The good news is a movie was made, drawing on a supposed Aztec myth and featuring an unusually Aztec-American (is such a word exists) cast. The bad news is, it was dead at birth.

If Ed Wood had come out of retirement and coached George Romaro through his classic 'Night of the Living Dead,' this is what we might have come up with. 'The Legend of Diablo' is clearly fodder for any future resurrections of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000!'

I don't think one can even call this a 'B' movie. The production values are so abysmal that I kept getting the feeling I was watching either a lengthy skit from a variety show or a backyard 8-mm film shot by a group of school kids.

SOME SPOILERS

The basic plot line sounded interesting enough to lure me into renting it. A rural California sheriff finds a box containing an Aztec demon and accidentally unleashes it on the unsuspecting community. His daughters, one hot and one homely, team with a gringo FBI man and a priest, to try to re-cage the demon.

Meanwhile, every zombie scene one has ever seen in previous undead movies is re-enacted-poorly. These zombies walk more like an army of Nutty Professors than the undead! The supposed infrared scenes from the demon's viewpoint are nothing special  and he/she/it sure seems to back up a lot (as opposed to turning around the moving forward). And the scene where the priest lures the demon out of the cave in fast-motion is ludicrous! It really, really appears to be done for comic effect-although I know it wasn't! I kept expecting the Benny Hill theme music to start playing & for the whole gang of zombies to start chasing the priest all over the beach!

Of course the Darth Vader/Field of Dreams voice, calling the FBI agent becomes downright comical. Then again, so was most of this cheese ball! Robert Napton, director and writer of the screenplay, should win SOMEthing for this effort! (How about a lifetime blackballing, like the 'Hollywood 10?') This one, I now see, is rated 1.5 on a 10-scale. I fear this might be a tad generous!

Is there anything good about this movie? Well, Lindsey Lofaso looks pretty hot as the younger daughter of the dead sheriff. This is probably why her homely older sister (Calvi Pabon) really ran away from home! Fred Estrado is reasonably decent as the FBI agent. I wonder if Mario Soto, who played Father Rodriguez, is the same Mario Soto who pitched for the Cincinnati Reds? If so, he should have stuck to baseball. In fact, they couldn't have done any worse if they had gone with a baseball theme and called it 'Demons in the Outfield!'

If I find out this was actually a project for a community college cinema class, I will issue apologies. It might be good enough for a B or even B+ as long as the gang got the college's camcorder back to campus in one piece! 'The Blair Witch Project' proved that a cool, campy movie could be made on a shoestring. 'The Legend of Diablo,' though, didn't appear to have a shoestring OR shoes to work from! It was low-budget, low-talent, low-everything. The very final scene-and I mean about the final 10 seconds of the film-is the ONLY mildly creative or interesting moment.

I paid $3.45 to rent this. I could have better spent it on a hamburger!


me, my boyfriend, and our friend watched this "movie" if thats what u wanna call it, and we agree with the last person, but we were stupid and bought the damn thing, we thought it really was about diablo so we bought it.

we hate it Really SUXZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so beware: DO NOT BUY THIS THING THEY CALL A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we would return it, but don't no if anybody would want this stupid movie.

oh and another thing, the shouldn't call it "The Legend of Diablo" they should of called it "Legend of Azar".

and this movie is rated R????? this should not of even been not rated.

we think that diablo would be crying his eyes out laughing at this stupid movie.

this is a movie that would have been done by a Church.

theses "actors" are never gonna become nothing because this movie.


This may be one of the worst movies to ever make it to production, ever.

1. The most exciting part is the beginning, where the guy is walking... and walking... and walking (spoiler). There is about 15 minutes of just walking. How?

2. Not to mention there's a lot of issues with the lighting, and it's almost like they even shot the night scenes during the day.

3. The acting was TERRIBLE. It looks like they found a community theater (in Mexico)... and then took the people who were turned away.

Please, for the love of everything holy, don't rent this movie. If you know someone who owns it, apologize to them. The director should be subject to punishment through the war crimes tribunal for foisting this on the public.


The small California town of Diablo is plagued with mysterious deaths after sheriff Robert Lopez unearths an ancient box.Legend has it that the box holds the sixteenth-century Mexican demon named Azar.FBI agent Gil Vega is sent to investigate the murders and joins forces with the sheriff's daughters,Dominique and Mary to fight with evil and bloodthirsty demon."The Legend of Diablo" is an absolute garbage.The film lacks scares and gore,the acting is amateurish and the direction is bad.The animation is the only one aspect of the film I enjoyed.I'm a big fan of indie horror flicks,for example I loved "Torched","Live Feed","Bone Sickness" or "Neighborhood Watch",unfortunately "The Legend of Diablo" is a huge misfire.Definitely one to avoid.


I cannot get past the message of this movie. It's laid out much too clearly to ignore, and it is obscene because it has lost its sense of what it's about. I haven't read the novel, but Pollack's film opens with a scene at a CIA-front organization in New York, which is broken into by two professional assassins, headed by Max von Sydow, who proceed to brutally slaughter the half dozen quirky staff members we've come to know and understand. The staff include an elderly female receptionist, a fussy elderly professorial guy who's toupee falls off when he is machine-gunned (is that a joke?), and, last, the beautiful Tina Chen who looks up from the copier, realizes she is about to be murdered, and says, pitifully brave, "I won't scream." Von Sydow replies sympathetically, "I know." These murders are completely unexpected, savage, unmotivated by anything that we are aware of, and graphic. It is a brutal scene.

There is absolutely no way in which von Sydow and his henchman can be redeemed. And yet that is exactly what Pollack tries to do towards the end.

After having killed these innocent good guys, von Sydow switches sides (because the other side is willing to pay him) and assassinates the evil mastermind behind a complicated intramural CIA plot. The script then turns him into a perfectly reasonable, sensitive human being. "It is better to live in Europe. Things are not so rushed." Or whatever. I swear I'm not making this up. Pollack wants us to believe that it is better to be an honest mass murderer than a crooked bureaucrat. That's the message. You should write it down in case you forget. Just exactly what kind of psychiatric shambles do you have to be in order to turn ordinary values, not to mention common sense, upside-down like that? I understand that there are thoughtful adults who dislike the government of the United States, even hate it, and who see conspiracies just about everywhere, providing a knee-jerk explanation for otherwise unexplainable events. I know that people who think this way exist because I number some of them among my closer friends. Nevertheless, at some point this dislike, this hatred, if it increases in intensity, must pass beyond politics or ethics and into the realm of the psychiatric. I don't for a moment believe that a man who murders people for money is better than a sinister government official. I don't care how suave and cultured the murderer is or whether he knows how to reach the Louvre on the Metro. Whoever is purveying that message needs either medication or meditation.

I'd like to be able to argue that the production is as thoroughly rotten as its message, but I can't. It's quite well done. (In some ways that's worse, because it makes the film less dismissable.) Even New York City looks photogenic on the screen. And it's been a long time since I've thought of New York as photogenic. Robert Redford does an admirable job of projecting his character's initial shock and confusion, but then turns into a telecommunicational semi-genius. And, man, he looks just fine! His wardrobe is just right. Even his rimless glasses are becoming. And his peacoat. It's not everyone who can make a navy pea jacket look glamorous. He seems extremely handsome too, the swine. I want to look like that. I want to wear a denim shirt and a tie with such panache. Faye Dunaway is alright in her role but it's not too believable a role. Would anybody eagerly sleep with a guy who has just kidnapped her and is holding her at gunpoint? Even if he did look like Redford? Would anyone be emotionally wounded if, when this ambivalent relationship is about to end, Redford asked her not to tell anybody about what happened? Cliff Robertson is surprisingly good. He does one or two extremely good double-takes. The mailman is superb. The fight between him and Redford in a crowded apartment is exquisitely choreographed and, for once, we really don't know for sure how it will turn out, because Redford (a book reader after all) seems mismatched against the brute cunning of this hired assassin. This is one of John Housemann's final roles. A shame. He's a magnet on screen. And what an end to his life: a friend finds him lost, wandering the streets of New York, in a neighborhood he'd been familiar with for most of his life.

Yes, the movie is very well executed, but I can't ignore that vicious, paranoid message. I have the same problem with Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." Or her Olympic documentary in which the announcer is watching a foot race in which Jesse Owens is pulling into the lead and says ominously, "This Negro is dangerous."


1st watched 2/28/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sydney Pollack):-DVD version I watched titled "3 Days of the Condor"- So so CIA drama full of laid-back performances making for a very laid-back movie. The premise of the story revolves around 7 out of 8 members of a CIA research group being killed with Robert Redford's character, codename = Condor, being the one that was left. Who killed them and why? That's what Redford tries to find out while trying to not be the 8th victim at the same time. Along the way, he gets Faye Dunaway's character involved involved, originally because he needs a place to hide, and then she eventually helps him out after a little lovey-dovey time. This is one of a handful of innocent guy on the run stories but this one doesn't have a lot of suspense. The flat performances don't help and the finish doesn't seal the deal for the audience enough either. Despite having a good director in Sydney Pollack and a group of classic performers, the story and the performances are not what they should be and therefore the movie is not what it should be.


Generally I don't like films directed by Sydney Pollack ("The Firm" being somewhat of an exception) and I've never been a Robert Redford fan either. Still, I thought "Three Days of the Condor" must be good because of the number of praising comments it has received.

Although the widescreen cinematography is quite pleasing for the eye and Max von Sydow does a nice job as the sinister professional killer, I found the whole affair tremendously disappointing. The film undeniably radiates paranoid atmosphere, but everything is ruined by the muddled plot which doesn't seem to make any sense.

The film also contains one of the most unsatisfying endings I have ever seen which really leaves the viewer hanging in the air. And what can one say about that absurd romance between Redford and Dunaway? I'd much rather watch any of Hitchcock's films five times in succession than to sit through this piece of waste once more.


Being a big fan of Corman's horror movies I expected from his western a bit more than I got. Well, I was entertained all right. I had almost as many laughs as watching Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles.

See the spectacle of mobile tire tracks on the prairie of the old west. You can kill time by counting them if there happens to be an otherwise boring scene going on. And the horses seem to have gears in them too, considered the fast-forward chases. See also the swinging bar room queens of the traditional wild west saloon doing a number that reminds of a certain fashionable dance from 1920's, here decades before the style was invented. Hope the saloon around them won't crumple.

In the middle of all this mayhem the main actors do a decent job. Ireland, Garland and Hayes are all truly fine. A special praise for them for doing the best they could with the material that seems mostly having been lifted from 'Johnny Guitar', but doesn't quite impress the same way. But there is really nothing wrong with a laughable western like this. Just like a really bad old horror movie, it might fail one way but succeeds to give joy anyway. That is one of the reasons Corman's work appeals to me and that is why I dare to recommend you to experience this movie if you get the chance.


I'll admit that I don't expect much from a Roger Corman film. Generally, I expect a lot of walking and bad scripts. Yet in this case, I am pleasantly surprised.

The Gunslinger is a story of a woman (played by the spunky Beverly Garland) who takes over as sheriff after her husband is brutally murdered. Ms. Garland is a pretty good shot herself, killing one of the murderers the next day at her husband's funeral. Her first task is to shut down the local bar that is violating the town curfew. The bar's owner is trying to buy land in anticipation of being bought out by the (hoped-for) railroad. However, Ms. Garland is a thorn in her plans, and the bar matron hires a man to kill Ms. Garland.

Because of Ms. Garland's plays her role honestly and realistically, there is absolutely no temptation to go to Suzanne Somers "She's the Sheriff" jokes. With the exception of a couple of faux pas (the apartment door that opens OUT from the inside, jeep tracks, and the two horsemen waiting on screen for their cue to ride around a corner), the movie becomes quite passable as movie fare. However, Corman could not resist padding his film with horse riding scenes, much like he does walking in other films.

Sterno says The Gunslinger is a horse opera worth your time.


- When the local sheriff is killed, his wife takes over until and is determined to clean-up the town. Not everyone in town, however, is happy with what she's doing. When the sheriff orders a curfew in town, the local saloon owner (also a woman) hires a killer to take care of the sheriff. There's no way the saloon owner could know that the sheriff and the killer would fall in love.

- Gunslinger is an example of what happens when you have a fairly interesting concept and combine it with poor execution. There's a good movie here somewhere trying to get out. In more capable hands or with a larger budget, Gunslinger might have been an entertaining look at the role of women in the Old West. As it is, Gunslinger is a sloppy mess of a movie.

- There are just so many things wrong with the movie: a supporting cast with no acting ability, stilted and unnatural dialogue, and sets that look like sets. But the biggest offender is the editing. I was amazed at how many times a scene would begin with the actors (and horses for that matter) obviously waiting for Corman to yell "Action". The best is the scene of two riders on horseback just standing beside a building. All of a sudden, they take off and come racing around the corner like they had been riding hard for several miles. Or, take the example of people who can seemingly transport themselves across town. We see a man enter a building and a second later emerge across town to mount his horse.

- It's not as if Corman didn't have a few decent actors to work with. While none were great stars, Beverly Garland, John Ireland, and Allison Hayes were all capable of turning in a good performance. But, in Gunslinger, they're not given much to work with.

- I have now seen both the MST3K and non-MST3K versions of the movie. I would strongly recommend going the MST3K route.


Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.

The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.

There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun.


I guess that "Gunslinger" wasn't quite as god-awful as most of the movies that "Mystery Science Theater 3000" shows, but westerns just aren't Roger Corman's forte. Portraying Rose Hood (Beverly Garland) becoming sheriff in an Old West town after her sheriff husband gets murdered and having to fight off baddies, the movie is pretty predictable. John Ireland is Rose's new hubby, secretly working for unctuous Allison Hayes (yes, the 50-foot woman). Also appearing briefly is frequent Corman co-star Dick Miller as a mailman (Miller nowadays stars in Joe Dante's movies).

I do wish to assert that you'll probably want to watch the "MST3K" version to really enjoy this movie. They had a great time with it.


Sure it takes place in the west, but the title makes it seem like it is a conventional western. Instead, it is a movie of a woman sheriff. Make no mistake though this is a bad movie about a woman sheriff. She becomes sheriff when her husband is gunned down; she is only a tad bit upset by this. Her main goal is to go after the villain who is also a woman, but the villain hires a guy to kill her. So this is what happens, the hero falls in love with the killer and vice versa. Utterly stupid, as anyone killed in this movie has the new sheriff to thank. She had more than a few chances to put the killer behind bars, but I guess because she liked him she wouldn't do it. The killer is also after the mayor of the town for personal reasons that are also rather dumb. This movie is very boring and not really worth watching...it is not one of the better episodes of MST3000 they made. I can not imagine anyone seeing this without them because that would make it that much more painful. Corman is a low budget director, but even he should know better than to have people go into one place and coming out another.


I'll be blunt. I'm not one for politically correct movies where the woman plays the bad ass who's not going to take any crap from anyone. If any one of the cast members wanted to, they could have just taken her out in a heartbeat. It was entertaining on MST 3K, but don't rent the real version. Trust me. Have I ever lied to you?


One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful.


This is a movie that demonstrates that mood and music and texture aren't enough to make a good film. Sure, the viewer is treated to numerous fine scenes of Los Angeles in the thirties--I especially liked the view of the trolley approaching the tunnel, and the tram rising up the hillside--but in a sense this fine cinematography is self-defeating, because it creates a mood that "something's going to happen"--and nothing does. The script too keeps feinting toward some plot or action or trauma--and time after time not delivering. Not even delivering the (I assume) theme of the movie, the characters' essential misfit. The lead actors, both too pretty for their roles, didn't convey any repression or agony, and the script didn't expose us to any.

Now, Donald Sutherland? That's another story. His character was so well fashioned, so perfectly played, that I wanted the camera to follow him.


This movie proves that good acting comes from good direction and this does not happen in Ask the Dust. Colin Farrell is usually a fine actor but in this he is juvenile. Donald Sutherland comes across as an amateur. Why? Because the script is awful, the adaptation is awful and the actors seem bored and half hearted. The atmosphere of the movie is bad - I could only think when it would finish and I turned it off half way. The director has done a very poor job and even though I have not read the novel it is certainly a missed chance. The atmosphere this film is trying to evoke and the message and storyline never reaches the audience. In one word, it is a TERRIBLE film.


A friend told me of John Fante last summer after we got into a conversation about Charles Bukowski. I did not know that Fante was a favorite writer of Bukowski's - an author with similar edge and humor except from one generation earlier. 'Ask the Dust' was the first Fante book I read, and it remains one of my favorite novels. The novel was a brilliant piece of writing about a sad, frightened young writer posing to himself and the outside world as an overconfident, masterfully talented author who had no idea how to write about the real world experiences he had none of. In the novel the protagonist is a virgin, with no idea how to win the graces of the women he desperately wants to write about in magazines. The story of his bizarre relationship with Camilla, how he settles for his first sexual experience with a 'wounded' admirer, and how he eventually is left with nothing but the story of his failed attempts at love is biting and real, with no touching Hollywood ending. The film adaptation stays true to the book for a while, but meanders into the cinematic trap of love persevering through racism, sickness and death. The heart of this story lies in the fact that Bandini is a jerk and Camilla is f-ing crazy, and their love never was and never would be the real thing, no matter how much either of them wanted to find it in each other. This movie tore out the real meaning of the story out and replaced it with schlock. I can't believe the man who wrote Chinatown could read this book and make a movie about it that got it so wrong.


It must have been excruciating to attend the dailies as the shooting continued on this failure of a film. Probably Cruise, the Exec. Prod., saw what was happening and had Towne use much, much more of the nude footage in the final cut then Towne wanted to, to make up for the disaster he saw looming.(Maybe Cruise even thought of "Titanic".)A few items: Colin Farrell can't act his way out of a paper bag. But he's one of the flavors-of-the-decade, a producer's darling and one is forced to avoid the embarrassment of watching him by not attending his films. He has so many moments of not believing in what he's doing and you can see it in his eyes. I think he would have been at his best as a film actor, albeit not as rich or famous as he is now, playing second banana to dynamic leads who can act. The trap of spending a lot of money for period sets, costumes, cars, et al and photographing them as if they just came from the dry cleaner or car wash/wax. No one seems to want anything to look, well, worn. Or dirty. Is this because the production designer was told by the line producer to make sure they didn't ruin the stuff because then the company wouldhave to pay for the ruined items?

This was a story about the depression-thirties folks, not a Disney Broadway musical about that era. How about doing it in black and white or better yet, given Caleb Deschanel as your D.P., have him desaturate the colors during the mix to suggest some of the actual grime and poorness of the times. It should have been, after all, a bit depressing to live so desperately as these folks did, in the Depression. More on Farrell. Did anyone for a moment believe this guy was a writer? H.L. Mencken on the wall; did I see his eyes roll at one point? Hayek and Farrell as a sexually dynamic duo? Sending a boy to do a man's work? Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, the story was about an older woman and a youth. I cannot delve too deeply into the middle to latter parts of the film because I bailed out early on. But the memory of the scenes I did see made me think that someone was doing a not-too-amusing parody of a noir movie. Sort of what Saturday Night Live has been like for the past decade: not funny. (In my mind I kept thinking of a Guy Noir sketch, music and all.)


I love the depiction of the 30s and 40s in film. I love Salma Hayek. I was more than ready to love this picture. but . . .

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! ! !! !

No sir, nothing good about this. The only entertaining aspect for me was Colin Farrell's character is an insecure writer and this screenplay, despite tackling the juicy subject of racism, approaches the audience in the fashion of an ABC Afterschool Special.

The only person who didn't sound like he was "acting' was Sutherland, and his minutes were few.

Stale approach to a tired plot.


A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.

But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.

This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.

Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.

I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.

Her question: "Not even Colin Farrell could save it?" My response: "Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it."


"Ask the Dust" looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money.


Given the history of the director of this movie, it is hard to believe that this was such a painfully bad movie to sit through. I was at the European premiere last night and one of the Executive Producers was there. He was yet to see the movie and, boy, was he in for a surprise. I have not read the book that this is based upon, nor do I know if it highly rated or appreciated, but I have read "Captain Correlli's Mandolin" and given how poorly that was adapted for screen and how bad this movie was, I can only presume that something similar has happened here. The acting wasn't bad albeit that there were a couple-too-many raised eyebrows from Farrell. Honestly, I can't believed how little I cared for any character in this movie. Situations play out on the screen in an empty sequence of nothingness. Donald Sutherland's part comprises a few scenes where he opens a door, says something and closes it again. I kept looking at my watch when I wasn't cringing at the dialogue on the screen. I have never walked out on a movie but I was tempted to start during this. I gave this movie a score of '2' for reasons which seem horrendously shallow to me but these are the best things that I can say about this movie. The first is that I really enjoyed the all-too-short earthquake scene and the second is that Salma Hayek got naked and looked beautiful. I can say little else positive about this movie. Don't ask the dust anything, it can't talk!


I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a "masterpiece", I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort "Road to Los Angeles" not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.

I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.

In a word: forgettable.


The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms.

Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend.

The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize.

Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?

It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself.

Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten.


This film is based on the novel by John Fante. Could someone please tell me why? I see absolutely no reason why this fine book should be adapted in this way. If you want to make a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek, then how could you possibly make a connection to Ask The Dust (the novel)? -And if you wanted to make this story into a film, then why would you want to make it into a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek? I don't get it.

The adaptation of the story is poorly made, and if you have read the book and liked it, I'm almost sure you won't like what Towne did with it.

In the beginning of the film you'll maybe find the casting odd, the acting bad and the cinematography just a bit overdone. But you hope for the best. I really hoped a lot during this film. I actually wanted it to be good. But it only gets worse, and it is as simple as that: Whether you read Fantes novel or not, this is not a good film. Just another romantic melodramatic Hollywood production combined with bad acting, lack of structure and - of course - plenty of shots of Colin Farells naked butt.

I could complain a lot more about this film, but why waste my time. I've seen it. Alright. I had to see it, because I like the book so much and was curious. And I'm very disappointed.

1/10 is for Colin's sweet little mustache in the end of the film. So sweet... Had he worn it the whole time through, I'd given it 2/10.


Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing?


What do you expect when there is no script to begin with, and therefore nothing that the director can work with. Hayek and Farrell, and Donaldson and Kirkin are good actors, they just don't have anything to say or anything to react to. Even the earthquake was pretty poor. And I don't know how closely the movie follows the novel, but two have the Jewish girl show up out of nowhere just so show that Arturo has a nice, warm heart, but some stereotypes don't amount to anything. And he even buries Camilla out in the desert, instead of bringing her back to L.A. for a nice Catholic burial where he could at least bring her flowers once in a while. Pathetic. And the L.A. set was ridiculously graphically created. Anything good? The window to his apartment felt real, the curtains, the sounds, the wind. And Donaldson is always great. Has been since the Body Snatchers or Night of the Living Dead, whichever it was.


A warning to potential viewers: if you are looking for an adaptation of the classic story "The Most Dangerous Game," look elsewhere. "Seven Women for Satan"

only superficially addresses the original work by using the name of Zaroff and having said character murder people.

Some of what follows might be considered by some to be spoilers. Or not.

Boris Zaroff is played by writer/director Michel Lemoine. Whereas his ancestor hunted men because they were the only prey that were truly challenging, Boris' victims are usually in a position where they cannot defend themselves. The film rambles from scene to scene with a near-total lack of clarity. The director seems to have totally disregarded pacing and left the viewer with a suffocatingly dull film. A few individual scenes are mildly interesting (such as a torture rack sequence), but as a unit, the film fails to entertain. Viewers who are more

interested in an assortment of attractive and semi-attractive actresses in various stages of undress might find the film watchable. Most will probably find their time is better spent watching Mentos commercials.

In a side note, the DVD extras included a fair amount of information on the film's history. Apparently, it was banned for several years in its native France which pretty much ruined any chance it had for widespread distribution.


You just got to love opening sequences like the one in "Seven Women for Satan"  During the intro there's a naked girl running through the woods, chased by a hunting dog and a malignant looking dude on a horse, until she falls off a cliff and splits her head open on a rock. Then the camera zooms out on the face of the guy and we notice how he's simply sitting behind a desk whilst his secretary waiting for him to sign some papers. "Oh I'm sorry, I was lost in my thoughts" he then says! Sweet, I have stumbled upon yet another completely bonkers movie. Even if you only understand a minimum of French and have a look at the original title, you immediately know that "Seven Women for Satan" hasn't got anything to do with Satan or ritual sacrifices, but simply revolves on the flamboyant escapades of a perverted and mentally unstable count during his weekend in the countryside. This is, in fact, another sleazy variation on the classic milestone "The Most Dangerous Game" about a lunatic's disturbing hobby of hunting people  preferably hot naked chicks - in the forest for sports. Well actually, this is more than just a variation on the 1932 classic, as writer/director/actor Michel Lemoine had the pretension to directly link his protagonist to Leslie Banks' legendary villain in "The Most Dangerous Game". Count Zaroff supposedly is the original Count Zaroff's son but he exchanged his private island for the remote French countryside. He also can't afford to be unemployed anymore, so he's an office clerk from Monday to Friday and a maniacal killer during the weekend. Zaroff is a genuine weirdo who hallucinates about dancing with deceased woman but actually runs his car over the live ones. His butler once pledged to prevent the Zaroffs from killing, but he's obviously doing a lousy job. There isn't any depth in the screenplay and the build-up certainly doesn't pay attention to suspense or sinister atmosphere. Really, the only useful thing to do during this film is count the girls that are lured for Zaroff's deceptive trap and hope they'll reach seven rapidly. Half of the film is pointless and tedious padding footage, like the overlong erotic dance act in which a statue inexplicably transforms into a muscular black guy (???), and the other half exists of psychedelic sleaze that eventually grows tiresome as well even though all the girls look ravishing. I have the impression that it was Michel Lemoine's intention to imitate his pal Jean Rollin and make a deliriously kinky sex-thriller. "Seven Women for Satan" is a French production, so inevitably it also stars Jess Franco regular Howard Vernon ("The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Zombie Lake"). Lemoine himself surely has the looks of a crazy killer, but not the talent to depict one.


Summer Holiday is the forgotten musical version of Eugene O'Neill's Ah Wilderness and deservedly so with the Broadway musical adaptation of Take Me Along. With the exception of the Stanley Steamer song, none of the other Harry Warren-Ralph Blane songs are worth remembering and even that one is questionable.

It was right after the release of this film that MGM let Mickey Rooney go and I don't think it was a coincidence. The film was made in 1946 and released in 1948, so Mickey was 26 playing an Andy Hardy like teenager. He was just way too old for the part of the 17 year old who was affecting radical ideas in a spirit of youthful rebellion.

Rooney made four films for MGM from 1946 to 1948, this one, Killer McCoy a remake of Robert Taylor's A Crowd Roars, Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and Words and Music. In all of them Rooney was playing an adult part. Even in the Andy Hardy film, Mickey played an adult Andy Hardy returned from World War II. Why he was in this Louis B. Mayer only knows.

Rooney's bad casting makes Summer Holiday all the worse because in the original Ah Wilderness the emphasis is on the father's character played here by Walter Huston. And in the Broadway show Take Me Along which won a Tony Award for Jackie Gleason, the Great One played the inebriated brother-in-law Uncle Sid here played by Frank Morgan and that's the central character.

Gloria DeHaven steps in for Judy Garland as Rooney's sweet and adorable girl friend and Marilyn Maxwell plays the show girl who gives Rooney an adult education. In the original play O'Neill has her as a prostitute, but this was the Hollywood of the Code so all Marilyn does is get young Rooney soused.

A lot of really talented people had a hand in this one and they do their best, but Summer Holiday fades rather quickly into a chilly autumn.


I love watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey?

Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.

Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!).


I recently saw the Broadway revival of "Blithe Spirit" starring Angela Lansbury, Rupert Everett, Christine Ebersole, and Jayne Atkinson. It's a terrific production, and shows what good actors can do with a play that is less than perfect. Angela Lansbury is extremely funny as Madame Arcati.

It was probably a mistake, then, to check out the film version of the play starring Rex Harrison. The movie does not have the energy or the laughs of a good stage production.

"Blithe Spirit" is probably one of those plays that works better with a live cast, in an audience full of people who have come to laugh. The actors can improvise, give touches and nuances to their performance and delivery of the lines, and involve the audience on a personal level that you can't get in a movie house, or with a DVD showing, where the audience is separated from the story by the "Fourth Wall." The story: Charles Condomine (Rex Harrison), a successful writer, lives with his wife Ruth (Constance Cummings) in a house in the English countryside. Seeking information for his next book, a book dealing with the supernatural, Charles invites Madame Arcati (Margaret Rutherford, reprising her role from the original 1941 London production), a local spiritual medium, over to his house to conduct a séance. Charles believes that spiritism is a sham, but hopes to pick up "the tricks of the trade." But then Madame Arcati brings back the ghost of Elvira (Kaye Hammond), Charles's first wife, who died of pneumonia seven years ago. Elvira refuses to leave, and develops a spitting rivalry with Ruth over Charles (complicated by the fact that only Charles can see or hear Elvira).

On stage, the actors can give performances that invite laughs in this situation. But on the screen, the actors in "Blithe Spirit" tear through the lines as if they don't know that anyone is listening to them. They mumble lines that were designed to get laughs on the stage. The performances by Harrison, Cummings, and even Kaye Hammond are flat and lifeless. Only Margaret Rutherford seems to have retained her spark and humor as Madame Arcati.

The Oscar-winning visual effects in the film are unimpressive -- not just by today's standards, but by the standards of 1946! They consist mostly of Kaye Hammond walking around in fluorescent green outfits and makeup, being photographed in special lighting to make her look like a glowing ghost.

The cinematographer deserves some credit for creative lighting. But compare the dull visual effects of "Blithe Spirit" to the truly groundbreaking effects in Disney's "Song of the South" -- which was eligible for awards the same year. In "South," humans and animated characters share the screen seamlessly for minutes at a time. Compared to "South," the Oscar that "Blithe Spirit" received for special effects was completely undeserved.

At any rate, I can only encourage you to catch the Broadway revival of this play with Angela Lansbury before it closes. As for the movie with Rex Harrison, skip it.


David Lean's worst film. Even 'In Which We Serve' was'nt as bad as this. Usually a film with a really good reputation like this one, has at least some redeeming qualities, which makes one understand why it might be considered a classic. But after watching this I just could not get why this piece of crap was liked so much even back in 1945! I disliked the acting, stiff upper lip British mannerisms, story, script (which may be quite witty at times but totally unfunny) and soundtrack. The elvira character is meant to be alluring and attractive, but was in actual fact ugly and had a weird and annoying voice. Just another film that has convinced me not to trust a films reputation. Another very overrated 'british classic'.


High heels are tricksy things. They can elevate women (or cross-dressing men) to newfound heights, put forward a sharp statement of style and bring a touch of fragile elegance. Alternatively, they can be a perilous foot pain that will inevitably lead to trips, falls and ultimate tragedy. Tacones lejanos is more of a disappointment trip than a stylish high riser.

Almodóvar's mother-daughter drama is stylish for sure, but in terms of plot it's a tongue-tied and tedious affair full of confusing, complex characters that never fully engage or make sense. A few moments of comedy aside, Tacones lejanos just isn't interesting. The best bit comes at the beginning in a marvellously macabre case of manslaughter orchestrated by a child. From this brilliant bit of black comedy things are looking up, but then the film comes to a heel.

There's solid enough acting performances and there's some stylish, arty direction that you'd expect from Almodóvar, but otherwise Tacones lejanos isn't an impressive piece of Spanish cinema. With a story of murder, showbiz, femininity, fractured mother-daughter relationship and a character who is alternately a judge, a transvestite and a police informer this could have been a melodramatic powerhouse. Instead it's poor. High Heels stumbles for sure.


I saw this movie the other day in a film school class, and I hadn't seen an Almodovar movie before but went in expecting it to be good. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pointless film with only a couple of laughs mixed in with two hours of sheer boredom. High Heels is just a collection of random scenes that might have worked in their own separate movies but together don't add up to any kind of meaningful whole at all.

Or so I thought. Then, the next day, my film professor spent the entire class period explaining all of the movie's hidden little details, like how the mural depicting stereotypical flamenco dancers in the background of the drag queen scene is some kind of commentary on the lack of identity that Spain as a nation has developed under fascist rule. Apparently, the whole movie is chock full of clever little visual tricks and references like this.

Great, but you know what? It's still a bad movie. It takes more than depth and complexity to make a good film--you still need to give the audience a reason to keep paying attention, something to interest the viewer enough to actually care about all the subtle tricks. High Heels gives us strange, off-beat characters but keeps them in mostly mundane situations recycled from other movies, and Almodovar doesn't seem to be using them to make any kind of point. What is the significance, for example, of the Hitchcockian surprise character revelation that occurs towards the end of the film? Why is that even in there? Just to surprise us?

There is one funny scene that has to do with a news broadcast. And that's it, that's the only entertaining moment. The rest of the movie is just nonsensical filmic references and visual cues that apparently exist only for the sake of showing us how smart Pedro Almodovar is. But no matter what my film professor says, it takes more than self-indulgent trickery for a movie to be good.


This was an awful movie. Basically Jane March was a half-Korean North Korean spy sent by Kim Jong Il to do something horrible to the American forces in South Korea. She becomes a maid for an American military family, they all regard her as being Korean even though she looks more white (I believe the actress is either 1/4 or 1/8 Southeast Asian, not at all Korean), and the teenage boy of the household starts out hating her and ends up sleeping with her. The way Korea and the U.S. military in Korea is depicted is completely insane. Of course, the screenwriter and the director were obviously white men who've never spent a day in Korea prior to this movie and had no intention of showing any real insight into life in Korea for either Koreans or American GIs and instead just tried to fulfill their pathetic Asiaphile fantasies without any regard to how completely unbelievable it made the movie. Anyone who's ever been to Korea will know this is utter garbage. In the end the North Korean honhyol spy-girl gets killed, in an obvious "paying for her sins" way. Very bad film with a made-for-TV feel to it.


The name "cult movie" is often given to films which continue to be screened, or to sell in home movie format, more than a generation after they were first released. Superchick, which was first released in 1973, now comes into this category. Its cult status is largely due to ongoing interest in it by those women who regard it as an early and effective feminist film.

Despite the "Superwoman" connotation, "Superchick" is not a cartoon character but a very competent young lady working as an air stewardess - a career option which in the 1970's was commonly regarded as one of the most glamorous open to any girl, and which also enables her to emulate the traditional matelot who reputedly has a wife in every port. Since she holds black belt status in karate, she is in a position to make it quite clear that she is very happy with her bachelor existence, and is in no way beholden to any of her extensive suite of male admirers. This film is a situation comedy which avoids the generally much shorter lived appeal of outright farce. Its appeal to feminists is also heightened by a climax in which our heroine uses her karate abilities to avert a hijacking and save all the other passengers on her plane from a potentially unpleasant fate. To ensure that this film will appeal to men as well as to their partners, the Director has wisely ensured that is liberally sprinkled with eye candy.

Superchick can be enjoyed by those who are not too critical and want a very light easy to watch comedy which they will forget soon after viewing. It is so forgettable that they will probably find it equally enjoyable if watched again in a year's time; despite its age it may therefore retain its status as a cult movie for some time to come. However the dialogue and acting would make it hard to give this film a rating of more than 4/10.


Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!


This is only somewhat attractive for fans of "bad movie" entertainment. It is more worthwhile for students of 1970's pop culture: the fashions, the furniture, the attitudes, and that great "women's lib" moment of the early 1970's, when it was still fresh and novel for a self-employed, independent woman to exist.

"Superchick" (Joyce Jillson) had a monetarily rewarding if stultifying career (after all, what is a flight attendant but a waitress at 30,000 feet -- that goes for the male ones too), she slept around with multiple men, could protect herself and others (with karate) and wasn't tied down to anything. This is the kind of emancipated woman that scared the juices out of anti-feminists, those retrograde idiots who believe that no woman is complete without a husband.

The "sexy stewardess" was a potent archetype of the late 1960's to 1970's, (geez, even on "The Partridge Family," I remember swinging bachelor Ruben Kincaid constantly hooking up with stewardesses) and from that point of view, this silly film is an important pop culture time capsule of the pre-AIDS, free-love, women's lib, swinging Seventies. The plot is quite awful though. And for those cavemen in the audience, there are few bare breasts to look at.


This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.

The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed.


A retired diplomat, played nicely by Michael York, goes to Russia to get revenge on the Russian gangster that murdered the diplomat's policeman son. There the diplomat meets an exceptionally strong and decent Russian cop who helps him bring the Russian gangster to justice.

I remembered the old action flicks of the 1980s that always portray the Russians as evil bad guys out to undermine the righteous U.S. government. It's interesting to see this time the Russian guy as a hero.

Not a great flick, it's really typically a "B" action flick. Michael York lends some class to this mediocre movie. Alexander Nevsky, who plays the Russian cop is kind of "blah" but surprisingly has some chemistry with Michael York. Face it, Michael York is such a good actor that he'd have chemistry with anyone he's doing a scene with. Disappointingly, the handsome Adrian Paul gets killed within the first 15 minutes into the movie. Now, if Adrian Paul was in this movie longer, it would've been an above average "B" action flick. All I can say about Adrian Paul is that he is real nice to look at for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The villain, played by Richard Tyson, is your typical bad guy. He's very blonde and very villainous in this movie.

Rent this flick if there is nothing else on TV to watch. It's okay. It doesn't suck too bad. The action scenes are decent. The acting could be better, the plot could've moved much faster, but hey, you get to see what Russia looks like today!


But it does have some good action and a plot that is somewhat interesting. Nevsky acts like a body builder and he isn't all that attractive, in fact, IMO, he is UGLY. ( his acting skills lack everything! ) Sascha is played very well by Joanna Pacula, but she needed more lines than she was given, her character needed to be developed. There are way too many men in this story, there is zero romance, too much action, and way too dumb of an ending. It is very violent. I did however love the scenery, this movie takes you all over the world, and that is a bonus. I also liked how it had some stuff about the mafia in it, not too much or too little, but enough that it got my attention. The actors needed to be more handsome...The biggest problem I had was that Nevsky was just too normal, not sexy enough. I think for most guys, Sascha will be hot enough, but for us ladies that are fans of action, Nevsky just doesn't cut it. Overall, this movie was fine, I didn't love it nor did I hate it, just found it to be another normal action flick.


This movie is a vehicle for Schwarzenegger-clone Alexander Nevsky. His charisma however is insufficient to lift this movie above the level of its poor script. He has little to add to his Arnie-act.

Michael York is quite pathetic as the begging diplomat. Watching him revisit his D'Artagnan-act from the time that he was a better actor made me feel uneasy. Come on, you can do better than that!

The story is full of holes and unexplained relations; top of this bill is the informer of Vlad, who sounds like an American woman, but from the context appears to be working for a Russian government-department.

Although the story takes place well after the end of the Communist-regime, all the Russian characters are still very communist-like. In contradiction to that, Vlad is allowed to drive a pimped up all utility vehicle as police-car. The action scenes are poorly shot and therefore lack dynamics.

Not a must see movie...


It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like "The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D


Woman (Miriam Hopkins as Virginia) chases Man (Joel McCrea as Kenneth) for father (Charles Winninger as B.J.). Woman wants to get Man to invest some of deceased mother's money in father's business venture; but, father is notorious for losing money on hair-brained schemes. Little does anyone know, but real evil schemers are posing as Man's best friends in order to steal his fortune...

The production looks engaging, but the story fails to engage. The players don't play drunk well. Notable as Broderick Crawford's first appearance - as gopher "Hunk"; other than running errands, Mr. Crawford gets pinned to the floor by Mr. McCrea.

*** Woman Chases Man (4/28/37) John G. Blystone ~ Miriam Hopkins, Joel McCrea, Charles Winninger, Broderick Crawford


You don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This "epic" about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny "wisecracks" and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.

"A Yank in Libya" isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC "extravaganza" just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget it.


It definitely fits the time period as the Axis & Allies were playing espionage games throughout most of North Africa & the rest of the world. It's not the best of films, but certainly not the worst of the budget films as described previously from the compilation War Classics.

Duncan"Cisco Kid" Renaldo was actually very good in one of his first feature films. I really enjoyed the performance of Harry Parke (credited as Parkyarkarkus). Why he never got any bigger roles is beyond me. He played the perfect buddy/partner role and saved the movie...imho.

As said, this film was part of a budget package from Superbox-Mart entitled War Classics. Eight movies for eight bucks, which included other never-heard-from-films that has some decent stars trying to pay the bills.

This script is...well, not so hot. The editing & cinematography is...worse. If you can by-pass all of that and want to see the future Cisco Kid & a great sidekick that sadly never fulfilled his true potential, definitely pick it up! Otherwise, there's other WW2 films to watch.

-Thunderossa.


Chan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.

I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.

SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10


The story: Young-goon is a girl whose family has a history of mental illness. She ends up in a mental institution after she starts believing that she is in fact a cyborg. In the institution she meets Park Il-sun, a young man who develops a bond with her.

If you're reading this you probably already know how talented Chan-wook Park is. But 'I'm A Cyborg...' is a big departure from familiar, and (sadly) stronger territory. I'm a big fan of any film or story which is attempting to do something different. God knows, we all get subjected to enough crap at our local cinemas. The main point about the movie I need to say is, that it fails to say anything about mental illness, or create a characters that you care about.

This story has to be one of the weirdest things I've seen in years...but weird isn't enough. There's no heart to the movie...just surrealism and confusion. Confusion does seem to be the main theme of the movie. The characters all try to make sense of their own problems, but it's Chan-wook Park himself who proves to be the most confused of them all.


Prior to this release, Neil LaBute had this to say about the 1973 original: "It's surprising how many people say it's their favorite soundtrack. I'm like, come on! You may not like the new one, but if that's your favorite soundtrack, I don't know if I *want* you to like my film."

Neil, a word. You might want to sit down for this too; as Lord Summerisle says, shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees bent. See, Neil, the thing about the original, is that Paul Giovanni's soundtrack is one of the most celebrated things about it. The filmmakers themselves consider it a virtual musical. Along with Richard and Danny Thompson, and Bert Jansch, it practically kick-started the 1970s Folk New Wave. To undermine it is akin to imagining Jaws without John Williams. Or The Buddy Holly Story without Buddy Holly. The result's one of the most breathtakingly arrogant, pointless remake of a British cult classic since Sly Stallone's Get Carter.

The original had apparently left Nicolas Cage "disturbed for about two weeks." So disturbed, during that fortnight's window, that he pitched the idea of re-imagining one of the most nuanced films about inter-faith struggle ever devised to a writer-director previously known for his wholly unsubtle depictions of male chauvinism. It's like some parlor game: what would you get if Sam Peckinpah took on Bambi? Or Gaspar "Irreversible" Noe remade Love, Actually?(Actually, I'd quite like to see that). Unfortunately, someone took this parlor game seriously: All LaBute's succeeded in doing is ripping out the original's guts while saddling it with his own gormless Sex War preoccupations.

After failing to rescue a little girl and her mum from a fatal car crash, Cage's highway patrolman spirals into a medicated torpor. Then he receives a letter from ex-fiancée Willow Woodward (this one trades on name-homages for kudos), now living on the private island community of Summersisle  that extra 's' stands for 'superfluous'  and wants Edward to help locate missing daughter Rowan.

Summersisle, it transpires, is a female-dominated joint, conceived as a haven for oppressed womenfolk and refugees from the Salem witch trials. Here, the matriarchs observe the Olde ways, and the few males are near-mute breed-mules. It's like Lilith Fair on a grand scale. Summersisle's main export is honey  a symbolic and literal headache for Edward, as he's allergic to bees. "Beekeepers!" cries Edward. "They seem to be everywhere on this island!" Well, that's probably because Summersisle's main export is honey.

While making his investigations, Edward overhears of an oncoming Mayday ritual called "the time of death and rebirth". He discovers the previous year's crop failed; nearly dies from bee stings; and eventually comes to the conclusion (a conclusion which admittedly couldn't be more obvious if the locals had tattooed a timetable of events on the back of his hands) that Rowan will be burnt alive in a pagan rite to ensure a bountiful harvest. He also meets the Queen Bee of the hive, Sister Summersisle (Burstyn), who has her own plans for him involving the eponymous Wicker Man: "The drone must die."

First, the good news: any concerns Cage would be airlifted from the Wicker Man's flaming jaws at the last minute by a fleet of black CIA helicopters can be laid to rest: he toast. That's about it for the good news. "This is a story whose chapters were carefully written" intones Burstyn with sublime irony. Though retaining the basic cat-and-mouse premise (and credits typography), what's left subjects the original to a scorched-earth policy.

Crucial to Shaffer's original screenplay was that his Christian copper, in accordance with ritual, came to the island of his own free will  and most importantly, was a virgin; the perfect sacrifice. In reducing matters to a sexual, as opposed to a religious power-struggle, LaBute presents the flimsiest of qualifiers for a harvest sacrifice. By the time Cage has worked out he was the bait, you honestly couldn't care less.

And Cage is one of the very worst things in this; a lumbering, drawling donkey  an arsewit whose tongue seems just slightly too big for his mouth. "Goddamit" he moans after he hallucinates a drowned Rowan, with all the mental torment of a man who's set his morning alarm clock half-an-hour too early. One hopes it's his character's frequent reliance on pills that has reduced him to this state  alternately fatigued, then full of preppy, overbearing vim. If so, it's a fine portrayal of an undistinguished IQ addled with anti-depressants. If notit doesn't bear thinking about. As Willow, the saucer-eyed Beahan is similarly dreadful, presenting her lines as if in competition with Cage for themosthalf-hearteddelivery. While Burstyn entirely lacks the mercurial menace to convince. Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf?

Every element that made the original great  the lovingly detailed depictions of folk customs, the ingenious score, the dialogue (Lord Summerisle's majestic "You did it beautifully!" has been replaced with the rather less attractive "You did it excellently!" Whoah, dude!)  have been substituted for a meandering battle-of-the-sexes thriller with occasional crash-bang wallop. Namely, walloping women; this is a LaBute flick, after all. Cage's Sister Beech bashing is just one of the more embarrassing episodes; impotent little men will be hooting with glee at how them uppity hippie chicks finally got what was comin' to 'em, hyuk hyuk.

The closing coda sees the whole rotten mess collapsing under the weight of genre cliché: in a bar, two guys run into a couple of Summersisle maidens on shore leave, flirty-fishing for fresh martyrs. At the moment of their successful pick-up, you half expect the women to turn round and give an exaggerated wink and a thumbs up to the camera.

One more thing: keen credit watchers may have noticed that films sporting an unusually high producer count (anything up to 10) tend to be Not Much Cop. The Wicker Man has 18 producers in total.


This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.

From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.

"Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.

I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.


The Wicker Man. I am so angry that I cannot write a proper comment about this movie.

The plot was ridiculous, thinly tied together, and altogether-just lame. Nicolas Cage...shame on you! I assumed that since you were in it, that it would be at least decent. It was not.

I felt like huge parts of the movie had been left on the cutting room floor, and even if it's complete-the movie was just outlandish and silly.

At the end you're left mouth agape, mind befuddled and good taste offended. I have never heard so many people leave a theater on opening day with so much hatred. People were complaining about it in small groups in the mall, four floors down from the theater near the entrance. It's that bad.

I heard it compared to : Glitter, American Werewolf in Paris and Gigli. My boyfriend was so mad he wouldn't even talk about it.

Grrrr!


Unfortunately, this movie does no credit whatsoever to the original. Nicholas Cage, fairly wooden as far as actors go, imbues the screen with a range of skill from, non-plussed to over the top. The supporting cast is no better.

The plot stays much the same as the original in terms of scene progression but is far worse. Not enough detail is given to allow the audience to by into what is being sold. It turns out it's just a bill of poor goods. Disbelief cannot be suspended, nor can a befit of a doubt be given. The only saving aspect of this film is that it is highly visual, as the medium requires, and whomever scouted the location should be commended.

There was much laughter in the audience and multiple boos, literally, at the end.

Disappointed! Wait for the original to come on television, pour a whiskey and enjoy.


I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.

I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me.

Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.

Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.


Anyone not aware of the 1973 original British Lion movie ' The Wicker Man' would,no doubt, have left the cinema with the impression 'Poor' and 'Peurile'.

As a devotee of the original I left with the impression Purely Poor.

From the grim reality of haggle toothed inbreds drawing the force of law and order into a web of paganistic barbaric ritual on a remote Scottish island, named Summerisle(the original) to a near Amazon-ic colony off the Maine coast of the US, named Summersisle, the remake hardly hits the spot.

This is, quite sadly, a case of what 'could' have been a classic remake of a classic being tampered with to cater for a simple minded public. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.

Gentlemen (or given the reworked context of the film) Ladies involved ... hang your heads in shame.


How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely "plastered on" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.


This has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.

There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career.


what ever you do do not waste your time on this pointless. movie. A remake that did not need to be retold. Everyone coming out of the theater had the same comments. Worst movie I ever saw. Save your time and money!!!

Nicgolas Cage was biking down hills, swimming in murky water and rolling down hills while being attacked by bees but yet his suit was still perfectly pressed and shirt crisp white until the very last scene.

Although a good cast with Ellen Bernstein and Cage the acting was just as unbelievable as the movie itself. It is amazing how good actors can do such bad movies. Don't they get a copy of the script first. If you still have any interest at all in seeing the movie at the very least wait for it to come out on DVD.


This film was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.

The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out "Rowan!?" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.

I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).


Everyone else who has commented negatively about this film have done excellent analysis as to why this film is so bloody awful. I wasn't going to comment, but the film just bugs me so much, and the writer/director in particular. So I must toss in my hat to join the naysayers.

I saw the original "Wicker Man" and really loved the cornucopia of music, sensuality, paganism in a modern world, and the clash of theological beliefs. This said, I am not part of the crowd that thinks remakes of great movies shouldn't be done. For example, I liked the original 1950's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", but equally enjoyed the 1978 remake. Both films can stand on their own. Another example is "The Thing". The original, as campy as it looks compared to today's standards, has a lot to be proud of in the 1982 remake with Kurt Russell (my all time favorite horror movie). So that small minority of people who like "The Wicker Man" re-make can not accuse me of dissing this piece of crap just because it's a re-make.

This film solidified for me Neil LaBute's sexism and misogynistic tendencies. It also made me wonder how executives, wanting to make a serious thriller, would green light a product that is so anti-female. There are too many scenes of Cage hitting women just because he's frustrated with them thwarting his investigation of a missing girl. would he react like this off the island in other cases where suspects aren't forthcoming? The original created a society in which men and women are equal participants in a Goddess based religion. The threat to the main character came from everyone, male and female. There was no sexual hierarchy.

The metaphor of bees, drones etc was a bit heavy handed and convenient ("The drone must die!"), especially when Cage's character has bee allergies. I kept wondering why the men on the island didn't fight back and use mere physicality to stop these women from treating them like grunts. These were not women with special supernatural powers, and half of them seemed to be pregnant, the other half old and fat, and the rest girls and thin blonde waifs, so if the men really wanted to escape they could do what most men do when they hate women. Physically dominate them. There didn't seem to be any guns or weapons beyond cutting tools to hold them if they were unhappy. But if they were content being drones, why make them unable to speak? They could be used as a threat to Cage because they will defend the community. They are drones because Neil LaBute seems to believe that a society ran by women would leave men castrated. (That movie was made already. "The Stepford Wives" anyone?) Classic symptoms from men who are afraid of what may happen if women got their sh*t together and were truly equal citizens.

The problem with the man-hating female society is that it makes uninteresting movie viewing and creates unintentional humor when Cage starts knocking women out. I belief LaBute should've left the society an egalitarian one, kept the sexuality and uninhibited lasciviousness, and pushed buttons of discomfort in regards to the children on that island. No one likes pedophiles or children to be sexually exploited. So how would a cop react if he saw lewd acts performed by adults with children around? There would be a logical mental leap that these children are abused, thus, an urgency created to save the missing child and get help for all the children. LaBute has said he created the fiancé and daughter story thread to give Cage's character an incentive to search. I don't think you need that. Any child abused will make an adult react to save them. The irony of course would be that the child Cage "saves" ultimately brings him death.

The dialogue was contrived and campy. The whole third act was hilarious. The audience I saw it with guffawed (and later booed at the end). I just thought the movie started off wrong when the letter arrived written in the fancy handwriting and all the flashbacks cutting into to show how wounded Cage is. We don't need that. Just show him arriving on the island for an investigation of a missing child. Most of us in America have seen "Law & Order" and other cop procedurals. We come into the movie as if we are Cage's partner solving a mystery.

So much potential...wasted. Neil LaBute, stick to talking head pictures for people who enjoy your male angst-ridden plays and flicks of that sort. Stay with your own company of men. Leave the thrillers for people who understand thrillers. Here is your jar of honey. I'll watch that.


Don't let the premise fool you--this was one funny movie. The problem--it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. The story sets you up nicely for an ending that never comes. Even worse, the set-up is NEVER explained. You will leave the theater asking "Is that it?" I rate it a 2 simply because there were a few brief moments of promise, but the finish leaves you completely flat. Nicholas Cage did as good a job as can be expected in the role, but he had very little to work with. There are odd quirks, and interesting turns everywhere, which had absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Let this one come out on video before wasting your money.


I have never seen the 1973, older highly rated version. I am a Nicholas Cage fan (by the way, fine acting as usual). This movie probably took all of five minutes to hammer out the whole plot (I can see it being done on a cocktail napkin at a dinner party), if you can't figure out the ending of this drool in the first thirty minutes you will probably find this movie entertaining. This is, of late, the terrible rut that Hollywood seems to have dug for itself with the horror/mystery/thriller genre, unable to give the audience enough credit and write a fresh, smart, and tantalizing screenplay, they dish out some creepy music and throw in a couple of things to make you jump a little and then send the final print off to your local theater. At least, it didn't have the jiggling hand-held camera syndrome.


A phenomenal achievement in awfulness. It's actually hilariously awful.

First off...Nicholas Cage must now have made it to the finals in the Over-Emoting Category in his acting class. Wearing new hair plugs and with a face that has been lifted so many times his pinned back ears seem to be straining to touch in the back he oozes not only a sick smarmiess but creates a "hero" character that you have no vested interest in.

I don't know what it is with Neil Labute and female characters. He makes females out to be totally deviant and evil...and pays them back by having Cage punch several of them directly in the face and call them all "b****es" a few times too. I've enjoyed LaBute's early films and a few of his plays...but it's a strange fascination he has.

I'd give this film a 2 out of 10 solely based on Ellen Burstyn's performance. By the time she finally makes her appearance (bravely soldiering through her scenes with her wig line clearly visible on her forehead) it seems like all hope may be lost. She deserves an Oscar right here and now for saying her lines with a straight face and when she appears wearing a white mumu and blue, white, and gold face paint booming about The Wicker Man you know that working with Scorcese and Friedkin really prepped her for this role dang well.

This movie is so wrong-headed and cuckoo that is has to be seen to be believed.

Highlights include: Nicholas Cage running away from a swarm of bees and then falling down a hill.

Nicholas Cage stealing a bicycle and looking like Ms. Gulch from The Wizard of Oz riding around on it.

Nicholas Cage running around the island kicking down doors looking for the missing girl.

Leelee Sobieski PLUMMETING from a once-promising acting career in a "brawl" with Cage.

Ellen Burstyn dancing around in a said while mumu.

Nicholas Cage screaming "Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?" for no reason.

Nicholas Cage in a bear costume (I'm not kidding) running through the woods, taking off the costume (but leaving the bear feet on) and then doing some karate moves to some villains.

And you haven't lived until you have seen the final 15 minutes of the movie and its dreadful epilogue that looked like it was shot yesterday in your cousin's basement.

Needless to say, if you can make it through this film without laughing out loud then you deserve a medal. There was actually a point in the movie where I stopped snickering to wonder if maybe this wasn't an elaborate send-up of "hysteria" films...only to be reminded when Cage would scream/shout/whisper his dialogue that he really was taking himself quite seriously.

I think this one is destined to be a cult film all over again...just because it's so dreadful.


The Wicker Man Has Done The Impossible! It replaced Cat Woman as the worst recent movie in my steel trap cinema mind. YES it's really that bad. So bad that when sitting down to write this review I thought to myself "If I had a choice to either see this movie again or to have red hot needles shoved in my eyes" I might actually go for the red hot needles.

Neil LaBute created a rare movie where Joel Schumacher could sit back and say with comfort and a guilt free mind "Yeah that's some bad direction right there".

I think the first clue for myself should have been the tag line: "Some Sacrifices Must Be Made". Sure it might sound sort of cheeky ominous line to intrigue you but the sacrifice will be all on the audience side of the screen. Trust me on this the people responsible for this movie should be charged with a hate crime..or at least fraud for trying to pass this off as anything resembling entertainment. Seriously! The movie is about an island where men are just there for breeding and I would still rather with be stuck on Gilligans Island with only pictures of Condoleezza Rice then find myself stranded there.

The most entertaining part about this movie was the guy who ripped the loudest fart I've ever heard in a movie theater. That's not a joke nor is it fictional. I've never been to a "thriller" and heard so much laughter through out the entire film. I can't tell you with an certainty if the laughs were intentional in some effort to lighten the cinematic tension or if they just really thought this crud would actual fly. I honestly found myself routing for a power outage or a perhaps a fight to break out in the movie theater, anything to make this more interesting which is pretty sad since Deez, Powder and I pounded 2 beers each before the film just for a little mental anesthesia (soon to be a law before all Nic Cage films, write to your congressman today, don't delay). At one point I actually thought perhaps this movie is really a spoof and Anna Ferris is going to show upoh how I wish.

Nic Cage throws out so much ham per frame I'm thinking of having a cholesterol test done today. To think that I ever thought Sean Penn was a d*ck for slamming Nic's acting, oh he's still a d*ck just lesser of oneyes Sean Penn's d*ck was lessened because of this film. Do us all a favor Nic play your strengths and stick to being pathetic losers and drunks. You cannot play superman you do not get to play strong hunky roles go straight to jail do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars. His best moments in this film are when he finally comes unhinged and actually punches out a burly woman to steal her bear suit (like the fart, not a joke or a functional moment during this review) then proceeds to run amok like Conan O'Brian's masturbating bear, but with half the hilarity of a bear knocking his junk around. Thankfully he meets his end shortly after when it turns out he's to be a sacrifice to the crowd at the new tour hybrid show of Burning Man and Lilith Fair. Yes!!!! I just spoiled the ending for youand if you knew any better you'd build statues of me in worship and sing songs of my legend. I sat through this crap-fest so you don't have to.

About half way through this little misadventure I kept thinking to myself Jack Bauer would have wrapped this case up in 20 minutes of real time..OK 35 minutes if Kim gets attacked by a mountain lion first. Even Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau could have figured this out in under an hourand you Sir are no Inspector Clouseau.

If for some reason you are taken captive and you have a choice to see this film or take a bullet, take the bullet.

Somewhere Uwe Boll is laughing at us all.


I picked this DVD up at the Dollar Store. The DVD was on the 2 for $1 rack, but since it had Michael Madsen in it, I thought that since I had never seen the movie, I bought it anyway.

I must say that I didn't like the movie. The movie played more like a documentary or an advertisement for religion than anything else. I found that the director's use of flashbacks did not add to the story line for me. I would have preferred to view the story line in chronological order.

I won't throw it away like one of the other commentators, but It may be quite awhile before I would consider watching this movie again.

Who knows, since it was Michael Madsen's film debut, maybe it might have some archival value at some future date.


Poor Michael Madsen; he must be kicking himself to know folks have found out about this horrible flick. I really can't think of anything worse I have ever seen, except amateur porn. It's that bad, and all here; wooden acting, bad script, crappy moral ending, you hate it and it is in this movie.

My question is: "Who the Hell put $$$ into this piece of doggy doo? At least we could have seen Michael's sister Virginia nude in a scene, but I don't think even that would save this stinker...

For a cool guy that has made some exception movies, I want to know what wacky church sponsored this piece of crapola.


An actor's first film is usually something one can afford to miss - it's often that first job where the lack of film experience by everyone involved is truly on display, and this film is no exception.

But worse than that, even by 1982 standards this is so bad, it's hysterically funny. Filmed entirely in the Chicago area on an obviously small budget, most of the acting by the entire cast is stiff, wooden, and cartoonish - a cross between a high school play and bad community theater. Noise from nearby traffic often drowns out the dialog, and the dialog is truly bad, very declarative in a way that comes off as forced and expedient rather than natural and organic. Scenes are contrived and choppy, and even though the characters go through a span of years, neither the children nor the adults age at all.

I do believe it's possible to make a Christian film that's palatable to a large, secular audience, but too often the creators of such films are so focused on 'The Message' or in this case, their own autobiographical ties to the project that good film production values are tossed aside. (I'm sure it's no coincidence that the main character has the same name as the producer/director/editor - and cast member.)

Luckily, Michael Madsen was much more interesting - and believable - to watch in his subsequent films. Careers like his are certainly not built on films like this one.