This could have been a very good film, a very interesting look at ancient tradition and oral history, but it should have been a short subject. As it is , it moves at a snail's pace; sure that's part of the life being portrayed, but this was unbearable. I fell asleep watching them make soup and that was a highlight.


The movie starts off with Reeve (Ekin) and his assistant fighting same vampires. This scene is probably the best out of the entire movie. The rest of the movie unfortunately is cheesy, highly unrealistic and a Buffy the Vampire Slayer ripoff. The ending also sucks big time.

Some moments such as the scene where Gypsy and Helen (played by popular Chinese duo band Twins: Charlene & Gillian) fight over a stuffed teddy bear are particularly cringeworthy. The storyline is also lame, surely they could have come up with something more scary than a book called "Day for Night".

Some good parts though. Jackie Chan and Anthony Wong make the movie bearable with their comical roles. However, the good bits just end there. Charlene & Gillian (from Twins) have never been able to act well and annoy you to pieces and "the friendly but wussy vampire" role was unfortunately given to Edison Chen who is a talentless pretty boy.

Rating: 4/10 --


Seriously Reality Charity TV These producers must think that the masses are full of non-thinkers.

These shows are called reality, which means they are suppose to resemble something real, with truth or facts.

I suppose the characters are really acting in all the pathetic-ness.

At one point I wonder if these type of shows decrease or increase the collective unconsciousness.

We live in a world that already contains individuals that are not authentic.

Is it necessary to promote an inauthentic way of being?


Seeing this movie in previews I thought it would be witty and in good spirits. Unfortunately it was a standard case of "the funny bits were in the preview", not to say it was all bad. But "the good bits were in the preview".

If you are looking for an adolescent movie that will put you to sleep then Watch this movie.


This is a film with a lot of potential, well done and acted, with a rather week and inconsistent script. A young woman with two children moves to her mother's cramped apartment, because the husbands flat on top of the workshop where he cuts up stolen cars is aggravating their son's asthma.Husband ends up in jail when an ex pat's stolen car is traced to his shop, ex pat ends up being kind,generous and naive shmoe(and rather cardboard and we learn next to nothing of him ), but ends up with the girl, who "trades up" despite being sexually satisfied only by her husband. I expect this film to be successful in Czech, where it will be welcome due to its obvious premise - "Them ex-pats may have money, they may even get our women, but they're old, soft and our women want to be satisfied,we may be poor, but ... . Now if only could Evzen keep Marcela satisfied so she would not need to play with herself, or if he already had an existing family in Italy ... but that would complicate things.


I don't get it. I just don't get it. "Barney and Friends" has been lambasted by millions through the years, and I will admit, I was one of those lambasters. Any child who watches this show doesn't realize that what they're watching is just a piece of trash. Barney is very annoying, and very selfish. Add Baby Bop, and it gets even worse. Add B.J., then you have a very creepy television nightmare. Then, you get the children. They're old enough to know what Barney is trying to teach them! What are they doing there in the first place? It would be funny if Barney and his friends appeared on the Jerry Springer show. That would certainly be one of the wildest moments in television history! Even more significant is that this show marked the beginning of the end of public television as we knew it, as we have seen less and less of the more informational and interesting public television programs that aired in the 1970s and the 1980s. What a BIG difference a selfish son of a gun makes. When this show leaves PBS, a big sigh of relief will be felt among millions of people, but a huge dent will have been made in the annals of television history. A message to Barney himself: You may not realize it, but YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED.

In a nutshell, there are other choices. Better choices.


Being a child of the 1980s, I grew up with numerous educational as well as diversionary programs (or both), and continue to learn so much from them now that I admire the wisdom of those who worked on them. After learning that Sesame Street, to name the best example, was not solely responsible for the fact that I could read at an adult level before I could walk, it only increased the level of disgust I feel not only towards the Lyons corporation and its product, but those who defend them, too. As if I had faith in those we assign to protect us or our children to begin with, the fact that Barney & Friends still pollutes our airwaves after more than a decade later is a discredit not only to the FCC, American commerce, and its makers, it is a discredit to all of humanity. In a world where I can be harassed without recourse by the police, welfare services, and child protection agencies simply for being born different to those in power, yet broadcasters are allowed to pump this drivel into my home uncontested, you have to ask what is wrong with people.

You see, in a world where we are expected to behave like adults and account for ourselves, what we say to our sons and daughters is of importance because it will often have consequences long after we are gone. Not only are our attempts to make our children more normal, more alike, more think-alike, potentially devastating, what we end up teaching them to be normal has a big part to play, too. So the question becomes one of what Barney is teaching our children to be normal. Apart from lessons such as that we are not good if we do not have good feelings, or that someone will change the rules to make us happy when we come up short, other shocking things we are shown on the Barney show include Barney molesting children. The issue of child abduction and child molestation is a big one in our society, and has been ever since we started trying to pretend it was not, but that would qualify as one of the most inappropriate ways in which to present the topic.

So far I have only mentioned the inappropriate and emotionally damaging lessons Barney himself presents. Adding to the problem is the children shown on the show. I use the word children loosely here, as the range of ages shown goes as low as three years and as high as fourteen. Yet no difference in emotional response is shown at either extreme. Fourteen year olds react to Barney and his proposed situations in the exact same way as five year olds. Experts in childhood and adolescent autism especially consider this an incredibly foul thing to expose children to. Adults on the autistic spectrum who faced increasing problems as their needs were not only not met but flat-out ignored have a tendency to watch this and feel an urge to do the kinds of things with Barney that would make fourteen year olds cry. As irreverent and sick as shows targeted toward the elder-child market such as You Can't Do That On Television were, they stamp all over Barney by demonstrating that not only do different ages respond to the same thing in different ways, so too do different people.

So in response to mdmireles1295, I have to say that I hope like hell they do not have children. For every time I see a parent showing their child this drivel, it gives me an overwhelming urge to report them to the police for child abuse. And I speak as a man whose entire upbringing was dominated by abuse. They might sing about manners, loving, caring, or sharing, but the examples they show are not only so lopsided as to be the opposite of educational, they are so devoid of realism as to become dangerous, as The Light Triton has already pointed out. The kind of lessons children learn from Barney are that people do not vary, feelings must be suppressed at all costs, and rules are entirely arbitrary. When compared to the lessons that variation is what makes the world go around and even the most bitter feelings have a purpose that television taught me as a boy, it still boggles the mind that the authorities have yet to step in and yank this trash off the air. If a parent did to their child what Barney does around the world, they would face criminal charges.

Hence, I gave Barney my favourite two out of ten score that I give to all rubbish with absolutely no redeeming value. In a world of adults that know how to properly respond to their children, it has no place.


I was a little to old for this show I was 6 when it first came out. First off when I was a young child there were a few children's shows that were on sesame street which I did watch and learned from, but other than that there wasn't much else. My Cousins were all born a few years after me 7 years was the first one more came latter. Barney was a very big part of what they watched. When I first saw this show I told my grandmother how it doesn't teach anything just uses magic to fix everything. I was 9 at the time, how many 9 years old have any idea what is really going on with a TV show. More and more that I saw or heard what the teachings of Barney were the more and more I told people how bad the show was. The funny thing is my parents who had a young child in the mid to late 80's which was me by the way. They agreed and said the same thing as I did. The sad thing about this is my cousins who are older now 13 and such still agree with what they saw. Its not cheating its creative, its not right to think differently than what someone tells you to. Its o.k to steal if the person wont find out or mind that it is gone. Lets be honest with ourselves, Barney is out to make money not teach children anything. The more flashy the program the more inclined children will be to watching it. Children are stupid not because they are not educated they just do not know any better, second Barney put on a show and parents bought it. I never believed that TV could affect people the way Barney does. If you have a young child read to them watch a show that teaches them numbers, do not let them get involved in this show. Barney is like smoking once is to much, smoke a few and your hooked let your kid watch this show they are hooked and one day their kids will watch the same crap and buy the same crap you bought


There's something rotten about this film, and basically the way it turns a sinister and twisted character into a hero by exploiting our sympathy with his admittedly horrible situation. Sampedro, like many who have lost hope, chooses suicide. The fact that he has been contemplating it for more than 26 years probably makes his condition worse, but the belief that we should do whatever anyone asks, even if it means ending a life is in my opinion profoundly wrong. What a contrast to the uplifting example of the scientist Stephen Hawkings, who suffered a far worse condition for far longer! Yet with the morals upside down, the film revels in hero worship, and the people who disagree with are painted in simplistic idiotic terms. There's little room for subtly especially in the encounter with the priest(deliberately manipulating the real life encounter which was with a much younger priest). In that way I suppose the film is on a par with Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will. The insidious idea is that everyone should have to right to take their life, when they feel they cannot live it anymore. It makes no difference whether you are physically or psychologically damaged, there are people evidently who believe you have the right to choose. The same people are likely to make a case for abortion. Its all part of the current trend to get the suffering or sufferers out of sight, brush it under the carpet, mammy will say its. OK, and we all feel very happy with ourselves. So we go down the slippery path of believing that some lives, just ain't worth living, and then we'll decide that as some people can't really decide for themselves then we'll bring in the state to decide for them. Enter Adolf Hitler straight from that other Oscar contender "der Untergang". Hitler of course believes that he carrying out exactly what Nature does in disposing of the weak. Under his regime, there were forced abortions among the "weaker" strains", the mentally handicapped were quietly put away and the Jews were "humanely" liquidated by using gas. He would have applauded this film, and why not for it is in line with his philosophy..."some lives are just not worth living". I differ from Ramon Sampedro, Hitler and all the people involved with making this film. Human life is sacred, it is not a right, it is a gift and an obligation. Nobody chooses to be born. Then who can choose death. Its not about religion, its about protecting the weak and helpless, something this film does a lot to undermine!


Scenarist Frederick Fox's sometimes memorable dialogue and a study cast of old-pros cannot save this lukewarm western about whites pinned down in the desert by a band of bloodthirsty Cheyenne Indians. Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians. The characters in "Dakota Incident" generate only minor interest, certainly not enough to make them stand-out as much as some of Fox's choice dialogue. Unfortunately, good dialogue is Fox's only contribution because this conventional little sagebrusher withers with a lackluster ending that contradicts its previous 80 minutes. The ending is as contrived as they come and lacks credibility. Most of the characters are sympathetic, but some just plain lack common sense.

Dale Robertson is appropriately tough and leathery as outlaw John Banner, one of three bank robbers who has to shoot it out with his low-down, no-account partners. Veteran western character actor John Doucette (Rick Largo) fares the best of the badmen, while Skip Homeier, wasted in an inconsequential role as Banner's brother Frank Banner, later dies from an Indian arrow. Doucette tries to gun down Banner at the outset of in the action, but our left-handed gun-toting hero fakes his own death, tracks down Largo down later and slaps leather with him in a town called Christian Flats. Naturally, Largo bites the dust this time, but Banner makes an interesting discovery. One of the passengers on a stagecoach from Christian Flats to Laramie turns out to be none other than the bank teller from whom he stole the money. Not only is John Carter (John Lund) on a quest himself to find Banner, but also he wants to clear his own good name with the bank that has issued wanted posters for his arrest. Evidently, the authorities have mistaken and enlarged Carter's role in the robbery. Carter is prepared to take Banner to Laramie and turn him over to the law, but Banner has other ideas about Laramie. Banner's ideas change when he crosses paths with Amy Clarke (former Twentieth Century Fox beauty Linda Darnell) who wears a bright red dress and still packs quite a bosom. As everybody else here has mentioned in their reviews, Republic Studio's Truecolor brings out the RED in everything, from Darnell's fetching outfit to the blood spilled on the ground. The problem with director Lewis Foster's handling of this run-of-the-mill oater is that everything bogs down after the stagecoach loses a wheel and our heroes hole up in a dry wash to defend themselves against the Cheyenne. The good guys and the Cheyenne eventually run out of ammunition, but "Dakota Incident" never runs out of clichés. Ward Bond has several interesting moments as a politically correct politician who defends the way of the redskin. By the time that this 88 minute dust-raiser concludes, you'll feel like you've been trapped in a gulch and menaced by marauding Cheyenne yourself.


This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.

We are supposed to like and be rooting for an arrogant, know-it-all, trashy bank robber, played by Dale Robertson, and a coy tease played by the extra-ordinarily beautiful Linda Darnell in a fire engine red dress. She must have been sewed into that bodice!

A Senator in the film thinks Native Americans and whites should try to come to an understanding, the bigots, however, win the day. I could barely sit through the endless dialog of bigotry that issued from the other characters mouths.

Except for Wounded Knee and Dances with Wolves there are few films that give a positive portrayal of American Indians, and very few old westerns do. This one is exceptionally bad in that regard.

The romance between Robertson and Darnell set my teeth on edge, as he came swaggering in, forcing a kiss on her, while she plays the old hard to get game.

There are scenes that are unintentionally humorous, such as the characters obviously not really riding in or on a stagecoach in several shots.

A puzzlingly humorous incident in the storyline is Linda Darnell's character going to great lengths to purchase tickets for the stagecoach, only to then demand a horse to ride, minutes later, for no apparent reason.

Another humorous scene is when the stagecoach comes to a screeching halt at the sight of a cowboy hat lying beside the road, and not only that, but then ALL the passengers pile out for a look-see.

1 star.


Crazy director....Yeah, you need to be crazy to make a near movie. Rob Lowe was bad in his character, Ice-t is always bad and Burt Reynolds had nothing to do in the movie. Crazy six is an unknown movie, with some known actors...this is pretty weird. A bad movie with some good actors in it. It looks like the bad movie did an influence to their performance...It did! Crazy people.....I give it *and a half out of *****


Yeah, that's right. If I were to ask my friends this question: "What's the worst movie you have ever seen?" They might reply something like "Armageddon" (can you drill the hole?!?), "Shriek", "Plan Nine From Outer Space", "The Medallion", "Scooby Doo" etc... No - Don't get offended by this by thinking you have seen something that might be in the same department of naturally produced human fertilizer that this movie is in. If the worst movie you can think of is, let's say so bad it really pisses you off; then you know nothing my friend.

Crazy Six... I remember the day me and a buddy of mine went to the local video store to rent a movie. Both of us had already been through most of the movies in there, and on the "new movies"-shelf we see it staring at us. "Wow, there's some good actors here man. Says something about mafia, lets just get it and get out of here". This was without doubt the worst movie mistake in my movie loving life. It was also the worst mistake for everybody else: movie lover or not.

Watching this movie is as fun as watching a glass of ice cold water (or ice-tea....) until it reaches room temperature. Watching this movie will make you dream an eternal dream of death, if death is just blackout light and nothing, and then you realize you are just staring at your TV-monitor. Not staring. You are actually paying as much attention that is humanly possible. This is no joke.

This movie is the perfection of making a bad movie. It's not the kind of bad you can watch, point and laugh of, its the kind of movie that is so bad you actually have no chance of ever get out of your memory. Unless perhaps you use electric shock therapy to clear out the brain. .... ... (Hey! That might be something similar to how I remember me and my buddy felt after watching it....)

Best regards from me to you Albert Pyun.

-Joergen


I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.


This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.

I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.

Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.

If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.

If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.


Above all, you must not take this movie seriously. It takes itself seriously, unfortunately, but that can't be helped. This anime ninja flic has to be the crowning achievement in spoiling what could have been an endearing, if unoriginal, story with bad plot twists, ridiculous time-killing cutscenes, and one outrageous guest appearance which will either make you laugh or groan (or both, like me).

While I'm typically a fan of ninja/samurai anime (Ninja Scroll and Rurouni Kenshin to name a few), this one has to be the exception. For the record, from a technical point of view of its time, this movie was very well animated and constructed. It is just the plot that stunk. The authors of this movie clearly decided (for what rational reason I don't know) that they could somehow make up for the lack of a script if the character halfway around the world in search of a treasure that (he learns) his father fought and died for. In the process, he saves a black slave named Sam, meets a French girl who is living in an Apache village, makes friends with a ninja clan whose members then try to kill him, meets more family members then he knew he had in the weirdest places and circumstances (and whom all subsequently die at some point in the movie).

Even so far, these ludicrous plot twists could be excused, but then come the two "guest appearances". #1: After having a ridicuously cliche showdown with two cowboys, Jiro meets a man who introduces himself as "Mark Twain". At this point, you're probably saying "What the ****?!!" This "meeting" serves one purpose: it entirely discredits a movie which tries to add to itself an educated historical background. I found it disappointing that the authors went to all this trouble to research the 1860s US and didn't manage to realize that "Mark Twain's" real name was Samuel Clemens. #2: When Jiro finally finds the treasure, it turns out that it used to belong to Captain Kidd. I can hear the groans of disgust now.

Finally, there are the running scenes. These scenes show various characters running, with the landscape moving statically behind them, for several minutes, and there are a lot of them. It is these scenes which make this movie, 2hrs 12 min, to seem to last a week and a half.

If you and your friends are looking for a bad subtitled movie that just asks to be made fun of, this is it. Feel free to poke fun at every possible aspect of it, and have fun. Just don't take it seriously. 3/10


This is easily the worst, most offensive piece of crap on TV. I'd love to completely ignore it but Fox has stuck it into their Sunday lineup, forcing me to find something else to watch between American Dad and Family Guy. The dink-head male star guy is just about the least evolved, pathetic excuse for a human I have ever seen on TV. Nothing on the show is remotely funny and pretty much everything on it has been done already and much better by other shows.

It's obvious that their strategy is to ram it deep and hard into the Sunday schedule and hope someone starts liking it... but I have to break it to ya, Fox, thats the wrong hole. The scam not worked on me - I simply look elsewhere - but come on, you freaking boneheads, this show freaking SUCKS, and it sucks even worse when compared to the rest of the Fox Sunday lineup.

THEY CANCELLED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS STEAMING PILE?


Me and a couple of friends went to rent some movies one day, we picked one each and one of us picked Ironheart. Lets just say that from now on, we never let him pick a movie. This movie sucks


I saw "Caddyshack II" when I was ten and I mostly laughed because of the horse scene. I should have realized that the movie was as empty as...I can't come up with a good comparison. It's stupid and not even really funny. The cast members from the original who chose not to star in this made probably the best choices that they ever made in rejecting this; why, oh why, did Chevy Chase return?! And how on earth did Jackie Mason, Robert Stack, Dyan Cannon and Dan Aykroyd get involved in this swill?! I bet that every person who had his/her name even remotely attached to this junk (e.g., the caterer) is ashamed beyond redemption. So, all in all, it's beyond dreadful, terrible, and everything such. Avoid it like you would the Ebola virus.


Why was this movie ever made?They have tarnished the original Caddyshack with this crap.I was only able to watch half of it and i didn't laugh once.At least i didn't pay to see it because it was on t.v. but i won't get back that hour of my life that i spent watching this dreadful mess.There wasn't one original star from the first except for Chevy Chase and he probably regrets doing this film.Jackie Mason was supposed to be the outrageous,funny buffoon like Rodney Dangerfield was in the first but Jackie Mason wasn't funny at all.Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield.If you want laugh,watch the first Caddyshack.If you like terrible movie's,then this you're movie.This movie stinks like a barnyard in july.Avoid at all cost.


caddyshack II does NO justice for the caddysack. thin plot, thin actors(exception of randy quaid). the ONLY thing that is decent with this movie is the soundtrack..maybe. this movie should have been destroyed when the script was written.


Caddyshack II is one of those pictures which makes you ask 'Why?' As in; 'Why was it funded?': 'Why was it made?' and 'Why was it released into the public domain?'.

To say the least it's a bad film. It serves little purpose but to underline how superior its prequel was by setting an almost identical set of characters against each other in a similar storyline as a 'New money' land developer attempts to buy out the establishment's golf course sanctuary.

Right off the bat making the follow-up a whole 8 years after the original is somewhat bizarre. I mean if your going to cash in on highly successful picture such as the first one then you have a window of a few years to do so. But leaving it 8 years means that the formula is hardly fresh enough to simply do a follow up, or poor imitation as this is, so your sort of obliged to reward fans of the original by giving them at least reference to if not indeed actual contributions by the actors who made the first one so memorable. But there's little if any of this.

Instead we get cheap imitations. Okay the passing of Ted Knight in the interim years would have made it impossible to bring back the memorable Judge Smails but Robert Stack's inclusion as 'Chandler Young' (a fellow WASP elitist akin to the Smails character) is unimaginative and seriously lacking in the sort of anarchic frustration that made Knight's turn so watchable. Jackie Mason's 'Jack Hartounian' is a feeble attempt at recreating the non stop wisecracks delivered by the Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) character of the first. While Dangerfield's role was endlessly quotable Mason's is completely forgettable.

Bill Murray's laughably ridiculous groundskeeper 'Carl Spackler' and his war of attrition with the pesky local gofer is substituted for his Ghostbuster's co-star Dan Ackroyd's role as the militant 'Capt. Tom Everett' who's high pitched voice just splits your sides with frustration as opposed to the intended laughter.

Randy Quaid , brilliant as Cousin Ed in the National Lampoon's Vacation series, is quite the opposite here playing Hartounian's unstable lawyer. The looks of disbelief shown by the actor's looking on at Quaid's character's intended to be hilarious acts of inappropriate violence echo that of the audience. Your not laughing. Your just asking 'What the hell is he doing?'

Chevy Chase shows up, all be it occasionally and wisely rather fleetingly considering the disaster that's perpetrating itself around him,as club pro 'Tye Webb' in the films only direct reference to the original not withstanding the golf course itself that is. With his deeply tanned skin and loud Hawaiian shirts Chase looks like he's just got back from a lengthy summer vacation and needs a paycheck. He distances himself from the events in the actual picture enough that he takes little of the blame and leaves with some, all be it little, credibility still intact.

Jessica Lundy as Mason's daughter 'Kate' takes over from the 'Danny Noonan' role of the original as teenager struggling against class divides. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? At least in the first Danny (an Irish Catholic from a blue collar family) and his laughable attempts to make inroads into the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant dominated world of the golf club mover and shakers was played out to some memorable set pieces such as being dismissed by the resident Lutheran Bishop as well as being mocked by the offspring of the local yacht club. Lundy's embarrassment of her father's inability to fit-in is hinted at being because of his Jewish roots. That aside it may also have to do with him being a classless moron but such intricacy's are swept aside though I stopped caring long before they were resolved. At the end of the day Noonan was trying to get ahead in life. Miss Hartounian's biggest problem is getting the hob nobbers at the local golf club to like her multi-millionaire father so that she can get a date with the club's prodigal white kid. Or so I gathered.

Anyway in summation its poorly written, badly scripted with lame set pieces and wastes a lot of talent. Indeed kudos if you were able to sit through it to it's conclusion. It really is a penance. There is that question mark though of why did so many of the original actors not return as opposed to being replaced by performers who on paper at least looked their equals. Maybe they just weren't asked. Or perhaps I suspect they actually read the script. Stick to the original!!!


When a hardworking entrepreneur is rejected from a prestigious country club, he starts a battle between the members and eventually buys it from Ty Webb(Chevy Chase) and turns it into a theme park/golf course in which everyone can join.

This is by no means a good movie, but it is still slightly amusing at times. Almost all of the comedy is cheap slapstick and bad jokes except for Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase plays one of his greatest roles as Ty Webb for a second time and plays it great. He is not only the funniest character in the movie, he is the only funny character in the movie. Even Dan Akroyd fails to bring humor to this film which aspires to be a great sequel to a classic comedy but falls to rubble with others shown on Comedy Central. The movie might have been better if Ty Webb(Chase) had a larger role but instead he was reduced to a minor character and the star became Jackie Mason(Who??) They should have brought back all of the cast and made a sequel the right way! This is a perfect example of what not to do when making a sequel to an already great movie. Overall, Caddyshack II is humorous but a large mistake.

I do not recommend this movie.


I usually give sequels the benefit of the doubt and go easy on them. But thisis very poor. The exact same as what happened in the first film happens here again. The exact same. Only they wanted younger kids to be able see it (this accounts for the repeated presence of Bugs Bunny but why they threw in one 'f*ck' is beyond me).

They didn't even bother to change Jackie Mason's character from Dangerfield's. Let me explain, in CADDYSHACK Rodney Dangerfield played a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. In this movie Jackie Mason plays a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. A big effort they made to change the content of the script huh? No, I don't think so. A very unfunny Dan Aykroyd shamefully copies Bill Murray's character. He even goes after the gopher (now more like a Gremlin) in much the same fashion as Murray did.

There is not a laugh to be had. A sample of the 'comedy' in this film: Jackie Mason is getting ready for a hot date with Dyan Cannon. He is in the bathroom is his robe. He moves to the door to get dressed in his bedroom whenthe door handle breaks off. Wow!?! That's the best they can do. Eight years to think of a completely new sequel and that's all we get!?! I could have pulled a better script out of my ass.

See it only if you're a die-hard fan of the original. It's the only way you'll find any kind of laughs in it. Everyone else steer clear.


OK, I would give this a 1, but I'm gonna give it a two because I laughed while watching this film...First of all, I can make a much better movie than this one...in a week...The special effects made this film look like a joke. One shouldn't make such films with horrible special effects because then people won't take it seriously. The acting and direction was also horrible. The screenplay had many plot holes and the whole film wasn't believable at all. This has to be the worst Indian film ever. The songs were also bad. The acting was bad and artificial. Need I say more. Don't watch this movie unless you are curious to see how bad it is. That's why I watched it. I am going into film and I wanted to see how bad a bad film can get. Trust me, I watched one of the worst films in history if not THE worst film.


I still find it hard to believe that a fine - if overlong - novel by Dean Koontz was transformed into this utter excrement.

This movie is so bad it's disgusting. Boos to all who participated. Shame on you!

P.S. The fact that sequels have appeared just goes to show how little taste and discretion remains in Silver Screen Land.


Corey Haim is never going to be known as one of the great actors of his time, but at least in movies like "Licensed To Drive", he was more in his element... lowbrow humor.

Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" was one of his earlier works, and still probably his finest to date. Sadly, this magnificent tale of a brilliant dog, a deranged mutant and a genetic experiment gone wrong is butchered horribly. The acting is so lifeless, you might think you're watching a zombie movie. Only the dog gives a respectable performance, and if you want to see a decent movie about a dog, you'd be better of watching "The Incredible Journey", "Cujo" or even "C.H.O.M.P.S."...okay, maybe not "C.H.O.M.P.S."

If you've read the book, avoid this movie at all costs. If you haven't read the book, read it and avoid this movie. You'll thank me later.

A somewhat better translation of a Dean Koontz book is the capable thriller, "Phantoms".


During my childhood time I have seen the first three "Critters" movies and enjoyed 'em.They were fun and entertaining horror comedies perfect for adventurous horror loving kids.I have never seen "Critters 4",so I finally decided to check it out.My verdict:forgettable and pretty bad flick with strikingly low body count.The script by Joseph Lyle and David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd,the plot rips off "Alien" and "Star Wars" and the sets look bland and murky.The tone of the film appears to be deadly serious throughout making it slow and dull."Critters 4" was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects;the ones taken from "Android" look seriously dated.4 out of 10.One to avoid.


These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.


Why do they keep making trash like this? because it makes money that's why. Eraser is not so much a film but a string of action set pieces strung together. It's well filmed but predictable and it's all been done before, only better. This is basically a Nineties version of 'Commando'.


I have to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.

This film has loads of technical/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).

It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.

How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?

Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.


Other than John Krasinski, this movie was absolutely terrible. The Lacey Chabert and Andrew Keegan love story was as clichéd as possible, full of unbelievably bad lines about how her parents wouldn't ever let them be together and super-hammy longing looks. None of the "emotion" had any depth or reality whatsoever. The two accented-characters (Dean Edwards as Rupert and whoever it was playing the gun expert)....once they saw how bad the accents were, couldn't they have decided to just drop them and rewrite a couple of lines to avoid giving the audience headaches? Apparently not. I don't even know where to start with the editing, particularly the sound editing. If you hate obvious over-dubbing as much as I do, don't watch this. That being said, Krasinski was great. Off the bat I'll admit that I'm a huge Office fan and that's why I rented this. But he's quite entertaining as the "off-the-wall friend with crazy ideas". He's got a clichéd role, but he still manages to make it as entertaining as possible. The ending was awful. Just flat out terrible. The idea of the robbery gone awry had potential, but Keegan floundering around after being shot, all the way to his studio to fall ontop of a painting of Chabert (which looks nothing like her) is the most cringe-worthy scene.


How is this a documentary? Much more like a walking ghost tour one might take in any given Southern city. Quotes were generously dropped throughout without the first effort at identifying the source. George Orwell was the most identified quoter.

Documents were referred to without ever being produced in any form. Flat out fraudulent shots depicting period film stock were spliced aside historical film reels with no separation from reality and self-promotion. Film reels which were entirely unrealistic and improbable for the time at hand were dropped in, as if trying to ape Blair Witch, hoping to drum up a spook house on what would otherwise simply be dead real estate.

Is this not in some way a great disrespect to actual victims of TB, a dance on their collective graves for the sake of commercialism? The line between actual footage and manufactured self-service is so thin; the drippings of doubt so insignificantly played down; the scientific boundaries so blatantly ignored... how could this possibly be listed in my TiVo as documentary?

It's a vacation promo, and at that it fully succeeds.

Hell, I'd visit the joint if I could locate it on Google Earth. Not scary said a previous poster. Not too serious either, says I. Fascinating story. Flimsy film-making.


It was like someone was trying to make a scary video game and a documentary at the same time. The historical aspect was great. Everything else was horrible, the plugs for the directors other movie that seemed to happen every other minute, the video of the actual ghost hunting was edited like a scary movie rather than an investigation, they had haunted house music and sound effects that would distract you from what was happening. THanks for wasted 2 hours of my time! When there was evidence, it would fly by! Most of it was just people talking about the place.The episode of the Ghosthunters show that went there absolutely destroys how this show was. I am so upset with sci fi channel for playing this, I haven't watched it since it aired.


Okay, so when a friend of mine told me he was supposed to direct MM2 and MM3, I thought, heck, I got to check out Monster Man and see what its like, maybe I can get a part in it, but when I popped it into my DVD player and and tried to choke down the first 45 minutes of nothing but bad, bad I mean horribly annoying bad comedy from that fat ass thinking he's funny, not to mention how looooong the director spent on the pointless desert road trip, I cam to the conclusion that these guys didn't have a clue of what they were doing and missed the boat by a long shot. The story had potential to be somewhat different than the usual BS you see on the Blockbuster/Hollywood Video shelf put out by Lions gate these days, but they surely messed this one up. Why put so much time and effort in shooting annoying bad acting and bad jokes, why not shorten the road trip and put more of the plot in the movie. Myabe the writing was so bad that they had to cut out a lot of the movie or maybe the director didn't shoot enough of the horror and gore, that they had to find filler to make the usual 84 minutes???? All in all, and I'm being easy here, maybe because a friend of mine is the bald redneck in the bar scene that gets his skull crushed when chasing the three leads out into the street, I will give it at least 1 star for trying, and the gore/kill scenes weren't that bad, again, they tried. Too bad, Lions Gate could have created a cool franchise from this idea, but failed. I don't recommend paying to rent it, maybe you can find a cut down version where the movie starts from the hitch hiker scene. CRAP!


Hello it is I Derrick Cannon and I welcome you to the first ever Cannonite review show. My movie for this week was debatable, what route what movie, what excellent four star epic would I choose, guess what I decided to pull a one eighty and go the other route, I've decided to review a movie so atrocious that it totally killed what could have been a very unique concept. The movie I will review today is Jack Frost Two revenge of the mutant killer snowman. The Stars in this movie include Christopher Allport as Sam Tiller, Eileen Seeley as Anne Tiller, Marsha Clark as Marla David Allen Brooks as Agent Manners, Sean Patrick Murphy as Captain Fun, Ray Cooney as the Colonel and Scott MacDonald as the killer snowman himself Jack Frost.

It's hard to believe that this movie was in the same series that gave us the incredibly funny Jack Frost(loved the carrot scene),but it's even harder to believe that this is the exact same cast. The movie was ruined for me as soon as they arrived on the island and Captain Fun was introduced. What was the point of his character and how did he fit into a horror movie?The only possible reason I could see was that they wanted to give us a character that was total killer snowman fodder. Sam Tiler seemed more paranoid then he did in the original, his babbling about anti freeze was one of the most pathetic display I had seen in a movie. His wife however was one of the few bright spots. She played her role as the main woman to a hilt. She was a voice of reason in film of pure idiocy. The scene where she figures out how to kill the snowmen was one of the most anticipated parts of the movie. Ray MacDonald once again did a great job as Jack Frost despite what he was given. If it wasn't for such weak characters he could have been immortalized like Chucky,Freddy and Jason. Laugh if you must but when it comes down to it Jack Frost had spunk, he had humor, and most importantly he had an undoubtable vicious streak.

This movie could have been so much more, it could have been a continuation of a great franchise, instead any plans to make a Jack Frost three have been canceled.

This movie gets a two out of ten for me, and it's lucky that it even gets a one.


I had never even heard of ONE DARK NIGHT until someone mentioned it on a horror message board here recently, and reading into it, I gained interest due to Meg Tilly's involvement and recognizing that it was an early gig for Friday THE 13TH VI:JASON LIVES director Tom McLoughlin . Unfortunately, sad to say, it's nothing special. The premise has a familiarity to it:a college girl must survive the night in an old mausoleum until morning in order to join a sorority. That girl is a young Meg Tilly, as Julie, who wishes to prove to her loving, caring boyfriend, Steve(David Mason Daniels)that she can make his cruel, conniving ex-girlfriend, Carol's(Robin Evans)sorority regardless of the tactics she pulls in order to see her fail. Along with Carol's gang is Kitty(Leslie Speights), always with a toothbrush in her mouth, and Leslie(Elizabeth Daily)who doesn't really wish to cause Julie such trouble. While Leslie insists on leaving Julie alone as she remains in the mausoleum, Carol and Kitty plan to torment the poor girl. Meanwhile Steve searches for her while Julie, Carol and Kitty encounter an evil they couldn't possibly imagine..the corpse of a recently diseased "psychic vampire", whose telekinesis was of a dangerously powerful degree, will seek to drain them of their very lifeforce. The only one who can help these girls is the dead man's daughter, Olivia(Melissa Newman)who is equipped with the same psychic power he has.

I think what many will find exciting is the unusual evil that threatens the girls in the mausoleum, it's certainly different than what you normally see in the slashers that were out at this time. Like Adam West's character(..he was the cynical husband of Olivia who found the idea of her father's power ridiculous), I had a really hard time adjusting to the tacky plot, and I personally never found anything within the film to get excited about. The mausoleum to me never really was that spooky(..it doesn't really achieve the same kind of eerie quality PHANTASM captured) and the corpses which are used to attack the girls are laughably unconvincing(..there is one great scene where a corpse's face melts away). I have a soft spot for low budget films from this period of time, but I just never really could find a reason to get involved when you have this unsatisfying undead corpse shooting electric bolts from it's eyes causing other bodies to break free from their crypts to obey their master. It's just too silly to take seriously. Carol is your typical blond bitch wishing to punish a nice girl who is dating a former flame. Steve is your typical, squeaky clean all-American boyfriend, handsome and tender, who becomes the hero seeking to save his girl from whatever sinister forces are at play. To make up for the small budget director McLoughlin tries every trick in the book to thrill the audience, using a series of ooga-booga effects such as corpses which pursue young girls, chairs which shake and tremble, doors that slam shut, and objects levitating by themselves. The film obviously has it's fans, and I am glad I had a chance to see it, but I was a bit disappointed that ONE DARK NIGHT wasn't the horror sleeper I hoped for. Adam West has a very small role as the concerned husband hoping his wife will snap out of her depressed state regarding a father who had nothing to do with her. Melissa Newman is the troubled Olivia, recognizing that she must stop her father once and for all or else he'd continue to prey on the living. Donald Hotton is Dockstader, an associate of Olivia's father's who informs her of what he was. I wasn't particularly blown away by Tilly's performance here(..she was basically scared most of the time), but she'd get a chance to prove herself to a greater degree from this point onward. This will undoubtedly be of some value to those who watched it back at that time, for nostalgia purposes it might seduce fans of movies from this era.


My boss at the time and showed it to us at a Halloween party at our office. He is the Chris Huntley that co-wrote and acted in it. He knows it's bad, we know it's bad and we all agree that the monster looks WAY too much like a vagina to be coincidence. Maybe it was from a gynocological experiment gone wrong.

It was a VERY low budget and the actors were all friends so what you have here is a case of "hey gang, lets' put on a show".

Nobody got hurt and it was a first attempt. Nothing wrong with that. It gave us all a good laugh and it's a great film to watch with friends and make fun of. :-)


Surprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes cliché script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie cliché firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also.


I remember flipping through channels on HBO and saw this. This, my friends, is one of the worst TV movies I've ever seen. There is no excitement in this film.

The story starts out with Drew Summers(Candice Cameron Bure) driving to a small town while in a trance. She stays with a couple who coincidentally, had a daughter named Laura Fairgate who looked exactly like her and is played by the same actress. Even the townsfolk agree that they looked alike. Thing is, Laura was killed over a year ago. Her boyfriend went missing around the same time she was murdered, making it look like he had killed her.

While settling in this town for a while, Drew starts to have visions and nightmares. These visions and nightmares might prove that the boyfriend of Laura isn't the killer after all. Throughout the film, you find out that Ray Ordwell Sr.(Denis Arndt) is the one that raped her frequently over a period of time and killed her.

The movie is too long and very boring. The film just drags on and on and on and on. Amazingly, I saw another TV movie after this called (Cloned) 1997 which was good but I'll review that one later.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Avoid this TV movie. It is not worth your time. This is the worst TV movie of 1997!


Hi Y'all,

I bought this on DVD from England. You see, I have one of those multi-region players. I thought it would be fun to get a cool movie to show to my friends. Well, surprise to Amy-Jo Johnson, she's barely in the movie. Although she is on the cover. It's really difficult to imagine how a film this bad got made in the first place. Perhaps someone has a trust fund.

Oh... It's about Vampires who live at the beach


Hitting the ground running, the film begins with THREE murders in a row. No plot, no characters, no motivation; the second murder happens off screen, and that victim's severed head is actually used to quite efficiently bludgeon the third victim to death! This is a high point. But the Lewises are obviously smart enough to lead with strength; soon they're covering up botched dialogue scenes with detective voice-over and shooting endless snappy repartee in ugly wide shot. By now this Betacam production's horror atmosphere is rapidly giving way to an insurance infomercial vibe, with the monumental (and rather endearing) plainness of the leads skewing things further in that direction. Shlub cop investigates, meat cleaver guy slaughters, repeat, climaxing early with a memorable severed-finger-in-the-salad gag. Only, how the hell did the fingers get in the salad? And wasn't the Blood Cult's purpose to collect the appendages they severed? When the GORE stops making sense, you know you're in trouble. And without spoiling the big, nonsensical twist ending, just take my word for it: the fascinating incompetence of the first scenes gives way to a deep cathode-tube-smashing impulse. The basic reaction is to try to put it behind you and get on with your life.


Hungary can't make any good movies. Fact. This is a great example of that.

First of all the term "plot" does not exist in this movie. It's seriously weak. Even tho a lot of people would argue with me on that. Sure, it's about a taboo, but that's about it. There are endless possibilities, which could have been really great, if used, but they nearly skipped everything. I think the whole movie is just an excuse to show pictures, which are the only decent things in this whole pile of awfulness.

The acting is just plain shitty. There aren't many lines, so you would think that the actors have great facial expressions or mimicking abilities, but no. In fact, 86% of the time, they suck. And that's when they don't say anything. If they say even a single word, you'll start tilting your head, saying: "That's damn unrealistic". But than again, this is partly the fault of the writing. There's also no emotion in most of the dialogs.

The editing is sometimes OK, but most of the time illogical and just worsens the whole picture. It could have given an emotional push, yet it seems the editing in here is all about putting cuts after each other.

Someone please explain it to me, why critics say this movie is a masterpiece. Calling this an "Art" isn't gonna make it better. Sorry Mundruczo, but you failed. Live with it. Even tho you probably won't care about my or any other guys opinion scarifying your "child".


I recently watched this film on The Sundance Channel and it kept me interested from the start. However, it seems to take forever getting itself where it wants to go and in the end, I felt somewhat cheated. In a nutshell, Noble Willingham (of Walker, Texas Ranger fame) plays a boat salesman who starts getting harassed by telephone from a man claiming to be his son. According to the mysterious caller, Willingham has a dark, dirty little secret that affects the son and he (the son) is enjoying reminding him of it. I won't spoil anything for anyone but for me three things kept me from liking this movie a great deal. One, the movie has more foul language than Goodfellas, Scarface, Casino, and Glengarry Glen Ross combined. 99% of it is spewed from Willingham himself. It didn't take long to wear me out with constant four-letter words. Two, I simply could not believe that anyone would answer the telephone that many times, especially when one knows that a crank caller is on the other end of the line. No matter where Willingham is in the movie whether it be at work, home, a diner, etc., the phone rings and he always answers it spewing venom at the "son", and then hanging up ONLY TO ANSWER IT AGAIN WHEN THE CALLER CALLS BACK IN ABOUT TEN SECONDS! How many of us would do that? Now I realize that we probably do not have a movie if he doesn't keep answering, but I just could not suspend disbelief on that particular matter. Three, and this is the most minor of the criticisms, why is the director so opposed to showing us the "Corndog Man" (a.k.a. the caller/son)? Most of the time he's just a redneck sounding voice on the other end of the phone. I could have lived with that one if other things had fallen into place, but since they didn't it's just one more to tack on. I do give the movie credit for being a somewhat original idea and for holding my attention with suspense from the beginning but that's about it. Do see it, if only one time. However, if you're like me, you'll be saying "Triple K Marine!" in your sleep for a night or two after you finish watching it.


Through its 2-hour running length, Crash charts the emotional anguish of its 10-odd ensemble of characters when faced with the sometimes blatant and sometimes latent forms of racism underlying in American society. That and the emotional anguish of one of its audiences sitting near the front and desperately trying to make sense of what movies have become these days.

The era we live in has become so complicated. Not only do we reject modernism, even the not very enthusiastic flag-waving of post-modernism ideas is always being shot down by what, post-post-modernism that aims to destroy all these ideas, all in no part thanks to the great destructivist ideas of those great 'thinkers'. But I digress. This has nothing much to do with the what the movie is about, but rather what the movie is.

Sure, it seems hard to earn a living in a Hollywood that has to cater to a market that is so post-post-post everything that cynicism has become more than just a motto in life. It has become part of everything we do and part of everything we think of whether we like it or not. And so a new studio product is born! Indie films, which once were energetic and idealistic in its defiant experimentalism now seem to be as equally adamant as Hollywood films to sell to indie film markets. An indie film must sell at Sundance before becoming 'acclaimed'. And so nothing is simple anymore. Even what constitutes a good film becomes so murky. Whereas in the past filmmakers just wanted to entertain people and tell a good story--and in these seemingly simplistic attempts the greatest of films are borne--filmmakers nowadays have to make films that are good first and foremost; films have to make people think, have to be meaningful, has to be provocative, raise questions, yadda yadda yadda. What it all boils down to, is a subversion of the Hollywood movie system, but this subversion seems strangely similar to the formulaic similarity of Hollywood films, the countless ways of differing to essentially be the same product.

And I haven't even begun on the film yet. Maybe I've become too picky on films I see these days. Maybe it's because of my primary need to be entertained, rather than, say, be probed when seeing a movie. But hell, this movie is one big load of crap. And I'm repulsed by this movie not just because it follows the How to Make a Good Movie Good 101 guidebook to the T--characters spout eloquent lines and are sooo witty like they're gifted with the speech of God; it raises issues about racism and life confronting racism in America; it has 'touching' moments where everyone discovers more about themselves and more about other people; not to mention the fact that once you hear the ambient/new age soundtrack of women singing in high registers in foreign languages, you know you're in for all of the above traits.

And something about the aforementioned point--about it raising questions about immediately-compelling issues like racism--pisses me off big time. Like all post-post-post-post-post everything movies, it doesn't contend with just having a message about this issue. Because oh, our audiences are much to intelligent for that these days in this post-post-post-post world. Our audiences want us to make them think, doesn't want us to put things so simplistically, (and then they will go into existentialist crap and say) that's because life itself isn't simplistic. Ha ha ha. What other common drill do we here then the audience need to think about issues rather than have them fed to them. Okay, okay, and okay. So the film makes it a point to pound the audiences with these non-messages and since they're not exactly a message, it's so decidedly subtle and subtle means good right? So we're being hit again and again with this well-written subtlety with the eloquence of rhetorical prose. And as if the irony is not steep enough, we have Ludicrous' character, the only character who seems to not take all these racism discussion bullshit seriously, being 'converted' into one of those irritatingly meaningful characters where he learns something in the end, giving meaningful looks and pauses where audiences are supposed to 'learn something about themselves too'. Um, yeah. How I wanted to see an incredibly racist film right after this man.

To cut the long bullshit short, I guess I wouldn't have taken issue with the film if it wasn't so bloated in its self-importance. The angst that forms the entire movie felt more like white-boy whining than actual Spike Lee-ish anger. It's so Tim Robbins and Sean Penn, the type that wants to wave flags about humanitarianism when the only thing they don't realize is the flag they're waving is their hole-ridden underwear. Plus it's become so trendy in the post-post-post-post world to be completely subtle about it. Nothing is simple any longer. In its best efforts to actually be good, provocative, and ultimately human, it's become neither, imho, just another indie crap from an indie director that wants to make a name out of himself as a credible indie-filmmaker. Now at least Hollywood is more simple and sincere in its manipulativeness.


This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, "We're joking around here! See???"

In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.

Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the film.


It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can.

The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.

Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.

The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.

I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.


Its a sin how these things are made, but then again we wouldn't get to see the best "Dummy scene" ever filmed. Ahhh the beauty of low budget Bigfoot flicks, you lean to see the beauty the more you watch them, thats if your brain doesn't melt first. As I said before, this has the best dummy scene ever! Words cant express it, you have to see it for yourself. Wonderful lines such as "Smells like decain flesh", "Thems human..."(You will know this one when you see it) The creature makes a Blah, Blah! sound and the scene where the baby gets shot will make you cry(with laughter) you will be rewinding it. Has a car chase, snowmobile chase, a Bigfoot folk song as well as a Disco song. It dosn't end there, while watching the credits a friend noticed "Wardrobe provided by K-Mart". You ask, how could you even get as far as the credits and then watch them? I could only explain this as a sort of shock to the brain, you are so mentally exhausted you cant move and also I guess you have to know who was behind the mess. All that being said, this is a must see especially if you want to punish yourself mentally. Its a keeper!


This is the kind of movie that BEGS to be shown on TV at 3 or 4 in the morning, if at all.

No doubt the film-makers responsible for "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman" thought they were making a pertinent statement about women and philandering and the dangers of the demon rum, all wrapped up in a sci-fi allegory.

Or maybe it was a tax write-off.

Either way, "Attack" proves best for the viewer under the following circumstances: a) extreme intoxication, b) seen on a double-bill with any of those Jacqueline Suzanne movies (maybe "Once is Not Enough"?) or c) just a night when you feel insecure and the world around you is a little too perfect. Pop in "Attack" and you'll feel great, guaranteed!

It's good for a laugh at the expense of the hokey script, the rubbery special FX and that four-eyed sheriff. And I think the last line should be engraved in a monument somewhere in Washington D.C. - it's just that memorable.

Four stars for "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"; buy a copy, mail it to Gloria Steinem - she'll love you for it.


I like 50s sci-fi movies a lot. I like the really good ones (such as The Day the Earth Stood Still, When Worlds Collide, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and many others) and sometimes the really bad ones because they can be really funny and great to watch with friends (such as Plan 9 From Outer Space). However, when a sci-fi movie is bad but not bad enough to be fun, it really should be avoided. This movie is just such a film. The posters make it appear as some sort of sexy she-beast is attacking mankind, whereas the real plot is a lot less interesting. A woman is married to a womanizer. She is contaminated and begins to grow to a HUGE size and decides to track down this worm and kick his tail and that's about it. Also, many of the special effects really stink--especially the gigantic papier mache hand that comes into the room to grab the wicked hubby.


The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.

One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration "spiritual" and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in "Day Watch", "Night Watch", etc.


The gates of Hell opened up and spit out this film, then closed again.

Watching this movie makes me appreciate other movies I have seen, like all other movies. Nothing makes sense in this movie.

It would really take too long to mention all the plot problems. In fact, except as a warning, it really isn't worth wasting some of the nearly infinite space available on the internet writing about this film.

From now on, I will check IMDb before watching any film.

Hot darn, IMDb is forcing me to write more about this film. I guess I should warn you about Edison Force while I am at it. But if you had to chose between the two, pick Edison Force.


The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.

Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.

Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.

Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.


This "movie" will give me nightmares, I will wake up drenched in sweat, screaming "I didn't make this film please don't blame me!" I honestly think it would have been more entertaining to watch a fat guy eating lard in his moms basement for a hour or two, than to watch this crap. I understand money was tight but goddamn what the hell were they thinking there was no thought, plot or effort put into this. This movie needs a warning "Please for the love of god don't fund the drama department a the local JC." On an other note these are the least likable characters I have ever seen, and I have seen movies with Hitler in them. So lastly take my advice the next time you even think about renting this just pop a few hundred Adivl and let the sleep come.


Overambitious and shoddy; and at times too darkly lit. DARK REALITY'S scenario is not even close to being original. Dark and dank basement. Kidnapped prisoners. Fearful survival. Carey(Alisha Seton)tells her family and friends she will be backpacking across Europe. She doesn't make it out of town. She is grabbed from a rainy sidewalk, drugged, and awakes chained in a dungeon. She eventually realizes she is not alone and upon meeting a few of her fellow captives there is different thoughts on survival. Her cell mates start dying off one by one. Can she garner enough strength and courage to see daylight again? Others in the cast: Laila Dagher, Rachel Oliva, Eva Derreck, Arthur Bullock and Jen Parker.


This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.

I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch "different" and indie "horror" movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers.


This was another one of those shows that I watched to root out the positive elements, and because I've been a Nick fan for years. Some of those would be the stage sets, B-plots, guest stars, and a few of the main actors that were good. I dabbled in the show through high school as I quickly grew to despise Jamie Spears, along with the other chicks in the show that can't act. The only characters I seemed to like were Dustin, Quinn, Stacey, Michael & Logan. Quinn is a perfect outcast that eventually started to fit in; Stacey is a complete oddball; Dustin gets put through a bunch of strange, random situations; and Michael is kind of the comic relief right-hand man of Logan. There's a remarkable difference between the execution & acting quality of the B-plots that involve them, and the A-plots that showcased a bunch of screeching girls and an iconic "Miss Perfect," repeating bad lines and obsessing over guys. This show would have been great if the main plots contained the quality of the side plots, but the main plots just don't deliver anything. When it recently came back in reruns, and I tried to watch it again, I was more calloused towards the girls' abysmal acting and had to change the channel. However, I will give the previously listed characters credit because they did make the show more or less worth my time.


I usually like movies about animals or reptiles turning against the mean old humans who threaten their environment, but I have to say Snake Island was a major letdown.

The premise is interesting, a group of people, including a writer numbly played by William Katt, goes to an island called, duh, you guessed it "Snake Island", and quess what the island lives up to it's name. That is one thing I will give this movie, there are snakes, LOTS and LOTS of snakes of all sizes and kinds. So that part of the movie in fairness lives up to its name, but the writing, acting and directing is SOOOOOOOO lame it is almost painful to sit through.

The characters are so unlikeable I was begging for the snakes to finish these horrible people off to put us all out of our misery. There are a couple of scenes that are so surreal and ridiculous they have be seen to be believed---snakes gyrating to really horrible disco music while 2 women dance seminude together and a scene with a snake holding some inane dialogue with one of the actors, it's beyond absurd. I think the writer was trying to be funny but this just came off like some weird LSD trip...

I remember William Katt years ago back when he starred in "Carrie", what a hunk he was..not that he was ever a major star, but to be reduced to this garbage, I feel for him.

Avoid this movie like the plague unless you are really into movies that feature lots and lots of snakes and really horrible humans.


George Sluizer of THE VANISHING fame ( He made both the haunting European original and the Hollywood remake ) directed CRIMETIME . He shouldn't really be blamed for this confused , poor movie because all the problems lie in Brendan Somers script . It's ill focused and lazily written . For instance the killer hangs around a nightclub waiting to pick up a victim , any victim and starts talking to a teenage girl . Cut to the next scene where she tells the villain " I've told you everything about myself , tell me about your life ? " Unfortunately the girl has told the baddie her life story off screen and is a terrible example of the screenwriter not being able to bring a character to life through dialogue . I know for a fact how bloody difficult this is but for a screenplay that is produced the writer should have tried harder

It's difficult to explain the message of the film . At some points it feels like it's trying to be a British NATURAL BORN KILLERS satarising the media's voyeurism with crime ( Perhaps it even influenced the infamous video game MANHUNT ) but the script isn't witty enough to carry this off . When you've got a sex scene that doesn't progress the plot or characters or hint of subtext you know you've got a badly written screenplay and CRIMETIME is a badly written screenplay


The is one of the worst spoofs I have ever seen. For one main reason: IT ISN'T FUNNY! I laughed a handful of times. The acting is bad, the script is worse. And why those guys had baby pacfiers in their hair I will never know. And you can tell this didn't have much of a budget to work with and it openly hurts the film. They had a good idea going in some parts but it never really came to past. And what was the point about the lead being older than his Dad? 3 out of 10


Going by the good words of my friends, I hired this movie, hoping that it would at least equal the laughs of the similar movie, "House Party", but I was very disappointed, and very bored.

Falling asleep while watching a movie is never a good sign. I don't know whether this didn't appeal to me because I don't live in "da hood", or if I'm not black, but it's probably one of the two.

It tries to spoof a few movies, only coming up with a couple of laughs, but in the long run it fails miserably. Miss it.


I thought Choke had potential, but I thought it could have been a much better film. It had some interesting twists and turns, but some of them seemed kind of pointless. When showing background on the two main characters, some of that really seemed to go awry. Most of it was sort of useless and didn't help the movie at all. This was also not Dennis Hopper's finest hour. However, the main saving grace of this movie for me was Michael Madsen. His performance was excellent. In this movie, he almost makes Mr. Blonde look like a nice guy. All in all, it was watchable. Still, I was left thinking some things could have been done differently. These things would have made the movie much better, in my opinion.


I think it's two years ago since I have seen the movie and till this day it's the worst film I have ever seen. The only thing I thought after seeing this movie was that it was made for some tax reason. So after all this time I finally spilled my gut ;) And now IMDb says I have to fill 10 lines with comments:

"Sorry, you must provide at least 10 lines in your comment. Please return to the edit window (or use the BACK option if this isn't a new window)."

Please there is nothing to say anymore...

Sorry for some bad English.


Stodgy drama starring Pat O'Brien as a washed-up reporter who turns up at his ex-boss's house to ask for money to fund his son's operation, only to find him dead on the floor. Since O'Brien knows the identity of the culprit, he offers to take the rap in return for the money he needs. A decent premise is wasted on a film that pretends it has surprises, twists and turns, even though it really doesn't. Performances are rotten across the board, the movie dresses itself up as a hard-boiled American noir but the mix of dodgy accents doesn't work, and the story is hardly gripping. And it contains possibly the least attractive screen kiss of all time.


The parallels between this film and "Captain Walrus" (an independant film shown at the Team Projection Film Festival in 1994) are so blindingly obvious that any praise for "Sally Marshall Is Not An Alien" must be viewed with the knowledge that it is riding on the success of another work.

In Captain Walrus, two young boys (Geoff and Roger, played by Dean Turner and Brett Allen respectively) examine the bizarre behaviour of their new neighbour Britney (played by Louise Farley). As the two boys watch through their telescope, they observe the repeated visits of a man in uniform who they call Captain Walrus (played by Peter Sargent). However, the emphasis in Captain Walrus is on the pointless and somewhat power-hungry actions of the neighbour Britney, and less on the friendship between the two boys.

A critical success at the film festival, the plot of Captain Walrus has obviously been appropriated and rehashed in order to give the Australian Film Community another notch on the belt with regards to children's product. Although Sally Marshall is not an Alien is a fine film, and a credit to its producers, its inauthenticity leaves something to be deserved.


This overheated southern Gothic "mellerdramer" has a few decent moments --but is too often spoiled by a novice director piling cliché upon cliché, and a star who apparently decided to take it upon himself to turn the picture into his personal showcase, rather than allowing writer/director Gabel to update Inge or Williams as a sort of contemporary "Midnight Cowboy" meets "Lolita" tearjerker.

Close your eyes, listen to the exaggerated southern accents, and try to decide if you're witnessing a feature film, or an acting class -- full of eager amateurs.

Johansson is for once tolerable (i.e. less pouty than usual) -- though by no means good, Macht is decent, though a little too pretty-boy cute to be believed, and Travolta chews the scenery as never before (with the help of a decent editor and some directorial restraint, his performance might have been really touching; as it is, he -- and almost everyone else -- is too unlikable to ever move us past the point of boredom or revulsion). Kara Unger is perhaps best of all; had her role been developed beyond a few lines, she might have even found herself with a Best Supporting Actress nomination.

Pic is almost saved by Leonard Cohen-style growling theme song, decent production design and locations, and continual reference to literary works (which has earned the otherwise standard screenplay reviews such as "poetic.") Also helpful are a few old pros in the cast like Sonny Shroyer, and perhaps most importantly, Soderbergh cameraman Elliot Davis -- whose fine work will no doubt be credited to the first-time director, who, ten or twenty years from now, may actually learn how to direct.

But probably not.


Although it can be VERY tedious at times, this movie is really not all that bad. The acting is fairly well done, if stereotypical, and the production values are pretty high considering some of the Sci-Fi movies that were to come later in the decade.

My biggest problem with this film are some of the very outdated characterizations in it. There's the guy from Texas, the "professional" scientist, and worst of all the woman scientist who finally realizes her womanhood. For a film seeking to make a statement about mankind, it loses some of it's impact by reducing its characters through sexist stereotypes.


I'm seeing a pattern here. If you see a movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000, chances are if you go to IMDb.com there will be hordes of lovers of the film, yet it was picked to be on that TV show because it was sooo bad. I'm sorry but I read a lot about Rocketship X-M as being some landmark sci fi film that stressed realism. Well if that is the case I could write for several paragraphs about how even with 1950's knowledge this movie is utterly flawed. Gravity might be the first obvious observation, or as MST3K did as a skit "selective gravity", also what about when they are plunging to their death and they are just standing there looking out of the window, um would'nt the ship being upside down effect that scene? I would like to think that they started with good intentions and that it ran over budget or something but I think this movie was just plain cheese as in the from under type. Just compare this to "When Worlds Collide" which was released in 1951 to see the true place where this movie ranks, there's no comparison. The movie gets a 2 or maybe 3 on its own, its not even funny to watch on its own. It gets about a 5 or 6 as a MST3K episode as there is no action or much to make fun of, just bad, bad, bad, oh did I mention, it's bad.


Full disclosure: I was born in 1967. At first the premise tickled me -- after all, if you were a teenager growing up in the age of Reagan, a trip down memory lane was worth a laugh or three. Pop Rocks, Atari and Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots? Loved 'em, not *despite* the fact they were goofy, but *because* they were goofy and silly and fun. But when VH1 decided to make the series "I Love Last Tuesday", I knew enough was enough. Goes Hal Sparks have nothing better to do than read from a teleprompter how idiotic Slinkys are? (Wait, let me check... hmmm, no. No, it appears he doesn't.) Snarky, snotty uber-hip posturing has its place, but enough already!


Martha Plimpton has done some prestigious movies, working with River Phoenix and Harrison Ford, but she was never able to expand her limited, tomboyish appeal into the same class as, say, Molly Ringwald. This film, which was barely released, is just an extension of her late '80s/early '90s attempts to find a screen-persona which was identifiable to moviegoers, and it represents another failure. Plimpton plays a troubled young woman who finds out on her 21st birthday that she was adopted and--worse than that--was actually abandoned as an infant on her parents' doorstep! She sets out to find her biological mother and father, but the viewer has no clue why she'd even want to (would simple curiosity give her this much determination?). Unattractive material given sitcom handling; it starts off on the wrong foot and never recovers. Plimpton gives a sour, surly performance, but Hector Elizondo and Mary Kay Place are fine as her adoptive parents. *1/2 from ****


First off, if you want to make a good film, don't cram all your exposition into the last 10 minutes. The viewer is expected to be bewildered for nearly two hours, only to have Margo's father explain everything to Alex very late in the film. To make matters worse, the scriptwriter decided it wasn't enough to have the basic mystery solved, but adds in a completely unnecessary murder that we knew nothing about (involving Alex's father!).

There's some serious motivation issues with characters also. Margo's father's choices don't seem to make sense once the film is over. Why didn't he just kill Philippe's father and be done with it? Instead, a complicated plot to obscure the truth is concocted, but one which ensures that everyone will be in physical jeopardy for years (including the completely innocent photographer, who gets murdered by Philippe's father's thugs). Although Alex is a doctor (whom one would think is relatively bright), he chooses to flee the police, during which he not only endangers his own life, but those whom he involves in a nasty pile-up on the freeway. Why was Margo's friend so keen on keeping her promise to Margo, once all the crap hits the fan for Alex? And are we to think that Margo's father would rather kill himself rather than go to prison? What about his wife? Did he consider her wishes? Those are some of the main problems.

Then there are some nasty details, like: why was her father there the night of her faked death? How did he get a hold of the junkie's body on such short notice and get it back quickly in order to bury it with the other two? Alex's friend Bruno seems over-eager to be part of the mayhem, in which he and his friends have to kill for Alex, notwithstanding the perceived debt he owes Alex for saving his son's life. What good would the photos of Margo do? They don't implicate Philippe at all. And why would Margo have the safety deposit box key handy that night for her would-be abductors to take? Did I miss some other things? Probably. Minor irritations of mine include the fact that although Alex is a doctor, he smokes like a fiend. Which makes his marathon run away from the police even that more impressive. Also, when he is riding in the convertible with his lawyer, neither of them is wearing a seat belt. How bright could they be?


Sorry, but I usually love French thrillers - e.g. Chabrol - but this was a glossy shambolic mess. The fact that it was based on a Harlan Cohen book is telling, because rather than being a French film (strong on psychology and character), it's more like a John Grisham-esquire roller-coaster ride by numbers with ludicrous plot twists, flashbacks that update previous flashbacks, a predictable villain (as soon as his name is mentioned you think 'hmm, he'll be the bad guy!') and sets of mysterious stereotyped characters who seem to inhabit different movies. By the end I was laughing hysterically at the unevenness of the film's tone (the scenes where the lead character is being helped by two streetwise shady characters are unintentionally hilarious), the utterly baffling plot, the absurd coincidences and strokes of good fortune (e.g. guessing the password for an email account) AND yawning uncontrollably (thought I must have misread the 1hr 50min running time as it seemed to drag on for 3 hours 50 minutes).


Feeling Minnesota, directed by Steven Baigelmann, and starring Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio: The strained relationship between two brothers, Sam (D'Onofrio) and Jjaks (Reeves), is pushed to breaking point when Jjaks arrives at Sam's wedding and makes off with the bride, Freddie (Diaz), a former stripper, marrying Sam to repay a gambling debt owed to night-club owner Red (Lindo). Baigelman's writing and directing debut is a frustrating mess, full of hateful characters and lacking coherence. Putting Keanu and Diaz in the same movie should at least provide some eye candy, but Baigelman even cops out on that score, grudging his actors up with little positive effect. Very poor.


How to qualify this film, simply HORRIBLE. It is badly done with poor dialogues, Reeves played as bad as ever and Cameron Diaz competed with him. Do not waste your time watching such a film although a big waste of money has already occurred to make the film.


Daniel Auteuil's Bruno in Petites Couperes is a middle-aged model of his Pierre in Christian Vincent's La Separation of 10 years ago. In both films, youthful confidence in left-wing ideology and love (mutual metaphors) crumbles into paranoia - manifesting itself as trapped aggression in Pierre and desperately comic womanizing in the more recent Bruno.

Unfortunately for Auteuil fans, the actor has become reliant on a uniform world-weariness (not unlike compatriot Johnny Hallyday in Leconte's recent l'Homme du Train). Acting it ain't, and becomes rather frustrating as the film progresses. Pascal Bonitzer doesn't help as the writer/director of the project. His sequencing of episodes overlaid with connecting symbolism fail to mask the film's lack of rhythm. I was particularly furious that the imposingly dramatic/romantic backdrops of Grenoble were made virtually redundant by a cameraman who was obviously shivering in the cold.

Krisitn Scott Thomas almost rescues the show with her female counterpart to Bruno, Beatrice. She dramatizes the dizzying contradictions intended as Bruno in a character of increasing complexity to the point of becoming surreal. Bonitzer cannot sustain this though, and the flagging plot demands Beatrice to even out into another bourgeois mannequin. In doing so Bonitzer shows then denies Scott Thomas the Oscar cabinet.

All the characters' submersion into the bourgeoisie may be a viable and indeed tragic outcome, but in this case it's a cop-out of a cadence (unlike the brutal, painful denouement of La Separation). A serious disappointment, 4/10.


I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again.


K, one day my father picked up a movie with a 'neat' cover. Got home with my mom and we were like yay lets watch this new movie we never saw before! .. Ok so it started ... interesting start, cool robots and disgusting gore (eek) on a strange planet (actually it was Pluto wasn't it?)... Blablabla I could tell the whole story but I rather not point, WTF NEVER EVER pick up a movie with a lame ass name, and seriously don't EVER I mean EVER judge a book by its cover (err tape..) it looked like an interesting movie HOWEVER it was a slap to the face for sci-fi movies, its DISGUSTING. I mean it was so bad I just started laughing (I swear it tryed to be serious) I CANT DESCRIBE THE STUPIDITY! It killed more then a million brain cells of mine I can't even write a descent critique. ITS THAT BAD! Argh and I wana prepare you for something "strange' *COUGH COUGH* mechanical p3n1$ *COUGH COUGH* Sorry just had to say it, its so funny, think of it as a commedy or a parody of sorts for sci-fi movies. Its classic batman laughs but in a new packaging. What the hell was this director thinking?


I saw this movie in part because of some positive comments here on IMDb. After wishing I had those 90 minutes of my life back, I feel it's my duty to get on here myself and say...Please don't bother watching this movie.

I can't argue with the actors efforts - they did what they could given the material, but that material is dreadful. The pace was deadly - slow, meandering, and you saw everything coming about an hour away, and then it took forever to happen. The dialogue was boring, pointless, not funny at all. The characters were all completely unsympathetic. And the cinematography was, in my opinion, very low quality - the cliché of "character uses home video machine!" was used to very bad effect.

Yes, Jeri Ryan is a cool person. Don't let that sucker you into wasting your time on this film.


I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport!

What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.