I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.

But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.

Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.

Another thing is that it's too much "Good Guy v. Bad Guy" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.

Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.

But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.

Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic.


Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this.


I used to have a fascination with the cartoon back in college when it was being made. It had much the charm of "Get Smart". While it admittedly had its faults, it was rather enjoyable.

Naturally I was very interested in seeing the film version. That was before I saw it. Afterwords I wished it had never been made.

Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn't make the grade.

The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action! What was missing was a story and treatment which made it funny or charming or interesting.

The original was a wacky cartoon with a very lighthearted attitude. It was FUN. The motion picture became murky and took itself FAR too seriously. If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a "cartoon on film" it might have been enjoyable.

As it exists it doesn't deserve to be considered part of the "Gadget Legacy".


I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.

Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.

The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?

Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.

Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.

The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.

The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.

Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.


I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'.


Well. Where to begin. Let's just say this; avoid this movie at all

costs. It's based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon look

like Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to be

here, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement to

make you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really the

bottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick and

Rupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandon

of men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance."

They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.

Awful.


If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.

In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!


This is one of those movies you think that the makers would refuse to release it because it is so terrible. Obviously they were thinking that children are stupid and are excellent for absorbing endless ads and would think they are entertainment because it is slapstick funny. What is it with the talking car with buttons that say Wendy's, McDonalds, M&M's and Skittles? There was no talking car in the cartoon. (Dr.) Claw is supposed to be evil, not handsome and charming. Why is Rupert Everet 'Claw' anyway? Were the writers on drugs when they wrote these scenes? It looks like they were (badly) lampooning Robo Cop, with the turning a man into a crime fighting android thing. I tried to get my money back but there was a policy where if I watch more than 30 minutes of a movie, you don't get a refund. I'm sorry I watched more than 30 minutes of that pile of crap. After I was told the no-refund policy, I decided to watch the rest of the hideous garbage called Inspector Gadget.


I'm not quite sure why, but this movie just doesn't play the way it should. It should be humerous and fun, but instead is just boring. I think a large part of it is because they way over played the "gadgets." The old cartoon it is based on is much better.

3/10


Since I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie. I wasted my money. The plot was very thin. Also, the movie could not keep me interested for long. I was glad it was over.

If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead. It was much better than the movie.


Luckily I did not pay to see this movie. Also, I cannot even reveal any spoilers because I willingly WALKED OUT after forty minutes of the movie. It was that bad. I laughed once, when the Yahoo! billboard fell on the guy, and the theme song came on. However, that was only because I thought it was making fun of it, but then I realized it was yet ANOTHER product placement.

I loved the cartoon. I used to watch it almost religiously. (although i missed the last episode. I heard that they show Dr. Claw and it was nothing more than a Claw, somebody comment on the show's page) The cartoon had Penny and Brain alot more than the movie had, as to that point. I hated the setup of the whole thing, reminiscent of Robocop. Then Broderick screws with the whole feeling of Inspector Gadget. He is not nearly as clumsy as the cartoon was. Another fact is his gadgets actually work to the point I saw, except for the oil slick. He also screwed with the tone of "Wowsers" which used to be in an excited tone. I felt so disappointed that they slaughtered the cartoon so badly. Everybody else felt that way too. Us 14-17 year olds remember the cartoon fondly and we loved every minute of it.

I went into the movie with an open mind, knowing that they would have screwed with the cartoon. I was taken aback at how retarded the movie was. It relied on sight gags, and stupid dialogue for humor. Disney relies on pain and physical humor to push a kids movie along. Product placement is pointless in this film, and it shows. The wise-cracking car is not that good at cracking wise. The gadgets look nice, but they were almost overly glossy. The cartoon was a better look. The silly scenes were crap. In the 40-45 minutes I watched the movie, not one laugh was heard, and they laughed at the Dudley-Do-Right preview. This movie should not be watched by people who want intelligence in their family entertainment. I highly recommend "The Iron Giant," which was sad, but very very good. This movie is a travesty to the whole family drama.------------1


I really wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).

When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem...


Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?

When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!!


After Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopes for this flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, bad visual effects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless) product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadget car thing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of their mind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of when needing a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin!


OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.

The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).

Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else.


INSPECTOR GADGET (1999) **

Starring: Matthew Broderick, Rupert Everett, Joely Fisher, Andy Dick, Dabney Coleman Director: David Kellogg 80 minutes Rated PG

By Blake French:

Disney's new film, "Inspector Gadget" is about a cop named John who survives a major accident and is saved by a state of the art experimental operation that turns him into a robotic machine-like agent who has tools and contraptions of all sorts built into his body at his use when he says "Go Go," only to be called Inspector Gadget!

The actual movie's structure is much like the body formation of Inspector Gadget himself. It is noisy, fragmented, energetic and consist of a bunch of half hearted contraptions thrown together to make something that doesn't have much in common with anything else present. The film is basically a series of zany action sequences that are kind of pasted together with characters and an uneven story that only kids between the ages of 6-9 would enjoy.

The cop who is dramatically reinvented is played by Matthew Broderick, who, until "Inspector Gadget," was on a success spree with movies like "Election." His character becomes Inspector Gadget after an encounter with the film's heavy handed villain named Claw. He is played by Rupert Everett, who has already experienced catastrophe this year with the dreadful "William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream."

There is a romantic subplot in this movie as well as ample amounts of scenes involving Inspector Gadget's wacky body parts and mechanism elements. It has Gadget and Claw drooling over the attractive character Brenda, played by Joely Fisher, for both her looks and her knowledge of a specific invention made by her late father, who was earlier killed by Claw. Competition evolves into fight scenes and a reason for many happenings in the film. Also a major character is the Gadget Mobil, a life like automobile that is devised for Inspector Gadget himself. It is voiced by D.L. Hughly from the sitcom comedy "The Hughly's."

"Inspector Gadget" is a movie that I found quite bad. I know, I am not exactly a target audience of the filmmakers, but even my ten year old relative found the film to his disliking. The movie is full of distinct flaws and obvious problems. I never found myself caring about the characters. There is no mood development beyond some neat opening credits, unlike the much worse 1997 film, "Mr. Magoo," which opened using clips of the original cartoon. Is it too much to ask for that same type of thing in this comedy-which is seldom funny and hardly ever convincing. The overall production design is nothing but a mess of incomplete sight gags and consists of one joke: Inspector Gadget's bumbling goofiness.

In movies like this the audience lusts for boundaries-something to help make out what can happen and what can not. In "Inspector Gadget" there are no such boundaries. This is truthfully nothing more than a party time for the actors, who surly had lots of fun. I am reminded of another lacking comedy released a few years ago called "Blankman" which again, contained lots of props and energy, and the actors certainly had fun time with all the gizmos and props, but it too lacked something needed for every movie: audience participation.

A character that I found being left out a lot is Gadgets daughter, who by the end of the movie, I still has not clue of what her name was. She is used only as a plot device-and I question how she was used to further the plot as well. For her presence brings nothing relevant or productive to the film. We never know her reactions to her father's operation or accidents. Thus, this is someone who could have been completely left out and would have not affected the movie a bit.

In closing, I'd like to state that "Inspector Gadget" is an awful, insufficient excuse for a children's comedy. And believe it or not, I find myself comparing this film to last years violent and very anti-young audience action picture "Blade." I am stating once again that I had much rather have a movie where nothing happens than one in which everything happens. "Inspector Gadget" had so much going for it at the same time, it made literally made me dizzy.


Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.

"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.

First we have the characters.

Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.

Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.

Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.

Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.

Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.

There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?

Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show.


In keeping with Disney's well-known practice of stealing.. I mean.. buying out known properties and bastardizing them, this live-action version of the venerable cartoon classic has got to be one of the worst re-makes in a year of bad re-makes. I grew up on the original cartoon TV series. Any episode of the original cartoon series will give you more laughs than this entire movie. Not present is Penny's cool computer book. Also not present is the gag with the self-destructing orders that always ends up detonating on the Chief. New are a smooth talking Gadget convertible (the original cartoon had a cooler vehicle that could turn into a van or a car) and an element of a typical, unrealistic Hollywood romance. Don't fill the coffers to pay for Disney executives and even their _ex_executives - don't see this movie.


I had absolutely nothing to do the past weekend, and tagged along with my friends to check out a movie...any movie. And since the only movie we'd not seen was Inspector Gadget, we decided to go in for that.

BIG MISTAKE. This is a movie that might appeal only to kids. Oh, and it's not like I don't enjoy movies targeted at the younger audience. But this movie had absolutely nothing to hold my attention. If you have nothing to do at home, go to sleep. Better than wasting hard-earned cash on this. Go check out the film if you're a kid or if you're a parent with a kid :)


5 minutes into this movie I was hyperventilating, shaking, and writhing in pain. And not in the good way. The story is about a troupe of idiotic children making prank phone calls to a psycho which is always a good idea. Turns out psychos don't like prank phone calls because in 2 minutes time he's at their door killing poor Williams mom and dad. Well skip ahead 15 years and guess what? Still prank phone calling people. Yep you would of thought that a horrible murder would of deterred them from doing that ever again but no. So after about two hours later and way too many scream ripoffs I realized that this movie gave me nothing but a terrible taste in my mouth and a severe urge to take my own life. This piece of crap isn't even worth laughing at the shoddy production, the "acting", or Rutger haurs dwindling career. I love crappy horror movies but this is the most unsatisfying piece I've ever seen. Just don't.


Saw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth it.


The plot of 7EVENTY 5IVE involves college kids who play a cruel phone game that unexpectedly (to them, if not to fans of horror) gets them in over their heads. The STORY of 7EVENTY 5IVE, on the other hand, is that of a horror film that had a wee little bit of promise, sadly outweighed by really bad writing.

What could have been a fun, if somewhat silly, old-fashioned slasher tale is derailed early on by its filmmakers' misguided belief that the audience would enjoy watching a bunch of loud, whiny rich kids bitching at each other for most of the film's running time. With the exception of a police detective played by Rutger Hauer, (in a minor role that is designed mainly to add the movie's only star power) every character on screen is a different breed of young A-hole.

Male and female, black and white, straight and gay, an entire ensemble of shallow and shrill college kids carries the bulk of the film's narrative. Worse, since the tale deals with a PARTY game gone awry, most of the time the scenes are completely filled with these little b*****ds. Because of this, there are few breaks for the viewer, who must put up with the angry sniping of the thinly-drawn protagonists. Even though at least some of these people are supposedly friends, invariably all characters interact in a very hostile manner, long before any genuine conflict has actually arisen. This leads to the worst possible result in a slasher film: The audience, intended to care about the leads, instead not only cheers on the anonymous killer, but wishes that he had arrived to start picking off the vacuous brats far earlier.

The real shame of this poor characterization is that otherwise 7EVENTY 5IVE actually DID have some potential. Visually it's fine. First-time directors Brian Hooks and Deon Taylor know how to build a suspenseful mood. They also manage to deliver on some competent, if sparse, moments of classic 80s-style gore. Surprisingly, the production's cast is also fairly able. It isn't that the actors aren't capable of expressing realistic human emotion; it is simply that the screenplay (co-written by newcomer Vashon Nutt and director Hooks, who fared much better behind the camera than with a keyboard) is short of such moments.

7EVENTY 5IVE can hardly be recommended, as its familiar premise and few thrills can't outweigh the bad taste left behind by a story driven by a gaggle of unpleasant characters. In this tepid whodunnit, the real mystery is why anyone should care about a group of young folk who can't even manage to like each other.


What an utter disappointment! The score of 6,1 here on IMDb built up some mild expectations but, oh my, was I disappointed. The first thing that bugs me are those braindead, stereotyped university kids. Yes, I know teens can be childish and so on, but why are they in movies always portrayed as complete braindead morons? There was one character that I thought was alright, but he/she (not revealing it here) was killed off way before the end. The other characters was poorly executed and even the supposed hero/heroine just didn't do it for me. On the plus side: The plot is pretty good and the productions values a cut above for these kind of flicks. The acting was generally not very good, Rutger Hauer stands out in a small role. But it all fails with bland and braindead characters. You just stop caring about them after 10 minutes. 4/10 (and thats being generous).


When I caught a glimpse of the title I thought are we going to get another try-hard hip slasher, but actually I found "7eventy 5ive" to be a mildly passable, and almost 80s throwback after a tediously slow mid-section it picks up momentum for the final half-hour leading to it's outrageously tacky climax and downright cop out ending. It won't win awards for originality, because it's as systematic as you can get and steals its thunder in the way of thrills (usual cheap jump scares), location (secluded mansion) and motivation from other films. The gleaming direction is by-the-book and the material is quite hackneyed with poorly realised red herrings within its elaborate plotting and flimsy script. Sometimes laughable, but nonetheless I was entertained mainly due to its brutal and grisly acts of pulpy violence towards some rather obnoxiously annoying college students by a psychotic killer with a battle axe. The performances weren't bad in the shape of a spunky young cast, however the characters they were portraying weren't particularly enticing. An always presentable Rutger Hauer shows up in a short supportive role as a grizzled detective. A slickly made, but a shallow and forgettable addition to the fold.


Here we go with other slasher movie, Good looking people and Acting from everyone was really good!

Few kids playing pranks phones calls and there parents are killed by the killer in front of the kids! 20 Years after they are still friends, They go to huge house, have fun, Drugs and Sex (no nudity) for least half a hour of the movie! Again they start making pranks phone call all over again! and then killer comes back kills them off one by one and killer is in BIG BLACK COAT with axe just like Urban Legend movie,

Deaths scene really weird, really odd times too.

Nice slasher movie at this part would gave 7/10 but the twist at the end of the movie made the whole movie kinda of pointless

The twist killed the movie for me so I going to give it 4/10


I'm sorry to all the fans, but this is a useless movie. The acting is bad, even wooden, it over-hypes the fright-factor early on, and doesn't exactly work. I think there was supposed to be a twist at the end, but it just ended up being maddeningly confusing. What the hell? The dude who was killing everyone was one of the hunted? Try again.

Its hardly original, and it isn't even particularly good as a straight slasher. And that's saying something.

I think whoever did the castings, whoever wrote the script, and whoever thought of the concept should be mercilessly fired and deported.

Don't watch this movie. If someone puts this on at a party, throw the disc out the window and put on a good horror movie, like Silence of the Lambs or The Shining.


I was attracted to seeing this movie because of this plot and my desire to watch a horror.

To my disappointment, this turned into more of a comedy than a horror. The acting, dialog, and flow of the movie was all very poorly done. Much of it didn't make sense. For example, there's a party of about 30 people and they're all terrified of one person despite them being at a secret location and are all healthy looking young adults and the guy threatening them sounds haggard. I kept thinking, maybe this was a parody of another movie like Scary Movie, but they were trying too hard to make it look gruesome - emphasis on try.

The blood and gore are also poorly done. I've seen Halloween costumes look more believable than this. A guy with his head cut clean off... looked clean - missing signs bone, flesh, blood, and even the head. A strong downward strike with an ax on a corpse should lodge itself into something... seemed like the guy was swinging a bat instead of an ax.

Revealing who the main villain was supposed to be a twist, but contradicted other parts in the story. What was going in the guy's mind to turn out like that? If there was going to be a twist, you should at least build up to it adding mystery and suspense.


This wasn't really a very good movie. There were lots of implausible and predictable things that happened during the course of the film...but I think that most of the reviewers are missing the point of why this movie should be enjoyed by a wide audience. THIS MOVIE WAS PRODUCED BY MAGIC JOHNSON! Isn't that enough to inspire us all to check out this film? A film produced by a former NBA star doesn't come along every day, you know. Beautifully stupid kids in a big house getting slashed by an axe wielding psycho. Every cliché trotted out for us to groan over. Teen sex. And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! I can't say enough about this movie! Teen drug use! College hijinx! And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! Yippeeee!


This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.

The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.

It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.

It's probably only considered a classic because "A Christmas Carol" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is.


I couldn't not recommend a Christmas movie more than this worthless piece of drivel (trust me, double negatives are required here -- it's that bad). This film was in trouble from the opening credits when it was revealed that the screenwriter was the same person as the songwriter. The musical numbers are all far too long and none of them any good ("Thank You Very Much" has a decent melody, but the lyrics are stupid beyond words). I would gladly bear the chains worn by Scrooge in the film's bizarre hell sequence than sit through this insult to movie musicals again.

The only entertaining part of this movie (completely unintentional by the way) involves Alec Guinness as Jacob Marley. Dressed in a silly powder white costume, Guinness foppishly prances through his scenes in what was either an attempt to make it appear as though he was floating like a ghost, or to show his utter disdain with having to be in this dreadful movie. Albert Finney, meanwhile, blends the best of Alistar Sim and Charles Laughton to create his hopelessly loathsome character of Quasimodo/Scrooge. Finney's Scrooge is so hideous a person, it's impossible to believe his transformation.

Steer clear of this abomination of filmmaking at all costs.


now don't get me wrong, i do enjoy christmas movies. i love its a wonderful life and i really enjoy the versions of a christmas carol with george c. scott and alistair sim. but this particular movie is awful. i think the i love life song the ghost of christmas present sings is especially painful. albert finney sings fairly well in annie. i don't know whats wrong with him in this movie but it sounds as though someone is trying to sing through a mouthful of dead gerbils. the only thing that saved this movie for us was shutting the sound off and watching the dance numbers accompanied by the south park christmas cd.


This is a bigger budgeted film than usual for genre director Honda (with more evidently elaborate sets)  though the special effects still have that distinctive cheesiness to them (witness the giant bats and rodents on display). It also utilizes a surprising number of American actors: Joseph Cotten playing the visionary scientist looks ill-at-ease and frail (but, then, his character is supposed to be 204 years old!), an innocuous Richard Jaeckel is the photographer hero while, as chief villains, we get Cesar Romero and Patricia Medina (both essentially campy). As I've often said, I grew up watching English-language films dubbed in Italianbut hearing Hollywood actors in Japanese is another thing entirely!

LATITUDE ZERO feels like a juvenile version of a typical Jules Verne adventure, and is fairly entertaining on that level; indeed, it's preferable to Honda's low-brow variations on the monsters-on-the-rampage formula because of the inherent quaint charm of the set-up in this case. The plot involves the kidnapping of a famous scientist by Romero  he was intended to establish himself in the underwater, technologically advanced city devised by Cotten (to which the world's foremost minds are being recruited). We're treated to plenty of silly battles between the rival subs, but the most amusing scenes are certainly the raid on Romero's cave  in fact, Cotten doing somersaults and fending off men in rubber suits (via flames and laser emitted from his glove!) must surely count as the nadir of his acting career; the other elder in the cast, Romero, is more in his element  after all, he had been The Joker in the BATMAN TV series and movie of the 1960s! Cotten has a scantily-clad blonde physician on his team, and is assisted by a hulking Asian; Romero, on the other hand, is flanked by an Oriental femme fatale  who, however, ends up getting a raw deal for her efforts (the girl's brain is eventually transplanted into a hybrid of lion and condorwhich is among the phoniest-looking creatures you ever saw!). Apparently, a 2-disc set of this one from Media Blasters streets on this very day!!


No matter how well meaning his "message" is - this film is a terribly made trainwreck - awful acting, lame camera work - I do not know why Carr agreed to try and pull off a stutter - he is lousy at it. You watch the extras on the DVD and the way he has a camera follow him around - he just soaks it up - he loves being the center of attention. He is a bad actor - he reminds me of another arrogant filmmaker - Eric Schaffer. Some how Carr has had this film shown at city Youth Centers and New Age churches - where damaged people looking for reinforcement and attention themselves babble on about how the film touched them and maybe it did - but as a film itself it is choppy, predictable and sappy.


Overrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating "collectors action figurine"), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were "actual" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid.


Being that I loved the original "Caligula" even with all its flaws, I have to say this remake trailer was abysmal.

Listening to Jovovich say in that lazy American accent "Mmm cuhligyooluh..." makes me feel sick. The set doesn't look Roman at all... it looks like some rich actor's Hollywood mansion backyard, and the Roman costumes look like cheap crap you buy at a suburban costume shop.

That "charming" Adriana Asti looks like a fifty year old Hispanic woman totally terrified out of her mind, as if not knowing it's a movie trailer.

The acting has got to be some of the worst I've ever seen, with most of the lines I hear being random actors screaming "CALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!" as loudly and obnoxiously annoyingly as they can.

The random sex scenes also filled a good 40 or 50% of the trailer, and the scenes with notable actors/actresses like Gerard Butler (who graces the screen in shadows for all of three and a half seconds) not doing anything but looking uncomfortable or going all-out over the top with their minimal lines, just dragging it down with the ridiculousness of their delivery.

Courtney Love's part consists of her looking like her usual dumpy crack-whore self leaning against a door mumbling about the moon or something. You can't tell because she's either drunk or high or just mumbling idiotically.

Karen Black is just annoying... randomly laughing, and screaming in such a way that irritates you.

Helen Mirren... she was in the original, and her return to "Caligula" consists of... "CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I particularly "love" (and by love, I mean hate) Ennia's line, "Caligola... j00 no maki me *something incoherent*.... *something that sounds like j00nalo*" It's also insanely arrogant to say Caligula's four year reign was greater than Jesus's birth and death.

Honestly, this has got to be the worst, most exploitative, self-indulgently arrogant piece of crap labeled as "art" I've ever seen. Even if Gore Vidal hated the original Caligula, he shouldn't have shown up or given his name over for this crap-pile, no matter how much they paid him (unless it was a billion trillion yen). Worst trailer ever.


I have nothing more to say but it was awful. I cannot imagine why Helen Mirren and others were part of this degrading mess. And if certain actors don't want people to question their sexuality then perhaps they should refrain from making more of these films. There was at least one seen that left me curious. Just my opinion. SHUDDER to think what was going on that was cut from the film. SHUDDER to wonder what went through the minds of the actors who made this film. Shudder to think about the thought process and voyeurism that went on in the directors mind. Like I stated before its a degrading mess. Its not even funny. As Ebert said of the film Caligula with Malcolm McDowell, Its not a good film, not a good story and its not even good porn. YEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............


This may have been based on historical events, and we know that the makers of this TV docu-drama took liberties to make it more dramatic - I can live with that - but it was just so badly done! I was amazed in the event of an unfolding mid-air crisis how calm everyone seemed, surely someone would have panicked, and what a smooth flight, no passenger discomfort apparent - come on! Not sure about the regulations, nowadays some of the airline security stuff seems OTT nonsense, but why take your shoes off before the emergency landing, common sense tells me this is not a good idea! The shots of this massive airliner coming down on this remote airstrip were unconvincing and fake. In reality it would have been an awesome sight viewed from the ground nearby, in this movie it was out of proportion and looked like the model it probably was. Escape slides appeared at the front and mid emergency doors, yet nobody appeared to exit from the front, even though the drop was much less. The Captain went back into the plane after the landing - why? this was never explained. We know the emergency landing was due to being out of fuel, but even so there must have been some fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks, and the risk of explosion must have been a very real danger, yet the evacuation seemed almost leisurely, and everyone stands around at the foot of the escape slides instead of getting as far away as possible, as I am sure I would have done. There were just too many inconsistencies, errors and faked action in this. I would have preferred to have seen a representation of the drama in real time, and with realistic motion of the plane portrayed. It had the potential to be quite thrilling, but doubtless due to the budget restrictions failed, and made one feel that a plane losing all engines was no big deal really, and you would safely glide down to a bit of a bumpy landing, but no real danger! - the reality of course being somewhat different!


I wanted to read the other comments before leaving my review and the majority definately rules: This movie is aweful! From the acting to the non-realistic animation to the countless errors. I was actually hoping that the flaps would have been extended by a stretch of the imagination (can't extend flaps without engines). The landing gear cannot be lowered unless you have electricity. That tiny little fan that was going was not sufficient by any stretch to lower the landing gear. The one thing I thought was quite peculiar is when they landed, the back wheels touched down and then the nose one broke off, thus suspending the plane with both back tires in the air. How did the captain apply left and right brakes to tires that weren't touching the ground? Did they forget the spoilers? Word to the director: Find out *all* you can about planes before attempting a "plane" movie. Sorry for the technical rant, but I give this movie 1/10.


I HATE plane crash movies...ALL of them! In fact, I hate them all with a passion! First of all, they are cheap-looking and have no craftsmanship! Secondly, they insult the airline industry and say to the audience that all planes do is...FALL OUT OF THE SKY AND CRASH!

Why I wince at such a film? This could happen to any of us and with worser consequences than those suffered by the characters in said movie...which is the only chilling aspect of an airline disaster yarn such as this. I hate this movie because it's like all the 50,000,000 stupid-ass airplane chaos movies before it! Freefall is like all the others: nothing more than boredom before the clichéd bullshit dramatic scenes take place.

First, off we have same cast of retards on this flying death trap: The Cleaver-esquire family of three, the yuppie baastard, and the bitch of a flight attendant complete with a big blond hairdo from 1987 scolding anyone who is the least bit frightened!

My second gripe is this shouldn't be a full-length movie, but a documentary explaining everything about the Air Canada "Gimbli Glider" incident a.k.a "Freefall" right down to the safety precautions.

My third and final gripe is with all airline films of this caliber(with the exception of Fearless) Why the hell did the male steward instruct the passengers to remove there shoes? (I could understand high heels and sharp, loose objects, but c'mon!)Like that's gonna' make them any more f#*king safer than they are now! This plane if they(the passengers) didn't know any better: knew they were going to crash land. Why would you force 100 injured people down a rubber slide that can cause skin to peel and bleed on impact only to walk in their stocking feet on a debris field! Does this make any sense to anyone?

Fearless and the hit ABC series "Lost" had more depth and realism to air disaster than just "plane malfunctions-people panic-stewards become assholes-plane lands without wheels in a field-people wander without shoes and jackets, etc. The same old crap from Airport 1975! Freefall was so typical of a air-crash movie that I almost expect to see either Charlton Heston or Peter Graves burst into the damn passenger cabin at any moment. Could we at least see how these poorly-acted characters go back to normalcy instead of people rejoicing amidst the impending tragedy that is staring in front of them? Typical moronic Lifetime movie! Cheap and Stupid!

The director of "Freefall" should stick to cheap made-for-TV movies with white middle-aged women with stupid teenage kids who do drugs and have marital problems. As for suspense...leave it to the professionals...you hack! Why should we the audience sit through over an hour and a half of this Airport wannabe rehash. I hope to god they don't make plane crash movies like this anymore. If this were like the ABC series "Lost" then it would be something to watch. But this is utter crap and then some. Stop turning every plane disaster movie into "Airport 1975"! This is not "Airport" this is cheap pathetic waste of my time. I would not recommend this movie or any made-for-TV air disaster movie to anyone not even my worst enemies.


A good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): "The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk." Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film.


This film seems to be completely pointless. There is no reason why anything that happens in it happens, as if it was written by a small child who got bored halfway through and thought "how can I wrap this up?". And what were Jared Harris and Christopher Walken thinking? Did they do it for a bet? I couldn't tell you the plot, I'm not entirely sure there is one to be quite frank, but if there is it didn't register. Jared and his bird go to Ireland after she falls down the stairs while lashed up, as you do. They go to a house with a very annoying small girl in it, meet Christopher Walken who has dug up some ancient woman preserved in peat. He brings her back to life for no other reason than it continues the story and she shows her gratitude by immediately icing him. From then on it all gets a bit silly. A couple of hours of my life that I'd like back!


Yikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie.


The writer came up with a pretty decent idea for a story, but many flaws in the execution of the plot took so much away from the film as to nearly render it unwatchable. Basic elements such as character development were glossed over, at best. Inconsistencies also reared their ugly heads. A massive mansion in the middle of the rural Irish countryside? Characters just "showing up" in the gardens during a stormy night (at very convenient times, I might add)? All in all it wasn't "bad". I rated it a 4, based mostly on the story and talent of Alison Elliott.


There's really not a lot to say about Las Vegas Lady. It's harmless enough, but it is little more than a dull heist film from the 70s. The movie is neither as clever nor as sexy as it strives to be. The plot is a retread of the tired old casino robbery storyline that's been done to death. Except in the case of Las Vegas Lady, I think the robbery plot was designed by a 3 year-old. The plan involves three women  one to unnecessarily and in plain view scale the outside of the Circus Cicus building, one to pose as a waitress only to blow her cover at the first opportunity, and one to stand around exposing her cleavage. That's pretty much it. Intricate, huh? Other than Stella Stevens and her aforementioned breasts, the other women involved in the plot aren't particularly memorable. Las Vegas Lady co-stars Stuart Whitman. When not pawing Stevens, his involvement in the movie is highlighted by one of the most idiotic gun fights ever put on film.

I really wanted to like this movie. It does have that 70s feel to it that I always enjoy and some nice shots of Las Vegas circa 1975. But the movie itself is too dull to rate any higher than a 4/10  and that's probably overstating it. In the end, Las Vegas Lady is a waste of some perfectly good cleavage.


Well, i could nt get into the plot, but thats just me maybe. Listless camera-movements at times, nevertheless this movie has got a charming vintage quality.The acting is genuine at times and entertaining with the occasional chase sequence involving scantily clad ladies, which was nice. The climax is confused and disjointed, but still ...err riveting, thanx to Stella Stevens.

The stunts are interesting, specially because of the 70's las vegas backdrop. There are a few jerky hand-held camera-movements at the end, which keep me guessing, for a while. But i don't think I ll b chasing the DVD, just yet.


Watching beautiful women sneaking around, playing cops and robbers is one of the most delightful guilty pleasures the medium film lets me enjoy. So The House on Carroll Street was not entirely a waste of time, although the story is contrived and the screenplay uninspired and somewhat irritating.

There are many allusions to different Hitchcock pictures, not least the choice of Kelly McGillis in the starring role. She is dressed up as Grace Kelly, and she is not far off the mark. Not at all. But her character is not convincing. The way she is introduced to the audience, she should be someone with political convictions and a purpose in life. After all the movie deals with a clearly defined time period, true events and a specific issue. But the story degenerates within the first minutes into a sorry run-off-the-mill crime story with unbelievable coincidences, high predictability and a set of two dimensional characters. This is all the more regrettable, as the performances of the actors are good, as are the photography and the set design.

The finale in Central Station, New York is breath taking. It starts in the subterranean section and then moves up to the roof. The movie can be praised for its good use of architecture.


a romance without feeling, a drama of issues without point (or drama).... This film is supposed to be all these and fails on each and every account, as if it isn't trying. Or as if the director/editor/scriptwriter team isn't really trying. The actors are able--they need better support.

One element that doesn't fail is the score by George Delarue. Beautiful and moving. What a shame it's attached to this film. In a good film actors' words and movements and music synchronize and enhance the impact. This editor plastered on music with no regard for dialogue and movement. The love scene is particularly grating in this respect: an insult to the talents of the lead actors.

There is another element in the film that works: location photography. Notably one moment in Grand Central Station. I'd guessed in advance what was going to happen; but how it was filmed in that setting was breathtaking.

Some commentators on this board have pointed out that US assimilation of criminal Nazi scientists actually happened during these years of the MacCarthy scare. The moment the film seems to start looking seriously at American society, it switches into conventional romance; before any human feelings can move us, it's away on a (predictable) 'thriller' escapade.

Just as the film insults the talents of the actors, it insults the issues it's pretends (and fails) to take up.

You are warned.


This movie was awful and an insult to the viewer. Stupid script, bad casting, endless boredom.

In the usual tradition of Hollywood, the government of the US is shown as always evil. The Communist-sympathizer nitwits in Hollywood, most of whom are as dumb as a box of rocks, love taking the lone nutcase Eugene McCarthy and picturing him as the leader of a vast movement. The truth is that at the time he was considered a fringe character who was exploiting a legitimate concern about the Soviet Communists for political gain.

Oh yeah, and the US brought over all those evil Nazis. Like Werner VonBraun, without whom we would have no space program. He actually loved being American and became a great asset to the country.

And yet the irony is that the fools in Hollywood, an uneducated lot who live a fantasy existence, still believe that the government should run EVERYTHING and give us all what we want. And yet, this is the same government that they continually portray as a consummate evil in films like this.


Oh god, what a horrible, horrible film. Meant to be a comment on the state of society, it's just a reflection of the worst of the worst in reality TV. Interstitials hosted by Jason Jones and Don McKellar are the most obnoxious part, written in a tone that is perhaps meant to be reflexive and insightful. Rather, these moments are mind numbing as they speak to the camera with dialogue written by someone with a love for insulting, condescending speech that shoves the "meaning" of the film down the viewer's throat.

Also, a point to would-be filmmakers: Long takes and quiet scenes do not equal art. Neither do extreme angles or logic stretched to the point of absurdity.

If anyone out there is interested in watching this film, please don't. Seriously. Please. You have better things to do.


This film is so bad - dialogues, story, actors and actresses - everything! - that it's hard to imagine that we'll see a worse movie this year or in the following years. "Love's Brother" (set in Australia among Italian immigrants) has nothing but shallow clichés about Italian culture to offer, and it is quite telling that even the Italians from and in Italy speak ENGLISH in the film. The message of the film - ugly people have to marry ugly people, beautiful people have to marry beautiful people - is truly discomforting. Giovanni Ribisi is quite good in films like 'Suburbia' or 'Lost in Translation', but here his pseudo-Italian accent is hard to bear. See this film at your own risk. Trash as trash can!


A fashion designer trips over a cat and falls into a pool, hitting her head on something floating on the surface. With rather cheesy effects (this was a TV movie) she floats up out of her body. She floats through a tunnel of rings of swirling orange smoke, and black rigid figures tip into her view (they look like the mannequins in her apartment). I almost thought I was watching a Jess Franco movie.... As her friends revive her, a black arm grabs her by the wrist, and she has to struggle to get loose. When she is revived, she remembers everything, and has a nasty bruise on her forearm.

Shortly thereafter, she nearly gets hit by an out-of-control car that comes up on the sidewalk behind her. On Halloween, she decides with her boyfriend to go to Mexico for a vacation. When she gets there, she's surprised to find it's the Day of the Dead. They're annoyed by another American tourist who keeps following them, and he almost drowns them.

The designer is encouraged to join a group of people who've had near death experiences. They've all experienced the tunnel, but not the black figures or the repeated near escapes from death. One of them has, and he's very anxious. She's also encouraged to meet with a psychic.

A Doctor tells her about people he calls "Walkers" (the name of the novel this was based on). They're people who supposedly died of one cause that, when examined, prove to have died of another cause. Thus it's like they continued walking around after dying until they died again, but he blames it on poor record-keeping.

I watched this on the 102 minute video, and it felt awfully long. I can't imagine that there's actually a 192 minute version! Perhaps if it was meant to be watched over two or more nights on TV it would better be watched that way than in one sitting.

I've only read one Gary Brandner novel, Floater, and if it is representative of his work, he's not the most original of writers. Floater had the common plot of: picked on kid kills people in revenge. Even the variation was pretty common: picked on kid dies and kills people years later in revenge from beyond the grave. And in fact it has a point in common with this movie, in that the kid practices astral projection, and when he is drowned he floats up out of his body as here. I don't know how closely From the Dead of Night follows his novel Walkers. I understand the Howling movies don't bear much resemblance to his novels.

It's quite a slow movie, and the special effects and cinematography are really held down by the (presumably) low budget and made-for-TV shortcomings. There are a lot of easily recognizable character actors in it. It also feels very dated, more early to mid 1980s than 1989. I found it to be boring. A much better low-budget movie covering similar subject matter that I don't think has dated as badly is Sole Survivor (1983) (arguably the inspiration for the 2000s Final Destination movies). It blows From the Dead of Night away.


What do you call a horror story without horror and story?

This is the most irritating thing about the film: I get the feeling the writers never really decided what's actually going on in the film! It's a different thing to know it, give hints for the audience and not completely reveal it, but here, you get the feeling the screenwriters don't know it, characters in the film do not know it and audience sees that no one knows! (Remember "Cube"? Even that film knew more about itself.)

I've consumed a lot of 80's horror / gore films and this movie certainly has its roots deep in those films. But a lot of important things are missing. We really know nothing about the characters. They keep repeating empty lines over and over again. The story isn't really developing - it never goes anywhere. B-acting is OK in this type of horror films, but there's not much to act in the script. We don't care about the characters. There's nothing to remember about them. There's not even cheesy humor or unnecessary sex. And most importantly - no thrills, no chills.

You only get some commonly used elements of the horror film genre. They show the Lordi monsters one by one but their characters don't really contribute anything for the story.

I honestly believe that this amount of story, character development and atmosphere could be achieved with minimal amount of crew and equipment. Oh yeah, film makers used to do that - and more - some 20 years ago! I felt the shared embarrassment of the audience as the film ended. Too bad really.


Lordi was a major hype and revelation in 2007 because they won the Eurovision Song Contest with a (not-so-heavy) metal song called "Hard Rock Hallelujah" and appeared on stage dressed like hideous monsters. But, let's face it, their victory most likely had very little to do with their great musical talents. The Eurovision contest gradually turned into one big political circus over the years and Lordi probably just won because their song finally brought a little change and  even more importantly - because their whole act sort of ingeniously spoofed the whole annual event. The absolute last thing Lordi's first (and hopefully last) horror film brings is change and ingenuity. "Dark Floors", based on an idea of the lead singer and starring the rest of the band in supportive roles, is a truly unimaginative and hopeless accumulation of clichés. The immense budget ("Dark Floors" supposedly is the most expensive Finnish film ever) definitely assures greatly macabre set pieces and impressive make-up art, but what's the point where there's no story that is worth telling? The film takes is set in a busy hospital where a bunch of people, among them a father and his young daughter with an unidentifiable illness, become trapped in the elevator during a power breakdown. When the doors open again, the floors are empty and it looks as if the hospital lies abandoned since many years already. Trying to reach the exit, the group stumbles upon several morbid and inexplicable obstacles, like eyeless corpses, screaming ghosts and Heavy Metal monsters emerging from the floors. The only three points I'm handing out to "Dark Floors" are exclusively intended for the scenery and the adequate tension building during the first half of the film. For as long as the sinister events don't require an explanation, the atmosphere is quite creepy, but as soon as you realize the explanation will a) be very stupid or b) never come, the wholesome just collapses like an unstable house of cards. Lordi's costumes never really were scary to begin with (except maybe to traditional Eurovision fans) and, in combination with a story more reminiscent to Asian ghost-horror, they just look downright pathetic and misfit. With all the national myths and truly unique exterior filming locations, I personally always presumed Finland  The Land of a Thousand Lakes  would be the ideal breeding ground for potentially horrific horror tales, but I guess that's another disillusion on my account.


Just finished watching, can't say I was impressed.

It starts of quite good, the visual and the atmosphere gives a creepy feeling as this type of movie should. But it all ends when the first lordi monster appears. Not only do you recognize them from the band lordi, but they are seriously malplaced in the movie. Doomsday monsters with leather jackets and piercings are so 80's.

As for the storyline, it starts of as similar horror movies, people trapped inside a hell hole. But there is no clear story on why and what is happening. The viewer is thrown some lines on possible reasons, but the lines never meet and end up to anything but a mess.

With all the money spent on this film, with an intriguing start and some good effects, I had thought someone would have taken better care of the product. I wonder if lordi made this movie just to prove that their show costumes could be scary (except they aren't).

So the movie gets cred for the visuals, i guess the money had to go somewhere. But the rest is an embarrassing attempt from a rock band to make their on-stage monster aliases scarier.


I love cheesy horror flicks. I don't care if the acting is sub-par or whether the monsters look corny. I liked this movie except for the bewildered feeling all the way from the beginning of the film to the very end. Look, I don't need a 10 page dissertation or a sign with big letters explaining a plot to me. But Dark Floors takes the "what is this movie about?" thing to a whole new (annoying) level. What IS this movie about?

This isn't exceptionally scary or thrilling but if you have an hour and a half to kill and/or you want to end up feeling frustrated and confused, rent this winner.


An interesting idea involving an alternative dimension inside a hospital. It recalled - Stephen Kings "Langoliers", "Kingdom Hospital" and old twilight zone episodes. Atmospherically strong, the set up was great. There were also some very clever 'time loop' moments which always have that head-melt appeal. The story had plenty of vague references which led me to believe that all the ensuing weirdness of - time slips / ghosts / a weird bat winged demon and a rather silly heavy metal attired ghoul-thing would be explained. And THAT was were Dark Floors severely let me down. Based on my viewing the movie gives NO EXPLANATION as to what is behind the events. Whilst, some ambiguity is always expected/welcome in these kind of films. Dark floors took it to new heights of vagueness. I don't expect things wrapped up in a pretty ribbon, but neither should I be left feeling "Huh? .. is that it? ... Did I dose off? Maybe, I hit chapter skip by mistake?" Dark Floors left me with a deeply unsatisfying suspicion that "It was all a dream" which is a shame because up until the last reel I was very much on board and enjoying the movie.


I love horror movies that brings out a real amount of mystery like say "silent hill" ( which i found to be quite good, but still, was missing something ) and movies that keeps you guessing, this i thought was one of those movies. At first the movie starts out with some really good suspense and builds up a good starting point for a good horror scene, but after that it just rolls down the hill and from there it only goes faster and faster down. I mentioned silent hill at first for a reason because i can see a lot of "stolen" themes from that movie in here.. All in all i would say, watch silent hill instead of this one, its better, its more scary, it has a lot more suspense and also the ending is a lot better.. And best of all, you wont feel ripped off as i did with this one.. This just seems to be one of those "i like that movie so I'm gonna re-make it in my own really bad version" kinda movie.. Oh and one more thing... Lordi.. in a horror movie... thats like trying to scare a kid with a care bear who has "hug me and i will love you forever" written on the stomach of it..


There are some elements that save this movie from being a total catastrophe, but are overshadowed with bad acting, plot holes, deus ex machina thrown ins, stupid dialogs, weak script, and predictable clichés...

What we have here is a horror movie with a storyline that goes nowhere for most of the time. A group of unlikely heroes including a black guy that gets it first (yeah, that cliché seems to be still very much alive even in Finland), seem to have trouble trying to exit a mysteriously empty hospital. There are shrieking ghosts (very imaginative), zombies (at one point I thought at least they didn't use zombies, but they came), and Finnish glam-rock band with demonic make-up on, getting in their way. There is also some time-shift doodle present, but it adds up nothing to the storyline. Autistic girl and a hobo seem to have some deeper understanding of a situation, but they never spell it out to the viewer, or their confused friends. Their lines consist only of profound life lesson thoughts like: "What happens will happen..." or "Light can't live in the darkness..." or the ominous "I need a red crayon... red crayon." So all this characters (including worried father and sweet doctor in distress types) end up doing is running around them dark floors, and from or mistakenly to the demons. Occasionally a ghost or a group of zombies show up, and if it seems a demon keyboardist can't spot a group of six people coming towards it, waving a flashlight and conversing, it was just pretending. And apparently this demon can break through walls without much hassle, but opening elevator door is beyond its capabilities.

In the end we even get a "it was all a dream" sequence twist. Or maybe it wasn't. Oh, boy I wish this movie was, and that kind that makes time seem to move faster so it all plays out in just 10 minutes or so...


I'm not sure quite why I clicked "contains spoiler", because quite honestly there is not enough explanation ever given in the movie to know enough of what is supposed to be going on to spoil it.

Visually it mostly delivers. Well, apart from some 80's throwback rubber-mask monsters. I'll say now that before watching this I had never seen the band Lordi, nor knew anything about them bar that they won Eurovision. Apparently the monsters in this are members of the band, pretty much in their stage personas. Whatever. Anyway, I didn't know this while watching. I just thought the monsters/demons were mostly passable. Just about.

I'm almost sure there is a semi-coherent explanation behind what we see on-screen, but it may actually be better not to know it. It probably would actually have been incredibly lame come to think on it. The action keeps it rolling along pretty much well enough to keep the viewer mostly entertained, even if half the entertainment factor is joking about wtf is supposed to be happening in this movie exactly.

I gave it a four mainly because I got a good laugh out of it, especially out of how it explains pretty much nothing. Must have been the mood I was in, but I found that hella funny for some reason. Then I look up the movie on the internet and find out that NOBODY knows what the hell it's supposed to be about. That amused me further, and raised my score an extra half point to a 4/10.

It's not scary, or particularly coherent, but it's pretty nice visually and sonically. Overall, far from essential, but watchable. Don't expect too much and don't expect it to make any sense and it might entertain you if you are in the right mood.


1st watched 6/18/2009  2 out of 10 (Dir- Pete Riski): Weird psychotic movie about a girl with autism who is being tested in a hospital, the power flickers, and then all hell breaks loose. I'm honestly not sure what the intentions were of the filmmakers on this one. What we get for the next 1 hour and a half(at least it wasn't longer) was a twisted horror/twilight zone/zombiefest/ghost movie that really ended up making no sense at all even to the very end. Initially, after the power goes out, everyone is missing in the hospital except for a small group of misfits including the girl and his father. There is the typical annoying character, a creepy old man, and the typical tough guy similar to many scarefests and, of course, the young girl the main character gets attracted to. Random stuff starts happening at various times like ghosts and monsters appearing, a hinting that time has stopped, and dead people as this small group try to escape whatever they're in. Of course, the autistic girl is the center of everything somehow and I really hate how they used this girl's affliction and insinuated that she was the cause and to place it in a hospital where people are cared for is really lame. We never really find out the answer to what was going onwhich is very strange, so please avoid this dog. Unless you want to be creeped out and confused for one hour and a half this is not for you or any moviegoer. What a waste of timereally!!


Well how was I suppose to know this was "the" dumb ass promotional "Lordi Motion Picture"? I mean, I realized this when that "dinosaur" costume showed up and by the time the lead singer made his appearance I was humming "Hard Rock Hallelujah" to myself... even though I hate that song. "Dark Floors" is about a young autistic girl who is in the process of being sneaked out of the hospital by her over protective father when they, and the rest of the people in that particular elevator, become momentarily trapped... When they arrive at their floor it comes as quite a surprise to find that there is nobody else around. The hospital is empty... Except for a variety of monsters that seem to be stalking them for no apparent reason... They run through the hallways and stairwells, encountering all of the band members of the heavy metal band in their outlandish, shock-rock costumes... Nothing really memorable here, except the lousy acting, lack of gore/nudity, and the utterly shameless promotional edge, reminding me very much of "KISS Meet the Phantom of the Park". Yeah, remember that dud? Wish I didn't... I would just recommend avoiding all of these Ghost House films like a fungus and not listen to Lordi since they are a Gwar ripoff band!


I think they really let the quality of the DVD production get away from them. I rented this DVD from 2 movie stores and the second time I finally got it to play on the 3rd DVD player I tried.

Anyone else have this issue? It's really hard to give the film an un-biased review after going through such a hassle to play it. For one, I've never seen a Finnish horror film before so I was sort of bummed that the movie was done in English. Also since it's never made clear what is wrong with Sarah, she just came off as retarded and therefore I really just hoped someone would shoot her in the face and make all the horrific happenings go away.


I initially gained interest in this film after reading a review saying this movie reminded the reviewer of Silent Hill.

Being a huge Silent Hill fan, and disappointed with it's movie debut, I thought I would give this one a chance. Mind, Fearnet only lists this movie as "Dark Floors", not by it's full name. So when I saw the name "Mr. Lordi" in the credits I immediately thought of the band (I had a few friends in college that like them) but didn't think it was important and quickly pushed the thought aside.

The film starts out strong. Despite the fact "creepy little girl" has been done to DEATH, the good use of audio and sense of isolation really started to piece the the story together. The tense atmosphere built rapidly, and every indication pointed to the film being excellent. As monsters are the true stars of horror, I couldn't wait to see what was lurking in the halls of the hospital the main characters had found themselves trapped in...

And then the first monster showed up, and I found myself greatly underwhelmed. By the time the second appeared, I boggled at the fact it looked like it had just come from a Megadeth concert, and the silliness turned me off completely.

Over the course of the movie the atmosphere did remain intact, and the story left you wondering just what was going on, but the scares were pretty much non-existent. However, I held out hope that the end would make it all worthwhile. Unfortunately that was not to be the case. By the time the movie had reached it's climax, I was in utter disbelief, and I immediately recognized the big bad in his final reveal... The lead singer of Lordi? Seriously?

Was that what the movie all boiled down to? A bunch of poor souls being chased around a hospital by Lordi band members? The silly monster design suddenly made sense. If you're going to be that corny, may as well through the members of Marilyn Manson, or even KISS in there too. Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure I saw the ending in one of Lordi's music videos a few years ago. They had to go and make an entire movie off of it?

Worst of all, when I found out what really had been going on, all I could manage was a yawn. I'm not going to "ruin" it for you, but I can safely say it's probably a plot device you've seen before. Most likely more then once.

So, unless you're a huge Lordi fan, stay away from this. It's not scary, it doesn't bring anything new to the table (although it does a decent job of borrowing from other horror movies, mainly Silent Hill). And, I can't stress this enough, LORDI is the antagonist. LORDI. Talk about a buzzkill.

Really, you'd be better off trying to scare yourself watching Slipknot music videos. In other words, it's just not possible.


This was not the worst movie I've ever seen, but that's about as much as can be said about it. It starts off with some good atmosphere; the hospital is suitably sterile and alienating, the mood is set to "eerie". And then...nothing. Well, somethings. Just somethings that clearly don't fit in...and no effort is made to clarify the connection between the bizarre and yet not particularly intimidating critters, and the hospital they've taken over. I mean, come on, biker duds? Some band watched a bit too much Gwar.

My personal favorite was the head demon, who looks rather a lot like a middle-aged trucker desperately attempting menace, while simultaneously looking like he'd really like prefer to sag down on an afghan-covered couch, undo his belt, pop a can of cheap beer (probably Schlitz), and watch the game. Honestly, I've seen far scarier truckers. At truckstops. Drinking coffee. WWWwoooooohHHHHHoooooooo!!!! Scary!!

The other monsters are even more cartoonish, and even less scary. At least, on the DVD, the videos give some explanation of their presence in the hospital...they apparently just randomly pop up in places, play some bippy "metal", and cause people to be dead a bit. Barring a few good special effects, and acting that is not entirely terrible given a lack of decent writing, there's just nothing here. It's a background-noise movie only.


This is a typical example of technically highly skilled directors of video clips/commercials trying to do their first full feature length movie. On one hand the imagery, camera, lighting, CGI and even the sound are highly polished and have a truly "expensive" look and feel. Even the actors show a certain amount of potential - unto the point where even the best acting could not hide a bad plot.

In this case it is not a bad plot but hardly a plot at all.

So 50% of the dialog consists of "What the hell was that ?", "What was that ?" and "What the hell was that ?". In none of the cases any of the characters nor the audience is provided with the slightest hint of an answer though. In most of the other dialogues one gets the feeling that there never was any form of dialogue book and the actors had to freely improvise to a plot that wasn't ever explained to them.

The only reason why Skye Bennet's performance could be so good is that her character as an autistic girl didn't allow giving her these tragically horrible dialogue lines the other actors had to deal with. That way she was able to just show her acting talent which the rest of the cast couldn't even get close to. I mean there's not one actor in the world that could make up for a dialogue like this:

Ben: Is this real, huh ? Emily: Stop it. Ben: A mass psychosis, huh ? Jon: Somebody has to take control of this situation. Ben: This situation can't be controlled. Not by you, not by anybody. Emily: Not by you either. Ben: No

Got me goosebumps. But not for horror, more for the horrible attempt. In some moments I felt ashamed for the actors to have added this to their vita.

2 stars for the excellent technical work.


*Sigh* Leave it to us Finns to take a stupid idea, blow it out of proportion and try to market it as cool. Lordi is a mediocre band at best, and a single gimmick will get you only so far.

To all you marketing idiots out there: this is the reason for the inherent minority complex that is often encountered when Finland tries to export something.

Lordi isn't scary. Lordi is lame. Lordi is OVER.

I want to apologize to the rest of the world for this plastic-faced idiocy. Sure, they won the Eurovision.

No, wait - they won the Eurovision. That's it. I rest my case.


I have seen some pretty bad movies, and this is right up there. No plot to speak of, it's like one of those bad coma episodes on a soap-opera. I just wanted to smack that little girl because, well lets just say, she's real suspicious all the way through the movie. The monsters running around wearing some bling was funny. I also saw a bit of "Silent Hill" in there. And I read that this was done by, and or stared a Finnish metal band, Lordi. So it's no wonder that it didn't make much sense. It seem to be a vehicle for promoting there band and nothing more. The FX are very good, the look of the movie, the monsters, and even the acting also good. But the story and the telling of it, just aren't there.


Going down as the most expensive film in Finnish history, to date, "Dark Floors" is a horror film with an extremely Lynchian narrative that recounts an ever increasingly decrepit series of "Floors" (ironically enough) in an abandoned hospital, in which our protagonists are trapped. Lead by an autistic daughter and her father, himself disenchanted with the hospitals apparent lack of medical progress with his daughter, make their way into an elevator debating the issue with one of the hospitals nurses. Accompanied by a security guard, a businessman and a seemingly intoxicated tramp the collective soon find the complex abandoned, but they are not alone. Directed by Finnish- born Pete Riski, more known for his television work, "Dark Floors" is filmed in English, using mainly English actors but has the notable inclusion of Finland's arguably most famous group "Lordi" (2006 Eurovision song contest winners) as themselves, i.e. in their on stage monstrous costumes, as the films antagonists, yet for all this razzmatazz the production fails where it is needed most, in convincing the audience.

Any film that has their lead character use the phrase "it's too quiet" is already headed down a dubious path, and this Lordi influenced horror does not break that convention. For all the good ideas that are thrown into the mix there are a handful of ripe clichés alongside and worst of all, anything that is interestingly original isn't fleshed out enough for it to resonate. The concept of the degrading floors is initially highly ominous and does provide a sense of inevitable doom as the audience is aware those trapped in the hospital must progress ever further down in the mire. However, there isn't enough atmosphere created to scare and intimidate the audiences into the unknowing fear, the viewer is aware the journey will become ever more dangerous, as the levels degenerate from shiny white through to hellish black, but I don't think the characters are aware enough of this fact for it to be threatening. Also, the entire film taking place in what is essentially its own time bubble is again a very nice touch, a concept not often used in the horror genre, but the characters don't confront the situation with enough fear and trepidation when they stumble across this fact, they continue about their business far too readily and without enough genuine concern for the idea to mean anything to the audience. These initially good ideas are just left to go to waste, as if the director and/or Mr Lordi (who had many of the ideas used within the film) had these thoughts, but couldn't agree or decide on how to best use them and as such lose their purpose and point.

Yet for all the frustration there are large quantities of comedy, yet not for the reasons the creators would have hoped for. Too much is clichéd, too much is recycled and too much is just simply ridiculous. While the lead is amicably acted by Noah Huntley, the characters are mere cardboard cut outs that have been pasted into the story from other films. We have a lead man doing everything possible to protect his daughter alongside a clunkily developed love interest. Accompanying the "couple" we have the traditional token black man as a hard-nosed security guard, with the nigh on infinite clip for his sidearm, and a weasely disbelieving businessman only on the look out for himself. Worst of all though, unfortunately, is the introduction of the cast of Lordi as the creatures of the night that torment our wandering band of misfits, but not for them appearing as themselves. What makes a horror film scary to the viewing audience is contextualising the fear. "The Shining" is scary because it's a member of your own family hounding you, in "Dawn Of The Dead" it's our fear of each other and the primordial cannibalism and irrational thought patterns the zombies possess, in "Alien" the fear is explained, the creature is rationalised and in "Dark Floors" there is none of that. Perhaps it's unfair to compare this production to these monoliths of the genre but when you do it shows it pales significantly and that it's aggressors feel like nothing more than demented Klingons where you can almost see the zip on the costumes they wear, without a build up of any atmosphere "Lordi" just aren't scary.

It's infuriating because we all cheer for the underdog and hope they do well, you want the smaller productions to say that they can create the same quality of film as "Hollywood" churns out, much in the similar way that George A Romero started out, but it doesn't always materialise. I enjoyed the film and didn't feel as if I had wasted the ninety minutes I had just sat through, but I felt enjoyment on a completely hollow level as if nothing that had occurred mattered or affected me subconsciously, emotionally or critically. I felt the almost Lynchian narrative was a standout plus point, but it fades out into nothingness. Why did it happen? What does it mean? Will they go through this all again? Without even the slightest insight into what will happen the film is simply puzzling for the sake of trying to be arty. Was the entire sequence of events real or was it merely a dream sequence? Had the autistic girl watched the Eurovision Song Contest of 2006 and simply had a highly bizarre nightmare given the stress she was under? Who knows? And unfortunately I fail to work up the energy to even care. "Dark Floors" is an infuriating experience that while ultimately shallow hallmarks potential and at the very least shows a plethora of creative energies from Mr Lordi, who perhaps should look into working solo to fully develop his ideas. It's one that fans of the group or the genre should perhaps pursue but will leave you feeling left in the lurch for not having enough light shed on the situation.


I rented this because I'm a bit weary of '80s NBC programming and apparently I saved myself a lot of money. I have nothing against any of the actors and for their credit they do a good job but this show is flawed from the premise.

We have a character who is unlikable. He's full of flaws, not enlightened, and a complete jerk on a good day. Yet the reason why anybody should care just isn't there. While creating an American sitcom centered around a complete bullheaded jackass is revolutionary and full of potential, it just isn't met here within this show. Most of the supporting characters aren't fully fleshed characters but rather sad punching bags that want empathy from the audience for being punching bags. As in any sitcom, they are the ones who are made the most normal for the audience to relate to, and in doing this they negate the lead character to such an extent that we see Bittinger being himself and harming people and they just stay there because....why? There is no reason. Any normal people would have simply left the abuse. Keeping them there without any real reason--even the really unbelievable one given by Joanna Cassidy in the very special 2-part abortion episode that has major problems of its own--is where the show just falls apart. To simply believe that people put up with this guy because we are told he has a heart of gold does not mesh with the reality of the situation. If anything, this isn't even dramedy. This is a badly plotted, conceived, and executed premise that had a few moments but overall met the fate it deserved. Someone had the guts to go out and make a very good idea, but the execution is so haphazard that it just looks like a weirdly scripted version of the Jerry Springer show where someone is abused by this tyrant that we're supposed to root for because we are told to. A show like this requires a deft touch that the actors here could have provided easily, but somehow aren't able to. And that's a fatal error that really killed the program.

Chalk it up to a show in its infancy. Regardless, the show is worth a watch. But it really screwed up when trying to aim for the stars, and made the whole enterprise not what it could have been.


I've seen this film several times in a variety of short-film festivals and it always causes me the impression that i have seen a movie trailer!

For a school-film is very well produced and directed, but the story... well it needed something else to be a bigger and interesting film. The character named Tim Watcher needed some in-dept approach. This is something that lacks in some Portuguese short films - the script is always superficial.

But still... i liked this movie...

Parabens! (congratulations!)


Unfortunately I have to agree with the critic written by halopes.

For a short film the cinematography, costumes, sets, sound, editing and everything else is very, very good. This might seem surprising at first but I was told that the technical crew working on this consisted of professionals, so the quality is to be expected. The problem, as usual, resides in the story itself.

Thing is, it's not really a story. To tell a story (or in cinema's case, SHOW a story) you need plot and conflict. You need things that happen to the protagonist: events. These events happen because the protagonist wants something and, for some reason, he can't get it. Tim Watcher has no problems or goals. He's a kind of supernatural entity who observes mankind. That's it. So what we have here is pure exposition. Instead of being shown a story, we're simply learning things about this Tim Watcher individual. Of course, considering the peculiar nature of Tim Watcher and the film's short duration, it's hard to give enough background about him so the movie resorts to Voice-Over Narration. In this case it's used in the worst possible sense which is to give information that otherwise we'd never glean. In fact, if it wasn't for the VO we'd think the character was just a kooky old man going around looking at things. To make it worse the VO also explains what's happening on the screen! The images we're shown are just decoration for the text we're listening to.

I could say that this short film would make a good video for a band or something, but because the images don't stand on their own it's impossible to say that. What's left obviously has value as a measure of the crew's technical capabilities (not incredible, but good) but fails to entertain, amuse, thrill or, at the very least, show a story.


As far as I can understand, TIW WATCHER is the first work of a young director. My doubt is if this is the work of a regular guy who happens to love films or if this is the work of a cinema student, since there is a reference to Oporto School of Arts in the final credits.

Nevertheless, director Ricardo Pinho demonstrates with this movie a total unawareness of some basic notions about cinema. What is a movie? How to tell a story? It doesn't matter, for the novice director. One of the first things you learn in school when you're studying cinema is how to tell a story. You learn that, just like in novels, in movies you should also construct your story in three acts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion. You learn that your story should have a protagonist and an antagonist and that there should be a climax. You learn this is valid for a 3-hour-epic, for the regular movie, for a short film and even, believe it or not, for a 30-second commercial. You also learn there can be levels of subtleness in your approach to the academic structure and that, ultimately, you can even deconstruct it.

In rough terms, TIM WATCHER introduces us its main character and then, the movie ends - the whole movie sounds like the introduction of the characters in Jeunet's AMÉLIE. There are no second or third acts in TIM WATCHER. This is not a parody or an art film, thus you can't even try to justify the disrespect for the academic structure. You are expecting to be told a story, and it doesn't happen. Worst than that, TIM WATCHER defines itself as a warning; and one with no real purpose. It doesn't make a point, or at least, not a valid one. Its point is childish, with a sense of vengeance. The situations portrayed are utterly simple and its approach is Manichaean.

I was expecting a lot more from this short. The movie opens with a rather good-looking credits sequence and you quickly realize you are watching something with better production values than the regular Portuguese short film. I don't know the budget for this movie, but judging for the thanks-list in the end credits, merit must go to the production team for such good connections in a country where's difficult to have doors opened to young filmmakers.

TIM WATCHER seems to be an exercise in style, color and carefully chosen plans, combined with a fine score. That's all. There's nothing else. There's no plot. And that's a shame because it feels like a waste of production values. Hardly, you can see in the regular Portuguese short such diversity of locations and so many available extras to enrich a story.

As absurd as the comparison may sound, I must refer the BMW shorts as a fine example of how you can tell a good story in a very short film severely conditioned to product placement and over-the-top stylish cinematography.


Attack Force has a horrendous title, and can almost certainly be judged by it's awful cover, because the film is horrible! A mish-mash of plot lines, a choppy mess, and a horribly stagnated pace, make the film hard to watch start to finish. I managed this and I'm proud. As a fan of Seagal's work (mostly of his old days), it's painful to see him star in such tripe. True Seagal's last half dozen movies or so, have sucked a lot, but some of them at least had some redeeming features. Attack Force is a mess. From conception to delivery this film has undergone many changes, from an alien plot line, to the current one about a highly addictive super drug, about to be unleashed on the Romanian (the film has several settings, none of which are Romanian, but all look like Romania because they are in Romania!) populace. The film is tacked together with little regard for whatever state the original shooting script was. Plot-holes and loose ends are abound in the film that's for sure. That's been a problem in Seagal's last few films as well, but never has the result been so boring. There's a whole plot line about the water supply being poisoned with CTX (that's the drugs cool name) that is never resolved!

Of course in recent years the plot's haven't been the main draw in the Seagal canon so there was a big onus on the other departments, especially the action. Before I regard the action though, all the other departments are poor. The direction is poor, or perhaps better put, made to look poor. Who knows how director Michael Keusch originally intended this film? Between him finishing his job, the re-shoots by stunt man Tom Delmar, and the editing, a coherent auteur vision is completely lost. The best way to describe the film is that it's just all over the shop! The cinematography is dull, nearly inducing sleep, while the droning score (sounding like it was produced on the cheapest of cheap synthesizers) does nothing to excite matters. The cast too are poor, unable to salvage anything here. Seagal looks bored beyond recognition, and is dubbed through much of the picture, clearly when plot-points are being changed. He looks tired and overweight, and lethargic, unlike he's looked in previous pictures too (remarkable as the aforementioned have been key complaints in Seagal's recent pictures). The only redeemable cast member is Adam Croasdell as one of the villains, doing a slimy Brit routine. He seems to be a throwback to the alien plot line, because he's playing it inhuman. He seems like a cross between a body snatcher and a vampire (ditto to the lead villain played by some hot chick who appears on occasion, seemingly waiting for her husband Dracula).

Finally the action. Well it's poor. Poorly conceived, poorly shot. There's not much either, and there's even less featuring Seagal. Stevo doesn't really bring out the stunt double here, because there's so little to do. There's even a lengthy (repetitive and boring) action scene on the hour mark that inter-cuts occasionally with little flashes of Seagal's stand in because clearly Seagal wasn't there while the scene was being shot, and they wanted to have him feature in the action scene. Seagal eventually appears in person to shoot two guys in the head. Seagal has a producers credit here and a script credit, but from what I understand the film has been altered behind his back to the current state it's in. Seagal will apparently not be working with these people again, or with Castel Studio's who continue to deliver horrifically sub-Nu-Image (that's saying something), material.

Overall this is one to avoid if you are not a Seagal fan. Seagal fans can also be safe in the knowledge that the big man probably won't want to do anything this bad again. Unfortunately his next film which has already been shot, with the same people, promises to be even worse than this. *


I'm a huge Steven Seagal fan. Hell, I probably weigh as much as he does although I don't have the street cred to sport the frizzy-mullet-ponytail. Having stated my own bias and affection for America's favorite corpulent stage and screen hero, it is with a heavy heart that I must declare this to be his worst movie ever. I'm not sure he could make a movie any worse than this.

In his defense the major problems with this film seem to occur in post-production. It's painfully obvious that this movie was supposed to have a different storyline. That results in woeful voiceovers in which Steve's voice doesn't nearly sync up with that of the dubbed voice. The editing is pisspoor and overall this starts bad, gets even worse, and by the end you'll wish you had rewatched The Da Vinci Code instead. Yes, it's that bad.

After this I don't know what to expect from Steve. My friends still laugh at me for listening to his CDs. Is it time I start checking out some of the Van Damme direct to DVD nutty logs? If you are tempted to watch this movie, rip your eyeballs out and flush them down the toilet. A lifetime of darkness is better than 89 minutes of this.