Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The acting, the dialog, the manuscript, the sound, the lighting, the plot line. I actually can't say anything positive about this, although I enjoy Swedish movies. The fighting scenes are so ridiculous that it's impossible to take it seriously. And when the lead character just happens to loose his shirt, while dodging bullets in a strip bar, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke, or if someone really thinks these are ingredients in a good film?! Regina Lund is the only half descent actor, but she disappears in a flood of laughable pronunciations and unbelievable reactions. It leaves you horrified that someone actually spent time and money on something like this...


This film, by Oscar Petersson, is unique. Its uniqueness doesn't lie in the story, since many a half brained Hollywood production has served us comparably miserable plots, but rather in the thorough way that complete and utter lousiness in one aspect is joined with equal lousiness in all other aspects.

The dialog is worse than embarrassing. Rotten acting and abysmal direction are thrown into the mix. Bosnians speaking English with heavy Swedish accents add an unintentional element of humor. Uninspired lightning and camera-work are icing on the turkey film cake. As a sort of surprise for the audience, there are a few completely unmotivated slow motion sequences where you'd least expect any. To add insult to injury, the whole thing is cut by someone devoid of any sense of timing.

The "bad guy henchman turns good after hearing good guy's speech" scene in the church, is the point at which is time to dethrone Ed Wood from the position as the worst director of all times; Move over Ed Wood - here comes Oscar Petersson!


In theory, 'Director's Commentary' should have worked. The talented Rob Bryden plays Peter DeLane, a former television director recounting his experiences behind the camera. Amongst the programmes he is alleged to have worked on are 'Bonanza', 'Flambards', 'The Duchess Of Duke Street', and 'The Bounder'. His commentaries are not the least bit informative, due to his habit of wandering off the point.

But in practice, it failed dismally. It is a one-joke show, and the joke is not particularly funny. The scripts are completely lacking in wit, and Bryden fails to convince as an old man. Whenever stuck for anything amusing to say, which is like every five seconds, he issues a hissing laugh. Rather than being amused by DeLane, you want to shoot him. If senile old men strike you as hilarious, then this is for you.

It didn't help that the shows mocked were, with the exceptions of 'Mr & Mrs' and 'Crossroads', rather good. For the joke to work, they needed to be really dreadful such as 'Charlie's Angels', 'O.T.T.', 'Telly Addicts', 'Neighbours', and 'New Faces'.

The show tanked big time, so thankfully we are spared the horror of future editions. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if 'Director's Commentary' were someday itself the subject of a spoof?


The Howling II starts as it means to go on with a bizarre and surreal opening narration by Christopher Lee whose image is imposed over a moving star field, oh and a skeleton appears as well for some reason. He says "for it's written the inhabitants of the Earth have been made drunk with her blood. And I saw her sip upon a hairy beast and she held forth a golden challis full of the filthiest fornication's and upon her forehead was written, behold I am the great Mother of #an inaudible word I couldn't make out no matter how many times I rewound the tape and tried to, sorry# and all abominations of the Earth". This opening narration means nothing at all and is just downright bizarre. After the opening credits which are set over shots of Transylvanian architecture we get an on screen caption that informs us we're in 'Los Angeles, California U.S.A. City of the Angels'. I knew I was in for a long 86 minutes. It's probably not too long after the events of the original Howling (1981) and it's Karen White's funeral. After the ceremony Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) is spoken to by an 'occult investigator' called Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee) who says that Karen is a Werewolf and that she will come back to life. Ben dismisses such nonsense. But together with one of Karen's friends and colleagues Jenny (Annie McEnroe) he visits Stefan at his home. There Stefan tells them about Werewolves and how they can be killed, he mentions Stirba (Sybil Danning) who is the queen of Werewolves. Stefan also shows them a photograph taken at Karen's funeral of a woman named Mariana (Marsha A. Hunt) and that she is an extremely vicious and dangerous Werewolf who wants Karen. Stefan says he will stake any Werewoves through the heart with titanium. Ben figures out that Stefan means he will stake Karen as well so together with Jenny he travels to the graveyard where his sister's crypt is to stop Stefan. However lots of Werewolves turn up and attack Stefan, Ben and Jenny. They survive the attack and manage to find out that Stirba is to be found in Transylvania. They all decide to travel to Transylvania and stop Stirba and her Werewolves from taking over the Earth by fulfilling a centuries old curse. Once there they travel to a small town called Vlkava which means 'where wolves live' and meet up with the local priest, Father Florin (Ladislav Krecmer) and his small but loyal group of Werewolf hunters, hey what else can I call them? Oh, and a dwarf named Florica (Ludmila Safarova) helps too. They follow Mariana who they hope will lead them to Stirba. But Stirba knows of Stefan's arrival and has plans for him Ben and Jenny. Will Stefan be able to put an end to Stirba's plans for world domination? Will this film get any more bizarre or surreal? Watch it and find out. Directed by Philippe Mora this is one strange mess of a film. It's poorly edited as certain sequences just jump around incoherently. The single biggest problem is the script by Robert Sano and Gary Brandner based on his novel which is all over the place and doesn't make any sort of sense or introduces us to any proper characters that we like. Luckily it moves along like a rocket and is never dull or boring, unlike the original. Something strange or bizarre is always happening to keep the viewer entertained. Most people will probably hate it, but for those of us who enjoy 'bad' films this is right up there with the best of them. There are Werewolf orgies which are just freaky to watch. We get some cool Werewolf killing weaponry. The sets and locations just seem so out of place and I don't know if this was actually shot in Transylvania but it doesn't look like what I thought mid 80's Transylvania would. Stirba's castle is part dungeon, part Gothic castle and part modern luxury house. Stirba and her servant's costumes are very over-the-top, Stirba wears an outfit that looks like it belongs in a S/M video and to be fair to her she looks pretty sexy, and her minions wear skimpy leather clothing too. The special make-up effects range from good to poor, a dwarf's eyes explode, someone has their hand ripped off and a priest has some creature emerge from his mouth but this isn't a film loaded with gore, although there are plenty of effect sequences with Werewolf transformations and attacks. There is plenty of nudity as well as Stirba and her minions are a real randy bunch of Werewolves! I should also mention the music, the soundtrack is dominated by awful rock music that I hated and I ended up turning the volume down. Acting is weak all round and what on Earth was Christopher Lee thinking about when he accepted this film?! I wonder what he thinks of it. Basically the whole thing is a real mess, but I found it a fairly entertaining mess all the same. Impossible to recommend but it kept me watching through to the end. Speaking of which the end credits run over what appears to be deleted scenes and cut footage, it also features the same shot of Sybil Danning taking her dress off and exposing her breasts probably in excess of 20 times! If that's your thing.


After watching this, I had lost a little respect for Christopher Lee (This has passed over time). This film was utter garbage. First, they tried to recreate the ending from the first "Howling," with incredibly bad make-up. Then they try to turn it into a sad excuse of a werewolf porn film! The plot sucks and the whole film is just AWFUL!!!! A brother of a werewolf victim from the first film (From the look of it, it was SUPPOSED to be Dee Wallace Stone)teams up with Lee and another woman to destroy the group of werewolves, lead by Sybil Danning, who seems to be naked all the time.

This is not even worth renting (Unless you want to waste your time and money watching the nudity.). Try to catch it on cable instead. It would be so chopped up, it may actually make sense.


Howling II (1985) was a complete 180 from the first film. Whilst the first film was campy and creepy. The second one was sleazy and cheesy. The production values on this one are pretty bad and the acting is atrocious. The brother of the anchorwoman werewolf from part one wants to find out what happened to his sis'. The "scene" from the first film was badly re-created. A skinny plain looking woman accompanies bro' (Reb Brown) to the old country (Romania) to uncover the mystery to her sister's murder/transformation/death. Christopher Lee appears and disappears over now and then as sort of a sage/guide to the two. Sybil Danning and her two biggest assets appear as Stirba, the head werewolf of the Romania. She also suffers from a bad case of morning face, ewww!

Bad movie. There's nothing good about this stinker. I'm surprise Philippe Mora directed this picture because he's usually a good film-maker. The film is so dark that you need a flashlight to watch it (no, not the content but the film stock itself). To round the movie off you get a lousy "punk" performance from a Damned wannabe "Babel". Maybe if they forked over a couple of extra bucks they could've got the real deal instead of an imitation.

Best to avoid unless you're desperate or you lost the remote and you're too lazy to change the channel.


From the moment Christopher Lee puts on a pair of punk sunglasses and tries to sneak into a punk rock club, you know you've got a stinker on your hands! This film had potential. Beneath all of the sludge there are the remnants of what could have been crafted into a decent film, if not an interesting one. The final product is a real mess, however. Aside from the gratuitous nudity and some very attractive women, Howling II winds up being a laughable excuse for a horror film. Christopher Lee gives it a nugget of credibility, but even he cannot raise it above the level of crap.

Having never seen any of the other films in this series, this critic will be forced to accept on face value that this is a genuine continuation of the events in part one. We start off at a funeral for one of the characters from the original, and within the first ten minutes we find ourselves in Transylvania with a small group of heroes ready to battle a coven of werewolves. The film is paced fairly well, and there are not too many dead spots. The action is there; it just isn't filmed well. One bright spot is the music of a punk band called Babel. Though their song is played quite often, it is rather catchy.

The problems with this film are great in number. First off, the acting is worse than pitiful. Christopher Lee is good enough, but that's where it ends. The two leads Reb Brown and Annie McEnroe are lacking in just about everything you'd want for such characters. The writing is wretched, the editing redundant, and the direction amateurish. There are a couple nice special effect gimmicks, but the cheesy ones far out weigh them in number. Sybil Danning is nice to look at, but her acting performance is less than satisfactory. Judd Omen looks the part he plays, but his voice and acting are unconvincing to say the least. Much of the dialog is in an unintelligible language that may or may not be Latin.

I liked the general idea for the story. I always enjoy stories of true believers out to battle seemingly invincible forces of evil. One scene where a small group of good guys are trekking through a dark forest and shooting down a bunch of werewolves is even kind of exciting. Kind of. Maybe a bigger budget or a better director could have made the rest of the film a bit more compelling. 3 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

Side note: As of this writing, the censors at youtube.com have still not taken down the ending credits with Sybil Danning ripping off her top several times while the Babel song is playing! Catch it while you can!


Dreadful horror sequel to "The Howling". This picks off with Karen White's funeral (she was killed at the end of the first film). Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee sadly) arrives there and tells Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) that Karen was a werewolf. He's going to Transylvania to kill Striba (Sybil Danning) the head werewolf. Ben and a coworker of Karens (Annie McEnroe) join him.

A terrible script, bad direction, inept editing and truly horrendous acting by Brown and McEnroe single handedly sink this one. The werewolf effects are mostly kept in the dark--for good reason! They're terrible when you see them. Subpar special effects also--although I DID like the cartoon lightning that comes from Danning's fingers. There's also a werewolf orgy which is particularly stupid and Danning takes off her top at least EIGHT TIMES during the closing credits!

There are a few good things--I found the village in Transylvania amusing--it looks like it came from a Universal horror flick from the 1930s! There are interesting camera tricks between transition scenes; Brown and McEnroe have good bodies and Lee and Danning are good in this--but they can't save it. Really--WHY did they do this? Where that they hard up for money??? This is one of IMDb's lowest rated movies. That alone should tell you something. Supposedly Danning was horrified when she saw the movie--I can understand why! A must-miss.


OK, as everyone has pointed out, this film is a complete dog. To some degree this is because it was a gory sexploitation film that had a lot of material excised (or darkened down to near invisibility) to escape the censor's X-rating; but the film has many other flaws as well.

To begin with, the scriptwriter seems to have got his werewolves and vampires mixed up. The baddies in this film are furry and don't like silver but in every other respect they behave like vampires. Now you just can't do that with a crappy genre flick, you've got to stick to the rules of the genre or the fans get all confused and annoyed by suspending disbelief in the wrong thing. In fact the whole (confusing and poorly presented) plot is something that has already been done for vampires, but doesn't make any sense in a werewolf movie.

Secondly, the werewolf costumes are the lamest you have ever seen. Anybody in the werewolf movie business ought to know that the werewolf costumes and transformations are something the fans assess critically, yet some of these werewolves are just plain goofy.

There are a couple of slightly good bits. I actually quite liked the score. Others have mentioned Sybil Danning's tits. And...

(***SPOILER***, if such a thing can exist)

I also quite liked the plan for attacking the werewolves' stronghold. There are so many horror movies that rely on characters behaving stupidly, but in this case they first acquire a very sensible and effective anti-werewolf arsenal and go slaughter the monsters. I mean, you can kill werewolves with silver bullets, and we have some pretty powerful firearms these days. Shouldn't be too hard to put two and two together, hmm? But in typical style this movie goes over the top and adds some other very zany and amusing anti-lycanthrope weapons.


Ugly shot, poorly scripted and amateurishly paced sequel to Joe Dante's 1981 classic. "The Howling" is one of the two or three ONLY good werewolf-films ever made and yet it got 'rewarded' by a series of obnoxious and unendurable sequels like this one. If it's any consolation, "Stirba" is a sequel in name only and there's absolutely no connection with the characters or events that were introduced in Dante's film. The plot here revolves on a bloodthirsty cult of Transsylvanian werewolves  primarily female ones  led by Stirba. Stirba is played by Sybil Danning who transforms from a curvy old lady into a blond super-babe (with impressive bosom) in the blink of an eye and becomes all hairy when sexually aroused. Her arch-enemy is played by a seemly fatigue Christopher Lee. His character  Stefan Crosscoe  is an occult investigator who travels to Stirba's kingdom, accompanied by an American couple who lost their friend to the werewolf cult. In case you're exclusively looking for filthy gore and gratuitous nudity...this is your film. Even the smallest killing is shown in great detail and we're even treated to exploding eyeballs and the vile image of a dwarf who gets pierced on a pointy fence. However, if you want a little substance or depth, you'll be sorely disappointed. The dialogues are embarrassing and there's absolutely no tension to detect anywhere. The scriptwriters constantly seem to confuse werewolves with vampires (the Transsylvanian setting, garlic, wooden stakes...) and Danning's gorgeous balcony is shamelessly exploited as the film's only gimmick. During the end-credits, a shot in which she rips off her top, is re-edited repeatedly (according to my fellow reviewer Dr. Gore, no less than seventeen times!) which is pretty pathetic and pointless. The music is okay and some of the scenery is rather beautiful. I'm talking about the fierce-looking statues during the opening credits and the dark dungeons of Stirba's castle. The directing by Philippe Mora is a giant mess and  as far as I'm concerned  his only worthwhile film remains "The Beast Within", released three years earlier.


Ben a out-of-town cop is convinced his sister was brutally killed and wants to bring her killer to justice, but he's approached by Stefan who believes his sister was a victim of a werewolf cult. So Ben, his sister's best friend and Stefan travel to Transylvania to put a end to this evil.

This is incredibly awful B-grade stuff and I wondered how it even got released. It makes the original 'Howling' look like a masterpiece. What was Christopher Lee thinking, as this has to be his worst performance I've seen.

There was a lot wrong with this real cheap-ass film, ranging from the really hammy and wooden performances from Annie McEnroe, Reb Brown, Marsha A. Hunt and Sybil Danning (not to forgot Lee), cheesy fashion (those sunnies), cheap and lame special effects, bad use of lighting, the humour... if there was any, trashy 80s music (with some of the film just focusing on some unknown band playing), werewolf's having orgies which is a sight to see and a tiresome story with flat and annoying dialogue. I thought if it was that bad it would be awfully funny, but I was wrong.

The positives were the location and settings of the film looked great, but that's about it... actually I'll add Sybil Danning short stripping scene too.

During the end credits the band plays their crap-house song during a weird montage of scenes from the film, which I beckon the question why?

An awful piece of mess, however at least it isn't boring.

1/5


This film is really bad,so bad that even Christopher Lee cannot save it.A poor story an even poorer script and just plain bad direction makes this a truly outstanding horror film,the outstanding part being that it is the only horror film that i can honestly say i would never ever watch again.This garbage make Plan nine from outerspace look like oscar material.


Lee hosted the 100 Years of Horror for Ted Newsom and was talking about filmic werewolves. He said something to the effect that his only brush with lycanthropy was The Howling II, then he quipped, "The less said about that the better." Indeed he was right as this film may very well be the worst in his entire catalog of screen performances. The first Howling by Joe Dante was a groundbreaking werewolf film with its incredible special effects and its campy sense of style and subject matter. It was a film to be taken seriously. Like other good original films, filmmakers for some strange reason thought that even more campy sequels were needed rather than what worked the first time(See CHUD then CHUD II to illustrate this point). This film is miles and miles away from the first on every front. There is absolutely nothing scary about it. It looks cheap and is pitch black through most of the major scenes. Lee is the only actor in the film worth mentioning(okay, I'll cede Ferdy Mayne too). Lee looks embarrassed as he says inane dialog and does ridiculous things(check out that ending with him and Stirba). Lee looks incredibly tired and knows what dreck this is which is a tad more insightful than the two leads who leave America to go to Romania. The story isn't really worth examining here, and you can bet there is very little story worth mentioning when you have to have Stephen Parsons and his band Babel play through much of the film in the beginning and the ending with that dreadful noise. Sybil Danning is here and, yes, she disrobes once and then we get that scene showed again and again and again - one reviewer said 17 times(I counted ten - but might have been so bored out of my mind by that point). I gave the film three stars, but it really deserves a zero - the three I gave it are 1 for Lee and two for Ms. Danning's contributions. Yuck!


Yes, the first "Howling" was a classic. A rather good werewolf movie that I admit started slowly, but gained momentum along the way to have a rather good finish then the anchorwoman changed into a cute werewolf only to be gunned down on camera. Yes that made for an entertaining horror movie to be sure...well forget all of that as this movie has nothing to do with that film. Oh sure, they kind of make it out that the anchor woman is the same and that her brother or something is wanting to find out what and why things went down as they did, but they go from the little cozy retreat from the first movie to Transylvania or somewhere here where they must battle evil magician werewolves or something. I often wonder what in the world Christopher Lee was doing in this movie, however I read the trivia here where it says he had never been in a werewolf movie before, but still read the script before you take a role. Maybe you could have gotten into "An American Werewolf in London" hell that could have been possible. It was set in London after all. Heck, werewolves do not seem to figure much into this movie except for a rather bizarre and prolonged sex scene. In fact, the most memorable death in this movie for me was when the one gal started talking loudly and this one dude's ear's started bleeding.


We had STARZ free weekend and I switched on the station to see what was on . It was this movie Howling II: The acting was terrible but the eye candy was great. Sybil Danning and Marsha Brown as the afore mentioned eye candy. I was laughing a lot from the few scenes I saw.

My friends wonder why I never want to go to Horror movies , If they saw this film they would know why. I would get thrown out for laughing so hard.

Just a couple of trivia notes : Reb Brown who played Ben White had played Captain American in a made for TV movie Marsha Brown was Mick Jaggers inspiration for the song "Brown Sugar" Mick has great taste in women for sure.


In the first Howling, we are introduced to a world where werewolves exist and are somewhat organized. The plot in that film made some sense; a TV reporter investigates this and attempts to uncover the truth. She ends up having to kill many of them including her boyfriend who becomes one. Then she shows the world that they do exist by transforming on live TV. The special effects were just laughable in the first movie and they don't get any better in this one. Whether it's the transformations or the bad puppets or the cheesy computer graphics showing the superpowers.

The plot line isn't all that bad; they must kill the leader of the werewolves for some reason. This won't destroy all werewolves and it really doesn't end the threat from werewolves as it...they just want to kill her. I think there was some cloudy reason for this but it really gets lost in the film.

After the film "ends" we have a 10 minute montauge of the movie we just watched and every other scene is one where the female werewolf leader rips off her top exposing her large breasts while some Devo-esquire band plays to a crowd of werewolves.

The only thing that makes this movie even watchable is Christopher Lee.


to be honest, i didn't watch all of the original 'howling', but those scenes i saw made it obvious that the first howling was a great movie. so great, that seven horrible sequels had to be made. they started off with "Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf". i got this movie on VHS from my uncle sometime ago when he was giving away a bunch of old movies he bought back when Atari was brand new. i just watched it last night, and it wasn't really BAD, it was just weird. i mean, the whole thing with Sybil Danning going three-way with two of her werewolf minions was just out of place and quite disturbing (but kinda hot), Christopher lee about to stab a dead karen as if she's a vampire, etc. actually, this movie was actually like some sort of mish-mash of Dracula and The Lost Boys...except with werewolves, because everything Christopher Lee (whom played Dracula himself) was saying about werewolves pretty much ripped off from every other vampire movie (stake in the heart, garlic, the creature of the night must die AT NIGHT, and the ruler of werewolves lives in TRANSYLVANIA). not much for the acting, but the worst of it came from Annie McEnroe. i swear, at some point in the film i found myself rooting for the werewolves to rip her throat out, because that damn throat always had to say SOMETHING. Anyway, the plot is pretty silly and clichéd, so there's no real point in telling you, you could just read about it on Wikipedia. By the way, the thing that really makes me nauseous about this movie is the fact that it's the ONLY film out of all the seven sequels thats related in any way to the original (not counting Howling IV (1988), which was a remake of the original, or in other words, a sequel based on the same novel). so don't see this movie. there's no real horror, hardly any werewolves, and just horrible special fx. 3/10


I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by Joe Dante's original THE HOWLING (1981)  so I wasn't particularly interested in checking out any of its sequels; some time ago, I did catch HOWLING III: THE MARSUPIALS (1987)  by the same director as this one  and found it to be watchable but nothing special.

The second instalment, however, has quite a bad rep and I knew I'd have a good time watching it  if mainly to wallow in the sight of dear but pompous horror icon Christopher Lee squirming in the midst of it all (the gracefully-aged star has pathetically asserted a number of times in interviews that he hasn't appeared in horror-oriented fare since his last picture for Hammer Films back in 1976!). Anyway, this film should have borne the subtitle "Your Movie Is A Turd"  being astoundingly inept in all departments (beginning with the all-important werewolf make-up)!

The plot (and dialogue) is not only terrible, but it has the limpest connection with Dante's film  strangely enough, the author of the original novel Gary Brandner co-wrote this himself! Still, one of the undeniable highlights (er...low points) of the film is the pointless elliptical editing  which tries to give the whole a semblance of style, but only serves to accentuate its embarrassment factor! Similarly phoney (and grating) are the hokey transitions between scenes, the inane punk-rock theme song, and the cheapjack special-effects at the climax!

What about the characters, then?: Lee is the werewolf expert, naturally, whom everybody thinks a crackpot  until they come into contact with the monsters, that is; at the very least, though, one has to admire the makers' ingenuity (or gall) in devising a stupid subtitle with a dual meaning! Incidentally, Sybil Danning (as Stirba, Werewolf Bitch  the subtitle by which this is known in the U.K.!) is quite fetching in an assortment of outrageous S&M outfits...but her character is virtually given nothing to do (except preside over her brood of followers and engage in the occasional hilarious three-way lycanthrope sex!); her two snarling lieutenants (one of them a sluttish black girl) are especially irritating.

Aiding Lee on the side of good are the two yuppie heroes (he being the brother of the Dee Wallace character from the first film and she a colleague of hers) and a ragged guerrilla-type band of Transylvians (still, they generally manage to effortlessly overcome Danning's rather dumb werewolves!). Notable among them is a knife-throwing dwarf who gets a particularly nasty (but, at the same time, side-splitting) demise; he's later revived, under Stirba's control, in order to lure Lee (by making childish taunts at him all through the village streets) into a trap. The latter scene has to be a career nadir for the distinguished and imposing actor  well, either this or the early sequence in a discotheque where Lee is made to don a pair of ultra-cool sunglasses so as to appear inconspicuous among the partying youngsters!

In the end, if I were forced to mention elements in this which weren't entirely displeasing, I guess I could say that the ossuary set (in which the heroine is to be sacrificed) is interesting, or that the hybrid werewolf/bat creature (Danning's pet who likes to 'inhabit' the body of its victims) is just too weird to be despised...


Now this film isn't going to scare anyone, but it was interesting for two reasons - two big reason and a smaller one- well, that's three reasons, isn't it.

The first reason this is interesting is the special effects. I found them to be quite interesting and somewhat spectacular. To see the hair growing on Marsha A. Hunt and Sybil Danning was creepy, especially when they were participating in a ménage à trois.

Of interest, is the fact that this Marsha Hunt is the famous "Brown Sugar" of the Rolling Stones song, and that she was in the infamous nude scene in the London cast of the rock musical Hair.

Besides the special effects, there were two other points of note in this film, and they were brought out repeatedly during the closing credits. I lost count, but i swear that Sybil Danning bared those points for us in the closing credits at least a dozen times and maybe many more. Theyu were the most outstanding feature of the film.


This is a pretty bad movie. But not so bad as it's reputation suggests. The production values aren't too bad and there is the odd effective scene. And it does have an 80's cheezoid veneer that means that it is always kind of fun. Watch out, too, for Jimmy Nail's brief appearance - his attempt at an American accent is so astoundingly rubbish it's fantastic. Fantastic too are Sybil Danning's breasts - they make a brief appearance in the movie but the scene is repeated umpteen times in the end credits in what can only be described as the 12" remix of Sybil Danning's boobs. Has to be seen to be believed. As a horror movie it isn't scary, the effects are silly and Christopher Lee turns up to sleepwalk through his performance. I guess he was buying a new house and needed some cash for the deposit. The two central characters - the man and the woman - were so negligible that I have forgotten almost everything about them and I just watched this movie earlier tonight. The werewolves are noticeably less impressive than in the original movie, in fact, bizarrely, they sometimes look more like badly burned apes. The eastern European setting is quite good and the music provided by the new wave band Babel, while being pretty terrible, does at least give the film some added cheese.

Overall? Good for a laugh. Not good quality but did you seriously expect it to be? And, at the very least, you've always got Sybil's knockers.


Somewhere, buried very deep inside this film is a half-way decent movie trying to get out. The only traces are a few early scenes in Los Angeles (in a bar and a graveyard) and thereafter a couple of pieces of production design. Like I say, buried very deep. One of the biggest challenges faced by movies involving the supernatural is how to have characters react believably in unbelievable situations. Annie Mcenroe's reaction to being told that her sister (presumably Dee Wallace from the first movie) is (was?) a werewolf is, if I recall, along the lines of; "Oh! Really?". Not one of the better responses to said challenge. The non sequitirs continue as the story moves to Trannsylvania in search of Stirba the (apparently self-appointed) "Queen of the Werewolves". As Stirba, Sybil Danning is the two best things in the movie. Yes, even better than the werewolf group-sex scene, Reb Brown's acting, and the oddly simian-looking werewolf suits. The end credits have assumed minor legend status and are available in all their glory (at least until the censor finds them) on Youtube. Check them out to see why and remember, the whole film makes about the same amount of sense. If you happen to catch this on US television the credits have been re-edited to replace the endlessly repeated shot of Danning ripping off her top with another endlessly repeated shot of her ripping open a cloak only this time she has some kind of top on underneath. It's a sort of absurdity, cherry-on-top moment which defies satire.


This U.S soap opera, 'Knots Landing' has all the entertainment value of being trapped in an elevator. Every episode contained plots such as rape, murder, kidnapping and drug smuggling, not much different to the plots of other drama shows of the period. As for the cast, I've seen better actors on a cereal box. From the mid to late '90's, repeats of 'Knots' stunk up U.K-Gold like a mountain of mildewing nappies. I regret to announce that I had to suffer this as my mother was a huge fan of the show and would watch it religiously. Though since then, re-runs have been few and far between (let's hope it stays that way). The only positive thing that can be said of 'Knots' is the catchy saxophone signature tune, later used as the title music for the I.T.V sitcom, 'The Upper Hand'. Great legacy that, eh?


In the Tower of Babel installment of the mini-series, the narrator describes the builders of the tower as "the descendants of Moses."

That's like saying George Washington lived many centuries before Alexander the Great.

Or that the light bulb was invented before the wheel.

Or that the guided missile was the forerunner of the bow-and-arrow.

Need I say more?

The writers of The Greatest Heroes of the Bible should have at least paid closer attention to the chronologies of Biblical people and events.


I watched this knowing almost nothing about it, other than the brief description I read here. After watching it I was originally going to say that the director shows promise but seems kind of amateurish, then I looked at the other stuff he's done to see if this was his first or second movie, but no, he did House on Haunted Hill and Fear Dot Com. He sort of missed the mark on both those movies and it was the same with this one.

The story was pretty awful too, could someone just fall in love with a girl because she's pretty but has the mind of a child? I gave it a 3 because there were some visuals that I rather enjoyed near the end but as a whole this movie is pretty terrible.


I watched this movie after seeing other comments on IMDb, even convincing my wife that it was a "unique horror movie." I wanted to like this movie, but was unable to.

The "love story" was good, but the horror aspect was quite bad. If the story was just about a young man who fell in love with a girl suffering from parasomnia, then it would have been a better movie.

The care centre stretched credulity well past the limits, in fact it was quite ridiculous. The doctor happily ignors privacy laws and professionalism. A nurse goes into a room for a routine feeding of a dangerous patient (without security escort), and drops the tray and runs out of the room screaming for no apparent reason. The forensic patient (and the film's villain) is tied up in a standing position fully clothed - apparently for years? None of it makes much sense.

The movie even had some actors that I've liked in other things, such as the detectives, but still I can't recommend this movie.


This film is very creepy indeed. Unfortunately, not for the reasons the film makers would hope.

There's a mastermind serial killer too, but he's not what's creepy either. He's just your standard comic book villain, a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Freddie Kruger, though with nothing particularly fresh to add to either. Incidentally, for even the vilest and most reprehensible of criminals, can they be detained chained in a stress position, on their feet, arms outstretched 24 hours a day week in week out? I suppose in the world that gave us Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, anything's possible.

No, what's really creepy about this film is the central character, Danny. This unappealing young man, aided and abetted it's true by some ludicrously lax security arrangements and a doctor entirely careless of any notion of professional ethics or patient confidentiality, wanders into the hospital room occupied by what can only be described as a highly vulnerable and defenceless young woman, and on the basis of nothing whatsoever (her chronic sleeping precludes from being able to give anything like informed consent) imagines himself to have some sort of special relationship with her.

Seemingly within days, he has arrogated to himself the right to abduct her, believing (completely falsely, as we discover) that he is better able to care for her than anyone else, and within minutes of getting her back to his apartment, is sexually molesting her though she is (again due to her sleepiness) entirely unable to consent or resist.

Our suspicions as to why he would feel this connection are pretty soon confirmed. He is of course more or less unable to form any mature adult friendships, let alone sexual relationships, so instead falls back on this essentially infantilised woman, who because of her permanent sleeping has a mental age corresponding to a lived experience of only a few years. The scene where she discovers ice cream is particularly cringe-making, and the coyly knowing look she gives him when he gloatingly says he'll have to clean her up again causes a particular shudder of horror. But again, I'm afraid, not that shudder of horror the film makers were hoping for, but a much more straightforward spasm of revulsion. We can all see clearly what's on the end of our forks here - it's the paedophile's perfect dream of innocence, sexual compliance and utter dependence. Horrible, horrible, horrible.

What else have we got in this mish mash? Twisted dreamscapes not quite as good as del Toro. The compulsory "You need to go to the police" argument, where the lead character always has a reason for not doing so even though it's the only sensible course of action. The automaton sequence, much praised in the comments here, though completely and utterly pointless ("It serves no function!", as Sigourney Weaver memorably protested in Galaxy Quest) and looking to me just like the Abominable Doctor Phibes rehashed in one of the Saw derivatives.

Jeffrey Combs does his best though, so a star for that, and a couple more because you have to keep lower rankings for films that are even worse than this, and in general this is well-shot and competently performed.


It's somewhat telling that most of the great reviews for the film on IMDb all come from people who have only reviewed one film in their entire IMDb career and yes you've guessed it, that film is "Parasomnia". I've often suspected suspiciously good reviews on IMDb for what turns out to be an anything but good films as underhand marketing , but it seems fairly transparent in this case.

That's not to say Parasomnia is terrible, but it stops well short of being the good or great film it had the potential to be.

On the plus side, it has a great baddie in Patrick Kilpatrick who does a brilliant job projecting menacing and evil, I could easily see him having what it takes to play a truly memorable baddie on a par with Hannibal Lecter. There are some beautiful visuals in the dream sequences, in fact if the film had decided to explore that terrain more it might have been something better. The actual concept of devious misuse of hypnosis is great too.

Although I understand suspension of disbelief is necessary for immersion in any good story, it's the mark of a good story that it succeeds in letting you do that. If you find yourself being annoyed at what you find illogical or just plain silly, then the story is losing you and that's what kept happening to me with this film. Other reviewers have mentioned this here and I don't want to get into spoiler territory, but I will say the setup at the ending was particularly ludicrous and disappointing, not too mention the varying mental age of a character that is only supposed to have experienced a few years of life.

All in all, there is the germ of a great idea here in diabolically misused hypnotism, but sadly this film fails to realise it into anything special.


Parasomnia has an interesting premises, but the story is poorly done without any tension or even a logical approach. The cast in unconvincing, even Patrick Kilpatrick, who played great roles in movies like Scanner Cop 2, Open Fire, Under Siege 2 and Eraser. The rest of the cast is unknown (and not very good) with the exception of Jeffrey Combs. (Herbert West from the great Re-Animator trilogy). But he can play roles like this in his sleep (which is a little what he does here). The main problem is that the actions of the characters make no sense at all. The story is rather dull and predictable with cheap computer effects mixed with some gory scenes, especially at the end.

This could have been so much better, I do not get the good reviews on this one. It is below average really.


Here goes the perfect example of what not to do when you have a great idea. That is the problem isn't? The concept is fresh and full of potential, but the script and the execution of it lacks any real substance. It should grab you from the start and then pull a little on your emotions, get you interested and invested in the characters. This movie doesn't have what it takes to take off and sustain flight, and here is why. First you don't really care about the characters because they are not presented in a way that people can relate to, I mean this is not Superman or Mission Impossible here, it's suppose to be about normal people put in a stressful situation. They are not believable in the way they act and interact. Example : Jeffrey Combs as a cop over chewing is gum, frowning and looking intense all the time isn't the way to go here. I mean what is that?, he looks like he's on the toilet or something. I loved him in re-animator and the way he was playing the intense/neurotic, unappreciated medical genius was right on the money. But not for this, he tries too hard to over compensate by looking so intense and on edge but in a still mild neurotic manner, it's not natural, I'm surprised he didn't dislocate his jaw during filming. The movie is basically on life support, it barely has a pulse and it kept me waiting for something that would never come.


Nice attempt and good ideas (redemption of the prostitute, human beings helping each other out,...) but a poor result... The director obviously tried to emulate his French colleague Tran Anh Hung by recreating an ambiance which is suppose to portray Viet Nam... The only problem is that this Viet Nam is long gone and when "The scent of the green papaya" had a historical background... trying to project this kind of ambiance (muffled sounds and the slow pace of life...) on modern days leaves a feeling of fake. Besides it rapidly creates a sentiment of boredom and the outcome becomes too obvious.

I can only suppose the action takes place in Saigon or Da Nang because that is where Harvey Keitel, ex-marine in the movie, was probably stationed during the war... But in Southern Viet Nam nobody or very few people speak with the clip Northern accent displayed by the actors... Seriously odd even for a bad Vietnamese speaker.

An old poet with leprosy...very doubtful (not a disease for people of his condition), a peasant girl who can read and write elaborate Vietnamese poetry,... even more doubtful...


There are similarities between Ray Lawrence's "Jindabyne" and his last movie "Lantana"  a dead body and its repercussions for already dysfunctional lives. But whereas "Lantana" offered some hope and resolution, "Jindabyne" leaves everything unresolved in a bleak way that will leave most viewers unsatisfied, perhaps even cheated.

The storyline - the aftermath of a fisherman's discovery of a corpse floating in a remote river - is based on a short story by Raymond Carver. It became an element in Robert Altman's classic 1993 ensemble "Short Cuts". Lawrence uses this theme for an exploration and exposition of relationships within a small Australian community under stress. The movie poses some moral questions "Would you let the discovery of a dead body ruin your good weekend?" and more poignantly for Australians "Would it make any difference if the dead person was an aboriginal?" The acting, especially by Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney, is commendable. And there are elements of mysticism reinforced by haunting music, not unlike "Picnic at Hanging Rock".

If all this sounds like the basis for a great movie - be prepared for a let down, the pace is very slow and the murder is shown near the beginning, thereby eliminating the element of mystery. And so we are left with these desolate lives and a blank finale.


This film is terrible. I was really looking forward to it, as I thought "Lantana" was great.

The following review may contain *spoilers*

*****

First, the good things: it looks great, some of the performances are OK. The bad things are everything else about it.

The story, as you possibly know, is about some blokes who go fishing and discover a body, with the twist that they find it on Friday but continue fishing and finally report it on Sunday when they get back into mobile (cell phone) range. However the film takes it's time (boy does it take its time) getting to this central event.

Of the ensemble of characters (about a dozen), not one seems to like another one (which is, I suppose, consistent, because they are all unlikable). I was extremely frustrated by the failure to adequately explain how the characters are related, and it was not until near the end of the movie that I could vaguely construct the family tree.

It's hard to think of a film us unrelentingly grim, which is a failure in the structure of the story, as the character's lives seem just as bad before the fishing trip as after. Once you've set the bar so high, it's hard to up-it short of everyone committing suicide.

There are silly lapses in logic. The killer dumps the body in the lake, and then it somehow drifts miles upstream into the mountains. The fishermen walk out Sunday morning, but for some reason Byrne gets home late at night after his wife has gone to bed. Then first thing the next morning the cops bang on the door to get him to come down to the station. Um, they haven't heard of the telephone? Down at the station, the media know the whole story, less than 24 hours after they reported the body?

Totally missing from the story is the debate the blokes surely had after they find the body. This is a mystery - everyone asks them "how could you do that?" and the audience is asking the same question. (The debate about what to do with the body is the key scene in "Deliverance"). I know exactly what I'd do in their situation. Someone needs to walk out to the car, drive to mobile range, call the cops, wait, and them guide them back to the location. If the others wait at camp and fish, who cares?

A lot of all this just seems false. The only thing that rung true was that, as the girl was black, the local aboriginals seized on the fishermen's actions as racist - "wouldn't have done it if it was a white girl."

Throughout there is a curious indifference to who might have killed the girl (I think the subject is mentioned once), and there is no mystery, as the audience sees the killer in the opening scene.

So I'm sitting there simultaneously bored and confused, when there's a twist - not in the plot, but the theme. Suddenly it becomes about the quiet dignity of the bereaved aboriginals leading to a ludicrous ending with some incoherent stuff about black-white reconciliation. Huh?

This is Australian film "at its finest", according to The Age.


This isn't art, it's inner-urban, politically-correct propaganda! Jindabyne's political intolerance is beyond unforgivable... it doesn't see people as individuals, but rather, as members of categories.

This is the most patronisingly offensive Australian movie I can recall ever (and it's up against some pretty stiff competition!). A message movie, every tired theme beloved of the trendy left is there: Aborigines are victims; white men are violent or alcoholics; white women aren't that bad -particularly if they are lesbians - but they're most likely of a depressive nature.

Four men who go away fishing, find the body of a murdered woman (Aboriginal, naturally) and leave her in the river for several days while they catch trout. It's a strange decision taken with almost no discussion, as if the men are animals. The one man who briefly demurs is the goodie... we know this because he's living with a bisexual woman - he likes to hold his baby a lot - and eventually moves to a more fashionable costal location (away from all these beastly bush-dwellers).

This is a film made by those trendy urbanites who live in fear of the Australian landscape and those evil rednecks who reside within. It's ignorance of country life is almost as shocking as its contempt. The film is shot through with long-distance views of the bush backed by foreboding, mysterious music. It's made very clear by the end that Aboriginal people are the only ones at home in this landscape. It concludes with an excruciatingly implausible scene of black-white reconciliation.

In Jindabyne, country life is reduced to little more than a backdrop for a story that by implication proclaims the superiority of the values of enlightened leftist urban dwellers over those of other Australians.

This film was not made by people with real jobs but funded by the Government's Film Finance Corporation. It's a product of the artsy set, that soulless void populated by the beautiful people for whom lavish government funding sustains these patronisingly offensive projects (which are as detached from real life as possible), as opposed to actually making popular films people want to see. It doesn't matter if the film is a stinker, they still get paid.

Spare yourself from wasting time, avoid it like the plague. More jaded social commentary than actual entertainment, this film deserves to pan!


Before I watched this film I read a review here stating that this film could possibly be one of the best films ever!? ha ha Scene by scene the tension grows alright... from the annoying characters in this movie. From the little girl talking gibberish and trying to drown the little boy, to the killer just running about without any notice (and who was the guy at the beach talking to the little boy!?)..things just seem to happen and then go unanswered in this film. As I watched it seemed like the film was going in one direction, then just doesn't go anywhere, but into a new direction...and on and on...

The acting is great, but the writing is horrible. Each character, in each scene, says or does something so unbelievable, unrealistic and the reactions of the fellow cast/extras are simply strange. There are no resolutions to the problems developed throughout the film, making it confusing and ultimately a big waste of time.


there was some truth to this movie. I remember a story reported 15 to 20 years ago of 4 fisherman finding a body in the water and they chose not to report it until their trip was finished. I also recall they were charged with interfering with a corpse (or some such charge). I'm not sure if it was in Australia. The viewers outside of Australia must think we live in a country full of rapists and serial murders. Wolf Creek and this film would encourage this perception. The film itself reminded me of A Simple Plan. But as far a being one of the best Australian films ever, as someone claimed, I can't be that generous. Put it this way, I wouldn't bother watching it again.


With no fault to the actors (they all put on great performances), the overall story was not very well executed. The movie opens with a great zinger: a crazy old guy forces a young Aborigine girl's car off the road. But then, we're forced to endure 40 minutes of character development with an entirely new group of characters ... and we don't know why until the 40 minutes are up. It turns out that they are the ones who eventually discover the girl's body ... and the story progresses from there.

While the story does pick up at that point, it really goes nowhere. After 2 hours, I asked myself: was there a point to this, or was it just to see the characters struggle with accusations of racism and stupidity of how they handled the discovery? The story was ultimately unsatisfying and felt unfinished. While it is well acted, there's not a strong enough backbone in the film to warrant recommending it.


I had a really hard time making it through this move. It was extermly slow and at times wondered when the plot of the movie would actually come to life.

This movie seemed to flow to slow and I kept on wondering when it was going to end. I am normally a person who likes a good indie file every once in a while but this did not satisfy what I was looking for.

It seemed they tried to make to much out of this movie. At one point it seemed to turn political which I am not a big fan of in movies. If you are looking for a slow moving movie with little to no plot then this is the right movie for you. As for me I felt I wasted 2 hours when I could of been doing something else.


Canadians are too polite to boo but the audience at the Toronto Film Festival left the theater muttering that they would rate this film 0 or 1 on their voting sheets. The premise is that a modern filmmaker is interpreting a 17th century fable about the loves of shepherds and shepherdesses set in the distant past when Druids were the spiritual leaders. Working in three epochs presents many opportunities to introduce anachronisms including silly and impractical clothing and peculiar spiritual rites that involve really bad poetry. Lovers are divided by jealousy and their rigid adherence to idiotic codes of conduct from which cross-dressing and assorted farcical situations arise. The film could have been hilarious as a Monty Python piece, which it too closely resembles, but Rohmer's effort falls very flat. The audience laughed at the sight jokes but otherwise bemoaned the slow pace. The ending comes all in a rush and is truly awful. This is a trivial film and a waste of your movie going time.


I was aware of Rohmer's admiration for the late works of the ones he considered like great cineasts, and that normal spectators generally considered as artistic failures (as Renoir's or Chaplin's very last movies ; yes, the "politique des auteurs" also has its dark side). But with "Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon", it's as if Rohmer himself wanted, for what may be his last movie, to perpetuate this tradition of great directors, who made a last senile movie, by adapting Urfé's "L'astrée", with ridiculous aesthetic codes, witch just look like a parody of Rosselini's last movies (the ones he made for TV from Descartes or Marx's lives).

In his version of "Perceval", Rohmer refused to film real landscapes in order to give a re-transcription of what may have been a middle age classical representation of things. The director apparently changed his mind when the XVII century is involved, and films actors, dressed like 1600's peasants reciting their antic text surrounded by contemporary trees and landscapes. But the all thing looks even more ridiculous than Luchini and its fake trees. It's not that the story itself is stupid, but the way Rohmer mixes naturalism with artifices seems so childish and amateurism that it rapidly becomes involuntarily funny (and I'm not even talking about the irritating pronunciation of the actors, the annoying and sad humorist tries by Rodolphe Pauly, the ridiculous soft-erotic tone, the poor musical tentatives, or the strange fascination for trasvestisment!).

The radical aesthetic of the film ultimately makes it looks like a joke, which mixes a soft-erotic movie made for TV with theological scholastic discussions (sic !). At the beginning of the movie, Rohmer teaches us that the original french region of the story is now disfigured by modernity, and that's why he had to film "L'Astrée" in other parts of the country. However, I'm sure the movie would have look more modern and interesting, if Rohmer would have actually still filmed the same story in a modern area with same narrative codes and artistically decisions. This film may interest a few historians, but most of the cinephiles may laugh at this last and sad Rohmer's movie.


One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Acting was terrible, both for the kids and the adults. Most to all characters showed no, little or not enough emotion. The lighting was terrible, and there were too many mess ups about the time of the day the film was shot (In the river scene where they just get their boat destroyed, there's 4 shots; The sheriff and Dad in the evening on their boat, Jillian and Molly in the evening swimming, the rest of the kids in the daytime *when it's supposed to in the evening* at the river bank, and the doctor, Beatrice, and Simonton at night but not in the evening getting off their boat.) The best acting in the movie was probably from the sheriff, Cappy (Although, there's a slip of character when the pulse detector *Whatever that thing is when people die, it beeps* shows Cappy has died, he still moves while it can still be heard beeping, and while the nurse extra checks his pulse manually, then it shows the pulse again, and THEN he finally dies.) I guess it's not going to be perfect, since it's an independent movie, but it still could be better. Not worth watching, honestly, even for kids. Might as well watch something good, like The Lion King or Toy Story if you're going to see anything you'll remember.


This was the WORST movie I have ever seen! Molly (molly hall) could not act AT ALL! she had no emotion it was all blah blah blah like she was reading out of a boring text book. The smart kid and the kid who loves food (there names weren't worth remembering) were so annoying it drove me crazy.When ever the talked it was about some scientific thing or food. Mollys Dad didn't show enough emotion about his daughter missing. The police officer and Mollys dad said the same thing like four times. it was just horrible. Everything was repeated way to much. Beatrice should have had something bad happen to her for being so mean. I just wasted a moment in my life by watching this movie!


It was so terrible. It wasn't fun to watch at all. Even the scene where the girl is using a vibrator, even that's not fun to watch in this movie. I say again, the scene where a girl is masturbating with a vibrator is not even fun to watch. Or maybe if that was the only part of the movie that you watched, just girl on couch using a vibrator. Maybe they should have just released that one scene in theaters, maybe then the movie would be enjoyable on a certain level. My advice, fast forward to that point, watch it, rewind the movie, watch it again, rewind, repeat. Maybe you could enjoy yourself for 2 hours that way. This movie ranks alongside I spit on your grave and Doom generation in the category of worst movies that I have ever seen.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was deceived into thinking it might be good because a couple of my favorite actors are in it. Now I want to punch Jason Schwartzman in the face for taking this role. I was physically ill after watching this film. I really don't understand Hollywood sometimes. There are so many people trying to break in that I'm sure you can skim off the top and get the very best. That way the worst movie you make is equivalent to Ferris Beullar instead of this sludge. The gags like the hair doll and blatantly ripping off jeans commercials added to the humorlessness of the film. Glad I avoided this film and watched it on TV. This proves that you should avoid January releases at all cost.


There's a lot of movies that have set release dates, only to get pulled from distribution due to a legal snafu of some kind, and then put in limbo for a long time. You can only wish a film as rotten as "Slackers" remained in a coma for what it's worth, which is miniscule. Release dates were continually shifted around for this truly awful movie that is so much a bleep on the radar like it deserves. The premise kicks off under the guise of Ethan, a creepy nerd with a scary obsession for the campus bombshell Angela. Ethan devilishly enlists the aid of David and his friends who have been scamming the school for their entire run with blackmail to help win Angela. I don't like to give spoilers out, but for a piece of crap like this I can make an exception. Angela falls for David, Ethan intentionally screws everything up, the good guys win. That's what happens in a nutshell for another tired retread of the teen gross out genre. Gross humor is funny, it always has been dating back to the days of the immortal classic "Animal House", to the likes of contemporaries like "There's Something About Mary" and "Road Trip" amongst dozens of others of which there are too many to mention. But when you use it as a plot point you can only get so far, case in point, Ethan has an Angela doll composed of her individual strands of hair of which he does god knows what with it. No one wants to take witness to watch Ethan urinating in the shower while singing to himself. No one wants to watch a young man singing "She'll be coming around the mountain" with a sock on his penis. But nothing can prepare you for the full visual assault of seeing 50's bombshell Mamie Van Doren bare her breasts at 71 years old. I don't know if it's the story's lack of coherence, which cuts to scenes that make absolutely no sense. Director Dewey Nicks was a former fashion photographer, and after reviewing this film, you can only wish he'll go back to the profession. The worst thing you can do on any film, is to make it look like you're having fun, because you detract from your objectives, just like "Slackers" does, by burying it's plot outline under a pile of gross out gags, pointless vignettes, and lack of construction. It's like a bunch of college students got drunk, took one's camcorder, and shot a bunch of random crap and compiled it together. If you want to see a teen gross out comedy that's actually good, then I suggest "American Pie" and "Animal House", or "Road Trip", just something that's entertaining, and not dreadfully bad like "Slackers". Coincidentally Cameron Diaz makes a cameo in this film, just as she did in another bad film such as "The Sweetest Thing" where the story treats gross humor like another plot, instead of a device much like this disaster.. If you pass by "Slackers" at your local video store, just keep on walking, and let it end up at the bottom of the shelf like it deserves.


Well, I just ordered this on my pay-per-view at home because I was bored and needed a laugh. I have to admit, I did chuckle a few times, but I don't even remember what parts they were at. I don't understand why this movie was made. It claims to be a comedy but seriousuly, I don't find a singing penis, or a naked 70 year old woman very funny. This movie was trying to fit itself into the 'gross-out' comedies of recent years such as American Pie and Road Trip, but it just failed miserably. It was way to much gross-out then it was comedy. Also, why on earth did Cameron Diaz attach her name to this movie?!?! The only thing I liked about this movie was when Dave and Angela were in the pool. I thought it was sexy and enjoyable and well-done. Besides that, avoid this movie. 3/10


What are people on here talking about? I must have seen a different movie than you guys. I was so bored that I walked out of the theater. What is up with this stuff. I only laughed once and not even that hard. Whoever greenlit this movie should be taken out into the street and beaten. I usually always find something I like in a movie, but this is crazy. "Slackers" makes "Not Another Teen Movie" look like a classic. It ranks up there with such trash as "Body Shots", "Con Air", and "Conspiracy Theory" as one of the worst of all time. AVOID AT ALL COSTS! I thought the studio would be handing out money to people as they left the theater as a sign of their apologies, but to my dismay that wasn't happening. Looks like I will never see that money again or the two hours.


Wouldn't it be great if Not Another Teen Movie actually put an end to all of these stupid, pointless, I'm getting more sex than you are teen movies? In a perfect world, yes. Yet this one is even worse. This one is not humiliating for the stars, it's humiliating for the distributor. All of the jokes are basically college students exposing stuff that people probably have NO interest in seeing, yet it's "funny." Devon Sawa, who was actually good in Final Destination, is just plain dull in this movie. It makes you wonder if it's being bad on purpose. Grade: F


If you enjoy films like American Pie, Road Trip & Van Wilder; avoid this cinematic refuse at all costs. It is an unamusing, mean-spirited, insipid waste of resources that should never have been discussed aloud; much less actually recorded and sold to unsuspecting consumers. Easily the worst film I have seen in the past 18 months; mind-numbingly bad for the entire 86 minutes of it's runtime. Had it been much longer, I would not have been able to write this review without using profanity. Consider yourself warned!


This was surely the stupidest, crudest, most repulsive film I have seen in quite some time. I was tempted to turn off the VCR, but, as in the fascination watching a horrible car accident, I literally found it COMPULSIVELY HATEABLE in every conceivable way and slugged it out through to the end. I am by no means a prude who objects to the comedic portrayal of sexual antics on the screen. Animal House, Porky's, There's Something About Mary, both American Pie movies, and even the notorious Freddy Got Fingered I have found highly enjoyable on their own crude terms. Mamie Van Doren's breast-baring sponge bath is the most horrifying appearance by a naked geriatric since The Shining. Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once. The only useful purpose for the film is as a textbook example of how not to make a gross out picture. Oh, and it would also serve nicely as a lawn fertilizer.


The Slackers as titled in this movie are three college friends Dave, Jeff and Sam(Devon Sawa, Michael Maronna and Jason Segel respectively), who are about to graduate from university without sitting through an honest exam but making it end successfully. This continues until the very end when unlikeable but the most likable character of the movie Nathan(Schwartzman) figures out what they are up to. Nathan starts blackmailing in order to make up with his dream girl as he cant pursue that in normal conditions. The only problem is when the trio starts to work on it, Dave falls in love with the gorgeous and good hearted Angela(James King) Unfortunately, not a brilliant genre movie. Schwartzman makes to watch the movie easy as his performance is brilliant. King's performance is average, I think she was hired just to be around with her gorgeous look. The Slackers is reminiscent of American Pie with a different direction. Jokes are as shallow as in American Pie. But aren't they all used? I think this movie is a warning to the filmmakers of the genre that they are running out of originality. Overall, a few smiley moments but a horrible movie in terms of acting(except for Schwartzman) and subject. * out of *****


Yet another venture into the realm of the teen-gross-out-comedy, set on a college campus featuring a nerd's quest to coolness, and how he decides to blackmail a trio of popular jocks into making him get the girl. It's all been done before, and it's all been done in a far more satisfying manner. The gross-out humor that has made teen flicks like "American Pie" and "Dude! Where's my Car" so popular is taken completely out of context in this installment, appearing so completely at random that the viewer can only frown and disapprove. The film is badly written, and the actors never succeed in making any of it even slightly bearable. I won't even dignify this terrible picture by divulging, as it's a waste of my time and yours. At best, Slackers never manages to entertain or induce laughter, and at worst it is excruciatingly bad and at times completely unwatchable.

Jason Schwarzman, who impressed in his debut Rushmore, humiliates himself by appearing in this picture and one wonders how a career can end up in the toilet so fast. Please avoid, please avoid. Save your money.


This film looked promising but it was actually pretty bad. The premise was O.K, but the plot itself was terrible. The actors tried their best with limited material, but they could not rise above the mean spiritedness of this tacky college film. Jason Schwartzman was once again immensely irritating - even more so than in Rushmore, the rest of the cast were quite non-eventful. Scenes that should have been fun turned out to be off-putting & incredibly juvenile. Tries to be a Road Trip/American Pie but fails dismally on all levels. A total waste of everyone's time.


This movie has no plot and no focus. Yes, it's supposed to be a slap-stick, stupid comedy, but the screen-writers have no idea what the movie was about. Even the title doesn't go along with the movie. It should have been called "Cool Ethan" or "Cheaters Never Win" or something like that. The characters are not developed and no one cares what happens to them! The girl roommate character (from That 70's Show) was the only person worth watching. She was hilarious and stole every scene she was in. The others need to make sure that their own college diplomas are in the works since they'll need a career other than acting.


Dave (Devon Sawa) and his friends Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael Maronna) have scammed their way through college. When creepy Ethan (Jason Schwartzman) discovers their secret, he blackmails them into helping him score with beautiful, good-hearted student Angela (James King).

Stupid and incompetent "comedy" - a lot more groan-inducing than laugh-inducing. Movie tries appealing to its target audience with its disgusting gags - but NONE OF THEM WORK. What's more, it's full of worthless, unappealing characters - and Schwartzman's character is so repulsive he's a major turn-off. Movie even tries using 50's/60's sexpot/actress Mamie Van Doren in the movie's most outrageous scene. YUCK!!!

Further bringing it down are its utter predictability and the waste (yet again) of veteran comedic actor Joe Flaherty's talent - when's this guy going to stop accepting every role that comes along and do something worthwhile?

All in all, the only thing I liked was James (a.k.a. Jaime) King, who was very appealing - and deserved better.

This gets no more than one out of ten from me.


Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping.


(David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!!

I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !

I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.

Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.

Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.

What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !

At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word.

P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the "Additional Details" his usual "Plot Keywords" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women !


Nominated for the oscar "worst script ever" in my opinion. There's no decent story, rediculous acting, VERY lousy humor. By every means possible, if you have little self respect please don't waste your time seeing this movie. Although u can see the actors CAN act, it leaves you dumber after watching it. Precious braincells are being killed watching this crap...

i warned u

DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE


Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).

Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better. The premise was not bad- scam artists cheating their way through college meet their match when they're discovered by someone with a proposition for them. The problem is that the characters were all so unlikable, that I didn't care about any of them. The blackmailer (played by talented Jason Schwartzman) was such a psychopath that it wasn't that funny to watch him- he wasn't deranged in a particularly funny or charming way, he was just a crazy loser, who was actually rather dangerous and not fun to watch. The editing of the movie was hard to follow-- it kept cutting between fantasy and reality and it was often unclear which was which. Only two or three of the gang's scams were really shown, you just had to take it on faith that they were indeed scam artists-- showing their schemes would have made for a better movie. The so-called love story was absurd and unbelievable, in fact it was silly and poorly written and directed throughout. I could go on about the movie's shortcomings, but you get the idea. Not worth the $4 rental or the gas it takes to drive to and from the movie store to rent!


This centers on unironic notions of coming to grips with guilt.

Merrill berates the distraught boy to stop his 'whining' about Rennie's death. Old-style real men in action, here.

The crashing model plane and car crash must have been impressive on the big screen.

The storytelling itself, despite the flashback sequences, plays it straight -- all the narrators are trusted by us (regardless of the 'truth' or 'untruth' of the dialogue), so there's no game with the viewer about narrative structure. This would become a rough template for future retellings, such as "Fearless".

So all we're left with is individual performance, and at that level, it's best for Wynn's bantering, a virtual one-man show.


About halfway through, I realized I didn't care about these characters in the least; however, I watched a bit more anyway. Regrettably, I came back the next day and finished it. I shouldn't have bothered.

If you know *anything* about the film beforehand, you know that the lead character will be a plane crash survivor - and the title gives you a pretty good idea of what's gonna happen afterward - he's gonna get on the phone and call people about it! That was almost as bad as "Snakes on a Plane" (another bad aviation catastrophe flick).

I realize this is an old film, and the acting style in those days was much less naturalistic than today. But even by those standards, the acting was embarrassing. These weren't characters, they were stereotypes. I suspect this movie was, more than anything, an attempt by Bette Davis to help her husband's (Gary Merrill) career. To no avail however - I have seen oak trees display more genuine emotion than he did.

Davis' playing the happy cripple (i.e., a non-glamorous role) was probably looked on as an edgy and bold career move. It wasn't. It was just boring. She was a kind of Tiny Tim in the film, making Trask (Merrill's character) see the truth about love and forgiveness (although she was less winsome than Tiny Tim), calmly dispensing wisdom about life and relationships without a hint that her beloved husband had just died.

The final scene, where Trask calls his wife back in Iowa to reconcile, was so affected and over-acted on both ends of the phone line, I almost cringed. I had to remind myself that these people actually got paid for what they were doing in this film.

I noticed a lot of people seem to have enjoyed this movie. If you found it uplifting , that's great. But frankly, I just found it bad. There are plenty of old movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood that were far better written and acted.


In fact, Marc Blitzstein's off-Broadway adaptation of "Threepenny" was not so "bowdlerised" as is generally believed.

(I have a special interest in "Threepenny"; my dad was part of the first full production in the US; U of Illlinois Theatre Guild did it around the end of WW2. HJitler had been so nearly successful in suppressing the play that they had to reconstruct the script and score from recordings in two different languages {neither English}, a German prompter's script and similar sources.) Blitzstein's adaptation -- not a "translation" -- which had the full approval of Lotte Lenya -- was a lot closer to the original than generally believed.

The problem is that the version thereof that most people know is the MGM cast recording (recently available on Polygram on CD)(which includes Beatrice Arthur {as Lucy, the "big complete girl", and can't i see her hands on hips and shoulders thrown back on that line -- Bea was a major babe in the 50's}, Paul Dooley and John Astin) was heavily censored by Mike Curb, head of MGM Records -- i mean, 17 (i think it was) "Goddamn"s got cut to just "damn".

(At one time, MGM also offered a 2-LP set of the *entire* play, doubtless as heavily censored.)


The fact that most of the budget for this presumably went on the heavy-duty cast list shouldn't have mattered if it had been staged with flair and imagination and some sympathy for the original's satirical intent. Instead we get risibly bad song and dance sequences featuring picturesque beggars and whores, and the final alienation is accomplished by pulling back to reveal the action has taken place on a music-hall stage, appropriately enough for a production that's more Lionel 'Oliver' Blair than Brecht. The acting talent is shamefully misused: Migenes and Walters are good but don't have to try very hard: Migenes at least has a great voice and some feel for the material. Julia looks perfect as Mack, but struggles with the character, straitjacketed by a fake plummy accent. Harris's Peachum is embarrassingly mannered and Polly is atrocious. The adaptations of lyrics, script and music are often awkward: it was a bad move to base the film on Marc Blitzstein's bowdlerised Broadway version, but at least his words were singable, unlike most of what's been interpolated in gestures of faithfulness. And the attempt at overcoming the low budget by filming at claustrophobic angles on mist-shrouded sets lit in garish blues and oranges as if by some bargain-basement Vittorio Storaro fails utterly -- the film just looks cheap, shoddy and thoughtlessly made. Disgraceful.


This movie was different in that it didn't show the typical gay stereotypes that I'm used to seeing. But that doesn't change the fact that it totally lacks a storyline. I'm sure that there are many gay men who are just happy to see themselves depicted on screen, since Black gay characters are seldom seen, and when they are the characters are usually not fully developed. But, how hard would it have been for the writer to actually script a story with a beginning, middle and end. Or how about a story that was focused. There really doesn't seem to be a point to this film, and even though it is a low budget film, that is still no excuse for the lack of story or plot.


What can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.

The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.

Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got there.


Channel surfing and caught this on LOGO. It was one of those "I have to watch this because it's so horribly bad" moments, like Roadhouse without the joy. The writing is atrocious; completely inane and the acting is throw-up-in-your-mouth bad.

There's low budget and then there is the abyss which is where this epic should be tossed and never seen from again. I mean, the main characters go to a ski retreat in some rented house and the house is, well, ordinary which is no big deal, but they choose to show all the houseguests pouring over it like it was the Sistine Chapel. I'm sorry but watching 6 guys stare into every 10'x10' boring room with a futon in it and gushing is lame. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bad News Bears in Breaking Training (see hotel room check scene)...wow a toilet !!! yaayyyyy !!!! I don't buy the its all over the top so anything goes routine. If it smells like...and it looks like...well, you know the rest.

Avoid like the plague.

edit: Apparently other more close minded reviewers believe that since I disliked this movie, I am an "obvious hater" which I can only assume means I am phobic, which of course is not true. I decided to do this wacky, crazy thing and judge the movie based on the actual content of the film and not by its mere presence (i.e. its refreshing to see...)

Sure, it may be refreshing to see but that doesn't equate into a great movie, just give them some better material to work with and tighter direction. In fact, I applaud the effort. Frankly, I'd rather go listen to my Kitchens of Distinction catalogue than watch this again.


I'll just be vague about my potential spoiling comments. There are enough canned plot elements in this movie that it's essentially pre-spoiled.

This movie derives a few ideas from a Southern classic, To Kill A Mockingbird. I suppose maybe TKOM got its ideas from some source.... at any rate, after you watch this, you'll say, "Oh yeah, that is a ripoff".

I think the truly entertaining thing about these McMovies is once you've identified a plot element, is to figure out whether they'll stick with the original, or try to twist it around. Not a lot of twists in this one.


When this film plays on television you might want to save about 90 minutes of your time and change the channel. There's nothing special here that you need to see. Story is about two married couples from Arkansas who go on a trip together to Reno. Couple number one is Lonnie Earl Dodd (Billy Bob Thornton) who is a car dealer and having problems with his marriage. His wife is Darlene (Natasha Richardson) and she has a low self opinion of herself and they haven't been intimate in a long time. Lonnie has been sleeping with Candy (Charlize Theron) who is the wife of his best friend Roy Kirkendall (Patrick Swayze). They all drive to Reno and the four of them stay in one luxurious suite. Roy and Candy have been trying to have a baby and finally Candy discovers that she is pregnant. But Roy phones his doctor in Arkansas and finds out that he's sterile. Candy and Lonnie admit their affair and now the whole trip is in chaos. This film is directed by Jordan Brady and he's made a few other low budget films but this is his first with a cast this impressive. Unfortunately Brady doesn't show much comedic flair but you can't lay all the blame on him. This script is just not funny and one of the glaring problems is that the characters are all written down to a sitcom level. Just because they're all from the south doesn't mean that they have to be naive and idiotic. Thornton's character doesn't have the sophistication to tip the bellboy more than a dollar. And Swayze's character is called stupid and dumb by everyone throughout the film and one of the rare good moments comes when he asks everyone to lay off of him for at least one day. Penelope Cruz pops up as a prostitute and it's a totally worthless and pointless cameo. She barely speaks more than 3 or 4 lines! I think she was fulfilling an obligation to Harvey and Bob Weinstein who are executive producers for this film. The only person who actually isn't to bad is Richardson. We watch her become more confident in herself but this plotline in the film is very obvious and cliche. All of these actors should know better and it's hard to figure that they all read the script and liked it. It's a complete waste of time for these actors but at least they got paid. As for the viewers, your not getting paid so skip this one!


What an absolutely crappy film this is. How or why this movie was made and what the hell Billy Bob Thornton and Charlize Theron were doing signing up for this mediocre waste of time is beyond me. Strong advise for anyone sitting down to catch a flick: DO NOT waste your time on this 'film'.


I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).

We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.

Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.

Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.

An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.

I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.

Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?

One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!

1/10.


Being a fan of Billy Bob Thornton, and the diversity of his skills, I noticed this movie listed, and was surprised I hadn't heard of it.

I'd traveled more than usual during both the period it was being filmed in 2000, and when it hit theaters more than 2-1/2 years later (that passage of time is the first clue all was not well with the production).

Now Patrick Swayze can't act for sour apples, but Thornton has more than enough ability to make-up for the difference between them. And Charlize Theron is someone whom it would be a pleasure to see, even if it showed her watching paint dry.

Being curious, I checked this site's production info. It made a whopping < $600 per screen its opening weekend, and just over $400 each, after its month's theater run in latter 2002. Overall gross was $261K, which I'd doubt could cover cast and crew's hotel and food for a week on location.

The story is pretty benign, and even the use of the usually interesting locale of Reno is as dull as the rest of the goings-on.

It's something like several SNL bits all pieced together, none individually too great at all, and the overall presentation even worse.

Whatever, the expenses for this production had to be considerable - even if all worked for less than their usual fees - so the one thing which made it a barely tolerable opus was the quality of the filming and Billy Bob's present (albeit understandably somewhat laconic here , compared with his usual work.

Think of the three superb, totally diverse characters he portrayed in "Sling Blade," "Bandits" and "Bad Santa," and you know he realized this work was below standard, long before the viewers had the opportunity to confirm this. One star for him, even here, and one because production was better than, say, the typical "Lifetime" flick.


If you hate redneck accents, you'll hate this movie. And to make it worse, you see Patrick Swayze, a has been trying to be a redneck. I really can't stand redneck accents. I like Billy Bob Thornton, he was good in Slingblade, but he was annoying in this movie. And what kind of name is Lonnie Earl? How much more hickish can this movie get? The storyline was stupid. I'm usually not this judgemental of movies, but I couldn't stand this movie. If you want a good Billy Bob Thornton movie, go see Slingblade.

My mom found this movie for $5.95 at Wal Mart...figures...I think I'll wrap it up and give it to my Grandma for Christmas. It could just be that I can't stand redneck accents usually, or that I can't stand Patrick Swayze. Maybe if Patrick Swayze wasn't in it. I didn't laugh once in the movie. I laugh at anything stupid usually. If they had shown someones fingers getting smashed, I might have laughed. people's fingers getting smashed by accident always makes me laugh.


Simply, I found the TV show "Mash" trite, preachy, oh ever so "politically correct", repetitious, pretentious and biggest sin of all, and that is,? that it is (was) incredibly dull. You have Alan Alda as the main lead, "(star)", who is so in love with himself and his cleverness, that it actually made me uncomfortable to even try and sit through an episode. The original series had both McLean Stevson, and Wayne Rogers, whom I'll happily admit had a certain panache and style to their character presentation. However, Harry (Henry) Morgan, and Mike Farrell, both singularly and compositely together is like eating caviar and fresh oysters with Wonder Bread. Loretta Swit, which I also found dull, also to no fault of her own wasn't a wonder to look at, and Gary Burghoff, who was good in the movie got tired looking and acting as the show wore on. Seeing one show a year showed that to me. Jamie Farr was just low brow "comedy" and is not even worth really mentioning here at all. The reason I did not give it a (one) rating, which anyone reading this by now would be wondering, is that ratings of any sort is not only a subjective call, but a relative one. Television, except for relatively few exceptions, is such crud. That relatively speaking, Mash had some production quality, (by television standards) of that era and today, and therefore it is deserved of a two. Rob Ritter


I respect the fact that this is a very popular show. However, in comparison with Robert Altman's ingenious, hilarious, zany, and groundbreaking 1970 movie classic, this show was probably destined to be less-than-mediocre... even if it did run for 11 years, that doesn't necessarily make it any good. This show formed an all-too-integral part of my early childhood (it was on re-runs every night, and guess whose parents were watching it and laughing it up), but it's one of the memories I don't miss. And now that I actually have seen the movie, I can give this series an accurate critique. On its own, it's not nearly "2 out of 10" bad. However, the characters on this show are nothing like those in the movie. Some of them technically are the same, but they're only similar in name. For instance, since when is Alan Alda anything like Donald Sutherland? His style of humor is totally different, as are his characterization and outlook. The new characters are not that great; they just serve to make you miss the ones that they're replacing. It's the same with the new actors (including Jamie Farr). The only thing that actually transfers to the series is Radar, who's still (even though played by the same actor) merely a pale imitation of the original. What else? Oh, yeah. With a laugh track (it didn't matter whether it was used in surgery scenes or not), it comes across as creepy, due to what's going on in the other settings. And because it lasted nearly four times longer than the actual Korean War, it takes viewers into this bizarre temporal rift that doesn't work outside the world of cartoons. I've never liked this show, and I never will.