"Gone With The Wind" is one of the most overrated movies in history. It is a film loved by mothers, grandmothers, and shut-ins who go to the movies once every five years. As a zombie movie, it blows. There isn't a shambling corpse in sight, and it's terribly light in the gore department. "Zombie 3", on the other hand, is big on shambling corpses and quite generous with its blood-spilling -- therefore, it is better than "Gone With the Wind". It is also not overrated. Most reviewers are under no delusions that it is rubbish. It is, however, not boring rubbish. After a terrorist steals a virus, he drops it while being pursued by a helicopter, and the chemicals leak into the ground. The terrorist, who has been exposed to the nasty concoction, hides in a hotel room where he slowly morphs into a flesh-eating zombie. One of his first victim's is a cleaning lady. Once she's bitten, Lucio Fulci's brand of hell breaks loose. As usual for a Fulci flick, the acting is atrocious, the storyline is riddled with plot holes, and the gore is plentiful. Turns out the film was directed by Fulci and Bruno Mattei, so that explains its rather schizophrenic nature. It is badly shot, too, poorly edited, and the sound design is flat. Still, it is saved by its gleeful adherence to the goriest of murders and its impatient pacing. Definitely worth picking up if you're an undead completest. Or don't like "Gone With The Wind", undoubtedly the worst zombie movie of all time.


I'm a big fan of horror flicks, and zombie films are a particular favorite of mine. That said, Zombi 3 is one of the absolute worst films I have ever seen. So needless to say I really enjoyed it, it's the best bad movie I've seen in a long while. The story has some similarities with Dan O'Bannon's "Return of the Living Dead", but whereas that film was intentionally funny, this one is the opposite. It has some of the most laughable acting I've ever witnessed, especially from the main scientist character. His scenes with the General were just hysterical. Also, the effects are subpar and in many cases sloppy, and the death scenes are often just downright stupid. This, of course, makes it all the more fun. POSSIBLE SPOILER - The worst is the scene where the guy opens the refrigerator door and sees the severed zombie head, which then opens its eyes and somehow FLIES OUT OF THE FRIDGE (obviously pulled out ineptly with a bit of string), latching onto the guys neck, killing him. Zombie heads have the ability to float in the air now? It defies every law of physics known to man, and it's one of the most absurd things ever filmed. That's just one of many really goofy moments in the idiotic mess. I can't believe it's gotten so high a rating here. If you are a fan of bad movies, do yourself a favor and rent this sucker.


Title: Zombie 3 (1988)

Directors: Mostly Lucio Fulci, but also Claudio Fragasso and Bruno Mattei

Cast: Ottaviano DellAcqua, Massimo Vani, Beatrice Ring, Deran Serafin

Review:

To review this flick and get some good background of it, I gotta start by the beginning. And the beginning of this is really George Romeros Dawn of the Dead. When Dawn came out in 79, Lucio Fulci decided to make an indirect sequel to it and call it Zombie 2. That film is the one we know as plain ole Zombie. You know the one in which the zombie fights with the shark! OK so, after that flick (named Zombie 2 in Italy) came out and made a huge chunk of cash, the Italians decided, heck. Lets make some more zombie flicks! These things are raking in the dough! So Zombie 3 was born. Confused yet? The story on this one is really just a rehash of stories we've seen in a lot of American zombie flicks that we have seen before this one, the best comparison that comes to mind is Return of the Living Dead. Lets see...there's the government making experiments with a certain toxic gas that will turn people into zombies. Canister gets released into the general population and shebang! We get loads of zombies yearning for human flesh. A bunch of people start running away from the zombies and end up in an old abandoned hotel. They gotta fight the zombies to survive.

There was a lot of trouble during the filming of this movie. First and foremost, Lucio Fulci the beloved godfather of gore from Italy was sick. So he couldn't really finish this film the way that he wanted to. The film was then handed down to two lesser directors Bruno Mattei (Hell of the Living Dead) and Claudio Fragasso (Zombie 4). They did their best to spice up a film that was already not so good. You see Fulci himself didn't really have his heart and soul on this flick. He was disenchanted with it. He gave the flick over to the producers and basically said: "Do whatever the hell you want with it!" And god love them, they did.

And that is why ladies and gents we have such a crappy zombie flick with the great Fulci credited as its "director". The main problem in my opinion is that its just such a pointless bore! There's no substance to it whatsoever! After the first few minutes in which some terrorists steal the toxic gas and accidentally release it, the rest of the flick is just a bunch of empty soulless characters with no personality whatsoever running from the zombies. Now in some cases this can prove to be fun, if #1 the zombie make up and zombie action is actually good and fun and #2 there's a lot of gore and guts involved.

Here we get neither! Well there's some inspired moments in there, like for example when some eagles get infected by the gas and they start attacking people. That was cool. There's also a scene involving a flying zombie head (wich by the way defies all logic and explanation) and a scene with zombies coming out of the pool of the abandoned hotel and munching off a poor girls legs. But aside from that...the rest of the flick just falls flat on its ass.

Endless upon endless scenes that don't do jack to move the already non existent plot along. That was my main gripe with this flick. The sets look unfinished and the art direction is practically non-existent. I hate it when everything looks so damn unfinished! I like my b-movies, but this one just really went even below that! Its closer to a z-level flick, if you ask me.

The zombie make up? Pure crap. The zombies are all Asian actors (the movie was filmed in the Philippines) so you get a bunch of Asian looking zombies. But thats not a big problem since they movie was set in the phillipine islands anyway. Its the look of the zombies that really sucks! They all died with the same clothes on for some reason. And what passes for zombie make up here is a bunch of black make up (more like smudges) on their faces. One or two zombies had slightly more complex make up, but it still wasn't good enough to impress. Its just a bunch of goo pointlessly splattered on the actors faces. So not only is this flick slowly paced but the zombies look like crap. These are supposed to be dead folks! Anyhows, for those expecting the usual coolness in a Fulci flick don't come expecting it here cause this is mostly somebody else's flick. And those two involved (Mattei and Fragasso) didn't really put there heart and souls into it. In fact, when you see the extras on the DVD you will see that when Fragasso is asked about his recollections and his feelings on this here flick, he doesn't even take it to seriously. You can tell he is ashamed of it and in many occasions he says they "just had a job to do and they did it". And that my friends, is the last nail on this flick. There's no love, and no heart put into making this film. Therefore you get a half assed, crappy zombie flick.

Only for completest or people who want to have or see every zombie flick ever made. Everybody else, don't even bother! Rating: 1 out of 5


Miraculously, this is actually quite watchable. I mean, it's bad. It's really bad. But whereas the original was so-bad-it's-ruining-my-life bad, this is so-bad-it's-mildly-entertaining bad. Right, that's enough faint praise. Production values are rotten across the board, the acting is excruciating and the Romero-wannabe satire can't make its mind up which side of the ecology fence it's mocking. Internal logic takes a back seat to heads propelling themselves out of fridges, virus incubation times fluctuating as the 'plot' requires, bullets working against the zombies or not, zombies having the power of speech or not. Gore is the draw, obviously, but the framework is so slapdash it's annoying. The dialogue sounds like it's been translated by the same computers that mangle instruction manuals, and the scale of the zombie infestation is implied with none of the ingenuity of Romero's films. It's all topped off with a horrendous synth score. Absolute rubbish.


I watched this immediately after seeing HILLSIDE CANNIBALS so anything would have been an improvement . On top of that it stops me from comparing ZOMBI 3 to 28 DAYS LATER and its sequel . Unfortunately the more I watched it the more I realised how well made Danny Boyle's original was and how much this movie influenced 28 WEEKS LATER

One can't help noticing how much the 28 franchise has dated this type of Italian horror movie . I was totally convinced ZOMBI 3 must have been made in 1980 or 1981 at the very latest - In which case I would have called my summary 28 YEARS LATER ( Geddit ? ) - but wasn't until I came to this page to find it was released in 1988 . All the production values scream that it's a low budget splatter flick from the very early part of that decade . I might have enjoyed this movie as a fifteen year old schoolboy in 1982 as would have my peers but not now

Much of the problem involves a lack of internal continuity . For example some of the zombies shuffle about with the pace of a snail while others can run very fast and posses self awareness which leads to a ridiculous end scene involving a DJ . Likewise some can be killed by a kick to the face while others remain alive even if they've had their head chopped off , wait till you see the fridge scene , you might just die laughing . Even the serious characters suffer from this type of contrived sloppy scripting where a character suddenly reveals he's a helicopter pilot which leads me to ask why the army have been employing him to drive jeeps for a career

Obviously you're reminded of the earlier film THE CRAZIES which also reminded me of the later 28 films . Bunch of terrorists break in to scientific base leading to all sorts of disaster with the military being the bad guys trying to kill both the infected and the survivors and long before the ending you'll have worked out that basically everyone dies . The problem with this is you'll instantly be reminded of how the British franchise did it so much better on a bigger budget . Not just that but the 28 franchise will appeal to a thinking audience who may have little interest in the average horror movie . ZOMBI 3 will appeal to no one but a hardcore splatter audience


I'm a nice guy, and I like to think of myself as genre-tolerant. And, I guess by that, I mean I try to consider a movie in the context of the genre that it resides in. If nothing else, that saves me from feeling like I should be saying really nasty things about people or films, which I don't like doing.

The plot in this one was patently obvious, the production values very low and sets, uhm, simplistic. The acting rose into "good for a high school play" territory from time to time. My feeling was this was filmed in a day -- please tell me it was.

Worst of all, the sex , while reasonably plentiful, was fairly mundane, hampered by, at least in my copy, a "sound-over" that was inconsistent with the action (climatic moans and shrieks while lying on a bed undoing a bra???). There was definitely no "edge" to it at all--nothing distinguishing or interesting, and with surprisingly quick cuts.

My vote is a "1" then, with the following summary statement: would have been better if the filler stripper material at the club was expanded, and the rest of the movie condensed.


I have two very major complaints regarding this film.

1. That my local rental store shelved what is very clearly a soft core porn in the "suspense" category. (Had I known what it was, I would not have wasted my time renting it in the first place. And yes, this movie is a soft core porn.)

2. The title has nothing to do with the movie. No one in this movie does anything that is either deviant or obsessive, let alone a combination of the two.

Actually, make that three major complaints:

3. That I for some reason watched the movie long enough to discover point number two on this list. Boy do I regret that. Stay away from this movie. Learn from my mistake. This movie is valueless on virtually every level.


My teacher taped this and showed it to us in Child Care to demonstrate how teen pregnancy affects people. It just demonstrated how teen pregnancy affects a childish jock not properly educated on how sex works and a whiny, unloved girl who throws fruit when angry and couldn't tell she was with the wrong man even if he wore a sign stating he was such. I wouldn't be surprised if the father of the baby had about eight girlfriends in the first edition of the script. Stacy's (the carrier of the baby) mother is a riot. She is oblivious to the fact her daughter is past the age of four and is seemingly unshaken when people spy on her through her dining room window. Bobby's (the father) best friend's name is Dewey, and is an obvious rip off of Sean Penn's character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. This movie is horrid, simply because none of the characters are believable. Thank goodness it's only made for TV, limiting the public's chances of viewing it.


Batman Mystery of the Batwoman, is, in a word, stale.

The plot goes that a mysterious female vigilante ("Batwoman") is intruding on Batman's turf, and while Batman is trying to combat a Penguin/Bane/Rupert Thorne threesome, he's trying to figure out who the mysterious Batwoman is.

There is nothing strikingly wrong about this, but there is nothing really special about it either, noting really made it stick out.

Mask of the Phantasm had Bruce's long lost love re surface and mess with his head.

Subzero was a major event in the life of Mr Freeze.

Even the Batman Beyond movie spin off, Return of the Joker, dug deep with the characters involved.

But Mystery of the Batwoman had some minor subplots, a lot of formula topped off by a mediocre setpiece on a cruise boat. Frankly, this thing is more Scooby Doo than Dark Knight, lacking the punch and bite that the Animated Series had in it's prime.


I am a back Batman movie and TV fan. I loved the show (new and old) and I loved all the movies. But this movie is not as great as some people were hopeing it to be. In my opinon, it is a big let down. I think the problem was it had no drama. Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm and Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker had a lot of drama. and Batman & Mr. Freeze: Sub Zero had some drama too. Also, I think this movie is to light for Batman. The only scene that seems a little dark is the big fight with Bane at the end. Anyways, it's an ok Batman movie. But I would just rent it.


The story is very trustworthy and powerful. The technical side of the movie is quite fine.. even the directing of it. The main problem is with the castings, that turned that movie into almost another local and regular cliché with a great lack of impact and even greater lack of impression. Beside the small role of the father, Rafael (played impressively by Asi Dayan), all other actors were unfortunately not in their best. The role of the elder Blind girl, played by Taly Sharon, was fresh but without any intensity as the leading role. therefore the figure she acted had become mild and low profile. There were moments and episodes that looked more like a rehearsal then a real movie. But after all it's a good point to begin from and to make big improvements in the future.


Ignoring (if possible) the tediously gratuitous marijuana smoking (which seems to be mandatory in Australian government-funded films) the cast of this movie gives a reasonably credible performance. That's a far as it goes. The rest is simply awful. The plot's overburdened with "wow" symbolisms which are meant to look good on film but go nowhere. A gross example is the giant peach float, obviously left over from a town parade and donated by the local canning factory. It was just too tempting to waste what was hopefully a free, but nevertheless irrelevant, prop! The peach is given a cursory, unexplained wash-down at one stage but that's where it ends.

Similarly, the contrived "black spot" road sign where Steph's parents were killed, is intended to symbolize the eventual escape from her past, but her escape to what? She's had a pretty good deal where she was, especially considering her visual disability and the unending, loving patience and care of her understanding young female guardian.

The Guinness' prize for corny melodrama, however, goes to the characterization of Alan. Alan successfully aspires to the noble role of trade union shop steward but "rats" on his fellow workers by becoming a supervisor for a wicked multi-national - hiss! hiss! As a supervisor, Alan performs the boss' villainous dirty work. He implements redundancies until, surprise, surprise, the whole plant is closed and Alan himself is left as a pathetic, unemployed failure. No cliché-free zones here, mate! Not only this, but Alan also loses the seductive Steph from the most unlikely relationship you'd encounter. If you think the plot is melodramatic and didactic, don't ask about detail. What's the significance of the shaving cream on Steph's seductive leg? Why doesn't the hotel, where the couple makes love, eventually twig that someone's gaining illegal entry to one of its grandest bedrooms and, among other pandemoniums, the sheets are regularly soiled - quite spectacularly on one occasion. Summing this movie up in one word: Avoid, Avoid, Avoid.


Yet again one of the most misunderstood Goddesses of my country has been twisted by "Westerners" who cannot understand the esoteric symbolism of the Mother Goddess in her dark forms. The Mother takes on the frightening form of Kali Mata to destroy our inner demons, and to terrify our egos. And though blood sacrifice is given to Kali and Durga, the events depicted in this film are just absurd. The Mother takes on a wrathful form to be wrathful to our inner demons, limitations, and ego when no other form will suffice. It's also in her wrathful form that she burns away all your Karmas in the "Smashan" fires that you cultivate in your heart for her to dance on if you love her, and she will bring you to reality and truth. Reality and truth has a dark side as well as light, which serves a purpose. The Mother is the embodiment of the physical Universe as well, she is Nature. Nature can be cruel and destructive to maintain balance. You cannot have growth and life without death and destruction. Kali represents the force of destruction for the purpose of new growth and life both mundane and spiritual in the universe. It's very outrageous to me that people who know nothing of India or it's divinity can just take one of our beloved Goddesses and use her like a cheap prostitute to make some low-budget, talentless horror film. How dare they take our beloved Mother and portray her as a horror that makes people chop their eyelids off!? She is only horrific to those who are attached to their ego and who live in delusion , greed, anger, and other inner-demons. It's very clear to me that the person who wrote this movie must have a very serious self-deluding ego, and serious inner-demons to see Kali as so horrible and terrible. When the ego drops away she becomes a form that is enchanting, beautiful, and young, a beauty that is so enchanting to behold that she enchants the entire Universe with it. Kali Maa is an ancient Mother, not to be trifled with for the sake of entertainment, let's just hope that in her endless compassion and mercy that she does not take on wrathful form to those involved with this movie.

The audacity that Westerners have in using religions like my own, or the religions of the Caribbean Islands such as Santeria, and Vodou which are actually very positive, and other such religions to twist and exaggerate misunderstood elements that the Western mind cannot comprehend, is totally ridiculous. It's clear that there is no respect for what people live, breathe and believe in when it comes to these kind of flicks.

Kali Maa in reality is a caring and compassionate mother, whom we shed tears at her beautiful feet in devotion and love for. And I am happy that my Mother takes on wrathful form sometimes to protect her devotees from themselves and from outside forces.

Many Praises to the REAL Kali Maa, who has shown MANY the path of God and realization.


I can't understand all the hype about this movie. OK, if you like cheap splatter, you will love this movie, but if you like good stories and good actors - don't watch this. Personally i really disliked the actors in this movie, they seem to be hired straight from the street. The Dialogs are completely flat and you always know what's coming up next. The overall quality of this movie lacks of the supposable very low budget. When we saw this movie (me and 3 other people) we all had in mind, that this movie was made by some people who needed to do this, just to get their graduation at a film school - with the lowest effort. Another issue that really lessens the whole experience is the bad cam (very shaking) and the bad sound, the whole movie seems to be recored with a single microphone.


This movie was kind of interesting...I had to watch it for a college class about India, however the synopsis tells you this movie is about one thing when it doesn't really contain much cold, hard information on those details. It is not really true to the synopsis until the very end where they sloppily try to tie all the elements together. The gore factor is superb, however. Even right at the very beginning, you want to look away because the gore is pretty intense. Only watch this movie if you want to see some cool gore, because the plot is thin and will make you sad that you wasted time listening to it. I've seen rumors on other websites about this movie being based on true events, however you can not find any information about it online...so basically this movie was a waste of time to watch.


Laughed a lot - because it is so incredibly bad - sorry folks, but definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen... I know it is low budget, but anyway: the actors behave like playing in a soap, the dialogues are absolutely crappy and the last time I have seen such odd pictures was at a trash nite at some youth video festival ten years ago. I really appreciate that people gather together and shoot cheap movies, but at least a certain amount of quality should be accomplished. But at least one good thing: the first three minutes of the movie were quiet interesting and looked okay - and the score was really worth listening to. The DVD cover promised a lot, but that is by far the best this film has to offer...


Ever since I started visiting this site, and voting for movies, I have never given any movie a rating of 1. Even the disturbing "Dance! Workout with Barbie" got a 2. There is a reason for this.

Any time I find myself watching what I think is a really bad movie, I have to stop and ask myself the following question: "Is this movie really as bad as the horrific soul-sucking beast that is 'Theodore Rex'?" And I've never been able to answer "yes".

I would give anything within reason to know what crackhead said "Hey! Let's remake 'Blade Runner' with Barney in the Harrison Ford Role!" and decided it was a good idea to actually spend the time and money to commit it to film. Furthermore, I want to know what the hell kind of market they were going to sell this towards if it hadn't gone strait to video. This is that rare monster: a movie that is way too violent for kids and way too insanely stupid for adults. I'd ask "what were they THINKING?" but in this case, it might actually be redundant.

Anyhow, all you need to know is that you should only expose yourself to this monstrosity if you're one of the five or six rabid fans of "Howard the Duck", or if you are curious to see the most Evil Insane movie of all time, or you want to REALLY punish yourself.


Movies about dinosaurs can be entertaining. So can Whoopi Goldberg movies. But Whoopi AND dinosaurs?

After the first 20 minutes of "Theodore Rex", I had come to one conclusion: this movie is evil. Evil, vile, wicked and reprehensible in its spite for the audience. Nothing this bad is made by accident; this is the visual equivalent of a torture chamber.

First of all, Whoopi does not make good action movies (watch "Fatal Beauty" if you think I'm lying), but the film makers don't care - she's a tough cop here, yet again.

Seen a million cop buddy flicks this week? Well, here's number one million and one, pal.

Don't like cute, humanistic animated dinosaurs since that Spielberg TV show about them? Too bad, here's another one and he's a cop, too!

You one of those people that hates car chases, shoot-outs, sloppy dialogue, boring futuristic FX and seeing talented people (Goldberg, Mueller-Stahl, Roundtree) stuck in a movie that looks like a tax write-off? A BIG tax write-off?

And you read this review all the way to the end. You DESERVE a sequel. Seriously.

No stars, not a one. And if they really make a sequel to "Theodore Rex", Hollywood deserves to be attacked a whole herd of wise-cracking foam rubber dinosaurs.

Now, I'd pay to see that.


I was babysitting a family of three small children for a night and their mother gave me this to show for them having just grabbed it at Wal-Mart earlier in the week. All three children actually got physically ill while watching it. I'm pretty sure it was the pizza they ate, or something they all had picked up from school, but really it could have been this film. Absolutely disgusting. How any one can produce this caliber of trash is beyond me. Fortunately, I turned off the film when I noticed the children were not responding and acting strangely. For any parents out there, I strongly advise you to refrain from letting young children view this movie.


This is, without a doubt, the single worst movie ever created. There's no arguing here. This is it. End of story. The story is juvenile and sub-moronic, looking like it was created by a three-year-old fascinated with dinosaurs. The entire concept is just plain dumb. It's inconceivable how someone could possibly come up with something so stupid and think it was entertaining. The jokes are also completely lame. If you haven't seen this movie yet, consider yourself lucky. If your morbidly curious as to how bad this movie is, please don't make me describe it. Words can't express how completely awful this movie is. This isn't just bad as in being a bad movie. Even those have cohesion, if not entertainment value. This. . . This is. . . Ugh! Think of the worst story ever told and multiply its badness level by 5,000, and you still haven't come close to how awful this movie is. After giving Pokemon the Movie one point, giving this movie one point seems like nothing short of charity. That's how bad it is. Did the producers and directors even take film classes? Because this is a perfect example of how not to make a film. It looks like some amateur high on paint thinner made this film. If you rented this, please take it back and ask for a refund. And don't even think about renting it again.


No matter what anyone tells you, there is a mere fact to the word "possession" in film circles -- such as "what possessed you to greenlight this film?" Religion doesn't have anything to do with it, but common sense does. That is, if your head is clear and you are of sound mind to make a judgment.

On many levels I tried to rationalize where this film would entertain....or even interest the average consumer. The star? The story? The unique idea? A buddy movie that kids would love with a dinosaur and a black woman? On, my goodness! I am sure when this was an "idea", it sounded good. But somewhere during the course of development...someone should have pointed out where the idea could not translate into a piece of entertainment anyone would wish to watch or pay for...unless they were very much deeply under the influence of alcohol or drugs and saw something the rest of us could not see.

Regardless, this is a complete mess. Mess, mess - sin and a mess.

Who cares about the plot (what plot?) et al. Whoopie got a paycheck, but I would have been embarrassed to take it. I sure hope she fired her agent/manager/publicist over this career move. Obviously not, she went on to make more bad films. And more bad films. Sad.


This movie was astonishing. It is beyond atrocious. I often get together with a group of friends and go to the movie store to find awful movies to watch for their comedic value. My friend suggested this one, but as we watched it, people began to leave. I really wanted to finish it, just so that I could say that I had, but I was unable to. It's that bad. Horrible running gags, lame acting. The main characters are an annoying dinosaur klutz and Whoopi Goldberg. I would rather watch Costener's The Postman twelve times in a row than see a fraction of this movie again. I think they try to deal with some dinosaur discrimination issues, but the part of the movie that really stands out is the dinosaur constantly knocking things over with his tail, and then guffawing about it. It hurts. Watch it if you're an aspiring masochist, otherwise, leave this one alone.


What a mess!! Why was this movie made? This, and other movies of its "caliber" should be teaching tools on how not to make a movie. Children may like it, but anyone over 10 may or will disapprove. To make matters worse was the fact that such great talent like Whoopi Goldberg and Armin Mueller Stahl were entirely wasted in a film unworthy of any notice.


From the What Was She Thinking? file: Whoopi Goldberg plays a cop in the future who is teamed with a talking dinosaur (!) for a crime case involving a madman who wants to start another ice-age. Straight-to-tape oddity is embarrassing and ridiculous, a high-concept in search of itself. Apparently this was a labor of love for its writer-director, Jonathan Betuel (who also served as one of the producers); sadly, the end results are anemic, to be charitable. Goldberg's mere presence on-screen can often spark good will and laughter no matter how poor the script, but here she's drowning and you can see the unfunny results. NO STARS from ****


Poor Whoopi Goldberg. Imagine her at a friend's dinner party, and she adds a comment to the in-depth political discussion going on. People just look at her and say, "Oh what would YOU know, you were the star of 'Theodore Rex'". How could anyone take her seriously after she lowered herself to be the star of this appalling piece of crap? Even little kids would be cringing in horror at this Thing. It reminded me of a particularly bad episode of 'Sigmund And The Sea Monsters'. Actually, come to think of it, 'Sigmund' was vastly superior to this.

And however did it get made? By plying the producer with an illegal substance before telling him about it? Watch this hideous abomination at your own peril.


I watch LOTS of bad films, LOTS!!!!!! It's kind of a hobby, really. Almost every Saturday nite a group of friends and I get together and watch trash from around the globe - ANYTHING. Turkish super hero movies, vampire flicks from Brazil, Italian gorilla transplant movies, Kevin Costner films, ANYTHING (except maybe Raising Helen) but Ihave never seen a WORST film than THEODORE REX. Never. And it's not even entertainingly bad in an Ed Wood kinda way - it just SUCKS. Now this film was famous in Hollywood at the time it was made because Whoopi took off the gloves and made it clear to the press and anyone else who would listen that she HATED THIS PIECE OF CRAP = she tried to get out of her contract, she whined, she moaned but nonetheless they pour her fat butt into this leather skin tight futuristic cop uniform that is ghastly to see, yikes!!!! And you can just see her seething during takes - doing everything but looking off camera for her agent so she can scream at him. The dinosaur has about three facial expressions and the script is so horrible a third grade class could do a better job if promised cookies.


These reviews that claim this movie is so bad its good are going way overboard with that one. This movie does not have the guilty pleasure badness that Leonard Part 6, Battlefield Earth and Gigli had. Those movies were entertaining in their awfulness but this pile of dinosaur dung is so bad its painful. I haven't been in this much pain watching a bad movie since I watched Baby Geniuses and Superbabies. Before I start the review let me tell you the story. Theodore Rex is a $35 million dollar bust The New Line Cinema refused to put in theaters. They cut the losses sending it straight to video making it the most expensive straight-to-video movie in decades. Whoopi caved in to be in this disaster after a huge paycheck.

Plot: a millionaire clones dinosaurs so he can launch missiles at the sun which would kill mankind and start another Ice Age. A female cop named Katie Coltrane and an idiotic dinosaur named Theodore Rex reluctantly team up to stop him after the death of a buddy dinosaur.

The plot is given to you in the beginning of the movie which robs the movie of all its mystery. Then you have to deal with the fact that this movie is actually quite awful. Whoopi looks agitated and is trying to wing it with her performance but to no avail. Theodore Rex is flat out annoying and his bumbling behavior wears thin after five minutes on screen. Most of the jokes revolve around him threatening to bite people and hitting people with his tail(on accident and on purpose). I thought Burglar was bad but it takes a backseat to Theodore Rex: the worst movie of Whoopi's career.

Don't let anybody tell you this monstrosity is bad enough to be enjoyable. I didn't see that when I watched this movie. All I saw was a train wreck that was written by people that must have had some sick admiration for movie Howard The Duck. The humor is on that level and Theodore Rex looks like the inbred cousin of Barney. Utterly painful from start to finish.


From watching only the trailer to Theodore Rex, you would think this is a bad buddy cop comedy with Whoopi Goldberg and a guy in a dinosaur costume. That is true, but this is mostly a futuristic story, which looks a lot like Batman Forever with it's direction style and weird character designs. It was mismarketed, and should have been marketed as a futuristic tale, instead of just a lame cop comedy. Whether or not this movie is mismarketed, it's still a horrible movie.

In the future, dinosaurs have been brought back to life through amazing technology, and they talk and walk around like humans. Teddy is a dinosaur detective who is never taken seriously, but after a dinosaur is murdered, he's given the case to work on, but he has to be partners with the toughest cop of them all, Katie Coltrane (Whoopi Goldberg). It's up to this mismatched duo to solve the murder, and it's up to the audience to stay awake long enough to make it through this piece of crud.

Teddy starts the picture as a normal acting character, but by the end he is unbearable to listen to. For some reason along with being a detective, he's also a bad comedian and a bad impersonator. He does imitations of famous people and accents, and has some truly awful lines. Whoopi blames him for farting and he says, "It's not my butt trumpet!" Wow! What a puerile, immature line, even for a kid's movie of this caliber. Whoopi is also annoying and rude to everyone. I was hoping Teddy would bite her head off the entire length of the film.

This movie never knew what it wanted to be. When the futuristic scenes and action occur, there is no comedy or humor. In any non-action scenes, the characters try to be as funny as they can, which just results in nonstop straight faced boredome. The action scenes don't work as they're too weird and not violent enough, and as stated earlier, the comedy is just a bunch of massacred jokes. Nothing ever works here.

Having a dinosaur/human detective duo seems like a pretty original movie, if nothing else. Nope! This movie is a huge rip-off of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Just replace dinosaurs with cartoons, and set it in the future, and it's the exact same plot. A man is killed, a dinosaur is killed. A dinosaur and detective solve the murder, a toon and detective solve the murder. The bad guys in Roger Rabbit are Christopher Lloyd and weasels. The bad guys here are a guy who sounds like Christopher Lloyd and guys who act just like the weasels. The club scene in Roger Rabbit where Jessica Rabbit walks down the stage is imitated with dinosaurs. This is a huge rip-off of a much better movie!

Overall, this is a bad movie, not even deserving of it's straight to VHS stature.

My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG for mild violence, language and crude humor.


Do not see this movie if you value your mind. At the end of our collective viewing, me and my friends estimated that we each lost 5% of our brains during its course. The only person involved with its making that was not clinically insane was the set designer.

Most movies leave a bad taste in your mouth. I realize now that instead of a feeling of revulsion, this movie has bred a deep hatred within me. I hate this movie so very, very much.

Some might say this movie is not meant to be taken seriously. If only it didn't take itself seriously. But it does. The plot is a warmed over version of Blade Runner-esque universe melded with the cheap rubber suits so prevalent in bad dinosaur movies. The dialogue is not only puerile and meaningless but often literally painful. Whoopee Goldberg isn't even trying, but George Newbern as the voice of Theodore Rex is like fingernails on the soul. And whether its Juliet Landua with her off again on again British accent or Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft) as the blustering Commissioner, you will sink into an ever increasing sense of incredulity and disillusionment.

I recommend this movie only to anyone who wishes to see the depths of stupidity to which mankind may fall.


I watched this movie when Joe Bob Briggs hosted Monstervision on TNT. Even he couldn't make this movie enjoyable. The only reason I watched it until the end is because I teach video production and I wanted to make sure my students never made anything this bad ... but it took all my intestinal fortitude to sit through it though. It's like watching your great grandmother flirting with a 15 year old boy ... excruciatingly painful.

If you took the actual film, dipped it in paint thinner, then watched it, it would be more entertaining. Seriously.

If you see this movie in the bargin bin at S-Mart, back away from it as if it were a rattlesnake.


Wow... what would you do with $33m? Let me give you a choice; you can either a) shred it and flush it down the toilet or b)make a film based on the premise of Whoopi Goldberg as a hard nut futuristic cop partnered with a rubber dinosaur who uses terms like "I didn't butt trumpet" and blows raspberries on the basis that this is funny. That's right, you would choose the option that has more merit - flushing down the toilet.

This has to be seen to be believed. I cannot even find the words to describe how bad this film is. It doesn't even fit into the "so bad - it's good" category. I actually have it on the television as I write - and whilst watching I felt the need to come onto IMDb and register my disgust.

Considering Jurassic Park was made a couple of years before, how on earth did they think that audiences would any longer tolerate a man dressed in a rubber suit? WG should have simply walked and damn the consequences. Everyone concerned will go to hell for this criminal waste of money.

I have to stop writing - I am about to implode.


This movie was amazingly bad. I don't think I've ever seen a movie where every attempt at humor failed as miserably. Let's see...the acting was pathetic, the "special effects" where horrible, the plot non-existant...that pretty much sums up this movie.


There have been very few films I have not been able to sit through. I made it through Battle Field Earth no problem. But this, This is one of the single worst films EVER to be made. I understand Whoopi Goldberg tried to get of acting in it. I do not blame her. I would feel ashamed to have this on a resume. I belive it is a rare occasion when almost every gag in a film falls flat on it's face. Well it happens here. Not to mention the SFX, look for the dino with the control cables hanging out of it rear end!!!!!! Halfway through the film I was still looking for a plot. I never found one. Save yourself the trouble of renting this and save 90 minutes of your life.


I must say that during my childhood I'm quite proud of a lot of the movies I've rented. The exception being Theodore Rex. Talk about the all time swindler movie in any actor's resume. Could you just imagine what Whoopie's fired agent must have told her to sign on to this piece of crap "Hey Whoop, you ever seen that show Dinosaurs, yeah well they're making a movie out of it, and you get to see Germany!" After that that agent must have referenced Star Wars a lot.

This movie was so bad I figured Whoopie must have bought out every copy of this film and had it destroyed. I just wish she could have done the same thing to my memory, because my sister still gives me crap for watching that movie. I mean c'mon, I'll even admit I watched Mr. Nanny and Kazzam in theaters (good reasons why I gave up on both Hulk Hogan and Shaq for awhile), yet this one sticks out in my mind as the worst of my childhood, and the biggest rental regret of my life, and that was 16 years ago. I'm 24 now if you want to do the math.

Whenever I think of my all-time list of worst movies I don't even mention this one, because like a raped step-child, I try hard to repress that it ever happened. Screw you Whoopie, just be glad people only acknowledge Eddie and Sister Act 2 as your worst you lucky stiff.


I can say nothing more about this movie than: Man, this SUCKS!!!!! If you really hate yourself and want to do some severe damage to your brain, watch this movie. It's the best cure in the world for taking away happiness. When I started watching this film, I was completely happy. Afterwords I could feel my brain melting, like it was struck by molten lava. God, I HATE that stupid Dinosaur. So if you want severe brain damage: Watch this movie, it will do the trick.


Joe Don Baker. He was great in "Walking Tall" and had a good bit-part in "Goldeneye", but here in "Final Justice" all hope is gone...the dark side has won.

As with most of humanity, my main experience with this one was on MST3K, and what an experience it was! Mike and the robots dig their claws deep into Baker's ample flesh and skewer this flick completely. It's obvious they were just beginning with "Mitchell" on their anti-Joe Don kick and here lies their continuation on a theme.

It makes for a funny experience, though: there are plenty of choice riffs. My favorites - "John Rhys-Davies for sale", "It's 'Meatloaf: Texas Ranger'", "none of them are sponge-worthy", "Why was she wearing her prom dress to bed", and my favorite - "'Son of a...'? What? What was he the son of: son of a PREACHER MAN?"

By itself, "Final Justice" is, as Joe Don puts it in the movie, "a big fat nada". But here, it actually has some entertainment value. You get a chance, catch THIS version of "Final Justice".

Two stars for "Final Justice". Ten for the MST3K version ONLY.

Oh, and try not to visit Malta when Joe Don's in town.


In short, the movie had a little bit of a weak 1st act with some forced acting and a somewhat disjointed rhythm and pacing, somewhat of a decent 2nd act that managed to build some tension and intrigue despite some inconsistent pacing and some inferior performances by the cast, and the 3rd act ... there virtually wasn't ANY 3rd act!

Regarding the 3rd act, the movie just abruptly ends. There is no resolution and no path down from the climax of the 2nd act, so there wasn't much of a 3rd act. The bad guys die and that's that; the end credits roll. There is nothing to show what happens to the protagonist and the supporting characters and so on. The audience would've likely left the theater after the movie, asking "that's it?" A real letdown.

Music was composed by David Bell which worked adequately enough to serve the film most of the time, but it's certainly nothing outstanding. It's just functional, but achieves this by being merely generic and derivative. It is also apparent that the score is VERY dated with the use of synthesized timpani for some of the percussion. What least impressed me about the score is that some moments of tension heralds music cues sounding like they were ripped off of James Horner from "48 HRS." and "Commando," particularly the brass.

In all, the film had potential as the basic story itself is good, but the execution was lackluster with mediocre direction, weak acting, and somewhat inconsistent pacing.

There was virtually no 3rd act to properly finish the story, and this omission is major and unforgivable as it doesn't allow the movie to end satisfactorily. This could either be the screenplay or, possibly, the production had to cut out filming or editing the 3rd act into the finished movie due to budget constraints (but I'm speculating as to why there isn't a 3rd act). Whatever the reason, the abrupt ending really hurts the movie overall.

This is good for a view if you're curious and you can get the movie for VERY cheap as well as to learn the reason WHY you need to have the 3 acts (beginning, middle, end) if you write screenplays and make movies.

Otherwise, you might not want to waste your time unless you can get the MST3K version to at least get some laughs out of it.


After apprehending the man responsible for the murder of his boss, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, III, is assigned the task of taking the killer back to Italy. On the way, however, the plane is diverted to Malta. Not long after landing, the killer escapes. Now, and with little help from the Maltese police, Deputy Sheriff Geronimo is out to recapture a murderer. But will his "shoot first, take names later" brand of Texas justice work in a foreign country?

Let me get this out right up front, I've seen Final Justice both with and without the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary. I've seen the scenes that were cut that help make the movie a more coherent whole. And I've seen the cut-up TV version that was used for MST3K. Having said that, I've got to admit that I much prefer the MST3K version. Why? Because Final Justice is one lousy movie. The MST3K commentary helps make it much more palatable. On its own, it's a real snoozer of an action movie with corny dialogue (often delivered with such thick Italian accents that it's impossible to understand), bad acting, weak direction, gigantic plot holes, and most everything else you'll find in a bad movie. And if most of Final Justice wasn't "so bad, it's good", it would be one terribly dull movie on top of everything else. So, yes, I enjoy the often very funny MST3K commentary over the bad movie on its own.

My main sticking points with the MST3K commentary and with most of the reviews I've read on Final Justice, however, involve the criticisms of Joe Don Baker. The main weaknesses in Baker's performance actually have nothing to do with his size or the wardrobe choices of his character or any of the other jokes flung in his direction. Instead, I think much of it is has to do with the poor decision to cast him in the lead in the first place. Joe Don Baker has always struck me as a decent enough actor, but he's not the kind of guy I would call an "action hero" by any stretch of the imagination. He's more of a sidekick as he demonstrated with solid performances in a couple of James Bond movies. Or if you really want to blame someone for the problems with Final Justice, point your finger at director Greydon Clark. Clark's resume can't begin to compare with Baker's. So I say, "Lay off Joe Don Baker!"


The only words you need fear more than Joe Don Baker if your thinking of watching a film are Greydon Clark , and if they are both there , run for your life . However this is a very funny film because they actually take themselves seriously ! It starts out bad and goes downhill from there , repeated scenes , the Good The Bad and The Ugly like shootout will have you rolling on the floor with laughter .Yes , he's the best deputy sheriff in Texas , tracking a mafia hit-man to Malta as only he can . He makes his own rules , does things his own way , all the while wearing cowboy boots and sidearms cowboy style . You want to see a bad but funny film ? Go ahead on , its your move !


Two qualifiers right up front: I actually think Joe Don Baker can be good or even great with the right material and the right director (the "Cape Fear" remake, a small role in "Goldeneye", "Walking Tall"). And I even liked Baker in "Mitchell", because he was playing an anti-hero who was SUPPOSED to be unlikeable. Yes, MST3K's coverage was hilarious, but they took a lot of cheap shots at Baker - that he didn't deserve - to keep things lively and entertaining - he was appropriate to the level and tone of the movie, and he was the best part of the movie.

"Final Justice" seems to be more of the same, but in spite of the exotic locations and the "cowboy frontier justice" theme, it is quite a bit weaker than "Mitchell". And the main reason is that Baker's character, as written, is an idiot. The movie has the conceit that because Baker embodies old style frontier machismo, he challenges his opponents to old style mano-a-mano quick-draw contests. And because he's so tough and macho, he always wins, even when he's hurt, wounded, outnumbered, etc.

That's a conceit with a lot of potential (it worked for Gary Cooper), even if it condemns the film to "B" movie status. But Baker is so frigging stupid and obsessive that he needlessly challenges three of the bad guy's henchman to a showdown in a public market, with civilians all over the place. He COULD have simply shadowed them to the chief bad guy's headquarters (which was why he was following them in the first place) and they never would have noticed. Or he could have gotten the drop on them and forced them to surrender, and gotten one of the henchmen to take him to headquarters at gun point. But no, he has to be a bush league hot dog and a macho blockhead, and so he gets a child taken as a hostage in the ensuing shootout!

This is a guy we are supposed to admire?

The whole movie is basically like this. Most of the supporting actors are somewhere between OK (the henchmen) to pretty good (the chief bad guy and his father, who are two well known European actors - they just go through the motions, but they are pros and even hamming it up they are decent). But through it all, Baker's character pulls silly , unproductive stunts and mistakes that get at least two relatively innocent people killed, plus a couple of bad guys who might have been taken alive without the use of deadly force.

On the positive side, since 90% of the movie is set on Malta or in the Mediterranean, you get to see lots of pretty scenery and lots of nice and exotic looking extras. And really, Baker himself may be on the heavy side and slightly dyspeptic, but he isn't that bad...certainly not the tub o' lard that this films critics (including Mike and the Bots in their hilarious coverage) seem to think.

In short, this movie is good for video wallpaper, but the viewer should not pay any attention to it.


I can't believe this movie was made as recently as 1984. It's got some laughable acting, not to mention one of the stupidest plots ever. Who would ever ask fat Texas sheriff Joe Don Baker to escort an Italian he illegally arrested in Mexico back to Italy? Not to mention that the title of the movie tells you pretty much nothing about it - in fact, it's about as generic a title for a wannabe action/cop film as I can think of.

I'm glad I only saw this on MST3K with Mike and the bots as a shield. They remark on the female lead's resemblance to Elaine from Seinfeld ("None of them are spongeworthy") and riff non-stop on Baker's weight. This movie probably isn't worse than "Mitchell," but Baker's reputation definitely precedes him here: when his title comes up at the beginning of the film, Tom says, "I wish I was illiterate so I wouldn't have to read that."


I can count (on one hand) the number of good movies starring Joe Don Baker. This is not one of them.

Interminable chase scenes, dim-witted dialogue, and terrible lapses in continuity made this movie a prime choice for getting the send-up on MST3K.

And that is the only way I was able to watch this...


What reviewers and MST3K left out is the best part (and only memorable scene) of this otherwise dreadful movie: There is a very good rape-in-the-shower scene committed by the bad guy (Ben Gazzara look-alike) on Maria (as mentioned, killed later through T.J.'s ineptitude). Perhaps rape is too strong a word, "prison mating ritual" may be more appropriate. The background behind this chance, yet forced meeting is the mobster who is hiding "Ben Gazzara," introduces him to the girls hanging out at his pool. The 30-ish blonde disses him, but our villain must be quite smitten by her, because the courtship is on at that point. His first move is to attempt drowning her, until his mafia don benefactor tells him to knock it off. Kind of like the girl in high school you didn't like, but still wanted to have carnal knowledge of anyway... Let's just say, he catches UP with her in the cabana later.


There are movies that are awful, and there are movies that are so awful they are deemed long-forgotten and unwatchable. Also, lots of violence and bad stuff (not just cheesy stuff; you know what I mean) add to the mix as well. What is the result of bad movies with such raunchy content? Why, "Final Justice," of course!

Remember "Mitchell?" Joe Don Baker was the star of that movie, and that was riffed by Joel and the Bots on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Now this time, with Mike taking Joel's place on the Satellite of Love (but with the same bots), that trio got to make fun of MST3K's second Joe Don Baker movie, "Final Justice." Of course, much of the naughty stuff that I mentioned was removed for television release, but still, I want to watch that episode (and "Mitchell" as well), because what does Joe Don "hate" the most? Why, none other than "Mystery Science Theater 3000!"

P.S. If you have a Big Lots nearby, check that store for the uncut tape! LOL That happened to another user!


Jimmy Dean could not have been more hammy or absurdly loutish. Hysterical if viewed through the eyes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which I rate as a 10. I mean, the sight of this obese, corn-fed hog trouncing around Malta should be enough to send you to the vomitory, if you make it that far into the film. This ugly, hysterical farce should be placed with the likes of "Booty Call", "Pumpkinhead", "Swarm", and "The Smurfs Go To Bangladesh". A -gulp- film like this proves that sometimes actors, writers, producers, etc. get behind on their mortgage, or get stoned to the point of insanity. It begs the question "who was so stupid to finance such a whale?" But then, had good judgment prevailed and "Final Justice" never was, then we wouldn't have the delightful spoof voice-over in "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"!


I guess this goes to prove that Joe Don Baker will do anything for a buck. The concept of the film wasn't very good to start with. This movie has so many bad things about it I don't know where to start. The acting is horrible. The cinematography is marginal at best. The soundtrack was pretty bad. The score is terrible. There's a reason why this movie ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I voted before I wrote this and I cannot believe that 9 people actually thought this "film" is excellent. They must have liked the two go-go dancers. Final justice would be if they locked this stinker in the film vault outside Wichita and never let anyone see it again! A 1 out of 10 rating is far better than this deserves.


Joe Don's opening line says everything about this movie. It takes place on the island of Malta (the island of pathetic men) and involves Joe Don Baker tracking down an Italian mobster. Joe Don's character is named Geronimo (pronounced Heronimo) and all he does in this movie is shoot people and get arrested over and over agin. Everyone in the movie hates him, just like everyone hates Greydon Clark. I liked an earlier Greydon picture, "Angel's Revenge" because it was a shirne for thriteen year old boys. Avoid this movie at all costs!!


From the Star of "MITCHELL", From the director of "Joysticks" and "Angel's Revenge"!!! These are taglines that would normally keep me from seeing this movie. And the worst part is that all the above mentioned statements are true!!! Ugghhh... Joe Don Baker eats every other five minutes in this film. It's like a bad remake of "Coogan's Bluff"


I didn't think it would be possible for Joe Don Baker to make a movie as bad as his stinkbomb 'Mitchell', but this one succeeds.

I wouldn't recommend this if you're a fan of Joe Don Baker's MUCH better work. But,if you like to watch fat guys sweat and really, really drawn out gun fights, you'll love this movie.


This movie was just heckled by MST3K and with good reason. First and foremost because it is a "cop" movie starring Joe Don Baker, who we all know is about as good a cop actor as Michael Jackson is a country western singer.

All the typical cop movie plot devices rear their ugly heads, bar fights, children hostages in shoot outs, bad acting, lame police chiefs, bad acting, revenge/justice, endless goons , and of course, bad acting. Don't watch this without an MST3K filter folks.


I've never been impressed by JD anyway, and Final Justice (which I hadn't seen prior to its MST3k airing) proves to be no exception. It's not that the character is any less likeable than Mitchell: it's just that there's less that Geronimo ("Call me 'Heronimo') to dislike.

In fact, one suspects that Mitchell and Final Justice were all schemes of a revenge-seeking agent of Joe Don's trying to get the "star" killed by inducing a heart attack.

Joe Don must have found a new agent, since he's now graduated to "comic relief" in James Bond movies. The problem is, it's hard to tell the difference between his comedy characters there, and his "serious" characters in his action-movies like this one.

As for the plot...umm, what plot? They repeat the same set pieces so repeatedly you'll think you were watching Groundhog's Day 2. Presumably, the fact they keep using the same scene of Geronimo getting out of jail is supposed to be comic relief of some sort. Ummm, yeah, whatever.

On the plus side, the Malta scenery is pretty gorgeous, so that kicked it up to a 2 for me. One suspects this flick set Maltese tourism back a couple of decades, though.


Sergio Leone spins in his grave... If there was any film that tramples upon a man's life work its this one. The lead character's "lone wolf" bravado is uninspiring and lame, and the script was apparently written by a monkey with an eight grade education. Whoever's idea this was should be horse whipped. The only reason I'm spending time trashing it is because there's a 10 line minimum. Sergio Leone's family should sue, not because its crap, but because now it's immortalized as crap by MST 3000. Shame. Disgust. I blame Hollywood...at least Gary Busey makes crap that wont offend anyone but cocaine users and weapon experts...this film is pure blasphemy.


Final Justice has the great Joe Don Baker running around Texas, shooting people who shoot people. Then he's off to Malta where he shoots more people. He gets locked up many times for shooting people. Then he gets into a gunfight with the bad guy, who is dressed like a monk. There is a boat chase, and Joe Don winds up in jail again. Finally Joe Don, with the help from Elaine from "Seinfeld" kill the bad guy, blow up a boat or two and someone gets shot with a flare. All this and a catchy theme song, just like Mitchell!


This movie was not made by Who fans. Most of the great moments that fans will look forward to in the half-hour Tommy medley are simply missed or glossed over: In Christmas, they didn't show Daltry's screams after the line "Tommy doesn't know what day it is...", they showed almost *no* Townsend guitar shots in Pinball Wizard, there were excess crowd shots during the best moments of Go to the Mirror, and worst of all, in the second half of We're Not Gonna Take It (Listening to You), they robbed us of almost every shot of Pete's blazing guitar chords. Huge chunks of the film are shot from in back of the band. It's a very frustrating film to watch, and doesn't deliver the goods. I don't know if director Murry Lerner is just not a Who fan, or worse, for him at least, if he *is* a Who fan and this is all the *eight* cameras could deliver for him. To its credit, there are some rare numbers before Tommy, as well as some faves, that are very well shot, and sometimes the editing is brilliant. This might be enough to make some viewers happy, as long as you're not anticipating Tommy. The sound overall was mediocre in the transmission I watched from DirecTV; it may be different on video or DVD.


What a boring film! To sum it all up, its was basically just Nana Patekar beating up his daughter-in-law Karisma Kapoor, while she tried to flee from the village, with her son. Can someone say BORING??? The concept wasn't too bad, but it was poorly executed. The Canadian locales, and some of the village scenes were nicely shot. However, overall the cinematography came up short. The story could have been great, but the movie just seemed to drag on. There is only so much stupidity a person can take, let alone three bloody hours of it.

The best part of the whole movie was the song "Ishq Kamina", and that was only five minutes long. Other than that, this movie was a piece of crap.


I saw this movie by accident yesterday at a cinema. I had some hopes for the movie because I really like Spoorloos (The Vanishing) and the book it's based on. The movie starts out okay as it at first seems to be a nice thriller. Quickly though the movie becomes a mess with uninteresting plotlines, characters that are never fleshed out and nobody in the audience cared for (like Marjoke) and terrible editing. The movie has fade to black bits that are just way too long, a messed up chronology that jumps back and forth and lots of scenes that just don't add anything to the story and could easily have been dropped. After suffering through the story you'll get treated to one of the worst endings I've seen in a very long. It should also be mentioned that the movie has lots of explicit sex scenes which you're probably used to if you watch a lot of dutch movies. It's hard to mention any good things about this movie. About a third of the audience had already walked out of the theater halfway into the movie and I didn't hear a kind word after the movie was over. Avoid this movie at all costs. it really destroyed any faith I had left in the dutch movie industry.


With movies like this you know you are going to get the usual jokes concerning ghosts. Eva as a ghost is pretty funny. And the other actors also do a good job. It is the direction and the story that is lacking. That could have been overlooked had the jokes worked better. The problem only is that there aren't many jokes. Sure I laughed a couple of times. Apart from the talking parrot there wasn't an ounce of creativity to be noticed in the movie. I blame the director not using the premise to it's full potential. Eva certainly has the comedic skill to show more but did not get the opportunity to do so. Overall this movie is ideal for a Sunday afternoon. Other than that it can be skipped completely.


I have to admit that Over Her Dead Body actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting, my mom wanted to see it, so I rented it. I figured just to go ahead and see the horror before my eyes, but actually this wasn't too bad. I was just expecting this horrific movie, but it seems like the writers meant no harm, but the casting of Eva Longoria(Parker, sorry), she seems a little off set for the movie. I think I may have found it to be a little better without her, just she does annoy me. But Paul Rudd and Lake Bell had a decent chemistry that made the film somewhat likable. But you have to admit, there was no point to this movie, it was one of those quick paychecks for the actor type of thing. The movie could've been funnier if someone had really paid attention to it and had a better cast.

Henry just lost his bride to be, Kate, who was killed by an ice sculpture on their wedding day. But when his sister takes him to a psychic, Ashley, Henry falls for her, but Kate is haunting her from beyond the grave. Kate is jealous and doesn't want Henry to move on so quickly and she will make sure that Ashley doesn't get him by torturing her day and night with her rambles, believe me, with Kate's voice, that's scary.

Over Her Dead Body is an alright movie, not sure if it's worth the money, but I'd give it a rental for you if you want to see it or are curious. Eva Longoria just doesn't have enough star power to make the film work, no offense to those who love her, she just belongs on the small screen over the silver screen. Not to mention the character of Ashley, she seems still not too likable with everything she pulls, or her "gay" friend, Dan, just again, not really likable. Just with some re-writing and proper attention, this film could have been better, but instead we get the average predictable romantic comedy that will leave with with an empty feeling.

4/10


The lovely Eva Longoria Parker plays Kate, who dies after an ice angel crushes her before the "I do's" with fiancé Henry(Paul Rudd). After two years Henry has yet to move on and his sister Chloe(Lindsay Sloane)is very concerned. Chloe arranges for Henry to talk with an attractive psychic Ashley(Lake Bell). Ashley is to contact Kate's spirit hoping to help Henry get on with his life. When the psychic starts getting attracted to Henry, Kate's ghost appears to nip the romance in the bud. There are some funny situations; but if you've seen the trailers you have seen the substance of the film. Also in the cast: Stephen Root, Jason Biggs, William Morgan Sheppard and Wendi McLendon-Covey. I personally thought that Bell stole the show from Parker. And Biggs as usual a pain in the butt. Still this movie was over-hyped.


"So there's this bride, you see, and she gets crushed to death by this statue that falls on her on the day of her wedding. Then, get this, a year later, her former fiancé falls in love with a beautiful psychic and then, that beautiful psychic gets haunted by the ghost of the disgruntled dead bride who wants to keep her from stealing her boyfriendhe heit'll be hilarious!." Polite chuckling.

This, I like to envision, is how Jeff Lowell, the man who dreamed up "Over Her Dead Body," presented his concept to the studio execs over there at New Line Cinema. The big mystery is how those very same corporate bigwigs could then turn right around and green light the project, allowing Lowell to direct the film as well as write the screenplay.

For if you think that no movie could ever possibly be as bad as this original premise sounds, then clearly you have another think coming. The only way in which it might have worked is if the writer had simply gone crazy with it and turned it into a no-holds-barred satirical farce. Instead, wanting to ensure that he delivered a fuzzy, inoffensive and warmhearted romantic comedy, Lowell engages in boring half-measures every step of the way, tamping down the absurdity in favor of drab conventionality. Indeed, "Over Her Dead Body" is so thoroughly inept and unfunny that it's hard to know where exactly Lowell thought he was going with it. Virtually every set-up, joke and sight gag in the film is flat-footed and poorly executed, with even the actors themselves seemingly aware of their predicament. How else to explain the halfhearted, lifeless performances of Paul Rudd, Eva Langoria Parker, Lake Bell and Jason Biggs in their various roles?

I choose not to blame the actors, some of whom have proved their talents in better vehicles in the past (that is particularly the case with Rudd). But Lowell and those studio execs sure have some 'splainin' to do.


Jeff Lowell has written & directed 'Over Her Dead Body' poorly. The idea is first of all, is as stale as my jokes and the execution is just a cherry on the cake.

Minus Eva Longoria Parker there is hardly anything appealing in this film. Eva looks great as ever and delivers a likable performance.

Paul Rudd looks jaded and least interested. Lake Bell is a complete miscast. She looks manly and delivers a strictly average performance. Jason Biggs is wasted, so is Lindsay Sloane.

I expected entertainment more from this film. Sadly, I didn't get entertained.


This movie is similar to the play entitled 'Blithe Spirit' written by Noel Coward. The plot of a ghost wife and a medium are strongly linked to Coward's writing. I'm surprised that movies of this nature don't acknowledge the original writer's concept. I realize that the public may not be aware that this is a knockoff but it is.

Sad. These movies are so expensive to produce. I do perk up when a screenplay is original. I even perk up when it's an innovative way to produce a work that was previously released. There were some samples mentioned (such as Topper, etc.).

I realize that movies are still a comparatively affordable form of entertainment. However, I'm not please when the public's taste is taken for granted. In this situation, the public's taste is overlooked.

I look forward to better produced movie entertainment.

In this case. I rather see the play.


This film is shoddily-made, unoriginal garbage. I like romantic comedies sometimes. Watching a good one is like eating ice cream for dinner. It's not something you are going to do all the time, but the experience is so pleasurable that you can ignore how unwise you are being. This movie made me think about how stupid I was for continuing to remain seated for its entire running time. Everything about it screamed made on the cheap. It actually looks like they overexposed the film at certain points it is so washed out. It boasts cheesy CGI and lame sets, too.

The writing was clunky. I know that you can usually expect some plot problems in a screwball comedy, but you usually don't really care because you are laughing. This movie is so unfunny that you actually sit there and wonder about the unlikely series of coincidences and completely unbelievable behavior involved. Events were placed in the film just to move the characters from one scene to the next or to provide exposition. Sure, this is how all movies work, but you shouldn't notice that it's happening. Inelegant. That's the term I should use.

There was almost no one in the movie who was really likable. I didn't care who ended up with whom, as long as they all stayed the hell away from me, and I didn't have to listen to them talk about it anymore. Why would the only really cool character in the movie, the Paul Rudd character, want to have anything to do with the completely bitchy, condescending, control freak played by Eva Longoria? Also, almost all of the characters involved consistently picked the sleaziest solution to any situation. A straight man pretends to be gay for five years just to hang out (and bathe with) with a woman he is attracted to? The best feel-good moment they could come up with was to tack on a happy ending for the same schmoe where he gets together with Rudd's equally annoying lying, kleptomaniac sister? Lake Bell and Eva Longoria are very attractive, appealing women. Maybe they will find something better to appear in down the road.


Was this the greatest movie that I have ever seen? No. Was it the worst? No.

As a mother of four kids, it is nice to watch something that was light and amusing. It was great, but it was cute.

I think that it definitely had some room to improve, but it tried.

I am not sure if this movie deserves the extreme level of abuse from the other reviewer. They obviously do not care for Eva Longoria. I think that she was better in this than in The Sentinel. I think that movies are a matter of opinion. The actors play a huge role in whether it is a hit or a flop.

Maybe the cast did not work out. Maybe there were too many things going on.

I just wanted to speak up for an average movie, not a terrible one. It could just be a chick flick. Kind of like the movie The Split-Up or French Kiss. My husband still talks about those. :)


There have been some funny movies about spirits to come out of Hollywood. Cary Grant was an angel in "The Bishop's Wife" (1947). Of course the best were the Topper movies in the late '30s-early '40s. And, more recently, Warren Beatty's "Heaven Can Wait" (1978), which was a remake of 1941's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan." These were well-written, funny, entertaining comedies, all of which centered around supernatural creatures like ghosts and angels.

Now comes writer-director Jeff Lowell, making his feature film debut with a story of an unlikable, bitchy young woman, Kate (Eva Longoria Parker), who gets killed on her wedding day and then comes back to harass the fledgling spiritualist, Ashley (Lake Bell) who is falling for Kate's fiancé, Henry (Paul Rudd). One thing that is clear at the outset: Longoria Parker is no Constance Bennett (Marion Kerby in the first two "Topper" films), who is the standard against whom all female ghosts are measured.

There is a line right at the beginning when Henry's sister, Chloe (Lindsay Sloane) tells Henry, "You don't smile." That aptly described my situation throughout this film.

The main problem with the film is that the script just isn't very funny. But it's made worse by Longoria Parker's presence that just rubbed me the wrong way every time she appeared on the screen. Just to start out with, compounding her lack of comedic talent, she is covered with so much pancake makeup, who knows what she really looks like? Kate gets killed while setting up for her wedding by a falling frozen statue. She's so unreasonable that the angel who instructs her about what her afterlife is about walks out on her (well, she actually just fades out), so Kate finds herself back on earth as a ghost without knowing what her mission is.

Chloe wants Henry to snap out of the funk into which he has naturally descended after Kate's death (from what I saw of Kate, he should have felt a wonderful relief), so she introduces him to Ashley, who really doesn't know what she's doing as a spiritualist (she is also a cateress to make ends meet), to see if she can get Henry back in touch with Kate. There's a lot of meshugaas that goes on.

The vacuity of the film is epitomized by a "B" story revolving around Ashley's assistant, Dan (Jason Biggs). This is thrown in near the end, but the way Ashley handles it indicates that she's as much of a boob as Kate. Since Dan is apparently attracted to both of these severely flawed women, he deserves whatever he gets.

Eventually Kate appears to Ashley and the fun should begin. It doesn't, and more's the pity because in other hands this could have been pretty funny. As it is, Norman Z. McLeod, Constance Bennett, Roland Young, Alan Mowbray, and Co. must be turning over in their graves to see this is what their brilliance in the first two "Topper" films has wrought.


This movie is one of the worst ones of the year. The main characters have no chemistry and the acting is horrible. Paul Rudd is the only one that has any talent, and the only one that is not annoying. I have never watched Desparte Housewives, so I don't know how Eva Longoria is on that show, but in this movie she was horrible. It's like she knows nothing about acting. All her character does is whine throughout the film, and she can't pull off being a b**** and still be entertaining. And the other girl, Lake Bell, displays little emotion and it's like you are looking at the cue cards as she reads them.

As for the story, it is so cookie cutter. It goes from point A to B with little surprise. So much more could have been used with Kate as a ghost. The plot should have revolved more around her and the things she does as a spirit.

FINAL VERDICT: It's not worth watching.


I had to shut this off after about 15 execrable moments..

I was hoping it might improve,

What I saw was badly acted, directed & written.

This movie should never even have been released directly to DVD,.

The lead character who is a bride top be from HELL has an huge Ice sculpture fall on her killing her. She was such a revolting person I was not even sorry for her. She winds up there in a sort of heaven, & was still repulsive, I left shortly after.

Eve Longoria portrays her & I hope I never see her again, she cant even act.She is just plain annoying.

Paul Rudd an actor who normally can do no wrong also was in this dud.

Jason Biggs ( no longer a teen) is also present,

I do like comedies BUT not stupid ones about stupid people.

Rating: * (out of 4) 30 points (out of 100) IMDb 2 (out of 10)


Henry, a veterinarian (Paul Rudd), and his bossy fiancé, Kate (Eva Longoria) are looking over the last minute arrangements for their reception. It is the morning of their wedding and Kate is in a frenzy, giving the caterers an earful about her demands for food presentation. But, horror of horrors, the "angel" ice sculpture, ordered by Kate, arrives without wings. In an ensuing fight with the sculptor, the heavy "ice" maiden falls on Kate and sends her to the hereafter. Now, one year later, Henry's sister arranges for a psychic to tell the young vet that Kate would have wanted him to starting dating other ladies and move forward. Yet, the lovely medium, Ashley (Lake Bell) becomes interested in Henry herself, much to the chagrin of her catering partner (Jason Biggs). More importantly, Kate returns from the other side to create havoc for Ashley, as she has no intentions of letting another woman get her hands on Henry. Can anything be done to return Kate into heaven for good? This is an abysmal romantic comedy, one of the worst this dedicated fan has ever seen. No, its not the cast, as they try gamely to make things work. Longoria is beautiful and funny as the overbearing fiancé and Bell has an offbeat style and humor that is likewise infectious. Biggs, a funny thespian, too, is totally wasted. As for Rudd, a very gifted performer (see Anchorman, Knocked Up, or Clueless, please) he tries hardest of all and, in truth, is the main reason to see this clunker. His charm, looks, and easy wit go a long way in making the film bearable. But, nothing can turn a mindless script and terrible direction into a winner, absolutely nothing. So, if you are a dyed-in-the-wool fan of romantic comedy, think long and hard before you fork over any money for this one. Even were free tickets to fall into your lap, be warned that this movie is a near-death experience for those who adore love-and-laugh cinema.


I confess to have quite an uneasy feeling about ghosts movies, and while I sometimes enjoy the genre when it comes to horror, but when it comes to comedies, they really need to be crazy to be funny. 'Over Her Dead Body' seems to take afterlife a little bit too seriously, and fails in my opinion from almost any aspect I can think about. The story is completely unbelievable of course, and did not succeed to convince me either in the comic or in the sentimental register. The choice of the principal actresses was awful. While Paul Rudd is at least handsome and looks like a nice guy, the taste in ladies of his character seems to need serious improvement as Eva Longoria seems too aged (sorry) for him, and Lake Bell seems too unattractive (sorry again). A romantic story without good enough reason for romance is due to failure from start. Jason Biggs and Lindsey Sloane were actually better but they had only supporting roles. The rest is uninteresting and uninspired, with flat cinematography and cheap gags borrowed from unsuccessful TV comedies. Nothing really worth watching, nothing to remember.


this movie was terrible. i thought with all the some what decent actors, it would be better. don't waste your time. Eva longoria parker was awful. she should stick to desperate housewives. Paul Rudd is becoming a B actor. the mess he made in the movie i could never be your woman was the epitome of what i'm saying. and lake bell she was cute but definitely in need of some more acting lessons. watch just like heaven with Reese Witherspoon...it was a tad better. or any other ghost movie. you will be grateful to not have wasted your precious time. PS i love you is also a good from beyond the grave romance! time to start watching movies rated over 7 out of 10 and listen to the people who have already seen it.


Obnoxious Eva Longoria dies on her wedding day when an ice sculpture of an angel (without wings) falls on her off the back of a truck and kills her. She is then tries to ruin the relationship of her ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, a psychic who can see her.

Obvious unoriginal movie wouldn't be bad in a clichéd sort of way, except that Longoria's character is hateful and obnoxious that she drains all of the fun out of the film. Its like having your ears cleaned with sandpaper. To be fair Longoria, nor anyone else in the cast or crew, isn't the problem, its the god awful script that sinks the proceedings. Its just really really stupid.


Well this is the first post am ever commenting on IMDb., do you get it, this movie has made me come and warn all the good souls who will stop ever experimenting with movies.

As most of them have given their comments I thought of watching this movie because it seemed to have some decent actors(though having read worst critics against this movie) I thought of experimenting it assuming it to be some comedy flick., Well it all started well with some ahem., comedies.... then it all started going pathetic... man you can believe your self, you wud feel like going and banging your head each and every time the pathetic looking woman called the heroine of the movie is made helpless...Huh~~ Well how much can a person digest a sick all POSSESSIVE witch kinda ghost trying to do all she can to irritate you and stop you from what you are doing.

The next worst thing about the movie is, the "ZOMBIE" Hero, yes as he looses his fiancé he roams around like a Goat, with black marks under his eyes., and with the hero's "terribly stupid" sister.. you wud be bleeding from head to toe if you attempted and succeeded by completely watching this movie~!


i didn't even bother finishing the movie because i was so bored i thought i was going to pass out i was watching it in the movie theaters and me and my friends just got tired so we got up and left to another movie if i ever have to sit through 2 min. of that movie again i think I'm going to shoot myself...and i do know the whole entire movie because my friend told me what happened at the end and i wasn't surprised at all i mean who didn't know she was going to do the right thing and let him be happy i mean for real you would have to be a complete idiot not to know that. i know i didn't miss anything and if somebody ask's me to see that movie i would say "over my dead body".


Much of "Over Her Dead Body" is so painfully unfunny that I was actually squirming in my seat out of embarrassment for the actors.

Eva Longoria proves that she can't carry a film in this terrible romantic comedy, and further, that she doesn't really even have any comedic timing. She's grating and annoying as a ghost who returns to earth to keep a cooky psychic from dating her widower fiancé. The fiancé is played by Paul Rudd, drippy and charmless, while the psychic is played by Lake Bell, bringing the movie whatever anemic energy it has. I felt most sorry for Bell, as she appears to have some comic abilities and was working overtime in an effort to make the material work. Unfortunately, she is up against the insurmountable task of making any movie that features Jason Biggs tolerable, and she is dragged down with the rest of the cast like Leo DiCaprio at the end of "Titanic."

"Over Her Dead Body" actually pi**ed me off, because of its laziness and utter lack of effort. I started to think of all the interesting projects that can't get funded because vast amounts of money are being funneled into bland crap like this. Seriously, does Hollywood think movies like this are good enough? How stupid do they really think the movie-going public is?

Grade: F


You know you are in trouble watching a comedy, when the only amusing parts in it are from the Animal cast. It is a pity then that the parrot, Cat & Dog were only in support & not the other way around, as the humans in it were pretty abysmal throughout.

If I were you, Paul, Eva, Lake (what sort of name is that), Jason, & Lindsay, I would forget this acting lark & do something else, as all of you are as funny as watching paint dry, & awful actors to boot.

The main gag in the film is one of the characters shouting, me not Gay, which is funny as if you weren't, you might change your mind if you had to put up with the three bossy, tedious & dare I say very plain women leads in the film.

The worst film I have seen in years, & hopefully never see one as bad again, though I expect not.


Sorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!!


This really was the worst movie I have ever seen. Michael Vartan is hot, but who is this woman? And she looks absolutely awful through the whole movie, the hair is so bad! They talk in like monotone voices and there is nooo chemistry. The cover of the DVD does not even remotely come close to what the movie actually is. Really, really boring. I had to fast forward through some of it because it was so painful to watch. I really want to know how i on earth anyone could think this is good? hhaha they literally just like talk and say "yeah" and there is no passion whatsoever. I could not tell at all that they were in love. I'm sorry but this was the saddest excuse for a movie I think I have ever seen.


Sure, it had some of the makings of a good film. The storyline is good, if a bit bland and the acting was good enough though I didn't understand why Olivia d'Abo had such a pronounced Australian accent if her character was supposed to have been raised in the US. My biggest problem, however, was with the wardrobe. I know as rule, the average American is considered a frumpy dresser by any self-respecting European but this was beyond that. Anna's colour combinations were positively ghastly!! And that potato sack-like, sad excuse for a coat she wore throughout the film made me break out in hives. I suppose the idea was to be as realistic as possible (how many school teachers walk around in Prada?) but simple doesn't mean an absolute lack of taste. A word to the wise...


I just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster instead.


Great movie - especially the music - Etta James - "At Last". This speaks volumes when you have finally found that special someone.


Look, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look here.


I'm a sucker for a good romance, but this one doesn't qualify as either good or a romance. I had the plot nailed down before the credits were through. With such poor dialog, plot and character development, I suggest investing your hour and a half elsehere. I had to rush out and rent Serendipity for the third time so I could get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.


Poorly structured, badly written, loaded with cliches and flat dialogue. Not a single scene shines. The actors struggle with a painfully dull scenario that manages to completely avoid any surprises, plot twists or conflict. You know from the first ten minutes where it's going.

For a movie set in NY, it has almost no feeling for the city. There are a dozen other indie movies that manage to make it seem magical on a small budget. This one seems like it was shot in Toronto.

If you cast Natasha Henstridge, why dress her in baggy sweaters? Why make Vartan look boring and drab? Where's the attraction? I felt like I was watching a sub-par Christian movie of the week it was so asexual and moralizing.

Steven Feder's big success is that he convinced people to make this bland movie.


" It had to be You" is another sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This picture is about Charlie Hudson a former police officer turned Author. When Charlie's fiancé goes out of town he's stuck with all of the wedding planning. He spends a week at a fancy hotel and meets Anna Penn a teacher who just happens to also be getting married. The two quickly become friends and set out to plan their separate weddings together. This is when the plot gets boring, Charlie falls in love with Anna and she has to choose between a safe life or Charlie. This movie rips off every romantic comedy ever made and just has you waiting for the end of the movie so you can do something else. Micahel Vartan and Natasha Henstridge give really mediocre performances which just makes this movie all the more gut wrenching to watch.


This is supposed to be well-researched and based on fact. How come therefore that it's so packed with McGovernisms. Did the people of Derry live in some kind of bizarre Philip K. Dick world in which reality was uncannily like Cracker/ Liam/ Priest? Or is McGovern an idle hack who just keeps repeating hims


Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was.

What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens.

Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space?

It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the "Wood"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!

Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him.

But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you!


Essentially a story of man versus nature, this film has beautiful cinematography, the lush jungles of Ceylon and the presence of Elizabeth Taylor but the film really never gets going. Newlwed Taylor is ignored and neglected by her husband and later is drawn to the plantation's foreman, played by Dana Andrews. The plantation is under the spell of owner Peter Finch's late father whose ghost casts a pall over Elephant Walk that becomes a major point of contention between Taylor and Finch. The elephants are determined to reclaim their traditional path to water that was blocked when the mansion was built across their right-of-way. The beasts go on a rampage and provides the best moments of action in the picture. Taylor and Andrews have some good moments as she struggles to remain a faithful wife in spite of he marital difficulties with Finch.


ELEPHANT WALK was a thoroughly dull film and I really was quite happy when finally a herd of elephants stormed through the mansion and ended this film. Considering the money and cast, you'd sure expect the film to be a lot better, though I also question the odd casting of Dana Andrews as a man who is in love with Elizabeth Taylor. It's not just the age difference but I just can't see the pair as a couple. Perhaps some of this may be the fault of substituting Miss Taylor for Vivian Leigh at the last minute (due to Miss Leigh's deteriorating mental condition)--though I also have a hard time visualizing Andrews and Leigh as well. In addition, for an English woman, Miss Taylor doesn't even seem to try using an accent.

The film begins with Peter Finch and Taylor meeting and marrying in England. Their plan is to return to Finch's tea plantation in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and at first it seems like a good life. However, there are no women to talk with and the household staff seem to resent her. On top of that, once back home, Finch behaves like a boorish jerk and Taylor is miserable. Neighbor Andrews can see this and he declares his undying passion for her. However, Taylor isn't yet ready to abandon her marriage. But, through the course of the film Finch treats Liz more and more like an object and finally she is ready to leave...when out of the blue, Cholera strikes the plantation. So it's up to Andrews, Finch and Taylor to work together to save the day--though by this point I really didn't care, as there is absolutely no chemistry between the characters, the dialog is pretty dull and you can't understand why Taylor didn't leave her weasel husband within days of arriving in this inhospitable hell.

The film isn't particularly engaging or convincing and despite a decent budget by Paramount, the film is a sluggish mess. I particularly was surprised that although the film appeared to be filmed on location, many scenes were clearly filmed in a studio with a rear projected (and grainy) shot that wasn't integrated well. In one scene, for instance, Taylor, Finch and the lot are sitting on the veranda and the grass is bright green. Then, when the picture cuts to people dancing right in front of them, the grass is brown! It's clear they really are NOT in Ceylon in this scene or the scene with the giant reclining Buddha. My advice is to skip this one or at least keep a pot of coffee nearby to keep you awake. Despite its budget, it's just not a very good or inspired film.

By the way, could Miss Taylor have been pregnant during part of this film? In some scenes (particularly at the beginning) she's wearing billowy clothes, has a double-chin and looks puffy. This isn't a criticism--after all, women do get pregnant! But if you look carefully, you'll see what I mean.

Also by the way, the basic plot in many ways is similar to GIANT--a great Taylor film indeed! It's amazing how casting and decent direction can do so much.


the author of the book, by the same title, should not have let her name be used for this movie. if you have read the book, this movie takes such a liberal interpretation of the actual events in the book and its spirit that the movie and book seem to have quite little in common except the title and some superficial details. the movie adds nothing, in terms of artistic merit, to the book's own literary achievement.

for those who have not read the book: you will also be disappointed. not only does the plot move at an incredibly slow pace, it doesn't offer anything more while it is moving slowly (like character development, for example). some viewers might be entertained by some of the graphic lesbian love scenes later on in the movie, but you might as well watch a showtime special for the stuff they show in therese and isabelle--its fairly tame and not imaginative at all.