In order to avoid confusion, let me clarify a couple of points: I am not a red neck. I am not even a moderate nor a conservative. Quite on the contrary, I am a radical: a Libertarian. I'm not a WASP either, I was not even born in the States.

Jorge Luis Borges used to say that there are some kind of folk who do not feel poetry, and that these sad people usually earn their living teaching poetry. This movie was made by and for people who do not feel poetry, by and for show-offs; and I dare say, by and for people who have no sense of decency or, for that matter, respect for other people's life or death (especially when the victims are thought to be mostly 'bloody imperialists' killed in Yankee soil.) I even find the original marketing idea of the eleven episodes of eleven minutes, nine seconds and one frame as particularly hideous and repulsive. Just plain awful. Why didn't they assign a budget of as many dollars per episode as individuals were brutally murdered in the attack? The whole idea rests somewhere between mere stupidity and reckless fascism. Anybody who is serious about film-making (and serious about life and death) should have angrily declined to participate in this recollection of innuendoes and non-sequiturs. With two exceptions: the episode of Burkina Faso -- almost amusing --, and the one from India --which documents the story of a man who was unfairly and wrongly investigated in relation to the attack, on the basis that afterwards he didn't return home and that he was an American Muslim (and, truth be told, when the facts were known he was honored as a hero). All other nine episodes, essentially and extremely boring and emotionless, can be listed in two different categories:

First: 'I don't care about the thousands of victims: Americans, foreigners, children, youngsters, adults, old-timers...' and can be resumed in pure boredom and lack of emotion. Makhmalbaf's (Iran); Lelouch's (France)  I'm afraid I'm going to commit an heresy since it's Lelouch's, but maybe, his episode might be considered built upon an idea which could be regarded as almost original; Tanovic's (Bosnia-Herzegovina); Gonzalez Inarritu's (Mexico); Gitaï's (Israel); Penn's (USA)

Second: 'The bloody Yankees deserve it'. And can be resumed in frustration and hatred. Chahine (Egypt) vindicates the suicide bombers; Loach (UK) considers the 9/11 reckless attacks were some kind of punishment for the alleged support of the USA to the Chilean dictatorship headed by the serial-killer Augusto Pinochet, in fact someone should inform Mr. Loach that the victims of Pinochet were not related to Al-Qaida and that Chile is a South American country which sole existence Mr. Bin Laden should have ignored, he ought to be informed too that the American government sanctions against the Chilean dictatorship were harder than any other ciountrie's; and, Imamura (Japan) windingly points out that WWII is related the attack to the WTC. Imamura has at least been coherent in this: the supposed cause effect linking is entirely nonsensical, which plays well with his episode including a man who believes himself to be a snake. It pretends to be obscure. It is, instead, quite ludicrous.

There's some kind of error shared by many, including some Americans, and it consists in the belief that this movie wasn't commercially screened in the States because of some kind of censorship. Nothing further from the truth: This movie wasn't screened in the States because it is a complete fiasco. A fiasco of the wackyest kind. Even in Buenos Aires, where Peronism and other forms of Fascism are nearest and dearest to the hearts of a sizable number of its inhabitants, and anti-Americanism is in vogue, the movie was screened in living rooms hurriedly converted into theaters, and was applauded by a very select public: The usual sad few who routinely lend their applause to other equally 'quaint' spectacles. Like the sight of a McDonald's fast-food restaurant or, perchance, an elderly Jew, being burnt to ashes.


In Theodore Rex poor Whoopi Goldberg is set up as a tough police cop who gets to work with a pathetic dinosaur on a case. The movie tries to be funny, and tries to make a story about abductions and more but it never works. The movie is far from funny, and the story is ridiculous. I voted 1/10


This is hands down the worst movie of all time. A combination of Whoopie Goldberg (the worst actress/person in history) and a talking dinosaur ala Jar-Jar-Binks add up to a painfully bad movie. That was an understatement. This movie is unwatchable. For the love of God, do not watch this movie.


I hadn't heard of this film until I read an article about it on the Unknown Movies website, which made me curious. As a cartoonist and illustrator myself, I'm an admirer of Richard Williams's work - I rate Ziggy's Gift as one of the finest Christmas specials of all time, and even though Who Framed Roger Rabbit stopped being one of my favourite films when I got past the age of sixteen, I still have the highest of regard for the amount of work, care and attention to detail that went into creating the visuals - but it seems the man has his faults, most notably a propensity for going over budget and over schedule, and this film is a testament of just how far wrong even a super-talented individual like Williams can go, given the right circumstances.

Raggedy Ann and Andy is a strange confection that tries to be weird and experimental and off the wall within the confines of a children's cartoon. It tries also to be a musical. It tries to be a thousand and one other things as well - is it a freakout? Is it a mind-blower? Is it a paean to the innocence of childhood imagination? - until it finally collapses under the weight of its own limitless ambitions and aspirations. It's beautifully animated, for the most part, though the bland backgrounds could have used a little more attention, but even that doesn't count for much when you're confronted with the hallucinogenic absurdity that constitutes much of the 'action' here.

There are a number of problems with the film, but let's start with Raggedy Ann and Andy themselves. They're the stars of the show, yet they have no personalities. Actually, we get the message that Andy is a wannabe tough guy ("I'm no girl's toy", he sings) and that Ann has a unique perspective on things because her owner, a little girl called Marcella, carries her upside down, but that's all we get to find out about these dull-as-mud characters because the overwhelming weirdness of this film kicks in not long after. I use the word "weirdness" advisedly, because some weird films can be hugely entertaining, but this is just flat-out strange. The toys and dolls in the playroom are supposed to be cute and lovable, but they're actually bizarre and disturbing. The two marionettes who do and say everything in sync are a prime example of this. But even they're relatively normal compared to the constantly sneezing pirate captain, whose moustache becomes erect and whose groin visibly swells when he first catches sight of a glamorous French doll. Yes, this is supposed to be a children's film! Then there's the music, none of which is memorable, and all of which is sung by actors who can't sing. And to add insult to injury, there's a lot of singing in this film. When Ann and Andy finally make it out of the playroom, the first thing they do is sing a LONG number in the woods about how scared they are, about how they'll always have each other and...yes, we get the message. This seems to go on forever, but at least it brings some semblance of normality back to the film. Not for long, though, because the Camel with the wrinkled knees leads us into a bizarre world where everything looks like it's made from worn and faded denim, and - bad enough that he's clearly a paranoid schizophrenic - he also starts hallucinating. But this is nothing compared to the scenes that follow. The Greedy, a living, breathing. belching, farting, constantly eating pool of taffy, is so trippy, creepy and ultimately disturbing, you'll hardly believe what you're seeing - this is as close to a drug-free psychedelic experience as I've ever seen on film. Then, after a l-o-n-g time spent with the Greedy, along comes the psychotic Sir Leonard Looney and his master King KooKoo, whose throne resembles a urinal. I can't believe I'm actually writing a capsule description of a real film here - I just had to rub my eyes and remind myself that I'm not blogging about an overwhelmingly whacked-out nightmare I had. Part of the sequence in Looney Land resembles one of the old Winsor McCay / Little Nemo cartoons, for no good reason other than somebody felt like doing it, probably. All this would be fine if there was some kind of rhyme or reason behind it, but there isn't. These scenes are just strange, and very, very long. Surrealism only works when there's a strong idea behind it, or takes place against some semblance of reality. But NOTHING in these scenes points towards any kind of reality. Take away this element, and you're left with pure self indulgence.

As the final scenes unravel, even the animation begins to look less impressive (the pirate ship, ludicrously detailed, jerks about on the water in a manner that suggests some of the cels went missing during the production) and there's a non-event of an ending that simply suggests money ran out. Even at a meagre 86 minutes in length, the film feels like a never-ending ordeal, and it's understandable why it flopped on its original release. Animation buffs will probably scratch their heads and wonder just how Williams managed to flub this one so spectacularly, but he did, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.


I saw this movie when I was really little. It is, by far, one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. Now, normally, I like weird movies, but this was just a bit too much.

There's not much of a plot to the movie. If anything, it starts out like Toy Story, where toys come to life, and Raggedy Ann and Andy go on an adventure to rescue their new friend, Babette. From there, craziness ensues. There's the Greedy, the Looneys, a sea monster named Gazooks, and a bunch of pirates singing show tunes, all of which just made the movie weirder. Also, I can't help but feel that Babette is annoying and a bit too whiny. She definitely didn't help the movie.

Now, even though I didn't like this movie, there were a few cute parts. I liked the camel's song. Even though it was a song about being lonely, it had a friendly feel to it. Then, there was Sir Leonard. While most of the Looneys were just plain nuts, Sir Leonard was the most interesting and probably the funniest. King Koo Koo was just a little dirtbag that made Dr. Evil look like a serious villain. Also, there was Raggedy Andy's song, No Girl's Toy. It was definitely good song for little boys who wanted to act tough. But, honestly, even these things didn't make the movie any better. (But remember, this is just my perspective.)

While I personally wouldn't recommend this movie, even I have to admit, it does have its charming moments. See it if you're interested, but only if you're in the mood for something "really" out of the ordinary.


As others have said, "No, Luciano" is a more apt title or response to this movie title. For entertainment, the great opera singer should stick to singing.....not that he's a terrible actor. It's just that this movie stinks.

The first 25 minutes were fine - a nice family movie, as it were - but after that it's nothing but a boring soap opera.

Appropriately playing a singer, Pavarotti, as "Giorgio Fini," loses his voice a few times and the doctor, "Pamela Taylor" (Kathryn Harrold) comes to the rescue. The singer then falls for the doctor, the doctor slowly falls for the singer, the two argue all the time and on and on and on it goes.

Pavarotti has a winning smile and is a likable guy. It's Harrold that spoils things and after watching her here I am not surprised she didn't become a star.

There is nice scenery in the movie to enjoy, good shots of San Francisco and Italy, at least in the first half of the film. I got bored and don't remember much about the second half of it.


By my "Kool-Aid drinkers" remark, I mean that these are such devoted fans of the man Pavarotti that they make no attempt to objectively rate this film. Giving this a 10 is akin to giving Wally Cox the award for Mr. Universe or putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!! When this film debuted, I remember the savage reviews with headlines such as "No, Giorgio" and some said it was among the worst films ever made. This is definitely overstating it as well. While bad and far from a great work of art, there was a lot to like about the film and the movie's biggest deficit was not the acting of Pavarotti nor his girth.

Believe it or not, the brunt of the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the writers (who, I believe, were chimps). It is rare to see a movie with such clichéd dialog or goofy scenes like the food fight, but even they aren't the heart of the problem. The problem is that the writers intend for the audience to care about a "romance" that consists of a horny married middle-aged man and a seemingly desperate lady. Perhaps European audiences might be more forgiving of this, but in the United States in 1982 or today, such a romance seems sleazy and selfish--especially when Pavarotti tells Harrold that he loves his wife and "this is just fun". Wow, talk about romantic dialog!! Sadly, if they had just changed the script a little bit and made Pavarotti a widower or perhaps had his wife be like the wife from a couple classic Hollywood films, such as from ALL THIS AND HEAVEN, TOO or THE SUSPECT (where the wife was so vile and unlikable you could forgive the husband having an affair or even killing her). Instead, she's the loving mother of two kids who waits patiently at home while her egotistical hubby beds tarts right and left--as Pavarotti admits to having had many affairs before meeting Harrold.

Sadly, even the gorgeous music of Pavarotti couldn't save this film. Towards the end of the film, there are some amazing scenes in New York where the set is just incredible and Pavarotti's singing transcendent. For that reason, I think the movie at least deserves a 3. I really wanted to like the film more, but it was a truly bad film--though not quite as rotten as you might have heard.

Sadly, from what I have read, this film might be a case of art imitating life, as Pavarotti's own life later had some parallels to this film, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss this in detail.


An attempt at crossover to appeal to those who don't appreciate opera, exploiting the fame of one of the greatest opera singers of all time, it fails badly. All that is desirable in this movie is the opera, and one can best find a recording of Pavarotti doing what he does best. The plot revolves around a romance with a doctor who heals his throat which has suddenly become troublesome.

Only because it came out so long ago is it largely forgotten. Like most opera stars, Pavarotti is a decent actor and has stage presence aside from his singing talent, and nothing that he does in this movie negates that opinion. His culpability lies in not rejecting the horrid script. Perhaps because great operas can have silly stories he tolerated this one.

Who knows, except those involved? Do we need to know?

The plot is weak and trite. This movie is like trudging through cold mud to pick off a few juicy tidbits (the opera music) hanging above the mud. We have other ways in which to appreciate the great Pavarotti, and this one isn't one of them. Just get one of his many superb opera or vocal-concert recordings and recognize the master tenor where he is most suited.

It would be one of IMDb's 100 Worst Films if more people remembered it and gave it some votes; it would fit neatly in a list including several efforts of singers, actors, models, and athletes to exploit their popularity through film. Very often it all goes badly wrong due to incompetent acting or a horrible script. Pavarotti would have been a decent actor had he not shown such a superb voice. However effective he is as an actor (opera requires it), not even Jimmy Stewart could have rescued this turkey of a script.

I give it a polite 3 of 10 because someone may have become a fan of Pavarotti's singing and of opera because of this movie.


I too was intrigued by the high (8.5) rating for this film, and was very disappointed. I had just seen a couple of good foreign films and was looking forward to making it three in a row, but it was not to be. I went with a spanish speaking friend who felt the same way. There is not much of a plot, if any. I don't necessarily need that in a movie, but it needs to somehow entertain or bring me in. The best I could say would be that it aspires to be an Altman-esque film, albeit with an extremely small ensemble. Sure, there are moments, but a few moments easily get thinned out by 97 slow minutes of nothing. I do not understand the high rating for this film. I give it a 3.


(Rating: 21 by The Film Snob.) (See our blog What-To-See-Next for details on our rating system.)

Here's a movie that will have you clawing at your own face in an attempt to earn release from the on-screen tedium.

You'll not be wringing your hands, nor rolling your eyes, nor sighing into your popcorn. No indeed. For a movie of *this* averagousity, only clawing at your own face will do.

When you begin to claw your own face -- as begin you must! -- start in at the lower portion. You'll need your upper portion, with its handy tear ducts, intact for the Truly Tear-jerking third act which may bring you to your knees if you haven't clawed your way clear of the entire theatre by then.

In a season celebrating Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Moms as the new Gold Standard for leadership and foreign diplomacy, permaybe a movie this tedium will be welcomed as A Thing that anyone could create. *Watching* it, however, is a much more dangerous undertaking.

Here's our story...

Sidney Young, the London publisher of a fourth-tier celebrity/entertainment magazine is just about to see his magazine go under. He needs a miracle, and what he gets is a phone call from New York City, in the USA.

The publisher of Sharp's magazine, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges) says "Come work for me!" With his own employees carrying out the fax machine out of his apartment/office in the background, saying "Yes" is a no-brainer.

Soon Sidney is at work in New York City, doing allllllll the wrong things. His interviews consist of asking Broadway musical directors if they are (1) Jewish, and (2) gay.

He kills the pet dog of Sohpie Maes, the industry's hottest movie star, when she leaves it in the magazine's offices during a business luncheon.

This is a spot of bad luck for everyone, for, among other things, Sidney imagines that he is in love with Maes, before he wakes up to the Dunst character.

Worst of all, he totally alienates Alison Olsen (played by winsome scripting-confusion by Kristen Dunst), a colleague assigned to show him the ropes of the magazine *and* The Big Apple. (We have, of course, been to a movie before, and so we know how this relationship is going to end up. This is therefore why we'll need intact tear ducts for the movie's third act.)

The problem with The Thing is, the script just never jells, excepting for the one tear-duct set piece in which True Love prevails.

Publisher Harding is supposed to be a son-of-a-bitch who also wants to just throw the whole job over. The script never comes down firmly on one or the other sides of this dichotomy, however, and Bridges is left to twist and waffle in the breeze.

Alison Olsen is supposed to despise Sidney Young, but whenever he comes up to her (as he does constantly) she makes a point of engaging him in conversation, instead of attempting to discourage his existence.

The "comedy" of early scenes is built around a piglet destroying an expensive hotel room, and then taking the elevator downstairs to urinate on the expensive high heels of a celebrity at a cocktail reception.

The hot starlet Maes confesses that she is attracted to Young because he is "wounded." The character never shows us *why* he is wounded, however. This is yet another resultant of the movie's mortally wounded script.

At one hours and fifty minutes, This Thing feels longer (and more deadly) than Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It is uninspiring, unfunny, unredeemable, and not even rentable. Run Away


Simon Pegg stars as Sidney Young, a stereotypically clumsy idiot Brit working as a celebrity journalist in this US comedy. After getting a very lucky break he starts work at the highly respected Sharps magazine run by a reliably on form Jeff Bridges in New York. It's more The Devil Wears Prada than Shaun of the Dead. The unlikely love interest is provided by Kirsten Dunst who works well with Pegg for the laughs but they don't exactly set the screen ablaze with their passion.

Sidney goes through some emotional challenges while trying to decide if he should forget about his journalistic principles in order to get material in the magazine. Of course he's eventually seduced by the glitz and glamour of the world of celebrities especially the young starlet Sophie Maes (Transformers' Megan Fox). Fans of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Spaced will wonder if Pegg himself ever experienced similar feelings in real life with this film and to an extent Run Fat Boy Run as one of the UK's best comic talents being ruined by the US.

All in all this is a forgettable comedy. Please come back to us Simon, we can forgive and forget.


If you have read the book - do not set your hopes high, if you have not - go read it, and never watch the film. It is strange to learn that Toby Young was actually involved a lot in the writing of the script (as he claims himself in the post script of the book). Because the film is very different from the book.

What the film seems to be aiming at - taking a rather thought provoking and entertaining piece that combines philosophical ideas with plain funny sarcasm and simplifying it so that everyone would understand it - it achieves with perfection. The film is full of bad and cheap jokes suitable for a sitcoms, and has lost any meaningful message that it could have had.

You are better off not seeing it.


Not that he'd care, but I'm not one of Simon Pegg's friends. If I was, there's a good chance we'd fallout if he continued to make dross like this. The trouble is, he found a successful formula as the bumbling, ordinary guy-next-door type in Shawn of the Dead, Run Fat Boy Run etc, but it's starting to wear thin. Here his character has no discernible qualities, he's rude and obnoxious, and thinks he's funny when he frankly isn't. When transferred to New York from London (and I presume this link is meant to appeal to viewers on both sides of the Atlantic), he proves equally out of place with his new colleagues. Still, is it any wonder when amongst his jolly japes he hires a transvestite stripper to appear at an editorial meeting an act of revenge for his boss. Yet somehow, Kirsten Dunst starts to warm to him, even though he's done nothing nice. Oh, and because he's a superficial male he falls for Megan Fox at first sight, possibly because her character is as shallow as his. It all makes for a predictable film conclusion, although I can't see any viewer expressing how this mirrored their life. The shame is that on paper this is a cast supposedly worth watching. Pegg, though, plays himself, Kirsten Dunst seems to just go though the motions, creating no on screen chemistry, and Megan Fox isn't stretched at all. The one huge plus is Miriam Margolyes, as Pegg's New York landlady - now if she had been on screen longer.....


The sitcom "The league of Gentlemen" follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village "Royston Vasey". The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.

In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a "local" shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims.

Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.

Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about "her" sexual conversion.

Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the "real" sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.

Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.

In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: "Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave."

Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste.


I like British humor, I believe it's one of the best in the world. I like almost every British sitcom (okay... maybe not Monthy Python, some of the jokes were great, but some of them I didn't understand.), but this League of Gentlemen is just something good to make you sick. This show was good in some way; it helped me lost some weight because watching this piece of garbage make me feel I'm not hungry anymore. This is really just disgusting, sick and not even funny TV show and I wonder who is actually laughing at this stuff. I watched it for about 10 minutes and turned it off. It was so disgusting, watching men dressed in the woman with yellow teeth and urinating on the car... I mean... what's so funny about that??? It makes me wanna puke. No humor, just disturbing images and cheap, toilet laughs... I don't know... if you like this stuff... you go ahead... watch it... but to be honest, people watching and enjoying this must have some emotional problems. Garbage.


Not funny - how can anyone link this to Monty Python? That is absolutely ridiculous - there are no laughs. This is not funny. Over the top, but ugly, weird just for weird sake and it seems to me these people were on something all the time. Unfortunately something that did not make them funny.

It should be given some points for effort etc. whatever. Actually it appears there is a laugh track - or is there one? Hummm.... Since there are barely any laughs that's a debatable question.

Maybe I'm doing it injustice - maybe it's some sort of exercise. Some sort of art - in that case anything goes, never mind.

But these guys playing women with high-pitched voices, turned-up noses. Come on !!! Not funny.

There is only one heir apparent to Monty Pythons intellectual wit and that is Stephen Colbert, and maybe Jon Stewart.


I'd really, really wanted to see this movie, and waited for months to get it through our Blockbuster Total Access account. When it showed up in our mailbox, I threw it straight into the DVD player.

I was very sadly disappointed, which in turn made me mad. I'll give any movie a chance, even if I want to walk out of the theater/press 'stop'. I watched it all the way through, but didn't get anything from it but frustration.

The acting was very, very good, but that was about it. Nothing is explained; while we understand that Mathieu becomes depressed and lands in a psych ward of some kind, we're never given insight to his 'downfall'. While we understand that he and Cedric break up, again, we don't see it happen or WHY it happened. During an interview with Mathieu's doctor, Cedric reveals that he'd cheated on him once, but it was no big deal. I expected to see this in flashbacks, but no--nothing. We also gets the hints that Cedric was the one to bring Mat to the hospital--but AGAIN, we don't see it.

I know some movies are a 'take it as it is' basis, but this movie honestly ticked me off. When Pierre, Cedric's ex shows up in the club and starts trouble, we don't see hide nor hair of him until near the end, and it took me a good chunk of time to figure out that Pierre WAS the ex. His personality at the club and when Mat finds him are entirely different. I might even be wrong saying this, it was that confusing.

The film expects you to know everything and move along with its disjointed, out-of-place and confusing pace. I can keep up with films like 'Pi', 'Citizen Kane' and other films that have flashbacks/flash-forwards left and right, but CU didn't capture and hold onto the style. At the end of 'Citizen Kane', you know what's going on and discover the answer to the main mysteries. CU just leaves you hanging. It has an air of pretension in its 'we're not gonna tell you a damned thing, figure it out for yourself' presentation. It's like reading a book with the chapters switched around and pages missing.

Good acting, like I said. I liked the characters, but the whole story was just too disappointing.


Somewhere, out there, there must be a list of the all time worst gay films every made. One's that have overlong camera shots of the stars sitting and staring pensively into space, or one's where they focus unbearably long on kitty kats eating spaghetti. This motion sickness picture is a story of a boy and a boy and they live and love and swim and get stuck in grottos and one of them has a depressed mother and another has no mother and they talk and walk and swim and have sex and get drunk and then break up and someone goes to the hospital for eight days and then gets out and there is a lot of fast forward and rewind and there are long pensive shots of one of them looking into space or just sitting and doing nothing. I think it's some sort of gimmicky film making technique or maybe it's that the film is so bad they have to fill it up with long, wasted shots because otherwise if they had to rely on plot or story the film would be about 14 minutes. Don't get me wrong, this is about the 30th gay film I"ve watched in the past 6 months and some of them (most of them) have been very formulmatic, predictable and boring but this is one is really a terrible waste of time. The best one so far was "Beautiful Thing". So, I watched this and after the very first opening shot which lingered and lingered I thought "Oh, no, its going to be creative sinny mah" But I gave it a chance and watched it and then when it ended I tossed the DVD in the trash. Sorry I didn't like it and if you did, sorry if I offend.


It seems there's a bit of a curse out there when it comes to gay cinema. Namely, happy endings aren't very common. Beautiful Thing excluded, gay films tend to end in broken relationships or untimely death. And some, like Come Undone, just end... period.

The creators of this horrid piece of nonsense have a thing or two to learn about plot, direction, and timelines. Within the first ten minutes of this film, I found myself a bit confused, and even more so after the first glimpse of Jeremie Elkaim's character having a little psych session. It seems this film was randomly pieced together without the slightest attempt at continuity or consistency. There's no real way to tell when you're viewing the present or some sort of ethereal flashback. I could only take so much before it became truly unappealing.

Stephen Holden of The New York Times called this film "...shimmeringly beautiful and utterly real." Well, it seems that Stephen invested in beer goggles prior to viewing, as this is truly far from beautiful. Due to all the praise this film received, I expected something worth watching. Sadly, the film lived down to its title. And by the end of the movie (which provided no resolution whatsoever, I might add) it's plain to see that the writers, the director and the film have all Come Undone.


After reading several good reviews as well as hearing nice things about it by word of mouth I decided to rent Come Undone. I must say I was rather disappointed. The story was hard to follow because the film is set as a series of flashbacks between the present and recent past that are very poorly executed. The characters, despite the actors best efforts are flat and uninteresting. The sex is and nudity are more explicit than they need to be. I've never seen a film where they seemed so unnecessary to the plot. The ending is very anti-climatic and leaves many unanswered questions to a story line that wasn't explained well to begin with. In my opinion, a waste of time.


There was something here with the female lead having this perfect life she's always wanted after the worst life possible, beginning as a child prostitute and winding up with Eric Roberts. But her background makes it impossible for her to trust Dean Cain and this utterly destroys it in the end. It sounds weird, but I like the position Dean Cain was in at the end and the choice he made. He can't hurt her because he loves her and she's the mother of his child (I think the time frame makes it clear it's his child and not his brother's), but at the same he can't forgive her for all she's done, sleeping with his brother (which shows the love and obligation he felt was pretty much one way) and then being part of his death. In better hands this would have been a better movie, but for something I caught on late night cable, it's not bad.


The plot was quite interesting, with the Russian revolution background. I also enjoyed seeing Budapest as the movie was partly filmed there. Sadly, there was zero chemistry between the 2 main characters so it was hard to believe the love story between them. The love scenes were forced and mechanical. Jordan kirckland was really stiff, almost icy. Rob Stewart was quite charming and boyish, so she looked like his older sister rather than his girlfriend. The ending, when we finally figure out who was actually after them, was quite weak and made no sense whatsoever. I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot better if the relationship between the 2 actors was slightly more credible.


Take young, pretty people, put them in an exotic locale, stick in a few bad guys, have the two lead characters find romance after a couple of heavy breathing scenes, create the flimsiest of plots, then work out a happy ending for everybody (other than the three or four who get murdered, of course) That's the classic (and successful) format of the Harlequin Romance. It's not very good but then it's not very bad either, like most of the little yellow pocket books. And the location stuff in Budapest is especially interesting, even if they didn't use the wonderful old train station (designed by Gustave Eifel) or show the city's famous thermal baths.


The story concerns a genealogy researcher (Mel Harris) who is hired by her Estee Lauder-like cosmetic queen aunt. Her aunt (by marriage we are left to presume) is trying to track down her long lost family in Europe. All they have to go on is a photo of a young girl standing by an ornate music box. The researcher heads to Europe and conducts her search in places like Milan, Budapest, and Vienna. The scenery is the real thing and is actually shot on location (unlike a Murder, She Wrote where Jessica is supposed to be visiting a far-flung locale and Lansbury never left Burbank). Anyway, she meets a young man who is also searching to solve a family mystery of his own and they team up to track down clues and menace bad guys. The dialogue, particularly the romantic dialogue, is terrible. I watched this because of the scenery but the script was so bad that I stayed on just to see if it would get worse. It did. Acting was also off. I can see why Mel Harris's career never really took off after thirtysomething, but she is adequate (seems too old for her co-star though). But, the supporting players are straight out of the community playhouse. I also lost count of how many times they say "Budapest" to each other. Yes, it is pronounced Bood-a-phesht. We know, okay? I realized halfway into the film that this had to be one of those Harlequin movies and sure enough it is. Guess that says it all.


Wow! I'm shocked to learn that it's a small world and that we are all interconnected. What a waste of 88 minutes. John Dunne put it much better in one sentence. "No man is an island." The acting wasn't bad. The kids gave it all they had but at times the thread got so thin I couldn't follow it and the only real "hero" in the film ends up in jail after being tormented by a meter maid. I don't know. I just don't get it. Oh well.


Geez, as a Gay man who lives in NYC I can gratefully say that I have never seen the underbelly of Gay Culture that is portrayed in this film - and I am glad of it!!! Was this film broadcast on TV across the United States there would be a great anti-Gay backlash and I cannot say that I would blame them. The people in this film do not represent the average Gay American or even the average Trandgender American, what they do represent is a sheer and utter nightmare. The inclusion of obviously underage characters is appalling and the obvious racist sentiments (anti-White) are blatant and unsettling - society cannot be blamed for people who have chosen drugs, unemployment and rejection of education on the part of the film's "cast" - the actions of these people are not acts of desperation, but rather a rejection of anything resembling personal ambition and a willingness to make something out of one's self.


After watching this film, I was left with a two very annoyances about this film: why did they make Chen's character this "McGuyver hit-man" and Lee's character such an incompetent idiot? Chen's character's background is that he was raised in an underground Cambodian orphanage for blood thirsty fighter where they learn to brawl it out to the death like wild "dogs." This detail is pushed early on during a scene where he gets into a cab and as it starts to drive, he shows how he is unfamiliar with a seat belt. Soon after this scene, he has a similar situation at a dim sum restaurant. Not only is he uneducated, he is starving. This is not a reference to Chen's scrawny physique but to the two early scenes in the film where he is scarfing down food, one of which, being rice porridge off the floor of the lower deck on an old ship. Si in the first ten minutes of the film, it is established that Chen is malnutrition-ed, unmodernized,and has only thing going for him, his "dog" brawling fighting style of some sort. Despite this situation, Chen manages to out-shoot every policeman (even managing to ricochet a bullet off a metal pipe to hit a guy in a head, whom was holding Chen's girlfriend hostage) and has somehow attained a super human strength (swings a 50 lb block of concrete, plastered on the end of a metal pipe, to the head of the police chief AS he is getting shot in the chest, by said chief).

Now Lee's character...okay, I get it, he's depressed, he's got some baggage, but wow, can he do anything right? One moment, they try to make him cool, composed and ready to take care of business, and the next moment, he just got beat again. First scene he runs into Chen, and he manages to misses him, from approx 15 ft, multiple times. Toward the end of that scene, Lee watches Chen as his close friend and coworker gets slowly stabbed in the neck with a long knife for a good full 5 seconds, while holding a gun to Chen face, at a 10 ft distance. Even at the end of the movie, Lee manages to get stabbed to death and fails once again.

And my biggest problem with this movie is that it is presented in a manner that film makers are trying to get the audience to sympathize with Chen's character and that he is just "killing to survive." That would be a lot easier if I didn't just watch Chen kill innocent people throughout the whole awful movie. Of the numerous people he killed, only two people had the intention of trying to kill him, the police chief and Lee. Others were just people who were eating, boat owners, taxi drivers, and policemen trying to arrest him, not kill. Overall, Chen's character is a just a cold blooded killer who kills for what he wants, even if its just a free ride. (Did I mention he is carrying a wad of hundred dollar bills throughout most of the film?) My 3 stars go to some of the interesting director/camera work who got in some nice shots.

Bottomline: One made for the nut-hugging Chen fans. For me, "Dog Bite This DVD"


As it is often the case, the impressive and explosive trailers of Asian films add up to nothing more than lackluster stories. Similar to Unleashed (which was great,) Dog Bite Dog tells a story where men are raised as ferocious savage dogs that carry out their master's bidding. The main characters, an emotionally undeveloped, amoral killer who is matched against an equally unstable police officer, are far from the common heroes and villains we often see. In fact, by the end, you lose track of who you're supposed to empathize with, failing to feel even the slightest emotion for either of the men  whether that was the failure of the director or perhaps the underlining message he was trying to tell is up to you to decide.

Although the beginning of the film was filled with intrigue and unpredictability, by the half-way point it slopped down to a humdrum story of survival and revenge. The suspense which was evident at first soon disappeared because of a grossly mismatched music score which brought down the potentially effective story telling. And in the end, you were left feeling that all that detailed background information and introspection of the main characters was somehow very unnecessary.

On the plus side, the transition in story from point a to point b was quite atypical compared to US movies  so those who aren't familiar with Asian films and are tired of Hollywood's predictability should check it out.

The white balance seemed off throughout most of the film. It was like looking into a picture shot on fluorescent when it was supposed to be set on tungsten. Maybe I'm the only one, but it strained my eyes.

The movie also enjoyed playing tricks on you  an interesting build-up gave me hope for the slow moving story until it was diverted to a low budget, low speed chase scene. And just when you think you were going to get an unanswered indie ending with a mix of Shakespearean tragedy, you realize that it's not an ending at all, but rather a transition into a wacky country-music montage about peace and serenity.

Throw in some grisly from-behind choke scenes, a moment of redemption unexpectedly brought back into savagery and back again the other way, Asians' fascination with bodily fluids and a horrible music score that didn't match the film, and you get the average bland Asian thriller.

I just don't get why every fight scene was overlaid with clips of roaring lions I thought they were supposed to symbolize dogs? Ultimately, in the end, we are reminded about a true killer that still lurks amongst us  tetanus.

4/10


This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. The plot and message are horrible. There are too many mistakes in this movie that it's impossible to keep up. I don't even understand how this movie can get any nomination, let alone 2. Here's why: 1) Sam Lee portrays a angry/irrational detective which was caused by the disappointment from his dad. Pros: He's angry alright. Cons: When it comes to the explanation scene, he cannot convey the sadness/disappointment he has in his father. The crying scene was too fake and it seems like he is literally squeezing out tears from the corner of his eyes.

2) To connect the movie to the title, there were barking or dog wimping sounds during the fight scenes and rape scene, which is totally irrelevant and confusing to the viewer. I understand that it's supposed to be a metaphor or what not... but it's just sooo dumb! 3) WHY THE HECK DID THE COPS NOT SHOOT THE KILLER? What the heck is wrong with this movie. When the killer started stabbing an officer, SHOOT him. He's already dead! What the heck? There were lots of opportunity that the killer could be killed, but I do not know why he wasn't! 4) During the scene where the girl had her foot hurt. In the scene, it was very clear that the LEFT foot of the girls was hurt, so how the heck in the next scene that she's lending all her weight on her left foot? And this is the actress nominated as the best new performer? WTF? 5) The sounds in the movie are off sync.

6) I am guessing that this movie is trying to bring awareness of the brutality and violence among children in South East Asia, so why does the bad guy wins and then the cop was joining the fight? 7) This movie is just too violent without a purpose. Cops are beating CI to a pulp and then if they cooperate, they give them marijuana and coke? This is overall the worst movie. I truly feel that the person who wrote this movie is a sadist and sick person. I have never seen a more disgusting movie in my whole entire life. WORST MOVIE EVER!


It's a bad movie, it seems like there is only 5 police in HK, they were not using there gun and this makes me feel like a Jacky Chan's movie. All the time they were using their gun to point at the suspect only. When they finally use their gun is when they kill each other, what a funny movie. In The movie, it's like all the good guys died without a reason.

They story line of the movie also sucks, the story jump here and there and bored people. But if you wanted to see a bloody movie, I think this is only a OK type of movie, I think U.S. made zombie movie is more bloodier than this one


The title above is used to introduce the film "Gen" to its audience. Gen is about a young doctor(Doga Rutkay) with an ill mother. The film starts with her leaving her mother behind to start her new job. While she drives, we realise that she is not that close home as the hospital is in a remote area. As soon as she steps into the garden of the hospital, she sees the death body of a patient. This is the beginning of a nightmare for the next few days.

Two policemen comes to the hospital so as to investigate the suicide. In fact, they will have to stay in the hospital because all roads are cut off due to bad weather conditions. All their communication with outside world is cut off too. There is no way out!! In those few days, there will be more nasty murders. Now everybody suspects from each other.

In my opinion, the idea is brilliant. It could have been very scary indeed. There are positive sides of the movie of course. I really like the beginning of the movie. Especially, when she drives to the hospital and her first moments in the hospital. Actings are okay. Some of them are trying too hard to be mysterious and scary though. I think the final shock should have been spread into the through out of the movie. What I am saying is, it was a good twist but instead of showing it as a parody in the end, we should have realised that was coming when we see what is happening. The director needed to explain it altogether which I think didn't work well. Also the most dangerous patient in the movie is supposed to be at least 48 years old but his body looks so young and fit for someone who spends most of his life in this hospital. Lastly, I would like to say a few things about the director. I am sure he will improve. This is his first attempt. I have recently found out that he is only 21 years old. That made me feel more positive about him and his future films. I am not going to rate this film * out of ***** though.


it is of course very nice to see improvements on Turkish movie industry, however, i would have expected something more creative from Togan Gokbakar. starting from the script, which i believe it was not a wise written one as some may think. especially the cheesiness of the dialogs, which were putting the audience in a position that, as if they were not smart enough to understand the situations, which, most of the times makes the movie unbearable. it also has an obvious ending; you can easily guess the murderer from the beginning. the weakest part of the scenario is that the impossibility of seriously mentally ill patients to act like normal people, like professionals right away!!!did they ever search for the possibility of patients who are on heavy medicals, to act like professionals and use all the medical terms that even normal people cannot use?????!!!!!!also in the scene where staff was searching for the most dangerous patient, with out any weapon to protect themselves was another weird point of the film. and that scene was so suitable for "Dikkat Sahan Cikabilir" title!! those are not the only weak parts of the movie. there were also a lot of preciosities in the film. the depiction of the most dangerous patient was an exact copy from Hannibal, also appearance of Togan in the very end is obviously the worst mistake that he could have done in his first movie! the fuss about the greatness of the movie and the interviews that actor's gave just made people to be curious and force them to see it. Gen is a total disappointment. i would have wonder, if Sahan was not this famous, would Togan be able to shoot this movie, with this much of budget amount?? i hope Togan would realize that it is not fashionable to play in a role as a director as he said in an interview. it was Hitchcock who did it wisely and Night Shyamalan continued it successfully! he should be aware of the fact that he is not Hitchcock nor Shyamalan yet!!!!hoping him to be more careful and creative next time in this big industry!


"Meatball Machine" has got to be one of the most complex ridiculous, awful and over-exaggerated sci-fi horror films that I have ever came across. It is about good against evil and a coming-of-age tale, with the aim of to entertain with bloody, sleazy and humorous context. Because of that the violence isn't particularly gruesome and it doesn't make you squirm, but the gratuitous bloodletting and nudity does run freely. The performances by Issei Takahashi and Toru Tezuka is the worst i have seen, if that was not enough it is also directed by an unheard of director called Yudai Yamaguchi. This movie just have it all, it is bad to the bone!, A must see for every b-movie freak!!!... Simply: an enjoying and rare gem.


This film is overblown, predictable, pretentious, and hollow to its core. The settings are faithful to the era but self-conscious in their magnification by prolonged exposure. The lingering over artifacts stops the action and cloys almost as much as the empty dialogue. Tom Hanks seems to be sleepwalking much as Bruce Willis did in Hart's War. Tom, you can't give depth to a character simply by making your face blank! The content did not warrant the histrionic acting by Paul Newman. This is a dud wrapped in an atomic bomb casing.


The highlight of this movie for me was without doubt Tom Hanks. As Mike Sullivan, he was definitely cast against type and showed that he can handle an untraditional (for him) role. Hanks is usually the good guy in a movie - the one you like, admire and root for. Sullivan was definitely not a good guy. It's true that in the context of this movie he came across as somewhat noble - his purpose being to avenge the murders of his wife and youngest son. Even so, he was already a gangster and murderer before those killings. So Hanks took a role I wouldn't have expected him in, and he pulled it off well.

Hanks' good performance aside, though, I certainly couldn't call this an enjoyable movie. After an opening that I would best describe as enigmatic (it wasn't entirely clear to me for a while where this was going) it turns into a very sombre movie, about the complicated relationships Sullivan has developed as a gangster - largely raised by Rooney (Paul Newman), who's a sort of mob boss, and trying to raise his own two sons and to keep them "clean" so to speak; isolated from his business. After the older son witnesses a murder, the gang tries to kill him to keep him quiet, gets the wrong son (and the mother), and leaves Sullivan and his older son (Mike, Jr.) on the run. It becomes a weird sort of father/son bonding movie.

Although it ends on a somewhat hopeful note (at least in the overall context of the story) it's really very dark throughout, that mood being reinforced with many of the scenes being shot in darkness and torrential rainfall. I have to confess that while I appreciated Hanks' performance, the movie as a whole just didn't pull me in. 4/10


Watching Tom Hanks as a hit man for the Irish mob is a little like seeing Jimmy Stewart as a serial rapist it just doesn't work. I had a really hard time accepting this.Not that I don't think Tom can't act he can I've been following his career since Mazes and Monsters but for some reason this fell flat for me. Maybe because I'm such a fan of the graphic novel and at the risk of sounding like a fanboy(the only form of life lower than a fanboy is a cockroach)The movie as a whole fails for me.The additions Jude Law, and the subtractions everything else left me feeling cold and more than a little disappointed. I was expecting a great crime movie more in the vein of Bonnie and Clyde Mendes took all the heart out of the story and left us with nothing but the bare bones. There are things to like in this flick however the cinematography is breathtaking filling the screen with beautiful images Paul Newman is as usual excellent and I really did enjoy the score, But Tom as "the angel of death" Sullivan was completely flat.


Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias.....


Frequently voted China's greatest film ever by Chinese critics, as well as Chinese film enthusiasts from the outside, and, frankly, I don't get it at all. What I saw was one of the most generic melodramas imaginable, blandly directed and acted, with a complete shrew for a protagonist. Wei Wei (don't laugh) is that shrew, a young married woman who has suffered alongside her tubercular husband (Yu Shi) for the past several years. It is post WWII, and they live with the husband's teenage sister (Hongmei Zhang) in a dilapidated home with not much money (the man had been wealthy when they married). Along comes the husband's old best friend (Wei Li), who also used to be the wife's boyfriend when they were teens. She considers running away from her husband with this man, while the husband pretty much remains oblivious, thinking he may engage his little sister to his friend. That's the set-up, and it doesn't go anywhere you wouldn't expect it to. I've actually seen the remake, directed by Blue Kite director Zhuangzhuang Tian. It runs a half hour longer, and is actually kind of dull, too, but at least it was pretty. This supposed classic is pretty intolerable.


-might contain spoilers... but believe me, this movie spoils itself from start to finish.

I walked into this movie with high expectations. It was my own fault. I had put too much stock in Steve Carell's record to date. 40 year old virgin... Little Miss Sunshine... The Office. And I also made the mistake of coming to IMDb and seeing a 7.5 user rating before going to the movie. It's always been a very good predictor in the past, but something is definitely off lately. The last time I felt this embarrassed and in this much pain in a movie theater was watching "Blue Steel" in 1990.

This flick fumbled from start to finish. The script was flunky material. Awful writing all around. "Murderer of love"? "Love is an ability"? Whoever wrote this crap suffered from the same affliction that struck American Beauty's writer(s)... trying waaaaayyyyyy too hard. The entire flick was peppered with Three's Company'ish moments like the awful and contrived shower scene. Or the pointless/confusing aerobics scene. Or the awful laundry room scene. Right when you think something serious and/or real is about to happen, they toss in one of these terrible moments. And it happens over and over and over again.

And what's with Carell's character? The guy meets some lame broad at a book store and is suddenly head over heels in love? Let's face it. Their conversation sucked. They both should have said their goodbye's after a few minutes. Pay close attention to the initial conversation when you have the misfortune of watching this movie.... Carell's character is trying to say something which is absolutely random and un-funny (I think the exact line was "this one time when I was a kid"... that's it. seriously), but both are laughing so hard that coffee is about to spout out of their noses. The actors themselves looked like they were in pain, wondering why they're being directed to do what they're doing.

Back to the IMDb thing... you guys need to figure out a way to keep a movie's promotional team off this site. I know it's impossible, but it's painfully obvious the first 20 or so ratings/reviews were either posted by 12 year olds, or by flunky's hired by the studio. Check out The Family Stone's rating... if that's a mid 5, then this absolutely has got to be a 2... and that's pushing it.


Expectations were somewhat high for me when I went to see this movie, after all I thought Steve Carell could do no wrong coming off of great movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and Little Miss Sunshine. Boy, was I wrong.

I'll start with what is right with this movie: at certain points Steve Carell is allowed to be Steve Carell. There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh, and it's due almost entirely to him being given the wiggle-room to do his thing. He's an undoubtedly talented individual, and it's a shame that he signed on to what turned out to be, in my opinion, a total train-wreck.

With that out of the way, I'll discuss what went horrifyingly wrong.

The film begins with Dan Burns, a widower with three girls who is being considered for a nationally syndicated advice column. He prepares his girls for a family reunion, where his extended relatives gather for some time with each other.

The family is high atop the list of things that make this an awful movie. No family behaves like this. It's almost as if they've been transported from Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver. They are a caricature of what we think a family is when we're 7. It reaches the point where they become obnoxious and simply frustrating. Touch football, crossword puzzle competitions, family bowling, and talent shows ARE NOT HOW ACTUAL PEOPLE BEHAVE. It's almost sickening.

Another big flaw is the woman Carell is supposed to be falling for. Observing her in her first scene with Steve Carell is like watching a stroke victim trying to be rehabilitated. What I imagine is supposed to be unique and original in this woman comes off as mildly retarded.

It makes me think that this movie is taking place on another planet. I left the theater wondering what I just saw. After thinking further, I don't think it was much.


If, in the first 10 minutes of this film, you don't realize that the main character, who writes a life advice column, is going to have the tables-oh-so-cleverly-turned and learn some valuable life lessons himself, then there is probably something wrong with you. The set up is so predictable as to ruin the movie, even if the rest of the movie was good (which it isn't)

There's almost no chemistry between the leads, and Steve Carell's stalker-ish behavior is embarrassing, not funny. It's hard to believe Binoche's character would have any interest in him. Then in the end it's all wrapped up so wonderful and everyone lives happily ever after. Isn't that great America!


Oh dear. This movie could have been sub-titled "When writers go on strike!" What a stinker. I had really high hopes for this, mostly after reading IMDb reviews, which makes me wonder about the whole IMDb rating system, but that's a separate matter. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchorman, Bruce Almighty, The Office, etc so I was expecting great things. To say I was disappointed is the understatement of the year. There are so many things wrong with this movie, but I'll confine myself to (a) the implausibility of ANY family behaving like these people do (A mass aerobics workout? What planet is THAT real life on?), the clunky script (a murderer of love? Please), and the fact that the character of Dan is so unlikable, you find yourself wondering what the girl saw in him to make her fall in love with him? This movie was filled to bursting with clunky dialogue, creaking direction, ridiculous set-scenes and it was slow, slow, slow. We would have walked out after half an hour if we'd not been with my parents, who don't get out much and don't like to waste money. Unlike the makers of this movie, who would have been better off throwing all the cash spent making this movie into a bonfire - that would have been more entertaining. If you like movies, avoid this like the plague.


Spoiler: Bunch of passive-aggressive people having family reunion. The script has them saying and doing things people would never do, at least anyone with a shred of decency. The hero falls for a woman he sees as his soul mate at a bookstore the day of the reunion, unaware she will show up as his brother's girlfriend at the reunion. He tries to defer to his brother's claim, but she, knowing our hero is clearly infatuated with her, teases him mercilessly by wearing sexy clothing and behaving like a stripper, rubbing all over the brother in a ruse excuse that she is showing him how to stretch. At one point, she actually disrobes and gets into a shower with him. He tries to cover his eyes. His heart is breaking. She thinks it's funny, until she suddenly decides she doesn't want the brother and leaves the reunion.

The movie really drags. The audience coughed and fidgeted its way through the long haul. The writing is unintelligent and unbelievable. We almost walked out, but kept thinking surely something would happen that would perk things up, but nooooo. All the lovely reviews must have been written by paid shills, out to dupe poor suckers like me into seeing crap like this. Comparing it to Little Miss Sunshine??? Jeez. Shame on them, the writers, the actors, the producers, and the theaters for letting anything this bad make it to the screen!


The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.

I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.

The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.

Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.


I have a 5 minute rule (sometimes I'll leave leway for 10). If a movie is not good in the first 5 or 10 minutes it's probably not going to ever get better. I have yet to experience any movie that has proved to contest this theory. Dan in Real Life is definitely no exception. I was watching this turkey and thought; wow, this is not funny, not touching, not sad, and I don't like any of the characters at all.

The story of an advice columnist/widower raising three young daughters, who falls in love with his brothers girlfriend. I suppose the tagline would be "advice columnist who could USE advice"? I don't know. Dans character in no way struck me as someone qualified to give advice. I guess THAT'S the irony? I don't know. He goes to see his parents, brothers, sisters and their kids at some sort of anual family retreat, which seems very sweet, and potential fodder for good comedy, story lines...none which ever emerge. The central story is basically how he loves this woman, but can't have her. Anyone with a pulse will realise that eventually he WILL get her, but you have to suffer through painfully unfunny, trite, lifetime movie network dialogue "murderer of love" to get to the inevitable happy ending.

This is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.


seriously what the hell was this movie about,,simply stupid,,i'd give it 0 but,,,1"awful" is the lowest you can go,,seriously this movie is not worth watching,,waste of time, i don't know what the hell is wrong with you guys voting this movie 7 out of 10,,i seriously can make a better movie than this , hire some other unemployed people,,'n i promise i'll make a movie better than this,,this movie was so bad,,that i'll never watch a movie starring Steve Carrel again,bottom line don't waste your time to download it off the net or rent it,,i'd nominate this movie for the worst movie of the century i mean the worst is Something Gotta give but after that this is the second


Wowwwwww, about an hour ago I finally finished watching this terrible movie!!! I wanted to turn it off within the first like 10 minutes but I figured I'd give it a chance because it just hadddd to get better. Or at least have some redeeming qualities, like I figured at the very least it would be a make you think type movie, or like really intelligent, or very well filmed or something...Needless to say, that was not the case and I wasted about an hour and a half of my life. Im not even going to get into why its terrible because its a waste of my time to explain that this "may contain spoilers"...IMDb, you should calm down on the spoilers thing and pay more attention to making sure that the people who rate the movies and comment are not paid to write good reviews or involved somehow in the movie or anything else like that. I thought it would be humorous after this terrible film to come see hoe bad the rating would be and I was very very shocked to see the fairly high ratings...all the ratings with about 7-10 stars clearly must be about some COMPLETELY DIFFERENT movie... Im still a big IMDb fan, but seriously rethink this rating process because this movie should be rated no higher than maaaybbbeee like a 3.


There's little to get excited about "Dan in Real Life". First off, the whole setup is incredibly contrived. Did you really believe that during that very long first meeting conversation at the restaurant, Marie wouldn't have told Dan where she was going? And since Dan did all the talking during that conversation, why would she be so attracted to him? For that matter, I never figured out why Marie was so attracted to Dan throughout the movie. He's very narcissistic and does little to convince us that he's truly a good guy (for example he lies to Marie in the bookstore, ridicules his brother about his past girlfriends and tries to make Marie jealous with a 'blind date'). There's more contrivance such as that ridiculous scene at the bowling alley where Dan and Marie are caught making out by the whole family. Yeah like that could really happen. Dan in Real life is slow-paced, sappy and manipulative. Even chick flicks like The Jane Austen Book Club get higher marks than this predictable "tearjerker".


I couldn't bear to sit through he entire movie. Do families like this really exist somewhere? There have been many comments describing this family as akin to LLBean models and such, and I think that that is a great description of how they behaved.

More absurdly unbelievable writing/acting occurs as we meet a character referred to in High School as "pigface" who, of course, has grown into a drop-dead gorgeous 20-year Harvard-educated plastic surgeon (but only to do good in the world-not for the money,) and she beds Steve Carrel on the first date. That's when I quit watching...

If you can completely suspend your disbelief for two hours, then perhaps you'll enjoy this sentimental, self-indulgent waste of time.


The premise of this movie is revealed on the DVD box. A textile worker develops a miracle fabric that doesn't degrade. But the movie fails to get on with it. Instead it pads for 45 minutes, noodling around a preamble before he makes the big discovery. Since audiences don't benefit much from seeing a whiz kid figuring things out, it's a strange choice: the movie has successfully been prevented from engaging any topic. Once the fabric is discovered, the movie too rapidly establishes that both industry bigwigs, and blue-collar co-workers want the invention squelched, leaving the movie with just two flimsy movements; inventing the chemical, and running from oppressors.

I can't understand why anyone would describe this as comedy. The tone isn't funny or comical. It's more like serious social criticism of the day: that capitalism warps both supply chains and production. Which in turn prevents innovation from reaching and improving the world. Yes, that's probably true, but without some toying with an attitude towards that fact, the movie is simply an earnest argument. You'll need an extremely broad definition of comedy to find any here.

This is more like a British Meet John Doe (Meet Nigel Doe ?).


I admit the problem I have with the much-celebrated Ealing films I've seen so far could be mine. To my taste, either they are black and rippingly funny, or so light in tone to be unsatisfying as comedies or stories. That's a self-important way of saying I wanted to like "The Man In The White Suit" but found myself struggling to sit through its short run time.

Textile worker Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) may be meek in manner, but he is doggedly committed to progress in the form of his attempts to invent a strand of fabric that can't be broken or made dirty. Using a factory lab for his latest experiment, he toils against limitations both material and human - the latter being the benighted mill bosses who don't understand what he is up to, then figure it out and become even more committed to stopping him.

"It's small minds like yours that stand in the way of progress," Sidney complains, practicing in the mirror what he struggles to say to the Man.

One problem with "Man In The White Suit" is that Sidney's vision of progress is awfully small-minded, too, more so even than that of the bosses or the laborers who also resent his work. My problem is more elemental: For a comedy, "White Suit" is not funny. It's a rather earnest script which too often tries to mine its feeble attempts at humor from spit-takes, double-takes, triple-takes, and dizzy takes.

The best joke is the sound of the machine Sidney toils at, going "Bleep-Blop-Bleep-Bop" endlessly and fetching queer looks from every visitor until Sidney either extracts his miracle from it or blows it up trying. Like every other bit of stray humor that functions decently in this film, it's leaned on too long.

I've never seen Guinness less affecting in a movie, even though he looks impossibly young and earnest (though actually in his mid-30s). He seems so bloodless, even more so than the wax-faced general he played in "Doctor Zhivago" He's the same cold fish whether he's ignoring the sad affections of the affecting mill girl who offers to give him her life savings when he loses his job (pan-faced Vida Hope as Bertha) or the more sultry charms of young Daphne Birnley (Joan Greenwood), his one real ally in his fight against "shabbiness and dirt", as she puts it, making those words sound as impossibly sexy as only Greenwood could.

Supporting players make "White Suit" work as well as it does. Ernest Thesinger of "Bride Of Frankenstein" fame plays a singularly nasty captain of industry who looks like Nosferatu and makes a laugh like a death rattle. Howard Marion-Crawford as another factory leader is as memorable here as he was playing a blinkered medical officer in "Lawrence Of Arabia". Then there's the undeniable charm of Mandy Miller as a little girl who steals her few moments on camera right from under everyone else.

But most of the scenes are played so straight that one wouldn't think director Alexander Mackendrick had ever worked on a comedy before (his previous Ealing comedy "Whisky Galore" doesn't reverse that impression, alas). Roger MacDougall's play posits the notion of scientific progress as potential disaster, but fails to present dull Sidney in anything other than the most blandly pleasant of lights.

Ealing comedies are remembered for capturing the human side of comedy. Yet the Ealings I've seen never seem to do this, working only when they play aggressively against our own sympathies. "Kind Hearts And Coronets" and "The Ladykillers" (Mackendrick again, go figure) are classics this way. "White Suit", on the other hand, is a pointless ramble that falls apart when it should cohere, just like that unfortunate suit.


What was this supposed to be? A remake of Fisher King? Why do we care about Sandler's character? What a slow, dreary, boring, who-gives-a-damn-about-these-people movie!!! Just simply painful to sit through, I turned it off before it was over. It's so obvious that Cheadle needs help as much as Sandler; like I said: can you say "Fisher King"? And how does this psychotic character function in his daily life? We aren't supposed to think that deeply, I guess. Why does Cheadle continue to give Sandler a chance to turn violent on him? If they were such good friends, how did they grow apart? If Cheadle is so in control, why does he keep seeking the advice of the shrink on the street? We are never told. That's why Fisher King was a better film on so many levels and why this just sucks. Nearly 8 out of 10 average score? I don't agree. At all. Even the top films are lucky to get such a high average rating, and this crap doesn't deserve to be in the same universe with them.


Ursula Andress' naked body is one of those things that make you believe in God. The other two women (especially the one who plays the maid) have great bodies as well. Then why is the higher grade that I can give to a film with such quality and quantity of nudity only 3 out of 10? Because, to get to Ursula's unbelievable body, we have to sit through a movie that is otherwise unfunny and boring (keep in mind that I watched the full 101-minute version, not the 78-minute American one which probably cuts out a lot of the extraneous material). In typical Italian-comedy tradition, most of the characters are exaggerated caricatures (the army freak, the "latin lover", the constant drunk, the naive maid) that are not funny, simply overacted. Final word: watch this, but keep your finger on the fast-forward button, you're gonna need it. (*)


I'm starting to write this review during a break as I watch the movie. It's the first time I've tried doing that, but I'm having trouble getting through this one without occasional breaks. That's not because it's intense but because it's bad.

It's almost painfully tedious and unbelievable, especially when the preternaturally robust dying brother Ryan (Colm Feore) is on screen being tragic and bitchy, self-indulgent and self-pitying. This would have been a much better movie if they'd just left that character out of the story.

He adds nothing but mawkish, maudlin, very irritating melodrama. Maybe somebody decided that if they couldn't make Ryan believable they'd just make him obnoxious. The problem with that is: Who cares if a spoiled, whining, obnoxious jerk is dying? Not me.

The ONLY thing this character has going for him is the fact that he's dying, and sorry, but that's just not enough. Dying doesn't make anybody special. We're ALL dying, sooner or later. It doesn't give anybody the right to expect sympathy while acting like a jerk.

The other two characters, and the actors playing them (David Cubitt as Theo and Chandra West as Sarah), are very much more interesting, and their story, without Ryan's self-pitying interruptions, would have made a much better movie. But it's not over yet, and it's time to hit PLAY again. Maybe something great happens before the end....

Nope. Sorry. This rented turkey goes back tonight!


The past creeps up on a rehab-addict when he reconnects with his ill brother and a former girlfriend after what he hopes was his last stint in detox. "Life's dramas", presented here in the most simplistic way imaginable (not even the writing has any bite or wit). The cast is made up of attractive looking actors smiling glumly at one another, and the music and photography are lugubrious (a couple of the visual effects are laughable, indie-cliché touches that reek of a puny budget). Although written and directed by a man, this was produced by a woman, and I'm not sure but I think this may be a distinct reason why this picture about two men, estranged brothers growing closer, never quite gels, never feels natural or seems lived in. It's an attempt to get inside a male relationship, but the careful, sterile presentation is a cheat. No one's heart is in this, living, breathing, or bleeding this material. "The Perfect Son" is quickly diffused by too many cooks in the kitchen.


The case is the best part of the movie but it alone is not worth the purchase price. I expected a "Based on the true story" movie only to find a shot on home video hodge-podge of poorly shot clips tied together with pathetic acting and non-related slaughter house scenes. The video scenes had numerous rewind situations which were used probably to extend the length of the feature rather than for effects. I started this review before I was even halfway through the movie and waited till it was over just in case it had a better ending but, low and behold it only got worse. If I could mark it any lower it would have been a negative ten. Learn from my mistake and save your money and time with this one.


To compare this squalor with an old, low budget porno flick would be an insult to the old, low budget porno flick. The animal scenes have no meaning nor do they represent this man and his crimes even in the broadest sense of abstractions. The synopsis on the back of the DVD case says in part, "gripping retelling of the BTK Killer's reign of terror." This is NOT a retelling. A retelling would suggest that you are being told the truth of what happened or how or why. None of these things are true. I'm an enthusiastic studier of serial killers and have seen some pretty crappy movies about them and honestly, this IS NOT one of them. This isn't even about the BTK killer. Save yourself some time and a few bucks and rent Dahmer instead. THAT serial killer movie is accurate and true. However, if you just HAVE to see this movie for yourself, check it out for free at your local library and even then, you'll still feel cheated.


I just watched this movie today and not only is it, terrible and awful but it looks like the director just got a few friends together to make a movie about a sick man. I also think that this movie has the look of a porn video with it's clear crisp just filmed view.

Thank heavens I work in a video store and I didn't have to pay for it cause this movie is crap x infinity..DO NOT BUY OR RENT THIS MOVIE!!!!! You'd have a better time watching Dude Where's My Car than this piece of crap! And that's not saying a lot for that movie either.

The acting is lousy and the movie is just very unwatchable. I was watching this movie and I wanted to kill myself during and after the movie.

I walked home and threw up after watching this piece of dirt movie, I then took a shower and burnt my clothes.

If I had half a mind I would of took the movie outside and burned it too cause no one should be subjected to it...well maybe members of Al Queda..especially the ones we have in custody and also child rapists who are in prison on life sentences with out parole....just make a set up like a clock work Orange, And then force these cheese head to watch it over and over again.


Horrible, Horrible, Horrible do not waste your money to rent this movie. Its like a low budget made for TV Canadian movie. Absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen and there have been many others out there. This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the DVD player or VCR. :~( . Is it possible to write ten lines? The acting was horrific. It had absolutely no flow. I saw the made for TV movie on the BTK killer and it was much better(in comparison to this one). I am not sure what they were going for in producing this film but if it was to educate us or tell a story about the BTK killer they missed by a mile. It appeared to be more of a infomercial for animal rights.


I can't really say what I think about this movie, its against the guidelines, I've watched many many films, and this has got to be the worst one yet, Extremely low budget, I'm guessing all the money went into the slaughter house scenes, cause I could of did a better job with a b&w 8mm camera and a crew of monkeys. It was so bad I registered just to leave a comment, cause I had to tell someone, movie rental place wasn't enough. But this is my 2 cents worth, I suggest borrowing it from some poor sap who rented it and watch it yourself. Cause i sure wouldn't waste the money on it myself again. Now i leave you with this comment. I hope your not made at the rental place when they wont refund you your money .. =)


As I work at a video store, I found it to be my solemn duty to talk about the worst movies I've ever seen, and warn my friends and co-workers of it. Amidst one day of particularly heated debate of what is the worst movie, my friend dared me to watch B.T.K. Killer, even stating that if I could watch the whole movie and still claim my previous choice was the worst movie ever, then he'd watch it. I lost. I believe that even I made better videos than this in high school, and those were hardly great feats of a young genius. This film not only lacked in what seemed to be production value (it looks like it was shot on a bad camcorder, although it is surprisingly clear), but also in acting (wooden, hollow, and pathetic don't scratch the surface), as well as just generally bad movie feeling. I can remember a scene where I heard glass smash, suddenly, I was reminded of some bad high school plays (I know that I reference high school too often here, but this film did seem very juvenile) both in terms of the set, which seemed far too fake, but also as if the people were reading their lines from the script, not entirely sure what was actually going on. My review doesn't do this film justice, because I can't describe how utterly horrid the time I spent watching this was. It's almost ironic that I do a pathetic job describing a pathetic excuse for a movie.


This movie is just so awful. So bad that I can't bear to expend anything other than just a few words. Avoid this movie at all costs, it is terrible.

None of the details of the crimes are re-enacted correctly. Lots of slaughterhouse footage. Weird cuts and edits. No continuity to the plot. The acting is absolutely the most amateur I have ever seen.

This bomb of a movie was obviously made to make some money without any regard to the accuracy of it's content. The camera work is out of focus at times and always shaky. It looks as if it was shot on video.

In fact, now that they've got Dennis Rader with life in prison, I wish they would put the guys that made this horrible movie into prison as well.

Seriously, don't even think about watching this one. I'd give it a negative star if I could.


This movie is the biggest steaming pile of you know what, Being from and growing up in Wichita Kansas;I know for a fact 90% of the movie was Bogus. Aside from the names of some of the victims, nothing else much was correct. The movie looks like it was made with dad's handy-cam, It had footage that I believe came from another film along with stock footage from a slaughter house. I usually enjoy watching bad films for the fun of it, but due to the bad acting, poorly prepared or non existent sets and a very dull and short ending.It was a struggle to watch it through to the ending. I recommend that you not waste your money on this film or you will be sorry. Crunch


This movie was so ridiculous i never even finished watching it i actually thought someone had made their own version and dubbed it onto the DVD from the movie store. This movie made me sick not because it was gory, but because i wasted 2 50 on it!!!! It looks like my brother and i went into a house and made the movie ourselves and edited slaughterhouse footage into it! I am so ticked off, even The BTK Killer deserves more credit than that it was not even accurate i mean come on the cow head was obviously made out of play dough or BUBBLE GUM OMG I cant even get all the words out to explain it DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!


I have never watched a movie in so little time. The only salvation was the fast forward function on the DVD unit. It was like watching a poorly produced CBC film. There was obviously no money for lighting, filming, sets, location, scriptwriters, editors, actors... Oh, there was absolutely no story either! I need to write ten lines of comment... Bad, awful, horrible, wretched, anguishing, tortuous, bilious, nauseous, sickening, fromage, disgusting, flimsy, icky, yucky, pukey, stinky, smelly, vile, putrid, all-thumbs-down, and I don't know if I can keep on going to complete all ten lines of just how bad this piece of crap-o-matic production was!


This was the worst movie I have ever seen and I've seen a lot of bad movies. First of I'm from Kansas this movie does not have a shred of truth in it at all. Its like they took BTK name and made up the rest. On top of that it looks like someone was like I've only got $20 bucks here take it and make a movie and oh yeah don't worry about researching btk at all just make up something. seriously pure dookie no one should ever see this movie. The slaughtering cows scenes and making his victims eat stuff and describing animal slaughter BTK did none of these things but the movie does so for the love of god never see this god awful movie. The made for TV ones are way better and way more accurate


Don't see this movie. Bad acting and stupid gore effects. A complete waste of time. I was hoping to see a lot of cool murders and hot chicks,instead the director depended on animal slaughter videos to shock you, the watcher. Disgusting. The murders are pretty lame, basically strangulation. One woman he stuffs worms in her mouth, one he puts raw hamburgers on her face and strangles her. BTK = BTK broiler, burger king's "killer" new sandwich....ha ha. I don't think this movie relied too much on actual facts. I mean, he real BTK killer didn't carry around a bunch of rodents, scorpions and worms..and oh yeah...a slaughtered cow head too. Go figure.


My mother worked with Dennis L. Raider for eleven years, not to mention shared an office with him. When it was announced he was BTK, she was shocked. The whole day was just her telling stories about how she never would have seen him as the Wichita Killer. I've heard her re-tell them many times. I've inquired her about a lot of things, and gone to all the interviews that she was asked to go to. I've read the entire book written about Raider, Wichita is my hometown and I was surprised that such a thing could happen in Kansas.

There was another BTK movie on TV not too long ago, and I thought this one would have been better at portraying Dennis' killings, maybe even have some intelligent touches to his motives.

I'm going to be very blunt with the flaws in this movie. This is based on my mom's portrayal of him, all my readings on him, and the video tapes I've seen of him talking.

First of all, the camera angles were horrible. It looked as though it had been shot on a home video camera. The acting was terrible and I couldn't even bear to watch it.

Dennis Raider never had long hair. Dennis Raider was a "very anal man" and was a "follow the rule book" kind of guy. He wasn't as nice as the movie made him look, he was very polite and abrupt, business like. Same goes for his killings, as far as we all know. If you've seen his confession in court, you can already guess.

And as for the obsession with the slaughter house? No. Never have I read or has Dennis Raider confessed to having a problem with animal cruelty or people squishing bugs. In fact, he practiced on cats and dogs for choking methods. Yet through-out the whole movie he was putting animals in his victim's faces and acting like he cared about the well-being of them.

Dennis Raider never killed the people that he knew, he confessed this, but in the movie in his first killing he tells the lady he knows her also.

I really don't even want to go in to this movie, and I'm already ranting. This is NOT what you want to watch if you are interested in the actual happenings of BTK. This is NOT what you want to watch if you want a good horror movie. If you want a badly shot half-porno with some slaughter scenes served the side, then this is your kind of movie.


I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line!


This is the biggest piece of crap ever. It looks like they spent more time, effort, and money making the DVD cover than they did on the actual movie. I really thought the DVD had been switched out with someone's homemade porno until I recognized one of the actors from the cover. This movie looks like someone made it with a hundred bucks and a camcorder and they spent half of that on rats. The picture is really clear, but that, along with the very unfortunate lighting, cinematography, if you can call it that, production, acting, if that is actually what they are doing, and script, if they had one, makes this movie look worse than an old porno. At least the old porno has a point. This just looks like some PETA members got together and decided to make a really disturbing, pointless PSA about animals rights and feelings. This is so not worth the money or the time. It has nothing in common with the actual BTK serial killer other than the name of the killer and that of some of the victims. The people who made this movie should be glad he's not still free, or he might have come after them just for screwing up this movie so bad.


This movie start quite gruesomely with a female being bound and psychologically tortured. There's male full frontal nudity, dead animal parts, dogs licking nipples, the female loosing control of her bladder. All shot in a gray cold color. Effective, but a little too much. We then move on to seeing the BTK killer's youth as well as the present and his history of crimes. The tension is entirely psychological and the scenes of the killer entering the homes of his victims and talking to them lasts for quite a long time and it's creepy. Here we don't see fancy or good imagery, it looks as if shot with your home camera. It doesn't look horrifying, but in a way seeing a criminal engage his victims for quite some time before killing them is quite unusual and chilling. What this movie doesn't have is any drama, really. There are some cop scenes every once in a while, but there's no excitement in terms of them finding the killer. There isn't much of an arc to this story. This could have been an effective psychological thriller, a study of madness. Unfortunately, the movie is filled with real slaughterhouse footage. It's dispersed throughout the movie and comes on suddenly again and again. Sometimes you don't know it's coming and don't have enough time to look away. And that I have to reject. I'm all for low budget horror movies but I don't tolerate animal suffering. It was unnecessary, excessive, and comes without warning. I'm glad that Lionsgate releases stuff that no one else does, but they should have passed on this movie or edited out the animal gore. Stay away from this garbage.


This movie features a gorgeous brunette named Danielle Petty. She has stunning green eyes, and is in the first few scenes and the last scene. She is the only thing about this movie that is not repulsive. She may not have a future as an actress, because this kind of movie is the kind of offensive disaster that kills careers.

The movie itself has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It is not a good horror film, or a good fake journalistic report, or remotely well done. There is no skill apparent in it's production. It is like a bad student film. The story's horrific elements do not make you sick, it is the fact that it is so poorly done that makes you sick. I would give this movie ZERO stars if I could.


This is by far the worst horror/thriller I've seen in my 29 years. If someone offers this to you for free tell them NO. This movie makes you a dumber person for knowing you watched it. The plot isn't even the worst part of this movie.....its the acting, camera work, lighting, and sound. there is absolutely nothing to like about this movie. whoever paid to have this film made is broke now. I hope the director never gets the greenlight for another movie. In its defense this movie was made quickly to try to capitalize on the actual BTK killer's capture but I've seen movie of the weeks that looked like Oscar winners compared to this.


I rented this horrible movie. The worst think I have ever seen. I believe a 1st grade class could have done a better job. The worse film I have ever seen and I have seen some bad ones. Nothing scary except I paid 1.50 to rent it and that was 1.49 too much. The acting is horrible, the characters are worse and the film is just a piece of trash. The slauther house scenes are so low budget that it makes a B movied look like an Oscar candidate. All I can say is if you wnat to waste a good evening and a little money go rent this horrible flick. I would rather watch killer clowns from outer space while sitting in a bucket of razors than sit through this flop again


Oh My God! Please, for the love of all that is holy, Do Not Watch This Movie! It it 82 minutes of my life I will never get back. Sure, I could have stopped watching half way through. But I thought it might get better. It Didn't. Anyone who actually enjoyed this movie is one seriously sick and twisted individual. No wonder us Australians/New Zealanders have a terrible reputation when it comes to making movies. Everything about this movie is horrible, from the acting to the editing. I don't even normally write reviews on here, but in this case I'll make an exception. I only wish someone had of warned me before I hired this catastrophe


Story goes like this, Netflix was late sending me my dvds so I went on down to the the analog rental place known as "Blockbuster Video" They suck you know. Real bad, They have 150 copies of the latest lame movies for your viewing pleasure yet I never want to see any of those. So I saw BTK Killer there on the shelf, all by its lonesome self. I like seeing films based on serial killers. Its just a part of humanity that I will never understand, therefore I wanna see that kind of stuff. Anyways I put this DVD in and all the sudden from the very first second, it sucks. I'm sitting there with my b.f. and we are like, "what is this kind of crap?" Unsteady camera operation, horrible acting,- the first scene in which a woman gets killed you wonder if she would rather just calmly gab instead, Then a rat gets stuffed down her throat. I really wonder if the director has a hard-on for this crap. There is nothing decent about this "film". All I have to say to the director is "do you own a freakin' tripod?" Every shot was brutally unstable. The music was awful. It was like they just decided one day to make a movie. They were probably gathering people from WalMart to show up and "act" for them. Just plain awful. If you make a movie like this then directing is your hobby-NOT what you should be doing for a living- SHould not make it to the DVD renal outlets for movie buffs like myself. Better left at home for your friends when you are having a party and run out of interesting things to entertain them with.... Then you break out your BTK KIller film and say, "Wanna see this crappy movie I did once?"


This is actually an insult to the victims and their families of the BTK killer. The events in this movie are not even close to the truth. Why they couldn't make a movie of the real events doesn't make any sense since the real events are more interesting then this made up farce. Don't even waste your time watching this for free. Low budget and a shameful depiction of the events which should not be made a joke of, which is really what this movie did. If they would allow me to give a -10 to this movie I would. The acting sucked and it looks like it was shot on an old VHS video camera from the 80s. Save your time and money by not watching this movie.