Datasets:

---

Lowerated

/

lm6-movies-reviews-aspects

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.

Direction

['']

I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.

Story

['I laughed all the way through this rotten movie.', 'A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office.', 'What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious!', "Nothing rings true in this 'Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do' movie.", "Clunky dialogue like 'I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it' doesn't help."]

I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.

Characters

["There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship.", "A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid.", 'The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids.']

I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.

Production Design

['']

I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.

Unique Concept

['']

I laughed all the way through this rotten movie. It's so unbelievable. A woman leaves her husband after many years of marriage, has a breakdown in front of a real estate office. What happens? The office manager comes outside and offers her a job!!! Hilarious! Next thing you know the two women are going at it. Yep, they're lesbians! Nothing rings true in this "Lifetime for Women with nothing better to do" movie. Clunky dialogue like "I don't want to spend the rest of my life feeling like I had a chance to be happy and didn't take it" doesn't help. There's a wealthy, distant mother who disapproves of her daughter's new relationship. A sassy black maid - unbelievable that in the year 2003, a film gets made in which there's a sassy black maid. Hattie McDaniel must be turning in her grave. The woman has a husband who freaks out and wants custody of the snotty teenage kids. Sheesh! No cliche is left unturned.

Emotions

['']

NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

Cinematography

['],']

NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

Direction

['Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists', "It’s a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales"]

NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

Story

["The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities", 'This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane', "Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City"]

NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

Characters

["These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin", 'Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix']

NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

Production Design

["Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions)"]

NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

Unique Concept

['],']

NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

Emotions

['']

I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.<br /><br />It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.<br /><br />The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.<br /><br />This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.<br /><br />Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.<br /><br />Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<br /><br />I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.

Cinematography

['']

I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.<br /><br />It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.<br /><br />The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.<br /><br />This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.<br /><br />Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.<br /><br />Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<br /><br />I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.

Direction

['Best Director (Peter Yates)']

I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.<br /><br />It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.<br /><br />The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.<br /><br />This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.<br /><br />Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.<br /><br />Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<br /><br />I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.

Story

['The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II.', 'the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters']

I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.<br /><br />It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.<br /><br />The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.<br /><br />This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.<br /><br />Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.<br /><br />Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<br /><br />I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.

Characters

['the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless.', 'Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor.', 'Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer.', 'For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.', 'there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood.']

I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.<br /><br />It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.<br /><br />The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.<br /><br />This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.<br /><br />Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.<br /><br />Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<br /><br />I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.

Production Design

['']

I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.<br /><br />It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.<br /><br />The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.<br /><br />This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.<br /><br />Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.<br /><br />Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<br /><br />I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.

Unique Concept

['']

I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.<br /><br />It's not a "big" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.<br /><br />The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.<br /><br />This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.<br /><br />Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.<br /><br />Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.<br /><br />I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.

Emotions

['']

What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

Cinematography

['']

What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

Direction

['']

What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

Story

['What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise', 'somewhere the movie loses it', 'it never really got going']

What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

Characters

['there was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant', 'Steve Martin...was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie', 'I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie']

What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

Production Design

['']

What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

Unique Concept

['']

What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

Emotions

['']

I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...

Cinematography

['']

I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...

Direction

['']

I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...

Story

['the plot was difficult to follow', 'the story really falls flat and becomes tedious', 'the end scene is disappointing and phoned in']

I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...

Characters

['character development was randomly applied', 'the actors were adequate', 'their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional']

I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...

Production Design

['']

I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...

Unique Concept

['predictable lesbian undertones', 'hammered home in the most banal terms']

I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it...

Emotions

['stunned', 'disappointing', 'tedious', 'raunchy']

So let's begin!)))<br /><br />The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...<br /><br />My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!<br /><br />I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. <br /><br />The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)<br /><br />Recommend with confidence!))))

Cinematography

['']

So let's begin!)))<br /><br />The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...<br /><br />My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!<br /><br />I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. <br /><br />The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)<br /><br />Recommend with confidence!))))

Direction

['']

So let's begin!)))<br /><br />The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...<br /><br />My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!<br /><br />I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. <br /><br />The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)<br /><br />Recommend with confidence!))))

Story

["the movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear", "it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow"]

So let's begin!)))<br /><br />The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...<br /><br />My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!<br /><br />I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. <br /><br />The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)<br /><br />Recommend with confidence!))))

Characters

['JJL being one of my favourite actresses', 'she is as lovely as usual, this cutie', 'the rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array']

So let's begin!)))<br /><br />The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...<br /><br />My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!<br /><br />I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. <br /><br />The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)<br /><br />Recommend with confidence!))))

Production Design

['']

So let's begin!)))<br /><br />The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...<br /><br />My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!<br /><br />I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. <br /><br />The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)<br /><br />Recommend with confidence!))))

Unique Concept

["the movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear"]

So let's begin!)))<br /><br />The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...<br /><br />My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!<br /><br />I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. <br /><br />The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)<br /><br />Recommend with confidence!))))

Emotions

['I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers']

Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.

Cinematography

['the scenes were oppressive and dark']

Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.

Direction

['']

Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.

Story

['The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message']

Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.

Characters

["I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did"]

Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.

Production Design

['']

Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.

Unique Concept

['']

Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.

Emotions

['Besides being boring']

An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.<br /><br />I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.

Cinematography

['']

An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.<br /><br />I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.

Direction

['']

An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.<br /><br />I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.

Story

["The story is laughable and dated by today's standards."]

An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.<br /><br />I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.

Characters

['Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end.', "Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles."]

An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.<br /><br />I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.

Production Design

['']

An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.<br /><br />I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.

Unique Concept

['Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea.']

An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.<br /><br />I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.

Emotions

['']

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.<br /><br />The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...<br /><br />DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10

Cinematography

['']

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.<br /><br />The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...<br /><br />DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10

Direction

['']

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.<br /><br />The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...<br /><br />DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10

Story

['The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring.', 'This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end.']

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.<br /><br />The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...<br /><br />DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10

Characters

["Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those 'helping' the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl.", 'All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed.']

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.<br /><br />The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...<br /><br />DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10

Production Design

['']

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.<br /><br />The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...<br /><br />DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10

Unique Concept

['Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence.']

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.<br /><br />The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...<br /><br />DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10

Emotions

['']

Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.<br /><br />Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.<br /><br />In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.<br /><br />But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.<br /><br />3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.

Cinematography

['']

Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.<br /><br />Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.<br /><br />In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.<br /><br />But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.<br /><br />3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.

Direction

['']

Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.<br /><br />Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.<br /><br />In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.<br /><br />But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.<br /><br />3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.

Story

['Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success', "Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy"]

Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.<br /><br />Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.<br /><br />In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.<br /><br />But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.<br /><br />3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.

Characters

['Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra', 'the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves', 'wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble']

Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.<br /><br />Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.<br /><br />In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.<br /><br />But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.<br /><br />3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.

Production Design

['all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker']

Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.<br /><br />Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.<br /><br />In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.<br /><br />But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.<br /><br />3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.

Unique Concept

['']

Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.<br /><br />Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.<br /><br />In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this film—whether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylum—is hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.<br /><br />But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.<br /><br />3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.

Emotions

['the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful', 'the black humour is about as funny as a knee to the knackers', 'the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy']

I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.

Cinematography

['']

I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.

Direction

['']

I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.

Story

["It didn't have much of a plot", 'what they did have was not that appealing', 'All the movie had not a lot to be desired']

I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.

Characters

['Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed', 'Her acting had a lot to be desired']

I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.

Production Design

['she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore']

I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.

Unique Concept

['']

I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.

Emotions

['I was really disappointed when I seen this movie', 'I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie']

I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.

Cinematography

['']

I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.

Direction

['']

I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.

Story

['the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not', 'there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies', 'hoodwinked--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name']

I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.

Characters

["Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves", 'Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films', 'Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion']

I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.

Production Design

['']

I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.

Unique Concept

['']

I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.

Emotions

['']

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.<br /><br />Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.<br /><br />I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!<br /><br />And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.<br /><br />The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.<br /><br />I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

Cinematography

['']

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.<br /><br />Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.<br /><br />I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!<br /><br />And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.<br /><br />The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.<br /><br />I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

Direction

['']

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.<br /><br />Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.<br /><br />I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!<br /><br />And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.<br /><br />The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.<br /><br />I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

Story

['This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen.', "the writer obviously bought the playbook 'How to write a space disaster movie' and followed it play by play.", 'the plot holes are too numerous to mention.', "It's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room."]

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.<br /><br />Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.<br /><br />I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!<br /><br />And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.<br /><br />The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.<br /><br />I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

Characters

['shallow characters ever seen.', 'the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space.']

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.<br /><br />Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.<br /><br />I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!<br /><br />And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.<br /><br />The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.<br /><br />I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

Production Design

['numerous lame attempts at special effects.', "To learn that the film was nominated for a 'Special Visual Effects' Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked."]

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.<br /><br />Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.<br /><br />I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!<br /><br />And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.<br /><br />The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.<br /><br />I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

Unique Concept

['']

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.<br /><br />Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.<br /><br />I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!<br /><br />And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.<br /><br />The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.<br /><br />I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

Emotions

['The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell.', 'saving it from a lower mark.']

Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.

Cinematography

['']

Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.

Direction

['']

Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.

Story

['Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up.', 'Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.']

Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.

Characters

['Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield.', 'Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original.', 'Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original.', 'except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid.', 'Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray.']

Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.

Production Design

['']

Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.

Unique Concept

['']

Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.

Emotions

['His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid.']

Honestly - this short film sucks. the dummy used in the necro scene is pretty well made but still phony enough looking to ruin the viewing experience. the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear and I haven't made up my mind if this helps or hinders it. If the film was a little grainy it might have added some "creepiness factor" to what was going on. I have no idea why this film has so much hype surrounding it other than the subject matter - but to be honest the necrophilia scenes in films like NEKROMANTIK and VISITOR Q among others, are more shocking than in AFTERMATH. All this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****. This is an expensive, beautifully filmed turd. It's not that shocking, it's not that disgusting. if you insist on viewing it - rent it. I give it a 3 for the fact that not many people make explicit movies about necrophilia (there should definitely be a bigger selection for us sickos ;) - the filming is good and it does have some "gore" (if watching a rubbery looking doll get cut open is considered gore...) but other than that - absolutely nothing going for this over-hyped mess. On the other hand - GENESIS - Cerda's "sequel" to AFTERMATH (now available as a "double feature" released by Unearthed films) is an absolute masterpiece of a short film, really showing what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material. Although I don't care for AFTERMATH at all, GENESIS is so well made that I will forgive Cerda and Definitely keep an eye out for him in the future...

Cinematography

['the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear', 'the filming is good']

Honestly - this short film sucks. the dummy used in the necro scene is pretty well made but still phony enough looking to ruin the viewing experience. the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear and I haven't made up my mind if this helps or hinders it. If the film was a little grainy it might have added some "creepiness factor" to what was going on. I have no idea why this film has so much hype surrounding it other than the subject matter - but to be honest the necrophilia scenes in films like NEKROMANTIK and VISITOR Q among others, are more shocking than in AFTERMATH. All this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****. This is an expensive, beautifully filmed turd. It's not that shocking, it's not that disgusting. if you insist on viewing it - rent it. I give it a 3 for the fact that not many people make explicit movies about necrophilia (there should definitely be a bigger selection for us sickos ;) - the filming is good and it does have some "gore" (if watching a rubbery looking doll get cut open is considered gore...) but other than that - absolutely nothing going for this over-hyped mess. On the other hand - GENESIS - Cerda's "sequel" to AFTERMATH (now available as a "double feature" released by Unearthed films) is an absolute masterpiece of a short film, really showing what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material. Although I don't care for AFTERMATH at all, GENESIS is so well made that I will forgive Cerda and Definitely keep an eye out for him in the future...

Direction

["Cerda's 'sequel' to AFTERMATH is an absolute masterpiece", 'what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material']

Honestly - this short film sucks. the dummy used in the necro scene is pretty well made but still phony enough looking to ruin the viewing experience. the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear and I haven't made up my mind if this helps or hinders it. If the film was a little grainy it might have added some "creepiness factor" to what was going on. I have no idea why this film has so much hype surrounding it other than the subject matter - but to be honest the necrophilia scenes in films like NEKROMANTIK and VISITOR Q among others, are more shocking than in AFTERMATH. All this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****. This is an expensive, beautifully filmed turd. It's not that shocking, it's not that disgusting. if you insist on viewing it - rent it. I give it a 3 for the fact that not many people make explicit movies about necrophilia (there should definitely be a bigger selection for us sickos ;) - the filming is good and it does have some "gore" (if watching a rubbery looking doll get cut open is considered gore...) but other than that - absolutely nothing going for this over-hyped mess. On the other hand - GENESIS - Cerda's "sequel" to AFTERMATH (now available as a "double feature" released by Unearthed films) is an absolute masterpiece of a short film, really showing what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material. Although I don't care for AFTERMATH at all, GENESIS is so well made that I will forgive Cerda and Definitely keep an eye out for him in the future...

Story

['all this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****']