2) Very fine, gloriously black and white, very well acted drama involvingfour girls who decide to pool their resources and run a restauranttogether when their brothel is closed down. There are so many momentswhere this could easily have become sentimental and doesn't and is muchto the director's credit that this looks so good throughout. The jazzsoundtrack is a great help as are the snatches or 'real life' – thesteam trains rushing below car dealer Mastroianni's window, the finemoment in the main street when he passes off Signoret's failing car toanother whilst slipping her into one more. But the best of all suchsequences is the final shot upon the cobblestoned street in the pouringrain and without a cloying close-up, we all know exactly what thefacial expression is. As I say all the acting is good but Signoretparticularly puts in another excellent performance where she rangesfrom sexy to sad and energetic to dejected, but perhaps best of all herverbal onslaught upon 'the landlord'.

3) I will never be tired of seeing "Adua e le compagne", this black andwhite film is a jewel of Italian cinematography with a plot easy tounderstand, and excellent acting of four women, French star SimoneSignoret, then-young Sandra Milo, Gina Rovere and Emmanuelle Riva, allplaying the role of prostitutes who wanted to incorporate themselveshonestly to the society. Their acting was seconded by the experiencedand charismatic Marcello Mastroianni in the role of a typical Italiantricky pigeon and lover. Italy of the 50s had the problem ofprostitution, and mafia was around it together with some "gentlemen" ofthe corrupted local administration always looking for licenses, permitsand other documents in a tricky way to facilitate the work of theprostitutes who at the same time had to pay heavy sum of money to theabove-mentioned gentlemen. The director Antonio Pietrangeli was able toshow clearly where the problem was and who were promoting the dirtybusiness of prostitution. In addition, youth does not last forever andthe same happened with the beauty of the prostitutes. The film alsoshows this fact convincingly. The DVD of this film exists but only inItalian, and it would be good to have it in other languages (English,Spanish and French at least).

4) This has to be something of an oddity – a ‘Continetal’ film about fourhookers with NO nudity and No sex. Quite a trick but Pietrangeli pullsit off with the help of a fine cast led by Simone Signoret – by now nostranger to the oldest profession having played hookers in Dedee OfAnvers and La Ronde – as the eponymous Adua and Marcello Mastroianni asthe waste-of-space she falls for. All four of the hookers – Caterina(Gina Rovere), Lolita (Sandra Milo) and Marilena (Emmannuelle Riva) arethe other three – are excellent and contrive not to LOOK like what theyare or rather were for the story begins when the Italian governmentclosed the legal brothels effectively putting them out of work. Theypool their money and open a restaurant and make a decent stab atleaving their old lives behind them but problems mount up in the formof red tape requiring a ‘patron’ to unravel. Such a patron is found andhe’s more than happy to do the necessary with the proviso that in thefullness of time, say two months, the girls revert to their old tradevia turning tricks in the upstairs bedrooms of the restaurant. Forvarious reasons only one of the four is happy with and prepared to dothis and so the film has a realistic rather than a conventional happyending. Signoret towers above the others and even Mastroianni seemslacklustre in comparison but it remains an engrossing film and wellworth seeing.

2) Unlike all other films of Cuneyt Arkin, this film picture is taken by ahighly skilled team with quite a lot of preparations. The scenario is afairy tale which is pleasantly supported by some high quality visualeffects (prepared in a visual lab in England). The scenes are allsupported with high quality decorations of the old times of the tale.Cuneyt Arkin with his athletic capabilities enables the hero of thistale to be brought to life in his act.

It is really unlucky for the film team to prepare such a good filmafter a series of junk films which directly reduced the interest tothis high quality film.

2) Though there have been many films of late that address the issues ofthe isolation of the individual in a society increasingly settling forhomogeneity, few have the honesty and simplicity of presentation asAlfredo De Villa's ADRIFT IN MANHATTAN. Perhaps the reason this filmworks so well is that instead of dealing with the usual tropes, DeVilla restricts his story to three individuals who are sufferingisolation in the noise and autonomy of New York City and are thus'adrift' in a life that seems flat and without a beacon of hope. Thestory De Villa weaves is one of interaction of these characters byalmost serendipitous incidents, moments that change their lives – atleast for a while.

Teenager Simon Colon (Victor Rasuk) lives with his overbearing motherMarta (Marlene Forte) and gets through his life almost withoutspeaking, working in a camera shop, spending his idle hoursphotographing people in the park. Tommaso Pensara (Dominic Chianese) isan elderly painter and music lover who lives alone and supports himselfby being the 'mail boy' in a large firm: his loneliness is heightenedwhen he discovers he has macular degeneration and will go blind. Thephysician who makes his diagnosis is Dr. Rose Phipps (Heather Graham)who is grieving from the recent death of her 2-year old child and isunable to continue her marriage to literature professor Mark Phipps(William Baldwin).

The threads of coincidence begin to tie these people together whenSimon begins to photograph Rose in a manner that resembles stalking,when Tommaso notices and desires and older lady at his workplace,Isabel Parades (Elizabeth Peña) and is encouraged by Dr Rose to sharehis potential blindness with this friend, and when Rose explores theattention Simon bestows on her, filling an emotional need for bothparties. Naturally the development of these intersections is morecomplex but at the same time the manner in which they develop is verytender and gentle.

Some viewers may find the film meandering a bit too much: this is notlinear storytelling but rather shifts in incidents and moods andgradual changes that occur among these simple but needy people, muchlike the coincidences and random kindnesses occur to the sensitive eye.The cast is very fine and the cinematography and musical score sustainthe mood of the piece. This film requires involvement on the part ofthe viewer, and that involvement has its rewards. Grady Harp

3) I recently had the distinct pleasure of seeing Adrift in Manhattan atthe HBO Latino Film Festival in New York. The film made me laugh,almost brought me to tears and definitely kept me on the edge of myseat. The character development is unbelievable in this film. HeatherGraham, William Baldwin, Dominic Chianese and Victor Rasuk (who I haveloved ever since Raising Victor Vargas) all give multi-dimensionalperformances. Victor's character drew me in; Heather's character keptme guessing. You could tell there was something wrong by the distant/unhappy look in her eyes. William Baldwin was extremely convincing as ahusband trying to reclaim his life. Most impressive of all wasDominic's performance. It truly almost brought me to tears. Oh, thismovie also has a VERY STEAMY SEX SCENE!

4) I enjoyed the movie. Didn't expect a lot and was pleasantly surprisedby the storyline, the characters and the development. It is one of themovies that doesn't give enough information about the characters (onpurpose) so that it leaves you with questions and wanting more. Theinter relation between the characters is extremely light so thatnormally annoying feature actually added to this film.

Some of the features of the movie are a little disturbing but Iwouldn't consider them weird enough to prevent most people fromenjoying the movie.

For me a 7 means I enjoyed it and would definitely watch it again. Ijust wouldn't be thrilled to have paid $10 to see it.

5) Although I usually find interest in interwoven character story linesfrom films such as Crash or Magnolia or Babel, I couldn't get myinterests up for this one.

Now I'm not here to complain that the movie lacked explosions, actionor a whole lot of plot twists – it doesn't attempt to be that kind ofmovie. The few plot driven elements are rather scarce and are mostlythere to drive forward the characters rather then the story. The storyitself is never the planned focus anyhow. It is my appreciation thatsome attention to have a more involving plot would have done the work aservice.

In terms of execution (acting, directing) the effort is certainly solidalthough never really stellar : you won't find anything really worthyof seeing the movie on it's own. The problem therefore is the veryblueprint on which the execution rests, and as I pointed earlier, thematerial given is too dry to make the movie a memorable one.

There just isn't enough happening here to make this one worth the look.Nothing much was achieved, and the journey alone wasn't exactly thoughtprovoking nor entertaining. It isn't awful mind you, just veryforgettable.

6) I know what this movie wanted to be. It wanted to be an ensemble movieof people facing traumatic cornerstones in their lives and overcoming,with the usual connection of characters such as movies likes Crash, 20Bucks or Short Cuts. A noble gesture and not exactly original but OK.However , the fact of the matter is that besides being slow , thismovie did what so many other movies seem they feel they have to do…Go right to seediness. A movie that is supposed to be inspirational,challenging , interacting and about making new friends turns into aflick about Glorifying mentally warped individuals. By that I mean theglorification of a stalker. Not only was the stalker glorified butrewarded by cheap role sex as well. From an Oedipus complex strickenyoung man to an eye specialist , beautiful lady that just lost atoddler to an older, underachieving mail clerk losing his eye sight wehave the proponents of a could be good movie. With a supporting cast ofa vastly younger coworker, in love with older man and the separatedhusband of the eye specialist, trying to work things out after tragedy.I rambled enough, just thought the movie had great potential but itfailed to deliver.

7) Watched it, enjoyed it, but…

Adrift in Manhattan follows the lives of 3 main characters for a verybrief period, each having a problem. They connect at some point in themovie, but it isn't clear why they connect or why it results insomething, if it does at all. I really don't need to have everythinglayed out for me, but some clue as to what is happening would be nice.

Spoiler: I only read here that their lives seem to connect cause ofsome subway line, or it is supposed to revolve around that. I neverwould have guessed that, so there is something pretty wrong with themovie. Actually i was wondering if some of them were living in the samebuilding, or if it was all just coïncidental. Characters don't have alot of lines so you get no information from there; no interestingdialogues.

The acting is OK. Camera-work is OK, its all pretty OK and i didn'tfall asleep, but I'm pretty sure a few weeks from now i won't rememberwhat this movie was about at all. I don't even think i know what it'sabout now. (?!) If the object was to show coïncidence on peoples lives,Magnolia is by far superior to this one. If the object was to depictpeople dealing with huge personal problems i know a lot of movies thatpass this one left and right. So i guess i don't get what this isabout, what the object was, or they messed up.

Something's adrift in Manhatten for sure, but what that is remains thequestion.

**SPOILERS*** Originally called "1/9" or the NYC Seventh Avenue subwayline that runs the length of Manhattan Island and ends at the tip ofThe Battery "Adrift in Manhattan" connects three lonely people who livealong its route.

20 year old camera store worker Simon Colon, Victor Rasuk, is obsessedin photographing people on the streets, as well as subways, of NewYork. One day Simon comes across this lady sitting in the park andbecomes infatuated with her multi-colored, or rainbow, scarf.The ladyin question Rose Phipps, Heather Graham, becomes very agitated, andeven frightened, when Simon mails a number of photos he took of her ather brownstone.

We never quite get what Simon's reasons for mailing his secretly takenphotos of Rose were but it almost gets him fired from his job. InsteadRose soon becomes almost as infatuated with Simon as he's with her tothe point of inviting him into her home and, to Simon's utter surpriseand delight, forces him, a virgin, to make love to her!

Like Simon we soon find out that Rose is not all there, emotionally, inthat she's estranged from his husband high school teacher Mark, WilliamBaldwin, and is suffering from a deep depression in the tragic loss ofher and Mark's two year-old son Casey, Leim De Villa. Rose's sexualrelationship with Simon soon starts to effect her work as an eye doctorin her treating a patient of her's the refined elderly and culturedgentleman Tommaso Pensara, Dominic Chianese.

Tommaso is slowly losing his sight and in him loving to paint that's aswell has him receiving a slow and painful death sentence. Tommaso isalso in danger of losing his job in the mail room in that he can't seethe letters and packages in order to correctly distribute them. It'sTommaso's co-worker Isabel Parades, Elizabeth Pena, who not only takesthe time to help him out at his job but cover up all his mistakes.Isabel also falls in love with the some 75 year old bachelor who forthe first time in years feel that he's wanted for himself not histalents; in his music and his art.

All three main characters, Rose Simon and Tommaso, in the movieinterconnect with each other due to their proximity to the 1/9 subwayline. And it's that very reason that makes their lonely and desperatelives, who are aimlessly adrift in Manhattan, that much more worthliving!

9) Skimming through the nine comments previous to mine, they mostly seemto be from New Yorkers or New Yorker wannabes. If one does a generalsurvey of this IMDb comments site, they will notice that commentscoming from a film's location shoots tend to be disproportionatelypositive. Since New York City is notorious for attracting and harboringa coterie of people best described as self-centered navel-gazers whodon't give a rap about the rest of the world, maybe it's not surprisingthey smugly go ga-ga over ANYTHING New York: Andy Warhol proved they'lleven wax poetic over a 48-hour flick just showing paint drying, as longas it's set in New York.

If this creepy movie had been shot here in Rosebush, with a momflashing her bare tits at her 20-year-old socially crippled son, whothen loses his innocence doing Rollergirl doggie-style while beatingher butt and telling her she's a bad mom because her toddler fell outthe window while she was on the phone, and next stumbles across NastyMom Number Two's blind patient lashing out angrily with his cane in alocal transit hub, New York moviegoers would accuse our town of beingan inbred backwoods hell-hole with nothing to offer the worldculturally.

For non-New Yorkers in search of something serious set in the BigApple, go see DOUBT. For those wanting to see a well-done movie aboutintersecting lives, rent the Los Angeles-set SHORT CUTS. But if youwant your skin to crawl watching a series of random amoral anti-eroticincidents happening to uniformly implausible characters, perhaps youalso belong ADRIFT IN MANHATTAN.

10) The director's deftness in quietus and deep story telling was trulymoving in this movie. I believed and was heart felt by all thecharacter's love connections and especially the beautiful love storybetween older couple Tommaso and Isabel really killed me… TheOeudipal relationship the son has wih his mother was totally believableas well.

It is a NY movie and thank god for it. That kind of intersecting oflives with a voyeurisitc view. In the Big City that never stops. Tolove, to die, to suffer, to think, to live. I am now totally obsessedwith this Mexican American director Alfredo de Villa and look forwardto this next movie. Just saw his other Sundnace movie WashingtonHeights and again the torn artist should was caputured beautifully andmore importantly- wamrly. Vivre la indie film and excellent job!

2) A middle aged couple go sailing in the Pacific in an attempt to save their marriage. They come across a motionless boat which has a starving man and woman aboard. They have no option but to let them board their own sailboat unaware that they happen to be rather dangerous.

About 30 occasions along the way where they could've or should haveescaped

But they never managed it.

In the end they way they do is pretty tame, so much so you expect thekidnappers to still be alive when the credits roll.

It's a job to stretch this out to 10 lines.

I suppose the lack of a 'finale' made it slightly more true to life andI made it through to the end.

4/10

2) Adrift really ought to sail away and never return. When I first watchedthis a few years ago now, I thought to myself how can a well knownHollywood actress like Kate Jackson even contemplate accepting a rolein such drivel? The suspense IS there in Adrift, and we can certainlybelieve that we do not know what is going to happen, no matter how hardwe try and guess, but the cheap and 'cheerful' image Adrift gives outlets the side down. This film is basically a low budgeted version ofthe 1988 thriller Dead Calm, but the sense of loneliness and eerinessin that film never materialises in Adrift, and viewers will alwaysrealise the limit in budget and the weak unpretentious script.

3) This is actually an okay little thriller very much in a Dead Calm vein.There’s some needless sub-plot about extra-marital affairs at the start butonce the action starts its pretty good.

An above average TV Movie with only a few "Thats just stupid – no-one woulddo that moments". The craziest being whenone of the good-guys is trying to quietly escape but takes time-out on theway to noisily trash the villian’s room thus putting the kibosh on the wholething.

These things withstanding its worth 90 minutes or so of yourtime.

4) This is the best comedy I’ve ever seen! Two badly acted psychos terrorisetwo badly acted partners on a badly acted boat! Okay I think I’veoverkilledit a bit now. Sorry. Anyway, I couldn’t catch the plot ’cause I waslaughingso hard. Actually, I told you it earlier. This is definitely a bad movie,not even so bad it’s good, it’s just, well, bad!Rating: 1/5

work show the audience what it is like to fly like an eagle on thewings of a sunrise. The film follows two "risk takers" in their attemptto create a parachute drawn by Leonardo Da Vinci in the 1500’s in orderto further understand what

makes humans fly at best. Anecdotes and stories of modern science areadded

to this through out the film, giving the viewer, be it adult of kid, agreat deal to comprehend in the short forty-five minutes that they areviewing. I particularly liked the scenes involving the "new" kind ofparachute that allows divers to fall and float more like a bird thanjust fall out the sky regularly. All the people on the crew clearlyknew what they were doing, and this film proves so by many haps. Greatmusical cues animate the sky as these experienced ski divers free falland play air games with a tennis ball. This is a good one-the kind thatmakes you want to go and take the risk! 10/10

2) The best IMAX movie I’ve ever seen. There’s this mile-high sheer cliffwith 4 guys in parachutes ready to jump off… you’re in a helicopterdirectly overhead looking straight down on them as they jump… thevisuals are dizzying at this and other points.

The story revolves around a group of people called "base jumpers",which means jumping off something attached to the ground. Cliffs,buildings, bridges over deep gorges… anything goes. They also jumpout of airplanes, and do some amazing aerobatics.

The "science" part of the story involves describing in simple languagehow an adrenaline high is a natural high that some people desperatelycrave for biochemical reasons. They team up with some scientists tryingto see if Leonardo da Vinci’s centuries-old design of a parachute willwork. They actually built it, hang a person off it, and lift both up to10,000 feet using a hot-air balloon. Then they drop it and… you getto see what happens. Did Leonardo successfully design the world’s firstparachute, centuries before the first aircraft flight? You be thejudge.

The music, visuals, cinematography, and story are all excellent. If yousee just one IMAX movie in your life, see this one. Forget "Dinosaursin 3D" and others, which are mostly crap. See this one.

3) I disagree with the first comment. I found the film very fascinatingand they went into details of DiVinci and his unbelievable knowledge ofjust about everything. I mean its an IMAX documentary-like show. Youcan't expect some wicked twist in the story. They state the facts.Period, the end. If you want to learn about things in a coolenvironment and get that great feeling from a cinema 180, like the olddays, this is the place to go. They showed the daring feats of thesethrill seekers and how the stunts are performed. There was an actualexperiment which proves or disproves an ancient theory about flight.The show was fast, thrilling and worth the 40 minutes out of your life.

4) Appalling commentary and people jumping off things.

The first few seconds increased my adrenaline four fold – why was Iwatching this tosh? A gravely voiced doom-mongering narration of thestory of our two heroes as they walk in slow motion across the desert.The photography of the base jumpers was good and the sky diving also,but that’s pretty standard stuff on IMAX these days. Meanwhile ournarrator maintains his style with a delivery that you would normallyfind in trailers for cheap horror flicks. The film then descends intosome stupid stuff about Leonardo’s’ original drawing of a parachute –will it work? They build it; they drop it from a plane with a guyholding on to it. At about 2000 ft from the ground he lets go (!) andlands using a modern parachute. Leonardo’s’ crashes to the ground –hardly a signal to uncork the champagne. A truly awful film with nicepictures.

5) Spoilers ahead: I saw this recently at the Air and Space Museum at theSmithsonian in DC with a couple of business buddies. At first, I haveto admit to mild acrophobia and being some skeptical of the title, butthe boss was buying and I couldn't weazel out. When the movie began, Icould barely look directly at the screen, as free-falling to the groundfrom a plane isn't exactly an experience I relish. However,as the movieprogressed and began to explore the biology behind the excitement ofthese daring (crazy?) feats, I was slowly conquering my queezy stomach.By the time they tested Leonardo Da Vinci's parachute over the Mohave,and I watched it majestically soar over the desert, I was enthralled.At the finale, when it was time for the jump from the mountain Ipromised myself to follow it all the way through, and landed a changedman. Great experience, well worth seeing!

6) Just arrived from OMNIMAX theater, this film viewed with this IMAXformat is just electrifying as the adrenaline rushes its characters arelooking for, this document covers some parachute and B.A.S.E. jumpingactivities done by those who make risk a way of life, as others needsafety and wellness, these ones look for potentially mortalexperiences, and to say the truth they all looked like being veryhappy… Not my way, period, but still they made it look funny. Pro aircameramen do great work for the movie, and they make a real try on someLeonardo Davinci’s previous designs. Nice time for dinning-room sofasportsmen looking for some stress, watch this movie in LARGE format ifpossible!

7) One thing you must understand, this movie is a documentary aboutskydiving and B.A.S.E. jumping, which is another type of skydivingexcept it’s not done from any aircraft but rather from some fixedobject on the ground such as Buildings, Antenna’s, Spans or Earth(mountains, cliffs).

So, don’t expect to see anything else.

However, the way it was produced, filmed and performed is justphenomenal and very enjoyable.

Please watch it and have fun. You really don’t have to be involved inthis sport to truly appreciate it.

Disappointing. With a title like "Adrenaline Rush" in a big IMAXtheater, what might you expect to see? Car racing? Being in a burningbuilding? Bungee jumping? Flying in a jet at mach two? Mountainclimbing?

No? How about skydiving? Lots and lots of skydiving. And then moreskydiving. First day at school. More skydiving. Cliffjumping.Skydiving. Hokey end. Credits.

This is the worst IMAX film I’ve ever seen. The beginning, with PeterGabriel/Afro Celt’s "Falling" is promising, but all that promise fallsapart when the narrator calls one of the skydivers a "genius" and"modern renaissance man." It’s skydiving, not, well, rocket science.Apparently, someone filmed a bunch of skydiving footage with IMAX andthen had to create a movie out of it. The result is this. With LeonardoDaVinci cruelly tacked on, the result feels like a cheap ploy to makeyou think skydiving is educational. This movie is about as educationalas my shoe.

The ending is trite and hokey (watch and see as everyday Americansengage in risk by going to work!). If, perhaps, the filmmakers hadre-edited the movie (removing the first day at school business, theDavinci stuff and the ending) and called the movie "Skydiving: And LotsOf It!" it would have been fine. But the end result is not that great.Save your IMAX money for something else.

9) I hated Adrenaline Rush: The science of Risk. Not that I hatedocumentaries, I just hated this movie that's it. No but seriously, thedialogs were boring and there were only 2 positive things I found inthis stupid documentary : The stunts were crazy and they were performedin nice places. The last positive thing in this documentary are theparachutes and engines were captivating . Unfortunately, these 2positive things appeared only 4 to 5 times throughout the movie. Youmight like it, but I didn't. It's not worth paying to watch this pieceof crap. If you really want to see it, wait until the DVD. And I'm noteven sure about the a DVD Release.

Georgina Verbaan (a so-and-so dutch soap actress who hasn’t attended herEnglish classes) plays rich girl Freya, who has the habit of’thrill-seeking’. Which basicly is doing dangerous stunts, break stuff andannoy people. And not in a fun Jackass way. Then there’s Dracko (Rivas). Hekinda leads the bunch but has other illegal activities on the side. Thenthere’s Freya’s dad (Lockyer), who plays a dubious role as well. And, in theend, we got Jason (debutant Fyall), the boyfriend of Freya.

One day, Freya gets disappeared and everybody seems involved but we, theviewer really don’t care as nobody of the cast is either likable orbelievable, and the story doesn’t make any sense.

Why was this even made? 2/10.

2) Jason is distraught at discovering the wrecked car of his life-long loveina ravine. As a prime suspect in Freya’s possible murder, he risks losing apromising career in her father’s law firm. In search of the truth behindFreya’s death, Jason joins a group of extreme thrill seekers with whom heperforms increasingly dangerous, and often illegal, stunts to re-affirmhisloyalty to the group.

Impressive action and shocking stunts and are magnificently filmed in oneofthe world’s most beautiful locations. The city of Cape Town, South Africa,is presented in some dramatic photography and excellent lighting. In spiteof a few B-grade acting scenes, anyone wanting a closeup view of our cityaswe see it every day should watch this movie.

3) This is one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a long time. Not just thestory, but the acting is shockingly bad. The dialog sounds like someonereading the news.

This is rated as comedy/drama/romance, it’s not of those things ! It’sa little action, that’s it. There’s really NO comedy and drama at all.

If you went to the cinema to see this I feel sorry for you. I would notrecommend it at all. Pretty much anything else that you choose to lookat will be better. This is pretty much a action/crime movie. Theactions scenes sucked, and crime story part of it was very predictable.

If you are not really interested in a good story, or good acting. Andyou simply want to look at a ‘foreign’ film for the appeal of beingforeign. Then this might be for you.

4) I think that previous critics are not in place. The person who wrotethem should definitely learn more about European movie industry, andkeep commenting on American movies. Although the movie deserves amaximum grade of 7, I give it ten to fix the general rating. The onlything I am sorry about is that the movie is in English. I would preferthe native language (as in every movie. Also, although I can hardlyunderstand it, Dutch is a beautiful language). If it wasn't in English,I believe that it could reach a rating of 8. The movie is definitelyabove average in comparison to average American movies (in which everyimportant detail is so obvious, so that it makes no space forthinking). I would appreciate if more people would give their opinionson this movie.

5) Jason is distraught at discovering the wrecked car of his life-longlove in a ravine. As a prime suspect in Freya’s possible murder, herisks losing a promising career in her father’s law firm. In search ofthe truth behind Freya’s death, Jason joins a group of extreme thrillseekers with whom he performs increasingly dangerous, and oftenillegal, stunts to re-affirm his loyalty to the group.

Impressive action and shocking stunts and are magnificently filmed inone of the world’s most beautiful locations. The city of Cape Town,South Africa, is presented in some dramatic photography and excellentlighting. In spite of a few B-grade acting scenes, anyone wanting acloseup view of our city as we see it every day should watch thismovie.

This is the real thing.

Watch it.

The first thing you’ll notice about Adrenalin is that it all appears tohavebeen filmed in a few scabby streets just behind the director’s backgarden.He probably thinks this looks authentic. It doesn’t. It looks tragic. Theentire film consists of Chris, ‘Tash and a couple of other disposablerentacops legging it from one end of a street to the other and back again,popping into disintegrating buildings here and there along the way so thatbits of it can fall on them, and occasionally pausing at either end of thestreet for a random shoot-out and/or for someone to get eaten by thestartlingly unscary maniac they’re supposed to be chasing. It must havetaken such a great effort on behalf of all involved to keep the productionvalues so consistently low that it somehow seems deserving ofapplause.

Ms. Henstridge, predictably, has very little to do except look scared, notmanage to shoot anything and almost die every so often, while theinestimable Mr. Lambert seems to be here for no other reason than to getshot loads. It speaks volumes that he doesn’t even attempt to rescue thefilm by interjecting his endearing trademark cackle into the dialogue atkeymoments. Not that he’d get much chance anyway: nobody really says anythingbut "Yowch, aargh, shoot him, he’s eating me, aargh, oh no we’re trapped,yowch, shoot him, aargh, my leg’s fallen off."

The plot’s some tosh about a plague having wiped out most of humanity,again, and towards the end of the film the wonderful scriptwriter comes upwith the idea of having some Virus Control people turn up, mumblesomethingabout this killer they’re chasing actually being the carrier of a new andfar more deadly strain, then go away again and leave everyone to carry ongetting shot. Everyone, that is, except for the people stuck with the jobofwriting up the box blurb, who seize this precious jewel of hope from thepigsty of horribleness and nurture it as if it were their own rancidoffspring.

Adrenalin, then. It’s one of the most boring films I’ve ever seen, which,for something that bills itself as a sci-fi horror thriller, isn’t verygoodreally.

2) Two cops chase a killer into a factory. What else? I don’t know becausethepicture was so damn dark i couldn’t see what was happening! You never knowwhat is going on! It’s as if the director forgot to put lighting on hisbudget for this film! I had the unfortunate luck of seeing this movie in atheater. Don’t let the same tragedy happen to you.

3) This film is so awful it would choke any goat that tried to make a meal ofit. The entire film plays like a pre-credit sequence a-la any James Bondfilm, but not nearly as good as any such sequence. The lighting was poor;the editing, sloppy; and the acting . . . Ho! I was more than a littleshocked to see that "Alan Smithee" didn’t direct it. Do not see this film,Ibeg you! Learn from the mistakes of others.

4) Near zero plot, near zero dialog. Remember all the scenes in Alien ofpeople wandering through slimy corridors trying to avoid the monster? Thisentire movie is like that, only with an uninteresting monster anduninteresting characters.

5) This is a horrible movie. As if the plot wasn’t bad enough, the acting iseven worse, the screen shots are etchy at times and the script, my god,thescript just plainly doesn’t make any sense. The only question I haveaboutthis movie is, did MST3K get their hands on this movieyet?

6) Contains spoilers.In 77 minutes Albert Pyun successfully encapsulates the human experience -stuck in a nightmare world heading for an inevitable confrontation withdeath. And the reward for our endeavours – a free pass over the border(withno hint as to what lies on the other side, but considering that’s wherethe’monster’ came from we can only guess it’s not much better). This grimvision of existence is interwoven with an equally unsettling subtextconcerning childbirth. The endless probing through tunnels withflashlightsand guns, the incessant scenes of pain, the angels of death in theirbrightraiment transformed in the subtext into the medical team come to deliverthebaby from the infinite void into which we must all return. It’sinterestinghow Pyun uses his characters to bring out this subtext: Natasha Henstridgeas the mother, Christopher Lambert the supportive husband, who encouragesher to take this painful journey and in the end proves to be totallyuseless, while the secondary characters, Norbert Weisser and ElizabethBarondes shadow the leads – Weisser revealing the true role of the man inthis business, running away and hiding, and the death of Barondesrepresenting the loss of innocence. All of this is neatly supported by thenightmare world of an American city overrun with refugees from EasternEurope. With a brief nod to John Carpenter’s ‘Escape From New York’ withoneestablishing shot and a voice-over, we are then plunged into a totallysurreal landscape and the chase begins.

7) This movie has something strange..I think it’s some kind of an experiment. There is nearlyno storyline which develops during the running film.But there is an amazing cinematography by George Mooradian!(Widescreen-Version only!)It seems to be a test of how to produce a movie which "lives"by the moving camera. Sometimes there are nearly no cutsin 1 minute, or so. The editor tried some new ways of filmmaking, I think. From this point of view, the film is amazing!The Scope-Camera moves really fast and virtuously…But maybe Albert Pyun is as dumb as everyone thinks and sothey just made another low-budget-product!!!Who knows……..

It would be unfair to comment that Adrenalin is boring at all. Althoughit was a low budget Pyun film, it has its moments. Although I watchedthe movie on TV, I still got some excitement. Not bad as a B gradeadventure movie for mediocre audience like me! One thing I am stillconfused about, in the beginning of the movie it reads "Romania,western Europe", but the movie trailer says it is in Boston.

Another plot hole of the film, to me, is if the guy who was infected bya virus something like rabies, seems to be sane and very intelligent.How could he be so clever and retain his mental composure? He wassupposed to be delirious or in coma instead. I don't think the writercared about this details.

3 out of 10, for the sake of the face value of Lambert, my icon.

9) Normally, I quite enjoy a Bad Movie now and again, but to refer to thisfilm as "wretched" does a disservice to the term "wretched".

I’ll give it a 2 rather than a 1 since the concept was almostinteresting. However, the film itself has no redeeming qualitieswhatsoever. No plot, no acting, and not even horrible in that MS3TKsort of way that’d make it amenable to some creative razzing.

Never have I been so unmoved by an endless stream of blood and gore; itdidn’t even disgust me. It just left me with a vague feeling that I wasa bit glad I had an old crappy paperback detective novel to thumbthrough whilst (not really) watching it.

10) i caught this film by accident once and it was without a doubt one of theworst films i have ever seen. The basic plot involves some kind of monsterattacking some people so they call the cops, cops arrive it attacks themsend in Christopher Lambert and he gets crippled straight away.. some otherstuff happens but its not really important.There is a whole futuristic sub plot that goes nowhere and isn’texplained anyway and by the end of the film ( if you can bare to watch )youwon’t care anyway. If you honestly want to see this film it can be viewed asan exercise in complete lack of plotting and direction and yes it really isthat bad. The acting is so poor that i would be amazed if anyone connectedwith this film has worked in a decent film since.