Bamboo House of Dolls (1973, 1974 or 1977, various years are given for this title) is a Hong Kong veteran Chin Hung Kuei's (Killer Snakes, Boxer's Omen, Payment in Blood etc.) women in prison flick produced by the legendary Shaw Brothers. Yes, even they got their hands into low exploitation sickies like this, and Bamboo is definitely among the worse attempts of the whole genre, even when compared to the Western attempts that usually pale in comparison with the Eastern films!

The story is about a Japanese war camp in which the Chinese women are brutalized, abused and raped by the bad Japanese (what else?) during the World War II. The girls also know a secret place in which a box full of gold is hidden and also learn that a Chinese military officer raised in Japan (Shaw veteran Lo Lieh) is actually now an undercover agent among the other Japanese and naturally helps the girls escape the hell. What follows is sequences full of gratuitous nudity, female kung fu, some nasty torture, gore, sleaze and extremely offensive anti Japan attitude that make this film pure and honest garbage that doesn't even try to be more than it is.

There are hardly any interesting elements in Bamboo House of Dolls. The occasional photography especially at the end looks nice with its sunbeams and beautiful nature but that's about it in the merits department. The fight scenes are plenty and always include half naked females hitting and kicking each other. The violence overall is quite nasty at times with several bullet wounds, misogynistic torture scenes (for example, one poor girl is brutalized on the floor filled with broken glass etc.) and extremely repulsive ending and moral behind it. Of course it is stupid to talk about "moral" when writing about this kind of film, but still there are elements I won't accept to be found from any film.

The film has also some enjoyable turkey elements for sure! For example, the gold box, filled with heavy gold, seems suspiciouly light as the weak and suffered girls don't seem to have any problems lifting and moving it, not to speak of throwing it! Also those numerous "skin fight scenes" make this quite smile inducing for fans of trash cinema. I have seen the same director's Killer Snakes (1973) which is ten times more noteworthy as a piece and even though it has many alive snakes killed for real, it is also visually more interesting and shows us some nasty sides of the other side of the big city and society. Also, it is a must for those who fear snakes.

Bamboo House of Dolls has suffered some censorship, too, which isn't a surprise considered the subject matter. The uncut version, (dubbed into a non-English language) released in Europe at least in France, Italy and Switzerland, runs 104 PAL minutes while the cut, English dubbed print released in Holland, Belgium and Greece runs only 84 minutes in PAL. From what I've heard, the cut scenes are not only violence or other graphic stuff but also dialogue and "plot development" and the like.

Bamboo House of Dolls is garbage cinema in its most trashy form and definitely something I wouldn't have liked to see from the Shaw Brothers or Hong Kong in general. Some of the Italian exploitation films of the same subject matter are much more interesting and noteworthy than this quite ridiculous, calculated and worthless piece of cinema exploitation. 2/10


I was staying in one night and got extremely bored around 2:00 a.m. so I flipped aimlessly through the channels and happened upon H.B.O. where this "classic" was playing. Initially I was happy to have caught something at the beginning, but my happiness faded about two minutes into the movie. The whole movie centered around an unattractive man who had a fear of females, four beautiful but empty minded women who worked as waitresses at his uncle's diner, and his enormously fat and extremely miserable cousin who also works at the diner. There are a few strange twists in this movie that make it somewhat interesting, but certainly not worth watching. Basically, if you have nothing to do some night or just can't sleep medication works much better. However guys there is a lot of skin so it may be okay to watch with no sound, but even that can get annoying


Buford's Beach Bunnies gives B-grade T&A films a bad name. As a fan of the genre, I was appalled to find little attempt being made to exploit the young actresses talents. I refer specifically to the distinct lack of nudity and simulated sex scenes. What are the next generation of sad teenage boys watching this on late night TV supposed to think?


This is one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad "bunny" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get "laid." Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar "2" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though.


Incredibly muddled, off-putting and ultimately ludicrous ("the horses, oh my God, the horses!") thriller. It's creepy at times, but it has one of the worst scripts ever written for a horror film. Watch how in the final 10 minutes everybody "magically" does exactly what the plot needs for the "resolution" to occur. Bland performances by the leads, a typically eccentric one by Richard Lynch. The video transfer is a real hack job, cutting scenes in half and making the movie even more difficult to understand. 0 out of 4 stars.


I awake suddenly, aware that I'm drooling onto the plastic couch cover, and realize it's a warm Saturday afternoon. Why was I sleeping? Did I hit my head? Or accidentally swallow all of my grandma's muscle relaxers? Could it be adult onset narcolepsy?

No, I momentarily paused on Cheap Seats while channel surfing, and the stunning lack of humor and talent drained my life force with such speed that I blacked out.

It's that head-shaking, mouth-agape, shoulder-shrugging bad. But I have to give these moronic and boring twins credit for selling this idea through. Perhaps they had the same effect on the ESPN programming executive that they had on me, and when he/she woke up, a few horrendous episodes were already in the can and he/she hoped that since all the viewers will be asleep, no one will now how awful it is and he/she can keep the $425,000 annual salary.

You've been warned.


I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.

You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".


This is yet another depressing and boring film about AIDS and tragedy. It begins very uneventful and predictable and continues throughout the movie. I kept waiting for it to pick-up, but unfortunately it never did. The acting is fair, but the script needs A LOT of work. And if you're looking for the nudity, don't waste your time with these not so hot actors. Due to the poor sound quality and lack of captions, I missed 1/8 of the movie. If you have never seen over five gay films, or have recently come to terms with being gay, you may find this film interesting, otherwise it's your run-of-the-mill low budget movie. It ranks as one of the worst gay films I have ever seen.


Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS "orbits" in time around their "perfect day." The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.

The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out "You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, "The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it"--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, "What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?" and "You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet."

The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.

The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.

Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey.


"The Rainmaker" released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work.


I generally LIKE watching Burt Lancaster's films--especially when he is needed to go nuts with his imposing screen presence like in Elmer Gantry. However, his greatest strength, his magnetism, was occasionally also his greatest weakness as he rarely, if ever, underplayed ANYTHING. And it is this lack of subtlety that really hinders The Rainmaker. Now I understand that his character was meant to be a sort of showman but how Katherine Hepburn could fall under his spell is completely inexplicable. She is supposed to be smart but doesn't seem so when Lancaster's blarney is being thrown about the screen! In addition to this, the story is perhaps one of the most stagy looking films I have ever seen and it is way too obvious that this is a movie based on a play. It just looks like it was mostly filmed in a sound stage instead of in the great wide open West like it was supposed to be.

Overall, a very overrated film.


The movie was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids.


I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.

Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).

The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.

Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.

However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).

Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?


The Education of Little Tree is just not as good as it could have been. Little Tree's education is about things like the circle of life and how you should look at a star to help you. Whatever happened to the three R's? Readin' 'Ritin' and 'Rithmetic? When the idiot back talks the teacher at the boarding school place he starts crying and talking to the sky. Oh my gosh. Sure, the lady was a little harsh, but then James Cromwell's character comes and takes him away, leaving the audience thinking that Little Tree was absolutely right. He should learn to adapt to new discipline. Those were the times! Talking to a star is not going to change a thing! Little Tree needs to learn that his adoring guardians are not always right.


since this is part 2, then compering it to part one...

man that was on many places wierd... too many time jumps etc.

I have to say that I was really disapointed...

only someplaces little lame action... and thats it....

they could have done that better....


I gave Timecop a perfect 10, I gave this 1

It's story is very boring, and it has only little to do with the original Timecop. Lots of things from Timecop was scrapped, and they put in new stupid stuff instead. This story is taking place in 2060 (if I remember correctly), but for some reason the timetraveling is now more dangerous :confused:

And the action scenes are nothing to be happy about, well most of them aren't... only the first one is great... and there aren't many action scenes at all, and they're all pretty short

At one point in the story, the main character travels through time about 5 times within a few minutes... no wait, make that two times...

In short: Don't waste time watching this movie, it's not worth it


This is pretty much the first Jason Scott Lee film I've seen. I say pretty much, because I have also seen Soldier, in which he plays the villain... but from what I've heard, it's not considered a Jason Scott Lee film. This, however, is. And if this is any indication of the quality of such films, I won't be seeing any of the others. Lee is basically passable as a martial arts artist... as the lead, he's awful. He gets in a fight with random no-name characters every few minutes of the film, probably because the script writer couldn't figure out how else to stretch out the film to the minimum required running time for a feature film. The villain is the only character with even a hint of personality, and aside from the fact that he's certifiably insane, he barely seems like a villain at all. The majority of the film is basically Lee chasing the villain through time... or maybe it's the other way around. I can't say for sure... and I definitely wouldn't watch it again to make sure. The effects are not completely horrible... but it's close. The title comes from the popular idea of using a time-machine to go and kill Hitler. Somehow, the film screws up that interesting idea as well. The plot is too complicated for its own good. The pacing is poor. I can't think of one positive thing to say about this film... I really can't. It's simply too formulaic and pointless. If only I had a time-machine, so I could go back and prevent this film from ever being made... no, never mind. I just hope as few fragile minds are exposed to this as possible. Listen to the negative reviewers. Avoid this turkey. I recommend this to fans of Lee, and no one else. If you're looking for a quality film... well, this isn't it. That's for sure. 1/10


If you want to checkout a good Jason Scott Lee film, I recommend the following:

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story

Rapa Nui

"Timecop 2: The Berlin Decision" is an awful film. Awful production values. Awful acting. Awful script. I would not recommend this film to be watched by anyone who seriously believes that tripe like this is quality entertainment or advances Asian American awareness in Hollywood (This film does neither.).

I would at the very least say that this film is passable entertainment on a rainy day if you ever come across it while channel surfing. If you are curious, perhaps a rental from Netflix, but this film is definitely not for keeps.

If you are one of the few people who watched this film as a means to raise your Asian American film awareness, and came away disappointed, then I recommend the following films for your personal viewing. These are well-written films with high production values that feature a talented cast of Asian American actors:

Better Luck Tomorrow

Mulan


Jason Lee's pecks are back! If that's what you are looking for, look no further. If not, better move on...

But about the movie. Clichés galore, some poorly shot but kinda exotic fight scenes (used JKD) and lots of bad acting & cheap effects. Poor Lee looks like he's in pain throughout the movie, and no wonder. Not a pleasant comeback.

The movie doesn't even cut it as a B-movie - sure, there was a Germanish bleached blonde Rutger-wannabe bad guy, but no gratuitous sex scene or even a single booty shots. None. Zip. Nada. Even in Starship Troopers 2 they had the common sense to include the mandatory nudie scenes (as for rest of my comments on that excellent piece of classic cinema excellence, please refer to our upcoming review on that mind-blowing sequel...). I did get the feeling that the writer was taking his revenge on somebody with this - thus I won't get into the "plot" of the movie or pretty much anything else related. Except that it did have some non-heterosexual overtones, so 'nuff said.

However, this movie has one thing going for it - no Jean-Claude :)


Sadly, it's true. "Legiunea sträinä" exposes with absolute clarity the parameters of Daneliuc's irreversible failure.

As it was already said, the author lost the faculty to coalesce his content factors and artistic intentions in a coherent form. Maniacally concerned with the mechanic trick of picking at random news subjects and join them together without any legitimacy, he only gathers a disordered pile of events, unable to follow the least story-line. The script's level is similar to a "Cântarea României" amateur play about the glorious feats of socialist realism - only, turned upside down: while the communist line dictated a narrow concern only with positivism and sugary festivism, now Daneliuc is as perniciously obsessed only with negativism and disgusting scatology. The ideas content is zero, and the "message", infantile and didactic, at a kindergarten level.

Unfortunately, he also forgot the most elementary professional tenets. He isn't able anymore to organize a dramatic situation, to order it in a correct movie scene, to frame it right and to edit it following the simplest rules of cinematographic grammar. His level of story-telling in film-images is similar to phrasing something like: "Holy sheet man it ain't nuthin right 'ere, and all da people is asses!" What a huge distance from the impressive artist of 1976-1984, who had created unique works as "Cursa", "Proba de microfon", "Vânätoarea de vulpi" - and even "Croaziera" and "Glissando"... Sic transit gloria mundi...


I simply cant understand why all these relics from the Ceausescu era refuse to let go. One can see clearly how frustrated they were during the commie censorship that forbade them so many things to show in their movies, and now they imagine its dunno what big deal of artsy-fartsy freedom so fill the screen with people defecating, urinating, vomiting, swearing, and any other kinds of hideousness imaginable. THIS IS NOT CINEMA, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS! This is simply visual perversion. Forget about Bunuels Chien Andalou, about David Lynch, about Forman and neorealism and other movie makers who were able to work with an aesthetics of ugliness. THOSE people were mastering their jobs - well, you Don't! Do us a favor, all you Daneliucs and Nicolaescus and Saizescus and Muresans and Marinescus and Margineanus and other obsolete old-timers, and leave us alone! Its bit time to see some Romanian MOVIES on screen, enough with your immature terribilisms! You are not directors, you are ILLITERATE!!!


This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target!

What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.

The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field.


This must be accompanied by a special rating and warning: NOT RECOMMENDED TO NORMAL PEOPLE.

The obsession of Daneliuc with the most dirty body functions becomes here a real nightmare. Also, it's evident that the man is a misanthrope, he hates everybody - his country his people, his actors, his job. And this hatred makes him blind and he forgets anymore the profession he knew long ago.

This so called "film" is just a hideous string of disgusting images, with no artistic value and no professionist knowledge. It is an insult to good taste and to good sense. Shame, shame, shame!


I found a DVD of "I Dream Of Jeanie" in the $1.00 bin at Wal-Mart. When I saw that it was the "story of Stephen Foster", being a musician and music educator, I had to see it. I had no idea what year it was made for it did not say on the cover, just that it was a remake of 1939's "Sewanee River". Bill Shirley's portrayal of the composer is sometimes painful, sometimes laughable. The man has NO testosterone and is a wimp all the way through! I have a difficult time believing Stephen Foster thought music publishers were doing him a favor by publishing his songs...without paying him for them! In addition to that ridiculous notion, there is a nearly 20 minute segment of Ray Middleton and his black-faced "Christy Minstrels" performing Stephen Foster's songs that was difficult to watch, to say the least. I can hardly believe anyone would consider this movie appropriate to resurrect in our current time. It is an embarrassment and should remain forgotten. Fortunately, Stephen Foster's songs will NEVER be forgotten....also, Eileen Christy's portrayal of Jeanie was certainly the highest point in this lowest point of Hollywood history.


Just picked up this film for a buck at National Wholesale Liquidators, and after watching it, I feel like I got ripped-off.

I don't know that I've seen a worse film than this. Honestly. And I would never write a negative review of a film had I not such enormous respect for the subject matter, that is, Stephen Foster and his music.

First, what is it? It's a musical biography? Yeah, lot's of tunes by Foster then interspersed here and there are these pseudo-Broadway-Jerome Kern-type numbers that reek more than the Mississippi delta. I mean, somebody got PAID to write this drivel? Secondly, the REAL story of Foster is a fascinating one. Why not even come CLOSE to it? Thirdly, what did they have on the great Ray Middleton to get him to do this film? Pictures of him with small boys?? With communists? What a waste of a great talent.

So, friends of Foster, and the truth, and good entertainment, be afraid... be very, very, afraid.


Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in "Sands of Iwo Jima") tried his hand at a big musical with "I Dream of Jeanie." Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.

Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, "O Susannah." Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.

This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.

But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.

"I Dream of Jeanie" apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.

This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater.


This overrated, short-lived series (a measly two seasons) is about as experimental and unique as a truck driver going to a strip bar. I am not quite sure what they mean by "ground-breaking" and "original" when they fawn all over Lynch and his silly little TV opus. What exactly is their criteria of what is original? Sure, compared to the "Bill Cosby Show" or "Hill Street Blues" it's original. Definitely. Next to "Law & Order" TP spews originality left and right.

Fans of TP often say that the show was canceled because too many viewers weren't smart enough, open enough for the show's supposed "weirdness", its alleged wild ingenuity, or whatever. As a fan of weirdness myself, I have to correct that misconception. There is nothing too off-the-wall about TP; it is a merely watchable, rather silly whodunit that goes around in circles, spinning webs in every corner but (or because of it) ultimately going nowhere. The supposed weirdness is always forced; the characters don't behave in a strange way as much as they behave in an IDIOTIC way half the time. There's a difference...

Whenever I watch the "weird dream" sequence in "Living In Oblivion" in which the dwarf criticizes the director (Buscemi) for succumbing to the tired old let's-use-a-midget-in-a-dream-scene cliché, I think of Lynch. You want weird? "Eraserhead" is weird - in fact, it's beyond weird, it's basically abstract. You want a unique TV show? Watch "The Prisoner". You want a strange-looking cast? Felini's and Leone's films offer that. TP looks like an overly coiffed TV crime drama in which all the young people look like fashion models. The cast gives TP a plastic look. Kens & Barbies en masse.

In fact, one of the producers of TP said that Lynch was looking for "unique faces" for the series. Unique faces? Like Lara Flynn Boyle's? Sheryll Fenn's? Like those effeminate-faced "hunks" straight out of men's catalogs (or gay magazines)? Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with getting an attractive cast, especially with beauties like Fenn (the way Madonna would look if she were 1000 times prettier), but then don't go around saying you're making a "weird show with weird-looking people". And I have never understood Lynch's misguided fascination with Kyle MacLachlan (I should get a medal for bothering to spell his name right). He is not unlikable, but lacks charisma, seeming a little too bland and polished. His character's laughable "eccentricities" were not at all interesting, merely one of Lynch's many attempts to force the weirdness, trying hard to live up to his reputation - him having completely lost his edge but that time. Everything Lynch made post-"Elephant Man" was very much sub-par compared to his first two movies. What followed were often mediocre efforts that relied on Lynch's relatively small but fanatical fan base to keep him in the public eye by interpreting meanings into his badly put-together stories that don't hold any water on closer scrutiny. In other words, Lynch is every intellectual-wannabe's darling.

So Laura Palmer was killed by her Dad...? He was obsessed by the devil or some such nonsense. That's the best this "great mind" could come up with... You've got B-movie horror films that end with more originality.

Lynch is neither bright nor hard-working enough to come up with a terrific story.

Go to http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8, and check out my "TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism" list.


I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.

Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.

1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?

In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!

2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.

For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.

This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )

I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.


We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.

Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole.


There is nothing unique in either the TV Series nor the Movie. Which is a prequel to the TV Show, that isn't found everywhere else in life and entertainment. Both before David Lynches disgusting style of story telling, and after.

From the Moment the body of a poor misguided girl washed up on the beach. And being introduced to some of the most mind numbing shady immoral character of the Twin Peaks.

To the Mind numbing almost pedophilia disgusting way the movie seems to romantically tell of the destruction of a Human Life through some random psychedelic phenomena in the Movie Twin Peak:Fire Come Walk with me.

I watched it all just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I didn't. It's is simply one mans obvious sexual fetish extended over long series fallowed by a ridiculous overly pornographic movie. Save your self the agony the suspense and watch anything else that at least has the ability to tell a story, rather then seduce you into some kind mental porn movie.

I have heard a lot of reviews, rants and raves about how great David Lynch. Because of his ability to define misery and and tragedy and making it into some kind of a wonderful thing. This is not life imitating art, as much as it is some sick twisted version of art doing its best to inspire complete mindless life.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this garbage.


These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.

Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the "shocking" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale.


Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason.


This is another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.

Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.

Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.

He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or "enhance", the more slobbery they get.


Sometimes a premise starts out good, but because of the demands of having to go overboard to meet the demands of an audience suffering from attention-deficit disorder, it devolves into an incongruous mess. And for three well-respected actors who have made better work before and after, this is a mortal shame.

So let's see. Premise: a loving couple who lives in a beautiful home is threatened by a bad cop. Interesting to say the least. Make the encroaching cop a little disturbing, why not. It was well done in THE HAND WHO ROCKS THE CRADLE and SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, and it's a proved ticket to a successful thriller.

Now herein lies the dilemma. Create a disturbing story that actually bothers to bring some true menace into its main characters while never going so far as to look ridiculous, or throw any semblance to reality, amp up the shock factor, and make this cop so extreme -- an ultra bad variation of every other super-villain that's hit cinemas since the silent age.

The producers, and directors, chose the latter. Thus is the resulting film -- badly made, with actors trying their darnedest to make heads or tails in roles that they've essayed before, and nothing much amounting to even less.


I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!!


I saw this film at the Rotterdam Festival, as did presumably all the other voters. The Director was present and seemed to have worked very hard and be very committed to the project, which I think explains the above average reception and mark it got. It's most similar to a feature length episode of Aussie kids favourite "Round the Twist" but it takes itself too seriously to have even that redeeming feature. The movie in itself is maybe worth seeing if you're trying to do a cinematic world tour visiting all UN member states, as I can't think of another Fijian movie but overall it was generic, poorly acted (albeit by an amateur cast) and prey to the subaltern mentality. The moral of the story seemed to be that native islanders will try and screw each other over, but as long as there is an essentially decent white governor to step in, all problems can be solved (by leaving the island).


Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.

The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.

Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.

It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.

The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.

Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all.


I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them.


this movie let me down decidedly hard. it was a great concept that was ruined with a horrible script. The story just didn't flow and was disjointed at best. There were so many elements to this story that were not explained, or were forced into place with out any real thought. elements like the love story could have been expanded on a bit more, and the cannons need to be written in better. the whole main character growing up thing needed more about the training he was receiving and less standing around. everyone likes a good "little guy overcomes" story and this showed promise but with the scripting failures wasn't to be. While it did have some pyrotechnics in the final battle sequence it was lackluster due to a lack of choreography. this made for a maddeningly boring watch

it could have been so good :(


Disappointing film. Performance of actors is weak. Sets are fine, could have been better. The story is also weak. Battle sequences are awful. Sounds and quality of film are trashy. The history of Kazakh people was told very poorly. This film should have included more Kazakh actors, in leading roles. And also should have been in Kazakh language. Kuno Bekker and Jay Hernandez are Hispanic origins. I don't get it. Since when Hispanic people play Turkic-Mongolian people. This film is shame of Kazakh cinema. Rustam Ibragimbekov disappointed me. He is one of the finest filmmakers in the world. Czekh director is excused, since he is not nomadic origin, he cannot know true spirit and history of nomads.


This is simply put, the worst movie I have ever seen. It ranges from like 2+ hours, and the box art was totally misleading. My friends and I rented it because, we thought it would be a poor man's 300. You know, to laugh at and make fun of. No. There is nothing funny about this movie, only pain. Then, the movie starts up, and they are speaking some sort of different language. We think, 'Oh its just the beginning.' But no, from there the movie plummets and becomes more of like a super boring book you had to read in grade school, where nothing literally happens for hours, and the battle scenes rival those of 2 kids fighting on a playground. Omit Cinematography, and this movie belongs in trash compactor. Movies like this will lead to the world we see in Wall-E, which by the way was a good movie.


Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to.

The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear "Action!". The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands.

Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies.

With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store.


Yeah, right.

I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. "NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining."


I knew nothing of this film before I was convinced to see it by a friend who had heard it was a "non-stop epic battle scene from beginning to end". That couldn't have been further from the truth. This was one of the most boring, poorly written, amateurishly directed, horribly acted films I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. I'd rank it up there with the movie I consider to be the worst film of all time... Battlefield Earth. There basically is no story, it's hard to believe that the makers of this film thought that this cheesy soap opera crap would be taken seriously as actual historic fact. It also features some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... like this little gem... Guy tells girl "You smell like the moon.". Girl replies "What does the moon smell like?" OMG! You have to be kidding me! The scene where the guy was drawn and quartered got some good laughs from the audience since it looked so ridiculously cheap and the sound FX of the guy being ripped apart reminded me of someone making a fart sound with their mouth. If this is playing at a theater near you, avoid it at all costs. This movie is so bad that I actually made the decision about 45 minutes through that I needed to catch up on my sleep... and I did. Awful.


I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO


"Dracula II:Ascension" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!"Dracula II:Ascension" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like "Lips of Blood","The Brides of Dracula" or "Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural" to name only a few.4 out of 10.


Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note.


the movie opens with a beautiful lady in a tattered white gown running through a stereotypical eastern european town. we know she's being followed by something, because she keeps looking behind her. and soon we see she's being chased by a mysterious man in a black trenchcoat. then we realize that the man is actually the vampire hunter and he is after her. but look is that her reflection in the store window??? no its just her identical twin vampire! but unfortunately they both get it.

after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.

What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.

A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.

For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with "homages" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.

The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type "friend" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.

Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........

Oh well.

Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.


I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.

This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.

Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).

Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies.


This must me one of the worst takes on vampires ever conceived by men. How can one turn such a mesmerizing subject into a totally uninspiring story? Apparantly not such a difficult task... First of all, a conditio sine qua non of any vampirefilm is a dark and gloomy atmosphere with a nice sexy touch, this one lacks all these things.. Too much light - the spots! oh my god, why in the name of Christ/Judas was that about?

Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire.


***Possible Spoilers***

When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.

In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.

The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...

I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes "whole".

4/10 Movie-Man


1 out of 10.

This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt.


It's like what other Dracula movies always do, the minions of Dracula always on Dracula's side, which is what disappointed me at the ending. Regardless the person wants to stay a vampire or not, I would like to see something like in the first movie that the minion fights against her master. It is much interesting (since you can almost predict how the story goes) than just either the priest or D. win the game (we need some surprising plots!).


I didn't even knew this movie existed until shortly after seeing Blade: Trinity, I was messing around on the Trinity board when I saw some user mention how the Wes Craven series is a lot better then the 'crap' that's Blade, So I did my quick research: Checked the scores on IMDb & RottenTomatoes for Dracula: Ascension, and somewhere along the search I found out that this is a sequel to Dracula 2000. I also noticed that within the Wes Craven Dracula boards there was a real strong following for this movie which is a big contradiction to the scores I was seeing.

Now let's take a quick personal recap here. I remember seeing Dracula 2000, and I remember not liking it at all, and then seeing the scores of Dracula: Ascension just lowered my expectations even more, but then again, I'm the type of person that truly needs to watch the movie myself (any movie) so that I can form my own opinion.

A couple of things I went in knowing when I started watching this movie was that it's low budget, so because of that, I'm going to have to ignore a lot of the v/fx and just figure it's going to compensated by story & acting, I was also slightly impressed by some of the casting in this movie (Jason London, Roy Schieder & Jason Scott Lee)

Oh geez This movie was CHEESY! But cheesy can be entertaining at least, I found it pretty fricken laughable, the bad audio synch from the re-recording of dialogue in a FEW scenes, the stupidity of the characters in this movie. Sure they all knew about vampires and some of the basic things, Luke even had a book on it, but did it prevent them from wanting to purposely get 'infected'? Nope, this is worst then slasher flicks where the girl has to get out of the shower and check out the noise she hears with nothing more than a towel on.

I also must've blinked at some point, because I'm not sure how 'Dracula' got clothes on his body, especially since he's big wild and angry & I figure if I was in that situation, I wouldn't want to be the one dressing him.

So the movie ends like any middle movie of a trilogy it doesn't, instead it's a 'Cliff Hangar' where I now get to wait for the 3rd installment 'Legacy'. Oh the entertainment value of Cheesy movies.


This movie had mediocrity, laziness, and thoughtlessness written all over it. If you are going to do a movie about vampires that has been done thousands of times already, then you better do a damn good job. I'll be the first to say that this movie just did not cut it. Some scary/horror movies just fail to break the mold of the "lets do something forbidden and forsaken for the sake of fun because all the stories are just lies" cliché. This one, sadly, was no different, and like all scary movies, once you venture down that road there is no going back.

And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie.


A painfully protracted, maudlin and predictable drama, my twenty-fifth Sidney Lumet film, Garbo Talks, gets filed precipitously on the low quality end of my quest.

The film documents a harried young working man named Gilbert (Ron Silver), who is son to Estelle Rolle (Anne Bancroft), eccentric, feisty and above all, an obsessive fan of Greta Garbo. When Estelle becomes afflicted with a brain tumor, her son decides to go on an obsessive quest of his own: track down Greta Garbo, and bring her to his mother.

Anne Bancroft is in full-on, chew-the-scenery Auntie-Mame mode here, that kind of feisty ol' gal that film loves, where she mouths off to people, and stands up for her ideals, and ends up in jail all the time. She stands outside of the film as an obvious artificial construct, and every scene with her is yuk-yuk lame; every note striking false. The rest of the characters are equally as one-dimensional, but tremendously less-interesting. Ron Silver is flat as can be, and his attempted love triangle is as telegraphed as anything else in the film: He is dating affluent Lisa Rolfe (Carrie Fisher), but becomes smitten with oddball co-worker Jane Mortimer (Catherine Hicks), and I called every scene three scenes before they happen.

That's the other problem. One-dimensional characters can survive if they are posited in an intriguing and captivating story, but there's simply nothing here. The film's pace is glacial, resplendent with extraneous material that strengthens absolutely nothing, and when the film does begin to follow a linear plot, it's both plodding and uninteresting. There are plenty of guest stars, so to speak, including Harvey Fierstein as a gay New Yorker (imagine that) in yet another highly inessential scene.

Late in the film, it attempts to make a halfway-decent statement on the nature of idolatry and its role in our lives, but by that time, none of the characters exist as real people, and the film had bored me into submission, so it functions as a case of far-too-little, far-too-late. The film is my twenty-fifth Lumet-directed film, making him easily my most-viewed director, but outside of a couple egregious misses (A Stranger Among Us, anyone?), he hasn't plumbed the painfully uninteresting depths of Garbo Talks.

{Grade: 4.5/10 (C/C-) / #21 (of 24) of 1984 / #23 of 25 Lumet films}


Anne Bancroft plays Estelle, a dying Jewish mother who asks her devoted son (Ron Silver) to locate reclusive one-time movie star Greta Garbo and introduce the two before Estelle checks out for good. Might've been entitled "Bancroft Talks" as the actress assaults this uncertain comedic/dramatic/sentimental material for its duration. Hot-or-cold director Sidney Lumet can't get a consistent rhythm going, and Bancroft's constant overacting isn't scaled back at all by the filmmaker--he keeps her right upfront: cute, teary-eyed and ranting. Estelle becomes a drag on this scenario (not that the thinly-conceived plot has much going on besides). Silver and co-stars Carrie Fisher and Catherine Hicks end up with very little to do but support the star, and everyone is trampled by her hamming. *1/2 from ****


This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!

We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?

This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.

And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.

Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.

3/10 for the fine editing.


Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.

Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.

So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans?

Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.

Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though.

As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.

To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1.


The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess.


Men, do I love police movies filled with action, shooting, chases etcetera.

Boy, was I let down after watching this short and unsatisfying movie. We've seen it all before, the hostages, the bank, the surrounding... Yet, 2 bad guys that shoot down multiple officers and innocent people who simply stay in the line of fire - without getting hit due to some Kevlar.

Not just a few shots, no, hundreds of shots. Going back into the bank, where the dumb hostages didn't lock the safe or doors when the bad guys went out. How stupid did the director think we'd be.

Okay, the shots in between that fake a documentary were good, but after seeing the film I only got the thought: why didn't the police get a decent shooting course? And why where there so many cops and was SWAT on a real long break. Truly bad.


Yeah, Madsen's character - whilst talking to the woman from the TV station - is right: the LAPD IS a corrupt, violent and racist police. And this movie changes nothing about it. Okay, here are the good cops, the moral cops, even a black one, whow, a Christian, a martyr. But this is a fairy tale, admit it. Reality is not like that. And most important for the action fans: The shoot out is boring. It's just shooting and shooting and shooting. Nothing more. Play Counter Strike, then you will at least have something to do. The only moral of this film is: The LAPD is good now. No more bad cops in it. If you like uncritical, euphemistic commercials for police and military service, watch this movie. It's the longest commercial I've ever seen. (2 Points for camera and editing).


As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this!


This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.

The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.

So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it.


This movie is awful. At the end of it you will realize that several hours have been stolen from your life that you can't get back. The "twist" ending is very contrived. The character development leading up to this ending is not consistent with their final actions at the conclusion. Ninety minutes of preparation-- with the premise that the Rob Lowe character will die on Christmas Eve-- is explained away in literally ninety seconds of "No we were just tricking you." Then the Rob Lowe character is not even upset about it! "I will forgive you if you can forgive me," is as upset as he gets. If someone took weeks to convince me I was about to die and then said "No, sorry , just fooling you" I would raise some serious hell. I don't feel bad about giving away the spoiler because I might be able to save some of you out there from watching. Please save yourself and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE.


JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box

To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants

The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous

One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?

The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story

Even there are several cringeworthy scenes

Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced

Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent


Well, if you like pop/punk, punk, ska, and a tad bit of modern psycho billy, then seeing the live performances are about the only thing worth watching. This movie has tons and tons of band cameos, along with president of Troma, Lloyd Kaufman as a semi-major role, and lots of goofy death scenes. Sounds like it may be good, right? Well, the deaths keep coming, and repeatedly to many different bands of the Warp Tour and the fans at the event. Some of the deaths start of stylish, but then they are recycled over and over, to the point of being completely repetitive. Almost everyone dies of having their head smashed, or intestines being pulled from their stomach. The gore looks as if it was from Andreas Schnaas' "Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence"; with this being the "watered-down type blood", but now that movie is actually decent, and provides humor-something that this movie terribly lacks. Sure, the movie is made by Doug Sakmann from Troma, it's got great low-budget potential, and it tries...but just too hard. Everything is overly meant to be funny in this movie, and thats what brings it down. Everything tries to be too comic and goofy, by using intentional bad acting, an overuse of pointless deaths, and doing the same thing...over and over. It's basically "Mulva: Zombie Ass-Kicker", "Chairman of the Board", or any movie you have made with your friends: it's funny to those who made it, and that's about it.

Great potential, great idea, great use of effects-but it's the same thing...over and over: A band plays, a band dies, fans die. Everyone dies, blood is sprayed everywhere, the process is repeated.

The question is for these types of movies-which is basically 'bad slap-stick'-do they try too hard, or not at all?


I just finished watching this movie. I was very excited since I'm a big fan of Punk Rock, Horror films and Spoofs. I was very surprised at what I saw. I knew it was low budget, but I wasn't expecting it to be taped with a video camera. It opens with a good song and a great, very underrated band, The Horrorpops, reforming their song, Where They Wander, and promptly getting killed in various gruesome ways. It's a great opening. But the problem is the fact that, up until the end, this was really all that the movie was. A live performance, A death. Another live performance, A death. It gets old. And there is a gross(literally) overuse of intestines in the death scenes. Why doesn't the killer use other body parts, like legs, or eyeballs, or brains? Don't get me wrong, this movie has some parts that are awesome. Like the hardcore French band, known simply as BERET, the prospect of a band named Atticus, the scene containing a performance by members of the The Used and Simple Plan playing together, since neither bands had enough members to play their show, and Bowling For Soup's Overweight-and-proud-of-it guitarist getting killed in a truly hilarious manner, that I will save for the future watchers of this movie. But the big problem I have with this movie is the at first comical, but after a while, terrible lack of acting talent in a lot of the "actors". Especially Warped Tour creator, Kevin Lyman. He tries very hard, but I suspect that he didn't want to make the film, but was contractually obligated or something. In addition to that, the sound quality is terrible and there are no subtitles on the DVD. The Movie's resolving plot is very hazy and very random. something about a magic sword and Lloyd Kaufman as the devil. Bottom line, this movie has a lot of good qualities, but not enough to be anywhere near a decent Horror, Music, or Comedy film. Although I have to credit it with turning me onto a few bands that I would never have listened to, otherwise. Such as Tsunami Bomb, and the Phenomonauts(an insane, Psychobilly band). I recommend that you rent this movie, watch the first 10 or 20 minutes, if you like it, watch the next 20 or 30, if you still like it, then watch on. If not, just go to the special features and watch all the music videos and live performances. They rock! Long live Punk Rock and Horror!


It's not the most well made slasher movies of all time, but for what it is, it's pretty amusing. The plot is lame but the kills are not too bad. I have to be honest, if you don't follow the bands that are featured in this film, you wont find this film as funny as those who do. I knew someone who saw this film and was really disappointed because of the poor quality of the film but you have to understand that it was made in the spare time of being on tour, in between playing to moshing kids and drinkin' with friends backstage...it's not made to be taken seriously. It's ubber cheese at it's punk best and with over 100 kills,most of which are ultra gory, it's a fun movie to have friends over to watch, drink and be merry!


I couldn't believe I spent $14.00 on this. The only redeeming quality is the outrageous gore. The dubbing was worse than any I have ever experienced. It looks like it was shot with a VHS camcorder. I think every pfennig was spent on the special effects because there was a whole lot of blood and body parts everywhere. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen but I do have to acknowledge the plentiful gore that wasn't as disgusting as it could have been because the whole movie is so silly and unbelievable


Karl Jr and his dad are now running an army on a remote island. They capture a trio of guys who stumble upon the island. Whom after a while fight back. (well the survivors) This one has non-stop blood, gore and carnage, which would have been good if any of it looked remotely real, or if the production didn't look like it was made with a weeks worth of saved up lunch money (I may be overexxagerating there. it was probably just a couple days worth). The horrendous dubbing didn't bother me as much and I suspect if I had been really drunk, some of it MIGHT have been slightly humorous....maybe. But as it is, at merely 78 minutes the movie still felt way too long by.. Oh I don't know... 78 minutes. Don't waste your time.

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Bonus movie: "Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence"; and Trailers for other Shock-o-Rama released films


I felt obliged to watch this movie all the way through, since I had found it in a bargain bin and bought it for my own, but I came close many times to turning it off and just writing off the money I had paid for it. If you are a fan of gore and sadism, this movie is OK. If there is one thing that the makers of this film know, it is the creative use of fake blood and body parts for a sickening effect. If that doesn't thrill you, then stay away.

This movie is shot on a home video camera, with grade school props and terrible actors. It's dubbed from German, but even allowing for that, the sound is awful. This film is about as budget as budget gets, except for the aforementioned special effects. If they had spent a little more money on actors and a real script instead of blood and guts, the film might have been a little more enjoyable.

The story is about three men that land on an island inhabited by an army of tin-masked sadists. They are captured, and the rest of the movie is about their attempt to escape. I call this a story in the loosest sense, since it is really a series of scenes of torture and combat strung together by inane obscenity-filled dialog.

There is nothing whatsoever redeeming about this movie, unless you like mindless gore. Consider yourself warned.


Ok, I like B movies...I know what B movies are supposed to represent. But this is just awful. I am amazed it got such a decent overall score. The only redeeming qualities of this flick are the (mostly) marginal splatter effects. Don't get me wrong, gore abounds in this flick - but few effects really jumped out at me (like the anal "probe"...that was great!).

I believe this movie was filmed on a camcorder. C'mon - rent a Betacam at least, I've seen porn with better production values (and better acting as well).

Acting - sucked! But not in the Troma or Full Moon sort of way.

Story - contrived! But thats what you get from films like these. Very loose!

Sets & Props - sucked! My 16 year old brother makes more elaborate sets for our house on Halloween.

Dubbing and dialogue - sucked! Horrible voice acting (I shouldn't even call it acting) and every other word is "S**t" or "F**k".

There are tons of good classic and B rated horror / splatter flicks out there and they are not that hard to track down. Do yourself a favor by not wasting time on this crap!


I am a big fan of low budget horror movies like this, but come on! This has to be the worst piece of monkey S@#t I have ever seen! I ignored the reviews posted on this site figuring that it would fall into my taste in horror, but I got bored and turned it off.Let's see:

The wardrobe: Consisted of cheap cameo outfits and painters outfits from home depot. The masks were made from what looks like tin foil.

The Gore: The Gore was pretty good, I must give it that. But Ittenbach's Burning moon was better for a low budget movie.

Acting: Was horrible! I didn't mind the dubbing. I find this humorous like in Ittenbach's "Premutos" (great movie). The fighting and action sequences were pi$$ poor.

Bottom line: Don't watch any of Schnaas's movies. There are much better directors like Jorg Buttergeit and Olaf Ittenbach with movies of the same gore and subject matter. Check Premutos, House of blood, Schramm and the nekromantiks.


I cannot believe how bad this piece of garbage is! I want my $3.99 back! Words defy description of this poorly made piece of crap! The dubbing in no way shape or form aligns with the actor's mouths. The movie looks like it was filmed with a 1970's vintage camcorder. I have shot better movies with my cell phone camera. The gore is laughable due to the silly unbelievable plot. The acting is what one would expect if you called all your friends over on a Saturday afternoon and proceeded to get completely ripped, then tried to put on a play in your garage. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't expecting O'Neil and I love Zombie movies, but the production values are so low in this film as to make it unwatchable. Avoid!


I am dumbfounded that I actually sat and watched this. I love independent films, horror films, and the whole zombie thing in general. But when you add ninga's, you've crossed a line that should never be crossed. I hope the people in this movie had a great time making it, then at least it wasn't a total waste. You'd never know by watching it though. Script? Are you kidding. Acting? I think even the trees were faking. Cinematography? Well, there must've been a camera there. Period. I don't think there was any actual planning involved in the making of this movie. Such a total waste of time that I won't prolong it by commenting further.


Wow...I can't believe just how bad ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3) really is. I'd heard the rumors, read the reviews - but had to make my mind up for myself. Well, let me tell ya - IT BLOWS!!! The worst acting of any film ever made, dubbing that must have been done while everyone involved was completely wasted, inept and laughable gore FX, no discernible plot, "cinematography" that looks like my grandma filmed it with her camcorder, weapons props that are no joke - made out of tin-foil - the list goes on and on...

Three guys get stranded on an island where a bunch of weirdos run around with plastic and tin-foil swords. Two of the captives are freed along with a rebel of the island freaks, and are given a day's head start before they are hunted down by the rest of the "tribe"...that's pretty much it...

Honestly - this is one of THE WORST films I've ever had the misfortune to subject myself too. The budget had to be about $200 and was spent entirely on the gore FX (which actually may not have been a bad idea...). There is NOTHING to ZOMBIE DOOM other than strung-together ridiculous looking gore scenes with lots of HORRIBLY dubbed dialog. This film makes other no-budget outings like PREMUTOS: LORD OF THE LIVING DEAD look like TITANIC. Some may rank ZD in the "so-bad-it's-good" category - and I guess if you're REALLY drunk or high and watching it with a few friends MST3K-style - I guess it could be looked at that way. But not by me. I hated pretty much everything about it. If ZOMBIE DOOM or ZOMBIE 90 (which is equally appalling and is included as a "bonus" on the Shock-O-Rama release of ZD) is indicative of Andreas Schnaas' other works - then he should be banned from ever having anything to do with making a film ever again under penalty of death. There is one amusing kung-fu battle in the latter half of the film, and a lot of blood - so I'll grant this one a VERY generous 3/10 - Do yourself a favor and skip this.


This movie is another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting?


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.

As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.

Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.

As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. **


I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.

guy: all we need is here.

girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.

guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.

... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV?


I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music.


What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved.


I just saw this movie premiere on MTV. I must say this was extremely mediocre (at its best). The dialogue doesn't explain the story very well, and I was left feeling like there were a lot of plot holes. There isn't one likable character in this adaptation due to poor acting. I just find that all of the characters are way too possessive when it comes to someone they love. Also, Cate and Heath's love seems very incestuous. They seem more like brother and sister rather than lovers. I don't understand why the father would accept something like that under his roof.

I watched this movie because of a few actors that I respected and enjoyed to watch in previous films, but like I said, it's extremely hard to like any of the characters. Katherine Heigl's performance was horrid which was a complete shocker. She was terrible at being the bitchy older sister of Edward, and there just wasn't enough lines for Aimee Osbourne for me even to critique her performance. Johnny Whitworth did well and it was great seeing him in something recent and even though his character was a bit kooky, he was the only person I sympathized with. As for Erika Christensen and Mike Vogel, they were supposed to be our heroines, but came off as whiny and overdramatic.

I just didn't enjoy this movie very much or the music in it. There was a brief appearance of the Christian punk band, MxPx, but that small appearance would not convince me to watch this movie again. MTV did a tremendous job in convincing me this was a movie it was not. I just pictured something so completely different.


awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version.