Reviews

This is by no means a very good movie, but it is not nearly as bad as some reviewers think. I enjoyed most of it, but the ending was absurd. The one and two star reviews focus primarily on the acting, the lack of sex appeal of the protagonist, and the sex.

First, the acting was fine. The protagonist is supposed to be subdued and cold. As for his sex appeal, he had actual relationships with two of the women, another woman developed attraction for him over a series of sessions, another woman was older and lonely, and only one, one of the twins, really had sex without knowing him at all (and she could have been playing mind games with him). As for the other actors, they were believable in their roles.

Second, it is an adult thriller. It is on cable and with its rating, a viewer should expect nudity, sexuality, and violence. Have none of the prudish reviewers seen an R-rated movie (or whatever the equivalent rating is in England)? I did not see the mini-series, only the film made from it, and I thought the sex shown was not egregious. Perhaps the mini-series has more? Perhaps it was the type of sex the reviewers were complaining about. Bondage and rough sex were integral to the plot, though. It was an aspect of the murders and it was one of the reasons the protagonist was a suspect.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE: Mainly the ending! The way the film was scripted and filmed caused the viewer to not expect or be able to predict the ending. I had a hunch the killer was who he was, but scenes from earlier tended to make that seem unlikely. It seemed random.

What was the motivation for the killer to suddenly begin his spree? He obviously has been fine for a while, since he knows some of his victims women and has had relationships with them. What is the trigger for the murders?

As for sex and nudity, I say there should have been more! So there!

As is my wont after watching a film, I just finished The Eagle Has Landed and wanted to see what others thought. After reading some of these reviews, I have to question whether the writers actually sat through the film and paid attention to it.

First, a few ask why these German soldiers would volunteer for a probably doomed mission when the war is obviously lost. The film takes place in 1943. The war ended in 1945. Today, with hindsight, we can tell the war was lost; to the participants, it was still uncertain. The Allies would not invade France for many months! Also, Steiner and the German paratroopers were under a death sentence because of their actions earlier in the film when they defied the SS and tried to help a Jewish woman. Finally, it was said that by kidnapping Churchill it is possible he could be used as a pawn in a peace negotiation. Unlikely, but the Nazis (Himmler in particular) were fond of ridiculous notions and schemes (astrology, etc.) In 1943, German troops had rescued Mussolini from captivity and taken him back to Germany.

Second, the incident with the SS is not totally ridiculous. Steiner and his men had just been through a long period of combat, and regular troops did not care for the SS who were better treated. And, because of his actions, he and his men were punished with what amounted to a death sentence. I do not know the original source, but one of the items in the trivia section states that a similar incident actually happened.

Third, at least one person criticizes Steiner for ordering his man to rescue the British girl who falls into the water and is almost killed by the waterwheel. This causes the soldier's death and the revealing of the German uniform underneath, thus giving Steiner no excuse but to order the villagers to be locked in the church. One writer even writes that the waterwheel incident has no significance to the plot since Steiner orders the villagers to be locked up soon after. WATCH THE MOVIE! The waterwheel IS the reason Steiner locks them up! If the soldier had not had his uniform exposed, the villagers would not have been locked up and Judy Geeson would not have warned the American troops. Also, Steiner did not order the soldier to rescue the girl! The trooper jumped in himself. The point is that their plan fails because of the humanity of these German soldiers.

There are other things I could bring up, but this is long enough. Some of the criticisms stem from the original novel.

Yes, there are some bad things about the film. Yes, Larry Hagman's character is buffoonish, but there were ridiculous officers in the American army who were so desirous of getting combat experience that they performed foolishly. Yes, some of the events in the film are contrived, but that is what films do to further the plot. Yes, Donald Sutherland's acting was fine, but the Irish accent was a bit stereotypical. (I had to question his line, "Top o' the mornin' to ya". Do real Irish people actually say that?

The only part I did not care for was the final battle at the church. The German paratroops, Fallshirmjager, were elite troops. They all had combat experience on the Russian front. I do not see how they were eliminated so quickly by the attacking Americans. They break firing holes in the stained glass windows, but then allow Americans to run up and throw hand grenades through the holes. They stand openly in the tower windows so they can be killed by an bazooka explosion. They understand they are doomed, but they are buying time for Steiner to get to Churchill. Yes, they were all going to be killed or wounded, but experienced soldiers like them could have held out longer.

Anyway, the countryside is beautiful, the cinematography is good, the acting is very good, and the plot, while a stretch, is entertaining. And the plot does succeed, if not the way the Germans planned.

It reminded me, in a strange way, of those crime movies where escaped prisoners or fugitives from a bank heist hide in a home and take the inhabitants hostage: you know they will fail and be killed or caught by the end, but what happens while they are in control is what is interesting.

There is a good reason for the reenactments of many of the bloopers. This is a movie for people to watch on the screen, and many of these bloopers were from radio or the early days of television, so video was not available.

POSITIVE: (1) Some of the bloopers are amusing. (2) There is some nudity.

NEGATIVE: (1) The theme song is irritating, and it is sung by a Steve Lawrence/Jack Jones soundalike (Sinatra is too great to use in this comparison). (2) The reenactments are often too obvious. Several scenes on television shows were obviously staged against a backdrop in someone's house or office. The voices often do not match the footage, or are otherwise obviously phony (ridiculous accents, etc.). (3) Along with the fact that most blooper shows are repetitious, the narrator sometime repeats his introductions (the fact that soap operas were filmed live is said at least three times) and the setting/ backdrop is similar for different shows (the kids' bloopers).

Still, this is reasonably entertaining and comes from a refreshing, more innocent time. I noticed none of the bloopers used the F-word. If you like this sort of thing, it is worth a watch.

First, the GOOD. The acting is good. It also is refreshing to have a film about a ghost-hunting show which is not a found footage/POV film, although there are some parts using that. Finally, it is always refreshing to watch a film not made in southern California.

The BAD. The mean-spirited parts were the gruesome beating/murders of the two women (both who were pregnant). Two of the suicides were gorier than they had to be as well. I do not mind violence and gore (except for animal cruelty such as that in the Italian cannibal genre), but these just seemed unseemly. Maybe I am getting old.

The UGLY, I mean DUMB, parts involved Andre and the song on the record. Andre experienced the horror of Farhope Tower years earlier when Jake became possessed and tried to kill him. When Jake tells his team that they are going to explore Farhope Tower, does he say anything? He blanches and says that the place is dangerous, but does he tell the others on the team what happened previously? No. Later, when Andre is acting strange and it is obvious the horror is beginning again, does Andre warn everyone about Jake and what happened last time? No. Just let the others be oblivious about the danger they are in. NICE GOING, JACKASS.

Andre is not the only idiot who keeps secrets. Jake is only going to the Farhope Tower because a network executive tells him his show won't get the contract if they do not go there. Does Jake tell anyone else about the situation? No, he keeps it to himself. Why? They all know that they are not making money. Wouldn't the news from the network executive make the team more motivated?

Another dumb bit (at least to me) was the song playing on the record. I know it is supposed to be ironic (it is about daydreams), playing during the murders and the hanging suicides, but the song did not sound of the period. It sounded too modern. Of course, one reason I detest Caprio's The Great Gatsby is that they used modern music, so I am just being picky.

One question. Just before the credits, the last shot shows Zoe turn her head with her eyes open. What are we supposed to think? Is she still alive? Good, because she was a nice character; however, the ghosts will probably not allow her to leave. Is she a ghost, too, now? I am overthinking this.

A few reviewers have criticized Smokin' Aces 2 as not being a good sequel to the original film. They need to watch their films more closely. This film takes place BEFORE the original.

One, Vinnie Jones is torturing a man, and the man offers Vinnie more money to spare him. The man says he can get the money from Buddy Israel, who died at the end of the first film. This implies that Buddy Israel is still alive, because the first film has not yet occurred. True, it could be a flashback, but...

Two, Christopher Michael Holley's FBI man says he ids to be assigned to Vegas as a plant named Beanie. Beanie is the character he plays in the first film. He also mocks the way he will have his Beanie character talk, which is the way he speaks in the first film. Also, he survives this film, but he is killed in the first film. We are to assume he went to Vegas, became part of Buddy Israel's entourage, and died there.

Three, the Tremor assassin family takes part and the only one who survives this movie is Darwin; his father, sister, and baby (I assume) brother all die. In this film, his father mentions Darwin's two other brothers who are in the state penitentiary. In the original Smokin' Aces, Darwin is with his two other brothers. Again, Darwin survives the second film, but dies in the first one along with his other brothers.

Four, in this film Lazlo Soot does not have the scars he exhibits in the first film. At the end of this film, however, he is shown with facial scars due to the explosion at the end.

Smokin' Aces 2 is by no means a good film. It is predictable (you knew Tom Berenger was faking the wheelchair), the FBI men are not the brightest (opening the door when ordered not to), and it kills off my favorite assassins (the girl and Vinnie Jones) early. It was interesting seeing the connections from the first film and knowing what was in store for some of the characters.

Tasteless humor can be witty and clever: the hair gel scene in There's Something About Mary or the campfire scene in Blazing Saddles, for example. When 95% of your jokes consist of toilet humor, however, your film either was written by elementary/middle school students or is marketed towards them. It takes no skill to have a character eat cake, pass gas, and then talk about how nauseating the smell is. That is not the work of a wit; that is the work of a talentless hack.

The acting was fine and there were a few humorous bits (an overweight Jacob), but the film was a waste of time. People are starving and homeless, and the filmmakers found financing for this? What a world.

While this is far from a truly terrible film, it does not have much going for it.

PROS: Best was the location and cinematography. I enjoyed the wintery landscape and the real, not CGI, snow; It added to the mood. I also liked the city, Grand Rapids, since Los Angeles and Miami are tiresome, overused settings.

The acting was mixed. Some of the acting was good (Smart, Purcell, Trejos, Craig Fairbrass and a few others) and some was pretty bad (the detectives and the head mobster, Vinnie). Bautista was okay. He came across as a nice guy.

The girls (the dancers and Purcell's wife) were pretty and nice to look at since not much else was going on.

CONS: Worst was the script. It is cliched and predictable. You have your typical crooked detective, your typical traitorous right-hand man who wants to takeover, your typical disbelieving cop who has it in for the protagonist, your typical ex-cop/ex-con protagonist, your typical set-up, your typical death of anyone who starts to believe the protagonist's innocence, and your typical urban thriller soundtrack.

Which leads me to my last point--the music was subpar and annoying.

I suppose it is okay if there is nothing better on.

I like shark movies and I like Jason Statham, but this film is so cliched that I was rooting for the meg.

First, the hero who, after a rescue mission that goes sour, retires to an out of the way village (here, it is in Thailand) and becomes an alcoholic. Second, the associate who has to drag him back to work on a new rescue mission. The hero only goes because, cliche three, his ex-wife is one of those needing rescue. His wife is also part of cliche four, when she is the pilot of the submersible and two comic relief characters constantly giggle and make sophomoric innuendos when she uses terms such as "insertion". One of the comic relief characters is cliche five, when he pens a letter to his wife in case he does not make it. He becomes cliche six when he shoves the letter in his friends pocket and chooses to sacrifice himself so the others escape.

I will stop there, except to mention a few more egregious examples. There is the precocious 8-year old girl who asks the hero, "Is my mommy going to die?" There is the moronic doctor who insists the hero had a breakdown on the first rescue mission and allowed 8 men to die, even though 11 people were saved by the hero and the submarine with the 8 blew up shortly afterwards. There is the punkish-looking designer of the installation, who obviously follows a different drummer. There is the comic billionaire investor of the project.

Although the list of cliches and trite situations goes on, I cannot. If you watch movies uncritically and enjoy anything Hollywood hacks set in front of you, then enjoy. Otherwise, watch Jaws again.

Although I am watching it ten years too late, i am truly enjoying Banshee--until this episode.

First, the reviewers giving this a 10 for the plot must not have seen all the "defending a building against a horde of" movies, from Rio Bravo and other westerns through Night of the Living Dead and other zombie films to Assault on Precinct 13 and its ilk. It is not an original plot.

Still, it is not bad until the characters start making dumb decisions leading to the death of my favorite female character, Siobhan.

First, Deputy Raven's idiotic decision to move the file cabinets and talk to Chayton is foolish. Did he not hear Chayton already say to Hood that everyone was going to pay? Did he not realize he could talk to Chayton without moving the file cabinets? This allows Chayton to walk in and kill Siobhan.

Second, as one reviewer astutely mentioned, Hood could have stayed with Siobhan and watched over Raven; he did not need to go to the basement.

Third, after Siobhan kills the escapee from the cell, she stands looking down at the corpse, keeping her back to the big hole in the front wall. Did she forget that there is a big hole in the front wall? There is an obvious, trite horror movie shot where the camera moves from Siobhan and we gradually get to see behind her, and, predictably, there stands Chayton.

Fourth, as that astute reviewer wrote, we have seen that Hood is a crack shot, and Chayton is so tall (and has such a large head) that he towers over Siobhan. Hood should have shot him before he could kill Siobhan.

Fifth, Siobhan was a good character, a good female character in a show filled with women who are assassins, zealots, and strippers. I hope Hood does not reunite with Ana/Carrie--I am so sick of her character.

I suppose all the 9's and 10's are from the rabid Bob Hope fans. They would give a 10 to a Bob Hope proctology exam, although I imagine if Bing Crosby were the proctologist it would be worth watching.

As a kid in the 60s, I used to love Bob Hope. And yes, his earlier movies are so much better than his later films. But this one, while better than his later films, is not that good. Mainly, it is the script.

Bob Hope and the other actors are fine (I like Peter Lorre in this), but the script is sub-par for this time period.

Some of the jokes are okay: The Ray Milland and Of Mice and Men allusions are clever, and the gag where Peter Lorre has to keep moving Dorothy Lamour's ring so Hope will find it is amusing. The Alan Ladd and Bing Crosby cameos are also good.

Most of the jokes are not funny, though. They sound as if they are from a Bob Hope Christmas show or one of those tired tv specials where he would introduce the All-American football players with a stale quip about each one. The problem is not with Hope, who acts and delivers his lines well, but with his hack writers. The jokes are just not funny.

The bit with the plugging and unplugging of the recording machine is tiresome, as is the car chase from the sanitarium. And think of the lost opportunities for funny characters in the sanitarium. Hope meets one, and while the golf match with the invisible ball is fine, other patients should have been introduced.

It is not a horrible movie, by any means, but it is not top-tier Bob Hope.

Four things I liked about The Mutilator:

1) It was not filmed in California! I am so sick of films taking place in California or set elsewhere but filmed in California (1978 Halloween). I realize the proximity of Hollywood makes it more convenient, but get over yourself California; there are 49 other states. Some reviewers complained about the scenery, but I like the waves rolling on to the non-California beach. At least it doesn't take place in or next to the woods, like so many other horror films. Watching it makes me want to visit North Carolina.

2) The characters were likeable, so you care about them. Even the cop was nice to the teens. The "funny" guy became annoying after a while, but he wasn't that bad.

3) The villain was despicable, so there is catharsis when he gets his. His ego (all the trophies) and cruelty (he takes a picture of a man he "accidentally" chewed up with his outboard motor) make him truly hateful.

AND, he is responsible for what happened to his wife! Don't allow your kid to have access to your gun cabinet, genius! Don't blame the ten year old.

4) The bad guy dies! I am so sick of the cliche of the killer still alive or another character taking up the mantle of the killer. It was great in Halloween (1978), but now it is the expectation. It is too predictable. I thought the son was going to carry on killing (or even his girlfriend), but they didn't! The dad's death made this a good ending.

There seem to be two trains of thought on this: one, it is one of the most ineptly made movies ever, or two, it is intentionally bad. I am inclined to believe the latter.

Here are some reasons I believe it is a spoof of cheap horror movies:

1) The main characters are going through a box passed down to one of them because, he is told, he might need it some day. Inside the box are several things including a dildo, but no one mentions the dildo in the box! The character talks about one of the other items in the box, but not the sex toy. If one takes the dialog to be about the dildo, it is quite amusing.

2) There is one scene where several of the characters journey to the mountaintop and react to the horrible, awe-inspiring sight they see; however, the camera never shows it! We only see the faces of the characters reacting to it.

3) Near the beginning, the two rangers go to the local hot spot (the inn) to question the owner who is holding an opening party of some sort. The clientele look ancient and there is a "toaster giveaway"! At the end of the scene, the wise-cracking, horndog ranger is hitting on an old lady and he has won the toaster!

3) The claymation monsters and their claymation victims are hilariously rendered, and the way they are incorporated into the live action is very amusing. For example, a woman is topless in her house, she screams and reacts to the offscreen claymation monster at her window, then there is an exterior shot of the monster pulling out the claymation victim (who is clothed, now) and flinging her to her death.

4) Some action movie cliches are there, also. The owner of the lodge will not close because of the business generated by the fall festival even though his guests are in grave danger. The ranger and he argue about it in several scenes.

5) Another cliche: As the story ends with the two surviving heroes defeating the monster and walking away, they start laughing and the ranger says, "Next time let's go bear hunting!"

6) The acting varies from horrible to adequate, but do not miss the owner of the lodge (the villain of the film) whose emoting is incredibly inept or breathtakingly brilliant depending on whether he was trying to be that annoying a character.

7) The bad guy, the owner of the lodge, spontaneously combusts! I can think of quite a few movies that would be improved immensely with some spontaneous combustion.

8) The low budget adds to the overall ineptitude and fun.

Is this intentionally bad and a comedy, or is it unintentionally horrid and a mess? Either way, it is fun!

Although the sets are a few rooms and hallways in a lab, the plot is interesting and the acting is very good. Louise Fletcher and James Hong add some quirkiness to their roles, and even the smaller parts are well acted.

There is some gore (primarily from an exploding head and a dissected body) and nudity (from a man and woman enclosed in pods).

Yes, there are some irritating bits such as when Shivers panics and blasts away with his shotgun hitting nothing but expending all his ammo, and the constant screaming, but it was entertaining.

Unlike many of its ilk, I was not tempted to fast forward through parts of it. Fletcher, Hong, and the woman in the pod kept my attention.

Oh, and I liked the monkey.

I do not understand the people who give this very low reviews. They must be charmed if this is one of the worst films they have ever seen. I saw this on Amazon Prime which has a large number of one star films, but this is not one of them.

This reminds me of an extended episode of a horror anthology series such as Hammer House of Horror or such. The tone is light for the most part, but it grows dark in the last 30 minutes. The plot is good. The beginning was a bit slow, but, what with the title of the film, it held my interest because I knew what to expect.

The acting is good despite what some reviewers write. I have come to believe that if someone on this site wants to give a poor review, they automatically cite the acting whether it is actually good or bad--it is just a convenient target.

As others wrote, the protagonist grows on you. I was rooting for her by the end. Yes, she does a few stupid things, such as when she is spying on the neighbors from her bedroom window and leaves her light on. I suppose as teenager she is supposed to make those mistakes.

There probably isn't enough gore for some (much of the violence is just off-screen), but it is still effective.

It is about a teenage amateur detective who suspects her new, too nice to be true, neighbors of having a secret (the title gives you a very subtle hint of their secret). It is supposed to be light and fun and creepy. Just relax and enjoy it!

The best part of the film is Kelsey Grammer. His character is competent and confident. Often filmmakers make the lead in this type of service comedy a misfit or goofball who grows into a hero. Grammer is able from the beginning.

Most of the humor comes from the crew of misfits who surround him. The characters are likable, and the actors do a good job. There were bits that I found inane, such as when Grammer and another crew member use pantomime to get Sonar to make whale sounds, but most of the humor was pleasant enough.

As with any comedy about the military, there are some inaccuracies (just check the "Goofs" section), but nothing egregious.. Of course, I could be wrong; I was in the Army.

Not great by any means, but definitely better than the one-star reviews led me to believe. If, as some reviewers wrote, this is the worst movie they have ever seen, then they probably need to watch more movies.

Filmed in Rhode Island and eastern Connecticut (it looks like Foxwoods Casino in some of the shots), it is a refreshing change from the boring southern California landscape.

This is a typical slasher-killing-teenagers film with the usual violence and a fair amount of nudity. A Native American slant made it a little more interesting. (Yes, I know there have been other horror films with a Native American angle.) There are a couple of scenes where the killer has naked women chained to a wall or a fence and those seem out of place with the Native American theme.

Michael Madsen is the only name actor and his role is not a big one. He provides a voice over at the beginning, and then he appears near the end. The character who is supposed to be Madsen and wears a mask through most of the film is obviously not him. When he takes off the mask, Madsen takes over.

Not a great horror film, but not a terrible one either.

I do not know why this has so many one-star reviews. I have seen far worse.

The biggest complaint seems to be the dark picture. True, in a couple of places it is hard to follow some of the action, but much of it does take place at night, so that is to be expected. The somber look is intentional, and it adds to the creepiness of the first half of the film.

The plot is okay, although it is not terribly original. The acting is good, although some of the characters are irritating. The cinematography is dark in places, but not enough to ruin the film.

I did enjoy the locations. The stark, wintry hills and woods of Kentucky did create a creepy landscape.

If you are looking for a traditional monster movie, this will provide an entertaining hour and a half.

I enjoyed the fluff of Romance on the High Seas, Doris Day's first film. Her charm shines, and she ends up with Jack Carson whom I have always found likable. This, her second film, also teams her with Jack Carson, and they end up together in this one as well..

Besides the two stars, the film uses many of the same supporting actors as the first film. Unfortunately, Oscar Levant is not in this one, but Eve Arden, while not as acerbic, fills in well.

While watchable, this film is not as enjoyable as Romance on the High Seas.

First, in this film Doris Day is obviously very talented and yet cannot get someone to give her a break with her singing career. This seemed hard to believe. Because she is singing fluff, no one can see how good she is until she finally sings an emotional song. Not only that, but some of the situations that deny her a break are too contrived. For example, the scenes between Jack Carson, Day's manager, and S. Z. Sakall, the sponsor of the program, are meant to be funny, but are just frustrating; Carson desperately pitches Day to him, but Sakall does his confused, misunderstanding what Carson is saying schtick

Second, the crooner character, based on Frank Sinatra, is boring. Played by Lee Bowman, he lacks any charisma. Worse, Day is set to stay with him at the end until he reveals what an ass he is; Carson only gets her on the rebound!

Third, and this is just me, I enjoyed the songs and the jokes in Romance on the High Seas more.

Did I mention I missed Oscar Levant?

Other than the stars and the witty repartee, my favorite part of the film was the fact that it avoided the scene where William Powell had to tell Myrna Loy about the plan to dupe her and his part in it. I was prepared for the drawn-out, cliched (well, maybe not a cliche in 1936) tears and screaming, but the script bypassed it. When Tracy and Harlow arrive to confront Loy, she knows already and is fine with it.

The only aspect of the film by which I was disappointed was the final shot. Everyone is shouting explanations at Loy's father, and the film ends. I would have liked a little resolution.

What a marvelous, charming movie. Libeled Lady lost the Best Picture Oscar to The Great Ziegfeld, also starring William Powell and Myrna Loy, yet I enjoyed this film so much more.

This vampire movie has all the bad ingredients. Bad acting? Check out Zoe. Idiot plot? Zoe leaves the vital pills she needs to keep from becoming a vampire behind at a gas station, where the main vampire can find them. Cliches? The town they visit is celebrating the Day of the Dead. Stupid characters? One vampire hunter, knowing there are vampires about, insists on sleeping outside the protected camper, then, after falling asleep, allows the main vampire to approach him, seduce him, and bite him.

This is just poor.

I hate this movie! The stupid characters and predictable plot derive from the poorly-written script.

As usual, for Science Fiction Channel (it does not deserve "SyFy") movies, it is utterly predictable. You know which characters will live and which will die; you know what will happen before it does.

For example, Vica the babysitter is attacked by a crocodile, but manages to escape and run back to the cabin of her employers. She is bloody and in shock. When the family runs out to fight a crocodile, she panics and locks the door behind them, then huddles against the wall. You KNOW she is doomed, now. The family manages to break into the house and try to hold the door against the croc. They give up, run into another room, and sure enough, the crock bursts through the door, grabs Vica, and pulls her out of the house to her death. It is just so predictable. I cannot believe someone makes a living writing this hackneyed tripe.

As for the stupid characters, I do not know where to begin. The boy of the family feeds the baby crocodiles in secret for two years. Many people are killed by the crocs and we are supposed to feel sorry for him; he did it because his parents neglected him and he wanted a pet. THE KID SHOULD HAVE BEEN EATEN! At least twice he tries to tell his mother about the crocs, but she interrupts him both times and changes the subject.

In another example, guide and hunter Yancey Butler is steering a boat, when one of her passengers sees a croc swim by. He is startled and she sneers at him, asking if he saw a turtle. Does he tell her what he saw? No.

These are just a few examples of the predictability of the plot and the stupidity of the characters. Trust me, there are many more.

Why two stars and not one? The acting was decent, and, while I have not seen it, the unrated version has some nudity which raises it a bit above the routine Sci-Fi Channel dreck.

I have enjoyed many French series on Netflix and elsewhere. This is the first one I have detested, primarily due to the writing. The premise is interesting: in pre-Revolutionary France, the nobility are becoming undead monsters, a cross between vampires and cannibals. Once one gets past the supernatural plot with its symbolism {the nobility, the blue-bloods, are literally feeding off the poor), one is left with cliched villainy, annoying good guys, and boring protagonists.

The Brotherhood, the revolutionists, are a group of cardboard characters who spout tired dialogue ("The people are hungry!"; "At least you had the opportunity. I did not!") and indulge in typical antics (freeing compatriots from the prison; kidnapping the villain's niece). The cliches continue. The villain's niece is sympathetic to their cause; she loved one of rebels who was killed by her father and is now one of the undead (but a good one). The leader of the Brotherhood is a feisty woman. Of course, the villain's are stereotypically evil. The villain's henchman, for example, is so bad that after he kills a girl's father, he cradles the dying man and (just to show him who's boss, I guess) stabs him through the jaw.

One thing which annoyed me was the firearms. I understand it is fantasy, but why are the guns so accurate? Characters turn and quickly shoot characters at a distance without hesitation and aiming, and it is always a deadly shot. This is 1789 or so, not the Wild West.

The acting is fine, as are the special effects. I suppose the fault is in the writing.