The movie starts with a pair of campers, a man and a woman presumably together, hiking alone in the vast wilderness. Sure enough the man hears something and it pangs him so much he goes to investigate it. Our killer greets him with a stab to the stomach. He then chases the girl and slashes her throat. The camera during the opening scene is from the point of view as the killer.

We next meet our four main characters, two couples, one in which is on the rocks. The men joke about how the woman would never be able to handle camping alone at a double date, sparking the token blonde's ambition to leave a week early. Unexpectedly, the men leave the same day and their car breaks down.. They end up arriving in the evening. When the men arrive, they are warned about people disappearing in the forest by a crazy Ralph doppleganger. They ignore the warning and venture into the blackening night and an eighties song plays in the background with lyrics about being murdered in the dark forest. The men get lost.

In the next scene we realize that this isn't just another The Burning clone, but a ghost story! The women, scared and lonely are huddling together by the fire. Two children appear in the shadows and decide to play peeping Tom. Well they are obviously ghosts by the way their voices echo! Their mother appears with blood dripping from a hole in her forehead and asks the two ladies if they've seen her children, before disappearing of course.

The children run home to papa and tell him about the two beautiful ladies by the river. This causes quite a stir and he gets up, grabbing his knife from atop the fireplace. "Daddy's going hunting," The little girl, exclaims with bad acting. It is apparent here, that the dad isn't a ghost like his children.

Freaked out by something in the woods, the token blonde splits, running blindly into the night, carrying a knife. She encounters the father who explains he's starving and it will be quick. This doesn't make sense because of the panther growls we heard earlier (Maybe he's allergic! Are panthers honestly even in California?) She ends up wounding him slightly before getting stabbed in the head. A thunderstorm erupts and the men seek shelter, which turns out to be where papa resides. Clearly someone lives here because there's a fire and something weird is roasting over it. The children appear and warn them of papa, who shows up moments later. They disappear as soon as he arrives.

For whatever reason, our killer only goes after females. He invites the men to have something to eat and tells us the story about his ex wife. We are given a flashback of his wife getting caught cheating. The old man doesn't tell them however that he kills her and her lover afterwards, but daydreams about it. We aren't given the reason for the children's demise. The men go to sleep and are left unharmed. The next morning the men discover the empty campground of their wives. After a brief discussion they split up. One is to stay at the campsite, while the other goes and gets help. The one that is going back to his car breaks his leg. We are then reunited with the children as they explain to the surviving woman that they are ghosts who killed themselves from being sad about their mother. They agree to help the woman reunite with her friends

The following scene defies the logic of the movie when papa kills the guy waiting at the campsite. He was also dating or married to the blonde. Somehow the children realize he is murdered and tell the woman about it. She decides to see it for herself and obviously runs into the killer. Luckily the children make him stop by threatening to leave him forever. You know where this is going.

Overall the movie deserves four stars out of ten, and that's being generous. For all its misgivings, the musical score is well done. It's still watchable too. There are some camera angles that look professional, and some of the sets are done well. The plot is unbelievable. There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, but with the toad 6 miles away; I can't imagine the token blonde would take off like that in the middle of the night. I mean, come on!

- Alan "Skip" Bannacheck


A truly disturbed, cannibalistic psychopath, John(Gary Kent, under the pseudonym Michael Brody) who lives in a cave, stalks campers who make the unfortunate mistake of backpacking in his wilderness. Steve(Dean Russell)and his buddy Charlie(John Batis)get into a playful argument with their wives, Sharon(Tomi Barrett, the late real-life wife of Gary Kent))& Teddi(Ann Wilkinson)over surviving in the woods camping by themselves. To prove a point, the gals decide to head for the wilderness out of Los Angeles for a camping trip disturbing their partners to the point that they soon follow afterward. Falling prey to John, Teddi is soon killed as Sharon runs for her life as the men arrive late to the wilderness due to their truck's overheating. Afraid, tired, and paranoid, Sharon receives some very unusual assistance..John's ghost children! That's right, John's children remain in the wilderness, ghostly apparitions which spy on those who exist in the woods, taking a special liking to Sharon, helping guide her to safety and her friends. Meanwhile, Steve and Charlie soon find shelter from a down pour and the darkness of night in the very cave where John lives. Cooking over a burning fire, the meat simmering is actually from Charlie's wife, Teddi! Unknowingly Charlie eats from the meat when offered by John who finds the outsiders inside his dwelling place! Anyway, soon, worried about their wives, Steve and Charlie set out to find them as morning breaks. Meanwhile, John goes a hunting, with Charlie, Steve, and Sharon in a fight for survival. When Steve suffers a compound fracture stumbling between two massive rocks over a flowing river, he will be handicapped only increasing such an already nightmare scenario, with Sharon following her ghostly young friends to potential safety..they even, at one point, plead with their father to not kill her. Charlie, unfortunately, doesn't have such friends.

Director Donald Jones(..who also wrote it and went broke funding the film)smartly shoots the film in such a breathtaking, gorgeous location in the Sequoia National Park, in California, where those gargantuan trees tower to great heights, and I basically watch backwoods slashers for this very purpose. For some strange reason, I didn't particularly find Jones' direction of the setting very atmospheric..the dread was missing, although there are some rather disturbing attacks by John using his knife(..shot in a clever way, Jones' camera suggests more than what is actually on screen, yet, somehow, still achieves that gasp at what John is doing to victims). Within such a picturesque landscape, to see innocents preyed upon by a maniac, that kind of increases the terror. City folk attempting to spend a nice few days in a different place, to smell the clean, fresh air, enjoy the sights of a lovely view, only to find themselves stalked by a creepy predator with a very intimidating knife. Providing the back-story to why John is the monster he is, Jones allows us to witness his memory flashback in discovering his wife's adultery and reacting accordingly(..she is also a ghost in the wilderness looking for her children, wishing to punish them for "being naughty")killing both her and the lover in bed(..a refrigerator repairman). The children, sad and depressed committed suicide and now "haunt" the wilderness, still interacting with their pa or whoever they so choose. I realize such a novelty as ghost children in a backwoods slasher is unique and appreciated by some, but I found the idea rather hokey and too silly to take serious. They do help our heroine escape a few potentially dangerous situations, but it was awfully hard for me to keep from giggling uncontrollably. The music I found hideously 80's and the performances aren't mind-blowing. I mean I could react to the situation they were in, because it is indeed quite terrifying to find yourselves in an unfamiliar and hostile territory being hunted by someone who knows the area so well. I think the film is similar in many ways to DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS..ALONE!, except that THE FOREST has the aforementioned ghost children(..their voices echo when talking to Sharon, their father, or each other). Gary Kent looks like a filthy George Lucas, with tattered clothes, and humanity lost. As I mentioned above, the violence isn't as grisly as what is suggested because director Jones is able to effectively cut away from a great deal of knife penetration, yet the way he stages the set pieces leave you rather unsettled(..such as Teddi's murder, the violence mostly silhouetted on the surface of a nearby huge stone formation, her pleas for John to stop and, once stabbed several times, attempts to crawl away from her predator only to be finished off;a hanging corpse John is skinning). I've seen better and worse of this type of slasher film, it's rather mediocre, at best, with some effectively shot scenery. I don't really think it's particularly memorable, for the exception of the ghost children.


The Forest isn't just your everyday standard slasher/backwoods cannibal fare, it also has an interesting mix of supernatural elements as well. The story is about two couples that hike into the forest on a camping trip. A cave dwelling, cannibalistic woodsmen and the ghosts of his dead wife and two children soon terrorize them. There is something you don't see every slasher. Director Don Jones gets an "A" for effort although the film itself falls flat on just about every level, the acting is just simply average except for Jeanette Kelly who plays the dead wife of the woodsman (Michael Brody aka Gary Kent).

The film opens with some beautiful shots of a couple hiking through a valley and into a forest. They realize too late that someone is stalking them. They are both dispatched in typical slasher fare. Our killer uses a trusty hunting knife throughout the entire film, except during a flashback when he implements a handsaw, pitchfork and rusty saw blade to dispatch his cheating wife's lover.

The Forest has a good story line but the movie just doesn't work along with it I found it pretty boring with simply crappy acting. 4/10


I sought out a copy of The Forest because I was watching a VH1 special, I think "Where Are They Now", and saw the video box flash across the screen during a segment on the actor Corky Pigeon. He played the male child ghost in this B horror horrible, but I remember him from his character Freddy on the Silver Spoons television show. This flick's a major letdown. There's nothing here. It actually took me four months to watch it from start to finish. I kept stopping it in boredom, setting it aside and forgetting about it, then stumbling on it and trying once again to get through it. Obviously, the angle of this film that was intended to set it apart from its counterparts was the supernatural element, the apparitions. And obviously, here, that doesn't work. I can't stand the male leads. I kept expecting them to look down at their palms during the longer dialogue scenes in order to read cheat lines. The situation at the beginning where the couples decide to go camping separately is awkward and plain dumb. I guess the only positive thing to say about this one is the scene where the guy falls and breaks his leg, you can see the bone sticking out of his flesh. It's fairly good gore makeup there. Man, I'm really reaching for a positive now, huh. The only other no-budget horror film on a level as bad as this one would be Home Sweet Home.


It's a ghost story. It's a cannibalism story. It's a revenge story. It's a very poorly done film with a lot of violence. I suppose it follows cheaply along the lines of every slasher movie you've ever seen. It has the usual isolated place, the cocky campers, heading off to the wilderness. Granted, there are some pretty intense scenes. It's just so dull. Bad editing and the whole works. There are ghost children who sound like they are talking into a wastebasket. I'm not really sure what rules the ghosts and the psycho with the seed cap are playing by. It also has the gross out scene where a man eats a piece of meat which is actually what's left of his wife. A friend of mine once asked me why it is necessary to show this kind of gratuitous, sick violence. I fear that it's just another step in our desensitized evolution. Three is no cleverness here, no tongue in cheek, only a sad waste of time. Lots of blood; little plot.


I saw this movie at an actual movie theater (probably the $2.00 one) with my cousin and uncle. We were around 11 and 12, I guess, and really into scary movies. I remember being so excited to see it because my cool uncle let us pick the movie (and we probably never got to do that again!) and sooo disappointed afterwards!! Just boring and not scary. The only redeeming thing I can remember was Corky Pigeon from Silver Spoons, and that wasn't all that great, just someone I recognized. I've seen bad movies before and this one has always stuck out in my mind as the worst. This was from what I can recall, one of the most boring, non-scary, waste of our collective $6, and a waste of film. I have read some of the reviews that say it is worth a watch and I say, "Too each his own", but I wouldn't even bother. Not even so bad it's good.


I agree with everything people said on this one but I must add that the soundtrack is probably the WORST one I have ever heard my entire life! There are actual vocals during times when you are supposed to be listening to the actors talk! And the vocals are like a broadway version of Danzig singing, "The darkness of the forest! Oh the darkness of the dark, dark forest!" or something else so unthreatening. The singer has a terrible vibrato and has been recorded with a treble-y microphone over some synthed-up string section and fake drum beats. It's horrible!!

Yes, the male leads are awful. So are the female ones. This is one bad case of gender stereotyping - it's so bad! Everything they say revolves around being a male or a female, just playing up the stereotypes to the max. Makes me sick. Soooo boring!!!

The children were so echoey in their lines, you couldn't understand them. And why do female ghost children always wear cute little bows in their hair, pretty blue dresses and long hair? And ghost boys always wear clean cut slacks with cute little shiny blond hair? Not scary - STUPID.

Daddy's face was way too blemish free and clean to be that of a man living in a cave. Nice beard and bangs, pa. Did you perfectly cut those with a knife yourself or did you stroll into town and go to the salon?

Stupid movie.


Your attitude going into Prom Night II will determine how much joy you take away from the film. If you're expecting a horror masterpiece, look elsewhere. If you like campy movies that are rather fun to watch unfold, you'll like this. Lisa Schrage has the time of her life playing an over the top Mary Lou and Wendy Loyd channels Schrage's rage perfectly during her time "possessed".

Not classic cinema but a fun way to kill a couple of hours with a wicked ending.


Mary Lou is a slut whose spirit seeks revenge on those who let her come to her fiery doom back in 1957.

Well, the movie mainly takes place in 1986. The movie falls into the 80's trap of weird/stupid special effects, including some weird demented looking rocking horse.

Anyway, Mary Lou's spirit does bad things to people and tries to take over one person's body. Whether or not she succeeds, you'll have to watch to find out.

Anyway, the movie is largely boring and based around a bunch of worthless characters. This also isn't really a sequel, the only thing in common with the first is the name of the high school. It has the avg. horror flick fall backs, gore, pointless nudity, knocks against the catholic church. Basic stuff, boring movie.

The acting is decent enough to give it a 3 out of 10. You can waste your time doing something else.


and not in a fun-to-watch way. it's just bad. it's shocking that people have posted positive things about it here. the story sucks, the acting is bad, it's not scary, the special effects aren't special--oh no! the blackboard has hands coming out of it! oh gee--the mirror turned into water! the hair, clothes and makeup in the '50s scenes aren't accurate, and they got a middle-aged man with a receding hairline to play the high-school version of himself. this is like later-on nightmare on elm street stuff. i enjoy sitting down to watch a cheesy horror movie as much as anyone else, but there are better bad ones out there to choose from.


This is only related to the first movie by the name. The plot has nothing to do with the first and the whole movie stinks!!! I have no idea what they were thinking but this movie is so bad. Avoid this at all costs, the first movie in the series is acceptable as a slasher flick and so is the fourth but this one and the 3rd are rubbish!!


What is the point of creating sequels that have absolutely no relevance to the original film? No point. This is why the Prom Night sequels are so embarrassingly bad.

The original film entailed a group of children hiding a dark secret that eventually get them all killed, bar one, in a brutal act of revenge. Can someone please explain to me what a dead prom queen-to-be rising from the grave to steel the crown has to do with the first movie then? Prom Night 2 had continuous plot holes that left the audience constantly wondering how did that happen and why should that happen? But in the end, i guess you could call it one of those movies that is so bad, you end up laughing yourself through it.


Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II starts at the Hamilton High School prom of 1957 where Mary Lou Maloney (Lisa Schrage) is cheating on her date Bill Nordham (Steve Atkinson) with Bud Cooper (Robert Lewis). Bill finds out & is devastated, meanwhile Mary Lou is announced prom queen 1957 & takes to the stage to accept her award. Bill, still hurting, decides to play a practical joke on Mary Lou so he throws a firecracker on stage but the still lit fuse catches Mary Lou's dress setting it & her on fire, within seconds Mary Lou is toast. 30 years later & Hamilton High is soon to hold it's annual prom night. Bill (Micheal Ironside) is now the principal & has a teenage son named Craig (Justin Louis) who is dating Vicki Carpenter (Wendy Lyon) & are both planning on going to the prom together. Bud (Richard Monette) is now a priest, that terrible night 30 years ago still haunt both Bill & Bud. One day Vicki is looking around the schools basement when she discovers a large trunk which she opens, this turns out to be a bad move as the vengeful spirit of Mary Lou is set free & is intent on claiming her crown as prom queen & in her spare time sets out to avenge her untimely death. First up is Jess Browning (Beth Gondek) whose death is put down to a suicide, Mary Lou begins to posses Vicki's body as the night of the prom draws nearer. After disposing of some competition in the shape of Kelly Hennenlotter (Terri Hawkes) who tries to fix the prom so she wins. Mary Lou in Vicki's body is crowned Hamilton High prom queen which allows Mary Lou herself to come back from the dead to make an unexpected appearance & really liven the party up...

With absolutely no connection to the original Prom Night (1980) & directed by Bruce Pittman I thought Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II wasn't a particularly good film. The script by Ron Oliver concentrates more on supernatural elements rather than cheap teen slasher themes, whether this was a good or bad decision will depend on your expectations I suppose. Personally I found these different elements didn't really gel or work that well together at all. The whole film was far to slow to be really enjoyable, after the opening sequence where Mary Lou dies no one else is killed until the half hour mark & then the film plods along for another half an hour until Vicki is finally possessed & the film finally picks up momentum for the climax where an evil Mary Lou kills a whole one person at the prom before she is supposedly defeated, come on horror film fans you did expect that clichéd 'killer not dead & ready for a sequel' ending didn't you? Don't expect a hight body count, just five throughout the entire film & none particularly graphic although I did like the way Monica (Beverley Hendry as Beverly Hendry) tried to hide in a shower room locker which Mary Lou crushed & resulting in poor Monica's blood oozing out. The supernatural side of Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is depicted by Vicki having lots of hallucinations for the first hour & Mary Lou controlling objects during the latter stages including a couple of creepy shots of a rocking horse which comes to life, the blackboard scene is quite good as well as it turns into water & zombie hands drag Vicki into it. The slasher side of Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II isn't outstanding, I did like Mary Lou herself as she churns out the obligatory one-liners & she made for a good villain even if she didn't get to kill enough people. Oh, & yes I did get the running homages to various other horror film director's with almost all of the character's sharing last names with one, this obviously adds nothing to the film but is a nice little touch I suppose. The acting is OK but the normally dependable Micheal Ironside looks lost & uninterested almost as if he's asking himself what he's doing in this & if he'll ever work again. Forget about any gore, someone is hanged, there is a stabbing with a crucifix that happens off screen, someone is impaled with a neon light, a computer goes crazy & electrocutes someones face(!?) & Mary Lou bursts out of Vicki's body at first as a rotting zombie which was quite a cool scene. There are some full frontal nudity shots in the girls shower as well, if that's your thing. To give it some credit Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is OK to watch, has reasonable production values throughout & is generally well made. Overall I was disappointed by Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, it was just too slow & ultimately uneventful to maintain my interest for nearly 100 minutes. I'm not sure whether it deserves a 3 or 4 star rating, I'll give it a 4 as there's nothing specifically wrong with it I suppose & I've sat through much worse films but it just didn't really do anything for me I'm afraid.


Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10.


I actually prefer Robin Williams in his more serious roles (e.g. Good Will Hunting, The Fisher King, The World According to Garp). These are my favorite Robin Williams movies. But Seize the Day, although well-acted, is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and certainly the worst Robin Williams movie (even worse than Death to Smoochy, Club Paradise, and Alladin on Ice).

Every good story is going to have its ups and downs. This movie, however, is one giant down. I don't need a feel-good Hollywood cheese-fest, but I've got to have something other than 90 minutes of complete and utter hopelessness. This movie reminds me of "Love Liza" (which is actually worse) because it seems that the only point of the movie is to see how far one person can fall. The answer? Who cares.


The long list of "big" names in this flick (including the ubiquitous John Mills) didn't bowl me over to the extent that I couldn't judge the film on its actual merits. It is FULL of stereotypes, caricatures, and standard, set scenes, from the humble air-ace hero to the loud-mouthed yank flyer. The music track was such that at one point, about an hour before the end, I thought the film was over: loud, rising crescendo, grand flourish and finish then silence, but then the movie continued! I found no real storyline, haphazard writing, but smartly-pressed uniforms and the pretty Jean Simmons (pre-nose job) with a rousing little ditty. I cannot say that this picture has any of the ingredients which make a film great. I found it maudlin, mawkish and minor.


THE TOY BOX (1971) BOMB

Sure, I like looking at nude women. While I prefer hardcore porn flicks, I'll take softcore exploitation grindhouse junk like this too under the right circumstances. Well, these aren't the right circumstances. These aren't ANY circumstances. There's supposed to be a horrific subplot lurking in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can untangle it. This is another of those amateurish steaming piles of badly made manure that bores you to tears rather than stimulates you, despite all the simulated sex going on all over the place. Bah -- if I want to see good sex scenes, I'll watch the real stuff.


"Don't Drink the Water" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind "The Honeymooners". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from "Pooh", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?

I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.

The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in "The Hustler" and "Soldier in the Rain". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Rachel, Rachel" None of the other actors do particularly well either.

Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.

1/2* out of 4 stars


Leslie Sands' stilted play "Deadlock" becomes a poor-choice vehicle for Bette Davis and Gary Merrill, just after their joint-success in "All About Eve". After killing her spouse, a scheming woman is visited by her husband's best friend, who passes himself off as her husband once others begin stopping by the house. Irving Rapper, one of Bette's best directors from her peak years, is sadly unable to elevate this ridiculous material, in which Davis is curiously aloof and restrained until the outrageous finale (where she thankfully pulls out all the stops). Production and supporting cast strictly second-rate; only for Bette Davis completists. *1/2 from ****


If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.

However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.

Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement.


What an absolute pile of pants. Having read Chris Brookmyre's books religiously since I came across "Quite Ugly...", I was delighted to find out that this drama had been commissioned.

I obviously had too much faith.

Nesbitt is probably the best thing in this show - and even he doesn't quite fit. How anyone can read the book, and then adapt it to this piece of dross is beyond me.

Entire characters are changed, situations are dropped, and to see Parlablane's dramatic break-in reduced to Nesbitt doing a quick chin up and sliding open a bay window... it brought tears to my eyes.

I dread to think what's going to happen with "Country Of The Blind" if this is the benchmark...

Please, just avoid it...


Did I miss something here? This "adaptation" has everything that Brookmyres first novel had. Everything apart from the story, the laughs, the black humour, the political intrigue, the characterisations, the plot, and some semblance of sense.

Spoilers;

Godamnawful, from beginning to end. They made a mockery of the plot, they had a romance between Parablane and a cop, and what was that all about, Dr Slaughter was portrayed as a bystander, and who the hell was Annette Crosby supposed to be?

It looked like they had made a three hour adaptation, then chopped it down to 90 minutes. (Even though the 90 minutes seemed to last forever.) Please, please, do not do this to any other of Brookmyres books, (especially "Country of the blind.)


This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame.


1st watched 11/7/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-John Bianco): Pretty lame gangster movie about a Godfather-like family in Brooklyn who like to say four-letter words a lot and kill people. The only thing of interest here was their attempt to show the feds being a lot like the gang. This is the only attempt at good film-making. The rest of the movie was predictable, and cheaply-made. The quality of the photography on some of the scenes inside bars and floozy joints almost made you think there was a problem with your DVD player because of the bad contrasts and some of the actors were hard to hear at times because of the bad sound. The acting was pretty-much characatures of all your favorite gangsters from better movies with corny names like Vinnie `Knuckles' and Jimmie `Tattoos', and the plot pretty much followed those patterns as well. So, go see a better gangster movie before you put your money out for this one.


This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.

Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far.

A big, huge, waste of money. Useless.


I just saw this at the 2006 Vancouver international film festival. The synopsis in the festival guide sounded pretty good so we decided to check this one out. I'm sorry to say I was very disappointed.

Besides being poorly written, it was boring. I won't take away from the actors as there is not much they could do with this bad script.

First bite was cliché without being ironic, over the top seriousness without being funny. The movie would have been better had Hunt Hoe went with a campy horror feel. Instead he took himself to seriously and this resulted with a boring film. I can't recommend this film. It felt too long and all in all just plain weak.


I had the distinct displeasure of seeing this movie at the 2006 Vancouver International Film Festival. I have been attending this festival for over 5 years, and I have certainly seen some poor movies on occasion. However, 'First Bite' has reached a brand new low in film. In spite of being shot in beautiful locations, with the occasional, exquisite close up of fabulous food, the movie contorts an excessive number of plot twists and stilted characters until I was practically begging for it to end.

The lead actor, David La Haye, completely failed to show any character development throughout the movie, portraying a pompous chef from beginning to end. Additional sub-plots, such as eating disorders, were developed so poorly and completely did not fit within any context that the movie had shown up to that point.

A theme of mysticism was used as a poor attempt to conceal a movie that achieves nothing, goes nowhere, and completely disappoints.


After being bitten by a bat in a cave,a doctor named John Beck undergoes an accelerating transformation into a man-bat creature.His wife assures him that there's nothing wrong with him,it's all just due to rabies or the anti-rabies drugs he's taking.The local cop thinks that John is responsible for several gruesome murders."The Bat People" by Jerry Jameson is one hell of a horrible film.The script is deadly dull and there is no gore nor nudity.This pointless piece of crap is so mind-numbingly boring that you'll scratch your head in a total disbelief after suffering through it.Even the design of a man-bat creature by a young Stan Winston is completely pathetic and unmemorable.Avoid this stinker like the plague.2 out of 10.


Watching It Lives By Night makes you wonder, just who in the world greenlit this crap. A newlywed couple go spelunking on their honeymoon, get attacked by bats and the husband starts to run around in his pajamas attacking various people. And where exactly are they? They're in the desert, then they're skiing, then they're in a small town that looks like it has mountains nearby. The town is run by a sheriff who likes to watch and has a personal vendetta against whiny doctor boy. The ski hospital is run by a really groovy guy with a nice thick mustache and the wife looks like Mary Tyler Moore or Marilyn Quayle. There's no dramatic tension and the ending will leave you filled with anger. Special effects and makeup guru Stan Winston did the effects for this movie. I guess you have to start somewhere.


I saw this movie on mystery science theater when it was called "It lives by night". That title is much less misleading than "Batpeople". In fact it would more accurately be called Batperson. This movie is about a doctor who studies bats I am thinking because he wants to make a better cure for rabies. This is not really clear. What is clear is that he and his wife take a tour of a cave and he gets bitten by a bat. Why a scientist needs to take a tour to study bats is beyond me. Shouldn't he be able to go in by himself. Well after being bitten he and his wife go on their honeymoon where he starts having fits. They go to the worst doctor ever. The guy stays in the hospital and kills a nurse. In the end the guy kills 3-4 people and his wife stands by him and you are supposed to be rooting for him instead of the sheriff investigating the murders.


Or maybe that's what it feels like. Anyway, "The Bat People" is about as flat as a rug, bland as a sack of flour and as exciting as a rock...and as intelligent as all three combined.

Okay, plot in a nutshell (fitting vessel, that...): a doctor (Moss) gets bitten by a bat while checking out a cave with his wife (McAndrew) and subsequently turns into a bat - well, not exactly a bat but a bat-like creature that looks more like a werewolf who kills his victims in a first-person camera viewpoint....

But then there's the business of the sheriff (Pataki), who is about the WORST kind of sheriff: the hick kind. He hassles people, he leers at married women, he steals handkerchiefs from haberdasheries (the FIEND!), he smokes with one of those cigarette holders in his mouth and talks at the same time, making him look and sound like Buford T. Justice in "Smokey and the Bandit" and (this is the worst part)... HE'S THE MOST LIKEABLE CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE FILM!

The whole film, though, is just TV movie-of-the-week-like crapola (guano, in this case). It's an AIP, for crying out loud! What did you expect, Oscar caliber stuff?

And what else can you say about a film that not even MST3K can save?

How about...no stars for "The Bat People", full version OR MST3K version!

By the way, if there's ever a sequel for this movie, I'm burying my TV.


"The Bat People" is a proud resident of the IMDb Bottom 100. Every once and a while the movie suddenly vanishes from the infamous list, depending on whether there are new movies with Paris Hilton in the lead or documentaries about American Idol stars, but it always reliably returns sooner or later. And why? Because, unlike the majority of crap in that list, "The Bat People" is a legitimate bad film and it deserves to be on there regardless of any media influences or internet buzz! This nearly isn't the worst film ever made, since the basic concept definitely has a certain charm and ingenuity, but it's still indescribably difficult to sit through the whole thing. The script is incredibly boring, with absolutely unnecessary padding footage and gigantic gaps in continuity, and yet the main characters still remain total strangers throughout the entire film. Other than a sensible screenplay, the film also lacks spectacular killing sequences and the make-up effects  although courtesy of a young Stan Winston  are ludicrously inept and remain largely unseen until the end of the film. The film's title is inaccurate, as "people" refers to a number in plural whereas the story actually just revolves on one Bat Person. Much more than Bruce Wayne, the real Batman plays in this movie and he as well has a genuine Bat-cave and a Bat-mobile (a stolen ambulance)! The plot introduces a young couple on their honeymoon-weekend exploring caves. They wander off from a guided tour group and he gets bitten by a bat whilst trying to protect his wife from the animal's vicious attack. Worried that he might be infected with rabies, he undergoes an intense treatment at the local hospital, but still this doesn't prevent him from slowly transforming into a bloodthirsty bat creature. He kills random people at night and toys around with the suspicious police sergeant whilst his loving wife is still vastly convinced the awkward behavior is exclusively due to allergic reactions to the rabies treatment. Sure, honey! The script never explains why a bat would attack people and how come John always changes back into a normal human being at the dawn of a new day instead of gradually turning into a permanent state of bat-guano. So basically, "The Bat People" is a variation on the good old werewolf-theme, but obviously not a very interesting one. The concept showed a lot of potential, but somehow the sub plots center on whiny drunks and perverted Sheriffs instead of on ghastly monsters. Some of the settings and exterior filming locations look impressive, the misfit song playing during the credits is strangely catchy, there's a nice bit of gore during the climax (finally!) and main actress Marianne McAndrew is ravishing to look at (though not to listen to). This truly bad and boring film's current listing in the bottom 100 is spot number 80, and personally I hope it sticks somewhere in that region. The list simply wouldn't feel and traditional without "The Bat People".


Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this.."can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!". Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a "so bad it's good" way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10.


Ok,so.....guy gets bitten by a bat and then turns into a bat (well,sorta). I can only assume this made sense to SOMEONE at the time! Aren't bats supposed to fly, use radar, and eat bugs instead of attacking humans tho?


This movie promised bat people. It didn't deliver. There was a guy who got bit by a bat, but what was with the seizures? And the stupid transformation? Where was the plot? Where was the acting? Who came up with the idea to make this? Why was it allowed to be made? Why? Why? I guess we'll never know.


A man wakes from a nightmare about bats. He and his wife go out into the desert for a picnic on their honeymoon. He seems to hear a strange noise, and she is disturbed by the sight of a bat crawling across their picnic blanket. He wants to go on a tour of a cave, which has something to do with some kind of work he is doing, but she wants to enjoy their honeymoon. She relents. They go on the tour, but leave the group to make out. She falls down a slope, where she is disturbed by insects. He follows her. He hears the strange noise again, and seems to know a bat is approaching; one does, and gets in her hair. He fights it off her, and it attacks him, biting his forehead.

They get out of the cave, but when they are in a gondola at a ski resort, he starts having seizures in which he has hallucinations or visions of bats attacking people. He becomes angry when this happens. He's unable to drink alcohol without spitting it out. His wife worries about rabies, and he starts a Pasteur treatment for that, but reacts violently to the injection.

And then some people are killed. We see parts of the man's transformation into a bat person. It seems it is not just in his mind. Whether the bat bite causes these transformations is not clear, since he already was having some symptoms prior to the bite.

While the title seems inappropriate, the implication at the end is that the same thing is happening to another person. Not a very good movie, but I liked the variety of the desert, cave, and ski-slope locations, and some of the weirder scenes. I didn't think this was as bad as other people do, and I didn't think the 1999 movie Bats was as bad as others think either (I rated that one a 5/10).


The movie is just as fun as staring at the sun.Sheriff Pataki is a total retard that loves nothing better to do than sit on his fat rear making a smoke ring from his puffy cigars and drinking booze while the doctor acts like a zombie version of Nicholas Cage sucking up all that so called "Blood" which in reality seemed like Fruit Punch.

Most of all the plotting seemed very horrid to even call this piece of crap a movie.The rest of the characters in this movie are total wastes of time, the ending was awful, the outlines were cheesy, and the scenes were terrible. What else more should I say to you viewers out there? My advice would be to get your Rabies shot if you've already watched the movie. This movie may give you the foam in the mouth if you didn't get your up-to-date shots.


Really, the use of stock nature documentary of swarming bats employed by THE BAT PEOPLE is some of the most effective ever. There are shots of teeming bats hanging from the ceilings of caves, swarming bats flying out of caves or swirling about near the mouths of caves. That alone is enough to be unsettling: Imagine all of them swarming after you? And they do indeed swarm in what should have been a show-stopper sequence that happened at about the forty minute mark, a downright inappropriately hilarious sequence where a teeming swarm of bats seem to attack a police car, splattering across the windshield like bloody broken eggs. The problem is that this sequence happens about fifty minutes too late to save the film, most of which consists of one or more people running around, screaming, waving their arms about at jabbering excitedly about some poor goofball who managed to get bitten by a bat during his vacation.

The fear is that he is coming down with rabies, which does indeed suck, so their vacation is ruined, as the plot synopsis on the top of THE BAT PEOPLE's reference page does indeed point out. So here is an effective summary of the movie: A young couple goes on a romantic getaway which is ruined when the guy is bitten by a bat. They bravely try to stick it out but he starts raving, trying to convince those around him that it's a bit more involved than rabies, that he can't control himself, and they everyone should KEEP AWAY.

Now, when some one is frothing at the mouth, covered with sweat, eyes boggling about like one of the cheaper Muppets and screaming at you to GET AWAY FROM ME, you get away from him. You don't try to give him drugs, you don't try to tell him you love him, you give the guy his space, go home, and try that scenic getaway next year.

But no, the people in this movie all behave like morons, insist on pushing the guy to his brink, and he flips out, mutates into a part man part bat type creature, and kills a bunch of non-essential secondary characters. Nothing wrong with that, but the movie forgets that it's a low budget Creature Feature and tries to be some sort of psychological study. Instead of a monster movie, we get lots of people running around trying to get this guy to take a chill pill, and eventually he runs off into the hills looking very much more human than he should have, people insist on trying to chase him down and pay the expected price.

The main thing wrong with the movie is that this should have happened in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, thirty tops, and the movie should have been about the guy AFTER he had turned into a Bat Person, rather than about the journey there. It takes a good eighty minutes to really pick up steam on that front, with some interesting character sketches along the way involving the always entertaining Michael Pataki as a small town cop who's lost his moral edge, and the late Paul Carr as a physician friend who doesn't quite get the message.

The movie is dreadfully boring, about fifteen minutes too long and missed the opportunity to be a nice, forgettable little Creature Feature about a mutant run amok like the Italian horror favorite RATMAN, which I watched today and was sadly inspired to try this one after seeing. Me and my bright ideas, though the scene with the cop car was a howler: Too bad we couldn't have had another twenty minutes of that.

3/10


Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances.


While exploring some caves with his wife, a doctor is bitten by a bat which causes some alarming side effects...

Occasionally creepy atmosphere and some decent (though under used) makeup effects don't save this B horror flick from being a sub-par tale of man-becomes-creature. The Bat People aka It Lives By Night suffers from its senseless story that's awkwardly plotted and lackluster in pacing. The plot never seems to go anywhere much and the movie never offers an explanation for what happens, or even a satisfying conclusion for it all. The cast is fairly mediocre in their performances.

Still I give the film some points for its haunting theme song and nice filming locations. The makeup work of the late Stan Winston is pretty good too, but it doesn't get much of a showcase here. A missed opportunity for sure.

Definitely one of the lesser man-creature flicks out there.

* 1/2 out of ****


I dunno sometimes...you try and try and try to be charitable towards all the B thru Z grade movies out there, but once in a while a particular movie just tests your patience until you want to slap everyone involved. "Bat People" (which I saw under the title "It Lives By Night") is just such a movie. You can't watch this without thinking that it really should have been an episode on "Night Gallery", and not one of the better ones, either.

The movie has something to do with a doctor who gets bitten by a bat and consequently starts to morph into a Were-Bat who drinks human blood. (Actually, you'd think if he was turning into a real bat, he'd be eating mosquitoes by the gallon bucket, but because this is a cheap, lurid horror movie, blood's the word.) In spite of the fact that he has grand-mal seizures at the drop of a hat, and black-out episodes almost every night, his friend and fellow physician, Dr. Mustache Aspen-Extreme, insists that he's just having an 'allergic reaction' to the rabies shots. Meanwhile, the world's most obnoxious and stereotyped county sheriff suspects the doc of being responsible for the brutal murder and exsanguination of several local girls (and one wino). Also meanwhile, the doctor's wife decides that denial IS a river in Egypt and alternately patronizes him and nags him to distraction.

It's not so much that the acting is bad - you can tell that the actors are making professional level choices, and are trying to bring some juice and life to the script, even the guy who plays the sheriff. (Okay, it IS pretty bad, but it's bad in a clichéd, wooden, professional way). It's just that everything about the acting, the way the scenes are paced, the costumes, the dialog, the script and the story line in general sets your teeth on edge and makes you want to, well, slap everyone involved.

I think the movie had an outside chance at being a spooky, unsettling little cult favorite, BUT:

1)The director needed to beat Michael Pataki, an experienced character actor, with a chair until Pataki agreed to ACT, and not just channel Dennis Weaver.

2)He also needed to find a script that made a little more sense with regard to the whole "Bat Bites Human, Who Then Turns Into A Bat" scenario.

3) He also needed the actor who played the doctor to find a little more physically believable bit of stage business for his 'episodes', instead of resorting to "Man Has A Seizure" page from the Little Golden Book of Clichéd Acting Mannerisms.

4) He needed to rework the whole 'wife' character, make her both more intelligent, less shrill and waaaaay more observant.

I would never voluntarily watch this film again, except with the help of Mike and the Bots. It's bad, but it isn't bad in a silly, humorous or interesting way. Still better than "Battlefield Earth" or "Waterworld", though.


OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies.


Currently, this film is listed on IMDb as the 42nd worst film ever made--which is exactly why I rented it from NetFlix. However, I am saddened to report that the film, while bad, is no where near bad enough to merit being in the bottom 100 films ever made list. I have personally seen at least 100 films worse than this one. Hardly a glowing endorsement, but it just didn't meet the expected level of awfulness to be included on this infamous list.

The film begin with Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew on their belated honeymoon (by the way, they are married in real life as well). He's a doctor who is obsessed with bats and insists they go to a nearby cave. Once there, they behave very, very, very stupidly (hallmark of a bad film) and are soon bitten by a bat. According to this film, bats love to attack people and there are vampire bats in the US--both of which are not true at all.

Oddly, after being bitten, the man doesn't even bother going to the hospital!! The first thing on anyone's mind (especially a doctor) is to get medical help immediately, but not this boob. Soon, he's having seizures--yet he STILL isn't interested in seeking help! Again and again you keep thinking that this must be the stupidest couple in film history!!

After a while, he eventually goes to see a doctor and is sent to the hospital. But, by then it's too late and his attacks become more violent and he begins killing people to suck their blood. When it's totally obvious to everyone that the man is a crazed killing machine, the wife (who, like her husband, has a grapefruit for a brain) refuses to believe he's dangerous--even after he attacks people, steals an ambulance and runs a police car off the road!!

Now most of the time Moss is going through these episodes, his eyes roll back and he looks like a normal person. Oddly, however, a couple times he develops bat-like hands and towards the end they used some nice prosthetics on him to make him look quite bat-like. Had this been really cheesy, the film would have merited a 1.

In the very end, in a twist that hardly made any sense at all, the wife inexplicably turned into a crazed bat lady and had a swarm of bats kill the evil sheriff. How all this was arranged was a mystery as was Moss' and McAndrew's belief that this film would somehow help their careers--though they both have had reasonably long careers on TV playing bit roles since 1974.

Overall, very dumb. The plot is silly and makes no sense and strongly relies on people acting way too dumb to be real. Not a good film at all, but not among the worst films of all time either.

NOTE: For some reason, IMDb shows the graphic for the three DVD set for IT'S ALIVE and it's two sequels of the web page for THE BAT PEOPLE. While THE BAT PEOPLE has been seen with the title "It's Alive", the two movies are not at all related. It's easy to understand the mistake--especially since they both came out in 1974, but the movie I just reviewed starred Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew and the other film starred John Ryan and Sharon Farrell.


I didn't think this was as absolutely horrible as some people apparently do. It passes as one of those cheesy horror movies you might waste time with in the middle of the night when you can't sleep, although admittedly it's no better quality than that. It's true that the acting isn't great - I thought Marianne McAndrew as Cathy Beck, for example, came across as completely passionless - but the main problem is that several aspects of the plot didn't really make sense to me. The Becks are on a trip described by John (Stewart Moss) as part work and partly the honeymoon they never had (now that's romantic!) The work part has something to do with touring caves, which in itself sounds strange (how does being part of a tour group through a cave relate to anyone's work?) but it gets stranger when we find out that he's a doctor doing research in the area of preventative medicine (huh? That connection completely lost me.) Bitten by a bat while he's in the cave, he begins to transform into what I guess was supposed to be a human-bat hybrid (although when we finally see him in makeup he looks a lot more like an ape-man of some sort) and a killing spree starts. Here's another problem. The first killing is a nurse in a hospital. At first, everyone thinks her death was an accident. The second murder is of a young girl, who is described as having her throat ripped out. The sheriff (Michael Pataki) then tells us that her death was similar to the nurse's (meaning throat ripped out? - How could anyone think that was an accident?) And what's with the sheriff? He seems pretty no-nonsense until the scene in Cathy's hotel room when he takes a swig of liquor and then almost rapes her, after which everything seems to go back to normal. It's saddled with an ending that left almost everything unresolved, and also with one of the most irritating theme songs I've ever heard in a movie. Even for all that, there was something here that kept me watching. Sometimes pure cheesiness can get you through an hour and a half. Pretty bad, yeah - but not as awful as some people say.


"The Bat People" is a really bad film that deserved the MST3K treatment just as well like that other film "The Creeping Terror."

In it, we are in some sort of mountainous terrain full of bats. We see many things happen, like bats flying out and attacking and stuff, station wagon chases, mishaps at the emergency room, and much more! All this, plus the cheesy mediocrity of the 1970s (hey, think "Mitchell" here!), making "The Bat People" actually one of the very best of the last "Mystery Science Theater 3000" episodes made in the series! Moviewise, it's awful. It should be avoided like the plague, unless Tom Servo and Crow are watching with you.

"The Bat People" - more like "The Bad People!!!!!" LOL

1/10 of course!!!!!


The movie that shoots scenes of a scenic caverns tour.

Remember no one from this movie except for Michael Pataki who dished out extreme pain as JC in "Five the Hard Way". He's the really annoying sheriff who I did applaud when he practices nightstick on our rabid doctor. Probably the most laughs you will have is with Dr. Beck's epileptic seizures out of nowhere. Could Mrs. Beck be anymore wooden? Seriously, if you took a 4 foot branch, stuck it in a hot tub, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference. The dread and suspense is looking over at the clock wondering when the credits will roll.

Watch it as a late night movie, MSTified, but don't go out of your way.


(spoilers)Wow, this is a bad one. I did a double take when watching an old Star Trek episode the other day-it was the one where everyone gets infected with that space sickness and then go a bit nuts-and there was Stewart Moss, a.k.a the unlikable 'hero' of It Lives by Night! He played the first crewmember infected, who dies from terminal depression. All I could think was that he'd watched his own movie too many times, that's what caused the depression. This movie is full of truly unlikable people. There is no redeeming character in the film, not one. It's very hard to feel bad about Dr. Beck's turning into a bat(or whatever he actually turned into), because you just don't like him. And you don't like his shrill, bony wife, or the nasty sleazy Sgt. Ward, or Dr. Mustache Love...So why would you invest any time or energy in this movie? Where there is no empathy with the characters, there is no reason to bother caring about it. Not to mention the horrible cinematography, which made it look like they'd filmed the movie through urine, and the five cent bat special effects, many of which appeared to be pieces of paper thrown into a fan to simulate hordes of bats flying. Not the worst film I've ever seen on MST3K, but down there in the bottom ranks, definitely.


Painful to watch, and not entirely for empathy with the struggles of the characters. Two of the main characters, Cynthia the mother and Monica the acknowledged daughter, spend the great bulk of the film pathetically mewling and bitterly bitching respectively. Their characters are so firmly established that their redemption into tolerable personalities after a quick family catharsis is unbelievable. It wasn't worth the wait. I wish a worthy pitch for honesty among families was less of a headache to view.


Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.

The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!

The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?

The acting is superb.

The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.

I have had more fun doing the laundry.


At least among those movies with 100 votes or more. Nominated for best screenplay written directly for the screen? Brenda Blethyn nominated for best actress in a leading role?? Nominated for best picture?? I always disagree with many of the Oscar picks, but this movie might very well be the worst movie of all time to be honored by the Academy. The writing and acting were both horrible. Blethyn's perfomance in particular was one of the worst I've ever seen, and probably the most over-rated acting performance of all time. Awful movie, not worthy of the big screen and not worthy of any cable or television channel that has ever played it, including HBO(where I saw it). I am only thankful I didn't actually pay to see one of the most over-rated movies of all time.


First of all there wasn't really anything in this movie that grabbed me really. It wasn't a bad movie, just another movie where I said "Well, that wasn't anything special" after I'd seen it. There was probably drama and stuff, but it simply didn't grab me, but more seamed semi-dull. As I said in the headline it seamed very cheap in a way. The quality of the film itself (the images) seamed like a low quality and reminded me more of some cheap made for TV-movie than a well respected English film-maker. The camera angles and shots were very amateur like in my opinion. Didn't really have any close up shots or similar effects to produce interesting scenes. I haven't seen many English films and the ones I've seen didn't really impress me more than this and they seamed kind of similar done with the camera work, colors and such. "Game" tried to be more cool, hip & smart (see my review of "Lola Rennt" about this if you wish), but didn't succeed for me either. Overall just a little indifferent movie that wasn't anything special (at best, I'm afraid) and basically unfortunately over two hours wasted.


Well, EYEboy, I must say that it pleases me to no end when someone singles me out and tries to make fun of me, especially when it is someone who seems as intelligent as you do. My favorite part of your post was "But no big bang-bang good-guy bad-guy here, kimosabe. Me suggest you stick to movie with lotsa bang bang."

Well said! I do like action movies, especially if they are well done, but I also like movies that don't have a whole lot of action, as long as THEY are well done. I'm sorry, but Secret's and Lies does not fit into that category and is simply a very bad movie. I really don't see very many non-American films, so maybe I was spoiled, and didn't realize how bad foreign films really were when I saw Secrets and Lies. Perhaps if I judge foreign movies by a different standard I could some day see how Secrets and Lies could possibly be one of the highest rated movies on the IMDB. Hmm... If true, that is very scary.

Jeremy Barger bits@midohio.net(new e-mail)


"Horrible People" ought to be the subtitle of this horrible film. If you want to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, then look out of your window at real life. But if you want to see unpleasant people doing dull things, you'll have to watch this horrible film by Mike Leigh. The characters talk at length, but never actually manage to communicate with each other. Why not? Presumably because Leigh things that all of us are as ineffective and pathetic as his actors, and he wants to film real life. But we're not, and he failed.


I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.


This movie was the most horrible movie watching experience i have ever had to endure, and what is worse is the fact that i had to watch it, and didn't have the opportunity to stop it because it was for school! Admittedly, the storyline was decent...but i found the acting terrible! The exception was Marianne Jean-Baptiste, i thought her performance was wonderful. She was the only highlight, without her, i doubt i would have been able to bear watching the film. Every time i hear somebody say "daarling" i cringe! i nearly attacked a customer the other day because they said "it". It made me remember one of the worst one and a half hours of my life!

(i apologise if this has offended anybody, i am only expressing my opinion)


... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.

OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.

There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.

So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.


POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2

I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either  in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.

Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot  Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience.


Hanna-Barbera sucks the life out of another famous property. The violence is watered down, the stories are formulaic, the animation is bad, the music is obnoxious and repetitive, and frankly, the show just isn't funny.

At the time, H-B put every one of its series through the same clichéd situations, regardless if it fit the world of the cartoon or not. Thus, Popeye and Bluto appear in a recurring segment as cavemen ("Hey! Popeye is popular, and the Flinstones are popular. Put 'em together, and you can't miss!"). Also, in an apparent ripoff of "Private Benjamin," Olive Oyl and the Goon have a regular segment that features them as new army recruits. Seriously! Why?

Adding to the annoyance factor are the public service announcements in every episode (standard practice at the time for cartoons, but still annoying). Popeye lectures his nephews on crossing the street safely, recycling, and - are you ready for this? - the dangers of smoking! (I swear I'm not making that up.)

The only charm remaining from the original cartoons is that Jack Mercer, the voice of Popeye from the early days, continues the role here.

Worth checking out once just to get a new appreciation for the old Fleischer shorts. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.


Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.

Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.

As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.

All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.


I think Phillip Kaufman read the cliff's Notes version of the Kundera novel and then set about making this film. Okay, of course it won't have the punch of the original. Kundera's novels are great because of his manipulation of the narrative concept, his ability to step in and out of stories he constructs. This film does not even try! The one dream sequence of Tereza's, so vital to the atmosphere of the book, is reworked and makes no sense whatsoever. Also, and this is perhaps a lesser point, Daniel Day-Lewis looks a lot like Ben Stiller in this (I know it's not really a valid complaint, but hey). A perfect example of the Hollywood-izing of otherwise fine literature.


*** Contains Spoilers ***

I did not like this movie at all.

I found it amazingly boring and rather superficially made, irrespective of the importance and depth of the proposed themes: given that eventually we have to die, how should we approach life? In a "light" way, like Tomas; in a "heavy" way like Tereza; or should we find ways not to face that question, like Sabina? How much is fidelity important in a relationship? How much of the professional life can be mutilated for the sake of our loved ones? How much do we have to be involved in the political life and the social issues of our Country?

Unfortunately, I haven't read Kundera's novel but after having being let down by the movie I certainly will: I want to understand if the story was ruined by the movie adaptation (which is my guess) or if it was dull from the beginning.

I disagree with most of the positive comments that defined the movie as a masterpiece. I simply don't see the reasons why. What I see are many flaws, and a sample of them follows.

1) The three main characters are thrown at you and it's very hard to understand what drives them when making their choices.

2) The "secondary" characters are there just to fill the gaps but they don't add nothing to the story and you wonder if they are really necessary.

3) I did not like how Tomas was impersonated. Nothing is good for him. He is so self-centered and selfish. He is not human, in some sense. But when his self-confidence fails and he realizes that he depends on others and is emotionally linked to someone, I did not find the interpretation credible.

4) It's very unlikely that an artist like Sabina could afford her lifestyle in a communist country in 1968. On top of that, the three main characters are all very successful in their respective professions, which sounds strange to me. a) how can Tereza become effortlessly such a good photographer? b) how can they do so well in a country lacking all the economic incentives that usually motivate people to succeed?

5) The fake accents of the English spoken by the actors are laughable. And I am not even mother tongue. Moreover, the letter that Sabina receives while in the US is written in Czech, which I found very inconsistent.

6) Many comments praised the movie saying that Prague was beautifully rendered: I guess that most of the movie was shot on location, so it's not difficult to give the movie a Eastern European feeling, and given the intrinsic beauty of Prague is not even difficult to make it look good.

7) I found the ending sort of trivial. Tereza and Tomas, finally happy in the countryside, far away from the temptations of the "metropoly", distant from the social struggles their fellow citizens are living, detached from their professional lives, die in a car accident. But they die after having realized that they are happy, indeed. So what? Had they died unhappy, would the message of the movie have been different? I don't think so. I considered it sort of a cheap trick to please the audience.

8) The only thing in the movie which is unbearably light is the way the director has portrayed the characters. You see them for almost three hours, but in the end you are left with nothing. You don't feel empathy, you don't relate to them, you are left there in your couch watching a sequence of events and scenes that have very little to say.

9) I hated the "stop the music in the restaurant" scene (which some comments praised a lot). Why Sabina has got such a strong reaction? Why Franz agrees with her? I really don't see the point. The only thing you learn is that Sabina has got a very bad temper and quite a strong personality. That's it. What's so special and unique about it?

After all these negative comments, let me point tout that there are two scenes that I liked a lot (that's why I gave it a two).

The "Naked women Photoshoot", where the envy, the jealousy, and the insecurities of Sabina and Tereza are beautifully presented.

The other scene is the one representing the investigations after the occupation of Prague by the Russians. Tereza pictures, taken to let the world know about what is going on in Prague, are used to identify the people taking part to the riots. I found it quite original and Tereza's sense of despair and guilt are nicely portrayed.

Finally, there is a tiny possibility that the movie was intentionally "designed" in such a way that "Tomas types" are going to like it and "Tereza ones" are going to hate it. If this is the case (I strongly doubt it, though) then my comment should be revised drastically.


After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.

Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.

There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings.


This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.

The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.

Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.


Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.

All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.

The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.

I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.


Harsh, yes, but I call 'em like I see 'em.

I saw this in the late 80's, and it was truly one of the most awful, boring films I've ever forced myself to watch.

Yes, the cinematography is lovely. The Czech settings are truly stunning. The political backdrop is enticing, but unlike similar "historically set" stories (e.g. _Dr. Zhivago_ (qv)), this one failed to make the politics relevant to the story, or even interesting.

Sure, Olin and Binoche are beautiful. But this film manages to make even "erotic" scenes plodding and slow. I'm all for romance, but this movie was so boring, I started hoping the Russians would shoot them all and put an end to my misery.

I'm sure if I'd read the book, the story would have made a bit more sense. However, life's too short to expend any more time on this one.


yeah cheap shot i know, but this movie is a great example of how a collection of signifiers of 'deepness' (political turmoil, love/lust) can be combined haphazardly to great critical acclaim (see also 'american beauty'). kaufman's movie plods along with gratuitous sex scenes interspersed with often painful dialog sequences (in one scene i counted three different 'generic European' accents affected by the actors) and displays of state might run amok, yet fails to tie them together into the coherent meditation kundera offered. and in its over-long three hours it manages almost completely to gloss over franz,the missing fourth piece in the love triangle that lies at the heart of the plot, and in this manner sacrifices the novel's central mechanism of displaying the spectrum of emotions and of power relations that obtain in love affairs. it also fails to even include token screen time for tomas' son, used in the novel to exemplify some of the political points kundera was making in the novel. combined with the overweening soundtrack, these flaws make this movie's three hours unbearably weighty in tone yet light in content.


This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.


Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence.


It's frequently said that movies can never equal the original book. Well, in this case, not only the movie is not "as good" as the book, but is an insult to the book. I'd rather see Milan Kundera's novel turned on fire than into this "something," which the director probably calls "adaptation."

All the beautiful philosophy that asks "is it better to carry a heavy load on your shoulders, or cope with the unbearable lightness of being?" is put aside, and instead, all the movie deals with is Daniel Day Lewis' (I cannot say Tomas) sexual adventures with his dumb wife, his mistress, and his other mistresses. François Truffaut already said it: bad directors make bad movies. Don't waste your time and money. Read the book instead, it's really worth it.


Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.

The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd.

Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away.


This was a great book and the possibilities for a truly great film were definitely there. But the casting decisions completely wrecked the movie. Hanks is a great actor to be sure, but lacks the smarmy, morally ambivalent characteristics needed for the lead role. Jeff Daniels would have been my choice.

Putting Melanie Griffiths in, for eye candy reasons, is understandable, but again, she did not portray the depth or ambivalence, so need to pull this off.

This movie is a great example of how every decision, even those early on in the movie production can make or break a file.


This is one of the most atrocious rewrites I've ever viewed. If they want to make a movie with a lousy story, they should refrain from giving it a title of a fine book. There is hardly a relation between Wolfe's book and this movie other than the title. I don't mind changes if they help a story flow on screen. At least the changes shouldn't hurt the final product. The last scene in the movie is painfully unconvincing. The actors are miscast. The director and/or screen writer obviously could not decide whether to make a lame comedy or preach an unconvincing sermon.

If you've seen this movie and disliked it, try the book. If you've seen this movie and liked it, read the book.


Regarded by many critics as one of the biggest stinkers of all time (certainly the biggest stinker of director Brian De Palma's career).

Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a smug rich boy whose life goes to pieces when he and his lover Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) are involved in a hit-and-run. His story is chronicled by another smug guy, reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis).

Well, as I said in my summary...

What is this movie supposed to be? It seems to combine comedy, drama, and satire, but it sure doesn't add up to much. It's undermined by unimaginably loathsome, one-dimensional characters who you'd never want to have the displeasure of meeting in real life.

I'm no big fan of the novel (I started reading it once, but couldn't finish it because it wasn't to my liking) but it's obvious to me that those who did / do enjoy the novel consider this film to be a complete travesty.

I've never seen so many talented actors strive to hard to give a below-average movie some semblance of quality and fail. What a waste.

The problems start with casting nice guy Tom Hanks in a role that is clearly supposed to be UNsympathetic. And the role of Peter Fallow in the novel was that of a Brit. Bruce Willis is badly, BADLY miscast in the role. What was the thinking there.

Alas, not even Morgan Freeman can escape the film with his dignity intact, being obliged to deliver a lame, heavy-handed lecture on 'decency' after the climax.

This movie ends up turning into an absurd farce.

I liked the assemblage of talent; for that I will give it four out of ten, but I'm sure some people will say a MUCH better movie could have been made from the source material.


Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.

If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.

Awful.

Ridiculous.

Waste of two hours of my life.


The point of Wolfe's original novel -- indeed the point of the whole story -- is that things take place because of a carefully calculated sense of expediency. The goal is survival within a particular kind of life style. The novel is full of malice. The only relationship that rings emotionally true is that between Sherman and his daughter, Campbell, and that's only touched upon. That aside, everyone is out for what he can get in the way of publicity, power, money or self aggrandizement.

Wolfe was criticized for hitting every character and every social segment of New York City over the head. His response was a denial. After all, he lived in New York himself and belonged to a neighborhood improvement committee and other admirable organizations, exactly the qualifications one would want on his resume in order to deny that he disliked New Yorkers. (Wolfe has a PhD in American Studies from Yale and is no dummy.) Those supposed weaknesses are what made the novel memorable. Nobody was any good. And Sherman McCoy wound up broke, a professional protester for social justice. The movie throws all of that away and imposes a moral frame on the story that simply doesn't fit. Wolfe did his homework. The novel was rooted in reality. Every event was not only possible but thoroughly believable. Wolfe might have made a great cultural anthropologist -- he knows how to get inside a system and record its details.

Yes, any of us might have found ourselves, as Sherman and his mistress do, stuck in the South Bronx, threatened by a couple of black kids, and making a getaway after bumping into one of them. That scene is transferred neatly from print to celluloid.

But after that scene the movie seems not to trust its audience and at times become frantic in its attempt to spell out its message, however nebulous the message is.

Sherman might accidentally hit some kid and be arrested for it as he is in the novel, but he would not immediately upon his release from jail go back to his phenomenally expensive condo, take out a shotgun, and start shooting into the ceiling with it, as he does in the movee. In what's supposed to be a funny scene, ceiling plaster falls all over the party guests and they scurry away, shrieking. It simply would not have happened. The movie has left the novel's unspeakably detailed reality in the dust. Wolfe's sensibility, the work he put into capturing the real, has been lost. What we get instead is a noisy, fantastic, and silly scene that doesn't do anything except wake the audience up. Similar empty scenes follow, screaming out for Wolfe's verisimilitude.

The movie also fails because it thrusts a lot of sin and redemption into an entertaining story of moral nihilism. Here we see "Don Juan in Hell" at the opera. We get lectures on redemption from a poet with AIDs. We see a lot of guilt in Sherman. A black judge who preaches from the bench and gives one of those final speeches about how we all have to start behaving nicely again. A reporter who feels sorry for Sherman after turning him into a sacrificial lamb. And a happy ending in which Sherman gets off by breaking the law with an idiotic grin. The scene sits on the movie like a jester's cap on a circus elephant's head.

The movie not only makes points that are already trite and unoriginal, it overstates them, as if the audience were incapable of absorbing any subtleties.

It's not the acting or the direction that's poor. The film's not bad in those respects. And the photography is pretty good too, including two rather spectacular shots -- the gargoyles of the Chrysler building and the landing of the Concorde. It's the script that is thoroughly botched.

The first half of the movie, roughly, is okay in conception and execution. It keeps some of the little details from the novel. Sherman and Judy's dog is named Marshall. Who the hell would name a dog Marshall? It loses its focus almost completely in the second half and on the whole is barely worth watching.

Wolfe's cynical redneck right-wingism may be offensive to a lot of people, but he's got the cojones to lay his percepts out. Alas the writers and producers did not have the courage to pick them up and thus blew the chance to make a fascinating study of New Yorkers.


As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.

The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill.

It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.

Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.

There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close.


Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3


Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?


(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.)

I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.

Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.

But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.

Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.

But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.

It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.

If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time.