This movie is bad news and I'm really surprised at the level of big name talent who would ever agree to appear in such a piece of junk as this. I imagine there were a few strangled agents sprawled across Hollywood Blvd. as a result of this fiasco. What really gets you is that it could have been good. The directors star appeal and the subject matter was sufficient fodder to spark interest and ticket sales, but this is a flop. The multiple story lines all go from bad to silly by the pictures end, and you end up feeling like a mouse in a maze looking for a piece of cheese that turns out to be rotten. What Spike is able to achieve is revenge against any Italians who may have beat him up when he was a kid or insulted him, as the movie does quite a number on perpetuating outdated and probably offensive Italian stereotypes. As with any Spike Lee film there is some really thought provoking and magical camerawork. He does have the gift of grabbing your psyche and transporting you into his vision if only for a few memorable scenes. But the question remains...can you endure the other 2 hours of head scratching and clock watching as you wonder and wait for the ending that has to be there somewhere.


Good actors and good performances can't mask a pointless script, bad dialogue, and patterns of behavior spiraling into nothing you'd care about. The most interesting character is David Berkowitz. No character development - no growth, no interest, just some suffering for no particular reason, teaching us nothing and not even bothering to entertain.


This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.

When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.

One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.


I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the majority. I found Spike Lee's latest a wee bit boring! Although he was trying something different, i.e. not just documenting the rise and fall of the serial killer, I don't think it worked too well.

There's really a bit too much going on - Vinny (John Leguizamo) and Dionna's (Mira Sorvino) relationship, Ritchie's (Adrien Brody) lifestyle and then the local mafia types. The story is good, but at the end thats all you have - 2 or 3 stories. With such a provocative killer could Mr Lee not have put more into that side of the film? >

There are some good points though. All scenes with the 'Son of Sam' killer David Berkowitz look very nice (colour saturation etc...)and the acting is pretty good throughout.

Overall I felt that the different stories would of worked well on their own or else without the killings. It just wasn't strong enough in the end.


Before I give Spike Lee's mess of a film SUMMER OF SAM a well-deserved thrashing, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not revile this film simply for its abundance of sleazy and unpleasant images. What makes this film so unwatchable is the fact that Lee seems to believe that SUMMER OF SAM should be taken seriously as a socially enlightening drama. The crime caper films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are filled with violence, profanity, and other sleaze, but are nonetheless highly watchable because Tarantino does not attempt to pass these films off as socially redeeming works of art. He knows that such films are for entertainment value only. On the other hand, serious dramas such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST are often unpleasant to watch, but the unpleasantness serves to develop the film's plot and characters, with the end goal of getting the audience emotionally involved with the story and characters onscreen. SUMMER OF SAM, unfortunately, merely wallows in its own sensationalism and sleaze, while believing that it is serving as social commentary, much like other trash epics .

SUMMER OF SAM does not serve as a serious drama because its characters are merely cardboard-cutout stereotypes. Its plot purports to show the emotional impact of the hysteria over the Son of Sam murders on the residents of the predominately Italian-American north Bronx neighborhood where the murders ocurred. However, instead of of presenting the locals as a diverse mix of personalities, Lee simply wheels out every negative Italian stereotype imaginable. The men are ignorant, lazy, oversexed goombahs. The women are split between weak, complacent "good girls" (Mira Sorvino's Dionna) and promiscuous "bad girls" (Jennifer Esposito's Ruby). Lee seems to vindictively wants to "payback" Hollywood for their years of negative African-American stereotyping by wheeling out stereotypes of his own, and few critics seem to care. If Martin Scorsese, for example, presented residents of an African-American neighborhood as a bunch of Amos 'n Andy and Aunt Jemima stereotypes, critics would rightfully condemn such blatant stereotyping. More importantly, one-dimensional, stereotypical characters undermine any film that attempts to be a serious social commentary.

Without exception, the cast of SUMMER OF SAM is excellent. However, the acting, for the most part, is uninspired. The cast is either just going through the motions, or they have little to work with scriptwise. Additionally, there is notable miscasting. Comedian John Leguizamo is very talented, but his Vinny character seems to be a stale, comedic impersonation of John Travolta's Tony Manero from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And Michael Badalucco, a perennial "nice guy" actor, is badly miscast as serial killer David Berkowitz, coming across as funny rather than frightening. The only performance worth paying attention to is Adrien Brody as the troubled, but sincere, neighborhood misfit Ritchie. The Brody performance and the typically stylish Lee cinematography are this film's only virtues.

*1/2 out of ****


I have always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!!


I went to this movie expecting a concise movie relating the effect the Son of Sam had on the society. I didn't expect Spike Lee to force-feed me more garbage on racial tension, mob-justice, or the inability of the common citizen to make a choice under pressure by peers. Lee has presented an extreme opinion.

The entire movie could have been more effective if in a 90-min format with more focus, less tangential sub-plots.

Don't even bother renting the video unless you passionately enjoy Spike Lee; in such a case, the theatre is worth it. This is not an escapist movie.


Spike lee has to be one of the most over rated directors I have ever seen. He is the critic's darling because he supposedly makes films with a "message" or he is just so bohemian in his approach that it makes critics that are waterlogged from formula Hollywood films eat his stuff up just for being different.

Summer Of Sam does not even do that well. The cinematography and editing style is Oliver Stone, and so is the narrative. The plot is a lot like "Do The Right thing". The portrayal of "Guidos" or for the PC set Italian-Americans (of which I happen to be one) is straight out of Eddie Murphy's Raw. Only Eddie Murphy's impression of a macho Italian guy picking a fight with a much taller African-American is much, MUCH more believable than the cartoonish, broad Italian caricatures shown here (the John Leguizamo character being a possible exception).

Is there anybody who saw this movie that could not figure out how it was going to end up? As soon as Richie came into the film I could already see the fist in his face and the foot in his stomach, I could already see him being accused of being the killer. This character had the most integrity in the whole film so, of course, Lee is going to show what happens to people that stand out in a crowd (what a white bearded clique!)

Someone please, please give Spike Lee a lifetime pass to all the Basketball games he wants. So, maybe he will be enjoying himself too much to pick up a film camera for a long time and we won't have to be subjected to his self important drivel and furthermore I won't have to see critics (some of them whom I respect) ohhhh and ahhhh to an Emperor with no clothes.


John Leguizemo, a wonderful comic actor, is a New York Latino, able to get inside a myriad of characters, both male and female, to show the bizarre foibles of an ethnic group trying to cope in an alien culture. He is not, however, Italian. He doesn't look, think or behave Italian...Especially Sicilian or Calabrese, immigrant groups who live in Bensonhurst or Bayridge Brooklyn. Every scene in which he interacts with his "Gumbas" rings false, as though he'd wandered in from a college production of "West Side Story" while the other guys were doing a low-rent "Mean Streets". That's only one problem with this ill-conceived, mean-spirited flick. Spike blew this one big time. Btw, CBGBOMFUG means "Country, Bluegrass, Blues and Other Music For Uplifting Gourmets [or possibly Gourmands] Ask Hilly Crystal who founded the club.


Spike Lee has been in a decline since his early successes and this mess does nothing to help. I looked at my watch frequently hoping the movie would end or get to the point. Lee's first movie with an all-white cast is a major disappointment.

What's the point? That Italians swear and like funky sex, but not with their wives? If I wanted to see Scorsese, I'd go to a Scorsese movie. The incredibly lame Godfather character only adds to the stereotype.

I've admired several of Lee's films, especially "Do the Right Thing". This movie is a waste of time.


After seeing the trailer for this movie and finding out Spike Lee was directing, I was excited to hear about this event. I wasn't alive at the time, I didn't live in New York, so I expected more of a history lesson than anything. What I got was some interesting acting, a lot of sex, and about 30 minutes worth of film that actually had anything to do with the Son of Sam. I guess the film wasn't about the Son of Sam, but it was a peek into the summer of '77. Label me disappointed.


It's difficult to put into words the almost seething hatred I have of this film. But I'll try:

Every other word was an expletive, the sex scenes were uncomfortable, drugs were rampant and stereotyping was beyond the norm, if not offensive to Italian-Americans.

I'm not saying the acting was terrible, because Leguizamo, Sorvino, Brody, Espisito et. al, performed well. But...almost every character in the film I despised. Not since The Bonfire of the Vanities have I disliked every character on screen.


Fox's "The True Story Of Jesse James" (1957) is a remarkably poor widescreen remake of their prestigious 1939 Tyrone Power/Henry Fonda classic "Jesse James". I'm not sure where the fault lies but the casting in this version of the two central characters, the uneven direction of Nicholas Ray and the ham-fisted screenplay must surely have something to do with it.

In the late thirties and forties Tyrone Power was Fox's top leading man but in the fifties his star began to wane and studio head Darryl Zanuck started to groom newcomer Robert Wagner to take his place. This was a major error on Zanuck's part as Wagner proved to be a less than a suitable replacement. With the possible exceptions of "Broken Lance" (1954) and "Between Heaven & Hell" (1956) it is hard to think of Wagner distinguishing himself in anything! Also, Jeffrey Hunter was nothing more than a Fox contract player before being assigned to play Frank James to Wagner's Jesse in "The True Story Of Jesse James". Borrowed from the studio the previous year this actor's one distinguishing mark was his excellent and revealing performance in John Ford's classic "The Searchers". But his playing here, along with Wagner as the second half of the James Brothers, is nothing short of boring. Neither player bring any personality or colour to their respective roles. They totally miss the mark, lacking the charisma and appeal so vividly displayed by Power and Fonda in the original. The movie is also marred by too many flashbacks and with the all over the place screenplay Wagner, as the Robin Hood of the American west, comes across as a charmless introverted twit that you can feel no empathy for whatsoever. The supporting cast are hardly worth mentioning but it is a shame to see such a great actress as Agnes Moorhead barely getting a look in as Ma James.

The best aspects of this uninvolving so-so western is the wonderful Cinemascope/Colour cinematography by the great Joe McDonald and the excellent music score by the underrated and little known composer Leigh Harline!


That word 'True' in this film's title got my alarm bells ringing. They rang louder when a title card referred to America's Civil War as the 'War Between the States' (the circumlocution preferred by die-hard southerners). Jesse James -- thief, slave-holder and murderer -- is described as a quiet, gentle farm boy.

How dishonest is this movie? There is NO mention of slavery, far less of the documented fact that Jesse James's poor widdered mother owned slaves before the war, and that Jesse and his brother Frank actively fought to preserve slavery. According to this movie, all those Civil War soldiers were really fighting to decide whether Missouri is a northern state or a southern state ... that's ALL. (Missouri: It's a candy mint! It's a breath mint!) Black people are entirely absent from this movie, except for two glimpses of a pair of beggars, one of whom wears a "HELP THE POOR" sign that's very implausibly typeset instead of handwritten. (Some shots of 19th-century newspapers are inaccurate too, with 20th-century type fonts.)

This film has a weird flashback structure. There's some very impressive stunt riding (and some fine work by stunt horses), and one excellent montage. I savoured one line of dialogue: 'Some of those boys will never taste beans again.' The movie gets a few facts straight: Agnes Moorehead, as Jesse's mother, conceals her right arm in the scenes following the raid by the agents of Pinkerton (here called 'Remington') in which Jesse James's real-life mother suffered injuries requiring the amputation of her lower arm. Some errors here are pardonable: during his bushwhacking days, the real Jesse James accidentally shot off part of his left middle finger, but Robert Wagner (in the title role here) does not have a stumpfinger. I've seen a photo of Jesse James's real wife; if she had looked half as glamorous as Hope Lange looks in this movie, Jesse James might have stayed home more.

There's plenty of revisionism here, and most of the male actors wear 1950s hairstyles. But many of this movie's errors were avoidable. Jesse James's mentor William Quantrill is mentioned several times, but all the actors mispronounce his name. We see Jesse and his wife moving into an elaborate two-storey house (where he will soon die) after paying a rent of $18. Actually, Jesse James's last residence (at 1318 Lafayette Street, St Joseph, Missouri) was a simple one-storey cottage, renting for $14. There was no upper storey ... so, when Jesse James is killed, his wife could not come running from upstairs as Hope Lange does here. (She was actually in the kitchen.)

One continuity error: Robert Wagner (with no stunt double) does an impressive job of taking a slug to the jaw and falling over while his hands are tied behind his back ... but when he gets up, the rope binding his wrists has vanished.

The screenplay does some weird and unnecessary juggling of dates. Following the Northfield robbery attempt, Jesse says he expects to get home by his birthday. The actual Northfield bank raid by the James Gang (7 September, 1876) was two days AFTER Jesse James's birthday. (Maybe he meant next year's birthday.) Later, we see Jesse and his wife moving into their St Joseph home on a fine summer day, while Jesse tells her what he plans to do when Christmas Eve arrives ... but in real life, Mr and Mrs Jesse James moved into that house on 24 December, 1881 ... so this scene should *BE* on Christmas Eve! These errors were entirely avoidable.

Some of the fictionalisations here don't make sense. According to this movie, the Northfield bank raid failed because one (fictional) henchman was late in cutting the telegraph wires. If this had actually happened, it would indeed have hampered the James Gang's getaway ... but it wouldn't have affected the robbery itself, which failed for other reasons.

There are good performances here by Jeffrey Hunter (as Frank James), Moorehead, Alan Hale Jnr (as Cole Younger) and by stage actress Marian Seldes in a rare screen role. I was disappointed by Robert Wagner, normally an under-rated actor. Elsewhere, Wagner has proved his impressive range by convincingly portraying heroes, villains and morally ambiguous characters. Here, he can't seem to decide whether to depict Jesse James as a goodie or a baddie ... so he doesn't much bother. John Carradine phones in his performance in a brief role as a fictional jackleg preacher who baptises Jesse and his wife at their wedding. In fact, Jesse James was baptised in childhood by his uncle, a Methodist minister ... but perhaps this second baptism is a topping-up.

Jesse James was no Robin Hood. (I doubt that Robin Hood was Robin Hood either, but that's another story.) There is not one single documented instance of Jesse James ever sharing his loot with anyone beyond his own family. After some of his hold-ups, he didn't even split the swag with the rest of his gang. In this movie, Jesse gets gunned down right after he vows to give up his bandit ways forever. In reality, the night before his death, Jesse James and the Ford brothers stole horses that Jesse planned to use the next day in a robbery of the Platte City bank. As preparation for most of his robberies, Jesse James stole horses from local farmers ... the same poor folk who (in the inaccurate legends) were supposedly the beneficiaries of his largesse. I cringed at one scene here, in which the fictional Jesse James is so gol-durn refined that he disapproves of an oil painting which tastefully depicts nudes.

'The True (not much!) Story of Jesse James' is wilfully dishonest about a thieving murderer, and likewise dishonest about the Civil War. For the very impressive stunt work, one good montage and a few fine acting turns, I'll rate this obscenely dishonest movie 2 points out of 10.


I couldn't believe my eyes when I watched Nuremberg yesterday on Dutch television. It starts very slowly, the backgrounds of the Nuremberg trials become clear step by step, the Germans have a funny English accent, but then, suddenly, in the last few minutes of the first part of the series, the audience gets to see the most shocking, horrific footage I have ever seen.

It is important that people get to see such footage (although I absolutely don't agree with people stating that there is no minimum age at which children can be exposed to this kind of material), but in this film it was completely ridiculous. It was purely meant to improve the impact of an ordinary TV series. It was meant to shock the audience which is very cheap and unbelievably easy. In stead of trying to move us with well-done scenes, inspiring dialogue or interesting viewpoint's, the audience is being tortured with horrible images of skin-and-bones camp inmates. It doesn't show any respect for the victims of the holocaust.

I'm very angry.


Apparently most viewer knows nothing about the history of Europe, including Germany, Hungary and the whole Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Hitler and Stalin Era. Nuremberg (and a lot of forgotten trials all over Europe) was a revenge and injustice of the winners. What do you think, why were not any American, British, French or Soviet defendants after the WWII? There were no American, British etc. war crimes? There were no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Tokyo, no Dresden, no Hamburg, no Berlin, no Katyn and so on? The Germans had war crimes too, but in Nuremberg the justice was not a real consideration. The main point was: Vae victis! Germany must perish! (That was also a book title in America, 1941.)

This film is an awful, ignoble American brainwashing instrument, full of error, lie, propaganda, prejudice and injustice. And first of all: full of hypocrisy. But not surprisingly... Why wasn't enough the Nuremberg process itself? This film is a nightmare. Total darkness after 60 years! This darkness (and hate and narcissism and lack of self-criticism) is the real cause of the massacres in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq and so forth. And there are no American war criminals... Bravo, America! Very clever. Even Stalin would become envious of it...


An accurate review of nuremburg must consider the door to history inadvertently opened with the movie "valkyrie" (Tom Cruise). "Valkyrie" (2008) at long last tells the world there was a German resistance during world war two professionally organised with bureaucrats, military generals, soldiers and civilians who tried to over throw the Nazi political regime, install a new chancellor, obtain peace and close the concentration camps. However, these unknown absolute heroes received no help at all from the allies who helped the French resistance just next door. History writers have used an institutionalised agenda ever since to conceal an allied evil which cost many tens of millions of lives with everyone conditioned to believe a deception that the German people completely supported the Nazis and consequently deserved the 24 hour bombing genocide and "unconditional surrender" that was imposed on the Germans.

The German enigma codes were broken by English scientists in 1943 so much of what the Germans were doing was known. During 1943 the Germans developed new jet fighters and jet bombers by companies including Arado, Heinkel and Messerschmitt. However, even if the Nazis were eliminated and the German resistance succeeded the allies wouldn't allow any democracy in the world to have jet fighters, jet bombers, high speed submarines, ballistic missiles and radio guided missiles without the USA having them first! This is where the institutionalised agenda is relevant. Consequently, the German resistance got no help at all from the allies although they always had crucial intelligence to eliminate Adolf Hitler. The 20 July 1944 coup is proof there were significant efforts by the Germans to obtain peace. Instead, the Germans got ultimatums of "unconditional surrender" and 24 hour saturation bombing in an agenda to avoid peace. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans and contain complete ownership through an "unconditional surrender." It was a premeditated allied agenda to allow the war to perpetuate and keep the Nazis in power to justify the 24 hour bombing but it took one year after d-day before allied armies advanced into Germany to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists at the barrel of a gun. However, tens of millions of people had died since the allies abandoned the German resistance for their own greed.

The allies imposed "unconditional surrender" on the Germans as a pretext to complete ownership and control of German property and government and it was done without using the German resistance to over throw the Nazis. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans to achieve world technological supremacy. Consequently, everything else took second place to the evil allied agenda which killed millions of German people in the 24 hour bombing; the concentration camps stayed open; the war was prolonged and led to the "cold war" with weapons based on German industrial achievements, technology, and scientists taken from the Germans in world war two.

The 1946 Nuremburg war crimes trials were a public relations deception and mass murder perpetrated by the allies as retrospective justice to the Nazis. It was a smoke screen to hide the evil and greedy allied agenda for world technological supremacy rather than help the German resistance overthrow the nazi political regime.

Tens of millions of people died because the allies abandoned the German resistance to an agenda but they inflicted retribution against the German chiefs of staff anyway whom paid with their lives at Nuremburg war crimes or not although the allies had perpetrated genocide to achieve world technological supremacy.


This movie was disappointing. It was incomplete and dull. While Alec Baldwin tried to portray himself as the Perfect fair and just prosecutor (not to mention executive producer), the movie never showed any of the defense counsels or tried to challenge the audience with an actual meaningful debate on the subject of how a country could be led down such a terrible path.

Sure, nobody wants to defend the Nazi's point of view, but THAT WAS THE POINT of the Nuremberg Trails! Four hours of simply bashing on the Nazi's.... c'mon! Thats been done already!

I really think Alec Baldwin should just stick to being Kim Bassinger's husband.

Right after the movie ended, TNT showed the 1959 movie, Trail at Nuremberg. That movie is FAR superior.


American movies about war and Nazis simply cannot be good. They can not refrain from becoming idiot and following an agenda. All Nazis are bad, crazy, too proud, and Americans are so modest yet so capable and sensible and human. Come on, stop this bullshit. The main character says something like "by this trial, we have to make aggressive war a crime". Is America a peaceful nation with its world #1 $420 billion "defense" budget (#2 China with just $51b)? Is it simply spent in this without any... ROI? Why portray America as a peaceful nation when it isn't? I deeply dislike movies with an agenda - they throw art to hell and try to persuade us into believing something. Hollywood should put a label on movies, just as record companies have that "parental advisory" label. We should have a "bullshit advisory", "propaganda advisory" or a "politically correct advisory" label on some movies. This is one of them.


Anyone who saw the original 1970 movie knows how an excellent cast, script, and director can put together a comedy masterpiece. By the same token, it's easy to see how the opposite of that can create another insipid Hollywood bore-a-thon! This movie was pathetic! Had it not been for John Cleese (a comic genius), I would have walked out about 15 minutes into this dreadful waste of celluloid.

Neil Simon wouldn't write another screenplay for this version (he said that he couldn't improve on the first), and I'm surprised that after this cinematic fiasco he wouldn't sue for defamation of humor!

Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis did such a wonderful job in the original, what were the producers thinking about when they cast this one? How could the director and editor look at these scenes and think any of them were funny? I don't know, but one thing I do know---it's no surprise why foreign and independent movies are becoming more and more popular.......


Unfortunately, this movie is so bad. The original Out of Towners was manic and very funny, of course they used the script written by Neil Simon. For some reason Neil Simons script is not used in this film so it falls flat time and time again. Even the audience I was with never laughed. The direction is very slow and tedious and when there is a joke it is given away so the joke dies i.e. The couple having sex in the park. They announce it is a lighting ceremony for New York, well we all know the lights are going to come on and we will be able to see cute and mugging Goldie & Steve do a bit of slap stick. The whole movie winds up being like this...a joke is set up and given away. Why isn't Goldies hair ever even messed up in the movie. You will also notice every close up of Goldie (they use a very intense soft lens). I suggest you rent the original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis, that's if you want to laugh.


In an apparent attempt to avoid remaking the original movie an excellent cast that should have made this inherently funny, classic Neil Simon material better than the original failed on every level.

The chemistry between Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin that was magic in `Housesitter' was nonexistent in this effort.


Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.

In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.

To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.

In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.


Within 15 minutes, my whole family was rooting for Goldie Hawn's character to die, or at least for Steve Martin's character to leave her. At 40 minutes, we turned it off. There are only a couple of movies a year we try that turn out so annoying that we can't even stomach it long enough for the story to get established.

Normally I like both Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, and I remember enjoying the Neil Simon original. So I blame Marc Lawrence and Sam Weisman. Combine the director of "Whats The Worst That Can Happen" and the writer of "Miss Congeniality 2", and I guess this is what we end up with.


One would think (as I did), that with Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese, a movie should be, at the very least, decent. These stars (especially Martin and Cleese) have produced some of the funniest works of comedy of all time.

Well, apparently I was grossly mistaken--this is single-handedly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It boggles my mind how one joke after the other can be so profoundly unfunny. It pained me to watch these talented actors execute one of the most positively lame scripts I have had the misfortune to come across. Based solely on the big names, I remained hopeful for a long time through the duration of the film, but it consistently failed to provide any entertainment whatsoever.

Normally, both with movies and in life, I try to stay away from biased comments and broad generalizations. But with this film, it's hard not to let loose. I can count on one hand, perhaps even two or three fingers, major Hollywood productions that left me more bitter than this. This is easily one of the worst comedies ever made.

I tried to enjoy this---I really did. But The Out-of-Towners ultimately fails miserably. If you really want time-efficient entertainment, just take your money and watch it swirl as you flush it down the toilet. Just please don't watch this movie.


This film so NOT funny - such a waste of great stars, who seem to be caught up so in their own stardom that they forget. Only shining moments belong to John Cleese as the hotel manager who likes to dress up - you almost fall out of your chair with helpless laughter when he dances to Donna Summer's "Bad Girls" while wearing high heels, a mink coat and a dainty hat. The rest: FORGET IT!


Someone should tell Goldie Hawn that her career as a teen-age gamin ended thirty years ago.

This is one of the worst films released in years, an unequivocal disaster in which the two leads give themselves over to a frenetic exposition of their trademark tics in an effort to make up for a bad script and bad directing. This thing should have been smothered at birth.

I hope John Cleese got paid a lot for having his name attached to this disaster. He is the only performer who came through this stinking mess more or less unscathed, his only fault being a failure to realize that the rest of the cast would sink the picture.


We all know what's like when we have a bad day at the office, right? Well, this Neil Simon comedy looks at what it's like when you have the worst of all days just trying to get to the office. Sometimes, it's just not worth going, know what I mean? And, sometimes, it's just not worth doing something when it's already been done before, in 1970, with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis... and much better also.

It's not that Steve Martin is a lousy comedian or wrong for the role as the harried and stressed advertising exec; quite to the contrary, on both counts. And, it's not that Goldie Hawn is equally inept either; her work has been consistently good, if not great, ever since I first saw her in TV's Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In of the 1960s.

The problem with this movie is that it's not about the hapless couple at all: it's really about New York and why everybody should come to New York to live and love their lives away in married bliss  sort of  in the greatest city in the world. That's if you're a New Yorker...

Look, the 1970 movie is still an excellent comedy that realistically explored all the things that can go wrong when you take a trip somewhere, and included most of the situations and sight gags that you can imagine about what can happen to you in a strange environment. This 1999 version unfortunately goes off into gratuitous tangents specifically for an audience these days that expects or wants to see excess. For example, not content with the star appeal of the main players, there is a cameo (relatively long also) from Rudy Giuliani, then mayor of New York, as we all know. What  Giuliani bucking for President even then? Worse  a walking talking advertisement for the kinder face of New York.

And then we have John Cleese, reprising his role as Basil Fawlty  but this time, as a prancing cross-dresser also  once again browbeating hotel staff, sycophantically sucking up to rich customers and generally making himself look like the idiot he is, in this role. And, in the process, doing great damage to the memory of Fawlty Towers, arguably the best British comedy series, bar none...

Why was this 1999 movie made? In the 1970s, New York was a dying city, in many ways. It was almost literally bankrupt. So, when made in 1970, that was the city you saw: grim, dark, moody, unsettling and not the place that the harassed couple finally chose for their new life together in the Big Smoke (as it was then, polluted and all). By 1999, things had gotten better: glitz was back, New York was thriving, it was the Big Apple, ready for you to bite into, if you had the moxie...

So, naturally, the couple in this second coming find that moxie within themselves and finally join the fabulous fray to continue the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, this movie is truly comic but not for reasons that the producers perhaps envisaged. As much as I like Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn in comedy, this movie is a travesty of the much better one made with the great Jack Lemmon. If you've seen the latter, then definitely don't bother with this one.


It's terrific when a funny movie doesn't make smile you. What a pity!! This film is very boring and so long. It's simply painfull. The story is staggering without goal and no fun.

You feel better when it's finished.


When I saw previews of this movie I thought that it may be dumb, but it will at least be funny. Well I was wrong. Even though somewhere deep down the producers had an interesting message to convey about parents being left alone and re-evaluating their life, the way they tried to deliver that message was horrible. The first fifty times something silly happened to the couple was relatively funny. But by the end, I could almost predict what stupid mishap is going to happen next.

Throughout the movie I like a total of maybe five lines of dialogue and everything else was at best mediocre, which is still more than I can say for the movie itself.


Largely dense road movie with some comic relief provided by the excellent John Cleese (although he is really sending up his performance in Fawlty Towers). Seems to flip from over the top slapstick to slushy sentimentality at the drop of a hat, and the worst part of the film is that Martin and Hawn have to "find themselves", who they are, etc. See it at your peril.


Evil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 4/10


To be honest I knew what to expect before I watched this film, and I've got to say it has the worst acting I've ever seen. It does have its moments, and on a comedy level its very entertaining, but i'm afraid its not scary, and stupidity is taken to a new level. There's a lot of unnecessary gore, and the plot is all over the place. I have no idea why the aliens were evil, and why they even came to this remote part of wales, (i mean who'd go there anyway?) but I didn't care at that point, because I was amused by the costumes, and the bad CGI. As far as B-movies go, this deserves the title of 'being so bad, its good', and kudos to the film-makers, because they probably knew what they were doing. Long may these films continue.....


This program didn't do it for me, although I'm a fan of the genre. The major factor that disappointed me was that there was not a single scene which was not dominated by the main character. This made it a bit two-dimensional and I gave up before the program was over.

I was hoping to leave my critique there as I'm no movie critic, however, the guidelines on IMDb state that you must put in 10 lines of commentary. It did remind me of Hudson Hawk in the way the main character is in every single scene, and I would hope that the writers of this program could employ some more diversity to engage with the viewers. I don't doubt the talent of any of the cast and crew, it's just that after watching things like "the wire", I've come to expect great things from cop drama.


My husband and I were intrigued by the spectacle - a strong willed Southern lady with a messy personal life solves crimes for the LAPD. The first season was must-see TV for us. Unfortunately, the stories of her personal life in the second season became so tedious and unworthy of the strong character that we stopped watching.

My husband and I were troubled by the episode where she tries to hide from her mother the fact that she is shacked up. But the deal breaker was the episode where she hides her possible pregnancy from her boyfriend but tells her boss. Why would a strong, middle aged woman do those things? The answer is she wouldn't. Additionally, my husband and I pick out the bad guy with almost perfect accuracy. It is almost always a white male or female introduced in cameo at the murder scene or in an idealized family. Can't the script writers do something original from time to time? As I mentioned, we are no longer viewers. We prefer shows that don't betray the characters and insult our intelligence.


This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong.

First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it....

All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed...


Though I'd heard that "Cama de Gato" was the worst Brazilian movie of the decade, I watched it giving it a chance; after all, first-time director/producer/writer Alexandre Stockler managed to make his debut feature (shot in video) for just US$ 4,000 and -- though it looks even cheaper -- I can't begin to imagine all he went through to finally get it exhibited in theaters with no big sponsors or production companies behind it (then as I watched it I realized why). But whatever chances you're ready to give to "Cama de Gato", they shrink to zero within 10 minutes: it's an unbelievably preposterous, verbose, ideologically fanatical and technically catastrophic attempt to portray Brazilian upper-middle class youth as a bunch of spoiled neo-Nazis hooked on bad sex, drugs and violence (and they're made to look like closeted gays too), made with no visible trace of talent, imagination, expertise or notion of structure. Visually and aurally, it recalls the worst amateur stuff you can find on YouTube -- only here it lasts NINETY TWO (count'em) minutes of unrelenting hysteria and clumsiness, and it's not even funny-bad.

We've all seen the story before: bored young guys want to have fun, go partying, take drugs and everything goes wrong -- there's gang-rape, spanking, murder, the accidental death (falling down the staircase!!) of the mother of one of the boys, culminating with the boys deciding to burn the corpses of the girl and the mother in a garbage landfill. Moral and literal garbage, get it? The film is heavily influenced by Larry Clark (especially "Kids" and "Bully"), but Clark's films -- though also moralist and sexploitative -- are high-class masterworks compared to this crap.

I don't think there was ever such monomaniacal drive in a filmmaker to stick his ideas down the audience's throat: Stockler grabs us by the collar and tries to force his non-stop moralist rant into our brains by repetition and exhaustion -- you DO get numb-minded with so much babbling, yelling, inept direction, shaky camera and terrible acting going on. Stockler doesn't care a bit about technique (the quality of the images, framing, sound recording, soundtrack songs, dialog, sets, editing, etc is uniformly appalling), but he's a narcissistic control-freak: he anticipates the criticisms he's bound to get by adding subtitles with smartie/cutie comments, and by making the protagonists comment at one point how far-fetched and phony it all is (I could relate to THAT).

Despite his megalomaniac ambitions, Stockler seems incapable of giving us a minimum of visual or narrative structure -- he can't even decide if he wants gritty realism (hand-held video camera etc) or stylization (repetition of scenes, use of alternate takes, etc). Damn, he can't even decide WHERE to put his camera (there's use of subjective camera for the THREE leads)! The dialog features some of the most stupefyingly banal verbosity ever; the plot exists simply to justify the director's profound hatred for his characters and what they stand for. All you see is a filmmaker being hateful, preachy, condemning, moralizing without the benefit of a minimum of talent (or technique) to go with it.

It's very disappointing to find Caio Blat in this mess. Certainly one of the most promising young film actors in Brazil, with his sleepy-eyed puppy dog looks and emotional edge that often recall Sal Mineo's, Blat can be highly effective under good direction (as in "Carandiru", "Lavoura Arcaica", "Proibido Proibir"). Here, he's told to go over the top and he has to play with some of the most embarrassingly under-equipped "actors" in recent memory. He also enters the risky realm of graphic sexploitation scenes (so goddawful they look rather like web-cam porn).

The film opens and ends with real interviews with "typical" (?) middle-class youth -- Stockler wants us to take those interviews as "proof" of what he's trying to preach in fiction. But he blatantly despises and makes fun of his interviewees, selecting a highlight of abject, racist, sexist, stupid statements (which only shows assholes exist everywhere). Stockler wants to prove that Brazilian middle-class youths are ALL present or future fascists BECAUSE they're middle-class and enjoy recreational drugs (is he saying all neo-fascists are on drugs?? Or that drugs potentialize fascist behavior?? I couldn't tell).

With its dogmatic self-righteousness, headache-inducing technique and mind-bending boredom, "Cama de Gato" is bad for a 1,000 reasons but, above all, it's harmful in a very insidious manner: it gives detractors of Brazilian cinema a powerful case of argument. "Cama de Gato" is best unwatched, unmentioned, buried and forgotten.


In São Paulo, the upper middle class teenagers Cristiano, Chico and Gabriel have just joined the university and on the eve of the opening class, they go to a party with drugs and booze. On the next day, after their classes, the date of Cristiano in the previous night comes to his house and the three friends rape the girl. The girl dies, they panic and decide to get rid off the body, but Cristiano's mother arrives, startles with Gabriel and rolls the staircase, breaking her neck. The trio decides to dump and burn the corpses in a garbage landfill, but along the night other tragedies happen.

The polemic and shameful "Cama de Gato" is an overrated pretentious crap about alienation of the youth, and is certainly the worst Brazilian movie that I have seen along many years. The shallow, tragic and dark story is actually a black humor comedy of bad taste. The screenplay is not funny, with stupid lines and dialogs, and boring, manipulative and silly footages with interviews with morons teenagers in the beginning and in the end. The acting is terrible, apparently with many improvisations, but no talent, and I was disappointed with presence of the promising Caio Blat in this trash. The camera, framing, cinematography and edition are amateurish and of very low quality. The sound is awful and in many parts it is impossible to understand what the actors and actresses are speaking (probably it is a plus, since this flick sucks). The gang bang is very realistic and used to promote this mediocre movie in a very poor marketing of sex-exploitation. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Cama de Gato" ("Bed of the Cat")


The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera.


Probably the only thing that got the movie up to a four for me is the fact that I love Peter Falk. One of the world's great portrayers of bumbling incompetence . . . and yet he is one of the only anchors that prevents this from being a chaotic disaster. As Pops Romano, he provides a respectable mix of gangster charm and straight man to Chris Kattan's manic foolishness. Respectable performances are also offered by Richard Roundtree as the harried boss, Vinessa Shaw as a talented female FBI agent bouncing her head off a glass ceiling and Fred Ward as Falk's advisor and Benedict Arnold.

The plot concept actually has some wonderful possibilities and, in the hands of a young Steve Martin or Chevy Chase, could have proved a great comedic vehicle. Kattan, who seems to idolize Ernest or Pee Wee Herman, just provides a muddled mess. Sadly, Peter Berg and Chris Penn, who portray his misfit brothers, both fall far short of their proven capability.

There are some very funny scenes, but they are far too few and separated by way too many boring ones. What I truly miss here is what always attracted me to the Leslie Neilsen movies. There is no 'second level' of wit riding over the slapstick. No cultural references that only the adults get. . no double entendre. . it is just silly.

And, by the way, this doesn't all mean that I am recommending it for your 9-year-old, because hopefully they have better taste and less fascination with some of their body parts and their functions.


Why is this film so bad? Well, if being so stupidly annoying and unfunny is a reason, then this film is it. The character of Corky Romano is unlikable at best and downright infuriating at worst. The gags are predictable but that isn't what makes it bad. They are the lame sort of predictable jokes that your unfunny friend would say.

Corky Romano is about a mild mannered vet that tries to do right but is so clumsy. His quiet life is thrown for a loop when the family that once spurned him now needs him to infiltrate the FBI to destroy any trace of the family's crime history. However, it isn't that easy for Corky because the FBI believes him to be a super agent and pegs him with the duty of spying on his very own family. Mishaps and mayhem ensue but it really doesn't feel like any comic hijixn are there. Corky ends up in love with his beautiful FBI partner and has to set the record straight with both the FBI and his family if he is to settle down to the quiet life again.

I think what makes this film irritating is both the lead actor and the supposed jokes. Chris Kattan reveals his alarming limitations as and actor here as his one note slapstick routine falls flat about 10 minutes into the film. It is okay to have a full movie based solely off of dumb, slap stick humor. Will Ferrel, Kattan's SNL partner, seems to have made a full career out of it. The only difference between Kattan and Ferrel is that Ferrel knows when to tone it down and rely on other ways of telling a joke. There is absolutely no diversity in Kattan's routine. It's hard to hear the same joke twice, but for a whole movie that is just pure torture.

The other problem with the movie was the lack of truly original and FUNNY jokes. The gay mafia brother, the awkward guy sch-tick, and plenty of other forgettable jokes appear none as funny as the first time you barely laughed at it. It seems as if the screenwriters had more of a fun time writing this than any one had watching it. Even with a cast that has some comedic talent (Chris Penn, Peter Falk) the jokes that commence are tired. There is no chemistry too. This film was obviously one for the pocketbooks for the actors. No body seemed to care about it, or even try. Sad thing is, no body told Chris Kattan that.


Wow. Some movies just leave me speechless. This was undeniably one of those movies. When I left the theatre, not a single word came to my mouth. All I had was an incredible urge to slam my head against the theatre wall to help me forget about the last hour and a half. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Honestly, this movie has nothing to recommend. The humor was at the first grade level, at best, the acting was overly silly, and the plot was astronomically far-fetched. I hearby pledge never to see an other movie starring Chris Kattan or any other cast-member of SNL.


I could only get through about 25 mins of it. Not one laugh in the 25 minutes I gave it, one of the most painful films I've ever had to endure. Chris Kattan is so nervous on screen that it made me nervous to watch him. Just a horrible movie.


I did not watch the entire movie. I could not watch the entire movie. I stopped the DVD after watching for half an hour and I suggest anyone thinking of watching themselves it stop themselves before taking the disc out of the case.

I like Mafia movies both tragic and comic but Corky Romano can only be described as a tragic attempt at a mafia comedy.

The problem is Corky Romano simply tries too hard to get the audience to laugh, the plot seems to be an excuse for moving Chris Kattan (Corky) from one scene to another. Corky himself is completely overplayed and lacks subtlety or credulity - all his strange mannerisms come across as contrived - Chris Kattan is clearly 'acting' rather than taking a role - it bounces you right out of the story. Each scene is utterly predictable, the 'comedic event' that will occur on the set is obvious as soon as each scene is introduced. In comedies such as Mr. Bean the disasters caused by the title character are funny because you can empathise with the characters motivations and initial event and the situation the character ends up in is not telegraphed. Corky however gives the feeling that he is deliberately screwing up in a desperate attempt to draw a laugh from the audience.

If Chris had not played such an alien character (who never really connects with the other characters in the movie) and whose behaviour is entirely inexplicable (except for trying to draw laughs) and the comedy scenes weren't so predictable and stereotyped - all the jokes seemed far too familiar) this movie could have been watchable. But it isn't. Don't watch it.


I vowed a long time ago to NEVER, EVER watch a movie that has ANYONE who EVER was a regular cast member of "Saturday Night Live". I didn't rent "Corky Romano" but I was forced by my unfailing good manners to watch it for half an hour. Then my good manners failed. Stupid, not funny. Tedious, not hilarious. Bad, not good. That in a nutshell is all I can say for this video.


Direction must be the problem here. I recently heard John Cleese speaking of working a skit for Fawlty Towers. He was supposed to attack his car with a branch. The first branch was too flimsy and not funny. The second branch was too stiff to be funny. The third was just flimsy enough to be funny. This sort of attention to detail is missing from "Corky Romano". No matter how embarrassingly unfunny a comic bit was, it wasn't fixed, and wasn't left on the cutting room floor. The one value I can find in this movie is as a study of a very flawed movie which somehow escaped into distribution without being repaired.

I've scanned dozens of other reviews here. The number of reviews praising this absolute waste of time bolsters my suspicion that some people are getting paid to promote titles. I can't fathom how anyone over the age of 9 could rate this title more than a 4, MAX. I mean, come on, 5 is average. I can't imagine anyone, even those making money off of this, rating it even as much as average.

This makes my list of the 10 worst movies of all time. And, hey, I actually LIKE the Three Stooges and can even tolerate Ed Wood!


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** From its very opening credits this fantastic movie sets the record straight: it's an instant classic. It doesn't take long to realize that this movie is big, bigger than `Kindergarten Cop' or `Police Academy 7.' The sheer greatness of it left me speechless as I walked out of the movie theater and proceeded right back to the ticket counter to purchase myself another dozen of tickets.

This is a movie that simply requires multiple viewings. The first watching will surely leave you with that strange `Huh?' feeling, but don't feel embarrassed - it happens to the best of us. The story is so diabolically clever that one has to wonder about the mortality of its authors. What seems to be a simple story of an idiot infiltrating the FBI, turns out to be an allegorical story that works on several levels and teaches us all about the really important things in life. The complexity of the plot structure will baffle you on your first viewing, but don't give up! Not until my sixth or seventh viewing did I only begin to unravel some of the hidden mysteries of `Corky Romano.' And watch out for the unexpected twist at the end, otherwise you might be caught completely off guard when it is revealed that FBI agent Brick Davis is FBI's most-wanted criminal, Corky is not a real FBI agent, Pops Romano is innocent, Peter Romano admits he's illiterate and Paulie Romano comes out of the closet as a homosexual. Surprised the hell out of me, I can tell you that much.

Chris Kattan's comedic talents are unmatched as he leads his character Corky Romano through a maze of totally unpredictable situations. Reminiscent of John Reynolds' performance in `Manos, the Hands of Fate,' Kattan takes on innumerable multiple personalities and tackles all scenes with perfect comedic timing. However, Kattan is not just about comedy. He is a master of drama as well, as he controls the audience's feelings with the slightest moves of his face. His facial expressions reflect life itself, in a way. For example, in the scene in which he farts into his brothers' faces, you can see the expression of social injustice and alienation clearly reflected on his anguished face. At a moment like that, it's hard to find a dry eye in the house.

Screenwriters David Garret and Jason Ward are the real heroes of `Corky Romano.' With a story of such proportions, it's easy to understand why two experienced writers had to be employed to complete this ambitious project. Their skillful storytelling and unorthodox structuring makes `Pulp Fiction' look like a mediocre Saturday Night Live skit. Garret and Ward's story is so compelling and alluring that it grips you by your hair, swallows you entirely, shakes you around and spits you right out. At the end of the out-of-this-world experience known as `Corky Romano' you find yourself a different person with different worldviews and different ideas, and with only one question on your mind:

Why, God? Why?!?


Corky Romano has to be one of the most jaw dropping and horrific "comedy's" ever made.

While the sometimes amusing Chris Kattan who pulled off a very funny performance in the hilarious 'Undercover Brother' his character in Corky is so stupid and so unfunny-which is a shame since the premise is a wonderful idea. To bad they ran out of them when they got to page 3 on the script.


please save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and "a night at the roxbury." this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can!


Admittedly, I didn't have high expectations of "Corky Romano." But then again, who did? However, I felt it deserved the benefit of the doubt. I had no high hopes of "Joe Dirt" either--another recent comedy starring an SNL cast member--and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. But this film is just as bad as it looks in the previews. Chris Kattan is actually a talented comic actor--contrary to what you might think after watching this movie--with great energy. He's been in many hilarious SNL skits, and I think he's one of the most talented cast members on SNL as of now. In this case, he's given a lame, pointless script and he tries to remedy each scene with his incessant mugging. Throughout each scene, he attempts a lame Jerry Lewis act and fails miserably. Jerry Lewis knew how to pull off this type of physical comedy, not to mention he worked with much better writing. Kattan simply looks like some ignorant fool with ADHD who had one too many Cafe Lattes. He doesn't even wait for the punchline; he assumes we'll all laugh once he starts jumping around like an ape on crack. In one scene, he ends up in a tugging match with a dog who has a package of cocaine in his mouth. The package explodes and the cocaine splashes all over him. He comes back to the job, strung out on coke. Now, how are we supposed to laugh at the fact that he's acting hyper and on-edge, when he's doing the same thing throughout the whole film?

As for the rest of the cast members...Vanessa Shaw is really hot, Peter Berg is wasted in a thankless role and so is Chris Penn. Peter Falk is also wasted, though he has a few funny lines that I'm pretty sure he improvised. I hope Falk gets a decent movie someday soon. That's too much talent too waste on a clunker like "Corky Romano." I didn't like Falk's last movie "Made" all that much either, but at least he had a decent role.

I chuckled a few times, but I could not get a single laugh. Each gag is performed with no sense of timing or delivery. And it's made worse by Kattan's hammy acting. And there are certain gags that are streneously dragged out. For example, when Kattan is about to fart in his two brothers' faces. He stands there for 2 or 3 minutes, trying to get out a fart and when he finally he does it's a little tiny one. It's bad enough when you have a gag that's funny and drag it out, but when you have a lame gag and you drag it out it's a hell of a lot worse. And another example of this is when he tries to translate what those two Asian men are saying during a drug bust. I can go on and on about what's wrong with this so-called comedy, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Like I said earlier, if you predicted bad things from the trailers--you predicted right.

My score: 3 (out of 10)


Chris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL.


This may not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!

Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.

Avoid this movie like the plague.

c


I didn't mind the film that much, but it was incredibly dull and boring. A few laughs here and there but nothing to go crazy for.

 You should give it a go if you like silly, stupid humour because this is the film for you.


I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5)


Wonderful actors.

Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back.


For me, this movie just seemed to fall on its face. The main problem for me was the casting of Glover as a serial killer. I don't know whether this grows out of type-casting or simply his demeanor, but I doubt Glover could ever portray a convincing villain. He's a good guy, and that's always obvious in his performances. Other than that the film is your run of the mill serial killer story. Nothing very innovative .


Sorry, not good.

It starts out interesting, but looses its way a few minutes into the movie.

It does not help a lot that none of the normally great actors (Quaid, Glover, Ermey, Leto etc.) delivers a really good performance.

It might be owed to the fact that I saw a dubbed version (german), but Dennis Quaid's character was especially wooden and annoying, and Danny Glover does not really make for a believable villain. Moreover, Jared Leto's character does not really contribute to the story whatsoever (except saving one main character's life at one point, but that scene is as necessary as a windshield wiper on a submarine in the first place ;-)

Speaking of unnecessary scenes - the main complaint is really the tangled and cliché-ridden storyline: The detective (of course!) has to settle a personal matter with the villain and is (of course!) suspended from his official duties courtesy of his personal entanglement. The killer (of course!) *wants* to be tracked down and plays a cat-and-mouse game with his opponent for years ... I don't know how many movies build on a similar plot - most of them better, however.

The plot has got holes galore and many completely unbelievable and unnecessary scenes that do not contribute to or work well with the storyline at all (e.g. the truck stop scene or the car at the cliff's edge etc.)

To top it off, the ending tries to be original and exciting, but fails completely in these regards. We've seen *much* better finales with a similar kind of ultimate-battle-on-a-train-in-a-forlorn-winter-landscape setup ... In the end there is the supposedly moving reunion of parent and child ... hokey, at the least.


I have seen this movie at the cinema many years ago, and one thing surprised me so negatively that I could not see any redeeming virtues in the movies: Dennis Quaid was cast as a policeman that never smiles or grin, while his smile and grin are two of his trademarks. Danny Glover was cast as the bad guy, but - again - most viewers' imagination could not go far enough as to believe him in that role. Also, Jared Leto was not believable as the former medicine student. The tension was just not there, since the killer was known very early. The finale was, again, neither dramatic nor tense: nobody around me cared about what was going to happen next. All we could wait for was the end of the movie. All in all, a disappointing evening spent at the cinema.


Very disappointing version of Lorna Doone. Too many missing characters, no romantic scenes, changes in story line, too short, appeared low budget. Hardly enough dialogue to understand the story if you're not familiar with the novel. In some scenes it looks like Lorna has a cold sore on her upper lip. I'm sure make-up did it's best to hide it. I guess they didn't want to halt filming until it healed up, pity. Most likely why this movie lacked kissing scenes. Only one disappointing kissing scene at the very end. Lorna Doone is a great epic tale and should be told true. The 2000 version of Lorna Doone is twice as long, more romantic, much more enjoyable and more true to the book.


I watched this film version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!

This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the "romance" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his "death", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation.


I first read "Lorna Doone" about 20 years ago and absolutely loved it! It is a classic historical romance set in the 1600s when the west country was several days' journey from London and law and order was much harder to enforce. Sadly, this version of the book takes several liberties with the story and was incredibly disappointing in my opinion. The acting and production values are OK but the way the story was messed about with was dreadful. Why do television adaptations do this? Why would they think that the thousands of fans of a book would want them to change the story??? One of life's great mysteries!!! The BBC made an excellent version which was televised at Christmas in the early 1990s which I am still trying to track down a copy of! Take my advice, read the book and don't bother with this paltry version!


I have 2 words for you. Sean Bean. He is the only worthwhile presence in this film. But even so, don't see this movie. Even though he is good as the main villain, you don't want to waste your time.

I didn't care about the characters (except the little boy) and in fact, I didn't really care if the star crossed lovers ended up together or died. The movie did not make me care or BELIEVE that these people cared about each other at all. I have read a lot of "classic" novels after seeing the movies and this movie made me not even want to read the book. The story seems so boring. But I may go ahead and read it to try to redeem the story in my head.

Stay away from Lorna Doone. The actress who played Lorna was also in Sense and Sensibility and she was much better in that. Watch Sharpe, Horatio Hornblower, A & E has great movies of novels like Pride and Prejudice. Or miniseries like the Forsyte Saga. Check them out, don't bother with Lorna Doone.


Extremely dull drama starring a very young Roddy McDowall, who trains a wild horse, the Flicka of the title, and is the only reason for watching the movie in the first place. Coated in blaring, overbearing music and weighed down by schmaltzy dialogue, this is one of those interminable films that bores you to the point of a gnawing headache. The naffly-titled sequel, 'Thunderhead, Son of Flicka', in which McDowall trains the next generation of nag, is marginally better than the original but the pace remains slow and the score continues to pummel you into submission, although there are at least one or two scenes that don't induce a coma.


Unless you are petrified of Russian people or boars, this movie is a snorefest. Actually, I fell asleep about 40 minutes in & had to fight the urge to just leave the theater. I wish I had. A waste of a perfectly lovely Saturday evening.

Even "Silent Hill" was scarier. Heck, even "Pan's Labyrinth" was scarier. I'm still unclear on what was supposed to be scary in this flick.

To begin with, I'm very leery of movies that use "pidgin Russian" like this one did in the opening credits. It's embarrassing to me since I brought a group of my Russian friends & we all cringed. Oh my god.

Hmm. Well, luckily for me (& probably you, too) this movie has already escaped my brain & I just stepped out of it an hour ago. So I have no specifics, just murky visuals that go nowhere & some languishing-now-dead hope that anything would happen.

Perhaps I saw a completely mutilated version of this film because I can't believe it got such great reviews here (which is why I saw it) & ended up being so completely devoid of not only Horror or Suspense but Overall Entertainment Value as well.

I give it a 2 because, yes, I fell asleep & wanted to leave after 40 minutes but I woke up & didn't leave.


There were some scary scenes, which I've always liked more than straight out gore, but otherwise this movie was rather weak. THere were too many questions left unanswered, and when they tried to explain anything in the movie, it was still rather unclear. After watching this movie I still seemed lost in a lot of ways. It sort of reminded me of Silent Hill a few years back. That movie was also unsatisfying, but still better than this because it did try to work and the story did actually make sense. This one, not so much.

The acting for the most part in the Abandoned was decent, but the movie dragged on an on, and never really gave any type of satisfying conclusion. Like I said above, there were some creepy scenes, but otherwise, this movie was a mess. Sorry, I can't recommend it.


Sorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed


To quote the film, "It's better not to know. Better still to forget. Best of all to be abandoned." Oh, the irony.

A ghost story with all the technical refinements of a Hollywood horror film, but horrifyingly bad dialogue after the first quarter of the film, and you feel like you're being preached to from the start.

It's as if the writers' cumulative character dialogue can be summed up by bad cop TV and a Jerry Springer show. Fitting, maybe, for a film like The Hitcher, not a Russia-set horror film. The result is that a potentially great setting and some potentially great gore scenes go to waste and become just silly, not scary or meaningful.


I'm going to go on the record as the second person who has, after years of using the IMDb to look up movies, been motivated by Nacho's film, The Abandoned to create an account and post a comment. This was hands down the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. The plot was on the verge of non-existence, and none of the "puzzle-pieces" added up in any way whatsoever. The acting was laughable and the writing was embarrassing. How this film got backed and came to be is completely beyond me. The only saving grace I could find was Anastasia Hille's cunning and repetitive use of the f word. (and brilliant sound design) If I were faced with the option of seeing this film again or being mauled by wild bores I would be up against a difficult decision. I'm disappointed that I am unable to give it 0 stars.


A different look at horror. The styling differences between American and Russian films is interesting. However from my American perspective this movie just wasn't that good. The protagonist, Marie played by Anastasia Hille wasn't a pleasant character and I had a hard time identifying with her. She was disagreeable most of the time and confused for much of what little time was left. Also too much time was spent in bringing her to the main location of the film. Then a long time passed before any real suspense built up. Once that happened it seemed volume was used as the main effect which was more annoying than anything else. The concept was more original than most Direct-to-video movies and they didn't use sex to make up for a thin plot. All in all I'd recommend it for renting, but not for theater goers.


This movie is an utter waste of time, the plot is awful, the dialogue is awful.

The acting is OK, but the actors have absolutely no plot or script to work with. The photography and some of the special effects are OK, too, but again there is nothing interesting in this movie to watch. There is no logical progression to the story, the story line is utter nonsense. It isn't even scary. For a movie to be scary, there has to be at least a small element of believability. This movie has no believability at all.

There are only three characters in the movie. Each character is shallow and has no personality.

Most of the special effects and make up work are both badly done, or at most mediocre.

I hope you read this and do not waste time on this movie unless you are curious to see an entirely awful movie.


This movie is simply not worth the time or money spent. Full of clichés and a plot that makes absolutely no sense ! I cant believe that so many people have given this awful movie a 10. My guess is they are stooges of the movie maker.

If I could give this movie a zero, I would. Too bad IMDb doesn't allow that.

The only reason I watched it because I went with a friend who really wanted to see it. Whats sad is that I never had great expectations from this movie to begin with and yet I felt short changed. Take my word, don't waste your $8 on this piece of trash. The only entertainment I got out of the movie was making fun of the directors name. In all, highly NOT RECOMMENDED !


This movie is a waste of time and money. Throughout the entire hour and a half, I continued to wait for it to get better and it never did. It was slow moving, the plot jumped around, it wasn't scary or interesting, and really never amounted to anything. The credits during the introduction were long and drawn out, which was basically like the rest of the movie (long and drawn out). Numerous parts of the plot made no sense. Several times during the movie I had thought that maybe I had "zoned out" because the incongruity of the plot, however, my companion had the same issue and assured me I did not "zone out" from boredom, but it was indeed the movie. I've actually never posted on here about a movie before and have been actively looking up movies on IMDb for numerous years. So the fact that I'm actually taking the time to write something should speak volumes of how bad this movie is and that you should not waste your time or money on it.


This film (along with Rinne) are minor gems amongst the retread homage pics that have passed for horror movies so far at the 8FTDF "HorrorFest." And, yes, that's faint praise indeed. 'Cause there's not much worse in filmdom than would-be auteurs who think atmosphere is a substitute for a coherent plot.

And that's all you get with The Abandoned. This is a film that was made almost entirely in the directors head. Sure, it would have been nice if he'd transfered it to film, but this happened instead. It's a very pretty film with a few genuine scares, but the last reel is strictly for the latte slurping cineaste crowd.


If this is based on the true-life relationship, as purported, between Ms. Curtin and Mr. Levinson, I'm thrilled I do not know them personally. This is painfully slow, and both characters take stupid pills liberally throughout the movie while the theme song gets played into the ground. Many stupid scenes with people acting stupid does not make for a comedy.


I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay!


One of the weaker Carry On adventures sees Sid James as the head of a crime gang stealing contraceptive pills. The fourth of the series to be hospital-based, it's possibly the least of the genre. There's a curiously flat feel throughout, with all seemingly squandered on below-par material. This is far from the late-70s nadir, but Williams, James, Bresslaw, Maynard et al. are all class performers yet not given the backing of a script equal to their ability.

Most of the gags are onrunning, rather than episodic as Carry Ons usually are. So that instead of the traditional hit and miss ratio, if you don't find the joke funny in the first place you're stuck with it for most of the film. These continuous plot strands include Williams  for no good reason  worrying that he's changing sex, and Kenneth Cope in drag. Like the stagy physical pratt falls, the whole thing feels more contrived than in other movies, and lacking in cast interest. Continuing this theme, Matron lacks the customary pun and innuendo format, largely opting for characterisation and consequence to provide the humour. In fact, the somewhat puerile series of laboured misunderstandings and forced circumstance reminds one more of Terry and June ... so it's appropriate that Terry Scott is present, mugging futilely throughout.

Some dialogue exchanges have a bit of the old magic, such as this between Scott and Cope: "What about a little drink?" "Oh, no, no, I never touch it." "Oh. Cigarette then?" "No, I never touch them." "That leaves only one thing to offer you." "I never touch that either." That said, while a funny man in his own right (livening up the duller episodes of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) no end), you do feel that Cope isn't quite tapped in to the self-parodying Carry On idealology and that Bernard Bresslaw dressed as a nurse would be far funnier. This does actually happen, in part, though only for the last fifteen minutes.

Williams attempting to seduce Hattie Jacques while Charles Hawtrey is hiding in a cupboard is pure drawer room farce, but lacks the irony to carry it off. That said, Williams's description of premarital relations is priceless: "You don't just go into the shop and buy enough for the whole room, you tear yourself off a little strip and try it first!" "That may be so," counters Jacques, "but you're not going to stick me up against a wall." Williams really comes to life in his scenes with Hattie, and you can never get bored of hearing a tin whistle whenever someone accidentally flashes their knickers.

Carry On Matron is not a bad film by any means, just a crushingly bog-standard one.


CARRY ON MATRON was released in 1972 and it's becoming clear that the series has reached a natural end with the best entries like CLEO , UP THE KYBER and SCREAMING being from the mid to late 60s

In itself MATRON is by no means bad it's just that we've seen it all before with a thin plot ( A bunch of spivs trying to break into a hospital to steal a supply of contraceptive pills which they plan to sell to third world countries ) surrounded by gags of a slightly amusing though unsophisticated nature . I think that's where the problem lies - The gags aren't all that amusing with the unsophisticated nature starting to show its age . Did we need another movie that uses a man dressed up as a woman in order to drive the plot ? Perhaps the worst criticism I can make is that I saw CARRY ON MATRON this afternoon , less that twelve hours ago and I have a problem in trying to remember a very funny line . That's a serious problem for a comedy


It's interesting to see what shape Pierce Brosnan's career was in before Bond arrived on the scene. In this "tense" thriller, Pierce Brosnan plays the gentle Patrick, who works leading ghetto kids on "confidence courses". He romances a woman, who has a bog-standard mop-top mid-90s kid called Eric. The woman's drunken ex-husband soon arrives on the scene and begins to mess with Pierce.

At one stage Pierce is innocently making "vegeburgers". The husband enters. Pierce resumes making vegeburgers. The husband then assaults Pierce. Little chunks of half-eaten vegeburger call fall from Pierce's mouth. The fight abruptly ends without showing the outcome. This is as good as the film gets.


Who me? No, I'm not kidding. That's what it really says on the video case.

Plot; short version: Pretty woman stands around smiling. This, for some reason, makes all men kill each other.

"Find Ariel...Where's Ariel...Can't Find Ariel..." She's right behind you, you idiot...

Most of what can be said about this horrendous little Space Opera has already been said, looks like.

A bunch of corny actors playing mostly convicts come in after the first selection of actors is knocked off very quickly. Then they get knocked off in the same way. Every scene is broadcast nearly fifteen minutes in advance. Perhaps it was a drawing of straws to see which actors had the most screen time and bigger pay check. The alien virus/hologram/VR witch/glitch seems physically powerless and doesn't do a thing. Why can't she just stay in the computer instead of doing her "teleporting vampire" routine? (Actually, it would've been more interesting if she had been a vampire, or doing more than just standing around looking at people, which is all she ever does. This is enough to make all the men kill each other. Go figure...)

This isn't really a space flick. There are far more shots of the old western trail, 1950's Easy Rider trail, Film noir's night club scene, even a jog on the beach in fantasy-land, none of which has any real depth or even makes any sense. The night club scene is in black and white, of course. Worked with "The Wizard of Oz". Doesn't work so well, here. This is probably a good thing, as those few shots they DO show of space are depressingly silly. You will probably cry during those moments, especially upon seeing that swirling "space ship", which looks about three inches long.

Nothing is felt for any of the characters, not because they are convicts or have no personality, but because they are in serious need of acting lessons, except for Billy Dee Williams who really does look depressed and at a loss, probably by being in this work...

This is one of those movies that, when viewed with friends, is going to cause some extremely "loud" silences, especially when the nerd throws out his attempt at comic one-liners (including the line about French-kissing a meteor...? Did I hear that right? Perhaps not...)

The original virtual reality girls get "killed", which means nothing, as they are not even real to begin with. Well, the other "characters" aren't, either, but that's beside the point. Haha.

What's kind of funny is that the scene that graces the video case is some sort of skull-horror-alien looking thing (green filter added on top of that, to give it more of a...uh...green look), which is actually the android after he gets killed and ultimately has nothing to do with anything else afoot.

Another odd deal I noticed. Whenever there is an explosion (at least on my cheap DVD copy), everything becomes highly pixelated. I don't mean a LITTLE pixelated, I mean HUGE blocks about 1/16th the size of the screen. Wow.


As usual, on IMDb, going by the majority vote instead of the "weighted average" is far more indicative of the movie's entertainment value. In this case, the majority gives it a "one". How right they are! To start my review, I'll first admit that I am completely clueless as to why this movie is titled "Alien Intruder". It does involve space and even an "alien" (I suppose), but there's no rhyme or reason (at all) for anything in the long run, at least, no actual plot basis or resolution that I can make out anywhere.

There are quite a few scenes that are so atrocious (with regard to both the lines, the timing, and how they are spoken), that it far exceeds the weird feeling you get when watching similar really bad movies. I have no idea about that part near the beginning where an electronic Bugs Bunny seems to be ranting about something.

The "plot" solely involves an area of space known as the G-Spot, sorry, make that G-Sector...and a virtual reality program infected with some sort of alien(?) virus. I think it is alien since the image of the otherwise normal Ariel appears as a photographic negative.

For most of the movie, we see people getting shot with space weapons, falling out of lofts, and seemingly endless, pointless close shots of "Where's Ariel?", "Can't find Ariel" (pointless because most of the other shots INCLUDE interaction with Ariel, anyway - whatever) on a computer monitor. Commander Skyler (Billy Dee), sits and watches each fantasy of the convict's VR programs hoping to find this Alien virus and become one with it...??? Or maybe I missed something...

Billy Dee Williams took a few courses on "how to act in despair" prior to the filming of this. We know this because he spends a lot of time moving his fingers down over his face and looking mournful.

The docking scene with the nose of one ship going into the rear of the other was semi-hilarious at least, and provided for a laugh in addition to the early scenes where we see several shots of the ship as it is just spinning in a circle, looking much like a Lego experiment gone awry.

It seems everyone dies in this movie, so why bother? Even the VR females get killed, as if that is supposed to mean anything (especially since everyone else dies anyway)...outrageous.

Because of the money I save on groceries, I won't rant about wanting my money back that I paid for the DVD of this. The dollar that I saved on that bag of vanilla wafers paid for this reviewer's time.

I'll just add that the story itself, at least as a novel, and with far more detail added, could probably be quite interesting with the right author.

1/10


When a friend gave me a boxed set of "12 Amazing Scifi/Horror Movies!" I was understandably a little cautious. But, since the item was a gift, I really didn't truly pay my common sense much heed. After all....movies for free! So what if they are a little ropey. After much consideration, Alien Intruder was the first of those movies. Ironically, it was first choice because it looked the best of the bunch. All I can say is, if this is the best of them, I shudder to think what the rest are like.

On the surface, it had some good things going for it. Four (count 'em!) actors that I was familiar with. Billy Dee Williams, Tracy Scoggins, Maxwell Caulfield and Jeff Conaway. I told myself..."Billy and Tracy have been in some good scifi (Star Wars and Babylon 5, respectively) so they wouldn't sign up for a turkey. Max is a veteran soap actor who never really managed to break into film....but not too shoddy an actor. An Jeff....well...he's done the good and the bad as far as films and TV go." I was soon to discover that Jeff had decided to add "the ugly" to his repertoire of movies.

The first clue was in the opening scenes. Jeff mugs his way with gusto through an "I'm mad" scene before finally killing himself. An amusing cameo performance, really. Unfortunately this is, without much exaggeration, the highlight of the film. It goes downhill from there.

Next up we have the commander of the mission (Williams) who is being sent out to see what happened to Jeff and his crew busy picking his new shipmates from among the ranks of the criminal element. But this assortment aren't so much the Dirty Dozen - more like the Unconvincing Foursome. Plus, one of the crims, a computer hacker, is shown in his cell working away on a laptop computer. Isn't that a bit like letting a murderer run a gun shop in the slammer? Pretty lame prison, if you ask me.

When they finally take off the effects are truly horrible. It looks like the spaceship model was knocked up in an afternoon by some bored 8 year old who had parts left over from his Airfix kits.

But the horror doesn't stop there. Whilst on route to the area where Jeff's ship vanished, the criminal crew are rewarded for their good behaviour by being given weekends of virtual reality, in which they indulge their male fantasies. All well and good, and the use of scenes from their fantasies serves as an introduction to the "Alien Menace" which begins to appear there. But did they have to drag it out for quite sooooo loooooong? Alien Intruder? Alien Boring, more like.

Finally they make it to G-Sector and the alien presence makes them fight against each other for her affections until only good old Max is left. The ending, in truly optimistic rubbish film vein, hints at a sequel - as if! Also making an appearance in this movie is a character I'll nickname the "Sweatdroid". He's supposed to be an android, but apparently that fact was lost on the make-up crew, who provided him with sweaty features at any opportunity. But don't worry, he's just there to make up the body count numbers at the end.

Williams and Scoggins, to be truthful, do very little in the film. They only just barely stay awake, let alone act. And, as I mentioned earlier, Jeff gets an early trip to the showers, so his manicness isn't allowed to enlighten much of the film. Max tries his best, as do a couple of the other cast members, but the movie is just direly atrocious, to be honest.

The one, and only, half-way imaginative thing this movie offers is the ship naming convention. They are all named after musicians - Holly, Presley, Joplin. The rest of the film is bland and uninspired.

Made in 1992, I had thought, on initial viewing, it was one of those 80's straight-to-video jobs. Looks like they still made crap movies well into the 90's, it seems.

It's best avoided. Even as a beer n chips movie this film is a stinker, but at least you can fast forward it, I suppose.


I couldn't believe it. I had to rub my eyes a few times. Was it true?

Yes, there were Billy Dee Williams, Jeff Conaway, Maxwell Caulfield and Tracy Scoggins - all of them have some manner of talent but here they all were in what basically adds up to a Cinemax-style skin flick set on board a spaceship!

Sad as it is, "Alien Intruder" tries to be unique, with a computer virus/alien demon/harpy/whatever else you want to call her named Ariel (Scoggins) infiltrating this sort-of high-tech virtual reality station on board a spaceship where four men are allowed to live out their fantasies as the system is over-seen by their captain (Williams).

Interesting? Maybe, but here everything just plays out like a well-padded episode of "Red Shoe Diaries". Williams out-classes everything right and left, and looks like he'd rather be doing anything else, ANYWHERE else. Ah, the things people do for money....

The FX are pretty static, maybe even less than what you'd expect for a straight-to-video cheapie like this. Unfortunately, even the female nudity is less than you'd expect. SEXUAL INNUENDO is the real star here and, of course, it gets ALL the best scenes.

If you like a movie that's all tease and no brains, check out "Alien Intruder". Of course, you'll probably have to look no further than Cinemax at 2 or 3 in the morning.

No stars, not even for what star power this flick can muster.

Leave this one lost in space.


This tiresome, plodding Las Vegas casino heist movie in almost impossible to watch and get involved in. It's something you 'look at' if you have absolutely nothing else better to do. The only two decent things in this movie are both attached to gorgeous Stella Stevens and one spends the entire program hoping she'll fall out of one of those skimpy tops she wears. Many great shots of mid-70s Las Vegas (when it was still a cool place to visit) and the fashions of the day are good for a giggle as well. Otherwise, one big yawn. The Rhino dvd has a very good widescreen transfer but even at under 10 bucks it still ain't worth it in my humble opinion.