This is an interesting left turn for Reel 13 Indies. TWO HARBORS is a B&W 75 minute film from Minnesota that features non-actors and is about two people finding a connection through a search for alien life. I applaud the boldness of the Reel 13 programmers of thinking out-of-the-box when selecting this film. I just wish they had picked a stronger film to be bold with. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the choice had more to do with the uniqueness of the film than with the actual quality of the film itself (Not that TWO HARBORS is completely without merit, but I'll get to that a little later).

As is common with independent films, TWO HARBORS is limited in terms of location. There are only two real locations  a large junk dealership market and a very teeny trailer, which is the home of the middle-aged main character, Vic, played by Alex Cole. Writer/director James Vculek uses the market setting to provide exposition about Vic, who is one of the dealers there. He has various people walk up to Vic and start very long conversations that provides us with just two pieces of information  Vic sells space toys (he prefers to call them "outer space action figures") and he is a caustic asshole. This is emblematic of one of the two key problems with TWO HARBORS - all the chatting. I've said it before and I'll say it again  we are dealing with a visual medium and filmmakers need to work harder to tell their stories visually. There are exceptions, of course, but generally, endless patter is not so engaging on film  particularly if the dialogue is being used as exposition. Pretty much all the conversations in the film are long and unnecessarily verbose. A notable example would be a few scenes which feature Vic trying to play himself off as a Boy Scout leader in order to get a discount at a store. He argues with the clerk back and forth and these scenes don't even advance the plot one iota. This is the kind of thing that makes even a 75 minute film feel long.

The other problem with TWO HARBORS is the acting. I may be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to performance in film, but I really don't feel like there's a good excuse for not having good actors in your films. There are plenty of good actors out there, many of which willing to work on low-budget projects  even in Minnesota. Many filmmakers eschew the importance of acting ability as being secondary to their visuals, but that is naïve. In narrative film-making, next to the story, nothing is more important than the acting/performances. If you don't believe the people enacting your story, your audience is lost.

Originally, I thought Vculek was using non-actors, but as the film went on, I decided that they were probably community theater-type actors. It wasn't that they were uncomfortable on camera. It's that they were overly theatrical (i.e. big). Granted, the best of the actors were the two leads  Cole and Catherine E. Johnson as Cassie, a lonely young girl that gets caught up in Vic's extra-terrestrial hunt. They seemed to have the most training, but they were still a little rough around the edges. The eccentricities they displayed seemed to be surface only - not coming from a real, organic place within. Ms. Johnson, in particular, is an interesting case. She definitely has a presence  a Midwestern charm about her, but that charisma belies the multitude of issues her character is supposed to have. She struggles to portray the idiosyncrasies that stem from a supposed life of solitude and (slave?) labor, relying on stock gestures like eye rolls, lip biting and stammering to suggest her discomfort with the outside world.

I mentioned in the first paragraph that TWO HARBORS is not completely without merit and here's what I mean. Without giving too much away, there is a fade to white an hour into the film. After that, the story takes a stunning turn, which allows the last fifteen minutes to be evocative and downright powerful  it's like a sucker punch to the gut, but in a good way. It's almost a huge relief to feel something after so long with these characters. The last five minutes of the film don't have any dialogue at all and the result is the best part of the film  subtle, detailed (Cole does his best work of the film) and most importantly, cinematic. Then, with the closing credits comes the most staggering revelation of all  that it's based on a true story, which got me to thinking. With all the dialogue, the minimal locations and the lack of cinematic qualities, it occurred to me that with two kick ass actors and a tightening re-write, TWO HARBORS might make a really kick-ass stage play  maybe even a one-act. If there are any bold theater producers out there reading this, I definitely recommend seeing if you can get a hold of the film and contact the filmmaker, Reel 13 or whomever. There might be something to this story after all

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)


I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.


Watching "Der himmel über Berlin" as a teen in the late 80's was a profound experience for me - "so this was what the movies could be". Along with "Paris, Texas" and "Until the End of the World" it still holds a special place in my heart and mind - a testament to the genius of Wim Wenders.

Unfortunately later years has seen a steady decline in the quality of his work with "Million Dollar Hotel" and "Land of Plenty" hitting a terrible low point. Gone are the captivating pictures or music. No search for or display of great insight. All that is left are characters and thinly veiled political statements, that boils down to nothing but clichés, and quite frankly mock the intelligence of a mature audience.

Has the well run dry? Whatever the reason, it's time for Mr. Wenders to either step it up or stop altogether.


With a tendency to repeat himself, Wenders has been a consistent disappointment ever since he hit it big with 'Paris Texas'.

'Land of plenty' is no exception. Taking into the fact that I anticipated an average-mediocre film even before I went in, Wenders' ambitions seem to always get the better of him. It's taken for grated now his films are heavy-handed and bombastic.

I weren't sure if I was watching a comedy that mocks Middle America or some thriller. The outcome of Diehl's character is wholly predicable. Wender's insistence on layering many many scenes with some rock song is also intensely annoying. He was covering up the holes in his script and direction by jazzing up the scenes.

I am certain that many people will find this film important and resonant but in all honestly, this clumsy and didactic effort only speaks of poor direction.

Interesting that Wenders professed that while making 'Paris Texas', he had great help from Sam Sheppard with the script. Yes, that was Wenders' best and he should understand now he needs a good scriptwriter. His films from the past 15 years+ were a total mess.


The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...


i can't believe i actually watched this but i guess i just wanted to know if this movie would get unintentionally funnier and funnier towards the end. and it did. the climax was the poorest performance ever given by the defence lawyer - so out of real life that even for a fictional story it was far too weird. no way anyone on this planet can behave in front of a court like she did. and probably the worst prosecutor on earth. why was he in court anyway? he did nothing and absolutely nothing to prove her guilty. a simple search of her house would have resulted in the find of the rings. but no go. he preferred to say "objection" 2 or 3 times during the whole trial - that was it. the blonde lunatic was given a truth-drug to prove her innocent but not Brett. the lunatic almost had an altar of Brett in her home that could have proved her sick obsession. but again no go. during the court scene i felt the silent urge to take the needlepoint out of her hand and bang it several times against her head. even real weirdos do not look that silly fake "i am innocent" like she did. and what does this movie tell us? never marry a woman with a life insurance: as soon as she falls down the stairs her husband will be thrown into jail, guilty or not. evil, evil men.


.... may seem far fetched.... but there really was a real life story.. of a man who had an affair with a woman, who found out where he and his new wife were staying,, and she killed the wife,, making it look like a murder rape.......

in her delusion she had told everyone that the man had asked her to marry him.. so she quit her job in Wisconsin... and moved to Minnesota..........

last I heard she was in a mental institution, Security Prison....

she was still wearing the "engagement ring." that she has purchased for herself... and had told everyone that he had bought it for her.

The events took place in a small town in Wisconsin,,,,,,, and the murder happened in Minnesota......

There even was a feature story in "People" magazine... Spring of 1988, I want to say on Page 39. I remember this as I was in college at the time,, and a colleague of mine had met the individual in the Security Hospital....


I couldn't believe this terrible movie was actually made at all. With the worst actors you could find, the worst script written (Mark Frost & Sollace Mitchell) and by far the worst waste of time in viewing. I won't belabor the story as it's really not worth it. But I will elaborate on some of the performances and definitely the story. As to the story, it is very hard to believe that this bitty crazy schemer could actually do what she did. That in reality the wife couldn't defend herself against a little bitty of a thing. That the husband could actually find the nut case attractive at all. That the defense attorney could break every court rule there was and keep on doing it after the judge ordered the blankety blank to shut up. And the final result of the film is an insult to justice, movie codes, and the male species. The theme of this mess is let women do as they wish, kill whom they want, defend the killer and get away with it, while the guy rots in jail the innocent victim. Hard to believe that Sollace Mitchell, the director and a man, would even want to make this dribble.

As to the acting: Jordan Ladd, the killer, is awful. A loony toons, who does needlepoint during her murder trial (is this allowed in court?) She bored me to the hilt. One more look of her batting her eyes and indicating how innocent she was and I'd throw up. She's not even attractive enough for any guy to leave his wife. The husband, played on one level by Vincent Spano, just seems to look and act stupid most of the time. He was so predictable in his performance falling into the traps set for him by all the women surrounding him. The worst by far was Holland Taylor as the Defense Attourney. She over acted throughout the film and made a mockery of justice. If she would cross examine me anytime, I'd have told her to go take a hike. Everybody else in this sleazy film did their job as directed to do so.

I wish I could give this film a zero rating. However we are forced to start with 1. Too bad. Let's not have anymore painful watching films like this. Lifetime can do better then this, I know it.

This is a postscript: Made the mistake of turning this insipid movie on by mistake. As soon as I saw the bimbo Jordan Ladd I knew I'd seen it before and didn't like it or her. I not only turned the darn thing off but had to add my anger at people like Sollace Mitchell who wrote the screenplay but also directed this horrible flick. Doesen't anyone see that her/his message is that sickness pays. Being ill and going around killing people is okay with this director/writer. Totally making the male species idiots. Well, this male tells you to go stuff it somewhere painful. We're not all that stupid and will speak out to your so called movie, which in this person's mind deserves to be trashed.

And again this loser is shown. Why???? Can't you read the comments on this stupid and despicable movie? Are we constantly subjected to see the bimbo Jordan Ladd again and again? Get her off TV, films and out of sight. She's just terrible in every sense of the word. Phew!!!!


Jesus Christ, I can't believe I've wasted my time watching this movie. I only watched because I have such a crush on Jordan Ladd. But watching this film almost put me off her. This is absolutely awful! I could have been watching Survivor Series 93 over this.

The lead guy in this was so bland and generic. I would love it if the great Mistuharu Misawa Tiger Drove '91'd his ass through a glass window. I was enraging every time he was saying "lake" and "cabin". I'd kick his ass.

Jordan Ladd, on the other hand, was absolutely wonderful. A true angel. But she couldn't even save this utter joke of a film. Sadly, she couldn't even act like she was off her nut when she took that truth drug. It looked hilarious.

I also loved the bit where Jordan accidentally spilled yogurt on her. It reminded me of a time where...nevermind.

Anayways, do watch this film because of it's awfulness.


If this movie was written directed and produced with the intention of creating a bad movie cult classic, it might (i say might) have been a hit. Have you ever sat and watched a movie that was so absolutely awful that it becomes fascinating in terms of its faults? Well this is it. Every one of the acting cast should be nominated for worst acting performance awards. It would be hard to find another film, with this kind of production budget, that contains so little of any value whatsoever. The whole thing, from the opening scenes defies logic. Dialogue is completely unbelievable and illogical. Ditto for the behaviour and general storyline of the film itself. What is really mind boggling, is that some buffoons in a boardroom actually made decisions to spend money on this piece of trash. Wow.


You know how everyone jokes about the acting in porno movies? Well if you've always found the plot line of a porn to captivate your interest, then this movie is for you. It truly was like a porn without the sex. Or if that analogy is not to your liking, imagine you and your drunk roommate found a movie camera abandoned on a park bench. This is the movie that you would make. -Horrible acting -bad camera work -Music done on a casio keyboard This movie has it all, and more. For those who are masochists in the crowd, this is a premiere piece for your collection.

All I can figure is that the only people to submit reviews for this dripping pile of movie, were people who 'starred' in it.

Their movie career is over before it started.


Feeding The Masses was just another movie trying to make a little money off of the zombie craze that is going around, mostly due to the popularity of movies such as Land Of The Dead and the Resident Evil series.

It starts at a television station, which is guarded by the military, and are reporting that The Lazarus Virus (zombies) are close to containment and the city will soon be free to do their business again. The problem is, this is totally false. Zombies are running rampantly and only a small minority of people are aware. Among them are Torch (William Garberina), the camera man, Sherry (Rachael Morris), the lead anchor woman (who for some reason is listed as playing Shelly on this website) and Roger (Patrick Cohen), their military escort. Torch and Sherry are against lying to the people but the station is being run by secret service (or some other government agency) and they are heavily censored.

This movie gives itself a pat on the back on the box-cover saying "We hold FEEDING THE MASSES on a higher level than any o the three 'of the Dead' films by George A. Rombero." The source of that quote has lost ALL credibility with me.

Let me just say that this movie is BAD. I don't mean bad like I was expecting more (I obviously was, though) but I mean bad in that I could not find any redeeming qualities in the film, whatsoever. The acting in all parts are either over done or too wooden. Did anybody remember their lines or are they reading off of cue cards? I can't even think of what the best part of the movie was or the best actor/actress. There really was not one. If I had to give a nod to someone, I would say Roger, the military escort was probably the most interesting character but that is really not saying much.

I would have to recommend to pass on this movie, despite the box-cover looking pretty good (It's what originally drew me to the movie). 3/10


Some news reporters and their military escorts try to tell the truth about a epidemic of zombies, despite the 'government controlling the media'. The makings of the film don't understand that the George Romero zombie films only worked because he kept his politics subtly in the background of most of his films ("Land of the Dead" withstanding). This satire is about as subtle as a brick to the face or a bullet to the head is more apropos for this scenario. What's subversive or subtle about seeing a military guy masturbating to death and destruction? Anything nuanced about the various commercials that are inter-cut with the film? Nope. Furthermore the acting is uniformly horrible, the characters thoroughly unlikable, and the plot inane. Add this all up and you have the worst, most incompetent zombie film since, "C.H.U.D. 2" reared it's hideous head.

My Grade: D


this is quite possibly the worst acting i have ever seen in a movie... ever. and what is up with the casting. the leading lady in this movie has some kind of nose dis-figuration and is almost impossible to look at for any period of time without becoming fixated on her nose. you could go to your local grocery store on a Sunday afternoon and easily find 50 more qualified, better looking possible leading ladies. i made the unfortunate mistake of renting this movie because it had a "cool" DVD case. This movie looks like it is just some class project for a group of multimedia students at a local technical college. i would rather have spent the hour or so that this movie was on watching public access television... at least the special effects are better and the people on there are more attractive than anyone you will see in this film


Feeding the Masses is just one of many recent mediocre zombie movies to be after your hard-earned dollars. Suggestion? Keep your hard-earned dollars and let's just say that good old TheatreX took one for the team on this one. Guess what the plots about? Zombies taking over. This time though, for the sake of originality (?) this film takes place in Rhode Island, and to be honest I'm not sure I've ever seen a zombie flick based in Rhode Island. A TV station, controlled by the government, is supposedly keeping up "normal" broadcasts so that any remaining citizens won't think that there's any problem in the world, that is, those that never look or go outside, anyway. I will say though that a few of the commercials broadcast by this station were probably the most amusing part of this film. There is actually somewhat of a story to this but I'm not bothering with that because after a while you'll either not care or have fallen asleep. At any rate, this has plenty of terrible acting to throw on top off all the "seen it all before" stuff that gets trotted out before the camera. Trust me, you can find plenty of other things to do with your time than watch this. 3 out of 10.


Set in Providence, Rhode Island, Feeding the Masses tries to be a satiric look at the role of the media in government. At best, it could be applied to how the US try to control media during the Iraq War, but it ends up feeling hollow. There's never any really tension in the story and the acting never very good. Worst, the direction of the movie is atrocious, focus more on odd camera angles that fail to convey anything beyond "Isn't this an odd way to hold the camera." Special effects are pretty bad...at one point video of an explosion is green screened over the city, and it's laughable at best.

The film does have a couple bright spots...namely the advertisements for post-zombie services (including a reclamation service and a party bus). But it's far too little to make the film worthwhile.

For a better zombie film, try Hide and Creep. It has the same weak production value, but there's much more wit, humor and talent behind it.


Honestly, who in God's name gave this movie an 8.1 rating?? I guess the people who actually made or starred in the movie were the ones who voted. Otherwise this movie sucks! This movie is nothing more than an amateur, or possibly student, film. I'm a movie fanatic, and have seen terrible movies, but there was literally nothing redeeming here. The story and acting was the worst I've ever seen. The props, including the use of toy airsoft guns with terrible special effects, where just as bad as everything else. I'm all for bad language in movies, but the F-Bomb was dropped about every third word and I think we might have a winner for the most use of the F-Bomb in any movie EVER. The movie also appears to have been filmed using cheap video cameras and not actual film. I'd expect this to get awards for an amateur movie shown only on public access stations around the country, but it doesn't belong on a DVD.

Do not buy this movie. Do not rent this movie. All I can say was that this was a terrible waste of a free movie rental coupon. This is valuable time that you will NEVER get back. Unfortunately for me, that time is lost, but it's not too late for you. If you decide to rent this movie, consider this my warning.


This is perhaps the worst attempt at a Zombie film I have ever had the misfortune to see. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Any review found on this site is obviously the work of either the filmmaker, the filmmakers family, or a friend of the filmmaker. How does this film suck? Let us count the ways...

The plot? Incoherent. Dialogue? Atrocious. I will not slam the effects/gore, as I understand that this is low budget. But was there even one zombie that was not obese? C'mon! And for a film set in Rhode Island, why did that truck sport a Massachusetts plate? Continuity, find some.

The Girl dancing while the soldier "Stands at attention". Please, don't put your ex-girlfriend or buddy's sister in your movie naked. This was an ugly movie filled with ugly people, and has no business even mentioning Romero on the cover. Next time you decide to make a movie, don't.


This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve.


As you may have gathered from the title, I wholeheartedly believe this movie to be the worst zombie movie of all time. The acting, camera-work, writing, special effects and anything else remotely related to this movie sucked. People have argued that while this movie is terribly-acted and terribly-produced but it comes through with a witty intelligent script. Wow. The plot has more holes than I or anyone else could possibly count. For starters, why would the government tell everyone to go back to work when it's not safe? I know the government's supposed to be evil but they don't gain anything by killing the entire population of the country. There wouldn't be anyone to govern! Another thing that I was wondering about, even if the government told everyone to go to work, why would people go if the streets were swarming with zombies? Were the zombies going to hide in the bushes and ambush the unsuspecting people in order to aid the government in their plot to kill everyone on the planet? And how about the ending? That stupid Torch guy sacrifices his life in order to get a few close up shots of the zombies. He probably forgot that every camera made in the last 35 years has a zoom feature. And another thing, why does he say Hindenburg before he dies. The Hindenburg was a rare event seen by a very few people. The zombie menace will been seen by everyone in the country, possibly the world. He doesn't think anyone else will get a few snapshots? They also managed to ruin the only semi-interesting scene in the film when the soldier is watching the exotic dancer. Why did the zombie hide behind a curtain for five minutes before attacking the girl? Especially when the zombie could have come through the DOOR. It's probably just something an unintelligent zombie movie fan such as myself wouldn't understand. Every day I pray that God with increase my brain capacity long enough for me to figure out all the subtle nuances in Feeding the Masses.

Anywho, I think it's interesting that this is the first movie that gave me the desire to physically hurt the people involved in the production. Hey Trent Haaga, I'm calling you out!


Although nothing can compare to Vampires Vs. Zombies...in any realm of film making i will attempt to judge this movie.

Firstly, the special effects were breath-taking. When there was an explosion on the television screen i thought my entire house was going to explode, and when automatic machine guns were fired i thought the shells were landing on the floor right next to me. Simply stunning my friends.

But the scene when the Jack Black sound-a-like is giving the worst monologue i have ever heard i nearly killed myself, but don't worry since he was getting blazed in the movie he can pass his awful acting off on "I must be high". Seriously, he must have watched himself mindlessly babbling about non-congruent thoughts that make absolutely no sense and just added that he must be "high" to justify his awful acting. Well if you can say that to excuse terrible acting then if you talked to the writers, directors, executive producers, sponsors you will probably get the same response...seriously.

With a production team called "Shock-o-rama" i was shocked i didn't place a sawed-off shotgun in my mouth and ended my life after this shockingly terrible excuse for a movie was played.

If you want to see this movie, then you should be murdered

Yours Truly,

The General


First, a little summary. This reporter named Torch is basically trying to get out the story of a zombie outbreak and finds the military & government censoring him. Nice message, government censorship and all that, but the way they DID the movie was, well let me explain.

This movie is beyond description. The idea that somebody holds it in higher regard than anything by George Romero is justification enough for the reviewer to be committed to a mental institution. The script is atrocious on its own, like it was written by a sixth grader.As for special effects, I understand that independent films have low budgets, and some gore effects looked acceptable, but if you want a scene with fire, here's a tip: buy some nonflammable material, have an extinguisher ready, and get a fire going! Don't digitally add it in and make it look like an explosion from a Nintendo 64 game. The acting, well let's put it this way. In my summer theater program, a cold reading of the script is, compared to this, The Godfather. I won't even go into the inconsistencies. Find them yourself.

What disturbed me the most, though, was when everything was finished after shooting and editing, somebody might have said, "Okay, this looks good. Let's release it." It sends a chill down my spine to even think about it, to think somebody felt that this was good enough for DVD release. This isn't DVD quality. This isn't Sci-Fi channel quality. Hell, this isn't even film school quality. If you were to submit this in for a project at a film school, you would get an F. No, not even an F, more like an F-. I wouldn't be surprised if he would try to get you expelled.

I felt used after I saw this thing. Blockbuster and the makers of this movie have my money right now, and I'd prefer not to think of what they're doing with it. I have been the pawn of some elaborate, nefarious scheme at legalized theft, and it doesn't feel good to think that I walked right into it, looking at the back cover with pleasant memories of 28 Days Later only to find a film Ed Wood would watch and say afterwards, "I didn't much care for this." This film is the single most terrible movie I have seen. I have not seen anything by Ed Wood, but I have confidence this is worse. If you are looking for serious cinema, so much as being within ten feet of it will probably give you a bad headache. If not, I still recommend that you personally write the director and ask how he sleeps at night. However, if you are the kind of person who get a laugh out of really bad stuff then I recommend you check this out. You won't be disappointed.


Please, for the love of God, don't watch it. Now saying that, I know what you're thinking, it can't be that bad can it? If everyone says it as bad as they say, I have to watch it! Don't do it! It'll be like looking at a horrible accident involving little babies and a gasoline tanker! You'll be scarred for life...the image will never leave you! I could only watch a half hour of this before becoming violently sick. The acting is the worst I've ever seen, and I've seen Barbwire!!! If you do risk ripping your eyes out and rent this movie...don't say I haven't warned you! The cover and storyline are a trap!! Zombies? Satire? Shaun of the Dead was great! This movie must be the same....right? NO!! The writing = crap directing = garbage acting = there was no acting. Still not convinced? Then forever your soul will be tormented!!!


...because 99 out of 100 times, the producers lied through their teeth (or someone else's) to get you to rent or buy their *mercifully censored*.

Shock-O-Rama Cinema proves the truth of this yet one more time with the release of "Feeding the Masses," a possibly well-intentioned but utterly inept and dismal entry into the zombie genre. Folks, this is not only low-budget film-making, this is VERY low-budget film-making by a bunch of people who--I'm sorry, I know they have families who love them--will never, ever be in Variety in any significant fashion. This is one baaaaaaaaaad mooin' pitcher, folks, and not just because it's cheap.

The acting is mediocre, but I don't blame the actors; they had no direction. They had no direction because the script was a half-baked zombie fantasy with no sense of real cinematic storytelling. Characterization is thin at best, no thanks to weak dialogue and soporific direction. Have I mentioned yet that the script and the direction are pretty lame? They are. There's no drama, no tension, no great character moments, nothing. The whole premise of government suppression of the media is squandered on sophomoric "commercial breaks" and an undramatic storyline that defies rational analysis and awkwardly shambles to its ridiculous finish. Syd Fields would not be pleased.

How could the government suppress the truth of a virulent zombie epidemic when the reality of it would be apparent everywhere? Why would they give it more than a cursory try? In this day and age of cellphone cameras with wireless access, what could they possibly hope to accomplish for more than a day or so at best? Now, if they were covering something up, like their own culpability....but "Feeding the Masses" never explores such possibilities. Instead, it dwells on absurdity and poorly staged events to dig for laughs and/or significance, praying its audience won't notice the near total lack of production value beyond basic film-making equipment. Did anyone in this film get paid? I hope the actors did, if only for their time wasted on career blind alleys like this one; at least the techies got to rack up some legitimate work experience.

Even zombie fans will find little to gain from "Feeding the Masses." The gore is remarkably tame for no-budgeters of its rank, and there are no distinctive set pieces or memorable effects. They're all eminently forgettable, in fact. KNB has nothing to fear.

Even junk like the Aussie stillbirth "Undead" was miles ahead of "Feeding the Masses." Sorry, guys, back to the drawing boards, and take your deceptive marketing with you.


Mimicking its long title the movie finds ways to come close to the 90' mark. The beautiful sets are here with all that made the Hamer production values a trademark, yet Paris drowned in the fog is a sign of indolent neglect. The story is obvious and can be summed up in a dozen words so there comes nothing unexpected and nothing worth more than 5% of your attention to be expected.

The directing is heavy as a direct transfer from the stage play, actors are mostly stiff as wax figures (ok this is a Hamer feature, only it's sometimes better featured in the whole package). My conclusion: this movie is trash, not worth the time I spend that evening. Eternal life is a boring matter and I should have hoped the guys in charge of programming at the Cinemathèque would have known better.


I remember when this came out a lot of kids were nuts about it. I guess I was a bit too old to get all excited and I was a fan of real martial arts films and always found this a bit cheesy.

In the early 90's we were swamped with programs such as this making kids feel like they could fight and be a power ranger or an equal to these kids on 3 Ninjas. I think eventually parents and film makers alike got sick of it because all we had in reality was abunch of kids going around punching and hitting everyone.

Many kids movies have some big point they're trying to make and its nice for your kids to watch and get the message, this one doesn't have any message at all...it just exploits a million difference things in less than 90 minutes.

The movie has no great visual qualities but would one expect it to? The acting is pretty bad. Victor Wong is a cool actor but it was embarrassing to see him here.. The short, fat, gimped eyed old fart as a powerful ninja that was just hilarious. The kids over acted way too much and the youngest ninja Tum Tum was maybe the worst kid actor I have ever seen.

The movie has a plot that anyone knows before they even read the review. 3 ninjas...yea you know they're gonna fight a bunch of bad guys and win obviously... Need I say more. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone.

With all that said KIDS WILL LOVE IT. This movie is aimed at kids and only children could enjoy it. If you don't mind your kid seeing movies about kids fighting this is a good movie to let them see. If you don't mind allowing your children to see complete garbage that has nothing to do with real martial arts, real acting or reality period then you have found a movie for your kids... I say kids because I think even the girls will like it... I recall all the girls having a crush on Rocky.

2 out of 10 stars because I think you can make a movie for kids and still make it enjoyable for adults..this movie failed big time at that.. It is beyond cheesy and nothing original or unique and I would not allow a child of mine to watch it... Kung Fu the TV series is on DVD and there's tons of great Shaw Brothers films out there...Why not show your children things that will really entertain them and not make them dumb along the way, perhaps even teach them some moves and not just how to kick a man between the legs as grandpa did on 3 Ninjas...no no no...never kick a man between the legs ...never .. thats so unninja like.


Serious HOME ALONE/KARATE KID knock off with enough bad character stereotypes to have the writer sued and then shot. You could see blatant stunt man usage in almost every scene. Oh, and the acting sucks too. Although I must say that the line: "Sorry, dude, I have to take a major dump big time" made me laugh my ass off.


Oh my god! This movie insults the intelligence of everybody. I mean really, who thinks three kids can fight 30 to 40 ninjas and win. Not to mention the brainless humor thrown in. This film is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The movie is an omen, the only thing it's good for is a time killer or unintentional laughs.


I saw this movie on t.v. this afternoon and I can't see how anyone can sit through this piece of trash. It's not funny at all and it takes your I.Q. down a few notches. I know this movie is for kids, but that doesn't mean the writers should take their intelligence for granted. I bet that writers were sitting around a large wooden table and figured that a) The word "poop" equals big laugh. b) A four foot tall kid can dunk on a ten foot tall basketball net. c) Kids should always fight kidnappers armed with guns because the kidnappers will fall for anything and d) 3 months of karate training is all you need to beat up so-called "ninjas" with swords. One good thing I can say about this movie is it contains the weakest suburban "gang" in the world that couldn't scare anybody. Maybe the guys at MST3K could use this movie for a good laugh. Don't bother with this lame-ass excuse for a movie.


Although it has been 2 years, I still remember the complete waste that comprises the entire plot of the movie. Unfortunately, I came across this movie after my friends and I selected it while browsing through the new releases at Blockbuster. We decided to pick the movie because it was the only one we all had not seen and it sounded like it may be enjoyable. Although it has been quite some time since I viewed the movie, I still remember the lack of plot (seriously, there is no true plot), and complete waste of time that was spent watching the movie. If you are in the video store and this film catches your eye, walk on and find a better movie. If you did end up seeing this movie, I understand your pain :)


On the face of it, this should be a great film, a great cast, a plot with many possibilities and one of Hollywood's finest behind the camera for the first time.

However, its clear why it was another 8 years before spacey decided to try directing a movie again. This movie fails on so many levels. In a film where there is not much action and most of the scenes are shot in a couple of locations, it is imperative that suspense and continuity are provided by the director. Not so here, the great cast is horribly under-used, none more so than the great, late John Spencer, the plot is so run of the mill and nothing you haven't seen in a hundred other TV movies. There is so little character development you end up not caring for any of the protagonists. At least we know spacey has a lot of mates and clout in Hollywood studios to get away with a poor flick like this


by Dane Youssef

A gang of crooks. The perfect plan. It all goes wrong. They're in trouble. The police are outside. They're cornered. What are they gonna do now?

Sound familiar?

The movie seems like it's trying to be a combination of the acting workshop, the "indie" film and the theater.

It's the kind of things that actors love--it's kind of like a workshop or a play because it mostly consists of tight focusing on the actors acting... acting angry, tense, scared, conversing, scheming, planning--giving the performers a lot of free range to really ham it all up.

A trio of crooks, one leader, one goon, one brother, come up with a big heist scheme... and a monkey wrench is thrown into the works. To top things off, there's a bit of a "fender-bender" and one of the crooks in flung through the back of the windshield.

The cops are on their tail and they stumble into a bar named poetically (and leadenly) "Dino's Last Chance."

Spacey, as a director, tries to keep the focus on the actors' performances and delivery of dialouge. He pans over to a bright passion-red cigarette ad of a smoking and smoldering Bogart. And he keeps all the violence off-screen, really.

I think that was a mistake. Focusing on the intensity and gruesome violent scenes would have given the movie some edge.

The problem with the movie is that it moves too slow and suffers from miscasting in almost every role. Matt Dillon ("Drugstore Cowboy" and "Wild Things") seems too young and too idealistic to be the leader of this gang.

Gary Sinese seems to brooding and deep in thought to be a spineless tag-along with these guys and Joe Mantaga is effective as the traditional routine foul-swearing mad-dog police lieutenant who's all thumbs, but he isn't given anything to really do here.

William Fischter is the only actor who is believable in his role as a brainless grunt who just wants to spill blood.

And the crooks are in a tense situation where they either go to jail or they try to think of some way out of this.

Spacey lacks the ability to create a lot of tension and keep it going. The characters are mostly chatting away, trying to think of a plan... and they're to calm and too articulate. There's even a scene where the crooks are playing pool with a whole swarm of armed cops right outside, ready to strike. At one point, one of the crooks even call the police who are right outside the bar. Oh brother. Oh bother.

These cops are going to either blow them away or going to lock them up. Shouldn't the holed-up crooks be a little scared, a little uneasy? Meanwhile, all the real action is happening inside.

Someone whips out a gun, a baseball bat, which leads to an ugly confrontation off-screen and there's one more casualty that happens that's... well, kinda sad. But...

Faye Dunaway also should have spent more time with a dialect coach, improving on her New Orleans accent. Skeet Ullrich is fine in a smaller part.

A cop listening in reaches for a pack of matches at the absolute worst time is a nice look. And so is a scene where someone goes right through the rear windshield.

The dialouge is obviously trying to go for a David Mamet approach and it's as profane, but never as realistic or as insightful.

The movie feels like too much of what it really is... a really low-budget movie with an actor behind the camera for the first time directing other actors from a script that's "not bad, but needs a few more re-writes." Spacey shows he's not a terrible director, but he lacks a sort of feel for "shaping a movie" and it feels like he's just filming actors act.

These actors are all talented and could work with the material, but they all feel out of place. As I said before, the movie really suffers from miscasting.

I don't mean that the wrong actors were cast. I think they found just the right cast, but placed them in all the wrong roles. I think switching some of the roles would've helped immensely.

Having veteran mob actor Joe Mantagna play the leader of the pack, Gary Sinese as the angry police lieutenant outside on his bullhorn giving orders and barking at his troops, keeping Fischter in his "bloodthirsty goon" part and Matt Dillion as the sacrificial lamb. That would have been a big improvement.

When some actors direct, it works. They can even win Oscars for it. But a lot of the time, when actors direct, they have a tendency to just focus on the performances. Just shoot the actors acting.

Sometimes it works... but they need a good showcase for it. An excuse for it.

Hostage situations are all pretty much the same in real life just like coming-of-age stories so it's only natural that movies about them will go from point A to point B as well.

There are a few really great entries into this genre.' Spacey himself appeared in a similar movie about hostage situations: "The Negotiator."

This certainly won't become a cult classic, let alone one of AFI's 100. Still, it does have a few nice moments and personal touches, but in the end, it's instantly forgettable and the kind of movie that would play best on regular TV. It's just not worth going out of your way to see.

I give a 3 out of 10.

Spacey's other directorial credit, "Beyond The Sea" was reportedly a better effort. Hmmm... maybe it's true. You need to fail before you succeed.

by Dane Youssef


A trio of low-life criminals, led by Matt Dillon, botches a late-night burglary. They flee but quickly cross paths with the police who just happen to be in hot pursuit of a terrorist. Of course the police mistake the burglar gang for the terrorist, the real terrorist gets away, and the burglars are forced to take refuge in a small dive of a bar, taking hostages, unaware why the police are so intent on catching them. And guess who else has picked the bar as a sanctuary for the night?

Unbelievable? Absolutely. And it goes down hill from there. Spacey did acquire a good bit of acting talent; Matt Dillon, Faye Dunaway, Gary Sinise, Viggo Mortensen, and M. Emmett Walsh, but they're all wasted. Mostly because after all the characters get stuck in the bar, all they do for the remainder of the film is argue. Endlessly and aimlessly. Long before the conclusion of the film you've stopped giving a damn about what happens to them.


Kevin Spacey is very talented, but unfortunately directing is not his forte. I had high expectations about the film before I rented it and maybe that is why I disliked it so much. I admire Spacey's attempt at making a film that takes place mostly in one small setting, but it's not the attempt that counts. I found the film dull, boring, and stretched out. The acting was nothing spectacular. Gary Sinise has done much better, especially since he is conscious in most of his other films. Skeet Ulrich was disappointing, but this was one of his first films (I did get a kick out of how young and chubby this Scream star looked). The only thing that impressed me about this film was the one shot of the car wreck from above. The center line of the road was perfectly centered and the camera moved on along the line and past the wreck. However, that shot was very "Usual Suspects"ish and my guess is Spacey got the idea from that earlier film of his (which is very good mind you). If you want to see a fabulous film that takes place in one small setting, watch Hitchcock's Lifeboat. Maybe Spacey should have watched it before filming this.


Massacre is a film directed by Andrea Bianchi (Burial Ground) and produced by legendary Italian horror director Lucio Fulci. Now with this mix of great talent you would think this movie would have been a true gore fest. This could not be further from that. Massacre falls right on its face as being one of the most boring slasher films I have seen come out of Italian cinema. I was actually struggling to stay awake during the film and I have never had that problem with Italian horror films.

Massacre starts out with a hooker being slaughtered on the side of the road with an ax. This scene was used in Fulci's Nightmare Concert. This isn't a bad scene and it raises your expectations of the movie as being an ax wielding slaughter. Unfortuanitly, the next hour of the movie is SO boring. The movie goes on to a set of a horror film being filmed and there is a lot of character development during all these scenes but the characters in the movie are so dull and badly acted your interest starts to leak away. The last 30 minutes of the movie aren't so bad but still could have been much better. The gore in the movie was pathetic and since Fulci used most of the gore scenes in Nightmare Concert there was nothing new here. The end of the movie did leave a nice twist but there was still to much unanswered and the continuity falls right through the floor.

This wasn't a very good film but for a true Italian horror freak (like myself) this movie is a must have since it is very rare. 4/10 stars


Prior to this film, I had only seen two films by director Andrea Bianchi: the trashy zombie flick Le Notti del Terrore (1981), famous amongst horror fans for its unforgettable performance from man-child Peter Bark, and the enjoyably sleazy giallo Strip Nude For Your Killer. Neither film was a particularly spectacular piece of cinema, but both were entertaining in their own special way (and the fact that they featured plenty of gore and nudity didn't hurt). Massacre, however, is dull, dull, dull, despite quite a bit of splatter and the odd spot of gratuitous bare flesh.

The story, about a series of murders in a hotel where the cast and crew of a horror film are residing during their shoot, is confusing and oh-so boring: when the blood isn't flowing and the skin isn't on show, the film is a real struggle to sit through (it took me four attempts to finish), with endless scenes of unlikeable characters bickering among themselves and doing very little of note.

The only point of interest about the film is that its producer, Lucio Fulci, used several of its death scenes to pad out his mega-gory movie Cat In The Brain (AKA Nightmare Concert). And if you've already seen that film, then there is very little reason to bother with Massacre.


In case half of this film's footage looks strangely familiar, it means you watch way too much of this gory Italian cult-crap! For you see, the notorious demigod Lucio Fulci did not only produce this movie, he also took the liberty of re-using the most sadistic killing sequences in his own (and more easily traceable) "Cat in the Brain". The opening scene already, in which a prostitute is brutally decapitated with an axe, features in Fulci's later film and so do another handful of killings and sleaze moments. Andrea Bianchi's "Masssacre" fails miserably as a giallo, since the search for the sadistic killer among a movie-crew shooting a horror movie is all but compelling and suspenseful, but it's still good entertainment if you're into cheap 'n shlocky horror trash. The incoherent script introduces a whole bunch of repugnant characters who're all potential maniacs, but none of the red herrings Biachi comes up with are plausible and you can point out the killer almost immediately. Whatever remains to enjoy are the truly misogynous make-up effects and the hilariously awful acting performances of the ensemble cast. Whenever there isn't any bloodshed on screen, like between the first and second murder, "Massacre" is a slow and almost intolerable with its inane dialogs and thoroughly unexciting photography. Thankfully in the second half, there are women getting impaled on fences and males being stabbed repeatedly with rusty spikes. The music is crap and the use of filming locations is very unimaginative. My advise would be to skip this puppy and go straight for the aforementioned "Cat in the Brain". That one features ALL the great moments of "Massacre", and then some.


Sorry Fulci fans, but I could not get through this one. The soundtrack was about as annoying as they come, the acting was puerile, the story has been done and done, and the direction was non-existent.

Massacre honestly looked like a children's film project. But I've seen some of those, and they actually look better than this did! It appears to have been so underfunded they couldn't afford ... ANYTHING! Not a DoP, not a director, no one who even remotely had a clue what acting was. It was a very poor cinematic experience; one of my worst.

This was about the worst suck-fest I've seen, next to Terror Toons which is second only to Killer Klowns from Outer Space. I've nothing else to say about it.

It rates a 0.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Here again is yet another Diane Lane movie where she cheats on her husband. Is this the only role she knows how to play? This time it's set in 1969 and she cheats on her husband with the blouse man. I am so not surprised because that is so very predictable. Then her husband gets mad and throws the milk. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the milkman as well. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the ice cream man too because this is a very boring movie. Then after some milk throwing, she says sorry and sees the blouse man again. Duh. Then while she is making it with him, her son gets stung by wasps. My mom always told me not to throw rocks at a wasps nest. This kids mom didn't have time to tell him that, she was too busy with the blouse man.


Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? "I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969.


Any movie that portrays the hard-working responsible husband as the person who has to change because of bored, cheating wife is an obvious result of 8 years of the Clinton era.

It's little wonder that this movie was written by a woman.


Recently, I had opportunity to view a working print in Kansas City (Olathe, KS.) of this title. It is difficult for me, being a lover of the art as I am, to report the following, but, the truth sometimes hurts, and quite frankly after sitting through this tripe (I'm using the slang definition here - worthless statements or writing) for an hour and a half, I feel obligated to share (WARN) any interested parties. Let's begin at the beginning, a good place to start as always. The first 15 minutes are not really that bad, a couple of laughs, and decent development, but then it is downhill from there. This is the story of a woman, in her mid thirties, that (as the writer would like for you to believe) is dissatisfied with her life and unfulfilled. The first major difficulty occurs when if you don't know that fact going into the movie, you won't know it when she suddenly risks it all for, in my opinion, a very unkempt and unlikely fling with a local salesman. There is little development (drastically insufficient development) to justify her actions for the affair she has, and when it occurs, one feels, as I did, that she is just of low moral character. The word "slut" comes to mind, hopefully, they'll let that pass the review and post the comment. This, in my opinion, is the first fatal flaw of the film. If you're married or have ever been in love, irregardless of whether you are male or female, its going to turn you off. Quite frankly, I feel that it would have made a much better "blue movie" - that's the level in my opinion of which the screenplay is deserving. The second fatal flaw is the casting, Diane Lane just didn't work for me here, and Viggo Mortensen is not the right man for the job, believe me. The only saving grace to the entire film is Anna Paquin, the depth of her ability as a fine actress shines in places, conveying a subtle yet very blunt (I apologize for the dichotomy but it is accurate) portrayal of an emerging teen. Bravo, well done. I'm not going to give the ending away, but I was disappointed, being billed as a slice of life romance is one thing... but an ending like that.... Well, if that teased you enough to see this picture, don't say I didn't warn you, but you better look fast - if this celluloid is released, I doubt it goes four weeks before bursting into flames. I'd say wait for the video, but the free sex education tapes at most video rental outlets have more entertainment value. Hmmm, Dustin Hoffman produced this, you think he'd learn after Ishtar. This film once carried the working title "Blouse Man" and should have been left on the rack. If you've never in your life wanted to walk out on a film, give this one 35-40 minutes, the only thing worth staying for is Anna Paquin, if you can stomach the fact that you'll find your mind drifting to whether or not you took out the garbage before you left home, which is probably where you should have stayed in the first place if you're off to the movies to see this one. That's my two cents, for what it is worth.


Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O`Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off

I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn`t until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen`s stature wouldn`t star in a TVM , I mean that`s like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn`t Bob .... ?

Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you`ve got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it`s not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it

I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it`s a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you`d expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them


Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. "A Walk on the Moon" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.

The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.

The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the "blouse salesman" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.

That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.

Poor Diane Lane, she went to make "Unfaithful" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!

Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film.


In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle "free-love" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest.


Previous commentator Steve Richmond stated that A Walk On The Moon is, in his words "not worth your $7". I ended up paying a bit more than that to import what is one of the worst-quality DVDs I have yet seen, of this film or any film in existence. Even when you ignore the fact that the DVD is clearly sourced from an interlaced master and just plain nasty to watch in motion, the film has no redeeming qualities (save Anna's presence) to make watching a top quality Blu-Ray transfer worthwhile. Not that this is any fault of the other actors. Liev Schreiber, Diane Lane, Tovah Feldshuh, and Viggo Mortensen all score high on the relative to Anna Paquin acting ability chart. Far more so than Holly Hunter or Sam Neill did in spite of an equally lousy script, anyway. Director Tony Goldwyn's resume is nothing to crow about, but Pamela Gray's resume includes Wes Craven's most dramatic excursions outside of the horror or slasher genre, so one could be forgiven for thinking this is a case of bad direction.

As I have indicated already, the sole reason I watched this film is Anna Paquin. In her acting debut, she literally acted veterans of the industry with a minimum of twelve years' experience above hers under the table. While she is not as far ahead of her castmates here, her performance as a girl that starts the piece as a brat and grows into a woman whose world is crashing down around her proves her Oscar was no fluke. For some time I have been stating to friends that she would be the best choice to portray the heroine of my second complete novel, and a dialogue seventy-three minutes into this film is yet another demonstration of why. This woman could literally act the paint off walls. Anna aside, only Liev Schreiber comes close to eliciting any sympathy from an audience. Sure, his character spends the vast majority of the film neglecting a wife with an existential crisis, but he plays the angered reaction of a man who feels cheated brilliantly. I should know, even if it is not from the same circumstances here.

Viggo Mortensen also deserves credit for his portrayal of a travelling salesman, although perhaps not to the same extent. In a manner of speaking, he is the villain of the piece, but he successfully gives the character a third dimension. Yes, his actions even after the whole thing explodes are underhanded, but not many men would act any differently in his situation. Nobody wants to be the other man in this kind of messed-up situation, so Viggo deserves a lot of credit for giving it a try here. Unfortunately, these are all participants in a story about a woman who feels trapped in a stagnant marriage where Tovah Feldshuh tells us that the Mills And Boon archetype of women being the only ones who feel life is passing by simply does not exist. Either writer Pamela Gray or director Tony Goldwyn thought they could just put this line into the film without thinking of how the audience might receive it. Anna even gets to speak the mind of the audience when she asks Diane who she is to be lecturing anyone about responsibility.

That said, the film does have a couple of things besides Anna going for it. Mason Daring's original music, while not standing out in any way, gives the film a certain feeling of being keyed into the time depicted that helps where the other elements do not. Roger Ebert is right when he points out that while Liev is a great actor, putting him alongside Viggo in the story of a woman forced to choose between her marriage and her fantasy is a big mistake. He is also very correct in that when the film lingers over scenes of Lane and Mortensen skinny-dipping or mounting one another under a waterfall, it loses focus from being a story of a transgression and becomes soft porn. The film seems terminally confused about the position of its story. No matter how many times I rewatch Liev's scenes, I cannot help but feel he has been shortchanged in the direction or editing. One does not have to make their leads particularly handsome or beautiful, but taking steps to make them the most interesting or developed characters in the piece would have gone a long way.

Ebert also hits the nail right on the head when he says that every time he saw Anna on the screen, he thought her character was where the real story lay. Stories about the wife feeling neglected and running into the arms of a man who seems interesting or even dangerous are a dime a dozen, to such an extent now that even setting the story in parallel with an event as Earth-shattering as the moon landing will not help. In spite of feeling revulsion at the manner in which her character's story is presented, Anna might as well be walking around with a neon sign above her head asking the audience if they would not prefer to see the whole thing through her eyes. While I am all too aware that it is difficult to control exactly which character your audience will find the most interesting from your cast, it is very much as if they did not bother to try with Lane and Schreiber. Fans of these two would be well advised to look elsewhere. Hopefully by now my ramblings about the respective performances will give some idea of where the whole thing went wrong.

I gave A Walk On The Moon a three out of ten. Anna Paquin earns it a bonus point with one of her best performances (and that is saying something).


In 1972, after his wife left to go her own way, Elvis Presley began dating Linda Thompson. Miss Thompson, a good-humored, long haired, lovely, statuesque beauty queen, is charted to fill a void in Elvis' life. When Elvis' divorce became final, Linda was already in place as the legendary performer's live-in girlfriend and travel companion until 1976.

This is a gaudy look at their love affair and companionship. Linda whole-heartedly tending to her lover's needs and desires. And even putting up with his swallowing medications by the handful and introducing her to her own love affair with valium. At times this movie is harsh and dark of heart; a very unattractive look at the 'King' and his queen.

Don Johnson is absolutely awful as Elvis. Over acting to the hilt is not attractive. Stephanie Zimbalist lacks the classiness of Linda, but does the job pretty well. Supporting cast includes: John Crawford, Ruta Lee, and Rick Lenz. Watching this twice is more than enough for me, but don't let this review stop you from checking it out. For most Elvis fans that I have conferred with, this is not a favored presentation.


You may say to yourself, "Don Johnson as Elvis? Can that work? Is it possible? Seems like an terrible choice to me, but perhaps I should have an open mind. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe he can pull it off."

NOT!

Don Johnson is not a bad actor. But he is an awful Elvis. He's too short, too weak-voiced, too sharply featured ... well you've already imagined how bad he would be. Add to that a hokey black wig and heavy-handed eye-liner and mascara and it's a big fat embarrassing mess.

The best I can say is that since Johnson's acting is decent and since his impersonation is so far off, after a while you don't even think of him as Elvis anymore. You see him as some other crazed pop star instead. Then, on that level, the movie becomes watchable.

Stephanie Zimbalist is also not ideally cast as the tall, beauty queen, Linda Thompson. But she is attractive in her own right and plays the part with the honesty, elegance and intelligence we've come to expect from all her roles. There may be too much intelligence in her performance. You have to be kind of a dope to stick with a dope abusing dope.

There's nothing new to this story; we've heard it many times before. If you've looking for new info or insight, you won't find it. It's told as a love story - an unrequited one: Linda for Elvis and Elvis for drugs.


I'm a Don Johnson fan, but this is undoubtedly the WORST movie, done by anybody, that I've ever seen. The acting was bad, as was the cinematography. Don should stick to doing action, because as The King, he just didn't cut it.


I've been working my way through a collection of Lugosi films recently, and having just been blown away a couple of days ago by the combination of Lugosi and Boris Karloff in "The Black Cat" I was really looking forward to seeing their collaboration in "The Raven." Alas, it just didn't work for me, and by the end of the film I was quite disappointed.

For the first three quarters of this movie or so I thought the story lacked any real suspense. Lugosi was doing a pretty good job of holding things together as the somewhat mad Dr. Vollins, some sort of surgical genius who falls in love with a young woman (Irene Ware) he treats after a car accident but who can't have her - partly because she's already engaged, and partly because her father (Samuel S. Hinds) disapproves. To deal with that situation, he enlists the aid of Edmond Bateman (Boris Karloff) - a horribly ugly man who wants Vollins to make him look more acceptable. Aside from Lugosi's performance, though, I found little to hold my interest. Then, suddenly, in the last fifteen or twenty minutes, the movie shifts around completely. Suddenly it becomes quite suspenseful, but I thought Lugosi's performance fell apart, largely because the movie tried to shift him from mad to insane - and there's a difference. He plays the "mad" role very well - controlled and in control but evil. "Insane" is a more out of control evil, and I didn't think Lugosi pulled that off well. At one point, he offers some maniacal laughter which just comes across as fake. In the meantime, Karloff was a huge disappointment. He never grabbed me at all. As an aside, it must have grated on Lugosi that - in movies in which they co-star - Karloff gets the top billing, even though in "The Raven" it's clearly Lugosi who is the lead actor. This surely gives a hint as to how Universal ranked their two great horror stars - inexplicably, I would add, because I've always thought of Lugosi as the better actor of the two.

In any event, there's no real connection here to Edgar Allen Poe's story "The Raven" - except that Vollins is a Poe fanatic, who tries to recreate some of the torture techniques from Poe's stories. Overall, a disappointment. 4/10.


The strange people living in a town go about their lives. There's the licker a guy who licks everything, a dumpster diver that finds a body which he takes home to live with him, a crazy girl with a doll dressed like her, a guy who wants to cleanse girls of their wicked ways...offbeat in the extreme, this shot in black and white movie is better with out the color. The monochrome takes the edge off the two steps up from home movie feel. Like a Troma movie, this movie is fun in fits and starts but mostly its weird for weirds sake and soon becomes a crashing bore since one you see the set ups you can kind of guess where its going a lot of the time-not always- but enough for it not to be fun.(Though I didn't see the cleansing coming). Worth a shot if you've nothing else to watch and you're waiting for the next set of Golden Girls to come from Netflix.


Townies is the laziest movie I have ever seen, and I saw the Blair Witch movies (parts one and two). It seems confused in what it wants to be. It's not funny enough for comedy, it's not tragic enough for drama, it's not bloody enough for horror, and it's not good enough for watching. It has scenes of a man doing "slapstick/bloody" karate so I think, oh this movie will be in the vein of Toxic Avenger and Street Trash. Then it leaps without warning into a drama about a missing girl, a retarded (mentally handicap) woman and a trusting mother. Then it slaps itself into the ONLY good part in the movie which seems to be set up like a sitcom without the laugh tracks. The part I'm speaking of is a lonely TOWNIE who is so lonely he finds comfort in a rotting corpse. That was the ONLY part of the movie that gave me ANY feeling. The rest was a waist of my life. Then, just to show how CRUEL Wayne is there is a kind of DOCUMENTARY at the end of the film of Wayne (the Director) making fun of Toby (the star) in public. It made me sick. Even though Killer Nerd and Bride of Killer Nerd (two other movies by Wayne) aren't the best, they at least are thought out enough were you can stay entertained until the ending credits. I even like Killer Nerd a bit, it had some great lines I still use to this day.

If you like underground films, if you like overground films, and if you like to watch your feet, just resting were they are, you will not like TOWNIES!

*1/2 (out of ****)


I can't believe I wasted my time with this movie. I couldn't even call it a movie. It was so bad with nothing to recommend it.

I like low budget movies and weird flicks but this one had me bored to death. Badly made and bad acting ruined it from being curious. You have to wonder what these people were thinking when they spent money to produce this movie. I wonder what I was thinking watching it to the end. I recommend this movie to no one. How did they release this? Was there an audience who likes this kind of movie? There must be because you can find this at almost any video store. But why?

Deserves to be forgotten.

If you like bad movies then this is for you.


Written by a woman, and directed by another. Whoppie. Are we in for a feminist ride or what. Fasten your seat-belts, ladies, for we are about to enter a world of mean men and innocent, well-intentioned women.

In this soaper Trish comes across a guy in the employment agency who behaves, looks, and dresses like a pimp(!) and gives her a job with the hope of nailing her some time later. In his office he even touches her chin the way a megalomaniacal heavy in a Bond movie would a touch a girl just after he's captured her and just before he is ready to kill her alongside with Bond. Some time later the pimp/employment guy stalks Trish in a ladies' dressing-room, harasses her, and even comes close to raping her. Oh, these evil, evil men. They are ALL bad, don't you know. You can't even look for a job nowadays without getting raped, right ladies? Well, we'll show 'em! In this film there is some kind of a divorced women's club or something, headed by a Janet Leigh who speaks for all women involved in this film when she says that "men are all s**t". She moans about how terrible men are; she has been divorced five times. Now, seriously: any woman who marries twenty times and then uses that statistic as an argument that men are all "bad" must have realized eventually that the explanation might lie elsewhere, or? It must occur to her that: a) she is a bad judge of male character, or - much more likely - b) SHE is the one impossible to live with - her ex-husbands were probably the victims, or if they were indeed a**holes then she probably got what she deserved. (Don't the likes of Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Liz Taylor prove this point? Show me a likable woman who got married this often and I'll show you a way to reach the planet Mars using only roller-skates and a ladder.) Trish eventually meets a computer guy who restores her faith in men - but hold your horses; this guy turns out to be married, therefore proving WITHOUT a doubt that men are indeed all "bad". Were it not, of course, for a kindly old vegetable seller around the corner who loves his wife even though she's still dead - proving that all men are "bad" except for kindly old men whose penises don't work and they "can't get none" anyway so they are forced to abandon a life of a**holocolism and finally give women the respect they deserve. Even the supporting male characters are all "bad"; the black guy in the employment agency is unfriendly, and the guy in the mortuary is out-right rude - and insensitive (the bastard, *sob*...*sniffle*) And what's with this corny, corny ending?... Minutes before court-time Trish abandons the claim to any of her husband's money, realizing that she is now "free" and that she can finally do that jump into the swimming pool...?? What's all that about?? Her jump into the pool is then - very predictably - frame-frozen as the credits start to role in, while life-inspiring I-don't-need-revenge-nor-my-husband's-money music starts kicking in. Her girlfriends are shocked by her abandonment of money claims, but they don't stay shocked for long and soon start kidding each other about what a heart-attack Trish's lawyer will get when he hears about this. The shyster lawyer is naturally a man. An evil, evil, terrible "bad" man, whose only interest in this world is money... Ah, these men; all they care about is money; they know nothing of the higher values in life - like shopping. I am glad we have movies like this; they bring the sexes closer together, but most importantly, they teach girls and young women that men are all horny, selfish, skirt-chasing bastards who will dump you into a world of poverty and misery the first chance they get. So, girls, open your mouths an stick your tongues into your girlfriend's mouths. Lesbian power!


What is most striking about this semi-musical set in 1920s Berlin is the marvelous cinematography and editing. It's top of the line from First National in these departments. The story is mildly engaging and similar to the plots of Miller's other two films (SUNNY, SALLY) where working girl is romanced by rich boy with family disapproval, complications and final clinch. All the four musical numbers are bunched at the beginning of the film and we go for a long stretch without any further musical buoyancy. Miller sings parts of I THINK OF BABY and reprises BECAUSE OF YOU. There are also DON'T EVER BE BLUE and THOUGH YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE.

Miller here is very engaging and delightful, quite reminiscent of Irene Dunne in manner and delivery. Sad she does not dance as that is her forte. SALLY remains her finest film, with this trailing as second and the rather poor SUNNY a vastly inferior runner up. Her life was tragically cut short by a sinus infection before the days when hospitals and antibiotics made such tragedies preventable. It's worth visiting these films though to see Ziegfeld's top star of the twenties.


John Boorman's 1998 The General was hailed as a major comeback, though it's hard to see why on the evidence of the film itself. One of three films made that year about famed Northern Irish criminal Martin Cahill (alongside Ordinary Decent Criminal and Vicious Circles), it has an abundance of incident and style (the film was shot in colour but released in b&w Scope in some territories) but makes absolutely no impact and just goes on forever. With a main character who threatens witnesses, car bombs doctors, causes a hundred people to lose their jobs, tries to buy off the sexually abused daughter of one of his gang to keep out of jail and nails one of his own to a snooker table yet still remains a popular local legend an attractive enough personality for his wife to not only approve but actually suggest a ménage a trios with her sister, it needs a charismatic central performance to sell the character and the film. It doesn't get it. Instead, it's lumbered with what may well be Brendan Gleeson's worst and most disinterested performance: he delivers his lines and stands in the right place but there's nothing to suggest either a local hero or the inner workings of a complex character. On the plus side, this helps not to overglamorize a character who is nothing more than an egotistical thug, but it's at odds with a script that seems to be expecting us to love him and his antics.

There's a minor section that picks up interest when the IRA whips up a local hate campaign against the 'General' and his men, painting them as 'anti-social' drug dealers purely because Cahill won't share his loot from a robbery with them, but its temporary resolution is so vaguely shot - something to do with Cahill donning a balaclava and joining the protesters which we're expected to find lovably cheeky - that it's just thrown away. Things are more successful in the last third as the pressure mounts and his army falls apart, but by then it's too late to really care. Adrian Dunbar, Maria Doyle Kennedy and the gorgeous Angeline Ball do good work in adoring supporting roles, but Jon Voight's hammy Garda beat cop seems to be there more for American sales than moral balance, overcompensating for Gleeson's comatose non-involvement in what feels like a total misfire. Come back Zardoz, all is forgiven.


Just had to write that one liner, but it really is. I love the gangster genre and this is the weakest entry I've seen in recent years . I have praises for everyone involved in most aspects except the most important one, the script . It is a weak story about a petty criminal. No amount of fine acting or black and white film styling can make up for a total lack of substance. I love Kevin Spacey and I hear he's gonna do another film about the general. My advice is don't waste your time.


Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is "The General", unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.

Like "Goodfellas" (1990) and "American Gangster" (2007)two superior mob movies"The General" is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.

Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous "Goodfellas" (1990) and the first two "Godfather" films, I was expecting too much from "The General." But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. "Schindler's List" (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. "The General", made just five years after "Schindler's List" is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like "Schindler's List" did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.

But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not onenot onecharacter in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was "okayso what?" Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say "so what?" And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film.


A craven, cowardly film. Director Boorman shows Cahill burglarizing rich houses, but the male occupant is shown being unfaithful with the nanny, thats all right then. The forensic scientist investigating Cahill is blown up in his car, but he is rat faced sourpuss, and doesn't look like a nice man, so thats all right too. The Beits, owner of Russborrough House, made their money by exploiting 'darkies' digging up diamonds, so it's okay to rob priceless art from them and hide it in a bunker in the Wicklow mountains. The Garda kill his ferrets and are implicated in his murder. The moral equivalencing is sickening, Boorman looks for a hit film, but doesn't have the guts to stand against the criminality of the generals gang, who terrorized the neighbourhood, and unleashed another wave of scumbags upon Dublin. He even liaised with the Generals son while making it. Disgusting. Shame on him for his cowardice.


This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment.


Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.

I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the "rational" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.

If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.

Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him.


Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.

Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.

I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".

This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.

Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.


This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.

EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.

INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.

STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.

ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.

With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.

4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.


I saw it, I agree with him 100%, but I didn't care for his delivery. He just came off as an asshole in a poorly edited, contrived juvenile smear campaign. Edit cuts galore, etc... The camera would be focused on him, and you'd see 2 or 3 edit cuts just over the course of a minute or two of dialog. Add in the constant boom mikes in the camera shot, which is a film no-no.

This documentary hits a topic with so many angles, so many interesting stories, that the movie is just so easily done. Picking on religious fanatics is like picking on the retarded kid. It is so easy it is just wrong. I mean how hard is it to make these people look like nut bags? To make them contradict themselves, you just let them recite more then a verse or two. I do like when he jumped back in forth between people of the same religion and showed them completely contradicting themselves.

I just think he could have done something a little more creative. The part with the neurologist talking about brain activity was never fleshed out. It could have been interesting to show brain scans of people during religious fits compared to drugs, or sex, or ???? He could have played more on the women all rejoicing over the Passion play that looked more like a snuff scene in a new Rob Zombie movie. More could have gone into the history of John Smith, the Mormon founder who had quite the colorful past. Delve into science v.s. religion. One is a very methodical, very strict process for increasing the confidence in theories. It builds on itself from a solid bottom up, a new layer on top of a more proved layer. An enormous burden of proof is required each step of the way. The other starts at the top and comes down with unchallengeable claims. It is so, because well I said so.

Done right I'd say turn it into an HBO original series hit a different religion every week.

It was an eye opener about one thing. I must have been blind. Good ole G.W.Bush... no wonder he got elected. He had the religious majority. And well... now that is the blind leading the blind.

Bill Moyer.. Well.. what can I expect from a guy who hands out at Sutra in Newport beach?