It occurs to me that some of the films that have been banned during the course of cinema history were actually very important and very good films. I'd like to argue that instead of banning challenging, controversial movies the censors should consider banning films that are so bad that they pose a threat to your IQ and your sanity. If they were to do so one of the first films to be quickly hidden away would undoubtedly be "Stroker Ace". This film is awful with a capital 'A'. It is the worst film Burt Reynolds ever starred in.... quite a feat for for a man with "Cannonball Run II", "Cop And A Half" and "Rent-A-Cop" on his CV!

The wafer-thin story introduces us to successful stock car racer Stroker Ace (Reynolds), a man who loves fast cars and fast women. He gets stuck in a demeaning contract with crooked promoter Clyde Torkle (Ned Beatty). The contract requires him to do some humiliating promotional work for a new chain of fast food restaurants, such as dressing up as a giant chicken. Thrown into the mix are Lugs (Jim Nabors), Ace's dim-witted pal, and Pembrook Feeney (Loni Anderson), a bimbo with a brain fractionally smaller than a pea who is wooed by Ace.

Hal Needham, the director of this low-grade garbage, was formerly a stuntman and he made numerous films that relied on his expertise in staging spectacular stunts and car chases/races. Some of these films were OK, like "Hooper" and "Stunts Unlimited", but with "Stroker Ace" he reaches a career nadir. The characters are so stupid that you actually feel pity for the actors playing them. Anderson especially is saddled with such a dumb role that it makes you grind your teeth with despair. The humour is weak and infantile throughout, and the stunts and race sequences are unremarkable. Even the out-takes during the closing credits (which can be found in all the Reynolds-Needham collaborations) are generally unfunny, which gives the impression that maybe the film wasn't much fun to make. "Stroker Ace" is a stinker of considerable magnitude.


This should not have been listed as a Colombo because in my opinion it does not resemble any of the other Colombo ever made. This should have been listed as a movie starring Peter Falk and not playing the caracter of Colombo because it does not do justice at all to our great lieutenant Colombo.


Whenever a Columbo story deviates from the familiar plot (colorful killer commits crime, Columbo smokes out killer, Columbo becomes a pest in the process), the writers somehow are never able to match the quality and interest of most traditional episodes. This episode deviates in the extreme, and the result is a major flop.

 Would you believe: Columbo never faces the villain till the very end?!!

Frankly, I was tempted to turn it off about two-thirds through.

 Oh, the sacrifices we self-appointed reviewers make!!!


Seriously what were they thinking? Over the course of years the Columbo series has tried out some new things and diverted away from the usual successful formula but this movie really overdoes it. This movie is basically very different from any other Columbo movie but the differences are not for the good of the movie.

Main thing that of course makes this movie different from any other Columbo movie is the fact that there is no murder being committed. The entire premise of this movie is totally different and it places the Columbo character in a totally different environment and situation. Also the overall is just totally different and more 'modernized'.

Director Alan J. Levi did some other Columbo movies in the past, which all very much sticked to the usual formula. It also makes it an odd choice that he got picked to direct this movie.

The Columbo character himself also feels quite different, perhaps because of the reason that he gets placed in a totally different environment and situation, when he helps out his nephew after his bride disappeared right after the wedding. The absence of some good relieving and trademark Columbo humor also doesn't exactly make this a good or enjoyable watch.

In all honesty, the movie doesn't begin too bad but the movie starts to become more and more ridicules with its story as it progresses. It's such a stupid written kidnap-thriller with a story that starts to become more and more unlikely. It also makes the movie more and more unwatchable. This is a very little interesting Columbo entry that also really doesn't know to entertain its viewers in any way.

It also doesn't help much that the supporting actors aren't the most talented ones around. Despite the fact that his character is put in such a totally different situation and the movie is shot in such a completely different style, Peter Falk still holds up well and his presence still somewhat saves this movie. Can you just imaging how this movie would had been without him? It would had been an extremely bad and ridicules cheap movie I can tell you.

An odd Columbo entry, which could be described as a failed experiment to divert from the usual formula.

4/10


The script for this Columbo film seemed to be pulled right out of a sappy 1980's soap opera. Deeply character-driven films are great, but only if the characters are compelling. And in this film the only thing compelling was my desire to change the channel. The villain's dialog sounds as if it were written by a romance novelist. The great Lt. Columbo himself is no where near his famous, lovable, self-effacing, crumpled self; and the bride/kidnap victim is a whimpering, one-dimensional damsel-in-distress (she cowers in fear from a tiny scalpel held flimsily in the hand of her abductor - come on!!! I could have knocked the scalpel out of his hand and kicked him in the you-know-what in 2 seconds). In any sense of reality, this character would have at least TRIED to struggle or fight back at least a little. And speaking of reality....the story revolves around a kidnapping which is worked and solved by the police. The POLICE?? Give me a break. Everyone knows the FBI takes over EVERY kidnapping case. This was NO Columbo, just a shallow and totally predictable crime drama with our familiar Lt. Columbo written in and stretched to 2 hours.


I love Columbo and have seen pretty much all of the episodes but this one undoubtedly ranks as the worst of the lot. A mind-bogglingly tedious, pointless, muddled pile of unwatchable drivel that wastes both the time of the viewing audience and of the acting talents of an exceedingly bored-looking Peter Falk. The 'plot', such as it is, just seems to be made up as the film goes along with not even the slightest hint of the ingredients to the formula that made the show such a brilliant success to start with. One part of the proceedings which I found extremely puzzling ( or possibly annoying ) was Peter Falk's character being introduced to the guests at the wedding as 'Lt' Columbo. If the producers insist on keeping Columbo's first name a secret, why couldn't they have omitted this line altogether as it sounds ridiculous? Like I said, this is the pits and all true Columbo fans would do well to avoid it like the plague.


Loyalty to Peter Falk is all that kept me from giving this awful picture the (1) it deserved. (For that matter, loyalty to Mr. Falk was what kept me watching this film all the way from heads to tails.) Even if you forgive all the glaring errors, this was just plain the poorest excuse for a made-for-TV "Columbo" film ever. I'm glad I watched it on TV for free; would have hated to have coughed up the bucks for a print.


Absolute garbage. The reason that this is so terrible is not because it deviated from the formula, but because the plot was just pathetic.

The supposed star didn't do anything to solve the case - and neither did anyone else really - it was just routine police work. Utterly tedious.

You sat right till the end hoping for a twist - and got nothing but a huge sense of disappointment.

There was so much potential in having a relative in apparent kidnap. Could the Lt's personal involvement finally cloud his judgement?

All the obvious signs were of a stranger doing it. But surely a genius like Lt C, by constant conversation with the wronged husband, would gradually uncover a fiendish plot involving a tape recorder playing in the shower room while a masked groom surprises the bride, hides the body and then plants subtle clues. It could have been good. It was a complete waste of time.


An uninspired and undistinguished "new" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...

And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story "Murder Under Glass" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!

Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff.


Most definitely the worst Columbo ever dreamt up. No murder and the abandonment of the tried and tested formula makes this a real drag. Falk looks bored throughout and so will you be if you waste anytime watching this.


This show stinks. For parents, they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. It is usually educational, funny, and bright.

Is it educational? No. the Doodlebops sing and that's it. They usually sing about themselves, they don't try teaching anything.

Is it funny? No. The Doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke, and laugh at it.

Is it bright? It's so bright, it's painful. As far as color,s everything is extremely bright, so that's good. But NOTHING is ever wrong in the world of the Doodlebop's. Therefore, they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad.

The show is also extremely cheesy. Every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. It's overkill.

For kids, it's entertaining, but past the age of 2 you won't want your kids to see it. They'll never know how to grow up.


My children watch the show everyday that its on. Its a great program for younger children. However they need to stop showing re-runs and do some more actual shows and get rid of Rooney's and Deedee's YELLOW TEETH. Moe is the only Doodle bop with clean white pearlie teeth and the children notice these things and ask if the 2 don't ever brush their teeth? Does the show ever make its way to the United States and if so where can we find its schedule at. And one other thing if we might be able to add. Moe you need to stop hiding so much. Sometimes when you pop up out of no where you scare the younger children and whats with the pulling of the rope? What does that signify? other then getting wet all the time. They need to add newer things to their show instead of the same ole same ole. Kids loose interest that way.


Normally when I write a review for a movie online, it is for one of three reasons. Either, I have found something exceptionally lacking in a film that otherwise would have been excellent, I feel that the public's perception of a film before viewing it is inaccurate for a number of reasons, or I believe that the purpose or message of a film needs to be clarified or explained with the help of other reviewers. While all of these reasons may appear to be somewhat negative, I find that writing a review that lavishes nothing but praise and statements such as, "This is one of the best films of all time!", does nothing to enlighten a potential viewer on its merits and downsides, nor does it often give reasoning as to why a movie is so good, which should be the point of the review in the first place. With that being said, War of the Worlds is nothing more than a hurried, incompetent attempt at a money grab; piggy-backing its loathsome carcass on the multi-million dollar advertising campaign of the film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Many people will buy this DVD in anticipation of the summer blockbuster and many more poor souls will buy it looking for more material on the same subject. This movie is not even "so bad" that it becomes funny or endearing, rather the audience will be so unbelievably disappointed as to reach the point of anger. Now with most of the insults out of the way, allow me to give some arguments as a warning to those more fortunate than I.

Judging from the cover and the lack of any publicity for this film (I found it as SAM's Club for 8 bucks), I assumed that the cast would be no-names and that the special effects would be nothing too spectacular. Check. This is not a big deal for me, as I find a large budget and an over-reliance on big name stars and SE can diminish an otherwise decent movie. I also did not expect to be blown away by great dialog or a moving score. Check again. What I did hope for was an actual serious attempt at a classic theme and a few alien/battle scenes.

Now, as per IMDb's policy any spoilers must be announced in advance, no matter how small, so here is fair warning. The movie opens with a lot of inane small-talk, followed by a trip to an observatory to look at a red dot. Seriously, it is a pictures of a red dot in a tube. It is very hard to describe every little issue in depth, but by the end of the first ten minutes, the combination of shaky camera-work, spliced scenes, and a LOT of walking begin to frustrate the viewer. However, the costuming is surprisingly not bad and the hope that the pods will reveal something mysterious keeps you going. The next 30 minutes basically go as follows: one of the main characters walks to one of the pods, he looks at the pods and talks to another main character about looking at the pod and it may be hot. They both walk back to town. These walks aren't two seconds or added so that dialog may be exchanged. They are twenty seconds or more and are there simply to add filler to an already bloated three hour movie. In a particularly grueling scene, the main character is shown looking at a pod, then he is shown pacing and panting, then he looks at the pod, then he takes a one minute walk through a field to town, then comes in to town and walks into a building, then he has a cup of coffee and says "Thank you Mary" to a random maid that serves him coffee, then he puts down the coffee and walks out the building, then he walks a minutes through the field and back to the pod. I apologize for the extreme run-on sentence, but it is perhaps the best way to summarize this entire film. Characters speak way too long about mundane things, they walk a lot, they send other people to walk, the camera fluctuates between high speed and slow speed, but for no dramatic effect, simply the camera man is a sophomore at Tech somewhere. The editing is mind-bogglingly bad. People actions make little sense. For instance, when the professor goes to a farmer's house and says that he needs the farmer to give him a ride to town, the farmer stutters and paces around. When the professor says that there is a pod and that men might be trapped inside, the farmer locks him in a shed only to see the professor grab a pitchfork and open the weak shed a second later. Nothing of any consequence of course comes from this entire scene, as the professor runs into the main character a moment later so they can begin their afternoon walk. The entire film feels as if someone at one point had a good idea about making a film, but absolutely no idea how to put that in motion. I have seen better high school video productions. Finally, the special effects are laughable and do nothing to advance the story. I get the feeling that the director really wanted this film to become somewhat of a cult classic of campy garbage. However, it is so awful in technical aspects, and in sheer common sense that it only makes people mad. Avoid this film at all costs.


I am currently sitting here, forcing myself to finish this. I figure I blew 6 bux on the VHS, might as well suffer for it. I remember about 4 or 5 years ago doing a search on the internet for "War of the Worlds" cause of the rumors of the Spielberg movie at the time, and I missed the old TV series from the early 90's. The website make it out that this was a multi-million dollar budget rendition of the classic book. It was going to be a "perfect translation". Perfect CRAP is more in tune with this film.

First off, the video on this movie was glitched! It looked as if I was watching the Full Motion Video from an old mid-90's PC or Playstation CD-Rom video game. Sadly enough, the color quality was similar. The acting made Shatners classic "dramatic pause" look damn near Shakespearean in quality. The CG rendering of various scenes was horrendous, and green screen sequences were worse than those seen in old Dukes of Hazardd scenes.

Secondly, it is slow and terribly drawn out. I sat thru 45 minutes of the video (no promo's at the beginning) before the cylinder actually Opened to reveal the first alien. After that, the alien was a terribly constructed CG squid. I am now an hour into it and the most of the alien weaponry I have seen is a spinning silver disk (crappy down even) attached to a mechanical arm. The dramatic scenes are murdered with overly done instrumental's. The last thing on that, for an alien invasion in the turn of the century 1900's NO ONE is concerned for their life. It's like they have no concept. Even though media was slow, word of mouth spreads fast and people would have known. The "illusion" of day and night was shoddy at best. Simply changing the color around the people to purple, blue or green does not signify NIGHT TIME. Perhaps some lighting and actual night time shoots would have given a MUCH better illusion. THere is a lot of wasted sequences throughout the film of just watching the "hero" gallop around or walk down silly roads. Get on with the film. I know how people get around, you do NOT need to be so in-depth.

Now, finally an hour and 5 minutes into the film and they show the alien machines. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers had better looking effects. Even the skeletons of vaporized humans looked as if animated by a freshman high school computer app class student. The animations do NOT match up to the scenery at all.

In closing folks, if you want "The War of the Worlds", do one of four things. 1) Watch the 1953 original, 2) watch the early 90's TV series, 3) wait for Spielberg's rendition to be released shortly, OR 4) Read the frikkin book (something we all probably did in elementary English class). AVOID THIS MOVIE. IT IS A WASTE OF YOUR MONEY.


I must admit I burst out laughing when I saw one reviewer compare this to LOTR. Well yes, if you exclude the dwarfs, the cast of thousands, the great special effects, the big battles, the strong characterization, the decent plot, the good acting, the classy direction and everything else. Which leaves you with the walking. And boy, does this film do walking! If Mr Piano had his way, this would probably be an uninterrupted three hours of hardcore walking through the Wisconsin countryside, but every 40 minutes or so these pesky Martians pop up for a few seconds to interrupt him before he goes for another bit of a ramble. You've never seen so much walking in a movie. If this really had a $20m budget, most of it must have gone on Mr Piano's shoes, because he had to get through plenty of pairs with all the walking he does. Which explains why there's no money left for decent effects, a decent video camera or proper actors. Honestly, it's like watching some bizarre fetish video for people with a thing about going for long walks in period costumes. Even on fast-forward, this is a looonnnggg walk.

As for the sci-fi stuff, I think it was a mistake to put Martians in the film: they only get in the way of the walking, which is clearly much more interesting to the director than the story.

I wonder how much Mr Piano charges to walk dogs?


Wow...

I picked this up at the local Wal-Mart after reading online that it had been released early. I've been following this online for some time, and just had to buy the film.

Wow...

I guess the thing that really struck me was the editing, or lack thereof. Time and again, characters (usually The Narrator and whoever he is with) are shown walking...and walking...and walking. I am not an editor, but I do know that you can cut between someone leaving point A to show them arriving at point B. There is no need to show almost the entire journey! Wow...

I actually ended up feeling somewhat sorry for the actors involved in this. They seem to have been given no direction as to what to do during scenes other than to look scared or look happy, depending on what action was to be added at a later date.

Wow...

Why it was decided to do almost all the effects using CG is beyond me. Even ILM still employs miniatures sometimes. One of the most distracting uses of green screen in this film is the constant rushing about of (according to the end credits) the same group of people representing the citizenry of different towns and cities, including London. At times these folk are coming and going with no regard as to the angle of the shot or the distance they are from the camera. In one shot in London, there appear to be at least two men over six feet tall walking just behind the narrator's brother (played by star Anthony Piana without his distracting mustache). Not since GETTYSBURG have I seen such a fake piece of facial hair.

Wow...

Why Timothy Hines talked up this film the way he did is beyond me. It is a turkey, plain and simple. On the plus side (at least for me) it has provided some of the most genuine laugh-out-loud bits of hilarity I have seen in quite a while.


Is it possible to give a movie NO STARS? I suppose not. However many stars IMDb displays this just think zero and you'll get my drift. Director and photographer Timothy Hines didn't have much of a budget compared to Spielberg's Herculean effort with the same material (rumored to be the most expensive movie ever made), but that need not be an insurmountable handicap. I've seen some wonderful work done on a comparative shoestring ("Soldier and Saints" is a recent example). With hard work, integrity and, above all, talent it is certainly possible to realize a faithful rendition of Wells' novella -- and at fraction of what was spent by Dreamworks on its "War of the Worlds". Unfortunately, Hines failed in all these departments. Even if he had had Spielberg's budget and Tom Cruise signed for the lead his movie would have stunk just as badly as this barnyard animal he's foisted on us.

Primarily, Hines seems unable to tell a story. Thanks to digital video technology he can record images and sound, but he shows little aptitude for assembling a narrative with what he records. A guy walks down a country lane, a lot. He talks badly aped Received English to some other guy. Then he walks down the same lane, only shot from the back this time to show he's returning -- clever, eh? Walking and talking, for nearly an hour that's all that happens. OK, I'll grant that one extended excursion from the main character's house to the impact site on Horsell Common to show that it's a considerable distance from one place to the other might be useful (a first-year film student could storyboard a more economical and more aesthetical establishing sequence than this, btw), but half a dozen times? Back and forth, back and forth, et cetera, et cetera with some yakkity-yak in between. Remarkable. The only explanation for this surfeit of redundancy other than total artistic ineptitude is a desire to pad out thirty minutes of wretchedly amateurish CG works into something that could be offered as a feature-length film. Finally the Martian fighting machines appear and the walking and talking becomes running and talking, or shrieking. Later we get staggering and wailing for dessert.

Thankfully, much of the dialogue is lifted straight from H.G. Wells' text; else we'd have no idea what is going on. But is it not the whole point of cinema to illuminate a text, to realize what words alone can't convey? If a film relies on dialogue or monologue to tell us what we see or how to feel, why bother? Why not do a radio play? Orson Welles made himself a household name doing just that. However, Hines thinks he's a filmmaker, so he's content to mouth the words and swallow the meaning.

Secondly, Hines was able to buy some CG effects of a sort for his movie, but he has no idea how to use them. Now I for one have no unquenchable sweet tooth for eye candy. I believe good science fiction cinema doesn't need dazzling technical effects. Some really potent Sci-Fi's have flourished on virtually none at all. But "The War of the Worlds" as film requires a certain baseline effort. Wells tells a story that hinges on things can be seen and heard and even smelled. The effects don't need to be complex; they can even be crude (e.g. fighting machines on wires gliding over miniature streets as seen in the George Pal/Byron Haskins 1953 version), but they must be handled well. Unfortunately Hines' effects are both crude and incompetent  tripod fighting machines higher than a cathedral spire stomp around making a noise like a pogo stick bouncing on linoleum  Martian squidoids even though oppressed by four times the gravity of their native world scurry and flit about without perceptible effort  skeletons totally denuded of flesh and muscle writhe and scream -- the same damn horse and buggy greenscreens its way across the foreground a dozen times (flipped left for right occasionally in hope that we might not notice)  and on ad nauseum. Crude technique is forgivable. So you have a CG fire effect that's less than convincing? Fine, we can work around that. Just don't use it too often and only show glimpses of it. That stomped woman sequence looks more like a crushed plum? Throw it away. It's not necessary. You say your Martian flyer looks like a toy on a string? If you must use it, go ahead, but please don't show it twice! But no, Hines won't listen. We get the worst looking stuff used again and again. Gotta get those 180 minutes somehow, boy.

Next we have acting, or more precisely too much acting. Whether in a speaking role or just paid to die on queue everybody in this film is acting his little heart out. Evidently Hines thinks he's getting a bargain -- More fleeing in terror over there! You, quaking behind that tree, let's have a real conniption fit this take. You call that writhing in agony? Nonsense, my grandmother can writhe better -- Nevertheless the cast as a whole and individually stink. They aren't even good amateurs. But this needn't prove fatal. Many a good movie has been made with rancid acting. That's what directors are for. And editors. Which brings up another point Who the hell let Tim Hines edit this cheese factory? If America's butchers were as adept at meat cutting as Hines is at film cutting your next hamburger would be all fingers and no beef. In spite of the near three-hour running time there is lots of stuff missing from this movie -- not sequences, but single frames, creating a herky-jerky effect that's nauseating to watch. Maybe Hines intention was to simulate the effect of a hand cranked cine camera of the 1890's. If he was I can say he doesn't know how to do it.


I honestly believe that ANYONE considering film-making be subjected to this mind-boggling failure. Like the "films" of Edward Wood, Jr. in the '60s and '70s, this film is a shining example of why real filmmakers expend so much energy rewriting scripts, re-editing their films, and reworking their special effects until they finally look right. This movie is also a decent argument FOR the studios' pre-screening process. If Mr. Hines were forced to endure the honest reactions of an impartial audience, perhaps he would have cut 75% or the walking/running/strolling scenes and edited this movie down to a more bearable 90 minutes.

Film students should view this movie as an example of just how dangerous thinking their work is "good enough" can truly be. Every performance, every line of dialog, every digital effect, every filter effect, indeed every frame of video expresses the danger of striving for mere mediocrity. A beginning filmmaker may find himself/herself tempted from time to time to think "At least I accomplished SOMETHING" or "Just finishing this will be an accomplishment in itself". This movie will help them understand just how badly a film can turn out.

Critics might also benefit from seeing this movie before they dub the latest summer entertainment "the worst movie ever made".

Beginning writers can learn from this film just how important rewrites are, and perhaps understand the necessity for rewrites. Also, beginning directors can learn the importance of a GOOD screenplay, and some degree of respect for just how hard it is to write a script that causes the audience to feel emotionally compelled through the story. Writers and directors who watch bad made-for-cable movies of the week and think "I can do better than THAT" can see get an idea from this movie how difficult it really IS to produce even mediocre results.

I sincerely believe this movie can serve as an educational tool to beginning filmmakers. Particularly those entering the craft in this current post-Lucas and post-Spielberg environment. There is a reason filmmakers such as these are hailed for their ability with special effects. The War of the Worlds illustrates clearly that not everyone can pull it off. Some can't even come CLOSE to it.


After hearing the word of mouth of just how bad this film is I took the plunge and bought the DVD. That said everything previously mentioned about this film is true. For a film that claimed to have a budget in the millions it just does not show on the screen at all. The list of problems with the film could drag on forever. Chief amongst them is the film is simply too long. It dragged on for a few minutes short of 3 hours. Nearly an hour probably could have been cut off the run time had the editor simply removed the overabundance of scenes dealing with nothing more then the main character wandering around aimlessly.

Secondly, as many had pointed out from the "trailers", the special effects are anything but special. The tripods looked OK in a few shots here and there but beyond that everything was grade-Z 1970's or 1980's quality. Probably the worst effects of all were the horses, which stiffly tottered back and forth as they moved. The heat ray effects were laughable, as people were reduced to bones that somehow were still able to flail about without any muscles. Also pitiful was the Thunderchild sequence, in which the Thunderchild, described in the book as an ironclad ram, looked nothing of the sort. Instead it resembled a World War 1 era destroyer, complete with deck guns (which fired but had no visible crew), and torpedo tubes.

The colors and backgrounds were just as bad as the effects. Most laughable of all was a scene early on in which the main character and his wife go for a nighttime stroll and he points out Mars to her in the sky. Well, the sky is black, but the views of the characters and the landscape around them is broad daylight. There is also a very sharp demarcation between the real landscape, bathed in full sunlight, and the fake black night sky with overly large fuzzy stars. To detract even further, the color of the scenes made no sense. In some they are bathed in orange light. In others green light. In still others it's blue light. In some instances the outsides are orange lit but the interiors of houses are green or blue. The frame-rate and camera is very shaky, giving everything a stuttering look.

Finally, the acting is overall sub-par. One man portrays two characters who's sole difference was one lacked a mustache. This led to some confusion at times as to who was who and where they all were. The English accents, even to American ears, are outrageous.

In summary, this movie could very well make a claim to being the worst film released in recent times. I have not seen Gigli or some of the other recent flops but this one, because of it's poor quality in every respect, must easily be worse then anything that mainstream Hollywood has put out. I would not be surprised if the movie makes it to the bottom 10 or 20 in the IMDb rankings. It's a pity that Mystery Science Theater is not still around.


Nu Image, UFO and others produce films for the SCI FI channel that come in with budgets of roughly $2 million. Some feature extensive effects work, others feature recognizable casts and still others feature both -- for $2 million.

Mr. Hines initially claimed that this film was budgeted at $20 million dollars but it's painfully obvious that this was probably produced for $750,000 if not considerably less than that. Few sets are utilized, a number of scenes are shot against green screen and most effects seem incomplete and amateurish.

It's painful to watch. Not so much because it is poorly directed, poorly executed and misguided but because many of us have been following the progress of this production for quite some time and had high hopes for this film despite its relatively modest budget.

Those of us who believed in this movie when it was originally announced have joined the legions of those spoken of by P.T. Barnum.


I love movies, and I'll watch any movie all the way through, just to give it a chance. I can finally say that I found a movie I can't watch all the way through. The acting is terribly stale and monotone, the CGI looks like a computer geek did it in his mother's basement with minimal software, and.....the long scenes of just...walking!!!! And this movie is THREE HOURS LONG!!! I didn't even make it 15 minutes until I fast forwarded the DVD. The scenes with the aliens are very short. Ummm, instead of naming this "War of the Worlds", lets name this "War of the Walking Long Distances". This cost 5 million dollars to make! What they spend the money on, the dramatic opening song?

Oh, but on a positive note, one scene you need to watch is when the aliens first begin killing people. That's hilarious, not because people are dying, but because when they turn to skeletons, they still squirm for 20 seconds afterward.

So....like I said, if you are a fan of boring, stale, action-less movies, here is one for you DVD collection. But I didn't write this for you, I wrote this for the billions upon billions of other people who will HATE this movie. It is not worth your time or money

I know this is by the book, but the book isn't that long, and I'm a complete book worm/nerd/geek/whatever, but why? Just get the Steven Spielberg version, it's not all that good, but it's 10 times better than this!!

I give this a BIG, FAT ZERO out of 10.


Finally i thought someone is going to do justice to H.G. Wells's classic , not another version set in the wrong locale or era , but one based firmly on the book . Well it definitely follows the book pretty closely , and that is the only plus to this mess.

This is 180 Min's (yes 3 hours) long , the book is only around 150 pages .

If Timothy Hines had the nerve to come on here and say "if you can do any better ..." i would say "yes , i could" and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life.

I paid good money to get this crap over to the UK from the USA , do not make the same mistake as me .


Save the $8.97 you'll spend at Walmart to buy this DVD and go see the real film by Steven Spielberg.

I'm a filmmaker, and being an avid fan of H.G. Wells, I had to buy this hoping to sit down and watch three hours of good entertainment. Instead, it took four days to finish watching this because I couldn't stand watching more than 10 minutes at a time. It's horrible.

There are reports that Timothy Hines had a $20 Million budget for this production. Where the heck did it go? Did he use most of it to buy a new house? Finance his retirement? Or what? Let me start with what is actually good about this film. It does stay true to the book AND there are a few good performances in it. I can respect the actors who obviously tried to make this a good film. But good performances were quickly overshadowed by horrible... and I do mean horrible special effects. Any freshman film school student could have done a much better job with the CGI. To me, most of it looked like "stop action" card board cutouts that were used rather than sophisticated CGI software that a $20 Million project should be using.

There's no excuse for the amateur post production that was applied to this film. My own partner and I sat down and recreated our version of the Ferry scene using software that cost less than $1500.00 and within a day had five minutes of scene that looked better and more realistic than what Hines created. I've seen films with budgets of less than $2 Million look better. Much better.

In my opinion the special effects used in the original King Kong were more sophisticated and better than Hines' special effects in this film. IN fact, I have a much better appreciation for Attack of the Killer Tomatoes because of this film. There's no excuse with today's technology for a film to look like a 50's B-Movie unless that was the intention, which shouldn't have been with this particular project.

A problem I had with the DVD transfer was that the film is jerky, another demonstration of amateur film-making.

Overall, I have to say that I produced a $45,000 project in 2003 that have better cinematography and special effects than this film.

I strongly encourage anyone who appreciates good film-making or who is a fan of WOTW to leave this film on the shelf and watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman instead. It would be easier on the eyes.


I'm not really sure how to even begin to describe how bad this movie is. I like bad films, as they are often the most entertaining. I love bad special effects, bad acting, bad music, and inept direction. With the exception of the music (which was better than I had expected), this movie had all of those qualities.

The special effects were amazingly bad. The worst I've seen since my Nintendo 64. Some scenes to watch for include the Thunderchild, the woman being crushed by the mechanical foot, the Big Ben scene, the train wreck... Wow, there are so many bad effects! On the plus side, though, SOME scenes of the alien walkers are well done.

The acting was about as bad as it could possibly have been, having been based directly on H.G. Wells' book. For having such good source material, it's almost as though the actors were trying to be so over-the-top as to make it funny. And then there's the mustache... the single most distracting piece of facial hair I've seen in a long time. Of course, only half the movie contains acting. The rest is characters walking around aimlessly and poorly rendered effects shots.

To say that Timothy Hines is an inept director would be an injustice to inept directors. With the use of different colored filters between shots for no particular reason, the use of poorly rendered backgrounds for even inside scenes, the bad green screening, it's amazing to me how this man ever got approval to direct a movie. I wouldn't imagine it would be possible to turn a brilliant book into this bad a movie. Bravo, Mr. Hines. Bravo.

My advice to anyone who plans to see this movie is to do what I did: have some friends who enjoy bad movies over, drink, play poker while watching it, keep drinking, and maybe you'll make it all the way through. It does make for an excellent bad movie, so have fun and laugh yourself silly with this disaster.


Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.


If this film had a budget of 20 million I'd just like to know where the money went. A monkey could make better CGI effects then what was wasted for 3 hours on this dreadful piece of garbage, although I must admit the machines and the martians would have looked really, really cool on an original play-station 1 game, and early PC games from the mid 90s if a game had ever been made. What puzzles me is where did the money go? Pendragon films could have made a great film with good old fashioned models and computer controlled cameras a la George Lucas circa 1975-83, and actors who actually look like they care about what they are doing (or ruining in this case) for about the same 20 million. This is quite possibly the worst film EVER made! I would rather sit through a 24 hour repeat screening of Ishtar than watch this film again. I hated it completely! I regress. I say this IS the WORST film EVER made because unlike other bad movies like Plan 9 or Killer Tomatoes, or Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, these are films that are so bad you have a special place in your heart for them, you love them. There is no love for this film and no place in my DVD library for it. I sold it to a guy for a dollar. I'm betting the money for the film was spent on booze and other vices for the cast and crew. Shame on you Pendragon films! I want my money back!


I have just lost three hours of my life to this travesty, and I can honestly say I feel violated. I had read the reviews and heard the warnings, and I thought I was prepared for anything - at best I thought, a faithful (if misguided) attempt at an original adaptation; at worst, a so-good-it's-bad "Plan 9" for the new millennium. So when I managed to pick up a copy in Walmart while in Florida and brought it back to the UK, I joked to my friends "Prepare for the worst movie ever made!" Oh, cruel Karma. There is absolutely NOTHING to recommend this film. The "special" effects look like the work of a first year design student using a Spectrum ZX81. The acting is terrible, the accents are WORSE than terrible (one artillery mans' accent seems to take us on a tour of the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales via Northern Ireland), the dialogue is stilted, the editing is non-existent, the production values prove that no expense has been gone to. Words really cannot describe how bad this movie is; from the Union Flag flying from the horribly CGI'd Thunderchild (the Royal Navy flies the White Ensign, NOT the Union flag) to the woodworm ridden acting, this is quite simply a crime against film making. When you consider some of the literally-zero-budget fan films that are available on the 'net (the Star Wars short "Troops" for example), the whole "we're enthusiastic amateurs" argument goes right out of the window. And if you believe an interview with Hines on the Pendragon website, this film had an 8 figure budget! I can only assume that dodgy facial hair does not come cheap in the US. Maybe the problem is that Hines & co tried to make a film of the book, rather than turn the book into a film (if that makes any sense). Characters and extras spout chunks of text verbatim without trying to convey the feelings behind the words. Ironically enough, the ONLY person who even came close to giving a decent performance was Darlene Sellers, the ex-soft porn actress. My advice? Pray like crazy that Jeff Wayne doesn't screw up, and go watch the Spielberg version. It may not be true to the text of the book, but I can say this; As a lifelong HG Wells fan (and Englishman as well) Speilbergs film IS true to the Spirit of the book. Maybe customs were wrong to let me carry this monster into the country, but I will say this: Timothy Hines stole three hours of my life, and I want them back.


Well, on it's credit side (if it can be said to have one), Timothy Hines DID manage to capture the original setting of H.G. Wells' outstanding novella. But other than that - well, to call a spade a spade - it sucks bigtime. What the Master Ed Wood could have done with the alleged $20 million dollar budget! Timothy Hines really does make Mr. Wood, who was a flawed genius anyway, look like the best filmmaker of all time. The special effects (I guess you'd call them that) are not even up to computer game standards. The acting is, well, perhaps about dinner theater comparable, and the accents are atrocious. At the risk of sounding offensive, a lot of the acting from the principal male characters is (especially Poor Ogilvy), well, ahem, . . . GAY! Poor Ogilvy minces and flounces about the bogus English countryside, waving his asbestos white handkerchief about as if it were heat resistant armor. Hey, the Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" had neat white body armor too, and it didn't work either, they still got blasted. Even when Ogilvy and Company get fried by the Martians' 'Heat Ray'(?), they flounce and mince in some weird kind of dance, even when they're theoretically DEAD and reduced to skeletons, which persist in unseemly dancing and writhing. Maybe Timothy Hines rented the skeletons from Ray Harryhausen, being left over from "Jason And The Argonauts". Or was it "Josie And The Pussycats"? I dunno. The soldiers, presumably because they're 'military', all seem to just rather unconvincingly explode, like the soldier on crutches and his unfortunate comrades carrying the stretcher just beyond him. Wow! I loved it! But the 'soldiers' all looked like they were either fascist troops from the Spanish Civil War, or Boer Commandos (which would be more or less correct for the period. Perhaps that was some bit of shrewd subtlety on the part of that wicked genius Hines?). Oddly enough, the character of the Curate looks exactly like he's drawn in the original illustrations by Warwick Goble, and he also turns in the most convincing job of acting. Oh, yeah. Musn't forget the THUNDER CHILD. In the book, the warship is described as an ironclad torpedo-ram. It was MEANT to RAM enemy ships. Yet, it's bow was crumpled after ramming the Tinker-Toy constructed Martian War Machines, with a tiny jagged hole in the forepeak, and she sank. An ironclad warship like THUNDERCHILD could've rammed the TITANIC and survived, but I guess the Royal Navy was bound by the same lowest-bidder constraints as our own Military. The costumes are all wrong, especially the British Army and Police uniforms, cobbled together mostly from USMC Alphas. And Timbo, in an obvious homage to Western Films Of Yore, has obviously set his movie in Wild Western England, because all his riders are using western saddles. The accents being used by just about everyone appear to be a mixture of some kind of Scottish regional accent used by Clan Macabre, and magically delicious Irish accents from County Malarky. On the credit side, and contrary to what one reviewer wrote, the only genuine, authentic feature of this Thing is the artillery. The guns are not from the Civil War, but appear to my eye and research as bona-fide British nine or 12 pounder Rifled Breach Loaders, perfectly authentic to the period. So was the ammunition shown being used. But the Artilleryman, who is a driver in the Horse Artillery, was not shown correctly driving his limber. You don't sit on the frigging limber box and drive a gun team, you ride the nearside wheel horses. The Opening, using what I believe is authentic period film footage, is okay, and the score's not bad. However, to the best of my knowledge Weybridge has never had an underground, and it certainly didn't in 1898.

But growing up reading this novel, I am very disappointed. Even more disappointed then I was at Spielberg's zillion dollar, special effects laden version. Maybe his version would have profited by swapping Anthony Piana for Tom Cruise, and vice versa. I have a lot more to say, but I'll let it go at this for now: I wish somebody would make a GOOD version of "War Of The Worlds" that's faithful to the original. Timmy's vision is fine for a high school film class, or maybe I should say pretentiously stupid for a college-level film student, and about as bad, which is about the best I can say for this thing, but that's about it. Oh, yeah. Just where DID the budget go? And what happened to Michael Caine? I'd like to hear HIS comments! I have a sneaking suspicion that Timbo "Orson Wood" Hines' breathtaking, bound-breaking cinema masterpiece just might be the risk-taking director's ticket to cult stardom, because, I must confess a guilty pleasure at watching this movie, which I didn't pay for anyway but was thoughtfully sent to me by a friend who burned a DVD copy for me, with no malicious intent that I've been able to determine. I must add here that I thought Blackmoon's dubbed and abridged version was not only a vast improvement, but an absolute, hysterically funny (in a good way) treat to watch. I find it hard to watch Master Timbo's version after Blackmoon. Keep it up, Tim! Make your own version of "DUNE", now. It just awaits the hand of a master like you! And all you headupyourass snobs who hated Cloverfield? FORGET IT. It CANNOT BEAT TIMBO HINES ARTISTRY FOR SHEER HILARIOUS AWFULNESS! HEY GET A LIFE!TIMBO IS WORSE THAN THE MASTER ED WOOD! I KID YOU NOT!


Hines and Goforth, the perpetrators of this crime, begin on the wrong foot first step, by assuming that Wells wrote Gothic horror and that all of his lines are meant to be taken seriously. That simply isn't true. Wells was very much an inheritor of the Enlightenment, and his main concern was that Victorian self-satisfaction might leave the British unprepared for the world the new technology could produce - both the good and the bad.

Two terrible consequences follow - the protagonist is portrayed as a wimpy screamer (I was reminded of Fay Wray in the original King Kong), rather than a man struggling to live out the ironies of an unbelievable catastrophe; and the dialog reeks of 'Victorianisms' uttered seriously that Welles clearly meant to be taken tongue in cheek.

All of this looks suspiciously like Ed Wood with an enormous budget to waste on CGI effects - which by the way are so poorly accomplished, the Warner Bros. cartoon factory of the 1940s could have done a better job. (Gobs of spattered blood looked like red balloons, I expected them to float away any minute.) Think The Yellow Submarine as done by the old EC Comics.

Worse yet is the loss of theme, which robs the film of any reason to exist. Although the makers of this film return the story to its Victorian era, they utterly miss the uncanny way Wells' story predicted many of the horrors of the First World War - a fact not unnoticed by Wells himself, who, after the war, reworked the theme in The Shape of Things to Come.

Without any theme, all we have here are a lot of people running around getting blasted into cartoon balloons, when they're not trying out for a high school production of a drunken student's rewrite of Macbeth.

Really, this is the worst, most senseless piece of drivel I have suffered through since a friend talked me into seeing the Eastern European cartoon "Fantastic Planet" thirty years ago. That film was so pretentiously dull, my friend and I and two total strangers gave up ridiculing it about half-way through, and sat near the screen playing cards, using the movie as light by which to see the cards - its only usefulness, as far as any of us could tell.

But I already have electric lighting in my apartment, so I didn't need this put-down of Wells for anything.

Do not avoid this film - steal every copy you can (don't pay a cent) and burn each and every one of them. God in his wisdom created us just for this purpose.


Let this serve as a warning to anyone wishing to draw attention to themselves in the media by linking their name to that of a well-loved and well-respected, not to say revered author, in order to draw attention to their home-movies out on DVD.

Hyped to the skies by its obviously talentless makers, in fact lied about only to be revealed, finally, as ludicrously inept in every department, the fans of Wells and of his book have been after the blood of its Writer-Producer-Director since it appeared on DVD.

Many good points have been made by the other comments users on this page. Particularly the one about using this as a teaching aid for Film School students, since this "film" does not even use the basic grammar of scripting, editing, continuity, direction throughout its entire 3 hours running time. It is possible the Director did show up for the shoot. Certainly there was no-one present who knew even remotely what they were doing.

An ongoing thread continues to evolve on this IMDb page which should at least furnish the watchers of this witless drivel with a few laughs for their $9.00 outlay.

Much was promised. Absolutely nothing was delivered. Except "Monty Python Meets "War of The Worlds" with all the humour taken out.

Indefensible trash. Just unbelievable.

There are REAL independent film-makers out there to be checked out. People who actually try to work to a high standard instead of flapping their gums about how great their movie is going to be.

People could do worse than keep an eye on Brit film-maker Jake West's "Evil Aliens" for example.


WOW!

I just was given this film from a friend of mine, who bought it for 1.98 at Walmart, and he felt that he got taken! It is beyond boring, most of the scenes are filmed in front of a green screen, the acting is somewhat improvised, almost as if they didn't have a script. The Martians are CGI, which look like they were done by a novice, or a Fan produced movie. I cannot stress just how bad this DVD really is!

Example: In one of the scenes, the martians are torturing a local female captive. She goes from a woman in front of a green screen, to a CGI copy of that woman. The change is totally noticeable, and when she is killed, you can see that it is a computer figure, looking like something from a game back in 1990!

If at all possible, avoid this movie like the plague! You can download two trailers from their site, and see how god-awful it really is!


Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.

"The Fear: Resurrection" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween" ("Fear 2: One Night of Halloween")


Five-year-old Michael sees his mother getting axed to death by his serial killer father "The Highwayman," who later commits suicide. "20 years later" grown Mike (Gordon Currie, from PUPPET MASTER 4 and 5) invites seven of his friends to his secluded grandparents home to "master their own fears" at a Halloween night costume party. Morty, a life-size wooden doll kept in the attic by the Indian handyman, becomes possessed by the dead father's spirit and kills them off using their phobias. Characters are thrown out a window, drowned in a toilet, eaten by rats, blown up, etc. Morty morphs into the dad and a tree, walks around and makes stupid wisecracks. After finding a girl chopped up and stuffed in a cardboard box, the characters remain in the house, act cheerful, crack jokes and have sex.

The Morty design is good and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees from the original Friday THE 13TH) is surprisingly delightful as the grandmother, but this thing is even more senseless and confusing than the original and is full of false scares, bad acting, brain-dead characters, repeat flashback footage and annoying distorted camera-work. Plus the only two minority characters (the Indian and a half-black girl) are the first to die. BLAH!


This movie was crap with a capital "C." The opening scene showed promise. But that "promise" was broken shortly after the viewer learns where the plot is going.

And the wooden statue, Morty, who was rather creepy in the original film, looks plain goofy in this one. It was so obviously just a guy in a cheap plastic costume. (And by the way, who else thinks "Morty" is one of the most un-scary names on planet earth? It ranks right up there with "Jimmy" or "Fred" when it comes to horror value. Or why not just name the wooden statute Henry-freakin'-Kissinger. "Run, it's Dr. Kissinger!" That'd be about as scary as "Morty.)

And then there's a scene where the "hero" hits his father's tombstone with---"a sledgehammer?" you might guess--"a two-by-four?" someone might venture. No, he angrily beats his father's tombstone with a twig---a freakin' twig. But worse than that, once the characters walk away, the tombstone actually, and inexplicably, bleeds. Oh brother!

There's also a Native American guy who lives with the main character's grandparents, but apparently, does nothing except Morty-maintenance. He perpetuates creepy Morty-legends, warns those who scoff, and even fixes Morty's arm when it becomes damaged during a childish prank. But for all his respect for and tenderness toward Morty, does Morty give a rat's hairy behind? No.

The movie drags on, and eventually several people die in ways that correspond to their worst fears (sort of). This film is a real yawner. Don't rent it.


Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.

Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?

A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.


A young boy sees his mother getting killed and his father hanging himself. 20 years later he gets a bunch of friends together to perform an exorcism on himself so he won't turn out like his father. All the stock characters are in place: the nice couple; the "funny" guy; the tough (but sensitive) hood; the smart girl (she wears glasses--that's how we know); the nerd and two no-personality blondes. It all involves some stupid wooden statue that comes to life (don't ask) and kills people. I knew I was in trouble when, after a great opening scene, we jump to 20 years later--ALL bad horror movies do that!

The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is bad (except for Betsy Palmer--why Betsy?) and the killings are stupid and/or unimaginative. My favorite scene is when two people are supposedly having sex and the statue knocks the guy off the bed to show he's fully dressed! A real bad, stupid incoherent horror film. Avoid at all costs.


Mike Hawthorne(Gordon Currie)is witness to the brutal murder of his mother and suicide of his father Morty(Jon Fedele). Twenty years later, Mike gathers a group of his friends to his family's cabin in the woods for a Halloween party. While playing a game where the guests confess and confront their worst fears...Mike tries to summon the spirit of his late father. It is soon discovered that Morty's spirit inhabits a wooden Indian in the cabin. The statue comes to life and the blood bath begins.

Most of the F/X are not very convincing and the movie takes on a cheap teen slasher theme. Stale story pitifully acted. Cast members of note are: Kelly Benson, Phillip Rhys, Emmanuelle Vaugier, Byron Chief-Moon and veteran actress Betsy Palmer.


I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to.

Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it.

From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.

Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life.

I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a "friend".


Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility.


i am very disappointed with this movie because i like these french actors and i liked "Buffet Froid" from this Director (bertrand blier) but the script of "Les Acteurs" is VERY POOR. why these actors they agreed to play this poor scenario.


I am really shocked that a great director like Chuck Jones started out making some of the most incredibly boring cartoons I've ever seen. I did not laugh once throughout this short, and it's a Bugs Bunny cartoon, for Christ's sake! Bugs Bunny cartoons are always funny, not boring! Alas, this short turns out to be Good Night Elmer (another incredibly boring Jones short) with the addition of Bugs Bunny.

The first warning sign of a dull cartoon is always no gag payoff. Good Night Elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. This cartoon, on the other hand, is afflicted with the second warning sign of a dull cartoon: there's too much dialogue. The cartoon at least has more than two gags up its sleeve, but most of them seem longer than they are thanks to the immense padding of the dialogue. At one point, Elmer finishes eating dinner, and comments, "That was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb," possibly the most redundant dialogue I've ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later-era Woody Woodpecker cartoons doesn't count in my book). Even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long, it feels like 20 thanks to redundant dialogue like this.

Elmer's Pet Rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me, but if you've sold your soul to Chuck Jones and are unable to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career, you might enjoy it.


I am amazed at the amount of praise that is heaped on this movie by other commentators. To me it was rather a disappointment, especially the combination of historical facts, fantasy and the main character's internal turmoil does not work at all (in Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse Five and even in George Roy Hill's adaptation for the screen it does). Credibility is often overstretched. Too many questions are left open. Did I miss some central points? Or did I fail to spot the lines that supposedly connect the dots?

A boy called Campbell, Jr., grows up in upstate New York. At home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. It has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. The boy leafs through the book, his dad doesn't like his doing that. What should this tell me? The family moves away from upstate New York to Berlin. BANG. It is 1938, the boy is a married man in Berlin and a theater playwright. What kind of plays does he write? In what language? Is he successful? His wife is an actress and looks glamorous. The parents move back to the USA and invite their son to do the same. He does not. Why? Because having grown up in Germany he feels more German than American? Because he is successful? Because his wife is? Because he likes his life there? Because he likes the Nazis? Because he is just plain lazy and doesn't like change? Don't ask me.

Possibly, the man just does not care, is not interested in politics, is a kind of an existentialist. He states that he is deeply in love with his wife. He speaks of his Republic of Two (meaning he and his wife). There is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie, it much more seems a Republic of One.

On the request of an American agent Campbell, Jr., agrees to broadcast anti Semitic Nazi hate propaganda to American listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to American authorities who read between the lines. The crucial meeting with the agent on a Berlin park bench is short, unexciting and anti climactic, the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation, the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast.

So now we have Campbell, Jr., presenting himself over the air as the Last Free American. The scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting - although one wonders what happened when Campbell, Jr., really and honestly had to cough, hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). Anyway, the Nazis lose, the wife dies (touring in the Crimean for German troops - I never heard such tours really happened on German front lines in WW II), Campbell, Jr., says he goes to the Russian front but does not go, is captured by an American soldier who recognizes his mug (how come?), is dragged to a sight-seeing tour in Auschwitz, is then released and resettled with the help of the Crucial Agent somewhere in the City of New York.

AND THIS IS WHERE THE STORY REALLY STARTS

BANG. From now on it is like a short story by Paul Auster. It is 1961, Campbell, Jr., lives in New York tenement as a has-been and mourns the loss of his wife. Nobody really cares - or do they? Yes, somehow they do, and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. Auschwitz survivors. A painter. Some American supremacists discover" him and want him to be their figurehead. They even find his presumed dead wife for him, or is she his wife? Anyway, in the end Campbell, Jr., calls in at the Israeli consulate, and they obligingly give him the Big War Criminal treatment, placing him in the cell adjacent to Adolf Eichmann's. He writes his life story and, once this task finished, hangs himself on the typewriter's ribbons without getting sooty the least bit.

While I can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss, I just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. So I found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. Amazingly, many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero, having put his reputation at stake for playing the Last Free American. I assume according to them this took a lot of courage. As a matter of fact, however, the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment Campbell created for himself a win-win situation, as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. The danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story.

One might argue, that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. But even then it fails to make a point, primarily, I suspect, because the love affair in the Republic of Two falls completely flat. This is a pity, especially if you consider that the wife was played by Sheryl Lee, a talented, versatile and sensuous actress. She has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous German accent. Another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession, broadcast and hidden messages), but I guess this is largely unfilmable. Maybe I should give the book a chance.


This was an awful movie! Not for the subject matter, but for the delivery. I went with my girlfriend at the time (when the movie came out), expecting to see a movie about the triumph of the human spirit over oppression. What we saw was 2 hours of brutal police oppression, with no uplift at the end. The previews and ads made NO mention of this! Plus, for all that they played up whoopi goldberg, my recollection is that she is arrested and killed in the first 20 minutes! Again, the previews say nothing about this! (not that you would expect that, but it's just more of the problem). If I had known how depressing this movie would be, I would've never have seen it. Or at least, I would've been prepared for it. This was a bait and switch ad campaign, and I will NEVER see this movie again!


The concept for Sarafina appears to be a sound one, that is aside from the musical perspective. It attempts to combine upbeat African music with a story describing the atrocious conditions and atmosphere that black people were forced to endure at the time the film was set. The contradictions of each of the two elements are too glaring and the film never justifies such rapid shifts between jubilation and terror. Had it simply been a drama reflecting these conditions it may have been a good film, however the scenes of school children being shot down by soldiers don't exactly sit well next to the songs.

Aside from the poor premise the acting isn't the best either, Goldberg gives a mediocre performance as does the remainder of the cast. Overall a disappointment.

3/10


I just didn't get this movie...Was it a musical? no..but there were choreographed songs and dancing in it...

Was it a serious drama....no the acting was not good enough for that.

Is Whoopi Goldberg a quality serious Actor..Definently not.

I had difficulty staying awake through this disjointed movie. The message on apartheid and the "tribute" to the students who died during a student uprosing is noted. But as entertainment this was very poor and as a documentary style movie it was worse.

See for yourself, but in fairness I hated it


One scene demonstrates the mentality of "Terminator Woman" pretty well: Karen Sheperd and another woman are trying to escape from the villain's camp. Karen runs across an armed guard, who points his gun at her, but after a few seconds throws it away and challenges her to a fight. Karen kicks him in the balls, picks up the gun and runs away! Then again, when a film is directed by a martial artist and written / produced by another member of his family, you know you shouldn't expect too much. Karen Sheperd and Jerry Trimble do get some amusing banter going early on, and the film might have turned out better if it had focused more on their love-hate relationship. But after about 20 minutes they get separated, and the film slows to a crawl, and even with the occasional fight scene to liven things up, it lacks excitement. The finale has Trimble fighting Qissi inside a cave and Sheperd going womano-a-womano against the beautiful Ashley Hayden on a speedboat, but the fights are intercut in a way that breaks their flow and diminishes their value. On the positive side, kudos to the costuming department for giving Karen the chance to show spectacular cleavage throughout the film! (*1/2)


This film has got several key flaws. The first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot! This sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness, as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. This means that the film cannot captivate it's audience, instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it! In short, it really is very very very very very very very BAD! Do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe, you'll find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching Terminator Woman.


You may want to know up front that I am not a Mormon, unlike a good number of those who have already reviewed this film. I mention this so you'll understand that the way I look at the film may differ greatly from those in the faith. For some, being critical of the film might be seen as being critical of the faith--and that is NOT my intention. So, my review is that of an outsider trying to look inside and learn more about who this man and his people were. Well, after seeing the film, I doubt if I have learned much at all. Since I have been a history teacher, I have a good basic understanding about Young as well as Joseph Smith as well as the teachings of the church. But anyone wanting to see this film to really learn anything will probably be disappointed because the film seems so gosh-darn nice--too nice and too unrealistic in its portrayal. Plus, you learn practically nothing about the church's beliefs other than they are nice people, work hard and some have many wives (and this latter part is only barely hinted at in the film). Instead, the people are almost cartoon-like in their simplistic portrayals. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their followers are angelic, the non-Mormons were all devils and Brian Donlevy (playing EXACTLY the same sort of role Edward G. Robinson later played in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) is the trouble-maker who claims to be a Mormon but just comes along so the film can have a bad guy. It's all so very simple....too simple. Almost like an indoctrination film or infomercial.

Brigham Young especially was a very complex man--with many good points (an excellent organizer and visionary) as well as bad (don't even get me started on his views about Blacks within the church or intermarriage). To portray him in such vague terms is just plain silly. It's also a lot like how Gandhi was portrayed in the film with Ben Kingsley--only the facts that led to his being almost super-human were emphasized. Heck, now that I think about that, this is the trouble with most religious films--they often come off as one-dimensional, trite and bland. Let's have a full and more complete film of these men--one that will stick to facts and not emotional appeals.

Now if you can ignore the fact that you won't learn very much about the faith or its second leader, the film is enjoyable enough. It's obvious someone at 20th Century-Fox really cared about the film, as they had a wonderful cast of both premier actors (Tyrone Power), up and coming actors (Linda Darnell, Jane Darwell and Vincent Price) and wonderful character actors (Dean Jagger, John Carradine and Brian Donlevy). The film also had wonderful location shooting and lots of gloss. It just didn't have a lot to tell us other than they were all "swell". Plus, there were plenty of factual errors and a few just plain dumb scenes. A few of the mistakes include Young taking over the helm immediately after the death of Joseph Smith (it was three years later), no mention of the various Mormon denominations and splinter groups, talk of "gold in California"--even though it was 1847 and gold wouldn't be discovered until 1948, as well as no specific mention of polygamy or Smith's many wives. Just plain dumb scenes include Carradine pulling out a gun and waving it about in the courtroom scene--and no one seemed to care--even though it was a very hostile audience! Don't you think at least the judge would tell him to put it away and stop threatening people with it?!

One final comment. Do not, I repeat, do not watch this film when it's shown on American Movie Classics (a one great station that has sunk a lot in recent years). While I am critical of the film because of its simplistic message, I was horrified with the complete disrespect the station had for the church and its traditions. What I mean is this. The film was punctuated with ads for penis enlargement formulas as well as tons of pop-ups (some advertising a show that features the "sexiest cast"). Talk about disrespectful and gross and I would be just as offended if they did this for any other religious film. By doing this, they not only insult the faith but marginalize their market--after all, who is into hearing about these things AND the life of Brigham Young?! Is this a movie, in this form, that you can show to your kids or recommend to others?!


This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.

Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.

The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.

It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.

The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.

Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.

None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.


The main reason people still care about "Carlton-Browne Of The F.O." is that it features Peter Sellers in a second-billed role. But watching this film to see Peter Sellers is a mistake.

Sellers plays Amphibulos, a vaguely reptilian prime minister of the dirt-poor island nation of Gaillardia, formerly a British colony, now hosting a lot of Russian diggers during the height of the Cold War. Amphibulos wants to play both U.K. and Soviet interests against each other for easy profit, "everything very friendly and all our cards under the table". Terry-Thomas is the title character, a lazy British diplomat anxious to show Gaillardia that Great Britain hasn't forgotten them, all appearances to the contrary.

A positive review here says: "The reason this movie is considered average is because the comedy is understated." I would argue that the reason "Carlton-Browne" is considered below average is because the comedy is non-existent.

After a decent opening that establishes the film's only two strengths, a sympathetically doltish Terry-Thomas and John Addison's full-on larky score, things quickly slow down into a series of slow burns and lame miscommunication jokes. The low opinion of Carlton-Browne by his boss and the obscurity of Gaillardia (which no one can find on a map) is milked to death. By the time we actually reach the island (after a labored series of airsick jokes), expectations are quite low.

They're still too high, though. The island itself, which seems to exist either in Latin America or the Mediterranean, is so pathetic its honor guard faints at the airport, and the review stand falls apart in the middle of a parade. The army is apparently still horse drawn, allowing for another lame aural gag by a thick-accented announcer: "In war, the army uses many horse."

Sellers never quite takes center stage even when we're on his character's island. The plot is taken over instead by Ian Bannen as King Loris, who inherits the throne of Gaillardia after his father's assassination. Bannen is dull and plays his part as straight as it is written. Normally this would make him the likely target for scene-stealing by Sellers, but trapped behind a thick accent and greasy moustache, Sellers is only a threat to those of us who remember him far more happily in two other films made this same year, "The Mouse That Roared" and "I'm All Right, Jack."

Strange that this film, like "Jack", was a Boulting Brothers production, with Roy Boulting here serving as co-director alongside Jeffrey Dell. Usually Boulting films combine wicked social satire with anything-goes comedy, but here there are only fey jabs in either direction. Amphibulos works his mangled-English vibe for all its worth ("This man is like, how do you say, the bull in the Chinese ship") while Carlton-Browne is generally ragged on by his superior far more than he seems to deserve.

The weakest and most protracted element of the film is young Loris's romance with Ilyena. Score one point for her being played by ravishing Luciana Paluzzi, dock one for the fact that they are apparently cousins is never addressed.

The film winds up with a lamely staged revolution whose surprise resolution will surprise no one, and a final bit of action by Carlton-Browne that would seem to nail the lid on his coffin literally. Apparently he lives to see another day, but the film of the same name is strictly DOA.


It was meant to be a parody on the LOTR-Trilogy. But this was one of the most awful movies I've ever seen. Bad acting, bad screenplay, bad everything. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I don't doubt any second that there are people who'll like this sense of "humor", but there have been better parodies on movies from acclaimed directors as Mel Brooks or the Zucker Brothers. I'm working in a movie theater and in DVD Shop and the success for this movie was similar in both areas: At the movies it was a nice (but no big at all) success during the first two weeks but then, when the reviews of those who have seen it were not too good, the movie dropped very fast. In DVD sales it was good for short time but then nobody asked for it anymore. In the last ten years, the two worst movies I've seen are The Ring Thing and Torque. I can't decide which one was worse, but I'm happy that there a so many good movies so I don't have to think too much on this question.


This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is absolutely no storyline, the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. In the whole movie Fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn't ask himself ONCE how he came from a plane to middle earth. There are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e.g. : Gandalf is called Almghandi, Sam is called Pupsi ... and so on. I didn't even smile once during the whole movie. The gags seem like they were made by people whose IQ is negative. If you laugh when someone's coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. Another funny scene: They try to guess the code word for a closed door (don't ask why- don't ever ask "why" in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha): dung. So if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. For everybody else: Go to Youtube and watch "Lord of the Weed": it's a lot, lot more fun.


This sounded like a really interesting movie from the blurb. Nazis, occult , government conspiracies. I was expecting a low budget Nazi version of the DaVinci code or the Boys from Brazil or even Shockwaves. Instead you get something quite different, more psychological, more something like from David Lynch. That was actually a plus. But the way the story is told is just awful.

Part of the trouble is the casting. Andrienne Barbeau's character starts off the moving being somewhat timid and afraid. She just doesn't do that well, even at her age, though she certainly tried. The actor cast as the son apparently thought this was a comedy. Most of the other actors also seemed to have thought this was a campy movie, or at least acted like it, rather than simply being quirky. The only one that I thought did really well was the daughter, Siri Baruc.

Another big part is the pacing. It starts off very slowly. So slowly you might be tempted to turn it off. But then it gets compelling for a while when you get to the daughter's suicide and the aftermath. But shortly afterward, it all becomes a jumbled mess. Some of this was on purpose, but much of it was just needlessly confusing, monotonous, and poorly focused.

The real problem, is it's simply not a pleasant movie to watch. It's slow, dull, none of the characters are likable. Overuse of imagery and sets. Some movies you see characters get tortured. In this, it's the viewer that does. It does have a few creepy moments, most notably the creepy Nazi paintings and the credits, but the rest of the movie is mostly just tiresome.


This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please!

Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".

Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame.


Can I please say first of all, that I felt so strongly about this movie that I signed up to IMDb specifically to review it. And my review? This is easily the worst movie I have ever seen.

The synopsis of the movie sounded interesting- Nazis, occult, time travel, etc., but the movies plot failed to properly bring all these elements together. Remember the episode of South Park that featured manatees writing Family Guy using 'idea balls'? Did these manatees also write Unholy? Its like the writer wanted to include all these different ideas, but had no idea how to link them all together, and then to make things make even less sense, included a Donnie Darko-esquire time travel theme to the ending, messing up the chronology.

I could tell from early on that this was a bad movie. Special effects were too low budget for anything better than straight to DVD. The acting wasn't great, but in fairness I've seen worse. I will praise the Nazi paintings, they were creepy, but the evil Nazi butcher guy was just comic.

I don't have a vendetta against this movie or anything, but to be honest, I'm not even into the horror genre. But this movie cannot be described as a thriller or a drama. If this story had been well told, this would have been a good movie. But it has been over hyped. Waaaaay over hyped.


When I started watching this movie I saw the dude from Buffy, Xander, and figured ah how nice that he's still making a living acting in movies. Now a weird movie I can stand, given that it's a good dose of weird like for example David Lynch movies, twin peaks, lost highway etc. And you sort of have to be in the mood for one. This one however made me mockingly remember the crazy websites about there about conspiracy theory's that make absolutely no sense. I mean come on people Nazi's who conspire with America to make an unholy trinity of evil powers? I was surprised they didn't mention the hollow earth in this movie with Hitler flying saucers and lizard people. Maybe if you had like 60 grams of heroine with this movie it would make some sort of sense, but seriously I don't condone drugs like I don't condone this movie. It should be burned, shredded and forgotten just so good ol' Xander might get another acting job. It wasn't his acting though, that was alright, but the script just didn't make any sense. Sorry.


I'm not sure this is a spoiler; perhaps it is a public service. If you are one of those people focused on instant gratification who skip end credits, you will miss the final line of the end credits news announcer's voice-over, which states the U.S. has just surrendered to Nazi Germany on May 7, 1945 to end WWII. Here are just a few of the problems with this close:

1)The older viewer must conjure up the equivalent of two or three more UNHOLY movies in their mind's eye to fill in the yawning chasm between movie events and this startling conclusion.

2)The average person will really kick themselves that they did not "watch" one of these UNHOLY fill-in-the-blanks flicks created in their own head for free, instead of shelling out time and money to see this UNHOLY from the video store (or on cable).

3)This end credits sequence of imagined news bulletins may be the first information some younger viewers are exposed to about WWII, leading them to the conclusion that George W. Bush is the latest heir to the Nazi throne.


I read Rice's novel with interest, and became quite enchanted with its characters and heartbreaking tale based on historical truths.

However, I was simply APPALLED at this disastrous adaptation. The casting was based merely on physical appearance, and not acting talent (with the obvious exception of Peter Gallagher, who was neither blond-haired, or able to act his way out of a wet paper bag). The cast's embarrassingly clumsy and inconsistent attempts at affecting a French accent was hilarious, but not in an entertaining way. I found myself wincing through this muddled and melodramatic tripe, and was surprised I made it to the end.

A warning to fans of the novel - stay away from this one.


This movie was so badly written, directed and acted that it beggars belief. It should be remade with a better script, director and casting service. The worst problem is the acting. You have Jennifer Beals on the one hand who is polished, professional and totally believable, and on the other hand, Ri'chard, who is woefully miscast and just jarring in this particular piece. Peter Gallagher and Jenny Levine are just awful as the slave owning (and keeping) couple, although both normally do fine work. The actors (and director) should not have attempted to do accents at all--they are inconsistent and unbelievable. Much better to have concentrated on doing a good job in actual English. The casting is ludicrous. Why have children of an "African" merchant (thus less socially desirable to the gens de couleur society ) been cast with very pale skinned actors, while the supposedly socially desirable Marcel, has pronounced African features, including an obviously dyed blond "fro"? It's as if the casting directors cannot be bothered to read the script they are casting and to chose appropriate actors from a large pool of extremely talented and physically diverse actors of color. It's just so weird! This could be a great movie and should be re-made, but with people who respect the material and can choose appropriate and skilled actors. There are plenty of good actors out there, and it would be fun to see how Jennifer Beals, Daniel Sunjata and Gloria Reuben would do with an appropriate cast, good script and decent direction.


The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.