If you've ever seen this movie, you'd know that it! If you haven't, and want to see a classic BAD movie, I suggest you see this movie, because it ranks right down with the worst. So, if you're REALLY bored, go rent it. If you want to know what it's like, here's my little summary: Adam Sandler is hired to work on a giant cruise ship with some Ms Universe models and five other people. Adam doesn't like how one passenger is getting all the babes, and he tries to take over with the cheezy jokes. BUT WAIT! It only gets worse! You'll have to rent the movie yourself to see how bad it truly is.


I just finished watching Going Overboard. I have to say that we should send every copy of this film to Iraq and make them watch. I even tried to get a blind women to watch this and she turned it off in like 20 min. Adam Sandler could not find a better project than this? As for the writing, if thats what you want to call it, those responsible should be forced to watch this movie forever in Hell!! I believe that somewhere I read that the budget for this film was $10,000 and they were way under. Did Wallmart get a good deal on this? Every store has a big huge bin of this crap sitting on the sales floor. The only good thing about this movie is you can use the DVD as a coaster, or trade it to a friend, but then they might not be your friend anymore!!


I had never heard of this Adam Sandler movie until I saw it on the wall at Blockbuster. Being an Adam Sandler fan at the time, I rented it. HONESTLY I could only watch about 30 mins. of it. It was TERRIBLE. Do whatever it takes to keep this out of the hands of the public. I honestly hope this movie goes OOP soon, and I hope it STAYS THAT WAY!


Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.

Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.


Mere thoughts of "Going Overboard" (aka "Babes Ahoy") make me want to weep. Throwing yourself out a window would be better than watching this movie. It's not even a supposed "so bad it's good" movie. I would spend money to buy copies of this movie and burn them so that people can't see it. Oh the pain, the pain...


...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget!


Unwatchable. You can't even make it past the first three minutes. And this is coming from a huge Adam Sandler fan!!1


I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.

It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.

I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home.......


This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness.


It's impossible for me to objectively consider this movie. Not that I haven't tried, mind you - but I sit down, and I pop in the aged VHS, and I watch the opening...and suddenly I'm five years old again and clutching my very own Care Bear and watching the movie with open eyes and an eager heart.

I can see, objectively, that this movie is a BIZARRE combination of cuddly baby merchandising-mascots and creepy prepubescent children with evil powers that has a thin story and uninteresting animation. But my inner five-year-old goes, "Yay! Care Bears!" every time I think about it. So - I'd only (cautiously, reluctantly) recommend this movie for those who saw it during their early youth and can call on the awesome power of nostalgia while watching it (like me) OR those lovably cynical Gen-X/Y-ers who deliberately seek out the wonderfully bad/strange (a category in which this movie...definitely belongs). To those actually looking for a compelling movie or wholesome family entertainment: You might want to keep looking.


I really wanted to like this movie. I absolutely love kenny hotz, and spenny rice has a charming side to him. Not that I like spenny at all. Spenny ruins this movie. He should of let kenny and his hot girlfriend pitch the movie.

Anyways, it's pretty boring aside from a scene with Roger Ebert in it. There really isn't too many celebrities in this movie, and most don't seem to say more than one line. Overall this movie was disappointing. I would only suggest watching it if you got it with the season 1 DVD of kenny vs spenny (it comes for free on the 3rd disc). Regardless of this production, I am still very excited to check out The Papel Chase.


This is the worst documentary to come out of Canada ever!!!! I'm glad to see the guys haven't made another movie. All they want to do is get a movie made and it doesn't have to be the one they wrote. They keep changing the script to suite the person they're pitching. I could not get out of the theatre fast enough when I saw it at that year's Toronto Film Festival. Please never see this film.


Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.

Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner.

Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.

Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.

The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?


This was the third remake of SLEEPING WITH THE ENIEMY After YAARANA(1995) and AGNISAKSHI(1996)

AGNISAKSHI was the only one which worked and was a better film

DARAAR is directed by Abbas Mustan who sadly failed in their attempt here

the story was good but the handling wasn't that good and the heroine was shown too regressive and the climax too was disappointing

Direction is bad Music is good

Rishi reprises his role of YAARANA(strangely which also was a remake of SWTE) and looks too fat for the lead and is okay Juhi is decent while Arbaaz tries too hard in his debut and does manage in many scenes to chill the audiences but his voice was terrible Johny is too loud


Daraar got off to a pretty good start. The first scene really left me at the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. Other than that, the first half of the movie is a total BORE. All the first half of the movie is about is Rishi Kapoor falling head over heels in love with Juhi Chawla. By the way, don't you think he's a little old for her???

Things finally start to spice up towards the middle of the film when Juhi tells us about her previous husband; and wow what a lunatic is he! He was an over-protective, neat-freak with a really HOT TEMPER! He used to beat up poor Juhi for no good reason! One of the reasons I really don't like this movie is because I can't stand to see Juhi (my favorite actress) get so abused. This film in general has WAY too much abuse and bloodshed; I find it so sickening!!!

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is if you're thinking about renting Daraar, you should put it right back on the shelf where you found it and pick something else!


For the record, this film is intriguing but its hardly original. Back in 1998 a movie starring Talia Shire called The Landlady had almost the exact same plot but with younger characters.

The story is Amanda Lear has had a bad life, abusive father, horny doctor, mental homes, etc. She's finally released from the happy home under the guidance of her perverted doctor...who she anally abuses and kills the poor guy. (now THAT was original) The doctor had financed a mansion for her before she killed him and buried the sucker in the backyard. After moving in she falls in love with a stud named Richard, who just happens to be married to a blues singer. If you've seen The Landlady you know the rest, she kills or tries to kill anyone that gets in between her and Richard (including a roadie).

Much of the idea's came from the previous movie, same idiot sidekick that sticks his nose in, same spying on the guy with a bowl of popcorn, same flying a bodypress. It did have some original material, the beer bottle thing was brutal. The highlight of the movie was Amanda's beautiful breasts in the hot-top scene. Somewhat of a ripoff but not a total waste of time.

4 out of 10


Despite the high ratings given to this film by IMDB users, this is nothing more than your typical girl-with-a-bad-childhood-obsessively-stalks-married-man film. The attractive Justine Priestly's brief nude scenes may attract voyeurs, but the film is hackneyed tripe.

* 1/2 out of ****


I got this movie because I worked at a movie store so I got free rentals. It came in, and the cover made it look alright. Hot chick, carrying a weapon, alright, I'll check it out.

Oh man, bad move. This was so horrible, I spent half the movie watching in fast-forward to get to the nudity, which was minimal. I think MAYBE three scenes of partial nudity.

Cheesy dialogue, crappy violence, poor excuses of characters. I feel bad putting this movie down, because I know it was made on a cheap budget, but so was "Clerks" and it became a cult classic and a franchise.

2/10.


SHALLOW GRAVE begins with either a tribute or a rip off of the shower scene in PSYCHO. (I'm leaning toward rip off.) After that it gets worse and then surprisingly gets better, almost to the point of being original. Bad acting and amateurish directing bog down a fairly interesting little story, but the film already surpasses many in the "Yankee comes down South to get killed by a bunch of rednecks" genre because it is actually shot in the South.

A group of college girls head to Ft. Lauderdale for summer vacation and are waylaid in Georgia by a flat tire after getting off the main road. (Note to Yankees: stay on the highway when you go to Florida.) Sue Ellen (Lisa Stahl) has to pee so she heads into the woods. When she finally finds a good spot to do her business she witnesses the local sheriff (Tony March) strangle his mistress (Merry Rozelle) to death. (Note to Yankees: do not wander off into the woods when in the South; not because you might witness a murder, but you may run across a marijuana plantation.) This is the point where the story, not the movie, actually comes close to being good.

While Tony March will never have to practice his Oscar speech, his Sheriff Dean becomes a creepy facsimile of a normal guy torn by what he has done and what he must do. Tom Law is likable as Deputy Scott and is as authentic a Southern deputy as I've seen since Walton Goggins (Deputy Steve Naish) in HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES.

A few scenes in the movie are worth the mention. The girls stop at a BBQ in South Carolina and display their racism when a big black guy checks them out. Sue Ellen runs into a barn to hide behind some hay bales and in a shockingly realistic moment a large snake is hiding in the hay with her.

And in the strangest scene, Sheriff Dean makes like he's about to rape Patty (Carol Cadby) and tells her to take off her clothes. Dean has turned the radio up to drown out the noise of what he's about to do. The preacher on the radio needs to go back and read his Bible. His sermon is about how Jezebel is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for this preacher's flock. Jezebel was in the Old Testament a few thousand years before Christ was born and by no means is she one of the five people you are going to meet in Heaven.


This movie is basically about some girls in a Catholic school that end up getting into trouble because of putting red dye in one in one of their school mates shampoo and after being reprimanded for this act they decide to take off to Florida for a vacation. On their way there they meet up with some guys in a local diner and decide that they would both meet up with each other in another location later on. The girls end up on a road side near the woods and stop for awhile and while one of the girls decides to walk around a bit she sees a murder happen in which the local sheriff himself is involved. She becomes scared and runs to tell the others what happened. The other girls decide to go take a look with her and two of them get killed by the killer. Then the two remaining girls are caught by the killer and are placed in local jail cell. The deputy sheriff meanwhile is keeping watch over the girls and despite their insistence that the sheriff is the killer he ignores them both and acts as ignorant and everybody else in this movie who just can't put two and two together much less some lousy detective work at that. The best part was the rape scene between the killer and one of the girls where he decides to rape her in her jail cell and it seems that the girl actually WANTS to be raped by this man and the bare chest scene I admit was good but before their lips meet he has other things in mind. This movie reminds me of the low-budget thriller "Blood Song" with Frankie Avalon staring in it, the same motive just a different character part. It's not a movie worth renting not even for an 80's low-budget movie and the ending was the worst ending I have ever seen in a movie and it left me wanting my money back!


I saw this by chance showing on cable on wanted to like it as I thought Sandra was quite funny from what I remembered. The only facial movement I had throughout the movie was jaw dropping stunned at how awful a movie I just suffered through.

The person who said this is one of the funniest movies of all time please point out one line, just one scene, that is even worth a chuckle.

She is a much better singer than I remember her to be, but I didn't want to watch a lounge act.

I think this is a movie try hard to like since they think they should and don't view it objectively.


Film version of Sandra Bernhard's one-woman off-Broadway show is gaspingly pretentious. Sandra spoofs lounge acts and superstars, but her sense of irony is only fitfully interesting, and fitfully funny. Her fans will say she's scathingly honest, and that may be true. But she's also shrill, with an unapologetic, in-your-face bravado that isn't well-suited to a film in this genre. She doesn't want to make nice--and she's certainly not out to make friends--and that's always going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But even if you meet her halfway, her material here is seriously lacking. Filmmaker Nicolas Roeg served as executive producer and, though not directed by him, the film does have his chilly, detached signature style all over it. Bernhard co-wrote the show with director John Boskovich; their oddest touch was in having all of Sandra's in-house audiences looking completely bored--a feeling many real viewers will most likely share. *1/2 from ****


Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.

So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy.


What made the original Killer Tomatoes fun was it was made by people with no budget who were just being wacky for a couple of days...

This was something with a budget, but it just wasn't as much fun. John Astin of Adams Family fame is actually making an effort here to be comedic, but he is supported by lame actors, cheap special effects and unfunny gags.

The plot. Dr. Gangrene (Astin) escapes from a French prison and decides he is going to put a pretender on the throne of France... The hero, his French girlfriend and the Gizmo-like "Fuzzy Tomato" decide they are going to stop him...

Forgettable Direct to Video nonsense...


There was nothing of value in the original movie, this one was even lamer. The fact that I even found it to rent was absolutely amazing. Anyone connected to this film has to be high on something! So what was the story line? What was with the girl? Was the viewer supposed to get the story line in the first four minutes of the film. Sadly, I tried several times to watch this. I even borrowed a kid from someone to get some feedback. Kid said it was stupid, and he was four years old. I find that possibly some credit could go to the filming director, as possibly some of the shots made the movie more than a B film. That might be pushing it. I did love the theme song. Good thing it was only a dollar, it was worth it. I suppose you might enjoy the film if you were high as the cast and crew would have to be. Is pot legal in France?


As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.

Big mistake.

This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (or so it feels) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It doesn't.

As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable only for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her. But other than that, avoid at all costs. (Which is pretty easy to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances have the frequency of Halley's Comet.)


What an insult to Olivia D'Abo who plays the film's heroine, Robin, to have Keanu Reeves appear so large on the box art of the film (and at least on recent reissues, to have only Reeves appear on the box), considering that she was the star. I realize that it is his name that will ultimately sell this long-forgotten After School Special, but at least give the woman some credit.

Despite that, this has to be one of the worst teen sports-themed films that I have ever seen, and it strives very hard to add not only every teen and sports movie cliché from the class warfare between the feuding gymnasts to the teen romance. And, in striving to somehow deliver itself as an amateur alternative of Flashdance (with the music in one of the warehouse dance scenes is even quite close to Michael Sembello's notable 'Maniac' which was made famous by Flashdance, or was it the other way around?). It includes similar dance sequences and worse yet, even the 80s dance and sports traditions of corny dance-offs between the heroine and her antagonist(s), the one who doubts her successes and abilities on the team. We saw this in Trashin' (a vert ramp joust) and Rad (BMX dancing at the prom, although it wasn't much for competition, but rather for fun) for example. In fact, this movie is chock full of unrealistic corniness, such as the somewhat homo-erotic rolling in the clothes at the Salvation Army with Robin and her friend from the team.

Nonetheless, the film is about a young girl who comes from a rather poor background. To top it off in a massive need to squeeze from audiences as much sympathy as possible, she lives with her ailing mother, her obnoxious sister, and her careless (and slightly abusive) stepfather. Needless to say, homelife is not so appealing. Add to the mix, a talent for gymnastics, but several obstacles to joining the team (including the nuisance of her arrogant, snobby teammates, and a coach who also eventually doubts her abilities to compete well). And, of course, we can't forget that she's got eyes for one of the pretty boy preppies who is dating one of the obnoxious teammates, nor that she doesn't have a steady boyfriend (although Keanu as Tommy later enters the picture). Could this kid be any more pathetic? And it seems that one mess after another comes along to embarrass herself in her painfully long, redundant, and clichéd quest to prove her worth to everyone.

But, even the major moments of cheesiness which comprise most of the film, are hardly worth mentioning considering that the biggest distraction to this film is the horrible acting and dialog. (I like how the gym coach suddenly appears at the diner in the middle of the dance-off to scold the teammates). It makes episodes of 'Amazing Stories' look like Shakespeare.

I imagine anyone able to locate this film and watch it these days is probably drawn to it mostly because of the nostalgic factor. For that you might be satisfied, but it is also an incredibly forced drama. So, Caveat Emptour.


It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double.


I only today, picked this up at the 99 cents only store today, and I still think I got ripped off. "Dream to Believe" is a pretty boring and unrealistic gymnastics drama and $1 is just too freakin' expensive for this. This film is probably only notable for 2 things: 1. It has a young Keanu Reeves. And 2. It's directed by Paul Lynch, the man who also did Promo Night. Now onto the movie.

It's about a girl named Robin (Played by Olivia D'Abo) who is badly injured from a car accident that also cost her father's life. So the accident prevents her from competing in gymnastic tournaments, she is often picked on during her classes and eventually she meets some wild kid named Tommy (Played by Keanu.) Robin, when not in training, works part-time, along with her mother and stepsister, at a Laundromat owned by her abusive stepfather. Eventually she is chosen to compete.

Overall, Keanu alone and some catchy 80s tunes are what prevent me from giving this 1 star, and it's also not one of the worst movies ever, but still far from good. The DVD itself is not getting any medals either as it appears to be sourced from an old VHS and towards the end, the sound goes out of sync and when the end credits are almost over, it fades to black, even though sound can still be heard. So this can probably be passed as a bootleg. The DVD artwork makes no sense either as it has what appears to be recent photos of Keanu and Olivia and the background has nothing to do with the movie, as it's also not in the movie itself, so the cover's obviously photoshopped. In any case, avoid at all costs, unless you're a Keanu fanatic. I probably won't be hanging to it any longer. I'm probably gonna give it to The Cinema Snob, who's a great YT critic btw. Hey, if any of you have any crappy movies that they no longer want in their sight, feel free to donate to him to keep his show running.


to movie,this movie felt like one of those after school specials,only lower budget and lower everything else.i guess this was supposed to an inspirational movie of some sort,but it didn't work for me.yet some how it comes across as preachy.it has very pale shades of Flash Dance,but so what?there just isn't any excitement in this movie.the dialogue is contrived and clichéd to death.of course,the whole movie feels like a bad 80's cliché.the acting was less than stellar,though that has a lot to do with what the actors were given(or in this case-not)to work with.on top of that is the poor song choices,with really bad lyrics.i felt embarrassed for all the actors involved.they are all talented,but you can't tell from this movie.this is just my opinion of course,but i have to give Flying AKA Dream to Believe a 1/10


What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.

Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.

The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!

azjazz


Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")

-Z


God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!


Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.


I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"

Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(


Lillian Hellman's play, adapted by Dashiell Hammett with help from Hellman, becomes a curious project to come out of gritty Warner Bros. Paul Lukas, reprising his Broadway role and winning the Best Actor Oscar, plays an anti-Nazi German underground leader fighting the Fascists, dragging his American wife and three children all over Europe before finding refuge in the States (via the Mexico border). They settle in Washington with the wife's wealthy mother and brother, though a boarder residing in the manor is immediately suspicious of the newcomers and spends an awful lot of time down at the German Embassy playing poker. It seems to take forever for this drama to find its focus, and when we realize what the heart of the material is (the wise, honest, direct refugees teaching the clueless, head-in-the-sand Americans how the world has suddenly changed), it seems a little patronizing--the viewer is quite literally put in the relatives' place, being lectured to. Lukas has several speeches in the third-act which undoubtedly won him the Academy Award, yet for the much of the picture he seems to do little but enter and exit, enter and exit. As his spouse, Bette Davis enunciates like nobody else and works her wide eyes to good advantage, but the role doesn't allow her much color. Their children (all with divergent accents!) are alternately humorous and annoying, and Geraldine Fitzgerald has a nothing role as a put-upon wife (and the disgruntled texture she brings to the part seems entirely wrong). The intent here was to tastefully, tactfully show us just because a (WWII-era) man may be German, that doesn't make him a Nazi sympathizer. We get that in the first few minutes; the rest of this tasteful, tactful movie is made up of exposition, defensive confrontation and, ultimately, compassion. It should be a heady mix, but instead it's rather dry-eyed and inert. ** from ****


The characters are cliched and predictable, with everyone being either snow-white pure or wholly evil. The acting is too stilted for it to be bad in an amusing, over-the-top way. It's doubly disappointing if you're a Bette Davis fan, because her character is not a typically fun Bette-Davis-type character; she just gets to frown pensively a lot.

On the whole, neither my wife nor I found the movie to be interesting, moving or enjoyable at all.


It as absolutely incredible to me that anyone could make the comment that this film is not preachy. It is not only oppressively preachy, but absurd, stagebound, dramatically straight-jacketed, and painfully overwrought. Watching it, one feels like an 8 year old child being punished by having to write "I will not become a fascist" on the blackboard 100 times.

Now I understand that it was made during the height of WW2, and was intended to be a brave condemnation of Hitler and the terrible suffering he brought about, (which anyone would whole-heartedly applaud) and I'm sure it accurately captured the mood of the day. But it is presented in such an immature, over-obvious, sledgehammer way, it fails abysmally as a work of art.

The only good performances here are from Paul Lukas, who brings sincerity and intensity to his role as a quietly heroic anti-fascist; and Lucile Watson as the amusingly ill-mannered rich grandmother who slowly comes to realize how dangerous the world has become. Though their rootless upbringing has subjected them to all kinds of hardships, the children are ridiculously shown as robotically well-behaved little snips. They do not even remotely resemble real human beings. And Bette Davis, a great actress, here is so one dimensionally noble I cringed every time she was on screen. Her every word, her every gesture is meant to convey how SUPPORTIVE and UNDERSTANDING she is of the SACRIFICES her husband has to make and the great CAUSE he is fighting for, that she must've been wired to receive a painful electric shock if she dared allowed any hint of doubt or shading to surface in her portrayal.

So yes, this is a very IMPORTANT film, just not a very good one.


There seems to be little in the way of middle ground where Watch On the Rhine is concerned. One either likes it very much, applauding its sincerity, its liberal point of view and fine acting, or else loathes its obvious propaganda, mediocre dialogue, cardboard characters and overall tendentiousness. I fall very much in the latter category, and found the film and play,--concerning the activities of European refugees in Washington during wartime--a crushing bore, worthwhile mostly for the acting, and even then only intermittently. That author Lillian Hellman was on the side of the angels is irrelevant. Her plays were written for people who shared her point of view, and she seldom explored ideas that weren't already held by the author and audience except to point out how dreadful the "other side" is. Even when I find myself in one hundred percent agreement with what she has to say,--as in Rhine--I still can't stand the way she says it. Her characters are unreal, and while her ear for dialogue shows a certain facility for the way people talk she possesses no real brilliance or originality. She really had nothing new to say. I thoroughly agree with the late Mary McCarthy's long overdue dismantling of Hellman reputation some years ago. For those who think the theatre is dead or in extremis and yearn for the good old days, I urge a peek at Watch On the Rhine, as bad in its way as Angels In America, which only goes to show that the theatre had one foot in the grave sixty years ago.


The sign of a classic movie is that it ages like a fine red wine. This movie is no Cabarnet and certainly no Casablanca. I agree with the other reviewers that the children in the movie are an unfortunate mutation that now plagues us nightly in sit-coms and the dialogue is stilted and preachy. But let's look at the obsolete theme of the movie.

With the passage of sixty plus years of history comes wisdom. Since Watch on the Rhine, author Lillian Hellman has been exposed as a Bidenesque plagiarist with her so called real-life story "Julia" from her book "Pentimento". As one of the most odious of a plethora of Western-based USSR apologists, it is obvious her theme in the play and movie was to stir America to action to save the bloody Soviet dictator Stalin and international communism from the fascists, who had just proved their military superiority in Spain.

As one reviewer correctly noted, this is not a pro-American play and movie, as Lillian went to her grave an American-loathing communist. This film chronicles that familiar smug stupidity of the intellectual elites that made up the American Left then, just as now the full mooner Left of The Daily Kos and Michael Moore has bought into the conspiracy theories and once again given aid and comfort to those who would destroy America.


When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.

Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.

The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.

The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.


I cannot believe how popular this show is. I consider myself an avid sci-fi fan. I have read countless sci-fi novels and have enjoyed many sci-fi movies and TV shows. I really wouldn't even consider this true sci-fi. Every episode I have sat through was like a lame, watered down version of a Star Trek episode, minus anything that might make it interesting or exciting.

It's basically a bunch of people standing around in ARMY fatigues, talking about something boring, who occasionally go through the Stargate and end up on a planet that looks just like Earth, with people who look and sound just like Humans! It seemed extremely low budget. The characters are all forgettable one dimensional cutouts, and the many attempts at humor fall flat. It reminds me when you see a commercial with a famous athlete in it, trying to be funny, but he is not. It is just sad.

The movie was terrible as well. There is so much you can do with a portal through space, yet every place the ARMY people go is BORING! This shows no imagination! I actually thought the TV series "Alien Nation" from a few years back (based on the movie Alien Nation) was much better. That show actually had good story lines and decent characters. I wasn't crazy about "Alien Nation", but compared to this overrated crap, it was great!

Also, unlike the great new "Battlestar Galactica" series, "Stargate" copied the look and feel of the lame movie too closely! They should have at least updated the cheesy "toilet flushing" special effect of whenever somebody goes through the Stargate.


Im watching it now on pink (Serbia TV station) and I must say this is a crap. Shallow, no acting, effects too sloppy I mean, who made this series?

This was a stupid attempt of the Studios to make some more money on the success of the film. OK. The film was great in 1994 when it came out. But the series?

Some times you can see how idiotic the lines are in the speech of the characters. I mean, did they actually pay someone to write that, was that someones relative at the Studio? This is no SciFi.

The film was the bomb, the series suck.


Having seen the first ten episodes, I must say this show sucks.

What bothers me the most, is that the show was shot in Canada. I know it's cheaper, but they should have shot it in California, so we could have had scenes in the desert. That would have been more true to the movie. The first scene where they are outside in another world is in the mountains, with lots of pinetrees where it looks cold. That does'nt feel very Egyptian. What worked so well in the movie was that it felt like you were in the ancient Egypt. Here it feels like they're running around fighting aliens in a Canadian forrest. And it's so lame that appaerantly, on other planets, the fall comes as well. You can see leaves on the ground in the forrests that all look like forrests outside Vancouver. It just makes the show even more unbelievable and dumb.

And then there is Richard Dean Anderson. He is no Kurt Russel. Sure he does a decent job and he tries to copy Russels performance a little bit, but he is just not as cool as Russel. And not nearly as good an actor as Russel. And Russells way of playing O Neill, well he was much more cynical. Andersons O Neil, is way too soft. I liked it that Russels version just did'nt give a s*** and had no trouble detonating the bomb until the very end of the movie.

Michael Shanks does a really good job as Jackson though taking over from James Spader.

Teal'c is a really annoying character. He is Jaffa. Not a Jaffa. Just Jaffa. Aaaarrgh!! A former bodyguard of a pathetic Ra character, seen only in the pilot and in one other episode so far. Teal'c speaks talks and acts like a robot. I've seen better acting from Jean Claude Van Damme.

And the fact that Teal'c and the Ra character and the people they saved in the movie, can speak English all of a sudden is also incredibly dumb. What made the aliens so scary in the movie was that they spoke an ancient language and were real monsters.

As for the special effects, they are really good in the pilot. But the very rare effects in the actual show are badly done and looks cheap. Especially a planet they visit with crystals. It's so obvious they walk around on a soundstage with a badly made painting in the background. It's an insult to us viewers that they made it look so cheap. Especially when they could have made it in front of a bluescreen with cgi backgrounds.

The X-files had better effects when they aired their first episodes in 1993. That was 4 years before SG-1 started. And they did'nt have the apparent two million dollar budget per episode, that SG-1 supposedly had. They must have spend all the money on catering. Because I don't see it on the screen.

Incredibly boring and pointless show, that could have been great if they had shot the show in Hollywood with a bigger budget and better writers and better characters.


1 How is it that everyone can understand each other perfectly without devices like universal translators or translator microbes? Did the creators of this show realize that people who were taken from different parts of the earth, in different time frames (Attilla the Hun wasn't a contemporary of preliterate Hellenic cultures, nor were the Vikings contemporary to the Pyramid builders) speak different languages and can never develop a language so similar to modern day English(except for the inflections they "do not" use), which has been influenced by Latin, ancient Greek, Danish and French?

2 Cultural differences can't be overcome so easily, trust has to be won, yet everywhere the team arrives they are welcomed without any suspicion and start ordering people around like they are their appointed leaders. Of course real fans would comment that they are perceived as gods. The people they meet should be shocked by their technology and accuse them of witchcraft and the like.

3 Historical background: none. Visually it might vaguely remind you of Greek or Viking culture, but anyone can dress in a bunch of tablecloths or run to a local costume rental for a plastic helmet with horns and claim to look the part. A small-town theater group probably has better props.

4 Boring! Another lame Canuck production, which inexplicably ran for ten long years. As a kids show it could make the grade, but anyone who has a little knowledge about human behavior and language couldn't bear to even watch the first twelve episodes of season 1, like I just did. I very much wanted to believe I had found a decent sci-fi show, otherwise I would shut it of and cleansed my computer of this refuge after the first five minutes!


The episodic version of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers plays out at a deathly slow pace, following Johnny Rico leaving his parents, the (not very attractive) girl he lusts for, and joining the mobile infantry. The aliens in the show are nothing like the barbaric bugs from the film, instead being squid-like monsters that shoot lasers out of their mouths.

Throughout watching this version, I was continually amazed at just how fruity they've managed to make the whole thing. The show is concerned mostly with the relationships between the recruits, and the aching, prolonged gazes they give each other through their battle armour visors, with 80s synth pop sometimes arriving *during* the sparse battle sequences which at last turning up in the final few episodes. In terms of construction, it owes a debt to Top Gun, sharing much in terms of pacing and content (and all that implies).


You'd better choose Paul Verhoeven's even if you have watched it.


The plot of this terrible film is so convoluted I've put the spoiler warning up because I'm unsure if I'm giving anything away. The audience first sees some man in Jack the Ripper garb murder an old man in an alley a hundred years ago. Then we're up to modern day and a young Australian couple is looking for a house. We're given an unbelievably long tour of this house and the husband sees a figure in an old mirror. Some 105 year old woman lived there. There are also large iron panels covering a wall in the den. An old fashioned straight-razor falls out when they're renovating and the husband keeps it. I guess he becomes possessed by the razor because he starts having weird dreams. Oh yeah, the couple is unable to have a baby because the husband is firing blanks.

Some mold seems to be climbing up the wall after the couple removes the iron panels and the mold has the shape of a person. Late in the story there is a plot about a large cache of money & the husband murders the body guard & a co-worker and steals the money. His wife is suddenly pregnant.

What the hell is going on?? Who knows?? NOTHING is explained. Was the 105 year old woman the child of the serial killer? The baby sister? WHY were iron panels put on the wall? How would that keep the serial killer contained in the cellar? Was he locked down there by his family & starved to death or just concealed? WHO is Mr. Hobbs and why is he so desperate to get the iron panels?? He's never seen again. WHY was the serial killer killing people? We only see the one old man murdered. Was there a pattern or motive or something?? WHY does the wife suddenly become pregnant? Is it the demon spawn of the serial killer? Has he managed to infiltrate the husband's semen? And why, if the husband was able to subdue and murder a huge, burly security guard, is he unable to overpower his wife? And just how powerful is the voltage system in Australia that it would knock him across the room simply cutting a light wire? And why does the wife stay in the house? Is she now possessed by the serial killer? Is the baby going to be the killer reincarnated?

This movie was such a frustrating experience I wanted to call my PBS station and ask for my money back! The ONLY enjoyable aspect of this story was seeing the husband running around in just his boxer shorts for a lot of the time, but even that couldn't redeem this muddled, incoherent mess.


...that Jamie Foxx would ever deliver such a wonderful, Oscar-winning performance. One of the reasons why I was so impressed with Foxx's performance in "Ray" was because from watching his hammy, obnoxious acting in movies like "Bait" and "Booty Call," I would never imagine he would ever hold the Oscar. If people told me five years ago that Jamie Foxx was one day going to win an Oscar, I would laugh right in their faces. Who knows? Maybe he's better off sticking to drama, because if you watch "Bait," it's clearly evident that comedy is not his forte. I swear, Jamie mugs so much in this movie that I'm surprised his face didn't fall off. And why does he have to do those stupid voices at every chance he gets? Anyone familiar with comedians like Bob Newhart and Steven Wright knows that doing comedy doesn't require being loud and obnoxious. If a joke is funny, it's funny. If it's not funny, then doing some crazy accent is not going to make it any funnier. The problem I have with some comedians who decide to try acting is that they favor getting laughs over being in character. In real life, normal people don't always have witty comebacks and quips. Like Albert Brooks said in an interview discussing his character in "Taxi Driver," it's important to be funny as your character, rather than be funny as a comedian. A prime example of Jamie violating that rule is the nauseatingly awful scene where his mug shots are being taken, and he starts posing for the photographs like a model. If a regular person were being thrown in jail, would he really be acting goofy while having his mug shots taken? And wouldn't the police try to scold him if he was? There are many scenes like that throughout the film. Another awful sequence is one where Jamie is on the unwittingly on the phone with the villain, and he starts doing a phony Caribbean accent. Not funny! Not to mention Jamie never seems to acknowledge the timing of a joke. Giving a comedic performance requires patience, whereas he goes straight to the punchline, whether it's the right time for it or not. I'm not even a big Mike Epps fan, but even his performance is good in comparison to Jamie's. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I felt somewhat relieved whenever he would appear on screen. Epps has the same flaws when it comes to comedy, but at least he chooses a more low-key approach. One of the few bright spots in this clunker of a comedy is David Morse, a highly underrated actor mostly known for his supporting roles as villains. He seems to be the only actor in the film concerned with grounding it in reality. However, fellow "Green Mile" star Doug Hutchison is disgustingly over-the-top as the villain. A big surprise, considering he gave a superb performance in "The Green Mile," also playing a heavy. Antoine Fuqua has proved his directing chops in movies like "The Replacement Killers" and "Training Day." Even in "Bait," he shows he can direct a hell of an action sequence. His only problem seemed to be in disciplining Jamie Foxx, who probably improvised half the script with one bad joke after another. Unless you're a die-hard fan of Foxx, please don't take the bait.


After a day at work, I sat down to relax and turned on the movie channels. The movie came up on the guide and sounded interesting so I tuned in just before it started. The first 30 minutes were enough to make me interested, but the lack of acting ability in Jamie Foxx and the slow plot movement made me want to get up and find food during the movie. If there is any credit to be given for acting in this movie it should go to David Morse who at least tries to make the movie interesting. All in all, don't plan on impressing your friends by picking this one as a renter for a movie night.


Jamie Foxx is my favorite comedian. However, I feel that he sold out in order to gain his first big budget lead role. Foxx follows in the footsteps of the likes of Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence and Dave Chapple, who have all seen their talents wasted by stereotyping producers who think black males who commit pretty crimes is a funny concept (See: Money Talks, Blue Streak).

Okay I laughed a few times and granted all of these comedians continue to pick up hilarious roles, but I would love to see these guys branch out ala Marlon Wayans portrayal in Requiem to a Dream. Or In Living Color's Tommy Davidson and Damon Wayans moving performances in Spike Lee's satire Bamboozled.


Jamie Foxx is fun but this movie has been done before. The bad guy plays a "malkovichian" character from "In the Line of Fire". The cops will do anything to find the bad guy - and of course the good guy has two sets of bad guys and one set of cops after him - all the while he is just trying to turn over a new leaf...


Well, i can and will be very short. This is a wrong-balanced, non-convincing film that could have been a little bit better. The script seems to not know which way to go ... from funny to cliche-wise serious... it's a bit silly. That plus too much sentences we have heard before "the hacker is in florida, or no, he is in madrid, no he is in ... , he is screwing the signal".

4 out of 10


photography was too jumpy to follow. dark scenes hard to see.

Had good story line too bad it got lost somewhere. Too noisy for what was really happening Bottom line is it's a baddddd movie


This is the first time I ever saw a movie with Jamie Foxx, and I bet it will be my last. I failed to see why he was funny, although people in the audience thought it was very funny when he made a face to the camera, or for saying "I am going to take a shower".

The plot is completely predictable. The bad guy comes after the good guy. The good guy has a woman, so the bad guy uses her. In between, the officials screwing up. The final scenes are utterly unbelievable. You spend 2 years and millions of dollars chasing a guy, but you don't do your home work to solve a trivial riddle?

There's no great acting, there isn't much of a plot or storyline, and the shooting is done MTV style. Don't waste your money on this one.


I love Jamie Foxx.

And I enjoy 99% of all movies I see.

And I walked out of this one.

Now, I admit, it may have had something to do with the two middle-aged white women in the back of theatre who laughed at every little thing ("Oh no, Jamie's knocking on a door! HEE HEE HEE!"), but... this was just so incredibly annoying. There could be no sustained camera shot, and no camera shot from a conventional angle... everything had to be in-your-face, loud, and annoying.

The bad guy tried to be smooth and Malkovich-like, but at this point, it's just old and tired. He brought nothing new or interesting. From all the characters, too many lines you saw coming, too many you've heard before, and too many "tough guy" lines... and I don't mind that sort of thing, really, as long as there's a bit of originality to it. In fact, pretty much the entire supporting cast just sucked.

I love Jamie Foxx, and I think he's really funny, and I thought he was funny in this movie... but not nearly funny enough for me to endure everything else.

This movie needed less shoot-em-up, less annoying camera shots, more emotion, more feeling, and more Jamie Foxx. I gave it a 2.


What? Is Jamie Foxx supposed to be funny?Does he really believe he is funny?Well, it's funny watching his confidence in being funny.The man has no identity whatsoever...I mean you can immediately see who his idols are, Denzel Washington and Martin Lawrence, because he tries really hard to imitate them in most of his movies.The only problem is that he does it bad, uneven, and what comes out are some parts where he somewhat looks like Denzel, with that macho-s**t attitude and then abruptly goes to being Martin Lawrence, the funny and clumsy-silly comic. There's no personal touch to all that, I mean he contributes nothing to the personality he tries to sell, and I'm sure he has nothing to say personally. He really is Mr. Dull-boy in person.

I was really hoping Hollywood, and the black community in America would find somebody better to launch into super stardom, like Don Cheadle for example, but perhaps the pathetic Jamie better represents the generation that remixes the old.


I was one of quite a few extras in this big bomb. I just happened to be in the right place working safety for the race scenes at A.I.R. as it was know as back then.Thank goodness my scene in in the first few minutes of the movie and I don't have to sit through the whole thing. It was more of a big party than a movie set but hey, the pay was good.Attention to detail was not a strong point for this one, but who was going to know.The funny thing was seeing the cars in the track at the really slow speed and then in the movie speeded up to the what was close to normal speed.A lot of the scenes were changed as they were filmed I suppose to shave cost and time.But every one was having such a good time who cared!


This is surely one of the worst films ever made and released by a major Hollywood studio. The plot is simply stupid. The dialog is written in clichés; you can complete a great many sentences in the script because of this. The acting is ridiculously bad, especially that of Rod Cameron. The "choreography" is silly and wholly unerotic. One can only pity the reviewer who saw 23-year-old Yvonne's dance as sexual; it's merely very bad choreography. The ballet scene in the film's beginning is especially ludicrous. If you are into bad movies and enjoy laughing at some of Hollywood's turkeys, this is for you. I bought the colorized version on VHS, making the movie even worse. Yvonne's heavy makeup, when colored, has her looking like a clown all the time. And she's the best part of this film. What a way to launch a career.


This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.

I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film.


Early film directed by D.W. Griffith; it features a gloriously happy King (Arthur V. Johnson) and his Queen (Marion Leonard) - but, wait! When the King leaves the scene, his Queen makes music with the palace's Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). When the King discovers the lovers, he decides to enact a horrific Edgar Allen Poe-type revenge. It's difficult to believe the lovers can't hear those plotting against them; although the actors are trying to look alternately noisy (the lovers) and quiet (the cement mixers). The sets make "The Sealed Room" look very staged. The performances are okay, and the story is easy to follow.

*** The Sealed Room (9/2/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Arthur V. Johnson, Henry B. Walthall, Marion Leonard


In contrast to my fellow reviewers, I always try to find something redeeming in any film I see.Yes, the quality of the dubbing and lighting is abysmal, the acting is wooden and the opening sequence highly misleading what with all those lascivious female lesbian vampires with blood dripping.Something must be lost in the translation of the word "Bloodsucker" from the Italian in the title; almost as if the producers were originally going to film a Gothic Vampire tale and then changed their minds but could not afford to give up their dramatic opening sequence, so tacked it onto the film anyway.

This film made in 1975 has recently been issued on DVD and comes with its own theatrical trailer which in some respects is more daring than seen in the film!Now anyone who buys this film has probably already read its synopsis anyway and knows what to expect - Italian softporn from the mid 1970s.I bought it because I am attracted to Christa Nelli (credited most often as "Krista Nell").The absence of a cast of characters I find most frustrating in a lot of these Eurosleaze films from the 60s & 70s.I had hoped Imdb would show the cast of characters as one hears their names in the film but without a cast list, it is very difficult to link them to the actor concerned.I think Krista Nell played "Cora" but underneath that massive hair style, costume and make-up it is difficult to distinguish her for sure.

There is mostly a two dimensional portrayal by the actors of their parts and no one really stands out.Maybe something is lost in the dubbing process.What were the positive points?Well the music was atmospheric and of course if you're into beautiful lesbian soft porn its there.The external locations used were good and I would like to know where they filmed the castle on its island.It purports to be set in "Ireland" (North or the Republic?)in 1902, so everyone sports period piece costumes.Some of the scenes I found unintentionally funny especially those sex scenes!!Anyway an enjoyable romp.I rated it 4/10.


(aka: The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance)

Lots of naked babes in this one with a couple of lesbo scenes thrown in. The film is supposed to take place in Ireland but it looks more like Rome and the Adriatic to me.

Gothic lesbians get invited to a Count's island castle for the weekend. One by one they seem to be missing their heads due to a madperson running around.

It's not very scary or bloody and the rooms look like they are lit with floodlights even though candles are lit. Go figure...(sic)

Dubbing is worse than usual and the plot only serves as an excuse for the eroticism and nudity. Directed by euro horror actor Alfredo Rizzo, this is one snoozer.

Pretty boring 2 out of 10


Wow-this one sucks. I'm gonna sum it up as quickly as possible.

A count invites 4 naive sluts back to his castle. A bunch of nothing happens for a long time. Some lame and un-erotic soft-core sex scenes happen. Some girls get their heads cut off (off-screen)-The End.

The only things going for this one are the decent looking sets and costumes, some bad dubbing which leads to some unintentionally funny dialogue, and a few brief nudie shots. And believe me-those things are not enough to redeem the 90-minutes of tedium that this film is. In fact-the best part is the tacked on beginning from the distributor that features some slutty goth chicks covered in blood and showing their tits-and again-this is definitely not worth the price of admission for this garbage. As everyone else has noted- the title of the film is completely nonsensical-as there's absolutely no bloodsucking, nor dancing of any sort in the film at all. It may as well have been called 'The Goat-Raper Leads the Circle-Jerk'-and at least then it would have had a better title that also pertains to nothing in the film. An accurate title would have been '90 Minutes of Torture'-another alluring title that would have at least been truthful...for the viewer. Honestly-the trailer that's on the disc shows all the best parts (and i use the term 'best' extremely loosely...) so I highly suggest watching that instead if you're still curious.  I can't imagine anyone liking this wreck of a film-please take my advice and leave this one on the shelf. 2/10


A particularly maligned example of Italian cult cinema with a nonsensical title to boot (if anything, the alternate THE MARK OF Satan is even less relevant to the plot!), this hybrid of Gothic Horror and Giallo (with a strong dose of Erotica) only contrives a flat sort of atmosphere throughout  actually matched by handling which is downright dreadful! Here, we get the usual group of people (an acting troupe) stranded on an island (to which they were invited by a Count  since he had become enamored of the leading lady, a dead-ringer for his missing spouse)! The characters are pretty much stereotypes: middle-aged but dashing hero (played by Giacomo Rossi-Stuart and whose family history bears more than its share of violent tragedy), demure heroine, sluttish companion (recalling Mae West and emerging the most annoying of the lot!), a meek but devoted stage manager (forever chided by one and all for his unmanly behavior!), a couple of lesbians, a mysterious gardener (the ubiquitous Luciano Pigozzi who, for once, gets in on the action, if you know what I mean), an envious housekeeper (nominal star Femi Benussi though, for what it is worth, this is really an ensemble piece), a religious fanatic of a butler, an impressionable chambermaid, etc. While the film is not by any means unwatchable, the atrocious dubbing, snail's pace, shoddy production (with the scenes depicting the raging sea lifted from some black-and-white film!) and the fact that the murders only occur within the concluding half-hour do not help matters. Besides, Marcello Giombini's score, though pleasant in itself, comes off as incongruously modern under the circumstances; that said, the revelation proves a surprisingly elaborate one (considering there is surely no shortage of suspects here).


After an initial release of 4 very good Eurotrash titles, REDEMPTION has managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel with THE BLOODSUCKER LEADS THE DANCE. I found NO Bloodsuckers anywhere in this movie.

The story is simple. A mysterious count invites several actresses to his castle for a little vacation. After some sofcore sexual shenanigans the girls get decapitated one by one. Who is the killer? Who knows? There are more red herrings in this one than at the local fish market on Friday.

The pace is excruciating. The story is silly and the skin scenes aren't all that terrific either.

Give this one a miss.


This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.


La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza, or The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance as I believe is it's common English title, is set on 'Ireland' in '1902' where the mysterious Count Richard Marnack (Giacomo Rossi-Stuart) invites soon-to-be out of work theatre actress Evelyn (Patrizia Webley as Patrizia De Rossi) & three more of her fellow soon-to-be out of work actress friends Cora (Krista Nell), Penny (Lidia Olizzi) & Rosalind (Marzia Damon as Caterina Chiani) to his castle situated on a small island just off the coast. At first Evelyn is reluctant but is persuaded when it is agreed stage hand Samuel (Leo Valeriano) goes along as well. Once there Count Marnack tells his guests that his Father & Grandfather both cut the heads off their cheating wives using a ceremonial knife & there's a feeling of unease when it turns out that Evelyn looks EXACTLY the same as the current Count's wife who ran away not too long ago... Along with having to worry about weirdo servants it turns out that someone wants to use the knife themselves to chop a few heads off...

This Italian production was written & directed by Alfredo Rizzo & is total, complete & utter crap from start to finish. First things first lets start the criticism with the title The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance, lets examine that title because when I do I feel somewhat cheated that there aren't any Vampires or any form of bloodsucking whatsoever, no-one 'leads' anything at anytime & there most certainly isn't any dance or dancing so don't expect any of these things. What you should expect though is a tedious, dull, boring pointless little 'giallo' that takes over an hour before anyone is killed & any sort of murder mystery starts to take shape, the first hour of La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is as plot less & uninteresting as anything out there. The best way to imagine it is to think of the most boring soft-core porn film you've ever seen, then cut most of the soft-core porn out & that just leaves bad actors, bad dubbing, bad dialogue, a tiny bit of soft-core sex & lesbianism & absolutely nothing else. Yep, it really is that bad. The mystery elements are crap, people do illogical things for no apparent reason & the overly complicated 'twist' ending is as bad as the rest of it, The Sixth Sense (1999) this ain't!

Director Rozzi does an OK job & La Sanguisga Conduce la Danza actually has a nice look & feel to it despite it's obvious low budget, I mean there are scenes where he shows a 'storm' raging outside the castle however the stock footage used is in black & white! So the film jumps from bright colour to black & white whenever it cuts to the storm & back to colour again! There is one absolutely hilarious scene where a maid & her friend discuss her breasts & she lets her friend feel them who is then full of compliments, this scene is so funny & just so unnatural that it's priceless & easily the films best moment even if a bad 70's porno would be embarrassed by the dialogue! There is minimal nudity & the sex/lesbian scenes are very tame. Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any apart from a decapitated head.

Technically the films pretty good, the period setting & production design are actually quite impressive although it's not massive in scope it does the job effectively enough. The film has a nice sense of colour & the cinematography is fine. The film is dubbed so it's hard to give an opinion on the original performances but the voice actors are terrible & the dialogue is even worse than usual.

La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is a terrible film, it makes no sense, it has virtually no story for over an hour, it has possibly the most misleading title ever & is really dull & boring with a confused stupid 'twist' ending. As far as Euro horror fans go there are plenty of much better films than this so please don't waste your time, as for anyone else this is definitely one to avoid. Trivia Note: the notorious (& banned in the UK) Nazi exploitation/horror film Horrifying Experiments of the S.S Last Days (1977) AKA SS Hell Camp & The Beast in Heat was directed by Luigi Batzella & he has a fairly substantial role as a police detective in La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza.


The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.

The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.

Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.

The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.

A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.

I can't recommend this to anyone.


The Horror Channel plays nothing but erotic soft porn Gothic flicks each night from 10pm till about 4 in the morning, but their 'scare' factor is very limited, if one exists at all. In fact I am sure I will find a multi-million pound lottery win more scary than anything this channel has to offer.

The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance deserves special mention because it is I feel, the undisputed low of a channel full of lows. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad this film is, but for the purpose of completing the minimum 10 lines demanded by this site, I will at least give it a go.

Firstly the title is misleading and bears no resemblance to the action on the screen. In fact the film might as well have been called 'Toothbrush' or 'Wallpaper' for all it has to do with the plot. At least they used toothbrushes...at least they had wallpaper.

There are no bloodsuckers for miles around and whats even worse there are no dances, not one. I'm sure they were making two different films by mistake here.

A more suitable title would have been, 'Horny Italian Count Leads Five People to a Scary Castle and Bores us Silly for Ninety Minutes.' Yes that fits better.

The acting is terrible and and the dubbing appalling, and that guy who plays Seymour was almost as wooden in his walk as he was in his character....abysmal.

The only saving graces of this film are a small but slightly interesting lesbian sex scene, two small and very interesting heterosexual sex scenes, and the added attraction in that every single female character gets her kit off. Bonus.

Otherwise steer a wide birth away from this one. No vampires, no dancing, no scenes of a brutal or gruesome nature and no way on Gods earth I will ever, ever, ever watch this one again.

No word of a lie, this film could put you off motion pictures for life.


I saw this movie when i was much younger and i thought it was funny. I saw it again last week, and you can guess the result. Some funny parts in it, very few and too long. The beginning is the only thing that is funny if you ask me.

If you want a total b-movie this is a good pick, but don't expect too much from aliens dwarf size


This is a really dumb movie. It could be fun with the cool looking aliens and the country setting, but it just isn't.

Some aliens hear the broadcast of War of the Worlds when a small country radio station plays it on Halloween. They come to Earth to kill humans, but instead of killing, they make people their slaves and act goofy. The front cover of the film shows these aliens riding surfboards in space...not really what they do. These aren't party aliens, they are stupid cartoonish idiots with annoying high pitched modulated voices. The alien with the most tolerable voice also happens to be the Jack Nicholson rip-off alien who always wears his sunglasses. Other than the aliens, the acting is terrible. The writing is obviously meant for children, because every character is written like a kid.

This is a dumb movie, that only children will appreciate, maybe.

My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for mild language.


Imagine you're a high-school boy, in the back of a dark, uncrowded theater with your girlfriend. How bad would a movie have to be, in order that you would feel compelled to leave the theater and head home before it ended? This movie is that bad. Really. Movies often become so bad that they're good; this movie is beyond that stage of bad-ness. It is painfully bad. Horribly, terribly, crime-against-humanity bad.


This was an incredibly stupid movie. It was possibly the worst movie I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. I cannot fathom how it ranks a rating of 5 or 6.............


Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the "classic" 50s "alien invasion" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail ("Casino Royale", "Our Man Flint" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2)


Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.


If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.

This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.

I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.


As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended... by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea. Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her.


Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that! But I want to!" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.

The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!" yet falls for the first person she sees.

Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P


The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery. She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit? Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter? During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial. At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love. Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.


An awful film! It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe. They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts; if the story were good, that would perfectly fine. But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script? I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version. It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.


What did the director think? Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty. That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN. Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won? While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head. Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.


This flick was a blow to me. I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway. It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated. Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character; a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here. Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality. To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off. If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.


When I saw the preview, I thought: this is going to be a great movie. And indeed it could have been. The actress playing the main character was very credible, and the beauty of the filming is undeniable. However the dialogues cast a dark shadow on the whole picture. The level of language was too familiar and too contemporary for an action taking place in 1610, and it took away most of the magic of the film. However, I must congratulate the translator, because the English sub-titles were more refined and appropriate that the original French cues, and it probably explains the good rating the movie received on the imbd!


I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.

I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true".

I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.

Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.


I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi.

The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.

All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!


It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.

Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.

The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.

It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.

I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!

If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit!


Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying. Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on. For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.

The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus. It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.

The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession. Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion. So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.


2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way!

The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based:

1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.)

2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.

I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.

Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)


Wow, the plot for this film is all over the place! There is so much plot and so many things that happen that it practically made my head spin!! And, as a result, none of it seemed particularly believable.

The movie starts with Kay Francis as a housewife living in a small town. She's had some experience with local theater and has ambitions of going to Broadway. When a big-time actor arrives in town, she pursues him in hopes that he can give her a career boost. But, her husband is worried about shenanigans--as this actor is a cad. So, the hubby bursts in on them and hits the actor--and the actor dies! As a result, he's convicted of First Degree Murder!!! Not Manslaughter, but Murder 1! Now, pregnant and in need of funds, Kay goes to New York. But Broadway jobs aren't to be found, so she's forced to take any job--even Burlesque. Unable to adequately care for her young daughter, she gives it to another woman to raise. However, eventually she does find a job in a real Broadway play and everything looks rosy. But, the jealous diva starring in the play hates her for some inexplicable reason and forces her to be thrown off the play. Despondent, she makes her way to England and becomes a real star. Years later, she returns to New York to get her kid--but the child is older and thinks the woman caring for her is her real mother. At the same time, her husband's lawyer now thinks that if he gets $10,000 he can get the man out of prison. As another reviewer wrote, is this to bribe people?! How can $10,000 get him out otherwise--maybe it will buy a helicopter so they can fly into the prison yard and scoop him up!! Wow--this is enough for 2 or 3 films! And, all this occurs by the 45 minute mark!!! Believe it or not, there's quite a bit more to it. If you really care, see it yourself to find out how it all unfolds.

This is sort of like 'kitchen sink writing'--throwing in practically everything and hoping, somehow, it will all work. Unfortunately, the film turns out to be hopelessly unbelievable and mushy despite Ms. Francis' best efforts. It's the sort of film no one could really have saved thanks to a 2nd-rate plot. It's almost as if someone just took a few dozen plot elements, threw them into a box and then began randomly picking them in order to make a movie!! Overall, unless you are a die-hard Kay Francis fan or love anything Hollywood made in the 1930s, this one is one you can easily skip. Not terrible but certainly not good.

By the way, the child who plays Francis' daughter upon her return to New York (Sybil Jason) really was terrible. I think she was supposed to be...I think.


The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.


I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros. retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.

She decided to take the money. But her career suffered accordingly.

That might explain what she was doing in "Comet Over Broadway." (Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) "Ludicrous" is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target. The murder trial. Her seedy vaudeville career. Her success in London. Her final scene with her daughter. No part logically leads to the next part.

Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff. And her hair! Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month. Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor.