This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.

For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.

Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.

There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.

Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you.


Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable.


You believe in God or you don't. You believe in Jesus or you don't. You believe He is the Son of God or you don't. The choice is up to you.

Director Denys Arcand has really done everything he could to bring back Jesus to a mere historic figure, social worker, son of two humans, instead of the Son of God the Holy Spirit and Mary, Who opened Heaven again for us. Encouraging the Big Bang, a world come from evolution, instead of seeing the beauty of creation. The film depicts a theologian bringing some "modern findings" to the actor who plays Jesus in the Passion Play, who happily incorporates them in his play.

The depicted priest who runs the sanctuary where the Passion Play is performed in Montreal has a sexual relation with one of the female players of the Passion Play instead of showing his love for God through celibacy. More often than not the director's abhorrence of the Church is clearly visible.

The director has tried to make a parallel between Jesus' life and the Passion Play actor's life. This is an admirable attempt, but depicting the Resurrection with the transplantation of the Passion Play actor's organs in other bodies signifies how the director thinks about Jesus.

My opinion is not important, God's opinion is, but I wouldn't want to stand in the shoes of the director and actors when standing before Jesus' throne.


As I sat in front of the TV watching this movie, I thought, "Oh, what Alfred Hitchcock, or even Brian DePalma, could have done with this!" Chances are, you will too. It does start out intrigueing. A British park ranger living in Los Angeles (Collin Firth) marries a pretty, demure brunette woman (Lisa Zane) whom he met in a park only a short time ago. Then, one day she dissappears. The police are unable to find any documentation that she ever existed, and Firth conducts his own search. So far, so good. Just as he's about to give up, he turns to his womanizing best friend (Billy Zane), and they stumble onto her former life in L.A.'s sordid underground of drugs, nightclubs, and ametuer filmmaking, and then to her history of mental instability. At that point, Firth's life is in danger, and the film falls apart. None of the characters from Lisa Zane's past are remotely interesting. The film moves slowly, and there's very little action. There is a subplot regarding missing drug money, but it's just a throwaway. No chases, no cliffhanging sequences, and no suspense. Just some dull beatings and a lot of chat by boring characters. One thing worth noting, Lisa Zane and Billy Zane are brother and sister, but they never appear in a scene together. By the end of the movie, you're torn between wondering what might have been and trying to stay awake.


It's interesting at first. A naive park ranger (Colin Firth) marries a pretty, mysterious woman (Lisa Zane) he's only known for a short time. They seem to be happy, then she disappears without warning. He searches for her and, after a few dead ends, stumbles upon some of her abused childhood and sleazy recent past, which may include criminal activity. And then, it seems the filmmakers didn't know what to do with the story. The beginning, while not as suspenseful as it sounds, is at least watchable. Then it ceases to be interesting or even make much sense. And the ending is so lame, so dull, and so devoid of any excitement or intelligence, you'll think the screenwriters didn't know what to do with it and got bored trying. What a sorry waste of a good idea!


I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End.


I love B movies..but come on....this wasn't even worth a grade...The ending was dumb...b/c THERE WAS NO REAL ENDING!!!..not to mention that it comes to life on its own...I mean no lighting storm or crazy demonic powers?? Slow as hell and then they just start killing off the characters one by one in like a 15 min time period...and i won't even start on the part of the thing killing the one guy without its head....and then you don't even get to see what Jigsaw even does with his so called "new jigsaw puzzle"....Unless you have nothing better to do...Id watch paint dry before Id recommend this God-forsaken movie to anyone else...oh and to make it even better the other movie totem you can see the guy throwing the one creature in the basement scene from the window..that was funny as hell and probably the only good part of watching that waste of film


I am not sure who is writing these

glowing reviews for this movie but trust me it STKINKS. I have seen hundreds of horror films and slasher flicks and this one is LAME it is only about 80min long and believe me that is all I could take. Plot is terrible, acting is even worse. And there is no development at all.

Even the David Cocteau films are better than this. RUN AWAY from JIGSAW . I expected to hate the acting, which can be forgiven in direct to video movies, if the plot is good.

This had no scares, very little Gore,

and a truly unattractive cast.

I watched this with three other friends

who I hope are still talking to me!

They wanted me to fling the disc out the window. I can not believe anyone could have

given this tripe a good review.


Whether you want to spend nearly 2 hours of your life watching this depends how you like your horror movies. If you like them so god damn awful they're hysterical, watch away. Jigsaw is without a doubt the worst movie i've seen in my life (and i've seen 'Long Time Dead'), and i say this as a fan of the low-budget horror/gore genre and having seen a good few to compare it to. I'm not even going to go into the specifics of what makes this movie was bad as it is, the only good thing about it is it's so so terrible it's one of the funniest things i've seen in years. If you can find this to rent cheap it's definitely worth watching, if you were involved in making it - shame on you. :o) IMDb need to introduce a 0/10 ranking especially for this movie, it thoroughly deserves it.


OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.

The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason.

The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.

My ratings:

funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100


We've all been there, sitting with some friends watching a bad movie, laughing at how terribly it was made and how poor the acting was; eventually the credits roll and everyone looks around and says "how is it possible such a movie was made? who paid money to have this script made into a feature film?" Well Jigsaw is not that kind of film, instead of asking how this garbage was budgeted you wonder why the makers were shot out of a cannon into the sun. Yes, Jigsaw is quite possibly the worst movie ever made or conceived, this coming from a guy who has seen Campfire Stories and Fever Lake. The film starts out in some kind of college class, what kind of class I am unsure, but it is imagined to be an art class. Now these dorks have been given a final project by their idiot teacher, five of them are given pieces of a mannequin and told to design it in any way they see fit, and since there are only five pieces the other students in the class receive and automatic A, oddly enough there are only six students in this entire class so the one goth chic gets a free A, good for her! A week passes and the five students, plus teacher, plus one hillbilly husband meet in a bar to discuss their and complete their project, they put the pieces together, head, arms, legs and inform the others why they chose their specifics designs, now these creative geniuses used the week to their full advantage, one puts a saw blade in the left hand, the other gets a sawed off shotgun, the right leg gets a bunch of broken ceramic glued to it and the left some magazine clippings, the head is the worst getting a camera in the eye, ala Hellraiser 3, with some bottle rockets for a stylish mo-hawk. After they have all spilled their guts about their specifics designs the now drunk teacher says they are to burn the mannequin, now aptly named Jigsaw. Now up to this point it has been standard horrible movie fair, bad acting, dialog and everything else, but has still been pretty plausible, yet after Jigsaw catches fire things take a turn for the worst...Jigsaw comes alive.. How you ask? I have no idea, he just does because the writers couldn't think of a realistic way for two pounds worth of molded plastic to become alive (Come on guys, a bolt of lighting, a traveling voodoo priest, anything could have worked.) So once Jigsaw comes to life he uses his new abilities of walking very slow and stilted with the use of his molded fingers to wreak havoc. First he kills the cool guy with some barb wire, this guy who was about to get it on with a hot chic decides drinking ground beer off in the distance is more important than what is in front of him. With him gone Jigsaw shoots the sexy girl in the face and then gives an old man a heart attack with a slight twist of his head, he then saws up a nasty looking southern woman and then her hillbilly husband; Jigsaw then kills the nerdy guy with some headless deception. Did I mention Jigsaw was taking body parts off his victims to make a human version of himself? No! Well its not important they don't even show his macabre creation, they don't even show him steal away a torso from his poor creators (Maybe he was trying to create the head detective from In Living Color). So after these five have been killed the teacher and the nerdy girl are all who is left, the teacher figures out that Jigsaw only needs a head to finish his masterpiece, since he is still uninterested in that torso thing. So being the coward he is the teacher ties up the girl as a sacrifice to Jigsaw who comes in only to go for the teacher with his electric buzz saw which isn't even plugged in. That is where the freaking movie ends, we don't even get to see the teacher get killed or what happens to the girl, let alone an explanation why Jigsaw came to life or how he cleaned himself off after being burned. This movie is so shameful it has too be seen, it is only 71 minutes so it is a small part of your day; For the memories of a lifetime, Jigsaw, Jigsaw, Jigsaw. Thank you Total Recall! The Judge has ruled, watch Jigsaw only if your plans of severing off your genitals seems played out.


I might not be a huge admirer of the original "Creepshow", but its trashy sequel makes that anthology look like perfection! And to think I was going into this expecting to like this one more. Five years after its predecessor, George Romero gets back on board the EC Comic style trail and on this outing pens the screenplay for Steve King's three stories. Though, the direction is handed off to Michael Gornick. The film mostly falters in that aspect with uneven brushes by Gornick. But most of the blame would have to go to Romero's dreadfully static and unbearably cringe-like script (especially in those dialogues streaming through the first and final story). Moralistic messages (that came from mostly a sour bunch of characters) simply took over the black humour. Oh it was painful and the same can be said about the lively rotten music score accompanying the picture. Loosely linking the three tales (Old Chief Woodenhead, The Raft and The Hitchhiker) together is a mildly curious and effective wraparound story done in nostalgia (80s) animation form. I rather liked this segment and the wisecracking Creep character was a glowing light.

# The first story "Old Chief Woodenhead" sees two elderly proprietors (George Kennedy & Dorothy Lamour) of a general store in a dying native community, Dead River. Get robbed and eventually killed by a couple of punks dying to live it up in Hollywood. In front of the store is a wooden statue of an Indian Chief that comes to live to avenge their deaths.

-Listen to George Kennedy waffle.. And waffle on for 10 minutes about how he's committed to his 'great' community. What a nice touchy feely time. Well, just like Kennedy's speeches, this is one monotonously colourless and overdrawn item that never makes good of a fine premise. The overbearing script is plain inane and the performances are suitably so. These two factors really added to my headache. When the Indian comes alive and turns avenger, the goons meet a very quick (though grisly) death in the proper fashion. The effects were commendably done, but what about that free flowing hair. How could Hollywood knock that lock of hair back? Ugh!

# Second story "The Raft" follows a group of dope smoking and yahoo teens heading up to a secluded lake. After swimming to the raft in the middle of the lake, they get trapped on the platform because of an ominous looking creature lurking in the water.

-Now this is much better, MUCH better. What starts of as your basic teens run afoul turns into a mysteriously creepy set-up that's full of tight and claustrophobic tension. And it doesn't even cop out on the flashes of nudity or spiteful splatter. Quite morbid it is and that goes for its sense of humour too. The surprisingly ironic ending has a beautiful touch to it. The performances from the nobodies are acceptable without making a huge mark. Gornick's direction sticks to the nasty and rather gooey side. While, the alarming music score on this occasion pressed the right chords. The sludge-like creature in the lake (like many have mentioned) looks like an icky black tarpaulin (yeah you're reading that right!) floating on the water.

# Finally number three concludes with "The Hitchhiker". A wealthy, but sexually lacking woman is on her way back home after being with her male gigolo, but she's is running late. Thinking of some ideas to explain for her lateness if needed, she skids off the road and accidentally hit's a hitchhiker. Instead of checking or getting help, she drives off in the hope getting home before her husband. Soon enough she's being terrorised by the mangled corpse of the dead hitchhiker.

-Not awful, but I really didn't get into this laughably ludicrous exercise at all. Compared to the first two this one was so different in tone and tried to tickle the funny bone instead. Lois Chiles was okay in the lead role, but that constant assuring and the little conversations she has with herself became pitifully aggravating and downright tired. The vivid make-up effects are well-displayed and dripping with vision. When she hit's the hitchhiker that's when it becomes hectic, cheesy and over-the-top in its execution. From there onwards we endlessly hear our supposedly dead hitchhiker repeat and repeat and repeat the line, "Thanks for the ride lady!" This happens every time she decides to run over him. Have a little courtesy for the dead darling.

In all, the second short story "The Raft" and the unpleasantly, well-conceived effects is what lifts this extremely inferior sequel.


CREEPSHOW 2 is the ill-fated sequel to the George Romero's (overrated) original, CREEPSHOW. Any sequel following a Romero film that's not directed by Romero himself has got some large shoes to fill, mostly because of the Romero fans out there who think he's God. I didn't care much for the first film and funny enough, I didn't care much for the sequel. The film series had so much potential but it was short-lived because both films were less than stellar.

The biggest problem with CREEPSHOW 2 was that it only had three stories (excluding the in-between story), and because the first story sucked beyond belief, it only left the chance for almost half of the movie to be *really* good. I saw CS 2 at the movies and the first segment was a real groaner. Anything dramatic with George 'I can't act' Kennedy is automatically doomed and the Indian Statue story was too hokey and simply didn't belong in this sequel. So after a really trite and dull start, there were only two other stories left to reverse the fiasco of the aborted beginning and unfortunately the two other stories weren't great enough for me to forget the first story. THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER are moderately successful, moderately because though the two other segments have their moments, they still sorta fall flat. The two last stories are basically stretched out for too long. It's not that I wanted the stories to happen at a dizzying pace and end fast, but both good ideas found within those stories were sorta nullified by the fact that they were slow and padded and eventually fell flat when the segments needed to be more energized, more erratic and with punchier endings. Also, if the two last stories hadn't been stretched out to pad the movie or had all three segments been more brief with better editing and direction, they could have added a much needed fourth story to the bunch. Having only three padded segments made for a boring feast.

The acting and writing in both THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER segments are from awful to good. I like Lois Chiles in the last segment. It's probably her best moment on screen aside from her role as Bond Girl Holly Goodhead in MOONRAKER and in DEATH ON THE NILE. But even her role is difficult to understand at times because of the serviceable direction and the unfocused story. Are we supposed to hate her or sympathize with her? Are we supposed to sympathize with the annoying hitchhiker? If the hitchhiker's body was found by other people on the road, what was he when he attacked Chiles? Was he a ghost or a zombie or what? How did the body eventually left the presence of the other people who found him dead in order to attack Chiles? The whole thing is not very clear, even for a supernatural story. And the ending is rather dull and uneventful.

As for the infamous THE RAFT story, well, the acting is mostly on the awful side and none of the characters are sympathetic or interesting. The characters would have been more interesting had the actors played themselves. None of the actors are convincing in their specific roles. Paul Satterfield looks smarter than the dumb jock he's playing and the actress who plays his girlfriend is not very convincing as the typical bitchy slut. She seems too timid. The same could be said with the two others who play the "plain" teens. The idea of the killer oil slick is interesting and creepy but not well executed. There should have been a fifth character to the story, maybe a homeless man or a ranger who lurks around the lake and knows about the oil slick and could have been the watery monster's alter ego of sorts. As creepy as the oil slick is, it doesn't make for a compelling "character". And the way the story ends, everything seems pointless. No punch to it whatsoever.

Except for the few titillating aspects which always seems to make boring things worthwhile, seeing CREEPSHOW 2 at a theater was basically a waste of money and time. CS 2 is more rental material than something you pay to see on the big screen.


Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better.


"Creepshow 2" is little more than a pale imitation of the original, designed with little purpose other than to cash in on the name of the previous film. It even amplifies the flaws of its predecessor, which was often predictable and heavy-handed. Still, the first time around, there were enough thrills to make up for it's periodic lulls, resulting in an uneven but overall fairly entertaining effort. The sequel has few worthwhile moments, so the transparency of the stories are even more apparent. Once in a while, it delivers, but most of the time, it just lingers there.

As in the original, all the stories revolve around the common theme of revenge and just desserts. A wooden Indian comes to life, wreaking vengeance upon the killers of its owner. Teenagers are devoured by an aquatic monster. A hitchhiker returns from the dead to pursue a careless motorist. None of these premises are inherently bad in themselves, but they are utterly lacking in inspiration. There are few surprises and no scares. This a textbook example of unmotivated, by-the-numbers filmmaking. It doesn't help that this cheap-looking movie suffers from a flat directorial style, although to be honest, there wasn't much to work with. In the end, the second story comes off best, but not by much.

For the most part, the performances are okay at best. George Kennedy, as the ill-fated general store owner, does an adequate, if not particularly inspired job. Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand, is quite good as the guilt-ridden motorist, evoking sympathy for her plight despite the predictable, redundant material. However, most of the characters are pretty thin overall.

One would think that "Creepshow 2" would have turned out better. George Romero, who directed the original, returned to pen the screenplay, based on more of Stephen King's stories. Makeup effects artist Tom Savini turns in some good, gory work. So why is the film a letdown? I guess Romero didn't really want to make a second film, but was forced to do so for financial reasons. It was a decade of horror sequels, clones, rip-offs, and whatnot, so this one was certainly inevitable. I can imagine the guy writing the script in a hurry, picking up his paycheck, and running off. I guess he had to do what was necessary to get his own projects financed; we can't blame him.

Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)

Released by New World Pictures


I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it.


Sequels have a nasty habit of being disappointing, and the best credit I can give this is that it maintains that old tradition. These three tales aren't anything as good as any from the original Creepshow.

By far the best of the trio involves a wooden idol which comes to life to take revenge on the thugs who killed its owners. The second story is about a lake monster which seems to be nothing more than a lot of floating slop, makes you wonder how anybody could possibly be scared of it. The third story includes a cameo from Stephen King as a truck driver, but other than that is a pretty unmemorable tale concerning the victim of a road traffic accident who comes back from the dead for the person who knocked him down.

Watch the original Creepshow instead, or if you already have done then be happy with that.


Five years after the original Creepshow, another inferior horror sequel is penned by George A. Romero and Stephen King: Creepshow 2. This time there are only three stories instead of five. None of the three stories is really original or distinguished either. The first story is a horror staple, formulaic story about a wooden Indian statue seeking revenge against the killers of its owners. The effects are really neat in this story, but it's just too familiar to be compelling enough. George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour play the elderly store owners. The second story, "The Raft", is a Stephen King story. It's about four teenagers that unwittingly spend the day on a wooden pallet in the middle of an isolated lake. Soon the kids are screaming for their lives as a watery blob does each of them in for no apparent reason. However, instead of being suspenseful, the kids are saddled with bad dialog and dopey-headed behavior, preventing us from really caring about what happens next. There is also some unintentional humor in this segment. The third and final story is "The Hitch-hiker", which is actually a retread re-adapted for Creepshow 2. The original story, by Lucille Fletcher, was filmed in 1953 as a film noir suspense film. Then it was adapted for a famous Twilight Zone episode featuring Inger Stevens. "The Hitch-hiker" works the best out of these three offerings, but it's not without its problems either. Lois Chiles plays a cheating spouse, who ends up running over a hitch-hiker, or so she thinks. However, we don't know whether to sympathize with her or condemn her. As in many average stories of this type, the characters exist merely to tell the stories with their twists and turns. The wrap around story with the bullies seems a bit out of place. Tom Savini appears as the "creep" in this installment. The good thing is there haven't been any more sequels. *1/2 of 4 stars.


I rented it because the second segment traumatized me as a little kid. I snuck downstairs really early one morning, started watching HBO, and The Raft (segment 2) terrorized me good. This time around, I still enjoyed The Raft, although I couldn't tell whether it was for nostalgic reasons or if it was actually a good short. The other two segments were complete trash. I can't believe a producer somewhere payed to make this junk. All I've accomplished by watching this was to ruin one more childhood memory. Creepshow 2 will now join Rad among my list of tainted childhood classics. 4/10


Andy Lau stars in another cop undercover tale. Daniel Wu plays Nick who is working for the cops and is also close to the top of a drug dealing gang(Lau). The movie begins as we watch the police try to make a drug bust only to see it go to pieces. We then are introduced to the young drug addicted mother and her daughter living near Nick and to his cronies and the cops, and 45 minutes in I shut off the movie and put on the news. Well acted and great to look at this is as uninvolving a movie as I've seen in a long time. Its not bad as such its just you really don't care. I mean I really didn't care at all. I actually started to do something else completely forgetting I had on a subtitled movie on, thats how much I didn't care. I wish I could have hated the film but the film is such a nonentity that it made almost no impression on me (its not even something I could sleep to its just something to ignore). Come on the box called it the Chinese Scarface,what after he was dead? This is one to avoid.


Protégé runs in a linear fashion; expect no fast-paced action, and neither will you find yourself with baited breath because there are simply no seating-on-the-edge moments.

There is not much of a crux, so don't expect one either. I would not fault the acting - the show would have been much worst if not for Wu's acting which was the film's only saving grace. And, oh that cute little girl too.

The humour is at best, weak, and the show must as well pass off as an anti-drug campaign which employs the usual shock-tactic (esp in the scenes with Zhang) to tell us stuff that we already know - i.e. drugs break up families, heroin drives you crazy, it is not so easy to wean off, you will fall into a vicious cycle.

I know it may seem all a little harsh, but I feel that the show is far from seamless and somewhat patchy (*SPOILER ALERT*: Take for example when Andy Lau got brought to the police station: what? we were just told 'oh we have all the tapes and evidence against you since 1997', and THAT is how he got caught. Nope, no chasing-car action, just a jump-of-scene, which kind of undermined Wu's role as an undercover in the first place.) I suspect the lack of creativity is attributed to the fact that it is after all, a production of Mediacorp Raintree - a Singaporean production film company.


Whoa. In the Twin Cities, we have a station that shows a "Big Bad Movie" Monday through Friday. Tonight's nugget was a film with Carrie Fisher called "She's Back" about a really annoying woman who ends up getting murdered when thugs break into her house. Bea (Beatrice) comes back to haunt her husband. She wants him to seek revenge on her killers, hence "she's back". And she won't let him rest until he does so. She irritates him endlessly... and the viewers, too! This movie is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Hey, I like bad movies, though (my fave movie is Xanadu). I was really shaking my head throughout the whole film, wondering who thought this would be a good idea for a movie. Bea is just so annoying. The plot is silly; the acting is bad; the story... well, you get my drift. Anyway, if you wanna see a really bad movie - really really bad movie, check this one out. You won't be disappointed. Heh.


This movie should be number one on the bottom 100. The acting is so horrible that when my son and I watched it we nearly got physically ill. And the story is worse. I could go on and on about how bad it is but all I really wanted to do was add a warning to frankbob's review as I see no one else has gone to the trouble of doing so yet. Don't waste your time, money, energy or anything else on this movie. Thank goodness we saw it on TV so we didn't spend anything on it. Had we, I would have been forced to write the people responsible for this abomination and be forced to hurl an execration in their general direction. In conclusion, I would like to say that I have always enjoyed watching Carrie Fisher act. But I am sad to say that she is not worth watching in this particular film. Don't spoil your opinion of Carrie by viewing it.


Carrie Fisher has stated on more than one occasion that she made this movie during a period of her life when she had a heavy cocaine problem, and she doesn't remember very much of it. That would explain why she made this film, but it doesn't explain why anyone else in the cast or crew did; I can't believe that EVERYBODY had a coke problem. This has to be one of the absolute worst movies ever made, and that's saying something. The blame can't be laid at the feet of "director" Tim Kincaid or "writer" Buddy Giovinazzo, as it is obvious that this picture wasn't written or directed by anyone. Apparently it just spontaneously came together, as there is little evidence of coherency, consistency, design, plot, sense, intelligence or anything else. What is really amazing is that there were some actual professionals who were involved in this glop. Co-star Robert Joy has done good work in other films, and composer Jimmie Haskell and cinematographer Arthur Marks are both industry veterans, Marks also having been a director, and not a bad one. Why they got involved in this steaming pile of offal is beyond comprehension. Tim Kincaid, the alleged "director", has made quite a few low-rent sci-fi and horror films, and, having seen most of them, I can tell you that not a one of them is any good. This one, though, is by far the worst thing he's ever done, and that is a major accomplishment on his part. Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, about this movie is 12th-rate--at best. The cinematography is terrible, the acting is laughable, the "special effects" make "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Spider-Man", the story is trite, derivative and stupid. Don't waste your time even looking at the video box cover, let alone renting it. A complete, utter, annoying, total dud.


OK this movie was really "unique" shall we say. Carrie Fisher was by far the most talented in the movie, even though it is said she had a coke problem during the movie. but she said that she can't remember to much of it. well thats her excuse but whats everyone else's??? i can't imagine they all had a coke problem.whatever it wasn't all that bad i mean i guess the plot was OK and it had some pretty funny moments. although the part where the guy gets that thing shoved in his head was a little too violent for my taste. oh well i guess i was disappointed cause Carrie fisher is like so awesome and this movie did nothing for her.


While the acting and directing could be argued as having some merit - the storyline is a very poor wannabe Vietnam movie with the country name simply changed.

At the very least, for a movie to hold some credibility, try and have some semblance of accuracy in equipment, weapons and tactics. Nevermind the gross misrepresentation of the behaviour of the troops as a norm.

Aside for the limited use as silly propaganda about the South African Defence Force, it serves little purpose - definitely no entertainment value.

Aspiring movie makers - this is how not to make a war movie. Do some research, and have some pride in your product.


I am a relative latecomer to the transcendent work of film auteur Yasujiro Ozu, whose masterfully understated views of Japanese life, especially in the post-WWII era, illuminate universal truths. Having now seen several of his landmark films such as 1949's "Late Spring" and 1953's "Tokyo Story", I am convinced that Ozu had a particularly idiosyncratic gift of conveying the range of feelings arising from intergenerational conflict through elliptical narratives and subtle imagery. It is Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien's keen aspiration to pay homage to Ozu on his centenary with this generally enervating 2003 film. Among with co-screenwriter T'ien-wen Chu, Hsiao-hsien appears to get the visuals right but does not capture the requisite emotional weight that would have made the glacial pacing tolerable.

The story concerns Yôko, a young Japanese writer researching the life of mid-20th century Taiwanese composer Jiang Wen-Ye in Tokyo after coming back from Taiwan where she taught Japanese. After 25 drawn-out minutes of character set-up, she reveals to her father and stepmother that she is pregnant by one of her students in Taiwan. At the same time, Yôko's coffeehouse friend Hajime, who runs a used bookstore, has an obsession for trains and seems likely to be in love with her. Hsiao-hsien connects this slim plot line with a series of shots held for inordinately lengthy takes as the frame composition changes. There are also long stretches of silence as well as an abundance of scenes featuring trains. While these techniques are consistent with Ozu's style, Hsiao-hsien cannot seem to dive into the characters' psyches the way Ozu did with maximal fluidity and minimal theatrics, in particular, Yôko's plight seems rather non-committal in the scheme of the drama presented and her parents' reaction overly passive to hold much interest. In fact, the whole film has an atmosphere of exhaustion about it, which makes the film feel interminable.

The performances are unobtrusive though hardly memorable. J-pop music star Yo Hitoto brings a natural ease to Yôko, while Tadanobu Asano is something of a cipher as Hajime. The rest of the characters barely register, even Nenji Kobayashi and Kimiko Yo as Yôko's parents. Cinematographer Lee Ping-Bing provides expert work though he violates a cardinal rule of Ozu films by not keeping the camera stable during shots. Hitoto speak-sings the fetching pop song used over he ending credits, "Hito-Shian". The DVD includes an hour long, French-made documentary, "Métro Lumière", which actually does help provide some of the context for Hsiao-hsien's approach to the film. It includes excerpts from Ozu's films, in particular, "Equinox Flower", to show the parallels with this film though surprisingly no mention of either "Tokyo Story" or "Early Summer", the obvious basis for some of the scenes and situation set-ups. There are also edited interview clips of Hitoto, Asano and Hsiao-hsien, as well as the film's trailer.


I've given 'Kôhî jikô' a low score not because it was a bad movie, but because it doesn't do anything worth praising.

I've not seen any of Hsiao-hsien Hou's work before, but for the uninitiated (me included) 'Kôhî jikô' is advertised as a homage to Yasujiro Ozu. (A Japanese director whose last film was way, way in 1962) The film is an extremely sparse work...containing very little dialogue, story, music or emotion.

Yo Hitoto plays 'Yoko' a jobless, wandering character who spends her time in her local coffee shop or loosely investigating a Taiwanese composer she likes. Tadanobu Asano plays her friend, who works in a cd shop and occasionally indulges his otaku interest in trains. And that's about all it.

We watch as Yoko drinks coffee alone...walks around...waits for a train...catches a train...falls asleep on the train. The kind of mundane reality anybody in Japan can see on a daily basis. Hou captures these ordinary moments of these characters life, but without any meaning to these vignettes it's an entirely pointless film to make or watch.


Cafe Lumiere is a beautifully photographed nullity. Unacquainted with the work of the director, I am well-acquainted with the filmmaker he is supposedly paying tribute to - Ozu Yasujiro. While not even approaching Ozu in greatness, Hou has communicated nothing of Ozu's depth of emotion and concentration on meaning within a closed space. One of the things he misses entirely is Ozu's attention to character - we are not even "introduced" by Hou to his lead character (a perfect blank page). There are no medium or close shots of his people. One of the DVD extras offers interviews with the actors and gives us precisely what Hou doesn't - a good look at their faces.

There was a great Spanish film by Bardem called Nunca Pasa Nada, which translates to something like "Nothing Ever Happens". That would be a far better title to this pointless exercise. All through the film we are given clues about an obscure Taiwanese composer some of whose work we hear on the soundtrack. But the clues, like everything else, add up to nothing. Unless you're a trainspotter, this film has nothing to recommend it.


It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?

Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is "a actriss" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that.

Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing.

Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on clichéd minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between "reality" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people "in real life" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.

The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise.


"The seventh sign" borrows a lot from "Rosemary's baby" and "the omen" (it actually blends the two stories).Even its title recalls Bergman' s "the seventh seal" .

Nevertheless,it begins well enough,with all the omens scattered on the whole earth,and in parallel ,a -seemingly- distinct plot with Moore's husband trying to save a poor boy (who killed his parents who were brother and sister)from death penalty.This time,both Christian and Jewish religions are called to the rescue (even the Wandering Jew is involved),which makes the lines sometimes unintentionally funny (Have you ever been to Sunday school? But they taught me that God was love!).The best scene IMHO ,is the short dialog between priest John Heard -who does not seem to take things seriously ,too bad he was not given a more important part because his laid-back acting is priceless-and the young Jew.

Demi Moore probably registered the same desire as ex-husband Bruce Willis :saving the world.She does not save the movie for all that.


When I saw this film on FearNet, I thought it would be a scary movie. Apparently, it wasn't. I have no clue how this movie was allowed to be featured on that site. FearNet is a site that shows scary horror movies.

The acting is wonderful from all the actors. I hated the story. The story was stupid. The movie starts out with a man with a scroll with a signia stamped onto it. He breaks the seal and certain disasters happen. The water turns to blood, the oceans die out, the moon turns red, etc.

The female character was annoying as well. A lot of the stuff she did didn't make sense. Like when she sees a piece of paper with a date on it. Coincidentally, it's the date she's expected to give birth to her baby and she starts freaking out about it and starts researching it and asking religious people what it all means.

*Spoiler Alert*

The two worst things happened in this movie are the execution of a mentally retarded man who claimed that God told him to murder his parents and the end where Demi Moore dies after giving birth to her baby and transferring her soul into it.

Here's what happens. The mentally retarded person gets shot and killed and the apocalypse begins. Demi Moore gets into a hospital in the middle of a massive earthquake and gives birth to her child. She touches her child's head, transferring her soul into the child and then dies. Then, the apocalypse stops.

Why does God all of a sudden have a change of heart? He gets furious when the Governor allows the execution of a mentally retarded man then he's all about forgiveness once a lone woman transfers her soul into her baby?

*End Spoiler*

The movie is pretty stupid. It's another religious end of the world propaganda piece. The acting from Demi Moore and Michael Biehn and everybody else is excellent. That's about all there is.

I give this movie 2 stars out of 10. Good acting with a lot of nonsense!


one word boring.

the young demi looks good, but she's pregnant (- point for that =D) the movie is not scary at all...

the first scenes looked little crappy, i could render better clouds with my laptop, and after effects. but that was then... and now is now. some movies do not get old well... this is one of them.

not worth renting or buying... get something better instead like the exorcist, ...

next =D

oh the drama part in the beginning just and simply suxor =D


The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly


Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.

To quote Buffy Summers, "If the apocalypse comes...beep me."

Going back to sleep now.


THE SEVENTH SIGN has a great opening hook as the Israeli defence force come across a terrorist base . This is the type of hook that is a must when writing a script , it grabs the reader / audience and the introduction of David Bannon as he rents a room from Abby and Russell Quinnn telegraphs the point that this is a man who`s not who he says he is . However after the great opening third I found the rest of the movie confusing and uninvolving with a large number of plotholes and isn`t all that different from umpteen other supernatural thrillers that I`ve seen


Really. Does any week go by that Oprah doesn't remind us that she was abused as child?

She makes herself the focus of every interview.

Oprah cannot resist commenting on the answer to every question she asks. She often interrupts guests before an answer is finished to interject her own aside or anecdote. Directors are obviously instructed to focus on her closeup reaction rather than guest's faces because that's what counts - what Oprah feels, what Oprah says.

Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. It's always all about Oprah.

Oprah says - Feel sorry for me, I was so poor. Feel the pain of my battle with my weight. Feel my hurt when I'm turned away from a fancy store after they've already closed. Feel good for buying my magazines and books. Feel good for my success. Feel good when you give to my charity to make me look good. Feel good for making me rich beyond belief.

My interpretation of her point of view: YOU VIEWERS ARE ALL DEEPLY FLAWED AND YOU NEED MY DAILY ADVICE. I have all the answers for your life though I have nothing in common with you plebes. I have never been married nor do I want to be. I have never had to raise a family - but I know all about it. I have little respect for men or marriage. I clearly prefer people like me over others - witness "Legends Ball 2006". Gayle is my best friend but we are not gay.

As of 7/31/2006, the heading on her website actually reads : "Oprah.com is your leading source for information about love, life, self, relationships, food, home, spirit and health." How presumptive and obnoxious is that ?

In June 2006, she crashed two private wedding receptions in Oklahoma to gather footage for her September 2006 shows. She keeps promising to quit TV but her yapfest drags on with no end in sight.

Contrary to what she thinks, Oprah is neither a queen nor a goddess nor on a personal mission from God. She's just one very lucky, overweight, black woman who copied Phil Donahue's style and called it her own. She happened to be in the right place at the right time and knew exactly how to suck up to the right demographic.

Oprah is the P.T. Barnum of this age and it amazes me that people cannot see through her facade.

So ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls and you too Oprah if you can fit that inflated ego through the door - This way now to the great egress ...


As the 2000's came to a close, king Kong's adopted daughter went ahead and made a tearful announcement her show as coming to an end.

While Miss Winfrey was tearing up, i was laughing and screaming like a wild Indian from the old west.

So what does Oprah do? she takes famous people, and puts them on her show. what kind of famous people? people who've suffered (just like her, except these people have lost more than their virginity) they've suffered melted faces (true story), missing limbs (True story, see end of paragraph), and spousal abuse (too many to count). and somehow they come on the show and tell their story, as if we haven't heard it before tons and tons of times (Bethany Hamilton, i've heard your tale about losing an arm to a shark since day one, which was October 31st, 2003. don't tell me you have no hard feelings.) But the biggest thing probably on Oprah was Michael Jackson's interview in 1993, after being accused of being a child molester. sadly, Mr. Jackson has since passed away. but that one particular show told about Michael's personal life, something not many people knew about at the time.

Oprah's Real influence comes from middle aged women and soccer moms. They seem to think she's like a personal Jesus sometimes. but all i see in Oprah is some big ghetto lady who made it big, and she's just showing off how rich she is.

I'm glad her shows going to end soon. we need better television programs.


Guy de Maupassant was a novelist who wrote a novel about a man, a poor man, without any moral qualities. He only wanted to success in a society where all the people, the politic men, the businessmen, the journalists, the women are corrupt. The only king is MONEY. The Maupassant hero, Charles Forestier is going higher and higher in the society scale thanks to his seduction poser. He is in love with all the women who could help him in his action to climb the society stapes. At the end of the novel, he married himself with the biggest daily paper owner's daughter, in the greatest church of Paris : "La Madeleine". "Le Tout Paris" is there. He has a fortune and more, he will become a member of Parliament and later a Minister. The "useless" women are out of his view, but he is always keeping in touch with the pretty and the usefull women. The picture "THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF BEL AMI" is a story of MORALITY. It is everything, but not a story in the Maupassant idea. Why had they put "BEL AMI" in its title ?


From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called "Films that Suck" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.

My Grade: D-


A family looking for some old roadside attractions to include in the father's coffee-table book come across an ancient, decrepit old freak show run by an eccentric one-eyed man. When their family van breaks down upon leaving the sideshow, they're forced to stay at a nearly abandoned fishing camp that was the site of a prison break decades prior.

There have been many films in the 'freak' subgenre of horror, ranging from Tod Browning's beloved 'Freaks' (1932) to Alex Winter's hilarious 'Freaked' (1993). Those are both classics (or soon-to-be with 'Freaked'). 'Side Sho,' however, never will be. And if it ever does reach classic status. . . well, it will be an obvious clue to the sad state of our genre. From the ridiculously bad opening song to the 17-year-old daughter that's obviously older than her natural mother, this film did not have much going for it. The writing was subpar, but not completely awful. . . just boring. The direction was poor, and the rare freak effects were pretty horrendous and unbelievable. The acting was abysmal and the casting was even worse. Anyone who would believe the ages of these two camp-age teenagers must not have met a teenager in a long, long time. There was far from enough gore & violence to make up for the lack of any other quality. . . and when there was a bit of violence, it was not well done at all. And, I can't forget to mention the ending fight scenes which were, with all honesty, some of the worst I've ever, ever seen in a film. Overall, this is an easily forgettable and poorly made horror film that deserves to be left alone at the bottom of the dollar bin.

Final verdict: 2.5/10.


After 30 seconds, you already realize that there was no real budget for this cheap knock-off. The story is taken from great movies like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Hills have Eyes". I like those kind of movies, even if they're duplicated well (Wrong Turn, Timber Falls, Carver).

But "Side Sho" is hard to watch: the actors are really bad, the dialogue is cheesy and the music is stupid and totally misplaced. You do not care at all what happens to the characters. The so-called bad guys are also not interesting at all and rather stereotypical. So how about the blood and gore ? Well there is some, although it is rather cheap and the action is executed very poorly. 2 Points, just for the gore and blood but do understand that this is hardly worth a look, even for the gore-hounds..


Yet ANOTHER movie about a group of less-than-intelligent individuals on a road trip who wander off their original travel route for either a short-cut or, in this case, to visit a run-down side show attraction. The results, as expected, are not at all good, as this particular side show is home to a bunch of lunatic, in-bred residents who were escaped prison inmates from years before. The father, who is apparently a professionally photographer, just HAS to stop and take pictures of the place, only to find that it still inhabited. The various members of the family wander off to view the various attractions, only to be scared away. Thinking they made it safely on their way, the van tire explodes (surprise!), leaving them to seek refuge and accommodations in the small town, which we find out is inhabited solely by the freaks (surprise!).

This film plays out as expected, with the family being stalked and killed by the freaks. There is some fighting back on the families part, but these are probably among the worst scenes in the film, as they are badly executed. There is nothing remotely original here, unless you count the totally inappropriate soundtrack that is played during particular scenes that completely ruins the atmosphere and mood of the film. The acting is about as bad as I have seen in quite some time by everyone involved (it is pretty bad when your cast is out-acted by the cast of "Camp Blood). The special effects are lousy and the ending made me want to punch my television.

Still, though, despite all the negatives, I somewhat enjoyed this film. It definitely has a "so bad it's good" vibe to it. I made it through the entire movie and was even pleasantly entertained once I got past the ridiculously clichéd plot, terrible acting, and cheesy special effects. Though the ending left me feeling cheated and angry, particularly because the film is not that great to begin with and the ending makes the entire film pointless.

Bottom line, I can list countless films that if you have seen them, you have seen this. The difference is most of those film are better. Though not a complete waste, this film is pretty bad and not remotely scary.

My Grade: D


"Fred Claus" somehow avoids becoming this year's "The Santa Clause" by at least having a bit more amusing moments than that Tim Allen starrer, but it doesn't mean that it's got enough going for it that's worth a trip to the theater.

As holiday movies go, it's contrived and sentimental. But actually, that could be the least of one's concern as "Fred Claus," boasting of having David Dobkin ("Shanghai Knights," "The Wedding Crashers") at the helm, contains virtually nary a genuinely funny moment as it clumsily treads the line between a boorish Vince Vaughn vehicle and a fuzzy Christmas film. In the end, it amounts to not much of both. And with a cast that comprises of Paul Giamatti, Kevin Spacey, Rachel Weisz, and Kathy Bates, all the more it leaves one disappointed.

Vaughn plays Fred, Nick's (Giamatti) older and estranged brother, who once upon a time, left him and their parents (Bates and Trevor Peacock) after having had enough of enduring his parents' favoritism of his younger sibling. Nick grows up to be Santa Claus (and as the voice-over tells us, time freezes on you and your family when you become a saint), while Fred becomes a Yuletide-jaded repo man in Chicago who's having a hard time remembering his girlfriend Wanda's (Weisz) birthday.

He runs in trouble with the law and had to call his younger brother (who eerily looks at least a decade older than him) to bail him out of jail. Nick agrees but only if Fred agrees to help out on the toy-wrapping business up in the North Pole. Fred reluctantly agrees but his cynicism clashes with Santa and the elves' perpetually cheery nature, even as an efficiency expert (Spacey) is checking on the toy factory operations, only too happy to have the whole Arctic operations shut down if things fail.

The film, as said, does have its moments, but the padded running length stretches them thin across its duration. In between are piles of Christmas film clichés that were handled better in, say, "Elf" and the attempts at sentimentality are as endearing as last year's fruitcake.

Vaugn, as usual, brings on his coarse charm to the table, but the neutered script of Dan Fogelman keeps him from REALLY doing his thing. Giamatti, underneath the bad fat suit, brings a jolly old charm to his iconic character, but unfortunately, has to play second fiddle to Fred. Spacey brings his game face, but his turns usually end as unfunnily vapid.

Ultimately, "Fred Claus" becomes a forgettable film that falls below what those involved in it deserve. Sure, there are worse ways to start the season at the cinema, but there are certainly far better ways.


My Take: A tired formula Christmas comedy. The laughs are tired and the talents behind it seem to be too.

I love the holidays as much as the next guy (even if I often have a bad case of the holiday blues), but it seems it's just being a dumping ground for a bunch of Holiday comedies that would be bad movies on any day of the year, but that doesn't make them any less painful during the season. As if we already had enough SANTA CLAUSE movies (three and *gulp* still counting), who wants to see a movie about his brother? In a plot that would be at home with Disney's SANTA CLAUSE franchise (save the occasionally crude humor and Santa's "Little" Helper wearing a short skirt), FRED CLAUS is a one-joke premise that goes on for 116 minutes. Sure, Jolly Ol' Saint Nick has a brother, but where does it go from there?

It's a shame really. FRED CLAUS is blessed with a cast that could have made it an enjoyable Christmastime comedy that will probably melt away along with the snow, but it would have been so much better than this. Vince Vaughn is your typical snob, but we are led to believe he's really the long lost brother of the never-aging Santa (Paul Giamatti), who invites his good ol' brother to visit. Mrs. Claus (Miranda Richardson) is reluctant, and worse, an efficiency expert (Kevin Spacey) has come to keep a watchful eye on Father Christmas, and his THIS close to being shut down. Hah! And guess who plays Santa's mother! Kathy Bates of course. Elizabeth Banks is Santa's Helper Charlene, John Michael Higgins is one of the elves, and Rachel Wiesz plays Fred's girlfriend! SI don't know if I'd praise the casting or to bash it. Here we have some familiar faces to add a touch of quality, but they're given way too little to work with.

As for humor, the best that FRED CLAUS could possibly come up with is Santa's brother being his exact opposite and some joke about a DJ elf. I have to admit I had a few giggles involving Fred attending a group counseling for celebrity brothers (where he is joined by Stephen Baldwin, Roger Clinton and Frank Stallone), but the giggles begin and end there. Worse still, the movie even succumbs into sentimentality that's supposed to make us "feel good" and teach us a lesson about "what Christmas really means". Apparently, what Christmas means to Hollywood is getting as much of our leftover Christmas shopping money as they can.

Rating: ** out of 5.


It's always tough having a sibling doing better in their life than you, always a struggle to get out from under that shadow and not let bitterness keep you away from your family. So, imagine that your older brother is Santa and then imagine how tough that must be. That's the premise here.

Vince Vaughn plays the titular Fred, an embittered loser who spends a lot of his energy making sure that people don't go around expecting good things to happen to them or giving his brother, Santa (played by Paul Giamatti), too much praise for simply being the limelight-hogging, fame-hungry, slightly creepy guy that Fred would want to portray him as. Then, wouldn't you know it, Fred needs a financial favour and so has to make up for it by helping his brother on the run up to Christmas. And hilarity and life lessons ensue.

Well, that's what should happen. The reality is that we get a Christmas movie featuring a few good moments of Vaughn's patented fast-talking, a ridiculously out-of-nowhere music video moment, Kevin Spacey playing an auditor out to close down Santa's operation (and he's one of the weakest baddies I have seen in some time), not enough of the gorgeous Elizabeth Banks in a lush Christmas outfit, too much of John Michael Higgins in his elf outfit (to be fair, he's a highlight though) and a movie that's too swimming in bitterness to feel like good seasonal fare yet too schmaltzy in it's latter half to feel like a fun poke at all the bad things about the commercialism of the time.

Rachel Weisz is along for the ride too, as is Kathy Bates, but it's really nothing more than a movie for Vaughn and if you like his style you will find something to enjoy here. Unfortunately, there's very little else to recommend this seasonal stinker. Outside of Vaughn's rantings the script barely throws up anything decent with the exception of one particularly good scene involving a hilarious support group dealing with a very specific problem.

David Dobkin's direction is as mediocre and staid as the 20p Christmas card that you send the auntie you haven't seen in 10 years and he seems to think that simply putting the ingredients together without a good mix or decent care taken will guarantee a delicious Christmas pudding. Nope, we get a burnt, bland lump with too much sugar on top. Forget this and stick the hilarious Elf on again if you want a great, modern Christmas comedy.

See this if you like: The Santa Clause 2, Santa Baby, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause.


The most ridiculous thing about this ridiculous movie is its conceit that if one becomes a saint, he or she and his or her family and his or her significant other live forever. Let's forget that in order to become a saint, the saint must be dead, and saints don't have significant others. That, for a millennium, Nick has been the Jolly Elf to Fred's Scrooge is never even hinted at! Open on Nick learning how to make toys, then on Fred learning how to run numbers; Nick giving a sick child a dolly, Fred repossessing the dolly, along with the family farm! After a few more such episodes, morph to present-day Fred venting his spleen at Siblings Anonymous as his fellow losers nod in empathy. There, I just wrote a more cohesive storyline than this idiocy!

This Santa, who is one "ho, ho, ho, ho, ho" away from a massive coronary, is a neurotic wuss saddled with the Queen of the Harpies, an operation straight out of Mega-Mall Hell, and answers to a Board (huh?) which just gave the Easter Bunny his pink egg. Oh, and his right-hand man is a ditzy blonde in a skin-tight mini-dress and go-go boots. Ho... ho... ho... ho... ho!

But what really sent me over the edge was Slam being named #1 on the Naughty List. Shouldn't a Naughty List be reserved for the future Hitlers and Stalins? Children who are the true embodiments of evil? Nope, to Old Sausage-Fingers, a good boy who lashes out because he is unwanted and unloved is the Demon Seed!

The nimrods behind Fred Claus should be boiled in their own pudding! Bah!


I went into this movie expecting it to be really god-awful. And it was. I really felt sorry for the star-studded cast- Kathy Bates was a wonderful actress... before she made this movie- Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti were disappointing as usual but Miranda Richardson couldn't put in one of the fabulous performances I know and love her for. Fred's dad, played by Trevor Peacock (of Vicar of Dibley fame, amongst others), had about one line.

The plot was predictable and all over the place, and the humour was... lacking. (However, there was one part of the movie where Santa enters the house of a Jewish family... that made me laugh just because their expressions were classic) Don't see this movie unless your only other alternative is having a head-on collision with a train (actually- maybe the train would be better...)


Did anyone read the script. This has to be some of the worst writing and directing of the entire year. Three great actors, Paul Giamatti, Rachel Weisz and Miranda Richardson couldn't pull this one out. About two-thirds it looked like Giamatti eyes were saying, I can't believe I signed the contract. It's not the worst movie I ever saw, but it's on the really really bad Christmas movie list. Not enough lines, but what else can be said? Okay, the movie just doesn't move with Vaughn's con-man dialogue, his character is just a creepy guy that you just can't get past. It was just a lackluster walk through, that no one seemed to be able to get into.


Oh my. I decided to go out to the cinemas with some friends, wanting to watch one of those mild, feel-good Christmas movies, and I walk out disgusted. The movie failed. Full-stop. Paul Giamatti who I consider as a good actor played his character and roll just horribly, along with Vince Vaughn who has always been a personal favourite of mine. They try and turn a Christmas movie, into some new-style. Sort of bad, mixed with good, but it all turned out very wrong. The first ten or so minutes weren't too bad, but once we saw Santa, it was over. It didn't get any better, the rate stayed the same, there was NO character development, and certainly is one of the worst Christmas movies ever invented. Don't watch it, whatever you do.


This is almost like two films--one literate and engaging, the other stupid and clichéd. It's really a shame all the problems weren't worked out with the writing, but considering how quickly most B-movies were written and produced, this isn't too unusual. It's a real shame, though, as this could have been a very good film.

First the good. The movie is original and involves WWII code-breakers. This is pretty fascinating and I liked watching the leading man (Lee Bowman) go through his paces as a master code-breaker. In fact, the first two-thirds of the film was very good. But now for the bad, the film just went on way too long and lost steam at about 50 minutes. Additionally, Jean Rogers' role as the "kooky girlfriend" must rank as one of the worst-written and distracting roles in film history!! For every smart move made by Bowman, the idiot Rogers then stepped in to screw things up as some sort of misguided "comedy relief". If her role had been intelligently written, the overall film would have improved immensely! Instead, watching her, it's hard to understand how we actually won WWII!!


This is a rather tame fluff piece concerning WW II codes being broken, stolen, etc. The acting is about what I expected from this cast of MGM "B" actors.

One big caution. Jean Rogers, who did such a great job playing the very sexy Dale Arden in the first two Flash Gordon serials is just awful in this movie. Her character is extremely annoying. She absolutely never lets-up with her overacting. We are supposed to believe that during the height of a World War in what would obviously be a Top Secret code facility, she would be allowed to just pop in and out of any office of her choosing although she has no official function. From that standpoint I'm sorry that I ever watched this film. It has forever changed my perception of Ms. Rogers. Talentwise, she is an extreme lightweight.

Lee Bowman is his usual self, meaning that he is merely adequate.


Ludicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did.


I went to see this movie (actually I went to see Family Portraits, which contains Cutting Moments + 2 other short films by Douglas Buck) at the Mar del Plata festival (Argentina)... I just couldn't watch it! I had to cover my eyes after the 1st half of Cutting Moments and take a peek every once in a while. By the time it was over, my stomach was upside down and I felt light headed. I just HAD to leave the cinema a few minutes after the 2nd short begun (BTW, of course I was not the only one who left the room). It was WAAAAY too violent and disgusting for me! I am impressed by the many brave people who actually loved it. I just don't get how you can love that kind of movies! The shocking and bloody and horrible images I saw got really stuck in my head for like two days!! I also try to analyze the story (my boyfriend did see the whole thing and told me about it) and I just don't think it makes any sense. I mean, that amount of violence and stuff, makes no other sense than to try to shock people. And that's not a good enough reason, I think. There's absolutely nothing in this movie that I can say "Well, at least 'x' thing about it was good". But well, I guess I will never understand that kind of films.


The reason the DVD releases of this film are in black and white is because nobody can get their hands on a color print of this public domain film, a modest sea story at best.

Distributed for television thru Allied Artists, DVD's (or VHS) on the market at this time for this title are all coming from the same 16MM television print. Films distributed for television prior to 1963 were often distributed in b/w prints, because the bulk of viewers did not have color sets anyway. Striking b/w prints for television was also cheaper, as it often involved quite a few prints to cover all stations running a film on a syndicated basis.


"A trio of treasure hunters is searching the West Indies for a hidden fortune. The lure of gold makes for a rise in tension as the men come closer to the treasure's location. The deep-sea divers hope to track down the gold, but find that greed and hatred leads to murder," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. "Manfish" is the name of their boat, not a monster. The skeleton who gives muscular Captain John Bromfield (as Brannigan) his half of the treasure map is very good. Old salt Victor Jory (as Professor) provides the other half of the map. First mate Lon Chaney Jr. (as Swede) plays dumb, and sexy Tessa Prendergast (as Alita) guards the rum (not very well, obviously). Serious editing and continuity problems mar the picture, which otherwise might have amounted to something.

*** Manfish (2/56) W. Lee Wilder ~ John Bromfield, Victor Jory, Lon Chaney Jr.


Have you ever sat watching a movie when 20 or 30 minutes have gone by and suddenly you realize that you have actually seen the movie before? That happened to me with "The Young Graduates". The cover of the video box, if you can find the video, is extremely deceiving. I'd swear that the two women on the cover aren't even in the film.

Anyway, I was either born a decade too late to appreciate the finer points of this film or...it is simply pointless junk. I'm heavily leaning toward the latter but I guess some out there have developed a connection to this movie.

Hmm...plot. A plot. Let's see...there must be a plot around here somewhere. Nope, I can't find it. It's pretty much about some high school seniors acting dopey and doing drugs and speaking in a language that became outdated decades ago. One of the female students has a crush on her teacher. The teacher has a frigid wife (whom he indeed refers to as an iceberg) so he is receptive to the girl's advances.

There's a lot of driving around and inane dialogue and plenty of spastic dancing. Our cat, BooBoo, was transfixed by the dancing high school kids. She watched with amazing intensity as the dancers gyrated and shook out on the dance floor. It's nice to see that at least one species has found something interesting in this relic. 1/10


90 minutes of Mindy...Mindy is a tease to boyfriend Bill...Mindy prances at the high school dance...Mindy hitchhikes to Big Sur, shoplifts a loaf of "shepherd's bread," Mindy nearly gets gang-raped... Ah, the pleasures of Crown International drive-in features. You must remember that these films were never designed to be watched start to finish on DVD players. They were made as 90 minutes of ambiance so the teens of the 70s would have a soundtrack as they got it on in their Pintos and Citations. The lack of pacing and structure didn't matter to the original audience -- they probably only tuned in when the T & A on screen matched what they were up to, out in the parking lot. The film is really irritating when watched as a story. It's a lot more fun to talk about it than watch it. My favorite inanities: 1) Bill and his friend accompany the teacher to find Mindy. With no luggage or change of underwear, they spend 2 nights sharing a motel room with the teacher, just like in real life. 2)After being abducted and nearly raped by depraved bikers, and after their innocent friend "Pan" is savagely beaten, Mindy and her girlfriend find an unattended motorcycle on the road. Mindy immediately brightens up and chirps, "I'm going' to Big Sur!!" But again, it's a lot more fun to talk/read about than sit through.


I watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.

With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.

I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.

The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.

The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.

The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.

It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.

The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout.


The mood of this movie is pretty good and it captures the feel of the 80's well with some good performances.

However.....

The script is run of the mill with the exception of a couple of comedic moments and comes off as being weird where I expect it was intended to be edgy. The characters are totally over dramatized and unbelievable and full of right wing clichés that the script writer probably saw watching a panorama documentary on the national front. The biggest problem is this movie has no real story. It ticks all the right "arty" boxes but nothing actually happens and at the end you are left wondering what the point was.

Very disappointing


The title of this obscure and (almost righteously) forgotten 80's slasher inevitably reminds me of The Cure's mega-smash-monster hit song with the same title, hence a piece of the lyrics in the title-section of this user comment. Also, I didn't have anything else to say that was useful, anyway. But hey, "The Forest" isn't totally hopeless and not even *that* bad, actually. If nothing else, at least it obeys the, admittedly unwritten, first rule of 80's slasher: kill someone within the first 10 minutes of playtime. Sure you've heard about the basic premise of this film a dozen times before, but don't let that discourage you from watching it, as "The Forest" has a couple of things more to offer than just an appealingly sinister cover image. It's actually a bit of an atypical 80's slasher! The main characters aren't ordinary brainless teenagers and the script has solid ambitions towards supernaturalism. The concept isn't always successful, let alone plausible, but it's more than interesting enough to hold your attention and there are even are a couple of surprisingly strong moments of tension and plot twists to enjoy. Two married couples decide to go camping in the most isolated woods of California, but due to a stupid bet the wives travel separately from their husbands. Barely set up for the night, they receive uncanny visits from a mother looking for her two children, the children themselves and finally the father who's out hunting for human flesh. The demented family may be real or imaginary, but the women are definitely in danger and by the time their husbands arrive, they have already vanished. The men too encounter the family, and they find out more about the slightly dysfunction background. "The Forest" is a weird and unusual film, to say the least. It's not exactly a masterpiece of plotting, but the thoroughly strange atmosphere will certainly appeal to open-minded fans of 80's horror. The murders are fairly gruesome and will-filmed, including a slit throat and a painful saw-massacre, and the filming locations are stunningly beautiful. The more you contemplate about the story and its abrupt twists, the less it makes any sense, so my advice would just be to enjoy this odd viewing experience for as long as it lasts and not a minute longer. The acting performances are just above average, the music is okay and at least director Donald Jones (also responsible for the 70's exploitation-sickie "Schoolgirls in Chains") tried to be a little more creative that the majority of 80's horror films. Too bad it ultimately fails.


One of the most boring slashers ever.. If you can even call it that. I wouldn't watch this if it even ended up being some kind of porno movie, which it completely resembles. The fact that you're watching a small group of middle-aged people in the woods is really unbearable. They made these kinds of movies for teens, so who were they really aiming for when they made this sleep-fest? My favorite part of this movie is the cover art and it's the only reason I chose to seek out this movie, which happened to be part of a Suspense Classics 50 Movie Pack.. and after seeing the other movies in this 50 pack, you'll realize that it belongs nowhere else. So if you're in the mood for a decent slasher in the woods, I recommend Just Before Dawn and The Final Terror.


A cannibalistic backwoods killer is on the prowl and two bickering couples might be his next source of protein in this bargain basement Friday the 13th-clone cheapie. There s literally nothing of interest to see in this one, the killings are surprisingly sparse and when they do happen, completely amateurish. It also adds ghosts into the mix for no reason what so ever. I felt drained after watching it as if my brain was liquefying and draining out my nose. And it remains without a doubt Donald Jones' worst movie. If you're thinking of renting it because of Code Red's snazzy new DVD re-release Don't bother

My Grade: F


I mean of all the obscure, overlooked, low budget horror movies waiting to be re-discovered in a DVD release, why pick THE FOREST? I love ultra low budget direct to home video or other alternative release horror. I love 80s hacker horror. I love backwoods slashers with fools wandering off into the night to be chased, murdered and eaten by psychopaths. I am all for the idea of non-professionals working on a horror movie as a way to maybe break into the industry or just making a movie because they want to make one. I am all for using found public locations, non-actors, no name talent behind the camera and in the studio. NO PROBLEM! The most evocative image from THE FOREST is it's opening shot of a couple walking in the distance across a forest into the woods: We see them as tiny, vulnerable creatures entering a dank gloomy world where humans may not be the top of the food chain or most feared predator. Then the film takes a dive & never recovers -- we briefly meet the backpacking couple just as they realize that they are being stalked. They get separated, both are butchered, and then we meet the movie's protagonists as they drive their car in a traffic jam. They meet up with their respective mates and decide to take a camping trip. Sounds of snoring fill the room as people who came over to watch a movie fiddle with their cell phones text messaging people not there telling them how much the movie sucks.

This film is too slow, this movie is too boring, and this movie is too talky. Which wouldn't be such a bad thing if the writers had given the people something to say other than the most stupid, asinine and unnecessary things. You know your horror movie is in trouble when the character with the most interesting lines is the droopy-faced park ranger who warns everyone away from the Cannibal Woods. And speaking of these "woods" they look about as far away from civilization as the overgrown vacant lot behind the soccer fields, only with bigger rocks and a stream flowing through it. There are impressive shots of the forest primeval, but no real sense of being out in the middle of it. If any one of the characters just sat down on the trail and waited long enough someone would amble by.

What is worse about the film is that it fails to generate any human interest: I don't know who these couples are and don't care what happens to them. The hermit cannibal slasher guy is uninteresting even when pretending to saw freshly cooked meat off the leg of one of his victims to serve grisly bites to her boyfriend, who just happens to seek shelter in his cave. The irony of which is the epitome of "underwhelming". Coupled with a deliberately ominous synthesizer music score, cinematography that suspiciously looks like someone strapped a camera on a dog and it follow people's movements, a lack of appreciable gore, nudity, lurid thrills and unwholesome atmosphere and what we have here is a horror movie that isn't even as frightening as a PBS educational TV show about how magnets work.

I don't mean to "dish it out" to the people behind this film, since they obviously went into the project with next to nothing, did not push themselves to be creative and ended up with just another boring movie about some maggot chasing women through the woods with a knife. There is nothing wrong with that concept, what is wrong is the unimaginative and utterly pedestrian way this was executed, right down to the utterly pointless conclusion when the film simply peters out at about the 80 minute mark. The best thing that you can say about THE FOREST is that it is over relatively quickly and there isn't much to command a repeat screening -- Hence my confusion at why anyone would feel the need for a DVD release. It was fine as a Prism Video rental years oddity, as a DVD it will be $5.99 rack fare inside a month of hitting the shelves. There is little or no urgency to see the film, unless you are considering making your own ultra low budget backwoods hacker set in a public park where nobody can charge you money for filming there. Here is a guide of steps to avoid making.

With all that said and done, the film did have one interesting sequence, or rather one sequence that was so pathetic and ineptly thought out that it becomes an enigma in an otherwise cut & dried film: The madman comes home to find his wife in bed with the local contractor. He dispatches his beloved, arms himself with a kitchen knife that looks like it was made just to be used in a horror film and takes off after the interloper. The guy corners and attacks his quarry, who sidesteps & runs away, only to have the psycho materialize in his footsteps with a bigger, badder weapon. The psycho attacks again, and the guy gets away. The psycho materializes AGAIN, and once more the guy gets away. Then AGAIN! Finally on the fifth try the psycho trips the dude so to fall on some sort of a bladed contraption. How did he keep materializing armed with bigger badder weapons like that? Is there some supernatural element to this psycho? Since the film never makes it clear either way the scene is just an enigma, staged to build some tension. It's purpose remains unclear. The whole film is like that really, existing without any need to be made and executed in such a ham-fisted, uninteresting manner that one cannot help but wonder what the point of it was.

3/10, and ample evidence that just because you can release a movie on DVD that doesn't mean you necessarily should.


A friend and I went through a phase some (alot of) years ago of selecting the crappest horror films in the video shop for an evening's entertainment. For some reason, I ended up buying this one (probably v. v. cheap).

The cheap synth soundtrack is a classic of its time and genre. There's also a few very amusing scenes. Among them is a scene where a man's being attacked and defends himself with a number of unlikely objects, it made me laugh at the time (doesn't seem quite so funny in retrospect but there you go).

Apart from that it's total crap, mind you. But probably worth a watch if you like films like "Chopping Mall". Yes, I've seen that too.