First thing I noticed in this movie of course, was the unnecessary amount of nudity. It's not oozing nudity or anything, but a lot that was not needed. Annik Borel plays a disturbed woman believing her families ghost stories that her ancestor who eerily resembles her was a werewolf, and believes their fate are destined to be the same. Which actually I found quite interesting. The original Wolf Man was intended to be a completely psychological movie, but Universal threw in the actual Wolf man you were never supposed to see for n extra buck or two. I find this concept of someone not really being a werewolf interesting. Unfortunately this is not the film I was searching for.

Instead we know shes not a werewolf from the beginning, so there's no thrill or twist, also they attempt to make the film seem like a this really happened scenario. They fail there too adding one or two parts of the film referring to this being reality. At first I was excited upon reading the description of the film. But I slowly realized it was a cover just so they could expose the main characters breasts as often as possible.

Annik Borel is either a decent actor playing a great psychotic role, or a really bad actor playing a psychotic role. Since the character Danniele has no brains and is just a nut who runs around insane and snarling and snapping like a wolf, it takes little skill to play. She has moments were her performance breaks through for a creepy moment but is quickly ruined by the poor camera work and light. The idea is great, but hideously executed throughout the film. 3/10


"A young woman suffers from the delusion that she is a werewolf, based upon a family legend of an ancestor accused of and killed for allegedly being one. Due to her past treatment by men, she travels the countryside seducing and killing the men she meets. Falling in love with a kind man, her life appears to take a turn for the better when she is raped and her lover is killed by a band of thugs. Traumatized again by these latest events, the woman returns to her violent ways and seeks revenge on the thugs," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Rino Di Silvestro's "La lupa mannara" begins with full frontal, writhing, moaning dance by shapely blonde Annik Borel, who (as Daniella Neseri) mistakenly believes she is a werewolf. The hottest part is when the camera catches background fire between her legs. The opening "flashback" reveals her hairy ancestor was (probably) a lycanthropic creature. Ms. Borel is, unfortunately, not a werewolf; she is merely a very strong lunatic.

As a film, "Werewolf Woman" (in English) would have been better if Borel's character really was a female werewolf; with her sexual victimization a great bit of characterization. But, as far as 1970s skin and blood flicks go, this one is hard to beat. Bouncy Borel is either nude or sexily clad throughout the film, which features a fair amount of gratuitous gore. Dazzling Dagmar Lassander (as Elena) and hunky Howard Ross (as Luca) are good supporting players.


Daniella has some issues brewing under her attractive exterior. She starts to lose her mind when she finds out about a distant relative (who she resembles) that was burned for being a werewolf. She goes a bit feral when she beads horny men and slashes out their throats. She does eventually find a man that helps contain her inner beast but when others ruin their bliss she extracts her violent and furry revenge.

'Werewolf Woman' isn't a very goof film but it does pose as a good crowd film. A fun time could be had by harping the bad acting / dubbing / translation and the just plain cheesiness of the production. But on it's own it moves slowly but does have ample nudity to keep you awakebarely.


This film ends with a speech in which the narrator tells us the fates of two of the lead characters and that the names of people and places have been changed...before telling us that relation to actual people and events are purely coincidental. This ending line actually sums up everything that has gone before it; as Rino Di Silvestro's messy film completely lacks vision, and if there is any point to the plot; it wasn't put there on purpose. Werewolf Woman is often seen as a guilty pleasure or a 'so bad it's good' film, but I completely disagree. Normally, I enjoy films like this; but Werewolf Woman is indeed a bad film, and despite all the sex and savagery on display; it doesn't even make for a fun watch, and that really is unforgivable. The film really doesn't have much plot, but the thin sliver we are given involves a young woman, who also happens to dream that she is a werewolf. She dreams of going out and finding men, having sex with them and eventually killing them. Back in the real world, she falls in love, but her lover is killed and she goes out for revenge...

The film is made up of scenes of sex and gore, which are padded out with extremely dull talking sequences in which various characters mull over the recent events. These scenes are probably there to forward the plot and build characters; but they really don't do that, and succeed only in turning what could have been a passable exploitation romp into an extremely underwhelming film. It would seem that the director was more interested in style and atmosphere than the plot, and this is shown by the fact that the film looks and sounds nice. The sex scenes are often overlong and not very erotic, but the gore works well. The premise is ripe for giving way to a very sexy slice of exploitation, as there's plenty of naked women, and the fact that the central character has a werewolf origin means that there could be plenty of erotica; but this isn't capitalised on, and while I can stomach huge doses of bad acting and poorly done plot lines, I really can't stand watching films and being bored. Overall, I wouldn't even recommend this film to big exploitation fans. There's plenty of better stuff than this out there, and while the title may sound intriguing - the film isn't.


Very strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...


Let me begin by saying I am a big fantasy fan. However, this film is not for me. Many far-fetched arguments are trying to support this film's claim that dragons possibly ever existed. The film mentions connections in different stories from different countries, but fails to investigate them more thoroughly, which could have given the film some credibility. The film uses (nice!) CGI to tell us a narrated fantasy story on a young dragon's life. This is combined with popular-TV-show-CSI-style flash-forwards to make it look like something scientific, which it is definitely not. In many cases the arguments/clues are far-fetched. In some cases, clues used to show dragons possibly existed, or flew, or spit fire are simply invalid. To see this just makes me get cramp in my toes. Even a fantasy film needs some degree of reality in it, but this one just doesn't have it. Bottom line: it's a pretentious fantasy-CSI documentary, not worth watching.


This documentary (or I should say mockumentary) is the perfect example of how ridiculous can the people be, when they have full enthusiasm on something like that. Honestly, I hate Cryptozoology. It is unscience, it just destroy it. However, something positive in this was the visual effects (dragons were beautiful), but some of the information in this mockumentary was totally fake, and that is really disappointing because it was coming from scientists, so that is the reason why it deserves a 1 of 10 and not a 0. An example of false information would be the hydrogen idea: It is true that, according to Chemystry, the hydrogen is produced in the stomach but it is impossible to be produced in that proportions, so in that case, you need a good explanation of what really happens in a dragon stomach. There are a lot of substances whit hydrogen in the nature but not the necessary to aloud an animal like that to fly, and the hydrogen does not appear from nothing, so it is impossible. Anyway, there is actually something worse, the idea of the platinum: This element is more difficult to find than gold, and I cannot explain myself how dragons survive depending of that. It is ridiculous, they present dragons like creatures with low chances of conquering the planet Earth, but off course at least that explain why they got extincted. Probably cryptologist's call themselves scientists, but they are not. People like them say lies like in this mockumentary, and what is worst, some people buy them. But I do not think that a person who cares about Science would believe in dragons after watching this. Those fake scientists waste their time.


I think that most everyone wants to believe that extraordinary things exist and this film shows no restraint in trying to exploit that to the fullest. The presentation is very interesting, well presented and the graphics are state of the art, but from a scientific point of view it just doesn't work. Hydrogen filled flying bladders? They would need to be the size of a Mack truck to be useful. And then there's the ever-present possibility of a catastrophic explosion. I have no problem with fantasy, just don't try to pass it off as fact. Some folks will always misunderstand. All in all the film is entertaining, but I constantly found myself saying "oh brother, what a load of ....". If you want a FAKE documentary, watch This Is Spinal Tap instead. Or at the very least turn the sound off.


Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the "Walking with Dinosuars" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.

On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.

I also think this weakens the great "Walking with Dinosuars" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series.


Even worse than the worst David Lynch "confusathon", "Brain Dead" makes no sense whatsoever. Shamefully wasted talent (Bill Pullman, Bill Paxton), bounce around like they are in a "Tom and Jerry" cartoon on acid. There is negligible character development. It simply starts climbing the "strange scale", until climaxing in total chaos. Do not get sucked into this because of the above fine actors. They are given nothing to work with, and you will be wondering what's going on throughout the entire, unbearable 85 minutes. I highly recommend avoiding "Brain Dead" at all costs, unless you are into scattering your brain into total nonsense. - MERK


I felt brain dead, I'll tell you. This is the worst film I have ever bought. (in my ignorance I thought this was the Peter Jackson film of the same name). The performances are so terrible they are laughable. The special effects have not stood the test of time and look dire. The script promotes that kind of TV movie, stare into the middle distance kind of acting. The cast look as if they have been taking lessons from Joey Tribbiani, they have one look each, and stick to it. Plus I have never been confused by a movie until I sat down to watch this. The is it a dream or no plot is so terrible that frustration sets in within a few minutes. Avoid like a plague.


This is one of the worst films I have *ever* seen! It is bad, even at TV Movie level standards. The plot is diabolically flawed, and the known names in this film are wasted on confused, uncertain characters. I don't know how the director managed to keep this excuse of a film together - it is that bad. Billed as a 'Psychological Horror Thriller' - it is certainly Horrific. There is nothing Thrilling about it. And it could do you Psychological damage! The initial opening scenes held such promise - a possible embarkation on whether the soul is just an aspect of the brain, but the utter shambles that followed the car-crash scene is beyond belief. No matter how hard you try, you couldn't care less about the characters. There are so many sprinkled ideas that the film is at best a collage of disconnected phrases from Chinese philosophers, and at worst the film would actually make you go Brain Dead!

I have purchased over 300 films on DVD, and this is the FIRST one I'm going to get my money back on. STEER CLEAR.


This movie does have some great noirish/neorealist visuals, and it tells a story that is refreshingly free of Hollywood's sugar-coating, which was only possible because it was essentially an independent foreign film. But some of the scenes go on for much too long (the wedding, especially), and I found the exaggerated acting and unrealistic dialog to be more fit for the stage than for the silver screen.

The dialog was particularly distracting, and it seemed to get worse as the movie went on. Most of the characters were either Italian-Americans or Italian immigrants living in New York in the twenties and thirties, but their dialog sounded like they were practicing lines for a Shakespeare play while they mixed cement and laid bricks. Toward the end I was laughing, and not because the filmmakers wanted me to. I guess the stilted poetry could be defended by saying that the characters would have been speaking Italian, and the dialog is a literal translation of how they would really talk. But it absolutely did not work for me.

Another line of dialog made me laugh for a different reason: the main character's son, born and raised in New York in the 1920's, suddenly picks up a lovely lilting British accent. I'm only guessing this had something to do with the fact that the movie was made in England.

I give this movie an 'A' for effort and intention, but a considerably lower grade for execution.


Peter Sellers plays Dick Scratcher (ha,ha), a cook for a pirate ship who takes over as captain after he murders the previous one. Although he's witnessed a treasure being buried, he begins losing his memory and the treasure map he obtains becomes blank. Thus, Dick is forced to find someone who can see and communicate with ghosts (do you place an ad for that?) and help lead a path to the treasure. It's mind boggling how anyone could have bankrolled this pointless film. Former Goon Spike Milligan replaced Medak as director, and given Medak's talents in the film The Ruling Class, you can probably guess which of the grainy, poorly lit scenes had Milligan in the director's chair. Peter Boyle makes a brief appearance in the film's first 10 minutes as the doomed pirate captain. He's probably quite thankful that Young Frankenstein was released the same year this was filmed and canned, so that he can keep this off his resume. Franciosa looks dashing as the handsome power-behind-Scratcher but he and Seller both look pretty desperate, with even Sellers' makeup and hair looking quite terrible. They had to know this movie was bombing even as they were filming it. With lines like these, I can understand any possible unease:

PIERRE: (about to be hanged) You'll pay for this.

SCRATCHER: No, I won't. I'll do it for free.

And that's one of the GOOD jokes. It's amazing to me that much of Sellers prolific material is still in the vaults, but this was made available on VHS more than 15 years ago! How about someone stepping up to the plate and releasing in the US the well-received British TV program "A Show Called Fred" starring Sellers, Milligan, and directed by the great Richard Lester?


You might be tempted to rent this film because Peter Sellers appears in it. That would be a mistake. This is one of the most pointless films ever made. I kept waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny appears in this movie. Even the film industry recognized this was a very weak film and didn't even try to promote it. Its a wonder that it was ever put on video.

I wonder what sort of contract caused Sellers to be in this film. I also wonder why the people responsible for this film were allowed to go on to make other bad films. Surely this film is a waste of the money used to create it, and a waste of anyone's time watching it. Surely there are high school students who would be able to write/produce a film which as a plot.


!!!! POSSIBLE MILD SPOILER !!!!!

As I watched the first half of GUILTY AS SIN I couldn`t believe it was made in 1993 because it played like a JAGGED EDGE / Joe Eszterhas clone from the mid 80s . It starts with a murder and it`s left for the audience to muse " Is he guilty or innocent and will he go to bed with his attorney ? " , but halfway through the film shows its early 90s credentials by turning into a " Lawyer gets manipulated and stalked by her client " type film which ends in a ridiculous manner , and GUILTY AS SIN has an even more ridiculous ending in this respect .

This is a very poor thriller but the most unforgivable thing about it is that it was directed by Sidney Lumet the same man who brought us the all time classic court room drama 12 ANGRY MEN


this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm still not sure if it was serious, or just a satire. One of those movies that uses every stupid who dunnit cliché they can think of. Arrrrgh.

Don Johnson was pretty good in it actually. But otherwise it sucked. It was over 10 years ago that I saw it, but it still hurts and won't stop lingering in my brain.

The last line in the movie really sums up how stupid it is. I won't ruin it for you, should you want to tempt fate by viewing this movie. But I garantee you a *nghya* moment at the end, with a few in between. If you have nothing better to do, and you like to point and laugh, then maybe it might be worth your while. Additionally, if you're forced to go on a date with someone you really don't like, suggest watching this movie together, and they'll probably leave you alone after they see it. That's a fair price to pay, I guess.


It is only Robert De Niro film which I really hates. It is stupid film with horrible acting (of course not De Niro). For me, Brian De Palma must do his mafia films as always like Scarface (1983) or The Untouchables (1987). I also loved De Palma's Mission: Impossible (1996). De Niro worked with Palma two different times too, Greetings and The Wedding Party. I though that The Wedding Party was OK too (I didn't watch Greetings).

Screenplay is really bad and unfunny. There are no any scene where I can smile for even one time. Film lost a chance to be a funny style even a little bit in a "Be Black baby" scene and also I don't like the scene where a guy's sexual organ appeared. So, it is one of the worst film I have ever seen! just worst. I hate that.


Seems everyone in this film is channeling Woody Allen. They stammer and pause and stammer some more. Only for REALLY die-hard DeNero fans! It tries to appear as edgy and artistic - but it comes off as looking like a very, very low budget film made by college students. The most often used word in the whole film is "hum". The film does peg the atmosphere of the late sixties/early seventies though. If you like films where people are CONSTANTLY talking over each other, horrible lighting (even if it is for "art's sake"), and makes you feel like you are sitting in on a lame political meeting, then you might like this - but you need to be really bored. I found this CD in the dollar bin and now I know why.


I really, really wanted to like Julian Po. I think that Slater is underrated as an actor, and that many of the supporting players here are better than they are given a chance to demonstrate in this film. I realize this is based on a short story which I have not read. So, I do not know if what I see as the film's faults originated with the story, or were imposed on it by the director/screenwriter. The premise is wonderful, and I loved the voiceover, confessional tone the opening narration strikes. But then...? Nothing! Several of the cliched local characters ask Julian pointblank to explain his intention to commit suicide. One could argue that he doesn't answer, because it's none of their business. But Julian is the one who, under only token pressure, blurted out his intentions in public. Then neither Julian nor the director/writer, despite the fact that the Julian character is keeping a tape recorded journal for God's sake, seem inclined to provide anything beyond the scant initial information on Julian's life. He says he was a bookkeeper. He says his family moved around when he was a child, due to his father's job. So what? There are several interactions with the locals which seem designed to illuminate Julian's purpose. But none of them go anywhere, because Julian seems to regard all these dopey locals as if they were aliens from another planet, as if he were the ultimate (and only) sane one among them. This might work as an allegory, if Julian Po had any defining characteristics or anything approaching wisdom to impart. The closest he comes to revealing anything about himself is in the scene in which he purposely humiliates the naive, religious wife of the mechanic. And what this scene reveals is not anything that would inspire empathy for Julian. I can only see the Julian character --as rendered--as selfish, petty, and totally condescending. Sort of matches the attitude of the director of this half-baked, contrived film. And poor Michael Parks, an actor who once had so much promise, is given nothing to work with here.


Quirky, independent, theatrical, Christian Slater--these are all teasers that made me look forward to spending an hour or so "discovering" a jewel of a film. Boy, was I disappointed. Julian Po never gets over itself. The film is relentlessly self-conscious. I found myself unable to suspend disbelief for even a moment. The overdone, obviously theatrical sets, the overdone, obviously theatrical acting, the overdone, obviously theatrical directing -- well, you get the idea.

Allegories do not need to be delivered sledge hammer style. And it's hard to feel much of anything for Julian Po because we never know much about him. The ridiculous girlfriend, the annoying townsfolk, the idiotic clergyman, the bratty kids -- why would anyone, particularly anyone with a life long ambition to get to the seaside (Slater's character), decide to stay in such a dismal place?


The beginning of this movie was good. It started to get really dumb after he told the people he wanted to kill himself. I think if I came from a little town like that I would be offended after seeing this movie. They made a lot of these people look dumb and crazy. How could these people have so little to do that they follow him around all day. A lot of times these people were telling him ways to kill himself like they were urging him to do it. How can so many people have little respect for other people? I also think they could have made a much better ending for this movie. There were some good parts to this movie also. Some people might like it, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.


This movie is horrendous. Decent fight scenes or not, the acting is REALLY bad, like you can tell they're reading their lines from a card. With painful line delivery by everyone in the cast. Think watching a high school play and cringing at the obvious lack of smoothness in the actor's interactions (weird pauses between different character's lines, combined with hurried line delivery by others). If the movie were all action, this might be forgivable, but a lot of the movie includes plot set-up and Family Guy style, irreverent cut aways (Oh, wow, are they badly done). I'm assuming they were attempting to be funny with these, but it again came off as a bunch of high-schoolers/ college entry students goofing off for the afternoon trying to set up a funny Youtube clip.

Now to the fight scenes. They're not too bad, considering the level of quality seen everywhere else in the film. Nothing great either, certainly not anywhere near the same level as other posters have stated (Nothing like Drunken Master). The fights have an overly staged feel, with LOTS of cuts to different angles with blatantly different positions by those involved.

In sum, the only reason to watch this movie is if you were one of the guy's friends involved with this very, very cheap production. Which guy you may ask? Oh, the same guy who wrote, directed, produced AND stared in this Middle School masterpiece.


This early John Wayne Lone Star western has a bit more going for it than the run-of-the-mill oaters Wayne had been making for Lone Star up until that time. For one, it has his old friend Paul Fix in it; Fix, being a much better actor then the standard Lone Star villain, brings a much needed professionalism to the surroundings instead of the usual hesitant line-readings often delivered in these oaters. The plot, about mistaken identity, payroll robbery and murder, is as trite and perfunctory as you'd expect it to be in a 1930s low-budget western, but Wayne's strapping good looks, easygoing charm and way with a line go a long way to making this more enjoyable. Plump, balding Eddy Chandler isn't quite believable as Wayne's womanizing "partner", and there's a running gag about something that happens whenever Chandler and Wayne are about to get into a fistfight that grows tiresome. On the other hand, Wayne's love interest is played by none other than Mary Kornman, the little "Mary" of the early "Little Rascals" fame. She is a grown-up 20-year-old now, blonde and cute as a button. Most of Wayne's leading ladies in these Lone Star/Monogram "B's" were fairly bland and colorless, but Mary is perky, cute and, yes, sexy. There's a scene in the general store, where she works, in which Wayne asks her to get him a bottle of "nerve tonic", which happens to be on the top shelf, so she has to get a ladder and climb up to the top shelf. Wayne's ogling her pert little backside as she ascends the steps, then again as she comes down, then again a few minuter later when he asks her to climb up and get him another bottle is surprisingly racy for a film made in 1935. Wayne makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is definitely checking out her butt. Anyway, it's an interesting little "B", not great, but not as choppy and random as many of his LoneStar productions of the time. The final gunfight isn't handled all that well, and Chandler gets somewhat irritating after a while, but all in all, it's worth a look, if only to see a cute and sexy Mary Kornman.


John Scott (John Wayne) and partner Kansas Charlie (Eddy Chandler) are trail buddies who make their way to the Rattlesnake Gulch rodeo. Scott is a pretty fair contestant, but finds that unless he's willing to accept twenty five cents on the dollar in prize money from a crooked promoter, he'll have to collect his winnings at gunpoint. Quite coincidentally, bandits Pete (Al Ferguson) and Jim (Paul Fix) decide they'd like the rest of the rodeo take; they shoot promoter Farnsworth (Henry Hall), and make it look like Scott and Kansas Charlie are the killers.

Wayne and Chandler use a running gag in the film where they're about to go at it with their fists over various trivialities. Each time Chandler takes a wild swing, Wayne foot stomps him and knocks him silly.

If you're very attentive, there's a neat Lipton's Tea ad in one of the scenes in which Scott's love interest Anne (Mary Kornman) appears.

Later on in the film, the buddies are framed once again over a stage robbery. Having a change of heart and seeing the error of his ways, bad guy Jim wants to come clean and confess to the sheriff, but Pete shoots him down. While being patched up, Jim tells his story to the doctor and his sister Anne. In an unbelievable scene, Anne marches right into the middle of a gunfight between the good guys and the villains to confront the sheriff.

"The Desert Trail" is one of the blander John Wayne Westerns from Lone Star Productions during this era. Noticeably absent are George "Gabby" Hayes and Yakima Canutt, one or both are usually to be seen in these oaters. If you're a John Wayne fan though, you'll have to see it once, but that will probably be enough.


Before I explain the "Alias" comment let me say that "The Desert Trail" is bad even by the standards of westerns staring The Three Stooges. In fact it features Carmen Laroux as semi- bad girl Juanita, when you hear her Mexican accent you will immediately recognize her as Senorita Rita from the classic Stooge short "Saved by the Belle".

In "The Desert Trail" John Wayne gets to play the Moe Howard character and Eddy Chandler gets to play Curly Howard. Like their Stooge counterparts a running gag throughout the 53- minute movie is Moe hitting Curly. Wayne's character, a skirt chasing bully, is not very endearing, but is supposed to be the good guy.

Playing a traveling rodeo cowboy Wayne holds up the rodeo box office at gunpoint and takes the prize money he would have won if the attendance proceeds had been good-the other riders have to settle for 25 cents on the dollar (actually even less after Wayne robs the box office). No explanation is given for Wayne's ripping off the riders and still being considered the hero who gets the girl.

Things get complicated at this point because the villain (Al Ferguson) and his sidekick Larry Fine (played by Paul Fix-who would go on to play Sheriff Micah on television's "The Rifleman") see Wayne rob the box office and then steal the remainder of the money and kill the rodeo manager. Moe and Curly get blamed.

So Moe and Curly move to another town to get away from the law and they change their names to Smith and Jones. Who do they meet first but their old friend Larry, whose sister becomes the 2nd half love interest (Senorita Rita is left behind it the old town and makes no further appearances in the movie).

Larry's sister is nicely played by a radiantly beautiful Mary Kornman (now grown up but in her younger days she was one of the original cast members of Hal Roach's "Our Gang" shorts). Kornman is the main reason to watch the mega-lame western and her scenes with Moe and Curly are much better than any others in the production, as if they used an entirely different crew to film them.

Even for 1935 the action sequences in this thing are extremely weak and the technical film- making is staggeringly bad. The two main chase scenes end with stock footage wide shots of a rider falling from a horse. Both times the editor cuts to a shot of one of the characters rolling on the ground, but there is no horse in the frame, the film stock is completely different, and the character has on different clothes than the stunt rider. There is liberal use of stock footage in other places, none of it even remotely convincing.

One thing to watch for is a scene midway into the movie where Moe and Curly get on their horses and ride away (to screen right) from a cabin as the posse is galloping toward the cabin from the left. The cameraman follows the two stooges with a slow pan right and then does a whip pan to the left to reveal the approaching posse. Outside of home movies I have never seen anything like this, not because it is looks stupid (which it does) but because a competent director would never stage a scene in this manner. They would film the two riders leaving and then reposition the camera and film the posse approaching as a separate action. Or if they were feeling creative they would stage the sequence so the camera shows the riders in the foreground and the posse approaching in the background.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


One of the more 'literate' Lone Stars, with time spent on character development and interaction, dialog and acting business. The opening scene sets the stage (literally) for the personalities of the gambler, Kansas Charlie (Eddy Chandler), and his buddy, John Scott (John Wayne) the rodeo (say Roh-Day-oh) star, both of whom are slightly randy. The film follows their adventures, as they try to best each other in the pursuit of the Mexican Juanita, and later in their pursuit of perky Mary Kornman, who has the inevitable evil brother (though he'd been led astray by the real villain, and wants to repent). And oh, of course, they're being wrongly accused of two crimes and have to serve jail time before escaping and being exonerated at the end.

The high point is Scott continually and deliberately ogling Mary's butt in her grocery store, and knocking away the ladder she's standing on so he can catch her and grab her as she falls. It all seems a little contemporary for a 30s western, but it sounds better than it actually is.

Sadly, the exciting action elements we find in many other Lone Stars are sorely missing here. No Yakima Canutt. Cheap and bad uses of stock footage of riders falling off horses. No George Hayes. Tedious Stooge-like bi-play between Scott and Charlie, with Charlie swinging at Scott, Scott stomping on his foot and then punching him (repeated two more times!). The skilled Paul Fix is underused. Eddy Chandler himself, here in his big star turn, is not really believable as a randy side kick. The villain looks too old and fat. So does Chandler, who spent his later career in 300 more movies as an uncredited meatloaf. Mary Kornman, of the twenties "Our Gang" (see 'Mary, Queen of Tots' 1925) is cute in her scenes with John Wayne, but that's about it for this one. Seeds of a better western lie buried here.

P.S. The ultra-short colorized version, which looks good, moves along so fast, it's over if you blink more than once. Thankfully though, the embarrassing scenes with Eddy Chandler have been cut.


Falsely accused, skirt-chasing chums John Wayne (as John Scott) and Eddy Chandler (as Kansas Charlie) change identities to become "Alias Smith and Jones". Mr. Wayne becomes "John Jones". Mr. Chandler's is supposed to be "Rev. Smith", but Wayne calls him "Dr. Smith". At no time are either of them as entertaining as Roger Davis, Pete Duel, Jonathan Harris, or Ben Murphy; although, Wayne can be considered infinitely more successful than any of them, career wise. Pretty blonde Mary Kornman (as Anne), grown-up from her days in "Our Gang", is a lovely interest for Wayne. She and Chandler have a couple of cute scenes with Wayne. If you're not a fan of low budget John Wayne films of the 1930s, this movie won't make you one.


I picked up Time Changer because it looked like a nice low-budget scifi time travel movie and I was in the mood for something like that. The description said it had something to do with some biblical stuff and time travel but I didn't expect a fundamentalist Christian film!

The movie had decent special effects and an interesting premise that could have gone places and been far more interesting than it ended up being. Our hero, who is a bible professor from the 1890s, eventually travels forward to the 2000s and finds that modern life is filled with the influences of evil - Jesus is nowhere to be found. This wonderful technological feat is accomplished with the assistance of a fellow bible teacher who somehow managed to invent a functional HG-Wells-style time machine. The movie starts to lose some credibility at this point, which is unfortunate because this happens very early in the film. Earlier (or perhaps immediately later, can't remember for certain), our hero professor was seen teaching what appeared to be a science class where he claimed that scientific findings could only be considered validated if it could be matched with what the bible says. What should be obvious to anyone is that this is clearly not what the scientific method is about, however it is presented such that the filmmakers appear to prefer the point of view that science is useful only if it supports their claims and otherwise is not useful.

In any case, that belief is perfectly valid and sensible in the context of the character at the time. So, if we accept that as the fact of life for these bible professors, then obviously the professor who went and invented the time machine isn't a very strong believer as I don't think there's any evidence (and none was offered) for the physics of time travel in the bible. So immediately there's a problem with mixed messages and credibility there, but never mind...

After the professor is convinced to take the leap into the future, the shock of modern technology was handled quite well in most cases. It was also fun to not have it pinned down to an exact year (as the character is reading the date off a newspaper to himself, a car honks a horn and it scares him into not finishing the date: it's just two thousand and... *honk*). Some of the shock went on a little too long, though. For instance, the car was one of the first things he encountered when he arrived and around two days later he's invited to a church movie night and takes a ride in a van. He sticks his head out the window like a dog might, is scared by the headlights and the starting engine, etc. That seemed a bit off since he'd been there a few days by this point and the city appeared to be quite busy with traffic. In any case, that's easy to ignore. The rest of the tech shock was well done - especially his first encounter with the TV which was delayed because he didn't even realize what it was until he saw a kid watching one and using a remote.

Unfortunately, our hero predictably starts to preach to virtually everyone he meets as if he's an authority on all life and religion just because he's from the past and is an elder. Eventually he gets himself a brief moment in the spotlight at the church he had been visiting where he proceeds to explain his concept of Christianity to them in a long monologue that was supposed to be moving and insightful, but mostly was just more of the same. A couple of husbands in the church begin to get a funny feeling about this guy (go figure) and investigate his name. They eventually conclude that he either is a time traveler or is impersonating this long dead bible professor and decide to find out which it is. The movie frames these guys as non-believer bad guys for being skeptical.

Just before the professor is to head back to his own time, he is confronted by those two men. In an effort to avoid being arrested or hauled away, he eventually breaks into an almost insane-like rant about how Jesus is coming soon and that he's a prophet so they should listen to him. Just in time, he's whisked away and one of the husbands wonders if perhaps this is the rapture he'd heard so much about.

The irony is that this essentially means the professor became a self-proclaimed (and most likely false) prophet claiming to know that the rapture was near and he was sent by God when truthfully he was sent by his fellow bible professor and did not have any God-given knowledge (that was stated or even hinted at).

As I understand it, Revelation claims that the time of the end is only for God to know and at the end of the film we see the inventor professor trying (and failing) to send a bible into the future. First 2080, then 2070, etc. as the scene fades out. Clearly he's trying to determine the exact date of the end times - which he shouldn't be able to know! Essentially, the entire premise of the movie cancels itself out because by being so insistent on their religious beliefs and how certain things are for God to know only, it means there couldn't ever BE a time machine in the first place because then mankind could find out something that only God should know! The entire movie's premise collapses and makes the whole thing basically worthless as it undermines it's own credibility in the end.


I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a "good" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future.


I'm afraid that you'll find that the huge majority of people who rate this movie as a 10 are highly Christian. I am not. If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film. If you are looking for a good general movie, I'm afraid you'll need to go elsewhere.

I was annoyed by the characters, and their illogical behaviour. The premise of the movie is that the teaching of morality without teaching that it was Jesus who is the basis of morality is itself wrong. One scene shows the main character telling a boy that it is wrong to steal, and then the character goes on to say that it was Jesus who taught us this. I find that offensive: are we to believe that "thou shalt not steal" came from Jesus? I suppose he wrote the Ten Commandments? And stealing was acceptable before that? I rented the movie from Netflix. I should have realized the nature of the movie from the comments. Oh well.


The premise sucked me in, but it was clear about 30 seconds in that this was either David Lynch or something seriously terrible. Interesting to watch just to run through the fundamentalist laundry list. I can be a sucker for a stirring spiritual piece (Romero comes to mind), but there was nothing spiritual whatsoever about this one. The message seems to be that we must all pretend we have an iq of 80 (or simply get a lobotomy - Jennifer what happened to ya?) and blindly follow the Bible without any sort of self-examination whatsoever or we'll trigger the second coming. It's the kind of attitude that makes people fly jumbo jets into 110 story buildings (I work around the corner from the site of the former WTC). I like to think that God is a little greater than that.


I rented this by mistake. I thought, after a cursory examination of the box, that this was a time-travel/sci-fi story. Instead, it's a "Christian" story, and I suppose is fairly typical example. If you are sold on the message you probably will overlook the awkwardness of the plot/acting/etc., but I found it rather painful.

I have to admit that I'm bothered by the rewriting of history in this story. It paints the 1890's as some sort of paradise of family values and morality (a character is aghast that 5% of marriages end in divorce!), but it overlooks very unsavory sides of this "highly moral" society (rigid racial, sexual, and social discrimination were widespread, for instance). And at one point the hero complains to a clothing store owner about things that sound not all that different than the complaints of some Iranian leaders about women's clothing styles (as reported in a recent WSJ).

Overall, thought, I suppose that it's the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing, and it's certainly wholesome...


First of all, this movie reminded me of the old movies I used to have to watch in religion class in school. That's NOT a good thing. Basically, it's just a preachy and pretentious piece of filth, just like the terrible "Left Behind" series. I'm not offended by religious movies... but I am offended when these religious movies just happen to be extremely awful. I would just like to be able to say nice things about a christian movie but it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon. I bet if you gave the bible thumpers a decent budget, they still wouldn't be able to come up with anything good. Just avoid this one. Also, the fact that the "American Family Association" (basically, Reverend Wildmon's lackies) beam about this film on their website is another reason to make me hate it. In fact, after I viewed this, I went home and watched my copy of David Cronenberg's NC-17 rated "Crash". Forgive me father for I have sinned. Hahahahaha!


I guess this would be a great movie for a true believer in organized Christian Dogma, but for anyone with an open mind who believes in free will, rational thinking, the separation of Church & State and GOOD Science Fiction it is a terrible joke!

There are some well known actors who were either badly in need of work or had a need to share their personal beliefs with the rest of us heathens.

I WAS entertained by this movie in the same way I was entertained by "Reefer Madness." That movie attempted to teach drug education by scare tactics the same way this movie tries to teach "Christian" principles with the threat of hell and misery for otherwise good people who don't share their interpretations of our world.

It had me howling with laughter and at the same time scared me to realize how many people actually believe that our society should revert to the good old days of the 19th century!


This movie seems to send the wrong message. There can be morality without using Christ. Poeple of other religions, I believe, can get into heaven. I am a Catholic who goes to church every week, but I do not agree with such Christian arrogance. This is the worst time travel movie I have ever seen and I've seen Timeline.


Not being familiar with US television stations, when I flicked onto this on my in-laws' cable, first I thought it was just a low-budget sci-fi film, then after a couple of minutes I started thinking it might be a clever satire on the worst excesses of Christian fundamentalist, and then it dawned on me - good grief, these people are serious! It's been a while since I saw anything so unintentionally hilarious. I hesitated about writing a review of this for fear of offending believers, but then I saw other reviews and thought, hey, they can take it. Tough philosophical conundrum: how do you make a movie criticizing movies without actually showing what it is you're criticizing? Answer: make it in such a way that the only people who'll appreciate it are people who hate the kind of movies you're criticizing. I suppose some liberals (ugh! spit when you say that!) might be offended at the filmmakers' contempt for those in the audience who aren't obsessed with the J**** C***** myth, but I didn't mind - it was so darn funny!


There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?

The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."

While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".

The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)

The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.

As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).

As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint?

Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture.

Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.

And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.

I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie.


There were times during the movie I wish I had been beat to death. The only reason I endured the entirety of the movie was because I couldn't believe how bad it really was and thought it must get better. This truly was a horror film. I was horrified that I wasted what seemed like 4 hours of my life that I will never get back. The other two hours I spent mourning at the loss. Please recommend this movie to whomever you wish to torture and tell them the suspense will kill them.


It is not often I watch a film that is as dreadful as this one. I continued to watch, every minute hoping that this was intended as a joke only to find it was meant to be taken seriously. Well, as seriously as this genre requests.

The acting was disgraceful and the situations horribly contrived and clichéd. If a film was made in 1920 (for example) and had the quality of Hide & Seek (Cord) in its direction we would think that cinema back then was naive. As it happens, this film was made in 2000 and I have yet to see a film from the silent era that has as little charm as this one.

Definitely not for the serious movie-goer.

[Not worth a rating]


I'm glad some people liked this, but I hated this film. It had a very good idea for a story line, but that's where it ended. It was badly written, badly acted and badly made.

 It had some interesting plot points, but they were just skipped over too fast, the writers needed to realize what to keep in and expand on these bits, like lying about why she was kidnapped, and ditch the dross. Instead it was "what's going on?", 5 seconds later they tell you.

This film had no suspense, and I was bored from start to end. I just wanted it to finish.

 Go and rent misery, or best laid plans if you want suspense or twists that keep you guessing to the end.


I have read the other comment about this movie, and usually I try not to be harsh in my criticisms because I try to be a nice person. However, this movie is one of the worst movies that I have EVER seen (And thats topping a lot of bad USA Network plus Cinemax nights.) Whoever thought of this movie needs to be prevented from EVER making another one. This film disgusted me in a way that no other film ever. I REALLY think these people are insane. Just save your time and do not watch this fllm. Please - I wish that I had. The acting is horrible, the plot (what plot) is STUPID and degrading and insane. I really do not think this should have been made into a movie. But that is my opinion, and I am trying to save you from wasting your time.


This movie raises a number of pressing questions in my mind. Firstly, how has Jennifer Tilly managed to sustain a film acting career for all these years based on that ridiculous squeaky voice and the very limited range of hammy facial expressions she employs? Secondly... what on earth were the people responsible for making this offensive and deeply repulsive film thinking of? And thirdly... given that there were people perverted enough to decide to make dreck like this, shouldn't there have been someone in the system - the studio, the distributors, or somewhere - sane enough to prevent it actually getting completed and released. You really would have to search a very, very long way to turn up another movie as profoundly nasty as this... and it isn't even billed as a horror movie - which, inasmuch as it can be seen as belonging to any legitimate film genre, it certainly is. The movie wallows from beginning to end in the sickest kind of madness, violence and abuse, and has essentially no redeeming features at all. I'm not actually advocating censorship (which I don't believe in)... but I really can't see how anybody could conceivably draw anything positive from watching a film like this.


Wow...sheer brilliance.

Turning a thriller/suspense/horror into comedy.

After watching this, I never laughed so hard at a horror movie before...a ridiculous plot with 3 characters that were just insanely developed - either not written in depth or too much depth.

If you want to watch an absolutely written horror movie with stupid dialog, messed up plot, useless scenes, wasted characters, bad sound and lousy development overall, then this is the one to watch.

Be sure to keep focused for the classic "food processor" scene and the totally inept police investigation scenes.

This is a remarkable new low in screen performance and writing and to sit through it for the entire duration makes you either stupid, daring or brave.


This movie was like a bad train wreck, as horrible as it was, you still had to continue to watch. My boyfriend and I rented it and wasted two hours of our day. Now don't get me wrong, the acting is good. Just the movie as a whole just enraged both of us. There wasn't anything positive or good about this scenario. After this movie, I had to go rent something else that was a little lighter. Jennifer Tilly is as usual a very dramatic actress. Her character seems manic and not all there. Darryl Hannah, though over played, she does a wonderful job playing out the situation she is in. More than once I found myself yelling at the TV telling her to fight back or to get violent. All in all, very violent movie...not for the faint of heart.


This movie starts presenting a somehow original idea but became a great frustration later on. What is the deal of having an original start if the rest of the movie did little to avoid a clichéd plot? The movie itself is very unbelievable. I would like to know how exactly someone enters a clinic, gets a nurse outfit, kills a doctor, takes out a patient in her bed, puts into his Chevy pickup and leaves? I guess no one could answer this question, so they just jumped to the other scene hiding these little details. The performances are just plain bad. The villain is just another "annoying crazy antagonist", no deepness, totally linear character. After 20 minutes of film, most scenes are unbelievable, seemed like they were put there just for the sake of the 90 minutes since they were totally unneeded. A doctor see a woman clearly under strong medication, is denied to examine her, gets kicked out of the house and simply leaves quiet? The ending scene made me burst into laugher, only Mickey Mouse could make it more out of reality. I'm giving it 2 out of 10 for the first lets say 10 minutes of movie.


This is the kind of movie you regret you put in your VCR. It is some weird bad rip off version of Stephen kings movie "Misery (1990)". I cannot understand how this movie got a 5.2 score, because it has no story what so ever, and when the movie finally ended, I was relieved.

This movie should have been released as a short-movie instead.. to much time is spent on the same thing. And as in every bad movie, everything happens just at the end of the movie in a 10-15 minutes time span...

So, before you decide to watch this movie, be sure to put some new batteries in your remote control, because you are going to do whole lot of fast-forwarding... don't worry, you wont miss anything important.


... and I have seen some bad ones.

I have nothing good to say about this movie. The acting is poor by Jennifer Tilly - as to be expected. Daryl Hannah does an OK job, but nothing close to being able to save this movie.

The biggest flaw in this film is that the plot is so weak - though based on a good premise - that the writer resorted to the "stupid heroine trick" to create a contrived suspense. When all Daryl Hannah would have to do is hide, she runs out in front of her pursuer. The hospital scene is absurd. Without exposing too much of what passes for a plot, I think it would be difficult for a bloody petite woman to carry a pregnant from a hospital without being noticed. Lame. Very lame.

Save yourself some time and pick out another flick.


Not only was the plot of this film contrived with the ease in which the two psychos are able to kidnap a pregnant woman without breaking a sweat but it was a terrible rip-off of 'Misery'. However, the main reason I gave this film such a low rating was because it absolutely disgusted me.

I'm not someone easily shocked by what film-makers dish out and have always had a love for horror flicks but this film went too far purely in terms of violence and torture just for the sake of getting points in the shock factor.

I think most people, when watching just the first ten minutes of 'Hide and Seek', will find themselves reaching for the remote.


What can I say??? This movie was so Dumb & Stupid I thought it was a Psychotic DRAG Comedy - They should rename it "Bitching Pregnant Cat Fight!" What a stupid waste of time , if you want to see(DIE DIE!!! "I WANT YOUR BABY DRAG QUEEN) Jennifer Tilly being her Freaky self then just rent out one Of the "Chucky" movie, oh ya , "The Bride Of Chucky." It's more fun watching the Two Ugly Plastic dolls (one of them Jennifer Tilly turned into the UGLY Female version of Chucky) having Squeaky plastic rubber sex then watching Daryl Hannah being pregnant , Dumb & stupid; & Jennifer Tilly Grinding up her Husbang in a Food Processor reminded me of my Mother trying to do House Work! OK it's just BAD!!!


It's hard to criticize this movie, because I dislike the story itself, and no amount of good acting would have saved it. Think "Raising Arizona" with a mean streak. The acting is passable, but Jennifer Tilly is way over the top (yet not enough to make this a nice camp film) as usual, coming in somewhere between "Misery" and a sarcastic DMV employee. The rest of the cast have their brows perpetually knitted in consternation, either from the stress of their parts or the stress of the whole futile exercise. A real degrading few hours of film. Darryl Hannah spends most of the movie weeping too hard to be understood. I wish I could tell you how it ended but I walked out, sorry.


Some wonder why there weren't anymore Mrs. Murphy movies after this one. Will it's because this movie totally blew snot. Disney was not the right studio to run this film. MAYBE Touchstone (well, they're owned by Disney, but it'd be more adult). The film is too kid-ish, as the book series is not. The casting is all wrong for the characters. The characters don't even act the way they do in the books. And why was Tucker changed to a guy? He's a girl in the frigging books! Was this done to make the film appeal to boys? Sheesh. And where was Pewter, the gray cat? One of the funniest characters from the book is absent from this filth. Rita Mae Brown is a good writer, but letting Disney blow her work was wrong. An animated feature film, perhaps in the vane of Don Bluth's artwork would suit a better Mrs. Murphy film. Overall, I give this a 2, because at least Disney made a film from an under-appreciated book series. But, I wish they did better. Either way, I still have my books to entertain me.


Worst show I've ever seen. The story is about a group of teenagers who, for some inexplicable reason, have super powers, and when they use some special device, they morph into strange, poorly designed suits. The acting when they're not in the retarded-looking suits is decent. Definitely not good, but not the worst acting I've ever seen. However, when wearing their suits, the actors' acting goes from bad to worse; much, much worse. The hyper-animated idiots have a myriad of unnecessary motions they do. Even when they talk they look like they're having seizures. The villains are stupider than the Rangers. Every episode, some weak, idiotic villain comes up with some plan to destroy the Rangers. He/she then sends a force of hyper-animated aliens to attack the Rangers. The Rangers then initialize their 10-hour transforming animation, then they annihilate the aliens. Then, the poorly designed villain, which can either be an armored villain that actually looks and acts evil, to a humanoid ladybug-like creature with trumpets attached to its back that shows obvious signs of mental retardation. The Power Rangers fight the villain off, then the villain turns into Godzilla, whether it be by a rain cloud or a nuclear missile (yes, they fire nukes at the creatures and the creatures turn into giants). The Power Rangers spend 5 minutes acting hyper-animated and summon their Zords which are obviously toys that the producers of the show used special effects on to make them look real. The Power Rangers win, the villain gets mad, they all teach a "valuable" lesson, and the show ends. That's it. Twenty-five minutes of brain-washing, fake kung fu fighting.


Very rarely do I give less rave reviews on a show or film I dislike on IMDb, but Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is just so painstakingly dreadful, it's terrible.

I wouldn't have minded if this had been an animated series- would've been better that way I guess, but as a live-action show, it typifies the terms 'cheesy' and 'campy'. Of which Power Rangers is. Five multi- coloured, spandex wearing teens battle evil by using their martial arts skills. The costumes are horrid- they look like something that is reminiscent of what track and field athletes and female gymnasts would wear. The acting is woeful, and the fight choreography is so shockingly bad and so lame to watch, it makes Jean- Claude Van Damme, look as equally as good as Bruce Lee, which is an understatement in itself. In fact, they look as if they are jumping and dancing about; like it was some version of the 'Nutcracker', or they were doing ballet, rather than fighting. Besides, there are some cartoons that heavily feature martial arts and yet it is done in a fun-yet not so cheesy way that makes it look silly.

Kids show or not, this is just so lame and on the verge of absurdity. And even though this version is set in America, you could be forgiven into thinking that as you watch some of the fight sequences that they were not filmed in the US, but rather in Japan; thus the somewhat 'fake' fighting and footage was borrowed from the Japanese version-only to be juxtaposed onto the US version.

If you like this type of thing, then stick with Sentai- the Japanese equivalent.


I cannot for the life of me explain what the popularity of the children's television show, power rangers is all about.

I never understood why unsuspecting children liked this show in the first place, since the characters seem so idiotic and not worth caring about whatsoever.

The costumes look completely atrocious, like multi colored spandex that people wear to go to the gym.

What exactly is the purpose of this show anyways, but for kids to learn how to fight to solve their problems? What is up with the awful hair cuts, and clothing on this show anyway? Not to mention this show is still playing on cable television, just to make money to teach kids how to fight each other when they disagree on a certain problem.

There's far better entertainment for today's children, hopefully they aren't as gullible as kids of the 1990s who watched this show.

Oh, and what is up with the homo erotic tension between the red and green rangers anyway?


I never quite understood the popularity of Saban's Power Rangers show which was quite simply a second rate Americanized version of Japan's ultra popular super sentai series of the past three decades! What was cool about the Japanese version gets completely lost in the American version, characterization, special effects, etc.

Of course many kids will say that power rangers are the greatest but they would be incorrect.

I'm sure if they spoke Japanese, they would learn how much better super sentai is over the American version.

Power Rangers is completely awful, try Super Sentai instead! Looking for a better show, try Voltron The Third Dimension instead!


Power rangers, the moronic merchandising television kids show from the 1990s, has got to be the most pointless and ridiculous television show ever created.

What exactly is the point of this show anyway, other than to sell second rate plastic nonsense to children? There is nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about this show in anyway.

Look at the costumes, which look like spandex gone bad.

The mullet style hair, earrings, and fashions of the early 1990s look completely ridiculous these days.

Avoid this show at all costs!


The power rangers is definitely the worst television show and completely ridiculous plastic toy line in the history of the United States.

There is absolutely nothing even remotely entertaining about this completely awful television show.

This is simply the worst show ever made, with awful actors, dressing up in multi colored spandex outfits that look completely ridiculous.

The owners of this show should be ashamed of themselves, since there is no redeeming value to this nonsense.

Kids of today should try watching better shows like the Toy Story movies instead of this garbage.


Many people here say that this show is for kids only. Hm, when I was a kid (approximately 7-9 years old) I watched this show first. It was disgusting for me. I talked with other kids about this and, sure, other shows and know what? This was the measure of disguise, whenever we wanted to emphasize something's silliness (either on TV or anything else) we said "Uh, just like Power Rangers" and laughed.

And before visiting this site I could not imagine that there actually are fans of MMPR. It was so strange for me that I decided to watch it again and try to understand why people like it. I did not enjoy that viewing. But it dawned upon me: maybe I have not enough imagination? It may be. However this argument is not sufficient for me to rate it more than 1 star.


I remember this show being on the television when I was a kid back in the early 1990s, and there was this rage about kids with goofy leotards doing kung fu on one another and riding around in plastic dinosaurs. It was called power rangers. I remember that little kids would go around hitting each other and then the shirts and the stuff from the show was banned in many school districts all over the country because this show taught kids how to fight each other in solving their differences.

I never really thought of this as a show, especially when better shows like The Tick were playing on Fox Kids. Most older teens always looked at power rangers in a ridiculous and scornful manner, and it's not hard to wonder why. The footage is ridiculous at best. The colored rangers costumes look like stuff you would work out in and the dinosaurs look like plastic nonsense. Then you get into the acting, and of course those really laughable haircuts. All the guys run around with earrings on, half of them are wearing 90's mullets, and they always wear the same clothes everyday, and then change into leotard wearing power rangers.

The toys are especially ridiculous as well, and was the joke of many late night talk show hosts. And of course two of the worst movies ever made, and I do mean two of the worst movies ever made were based on this show with nearly every critic trashing both the films, and the shows it was based on.

Power rangers is nothing more than a bad television commericial for especially bad toy merchandising. As an adult, I don't look at it fondly, but rather as another embarrassment of 1990s kids shows, fashion and guys' earrings.


Mighty Morphin Power Rangers came out in 1993, supposedly based on the Japanese sentai television show that started back in the 1970s. Now as a fan of Japanese action films and series, you would think I would get a kick out of this show.

You could not be more wrong. What worked in the Japanese version has become a complete abomination of television with mighty morphin power rangers.

MMPR is based on five teenagers who get powers to becomes costumed superheroes with robotic dinosaurs who form an even bigger robot.

Now this premise is more far fetched and more laughable than anything in either Transformers movie, yet, the ridiculousness of this show is often overlooked.

It was followed by two really bad, and I do mean, really bad movie knock offs, and the actors starring in this series, completely disappeared from the scene.

If you must choose, try watching Japan's Zyuranger series instead.

Also, what's up with the awful long 1990s haircuts and all the earrings on the guys? It makes them all look feminine!


Power Rangers, the completely awful kid's show from the 1990s still continues to disturb young children with it's complete cheesiness, and awful settings.

This show was not entertainment, it was an excuse to teach children violence in showing kids how to fight one another in order to solve their differences.

The toys were further demonstration in how to promote a violent television show and such.

I have never been able to figure out what the purpose of this completely ridiculous show ever was.

As such, it remains one of the worst kids shows ever made.


15 years ago, Power Rangers was one of the shows that swept the nations, especially that of the youth. When I was a 3-year-old kid living in the Philippines, I would watch this show every Friday on ABS-CBN (Channel 2 over there). When the movie came out in 1995, it was all shock and awe to me when I watched it with my dad and 2 uncles. My grandparents even sent me a "Balikbayan" box full of Power Rangers stuff (including the easy-to-build Megazord figure and the stuffed toys of the Rangers). I even played the video games, and loved only one of them ("MMPR: Fighting Edition"), which was REALLY sad. Anyway, it was the show that set a stepping stone on my interest on robot series (especially anime mech series like "Gundam") Now that I'm 18, I'd like to think this show is pretty cheesy to me now. To prove this, I took a trip down memory lane by buying a 2-set DVD collection with "MMPR: The Movie" and "Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie" and watched both of them. I was like, "Ugh. How awful. Just another junk in the attic for me." For all of you people of my generation, this is NOT a show that you'd want to watch over and over again. I'm not saying to leave it behind for the rest of your life, but occasionally is not a bad thing now, is it? Instead of "Power Rangers", I'd recommend something like "Mobile Fighter G Gundam" (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED), "Ninja Senshi Tobikage" (aka Ninja Robots), or even the ORIGINAL Sentai shows that were the basis of "Power Rangers."


Nowadays it is sort of a trend to look upon all shows from begin 90's as classics (people are so easily blinded by nostalgia these days), and while some of those shows were/are undoubtedly good, this one is just pure crap. I watched this show a lot back in those days since it got A LOT of reruns on TV back then, and even as a child I didn't like it. Even a 8-year old can see how much the people in Power Rangers are overacting, and how much the special-FX sucked even back then. When the show doesn't resort to the painfully bad 'fighting'-scenes, it plagues the viewer with this unnecessary soap-opera about a group of teens and they'r little social problems every now and then. I don't know about you, but I didn't give a rats ass about any of that at all, and its basically filler until they have to 'fight' some dude again in a very cliché alien-costume with fireworks or some toy-robot. You never feel 'involved' in some kind of way with this show, and the fact that most of the actors act like there really have no interest at all besides they'r wallet just enhances the lack of feeling.

There is really nothing memorable about this show, and its pretty surprising that it got so many spin-offs (Beetleborgs is a good example). All it is is just a quick way to make some money though. I challenge any 'fan' to tell me what exactly stands out in episodes that is supposed to be so good because I couldn't find anything that is even slightly appealing to children. My guess is that most 'fans' of Power Rangers will tell me that I "just don't get it" anyway, or something along that line. I really don't care though; this was crap back then and it still crap now.


Okay, I seriously CAN'T think of anything worse than the PR series. There are many bad things in life...traitors, liars, etc. But seriously, Power Rangers has GOT to be at the bottom of this list. Can you think of anything more stupid than five-six teenagers (who don't even act like a normal teen) dancing around in identical suits WITH DIFFERENT COLORS SO THAT YOU CAN TELL THEM APART? Fans, have you ever come across a real person who gets flung against a mental wall and gets up almost immediately and continues to fight without getting injured? Power Rangers are for five-year old boys, and believe me, I never liked this show even when I was five.

I guess you can say Dino Thunder is an exception. The teens actually ACT like teens, and Tommy Oliver actually acts like a mentor, or no, a teacher. It's got teen-humor, though the fighting is lame, I don't hate Dino Thunder.

Many people say Power Rangers are crap, but I wouldn't. It would be an insult to crap. So face it, five year old boys, Power Rangers is rubbish.


Come on, what is the deal with this show, Power Rangers anyways? I always felt that the show, which was originally brought over from Japan in a better form, took what was great in Japan, and turned into one of the most ridiculous and pointless excuses in toy merchandising history! There is absolutely no point with this show whatsoever.

The bad haircuts, bad costumes, earrings, etc, all show what was ridiculous back in the 1990s From the two idiots, Bulk and Skull, to the "duhs", of the main cast, Jason, Trini, Tommy, Kimberly, Billy and Zack, I just want to say one thing: GIVE ME A BREAK!

Saban brought this from Japan, and then Disney bought the rights to this show around five years ago.

Now the public has to endure reruns of this show on the Disney channel and such.

All I can say once again is give me a break!


I really do not have any clue as to why some people find the power rangers television show even remotely interesting at all. The costumes are completely ridiculous and the people playing in them also look completely foolish at the same time. There is absolutely anything remotely interesting about the power rangers. This is just a higher priced television commercial designed to sell extremely cheesy plastic garbage to the unsuspecting children around the world. From the notes, I can see that it's been banned in the country of New Zealand and from what I have seen, I can agree with their decision. Avoid this show at all costs, it's terrible and ridiculous.


Mighty Morphin Power Rangers has got to be the worst television show ever made. There is no plot, just a bunch of silly costumed kids using martial arts while dressed up in second class spandex outfits.

The special effects look like they are from the '70's, the costumes look like something out of a bad comedy, and the show is just plain awful.

The only thing worse than the television show are the toys, just second rate plastic garbage fed to our kids.

There are far better shows for your kids to watch!

Try giving your kids something like Nickelodean, those shows actually have some intelligence behind them, unlike power rangers.


IT SHOULD FIRST BE SAID THAT I HAVE READ THE MANGA AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES.

This anime greatly disappointed me because it removed the comedy and high quality action of the manga and OVA. What it left behind was merely a husk of what it could have been. Many of the characters lacked the depth that is seen in the manga. Alucard is not the sympathetic character that secretly wishes for death. Walter's story lacks the betrayal. And the Nazi villains that plot to engulf the world in war are completely absent. Instead, the anime provides the Gary Stu villain Incognito who is defeated against what appear to be all odds.

My primary complaint is not that the anime diverges from the manga, but that it does such a poor job.


Basically this is about a couple who want to adopt a second child. At the adoption agency they meet a mouse (Stuart) and they decide to adopt him. If you think that this is stupid, hold it, because it's getting worse.

Stuart arrives to his new home, where he is treated like a human child. (Spare me!) The rest is pretty much the usual cliché, about family problems, jealousy from the elder "brother", and at the end all issues are resolved and they are all a "happy family". Boring and worn out as this is, it is also shown in the most blunt and unsophisticated way.

I don't know if the director believed that he was being creative by introducing a mouse to the cliché, or he was just trying to fill in minutes, but he only upgraded the cliché from boring to abhorrent.

Then why I gave a 3 and not a ZERO? Because of the family cat, who loves Stuart as much as the "brother". And because of some funny gigs, where Stuart makes good use of his small size.

On the overall I believe that the film would work reasonably well if: a. Stuart was a PET and not a "sibling". b. It had kept to the funny gigs, like Stuart trying to outwit the cat, and had left out boring clichés which don't even match with anything else.


At least the under ten year old set will stay interested. Eleanor(Geena Davis)and Fred(Hugh Laurie)Little, a nice well-to-do couple set out to bring home from the orphanage a new little brother for their son George(Johnathan Lipnicki). They come home with quite the odd new sibling...a sharp dressed little mouse named Stuart(voiced by Michael J. Fox). Yes, mouse. Stuart is happy to have found the sense of belonging even if it is in a super sized world that contains his new family's pet cat Snowbell(voiced by Nathan Lane). Stuart embarks on the experience of family loyalty and overall friendship. George will finally accept his tiny new brother when the dapper dressed Stuart saves embarrassment at a model boat race.

Also in the cast: Julia Sweeney, Harold Gould, Estelle Getty and Jeffery Jones. And the voices of: Chaz Palminteri, Bruno Kirby and Jennifer Tilly.


They should have called this movie: "Adopted Mouse Brother That is Slightly Inspired by Someone's Vague Recollection of Stuart Little Who Just Kind of Skimmed the Book a Little, But Mostly Just Remembered the Cover" If it wasn't so misleading I'd give it a better review.

But seriously people, do your kids a favor and have them read the book. They might actually learn something instead of having their mind numbed by what we all know as Hollywood film.

The book Stuart little isn't about a mouse, it's about a person who happens to be very small and mouse-like. He's born to his parents, not adopted. The book is about his life and his eventual departure from home and the journey he embarks on. There is a cat named Snowball who thinks he's food and wants to eat him, but Snowball can't talk.

In the movie they screw all of that up. I think the only things that they kept from the book were the boat race and the names.


Not that I dislike childrens movies, but this was a tearjerker with few redeeming qualities. M.J. Fox was the perfect voice for Stuart and the rest of the talent was wasted. Hugh Laurie can be amazingly funny, but is not given the chance in this movie. It´s sugar-coated sugar and would hardly appeal to anyone over 7 years of age. See Toy Story, Monsters Inc. or Shrek instead. 3/10


... but the trouble of this production is that it's very far from a good musical.

Granted, one can't always expect the witty masters like Sondheim or Bernstein or Porter; yet the music of this piece makes even Andrew Lloyd Webber look witty. It's deadly dull and uninventive (with one or two exceptions) and just after I watched it I couldn't recall a single significant melody - which is rather tragic coming from someone who learned the whole Another Hundred People from three listenings.

It is also strangely un-theatrical. It takes place on an incredibly large stage (one really has to feel sorry for those people in front rows who broke their necks in order to see something happening 50 meters on the right or 100 meters on the left) and does absolutely nothing with it. When there's supposed to be one person singing on-stage, that's just what you get - and the rest of the enormeous stage is empty. For me as an aspiring theatre director it was almost painful to watch.

The fact remains, Cole Porter seems to have captured the French culture in his works better than these no-talents can ever come close to. And I'm puzzled by the popularity of this would-be-legendary musical.


OK, I bought this film from Woolworths for my friend for a joke present on his birthday, because the front cover had a sexual innuendo in it.

But we decided it to watch it anyway. Just for hilarity purposes.

And I'm sorry, but this has got to be, one of THE worst films in history.

It began off alright, and we thought "Ok this might actually be OK". But after about 10 minutes, we were sadly mistaken.

It began when the "mysterious paint baller" turned out to be the most obvious character, the Scouser/Australian (I say that because he had an accent which couldn't be identified), who's acting might I just say, was abysmal.

Then it got to the end, and by that time, we had all lost the will to live. The paint ball finals.

The only thing I did like about this plot is that they didn't actually win, but annoyingly enough they won by default.

And I know this has nothing to do with it, but the name the team were given was just awful. Critical Damage. I mean they could of picked a more awesome name, like "The Destroyers of the Anti-Christ" or something. Or that's what the film should of been called anyway.


This film, for an after school special, isn't that bad, and that's the problem. Nothing happens. You feel as if you're still in class. A guy teaches a bunch of young underdogs how to be good paint ball players. We never get to see these underdogs doing badly as the good player is training them. They all of the sudden turn into good players by meditating. Also there are too many characters and no character development. Too much time is spend on the main character and his sexy sister and not enough on some of the other kids. This could have had a 'Bad News Bears' feel (the original) since there was a girl on an all boys team, but there wasn't any feel to this movie at all. It has no feeling and leaves a dull pain in your bones after watching it, is not fun to bag on, not fun to watch, and is just kind of... there. Plain. Boring. Something you'd watch after school before your pre-evening nap. As dull as the day is long and it's been a long, long day watching this movie.


Mind, my friends and I saw the movie based off it's title alone. It's cute, though obvious in it's plot and direction-- you know where the movie is going within the first five minutes. My main contention with the plot is that while it remains tolerably consistent, they never explain a lot of the things behind the characters. An alcoholic father, overworked mother, stressed-out sister... that's a bad family, but aside from the occasional mention from the sister, there's not any resolution. I was also confused as to the scene with the bottles... it seemed pretty random.

The writing is a secondary concern... the kids weren't bad actors, but their script left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, what could have been a cute niche movie was pushed aside for a single, blah special effect, lame scripting, and a glaringly obvious plot.


Not the worst movie I've seen but definitely not very good either. I myself am a paintball player, used to play airball a lot and going from woods to airball is quite a large change. The movie portrays similar qualitys First of all the movie starts off with this team that apparently is trying to shoot this "Phantom" guy or whatever, they appear to be a professional team and wear jerseys and shoot mags, autocockers. One guy sporting a bushy. Not much wrong with the movie but more how it's perceived it was very cheesy. A bunch of kids who are the good guys are woodsball players who don't appear to have much money and have dreams of getting "better guns". Another team constantly picks on them and insults them because they play woods and blah blah blah The phantom helps these woodsball kids out and trains them and all this crap, he gets them to play airball and basically defeats all the teams including the "professionals".

So what exactly is wrong with the movie? Well the budget is a huge thing, a paintball movie WOULDN'T be bad but the budget is pretty low and the movie feels like it was done by an amateur. There are no big names in this film and the acting is very cheesy. The perception of paintball is pretty bad too. They seem to imply that everyone is going to speedball and all this other crap. It just was a lousy movie in my opinion and doesn't give a real perception what paintball is. To be honest real paintball isn't all buddy like, it's a lot of cussing and bonus balling not "respect" and playing by the rules. Don't watch this movie and then expect to go to a field screaming "4 is 1!!"


This film had such promise!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, only to lose it's speed due to bad dialoge, poor editing and a half-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, only to lose steam half way through to become one dimensional people sputtering out tired one-liners.

Maybe if they spent some more time on the story and dialoge it would have been a great movie, instead of a almost afterthought effort.


I don't think I'm too far off base saying that this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I've been working on a list of my favorite war movies: "The Longest Day," "To Hell and Back," "Bridge on the River Kwai," (all black and white) which all have good plots, rich characters and great acting. I've seen better dialog and acting in student-written high school one act plays. The plot, however isn't a bad premise - just poorly implemented. It's kind of like a traffic accident, though, I couldn't seem to turn it off! A movie doesn't need big money or great sets i.e. "Twelve Angry Men" and "Lifeboat" to be good... so budget is no excuse. What were they thinking?


Good lord, whoever made this turkey needs to be buried alive. I'm sorry, but the other reviewer must not have seen this movie, he must be watching something else, or have never seen a movie before... 9 out of ten stars? He's saying what, this is as good as Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind? Unintentionally funny, massively unbelievable characters, absurd situations, looks like it was shot in Griffith Park (which works out pretty well--MASH was shot in Griffith Park), crappy script, just about everything that could possibly be wrong with a movie all rolled into one package. Should be required viewing for all prospective film makers as an example of how a movie could be horribly wrong. It reminds me of something a USC student may make for a film class.

Give this one a pass unless you do drugs and are into high camp.


Relentlessly stupid, no-budget "war picture" made mainly to show off the attributes of the spectacular Eve Meyer--not a bad idea in itself--but that should be an embarrassment to everyone connected with it. Laughable "script", performances that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary-school Christmas pageant, inept "action" scenes, confused direction by the normally competent documentary director Louis Clyde Stoumen--who is apparently not quite sure if he's making a comedy, a philosophical treatise on the futility of war or a leering T&A (by early 1960s standards, anyway) travelogue of Eve Meyer's magnificent body--and a general air of shoddiness and incompetence. Worth seeing in order to watch Eve Meyer strut her stuff, but that's pretty much it.


I'm sure that Operations Dames was a favorite at the drive-ins back in the day. There's absolutely nothing in the way of a plot that you might miss if you were otherwise preoccupied. And if you needed to get in the mood for other activities you did have some curvaceous cuties on screen to get you in the mood.

Otherwise there ain't a whole lot that Operations Dames has going for it. It's set in the Korean War where a platoon of GIs together with a British tommy gets a little too far forward and has to get back to the UN lines. Bad enough already, but these guys also come across a stranded bunch of USO girls and their choreographer in the same predicament.

You know what's sad about this film is that it took women generations to finally get accepted in the Army and in combat situations. These bimbos from the USO set women's liberation back light years. In fact not even the hard bitten professional soldier who is the sergeant in charge of these men can keep it in his pants.

But that was probably the better to remind some what they were at the drive-in for. This no name cast is better off with me not recognizing any of them for any individual effort.

Operations Dames is definitely a team flop.


I was drawn to this movie, curious to see how they have adapted Hubert Shelby's brutal novel. I thought that a literary piece of such depth, with a rich tapestry of characters, horrid situations, and social critique could not translate into a bad movie. I was wrong.

This flick is a terrible movie experience, not for its content, but for its form. Director Ulrich Edel executes, in my sincere opinion, a terrible directorial job that does no justice to the original book. No wonder Edel is a TV director; this movie looks and feels like a bad "made for TV" flick. Some of my views on this bomb (**spoilers ahead**):

- Lack of directorial creativity. The scenes are slow, feel slow, look poorly shot, and barely ever move from an anchored position. The only liberty they take is in the cinematography area, with a nice dark tone. Other than that, the movie has the same technical creativity as a TV soap-opera.

- All the actors do a terrific job at portraying these miserable characters. The problem is that the adaptation does not tackle a basic element in the development of the plot: MOTIVATION. All these characters move around like robots, without a clear motivation for their action. They seem to do things out of the blue, like robots, for no reason at all. Edel misses every opportunity to enrich character development by not exploring the character's motivations, and by avoiding developing each character's personality to its full extent.

This lack of character development is blatant on Tralala. Jennifer Jason Leight does a great job playing this trashy prostitute, but her alcohol-induced decision to let the sailors violate her is not explained. It looks extremely stupid, as we see this character doing this out of the blue. This is a clear example of poor character development.

The movie also has many secondary, token characters that do nothing, feel nothing, and add nothing to the plot. I would have liked to learn more about Harry's wife, for instance, and the interaction between the two. That's another missed opportunity.

Edel only approaches character development with Harry and his fixation with his gay lover, only to screw it up at the end, not clearly explaining -again- his motivations. The thugs are also a joke in their lack of development.

- The soundtrack is one of the worst I've ever experienced. Terrible job by Mark Knopfler. I seriously expected more from the former leader of Dire Straits, but his job in this movie is seriously lacking. At times, like in the battle between the union workers and the police, the music seems totally disconnected from the movie. It also feels completely poor and anachronic; I could swear the whole soundtrack was made with a Casio toy keyboard. It distracts from the actual action.

- The book adaptation by Desmond Nakano is so literal that eliminates the point of the story. It feels as if they tried so hard to keep the action-by-action storyline in the book, that they forgot to actually develop the characters and, once again, explain their actions and motivations.

I seriously can not recommend this movie, not even to a Shelby fan, because it can ruin the original book. It's a very uninspired effort in adapting the novel, and shows very little creative input.


I don't know much about film-making, but good movies have to tell some sort of a story...your characters have to start and complete their journey. In Last Exit to Brooklyn they may, but its not in any satisfying way, and I'm not meaning a happy ending, just ANY ending.

Last Exit to Brooklyn, set in 1952 Brooklyn during a very brutal labor strike, sets a number of story threads in motion. Most involve some of the most unlikeable characters to ever walk across a movie screen. But Last Exit to Brooklyn fails to bring these stories to any conclusion...it leaves some of them dangling with no ending, or blasts off into some bizarre stratosphere for an "artistic" ending.

Two cases in point, and they contain spoilers.

A sad transvestite character (an important character in the film), is struck by a car and killed. And that's it for him in the movie....he's gone for good, erased from everyone's memory..no reactions from his friends, enemies, lovers....nothing.

In another thread the stupid, clueless, and secretly gay strike leader, having been rejected by labor, his gay lover, and found out by the neighborhood thugs, gets stomped by the thugs. The closing scene to the beating shows the streets of Brooklyn, and the streetlights are very, very similar to those of Nazi death camps...and the scene drags on and on and on...and the camera pans down to the body of the labor leader, and he's been crucified.....ppppuuuulllleeeeeez. And of course that's it for him too....brain erasure.....gone.

Bottom line....no matter what the reviewers originally said in 1989 about this film....this movie is a depressing piece of sludge. Avoid it. And if you don't be forewarned, it really deserves an NC-17 rating for massive amounts of physical, emotional and sexual brutality...don't even let the teenagers watch.


Fine performances and art direction do not a good movie make. This movie is so grim and depressing, I could feel absolutely no joy at the "happy" ending involving the union strike. The attempts at humor involving Lake's pregnancy are absolutely disastrous, and any movie involving a Baldwin brother already has a strike against it. On a positive note, Lang is still one of America's great underrated actors, he alone almost makes this worth keeping in the VCR. I give this a 4.