In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgsrobots with human featuresthat have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.

Only one force can stop Jōb's death marchthe Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.

In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.

Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon).


I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, "Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick." Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, "Ah, nobody'll ever notice."

As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is "Citizen Kane" compared to his brain-numbing "Adrenaline: Feel the Rush", for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, "Alright already, go to something else"), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derrière). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.


This movie will promote the improvement of the mind. Read a book! It's incredible anyone would think this movie deserved the time and investment to make. I've seen "B" movies before but the "C" movie has just been invented. I didn't think I would ever enjoy Power Rangers since my kids stopped watching but I found myself looking for the videos fifteen minutes into "Knights." High school productions are better than this and the actors involved should erase this from their resume. Embarrassment is one of many descriptions that come to mind. My roommate, who loves these types of movies even turned it off. Now that has to really tell you something. If you watch this movie, and like it, I will pray for you.


There is a word for this sort of film, and that word is "drivel." It was drivel when it was a VHS rental, and it's drivel on satellite re-runs now.

It might fool you, because it has 2 moderately well-known names in Kistofferson and Henriksen, reasonable soundtrack music, and nice Monument Valley scenery.

It also has some curly haired woman who fights a lot.

If that's all you want from a movie, then maybe this will keep you happy.

It's still drivel, though.


You can't really go far when the initial story isn't all that great. The premise of cyborg's needing blood is just dopey.

The script is blasé'. The actors don't have much to work with. The sets were staged out in the desert to cut costs. It's a trademark that if the background is the desert, then the movie has no budget.

Lack of budget is okay, if there's a story. "Solarbabies" and "Blood of Champions" are examples of decent work from no $. but this movie looks as if they had to scrape their change together just to buy the cameraman a sandwich. Again, forgivable if only the story didn't just plain suck.

Finally, this movie commits the biggest crime of all: It doesn't finish! It simply ends as if it's a commercial break away from the rest of the movie. But the rest never comes. Just odd.

Just bad.


someone needed to make a car payment... this is truly awful... makes jean Claude's cyborg look like gone with the wind... this is an hour I wish I could sue to get back... luckily it produced severe somnolence... from which I fell asleep. how can actors of this caliber create this dog? I would rather spend the time watching algae grow on the side of a fish tank than partake of this wholly awful concoction of several genre. I now use the DVD as a coaster on my coffee table. $5.99 at walmart is far too much to spend on this movie... if you really have to have it, wait till they throw them out after they have carried them on the inventory for several years and are frustrated that they would not sell.

please for the love of god let this movie die of obscurity.


Vampire cyborgs rule the world and use the blood of humans as fuel, however there is going to be a shift of power thanks to a renegade android (Kris Kristofferson) and a warrior woman (Kathly Long) as they face off against Lance Henriksen and Gary Daniels (Who play the cyborgs in this ridiculous movie) Of all the questions left unanswered by this dreadful movie, the most poignant is Who's idea was it to cast country singer Kris Kristofferson as a cyborg warrior who is able to give as good as he gets. No, don't get me wrong I could see Kristofferson as a vigilante or something but not as a cyborg. Strangely one suspects that this was written for Dolph Lundgren, however Lundgren must have had the wisdom to not do it. However despite the disastrous casting, Kristofferson is easily the most enjoyable thing about the movie. He gives a performance far more human then the inexpressive Kathy Long. (And Kristofferson is playing a robot) despite the miscasting, Kristofferson provides the few moments of interest. Lance Henriksen is slumming and Gary Daniels is wasted but basically Knights is baffling failure. You stand back in horror wondering who the hell thought that this was even a good idea on paper. (This is a movie where a dismembered Kristofferson is fighting robots in a backpack) Worst of all it ends in a what if sequel, thankfully this has yet to materialize although I still have nightmares at the proposition of the likelihood of such an event.

* out of 4-(Bad)


Once in a while you get amazed over how BAD a film can be, and how in the world anybody could raise money to make this kind of crap. There is absolutely No talent included in this film - from a crappy script, to a crappy story to crappy acting. Amazing...


This move is about as bad as they come. I was, however forced to give it a 2 for the scenery. There are many great shots of the southwest including many in Monument Valley, one of the most breathtaking places in the US. It is also, starting with John Ford, one of the most filmed. In fact one scene with Kris and the girl was filmed on a place called John Ford point.


Knights was just a beginning of a series, a pilot, one might say. The plot (I really shouldn't call it that, there wasn't any plot) wasn't logical at all and there were many mistakes, like [warning, I'm summarizing the plot]:

In the beginning of the movie someone said that there was only a couple of those cyborgs (the bad guys) but after the climax, Nea found out that there were many many more left of them. And it was told that cyborgs were hard to kill, but after a month's training, Nea could kill them with a single blow.

The movie was just pure kicking. I wasn't surprised at all, when I found out that the leading star was a kick boxer.

There was ONE positive thing in the whole movie: it really gave a great deal of laughter when watching it and talking about it with my friends. I recommend watching it, if you are in need of laughter.


Still a sucker for Pyun's esthetic sense, I liked this movie, though the "unfinished" ending was a let-down. As usual, Pyun develops a warped sense of humour and Kathy Long's fights are extremely impressive. Beautifully photographed, this has the feel it was done for the big screen.


This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!

The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.

In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.

I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".

I rated this movie 1/10.


and it doesn't help rohmer's case that a few years later Syberberg came along and made a staggeringly great piece of work on the same subject (with a little help from Wagner).

maybe this movie didn't look so paltry when it came out, without the syberberg film to compare it to, which was probably shot on an even smaller sound stage with fewer resources. I actually can't recall at the moment whether there are horses in the syberberg film. all I know is, the German version is pure magic, while this one looks like some college production documented on film for archival purposes.

the music... la musique... isn't even credited here on IMDb... but someone based it on 'airs from the 12th-14th centuries" or something... well it isn't a great help to the film. it comes off as inauthentic and cheesy, comme le frommage mon cher!!!

rohmer is one of those french auteurs who likes his leading men generally quite unattractive, too, and that doesn't help matters. syberberg's Parsifal was adorable, and can be seen on German television today selling some kind of special bicycle he invented. .. .

I shudder to think what watching the syberberg on video is like. I remember that the last time I saw the film in a theater, the print was so bad that the experience was a whopping 5 hour travesty. But even then it would have to surpass what this version has to offer, I'm afraid.

points for earnestness, for chutzpah, but... this film simply needed beau-coup more bucks. it doesn't look like a medieval manuscript it looks CHEAPO! BON MARCHE!! oh and yeah, it just ends very arbitrarily with Parsifal going to church and this cheesy passion play being interjected... blah!


This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.

Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.


I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his "career" and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!


First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?

What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are "human". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, "That monkey is almost human!" (that's actually a direct quote).

Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs "smile", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.

I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps "celebrating Christmas", and this was enough to turn my stomach.

But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, "Want out. Hurry go."

Obscure references are made to "stress tests" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a "mother figure". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.

One chimp named "Washoe" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species.


Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.


Get your brewskies out and enjoy this flawed action flick. Speakman's considerable kempo skill (nice spin kicks, decent with the sticks - poor couch!) is the only redeeming quality of a movie that just cries bad acting. The plot isn't half bad; just executed pretty poorly. But if you're seeing this movie for anything other than martial arts, you're missing the boat entirely. And for a movie that is supposed to take place in Koreatown, way way too few Korean actors (even extras).


The Perfectly Stupid Weapon. I think the guys dancing at the beginning of one of Steven Segal's movies was intented to mock Jeff doing his forms to dance music at the beginning of this stupid movie. The plot is predictable, the fights were fair and Jeff acts about as well as the sofa he beats with some sort of weapon in one scene.


Back (again) in Scotland, Lassie is (again) on trial for her life. Because the faithful dog sleeps on her master's grave, she must be put to death, according to law. Oddly, it is also explained that Lassie had no "legal" owner, which is, apparently, also against an old Scottish law. If, after three days, no owner is located, dogs must be destroyed. Edmund Gwenn (as John Traill) pleads Lassie's case, which leads to an extended flashback, showing Lassie's adoption by Donald Crisp (as John "Jock" Gray).

Although it's based on an interesting, original story ("Greyfriars Bobby"), "Challenge to Lassie" revisits several earlier Lassie situations; and, it does not improve upon them. Comparatively speaking, this one is sloppy and unexciting; and, it's a disappointing follow-up to "The Sun Comes Up" (1949) *******. Geraldine Brooks (as Susan Brown) and several of the other performers may be charming, but can't elevate this one. Little Jimmy Hawkins (from "It's a Wonderful life") is among the notable children supporting Lassie; much later, he will grow up to marry "Dark Shadows"' bewitching "Angelique" (Lara Parker).


This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.


William S. Hart (as Jim Treen), the most eligible bachelor in Canyon City, is finally getting hitched, to pretty blonde waitress Leona Hutton (as Molly Stewart). His fiancée doesn't know it, but Mr. Hart is secretly the western town's "Most Wanted" bandit. However, Hart is planning to go straight, due to his marriage plans. Unfortunately, Ms. Hutton discovers Hart's secret stash, whilst cleaning up his untidy cabin; so, she calls off the wedding. Next, Hutton succumbs to the charms of mining swindler Frank Borzage (as W. Sloane Carey).

Serviceable entertainment from superstar Hart; he was ranked no less than #1 at the box office, by Quigley Publications, for the years 1915 and 1916 (ahead of Mary Pickford). The principles perform capably. Later on, Frank Borzage was quite a director; and Leona Hutton, a suicide...

**** A Knight of the Trails (8/20/15) William S. Hart ~ William S. Hart, Leona Hutton, Frank Borzage


A resurrected wrapped monster goes on a murdering binge. A lunatic is seeking revenge against living members of a previous expedition. Universal seems to be running out of wrapping as well as new ideas. Most of the budget was probably spent on Lon Chaney Jr. to star as Kharis, the Mummy.

Other players are George Zucco, Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, Dick Foran and Elyse Knox.

How much longer can this madness continue?


Cheap, mediocre sequel to the successful "The Mummy's Hand" has presumably dead evil Professor Andoheb(George Zucco)preparing his predecessor Mehemet Bey(Turhan Bey)for the quest of revenge overseas to America using mummy Kharis(Lon Chaney, Jr who has no reason being in the disguise..any stunt man could do the same credible work lumbering around and choking victims)in the goal of killing the surviving members of the Banning family whose patriarch Stephen(Dick Foran)and assistant Babe Hanson(Wallace Ford)retrieved the mummified corpse of Princess Ananka from her tomb in Egypt..Andoheb considers this an outlandish act of desecration and wants the family to suffer for doing such an awful deed towards an ancient Egyptian custom. Bey and the mummy Kharis find a nice hideaway in a cemetery where the High Priest of Karnak can work as a caretaker in disguise. Every Full Moon, Bey will feed Kharis a form of liquid derived of several Tana leaves which will keep him not only alive but subservient to his master's wishes. Bey commands Kharis to kill Stephen and his sister Jane(Mary Gordon), while also biding time for Babe to return so that he will become victim # 3. Dr. John Banning(John Hubbard)plans to wed Isobel(Elyse Knox), but doesn't know that Bey secretly covets his fiancé making plans to kidnap her with Kharis' help. John's life is in danger because of his father..he's also the last remaining member of the Banning line. If Bey has Isobel, there's no chance of any more Bannings being born. The police must find Kharis and the one responsible for his carnage..Bey.

This film is a continuation from HAND set years later as members of that film, Foran, Ford & Zucco all appear in "aging" make-up providing wrinkles showing the gaps in time as Andoheb has been preparing for the deaths of the Bannings. The cornball romance of John and Isobel seems merely in this plot so that Bey will screw up endangering his perfect plan which was being carried out successfully before he loused it up. And, Bey merely sees her frolicking with John on the grass..the whole "love-at-first-sight" rubbish really didn't wash for me. Plus you have the mummy being able to kill people with one arm..is any mummy really THAT powerful? This film also uses a ton of footage from the previous film to save budget on this sequel to it. There really isn't that much story here and yes, typical of Universal monster pictures, even in America a mob of people will light..ho hum..torches going after Kharis. You know how it'll end..John and the super-powerful Kharis will square off in some huge mansion with fire burning all around them with the evil one being engulfed in flame.


Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."

The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!

Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.

Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!


1st watched 5/27/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir - Harold Young): The 3rd Universal mummy movie is about the same as the first two as far as the final result from the viewer's perspective. The story is similar and the results are ho-hum. This time the story's location is the U.S. as the Egyptian priest's new follower sends a mummy to our country in hopes he can revive him to kill descendants of those who opened the original tomb. This time the mummy is played by Lon Chaney(which doesn't make much of a difference because he's really not asked to do much acting for this character). The new priest becomes a morgue-keeper in the town and sends the mummy out to do his dirty deeds after feeding him the tanna leaf juice. Again, a girl gets in the way, as the priest falls for one of the descendent's fiancé and wants her, yes--- to be immortal with him(haven't we heard this before?). The plan is, of course, thwarted as the townsfolk hunt down the mummy with torches(similar to the Frankenstein monster) and the burning of the creature ends the story...how do they get a sequel?? I guess you'll find out with the next one in the series ?? or not.....


The Mummy's Tomb starts with a review of the events in The Mummy's Hand and then moves the story forward several years and across the ocean to the United States of America where the current high priest and the mummy Kharis set out to wreak havoc and take revenge on those who violated the tomb in the past.

While I absolutely loved "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the mummy Imhotep, and quite liked "The Mummy's Hand" with Tom Tyler as Kharis (which is the direct prequel to this film), I was not as taken with "The Mummy's Tomb".

It is made in a similar style as the previous film and has a somewhat similar plot albeit in a new setting. Lon Chaney Jr is okay as Kharis, but doesn't really stand out. And I guess that's my main criticism of this movie-that nothing really stands out. There's nothing really terrible here, but nothing really outstanding either, so the viewer is left with a rather bland mummy's tale.


This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.

Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?

Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.

Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).

The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.

I'll give it a 3.


Jenny Neumann (from the sexploitation flick MISTRESS OF THE APES, the American slasher HELL NIGHT and others) is Helen Selleck, an American actress who gets a lead role in an Australian stage production. She's a virgin because as a little girl she saw her mom having sex and then accidentally caused the car accident that killed her. Meanwhile, a black-gloved killer prowls around the theater slashing up people with shards of glass.

***MAJOR SPOILER***

The killer is obviously Helen (she speaks in her dead mother's voice, washes blood off her hands after the murders and is seen killing a child molester with a broken bottle as a little girl!), but this has gratuitous heavy-breathing POV camera-work and conceals the identity of the murderer until the very end like it's supposed to be some big surprise.

The entire cast seems obsessed with talking about, having or trying to have sex, and, in one case, even blackmailing their way into getting laid. There's quite a bit of nudity and blood, but there's no sense of continuity, the photography is murky and the editing (by Colin Eggleston, who also scripted and produced) is terrible. The theater setting for a slasher film predates Soavi's film of the same name and Argento's OPERA (both of which are better than this one ) by five years though, and Neumann is pretty hot.


This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous "Conditioned Reflex" experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in "Nightmares" is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special!

Regarding the quality of "Nightmares" as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl  Helen Selleck  is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than "Nightmares" and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to "enjoy". However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. "Nightmares" is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible.


I understand that this movie is made for kids and as a parent I have sat through many movies that don't particularly hold my interest, but I can appreciate from a constructive point of view in how it is being received by my children. Parents are supposed to be encouraged after all to take part in their children's activities and to monitor the quality of the entertainment that they view so there should be something that appeals to an adult audience on some level even in children's movies. Disney has always understood this which is why it is so hard to fathom how it could allow such a complete piece of drek to bear their name.

Technically, the sound editing is horrible and all dialog sounds over-dubbed and unnatural. Personally I hate that, but it was doubly awful considering the dialog itself seemed as though it was written by a 12 year old for a school project. The "acting" reminded me of a school play and none of the child actors had any range of emotion in their voices. Thankfully it was a very short movie.

Now, before I come off like a video-geek measuring a kids movie with an adult yard stick, the one thing that can save even the worst children's movie is a positive message. Far be it from me to determine how a message has to be delivered so long as the right one is. Let us take a walk through this film to see what messages are given:

If you are lost, don't worry, you will inevitably find your way home.

Approach wild animals without any fear.

You can win any competition just because you "know" you can.

and my favorite, the final message left in the film:

It's okay to disobey authority figures and do what you think is right.


OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.


This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.

As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.

Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.

But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians.

So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline.


Cornel Wilde and three dumbbells search for sunken treasure in the south Atlantic.

The treasure-hunters led by Wilde fight a group of territorial sharks with cute little sneers on their hungry faces. Wilde and his merry men must find a way to take themselves off the menu so they can begin excavating an old Spanish galleon filled with gold bullion.

After the crew engages in a small eternity of pushing, shoving, arguing, and listening to Wilde's annoying health tips, 5 crazy convicts board the boat and complicate things. Now it is a battle of wits as to who gets the treasure and who gets to see what the inside of a shark's stomach looks like.

At least Wilde is in shape wearing exactly the same thing he wore in 'The Naked Prey' 10 years earlier and he has remained in excellent condition.

Made on a budget of 75 cents.


Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it.

To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...

Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though.


By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration.


Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who will probably only be remembered as one of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (they have pills for that now!) is probably the weakest element of this show. It really continues the tired formula of the Highlander Series- The hero immortal encounters another immortal with flashbacks about the last time they met, but there is some conflict, and there is a sword fight at the end where you have a cheap special effects sequence.

Then you have the character of Nick Wolf. Basically, your typical unshaven 90's hero, with the typical "Sexual tension" storyline. (Seriously, why do you Hollywood types think sexual tension is more interesting than sex.) This was a joint Canadian/French production, so half the series takes place in Vancouver imitating New York, and the other half is in Paris... Just like Highlander did.


In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.

Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.

I only wish I could vote 0/10


This is a film that had a lot to live down to . on the year of its release legendary film critic Barry Norman considered it the worst film of the year and I'd heard nothing but bad things about it especially a plot that was criticised for being too complicated

To be honest the plot is something of a red herring and the film suffers even more when the word " plot " is used because as far as I can see there is no plot as such . There's something involving Russian gangsters , a character called Pete Thompson who's trying to get his wife Sarah pregnant , and an Irish bloke called Sean . How they all fit into something called a " plot " I'm not sure . It's difficult to explain the plots of Guy Ritchie films but if you watch any of his films I'm sure we can all agree that they all posses one no matter how complicated they may seem on first viewing . Likewise a James Bond film though the plots are stretched out with action scenes . You will have a serious problem believing RANCID ALUMINIUM has any type of central plot that can be cogently explained

Taking a look at the cast list will ring enough warning bells as to what sort of film you'll be watching . Sadie Frost has appeared in some of the worst British films made in the last 15 years and she's doing nothing to become inconsistent . Steven Berkoff gives acting a bad name ( and he plays a character called Kant which sums up the wit of this movie ) while one of the supporting characters is played by a TV presenter presumably because no serious actress would be seen dead in this

The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's utterly forgettable . I saw it a few days ago and immediately after watching I was going to write a very long a critical review warning people what they are letting themselves in for by watching , but by now I've mainly forgotten why . But this doesn't alter the fact that I remember disliking this piece of crap immensely


Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?

Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?

No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.

I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.

And that was on cheap night.

Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.

Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.

Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.

Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.

The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say "Fak!" for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.

Otherwise, bargepoles required.


I read James Hawes book. It was pretty neat, not great, but entertaining enough. Without having read the book I wouldn't have had the slightest idea what was going on, and it was still a stretch with that knowledge.

Literally every element of this film is abysmal in ways I do not have the capacity to describe. Half digested fish could have made a better film with matchsticks and dayglo lipstick.

Never before or since as a film made me feel so angry. The Mattress sequels came closest, but even they never reached such depths of utterly putrid nauseating appallingness that this bilge did.

Since wasting 90 minutes of my life witnessing this plague on human kind I am now unable to even look at any book by James Hawes without feeling angry. That is the depth of hatred I have for this piece of sh*t. No, that's unfair. Let me apologise to all fecal matter for comparing you to the otherworldly evil that is Rancid Aluminium.

Plain and simply a cancer on the world of cinema.


I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.

I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.

The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage.


I felt Rancid Aluminium was a complete waste of two hours, the plot line was thin and confusing, the prestigious line up of players had some terrible dialogue and extremely questionable accents. The camera work was somewhat experimental in places and although it could be seen what the director was trying to convey, it just made it even more difficult to watch. One of the most annoying aspects of Rancid Aluminium is the over use of narration throughout the film almost like the entire plot is being dictated to the audience. The best performances weren't anything to do with acting. In fact probably the most convincing performance came from Dani Behr of all people, although admittedly does play the stereotypical office secretary. DO NOT under any circumstance go and see this movie unless you need a reason to catch up on some lost sleep, there are certainly better ways to spend your hard earned cash.


In the wake of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the British film industry rapidly became swamped with bad gangster films in the late '90s-early '00s that seem even more desperate today than they did then. In one of the all-time great cases of pearls-from-swine, the producers of Rancid Aluminium brazenly plastered the quote 'The best film of the century' from one review all over the ads while omitting the rest of the sentence pointing out that that was only because, at the time of writing, it was the only film that had been released in 2000. Looking at it today it's hard to imagine how it ever got made, uniting a cast that was briefly considered the cream of Cool Britannia's Lads Mags Brigade  Rhys Ifans, Sadie Frost, Nick Moran and Joseph Fiennes  but now merely a guarantee of a turkey every time in a confused adaptation of a confused James Hawes novel. That the plot is never explained could be down to the possibility that no-one really knows what it is, or perhaps simply don't think it matters. Something to do with Ifans' businessman being set up with Steven Berkoff's homicidal Russian crime lord in a money-laundering or investment scheme (it's never clear which because no-one ever asks) by Fiennes' crooked Irish accountant, who expects the Russians to kill off Ifans so he can take over his failing company. Things get increasingly confused and underexplained from there on, Ifans alternates between shouting about how terrible his life is while juggling visits to the fertility clinic and sleeping with his secretary and Tara Fitzgerald's ludicrously accented Russian temptress, Berkoff keeps on saying "Bizniss" and "Francis Drake" and Fiennes does a decent Irish accent while proving that just because he played a great writer in Shakespeare in Love doesn't mean he's any judge of good writing when it comes to film scripts.

When the most convincing performances come from Keith Allen and Dani Behr, you know a film is in deep trouble. With Poland standing in for a Russia filled with people with Polish accents and a strange score that veers from John Barry pastiche to lounge music to Ennio Morricone spaghetti Western on a stylophone budget, it fails completely in the cool stakes it's aiming for and ends up in a curious overplotted but almost plot less limbo all its own, sitting there like a joke shop dog turd.


I have given this film an elevated rating of 2 stars as I personally appear in minutes 42 and 43 of the film....the road side bar scene in Russia. In this scene the director of the movie offered me the immortal line - "50 Dollars..you Drink and Talk", but I felt that my Polish counterpart could speak in a more convincing Russian accent than I could, so I declined to take this speaking part on. I was slightly starstruck as this was my first Film experience....and who knows... these lines could have ended up there with lines such as "I'll be Back" and "Quite Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn". Had I spoken that one line then my name would appear in the credits of Rancid Aluminium as 'Heavy 1' instead of the name of Ryszard Janikowski.

As time goes on, I am counting myself lucky that my name is in no way connected to this film.

Even though I spent a whole day on the set, in South Wales hot-spot Barry Island, no one could tell me what the actual storyline was. The caterers and the wardrobe lady all concurred that it appeared to have a lot of swearing and nudity in it..... things could certainly have been worse if I'd ended up naked in this most dreadful of films....

Still.....On the positive side....I got chatting to Rhys Ifans during one break. I had no idea who he was, as "Notting Hill" was yet to be released, and not an inkling that he might be Welsh. Made various inappropriate comments about what an awful pit Barry Island had become since my childhood visits there in the 70s and 80s. It was only when Keith Allen showed up that I realised I was in a quality production........


This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.

The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!


Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE!


this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film.....


There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie!


I shall not waste my time writing anything much further about how every aspect of this film is indescribably bad. That has been done in great detail already, many times over. The 'plot' started out as a very uninspiring cockney wide-boy/gangster-by-numbers bore and very quickly descended into an utter shambles. Anybody who pretends that they can see some hidden masterpiece inside this awful mess is just kidding themselves. It is now 7 or 8 years since I watched it during its 1 week run at the cinema before it was pulled, yet it sticks in my mind for being easily the most terrible film I have ever seen.

I am only making these comments, and indeed the only reason I went to see the film, is because of the amusing fact that my brother Eddie appeared in it as the second 'heavy' in the pub scene. It was his hands that thrust a zippo lighter towards Rhys Ifan's face in the bar in 'Russia' (it was actually filmed at the former Butlins holiday camp at Barry Island). My brother has absolutely no acting experience whatsoever - he had recently joined an extras' agency and this was his first part. Having seen the film, it appeared that nobody in it required any acting experience whatsoever.

I remember there were about 8 people in the whole cinema - and this was just a couple of days after it had been released. I have never heard of an other film that was so unpopular and disappeared so fast - and rightly so. In case you were thinking of renting this film on DVD, I would advise you instead to put your two pound coins in a fire until they are red-hot, then jam them into your eye sockets. This will probably be a lot less painful than watching the film.


This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films.


Just so that you fellow movie fans get the point about this film, I decided to write another review. I missed a few things out last time...

First, the script. Second, the acting. Third, Jesus Christ what were they thinking making a piece of garbage like this and then expecting us to enjoy it when there are no redeeming features whatsoever from beginning to end except when Joseph Fiennes finally gets blown away in a very unexciting climax!!!

I can't believe I wasted my money on this when I could have given it to a homeless person or a busker or SOMETHING!

Are you getting the picture?


How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!


...the first film I had to walk out on. And it was the cast and crew pre-screening (Not that I was involved, I hasten to add). I made it through the first hour, so I reckon I'm just qualified to comment, but that was my limit.

Like other comments here, how did this get through any kind of QA. An accumulation of the very worst in dialogue, the epitome of wooden acting, awful casting, all wrapped together without a plot.

Tara Fitzgerald's casting was bizarre, almost comic. She possesses the worst Russian accent in movie history.

As I left the screening, the director and producers were drinking in a bar outside the cinema. They obviously couldn't sit through it again either.


We know from other movies that the actors are good but they cannot save the movie. A waste of time. The premise was not too bad. But one workable idea (interaction between real bussinessmen and Russian mafia) is not followed by an intelligent script


I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.

And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.

Avoid this film like the plague.


Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.

I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time.


I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.


Okay. So there aren't really that many great movies around. Recent gems like American Dream, The Straight Story and even Toy Story 2 don't normally come so close together. But boy (!) does this film counter-balance the quality.

I have NO idea what these people thought they were doing. Are the financiers in this world so easily convinced to fund such a crock of ****? I can just see it now...

Producer - "So we've got Joe Fiennes. He's cute as a button and was pretty good in Shakespeare in Love. And we've got Rhys Ifans, who isn't cute but was cool in Notting Hill. We'll mix in a really mediocre score, a few forgettable post-Britpop tunes, hemlock root and lizard brains and hey presto you've got the worst film of the new millennium.And believe me, it's gonna be a hard job to make anything as bad as this in the next thousand years."

The Bank - "I like it! Any unnecessary sex? Bad camera movements? And what about the worst accents this side of Devil's Own?"

Producer - "Yeah, we got plenty of those."

The Bank - "Sounds great, where do we sign?"

Please.


Well, what to say...

Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...

VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"

Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...


There have been some low moments in my life, when I have been bewildered and depressed. Sitting through Rancid Aluminium was one of these.

The warning signs were there. No premiere (even the stars didn't want to attend) and no reviews in magazines. The only reason I sat through the film was in the hope that I might catch up on some sleep.

Nothing in the film was explained. The narration was idiotic. I cheered at one point when the lead of the film appeared to have been shot, then to my growing despair, it was revealed that he hadn't really been shot dampening my joy. I sincerely hope all involved in the film are hanged for this atrocity.

There were some positive aspects, mainly unintentional moments of humour. For example, the scene in which the main character, for some unknown reason feels the need to relieve himself manually in a toilet cubicle, while telling the person in the next cubicle to put his fingers in his ears.

My words cannot explain the anger I feel, so I shall conclude thus.

Rancid Aluminium: for sadists, wastrels, and regressives only who want to torture themselves.


I have not yet decided whether this will replace Anaconda as "The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen".

Even if you ignore the dodgy accents, low production values and appalling camera work this film has absolutely nothing going for it. I only went to see it as I had read the book and wanted to see how they would work the complicated plot into a 2 hour film.

The simple answer is - they didn't. Characters appear with little to no explanation as to who they are and then proceed to play no valuable part in the narrative. Even the main characters act without reason so that by the time the film reaches it's climax you don't care what happens to any of them.

I can accept that books occasionally need to be rewritten to fit into films and that it is perhaps unfair to judge this film against the book it was adapted from. But after my friends and I came out of the cinema I had to spend most of the journey home explaining what was supposed to have happened.

They even change the true meaning of the books title "Rancid Aluminium" by squeezing it into yet another piece of pointless voice over just so they can allow the film to have a cool title.

A real mess of a film from start to finish.


This is absolutely the dumbest movie I've ever seen. What a waste of a splendid cast. That's James Cromwell as the ignoramus playing deputy. I could go on and on, but I would obviously be spending more time on this review than anybody ever did on the script. The only thing this movie is about is us vs. them and how to revel in profane slapstick beyond any reasonable human being's tolerance. This is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen -- and I LOVE James Garner.


I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in "Desperately Seeking Susan"; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!" Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, "Swept Away...", is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for "Worst Actor"), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an "Odd Couple"-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame...


I really wanted to like this movie because the critics have been unkind

to it (to say the least)... but it was terrible. Really terrible. Badly

acted, a witless script, cack handed direction... Watching this film was

like watching a car crash- you want to look away but you keep staring

because you want to see how messy it's going to get. Well, the car is

wrecked and there are no survivors. On the plus side, the cinematography

was nice, made me want to go on holiday, if only to cleanse myself from

this unholy


For years Madonna has tried to prove not only herself, but the public eye, that she can act. Unfortunately, trying too hard while failing to shed her own persona doesn't mix well.

She seems to fare better when she's NOT the star of any movie: if you watch her in supporting performances in DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN (1985) or A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN (1992), she actually comes off looking good. Since the story revolves on other actors, the weight of the expectation is taken off her shoulders by default.

The trouble starts when she is asked to be the star of a movie, regardless the genre. Being the focus of a plot that needs to be told in a visual way, whether it be good, mediocre or plain awful, she has to emote in ways that are akin to an actual movie performance as opposed to a video performance. This is the crucial difference between Madonna and, let's say, Bette Davis, or Meryl Streep. The latter two, even if the movie were to fail (because the visual storytelling lacked some effectiveness in having us relate to it, or because the script fell short, or because the actress per se was just not at her moment), there would be an extra something in their performances that would elevate the movie from being a complete bomb. Both Davis and Streep have had their share: Bette, having a longer career than Streep, in such fare as BUNNY O'HARE (1971) and WICKED STEPMOTHER (1989); Streep in SHE-DEVIL (1989). But at least there's been that naturalism in the way both attacked their roles that made us forget the banality of the movie and watch the performance.

Madonna, on the other hand, not being an especially gifted actress capable of really letting us in on her ability to convey a persona other than herself, fares much worse, and even in the hands of someone as Woody Allen in SHADOWS AND FOG (1992), an inferior classic, she in her pat screen time seems stilted and a little stiff, maybe even nervous, as if she were aware of the cameras and crew and just couldn't let go.

So here she tries yet once again to prove she can act in what is essentially a two-character movie. Guy Ritchie, more known for action movies filled in masculine energy, seems as adrift telling a story closer to someone of the likes of Michaelangelo Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman, who could tell a tale of two people with incredible ease. And at 89 minutes, the events which take place happen in such an unconvincing way that when the final half hour comes along and the story takes a dramatic turn, it doesn't feel sincere. From being an absolute witch with no redeeming values to suddenly being in love, this has to be the most unconvincing 180 degree turn since Fay Dunaway's Laura suddenly discovered her passion for Tommy Lee Jones in THE EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978). Equally unconvincing is Adriano Giannini's nasty turn around the middle of the movie -- it lacks any humor and feels genuinely psychopathic -- and when he gives in to Madonna's love, it's too quick to be believed. Filming this in slow music and a visual montage of lovemaking and beautiful scenery doesn't enhance or add upon this "transformation" from what would have been a story of survival between to unlikeable characters to a love story where both discover each other.

Trying to have an unsatisfying ending works against the movie as well -- it only makes it drag, bog it down, and when Madonna has to be filmed going from hope to devastation in a tight close-up, it feels she's trying too hard. Many an actress have done better in conveying so much doing so little. Hers is a performance more suited to acting styles of the late 20s, early 30s where posturing compensated as acting a part or an emotion.

Could the movie have been better? Of course. There are a myriad of ways to have filmed it in a way that would leave the viewer feeling that these people could at least hope to see each other again -- it's been done before, in OVERBOARD (1987), for example. It could have had an existential undertone in which two very different people have to rely on each other but not necessarily change (to ensure a moral tone). Much dialog and unnecessary erotic scenes could have been spared for a more "silent" film look -- as in PERSONA (1966). It could have even been something of a thriller, providing that the Giannini character have a mean streak as Billy Zane had in DEAD CALM (1989). Even if it would have been done as a sex farce it would have worked better for Madonna as the over the top, uber-control freak getting her comeuppance. But with its mean streaked humor, without at least a glimpse of her character having a softer side that hides behind a mask of bitchdom, and without really defining Giannini's own character, this becomes another misfire trying to look like a battle of the sexes.


and forget this. Completely. If you really need to see Madonna act, rent "Body of Evidence", at least Willem Defoe is in that one.

In this film, while the sets are beautiful, you may want to mute the dialog. You won't miss anything. Bruce Greenwood is wasted, Jeanne Tripplehorn is a prop, and Madonna is so awful, it becomes amusing. Why they had to butcher the original film into this mess, I will never know; guess they thought it was "bankable". Madonna, as an actress, certainly is NOT.

If you rent the original film from 1979, though, you will enjoy it, and the actors in it can actually act. 1/10.


No doubt, when Madonna and Guy Ritchie married, it was because they both thought it would help their movie careers. If you've been through the ordeal of watching "Swept Away," then you know at that level it was a match made in hell. After nearly 20 years of trying to become a respected actress (or "octress" as she might have pronounced it in "The Next Best Thing"), she still can't get out of herself long enough to turn in a performance that anyone with taste could even call decent. And that's the thing that makes people dislike her so much on the screen: that gut feeling that her ego is so inflated that it prevents her from being able to just let go and connect with her audience. If there's any justice in this universe, she just blew her last chance.


*May contain spoilers*

I bent over backwards to be fair to this film. I knew it starred Madonna. I knew it lasted a whole week in theaters. I knew it got a lot of bad reviews. I wasn't expecting a deep and thoughtful examination of class, culture and sexuality like we got in the Italian original. The benefit of the doubt lasted a whole ten minutes.

Madonna plays a rich, pretentious, nit-witted Gorgon who goes on vacation with her henpecked husband and flippant friends (the brunette woman is as bad as Madonna, exhibiting some really dumb facial expressions). Adriano Giannini plays the ship's first-mate who the Madonna character delights in humiliating and treating like dirt in every scene they have together. Why is she such a bitch to him? Simply because the plot requires it so that later when the two of them get marooned on a deserted Mediterranean island the tables will be turned and he will teach her a lesson. Just as inexplicable is how they fall in love despite having nothing in common and having abused each other for two-thirds of the movie.

"Swept Away" is a silly, simplistic, superficial movie from beginning to end. Madonna gives a typically wooden performance. There are many dumb scenes: Madonna singing and dancing atrociously at the demand of Giannini, a fantasy scene with Madonna and a lot of scenes where he slaps her and kicks her in the butt. Guy Ritchie does his "stylish" editing which is laughable here. The film contains some of the worst dialog I've heard in a major movie in several years. The ending is sappy and implausible. It's basically "The Blue Lagoon" meets "Overboard" minus the nudity of the former and the sense of humor of the latter.

Maybe Madonna's ego is so big that she insists on continuing to prove herself as a competent actress. Please give it up, Madge, for our sake as well as yours. This isn't her worst movie though. That distinction still belongs to "Shanghai Surprise". She hasn't made anything worse than that...yet.


*** WARNING! SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN! ***

 This is a semi-autobiographical look at what might happen to Madonna if she were ever to be stranded on a deserted island. There's absolutely no challenge to Madonna in this role, and it shows. She's just Madonna playing Madonna, and she can't even get THAT right. I know what you're saying, you're saying, "How do you know this is what Madonna is really like, you've never met her!" Correct, I haven't, but we all remember "Truth or Dare", don't we? I know Kevin Costner does.

 You would think, in the year 2002, that Madonna might have learned something, one way or the other, from the "crossover" ladies that have also made their way across the silver screen. For goodness' sake, hasn't Madonna seen "Glitter"? Mariah Carey showed the film world HOW IT IS DONE!!! Mariah kicks Madonna's trashy butt to the curb in beauty, talent, screen presence, charisma, characterization, you name it! All we see from this glimpse into Madonna's world is she's the only one in it.

 If there's one thing to be said for Madonna, it is that she's consistent. When she was an MTV darling, she set the world of women's fashion back 20 years. Now, in film, she has set women's roles in film AND society back 20 years, by glamourizing all the most hated, horrible, reprehensible, odious qualities women have been reputed to have locked away inside them, qualities they have been so desperately trying to prove they really don't possess.

 ***HERE'S THE SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW...***

 Here's the one good thing I will say about this film, and I really was impressed by it. They didn't go for the "Hollywood Ending" - Madonna's character lives. In the typical, happy Hollywood ending, Madonna's character would have died on the island, and her long-suffering, oppressed, whipped husband would have been free to finally settle down with a good, decent woman, a woman who would be the exact opposite of his deceased wife, and they both live happily ever after. But in this extremely depressing conclusion, she is rescued, and once more, this poor victim of a husband is once again saddled with his demon of a wife, and his life will once again become a living hell.

 *** HERE ENDETH THE SPOILERS ***


I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB.

The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.

Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?

Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.

Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.

Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.

Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.


It's not my fault. My girlfriend made me watch it.

There is nothing positive to say about this film. There has been for many years an idea that Madonna could act but she can't. There has been an idea for years that Guy Ritchie is a great director but he is only middling. An embarrassment all round.


I don't know what some of you are smoking, but i suspect it's potent.

To call Swept Away awful would be an insult to the very concept of terribleness. The acting is hideous and i'm not picking on Madonna here, we all know she's useless, but someone should have warned everyone else that her ailment is contagious. My back literally hurts from cringing so much at poorly delivered lines. The editing is so sloppy, it beggars description. The photography and composition (which in this era, competence should be a GIVEN for any film with a budget) are astonishingly inept, even the lighting is horrid and unnatural looking. These are BASIC elements of filmmaking, if you can't get them right, you should seek another line of work. It's as contrived as a grade 3 production of Snow White, except nowhere near as well made or interesting.

The original film by Lina Wertmueller is a wonderful satire and metaphor, superbly acted and written, featuring breathtaking visuals - you can practically taste the sea salt and feel the windswept sand in your hair. The sexual tension feels real and immediate...those of you who found Guy Ritchie's version deplorable, should see it, it really is one of the landmarks of world cinema.

Those of you who thought the remake is some kind of masterpiece should have your heads examined.


Whatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.

This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.

But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another "Blue Lagoon."

This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this.


Guy Ritchie's noble effort is beat up, knocked down, raped, kicked around, shot, stabbed, spit upon, punched, sodomized, and abused and left for dead by Madonna's dreadful performance. Her acting was very reminiscent of a graduate from the Al Gore School of Dramatics and Public Speaking. Guy Ritchie did do a somewhat noble attempt to remake this, and if you exclude ALL of the scenes that his wife was in, it's a fair movie at best. I think that the best acting job ever, had to be Guy comforting his wife that her performance was good enough not to re-shoot. If you have an opportunity of watching Swept Away or clipping your toenails for 89 minutes...go for the extended pedicure.


This film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.

The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this film.


This picture reminds me of a Keneth More picture from 1957 called The Admirable Crighton" whilst on the boat he was a servant and on the island he became the master and upon being saved reverted back to servant. Madonna did OK in some movies however this one doesn't fire. If there is any picture that show Madonna can't act it is this one.

I am not sure whether this was a subtle copy of "The Admirable Crighton" but it sure looks like it and if thats the case then Hollywood must be running out of ideas and that is sad. to provide a platform for actors to improve their career profile and just on that this fails in every corner and detail.

The plot is loose and the acting is mediocre. The script should have been put thru the shredder before taking it on location. While many here have canned Madoona for all her acting I think that in films like "A League of Their own" was quite good and enjoyable and "Who's That Girl" showed a quirkiness of Madonna's style not shown before or afterwards. Other Madonna films are not as enjoyable and I would have liked a to see a Madonna Animation series with the character from "Who's That Girl" I like the music from these two films however "Swept away" remains at the bottom of the pile here and will remain so.

everyone has a bomb right?


AKA: Mondays In The Sun

I have no idea what I just watched. Three men wander aimlessly and drink, grousing about everything and at everyone in their path. This is supposed to be a drama, but what it is, is a total waste of film, without a single redeeming quality.

I have read reviews touting the performances herein as "wonderful," "beautiful," and "heroic." I'm afraid I cannot agree, unless these men were supposed to come off as the dumbest most ignorant proto-humans who ever walked.

All in all? This was not a movie. It wanders throughout and loses everyone but the audience. I've watched this three times, and cannot for the life of me see what anyone sees in this garbage. There is nothing profound here, whatsoever. It's crap.

It rates a ZERO/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Quentin Crisp once stated that when things are shown too beautifully, one is a romantic. When things are show unbearably grim, they are realistic. And when something gets the ironic treatment, they're spot on. Unfortunately for Leon de Aranoa, he falls into the second catagory. This director has obviously tried too hard to make a Spanish "Ken Loach" type movie, without being able to capture the comedy, and warmth between the characters, that elevate Loach movies from merely being 'depressing'. Los Lunes al Sol, is just that, only depressing. Things are unrealistically grim. The characters ultimate moments of misery all reach a climax at the same point, and if the glum story isn't enough, Aranoa washes the tale over with a visually grey and grimy colour palette. The films was ridiculously over-rated at the Goyas. A movie that shows empathy for the weaker citizens in society, in this case unemployed harbour workers, does not automatically make for a good movie, even though I would be the first to sympathize with the fates of these people. This movie only manages to make me grow disinterested in their fate. In 21st century Spain, unemployed people do not live like beggars, and the public transport ferries have decent restrooms, and it's hard to come across a bar with so few punters and such little happiness to be encountered in it. Leon de Aranoa obviously doesn't have a clue about working class Spain, and does it no favours. Pretentious is the only conclusion I can draw. The scene where the men watch a football match for free, has been directly copied from a film which deals much more 'realistically' with the subject of the 'poverty' trap, namely "Purely Belter," which is afar more engaging, humorous, and yet sad.


This movie is painfully slow and has no plot. It conveys the lives of a group of laid off boatworkers. One of the older ones is sincere in his attempt to get a job. There may be some social commentary here, but, it is muddled as nobody is painted in a very sympathetic light.

I do not understand why it had a 7.8 when I decided to watch it. I watched the whole tedious thing and built expectations for a huge redeeming payoff. No luck. The IMDb rating has always been such a good match for my tastes. Anything above 6.5 was worth watching.

And my wife says Javier Barem does not even look good in this movie. He's not my type, so, my agreement does not mean much.

Sigh. I give it a 1.


A romanticised and thoroughly false vision of unemployment from a middle class "artist" with a comfortable upbringing... It is clear that the writer-director never suffered unemployment directly and certainly has no personal experience of it. If you had to believe this absolutely ridiculous story, unemployed men of all ages behave like teenagers, have no anger, no fear, no frustration, etc. All the characters live trough the day by carrying pranks, boyish jokes. They do never look for work, the do almost never experience rejection or anguish, etc. Living on the dole is just about like a summer vacation from school... Ridiculous. Specially if you compare it with contemporary masterpieces from the likes of Ken Loach, etc.


This move is slow, plodding, cold, dark, and without a plot or hope. It follows that tried and true European formula that they love to subsidize, that is never seen, but that the critics think makes an "important point".

The movie is valuable if nothing more than to show the huge difference in the thinking between Americans and Europeans regarding employment. In this movie the men are still nursing their wounds from years ago and feel it's the government's duty to provide them with work. Whereas in the U.S. we know we have to go out there and create value for someone.

Spain never looked so backward!


Gadar is a really dumb movie because it tells a fake story.It's too unrealistic and is a typical sunny deol movie that is aimed to bash Pakistan.The movie's aim is to misguide the viewers so they can think that Pakistan and it's government is bad but trying to hide their own flaws won't work.And all the songs and music of the movie are all bad.Most likely the Sikhs will love th movie cause they are being misguided.The movie sucks and sucks with power. I think only Amisha Patel was good in the movie. If i can give 0 out of 10 I would but the lowest is 1.Please save 3 hours of your life and do not watch this stupid boring movie .Disaster.


Gadar is an example of one of Bollywood worst overrated movies ever. Directed by Anil Sharma, who prefers making period related movie gives a rubbish movie. The songs were boring and ain't the kind of song you want to listen to in your car, full volume. Sunny Deol is famous for making daft movies, where he beats up a 100 bad guys on his own. He even kicks a metal jail door (Indian) and kicks a moving car far away (Teesri Aankh). I can give another 50 examples of disgraceful action by Sunny Deol. But I'm sure most people know this already. Sunny gives a pathetic performance once again repeating the same type of role. A guy claiming to be fighting for his countries piece, by using violence. Amisha Patel is hands down dead sexy with an amazing body that i would love to bone. But even she couldn't save the film from being a disaster. Instead of wearing sexy clothes like she usually does, in this movie she doesn't. Maybe cos she was playing a Muslim, but she doesn't act like one in the movie. Overall, this is a poor show all the way, I'm sure it will appeal to some people, who love seeing the Bollywood actor beat up 100 guys. Give me a break.


This warning against anti-semitism is well-meant and may have had its purpose at the time, but it is made without the slightest notion of how to make a film. The director has no idea about mise-en-scene; the cast varies from bad till even worse.

The great Austrian comic Hans Moser is wasted. In his part he ends in an asylum for the crazy, that is designed as a set from Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari; one wonders whether the makers had all their mental capabilities.

The restored copy I saw (Dutch Filmmuseum) gives the impression that some scenes were not put into the right place, but may be the original editing was bad as well.


an acted/manipulated documentary about one of the most darkest places of guatemala. portrayed as a fun, secure... but sad place, were a bunch of sex workers get to play in a soccer team, assembled in what seems like no more than a week! the documentary's main focus is to prove that society repels this kind of "workers", even though no solution to these poor women is ever achieved, except that the people who documented this,made them some sort of "stars" (just like the title says so) in exchange of being exploited for making this realityshowlike documentary. it does have, however, its own documented reality... but, that sadly has nothing to do with the main storyline. i would not accept to see it again; but i would recommend it for general cultural purposes only.


This was one of the lamest movies we watched in the last few months with a predictable plot line and pretty bad acting (mainly from the supporting characters). The interview with Hugh Laurie on the DVD was actually more rewarding than the film itself...

Hugh Laurie obviously put a lot of effort into learning how to dance the Samba but the scope of his character only required that he immerse himself at the kiddie end of the pool. The movie is based on the appearance of a lovely girl and great music but these are not sufficient to make good entertainment.

If you have never seen Rio, or the inside of a British bank, this film is for you. 2 out of 10.


Richard Dix is a big, not very nice industrialist, who has nearly worked himself to death. If he takes the vacation his doctors suggest for him, can he find happiness for the last months of his life? Well, he'll likely be better off if he disregards the VOICE OF THE WHISTLER.

This William Castle directed entry has some great moments (the introduction and the depiction of Richard Dix's life through newsreel a la Citizen Kane), and some intriguing plotting in the final reels. Dix's performance is generally pretty good. But, unfortunately, the just does not quite work because one does not end up buying that the characters would behave the way that they do. Also, the movie veers from a dark (and fascinating beginning) to an almost cheerful 30s movie like midsection (full of nice urban ethnic types who don't mind that they aren't rich) and back again to a complex noir plot for the last 15 minutes or so.

This is a decent movie -- worth seeing -- but it needed a little more running time to establish a couple of the characters and a female lead capable of meeting the demands of her role.


Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.

The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.

But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.

I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.


How can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time!