This flick reminded me of those lame "erotic thrillers" I used to stay up late and watch on Cinemax when I was 13. I'd label this flick softer-core since there is just no simulated bump and grinder. There is, however, a ton of nudity- the opening scene is in a strip club, we see Kane Hodder's keester (or at least a stunt butt) and then an inexplicable 10 minute lesbian dance scene in the middle of the film and a nude female werewolf who looks like they mugged on of the Munster's for a costume. 13 year old boys rejoice.

Other than that the werewolf transformation scenes have the worst CGI I've seen in years. The shots look like FMV's from the video game Resident Evil in terms of quality. The wolf is too bad to be explained and, despite the poor quality of the suit is shown way, way too many times.

The plot and acting make no sense. There is some oddball back story about werewolves and hybrid-werewolves- the Darkwolf is the latter but from what I can tell hybrids do the same thing all werewolves do- look human, change to a wolf an kill people. The Darkwolf is trying to find a mate but oddly can't find the mate but can sniff out anyone she touches. Once more, this skills proves less than useful since the Darkwolf winds up killing several folks his target never touched, met or even saw as best I can tell. The mate doesn't know she's a werewolf and she's fighting the transformation or something.

You'd think it'd be hard to mess up a simple monster movie s bad as this but, well they did. Want quality low-end werewolf-ism, go rent Dog soldiers want a ton of T&A this is your flick.


Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."

First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!

So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.

And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...

Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad.


This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)

The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...

I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.

It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.

See it and laugh!


Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see!


I thought I was going to watch a scary movie.. and ended up laughing all the way throughout the movie. In the scene where the human transformed to a werewolf I thought they was kidding. Todays computer games have ten times better animations. Low budget, is a fitting comment. I would recommend Wolf (1994) with Jack Nicholson for a good werewolf movie. It has good special effects as they should be (human transforming to werewolf). Unless you wish to have good laugh I would not recommend you to watch this movie. This movie is a joke.


There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.

The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.

CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.

The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.

Just stay away of this.


Let me start by saying that I'd read a number of reviews before renting this film and kind of knew what to expect. Still, I was surprised by just how bad it was.

I am a big werewolf fan, and have grown accustomed to forgiving a great deal when watching one. Most of them have sub-par effects, poor acting, and weak storylines (at best rehashed from earlier films). So far, with the possible exception of some of the later "Howling" series films, this is the worst of the lot.

First, the story. It's been quoted several times in reviews on this site, so I won't go into specifics. However, it is very obvious that the writer(s) had absolutely no affinity for lycanthropic monsters. As so often happens when a horror film is given to a writer who considers themselves "above" such fare, they tried to come up with a new spin on the werewolf mythos. That's fine, but a non-horror fan trying to do this generally has disregard for the intelligence and sophistication of the horror audience and ends up writing down to them. The plot feels like a parody of werewolf films, and the events depicted just ring so false that I felt my intelligence was being seriously insulted. TV news footage, for example, never pans away from the reporter to close-up on someone in the crowd behind them. Give the characters and the viewers credit for being able to spot the bad guy in the scene without using a flashing neon sign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As for effects, I have NEVER seen a less believable werewolf. I'd have been happier with Lon Chaney Jr. in crepe hair. The beast they used look a great deal like... well, like a guy in a cheap rubber suit with some hair glued on and some truly awful animatronics. And, I know that many people have already criticized the CG, but my God it was awful. One scene features a woman changing, and starts with a completely CG version of the actress, nude but for some reason without nipples. My first thought was, "hey, why is one of the characters from 'ReBoot' turning into a silly looking werewolf?"

Anyway, I like to look for positives in any film, and there were a few. The cinematography was passable (the film was shot all-digital, which is interesting) and some of the performances were not terrible. It was also interesting seeing Tippi Hedron as the world's most well made-up homeless woman, and Kane Hodder as the title bad guy. Also, the Yellow Power Ranger got all growed up and... well, damn. And if you're looking for skin, there's some pretty tasty examples. This ends the male-pig segment of the review.

Overall, if you want a good werewolf film, try "An American Werewolf in London", the original "The Howling", "Dog Soldiers", or even "The Wolfen" (though that one's got more wolf than were). If you're a lycanthrope completest, then take a gander. Otherwise, give this one a miss.


All the bare chested women in the world couldn't keep me from hitting the stop button about a third of the way through this awful rubbish. With the derisory acting, equally terrible script plus the poor CGI FX to match; this movie is an insult to the Werewolf genre. It is supposed to be serious, which in itself would be funny if this film could even make it to the level of being a bad joke.

This is one of those movies where the people behind the camera are obviously competent but are too lazy to make something even one quarter decent. Avoid at all costs and watch one of the classic Werewolf movies instead.

0 out of 10!


This is only the second time I've felt compelled enough to comment at imdb about a film. The first time was for probably the best movie I've ever seen and that was for Memento.

Seeing Darkwolf is at the other end of the scale compared to Memento, as in the worst film I've had the misfortune to see. Apart from the two scenes containing naked women there is nothing in this movie to raise it from the trash-pile that it is.

Let's see, apalling effects, cliched script, bad acting and about 90 minutes too long. My wife and I laughed through most of it in disbelief at how bad. Amazingly I watched it to the end, how I did that I don't know! AVOID!!!


When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie.


This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.

If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.

The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.

What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter?


If you like films that ramble with little plot exposition spiced with kinky sex, this film is for you. On the plus side the lead actor/actress (newcomer transsexual) does have an interesting screen presence, but not enough to add up to much more than a mildly interesting movie - if that. Essentially this film is about 3 social outcasts (transexual prostitute, male hustler, and Russian,gay immigrant) who somehow have developed a bond. Why is not clear. We are expected to accept these misfits are at the core basic honest people who have the ability to love while they hustle their bodies on the street. Right!! And Anna Nicole Smith was truly in love with her ninety something sugar daddy! The filmmaker shows a gritty, unpleasant side of life while wanting us to believe underneath it all these seriously damaged people are really quite normal to the extent they have a menage a trois which helps them through life. Quite a fantasy, but unfortunately portrayed here as real look of life on the wild side. In sum, no plot, no truth and no real reason to spend much time here. Unless of course you just like to revel in the kink!!!


This story is about the romantic triangle between a nth. African male prostitute, a French transsexual prostitute (Stephanie) and a Russian waiter who speaks no French and never seems to shave.

As a film it is dull, dreary and depressing, shot either on foggy, overcast winter days or in badly lit interiors, where everyone is bathed in a weird blue luminescence. And yes, I know, it's because the white balance was out. Everyone is pale and downcast and looks haggard, shabby and dirty. Bodies are bony and shot in such closeup that they look quite ugly and unappealing. Moles, greasy hair. Yuk. Bad news in a film where people spend a lot of time either naked or having sex.

And the story? Well, Stephanie's mother is dying. All three characters go back to Stephanie's home village where, through a bunch of flashbacks to desolate countryside and predictably dingy interiors, we see a bit of Stephanie's childhood as a boy called Pierre. The mother dies. Well... and that's about it, really. Character development is kept to a minimum, as is the denouement of the story.

I suppose the storyline is not linear (it would explain a lot of non sequiteurs) but really, after paying my seven euros I don't feel like having to construct the film myself: that's what the director takes my money for. To expect me to join the story telling process and get my hands dirty, so to speak, is asking way too much.

This film is a heap of pretentious rubbish made, above all, from a desire to epater les bourgeois (ie shock the straights). I can see how it was a shoo-in for the Berlin Film Festival, and I can see why it got nowhere.


Medellin is a fabulous place to live, work, and study. I've been there twice, and never did I hear anything about guerrilla activities, paramilitaries taking tourists hostage, or anything of the sort. There are "invisible police," but it is *not* a Big Brother system. There are just enough police so that they are visible in everyday life, but they do not hassle someone without good reasons.

La Sierra is an interesting documentary in that the youths it depicts in the movie essentially become its characters. The directors of the movie carefully carve out plot lines among the daily actions of the inhabitants of La Sierra, and when a "character" dies, there is genuine pathos. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the three youths are all members of the Bloque Metro, a gang that used to terrorize La Sierra before the Colombian government began to restructure the country.

La Sierra is not an accurate depiction of life in Colombia; there are, of course, things to be wary of such as petty crime, but when one considers pickpocketing happens in "modern" cities such as London, New York, or Tokyo, Colombia doesn't seem that different after all. Colombians are eagerly awaiting their chance to show to the world that the once war-torn country is now prospering more than ever.


One of those Thank-God-I-don't-live-there documentaries. This one tells of two warring factions in Colombia, guerrillas and paramilitaries, and the surrounding peoples of Medellin.

Guns, drugs and death run rampant. The guys, no older than 22, not in the middle of fighting a war are in jail. The girls  not women, girls  always react the same way when one of them is killed, with tears and screaming. You scratch your head; what did they expect, really? I don't know what's more disturbing: the nightly shoot-outs and civil unrest, or that everybody just seems to passively accept things as are. Or, seeing that boy drinking what is obviously not his first beer, being all of what, 10? If you were to take these any of these young men out of their situation and put them some place where they had the opportunity to do more, be more, how many would choose not to stay?

Based on this documentary, all, I'm afraid.


Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.

Potential minor spoilers ahead.

I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables ("Kanedaaa!", "Tetsuoooo!", "Huh?", "Grrr", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.

The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.

What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking "what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.

The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.

Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with "adult" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in "South Park".


From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear "cool." This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.

I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice.


This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.

The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen.


Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.

1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.

I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.

every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.

The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word "Suck" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.

Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.

The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.

There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running.


Now, I like sci-fi cartoons. However, when "Robotboy" appeared in Canada in late 2006, I watched the premiere and was inevitably appalled. The characters are generic and stereotypical (Do they REALLY need to make an African-American man wear tiger-stripe print clothing and speak in a Jamacian accent? WHY are all the Asian characters vibrant yellow and squinting? Does the mother HAVE to have big thighs and chest and constantly complain?) to the point where things become unrealistic, predictable, gross and sometimes disturbing. There are heavy similarities to, even stabs, at Astro Boy. Allow me to explain (dub names for the young): Robotboy/Astro, Kamikaze/Tenma, Constantine/Shadow, Gus/Abercrombie, Tommy/Alejo, Lola/Zoran+Kennedy, Moshimo/O'Shay, and it so on. Brief resemblances to "My Life As A Teenage Robot", "Star Wars", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", "Kamen Riders", "Sailor Moon" and co. are afoot. Not to mention the abundant racial/gender stereotyping. Don't even get me started on the innuendos. I'll just say they're hidden and quite dirty. But seriously. Don't even try watching this. Especially if you like Astro Boy.


When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: "Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society"


When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much.


The dudes at MST3K should see this dog of a film. It's basically about a dopey hack actor in Hollywood who can't land any acting gigs. And he has this strange obsession with the movie Taxi Driver. So what does this dumb actor do? He dyes his hair blonde and starts acting like a L.A. surfer dude in the naive hope this will get him acting roles. You'll laugh yer head off at so many of this movie's inadvertently funny scenes. Like when the actor dude's girlfriend is heart broken and sobbing and saying lines like, "How could you do this to me?" And why is she crying? Cos he dyed his hair blonde and became a surfer dude to get acting gigs. This movie makes no sense at ALL! The actor who played the governor on Benson is in this too and he plays a stereotypical right wing politician with lotsa dumb funny dialog. This movie will crack you up, trust me. You talking' to me?!


ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to.


Despite the gravity of the subject and probably the good intentions of the filmmakers to make a film addressing white supremacy, the inconsistencies of its main character, Bronson Green, aspiring New York actor easily turned L.A. phony, makes it hard to take the story seriously. Green, who is constantly rejected by Los Angeles casting agents for being obsolete (i.e. too New York when the 80s is looking for big, blonde, and dumb), he finds success comes easily when he's willing to succumb to falsifying his image. Unfortunately, the new hair dye and pacified "surfer" attitude lands him an acting opportunity with the Jericho Church, which subscribes white supremacist teaching of the Aryan nation. Green is willing to easily forget his past, and particularly turning his back on his young black friend of ten years, in order to be the Church's new spokesman. This makes no sense, seeing as how principled our character initially is. It is this sudden, and loose change in character, coupled with an abrupt reversion back to the hardened, DeNiro-obsessed (as his Taxi Driver character) form who is able to battle the villains. A noble attempt on the filmmakers, but one that ultimately reveals itself as anything but serious.

The other characters, too, are quite annoying and what we are forced to recognize in them comes too easily -- the psychotic paranoia of the Church leader, the self-interested actress girlfriend (the first girlfriend Bronson has when he's in L.A.), and the new blonde girlfriend who's character lacks so much development, she is, for the most part, just a walking, talking void. We are just supposed to see them in fleeting moments in which something random forces us to draw assumptions about the characters. But there is really little development of any of them.

The other problem with this film is the ungodly amount of time the characters are involved in very little important action. Much of the beginning concerns introducing the characters, obviously, and later we see Bronson's difficulties with breaking into the L.A. acting scene and the frustrations which stem from constant rejection. But after he does willingly change his looks and personality in order to become accepted, there is at least a good twenty minutes to thirty minutes of wasted film in which very little of anything happens.

For films that seek to draw attention to the irrational fears behind racism, this was not one done with enough credibility.


You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?

This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.

Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.

xx


I couldn't relate to this film. It failed to engage me either intellectually, emotionally or aesthetically. The dialogue was very dense and uninvolving. I couldn't connect with and hence care about any of the characters and I'm finding it hard to find much that's positive to say about it.

I've read that to understand it properly one needs to be familiar with some of the more obscure aspects of Catholic theology. I'll admit that, as an atheist, I probably am unfamiliar with many of the finer details of Catholicism, but I have also seen many films dealing with religious issues that have touched me because their themes are still universal to the human condition and don't rely on specialised knowledge or beliefs.


It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.

One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.

When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain.


I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of moviesuntil now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses.

The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.

For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help.

There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.

The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.

The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: "Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire." The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways.

The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or "normative behavior." Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be "good" behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.

The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law.

The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say which is what the documentary did.

What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever.


The "documentary", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources.


This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...

The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.

To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world?


That's pretty ridiculous, I hope many people are exposed to Muslims who live all over the U.S, U.k, and all over the world. The religion has over a billion followers. I Myself born and bread in America and through my religious classes and teachings I have been taught to cherish my country and work to contribute to the society. I am very dedicated to the followings and teachings of my religion have been stressed through out life to educate and prepare oneself for success through education in order to contribute back to the world. I have know many Muslims from all over and I have traveled to countries like Pakistan..I have yet to meet one person who believes that we should hurt anyone or not accept any other religion except from the people in the media...I wonder why... Also its sad that these extremists are the ones the media use to represent a whole religion. Its a religion of one billion people, and these are less than one percent, I am sure the other people of other religions would not like to be represented by the KKK, IRA and many more which are simple small percentage extremists who use outdated and not literal passages from the respected books in order to pursue their own revenge, personal, or business matters through their so called religion


This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.

Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.

And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.

A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it.


Greg Davis and Bryan Daly take some crazed statements by a terrorists, add some commentary by a bunch of uber-right reactionaries, ascribe the most extreme positions of the most fundamentalist Moslems on the planet to everyone who calls themselves a Moslem, and presents this as the theology of Islam. Maybe their next film will involve interviewing Fred Phelps and the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church, adding commentary by some militant atheist "scholars, and call their film "What the World Needs to Know About Christianity." Ultimately, this film suffers from both poor production values and lack of attention to the most basic standards of journalism. Don't waste your time and money; just turn on your AM radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple of days for free and you'll get the same message with the same level of intellectual analysis.


The first (and only) time I saw "Shades" was during a Sneakpreview. It hadn't even been in premiere. I remember there was someone of the directors staff there, don't even remember who. It was a Belgian movie, we never heard of it, so we were quite neutral, not knowing what to expect. Mickey Rourke is a brilliant actor and he's stands miles ahead all the rest. He plays an actor who's star has long stopped rising. He's helping to realise a movie in Belgium entitled "Shades".

As soon as the movie started, we noticed how much swearing there is. Nothing against the occasional swear word. However this was way beyond annoying. Whenever Rourke uses the F*** word to express something, it comes naturally. However, when someone from the cast, a non-English speaker uses the F**** or S*** word, it becomes arrogant and aggressive.

We quickly lost count of how many times they used the F and S words. Everybody was just glad to be out of the theatre. And we had to give a vote, but it was hard for us because it was only from 0 to 10, and we were looking for the -10.


This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon.


The first ten minutes of this movie about making an international movie in Belgium, are fine: you see real chaos on the set, a producer on the edge of a nervous breakdown, the cool has been-director (Mickey Rourke), the bad tempered star, etc. You have seen everything before, but it's well done. BUT THEN! The rest of the time the film just repeats itself: the same ten minutes over and over again. No climax, no dramatic development, no good acting, not even bad acting, it just goes on and on and on. Mickey Rourke has two good minutes when his character talks about his f**ked up career in a scene where reality and fiction meet. Altogether, that makes 12 good minutes.


This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!


"Fly Me To The Moon" has to be the worst animated film I've seen in a LONG TIME. That's saying something since I have taken my son to see every animated release for the last 4 years now. The story is to be generous...trite. The voice acting is atrocious, Too cute sounding. The humor is of the Romper Room variety. The animation is passable for a Nickolodeon type of cartoon but this is being released on the big screen not cable television.

It gets a 2 only because of it's OK 3-D visuals. Some of the scenes had a mildly stimulating image but We've seen much better in the past. I also question the insistence of the filmmakers to have characters fly away from the screen rather than into it in most of the scenes. While that is interesting at first it became tiresome after the 3rd or 4th time. It seemed to smack of indifference to me on the part of the creators.

I will say this though, It had a pretty cool soundtrack. And for the record my son wasn't too crazy about it either. Bad movie.


It is pretty surreal what these flies can do... eh well... this is a cartoon, so anything can happen in it.

At first I must tell you that I love animated movies. Unfortunately this year's repertoire is very weak. This cartoon is nothing but a list of flaws:

1) I quoted the tag line. It suggests that this movie has great 3D effects. Well, I did not see any, at least not something special I never saw before.

2) The "flies" in this movie look nothing like real flies. At least they could've make them black. But cyan flies, seriously? With giant heads and slim torsos?

3) The story. I guess it was written for 6 year old kids. I could tell it in two sentences it is so over simplified.

4) Excessive patriotism. For example: "They are American files after all!" Oh, give me a break.


Okay, so, someone, somewhere, a few years ago, thought it would be a good idea to make a 3D IMAX movie about some flies stowing away aboard the Apollo 11 and going to the moon. So they did. Someone, somewhere, was an idiot.

I want to give the artists props for doing their homework on the hardware. As far as I can tell, the rockets and the launch hardware were bang on. The graphics in general were pretty good - the rocket launch gave me chills, like a good rocket launch always does (my Popular Mechanics flying-car gearhead blood still runs strong) and the 3D was pretty effective. The CG wasn't Pixar-quality, but it was generally good. The flies were kinda mediocre anthropomorphics, with some half-assed late-60s characters thrown in for colour (hippie flies, African-American flies with giant afros and black shades, etc.) and the maggots looked more like grubs with human baby heads (although they made suitably gross squelching noises).

The scriptwriters certainly did not do their homework, relying on offensive and outdated clichés (60s gender politics including mostly-useless female characters, racial stereotypes, evil Russians, a fat fly who only wants to eat, grade-two level gross-out humour). In a movie aimed for IMAX, they blew a wonderful opportunity to sneak in some educational content about physics and space travel - they didn't get their physics right (zero-g in the Lunar Module during landing burn? PLEASE.) They couldn't even be bothered to read the original radio transcripts between Houston and the astronauts, all of which is in the public domain; instead they wrote their own dialogue, which sounds like crap.

But we liked the maggots.

So they get a point and a half for rockets and maggots. Uh, yay. 1.5/5.


While the 3-D animation (the highlight of the show) did it's job well, most other elements fell flat. It was as though the filmmakers thought "well, it's gonna be 3-D so we don't have to work that hard on the plot or character development." And the fact that it's a children's movie is absolutely no excuse. The public is drawn to three dimensional characters (Shrek, Nemo's Dad) just as much as they are drawn to three dimensional graphics. The only dimension any of the main characters showed was two dimensional Scooter who twists the plot from time to time with his compulsion to eat everything in sight.

And the absolute kicker? Buzz Aldrin's appearance at the very end (after watching a very robotic cartoon version of the same historical figure for an hour and half) comes on the screen and ruins everyone's good time by calling the film's main characters "contaminants" and announcing that the situation put forth on screen was actually an impossibility.

???!!!??? Did you just wanna tell the kids the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist while you're at it?


When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you.


1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.

And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.

Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP).


This is not a good movie. Too preachy in parts and the story line was sub par. The 3D was OK, but not superb. I almost fell asleep in this movie.

The story is about 3 young flies that want to have adventure and follow up on it. The characters are lacking, I truly do not care about these characters and feel that there was nothing to keep an adult interested. Pixar this is not.

I would have liked to see more special 3D effects. Also I wold like to see more fly jokes than the mom constantly saying "Lord of the flies" Pretty sexist in showing the women as house wives and fainting.


"Nat" (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend "IQ" (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry "Scooter" (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.

The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.

The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.

History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.

If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day.


I, also having endured hundreds of children's movies in the past, consider this to be one of the worst I have ever seen.

1) I resent in this day and age having to explain to my children that Russia is not "the bad guys". Also, that mocking Russian names like "Poopchev" is inappropriate.

2) The grandfather fly's birthday party scene contained a quasi-sexist joke in which he implied that males drink beer and women talk on the phone. Two other flies also needlessly use the word "crap" twice.

3) The whole movie largely smacks of 1950's stereotypes and propaganda that I thought we, as a nation, were proud to have risen above.

In all it's just crude, badly animated, even more badly written and not worth wasting the time to view.


Today, I visited an Athenean Cinema with my two kids (6 & 8 years old), payed 3 x 12 euros (about 45 US $ total) not to mention gas, popcorn & soda, was asked to return my 3d special glasses after leaving the theater and was "forced" to watch what could have been a great 3d movie masterpiece but only proved to be a sick "cold war like" propaganda movie, like none I have seen during the last 20 years... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN... IN HEAVEN'S NAME!

PS 1: The average working Greek makes no more than 850 Euros a month (approxiamtely 1050 US $)

PS 2 My kids liked it... but then again they are no more than babies >in Greek: mora, morons > like the one who wrote the script & the others who made this "3d disgrace" happen.

PS 3 3D animation is fantastic but who gives a ....!


this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT instead

Damn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs!


With the MASSIVE advertising this is getting on Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. and that ilk, my son was bugging us to see it. Between DVD and the theaters, I've seen pretty much everything by now from the outstanding (Incredibles, Shrek) to the really bad (Wall-E, Brother Bear). But this was easily the worst movie I've ever seen, kids or no kids. It was a "when it this stupid thing going to end?" kind of experience? OK, it's aimed at toddlers (or it better be - it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone over 3), but I've never seen something so predictable, repetitive, and slow-moving. Then once you're finally fed up but relieved that the movie is over, there is this bizarre thing at the end that you think is the setup for a joke, but there isn't one - it's serious, though it's hard to tell what they're trying to accomplish. The 3-D effects... yeah, if you've never seen a Viewmaster they're a big deal, otherwise no (if you look at the screen without glasses, it appears to be the same process). Even my son was bored by the end. Both my wife and I looked at each other and said "wow" at the end. Bad in every respect.


As long as there's been 3d technology, (1950's I think) there's been animation made for it. I remember specifically, a Donald Duck cartoon with Chip and Dale in it. I don't remember the name at the moment, but the plot was that Donald worked at a circus, was feeding an elephant peanuts and Chip and Dale were stealing the peanuts. This was made to watch in 3d probably 1960's. If you happened to watch Meet the Robinsons in 3d in theaters, they showed this cartoon before the movie and explained the details of it's origin. There are probably somewhere around 100 cartoons made specifically to be viewed through 3d glasses. This claim was a bad move because it's not difficult to prove them wrong. On top of that, this just looks like a bad movie.


Actually, this is a lie, Shrek 3-D was actually the first 3d animated movie. I bought it on DVD about 3 years ago. Didn't Bug's Life also do that? I think it was at Disneyworld in that tree, so I'm saying before they go and use that as there logo. Also, Shrek 3d was a motion simulator at Universal Studios. They should still consider it as a movie, because it appeared in a "theater" and you could buy it for DVD. The movie was cute, at least the little flyes were. I liked IQ. I agree with animaster, they did a god job out of making a movie out of something that is just a out-and-back adventure. I recommend it to families and kids.


Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.

One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.

Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.

Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.

Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.

By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.

I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.

Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.

I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.

Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy.


Cult of the Cobra is now available on DVD in a pristine print that does full justice to whatever merits it has as a movie. Unfortunately, that is not saying much.

It has a competent cast of second-rankers that acquit themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances. It is efficiently directed, entirely on sound stages and standing sets on the studio backlot. It looks OK, but is ponderously over-plotted and at a scant 80 minutes it is still heavily padded.

For example, the double cobra attack on the first of the GIs was surely one attack too many.

The business about Julia choosing to marry Pete rather than Tom never amounts to anything. Tom immediately falls in love with Lisa and she never has any reason to be jealous of Julia (nor is she).

Julia's 'feminine intuition' is introduced as if it is going to lead to an important plot development, but it doesn't. Similarly, Pete's investigation into cobra cults and the suspicion that briefly falls on Tom serve no purpose other than to fill up screen time.

These are just symptoms of the underlying problem. The movie is structured like a mystery but it isn't. As soon as the curse is pronounced we know exactly where the story is heading, so the characters are left painstakingly uncovering what we already know.

The ending is particularly lame. Julia is menaced purely by accident. Lisa has no reason to want to kill her - she just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Tom turns up in the nick of time to save her, it is not even clear whether she was threatened at all. He then simply disposes of the cobra in the way any of the previous victims might have done.

It is such an inconsequential little pipsqueak of a story that I found myself wondering how on earth it had been pitched to the studio heads. Then it occurred to me. Someone said: "Those Val Lewton movies were very successful over at RKO, so why don't we make one like that?"

Cult of the Cobra is clearly modelled on Cat People: mysterious, troubled, shape-shifting woman falls in love with the hero, is apparently frigid, kills people, arouses the suspicions of the hero's woman friend and dies at the end. But 'modelled on' doesn't mean 'as good as' - by a wide margin. It copies, but doesn't understand what it is copying.

It is obviously trying for the low-key, suggestive Lewton style, but this approach doesn't follow through into the story. Lisa is no Irene. She is meant to be strange and mysterious but there is no mystery about her. We get a glimpse of her after the first attack in Asia, so immediately recognise her when she turns up in New York. There is never any doubt about her purpose. Neither is there any ambiguity about whether of not she actually turns into a snake.

Then again, during her nocturnal prowling we get, not one, but two attempts at 'buses'. Neither come off, because the director doesn't understand what makes a 'bus' work and, in any case, they happen to the stalker, not the person being stalked.

These faint echoes of Cat People give Cult of the Cobra whatever small distinction it might have, but they only draw attention to the yawning gulf between the original and the imitation.

Plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt if Lewton or Tourneur were particularly flattered when this tepid little time-passer came out.


Faith Domergue (better known as "Dr. Ruth" in THIS ISLAND EARTH) is the only reason to watch this film. The story is very thin, and once the Air Force buddies return to the States with a Cobra Curse upon them the action is just a waiting game. See Faith the Snake Woman and try to pretend the rest isn't happening.


I mean the word "pedestrian". Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly "all-American" that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in "The Cat People". I think "Cult of the Cobra" should really be titled "Cult of the Contractual Obligation". Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this?


I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox


1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out.


I should explain why i gave this..."piece of art" 1 star rating out of possible 10. Simply because it's hard or next to impossible to rate it unbiased. probably it would have been the same if i had given it 10/10 - explanations anyway would have followed.

I am not fond of these pointless gore movies like HOSTEL or so - i think that's disgusting and pretty terrible (in all the possible contextual meanings), but as i found out after watching this movie - there is a genre called "historical drama" - and probably it would have been the case of 10/10 as it has plenty of it and Tarantino would have been more than happier with it (and made Kill Bill 3 to spill even more blood on screen than here to show that it is possible). but the thing about "historical drama" genre is that it's a sub-category of the "trash movies" where John Romero is the undead-gory-emperor-of-the-guts and so automatically it can't be rated as your default movie - as these are movies that are made bad on purpose and you can't really tell whether the comically bad moment was meant to be so, or it was simply bad. it's for the people who like to enjoy bad acting, bad screenplay and bad everything else. And by some turn of faith - i am one of them too. there are days when i have an urge of seeing a really bad movie and look up for some trash and here you go - the day is saved! but that's definitely an opinion of mine and doesn't have match with anyones' else.

What i wanted to say is that if you want to watch some terrible movie - then Fellini's Casanova is definitely the choice, but heed my advice and don't rate it by default means.


In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski:

"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children."

As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.

Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.

Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling.


This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful.


There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the "intelligensia", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!

Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.

An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!


Things get dull early an often in this in this mawkish jazz bio fiction written and directed by Spike Lee.

Bleek Gilliam (Denzell Washington) is a happenin' jazz trumpeter that fronts a quintet packing them in at Below the Underdog. His problems include an incompetent manager, a stage hogging sax player and two girlfriends that he's playing musical mattress with. The real love of his life though is his trumpet and his music. The band's manager, Giant, has a dangerous gambling problem and proves to be an ineffective negotiator with greedy club owners and would be best jettisoned but Bleek remains loyal for as long as possible. It will prove to his undoing as an artist but ironically contribute to his growth as a man.

As Bleek, Denzell Washington is all wrong as the ambitious trumpeter with a babe on each arm. He's too sweet a guy to be so self centered about his art, dispensing patience and love to those close to him with a low key remoteness. He simply lacks the fire. Wesley Snipes who plays Henderson the sax player would have been far more suited for the role but even he would have to mouth the flaccid throw away scribblings of Lee's torpid dialogue. As Giant, Lee hits the trifecta with an abysmal performance to match his writing and direction. Loosely attempting to mirror the grubby but sympathetic Ratso Rizzo to Bleek's Joe Buck he adopts a limp and even the "I'm walkin' here" moment from Midnight Cowboy. In this case you wish the taxi would run him over and be done with it.

Lee's script is all tepid argument, heavy handed ribbing and veiled insult with some requisite clumsy editorializing that Lee has to inject to remain down. The scenes between the band members backstage and in rehearsal lack spark and are only surpassed in dreariness by the Bleek, Giant conversations that have an ad lib look and go in circles. Completing this travesty is Lee's pretentious visual style. Tracking shots, zooms and pans are wasted and without significance to scenes. They just wander.

Blues is Lee's love letter to jazz (made implicit by the mountains of memorabilia plastered all over the sets) and it's all sentimental clap trap that lacks passion and verve. Jazz on film is better served by Tavernier's "Round Midnight" and Eastwood's "Bird" which get below the surface, reveal more sides of the form, the pain behind it in addition to offering infinitely superior lead performances by Forrest Whitaker and the real deal Dexter Gordon. This Spike Lee Joint doesn't even offer a mild buzz. It's some pretty bad homegrown.


I am normally a Spike Lee fan. It takes some time to really get into his "mojo", but once you see the clear message and the ability to tell the story that is close to his heart, Lee is a genius. Unlike The 25th Hour or Bamboozled (two of my favorite films of his), there was no clear story in this film. I was able to understand the struggle between Washington and the choice to play well or be influenced by others, but for some odd reason Lee was never able to get the true feeling out. Washington did a decent job with what was handed to him, but you could tell that this was not Lee's favorite film. Not only did Lee direct this film, but he also wrote it. You could tell. The camera work was horrid and the writing only contributed to the decay of the film. This film was coming full circle and it wasn't going to be pretty. Lee was not 100% behind this film as he was with Do the Right Thing. Of all the films I have seen Lee direct, this was the brightest and more modest of his films. It was almost as if he created a Hollywood movie instead of one that was all his own. I don't know if he saw the money from Do the Right Thing and ran with it, or what  but this film did not demonstrate his true talent.

For anyone out there that has seen this film, and perhaps stopped watching anything directed by Spike Lee afterwards due to this film, I suggest you give him a second chance. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you are coming from with this film and why you would want to put this behind you, but Lee does grow up. His work becomes more of his own, and you can see the transformation from a desire to make money to just wanting to make good films. It took me awhile to watch The 25th Hour, but when I did, it was sheer brilliance. Perhaps it was the actors, perhaps the story, but Lee crafted an amazing film out of one man's journey into the unknown. I guess that is what I was hoping Mo' Better Blues would turn out to be. This really dark journey into the life of a man that really never grew up, but instead all I got was Denzel being Denzel. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation, and I do consider him the Sydney Poitier of cinema, but this was not the film to showcase his talent.

Another issue that I had with this film was the use of Spike's sister playing one of the love interests. I don't know about you, and your family, but I do not think that I could have filmed a sex scene with my sister. I don't care who the actor is or how much money I am getting paid, I would never do it. It is just something that I never wish to see, but apparently that is different for Spike. He went ahead and showed the full nude image of his sister without any remorse. It was sad and it even made me blush. Also, I need somebody to answer me this. What was Flavor Flav doing introducing this film? So, I am sitting there on my couch, ready to start the film, when suddenly there is a voice from the past spelling out the studio that made this film, then he acknowledges himself. That did not build for a strong remaining of the story. Again, I felt that Lee was going for money on this film instead of actual talent. Perhaps that is how he could afford both Denzel and Wesley in the same movie without any explosions.

There were two great scenes in this film that made it worth watching through to the end. Don't get me wrong, this was a very bad movie, but there is always a diamond in every alleyway. The scene when Bleek accidentally forgets which woman he is with was mesmerizing. He continually went back and forth, weaving truth to confusion in a way that proved that Lee was actually behind the camera. It was a visionary scene that was probably lost in the shuffle due to the remaining poor scenes. The other scene that was worth watching was the way that Lee introduced and ended the film. By keeping the same pacing and direction, he was able to bring this tragic character around full circle and give him the chance to change his life. Other than these two moments, the rest of the film was pure rubbish, not worth viewing unless you are about to go blind.

Grade: ** out of *****


An allegation of aggravated sexual assault along with some other unpleasant peccadilloes, including improper use of a broom, are made against half a dozen or so of the most popular high-school jocks in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, by a "mildly retarded" student (Heather Matarazzo). The investigation and building of the case are handed over to the DA's office, where Ally Sheedy and Eric Stoltz are put in charge.

Rumors about the case spread through Glen Ridge, an upper-middle-class suburb where the jocks are adored by everyone in the community. (One of their fathers is a police lieutenant.) Nobody believes Matarazzo. "Our boys would never take a slut like that down to the basement, rape her, and subject her to such sexual humiliation." The question is whether Sheedy and Stoltz will ever be able to shape a sufficiently cogent case that they can bring the jocks to trial. Matarazzo is not an ideal plaintiff. She's desperate for love and friendship, and that makes it easy for faux friends to mislead her into making false statements. A slimy reporter says, "You can trust me," but it turns out the reporter can't be trusted at all. Another student, a very popular girl in school, pulls a Linda Tripp on Matarazzo, pretending to be her bosom buddy but all the while asking her leading questions about the incident -- and taping the results! As a consequence, watching this story unfold is like being on a roller coaster. At first it looks like a good case for Sheedy and Stoltz. But then, oops, the community organizes against the law. Then it looks good again. But then the reporter interferes. Then that obstacle is no sooner overcome, than Linda Tripp pokes her big nose into the investigation and makes public the tapes that seem to indicate Matarazzo was lying. (Well, actually, she WAS lying -- but she was lying to her interrogator in order to please her.) Then that's overcome, but Matarazzo objects to taking the stand because she doesn't want to be characterized as "retarded." Eric Stoltz is fine in the part of the prosecutor. I say that for the simple reason that he and I lived in Pago Pago around the same time. (I hope he wasn't the kid I had that altercation with at the bar of the Seaside Club. If he was, I take back my compliment.) Ally Sheedy is a strange actress and hard to characterize. She did a marvelous self-restrained job in "Fine Art" but I didn't sense any particular effort being put into this role, which was rather formulaic anyway. I mean, neither she nor Stoltz nor anyone else could give a bravura performance in what's essentially a comic book story.

The producers and director had the good sense to choose Heather Matarazzo for the role of victim. The very worst thing they could have done is cast an ethereally lovely, neotenous blond. Instead, Matarazzo, without being at all ugly, looks rather plain and this ordinary quality is complemented by her grooming and make up. Nor have the writers turned her wistful and gentle. She has a temper and is sometimes irritating to listen to, which is all for the good.

Matarazzo's character is the best drawn in the film. The jocks are stereotypes. Pure evil. They think themselves above the law, barge in on some nice girl's party in East Orange, trash the place during a party far worse than "La Dolce Vita's" climactic orgy, and leave without explanation or apology. They deserve to get it in the neck -- and they do.

I referred to this as a comic book story and that's pretty much what it is. It challenges none of our prejudices. It reaffirms out belief that the world can be divided into Good and Evil. And we don't have a moment's doubt about who's who. What I'm waiting for -- not really, that's just rhetorical -- is a movie almost exactly like this one and a dozen others, but in which the victim is LYING in order to get her name and photo in the papers and garner all those sympathy chips from right-thinking folk like the rest of us.

The film is based on a true story, as are so many others we've all seen, and even more fictional features. (Eg., "The Accused".) Some are good, some are strictly routine. Okay. Fair enough. Now when do we get to see a film about the Tawana Brawley case, in which the teen-aged girl disappeared on a whim for a few days, then had her friends strip her, tie her up, and smear her with dirt, so she could claim she'd been abducted and raped by the police? Now THAT would be a challenge in a way this one simply is not.


I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.


Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).

This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.

Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the "seminary" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!

This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood).


This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that "American History X" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. "Oi!Warning" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.

If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:

Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...

*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography


As big as a Texas prairie and equally as boring. Even Liz Taylor, James Dean, Chill Wills, and Dennis Hopper can't float this overbloated boat. Taylor actually LOOKS bad--wrong wardrobe, wrong hair, and wrong makeup--a unique accomplishment in her remarkable career. Hopper gives the only believable performance, and Dean in the climactic scene displays remarkable talent as something we usually don't remember him for--a comic actor. Rock Hudson is his usual prototype of Barbie Doll Ken and makes one wonder what a, say, Redford could have done with the male lead. There is no discernible plot that provides any tension until the final twenty minutes, just a pastiche of milestones that have little relationship to each other. Except for Hopper, there is no character development, only a collection of cardboard cutouts that pop up periodically for no discernible reason like random targets in a shooting gallery. To its credit, the film does tackle racism and sexism at a time when they were taboo subjects, and it does have SIZE, making it an excellent choice for ridding yourself of unwelcome house guests. Those with the DVD version can spare themselves some of the tedium by starting with the second disk. You won't be missing anything of interest.


With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. "epic" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean "legend" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office "giants" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised "Dallas" was the authentic "heir," even if contemp(tuous) latterday "Texans" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative "president" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, "supporting" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, "Giant" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns.


"Giant" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see "Hud" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or "The Last Picture Show."


Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.

0/10.


Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.

In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.

Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.

Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.

Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.

Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derrière. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.


Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.

Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made "Cyborg" prior to it and the blistering "Nemsis" the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said "Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush." However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that.


This is one of the two postapocalyptic fantasy movies that Albert Pyun made in 1993 - and it's the bad one. Apparently all his energy went into "Nemesis" which was an entertaining non-stop action movie, and had a much more expensive look. "Knights" is clunky and cheesy, a bottom-of-the-barrel sci-fi that too often resembles a video game (new opponents pop up all the time and must be exterminated as quickly as possible). The only thing that saves this movie from the trash can is Kathy Long; not a particularly attractive woman, but undeniably a brutally efficient fighting machine. As for Kris Kristofferson, considering his age at the time (58), I hope his stunt double was well paid. (*1/2)