[go: up one dir, main page]

    Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalIMDb Stars to WatchSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
Back
  • Cast & crew
  • User reviews
IMDbPro
Dennis Hopper in The Spreading Ground (2000)

User reviews

The Spreading Ground

16 reviews
6/10

Milo's in Hot Water.

  • rmax304823
  • Apr 19, 2007
  • Permalink
4/10

Kinda let down

  • bobman-17
  • Apr 3, 2008
  • Permalink
5/10

I SUCK AT PLAYING GOD

  • nogodnomasters
  • Jun 3, 2019
  • Permalink

An OK thriller; but given how strong it starts out- it could have been better

Seeing Dennis Hopper and Frederic Forest in the same movie again, I couldn't help but be reminded of "Apocalypse Now" - an unlikely standard for any film, much less the "Spreading Ground", to meet. Yet I found this movie quite watchable and fairly intriguing. It starts out strong, but then levels off in its impact. The director of "The Spreading Ground", Derek Van Lint, was the Director of Photography on "Alien", and his talents as a cinematographer are amply evident here.
  • CandidDate
  • Dec 8, 2001
  • Permalink
1/10

Unwatchable

Maybe I've seen one too many crime flick, or maybe I don't take the right drugs.

This was the most cliché ridden, plot deficient, plot-absurd, just plain stupid movie I have seen in a long time.

As for the direction, it looks like it took less time to show this than it did to put it together.

In fact it looks like to made it straight to video before it was completed.

It's a bad rip off of "M" the classic Fritz Lang film starring Peter Lorre. You'd be SO much better off renting that instead.
  • sbarsky
  • Apr 10, 2005
  • Permalink
1/10

Spreading something all right...

  • DrDevience
  • Aug 20, 2003
  • Permalink
3/10

Clichéd

  • bk-87668
  • Oct 18, 2008
  • Permalink
7/10

You know I've spent the last ten years rehearsing what I'll say to you if I ever saw you again

  • sol-kay
  • Sep 23, 2008
  • Permalink
1/10

1 1/2 hours of my life i'll never get back

the lowest score possible is one star? that's a shame. really, i'm going to lobby IMDb for a "zero stars" option. to give this film even a single star is giving WAY too much. am i the only one who noticed the microphones dangling over hopper's head at the station? and the acting, or should i say the lack thereof? apparently talent wasn't a factor when the casting director came to town. my little sister's elementary school talent show provides greater range and depth of emotion. and those fake irish accents were like nails on a chalk board. the only thing that could have made this movie worse would have been...oh, wait, no,no, it's already as bad as it can get.
  • yashualie
  • Oct 4, 2005
  • Permalink
1/10

Great concept, but ultimately bad

  • kjpsychology
  • Jul 15, 2006
  • Permalink
10/10

Great movie!

  • do101
  • Nov 26, 2005
  • Permalink
3/10

Mediocre at best

It starts of good, but quickly becomes bad The actors seems to be reading the manuscript for the first time during the takes. I thought Kojak would show up, and the crooks are just awful. I got surprised when i saw it was from 2000, my guess would have been 1980 I liked some scenes and gave it a 3 because of them. But any episode of Kojak is better
  • Pehr
  • Dec 7, 2018
  • Permalink
9/10

A riveting movie, that makes you look at thoughtfully.

The movie to me represented a battle for supremacy, not only between good and evil but the morality play it invoked on the societies perspective. The Detective represented justice and truth. The Gangsters represented society. And the Mayor & Chief of Police represented the conflict of interest between the society and the law. And the Criminal represented the evil and the main conflict. I personally believe this movie is an interesting Psychological and Sociological study of not only society, but of our own psyche. I think the movie did however miss out on a few things, minor though but slightly visible. But overall the movie with an overall unknown cast displayed an interesting showcase of entertainment, and after all isn't what it's all about!
  • FLDON9
  • Aug 16, 2005
  • Permalink
10/10

This film shows the promise of a GREAT director!!

Derek VanLint has done an outstanding job with this film. As I watched it, I imagined that either he had immense control over his director of photography or that he WAS one and the same, aside from being the overall film director. I was right. His eye for making a scene as intense as possible, and for finding what not to SAY, but what to SHOW, is amazing! Anyone who didn't enjoy this needs to re-evaluate just how many explosions or car chases they still need to see in their lifetime. This film does not rely on the overused junk that "mass appeal" films can't seem to do without. Also, Dennis Hopper is great in a role completely against typecasting! Frederic Forrest seems strained and pained as the overworked and overtired sidekick detective.
  • gvadimsky
  • Jun 27, 2002
  • Permalink

Who Is John Galt?

is a question answered (one of the characters, albeit with a spelling change and no relation to Rand's...)

Derek Vanlint's directorial debut shows us the talent that can come from moving into directing from being a D.P. It shows in ever shot, and a friend of mine in the biz has always said that DP's really "make the movie" anyway.

Frederic Forest is always good, and Hopper was over the top in playing a somewhat "normal" person, even as a cop investigating a horrific series of child murders.

Some people might find the film slow, but I was rapt in every minute, and look forward to more fare from Vanlint.
  • gwailo-1
  • Aug 18, 2002
  • Permalink

Well Done Canadian Production

This Canadian production gives us Dennis Hopper and Frederick Forest as two detectives who are left only 48 hours to find the serial murderer. If they don't get the job done, the mayor's major investment in some property will be ruined and she'll be out of office. The mayor, however, is involved with some highly juiced Irish crooks, including Tom McCamus, and she puts the crooks on the tail of the serial murderer too because the killings are upsetting her apple cart. Tom McCamus has a great face for the movies. (He was an incestuous Dad in "The Sweet Hereafter".) And you can't beat him name, "Son of Camus." Unfortunately his acting here is about at the level of everyone else's -- strictly utilitarian. Dennis Hopper tries to play it straight, really he does. But underneath the professional cop and the flawed father we still sense the demon. I've always liked Frederick Forest. I don't think he's ever made it possible for a viewer to forget he's acting, but he looks great with his puffy eyes and louche ponytail. He looked even better as Dashiel Hammett. Not to put any of these performers down. Their acting doesn't stand out as poor because no one's stands out as particularly good. Leslie Hope seems to bring a kind of blur to whatever part of the screen she occupies. (Leslie Hope? Isn't that Bob Hope's real name? Maybe not.) The script is generic and not especially bad. The direction is efficient. The photography is really quite good. The colors are cool but appropriately so. And the lighting is as it should be -- solid black shadows where they are called for, and naturalistic lighting elsewhere. They didn't catch The X-File syndrome and throw us a lot of flashlight beams poking about in perpetual gloom. There's what I guess could be called an average chase through some newly constructed sewer at the climax.

In first explaining how the sewer works to the investigators, the manager goes through his practiced tour -- the street runoff comes in here and is congealed with the solid waste, then it's processed in that unit over there, then the solid waste is emulsified and extracted by the Nakatomi Solid Waste Extractor, the individual E. coli are vasectomized, the cholera vibrios receive twelve-step counseling, the chloroform and bacteriocidal material are added over there, diluted with Toxico Smegmaphage, fractionally distilled, tested on experimental groups drawn from third-world prisons, and then its flushed out into the reservoir.
  • sameera-69
  • Jul 18, 2011
  • Permalink

More from this title

More to explore

Recently viewed

Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
Get the IMDb App
Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
Follow IMDb on social
Get the IMDb App
For Android and iOS
Get the IMDb App
  • Help
  • Site Index
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • License IMDb Data
  • Press Room
  • Advertising
  • Jobs
  • Conditions of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, an Amazon company

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.