I really hate most end of the world movies. They show what jaded Hollywood people think of the rest of the world, and they clearly think we're a bunch of sadistic idiots (or at least that watching sadistic idiots react to things is somehow entertaining). I've been to L.A. many times, I have family that works in show business, and I just want to say that these are the *last* people we should be looking to for a reality check. Some disaster movies at least paint a clever picture: Children of Men, 12 Monkeys, but usually the message is just "people will do anything to survive, all is dark and sad and purposeless, we should all be ashamed of ourselves".

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a story that explores throwing off the system of social order and testing people's mettle in the face of horror, and I do believe some people would act like this film portrayed, but sadistic idiots aside, I seriously doubt society would just dissolve into every man for himself, that's just insulting.


Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.

Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.

The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.

Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.

Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.

Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.


If you've seen other movies like this, they're probably better. The Omega Man comes to mind. To the studio's credit, they avoided the sprawling, unnecessary, big budget technofest that typifies movies of this ilk. Additionally, the set-up and premise were excellent: four people whose past is virtually irrelevant to us are trying to get away from an overwhelming infectious fatal disease. What's bad is EVERYTHING else! I get tired of endlessly stupid, careless, wimpy, ineffective, arrogant characters in a movie. That pretty much describes everyone in the movie at some point. I rented it, and found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly, "no, don't do that!", "why are you so stupid", "look out!", etcetera. A true lack of character development is evident about halfway in. A movie SHOULD give you a strong personal connection with at least some of the characters so that you actually care what happens to them. This one does not. Also,there should have been a longer, more involving end to the movie as well.


There's a good movie lurking here, but this isn't it. The basic idea is good: to explore the moral issues that would face a group of young survivors of the apocalypse. But the logic is so muddled that it's impossible to get involved.

For example, our four heroes are (understandably) paranoid about catching the mysterious airborne contagion that's wiped out virtually all of mankind. Yet they wear surgical masks some times, not others. Some times they're fanatical about wiping down with bleach any area touched by an infected person. Other times, they seem completely unconcerned.

Worse, after apparently surviving some weeks or months in this new kill-or-be-killed world, these people constantly behave like total newbs. They don't bother accumulating proper equipment, or food. They're forever running out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. They don't take elementary precautions when meeting strangers. And after wading through the rotting corpses of the entire human race, they're as squeamish as sheltered debutantes. You have to constantly wonder how they could have survived this long... and even if they did, why anyone would want to make a movie about them.

So when these dweebs stop to agonize over the moral dimensions of their actions, it's impossible to take their soul-searching seriously. Their actions would first have to make some kind of minimal sense.

On top of all this, we must contend with the dubious acting abilities of Chris Pine. His portrayal of an arrogant young James T Kirk might have seemed shrewd, when viewed in isolation. But in Carriers he plays on exactly that same note: arrogant and boneheaded. It's impossible not to suspect that this constitutes his entire dramatic range.

On the positive side, the film *looks* excellent. It's got an over-sharp, saturated look that really suits the southwestern US locale. But that can't save the truly feeble writing nor the paper-thin (and annoying) characters. Even if you're a fan of the end-of-the-world genre, you should save yourself the agony of watching Carriers.


In one instant when it seemed to be getting interesting, it never got there.

The people are going from one point to another point, with really no point (if there was one it was very dull). There was no action, suspense or any horror and the characters were pretty heartless, so there was no caring what happened to them.

All together the movie was pretty boring.

I give it a 3/10.

I like that it wasn't shaky choppy camera-work and if there was music it didn't annoy me like some really bad movies and the acting was not horrendous.


while being one of the "stars" of this film doesn't necessarily give me sage insight, i do know quite a bit of what was first there...and what ended up on the screen. i remember seeing the original cut of "incoming freshman" and being very pleased. it was funny, sexy, raunchy, all the main requirements of a drive-in film. you have to remember this was shot and released before all the rest...animal house, porky's, etc...so in its own way, this flick was truly ahead of its time. for whatever reasons, the film was given to the main distributors who editing out half the original film, and then edited in (should i say "shuffled?") THE most random scenes ever. the fat guy, the people with goat heads....what the heck was all that?! i'm sure it was put in for additional T&A, but it was so slowly paced, it caused anything going on prior to it to grind to a screeching and painful halt. but all in all, it's a fun memory for me...especially in that i'm able to say that the worst movie i've ever seen...i'm in!


I don't know where to begin. The cast is full of people who've never done anything before or since. Debralee Scott is listed on cover boxes, but does not appear in the movie at all. The writing is quite bad, even for college films. It's obviously very low budget, with one scene at the sorority house having extremely choppy editing.

The characters are pretty typical for college films - timid guy, nerd, suave black guy, tough guys, guy with mustache, attractive girl, small town girl, etc. The featured teacher is about what's you'd expect... middle aged heavy set guy who gets sidetracked easily.

If you wan't to see a college flick, stay clear from this one. It's so bad, it's not even funny.


All Hype! What better way to describe a movie about people who are upset because they can't release their film through a mainstream distributor? Consequently, they do it themselves. Otherwise, the hype of the film doesn't justify the content in the film. The story is absent and could easily be a short. The acting is poor, but the animation and music is pretty good. Otherwise don't waste your time - don't believe the hype! However, if you have the chance to see the film for free, do so. Then you won't have to waste money. Still, the filmmakers do a good job of pressing their story and creating cliffhangers with their self-indulgent mini-series. Otherwise, they're one hit wonders who never had a hit.


I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.

Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.

I hope the creators/"actors" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.

See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.


Definitely the product of young minds, this piece may very well appeal to the 20s crowd, who is still trying to find their place in the world, while obsessing over every neurosis. However, I can't imagine that the heavy amount of narcissistic navel-gazing, trite humor, or banal subject matter would be particularly engaging to anyone over 30. Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the filmmakers obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way.

However, one has to give some style points to the filmmakers, who obviously grew up in the video generation, and use every conceivable editing trick in the book in order to spruce up an otherwise non-existent plot. There are 2 points to remember here. First, beware of festival darlings. Second, even though we live in the age of youtube, not everyone's account of their mundane lives deserves big- screen treatment. But these young filmmakers have every right to make their film, and if others 20-somethings can find something in it to identify with, then all the better. Yet I could not help but think at the end of this film how this latest generation, just now coming of age, will fare in the real world that presents so many challenges and complications. In the age when every child is constantly reassured of how special they are, and that they all deserve their 15 minutes of exposure, resiliency and the ability to deal with adversity does not exactly appear to be this generation's strong point.


Four Eyed Monsters follows the relationship of a shy, reclusive videographer and an equally estranged struggling artist, who, both living in the Big Apple, develop an unlikely romance with the help of an internet dating site. This in itself is not so unusual, but what is, is their method of communication. Foregoing the verbal, they take to writing notes and later communicating through video.

The film is based upon the creator's (Arin Crumley & Susan Buice) own relationship, who besides writing and directing, take to acting as the lead characters as well. With elements of avant-garde, anti-plot, and docudrama, the film scatters itself to the wind with an undecided structure nestled neatly between narcissism and self-indulgence.

As the movie wears on, a brief separation and deterioration of their once intriguing form of communication grow old as the couple face the hardship of reality. Focusing solely on inner conflict, or the woes of relationship, the film struggles through a stagnant narrative that is neither original, nor poignant. This could have been easily circumvented with the addition of subplot and external conflict, and a third act, to which there is none - just a montage of melodrama that leads nowhere.

What is even more aggravating is the film's descent from story into reality that abruptly concludes with an open ended and unsatisfying finish. This would have been all fine and dandy, but there is no question asked and no meaning to be discovered or pondered.

(On a side note, the film contains beautiful animation and a vivid and moving soundtrack, one of the more interesting aspects of the production.)

But as always, watch the film and decide for yourself.


At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1. I can only surmise then that those giving it a 10 were either cast or crew members.

They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.

I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought. Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed and consequently, much of the second half was viewed at double speed as I searched in vain for some small snippet of cinematic redemption. Sadly, there was none.

If "The Choke", was put up against an episode of Scooby Doo then I'm afraid the cartoon would win hands down in terms of mystery, intrigue and unpredictability. And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.

I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick.


Released on DVD in the UK as Axe, The Choke is a teen slasher that fails in pretty much every department: the story is almost non-existent, resulting in a film which comprises mostly of people wandering around a dark building; with the exception of two characters (who are quite obviously destined to be the film's survivors), everyone is thoroughly objectionable, meaning that the viewer couldn't care less when they get slaughtered; the deaths aren't gory enough (unless a brief shot of a pound of minced beef covered in fake blood turns your stomach); and the gratuitous sex scene features next to no nudity (an unforgivable mistake to make in a slasher flick!).

The wafer-thin plot sees members of a punk band locked inside what appears to be the world's largest nightclub (there are endless abandoned corridors and rooms, unlike any club I've ever seen) where they are picked off by an unseen assailant. For a low budget effort, the production values are okay, and the cast are all seem to be fairly capable actors, but with not nearly enough genuine scares, a reluctance to get really messy (this is a slasher, so where's the graphic splatter?), way too much dreadful dialogue (particularly from the not-dead-soon-enough drummer) and some ill advised use of tacky video techniques in an attempt to add some style, the movie quickly becomes extremely boring.


I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect? and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining. Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better. Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry.


The Choke starts as a rock band known as The Choke prepare for a gig at a nightclub called 'Club 905' owned & run by Guy Johnson (Andrew Parker). Lead singer Dylan (Sean Cook) & guitar player Mike (Jason McKee) plan to tell the other band members, bass player London (Brooke Bailey) & drummer Nancy (Tom Olson), that they are both going solo & their services won't be needed any longer. Once at the club Dylan prepares but Mike doesn't show up & the gig turns into a disaster. Then just as the band think things couldn't get any worse they find a dead body in the cellar, that all the doors have been locked so they can't get out & that they can't trust anyone as a mysterious killer begins picking them off one-by-one...

Produced & directed by Juan A. Mas The Choke is a standard by-the-numbers teen slasher that really doesn't have anything going for it. The script by Jessica Dolan & Susannah Lowber (not too many horror films out there penned by ladies...) has some surprisingly good character's in it & some nifty dialogue but while it's much better than a lot of modern shot on a camcorder type horror in that respect it's so slow & boring that even a few interesting character's can't come anywhere close to saving it. As one would expect all the usual teen slasher clichés are used, from the isolated location the victims can't escape from, the cast of good looking teenagers who keep splitting up, a few murders & a really poor twist ending that tries to mimic something like Scream (1996) & be surprising but doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it logically (they couldn't have done some of the things they were supposed to) & to make matters even worse I guessed who the killer was fairly early on & even though I don't want to boast I was spot on. Then there's the fact that the makers of The Choke felt that it's audience would be entertained by showing endless (well it feels endless while watching it) scenes of teenagers walking around dark corridors doing nothing in particular, I am sorry but there is only so many scenes like this that I can take before it starts to become tedious. The kill count is low, at first they all decide to stick together (good idea) but then they all just randomly decide to split up & go their separate ways (bad idea when there's a killer on the loose), the pace is lethargic, the kill scenes are unimaginative & to top it all off the twist ending is poor.

Director Mas does alright, the film looks OK for the most part although there are the odd occasions where he uses some annoying post production editing technique like slow motion or frame skipping. The gore levels aren't really up to scratch, there's some blood splatter, a guy with a hole in his chest, a few dead bodies & someone impaled on some metal poles. Most of the kills happen off screen with the axe kill at the end a good example of the film not actually showing anything. Since the film is about a rock band there's quite a rock orientated soundtrack with some truly horrible, horrible rock songs used on it. I am sorry rock fans but to my ears this crap is just noise pollution. It's not scary, there's no real atmosphere & the lack of blood & gore is just inexcusable when the rest of the film is so bad.

With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 The Choke is well made with reasonable production values, it looks cheap to be sure but not as cheap as many low budget horror films look. Shot in a place called Spokane in Washington apparently. The acting is one of the films strongest points as it's generally pretty good all round, I mean no-one is going to win an Oscar but it ain't half bad.

The Choke is a throughly routine Scream style teen slasher that has one of the weakest twist endings ever & a criminal lack of blood, gore, violence, nudity & dead bodies. I mean if a slasher hasn't got any sex or gore then what's the point? Those are the only things that the average slasher is worth watching for, right?


THE CHOKE (aka AXE in the UK) is a slasher produced supposedly as a straight-to-DVD movie. I say "supposedly" because the title of the movie does not have the "V" in brackets to indicate that it was a made for DVD movie (even though it does have the appearance of one).

The plot is simple  a band is holding a gig in a former meatpacking factory and they are killed one by one.

I think most would agree that the movie was never going to be a masterpiece, but this does not excuse the faults here. Even straight-to-DVD movies such as BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE (which has a very low IMDb rating) have a lot of redeeming qualities and sometimes come off as being one of the so-called "so bad, they're good" movies. However, THE CHOKE falls far short of being either a serious slasher (such as HALLOWEEN) or being a "so bad it's good" movie (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE).

The movie does start off good with a character killed using a drill. The blood effects were very cheesy but understandable given the very low budget. But, from there onwards, it's downhill all the way.

There are so many faults in THE CHOKE that I could spend all day talking about them. But, a few obvious ones stand out and I'll go into them.

The aforementioned gig that the band holds seems to start off with around 50 people present but after the music stops, there seems to be only around 8 people left (and yet they're all meant to be locked in!).

The characters in this movie are not likable at all. Most of the band members are aggressive foul-mouthed morons or just downright weird. No one really cares about what happens to them, and even their supposed friends forget about them when they've been dispatched. The highlight of the movie is the presence of a homeless man who seems to regard the meatpacking factory as some kind of church (seriously!). He spouts some really funny lines for no apparent reason. But sadly, even his presence can't save the movie.

There are too many scenes of people walking around and talking without any characterisation. Around 65 minutes of the film is spent watching characters walk around talking. Characters disappear for long periods of time without explanation. As in other straight-to-DVD movies such as CROCODILE and GRIM WEEKEND, the characters spend a lot of time swearing at each other aggressively without any provocation at all. There are plenty of over-the-top outbursts (mainly from the male characters) and one nearly results in a full-blown fight. In fact, the format could be said to go as follows: characters walk around--murder takes place--characters walk around--murder takes place. You get the idea.

The dialogue is terrible and it seems that few lines are spoken without the f-word being used. Perhaps this was meant to be funny, but it just comes off as sad. And more to the point, we have all seen this done a thousand times before (usually to much greater effect).

The movie is totally devoid of any suspense at all. The dead bodies serve to provide the only indication that the characters are in danger. A maniac is running around loose and yet the characters just behave like total morons. They make little attempt to get out of the factory or find a weapon with which to protect themselves. And much of the time, they don't even pretend to be scared.

In the same vein as DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, the killer is not seen at the time the murders are being committed (with the exception of the final murder when the killer's identity is revealed). A random weapon appears out of nowhere to kill the victim in question. There is no one seen stalking the characters at any time. In DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, this served to make the film funny (unintentionally of course), but here it is not funny at all.

And, as another reviewer has pointed out, the soundtrack includes music that is very bad, even for those who like punk rock. The extras look uncomfortable dancing to it. The score (at the end, there is no music at the beginning!) consists of a band of Sugarbabe wannabes singing some very bad song that is completely unrelated to the movie.

Don't misunderstand the points made in this review. This reviewer likes bad movies (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE and BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE) as much as the classics (such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH). But, it seems that THE CHOKE tried too hard to fit into one of those categories without fitting into either. And even as straight-to-DVD movies go, this is a poor effort.

On a positive note, the film does contain some fairly good gory murder scenes. But, when the surviving characters do not take the situation seriously, these scenes lose their importance quickly as the intensity they provide disappears into oblivion.

Fans of the traditional 1980s B-movie slashers should take steps to avoid this movie. And fans of the classics such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH should do everything in their power to avoid it!


The photography on the DVD is so dark I thought the screen had died. I think I missed seeing half of the movie. Still, it was poorly crafted and not interesting. I did not find the story related to the title "The Black Widow". I was hoping for a mystery or a thriller but did not get involved enough to care after the first few frames. I rented the movie especially for Willem Dafoe and was sad it wasted his talent. I do not believe Giada Colagrande has studied movie making long enough to develop a major motion picture. She is attractive and might develop into an actor but she took on too many tasks in this movie. Although they are married in real life, they lack chemistry on the screen. Their relationships did not seem believable. I do not understand why the other characters were even introduced into the plot.


The only reason I watched the movie till the end was the "hope" to see something interesting. The movie is really bad and the performance of the girl it is really, really bad, honestly, I am not a movie critic neither an expert but you just need common sense to notice that this work it is incredibly bad.

The first thing that came to my mind as soon as she started to talk was: "She has an affair with Willem Dafoe and he accepted to help her with the screenplay and appear in her movie since she is the brilliant director"... surprise, surprise, next day after I watched the film I found out on internet that Giada Colagrande is his wife. Awful story and terrible performance.


I just rented (yes! I paid money to see!) this film. OMG. It is one of the very worst films I have ever seen. As another reviewer put it, Ms. Colagrande, get out of films, PLEASE! Please never make or appear in another film! The lady has the charisma of a cantaloupe. No, that's not fair to the cantaloupe, which probably has more going for it. She does not know how to act; she affects a disgusted look ALL the time (reminded me very much of my always-disgusted young sisters-in-law from Europe). She is not charming; she is not pretty. There is no real story. And the editing! There WASN'T any, that I could see! It's pretty bad when you are watching a film and, just to get through it, you press "forward forward" on your remote, and STILL nothing happens! I mean!..... I kept involuntarily screaming, "Cut! Cut!" What WERE they thinking? Well, obviously, they thought they would make a film together and get PAID to make love on screen! Pretty good deal for THEM; pretty raw deal for the viewer! I think I'm going to throw up now....


I am not an artistically inclined individual. I am a science minded woman and I felt that this movie was maybe one of those campy artsy type films on a budget. I watched part of it with my fiancé and my future step daughter. We tried very hard to find something in this film to keep our interest. My fiancé and his daughter voted it off and we moved on to Ocean's 13,but that is another story. Not to be deterred I awoke the next morning and gave the movie another shot. I began again watching this movie in earnest. I just don't get it,I thought I would get it.I thought the funniest part was the flushing of the ashes and the urn finding a spot by the fireplace being used as a vase for what appeared to be dead flowers. Interesting and still it had dead stuff inside. It was an odd and bizarre movie. Maybe this is what they were after,however I won't be tricked a second time!


As I watch this film, it is interesting to see how much it marginalizes Black men. The film spends its time showing how powerless the most visible Black man in it is (save for an heroic moment). For much of the film, the other Black men (and dark-skinned Black women) in the film are way in the background, barely visible.

Vanessa Williams' character was strong and sympathetic. The viewer can easily identify and sympathize with her. There are also some fairly visible and three-dimensional support characters who are light-skinned, and some White characters of some warmth and dignity. But 99% of the Black males in this film are nothing but invisible men. Voiceless shadows in the background, of no consequence. Such a horrible flaw, but anything but unusual in the mainstream media.


Caught this movie on the tube on a Sunday. I thought it was so bad I looked it up on IMDb to see what others thought of it. I was not surprised at the amount of silly people who enjoyed this fluff. I was however surprised when I looked into the comments to read the Hated It categories only to find that their were none. I was shocked at this; I always look at the hated it's as their are always those who hate a movie no matter how good it is. Somehow this movie made it through unscathed by the haters I say nay to that and proclaim proudly that I HATE THIS MOVIE! I know I should go into detail about why I hate this movie but to do so would only grant this movie more respect than it deserves.


Jack London's life was certainly colorful enough for a dozen films about different aspects of him. Sad to say though that what his life was used for in film was some wartime propaganda that put the best face on some of the least attractive parts of his character.

Jack London who barely saw the age of 40 when he died wrote some of the best stories around. He wrote on what he knew, but he also wrote as does everyone else bringing the baggage of his own life experience with him. Some of that experience in another day and time would have been condemned as racism. But this was World War II and London was a big believer in the 'yellow peril' as it was called back in the day.

Two thirds of the film covers his life as author, we see his years as a seaman from where he got the inspiration for The Sea Wolf. We see him up in the Yukon in a miner's cabin with a dog that was no doubt his inspiration for The Call of the Wild. London was able to capture the spirit of adventure that his own life was all about right on paper for the world to enjoy ever since.

The final third dealt with his time as a war correspondent covering the Russo-Japanese War. London was a socialist, but his socialism did not encompass folks who were Oriental. Like a few million others he saw the rising immigration of the Chinese and Japanese to our Pacific coast as a threat to jobs for the white people. He advocated strict immigration policies for Orientals.

The film puts the cart before the horse. London is presented as a man who saw because he was on hand at the Russo-Japanese War what Japan's ambitions were and for that reason was as xenophobic as he was. Actually the kind of atrocities present in World War II were not existent during the Russo-Japanese conflict. Japan had her imperial ambitions, but so did everyone else including the USA at that time. But our immigration policies caused by pressure from our West Coast politicians was a big contributing factor to the deterioration of relations with Japan over a couple of generations. London was part of the cause not a prophet crying in the wilderness.

This film was the first independent production of Samuel Bronston who later did some films with a bit more budget than Jack London. Had he a bit more money Bronston might have gotten James Cagney or Spencer Tracy, both who would have been right for the role. Instead they got Michael O'Shea who was making his second film after Lady of Burlesque. O'Shea is fine in the part, but certainly was no box office.

As London is covering the war, he meets up with a Captain Tanaka who is played by Leonard Strong, an actor who specialized in Orientals and played a ton of them in World War II. From the vantage point in 1905 Strong outlines in the best Fu Manchu tradition Japan's imperial aims right up to taking on the USA eventually. Must have gone over great with the swing shift crowd.

A lot of course is left out of London's life including a first wife. Playing the second and only wife in this film is Susan Hayward who only comes into the movie when it's half over. I wish we'd have seen more of her. Charmian Kittredge London survived her husband by almost 40 years dying in 1955.

O'Shea in fact met and married the leading lady of his life in Jack London. Virginia Mayo has a small role in Jack London and they married for 30 years until O'Shea died in 1973.

Maybe one day we'll get a view of Jack London that will be a lot better than this one.


In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the "basis" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, "Our Leading Citizen," in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than "Jack London"!


Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting.

** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo


OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).

As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.

If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.

All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.


I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.

Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.


Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.

A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.

first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.

verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.

It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"

follow?

lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.

It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less.


Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it.


I'm actually surprised at the amount of good ratings this anti-Christian pseudo-documentary got. Now, I respect the guy's opinion and faith, I myself am not, at this state, believer of the taught Christian doctrine. However, anti-Christian propaganda is somewhat of a different issue.

This film has valid points, but they are very few and represented in a very biased context. I'm not recommending against seeing it. In fact, I think everyone should see it and decide on their own whether they believe it or not. And this is actually more of a chance than the one the director gives to Christian teachings. Rather than an inquiring approach on the subject, it looks like a personal vendetta on the Christian school that affected his childhood. It also misrepresents the Christians most of the times as either incredibly naive or fundamentalists, no moderation in between.

The director uses movie scenes from Passion of Christ without permission, sets up an interview with the headmaster of his former school and presents almost solely anti-Christian historians and writers. I actually found the headmaster to be the most down-to-earth person and think that his attitude was fully justified. I also strongly doubt that any of the Christian believers who were interviewed were consulted afterwords or even told before the interview the purpose of the inquiry.

With this being said, there are certainly new and interesting facts to be found here and some very original thoughts on the question of Christianity. But the way in which this whole think is produced is often offensive, highly unprofessional and dreadfully biased.


This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier.

What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation.


This will be brief. Let me first state that I'm agnostic and not exactly crazy about xtians, especially xtian fanatics. However, this documentary had a tone of the like of some teenager angry at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games. I just couldn't take it seriously. Mentioning how CharlesManson thought he was Christ to illustrate the point that xtianity can breed evil? i don't know it was just cheap and childish -- made the opposition look ignorant. Furthermore, the narrator just seemed snobby and pretentious. The delivery was complete overkill. I can't take this documentary seriously. Might appeal to an angry teenager piss3d off at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games.


I watched DVD 1 only. The program proper may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.

Also, Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie. It never gets back on topic.

Religious people are prone to discount skeptics when their objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people seem irrational, and therefore unconvincing.

Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.

In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was too short.

If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.

And perhaps he could lend his "Christ never walked the earth" material to a more serious documentarian. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.

The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti-religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non-Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .


One of the most popular rentals at my local video store is not Borat or The Departed but a 2005 documentary about Jesus Christ called The God Who Wasn't There by director Brian Flemming, an ex-Christian Fundamentalist. Flemming, in his 62-minute documentary, asserts that Jesus was not a historical figure but a legend based solely on Pagan traditions. Using interviews with authors, philosophers, and historians to debunk the long-held Christian belief that Jesus, the son of God, lived among men, was crucified, and was resurrected, Flemming compares the Christ story with those of cult figures Isis and Osiris in Egypt, Dionysus and Adonis in Greek mythology, and Roman mystery cults such as Mithraism and finds many surprising similarities.

In addition to his evidence about Pagan cults, he also states that the earliest sources for the Christ story, the four gospels, were written forty or fifty years after the date given for Jesus' crucifixion and that the letters of St. Paul show little evidence of Jesus being a flesh and blood figure. Flemming, unfortunately however, is not out to conduct a solid investigation of the truth about Jesus' life but to use the subject only as a point of departure for a full throttle attack on Christianity and all religion. Most of the interviews are with those philosophically aligned with the director including avowed atheists such as Biologist Richard Dawkins and author Sam Price. The only Christians interviewed are those on the fringe such as Scott Butcher, the creator of the website Rapture Letters.com, and Ronald Sipus, principal of the fundamentalist Village Christian School, which Flemming attended as a boy.

Like Michael Moore's interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, his interview with Sipus is so contentious that Sipus walks out in the middle. In a sarcastic tone, Flemming tells us how wrong Christianity was wrong about the sun revolving around the earth, then points to atrocities committed in the name of Christianity such as those by cult leader Charles Manson who killed 11 people and Dena Schlosser, who cut her baby's arm off for God. He also lifts a statement from a book by LaHaye and Jenkins that says that Christians "look forward to the day when all non-Christians are thrown into a lake of fire, howling and screeching." To further turn us against Christianity, Flemming shows us extended clips from Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, detailing in minute detail each scene of violence and torture. What could have been a serious discussion on a very interesting subject eventually becomes a childish rant and a polemic against all religion. In the process of condemning those who used Christianity to commit unspeakable acts, he ignores such people as socialist Muriel Lester, a famous Christian pacifist, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, a Mayan Indian of Guatemala who helped found the Revolutionary Christians and received the Nobel peace prize in recognition of her work for social justice, and Mother Teresa, whose work was about respect for each individual's worth and dignity.

His most telling argument is his comparison of Christian doctrine with the Pagan cults and he makes some good points, yet Flemming does not tell us that while some aspects of these cults may resemble Christian doctrines, there are no texts or source materials for these cults before 300AD, long after the New Testament. Also it is important to note one major difference. The immediate goal of the initiates was a mystical experience that led them to feel they had achieved union with their god. This is anathema to Christianity which believes that a Church hierarchy including priests and bishops all the way up to the Pope are required to interpret God's will to mankind.

Although I am not a Christian and have some doubts about whether or not Jesus Christ was in fact a historical figure, the truth is that, in the long scheme of things, it may not matter. What matters is that a message was introduced to mankind and spread around the world that contributed to mankind's spiritual evolution. Regardless of the distortions and crimes later committed in its name and there were many, Christianity as conceived was a doctrine of compassion and love, and a moral and ethical code that furthered respect for our fellow man.

While I applaud the fact that the film was made and that a taboo topic was discussed, what is sorely needed is not another divisive attempt to use religion as a field of combat but to see it as a common thread that can bring the world's people together. While there is room for debate and discussion on religious subjects, in the words of Annie Besant, "spiritual truths are best seen in the clear air of brotherhood and mutual respect. The God Who Wasn't There is recommended only for those whose idea of a good time is to trash the religion of others.


In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.


As a spiritualist and non Christian. I thought i really was going to be holding onto my faith, but what a load of i seers. I thought the film would have great arguments, but only got one sided views from Atheists and Jews??? And who are all these street people he's interviewing who don't know the back of their arm from their head. Where are the proper theologians and priests and stuff he could have got arguments from. Not retired nuts who wrote books and finished their studies in 1970. Personally this DVD was a waste of time and not worth my time to check if the facts are right or wrong or if i should or should not believe because an anti-Christ told me so. Please to think he came up with the conclusion of not finding God because his own ego and demons got the better of him. No im not going to say the movie was stunning to help atheists reading this feel better about themselves. But if you really want to show the world you care about us poor souls who believe in Jesus then entice us with your worth, not your beating off the drums.


I personally found this movie to be terrible, first it was hardly objective, and provided one side of the debate. The only people who were presented as the side saying he did exist being a bunch of people coming from a Billy Grahm Revival. Secondly it deviated heavily from its supposed topic did Jesus (Yeshua) exist, to talking about how violent Christianity is, and showing scenes from Mel Gibsons "The Passion". In the end it has the director con his former Principal of a Conservative Private School into being interviewed, and attempts to trap him about teaching the kids there faith. Oh and also the Techno Music just made the film harder to watch.


This documentary begins with an interesting premise -- it makes an intriguing and convincing argument that the history of Jesus as is commonly believed is probably a myth. Sadly, though, after priming us with this, the movie completely shifts gears and becomes little more than a non-stop attack on Christianity, and pretty much focusing on the easy targets.

The writer/director clearly has some issues with the Church (he is a former evangelical Christian and has some legit anger) and this film seems to be his form of release. It'd be interesting to see the first 20 minutes expanded, but as a whole, the movie is disappointing.


First let me state that I do not believe in god (if you want to use the word atheist, fine, but I don't like that word since it describes what I'm not, not what I am) but I hated this "documentary." The production values were damn near non existent, the premise extremely shaky and whole thing seemed to be an exercise in Brian Flemming's insecurities.

The production values were terrible and Brian Flemming is clearly an amateurish director at best. The narration sounded like he just narrated over the film all in one shot, and he didn't practice at all. There were way to many umms and pauses when he should have been talking in the movie. animation was also pretty damn bad.

The whole idea that Jesus is a mythical character is not taken seriously by historians and biblical scholars. As I stated before, I do not believe in God, and I don't think that whether or not Jesus was a real man says nothing about the existence of God. My personal view, Jesus probably was a real man but he lived in a time where there were many massiah's (look up apollonius of tiana) and that the stories of his life and preaching were blown out of proportion the farther you got from his death. According to the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus (and there's a good citation for this so it's garbage) "virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]" I was left wondering at the end of the documentary if this was more about the director's insecurities than anything else. I was left wondering if he was trying to convince himself more than anyone else. The most telling example of this is the final interview he was with the religious school principal. He's not even coy about it. The way he bombards the teacher is unfair and while I agree with the director partially, that teaching kids about hell fire is a bad thing, the way that Flemming confronted the principal was just awkward to watch. Flemming had a chance to perhaps get a good discussion going, if he was more tactile with his interview. Instead he comes off aggressive with "isn't it bad to teach kids this stuff." The guy cuts the interview short and I mean, what did he expect, the principal to say "oh yes, I see it is, I have seen the light, this will now be a secular school?" It seems that Flemming is getting revenge for what he feels was a wrong done to him in childhood. This isn't about the documentary, this is about Flemming's insecurities, and has nothing to do with the supposed topic of the documentary. Flemming shows what he's really doing here, and that is the real downfall of this so-called documentary.


I was curious to watch this movie. A lot of people seem to be excited. I also have my beliefs. I believe in Jesus Christ but I'm opened for any kind of views or opinions. It doesn't matter for me, if Jesus existed in the way it's written in the bible. If Maria was a virgin or not, or all the other similar pagan coincidences. What matters for me is the idea of salvation, the idea of love as the only way to find peace in this world.

What made me angry is when somebody takes a sentence, present it as a fact but without showing the context it was written. For example, they showed in this movie following sentence big: "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me" Jesus (Lukas 19:27) What they didn't tell you is the context. Jesus told a story about an evil king. There is no passage in the bible where Jesus supports killing. He is love! After quoting the bible wrong they present us yelling people (pseudo-christians) filled with hate. The majority of viewers don't check the informations presented so they start thinking Jesus=hate=not good for me or for anybody else. This is pure manipulation people. Please use your brain. Don't take everything as a fact they tell you in this movie. We destroy our own basis, our civilization if we start dismantling Jesus in this way and the message he brought to us. You saw off the branch you're sitting on.


I sat through this movie expecting a thought-provoking, fact-based film. But instead was given some of the least thought out arguments against the Christian faith imaginable. For instance, in an effort to prove that Christianity is inherently violent, the narrator constantly quotes the bible without giving context, and thus altering the meaning of the text. Jesus is quoted as commanding the execution of those who disobey him, when in fact, the quote is from a parable Jesus told, involving a king who is then quoted. Thus the narrator makes it appear as if Jesus says one thing when he is actually telling a story where one of his characters says it. This is dishonesty in a very obvious form. Is this really what Atheism has to offer the world? This film also attempts to use the success of the Passion of the Christ over Jesus Christ: Superstar and The Last Temptation of the Christ as evidence that Christians are bloodthirsty. He makes no mention of the fact that the Passion was the most historically accurate Bible-film to date. He makes no mention of the fact that it was actually the best liked by critics of the bunch. He then edits in a series of violent images from the Passion as if to hammer home his point. Ironically, he makes no mention of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which came out a few months later and plays violence for entertainment, versus dramatic effect.

One thing that really bothered me was his mockery of people who actually knew more about the subject matter than he did. All the Christians he interviewed were average schmoes in the parking lot of Billy Graham's New York Crusade. Atheists he interviewed for the film were notable authors and scholars. He asked the Christians how the Christian movement started, and of course, they said it started with the Holy Spirit coming to the disciples at Pentecost. Which is correct (Acts 2). He then gives the commentary, "isn't it funny how so few Christians seem to know the origins of their own faith?" and proceeds to explain that the apostle Paul started Christianity after being stopped on the road to Damascus. The poor chap seems convinced that Acts 9 happens before Acts 2. More deception? Or is this simply ignorance? He also throws around nonsense that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a real person. Are you kidding me? 1 Corinthians 15 describes Jesus death and resurrection being witnessed by people (whom Paul names in the passage) for the Corinthians to question if they are in doubt!

There are many many other examples of how full of crap this 'documentary' is. But because I don't have time or patience to go into them all, I'll skip straight to the end. It's obvious throughout the whole movie that the narrator has an emotional vendetta against his upbringing in the church. And the climax interview is HIS CHILDHOOD PRINCIPLE! In a last-ditch attempt to disprove the Christian faith, the narrator tries to make a fool out of someone who gave him a detention as a child. Is this what passes as an intellectual documentary for the Atheist community? Surely there are intelligent Atheist filmmakers out there who can make a documentary that isn't a load of made-up crap passed off as 'facts'.


I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi


I was VERY disappointed with this film. I expected more of a Thelma and Louise female-buddy crime movie. Instead, the women prison escapees in this flick, had no sense of loyalty to one another. They were an extremely vulgar pack of hyenas, who beat each other up, double-crossed each other, and even committed lesbian rape against other women in the film.

Instead of being shrewed thieves, who stuck together to plan their escape and find the hidden stash of money, the women escapees were too selfish and vicious, to trust each other for long. These women weren't liberated in a positive sense. They just ended up being a bunch of loose-cannons, incapable of respect for themselves, or each other. If you like 70s female crime caper films, skip this bomb, and see The Great Texas Dynamite Chase, which stars Claudia Jennings and Jocelyn Jones.


I've heard about this movie for many years, and finally got a chance to see it. A massive murdering of cheerleaders back in 1963 and 1969 eventually cause a cheerleading camp to close up. Fast forward to 1982, and Bambi, a former student, opens it back up with new recruits, among them Candy (Carol Kane), Glenn (Judge Reinhold), and Sandy (Debralee Scott). One by one, they are murdered by the killer, until only one remains. It is then when we find out who did it and why.

Also in the movie are Tom Smothers doing a terrible accent as a Canadian Mountie, and Paul Reubens doing his Pee-Wee Herman schtick. The plot overall isn't very well developed, and quite lame, but some funny scenes do occur, namely the House of Bad Pies and the strip poker scene. The ending seems like it's thrown together, which is a shame.

Overall, good for about ten or fifteen minutes total, the rest you can just fast forward through. Maybe catch it on TV, but it's not worth buying.


This Is Pretty Funny. "Saturday The 12th", a?... Great Work... I Laughed Every Minute of the movie... This Is Like "Scary Movie" for the 1980's. great STUDENT BODIES-styled gags...

Too Bad This Isn't On Video... But You Can Still Watch It on FLIX...


"Pandemonium" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. "Airplane", "The Naked Gun" trilogy, "Blazing Saddles", "High Anxiety", and "Spaceballs" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. "Pandemonium" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, "Scream" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?

*1/2 (out of four)


I only watched this because it was directed by Lucio Fulci and featured Claudio Cassinelli, an actor I like. I was certainly disappointed.

The idea that condemned prisoners would fight to the death for TV ratings has been overdone with Rollerball, Logan's Run, Blade Runner, and the new film, Death Race, which will certainly suck me in because it stars Jason Statham.

This was just a bore for the most part. The "Kill Bike" action was ridiculous. The "training" was a snooze-fest. It just never grabbed me and made me want to care about anyone, including "Dallas" star Jared Martin or Fred Williamson.

Pick one of the others mentioned and you'll be better off.


fulci experiments with sci fi and fails. usually in his non horror films we still get sum great gore, but not here. Sum very funny scenes like when the prisinors are forced to hold onto a bar for 12 minutes and if they drop they are electecuted. the guy falls and and has some kind of fit on the floor for about two minutes until his friends who were struggling to hold on anyway lift him off the floor. The city is an obvious model but not a bad one. and the end explosion is at best laughable. And dont get me started on the terrible battle scenes.

4/10


Watching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, "My god this looks like a really bad sitcom." Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.

Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?

The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.

Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well.


Saw it at the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian Film Fest.

What can I say? Against my better judgment, I liked it, but it seemed to me that that acting was a little...weak (mostly I noticed this from the family of the teen boy). I mean, the script wasn't stellar to begin with, but the actors didn't make me believe the relationships.

The plot is also predictable.

Nonethelss, I liked it. The characters are likable, and the plot is not challenging or upsetting. It's sweet, the characters care about each other, and I don't count it as fifty minutes ill-spent.

But I don't recommend it.


I will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point "I'm gay, not corny." And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian.


A group of models is seeking an apartment to live in, and are shown one by a local real estate agent. Unknown to the models and the agent, however, is that "hell's threshold" is in the apartment and when crossed, the demon "Dethman" is summoned to kill all those in his path. The story is told by Sam Bishop, a journalist who was accused of the murders.

Although I am a champion of low budget, microbudget, and independent films, I cannot praise this movie. The creators take pride in their 24-hour shooting schedule and at least one actor boasts on the DVD of his acting prowess, but I cannot wrap my head around this. Why make a film in 24 hours if an extra one or two hours of editing would make all the difference? And why pride yourself on acting that is poor, nonsensical and results in the bad delivery of a handful of lines?

Through much of the film, the models are being shown parts of an apartment by a real estate agent. The dialog is clearly ad-libbed because no scriptwriter could come up with such empty diction. The agent, also, clearly knows nothing about housing... she focuses on aspects of a home that no one could care about, incorrectly explains the heat source (didn't she see the radiator?) and says the vermin problem will be solved when they call "the terminator". Please, write a script -- some deviation is fine, but this was a mess.

And why were the girls moving in models? Their careers had no point in the plot, and this seems like a forced situation. At one point, an actress breaks character and says something to the effect of "dude, they're going to be (upset)" which sounded more natural than any other line, though out of place because of the other bad dialog.

The demon made no sense. I appreciated the attempt to explain how "hell's threshold" jumps to random places on Earth (including apartment fireplaces), but why not explain where the demon came from? His background involves a man whose love is killed by another man. How does this make you a demon? (Also, why did we need all these Victorian flashbacks with no dialog and glances across a field? It was overdone.)

The dramatic pauses between lines was awful. The Sam Bishop character was by far the worst, with the interviewer not far behind. Does every question require a pause, a funny face and a response... followed by a pause, a funny face and a response? I was so frustrated. To me, the only point was to drag the time out... but I'd rather have thirty minutes of good delivery than an hour of horrible delivery (and then more time is wasted by rolling through the same credits twice).

Who was the Sam Bishop character, anyway? Allegedly he "saw" all this and was accused of killing the girls, but yet at no point was he ever in the part of the tale with the girls. So how did he see them? And if he didn't, how did he know Dethman killed them? And if he didn't see Dethman, how does he know Dethman is the spirit of Apostoles? I was so lost... was there even an outline for a plot when this was written?

The only part I found enjoyable in this movie was a scene with one of the models in the bathroom. Not that it was really important or anything, but it was the only break from boredom I was given. I wonder what director Felix Diaz was thinking. His music is very good (see the DVD behind the scenes for his impromptu playing), but I wonder about his movie making skills. Although, by far the best part of the DVD was the trailer for his "Superhero Excelsior" (the trailer alone was better than this entire waste of time).

I am sorry I have to be so harsh. I'd like to think that this movie was a test of what can be done in 24 hours or maybe just an experiment for fun and the idea was never to make a quality film. But if "Superhero Excelsior" is any indication, Diaz can make quality... so why did he choose to avoid that here? Perhaps the world will never know.


Wow...OK. So, after reading the little feud on here, I decided I had to see this movie for myself. This movie is HORRIBLE. I stopped watching it. I strongly recommend cleaning a closet instead of watching this movie, you'll be more spooked/entertained.

It's low budget with bad acting.

Whoever is giving this movie 10s is completely incorrect and should be disregarded.

I am in no way connected to any of the other reviewers.

Simply put, this movie is not worth watching.

Very, very BAD MOVIE.


That's the question you have to ask yourself when you watch this movie "What was the point?" This movie was nothing but an hour and a half of confusion with completely unlikable people (not going to use the word actors) and a script that you could tell didn't exist.

One of the things that made me laugh the most about this movie was how it said "Victorian story written by" which means that there was actually a script to that part of the story. The entire victorian section had no dialogue, and was just comprised of shots of a guy staring at a girl and vice versa. Making that part of the movie as scripted as a camera left on at a train station.

OK, time for the story. It starts out with a guy sitting in a chair never once getting out of it. Oh blocking, who needs you? These newspeople come to his house and practically beg him to tell this story about these dead girls. So he starts off the story in Victorian times. and here's how the scene goes (Guy and girl are in a field. pretty music starts to play) (guy stares at girl) (girl stares at guy) (guy stares at girl) cut back to movie. That's pretty much all that happens for about half the movie.

The rest of the film is incredibly awkward dialogue about a bunch of models wanting to buy an apartment. So this real estate agent shows them one and when i say the dialogue is awkward i mean, if it were a dancer it would trip during the MACARENA. None of the characters in this movie are likable. The models are incredibly irritating, the victorian people don't talk, and the guy telling the story has the personality of a sack of onions. So eventually all the girls get killed off. and by killed off, i mean drug offscreen. ooh. you showed ONE death? and by death i mean holding her face till they put the blood makeup on? awesome.

HOW this guy even knows this story baffles me. He says it's because he saw it. but how? there was no guy in that apartment! the door was locked shut with no way out, the windows were attached to a fire escape that was too rotten to work, how the HELL did he see all that? Oh plot holes. we DO love you. So the movie finishes up with the newswoman saying "i think you made it up. you're wasting our time" despite the fact that she begged him for the interview in the first place. Whatever. This movie was stupid, pointless, and made no sense with a lot of plot holes. I could go on and on about this movie, but i don't see the need. i'd much rather spend my time doing something uselful. Like widdle something. "Hell's Threshold" more belongs in purgatory with 2 dumb models. out of 10.


I love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me.

But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you!

Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.

Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!

Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating.

And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new.


It is hard to describe this film and one wants to tried hard not to dismiss it too quickly because you have a feeling that this might just be the perfect film for some 12 years old girl...

This film has a nice concept-the modern version of Sleeping Beauty with a twist. It has some rather dreamy shots and some nice sketches of the young boy relationship with his single working mother and his schoolmate... a nice start you might say, but then it got a bit greedy, very greedy, it tries to be a science fiction, a drama, a thriller, a possible romantic love story, fairy tale, a comedy and everything under the sun. The result just left the audience feeling rather inadequate. For example, the scene when the girl(played by Risa Goto) finally woken by his(Yuki Kohara) kiss, instead of being romantic, it try's to be scary in order to make us laugh afterwards... it is a cheap trick, because it ruin all the anticipation and emotion which it was trying to build for the better half of the film.

I have not read the original story the film is base on (it is the well-known work by the comic-book artist Osamu Tezuka is famous with his intriguing and intricate stories) I wonder if all the problems exsist in the original story or did it occur in the adaption? It is rather illogical even for someone who is used to the "fussy logic" of those japanese comic-book. For instance, how did Yuki Kohara's character manage to get to the hospital in an instant(when its suppose to be a long bus-ride away)to run away Risa Goto's character in front of the tv cameras right after he saw her live interview on the television?

There are also some scenes that is directly copied(very uncreative!) from other films and they all seem rather pointlessly annoying ie. the famous "the Lion mouth has caugh my hand" scene from "the "Roman Holiday"

The film tries to be everything but ends up being nothing... it fails to be a fairy tale and it did not have enough jokes to be a comedy... and strangely there are some scenes that even seem like an unintentional "ghost" movie. Nevertheless, one should give it credit that it has managed to caputured some of the sentiment of the japanese teenager.

It is by watching this film I have a feeling that there might be some films that should have come with a warning label that said "this film might only be suitable for person under the 18 of age", it would have definitly been on the poster of this film.


The premise for Circle of Two is an intriguing one. A forbidden love between a sixty year old painter Ashleigh (Richard Burton) and a fifteen year old girl Sarah Norton (Tatum O'Neill); and the question of whether such a relationship is acceptable given society's standards. The problem with Circle of Two, however, is that it fails to live up to its promise. Director Jules Dassin and Hedley should have put more thought into the screenplay. When I watched this film, I expected to learn something new about love and sexuality. Instead, I got boring dialogue, a pointless lecture on art, outings where Sarah seemed to have more fun away from Ashleigh, and a closing scene so artificial that its emotional impact was lost. This script makes good actors look bad. So one can imagine how the film's problems were compounded even further with the largely amateurish cast that Jules Dassin assembled. Tatum O'Neill was not in her element. I did not believe for a second that her character Sarah was in love with Ashleigh. Her performance seemed superficial, like a contestant at a beauty pageant. It was as though she forced herself to be happy, when the script required her to be happy, and to be sad, when the script asked her to be sad. The only scene I liked with her in was at the very end when she said nothing at all. That was probably the closest Tatum's Sarah Norton ever came to being real. But Tatum was not the only one at fault. Richard Burton's Ashleigh lacked the charm, the charisma and the complexity to attract even women of his own age, let alone a fifteen year old. The rest of the cast was also dismal. Even their arguing was unconvincing, because they waited to take turns. Who does that? Michael Wincott as the jealous ex-boyfriend Paul was probably the best thing in this film, but his role was small. To be fair to the actors, Dassin's direction let everyone down; but it is also true that a great movie goes beyond the script. Kubrick's Lolita did that with James Mason and Sue Lyon; Konchalovsky's Runaway Train went beyond the script with Jon Voight and Eric Roberts playing convicts. The directors of these films also knew how to use music to dramatize their films and reveal something about the characters in them. In spite of its own score (a combination of Antonio Vivaldi, Carl Off and Bernard Hoffer), Circle of Two never succeeds in doing that.

In conclusion, the idea of a forbidden love story between an elder painter and a teenage girl is a good one, but its execution in Circle of Two is terrible. In many ways, it is a shame that a controversial, Lolita-type story  which most film directors for understandable reasons would prefer to avoid  did not have receive more intelligent treatment; that a script which actors would have gladly rehearsed was not written; that actors, who were committed to their part or had the talent to make their characters real, could not be found; and that the director Jules Dassin (who did so much better with films like Rififi and Topkapi) did not have to will to put his foot down and say, "Before we do any filming, we must rethink the love story and revamp the script." The only silver lining is that one day an intelligent film about an elder painter and a teenager girl falling in love may one day be made. If such a film ever appears, this it will be surely spark controversy, debate and questions for many years to come.


Horrible film. About an old crusty painter who hangs around with a young girl. Boring. Tatum O Neil goes through the motions in her part, and has some of the corniest lines in film history. Richard Burton looks close to death in this film, and we're supposed to believe he looks "Good for sixty". The acting is bad, as is the plot. The characters are awful, as is the story. It's really hard to feel for anyone in this film, except Larry Ewashen who plays a guy in a porno theater who hits on Tatum, he's kind of funny. This movie is really a waste of time. If you are a Tatum fan, like me - which is why I rented it in the first place - please don't see this movie. She is really bad in it, and you'll wonder if maybe PAPER MOON was a fluke. It wasn't, because of BAD NEWS BEARS and LITTLE DARLINGS it's known she can act well, but still, don't rent this movie. And if you're a fan of Burton, rent something when he was good looking, and not a fossil.


I was skimming over the list of films of Richard Burton when I came to this title that I recall vividly from when I first saw it on cable in 1982. I remember dialogue from Tatum O'Neal that was just amazingly bad. I remember Richard Burton's character looking so hopelessly lost, and then remembering how his motivations didn't translate to me. In short, I remember "Circle of Two" because it was so phenomenally awful.

This movie came out at a time when America was going through a rather disturbing period of fascination with unhealthy or skewed angles on teenage sexuality. Recall "The Blue Lagoon" (and other Brooke Shields annoyances), "Lipstick", "Little Darlings", "Beau Pere" and other films that just seemed to dwell on teens having sex, particularly with adults. As a teenager during this time, I found the obsession, combined with the sexual excesses of the 70's and 80's, made for a subconsciously unsettling environment in which to figure it all out, so to speak.

"Circle of Two" is not execrably acted or needlessly prurient, like "Blue Lagoon". In fact, it tackles the question of love between the young and the old in a brave, if totally failed, way. But honestly, it is one of those films you will *never* see if you didn't see it on its first run because it was so truly awful. No one would want to have this garbage ever surface to be publicly distributed again.


This is an attempt, by both author Edgar Rice Burroughs and filmmakers, at an Arabian "Tarzan of the Apes". But, this desert-set film shows none of the majesty present in Burroughs' more successful jungle adventure. The focus is on the love between handsome English noble Jon Hall (as "El 'Lion" Chatham) and exotic Arab beauty Kathleen Burke (as "Princess" Eulilah), with revenge happening to coincide with their urge to merge. The opening states that, although guilty of conduct unbecoming, the lad's mother is living - but, she never re-enters the picture. Unfortunately, "The Lion Man" has deteriorated, and is looks like it's missing footage.

*** The Lion Man (1936) John P. McCarthy ~ Jon Hall, Kathleen Burke, Ted Adams


In addition to his "Tarzan" series, the prolific Edgar Rice Burroughs did write many other books, although, aside from the popular "At the Earth's Core", few of these have been filmed. One exception is the novel entitled "The Lad and the Lion", brought to the screen as "The Lion Man" (1936), an over-talkative, static, old-hat, slow-moving and rather dull movie, despite being filmed on real desert locations. Actually "movie" is the wrong word. The narrative doesn't move but proceeds at a snail's pace in an abrupt series of jerks. For instance, at least five characters are given elaborate opening scenes and then just disappear. Even more frustrating for the keen movie fan, are the characters who make an impression of sorts (like the lass who plies Hall with drugged wine) but are enacted by players who are not credited! The credited thespians generally come off worse than the unknowns. One exception is Australian actress Finis Barton who gives a good account of the kidnapped harem girl who rescues young Master Fairy. Admittedly, most of the cast are saddled with atrocious King James dialogue which has to be heard to be believed! But the way to play this rubbish is tongue-in-cheek, a stratagem which does not seem to have occurred to a single one of the film's roster of no-talent players. Maybe director J.P. McCarthy scotched that idea. Anyway, it's sad to see the lovely Kathleen Burke forced to trade lines with the likes of Richard Carlyle (her dad) and Jon Hall (her suitor). Admittedly, Mr Hall delivers his lines with marginally more conviction than Mr Carlyle, but that is no recommendation.


Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time.


The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view


Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the "idealistic youths" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.

This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.


Is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s? No. And do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time? Not really. But if we must have one, does it have to be as shallow as "The '60s"?

I like to think that co-writers Bill Couturie and Robert Greenfield had more in mind for this two-part miniseries than what ultimately resulted, especially given Couturie's involvement in the superb HBO movie "Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam" which utilized little original music and no original footage, letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. This presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production, but it doesn't do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time; like so many of its ilk, it's seen from the point of view of one family. But the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the '60s (it's amazing that one of them doesn't go to the Rolling Stones gig at Altamont), making it seem less like a period drama and more like a Cliff Notes version of the decade.

The makers rush through it so much that there's little or no time to give the characters any character, with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time - the children's father is especially clichéd - and then when they're back on BLAMMO! it's something else. Garry Trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. In fairness, Jerry O'Connell, Jordana Brewster, Jeremy Sisto, Julia Stiles and Charles S. Dutton give their material the old college try, but they're wasted (especially the latter two); it's undeniably good to see David Alan Grier in a rare straight role as activist Fred Hampton, and Rosanna Arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome.

What isn't welcome is how "The '60s" drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an American TV presentation about post-60s America never mentions the British Invasion - no Beatles, no Rolling Stones... then again, there's only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album, right?). Capping its surface-skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out-of-place happy ending, "American Dreams" and "The Wonder Years" did it all much, much better. Nothing to see here you can't see elsewhere, people... except for Julia Stiles doing the twist, that is.