbelief, ignore sub-par production values, and overlook plot holes in the interest of a good scare. This movies simply has no good scares to offer. It can't even be enjoyed as camp. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, the kills were predictable and poorly staged, the music was annoying, the camera work was wretched, even the costumes were bad. I felt really bad for the actors, who were obviously trying, but who had to deal with terrible, contrived dialogue and an obvious lack of direction. I doubt they got any rehearsal, either. It's embarrassing to watch, and so boring than making it through to the contrived "surprise" ending requires tremendous endurance. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I don't normally write reviews, but this one was so bad that I felt compelled to warn others. This movie is a complete waste of time. If you must watch this movie, don't miss the "Making of"-featurette. The writer/director seems to be under the impression that making the killer a woman was kind of bold, daring move. (Seen it.) He and the cast spend half an hour deconstructing this film as if it's a new-age "Citizen Kane." It's like listening to a group of third-graders take you behind the scenes of their Christmas pageant. They truly think they've created something of substance. It's sad, really The only reason I gave this movie a "2" is because I think "1" should be reserved for true atrocities, like "Manos: Hands of Fate" and "Space Mutiny." So "American Nightmare" isn't the WORST movie I've ever seen, but I'd have to say that it's somewhere in the bottom fifty.


When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.

Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!!


This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of "Scary Movie" for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie.


"American Nightmare" is officially tied, in my opinion, with "It's Pat!" for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.

Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of "Friends") gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.

Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...

Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as "voodoo" and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.

No. Really.

This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer "jump," the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?

If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent "American Nightmare" with them.

If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of "American Nightmare" and hide them in your freezer.


this movie is outrageous. by outrageous, i mean awful. i had more fun watching the paint dry at my local hardware store on an august day while suffering from a migraine and heat stroke. the acting got progressively worse as the "movie" advanced, and the directors use of euphoric drugs became apparent as the final scenes approached. when misty was shot to death she decided that it would be prudent to blink post mordem. that was not intelligent. truthfully, stevie wonder could have caught that with his eyes closed. if you are deciding between playing with a nail gun while intoxicated and watching this movie, bear in mind that the nail gun will probably give you a better story to tell your friends.


Without a doubt this is one of the worst films I've ever wasted money on! The plot is, erm sorry, did I say there was a plot? The scariest moment was when..., nope can't think of one! The best special effect that had me hiding under the bed covers was..., nope can't think of one for that either. You knew who the killer was right from the start. There was nothing scary about the whole movie, in fact the only two vaguely interesting bits were when you saw the kid sister, Misty, in the shower and when you saw Nurse Toppan take her top off. This film should only be watched to get an idea of how NOT to make a horror movie!!!


This piece ain't really worth a comment.. It's simply the worst "horror" movie i have ever seen. The actors are bad as bad can be and the whole plot is so silly it nearly made me cry. Shame on you I say!!


1st watched 11/07/2004 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Jon Keeyes): Over-the-top rehash of 70's supposed horror flicks like Friday the 13th(versions 1 thru whatever). I can't think of much redeeming here except(or can I think of anything?)The story revolves around a bunch of stupid people listening to a radio program one year after some kids were slayed in the woods as an 'homage' to this, supposedly. But, lo and behold, one of the stupid people, have connections to the actual event because her sister was one of the ones murdered(again, how stupid is this that she would even be a part of this). Guess what? The murderer is at it again and we're tipped off from the very beginning who it is(so there goes any mystery whatsoever). And besides all this, where are the 'cops' and why doesn't someone call them. I can't believe this movie was financed by someone and made. You would think that by now the American people would be judged a little higher, at least in their movie-going experience, but not so by this filmmaker.


Kirstie Alley, looking a bit slimmer, but only a bit, is in this mess along with a man who is a MacGuyver lookalike, bleached blond hair and all. The premise of the movie is about an older woman (50!!!) who cannot get her screenplay produced due to age discrimination so she sends in her younger nephew to pose as the writer. Not an original idea and not a very good movie with lousy acting, inane dialogue and a ridiculous plot. There is another plot concerning a writer with a crush or admiration for Kirstie's character and why this is included is a mystery. The actor who portrays Kirstie's brother is so wooden and miscast, it was torture to watch their scenes. What is there to say about this film. Avoid it.


The head of a common New York family, Jane Gail (as Mary Barton), works with her younger sister Ethel Grandin (as Loma Barton) at "Smyrner's Candy Store". After Ms. Grandin is abducted by dealers in the buying and selling of women as prostituted slaves, Ms. Gail and her policeman boyfriend Matt Moore (as Larry Burke) must rescue the virtue-threatened young woman.

"Traffic in Souls" has a reputation that is difficult to support - it isn't remarkably well done, and it doesn't show anything very unique in having a young woman's "virtue" threatened by sex traders. Perhaps, it can be supported as a film which dealt with the topic in a greater than customary length (claimed to have been ten reels, originally). The New York City location scenes are the main attraction, after all these years. The panning of the prisoners behind bars is memorable, because nothing else seems able to make the cameras move.

**** Traffic in Souls (11/24/13) George Loane Tucker ~ Jane Gail, Matt Moore, Ethel Grandin


Yes, The Southern Star features a pretty forgettable title tune sung by that heavy set crooner Matt Monro. It pretty much establishes the tone for this bloated and rather dull feature, stunningly miscast with George Segal and Ursula Andress as an adventurous couple in search of a large diamond. Add in Harry Andrews (with a strange accent, no less) chasing an ostrich, tons of stock footage of wildlife, and poorly composed and dull photography by Raoul Coutard, and you end up with a thoroughly unexciting romp through the jungles of Senegal.


Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...

I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...

Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five "good guys" (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop!


Wow, I just saw this on T.V. as one of the "scary" movies they show around Halloween. Was this rated G? There wasn't really anything to make this movie scary, or worth watching. Also, other people say this is a spoof, but I don't think so. For a spoof, you need something called "humor". This low-budget crap-fest didn't have a shred of humor, and it didn't make much sense, either. You basically have a goofy looking monster (man in rubber suit) coming out of closets, killing people, I guess, since you never see the monster doing violence to anyone or any bloody aftermath. The spinning newspaper tells you that people were killed by the monster, so I guess that's good enough.

The military tries feebly to kill the monster, which isn't much larger than a man. They have very bad aim. Then the military FLEES! Wow, did this movie make the U.S. military look pathetic or what? The monster, while hard to kill, doesn't do much besides shuffle around and roar. Oh, and occasionally a second head pops out of its mouth and shrieks. It was a slightly interesting, yet a total Alien ripoff.

What was the deal with the scientist playing the Xylophone to attract the monster? It was hard to understand a lot of the dialog due to the poor sound quality. Also, why did the monster carry around the main wimpy guy for so long? Why didn't the monster go into the closet when it had a chance? Why do I insist on trying to make sense out of the senseless?


This movie was terrible!I rented it not knowing what to expect.I watched the 1st 5 minutes and the movie and knew it was a bomb.The acting was bad and there was no plot.The monster is soooooo fake.It growls and its mouth doesnt move.Also why would they have a doctor playing a xylophone to kill the monster.Just plain bad don't even waste your time.(1 out of 10)


I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies.


The Earth is destined to be no more thanks to Father Pergado and a bunch of Nuns. Christopher Lee (who has since said that he was duped in to appearing in this by his producers who told him loads of great actors were involved) is Father Pergado and gets to do his usual serious and scary routine. The cast are not too bad, though most have now retired from acting. The film has terrible sound effects (mainly created from pressing keys on an old computer it seems) and it ridiculously pondering at times - showing a scene of the sky, for instance, for what feels like hours at a time. Despite this the story is pretty humorous in a world-is-doomed sort of way and the production is adequate. Interestingly one scene features Albert Band and wife Jackie; Meda Band; Writer Frank Ray Perilli and Charles Band's assistant Bennah Burton. Despite its plodding nature I genuinely wanted to see how it all worked out and thus quite liked it.


This film had a great cast going for it: Christopher Lee, Dean Jagger, Macdonald Carey, Lew Ayres -- solid b-movie actors all. But this downer of a movie didn't use any of them to any sort of advantage, with none of their characters even meeting on screen (though Christopher Lee does get to play opposite himself in several scenes).

The motivations for the aliens in this movie seem to change at the drop of a hat. First, they just want to repair their ship and leave, then they turn on the main character by killing most of his friends and not releasing his wife after he gets them the crucial part they need. Then, out of nowhere, this "peaceful" race decides they have to destroy the planet because it causes too many "diseases" (though they do offer the main character and his wife a spot in their society).

Most of the film is spent watching the man and wife drive or walk or stand around or sit at desks doing nothing. You almost wish they had gotten taken out with the rest of the planet at the end, just in vengeance for boring us to death.

Unless you really like Chris Lee or seventies low-budget sci-fi, I'd give this one a miss. It falls into that narrow range of wasted celluloid between Star Odyssey and UFO: Target Earth.


Your mind will not be satisfied by this nobudget doomsday thriller; but, pray, who's will? A youngish couple spends the actual end of the world in the hidden laboratory of some aliens masquerading as Church people.

Small _apocalyptically themed outing, END OF THE WORLD has the ingenuity and the lack of both brio and style of the purely '50s similar movies. And it's not only that, but EOTW plays like a hybridnot only doomsday but convent creeps as well. The villain of the movie is a wellknown character actor.

This wholly shameless slapdash seems a piece of conventexploitation, that significantly '70s genre which looks today so amusingly outdated. Anyway, the convent's secret laboratory is some nasty piece of futuristic deco! Christopher Lee is the pride of End of the World; but the End of the World is not at all his pride!


It's got Christopher Lee, it's got huge banks of 1970s computers that make Teletype noises as letters appear on the screen, it's got radioactive isotopes that not only glow in the dark but emit pulsing thrumming noises, it's got volcanoes! evil aliens disguised as nuns! tidal waves! earthquakes! exploding cars! exploding coffee machines! and as a climax the entire planet blows up. How on earth does this film managed to be so incredibly, mind-numbingly DULL? The answer, my friend is because 90% of this movie is made up of establishing shots, most of them involving long tracks, pans, or zooms in combinations, or occasionally all three, that do nothing except give the crew something to do. There are endless shots of our protagonists driving, getting in and out of cars, driving again, walking around looking at stuff, getting in cars and driving... I just sat there watching endless parade of nothingness in stupefaction muttering "Say something, please somebody, just say something... DO something... anything!..."

The dialogue, when it does come, is terrible.

"Maybe their minutes are measured on a different scale than ours." was a typically meaningless line. The script culminates in the destruction of the world by stock footage, justified in this speech from Lee as the head alien:

"The planet Earth has emitted an over-abundance of diseases, they are contaminating the Universe. All the planets light years away from here will suffer unless it is destroyed!"

This is is Neanderthal SF script writing. This is the sort of motivation you find in the sort of 1950's Japanese monster suit movies aimed at 7 year olds. It is, and I collect such things, the most god-awful line from an English language SF movie since Buster Crabbe retired. It beggars belief that this movie was released in the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters.

Lee, who always struck me as a smart, useful actor with a sure knowledge of his limits, delivers his lines as if he is going to kill his agent for getting him into this pile of drek. I don't blame him.


Spoilers

Wow, END OF THE WORLD is a singularly underwhelming cinematic experience.

Here is the full story: a scientist is getting messages from space (a la INDEPENDENCE DAY). The messages say stuff like a massive disaster is about to happen and then the scientist hears later on the radio that a huge earthquake just happened in China. He starts thinking that the messages have something to do with the disasters around the world so he's trying to figure out who's receiving the messages (and who's also sending out messages in space). He and his wife eventually figure out that the messages come from a convent. They visit it. Everything looks normal, including the priest played by a bored Christopher Lee. But the scientist is adamant and really believes that the messages are coming from and going to that convent. So he and his wife secretly go back to the convent where they are caught snooping around by the aliens, disguised as priests and nuns. They are held against their will and the alien played by Lee forces the scientist to get something they need in order for them to return to their planet. Once the alien get the special element, the aliens all depart one by one to their home planet in some sort of tacky looking transporter platform. Lee, being the last alien left, tells the couple that the earth will be destroyed because of some sort of hokey decision by the aliens. Lee walks in the transporter and he's gone. The couple, looking at the monitors that show stock footage of natural disasters occurring all over the world, decide to follow the aliens. Because earth is doomed, the couple doesn't see any point of staying behind so they walk in the transporter and disappear. The last shot of the movie is a papier mache planet earth exploding. The end.

That's it.

I've never seen such a dull movie in my life. It's the most underwhelming movie I've ever experienced. The scientist and his wife are two of worst heroes or protagonists ever put on screen. They don't care about anything. They see the earth disasters on the monitors and decide "what the heck, who needs earth anyway?" They don't even try to stop them or do something to make things better. This kind of story might have worked if the film had an overwhelming sense of doom to everything but the action and atmosphere are nonexistent. The actors and the folks behind this dull flick are going through their paces, so much so that you can almost feel when they punched their cards when they got off and returned to work. I wasn't expecting much with this movie because it IS a Charles Band production, but I didn't expect it to be this bad.

Christopher Lee was once asked what was his worst film he ever made and he mentioned STARSHIP INVASIONS. Well, I'm sorry Chris but STARSHIP INVASIONS was actually goofy fun. STARSHIP INVASIONS is terrible but terribly entertaining. END OF THE WORLD is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worst: it's beyond dull and inert, with NO entertainment value whatsoever.


Christopher Lee is one of my favorite actors! I'm trying to view all of his work. He has been known to single-handedly save movies with his presence. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This movie suffers from a low budget and it's production values are disturbing. Please...for the love of Christopher....avoid this film!


"A scientist discovers signals from space that appear to carry information concerning a series of seemingly unrelated natural disasters, occurring across the globe. Hoping to discover the source of these signals and who's behind them, the scientist and his wife set out on a trek to locate the intended recipient of the signals. What the couple eventually discovers is a small remote convent with occupants who are not really who they appear to be," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Kirk Scott (as Andrew Boran) is the scientist who intercepts alien messages on his computer. He suspects a series of "Large Earth Disruptions" may be connected to the weird space static. Mr. Scott and pretty blonde wife Sue Lyon (as Sylvia Boran) investigate the mysterious signals from outer space. They discover priestly, but creepy Christopher Lee (as "Father Pergado"), and other silliness. Given that, "End of the World" is remarkably dull.

*** End of the World (1977) John Hayes ~ Kirk Scott, Sue Lyon, Christopher Lee


A good deal of running around. A badly conceived adversary with very little complexity. A scientist who works in communications sending off signals into space and receiving them, gets caught up with aliens. Along with his pretty wife, he invades their territory and is given secrets about them. He becomes rather traitorous in the process. Granted, he is given little choice anyway. There is a scene where he gives them everything they want. This is a dull movie with lots of long stretches where little happens. The plot isn't technically bad. It's just that we are usually following a car, a trip through a woods, investigating a building. This is what editing is all about. I suppose the story wouldn't technically support much more. Not much here.


Dull, cheap sci-fi thriller, made with an almost total lack of conviction (a control room full of computers and other devices used to receive and decipher messages from outer space is run by only ONE MAN, and is VERY poorly guarded at night), and full of campy sound effects. Christopher Lee is not only wasted, but he also gives one of his few "I'm here strictly for the money" performances. (*1/2)


What can I say about this film other than "don't see it". I waited and waited and WAITED for someting (or anything) to happen and it just didn't come. Watch amazingly as two people walk around while setting the record for most filler screen time in a single movie. What are they doing? Are they solving a mystery? Are they gathering clues? Possibly, it's just hard to tell. At the end of the movie, after a lot of radio signals are decoded (illegibly on some sort of PET monitor) and this guy gives some lectures, the plot is finally revealed and tossed aside as quickly as possible. Some aliens want to get back to their home world utopia and are so happy there that they want to blow up the earth (I guess they don't like sharing the wealth). My guess is they finished filming and saw their 35 minute work or art (garbage!) and decided that they'd let the editing crew turn it into an 88 minute feature film. Watch at your own peril, it's not even funny because it's so bad, it's just bad.


end of the world looks like a good movie on the box cover but be warned its bad.being a big fan of mega star actor Christopher lee i was fooled. like tentacles(77)a good cast does not mean it'll be a good film.the beginning looks promising then it turns to tedium,many parts of the movie are too dark to see whats going on.the rest of the cast is shown briefly like;Lew ayres,dean Jagger,and MacDonald Carey as a security guard.i would expect better from Charles band who made good fun movies like the re-animater and dolls.i heard Christopher lee was tricked into making this film.he was told his co stars were going to be Jose ferrer,john carridine,and dean Jagger.well dean Jagger is there but the other two never made it(lucky them)if you make a movie about the end of the world use a bigger budget and better storyline.dean Jagger went on to do two good movies afterwards;alligator(80)and game of death(79) sue Lyon(Lolita)is also in the movie minus her lollipop.if you are a glutton for punishment then watch end of the world i dare you to say awake during the whole movie.1 out of 10.


This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, its horrible. Christopher Lee is good but he is hardly in it, the only the good part is the opening scene.

Don't be fooled by the title. "End of the World" is truly a bad movie, I stopped watching it close to the end it was so bad, only for die hard b-movie fans that have the brain to stand this vomit.


End of the World is an uneventful movie, which is odd since it is supposed to be about the total destruction of the earth. The main character is some kind of scientist, I'm not exactly sure what kind. He has two jobs at a government(?) facility guarded by four security men. His first job is monitoring transmissions to and from space (although this actually seems more like a hobby he does when not working on job #2). Job #2 requires him to put on a protective suit and go into a dark room...at least that's the best I can figure. Apparently the "plant" is not exactly top-secret, as the scientist brings his wife there. She hangs out (they're on their way to a dinner) while he discovers a message from space: Major Earth Disruption, repeated over and over. He says something about it being the first message from space he's ever been able to decipher; his wife tells him they're going to be late for the dinner party. So they leave and go to the party (!?!). Moments later he finds out that China has suffered a major earthquake. From there, the movie goes... nowhere! Yes, Christopher Lee is in it, but that really doesn't help much. Besides, Lee gives a lackluster performance along the lines of his appearance in Howling II. This movie is boring, but it has enough stupid elements that you might want to suffer through it once if you like Christopher Lee or Z-grade sci-fi. Plus, there's lots of stock footage of the earth being destroyed.


I expected alot from this movie. Kinda like Lee as a Naustradamous like caracter but instead all I got was a waste of time and a boring movie. I can't even explain this movie. It had wooden acting, terrible script from pieces from the Bible like hurricanes, tidal waves and earthquakes. But that was at the end! The rest of it I had to wait and hope that something meaningfull would happen but it didn't. This movie is about a couple that tries to find out the changes going on in the world like places in China where there was an earthquake and end up at a convent run by eight nuns and a priest. The convent end up being the key to the misshappenings. The whole movie is missleading and boring. One of Lees worst.


I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.

This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments.


This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever watched. DO NOT RENT! The makers of this movie should be band from ever making another movie. It starts with some what of a plot, then fades fast to nothing. I think I would rather watch paint dry then to as much as looking at the cover. The actors were awful, the plot faded fast, filming left to much work to be done. Not one good thing to say about this crap movie. If you rent this movie you will waste your money. I really enjoy National Lampoon movies, but this was a waste of time. Learn to write, learn to act, learn to produce, and learn to direct. I feel I should sue these a-holes that made this movie for money wasted on rental cost and time lost.


This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.

The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.

I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.

At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure.