I am a huge Jane Austen fan and I ordered the movie from Amazon.UK just so I could see it without waiting forever for it to come to the U.S. I really should have saved my money. What is with Anne running after Wentworth? The whole point of Anne Elliot's character is that she was quiet and refined. She is not impulsive and vulgar. And Mary, was she suffering from a stroke or something? Her speech wasn't normal, nor was her walking normal. There was no chemistry between the two main characters which made their whole "romance" completely unbelievable. In the final scene they even have Sally Hawkins wearing the same dress Amanda Root wore during the letter scene. The same clothes do not make it the same movie. In my opinion they didn't watch the 1995 version, which even though it had it's flaws, it did stay pretty close to the book. The book, I don't even think they read it. This is kind of like a Cliff's Notes movie of Persuasion. Hit on all the high points without explaining anything.


Somewhere, on this site, someone wrote that to get the best version of the works of Jane Austen, one should simply read them. I agree with that. However, we love adaptations of great literature and the current writers' strike brings to mind that without good writers, it's hard for actors to bring their roles to life. The current version of Jane Austen's PERSUASION shows us what happens when you don't have a good foundation in a well-written adaptation. This version does not compare to the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, which was well acted and kept the essence of the era and the constraints on the characters (with the exception of the bizarre parade & kissing in the street scene in Bath). The 2007 version shows a twitty Anne who seems angst-ridden. The other characters were not very developed which is a crime, considering how Austen could paint such wonderful characters with some carefully chosen understatements. The sequence of events that made sense in the novel were completely tossed about, and Mrs. Smith, Anne's bedridden and impoverished schoolmate is walking around in Bath - - twittering away, as many of the characters seemed to do. The strength of character and the intelligence of Captain Wentworth, which caused Anne to love him in the first place, didn't seem to be written into the Rupert Penry-Jones' Wentworth. Ciaran Hinds had more substance and was able to convey so much more with a look, than P-J was able to do with his poses. All in all, the 2007 version was a disappointment. It seemed to reduce the novel into a hand- wringing, costumed melodrama of debatable worth. If they wanted to bring our modern emotional extravagances into Austen's work, they should have done what they do with adaptations of Shakespeare: adapt it to the present. At least "Bride & Prejudice" was taken out of the historical & locational settings and was fun to watch, as was "Clueless". This wasn't PERSUASION, but they didn't know what else to call it.


This production never really got off the ground for me. The plot is so cut up as to be disjointed and the production is so short that unless you've read the novel or seen a better adaptation (like the 1995 one with Amanda Root) you're going to be a bit lost since there's no time for character development.

I liked Sally Hawkins as Anne, but the rest of the cast fell rather short of what they should have been. Mrs. Croft was far too old, as was Anne's elder sister Elizabeth. Mary uttered everything in such throbbing accents that the general peevishness and selfishness of her character was lost. Much better was Sophie Thompson's Mary, whose selfishness and sense of ill-usage is so well established that by the time Wentworth suggests Anne stay with the injured Louisa and Mary objects that she, as Louisa's sister in law, should stay instead, you can't imagine anyone less suited to do so. In this version, she might as well stay as she is insufficiently differentiated from anyone else in the production.

Rupert Penry-Jones is nice to look at, but he made a much better St. John Rivers (1995 Jane Eyre), probably because that character required less implied depth of feeling. I agree with the comments made earlier about the gig scene: seemed more like he was trying to get rid of Anne than do her a favor. Likewise the accident scene: it happens so fast and with so little context, you wonder what all the fuss is about. And moving the speech that Wentworth overhears in the novel to the beginning of this production is a critical misstep that only contributes to the disjointed nature of the script.

My other problem with this version was the lighting. Sometimes everything looked like a scene from the CSI morgue -- very very blue. Other times the lighting was so bad it was hard to make out the scene very well, like when Anne visits her old school friend, Mrs. Smith (who, by the way, is supposed to be more or less paralyzed. Having her run up to Anne on the street to tell her of Mr. Elliot's awful character was such a violation that for a minute I couldn't think who she was -- I thought she was one of the Musgrove girls. And she might as well have been. All the girls were pretty much interchangeable). And the running scene at the end...in an era where propriety was at a premium, it's hard to imagine gentle Anne tearing all over Bath like some demented hoyden. How silly can you get? It's too bad. Sally Hawkins had all the makings of a good Anne Elliot, but she was completely hamstrung by a poorly organized script and an over-truncated production.


I had eagerly awaited the first screening of this film ever since it was given to me on DVD at Christmas. Having reserved a special slot for it last night, I sat down to watch it with my daughter (aged 17 and a Film Studies student), with chocolates of course, in eager anticipation. We love Jane Austin.

After just the first two minutes we knew we were sunk. The shaky camera shots and angles, general poor cinematography, direction and wooden performances had already left us feeling flat and dissatisfied. Despondent, we viewed on.

Anne, played by Sally Hawkins, looked oddly and with no particular purpose, directly at the camera on several occasions, breaking our hard-won 'fantasy of the moment' and engaging us directly in an almost 'I'll find you' stalking fashion.

Poor Rupert Penry-Jones, who played Captain Wentworth, did his best with the script and direction, bless him. I hope they paid him well, however, as he was practically drowned on one occasion by a huge wave which predictably breached the seawall, drenching him and his co-actor. They were nearly swept out to sea. Health and Safety would have had a field day! Poor Rupert was left spitting out sea water in order to deliver his line. Presumably there was not enough money left in the kitty for a re-shoot of this scene. Anyone with any sense would have not attempted it on such a day in the first place.

Other than Mr. Penry-Jones, Alice Krige gave the only convincing performance as Lady Russell but her efforts were soon counterbalanced by those of Anthony Head's unconvincing portrayal of annoying Sir Walter Elliott.

Towards the long-awaited end of the film, Captain Wentworth appeared to oddly grace Anne with a visit every two seconds having taken great pains to avoid her for the majority of the movie. It was as if he had developed a memory impediment which caused him to forget his very reason for being. In contrast, Anne ran, hyper-ventilating, from pillar to post in search of the good Captain who, in the meantime, had managed to call upon almost the entirety of Bath we are told, in the course of only three or four minutes, without even having worked up a sweat.

We experienced none of Anne's charms crossing the screen. Indeed, we were left wondering what charismatic Captain Wentworth had ever seen in plain, spineless, opinion-less Anne and why someone, anyone, did not tell mean, winging Sir Walter to just shut the heck up.

The crucial kiss, normally our favourite girlie moment, was painfully drawn out. As they moved in closer, Anne kept opening and closing her mouth which had the effect on screen of making her look as if she were chewing gum before lips finally met. Eww!

The most enjoyable thing about last night was the chocolates and the half hour exchange of views between mother and daughter on just how bad the film had been.

What a pity to ruin such an enchanting and engaging story, filmed in some of England's finest scenery.

Sorry Jane.


I have to confess that I am severely disappointed.

This version can in no way compete with the version of 1995. The reason why I watched it was that I wasn't entirely happy with Ciaran Hinds as Captain Wentworth and thought that Rupert Penry-Jones looked much more like the Captain I had imagined when I read the book. And he was too.

Unfortunately that is the only redeeming quality of the film. The rest is as un-Austen-like as possible.

Miss Elliot would NEVER have run through the streets of Bath like this. It wasn't in her character and it just wasn't done by a lady of the those times. The Anne Elliot of the book was a lady and she had dignity. There are other painful anachronisms but this was the worst.

Although there are 3 important quotes from the book, they are at entirely inappropriate moments, warning those who know the book that yet another important part of the book will either be missing or completely changed.

And although this version is not much shorter than the other one, it feels like everything is rushed. Very little care was taken to introduce the characters, show their dispositions and motives. Important scenes were omitted. How could they possibly have butchered the final scenes in this way ? A disaster ! And it was by far not as beautifully photographed as the other one.

No, no, no. If you love Austen, then don't waste your time with this.


The humor in Who's Your Daddy is such poor taste that I actually closed my eyes in certain scenes. Close ups of semen are not funny! Nobody thinks they are. People get nervous when they see something so gross and to hide their nervousness, they laugh. Watching Who's Your Daddy gave me a disgusting nervous feeling.


Chris, an adopted son of a moral family, a loser whom works at the school newspaper with Kate (Christine Lakin from of the awful sugary "Step by Step" show of the now thankfully defunct ABC's TGIF line-up), finds out that he's just inherited a porn empire from his biological parents. He loses sight of what true friendship and love is and blah blah some other nonsense. He also has to contend with an Uncle who wants control of the family business and a shifty lawyer (arn't they are?) A slightly below average teen comedy that steals from better teen comedies (the opening alone is HIGHLY American Pie-esquire), bops you on the head with the moral every chance it gets, and wastes the only star talent it has (Wayne Newton, Lin Shaye, and if i'm really stretching the star word, Martin Starr of "Freaks and Geeks", and Justin Berfield of "Malcolm in the Middle"). It's not bad exactly, but it's far from good.

Eye Candy: a few extras get topless

My Grade: C-

Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 29th)


My friends usually can put up with a lot of hopeless movies but this one was too poor for us to even watch it to the end. It was just so boring and unoriginal. Not even the "hot" girls that starred in this movie could keep me watching. Everything was just predicable and annoying.

The acting was at times good.....but more times bad. The most annoying character in the whole movie that you just wanted to die would have to be the main characters best friend. The more i saw him the more i wanted to smash my screen. (you know what fat ugly kid I'm talking about)

The plot has been done so many times before i think they should be sued by other movie companies. OK, it is a good idea but thats all this movie had.

Overall this movie can only be watched if by your self, to save any abuse from your friends. Or, if you have absolutely nothing better to do.


When a comedy movie boasts its marvelous soundtrack on the back cover you know your not dealing with a top notch movie. I rented this movie with friends expecting to get some chuckles but overall to get most of our laughs off each other making fun of the movie. We couldn't have chosen a worse movie.

The movie may have been alright with a few changes. First off, the comedy was painful. Physical gags were poorly performed and placed. The fat kid in the movie made us want to kill ourselves, bless him for trying scene in and scene out but he was like a puppy begging for love. If he had been pulled from the movie everything might have been bearable. There were some funny jokes, I believe one was when the group of boys steal one of the parent's porn movies and it turns out to be gay porn. But to best sum up the comedy I will simply tell the opening gag for the fat kid. He wears a puke stained shirt and talks about not knowing when something is done.

To finish off, the editor of the movie could have saved the movie by removing the fat kid, cutting out 20 minutes of the school scenes and making an ending that is longer than thirty seconds of random bickering.

OH, BTW, there are two good elements that the movie possesses. Kadeem Hardison plays his role wonderfully and performs his jokes so that none are missed or under-appreciated. The other redeeming element to the movie is the beautiful Mrs. Ali Landry. Her character is ignored most of the movie which is a shame.

Don't waste your time even renting this one. It didn't appeal to me and I was part of the target audience (18 male).


I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a clichéd and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 1/10


No, this is nothing about that fairy tale with the pumpkin coach, fairy godmother and the glass slippers, but if I were to elaborate, I would have to spoil it for you, which I won't. But don't let curiosity get the better of you, as this movie is not fantastic. It's one of those movies that start off promisingly, before betraying its audience with cheap scare tactics and an incoherent storyline. And that's real horror.

Yoon-hee (To Ji-Won) and Hyun-soo (Shin Se-kyeong) are your ideal mother and daughter. One's a successful plastic surgeon, while the other your dutiful, obedient, and beautiful teenage daughter. Their relationship is like hand in glove, so close you'd think of them more as siblings rather than parent-child. But things start to go wrong (don't they always) when Hyun-soo's friends, whom Yoon-hee has operated on, start to go berserk.

Perhaps it's a warning to audiences, and for those Koreans ladies who don't bat an eyelid when going under the knife, if news reports are to be believed. The only truly scary moments are those scenes in plastic surgery, though somehow, I thought Kim Ki-duk's Time actually had more gore when featuring and describing what goes on during the surgery itself.

It's a tale of two halves, the fist being an attempt to shock audiences with standard scare tactics, which, I admit, did get to me now and then. However, the second half degenerated the movie into mindless mumbo-jumbo melodramatics, and was quite contrived into its forcing its ideas down your throat. Some things begin not to make sense, and while attempts are always presented to explain, you probably won't buy it, not that horror movies are logical to begin with.

The leads are all beautiful, and there is a distinct lack of male presence besides the negligible cop role. But hey, I'm not complaining, though the storyline could have been improved tremendously. I'd recommend you to watch this, only if you're a fan of mediocre Korean horror, on VCD. Watch out for those face off-ish moments!


Disappearance is about a couple who take their family on vacation in New Mexico and find themselves in deep trouble after taking a detour off the main highway to visit a town that was seemingly abandoned in 1948 for unknown reasons. The town of Weaver seems harmless at first and has tourist appeal until the family is stranded there overnight and they begin to have good reason to suspect that others have experienced their same predicament with fatal outcomes. The Henleys watch a Blair-Witch-Project-esquire video diary left by the town's last victim, which ironically demonstrates the best performance of anyone in this movie. Although Hamlin and Dey's performances are much better than the supporting casts', their emotional affect seems "flat" to me throughout the movie.

Disappearance has appeal for most of the movie as there is much suspense and good direction. However, the plot takes unexpected and implausible turns that seemingly make no sense. Worse yet it that there really is no understanding of what exactly is going on in the movie, which makes the bizarre ending less tolerable. It appeared to me that the movie makers were so focused on making a stream of suspenseful scenes, that they threw away all the elements of good story making: plot development, gradual explanation of themes and symbols that lead to a cohesive solution/outcome.

The most difficult aspect of the movie for me was that the first three-quarter of it was spent building up tension and curiosity about certain aspects of the plot that were then suddenly disposed of as if we didn't deserve an explanation:

What was the significance of the Indian symbols on the walls? What happened to the original people of Weaver? What was the connection with the people at the dinner? What did the Sheriff know? What did the missing boy discover if anything?

This was, I believe, a bad move, since it engendered some resentment. I had invested quite a bit of brainpower into hypothesizing some plausible explanations for some of these plot turns and strange events, only to have the movie makers simply end it without giving an answer to any of these things. These are some nice cliffhangers for the ending of a miniseries that is about to pickup again next week, but a totally frustrating and inappropriate ending for a stand-alone movie.


If you like movies about creepy towns, hotels, houses, states (ala the Eagles "Hotel California"), etc. that possess the people that are "just passing through," read almost any Stephen King novel instead. If you like the setting of "Disappearance" start by reading King's "Desperation" but also check out "The Shining", "Salem's Lot" and "Needful Things."

The crow motif, the desert, the family driving in desperation to escape or avoid possession are tired. Why didn't they just make the film from the "Desperation" novel? Maybe they approached King and he nixed? Must be.

Susan Dey and Harry Hamlin look happy to be reunited and they have both worn well over the years, but they're still TV and direct-to-DVD caliber actors.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** When I saw a preview for this movie I thought it was going to be atleast a slightly admirable storyline. But as most superstation original movies I was left disapointed. This gullible family ends up driving through this "deserted" town to take a brake and find this video camera showing these people doing everything their donig and finds out they all eventually disappear, the family goes through all these mysterious stages and never discovers or displays what the heck is stalking them. Their are more gaps than I can count and they don't explain anything that happens how or what. It ends where the family gets in a car accident and get posest or brainwashed or something( which is never explained). The next thing you know ur hoping they somehow find out how all it happened but it ends leaving you completely confused.


This is waaaaay to much.. so frustrating to watch.. I was waiting for the whole damn movie to end and to finally get some ANSWERS!!.. and what I've had in the end was nothing but a HUUUGE neon-sign question mark above my head!!!!! I haven't seen such a bad acting and such a nonsense movie in a long long time.. and what's bothering me is.. how come someone (an actor) read the script of such a bull!?#@ movie and say: OK, I'M IN!!! LET'S FILM THIS! This is horrible!!! THIS MOVIE SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!!! I just can't believe I've spent an hour and a half of my life on something like this!!!


A bickering, American family, vacationing in the west, discover a strange ghost town in the middle of the desert. Little do they know that this ghost town was once a test site for nuclear bombs, and a deadly presence is stalking them. I generally love mystery-horror films like this. "Cube", Spielberg's "Duel" and "The Birds" are all great examples of movies that give no answers but nonetheless leave us intrigued and wanting more. Apparently, "Disappearance" writer/director Walter Klenhard was trying to make just that kind of film, and whether or not he succeeded is up to the viewer. I personally think he got about half way there, then the film just sunk.

The actors are all kind of just "ho-hum". Their not especially bad but we as an audience never really feel their fear and they react to situations in unrealistic ways. Is anyone else absolutely SICK of characters just walking out off to investigate strange sounds?!?!? At least give them SOME kind of justification for doing so!?!?!?

As far as made-for-TV films go it's an above average fair for sure. Director Klenhard Should be commended for really milking the desert environment for everything it offered and some of the setting were striking. There's a really cool scene where two characters find an old nuclear test ground were the sand had been completely melted to glass for as far as the eye could see. I wonder if that was real

No gore to speak of, and the 'creatures'or what ever the hell it is that's after these peopleare never shown, not to mention that we are never even given a real clue as to what they are (Mutants, aliens, ghosts or ancient evil Indian spiritsOh, that really narrows it down for us!) or where the come from.

There are lots of clichés here, too. Why is it that towns-folk in these kinds of films are always really, really dumb? Why is there always an old guy everyone thinks is crazy that turns out to be correct? Why? Why? Why? How 'bout a NEW scenario, folks!

"Disappearance" tries to be different and intelligent but ultimately fails in that in many ways it's too familiar to us fans of direct-to-video horror fodder. Hey, I've seen much worse films, and disappearance ain't bad, it's just too Average.

4/10.


What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script.


This movie was lame, lame, lame. What a build up! What a let down. All form, no substance. A terrible waste of talent and time. Would not recommend it to my husband's dog, who will watch anything.


The ending of this movie made absolutely NO SENSE. What a waste of 2 perfectly good hours. If you can explain it to me...PLEASE DO. I don't usually consider myself unable to "get" a movie, but this was a classic example for me, so either I'm slower than I think, or this was a REALLY bad movie.


The progression of the plot is enough to "rope one in" and create curiosity about the outcome. However, ultimately, the feeling that remains is that the producers of the movie forgot to end it. If the intention was to create a perpetual circle (occasionally done in the Twilight Zone), it was too sloppy to view as a positive effort.


In the beginning and throughout the movie, it was great. It was suspenseful and thrilling. Yet in the end it gave no answer to what had happened. They mysteriously turned into zombies by a raven or crow? It did not answer the questions that we all had and therefore, was not as good a movie as I thought that it was going to be.


This movie tries to hard to be something that it's not....a good movie. It wants you to be fooled from begining to end,But fails.From when it starts to get interesting it falls apart and you're just hoping the ending gives you some clue of just what is going on but it didn't.


Disappearance is set in the Mojave desert as Jim (Harry Hamlin) & Patty Henley (Susan Dey) plus their two kids Katie (Basia A'Hern) & Matt (Jeremey Lelliott) along with Ethan (Jamie Croft) a friend of the family are travelling along, they stop at a roadside diner & ask about an old deserted mining town on the map called Weaver. No-one claims to have heard of it but it's definitely there & the family decide to take a detour in order to check it out & take some pictures. Once at the town they take some pictures & have a look around but when it comes time to leave their car won't start & they have to spend the night there. While looking around they find a camcorder videotape which they play only to discover footage of a scared woman saying all her friends have disappeared, the next morning & their car has disappeared as things take a very sinister turn. What is Weaver's secret? Will the Henley's ever leave there alive...

Written, co-executive produced & directed by Walter Klenhard I have to say that Disappearance is one of the most frustrating films I have ever watched. For the first 85 minutes it was a pretty good mysterious mix of thriller & horror film but then we are treated to one of the single worst endings ever in motion picture history. The script suggest lots of different things but never elaborates or confirms & I was sitting there genuinely intrigued about what was going on, from the families car mysterious disappearing, the four recent graves, the thing in the abandoned mines, the supernatural sandstorm, the sudden & unexplained disappearance of Ethan & his just as unexplained reappearance, the Sheriff's sinister motives, the compass in the car going crazy, the crashed plane, the townspeople denying Weaver existed & the possible side effects of a neutron bomb being dropped near Weaver in the 40's but they are all tossed out of the window & for all we know could have been totally separate random events. Everything was coming along nicely & was set up for a big twist revelation but none was forthcoming & instead I was treated to the most ambiguous, strange, surreal & downright frustrating ending possible. If nothing else the ending contradicts much of what has gone before & leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. It's almost as if the makers had these great ideas but then didn't know what to do with them & just made the ending up on the spot. I just felt I put so much effort into watching the film which can be pretty slow at times without any sort of reward & in fact the ending felt more like a kick in the teeth or a good two finger salute!

Director Klenhard does a reasonable job here, the old ghost town has a certain atmosphere & the large expansive desert locations give a good sense of isolation. It's well made but what were they thinking with that ending? Nothing fits, nothing makes sense & it's just a huge frustrating mess that after sitting through the thing for nearly an hour & a half leaves you confused & wanting to know more. Despite being a horror film there's no blood or gore although there are one or two creepy moments here & there. The film actually reminds of The Hills Have Eyes (2006) remake for large parts as that is what the film is set-up to be before a bizarre ending which does nothing to bring any closure to the film.

Technically the film is good with high production values, good special effects, sets, locations & cinematography. Set in America but filmed in South Australia. The acting is fine from a decent cast.

Disappearance is a really odd film, for a long time it shapes up to be a neat little horror mystery thriller but it never explains anything which happens & the truly surreal ending just throws up more questions than answers. I really can't see anyone making head nor tail of this, I really can't.


This is hands down the worst movie I can ever remember watching. Everything was unbelievably cliché and retarded. The acting was horrible too. The camera work wasn't bad but that still couldn't redeem it. The writer/director of this film must suffer from down's syndrome if he believed this movie would help his career. I want the hour and a half of my life back that I wasted watching this crap. I would rather watch a video of the grass growing than this. I cant believe IMDb is making me write 10 lines in order to post this but I feel that this movie is so bad that I must continue to warn others about it. The reason I came about this movie is that my girlfriend requested it from the local library thinking that it was the Kris Kristoferson movie which ended up being entitled "Disappearances". I don't know whose fault it was for this garbage ending up in my DVD player but I feel that someone owes me at least $20 for my time, pain and suffering. In conclusion, the director/writer of this movie better hope i ever recognize him on the street.


We had to go to an appointment, so we turned on the DVR to record the ending. After it was over, I looked at my husband and said, "Do you have a clue?". He shook his head no. I said, "So you made me watch the end of this movie and I have no clue what just happened". He didn't "make" me, but you know.

The movie body itself was quite good. There was a lot of suspense. It kept you wondering. Then came the ending. The ending was... well it just ENDED. You weren't let in on what happened or why. Right up until the credits I kept thinking something would happen to explain it, but it never did. So I came here expecting someone figured it out and I just wasn't paying attention. Nope. Here four years later, I'm just as clueless as tom sawyer was.

I still have no clue what went on. I'm just glad I didn't waste any $$ to buy it because I sure would have been mad.

OHHHHH! I get it! The end of the movie is what disappeared! ROFL


I've read some of the other comments and I do have to agree with the ones that didn't get the ending. I thought it was going rather well..until the end. It kept your mind running and then splat. I have not clue what went on the last couple minutes of the movie except a complete mess. It's like they ran out of money to come up with a good ending so they improvised. First they had a mysterious thing making people disappear then they had a guy talking about Area 51 (which makes you think about aliens) then after they it went to crap. I thought the actors and actresses did fine it's just the script went sour. Anyways, if you do watch this movie be prepared to be disappointed at the end.


Normally, I have no problem with a movie or story with an ending that leaves you wondering to puzzle out what really happened, when it's done on purpose...

But this movie really feels like they got all but the last 15 minutes done, then realized they had $5 left to finish on...

I saw it on TBS... I recommend you not spend money on it either. If you catch it on TV, watch all but the last 15 minutes, then walk away and make your own ending in your mind.

Really, the movie would have been better if they had simply got away, and come back with the State Poice of Feds only to find that the town and the car graveyard was gone, and by all appearances had never been there...

"Wish I had more thumbs, so I could give that movie 4 thumbs down!"


After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10


Well, i rented this movie and found out it realllllllly sucks. It is about that family with the stepmother and the same stupid fights in the family,then the cool son comes with his stupid camera and he likes to take a photo to damaged building and weird things and weird movie ,and then he asks his father to take him to a side trip and simply agrees, etc etc etc..... They go to that town which no one know it exists (blah blah blah) And the most annoying thing is that the movie ends and yet you don't understand what is THAT MOVIE!!!!I have seen many mystery movies but that was the worst, Honestly it doesn't have a description at all and i wish i didn't see it.


For a made-for-TV "horror" movie the movie started off very interesting. I was really intrigued by the story and the mystery of the film. But the ending was a total dissappointment. The movie was going along fast-paced and was building up to, it seemed like anyway, to a very climatic end. But guess what there is no end. The movie is just over and after almost one-and-a-half hours the audience is just left wondering what happened. Why were all the unanswered questions in the film left unanswered. There was no explanation at all about any of the key points in the plot. This film is like watching a murder mystery and then never finding out who did it. Very dissappointed. This film looks like the producers just ran out of money and never completed the film. A real BOMB!


The movie starts out fine. Widower out with new girlfriend and the children.

The movie is filled with stupid director's choices. Like "lets separate." "I am coming down to...." do what? Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Please do not waste your time hoping that it will get better.............. Not hardly.


Visually speaking, this film is stunning. It has some delightful black comedic moments. But on the whole, the plot is very clichéd, as is its seeming message. If you're a fan of over-the-top violence in mainstream movies like hostel or saw, you'll love it. If you're looking for something at all high-brow, steer away. I saw it as part of the edinburgh film festival 06, and I only chose it because I was looking for something disturbing. Ultimately, it isn't disturbing. Just grinding and unpleasant to sit through. If you genuinely want to be challenged, go see something like The Lost. If you want to be grossed out, or tell your friends about a really messed up film, then this is for you.


(Only minor spoilers except as noted).

I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb "Devil's Backbone", set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.

What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery ("if I can't have you nobody can."). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.

In Britain, in several of our notorious "serial killer" or "sex killer" cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: "No, she didn't". Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says "you know what I mean." thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.

(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.

I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but  Lecter aside  it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).

This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.

It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made.


The name (Frau) of the main character is the German word for "Woman". I don't know if that was intentional or not, but if sure got some giggles from the German audience at the Fantasy Film Festival last year, when it was shown.

But those were the only giggles the movie got. Not that it was aiming for giggles, it's a horrible movie for heaven's sake! A horrible movie in more than one meaning. It's a shame that a premise like that was wasted with horrible even unbearable moments for the viewer (definetely not for the faint of Heart!!)! And it wasn't even necessary to show all the things that are shown. I'm not even going into a moral obligation (because movies don't really have that kind of task or function) discussion of what is shown here, but this is a new low on the whole "torture movement" that has grown in the last few years!


I read some comments on the internet about this film like "...harder then Hostel...", "the camera never screens of when it's getting really brutal...". But none of them is true. The camera never screens of, because there is nothing to screen of. The same scene is repeated hundred and hundred times again. Women lies on a table, killer rapes women a few times, killer cuts women into pieces (you never see this during the whole film!). Police come and arrested him. Killer fools the jury. Film over. In Germany we would say :"Viel Lärm um Nichts". All in all, one of the most boring films I ever see. Absolutely non-recommendable.


This self proclaimed "very talented artist" have directed easily the worst Spanish film of the 21st century. Lack of emotion, coherence, rhythm, skills, humor... it repeats the same situation over and over again. It shows no character development. It does not even show any violent and/or sexual content, and it does not add anything new to the psycho-killer sub genre. So lame it should be shown at film schools as an example of "what not to do" in a first movie.

BTW where the hell is the "talent"? there are scenes which have been shot almost identically; there are scenes which have two or more master shots and it is quite awful to see the action jumping from one master shot to another without a reason. The camera almost never moves, as if the "very talented artist" was afraid of showing his lack of visual skills. The actors playing the main roles act like amateurs, and the supporting cast is hardly believable. There are more holes than plot in the script (if ever there was one)...

A really disheartening movie, and a whatsoever talented director.


I absolutely adore the book written by Robin Klein, so I was very excited when I heard that a movie based on the book was in the making.

But I was severely disappointed with the movie when I did see it because it didn't capture what I loved about the book - the absolutely ridiculously funny Erica and the interesting way in which she views the world.

From the start of the movie, I realised that things weren't the same as I had imagined in the book. So, I just went along for the ride. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. Miss Belmont was totally different to what I had imagined her to be! I didn't think she would be one to smoke and drink - Jean Kittson, who plays her, is hilarious!

On it's own, I thought the movie and it's actors/actresses in it did a good job, but alas, I'm such a fan of the book (one of my all time favourite books) that I couldn't help but feel disappointed =P


i am 13 and i hated this film its the worst film on earth i totally wasted my time watching it and was disappointed with it cause on the cover and on the back the film it looks pretty good, but i was wrong its bad. but when i saw delta she was totally different and a bad actress and i really didn't know how old the 2 girls was trying to be i was so confused. the film was in some parts confusing and i didn't enjoy it at all but i watched all the film just to see if it was going to get better but it didn't, it was boring,dull and did i say BORING.and i don't think many other people liked it as well as me.boring boring boring


"Die Sieger" was highly recommended to be one of the few good action movies made in Germany. I watched it last night and I must admit, that I am deeply disappointed. If that is supposed to be "the last best hope" for entertaining and challenging German action cinema, well then there is not much left.

"Die Sieger" tries to be sexy, daring and furious but it is nothing of that kind. The characters are wooden and stereotype and whenever they do something unexpected (which doesn't happen too much) the act against their nature. That makes it hard - for me almost impossible - to follow them or even identify with them.

Most of all I think the film is very bad cast. There is not one character in whom I believe. Maybe the superior officer at the SWAT unit - but that's about it. Those people that try to look like or act like special units, like elite cops - I don't believe them. Not for a second.

The story is not so bad after all. But I think it's badly told. You don't get to know the bad guy at all - for example. And when after a "very dark" show down Karl Simon (the good guy) asks his already dead opponent "why? ... what for?" I did ask myself that very same question, knowing, that Dominik Graf wouldn't have the answer.

I sincerely hope - no - I believe that Germany can do better, even with action films.


I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey.


Silly, often ridiculous romp involving the landing of a space ship and the resulting havoc this causes on Tim (Jeff Daniels) and the people in his orbit.

Am always amazed by Daniels. He showed such depth and promise in 1983's "Terms of Endearment" as Shirley MacLaine's philandering son-in-law. As the years have passed, Daniels has been unable to get his hands on a good, meaty role. Instead, he is in inane comedies such as "Dumb and Dumber."

As for this picture, it fails because of the subject matter. At least, the television show brought about a variety of situations. In the film, we have constant slapstick and people turning into monsters as the government is thwarted into capturing the martian-Martin.

The part of Mrs. Brown is a perfect example of the non-success of the film. On television, Pamela Britton portrayed a ditsy individual caught up in situations with the martian leaving her perplexed. In the film version, a blond bomb-shell as Brown, tries romantic entanglement.

Television star Ray Walston has a small role as a government agent, or is he really that?

A very big disappointment for those who enjoyed the television show so much.


I thought that My Favorite Martian was very boring and drawn out!! It was not funny at all. The audience just sat through the whole movie and didn't laugh at all!!! Not even the kids laughed!! That is sad for a Disney movie!! I thought they could have found somebody better to play the martian rather than Christopher Lloyd!! He was really stupid!! And he was not funny!! I thought the talking suit was really dumb!!! In the original television series the suit doesn't talk and move around!! In my opinion they should not have wasted their time on this movie!! I give it two thumbes down!! Really a waste of time and I would not recommend the movie to anybody!!! Thank You!!


This movie tries hard, but completely lacks the fun of the 1960s TV series, that I am sure people do remember with fondness. Although I am 17, I watched some of the series on YouTube a long time ago and it was enjoyable and fun. Sadly, this movie does little justice to the series.

The special effects are rather substandard, and this wasn't helped by the flat camera-work. The script also was dull and lacked any sense of wonder and humour. Other films with under-par scripting are Home Alone 4, Cat in the Hat, Thomas and the Magic Railroad and Addams Family Reunion.

Now I will say I liked the idea of the story, but unfortunately it was badly executed and ran out of steam far too early, and I am honestly not sure for this reason this is something for the family to enjoy. And I was annoyed by the talking suit, despite spirited voice work from Wayne Knight.

But the thing that angered me most about this movie was that it wasted the talents of Christopher Lloyd, Jeff Daniels and Daryl Hannah, all very talented actors. Jeff Daniels has pulled off some good performances before, but he didn't seem to have a clue what he was supposed to be doing, and Elizabeth Hurley's character sadly came across as useless. Daryl Hannah is a lovely actress and generally ignored, and I liked the idea of her being the love interest, but sadly you see very little of her,(not to mention the Monster attack is likely to scare children than enthrall them) likewise with Wallace Shawn as some kind of government operative. Christopher Lloyd acquits himself better, and as an actor I like Lloyd a lot(he was in two of my favourite films Clue and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and I am fond of Back To The Future) but he was given little to work with, and had a tendency to overact quite wildly.

Overall, as much I wanted to like this movie, I was left unimpressed. Instead of being fun, it came across as pointless, and that is a shame because it had a lot of potential, with some talented actors and a good idea, but wasted with poor execution. 1/10 Bethany Cox


I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the "villain" that they decided they needed to create "conflict." Uh huh.

To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.

What a waste of the DVD format.


I think my summary sums it up. I found it inane and stupid. I also saw the ending a mile a way. Everyone is copying that ending anymore when doing a TV/Theater crossover anymore. Sometimes, it's better to let the movie stand alone.

Others, its better to forget the movie altogether. This is one of the others....


The movie starts little cute. There are a number of revolting scenes. People in toilets. GOOD actors wasted and the original television series has all but ruined here. This did not need to be crude.

Forget it. Find the tv show. Disney at new low.


If this movie had not been labeled a Disney picture, I probably would not have been so disappointed. The nudity was unnecessary and did not add anything. The same can be said for the toilet bowl scene. This is one Disney film that I will not let my four year old nephew watch.


My ten-year old liked it. For me it was hard to get through it. Christopher Lloyd played it way over the top and the suit was tedious and unfunny. Sorry to see Jeff Daniels in this.


Cheap-looking and ugly, this film didn't even seem to entertain the kids in the audience, except for one fairly amusing toilet joke. Christopher Lloyd is way past his prime and actually quite tiresome in this role, although the sorry excuse for jokes by the writers don't help.   Elizabeth Hurley is embarrassingly amateurish in a supposedly comic role. Jeff Daniels and Darryl Hannah avoid humiliation. There is really no reason to make this movie, especially since it is unavoidable that one will compare it with Robin Williams's often brilliant improvisations in Mork & Mindy.


So so special effects get in the way of recapturing the interesting relationship between Uncle Martin and Tim O'Hara that we remember from the TV series. And what was with the suit? Annoying!


The folks at Disney have a lot to explain. First and foremost, why anyone thought this lesser-sitcom material would ever make even a half-decent motion picture. In the kooky 60's teleplay, the unique idea of Martians among us had not yet been given the sophisticated X-Files treatment. Quaint visions of little green men have long since been dispelled by the likes of E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and ALIENS 1-3.

Any charm the property had was mainly due to the endearing relationship created between the late Bill Bixby as Tim and Ray Walston as the unworldly visitor. The conceit that Martians have antenna seemed dopey back then. Now it seems positively idiotic. Yet, Christopher Lloyd's Uncle Martin sports the metallic appendages. In an early shot, the antenna on a sign for the TV station Tim works at is supposed to make us think "martian"! When's the last time you saw a TV with rabbit ears, eh?

Disney doesn't trust quaint or relationships and crams this flick with youth-wooing special effects that include a talking space suit named Zoot! Yes, you read that correctly - Uncle Martin's silver space suit speaks. He is supposed to be a real hilarious cut-up! Figure again. I got stretch socks that are funnier than Zoot. Whenever the action lags (and it lags constantly), computer graphics are put into play to liven things up. Tim is here played by the amiable Jeff Daniels, who can't (or won't) do anything to save this floudering mess. Zesty Christine Ebersole brings some comic zeal to her neighbor lady role. Even Ray Walston himself is dragged painfully into the procedings - all to no avail. This alien visitor is dead on arrival.

Constant talk of sitcoms turning to screen makes me only hope that the I DREAM OF JEANNIE movie won't feature a talking harem outfit. I pray that Samantha's cat in the movie BEWITCHED doesn't have lines. I live in fear that I LOVE LUCY - THE MOVIE will proudly feature a CG Conga Drum named Bongo.

Paging Michael Eisner! Mickey Mouse - take me to your leader.


We should have been suspicious to discover that with only two minutes to lights out we were the only ones there. Only five others joined before the movie began.

There is nothing at all to redeem this movie. The acting is awful (especially Ms Hurley). The script is banal. The effects we've seen a million times. The film direction the worst that we've seen. Meandering and disjointed. No-one laughed including the kids.

We left after 25 minutes. It would have been sooner if my wife hadn't gone for a hot-dog!!!

Do not waste your money on this film. If there's nothing else to watch at your cinema then buy some drinks, popcorn and hot-dogs and do some people watching. You'll have a much more enjoyable time!!!


When I was a kid we always used to be babysat, and we always used to rent a film or see a film at the cinema. This is one of the films we watched. This is one of the stupidest films I've ever seen, I think it might even be a Walt Disney Pictures film! A martian is dropped on earth, turns into a human, befriends a human, and is trying everything he can to get back home. But he is distracted by the wonders of the Earth. The only good comment I can give is the choice of actors, Back to the Future's Christopher Lloyd as the martian, Uncle Martin, Dumb and Dumber's Jeff Daniels as Tim O'Hara, Elizabeth Hurley as Brace Channing and Daryl Hannah as Lizzie. But apart from that it's complete crap. Poor!


The story is similar to ET: an extraterrestrial run around on earth and tries to come back home. While its stay on our planet, it will create friendly ties with humans.

But, unlike ET which exudes drama, comedy, poetry, this movie is only fun. It is indeed a pure Dysney production: its core audience are children & the movie is more more in the visual than in the message.

Thus, you will find some funny scenes (the first sighting of the town, a "cosmic" stray toaster) and the casting is experimented, with special mentions to "Doc", who rejuvenates in a "Mac Fly" character, and to Hurley, who seems open to auto-derision.

Ice on the cake: the main title is scored by Danny Elfman, and like every other great composer, you recognize his "voice" before he is even credited.


Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?

The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.

There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.

There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.

There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??

A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film.


This is one of those films the British Lottery Fund wastes its money on. The main problem is a rambling script which gets nowhere. The characters are not interesting, the story is conventional and insipid, the only thing of interest is the location: the city of Genoa (Genova in Italian). Having only a superficial acquaintance with Genoa, I had no idea of the intricate alleyways of its Old Town, and that the city was so interesting. I had thought Genoa was dull. I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. So from the travelogue point of view, this film has interest. The film contains one splendid performance, by a little girl named Perla Haney-Jardine. She has already made seven films despite being only 12, so she seems determined upon a career as an actress, and judging by her performance in this film, she should go far, as she is a natural and has a great deal of talent. Colin Firth, a reliable and professional actor, was on hand for the filming and when asked to be earnest, he was earnest, and when asked to be anguished, he was anguished. But somebody forgot to give him any worthwhile dialogue. The script is a total shambles. Catherine Keener does exceptionally well in a supporting role, and showing sympathy comes naturally to her, so that everybody would like to have her around (I would like to tell her every time I feel a cold coming on, as I know she would get me a soothing hot drink). So there we have it: Genoa's fascinating narrow alleys, an interesting little girl, and a sympathetic woman. Forget the rest. The older sister played by Willa Holland is such a disgusting character that the fact that the young actress does a good job of being repellent is not exactly the kind of acting tribute she would like to hear, I suspect. The notion that this family go off to Genoa to forget the unfortunate death of the mother is so trite that if we have another film like that, all dead mothers have a right to complain at being exploited. If Michael Winterbottom wanted to make a film about how interesting the old portion of Genoa is, why didn't he just go to the BBC and say he wanted to make a travel film with some mindless celebrity presenter? Why waste money on a feature film which is nothing but a vanity project of idle and meandering vacuity?


First of all this movie starts out on a really dumb note: A 10-year-old girl, playing around in a moving vehicle, decides it would be funny to cover up her mom's eyes with her hands, and then causes a horrific accident which kills the mom....duh....I am sorry, there is positively no 10-year-old that dumb. The rest of the movie does not get much better. After the death of the mother by the apparent dumbest 10-year-old on the planet, the dad moves the family to Genova, Italy, where he is to teach at a local university, but here is the clincher: he does not speak a word of Italian! Then the little girl has "visions" of mommy (who she killed), and often subsequent night terrors which always, always end by the father holding and coddling her. Then we are forced to watch this family continually get lost and then found and then hug and then cry and lost and then found (followed by of course more hugging and crying) to the point that I was actually wishing for some sort of natural disaster to just wipe all of these vapid, ignorant people off the planet. Do not get me wrong, because I love indies, but an indie about dumb people (and I mean really dumb) is simply ridiculous and pointless. It is really a shame that this movie was based on such insipid characters wallowing in such retarded scenarios, because the locale was interesting.


Without reiterating what was said above about this movie, I would like to add that I was looking forward to watching this film...the cast/location and the work of the excellent director Michael Winterbottom etc...It had a vague shadow of 'Don't look Now' about the storyline from the beginning. A stay in different surroundings (Italy again) to dim the heartbreak of loss...or perhaps that's how I saw it? So consequently I sat there waiting for the story to unfold and put a spin on what we expect to happen to this family in a foreign European country....and I sat there and sat there....and guess what? nothing actually happens! and I mean nothing!! You are not even given the chance to get into the characters as they are so 1 dimensional and vacuous..You are led to believe from the pace of the movie that something was going to happen to turn the whole film on it's head...The eldest daughters flirtation with the local vespa boys, had great scope to take the movie in another direction, the youngest daughters visions of her dead mother ended up being a fruitless and pointless exercise, the fathers attempts at being seduced by one of his female students felt ridiculous given his age. It felt as if the script had a last recall made where they decided at the last minute to eradicated any guts to the story and went for paring it down to a bare minimum to no effect. When the credits started to roll (unexpectedly) you can't help but feel robbed of your time spent sat watching this pile of rubbish.


This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.

The plot of "Genova" sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by "Genova" The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. "Genova" can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed.


I just blew four dollars renting this movie! Why Alliance Atlantis would promote such a poor excuse for a film is beyond me. But even more surprising was the reasonably good reviews that a couple of Canadian newspaper critics gave this film. I'm tired of our media justifying a film simply because it's Canadian and low budget. It's like they expect Canadian films to be lousy, so they give it a good review regardless.

Now about the movie: The acting was below average (with the exception of the lead male character, who was actually pretty good). The film quality was poor, which I guess could be expected from the extremely low budget. The script was absolutely horrendous. An example is the story, which revolves around one of the lead characters, a female drug dealer who flirts with one of her clients so that she can recruit him to fix and steal bicycles for her gang, whose only purpose is to randomly destroy SUV's. Supposedly many of her gang members' bicycles are destroyed in these activities (I don't know how she can't afford to just buy new ones, since she is supposed to be this big drug dealing connection from Vancouver to Toronto).

Anyway, the point of the story (which isn't revealed until well over halfway through the movie) is that the drug dealer plans to firebomb buildings in the Toronto area to attempt to make houses more affordable - as no one will want to live in the area.

- Need I say more.

Shame on the Toronto Film Festival for accepting such a film, Telefilm for supporting it, and the Globe and Mail and Georgia Straight newspapers for giving such biased reviews.

A film shouldn't get special treatment just because it's Canadian!!!!


EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can "blip" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the "faster" humans.

An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed "She" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by "mistake", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who "breathe the foul air" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are "frogs".

From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and "quaint". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be "beamed up" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.

The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has "given up" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste?


Not only do alien visitors look exactly like furry armpitted human woman and not only are alien visitors able to perfectly speak English (with an Australian accent) they ALSO call their stars by the SAME names our Earthly astronomers have given them!

And topping all that off, all alien life knows just how mean, evil, wasteful and destructive us humans are. And they're quite willing to tell us just how bad that is.

If you ever have the chance to see this movie, don't. Well, unless you suffer from insomnia or the choices are this movie or exploratory surgery without anesthesia.

This movie tries to get a moral, ecological point across but only succeeds in making you yawn and pray it ends soon.


It was 1 a.m. in the morning and I had nothing else to do. Don't judge me... please.

We're back in time during the Spanish settlements. A group have made their way onto an island. It doesn't take too long before they encounter a large "reptile", which gobbles up their horse. Soon they're captured by the natives and in order to gain freedom they must kill the "reptile gods." THE CG sucks; it reminds me of the CG of early console video games. The encounters were lame. The only positive thing I have to say about this was the hottie native running around in a skimpy outfit. Otherwise it's just a middling effort.


I'll bet none of you knew that the famous Conquistador Hernando Cortes made a preliminary scouting expedition to Mexico before taking on the Aztecs. Good thing he did because he would never have known about those T Rexs that inhabited one particular valley where the locals revered them as gods.

That was understandable. What wasn't was the casting of blue eyed Ian Ziering as Cortes. Even with the blond hair made famous in Beverly Hills 90210 dyed black, Ian looked positively ridiculous. At least he made no attempt at a Spanish accent.

The real hero of Tyrannosaurus Azteca is Marco Sanchez also late of a television series with a semi-recurring role in Walker Texas Ranger as Detective Sandoval of the Dallas PD. He finds true love with an Aztec princess and life would be just perfect if it wasn't for those pesky prehistoric beasts the natives worship.

Tyrannosaurus Azteca looks like they used some outtakes from the famous Sid&Marty Krofft series the Land of the Lost. All that was needed was some Sleestak to appear.

If you're interested in finding out about this reconnoitering expedition that didn't quite make the history books by all means check out Tyrannosaurus Azteca. Then try and sit through it with a straight face.


With nothing better to do I decided to check out "Aztec Rex" (as it was being billed) for the hell of it.

The silly story might have played better if the dinosaur effects were convincing. They actually looked like animatics (those rough designs that artists later use to finish the CGI effects, adding more details, smoother movements, etc.) Absolutely awful-looking dinosaurs, which is the only reason you'd probably want to sit through this anyway.

The one redeeming factor was the lovely Dichen Lachman as Ayacoatl. She kept my interest; if only the budget had been ramped up and some convincing dinosaurs could have been used.

Disappointing. At least the cast and crew got a free trip to Hawaii, where the movie was filmed.


Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get "Aztec Rex." Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie "Warbirds." Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4.


I don't know if this is one of the SyFy Channel original movies, but that's exactly what it feels like. A cheap, low budget action movie that was probably made very quickly, it contains laughable effects, lame dialog, and one vaguely faded star to give some name brand recognition to it (funny how many of the kids from 90210 are doing cheap TV movies now).

Ian Ziering plays Cortes, who we know from history as the explorer who wiped out entire populations of native people while conquering parts of North America. Here, he is not played as a hero or even sympathetic, but as a slimy opportunist; his character would probably be killed off if this weren't loosely based on a historical figure. In this story, Cortes is on a brief surveying mission, trying to find something of value to prove he deserves financing to further explore America. He and his men find a small tribe of Aztecs plagued by dinosaurs.

The actual hero of the story turns out to be Lt. Rios, who proves to be honorable, resourceful, and wise. He knows the right thing to do in every situation, which puts him at opposition with Cortes, as well as with the young, ambitious Aztec shaman. Of course, the native girl who is supposed to marry the headstrong, scheming shaman falls for Rios, furthering his anger towards the Spanish outsiders. So it's all pretty cliché. The dinosaurs are dispatched with relative ease. Despite taking place in an area that seems wide open, the story pretty much takes place in either the woods, or the Aztec village for 95% of the time, so it isn't visually exciting either.

I didn't even recognize Ian Ziering. They gave him a ridiculous wig and an unconvincing accent, and somehow he disappeared into it. He doesn't look or sound Spanish for a second, however, making the casting choice wrong in every way. If this movie had been released theatrically, he would have been singled out for a Razzie, no question.

Overall, forgettable.


Tyrannosaurus Azteca is set during the sixteenth century where famous Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Ian Ziering) has landed in Mexico with six of his best men including Lieutenant Rios (Marco Sanchez), they intend to claim the land in the name of the Spanish & maybe steal some gold too if the opportunity arises. Within minutes they have their first sight of local Aztec savages, within minutes after that Cortes & his men are captured & held prisoner. If that wasn't bad enough it turns out that a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex live there & like to eat the locals, in an effort to win their lives the Spanish offer to help the locals get rid of their monster problem but with various hidden agendas & ulterior motives it's not just the dinosaurs they have to watch out for...

Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (who, coincidently, made one of my all time favourite exploitations films Turkey Shoot (1982) which I throughly recommend to one & all) & also more commonly known under the spoof sounding title of Aztec Rex (the title was changed by the Sci-Fi Channel when they aired it maybe as the original title Tyrannosaurus Azteca sounds like it might be a foreign film) this is yet another idiotic & cheap looking Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & that's all you need to know really. Based on & around the real Spanish Conquistador Cortes during his expedition to Mexico the film definitely doesn't strive for historic accuracy although I will admit that the story tries to do something slightly different here but ultimately Tyrannosaurus Azteca is still just a 'Creature Feature' with a bunch of people running from some poor CGI computer graphic of a monster despite it's period setting. Not too sure what else I can say, despite being set centuries ago the usual clichés are here, the character's are the usual cardboard cutouts, make stupid decisions & the selfish one, the heroic one, the backstabbing one, the faceless victim who exists just to get eaten & the pretty woman are all here & easy to spot. The film is predictable, silly, dull & doesn't really entertain on any level although it does move along at a decent pace & there's one or two half decent moments of gore if that sort of thing interests you. The story isn't that good & has plenty of holes too, this is also the sort of film that you will have completely forgotten about within a few days.

Now I have seen & commented on plenty of Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' & usually the CGI computer effects are terrible & while Tyrannosaurus Azteca doesn't exactly buck the trend I will admit there are a few effects shots which look alright but then they are usually ruined by an absolutely awful effects shot straight afterwards. There's a few decent gore effects here too, there's a cut out heart, a guy's leg is bitten off, there's some blood splatter, a cool shot of a guy left holding his own intestines after he has been attacked by the dinosaur, there's a few dead bodies seen & someone is stabbed with a spear. The T-Rex gets to eat a couple of people too. The production values are really cheap, the Aztec set looks like one of those theme park attractions made from Styrofoam & those Spanish men must have been imprisoned in the worst enclosure in cinematic history with the fence supposedly keeping them in lower than a mans waist, they could have simply stepped out of it & run away it was so low.

With a supposed budget of about $900,000 I can't see where the money went, shot in O'ahu in Hawaii in apparently fifteen days. The acting isn't great from no-one I have ever heard of.

Tyrannosaurus Azteca really isn't any better than any other cheap Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' despite an almost interesting & unusual premise, that basic statement should basically be enough for you to decide whether you will enjoy this or not (at a guess probably not).


To be fair they did as well as they could with a budget of five shillings and sixpence, but the dialogue was more cheesy than 9lbs of emmental and the CGI was a little old hat now. maybe if some of the actors were not so perfectly chiselled out of granite it would have made the film a little better too.. To say this was awful is to do this film a mis-service, if you want to see something that is totally execrable, you gotta sit and waste a couple of hours of your life watching 'sickle', that is soo mind numbingly awful, its actually good,(several large alcoholic beverages are deriguer though. Any road up, I enjoyed this film and its gotta be worth a look if you have not seen it yet, just don't expect anything along the lines of 'jurassic park,the lost world' or 'apocalypto'.


I have never seen one of these SciFi originals before, this was the first. I think it only fair to judge the acting, direction/production, set design and even the CGI effects on the other SciFi movies. To compare it to your typical Hollywood production is unfair. I will say, however, that overall Aztec Rex was not exactly reminiscent of Werner Herzog's masterpiece Aguirre, Wrath of God.

I will begin by noting that, yes, I do recognize the fact that this movie has more to do with culture-clash than it does with dinosaurs. Despite this being a made-for-TV sci-fi movie, there is some underlying context to the story which I shall examine. The symbolic elements included are evident enough.

Consequently, as a student of history, theology, mythology and film: I found the dialogue outrageous and the plot themes to be somewhat insulting. I am not asking for any mea culpas on behalf of the producers - as I said before the movie is what it is. But what concerns me is that much of the younger demographic for this movie probably rely on television to provide them their lessons when it comes to history and cultural diversity.

The main problem manifests itself most visibly with the character Ayacoatl (not a commentary on Dichen Lachman's performance, but simply how her character was written, although, I'll say she has some work to do before she receives any Emmy nods). It is through her character that the Spanish Europeans actions are justified. Her function in the film as the love interest of Rios affirms that the European way is the right way, simply because they are European. There is really no other reason given. It's really just left to the assumption that the viewer is meant to associate themselves with the Europeans over the Aztec because their dress, language, ideology, etc is more familiar to them than the Aztec - so therefore the Aztec are portrayed as adversarial and 'backwards.' And it's not simply that the viewer is left with that assumption due to ethnocentric perception on the viewers part, but it really seems like the story is trying to convince the viewer - As if the Aztec were not capable of coming up with a plan - if not a better one - to lure a dinosaur to its death on a bed of punji sticks.

In fairness, there is a subgroup of the Spanish who are portrayed as looting temples and intent on simply abusing the native MesoAmericans. There is also a scene where we have the Christian holy man noting the achievements of the Aztec: "They have agriculture, medicine, calendar, etc." - But in the end it is still the Aztec warrior who is portrayed as the main antagonist of the movie, even over the 'thunder lizards' (more on that later). He his portrayed as treacherous, duplicitous and attempts to dispatch the romantic European Spaniard by tricking him into consuming hallucinogenic mind altering mushrooms - an important spiritual component to certain aspects and religions of the native Meso & North Americans (again, more on this later) so that he can keep the female he feels belongs to him and away from the Spaniard.

Now in analyzing the true nature of the story (leaving the obvious Christian vs. Pagan themes off of the table) from a symbolic standpoint - a viewer can easily take these so-called thunder lizards to be representatives of the MesoAmerican ideology/theology, which in this movie is portrayed as being one intent on: bloodthirstiness, mercilessness, cruelness, wicked, maybe even evil? In opposition, we have this group of Christian wanderers, led by a young Hernando Cortes who are portrayed as naive, yet overall noble, lambs caught up in the dark heathen world of the Aztec. Also, the name of the film is Aztec Rex, leading one to believe that it is about dinosaurs out to eat people. However, what Aztec Rex translates to is Aztec King, a the head of the Aztec state, or in this instance 'state-of-being.' (Hence, why the title of the film was changed). And so who in fact do we see as the new Aztec king at the end? It's the remaining Spaniard, Rios. Aztec Rex is in reference to the new European ideology which overcame, through disease, bloodshed, war & famine, Native Americans. Rios symbolizes the ideal European - as the presenters of this film would like them to be remembered (in opposition to Cortes who represents the 'practical-yet-still-noble European'). But when you examine the Holocausts of the Americas, let us be honest: don't the symbolic components of this film's story have it backwards?

I have to say Aztec Rex is at worst a little racist, or to be kind about it, ignorant at best.

And yes, I know it's just a movie, all meant to be in fun, I understand, but so at the end we're left with the idea that Rios was the father of the last remaining Aztec lines? I wonder what Native MesoAmericans would have to think about this ending... as for myself, I thought it was a little too self indulgent.

Best supporting performance of the movie goes to Ian Ziering's wig - although conspicuous - it did at least alter Ziering's appearance enough so that I didn't think I was watching the yuppie from 90210 leading a bunch of conquistadors into the heart of darkness. Ziering actually proves himself to be a more-than-capable actor in this movie, I actually bought his performance, or at least I forgot it was Ian Ziering anyway. I don't know whom his agent is, but he should get more work.

In closing, it was also a pleasure to see Jim McGee again. I've been a fan ever since his all too brief scene-stealing performance in 1988's Scrooged.

Alexander Quaresma - DeusExMachina529@aol.com


All day now I've been watching dinosaurs, and all day they've had the same fundamental problem.

They don't believe in firearms. They just don't seem to have been _told_ about them or something. Bullets _bounce_ off of dinosaurs! Maybe it's because they became extinct millions of years before the invention of gunpowder, and the laws of physics were just different back then... Aah, no. Come on. If they're close enough to chemically operate today, they'd have to be vulnerable to fast (even subsonic) lead projectiles. It's that simple.

Look, the toughest-skinned reptiles on the planet today, alligators and crocodiles, are completely vulnerable to basic rifle fire. They're nothing magic. You can shoot a pistol round right through the heavy scales on their backs. They don't take armor-piercing bullets or anything special. Small bullets penetrate them, they just don't kill them. Somewhat (but not REALLY) large bullets are preferred because the challenge (as with most game) is to kill the animal with one shot, so it doesn't run. (Hunters consider it immoral to allow prey to run off and die unharvested.)

Most animals, including predators, are easily repelled by gunfire. Between the noise, and the pain of even a non-lethal wound, most will run away. An exception are big bears, which are so fearless that they're merely enraged by mortal wounds. Cape buffalo are regarded as highly dangerous because they are well known to charge when wounded. We've seen video of the big bulls of a herd of cape buffalo rescuing a calf from an entire pride of lions. A big cat will run if it can, but if it can't it will charge as a final act of desperation. Where a T.Rex would fit in this spectrum is unknown. Their behavior simply has not been observed. With these larger animals, safe hunting becomes a matter of applying an appropriately large and powerful projectile, and/or applying several of them rapidly enough to counter its charge. With a T.Rex, of course, this could be a serious problem. I've seen a T.Rex skull (they have one in the museum downtown) and carrying a gun big enough to bust that might be impractical. Chewing its neck off with lots of smaller fire might be a more viable approach. Small bullets would still _penetrate_ them, they wouldn't just bounce off just because the animal is too big to easily kill!

So here we have Cortez and his men (this is _before_ the famous Mexican campaign, apparently) captured by American natives and scheduled for sacrifice on the pyramid. It appears that all those human sacrifices were about appeasing the bloodthirst of the pair of T.Rexes that terrorized the continent in the day. Rather than just having their hearts cut out and being fed to the lizards, Cortez et al talk the Aztecs into letting them hunt & kill them. OK, maybe they don't have M-16s like the guys in the "Carnosaur" series, but they _do_ have flintlocks, crossbows, pointed sticks (big ones, made from trees) and swords. Maybe that's a little less uneven than squads of soldiers with full auto, but they've several guys and I'd quickly bet on them over a dinosaur. Oh, wait, there's a _cannon_, about a 4-incher. That's just the ticket for busting a Tyrannosaurus' skull! So they lay a trap, with a squad of men, cannon, pointed sticks in a ravine, and lure the first T.Rex into it, using a pretty brown girl as bait. Cortez points out that they'll NOT have time to reload, so they'll have to close the range until they can be certain of their aim. T.Rex totally ignores their volley of flintlock fire, and we see both a crossbow bolt _and_ the cannon ball _bounce_ off! Forget it. End of credibility. A crossbow bolt would defeat Cortez' torso armor, and a 4" cannon ball might penetrate the hull of a wooden ship! This would also _certainly_ get through the hide, ribcage, or skull of any animal ever to walk this planet. (Do you think a _whale_ could withstand a 4" cannon ball?) And here's T.Rex, still standing, not even bleeding. So Cortez lures it to the ravine, where it falls onto the pointed sticks, which (I guess by magic) penetrate it and kill it. Yaaay, pointed sticks!

The dinos aren't completely invulnerable to gunfire - they manage to put out an eye of the second one with a pistol. This runs it off, so it's NOT as mean as a bear or a buffalo, at least in the movies.

They kill the second dinosaur with a bomb - made from a gourd filled with gunpowder and gemstones. My money would still be on the cannon. It's engineered function is to concentrate all the gunpowder's energy in one direction - toward the target. A bomb is a much more diffused application of force. A _real_ bomb (NOT a gourd bomb) has a steel casing which contains the explosion to extremely high pressure. (Think: pipe bomb vs firecracker.) A pile of gunpowder set on fire will simply go POOF. (Trust me on that one.)


Typical Troma-trash, this smutty 80's flick is considered one of the "highlights" of Lloyd Kaufman's notorious production studio, alongside "The Toxic Avenger" released one year earlier. "The Toxic Avenger" is far superior if you ask me, but this demented splatter-flick is nevertheless endurable as well; just make sure you leave your full brain capacity at the door. The events take place in Tromaville, a little town that proudly claims to be the toxic chemical capital of the world, and they certainly aren't lying. The safety precautions in the local nuclear power plant are substandard, to say the least (even Homer Simpson never was this nonchalant) and toxic waste seeps through to the nearby high school. The first intoxicated victim is the stereotypical nerd, who starts spurting green stuff out of all his body cavities, but his death is believed to be an accident because he had no less than TWO microwave ovens in his house! Oh, the humanity! Shortly after, however, the nuclear leaks also affect the school's weed plantation and thing really start to get messy. After smoking a joint at a party, the cutest couple in school produce a gigantic worm monster that settles in the basement and feeds on teenage scum. "Class of Nuke 'em High" is bottom-of-the-barrel horror film-making, with dialogs so dumb they hurt your ears and make-up effects that give a whole new meaning to the word tasteless. If you enjoy watching faces melting away, getting crushed or splitting in half, this is definitely a must-see! Unlike the aforementioned "The Toxic Avenger", this film suffers from a couple of really dull and overlong moments where nothing really significant happens, like for example when Chrissy and Warren try to figure out what's wrong with their hormones. The crude humor isn't as effective as in "Toxic Avenger" and the acting performances are unforgivably amateurish. Proceed only if you're an avid Troma-fanatic.


Tromaville High has become an amoral wasteland of filth thanks to the aftereffects of the nearby nuclear plant's accidental release of toxic waste.

Unrestrained chaos crammed with absurd violence and crude behavior. Rather horrible, obviously intended to be, mess of a film with the filmmakers cutting loose the reins allowing the untalented cast free reign to ham it up. Craft was far down Troma's list of objectives for this gory sleazefest. The honor society are punks with eerie face paint jobs and wacky outfits. The German teacher who becomes a member, through a "toxic kiss" has the streaks down one side of her face that really gave me the creeps.The toxic monster, which dispatched the ANNOYING punks towards the end, is pretty cool, though.

Kind of movie trash connoisseurs will embrace wholeheartedly.


This film might have weak production values, but that is also what makes it so good. The special effects are gross out and well done. My favorite part of the movie had to be Chrissy played by Janelle Brady. She is super hot and also has a good nude scene. Robert Prichard as the leader of the gang is hilarious, as are the other members. This film is actually trying to make a point, by saying that nuclear waste plants are bad. 4/10 Fair comedy, gross out film.


I absolutely adore the 'Toxic Avenger' series, but this weak offering by the Troma people didn't make any sense, and it had me yawning all the time.

A leaking nuclear plant (and the growing weed next to it) makes the youngsters of Tromaville High go nuts, which causes them to join a gang, have sex, explode, and whatever. Also there's some sort of monster breeding in the high school... my God, this movie's a mess.

The actors pretty much stopped their efforts after this one and they should. The (intended) overacting started to get on my nerves in about 5 minutes...

Disappointing. 2/10.


What to say about this movie. Well it is about a bunch of good students who have some bad drugs and turn into delinquent students that sell more of the bad drugs to people. Two of those people have adverse effects as one turns into a toxic avenger type and his girlfriend throws up some creature that grows in the school's basement. That is about all there is to it and they stretch it out for 84 minutes. This movie is pretty bad and should be locked away forever. Though that is not fair, some people like Troma's movies and they can watch it if they want. Troma movies for me though, are the worst movies there are out there. I just watched this one out of morbid curiosity.


It looks to me as if the creators of "The Class Of Nuke 'Em High" wanted it to become a "cult" film, but it ends up as any old high school B-movie, only tackier. The satire feels totally overshadowed by the extremely steretyped characters. It's very un-funny, even for a turkey.


This film has a special place in my heart as the worst movie I have ever seen. It is about as fun as doing hard manual labor with stomach cramps. The movie starts out bad (I would rate the first few minutes of the film a 1/10) and then it get progressively worse, minute by minute. The only way to rate it at all would be some kind of abyssmal spiraling negative number that grows for ninety, long minutes. Unfunny is not a real word but it best describes the humor in this video. Somehow the video manages even to make cute, scantily clad females and sex look grotesque and distasteful. This movie is amazingly bad. I would say it would be better to be locked up with the TITANIC theme playing over and over and with Buscemi's character from ESCAPE FROM LA droning on in your ear than to watch this movie. The sequels are not nearly as bad. If you have to rent a Troma film, get Tromeo and Juliette or Combat Shock. I would rather watch 5 Tony Little infomercials back to back than to see CLASS of NUKEM HIGH again. Don't get me wrong, it took some kind of criminal genius to make a movie this terrible and if ever a movie deserved an award for being awful, this is it.


First one was much better, I had enjoyed it a lot. This one has not even produced a smile. The idea was showing how deep down can human kind fall, but in reference to the characters not the film-maker.


I saw Arthur(the TV series and the books)years ago and never was fond of the show very much(if you're a fan of this cartoon,sorry if I'm spoiling it for you,but this is actually what I think).Lots of people liked it,but I didn't.

The school kids characters seemed to fought all the time(especially Arther and DW),they were nice to each other frequently,but gradually I got tired of Arthur's complaining attitude towards everyone and his sister DW(however the name was spelled),and DW was an ADHD(or ADD)-like 4-year-old sister of Arthur who was sometimes demanding(which could be why Arthur got annoyed with what her routines were,like her imaginary friend and her stuffed animal collection etc.),Arthur's friends acted like teenagers instead of what they were like in the Arthur books,and the parents,well,they didn't care very much.

The greatest cartoon was Rocko's Modern Life,not Arthur(no offense).


This programme bugs me! There is no humour to it and is far too serious to be called "fun"! It's just far too educational for my liking! The characters are very stereotyped and unappealing. The plots are redundant and the morals are just repeated over and over again. Where's the fun in it? Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too long and is broadcast way too much. Does it really need to have a slot on T.V every 2 or 3 months when a brand new show runs out of episodes? I think it's time that the BBC starting bringing back some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula other than continually giving contracts to these newer shows! I thought the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 3/10


Like all cult TV shows, there is a group of people who love The Twilight Zone so much that they rate practically every episode like they are the greatest shows EVER. While several of them are indeed wonderful classics, the truth is for every great episode, there were several that were mediocre and at least one that stank. However, like die-hard Trekkies, these Zone lovers insist that all of them are gold. In fact, this is what initially got me to review some individual episodes of a couple cult series instead of the movies I usually watch.

While this isn't the worst episode ever made nor is it among the very worst, it is poor by any reasonable standard. A widow watches a long procession of Civil War soldiers going past her home. In the end, a very unexpected twist is revealed and there isn't a whole lot of excitement or suspense here.