I'm not sure what dragged me into the cinema to watch this movie, but few minutes after it started, I wanted to leave the theater. For a while I hoped at least the story will surprise me, but then realized it's a waste of time, there was just nothing there. I stayed only because I had another show after it.

Design: some designs where quite beautiful, mostly of the environment, but the characters were terrible both in terms of animation and design. They look great while still - on posters and screenshots, but not when they have to come to life! They just didn't work, mostly because the very same mistake most 3D companies make: technically it is very hard to create really natural materials in 3D, that would make you feel that the character is alive. You need a lot of effort and knowledge (hence money) to create something that really feels like hair, skin, fabric, etc. Those characters in the movie were made out of "cloth", and that just didn't work! So they had this ugly cold feeling of the computer artificiality, where the cloth stretches or squeezes like a piece of plastic. It just didn't have the feel of a material, that dolls are made of (that's what those characters meant to be). I think it was a big mistake choosing this style for the characters. It just had a feeling of a 3D shoot'n'run computer game. I don't want to go to cinema to have a computer game on my screen, don't know about you...

Animation was also a disgrace. I am a professional animator and was terribly disappointed at the low level of animation in "9". It was stiff, boring, almost lacked any imagination or mood. It was just a little bit above most average 3D animations I saw, and that doesn't add to it any good...

And all that - the bad character design and bad animation could be solved with a good story, right?! That was not the case here. Actually the story was the worst thing in that movie. It was below any level. It starts straight forward, it goes straight forward and it ends the same. There is no twist, no surprise, no good dialogs, even no development. We've heard and saw stories of machines overtaking the humankind thousands of times and "9" is just one of them, and we know how it ends at the very first minute of that movie. The characters don't even have time to get into the story - they are just there, showing themselves almost immediately, and immediately some of them take action without even getting to know what's going on. It just didn't work. There are also many repetitive action sequences, that looked as if they were made to fill in the time for the lack of a story...

Acting, sound and script - oh my gosh, what can I tell, it was pathetic. Bad story has a bad script, and except dialogs like "No, don't do it!" "I will do it!" "But... you cannot do it alone!" "We can do it together!" "But there are rules!" "But we have to save him!" etc etc and so on, and repeating itself all the time, so besides those terribly pathetic dialogs, there were those non stop "Ahh" and "Ohhh" and"Ehh", and "Oooh", and "Whatchout", and "Run!" and "OhOhh!" that were following almost every jump, run, or fall of the characters and it even sounded as if they were out of sync or even unrehearsed.

Conclusion: bad acting, bad animation, bad sound, bad story, bad script, bad characters, everything expected, no surprises, no twist, nothing. Only some good designs are not worth the time. BIG NO!


This is the worst movie I have seen since "I Know Who Killed Me" with Lindsey Lohan.

After watching this movie I can assure you that nothing but frustration and disappointment await you should you choose to go see this. Hey, Tim Burton, I used to be a big fan of yours... did you even screen this movie? I mean seriously, what the f%#k?

Without giving anything away, here is the story in a vague nutshell... Nine wakes up, he does stuff, his actions and decisions are irrelevant... and the movie ends. Oh wait... here comes a spoiler...

Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! At the end of the movie.... it rains. I think a part of my soul died while watching this movie.


I am always wary of taking too instant a dislike to a film. Look at it a month later and you might see it differently, or dig it up after 50 years in a different continent and some cult followers find something stylistically remarkable that went unnoticed at first. After sitting through The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael at its UK premiere, it came as no surprise to me that I found the question and answer session afterwards more interesting than the film itself. Shane Danielsen (Artistic Director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival), aided by the film's director and producer, gave a spirited defence of a movie than received an overall negative response from the audience. Edinburgh Festival audiences are not easily shocked. Only one person walked out in disgust. The criticisms of the film included very articulate and constructive ones from the lay public as well as an actor and a woman who teaches M.A. film directors. This was not an overly 'shocking' film. There was a degree of uninterrupted sexual violence, but far less extreme than many movies (most actual weapon contact was obscured, as were aroused genitals). The audience disliked it because they had sat through two hours that were quite boring, where the acting standards were not high, where the plot was poor, predictable and drawn out, and where they had been subjected to clumsy and pretentious film-making on the promise of a controversial movie. Metaphors to the war in Iraq are contrived, over-emphasised and sloppy (apart from a general allusion to violence, any deeper meaning is unclear); and the 'fig-leaf' reference Marquis de Sade, as one audience member put it, seems a mere tokenistic excuse for lack of plot development towards the finale.

We have the story of an adolescent who has a certain amount going for him (he stands out at school for his musical ability) but takes drugs and hangs out with youths who have little or nothing going for them and whose criminal activities extend to rape and violence. When pushed, Robert seems to have a lot of violence locked inside him.

The film is not entirely without merit. The audience is left to decide how Robert got that way: was it the influence of his peers? Why did all the good influences and concern from parents and teachers not manage to include him in a better approach to life? Cinematically, there is a carefully-montaged scene where he hangs back (whether through too much drugs, shyness, a latent sense of morality or just waiting his turn?). Several of his friends are raping a woman in a back room, partly glimpsed and framed in the centre of the screen. In the foreground of the bare bones flat, a DJ is more concerned that the girl's screams interrupt his happy house music than with any thought for the woman. Ultimately he is a bit annoyed if their activities attract police attention. The stark juxtaposition of serious headphones enjoyment of his music even when he knows a rape is going on points up his utter disdain in a deeply unsettling way. Robert slumps with his back to us in the foreground.

But the rest of the film, including its supposedly controversial climax involving considerable (if not overly realistic) sexual violence, is not up to this standard. Some people have had a strong reaction to it (the filmmakers' stated intention: "If they vomit, we have succeeded in producing a reaction") but mostly - and as far as I can tell the Edinburgh reaction seems to mirror reports from Cannes - they feel, "Why have programmers subjected us to such inferior quality film-making?" Director Clay Hugh can talk the talk but has not developed artistic vision. His replies about holding up a mirror to life to tell the truth about things that are swept under the carpet, even his defence that there is little plot development because he didn't want to do a standard Hollywood movie - all are good answers to criticisms, but unfortunately they do not apply to his film, any more than they do to holding up a mirror while someone defecates, or wastes film while playing ineptly with symbols. Wanting to try and give him the benefit of any lingering doubt, I spoke to him for a few minutes after the screening, but I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial. There are many truths. One aspect of art is to educate, another to entertain, another to inspire. I had asked him if he had any social or political agenda and he mentions Ken Loach (one of the many great names he takes in vain) without going so far as to admit any agenda himself. He then falls back on his mantra about his job being to tell the truth. I am left with the feeling that this was an overambitious project for a new director, or else a disingenuous attempt to put himself on the map by courting publicity for second rate work

Andy Warhol could paint a tin of soup and it was art. Clay Hugh would like to emulate the great directors that have made controversial cinema and pushed boundaries. Sadly, his ability at the moment only extends to making high-sounding excuses for a publicity-seeking film.


There is just one word for this film. Appalling. The director clearly has talent but like his character Robert Carmichael he throws it all away.

Carmichael has potential, but like Cray he can't be bothered to use it. Being drawn into petty crime and then descending into depravity is Cray's vision of British youth. Like the British tabloids this film portrays young people with no aspirations or respect. Cray cries out for attention, but deserves none.

I was appalled by the act of violence that Cray chose to shove in the faces of the audience. He assumes the audience are ignorant of world atrocities. Like a piece of obscene graffiti on a toilet wall he shows us male depravity with adolescent glee.

Some actors of quality have small parts in this film. Danny Dyer and Leslie Manville both make short appearances. The acting is otherwise amateur, the young men Joe and Ben are cringe making. Carmichael played by Daniel Spencer is creepy. Miranda Wilson plays Monica, the attractive wife of celeb chef Jonathon (Michael Howe); how she was able to subject herself to such an ordeal is beyond belief. The film is never subtle and Monica is treated to the most gratuitous violence which is cut with war action. War imagery is used to convey the idea that young men cannot help themselves, that acts of violence will occur within even "civilised" countries. This is most certainly true and is symptomatic of our altered society where males have an increasingly less important position, but Cray descends to the level of the barbaric males he seeks to expose through his use of such brutal and violent images. The female characters in the film offer no relief. They are either victims or in Manville's case a washed out mother. The community is represented as dysfunctional.

This is Cray's first film. I listened to what he had to say during a Q and A session at Edinburugh and he is not unintelligent, he simply lacks experience and his film exposes his naivety. The film is due to be released later this year, but I hope the company goes bust cos the public really don't need this kind of messed up material.


This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).

The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.

To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead.


Thomas Clay has been mixing with the wrong types. That's the trouble with young people these days, they have no respect.

Seriously this film should be avoided at all costs. The action in the main body of the film is slow and rather stodgy and ambles to the drug crazed ending as if, like it's director, it has no where better to go. We are introduced to the main title character who is a bit of an outsider, we see him at school and at home not quite fitting in, feeling awkward in himself as so many adolescents do. Robert falls in with bad lads and starts missing school and taking drugs and before you know it he is a psycho rapist.

The film is really about Clay's total failure to understand the links between violence imagery and violent acts. Clay seems to think a generation of crazed youth are made evil by scenes of war on our TVs. yet he has filmed the most disgusting piece of SIMULATED violence. Is this guy for real?

If Clay has not seen YouTube perhaps he is naive and unaware of will be done with the brutal climax scene from his film? All anyone will want to see is the most hideous scene from the end of the film and I am sure that will be what sticks with people.

The rest of the film is pointless for in committing such an act of violence to film Clay not only damns young people who are actively engaged in preventing war, he also damns himself as perpetrator of extreme, tasteless violence for no better reason than his own personal celebrity status.

Shame on all involved.


So they hyped the violence and it's been branded as sick. Well, the violence is the best bit I'm afraid, but unfortunately the characters are not developed enough to allow us to understand why they go on their (entirely predictable) rampage. This film has a truly dreadful script. We never get a chance to get to know Robert and his actions at the end are just plain pathetic. The acting isn't much better, either, the worst of them being the TV chef and the school teacher. The direction is clumsy, the pace enough to send you to sleep. And what on earth is the school film project all about? A comment on the film itself perhaps? The use of newsreel during the climactic murder is laughable. These guys obviously think they're intellectuals but are hopelessly out of their depth. How on earth they got the great Yorgos Arvanitis to light it I'll never know. And how they got the money to make it in the first place is an even greater mystery. Absolutely awful beyond comprehension.


Violence whether real or not always has an impact. In this film the violence is about as crass as you could ask for. In the Great Ecstacy the director has successfully demonstrated what extremes of violence people are capable of. But what was the point? The violence looks like a mix of Noë's 'Irreversible, and ' Kubrick's 'Clockwork Orange'...both of which are remarkable films. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to screen violence at all and I've seen some nasty stuff in my film-going years, but this film as a whole is totally juvenile. The story is never developed enough to offer any reason for the extreme violence, the rizla paper thin reason we are give for Robert's demise is his introduction to drugs. Danny Dyer plays the character who is partly responsible for Robert's drug fuelled demise, however he is on screen for less than 5 minutes. Lesley Manville is Robert's unable to cope mum, I am not sure what either of these actors is doing in a film of this low caliber. The acting is wooden, the scene in the kitchen with the TV-cook and his wife for instance is as painful to watch if not more so than the shocking finale- who wrote those dialogues?! Some of the comments the boys make...'looks like she's enjoying it' are so trite as to tempt one to laugh if it were not for Clay's ardent desire to bombard us with harrowing images of mutilated female genitals. Why we need to be shown such detail possibly down to the director's adolescent obsession with sadistic pornographic imagery...one can only wonder at this young man's psychology.

The 'political meaning' of the film was repeatedly brought to our attention due to the amount of scenes; in the bar, outside the TV-cook's house, war in Iraq reports, was perhaps too obvious in my opinion. Yes, war is violent, social determinism causes frustration, we're all prone to horrifingly violent acts whether you're in politics or on the street popping E. Juxtaposing all these things as part of the same underlying issue is evading the actual issue which is the meaning of violence in man. This issue is one that we still haven't managed to grasp and certainly not in this film.

My opinion: derivative, badly-made and pointless.


I saw this at the Edinburgh Film Festival. It was awful! Every clichéd, violent, rich boy fantasy was on display, you just knew how it was going to end especially with all the shots of the chef's wife and the rape of the first girl.

The worst part was the Q&A with the director/writer and writer/producer they tried to come across as intellectuals but you could tell they're the types that get off on violence. I bet anything they frequent brothels and do drugs.

Don't waste your time. I had to keep my boyfriend from walking out of it.


I did watch all of the film through to the disgraceful ending even though I felt so angry at what I saw. I felt that the director was screaming for attention and the only way he could achieve this was to be as repulsive as possible. Since I have lived in the UK I have come to love this country but this film depicts British young people in the worst way imaginable. There is nothing to be said but avoid it, it will make you angry and sick. The people involved should be ashamed.


I have seen it. It's not "good" but interesting in an understated way. The boys in it are quite naturalistic but................the graphic/gratuitous final gang rape scene is repugnant and -oh yes- the arbitrary insertion of second world war footage is offensive in the way it attempts to compare real horror with this misogynistic contrivance. Real atrocity is real- this film is just atrocious. However, the film has a look which can draw you in. But it seems to me that is the "Emperor's New Clothes", but in fact in reverse. The film looks good, but the direction, story, content and final feeling you take away from this film is vacuous. If a feeling can be vacuous-this is it.


This is the most disturbing film I have ever seen. It makes "Requiem for a Dream" look like a Disney film. Although, technically, it is reasonably well made, acting, cinematography, music, directing, etc., are good. However, the concluding gang rape scene is the most appalling and violent thing I have ever seen and I really wish I had not seen it. I am afraid that it will haunt me for the rest of my life. Although I think anyone would find the film extremely disturbing, my wife and some of her friends were victimized in a very similar manner and I really didn't need an explicit reminder of the horror that they experienced. I saw the film at the SXSW film festival in Austin, TX and none of the cast or crew were in attendance. I would have liked for them to have had the opportunity to defend the violence in their film, which I felt was excessive, gratuitous and unnecessary. An earlier scene successfully conveyed the mood they were apparently striving for, but without rubbing your face in the extreme and explicit sexual violence. This film should have a big WARNING label on it. For these reasons I would not recommend anyone seeing it. You've been warned.


First a technical review. The script is so slow, it is really a 25 minute story blown up to 1 hour 40 min. The dialogue is so flat and truly one-dimensional. The "acting" is pathetic, they seem to really have lifted schoolchildren out of class to read a few lines from an idiot board. As for the whole "point" of the story, namely "war is bad" (oh, there's a shock!) is really non-existent. Without out the "lets shock 'em and get great publicity" scene nobody would be talking about this film. It is so bad it actually bothers me to think what better things the money used this could have gone on. Believe me I've seen some bad "emperor's new clothes" films but the one thing I can say for them is at least they were well shot and well made while the camera wobbled during two scenes in this! Read all the other reviews - avoid at all costs and don't talk about it.


This cowardly and offensive film had me intrigued to begin with. The characters are the familiar dispossessed young males frequently to be seen hanging around bored in a sea side town. Robert is an outsider but he has his music which could have been his soul. Instead Clay makes Robert into a freak who embarks on a journey into cannabis and ecstasy and getting in with the wrong crowd. Clay seems to believe in "reefer madness" and Robert ends the film as a homicidal rapist. One wonders how much experience of real life this young director has. No one can save poor Robert. Clay leaves us with the message that young British men are out of control. A very unsubtle link is made to the Iraqi insurgents; during the needlessly graphic rape we are subjected to explosions and images of war. The film shows male peer group extremism pushed to it's limits. The young bombers in London draw a parallel with Clay's hateful depiction of modern male. Clay implies that men simply cannot help themselves from inflicting terrible acts of violence. It is a wonder the British film industry allows money to be invested in films which advocate such divisive propaganda, when in London we are still reeling from the recent attacks. This is Clay's first film, I would be delighted if it is his last.


At the end of the film I just asked myself :"is it the worse movie I have ever seen or is it the worse movie I have ever seen ?". And the answer is... Actually, after having seen this movie and thought a bit about the meaning of it, you just can't find any meaning and you can only remember the two rape scenes, which are unbelievably brutal and useless. It seems to me as if the director tried to push this question into the crowd's head : "what are such crimes compared to horror of war and extermination ?" because i noticed that the two awful scenes where directly connected to war and it's horrors (during the first scene you can here the girl that is being raped screaming and in the same time you hear one of president Bush's speeches about the necessity of starting a war with Iraq and in the second scene, the pictures of the three criminals sticking a sword in a woman's vagina, are directly followed by archive pictures of World war II. But as a matter of facts, i really could not think about the relative gravity of theses two different kinds of human horror's expression, being done i was too shocked by what i had just seen and felt. (sorry for bad English)


I saw this movie on the film festival of Rotterdam (jan '06) and followed the discussion between director and public afterwards. Many people reacted shocked and protesting. He will get a lot of negative critics. But: the world is cruel like this, and it's not funny. People don't like it. That itself doesn't mean that the movie is bad. I can see that difference. Don't shoot the messenger that shows us the world outside our 'hubble'! Nevertheless I think this a bad movie. Film-technically it's a good one. Nice shots and script, most good fitting music, great actors. The director pretends to make a psychological movie, - the psychology however is of poor quality. Describing such a powerful violence itself is not the art. The art would be a powerful description of the psychological process behind that violence. How does a shy boy come to such a cruelty? The director pretends to describe that, - but is not good in that.

The director used several times the word the 'selfishness' of people, mentioning for instance the teacher. Only: this teacher wasn't selfish,- just someone in several roles, caring for his pupils, ánd worried about his script. I think it's a simplification to call him selfish. The atmosphere in the village is creepy, and the mother made awful mistakes ('you terribly let me down') but it doesn't become believable for me, that there is caused súch a lot of pain, that the shyest boy comes to such terrible things. In fact, reality is far more complex than the way, this film describes  and it needs far better descriptions. The interesting thing would be: how does it work? Describe that process for me please, so that we understand.

With the written phrase on the end, the director said to point to an alternative way of life. It was the other extreme, and confirmed for me that director and scriptwriter are bad psychologists, promoting black/white-thinking. The connection between violence in films and in society has been proved. Use such a violence gives the responsibility to use it right. There are enough black/white-thinkers in the world, causing lots of war and misery. I hope, this movie won't be successful.


Badly made. Dreadful acting and an ending that the Director appeared to contrive out of nowhere as the film had frankly been nothing short of dull. Shocking that this film is considered for an award at the Gijón Film Festival.

Everyone that came out of the theatre was of the same opinion as I - what was the point of even making the film? The references to Iraq were either bizarre or just not thought through properly. I am astonished that this film has been given a release - very, very disappointing and a waste of my time. Sorry, terribly negative review but hopefully will deter some people from making the same mistake. What a pity we did not have a Q and A at the end of the film - now that could have been interesting.


With a title "borrowed" from Werner Herzog and liberal helpings of Kubrick, Haneke and Noe it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clay considers himself a cut above the usual sort of rubbish our British cinema churns out. "Robert Carmichael" (for short) sets itself up as a realistic study of youthful alienation and at the same time seemingly a critique of the Iraq war. The problem with the realism is that the characters are so patently unrealistic and atypical - contrary to the fetid imaginings of "extreme" filmmakers most teenagers are not drug addled rapists. As a critique of the Iraq war, a film about youth violence (by a talented classical musician - subtext society has damaged this sensitive individual)is so infantile as to hardly bear thinking about. There are signs of technical ability but some reviewers have overstated this. Like Kubrick and Noe he does show that the desire to shock linked with supposed serious intent may be the worst cinematic con trick of recent film. People liked "Clockwork Orange" and "Irreversible" because they liked the rapes and the violence, but most of all they liked feeling culturally superior for liking things that most hated. So too much Kubrick and not enough Haneke (a serious and moral filmmaker) here labels this as one of the most moronic films in years. (I am not against violence in film. To do it seriously is a hard trick though - people in cinemas cheered Alex in "Clockwork Orange" showing how Kubrick's supposed intent was missed by miles. Gratuitous violence is much easier to achieve and is less offensive than the pretensions of many art-film directors.)


I can't believe I've just spent one and a half hours watching such a weak film. If there is only one film you have to miss, this is the one.

Robert is a teenager whose father's died recently so he starts hanging out with some local anti-social teenagers and using drugs. All these make him subconsciously more violent and at last such subconsciousness explodes...

The first thing is that I don't think I can find any sense or trace of great ecstasy in this film, not in any single character. If the director considers what I saw in the last couple of minutes as great ecstasy, I have to say that that's not even close.

The use of cinematography is also not mature. Most of the time I couldn't see any facial expressions from the actors and I didn't feel the body language was sufficient enough to make an impact. Maybe the crew was just so tired that they fixed the camera there to include everything in the settings. Everybody happy except the audience.

The plot is particularly weak. There are a lot of unrelated scenes and talking which might be supposed to be related but they are really so random that you can never pull them all together, perhaps unless you're the one who wrote them.

In the one and a half hour you may find less than 5 minutes of real acting and all other time there are just people walking, talking and moving. So I really can't comment on acting here.

Nice choice of music in the last couple of minutes though. Maybe this is the only good thing.

I have never given a film a 1 but this film certainly deserves it (at least you laugh when you watch Scary Movies). This is a film about when a failed attempt to portray troubled teenagers meets extremely disturbed audience. Hope you fall into neither group.


The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is bad film in every way. The script, the dreary pace, the lack of depth in any character, the pointless sub-plots, the dreadful acting, the needless climax all make this possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I found nothing likable, enjoyable or intellectually stimulating in any way.

I imagine the film makers thought they were making something clever and dark, with its moody lighting, long protracted silences and vaguely haunting classical soundtrack. If so, they failed utterly. It just bored me, and I wish I had never watched it.

Avoid at all costs.


I watched this film, along with every other adaptation I could get my hands on- including seeing plays- in preparation for some academic research. The cinematography is very moving, as is the music. Unfortunately all of the life was taken out of the story. I have never seen such an awful portrayal of Mr. Rochester. All of his most fundamental traits are gone. Where is his wit? Where is his passion? Scott's Rochester more closely resembles Rochester's foil, St.John, than the character from the novel. In fact, the actor playing St.John in this adaptation played a passionate St.John while Scott is content to smash things or just stare at the ceiling (which he does all the time). I have no idea what they were thinking. I would like to give this film a slightly higher vote based on the wonderful music and cinematography but I honestly can't bear to see this film for too long because of George C. Scott's performance.


This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.

This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.

From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.

To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre".


I bought the DVD version of this movie on the recommendation of my wife who loved the version she saw aired in television. But the version put to DVD was a disaster. The lighting was poor to non-existent and entire scenes were simply excised. In one instance Adele is being put to bed, and we immediately cut to another scene - coming in in mid-sentence - where it's the next night. Characters such as Grace Poole and Mason are never even introduced, leaving one to wonder if they'd dozed off for a few minutes during the movie.

The DVD we saw was produced by Platinum Disc Corp and even at $6.32 it was a gyp.

Be careful which version of this movie you buy! We're sending this one back.


This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.

Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable.


This was in short a terrible disappointment. By far the worst adaptation of one of my favourite novels. The dialogue was horribly clumsy; I could sense no feeling behind the words expressed by the characters. The lines were delivered too hastily and felt rather out of place. They could just as well have been cited by statues. The chemistry between George C. Scott and Susannah York was non-existent and watching an American Rochester felt strange. He could have at least tried to do a British accent. I like George C. Scott as an actor, but this simply did not work. I felt like I was watching highlights from Jane Eyre, where the main pieces of the story had been randomly put together with no regard to the flow of the story. The scenery and music were all very nice, but I could feel none of the passion and love that is supposed to be between Jane and Rochester and the movie left me totally unmoved.

If you want to see a good version of Jane Eyre I suggest you watch the 1983 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke or the 1997 version with Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton. Now these two are brilliant adaptations.


Miscasting happens. Susannah Yorke is a luminous young Jane Eyre, and her performance is impeccable. However, Edward Rochester is supposed to be 35. White-haired George C. Scott looks and behaves like an arthritic 80. Jane's deceased uncle is in better shape! He creaks and snarls, obnoxious and grim. He looks like an ax-murderer who has sent his ax out to be sharpened; we're not surprised he keeps a wife caged in the attic! The great love story looks like a sado-masochistic nightmare. There is enough darkness in the novel, but Bronte's Rochester is relatively young, athletic, powerful, and charming when he chooses to be. He has a fine speaking and singing voice, a good mind, and a conscience that he unsuccessfully attempts to stifle.


My first review of 2010 is "Into The Blue 2: The Reef". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.

Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.

The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.

However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax.


Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.


In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.


This movie makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona features in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been disgraced in this film is Tink. The only star is for her.

The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)

Ruining a great story like this just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.

This just annoys me to no end.


If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.

I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.

Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.

Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.

The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.

There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.

This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much.


I attended one of the premieres last night and have the following observations:

1. Just because you've directed a ton of music videos DOES NOT make you qualified to make movies. The movie had an overabundance of lingering shots that made no sense, horrible angles, and terrible lighting. The editing didn't help this mess at all. When "Dixie" shows up late for the memorial service her mother remarks about her hand but it's never clear what the heck she's talking about.

2. The plot had promise, but the script was thin and full of Ford Truck sized holes. We never get to understand what drives the characters, what's really behind the conflicts they all have with each other or exactly how they resolve them. Sixteen years of distance is wiped out in 4 days seemingly by magic. The deep conversations were marred by stupid clichés. (In fact, the whole town was one big cliché of southern life.) Half the audience groaned when Toby drawled "Ya got my blood runnin through your veins gurl"...and we were treated to that insipid line not once, but TWICE! The revelations were yawn inducing, and the dramatic confessions boiled down to "I was stupid and stubborn".

3. The acting was okay considering the wreck of a script they had to work with. Toby was dark and brooding most of the film, but when he smiled and lightened up he was charming. It's a shame he didn't have more screen time like that. Kelly Preston's acting chops are pretty rusty and it shows. Lindsay Haun is talented and it's certainly not her fault the writers made her character so unlikeable in the beginning that you don't blame her father for not coming to look for her. Burt Reynolds and Tess Harper were able to make more of this movie but still looked more or less lost. (And indeed, their characters get lost in this film!)

4. If you're a Toby fan you'll love the songs. But often the movie felt like a scene was forced in just so they could feature one of his songs--or the artists on his record label. For instance, the movie's official love song is "Crash Here Tonight". You'd think that would play around a tender love scene, but nope...we hear about 45 seconds of it as he's heading to a memorial service. It was as if they said "well, we gotta use this song somewhere". The song "Broken" is haunting and the best thing to come out of this movie.

In summary...a promising plot never fully develops and the movie is horribly uneven as it forceably tries to be a vehicle for Toby Keith's music and product placement for Ford Trucks. It goes from being about people rebuilding broken bridges to trying to be about the power of music but the story is told so poorly that both points get lost in this overgrown music video. I like Toby and really wanted to like "Broken Bridges" but the people he counted on to make this movie let him down and deserve one of his famous boots you know where.


This movie is the second worst film that I have ever seen (the first being Ghost Rider). There is absolutely no plot, climax, conflict, or any other major detail required in portraying a story. This 'film' is basically just another excuse for Toby Keith to show off his manly side and, the 'tough guy he really is'. I completely wasted my time watching this film. The best part would have to be the ending credits. If I were Ebert or Roper, I would have cut my thumbs off and thrown them at the producers. Whoever in their right mind gave Toby Keith the chance to act in a feature film, is obviously on the same mental level as him. In conclusion, do not waste your time watching this movie, it could quite possibly be the only thing you regret.


Frank Tashlin's 'The Home Front' is one of the more lifeless Private Snafu shorts, a series of cartoons made as instructional films for the military. Rather than have Snafu take some inadvisable actions leading to disaster, 'The Home Front' instead focuses on his loved ones back home and how much they have to offer to the war effort too. Snafu realises he was wrong when he thought they had it easy. It's a concept with few possibilities for good gags and instead Tashlin plays the risqué card more heavily, extended jokes involving strippers and scantily clad dancing girls in place of much effective comic relief. The result is a well-meaning short which has little relevance or entertainment value today other than as an historical artefact.


The real irony is this: Joe Besser was a top notch comedian, in other situations away from the Stooges. He had a definite track record for being very funny and clever. Moe and Larry and Shemp had actually known him or at least of him for many years and liked his work. So what on Earth was going on when he joined the troop as the "third stooge"? Obviously, nothing. In most of these "late Stooge" era shorts, more often than not, the boys are pitted against each other or Joe against the other two and this is not accurate Stooge etiquette. "One for all, all for one, every man for himself", to quote Curly from "Restless Knights". One thing about a good comedy team, Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, The Marx Brothers, no matter how much they all try to take advantage of each other or slap each other around, when the chips are actually down, they stick together and come to each other's aid. In this particular one, none of that happens. It's almost like watching a dog fight as one tries to cheat the others or be mean and nasty, and not for comedic effect either. One might assume that there was something behind the scenes going on here, art imitates life. Maybe there really was hence why Besser did not stay very long with Moe and Larry. Just look at the history of the other teams and tell me I'm wrong.


I'm not a big fan of the Stooges' slapstick, but I find their history interesting. I've recently tried to check out stuff from each Stooge era, but the opportunity to see Joe shorts doesn't seem to come easy; this is the only one I've seen so far.

Some say the quality problems with Joe-era shorts are really not Joe's fault, and I suspect that's the case. Joe as a performer is far from the worst thing about this. The thing that bothers me the most about it has been pointed out in another comment: the pitting of the other guys against the third violates the whole comedy-team/Stooges ethos. Perhaps Joe's style was perceived, by those in charge, as not really fitting in -- though there were no real off-camera conflicts between him & the others -- and this was their way of working around that.

And what's with the titles of this and some of the other late Stooges shorts? Definitely a lack of creativity going on there; was that sort of thing the cause or the effect of the shorts market drying up?


Was it a thriller, as I thought when I saw the cover at the video library? No. Was it a 'food fr thought' as the author was maybe trying to make it? Not really. So what was it? It was a very average movie, that had great potential, and was nicely directed but let down by a confusing story without strong points, beginning middle and end, with poor acting expect from the serial killer guy, who although he seemed overzealous at some points delivered the best performance of the cast overall. It was nice cinematography, with good colours, cool hi-tec stuff, beautiful scenics but leaves you lost about where it's going and where it has just been. And with a feeling of let's just quickly wrap it up in the end. OK to watch if there's nothing else on TV.


I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.


This movie is a blatant attempt by the left in Hollywood to portray Reagan's administration as incompetent and bungling. Some mistakes may have been made at the time of the crisis, but I'm sure not to the extent portrayed in this lame movie. My first reaction was that this movie had to have been directed by Oliver Stone, but I was wrong this time. There are apparently many others.


I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted "proof" about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA "deserved" the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:

"In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."

WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean "we", paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount.

But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we "deserved" 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out "fact" A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's "Facts" added up to guacamole.

But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver "Captain Conspiracy" Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to "Release the Hounds." Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.

Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10.


Well. this was not a surprise. many people will tell you this is gory. but they are all talking "shiztz" this film is very slow.

It starts off with some guy who makes a concoction to feel no pain he calls it "my son" there is some gory scenes but i found them kind of weak. you might as well skip 40 minutes of the movie and get to the eyeball scene which was surprisingly impressive and sickening. there is some really stupid scenes in this. and they dub over the hits and slaps with stupid fake slapping sound which makes me laugh! i would not recommend it. keep looking gore hounds.

check this out if you want the like 20-10 minute ending scene which still is not that amazing and has a random scene of the guy trying to like rape his mum.. yeah its weird.


This movie starts out very VERY slow, but when the action finally gets started, it's a little had to follow. I couldn't understand why some of the events were taking place, and a lot of events happened before they were explained, making them sort of confusing. The only thing it really has going for it is the massive amount of blood/gore it has, although most times the special effects are lacking. Blood looks like red Kool-Aid. Skin tearing sounds like somebody is stepping on a pile of sticks. Again, the story has a sort of amateur feel to it, like the writer didn't take a long time to perfect it. I feel like it could be a much better movie if the effects were done better and more time was taken on the script. I honestly wish I hadn't watched it, not because of the gore, but because I feel that i wasted 90 minutes of my life. If you like extremely gory movies, this is for you, if not, stay away.


As a huge fan of horror films, especially J-horror and also gore i thought Nekeddo burâddo sounded pretty good. I researched the plot, read reviews, and even looked at some photos to make sure it seemed like a good gory and scary movie to watch before downloading it. So excited it had finished and ready to be scared and recoiling in horror at the amazing gore i was expecting i was terribly disappointed. The plot was ridiculous and didn't even make sense and left too much unexplained, the gore was hilarious rather then horrifying, and what was with the cartoon style sound effects ? The acting was probably the only thing mildly scary about it. I did not understand the cactus idea and the way the mothers husband disappeared in the middle of the sea after following a flashing light, they left both pretty unexplained, or perhaps i missed it as my mind couldn't understand what i was actually seeing. I appreciate the way it was supposed to be; shocking and a few scenes (the strange cannibalism and own mother kissing?)certainly were, i just think they went a little bit far and not even in a horrifying way, they made it to unconvincing which made it more believable to be a comedy rather than a horror in my opinion. However it is a very entertaining film and got a lot of laughs out of me and a couple of friends, but sadly we were expecting horror not comedy so its worth a watch for the entertainment value, but don't be expecting a dark, deeply scary and horrifying film; you'll just be disappointed. If this was a horror comedy/spoof i'd probably rate it about a nine, the climax being the weird scene when the husband climbed inside his wife's stomach and closed up her wounds, but as a horror sadly i gave it a one.


Hmm, IMDb rating of 7.5, good comments, bla, bla ... okay, two of my friends and me, we orderd Pizza, sat down and wanted to see something as cool as Ichi or at least something brainless but funny like Versus. But Naked Blood sucked. It's a complete waste. Okay, the scene with the woman who likes to eat is quite outstanding. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't summerize the plot, other people did already, I just wanted to stop the hype. But watch it and rate for yourself. Maybe we can push the rating where it sould be. One more thing that comes to my mind: the soundtrack is even worse than Carpenter ever was - okay, John's cool ... :) 2/10


Like most people, i was drawn to buy this film because of the pictures of the mighty Bolo Yeung plastered all over the box, and the assumption (from the aforementioned pictures and the title of the film) that this film is all about the Beast from the East kickin' ass for 90 minutes.

However, to my disappointment, Chinese Hercules is to Bolo Yeung what No Retreat No Surrender was to Jean Claude Van Damme and Fearless Tiger was to... erm, Bolo Yeung - maximum exposure on video box, minimum actual screen-time! Oh well!

The storyline is pretty basic stuff, but it was well done - peaceful kung fu fighter (played by Chen Hui Min) accidentally kills a man and promises never to fight again. He then runs away to work as a labourer on a pier where he impresses his co-workers with his heavy sack lifting prowess, causing them to suspect him to be a formidable fighter (dont quite know how that works but never mind). Meanwhile, the corrupt boss of the pier does a deal with gangsters, giving them exclusive use of the pier. As a result, the workers are thrown out on their ear and forced to live on the beach, where they unite against their boss, the gangster boss, and his hulking henchman Bolo Yeung.

While the film was quite watchable (mainly through waiting for the next glimpse of Bolo), i had a few problems with it - firstly, the bad dubbing, but of course thats a given in old kung fu films. But also, the film tended to drag between the various fight-scenes. And as for the fight scenes themselves, i found them to be over-long, badly choreographed (apparently by Jackie Chan!), badly shot and at times performed by people who didn't seem to have any martial arts ability.... in fact, most of the fights in this film weren't 'fights' at all, just people getting beaten up without offering any resistance!

Finally, the hero - played by Chen Hui Min. I've never seen any other films with this guy in, but at no point was i rooting for him. Not only did he look wimpy and on the verge of tears at all times, but i found his insistence on not fighting infuriating! I understood his reasoning, but he could have saved a lot of people a lot of pain if he had done earlier what we all knew he was gonna do eventually, and fight! A bigger mystery was why this entire community of people were pinning their hopes on a guy they've never even seen fight!

Really, the big saving grace in this film was the presence of Bolo Yeung. Not only is he as huge and brutal as ever, he has some great, funny lines and gives the rest of the cast a master-class on how to fight on film. The guy oozes screen presence and you can easily see how he became a star. The guy scares the life out of me, but i'm sure i wasn't the only person to have watched this film who was rooting for Bolo all through the end fight!

All in all then, a below-average kung-fu film lifted several huge notches due to you-know-who. I've never met a person who didn't think Bolo Yeung was great. The man's a legend!!


I do not recommend this movie , because it's inaccurate and misleading, this story was supposed to be in Algerian Berber territory, this one was shot in the southern Tunisian desert, (completetly different culture, I know I am from both Tunisia and Algeria), the other shocking element was the character of her companion aunt, speaks in the movie with a very eloquent french, university level academic french while the character she plays was supposed to be of a disturbed never left her mountain kind of personage, so living as a Bedouin with that kind of education i that context is impossible, The most disgraceful scene and disrespectful especially for the people of the region is the "femme repudiee" segment which is s pure invention from the writer/director, things like that will never happen in a Algerian Society ever!!!


Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.

I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.

It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment.


The greatest sin in life is being dull, and this movie is crashingly boring. its funny, its left out of his "a life in film" documentary. He goes from a long piece on "Stardust Memories" and then fast forwards to "Zelig". This little piece of cubic zirconia just isn't worth the effort.


Hooper is Not Funny, Not Fasted paced, Not romantic and Non informative. There is no real drama. You would think that a movie about the world's greatest stuntman would have some drama, there was an attempt but it didn't seem real. No Character study, no lessons learned, it did not even look like the actors were having any real fun, they were just trying to act like they were having fun. There is no reason to watch unless you like to look at Burt and want get an occasional glimpse of Sally. Prancer the horse was beautiful and did what he was supposed to do. In fact Prancer was the best actor in this movie. Smoky and the Bandit was such a fun movie that I was ready to like Hooper. This movie turned out to be a real disappointment and waste of time


"Smokey And The Bandit" wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but then nobody wanted it to be. It was lowdown slapstick, but it did have brains. It had a very smart script with definable characters and a fun wrap-up. People came out of the theater smiling. "Hooper" provides none of this. There is no reason to smile. If it's supposed to be a tribute to the Hollywood Stuntman, it makes them look awfully lazy by providing nothing but badly-choreographed fight scenes and one of the most unconvincing car-jumps I've ever seen. It all looks phony, badly-filmed almost on purpose. Poor Sally Field (as the girlfriend who wrings her hands on the sidelines) is given her weakest role, with not a single funny or smart line ("If you do that jump, I won't be here when you get back"). Burt Reynolds keeps looking at the camera and winking, but the joke is on any audience who sits through "Hooper". * from ****


This is possibly the worst fencing, sword-fighting, movie ever made. That is not just because the so called sports fencing is poor but because the plot, characters are so weak that they've got to throw in a semi nude sex scene and, later, supposed group dancing around a fencing scene in the fencing club trying, I suppose to maintain audience interest. What a waste of F. Murray Abraham's talents. You're better served with overblown swashbuckling movies like Zorro, Scaramouche, anything that has Basil Rathbone as the villain. As a fencer myself I recognize the near impossibility of capturing fencing as a sport on film, but if it ever happens it's got to have fresher, better drawn characters and a plot with more depth.


I wouldn't say this is a *bad* movie. Unfortunately for me, I get the feeling that the more you know about fencing, the worse it gets simply due to the fact that it becomes totally unrealistic. I've been fencing since i was 14 years old, and this movie portrays it very poorly. F. Murray Abraham is good (and appears to have some fencing background), but most of the other actors--especially the students--just seem to be lost.


Why is it that everyone who has seen this movie feels it is their responsibility to tell us whether or not they are fencers? That point is completely immaterial to any argument to be made against this total dog of a movie.

I think sports movies fall into two categories; well made movies about the human spirit and competitions, and `By the Sword'.

Honestly this movie never could decide what it wanted to be, a touching drama for trying to be your best in life, an indictment of competitive motivation or a martial arts flick. In the end it didn't do any of those convincingly or completely enough to make me give one ounce of care of any of it.

For the record I also am a fencing instructor (and now I am officially as bad as the rest). But putting bad fencing in a movie doesn't make it bad automatically. I mean look at Star Wars (Episodes 4-6, good movies, bad fencing). I liked those movies. But when you put bad sports into a bad movie for some reason people think that it is only the purists that think it a lame effort.

Don't be fooled by any comments on the smaller issue of fencing. This is just a bad movie. In the end, this movie has nothing for the fencing enthusiast or the movie buff or simply anyone with a pulse and three brain cells.

When I see a movie and am forced to think, `Man, I wish I was watching the Mighty Ducks.' I know that it is time to bypass the argument with the theater manager to get my money back and see if there is anyone in the lobby that will somehow give me two hours of my life back.


Once upon a time in the mid 1990s I used to write for DOCTOR WHO fanzines and the whole of fandom was holding its breathe about the new American produced DOCTOR WHO TVM . As soon as it was announced that the Doctor`s arch enemy the Master was going to be played by Eric Roberts everyone scratched their heads and exclaimed " Who is Eric Roberts ? " . I should point out this was before the IMDB came online when all you had to do was type in a name into this website to their resume , but one helpful soul wrote into a publication I wrote for to explain that Eric Roberts was best known for a role where he starred opposite F Murray Abraham , the film was called BY THE SWORD and was about a fencing school . Actually looking back now Roberts is best known for THE POPE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE and RUNAWAY TRAIN but that didn`t stop the person putting the boot into both Roberts and BY THE SWORD and his mind was made up that this American Master with his southern drawl was going to a debacle . Strangely most fans were furious about Roberts playing the Master but after they saw the DOCTOR WHO TVM a great many fans ( Myself among them ) thought Roberts performance was the best thing about the disappointing American production

Yeah I`m digressing but BY THE SWORD was a film that I wanted to see simply because it was the first time I`d heard the name of Eric Roberts but I didn`t get the chance to see it untill this weekend and I was fairly disappointed with it . I know nothing about fencing ( Everyone else on this page seems duty bound to mention if they fence or not . I don`t fence ) so I don`t know how accurate it all is , but as mentioned the film feels somewhat anachronistic even if you saw it on its release in 1991 , the hairstyles seem a few years out of date along with its mixed teenage cast doing a little dance routine that makes you wonder if it wouldn`t have worked a lot better if it`d had been produced by Jerry Bruckheimer in the mid 1980s . You could argue this would have meant the relationship between Max Suba and Alexander Villard being off centre for most of the film but I wasn`t convinced about their love/hate relationship and Abraham and Roberts have given much better performances before and since BY THE SWORD


Yikes, it was definitely one of those sleepless nights where I surfed the channels and bumped into this stinker of a movie. For some of the names in the cast, I'd expect a much better movie. I'm almost embarrassed to see Oscar Winner F. Murray Abraham being reduced to such a horrible part. I hope the money was worth it. And the students, they talked about fencing like they were talking about survival in a war or through a horrible disaster. I mean, I've fenced, it's a fun sport, but I've never been that intense. The only reason I even watched this entire movie was because the remote fell under the sofa and I was too lazy to get it back.


This is a bad, bad movie. I'm an actual fencer: trust me when I say that this film's pretension of accuracy is just that. This is especially true during that vile little scene when the fencers are combining footwork with 80's pop. The ending is predictable, and the movie is a bore from start to finish. Horrible.


A strange mix of traditional-80s, smartassy, Chevy Chase-type, "every-ten-lines-you-get-a-funny-one" farce and sickie black comedy. Mildly amusing in spots, but utterly tasteless. There is a skiing sequence that includes the fakest-looking back-projections since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". (**)


Portly nice guy falls for a luscious blonde; she likes him too, but not for the reasons you might think. Little-seen black comedy from writer Pat Proft features very good performances by Joe Alaskey and Donna Dixon, yet it makes no lasting impact. It's just a quickie throwaway effort, helmed by Norman Bates himself, Anthony Perkins. Even on the level of B-comedies, the somewhat-similar "Eating Raoul" is a better bet. There's definitely an amusing set-up here; unfortunately, the picture has nowhere to go in its second act. An interesting try, but it misfires.

** from ****


So let me start off by saying that I saw this movie as part of a bargain. I was really bored one fine 1997 day and so I biked over to the movie rental store. I asked the clerk what the worst movie he had in stock was. Without hesitation he walked me over to "Lucky Stiff." He told me that he'd waive the $1 rental fee (he said it would be wrong to charge more) if I promised to watch the whole movie. So watch it I did, for free...

This movie is terrible. God-Awful even. I don't need to go into plot details, read the other reviews. The jokes make no sense. The acting was terrible. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but the stupidity of the main character was exhausting. You might try to watch it as something to laugh at, but it's so bad that it isn't even funny in that way. Avoid!


When many people say it's the "worst movie I've ever seen", they tend to say that about virtually any movie they didn't like. However, of the nearly 700 movies I can remember ever seeing this one is one of two that I walked away from feeling personally insulted and angry. This is my first movie review, by the way, and I registered with IMDb just to rave at this movie's badness. I went to see it when it was in the theaters (myself and my two buddies were 3 of 5 people there), and after 15 years I can't remember very many specifics, but my attitude upon leaving the theater is still crystal clear.

---Spoiler alert---

Oh my, where to begin. Fat loser left at altar, goes on ski weekend, meets blonde bombshell who takes an interest in him, takes him home to meet the family, they're all cannibals and he's the main course, pathetic attempt at a dramatic escape, kicks all their butts and runs off with the brother's girlfriend, they live happily ever after. Puke. Firstly, the gags are so bad that it took me a while to understand that they were trying to be FUNNY, and that this was a COMEDY. The special effects, what few there are, look like they were done 15 years earlier. The big dramatic ending was so hokey and poorly acted that it was nearly unbearable to watch (he knocks out the entire cannibal family with rakes laying in the lawn, that stand up Tom and Jerry style when they step on them). I'm sure that there's much, much more, but I have no intention on seeing it again for a refresher.


... and in *no way* as clean, logical, and understandable as in pictured in that pathetic sum of tired Hollywood cliches.

I'm 27, and I've spent 16 years of my life struggling through delusional phobia and paranoid hallucinations. Like the main character in the film, I was successful mainly because of logic : because I kept thinking over and over to keep delusion away from reality, and to know what was really going on and what wasn't. In the end, I was really successful because of medication, by the way, but I certainly escaped madness because I knew before I took medication the difference between what was real and what wasn't.

So, I feel entitled to tell you that this movie is a total fraud. Not only does it cheat with the main character's story (who wasn't faithful to his wife, who was bisexual - something really important here), but mostly, it shows a comforting, tamed view of schizophrenia - which is entirely missing the point.

Schizophrenia is a mind structure, not a disease. A schizophrenic *isn't* a "normal man with a disease", it's someone who from early on views and feels things differently from most people : for him, things like time, space, and people's personalities aren't solid things. He feels it can be bent, it can change, it can mutate, and maybe even disappear. To cope with this, a schizophrenic has a rich, very imaginative inner world which "normal" people don't expect - but he's trapped in it because he can't relate with most people, and his world gets poorer and poorer until he finishes in a blank, delusive dead end.

This is very different to what's depicted in this ridiculous "cure", tear-jerking movie. It should be violently frightening. People other than the main character should appear strange, weird and absurd, like in Lynch's "Eraserhead", for example. There should be *really* impressive, weird, gross hallucinations, because that's what schizophrenia is all about. It's not about *details*.

I mean, watch "Naked Lunch", "Lost Highway", read P.K. Dick's "Martian Time-Split" or "Ubik", DO watch "The Cell", "Perfect Blue", "Dark City", or play "American McGee's Alice" on PC, and you may have a vague idea of what it's like. Don't watch the "feel good" movie of the month, with banal situations, cleaned characters and visuals, and stupid plot tricks. "The Cell" is the most accurate movie about a schizophrenic's mind, his visions and his inner consistency - it's violent, weird, confusing, and very, very scary.

Once again, Schizophrenia isn't about details, it's not a neat, tame trick played to you. It jumps in your face and won't let you go : walls fall apart, people turn into strange hostile creatures, you feel like you go backward in time, you're not sure you're who you think you are, everything feels... strange, unnatural. Believe me, this is much much more than what's depicted in this soap-like melodrama


I saw this movie with the intention of not liking it. I sure didn't. It's one of those movies that seems to have been made exclusively for the Oscars: music throughout the film in almost every single frame, almost no profanity, set in a time long gone, sepia-toned imagery, pretentious title, NO SEX, and a genius that explains everything he thinks and concludes in sfx/cgi so that we (the stupid audience) get it. One thing that amused me though is the fact that they spelled the NOBEL PRICE WRONG! Instead they call the Nobel-price (named after an actual person called Alfred Nobel) 'the noble-price'.. Jesus! How can one make such a mistake in such a big production, supposedly based on a true story. What a sham! What were you and the others thinking RON?


I will spend a few days dedicated to Ron Howard before I swear off his work entirely. Having, unfortunately, dealt with Lucas at such a young age, Howard is now caught up in so many of Lucas' traits. How else do you explain his rampage of disasters? His only useful film, of course, has been 'Willow'. Everything else, including this, is too reliant on superficial junk.

Some spoilers.

He can't even have semi-intelligent focus like Peter Weir. No, poor Howard so stuck on his Spielbergian knockoff qualities that he will be quickly forgotten.

Here we have the old adage: "love conquers all, even disease." Too bad for Howard that Lynch already got through the whole subtext with more skill. Heck, even Disney did better than this. Ron even goofs up on the possibilities presented by imagined realities.

Howard's commentary track is just awful. Don't even rent the DVD.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud


First off, the movie was not true to facts at all. I just saw the documentary a few days earlier and the movie wasn't anything like it. First of all Nash was a genius at mathematics and this is what the movie should have been about not a story about a man who was cured and who found love at the end and so on. Also there are a lot of scenes that were just plain wrong - the scene where he rode around with a bike at the campus happened in his early university years not after it. In my opinion Russell Crowe didn't fit to this part at all since he doesn't look the intelligent/individualist type, therefore he really couldn't play one. It would have been great if it would have focused more on the mathematics (similar to Pi) and not the over-dramatized lovelife. At this level ABM was too hollywood-ish and too superficial to be great. Personally I think he wasn't mad nor paranoid and he was onto something since people of that caliber tend to know more than we "lesser mortals". 5/10


I really don't get all the adulation that this film has received. It's mawkish, unnecessarily manipulative and dodges many of the big issues - ie Nash's affairs and his predilection for having sex with men in public places. That, I suppose, in the context of a commercial Hollywood film is just about tolerable, but what's with all the praise for Russell Crowe's performance? The man just seems to shuffle about, clutching his briefcase and wearing a grungy hat and somehow that seems to qualify as fine acting? Anyone who has ever known a person with mental health problems will realise that Crowe's performance is little short of caricature. It is also rather offensive. And, dare I say, just on the right side of being truly terrible


How this movie escaped the wrath of MST3K I'll never know. "Gymkata" is a ridiculous action movie, filled (or is that empty?) with paper-thin plots, dumb characters, and preposterous situations. But take it from me, if you enjoy watching poor, yet goofy, movies, you will enjoy "Gymkata" a great deal.

The action centers around a gymnast who is chosen by government agents (at least I think they were government agents) to become a spy. You see his dad was another quasi-government agent, who has gone missing competing in this game, called, eloquently, "The Game." So the gymnast (played blandly by Kurt Thomas) trains to compete in this game and find out what happened to his lost dad.

Sounds promising doesn't it? Okay, so it doesn't but still, that bare bones plot sypnopsis doesn't begin to describe the joys of this movie. They can be found in the movie's strange details. Like the gymnast's mysterious Asian girlfriend, who doesn't speak for the first half hour of the movie, then all of a sudden begins to talk, and doesn't shut up for the rest of the time! Or the really tough shirtless bad guy who likes to make and break "The Game"'s non-existent rules whenever he so pleases. And of course there's our hero's delightful romp through the "Village of The Crazies" (Evidently that's the place's real name!). Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

But where this movie really shines is the action scenes. Since our protagonist is a gymnast, the director thought it wise to stick gymnastic equipment into the back alleys and town squares of Middle Eastern cities, so that our Gymkata master would be better able to use his gymnast skills to fight the scourge of evil on parallel bars and pummel horses. It has to be seen to be believed.

One interesting thing of note. A lot, I'd say about half the cast, dies from being shot with an arrow. Interesting because the arrows are the only believable effects or action in the entire movie. If these were indeed effects, my one major note of compliment to whoever devised these very realistic arrows wounds. More likely, this was the film's way of not paying extras. Nevertheless, "Gymkata" deserves a look if you can see it without paying and are looking for some silliness that is an easy target for riffing.


Although I had seen "Gymkata" in a theater way back in '85, I couldn't remember anything of the plot except for vague images of Kurt Thomas running and fighting against a backdrop of stone walls and disappointment regarding the ending.

After reading some of the other reviews I picked up a copy of the newly released DVD to once again enter the world of Gymkata.

It turns out this is one of those films produced during the '80s that would go directly to video today. The film stars champion gymnast Kurt Thomas as Jonathan Cabot, recruited out of the blue to infiltrate the nation of "Parmistan" to enter and hopefully win "The Game," a suicidal bloodsport sponsored by the Khan who encourages his people by yelling what sounds like "Yak Power." The goal of the mission involves the Star Wars defense system. Jonathan is trained in the martial arts by Princess Rubali, who never speaks or leaves the house. Once trained tries to blend in with the locals by wearing a bright red sweater with dashes of blue and white. Needless to say Cabot finds himself running and fighting for his life along the stone streets of Parmistan, on his way to a date with destiny, and the Game.

Star, Kurt Thomas was ill served by director Robert Clouse, who it looks like was never on the set. The so called script is just this side of incompetent. See other reviews for the many howlers throughout. The town of crazies has a few good moments, but is ultimately ruined by bad editing. The ending...meh. Still there's the germ of a good action adventure here. A Hong Kong version with more visceral action and faster pace might even be pretty good.


Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor.

This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it.

Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits.

Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think.

I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face.


One: Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason, two great comics turned into saps for a bratty kid. They've both sold themselves out in this one, worse than Pryor's character. Two: Horrible, overly sentimental script that could have been used in a Harold Lloyd movie its so cliched. Three: Choice of a black actor as the toy; the racial subtext of this is unbearable, as its never addressed. There's no message here, Pryor's part could have been played by any comedic actor. Four: That kid...I wish I could go back in time and prevent him from ever acting...that would mean movies like this one and Kid Co. might not have been made...and my childhood would have been free of their mind-warping power. So if you want to watch a couple of great comics defile themselves in a sickly sweet kiddie flick, go ahead. If you want to see them in something good, see Pryor's old standup act and Gleason in something better, like the Honeymooners.


Richard Pryor's early 80s running down the street on fire incident must have affected him somehow. In his stand up,he jokes about it getting great laughs. It seemed to have done something involving the projects he chose. The Toy is about the lamest he ever chose,aside from I guess Another You.

A movie where a white man buys his son a black man? Nice little bit of underlying political incorrectness before thee was such a thing. It's seeing Richard getting all sentimental that made me finally walk out before the end. I wanted to see Pryor get even with this brat,instead it becomes the misunderstood kid nauseum! At least Gleason had his moments. Ignore this and watch Pryor with Gene Wilder or any of his '70s stuff. This is a waste of any movie watcher's time!


That's a problem I have with movies that come on television, when there is nothing else to watch. I somehow get sucked into really bad movies.

But this one was fairly watchable. The concept of being the only ones left on Earth after a comet, then finding out zombies are around makes me laugh. And that's why I gave this movie a 2, instead of 1. The story was stupid...but in that way that makes you laugh (too stupid >funny).

I think I only watched it because the guy from Star Trek was the lead. I was surprised to see him as a younger guy...and he was the only funny character anyway.


This was the only time I ever walked out on a movie. Years later, I saw it in the cable listings and thought, "Maybe I should give it another try." Suffice to say that I was right the first time. This ranks second only to Godzilla 1998 as the worst movie I've ever seen.


Night of the Comet starts as the world prepares for a once in a lifetime event, the passing of a 65 million plus year old comet. Instead of watching the light show Regina Belmont (Catherine Mary Stewart) decides to spend the night with cinema projectionist Larry Dupree (Michael Bowen) in his booth... They awake the next morning & as Larry attempts to leave the cinema he is attacked & killed by a zombie, the same zombie attacks Regina but she manages to escape where upon she discovers that almost everyone on the entire planet has been turned into red dust. Almost everyone because by some amazing coincidence the only other person to survive happens to be her sister Samantha (Kelli Maroney), they desperately search for more survivors & meet up with a long distance trucker named Hector Gomez (Robert Beltran). Meanwhile an evil bunch of scientists need human blood to develop a serum to save themselves from turning into dust & they're on the look out for unwilling donors...

Written & directed by Thom Eberhardt I found Night of the Comet a pretty rubbish viewing experience, I'm surprised at the amount of positive comments on IMDb about it because I just thought it was boring crap that never lived up to it's potential. The script starts off 100 miles an hour with the obliteration of the entire population of Earth & a zombie attack but then it goes absolutely nowhere & then eventually introduces the sinister blood stealing scientists towards the end of the film because by that time the slim story has run it's course. There are plot holes too, if these scientists want blood why shoot the three or four gang members & save the two sisters when the guys would have provided more blood for their experiments, killing them just seemed a totally bizarre & an almost suicidal thing to do considering they need blood to develop a cure, it just doesn't make sense I mean if your going to die & you need to experiment on human blood would rather have five or six donors providing blood or just two? I'm not having the fact that the two sisters survived independently of each other, I mean what are the odds on that? When Hector confronts the female scientist for the first time she never mentions Samantha or where she was or where the underground facility was where they took Regina before she committed suicide so how did Hector know these things? I also thought after the first twenty odd minutes the film slows down to a snails pace & became incredibly boring & dull to watch, after hearing so many good things about it Night of the Comet comes across to me as nothing more than an overrated boring piece of crap.

Director Eberhardt does a really good job, I liked the look of the film with it's red tinted sky & he manages to create a really cool atmosphere of isolation. Unfortunately there are far too many shots of empty streets, there are constant montage's of empty streets, deserted roads & abandoned buildings & it gets extremely repetitive & dull. OK we get it there's no one else about so there's no need to keep ramming it down our throats by constantly showing roads without cars on them. The zombies are totally wasted, there are two zombie attacks in the entire film & that's two individual zombies as well although there are a couple of effective nightmare scenes. Night of the Comet pays homage, or rips-off whichever you prefer, several other much better films including the obligatory end of the world shopping spree in a mall lifted from Dawn of the Dead (1978). Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any.

Technically Night of the Comet is pretty good, the special effects are decent enough & the production crew were obviously very good at closing streets off. The acting was alright expect for Maroney as Samantha the air-head blonde who became highly irritating.

Night of the Comet was a big disappointment for me, I had hoped for so much more. Persoanlly I found this film dull, boring, uneventful & the puke inducing sequence where the sisters go shopping to the tune of 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun' is probably the worst moment in the film. Really bad & I just don't get why so many people like this, I'm sure I'll get slaughtered for saying it so let the abuse begin I can take it...


This movie was bad. This movie was horrible. The acting was bad. The setting was unrealistic. The story was absurd: A comet that appears once in eons is set to appear one night. Most of the world's population decided to watch this comet. Then, the next morning everyone but a select few of people has been turned to dust from the comet's radiation. People's clothes are still intact, there are plants which are still alive, but the people were turned to dust. No bones, nothing. Thats ridiculous. How can radiation incinerate people but leave their clothes and other biological substances intact?

Even better, the comet mutated some people into zombie flesh eating monsters. Their makeup would not have even looked frightening to a newborn child. The Insane Clown Posse scare me more...and they're supposed to look stupid.

Then there were the survivors. People who had been surrounded by steel when the comet passed were spared from zombie-dom and death. How can steel block a comet's radiation that supposedly incinerates people in their tracks?

Equally insulting is the 60's horror music playing in the background through parts of the movie, or the 80's hair rock which serves no purpose in the film and makes you want to shoot your television.

The stupidest part of the movie, however, are the characters it focuses on: two Valley Girls and Chakotay from Star Trek: Voyager. These three characters were totally unrealistic. Who would go looting the day after an apocalypse with flesh eating mutants running everywhere? There were four 5 minute horror scenes in the entire movie, and most of them were dreams. In between these scenes is unsophisticated dialog which makes South Park seem intelligent. The silence in between the elementary dialog was painful. I could have made a better movie with four monkeys and a bag of Cheetos. Don't see this movie, ever.