While watching the film, I'm not sure what direstion it was to take. There's a reason a writer shouldn't direct his work and even act in it as well, you can't do it all. I felt the story really suffered in this film due to the director wearing so many hats. Ms. McTeer is the film. To add to her amazing talents, her portrayal of this woman was why I was engaged. Here is a British actress who can do anything. In my view, conflict is what makes drama and a great story. I felt this film didn't have that. Everything was somewhat easy for the characters, there were no real obstacles preventing the chahracters from getting what they wanted. Watch the film for the sweetness, but most of all for Ms. McTeer's brilliant performance.


We've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel.


"The Bank" (1915, Chaplin) "The Bank" was one of Charlie's 1915 Essanay films. While these group of films are more watchable than their 1914 counterparts, this one seems a bit below average. The gag with the janitorial double combo-locked vault and the tough-luck ending that has Charlie waking up from a dream, in which he is stroking the lead lady's hair, only to be stroking the head of a mop he had used as a quasi pillow, are both classic Chaplin moments. They are both ironically the beginning and the end. The middle is filled in with fighting with the rival co-worker janitor and busting up a bank robbery to win the girl. The mop is probably the greatest physical prop of this movie and Charlie uses it to expert comedic effect whether while it is the intention of his character or not. The mop seems to be Charlie's alter-ego doing things he wishes he could do but wouldn't with his own two hands. Interesting stuff but there's better.


I refused to watch this when it originally aired, treasuring the memory of the late, lamented 1960s series with Mike Pratt and Kenneth Cope, but I can never resist a challenge. I should have known better. Not quite a remake, and more of a parody than a homage, this show didn't quite know how to play it, and plumped with infantile comedy and cartoon plots and characters. The three main characters were little more than caricatures of the actors, and only Emilia Fox could act (Bob Mortimer is painful in a straight role). The supporting cast were merely comedian-acquaintances of Vic and Bob's wanting to be part of the in-joke, and far too aware of the situation to be convincing. And the CGI, though the effects couldn't help be an improvement on those available 30 years earlier, merely dazzled the viewer with lights and camera work, and did little to mask the poor quality of the scripts and dialogue. All style and no substance. (And whereas the 1960s show is mocked for being very much of its time, this 'update' is now also very dated, with 'Matrix'-style fashions, obligatory 'girl power' scenes, and less than subtle tension between the two living leads.)


This video guide was the masterpiece of the year 1995. Beautifully done! Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston have major on-screen chemistry when they talk about what the Start button does. I'm waiting for Microsoft to release a Special Edition DVD complete with deleted scenes, Bill Gates commentary, a documentary of how Windows 95 compares to Windows XP, and more!

Overall: 10/10 (Should have won at least a Golden Globe)


One can deal with historical inaccuracies, but this film was just too much. Practically nothing was even close to truth, and even for the era, it was seen as silly.

In defense of ford, it was revealed on an old talk show, that he was operating on the story as told to him by the real Wyatt Earp, who was obviously old, senile, and replayed the scene his own way. Earp told the director about the stagecoach, and how it was planned to happen during the stagecoach arrival, so despite what other historians claim, Wyat himself asserts that it was premeditated.

This movie portrays Earp as an honest man, and also his brothers. History doesn't exactly say they were or weren't. Most people like to interject a bit of deceit and lawlessness into their characters, but that is nothing new. The truth is probably closer to them being the law abiding sorts of GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. Men who saw it as a career, and believe me, in the old West, you didn't have time to think about too much else.

Characters that don't exist, characters depicted dying at the corral who really didn't, all make this a weaker film. It is further weakened by Mature, who really didn't make a convincing Doc. He may be the worst cast choice ever for Doc, but at the same time we must remember that older movies were closer to the era and closer to a feel for the truth. After all, ford did get information first hand from Wyatt Earp.

It is also weakened by the all so predictable events involving the Mexican girl. Hollywood was very pro Nazi in those days, and ready to kill off brunette women in very predictable fashion to show their patronage to Hitler idealism. This occurs in most movies until the eighties. It is no excuse, and does cheapen the art, however.

The actors who play the Earps do well, and Brennan is always a thrill. In fact, Mature may be the only acting downside of this flick. Still, it is the weakest of the old OK Corral movies.


To put it simply, I am not fond of westerns. And having never sat through one from beginning to end, I decided to watch "My Darling Clementine" and see it all the way through, no matter how painful it was for me. At first it was excruciating as expected. I found the acting to be laughable, the scenery (your standard dessert, horses and cowboys) boring and the music and its timing teetering on the edge of painful. However, after mentally pep talking myself to struggle on, after the first 20 minutes it began to be quite a bit easier for me to endure. Focusing in on the cinematography, and how John Ford managed to make even the dullest situations (dull according to me that is) look quite stunning at times, made it a lot more interesting.

In conclusion, I can't go so far as to say that I enjoyed the movie by the end of it. However it was made well enough for me to sit all the way through to the very end, and that in itself impresses me.


What a fantastic premise: A movie about the Berlin Airlift. It should have it all. Tragedy. Suspense. Comradeship. Rivals. Berliner Frauleins and tough US pilots. love and Tears. What we've got, is a film with none of the above. Heino Ferch tries to impersonate John Wayne or so, but he fails miserably. He acts so wooden, that at any given moment he should crack. He tries to play the tough guy, instead of being a tough guy! Why would Bettina Zimmermann's character fall in love with him? Cause they were throwing stones in a lake? Cause he brings her coal bricks? The SFX are very, very well done. Too much though. The hundreds or so planes over Berlin, look like an attack-fighter-formation-squadron rather than an organised airlift  as it actually was. Interestingly enough, the White House, the Kremlin, and General Lucius D. Clays office seem all to be one and the same dark and dusty set. Notice the same drapes, hanging deep down the windows, as if a protective shield against nuclear fallout. Why is almost every scene INSIDE dark and dusty? By the way, GENERAL LUCIUS D. CLAY, comes across as a small time, insecure, looser General, who doest trust in his own noble idea the airlift. He was very much the opposite. So you combine all those individual blunders and the result is a film with that builds toward no passion, no suspense and no historic accuracy. Sad, it started out so promising


A few weeks ago the German broadcaster "SAT1" advertised this movie as the "TV-Event of the year" - sorry, but I've seen better things on TV this year.

I didn't thought much of the movie but I soon reminisced about two other horrible movies when I watched the commercial - namely Titanic and Pearl Harbor because the picture looked so familiar: The "heroine" (if I can really call her that) in the middle and her two "loved-ones" next to her - Pearl Harbor, anyone? In fact the love-story is a poor man's version of the one in Pearl Harbor and that one was already poor!

But as I like watching movies and analyzing their patterns I eventually decided to watch that rubbish. The movie begins with a doctor leaving his family for the military strike against Russia near the end of the Third Reich promising his wife that he will return. Now fast forward to Spring 1948: Germany lost the war and the allies & Russia captured the country and they both try to eliminate each other for world power and their ideologies: capitalism versus communism. Well, I guess you already know the story because you have to know it - The movie doesn't really bother with it so much and literally takes a dump on historical facts. The movie tries to depict the US government as angels and completely ignores the contribution of other countries during the airlift especially Great Britain who was responsible for nearly a quarter of the rations despite having their country bombed from a country that they're trying to help.

What was also pretty annoying were the historical remarks the people said in the movie like when the heroine's mother tells her daughter that Germany might be parted in two with a response like: "That's impossible!" Or when Stalin (where the director thought we just stick similarly looking mustache on the actor and he WILL look like him) says that Russia has to stop "Coca Cola" from spreading in Germany. Yeah right, if Stalin has ever said something like this. Or there is this one US pilot who tells his fellow of a bread with meat and everything possible in it - please! Burgers were invented WAY before that time.

In the movie you once see a map showing the airlines, funnily enough the map looks like it came straight out of a laser printer - in '48. The US general Lucius Clay who's main idea was to stay in Berlin is portrayed as a guy who is mean and grumpy and all the ideas he historically had like for example the airlift and improving on that idea came from the fictive character Phillip Turner, the love interest of the main actress which leads me to other aspects: Not enough African-American soldiers in the movie, there were like two in the whole film! Also relationships between US soldiers and German civilians was not allowed and by a revealing of such a relationship the US soldier would've been sent home. I don't want to say that there were no relationships at all but in this movie there was a couple that almost got married, If it wasn't for the death of the pilot in his fake CGI plane which looked terribly unrealistic especially the CGI fire!

If it wasn't enough all Americans in this movie spoke accent-free German although they only were in Germany for a couple of months - look I'm also American living in Germany for my whole life and even I have a little accent. Notably bad was also the child acting - the kids had like two expressions on their faces: "Normal-I-look-monotonous-like-a-robot" and grinning.

All in all the movie was boring from beginning to end moving way too slow especially the love story which was the same as the one in Pearl Harbor just with half of the dialogue. The sad part is that the movie was very successful - 8.97 millions watched the first part and 7.83 millions the second part the day after thus SAT1 receiving two consecutive wins in the overall market share and a whopping win in the commercial relevant group. But like I always think: The biggest pile of bull-crap is where the most flies go to.


The idea of making a miniseries about the Berlin airlift seemed to me as one of the more interesting German (post)war movies. It is a theme that has not been explored much as yet. However, the makers of this series stuffed it with clichés. It starts already with the DVD cover of the movie, which is a direct copy of the cover of 'Pearl Harbor'.

Luise Kielberg (Bettina Zimmermann) gets to hear that her husband, who is a doctor, (Ulrich Noethen) has died in Russia and after the war she's struggling to survive. She finds a job at the American base, gets to work for the coolest and highest ranking officer (Heino Ferch) in town, falls in love with 'm, gets pregnant, and all of a sudden her husband turns up again. Come on!!! We've seen this once too often. Heino Ferch and Ulrich Noethen play their role quite well; Bettina Zimmermann however never really seems to convince. For some reason it always seems she's somewhat too late in giving the right emotional reaction to the scenes. It just didn't work for me.

The action scenes with the planes and the air lift, we're sometimes exciting, more often not. Nasty things always seemed to happen to the same pilot.

Unless you're a big fan of WWII movies, I suggest you spend your money on something else: chocolate ice-cream brings a lot more satisfaction!

4 out 10!


Heavenly Days commits a serious comedy faux pas: it's desperate to teach us a civics lesson, and it won't stop until we've passed the final exam. Fibber McGee and Molly take a trip to Washington, where they see the senate in action (or inaction, if you prefer), have a spat with their Senator (Eugene Palette in one of the worst roles of his career), get acquainted with a gaggle of annoying stereotypical refugee children, and meet a man on a train reading a book by Henry Wallace. Henry Wallace!! A year later, he was considered a near communist dupe, but in 1944, he was A-OK. Add in some truly awful musical moments, a whole lot of flagwaving hooey, and a boring subplot about newspaper reporters, and you've got a film that must have had Philip Wylie ready to pen Generation of Vipers 2: D.C. Boogaloo. Drastically unfun, Heavenly Days is another reminder that the Devil has all the best tunes.


One-note comedy that probably sets modern day feminists' teeth on edge. Department store clerk Betsy Drake is in love with the idea of babies and marriage, pinning her hopes on women's magazines until she spies super-bait in the form of sleek bachelor Cary Grant. The rest of the film plods from one ploy to the next as the relentless Drake pursues her quarry. I guess the word "perky" just about sum's up Drake's approach to the role. She does have a charming smile, but after 20 minutes of memorizing her dentures, I began to overdose. Grant's role is basically secondary and minus his usual flair. There is one scene, however, that almost salvages this slender exercise. Drake queries the hapless Grant following his lecture to a roomful of respectable ladies. Here her perky manner has an unforced freshness that is really quite remarkable, and had the production not rubbed our noses in that upbeat grin for 90 minutes, the film might have amounted to more than a girls' camp day-dream, circa 1948.


Stalker is right! Girl sees guy, girl wants guy, girl contrives mundane ways to keep bumping into him, girl won't leave him alone, girl pretends to be a patient, girl can't stop talking about him, girl pretends to love another guy (or two), he doesn't pay attention to her because she's annoying, girl STILL won't leave him alone. Played right, Drake's character could have been charming but she's completely, wholly, unrelenting in her pursuit of Cary Grant's character, her girlfriend-in-cahoots is dull, and sadly, Drake's attempt at playing, "charmingly screwball" comes off as, "disturbingly demented." Grant is himself, as usual, which is fine for Cary but it's as close to a phoned-in performance as I've ever seen from him. The direction is lackluster and the dialog is just plain dim.

Screwball comedy is very difficult to do successfully and when it fails, like in this stubbed-out butt of an attempt, it just stinks. Worse still, Drake spends the entire film in need of a lot of Valium and a restraining order. She ruins any humor to be found in this drier than mummy dust relic.


I'm among millions who consider themselves Cary Grant fans, but I can't think of a single reason to recommend this movie.I don't understand the casting of Betsy Drake and it appears no one else did,if we're to judge from the small number of films in which she played afterwards.

Most fans will agree that Katharine Hepburn was superb at chasing and catching Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby.Here the director or writers try to rehash the idea,but it fails miserably.I've read comments about how "creepy" Drake was,but I thought that was far too mild a description. Franchot Tone walked through this one as if he were hungover.A casting disaster is one thing.This film is a total disaster.

This one doesn't deserve 10 lines of comments and I don't know why that's a requirement.Too bad this one was preserved when so many worthwhile films lie rotting in vaults.

Unless you want to torture someone,give this one a wide berth.


This woman never stops talking throughout the movie. She memorized every line, and delivered all without a bit of natural emotion. She also has a most uncharming lisp, and the pitch of her voice sounds like nails on a blackboard. This film has WAY too much Betsy Drake, and not enough Cary Grant, who carried what little was left of the film entirely on his own.


Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.

Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since.


I always found Betsy Drake rather creepy, and this movie reinforces that. As another review said, this is a stalker movie that isn't very funny. I watched it because it has CG in it, but he hardly gets any screen time. It's no "North by Northwest"...


Maximally manipulative Anabel Sims (Betsy Drake) sets out to trap her ideal man, aided by her co-worker, Julie. Esteemed pediatrician Madison Brown (Cary Grant) goes from bemused to betrothed in the space of 90 minutes on film, but to the viewer it's all eternity. Can a movie receive less than one star? This one is a prime candidate.


I went in to this movie thinking it was going to be the next Clerks, but left feeling let down. The humor was weak and the characters fairly flat. That isn't to say it was all bad, the idea of the dating service in the grocery store seemed like pretty fertile material, but the director switched focus to the cliche'd "save the Mom-and-Pop store from the evil corporation guy". I felt like if he would have just stuck with the dating service plot, he would have come out with a much more memorable movie. Now, to do the film justice, I am from the Rochester area and loved the way he portrayed Webster. In fact, the best Kevin Smith (of Clerks) homage here was giving props to his hometown. Webster, NY is to Checkout what Red Bank, NJ is to Clerks. The director wisely threw in a date at Nick Tahou's. Trust me, as far as things to do in Rochester, a garbage plate is at the top of the list. I was lucky enough to see this film at the Little in Rochester so everybody knew when the odes to the town came up and appreciated them.


i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not "good, clean fun." the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made.


This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).

I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews.

Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?

I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...

Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking...


CQ is incredibly slow, and I'm a David Mamet fan. The movie follows around a young filmmaker who is making a very Barbarella-esque film. After that the movie started to lose me. Deep and profound? Not really. The movie "Dragonfly" being made in CQ has the problem of having no ending. This greatly parallels CQ, which also lacks an ending (in my opinion).

I was lucky enough to catch this movie at the SxSW film festival. I had fairly high expectations having just watched Y Tu Mama Tambien and several other great movies. I was also looking forward to Jason Schwartzman's performance. But it was not an easy film to get into. If you're not into 60's sci-fi or slow movies that go no where, skip it.

CQ feels like a student film. If you want a recent sci-fi-esque indie film rent Donnie Darko, it won't put you to sleep.


CQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a "twist" or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy.


Okay, the film festival crowd probably loved it. But your average, popcorn munching movie goer who has scraped to-gether the ten or fifteen bucks it costs to see a movie these days will probably wonder why he or she made this choice. If it's stamped "Copolla" it's automatically great stuff, right? Wrong! It's a neat spoof of filmdom's pretensions. But it's terribly "in." I worry when film makers are more concerned about entertaining themselves rather than the public. It's interesting as a cinematic curio and it does have a chuckle or two in it. But once it's run its course in the movies and on TV, the dust will grow thick on the film cans and tape boxes holding it. Hardly either epochal or an epic!


CQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: "CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker."


Style but no substance. Not as funny as it should be. Not as deep as it wants to be.

This is another in the genre of films about the difficulties of filmmaking. A young filmaker is hired to finish a campy 60s sci-fi movie called Codename:Dragonfly. Think Barbarella, or Danger Diabolique.

But Jeremy Davies is an angst-ridden filmmaker. He's no hack he's an artist. The movie he wants to make is a diary of his life. Hardly original.

All the characters outside of Jeremy Davies filmmaker are as thin as rice-paper. Characters that might be interesting, such as his father, his doppelganger, or Jason Schwarzmann as a hack director are introduced and then shown the door without adding a thing.

This movie is full of eye candy but when compared to other films about filmmakers such as Stardust Memories or 8 1/2 it pales in comparison. Those movies are funny, provocative with well-developed characters. Those movies have lessons that apply outside

The movie wants to be comic and campy but its just derivative and there is not one funny scene. The filmmakers describe it as a send-up but what's the satirical target? The actors say it's an homage but I think I would rather a full-length version of Codename:Dragonfly.

Coppola is clearly amused by the setting as is evident by the visual humor of the sci-fi movie within a movie. But he fails to share why we should be amused.

Outside of the sci-fi movie its just a mess. There are continuity errors, the filmmaker chooses a sci-fi weapon after its already been chosen. What?

Just because he has a scene were the filmmaker is confronted by the critics complaining about the lack of story, lack of a point, a scene where he admits empty cleverness does not mean that he has addressed those criticisms.

I guess if your Roman Coppola you can get away with making a movie about an angst-ridden idealistic filmmaker who doesn't know what he wants to say and so ends up saying nothing. In that sense it may be considered autobiograhical.

I would watch it at Circuit City on a wall full of TVs if I had a choice. Watch the 15-minute Codename:Dragonfly movies included on the DVD as extras and then send it back.


From the nepotism capitol of the world comes another junk flick in a fancy wrapper. "CQ" tells a lame, disjointed mess of a story which is little more than a bunch of silly caricatures, a babe, and straight man Davies running around trying to make a stupid sci-fi flick. I can't think of any reason anyone would want to spend time with this ridiculous attempt at film making. (D)


I really love the sexy action and sci-fi films of the sixties and its because of the actress's that appeared in them. They found the sexiest women to be in these films and it didn't matter if they could act (Remember "Candy"?). The reason I was disappointed by this film was because it wasn't nostalgic enough. The story here has a European sci-fi film called "Dragonfly" being made and the director is fired. So the producers decide to let a young aspiring filmmaker (Jeremy Davies) to complete the picture. They're is one real beautiful woman in the film who plays Dragonfly but she's barely in it. Film is written and directed by Roman Coppola who uses some of his fathers exploits from his early days and puts it into the script. I wish the film could have been an homage to those early films. They could have lots of cameos by actors who appeared in them. There is one actor in this film who was popular from the sixties and its John Phillip Law (Barbarella). Gerard Depardieu, Giancarlo Giannini and Dean Stockwell appear as well. I guess I'm going to have to continue waiting for a director to make a good homage to the films of the sixties. If any are reading this, "Make it as sexy as you can"! I'll be waiting!


All you need to know about this film happens in the first five minutes: it looks cool, it has a solid original soundtrack reflective of the late-60s period, and all but a couple of its characters are unlikeable. Once you get that message, you may as well switch to another film.

Davies's protagonist ignores his beautiful girlfriend, one of the few people in his life who cares about him. Then by the time he takes her advice to join her in the real world--instead of living a fantasy film of which he's the imagined director--he does so by pushing her aside and pairing up with an actress he's idealized beyond reason. A couple laughs and some thoughtful art direction are the only things worth watching here.

The film is also interesting as documentation of Jason Schwartzman's fall from Mount Rushmore. In Rushmore, Schwartzman's annoying brattiness was something to be overcome, but here it's his character's only quality. Schwartzman's family connection clearly landed him in this role; here's hoping his choices improve.


When the film started the first 4 minutes seemed like a travelogue of California, I was wondering if I got the tapes mixed up. Then I breathed a sigh of relief to see Paul Thomas in a scene with the lovely Joanna Storm and Laurie Smith. This is being spied on by Jimmy (a young Tom Byron). Jimmy's aunt (Honey Wilder) is concerned about his behavior so she hires him a private teacher (Kay Parker). I could do without the animal, robot role-playing, or the incest aspects.There's one good sex scene, between Byron and Parker, but it's not good enough to save this film.

My Grade: D+


I didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams "Afterschool special". Anyhoo.

Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.

We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.

But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering "Jay Jay, what am I doing here?" made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.

Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here.


The psychology of this movie is really weird to try and figure out. Its often billed as an anti-RPG movie, but its really not that simple. Here are come apparent contradictions that make me wonder just what (if anything) they're trying to say about gaming.

They laboriously introduce all the characters home lives by way of introduction, all of them having parents who are divorced, alcoholic, and totally out of touch with their lives except for the times they're harshly pressuring them to succeed. Tom Hanks is arguably the worst off, having just failed out of another school and still dealing with a brother who disappeared and may be dead.

Its mentioned a couple of times that they play the game to work through problems in their real lives. And sure enough, at the end, when they go to see Robbie (Hanks), they're all happy and well-adjusted, embarking on their adult careers, problems solved, games put away (Daniel doesn't even want to design computer games any more), and even Robbie's mother, who's been constantly drunk and dissatisfied, is suddenly the Happy Homemaker, looking fresh and bright and arranging flowers.

Sure, JJ suddenly (and quite cheerfully it seems) decides to commit suicide, but the reason seems to be entirely because he's a lonely boy genius who can't get a date, and not because his character dies, as in the famous Jack Chick tract (which happens afterward anyways, and it almost seems like he does it on purpose so he can end Daniels game and get everyone to come play his. In fact, the prospect of live-action role playing in the caverns seems to be the only thing that saves him from killing himself!) And in what may be the coolest tableau scene in the whole movie, Kate, looking very fetching in chain mail, looks right at the camera and says something like, "The scariest monsters are the ones in our own minds."

The biggest fantasy element in this movie is the two muggers passing up the rich couple so they can rob the dirty, homeless-looking guy of his magic beans. The recurring theme (a "The Way We Were" for the 80s)might have been poignant at the end, but as a way to kick off a movie is downright depressing and seems out of place. And for one final mystery, our hero, wearing full Pardu regalia, has a psychotic break, becomes his character completely and embarks on his quest, so of course the first thing he does is change into 20-century street clothes.

So maybe the movie's irrational, but I guess its dealing with an irrational topic. In those days a circle of kids with dice and pencils was regarded as tainted and possibly possessed, and you could go insane if they spoke their mumbo-jumbo at you. The anti-game paranoia is pretty much summed up in the first scene, where the reporter asks the cop whats going on, the cop says a kids lost in the tunnels and there's a chance Mazes and Monsters is somehow involved. The reporter admits to being vaguely familiar with the game (although he allows his own children to play it), then turns to the camera and reels off a polished spiel that blames the game for everything and admits no possibility of another explanation. In the end, its no masterpiece, but interesting as made-for-TV movies go.


Yes, about the only thing this film is memorable for is that it starred a youngish Tom Hanks who only a few short years later would be a relevant star in Hollywood. Here though is not a movie that is going to showcase his talents much at all and the only other thing that might be considered somewhat entertaining about this flick is the scene where he thinks he sees a monsters and runs a guy through. Yes, this movie is about the evils of playing a game that makes a group of people use their imaginations and try to come up with interesting scenarios. Basically, an after school type special about the evils of the game Dungeons and Dragons cleverly retitled here as Mazes and Monsters. Apparently, the makers of this film thought that nerds should not have fun of any sort unless they were going to go out and do underage drinking, drugs, having lots of unprotected sex and harass other weaker children like all the popular kids were doing. No, these bad people were playing a game that actually required one to use there brain, heaven's no! Not that, if they have a brain they actually may be able to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by certain groups out there. Yes, I think this movie is utterly stupid and a waste of time. Granted, it could be a movie against addiction, but there are a lot fewer people who died taking Dungeons and Dragons to far in its entire existence than than say what drunk driving claims in like a month.


Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End


Don't get me wrong, I assumed this movie would be stupid, I honestly did, I gave it an incredibly low standard to meet. The only reason I even saw it was because there were a bunch of girls going (different story for a different time). As I began watching I noticed something, this film was terrible. Now there are two types of terrible, there's Freddy vs. Jason terrible, where you and your friends sit back and laugh and joke about how terrible it is, and then there is a movie like this. The Cat in The Hat failed to create even a momentary interest in me. As I watched the first bit of it not only was I bored senseless, but I felt as though I had in some way been violated by the horrendousness of said movie. Mike Myers is usually brilliant, I love the majority of his work, but something in this movie didn't click. One of the things that the director/producers/writers/whatevers changed was that they refused to use any of the colors of the original book (red, black, white) on any character but the Cat. Coincidentally or not, they also refused to capture any of the original (and i hate to use this word, but it fits) zaniness of the original. The book was like an Ice Cream Sunday, colorful and delicious, and the movie was about as bland and hard to swallow as sawdust.

Avoid this like a leprous prostitute.


Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see "The Cat in the Hat" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the "calamity" known as "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against "The Cat in the Hat", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.

For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where "The Grinch" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, "The Cat" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from "Wayne's World" to "Austin Powers". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like "Elf" and "Brother Bear" currently in theaters, you have far better choices.


Audrey, I know you truly cherish your husband Ted's memory but PLEASE do his legacy justice and heed his wishes. Dr. Seuss refused to license his characters during his lifetime for a very good reason. We beg of you to please stop cashing in on his stories, images, fantasies and characters. They are getting disemboweled by the powers that be of Hollywood and Broadway. The children of tomorrow will be stuck with these histrionic and grotesque interpretations that will forever pollute the loving warmth and innocence of his books.

It is indeed your property to do with as you wish. I just wish you would listen to the advice of others for a little while. Save what is left of Dr. Seuss. Thank you.


The only good thing about this unfunny dreck is that I didn't have to pay for it. I saw it for free at college. And if a college student can't find humor in something that was free, it's hopeless.

Stale acting and poor jokes cannot be masked by an excellent, yet bewildering set design (that goes out of its way to market Volkswagon Beetles). I don't know what Michaels Myers was doing in this movie, but I have never seen anything more depressing. This was nothing more than a blatant effort to capitalize on the previous success of the Grinch (which has its opponents, but I enjoyed it very much). It's difficult not to sit through this failure and wonder what better projects were passed over to fund it.

You want a funny Seuss adaptation? Go with the Grinch.


If you liked the Grinch movie... go watch that again, because this was no where near as good a Seussian movie translation. Mike Myers' Cat is probably the most annoying character to "grace" the screen in recent times. His voice/accent is terrible and he laughs at his own jokes with an awful weasing sound, which is about the only laughing I heard at the theater. Not even the kids liked this one folks, and kids laugh at anything now. Save your money and go see Looney Tunes: Back in Action if you're really looking for a fun holiday family movie.


This movie was physically painful to sit through, maybe because (like many people my age, and younger) I grew up with Dr. Seuss and loved his books - funny, clever, whimsical and subversive at the same time. "The Cat in the Hat" sucks all of the interest and spark out of the story, and Mike Myer's performance as the Cat is mostly bewildering. Why the Borscht Belt accent, the unfunny patter, the inappropriate jokes, the charmless costume? I had to go back and re-read the books to see the real problem: the books are SIMPLE. This movie is OVERBLOWN and way, way too long.

You don't expect every kids' movie to be Toy Story or The Iron Giant, but this one set a new low. How could Mike Myers need the money?


From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.

Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the "dirty ho" "S.H.I.T" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.

Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family)


Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and "the cat" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.


Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made.


Inappropriate. The PG rating that this movie gets is yet another huge misstep by the MPAA. Whale Rider gets a PG-13 but this movie gets a PG? Please. Parents don't be fooled, taking an elementary school child to this movie is a huge mistake. There were numerous times I found myself being uncomfortable not just because the humor was inappropriate for kids, but also because it was totally out of the blue and unnecessary.

But all that aside, The Cat in the Hat is still a terrible movie. The casting and overall look of the movie are the only saving graces. The beautiful Kelly Preston and the always likeable (or hateable in this case) Alec Baldwin are both good in their roles even though Preston is almost too beautiful for a role like this. The kids are conditioned actors and it shows, especially with Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the only human aspect of the film that kept me watching and not throwing things at the screen.

Did I mention there was an oversized talking cat in this movie? Mike Myers is absolutely deplorable. I didn't like him as the voice of Shrek, and I truly believe now that Myers should not be allowed near the realm of children's films ever again. His portrayal of The Cat is a slightly toned down version of Fat Bastard and Austin Powers.

In the end, the cat should not have come, he should have stayed away, but he came, even if just for a day, he ruined 82 minutes of my life, 82 minutes of personal anger and strife.

The Cat in the Hat may be the worst kids movie ever.


The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should.

Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F


This movie has made me upset! When I think of Cat in the hat. Im thinking of cat in the hat books. You know, the one from a few years back that parents read to thier children. Well, I though that this movie would be a lot like that! But much to my suprise was nothing like the books! Insted it is more like young adult humor movie. In one part cat is talking to a gardening tool (hoe) cat talks to it like it is his hoe (agin adult humor). the naming of his car I all so though was a little untastful for a kids movie. under the rating you'll find: mild cude humor and some double-entendres. I think in short this means adult humor. I wish I could return this movie! wal-mart said they wouldn't because the movie has been opened. If you are thinking about buying this I suggest that maybe rent before you buy.


Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.


There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short.

"The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off.

This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.

I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!

On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.

Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!

1/10


Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)


The sun was not shining, it was too wet to play, so I went to the movies, that cold, cold, wet date day.

"The Cat in the Hat" was the name of the flick, and when it was over, my stomach was sick.

Mike Myers played the Cat, his humor was lame, and kids needn't see this, the humor was not tame.

the film was like drinking milk, from a rabid cow, so it IS fun to have fun, yet the filmmakers didn't know how.

This film, in short is atrocious. The acting was bad, the plot was tweaked too much, and the humor was surprisingly very crude.

It starts with Conrad and Sally, A rule breaker and a future sheriff. When their Mother has to go to work, she gets Mrs. Kwan to babysit. Possibly the lone funny part in the movie is when Mrs. Kwan is watching a Taiwanese court room, a `la C-SPAN. She soon falls asleep, and here comes the Cat.

The film starts to spiral out of control. The Cat came to try to let the kids have some fun. He's got Thing 1 and Thing 2, Who suddenly start trashing the house. He improvises a TV Infomercial, and accidentally slices his tail off. And when the Cat goes full Carmen Miranda, it's not funny. Possibly his only funny disguise is as a hippie activist. And there's a fish who tries warning the kids about the Cat.

Too bad he didn't warn us this film was as much fun as sour milk, or chopping your tail off.

Soon the kids are outside looking for the family dog, who has the key to a crate on his collar. If the crate is not locked soon, their house will be home to the Cat's universe. Here it gets a little more interesting, but not enough to save the film.

The acting, overall, is horrible. Mike Meyers brings his brand of irreverent Austin Powers humor to the Cat, Saying things like "You dirty ho" and imagining himself as a woman for the rest of his life after a whack in the testicles while posing as a pinata. Spencer Breslin is great as the trouble-making Conrad, and Dakota Fanning is cute as Sally, though they alone are not enough to save this horrendous Aortic Dissection waiting to kill John Ritter(accident waiting to happen). Alec Baldwin's slick and slimey Lawrence Quinn is disgusting, ever trying to woo the kids mom, who is played by Kelly Preston. And Sean Hayes is Mr. Humberfloob, Mom's boss, and is also the voice of the fish. The latter three are also bland.

Overall, if I were a parent I would not take my kids who are into potty humor, cause there's plenty of it and more. Save your $7.00 and see something else. As the late great Dr. Seuss once said,

It is fun to have fun, But you have to know how. Really, Universal, stop! Theodore's already turning over in his grave.

Like my Mom always says, "Curiousity killed the Cat".- The Cat In The Hat * out of *****


Well I guess I know the answer to that question. For the MONEY! We have been so bombarded with Cat In The Hat advertising and merchandise that we almost believe there has to be something good about this movie. I admit, I thought the trailers looked bad, but I still had to give it a chance. Well I should have went with my instincts. It was a complete piece Hollywood trash. Once again proving that the average person can be programed into believing anything they say is good, must be good. Aside from the insulting fact that the film is only about 80 minutes long, it obviously started with a moth eaten script. It's chock full of failed attempts at senseless humor, and awful pastel sceneries. It jumps all over the universe with no destination nor direction. This is then compounded with, ............................yes I'll say it, BAD ACTING! I couldn't help but feel like I was watching "Coffee Talk" on SNL every time Mike Myers opened his mouth. Was the Cat intended to be a middle aged Jewish woman? Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning were no prize either, but Mr. Myers should disappear under a rock somewhere until he's ready to make another Austin Powers movie. F-, no stars, 0 on a scale of 1-10. Save your money!


When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to "unwatch", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.

I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.

To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.


Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?

They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.

Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.


I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.


I've seen some bad things in my time. A half dead cow trying to get out of waist high mud; a head on collision between two cars; a thousand plates smashing on a kitchen floor; human beings living like animals.

But never in my life have I seen anything as bad as The Cat in the Hat.

This film is worse than 911, worse than Hitler, worse than Vllad the Impaler, worse than people who put kittens in microwaves.

It is the most disturbing film of all time, easy.

I used to think it was a joke, some elaborate joke and that Mike Myers was maybe a high cocaine sniffing drug addled betting junkie who lost a bet or something.

I shudder


Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst "kids" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label.


Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess.


No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.


Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The "witty" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a "ho"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!

1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie.


An absolutely atrocious adaptation of the wonderful children's book. Crude and inappropriate humor, some scary parts, and a sickening side story about the mom's boyfriend wanting to send the boy away to military school to get him out of the way makes this totally inappropriate for the kids who will most likely want to see it because of the book (3-8) yr olds. Don't waste your money, your time, or your good judgement.


Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do!

I was appalled.

Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.

What a pity.

Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.

Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.

Shame shame shame on what they do!!


There's only one thing I'm going to say about cat in the hat...as a KIDS movie and a good comedy movie it sucks...I lost track of how many terrible jokes in the movie that not only sucked but weren't exactly kid appropriate. Oh and by the way the way the cat in the hat talked was annoying...as for the plot I completely forgot. Who cares it sucked anyway. i'm not sure why Mike Myers joined but I think the writers were trying to make it sound like him in Austin powers without the swinger talk and it overly succeeded- but so what it was annoying. don't see it-it belongs in the bottom 100.............................. the jokes are so unkiddy it's funny


If one sits down to watch Unhinged, it is probably because its advertisements, video boxes, whatever, scream that it was banned in the UK for over 20 years (as virtually every video nasty does). It's true; exploitation and taboo excites people and draws them in with their promise of controversy. Being an exploitation fan, however, none of this was new to me. The advertisements that scream that the film was banned in the UK don't necessarily make me want to watch it; in fact, the first thing that usually pops into my head is how disgustingly paranoid British censors are. How I came to viewing this then is simple: it promised gore and it was only $6.99. The price alone alerted me not to have any hopes of this being the next Halloween, but a cheap padding of your DVD collection never hurts. I did force myself, however, to watch it all in one sitting, because I find that deciding to save the rest for another day makes you even less inspired to finish it. So anyway, after 90 minutes of Unhinged, I found that I had come across the cheapest sleeping aid in existence. I think the distributors could make a fortune if they simply changed their marketing technique.

The layout of Unhinged is of any common slasher from the 80s. There's unnecessary shower scenes and exploitative gore. That's about it. Anyway, it starts with a group of three attractive co-eds crashing their car on the way to a concert. Though two of them (Terry and Nancy) are okay, one (Gloria) is severely injured and is out of commission for the rest of the movie. They are rescued and receive shelter at a mansion (that happens to have no phone, of course) with rather strange occupants: Marion is a middle-aged woman with a man-hating mother who constantly accuses Marion of sneaking men into the house in order to sleep with them (echoes of Psycho?). She also happens to have a crazy brother Carl who lives in the woods, because her mother's hatred for men is so intense that she refuses to let him stay in the house. After hanging with Marion for awhile, Terry (our "hero") and Nancy decide they must contact their parents. Despite everyone's warnings, Nancy braves the dangerous woods to make it to a phone (her fate is not hard to predict). After that, we see Gloria again, who is then promptly butchered with an ax. When Terry discovers that Gloria has disappeared from her room, she decides something isn't right with this picture and sets out to find her missing friends. That may be easier said than done, however, with crazy Carl lurking around

After viewing Unhinged, I read an overwhelming number of reviews declaring that Unhinged worked perfectly because it took its time to build its subject matter that created real tension by the time the moment of truth comes at the end. Normally, I do not drag other people's opinions into my reviews (especially when they contradict my views), but in this case, I was so puzzled by their reactions that I thought it would be relevant to mention. This is because in actuality, the film crawls. Normally for the slow-building tactic to work, the audience must have a strong sense that the characters are in danger. Oh sure, we see two of them get murdered, but between that are endless scenes of conversation and boredom. We are aware that there's a killer on the loose, but this is only focused on three times in the film; that means there's no reason to fear for the victims. Instead, the film's events are explained not by the actions of the characters, but are drawn out for us by perpetual talking. If there's one thing I can assure you from watching this, it's that scenes of characters merely conversing with each other for 75 minutes are very tedious. None of this is helped by the atrocious acting. It seems that this was another case of the director needing actors and decided to gather his friends around instead of finding anyone with experience.

Of course, I'd be a liar if I said there wasn't one part of the movie that I enjoyed. Specifically, the ending was one of the best I've ever seen in a slasher film; you just do not expect that to happen. Just knowing that the director had the balls to do something like that is spectacular. Ah, I won't spoil it for you, nor will I say that the ending completely makes up for the rest of the slow-moving film, but it definitely will get your attention. Other than that, the other two murder scenes bring at least some faster paced material, but it's not like you couldn't tell exactly who was going to die fifteen minutes into the film. Anyone looking for a bloodbath will be disappointed, however; those are the only scenes of gore present. That and, of course, no one scene can save an entire movie. I normally preach the doctrine that as long as there's action, the worse a movie is, the better it gets. Unhinged only grasps one part of this concept. The whole film just feels Luke-warm; there's potential alright, but the director either wasn't experienced enough to make it work or just didn't know what the hell he was doing.


I tried to like this slasher, like I try to enjoy all slasher films. I mean mindless slaying mixed with a little nudity and some suspense, how can you go wrong. But Unhinged I think is an example of that formula going wrong. The main issue is the horrible acting of the main three girls that landed up in the house. It was as if they were under sedation, and it stopped me from ever getting interested in their plight. The film aims for suspense and creepiness but the by the numbers direction saps it of those, and leaves the movie pretty dull. It's a shame, because if the movie was better executed, it would have have been ace. The story and characters are pretty creepy and there are some dark and bizarrely humorous moments of interaction between the mother, the girls, and the daughter in the old house. There's some good nudity, and occasional splashy bloodletting, just not enough to give the film the kick it needed. The finale is pretty twisted and fearsome, and does give the film a big lift but sadly, its too little too late. So, in my opinion, one to avoid, unless you really love obscure slasher films. There's a fair amount of potential, but the film delivers too little to be worthwhile.


this movie was banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...

this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.

there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.

i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.

banned... what a joke...


Unhinged was part of the Video Nasty censorship film selection that the UK built up in the 80's. Keeps the gory stuff out of the hands of children, don't you know! It must have left many wondering what the fuss was all about. By today's standard, Unhinged is a tame little fairy tale.

3 girls are off to a jazz concert... and right away, you know the body count is going to be quite low. They get lost in the woods, & wind up getting in a car accident that looks so fake it's laughable. They are picked up by some nearby residents that live in the woods in a creepy house. One of the girls is seriously injured and has to stay upstairs. Then there's talking. Talking about why the girls are here, and how they must be to dinner on time because mother doesn't like it when someone is late. And more talking. Yakkity yak. Some suspense is built as a crazy guy is walking around and harassing the girls, and someone's eyeball is looking through holes in the walls at the pretty girls in something that looks like Hitchcock's Psycho. I digress because there is so much blah blah in this film, that you wonder when the killings are going to start. In fact, one of the girls gets so bored out of her mind that she walks in the woods, alone, looking for the town. Smart move. She probably knew about the lonely virgin walking alone in the woods part, but just didn't care. More talk continues after this as we wait, wait, and wait some more until the next girl may or may not be killed.

And then there's the twist ending. The "expected" unexpected for some viewers, for others a real gotcha. Quite possibly the ONLY reason why someone would really want to watch this. I don't care how twisted it is, nothing in this movie makes up for the most boring time I had watching it. Even with the minor impact of the ending, the director just didn't have what it takes to really deliver a good story with it. It would have made a much better 30 minute - 1 hour TV episode on say, Tales from the Darkside.

If you really must get this for any reason, perhaps just to say you've watched every slasher movie, do yourself a favor and have the fast-forward button ready. Since the movie has so many unimportant scenes, just zoom through them, and in no time, you'll get to the "WOW, that's what it was all this time" ending. Oh and halfway through the movie there's a shower scene with 2 girls showing boo-bees. Horray for boo-bees. Those beautiful buzzing honey-making boo-bees.


Twist endings can be really cool in a movie. It's especially interesting when the twist is right in front of our eyes, but we just don't pay attention. Those type of twist endings are the one's that make people think. Then we've got twists like this film has. Twists that, whether or not you pay attention, you have no clue what's going to happen. When they reveal this kind of random twist, instead of shock, it's somewhat a dumbfounded reaction. This film starts off like it's going to be an interesting take on horror, but after about 20 minutes, it's nothing but boring dialogue and a stupid twist.

Three young women are going to a concert, so they get lost traveling through the woods, and hit a tree trunk. They end up at some old creepy lady's house, who hates men, and they are greeted by her homely daughter Marion (Laurel Munson). Strange goings on happen as these girls stay at this house for several days instead of trying to leave or get home, and the suspense progresses into a dumb slasher.

This film is too caught up in it's dialogue, and it's always between only a few characters. We have the main three girls, the creepy spinster and the old lady, and conversation of any importance does not go beyond these five. To make matters worse, they never have anything interesting to say. It's actually quite maddening sitting through their conversations. We want to know what's going on, and instead they just talk and talk and talk (about nothing).

Plot holes are abundant here. The house these girls stay at when they get in their car accident is apparently three miles from anywhere...wow, three miles! A two hour or less walk will kill them. Why didn't they get a ride with the worker for this household who was driving into town? Did he have a one seater? How come these girls never question leaving and just willingly stay, rarely even checking up on each other? Why did this have to have so many dumb twists? Maybe the answers are in the boring script.

Having a slasher film with five characters is really a bad idea. It's not thrilling, it's not scary, and the ending is definitely out there, but undoubtedly dumb.

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 79 mins. R for nudity and violence.


Ever watched a movie that lost the plot? Well, this didn't even really have one to begin with.

Where to begin? The achingly tedious scenes of our heroine sitting around the house with actually no sense of menace or even foreboding created even during the apparently constant thunderstorms (that are strangely never actually heard in the house-great double glazing)? The house that is apparently only a few miles from a town yet is several hours walk away(?) or the third girl who serves no purpose to the plot except to provide a surprisingly quick gory murder just as the tedium becomes unbearable? Or even the beginning which suggests a spate of 20+ killings throughout the area even though it is apparent the killer never ventures far from the house? Or the bizarre ritual with the salt & pepper that pretty much sums up most of the films inherent lack of direction.

Add a lead actress who can't act but at least is willing to do some completely irrelevant nude shower scenes and this video is truly nasty, but not in the way you hope.

Given a following simply for being banned in the UK in the 80's (mostly because of a final surprisingly over extended murder) it offers nothing but curiosity value- and one classic 'daft' murder (don't worry-its telegraphed at least ten minutes before).

After a walk in the woods our victim comes to a rather steep upward slope which they obviously struggle up. Halfway through they see a figure at the top dressed in black and brandishing a large scythe. What do they do? Slide down and run like the rest of us? No, of course not- they struggle to the top and stand conveniently nice and upright in front of the murder weapon.

It really IS only a movie as they say..


I've never really considered myself much of "student" when it comes to watching films, I watch them, form an opinion and that's it. But Unhinged changed all this. This film is without a doubt the most inept attempt at film making I've ever seen. Every kid who rocks up at university thinking they're gonna be the next Spielberg or Tarantino needs to be handed this film with a handbook titled "How Not to Make A Film". Not only is there no story to be had, the film makers weren't even competent enough to make a film worth watching. It's been a while since I saw it, but all I can say is watch the overhead tracking shots in the opening scenes. They are never ending! It's almost like having your teeth pulled, only not as much fun.


Unhinged follows the typical plot of the early 80's slasher trend. Pretty Young Girls In Peril. I have to give it up for the filmmaker who used a helicopter for some of the early road-trip shots, you actually think for a second there's going to be quality in the production. Watching "Unhinged" was like seeing an amateur acting class go through it's warm-up. Some of the most awkward, badly lit, overlong scenes are played out with the gusto of a Valium overdose. I wondered why they didn't just put the cue-cards on camera so the actresses wouldn't have to constantly shift their gaze. The two main girls were obviously chosen for their T&A factor rather than talent. Laurel Munson as the main chick Terry is as exciting as watching paint dry. Two nude scenes make for an adolescent thrill. Janet Penner and Virginia Settle as the crazy/creepy daughter and mother the chicks find themselves stranded with compete for Worst Acting Ever. Long pauses, weird expressions, emphasis on the wrong word, it's all there and is a delight for those of us out there who love bad films. The scenes shift suddenly with long black-outs you could drive a Mack truck through. Cartoon lightning crashes across shots without even bothering to show the sky. Eighties eyeshadow assaults the viewer. But ya know, it grew on me. I felt sorry for it. I wanted to hug it, kiss it's boo-boos and make it better. The ending doesn't make up for the damage it's caused but I grinned anyway. I have my own theories regarding the whole "banned" hype and hope that anyone who chooses to view this film does so with substantial substance abuse and a sense of humor. Otherwise pass.


I had never heard of this one before the owner of my local DVD rental outlet mentioned it to me; being a 1980s horror flick with the notorious distinction of having been banned in the U.K., I decided to check it out. The film turned out be a dull, amateurish and ugly-looking ride; the sound recording is so poor that dialogue is unintelligible half of the time, whereas the acting gives new meaning to the word inept!

What’s worse, the film follows the awfully tired formula of a trio of teenage girls being involved in an accident and finding themselves sheltered by a dysfunctional family living in remote surroundings. Soon, one of the girls goes to look for help and is never heard from again; another, still bed-ridden, is quickly disposed of (after being forgotten for most of the duration). The heroine is the one to interact the most with the three inhabitants of the house: a harridan of a bible-thumping mother (cue horrendous overacting), her repressed (and long-suffering) daughter, and the latter’s weirdo brother who occasionally appears on the scene to drool over the sleeping female guests.

Often resorting to dinner-table reminiscences by the man-hating mother (as a means of filling in the dreary, to say nothing of unoriginal, backstory) and which invariably develop into mother-daughter sparring contests, the film does have one ace up its sleeve – the twist ending is as unexpected as it is ingenious, but it does little to remove the bad taste left in the mouth by the film (as much through the lameness of it all as the intermittent gore) or the inescapable feeling of having wasted 80 minutes of my time...


Banned as a 'Video Nasty' in the UK, Unhinged has naturally gained quite a bit of notoriety. However, the most shocking thing I found about the film was its amateurishness in all departments. The bloodletting I could handle: the terrible acting, shoddy editing, awful direction, lousy script and abysmal soundtrack were much harder to take.

Three girls on their way to a music festival crash into a ravine during a storm. They are rescued by a friendly stranger who takes them to a nearby house. The owner of the house, a batty old lady, and her spinster daughter, welcome the girls in, allowing them to stay for a few days in order to recuperate. However, someone doesn't want the girls to leaveever! One by one they fall victim to an unseen assailant.

Taking a long time to get going and featuring some of the worst performances ever in a horror film (and that takes some doing), Unhinged is a truly awful film. The music is a total mess (it sounds like a three year old has been let loose on a synthesiser) and as such, it complements the movie perfectly. Only a couple of bloody scenes towards the end and a bit of gratuitous nudity save Unhinged from getting the lowest possible score.

If you are a horror completist (and unfortunately, I am), you will want to see this in order to tick it off the Video Nasty watch-list. But be warnedit is really, really bad.


I bought Unhinged because I got suckered by the gory picture on the cover. If you want to see all the good parts of the movie just look on the back of the box. All the kills are shown and I can honestly tell you that they look much better in the still frames than they do in the movie.

Having said that, let's look at the plot. A group of college girls driving to a rock concert (by way of the deep, dark woods in one of the longest driving sequences ever captured on celluloid) slide off the road. No visible damage is done to the car but apparently it was enough to put one of the characters in a comatose state for the rest of the film (or perhaps she read the script and was already in a coma before filming began).

The two remaining girls wake up in a big, isolated house. The house, by the way, is fabulous and manages more drama just by its presence than any of the actors in the film. For some reason, though, this house has no roads going to it. The only way you can get to the main road is by hiking five miles through the woods. The girls spend the rest of Unhinged sitting around listening to weird conversations between an old rich bitch (who looks like George Washington in drag) and her equally homely, sexually repressed daughter. The girls apparently were in no hurry to get back from that concert anyway being that they packed more clothes than the cast of Gilligan's Island for that three hour tour.

By the time we, the viewers, get to the kill scenes, we no longer care. We wish that someone would kill us just to end our suffering . Unhinged finally wraps up with a quite shocking ending that deserved to be in a much better film. It's almost as though the ending, the one good idea in the film, was written first and then the writers tried to make a movie leading up to it.

Unhinged is ultimately a boring film with bad acting, inept directing, and a plot with more holes than a leper in a porno film (sorry. I'm not sure where that came from). You will get an idea of how bad this movie is during the opening credits when, for some reason that is never explained, the screen goes black for about two minutes while the characters talk about nothing worth remembering. Don't waste your time. You'll just feel Unhinged and want your time and money back.


"Unhinged" is one strange little film, a forgotten slasher from the golden age of the genre. It's hard to really write a satisfying review of this film simply because of the fact that the film is so unique. It's plot is fairly overdone--three young women on their way to a rock concert get in a car crash and end up stranded at the mansion of an eccentric old woman and her spinster daughter. Very quickly, the ladies realize something is not quite right when they hear strange breathing and noises from the attic. On top of that, the mother and daughter seem to have a very, very strange relationship, as they quarrel intensely in front of their houseguest at dinner. The old mother even goes as far as calling her daughter a whore and slut and accuses her of sneaking guys in at night to sleep with them. Halfway through the film, when one girl finally decides she better wander off to find help, the killing begins.

As far as the acting goes, this film is at the bottom of the barrel. NONE of the three stranded girls can act, particularly the "lead" girl. It is almost unbelievable to hear them deliver their lines in the same, wooden tone throughout the film. The mother and daughter are better, but not much. The film is also quite dull in parts and really, really drags. The killings are gruesome, but nothing we haven't seen before. However, as mentioned on here, the film really gains points with it brilliantly disturbing and gory ending. It comes totally from left field and has the same shock value as the ending the the camp classic "Sleepaway Camp." Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a bore and suffers from horrendous acting and boring, boring pacing. The isolated, creepy looking mansion and the dark, foreboding lighting does give the film a grainy realism, but that is quickly shattered when one of the characters attempts to act. It may be worth it if you can stick it out until the end, but I say you are better off just fast forwarding to the last 10 minutes. 4 out 10


Basic slasher movie premise, 3 young ladies wreck their car and end up staying with a creepy family. YAWN.

Watching 36 minutes of a premonition of OJ's car chase with a white sedan instead of a bronco. YAWN.

Old lady with hot and cold dementia controlling her daughter... YAWN

23 minutes of watching the actors eat - YAWN Trying to identify what the heck they are eating ... OK there might be a drinking game here ... nope - YAWN

Complimentary shower scenes ... OK got my interest for a couple of seconds.

Completely random and uninspired killings ... YAWN

The ending ... dude! that psycho is deranged - why couldn't the rest of the movie be like the last 5 minutes... unfortunately that is it - My advice - fast forward to the last five minutes and watch that and then put something good in the player - for me I am going back to sleep.


I, too, was fooled by the packaging. I, too, fell for the gory packaging and the DVD casing that claims "grieved fans as every copy was pulled from shelves". Though it was inexpensive ($6.99), it wasn't really all that worth it - no scares, and very limited gore. The ending was very cheesy and didn't deliver the punch it should have. I really don't even know how it became a "Video Nasty" with how very tame it is. The story drags, the characters are obvious amateur actors...it doesn't live up to the promise. The DVD bonus feature (the "interview")is very strange as the director appears very incoherent and not all there. The lead actress talks like she's appearing in a Shakespearean production. It's a great laugh.


I bought this movie for $5 at a used CD store, and I kinda regret it. I'll start by saying I'm a huge fan of cheesy horror flicks. They provide a horribly tacky cheap entertainment. This movie entertained for the first half hour, because it was so bad it could be made fun of in an MST3K style manner quite easily. Then it got boring.

The acting is the scariest part of the movie. While great acting is not to be expected, this was laughably bad and, honestly, provided all of the entertainment that was to be had. This is the plus side to the movie. Where the movie really falters in entertaining is the writing, lighting, and the editing.

This movie provides way too many "What the %$@# is going on?" moments. There are many moments, such as the mother having strange fits at dinner, and then that having absolutely no consequence in the movie. Along the lines of dinner, someone in charge decided it was fun to watch people eat refined food for five minutes straight without dialogue every time a meal was served. During the meals and other inappropriate moments, the scene cuts away to pure darkness outside. Then cuts back in. And speaking of darkness outside, one of the funniest parts of the movie is the climate, where apparently it isn't nighttime unless it's raining. And speaking of darkness, a big problem with the movie is that it's so poorly lit you can't see what's going on half the time, which is more of a frustration than anything. In one of the climactic scenes, you can't even tell what you're supposed to be seeing that's so shocking.

And when it comes to climactic scenes, Unhinged contains one of the worst. I've seen people say "Wow, that surprised me, and that's good." I can say that the big reveal did surprise me, because I didn't see it coming. The reason I didn't see it coming is because it made absolutely no sense. I won't ruin it for you, but I will tell you that my friend and I spent a good twenty minutes rewinding to various parts of the movie to find anything that would have validated that at all, and all we found were more things saying that it wasn't possible.

All in all, this movie is actually better when you watch it with the commentary tracks that make fun of it. I love crap horror movies, but this was too much.


I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few will see. However, in this case, I feel I must warn all those who might consider wasting time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is horrible, a plot is nonexistent, and production values are poverty level at best. I know that even a low budget movie can be great, but not this one. There is only thing that could have saved this movie for any horror fan's purposes--more on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. While it is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there is simply not enough of it. The movie is just too long for it's minimal content, too dialogue heavy, and consequently almost impossible to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of boring, slow-paced nonsense. As I said, the only things worth watching even once are the murders. Please don't buy it or rent it just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Save your money and your time.


When I rented "Unhinged", I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.

The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.

One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading.

Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10


After the opening credits, there's a black screen for about a minute. A minute of nothing, then a girl wakes up and takes a shower.Then her and two college friends are driving to a rock concert, after much padding, they hit something and skid off the road. They awaken in a cabin inhabited by a wheelchair-bound old lady and her offspring.The killings are sadly very tame for a supposed Video Nasty. The twist ending silly and predictable. No one involved in the mess would ever make anything of note again. So there are still happy endings sometimes.

Eye Candy: Sara Ansley gets topless, and Laurel Munson has full frontal on display

My Grade: D


Did anyone edit this film? Or was it only the DVD release that had huge thirty second gaps between scenes? It's OK though, I fell asleep watching it the first time. Then I fell asleep the second time and the third time. The plot is actually not the worst I've seen, but it's close. The acting is not the worst I've seen either...but it's close. The production .... well, I can honestly say that it was the worst I had ever seen in my life! Not trying to be spiteful, but Unhinged could have used some more production.

Please don't think I'm a hater of horror films, or even that I didn't enjoy this film. I just felt I was laughing at the film much more than I felt I was laughing along with it. The gruesome moments were not too poorly done, but could have been done better even with a shoestring budget.

Characters seemed awkwardly developed, or ignored all together, twist ending was pretty bad, and the exposition took forever without exposing much.

I'd recommend avoiding this movie.

1/10