If only I had read the review by Alex Sander (sic) on here rather than looking at the rating of over 6 from a select choice of the ignorant viewing public I would not have seen this desecration. Alien was a fantastic, dramatic and well made horror/sci-fi. Predator was a great sci-fi/action mess-about. I do really have only myself to blame though as I saw 'Alien versus Predator'. It too has an average grading of over 6 stars from the connoisseurs of film that frequent this site.

STOP READING NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FEAR OF THIS EVER SO SUSPENSE RIDDEN PLOT BEING RUINED FOR YOU.

Right from the beginning this film was ridiculous. No explanation was offered for the Predator ship overrun/not overrun by Aliens. OK so maybe they were again going to throw aliens down to Earth to hunt them and something went wrong but how did this result in an Alien/Predator hybrid and why did the rest of the crew not realise sooner despite their great technology? The start was actually the most coherent and interesting part of the film because we had some idea of who was who or what was what and perhaps why. From then on it gets really ridiculous. I always leave my disbelief strictly suspended above the door of the screen before entering and collect it on the way out. I couldn't here.

A father and son are hunting in the woods. The damaged ship crash lands to (from the view given) I would calculate at the very least 10 odd miles away through thick woodland. The man and boy track there alone and find the ship and get face hugged. Even at this point you feel very little for them mainly because the face huggers are almost comical rather than scary in their movement and actions and the father seems like such an irresponsible, dumb redneck muppet.

An edgy, thriller-type scenario is introduced with an ex-con returning to the town near the crash site to be met by his somewhat emotionless, dull now cop friend from the bus. When I say introduced I mean a feeble attempt with crap actors and no feeling is played out. A slasher/horror element is then introduced with a sexy girl and the usual supposedly nerdy or somehow undesirable cute guy who gets beaten up by the over protective, crazy, nasty Jock type (American sportsman not a Scottish man). Oh the cute/not cute boy is the ex-con's brother by the way. Yes they're clever these director brothers whose name I will research in order to avoid any other shite they put out again. Then a modern role reversal oh so boring attempt at PC, Ripley credential type character introduction comes with a female soldier returning home to her husband and child.

Guess what happens next? I won't tell you much more about the actual (smiles sadly to himself about the demise of storytelling in the large majority of recent films) plot just in case you have got this far and are not the brightest star in the Alien-ridden universe.

The Predator is stupid for the reasons stated by the previous poster whose post I read too late. The Aliens are boring. The Predator-Alien is ridiculous. The action is at times exploitative, gratuitous, disgusting nonsense. The hospital scene with the pregnant mothers?!?! Oh I was shocked alright. Shocked at how low some people will go to get what? A scare? Some shock? To titillate the perverse? What? If you really wanted to shock, titillate and scare people who are not pregnant or expecting fathers or who have no souls why not just have the Alien/Predator shagging the saucy women and teenage girls rather than killing them? The characters have no depth and neither does the plot. It's filmed and paced badly. It's acted by disinterested people not that I can blame them. It further tarnishes two rather interesting and good sets of sci-fi characters. This film was rubbish and if you gain enjoyment from it I really have to worry about you. If you haven't seen it then well please make your own decision.

PS Did I even mention the way that trained soldiers are all killed in about 20 seconds while amateur civilians survive throughout?


I remember seeing the very first trailer for Underdog back last March, I also remember at the time smiling to myself ever so slightly. Sure it was a cheesy idea, but I genuinely thought at the time the concept might work, hell it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing Cats and Dogs could it? Then by December and I suddenly remembered the film I realised how likely the film was to suck, the fact it had been delayed in the UK made it seem inevitable it would be terrible, but the horrendous reviews just made me realise it was nigh on impossible for the movie to be any good. Still I swallowed my feelings and went to see the film with a friend today, as I entered my screen I was mortified, it was the very first time I'd be seeing a movie with a friend and being the only two in the screen! Little did I know for what I was about to endure. Underdog to put it blunt is horrendous, it really is. Imagine how bad you could think this movie is and then prepare yourself for a movie even worse, that is just how pathetic the movie is. While it aims to entertain kids it just seems an embarrassing mess that seems to insult kids rather than allow them to enjoy the movie. Matters cannot be helped by the fact that the story is beyond lacklustre, the acting is generally poor, and the movie just feels like an over-long, tired and downright boring Saturday cartoon! After a brief five minutes where I thought the movie might be passable the movie just suddenly seems to die and then limp on towards the already sign posted finale. I'm just amazed the movie was actually ever released, it's an embarrassment to Disney, hell half their straight to video sequels are better than this! What's even more terrifying is the fact the ending leaves room for a sequel!

So lets get onto the acting (cracks knuckles). Okay let me be honest Jason Lee is decent, his voice suits the canine, and had he have been given a decent script he might have made the performance work. However, with such a dodgy script he just seems to flounder. In many ways it reminded me of Bill Murray in Garfield, Murray did what he could with what he had, but what he had wasn't enough to make it passable. Then we get onto the human actors, and well the majority of atrocious. Alex Neuberger plays the friend of Underdog, Jack. My biggest concern is that anybody would even take him seriously in an audition. The scene where he gets to fly with Underdog is perhaps the most cringe worthy scene in the past few years just because his acting is so poor. Not once did I believe he was a real person, in fact part of me is still convinced he was a robot made specially for the movie! James Belushi seems half dead in the film, he has nothing to work with, no decent lines, he just seems to wander around the set waiting to become relevant to the plot, which the writers try to do towards the end but do it in such a poor way its laughable. Thankfully Peter Dinklage is the one redeeming factor of the movie, he is great as Dr Barsinister and seems to be having a laugh in the role. He steals every scene he is in, although that's hardly difficult when he shares screen time with the extremely annoying Patrick Warburton. The rest of the cast are even worse, especially Taylor Momsen, she just needs to end her acting career right now!

Underdog also fails dramatically in terms of delivering anything like a funny scene. When the funniest scene involves Underdog biting a can and causing dog food to explode everywhere you know there is something drastically wrong. This could be easily ignored if the movie had decent action or a good story, alas the movie is even worse in both of these terms. The effects are so ropey that any scene where Underdog flies just seems absurd, and the dog uses his powers to such little effect that you frequently forget he has superpowers. What's the point in making a film about a super dog if the damned dog never appears super? The final fight also verges on embarrassing purely because its ten minutes of nothingness, the dog flies, other stuff happens, some stuff gets chucked about, all of this is irrelevant as this stuff is happening for the sake of stuff happening. The script as well is dodgy at best and downright pain inducingly awful at worst. When someone says "Look its a plane, no its a bird, no its a frog...", yes you read that right, I just wanted to burst into tears there and then. Actually I wanted to walk out by remained compelled to see whether it could get any lower than that point, this happens near the end so it doesn't thankfully.

Overall Underdog becomes the worst movie of 2008 at this early period, and is actually just as bad as last years Epic Movie. Luckily for Underdog, Meet the Spartans arrives over here soon and I expect that to be even worse. So in case you didn't get the point of my review, avoid the film at all costs, if you want to see a movie with a dog then watch Cats and Dogs, buy a real dog if necessary, just do not see this!


And now for another point of view: I didn't like it. I didn't finish it in fact. I know that "Unforgiven" is ranked by some as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. I know that it stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood, one of the icons of American cinema. I know that it won a bunch of Oscars. Still, I didn't like it. I don't like Westerns, and that's clearly a matter of taste, but I also don't admire Eastwood's acting. He is not and never has been a leading man. He is no Burt Lancaster, no Paul Newman, no John Wayne. In this film alone he is dwarfed by Richard Harris and Gene Hackman; they are both actors. No, Eastwood is a tall guy with a reedy voice who usually plays tough guys. Here he plays a retired tough guy. When I see him on screen, I see a man laboring at his acting. Then there's the anti-Western Western plot. It is too obviously intended to inject contemporary values -- a respect for the role of women, blacks, native Americans, and single parents; a disrespect for violence and drinking; the wholesomeness that comes with marriage, including interracial marriage, and small adorable children -- into a century in which those values weren't necessarily accepted, at least in these ways. By promoting those values, the movie comes across as mannered, if not preachy. Then there are the hoary movie stereotypes -- prostitutes with hearts of gold, the kid who can't shoot straight, the city slicker new to the wild West, the sage brush shimmering on a summer afternoon with a musical accompaniment in major chords. Finally there is the pacing of Eastwood's direction. I gave up after an hour. Eastwood was still riding north, chatting with Morgan Freeman and the kid who couldn't shoot straight, sixty minutes after the plot driven by the slashing of a prostitute was set in motion. It was way too slow. Somebody had to find these elements uncompelling. I am afraid it was me.


I finished watching Mandy Lane about an hour ago, and felt the urge to come straight home and get up here to warn anyone that's about to spend money on the DVD - DON'T.

The supporting characters are shallow, the failure of acting is higher than that of Matthew McConaughey movies, and up until the end twist, the plot is everything but obvious. In nine out of ten, you can see the next scene coming 5 minutes before it starts. The whole movie is more or less without motive or message, and the half-way revealing of "the murderer" just plain out kills what little interest you might have left at that point. What could have saved this shallow, tedious movie is some decent splatter, or at least gore worthy of the genre "Slasher" - It fails there as well.

If you need a background movie to a party that you can jump in and out of without missing anything, I recommend buying All The Boys Love Mandy Lane.

If you're looking to sit down and actually concentrate your eyes on the screen for more than 15 seconds, I don't.


From the point of budget 2.5m CAD isn't very much when you look at the animatronics, puppetry in this film, that alone being the reason for the 9 week shoot. I was really keen to see this film and had hoped to catch it when it came out, instead got it on DVD recently. My main problem is it's just not funny at all, it's better than Tenacious D which hasn't got a funny bone in it's body. But this was a truly disappointing film.

Trevor Matthews is a very strong physically performer, but his acting sucks! Rachel Skarsten gives what is possibly one of the most irritating and none funny performances I have ever seen. The only really BIG star in this is David Scott who's artwork for the monsters is fab! His special effects work is the main reason this film is worth watching, loved the Cyclops and Troll and and the Prof Monster was straight out of the Henson library.

If you watch this it won't be the biggest waste of time, but if you are looking to see this for a great Horror Comedy Romp... Don't bother.


I've seen many horror, splatter, monster movies in my life. And of course also a lot of monster movies from the 50's and 60's. When I first stumbled over this one I thought this is from the 60's until I recognized it's from 2007.

In fact the character of Jack Brook is interesting and the acting all in all is for a splatter movie quite good, but.... I expected a splatter movie and not a drama story about a aggressive plummer. The movie runs 80 Mminutes and I think the first kill is after 65 minutes. Although it takes hours to explain the story the reason where are the monsters come from takes at least 3 minutes... the we have another 20 minutes boring dialogue and finally a, in my opinion, not that well managed splatter sequence. Although we have Robert Englund starring here I only recommend this one to real hardcore horror fans.


Don't pick this one. ****Spoiler Alert***** The plot of this aggravatingly bad movie is four friends are talked into taking the shuttle from the airport by a very zealous driver. On the shuttle with them is a rather milquetoast looking business type.

Shortly into their trip the driver of the shuttle takes an off-ramp and some lunatic driver tries to run them off the road. The end result is they get a flat tire. The driver gets one of the people on the shuttle to help change the tire and the jack slips and the guys fingers are crushed between the tire and the shuttle. It's at this point that the driver reveals himself to be a kidnapper and he has taken all the people hostage.

Now the movie gets extremely slow and tedious, as the characters do one lame thing after another. One of the men is killed trying to escape -- even that lacks any suspense. Finally it is revealed that the milquetoast business guy is in cahoots with the driver when milquetoast guy kills the other male friend by slitting his throat.

There are a couple of attempts to escape by the women. Milquetoast is beaten over the head with a tire iron -- yet he survives.

The driver is also beaten and somehow survived a head on collision with a fence at high speed while kneeling next to the steering wheel. Somehow he didn't go through the window or even get seriously injured with a collision with windshield. Yet the woman driving the shuttle is knocked unconscious -- yet she had a steering wheel to protect her and he had nothing between him and the windshield.

He is eventually able to subdue the women and get them to an underground garage that is a front for human trafficking. One of the women is killed. The other one stabs the driver in the leg with a good sized piece of broken mirror and shoots/grazes him in the head, yet he is able (in what should be a severely weakened state -- severe blood loss, two head injuries and a large leg gash) to drag her out of the shuttle, drag her to a large crate, throw her in and get it locked, all the while with her fiercely fighting him.

Now some people admire the message of the movie about human trafficking and how it is going on today. This is a serious problem. But, making an extremely boring movie about the topic does not entitle it to a higher rating.


Hi, today i looked this film because of the medium (5,6) IMDb rating. I thought it would worth viewing. Also the comments here were quiet good but after start watching this movie i quick realize that this movie isn't anyway near a 5,6 ! Its just boring. You can describe the movie with some words also its just the standard horror movie story with all the standard horror movie scenes. I don't know why people still like those films or why they vote such films better then a 1-3 in IMDb. Just some examples

Bunch of people arriving from somewhere or going / driving to anywhere. They meet somehow on their journey strange people but hey maybe they are just nice so hang out with them. Then a very important scene for every horror movie "Oh my cell phone isn't working oh oh mine too .. is that strange but we don't need them so enjoy our ride ..." uhhhhhh our strange person is a strange psychopath better we all sit back and scream a while till he starts cutting parts from us or killing some of us. After a while the bunch of victims get a weapon or chance to escape ofcorse they never think about running away or even kill the psychopath if they got the chance they just talk about what to do until the psychopath got his weapon back with any of the handful of standard tricks they got in those films and all running back as usual ... screaming ... some more to kill ... oh and in the end it gets really exiting sometimes the bad guy wins sometimes some of the victim can escape wow great movies. ... OK if i never ever saw a movie of that kind i would say it is a movie which can be watched but if anyone ever saw any movie of its kind it should be just a boring waste of time because nearly everything in the movie you know before you even watched it because it every time runs like the standard horror movie shematic. .... mmm maybe there is a windows program out there? Horrormoviemaker 2.0 ? You can just pull some adjustment buttons and get the new Shuttle, Saw45674, Jeepers Creepers kind of movie.


I had a hard time sitting through this. Every single twist and turn is predictable. You're sitting there just waiting for it ... waiting for it ... and yes, there it is! Just as you predicted at the very beginning of the movie. Or 10 minutes out. Et cetera.

Smart writing? No.

Torture porn? No, there's no nudity. Other reviews calling this torture porn are most likely written by people on heavy drugs. Unfortunately there's no torture and no nudity (yes, no nudity).

There's no suspense at all in this "thriller". The only good part about this movie is the ending, but I'm not going to spoil that.

I'm giving it a 2/10. A 1/10 would be a horrible B-movie. This movie had better acting.


I respect Mike Hodges, and liked Get Carter immensely for it's bleak outlook, but The Croupier just seems like a particularly dull ITV drama.

The reserved, cold acting isn't just the preserve of the lead character, it's spread to the entire cast, meaning there is nothing to contrast Owen's character with.

None of the characters evoke any kind of feelings at all, except boredom. The ending of the film is also untidy at best.

 The camera work etc is fairly good, but if you want to see Hodges best watch Get Carter, don't bother with this uninteresting, unimaginative trawl through emotions he covered better 20+ years ago


1st watched 2/25/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-George P. Cosmatos): Predictable action thriller where any frequent movie goer could guess what was coming next. Charlie Sheen is the good old boy to the President who just happens to be not liked by the rest of the presidential staff. Of course, he gets involved in a situation where he's framed over and over again and he has one friend in the White House, played by Sutherland, who naturally doesn't stay that way for very long. His other friend is a reporter played by Linda Hamilton(who has very little to do or say in this meaningless role), and of course his biggest and bestest friend is the President himself(Sam Waterston) who stays his pal till the end despite everyone else being killed around him. Brainless yet action-packed meaningless trife despite loads and loads of acting talent(all pretty much wasted.)


After watching this movie, I felt as if I had just eaten a box of stale, chewy cracker jack only to find no prize inside. This movie has real promise: porn stars in a skinemax feature! Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the producers that WE LIKE SOME T&A IN OUR T & A FLICKS!!! Sure, we get a few quick flashes and a couple of "bathing in the creek" scenes. But where's the sex? How can you have four girls, "sorority girls" no less, in this type of movie with only one, pitiful 5 second lesbian scene? Good night, USA Up All Night provides more titillation! Look, we don't watch this type of movie for great cinematography, screenwriting or action. We want to see some kink! What a letdown.


When I typed Savage Intruder into the IMDb's search engine one of the options it came up with was Savage Garden: International Video Collection: The Story so Far (1999), the only reason I mention this is because I'm a huge Savage Garden fan & you should do yourself a favour & check some of their music out like Affirmation or To the Moon and Back rather than bother with this average pot-boiler, sorry I just wanted to say that. Anyway, Savage Intruder starts with a bizarre montage of what looks like MGM musical & premiere footage & a few spinning portraits which have no meaning whatsoever in the long run. It's late 60's Hollywood & amid the glitz & glamour a serial killer is at work selecting ageing actresses, killing them & dismembering their bodies. A young man named Vic Valance (David Garfield as John David Garfield) hops off a tour bus looking for employment when it stops at the house of a now retired actress, Katharine Parker (Miriam Hopkins) who was 'one of the biggest stars of the motion picture' but now lives in a big house with an elderly housekeeper named Mildred (Florence Lake), a personal secretary Leslie Blair (Gale Sondergaard) & a young maid named Geta (Virginia Wing). Katharine has recently broken her foot & needs a personal assistant & gives Vic the job. Slowly Vic charms his way into Katharine's affections & more importantly her large wallet. Vic starts to turn Katharine against the other employees, but Vic isn't what he seems. Vic is a drug addicted loon who gets Greta pregnant while still having sex with Katharine. Greta threatens to tell Katharine & spoil Vic's devious plans but she has a close encounter with an axe, no one in the house is safe as Vic brings drugs, sex, rock 'n' roll party's & gardening to the Parker mansion while his sinister plan starts to become more & more apparent...

Written, produced & directed by Donald Wolfe I thought Savage Intruder was a bit of a mess but a mildly entertaining one at the same time. The script is all over the place & it can't really decide what it wants to be, Savage Intruder suffers from an identity crisis! The film starts with the discovery of a severed head & limbs, straight after another woman (Dorothy Kingston) is killed by a mysterious unidentified figure but then it completely ditches the slasher film elements that it has just built up never going back to them. Savage Intruder then becomes a sort of feel good film as Vic befriends Katharine & shows her how to enjoy life again & having an implied sexual relationship with her, it's actually disgusting to think about as she's old enough to be his Grandmother. Katharine stops living the life of a recluse & gives up the alcohol as Vic appears to make her happy as they go to party's together & hold banquets for Katharine's friend like she used too. This part of Savage Intruder wouldn't look out of place in a Disney film! Every so often the tedium of the feel good stuff is interrupted by Vic shooting up & having silly hallucinations about his Mother (Sybelle Guardino) & chopping her hand off with an axe, he has sex with Great at one point as well. Then, after Greta has been murdered, Savage Intruder becomes a bizarre horror film as Vic is revealed for the loony that he is. Savage Intruder just doesn't flow properly as a film in my opinion as it mixes various genres with little success. Similarly the murder mystery elements don't work & are frankly a bit of a puzzle, why go to great lengths to conceal the killers identity during the murder scenes but then make it perfectly clear who is committing them throughout the rest of the film anyway? Vic as a character didn't work for me either, one moment he's a cool, calm, clever & devious con man & then next he's a stark raving loony! Why kill all his other victims but with Katharine try to con her? What makes her so different? If it is because she has money why not go after her to start with? So many questions & so few answers... Some of the 60's dialogue is pretty funny to listen to these days like when Vic offers Greta a painkiller, in reality hard drugs, & Greta says "what do I need a painkiller for?", Vic helpfully replies "because your a pain" wow this guy knows how to charm the ladies! Or when Katharine suggests that Vic do some gardening & ask's "do you have green fingers?" he replies "no, but I'm good at grass!" There isn't much gore in Savage Intruder, some severed limbs & a couple of decapitated heads. There is also a fairly impressive shot when someone has their hand cut off with an axe which is probably why it's repeated three or four times. The silly looking drug hallucination scenes need to be seen to be believed. Technically Savage Intruder is OK, the location filming in the grandiose mansion & Hollywood hills probably give it a better look than it deserves, the acting is average as is the rest of the production. Overall I'd say Savage Intruder feels like it tries to be a murder mystery that unfortunately gives the killer away & as a result just doesn't work. It's a mildly entertaining one-time-watch at best & a complete mess of a film at worse, you decide which!


It may have been thrilling for an audience in 1946, but the movie is now a bit boring. I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing, and it was very predictable: I mean, we know from the beginning of the movie that Welles is the nazi war criminal, and I'll give you one guess as to whether he is caught and appropriately punished in the end.

Not worth watching. It's sad that Welles only made three movies worth seeing in his long career: Kane, Ambersons, and A Touch of Evil.


Angel-A is a change of pace for Besson; monochrome, mawkish and rather mediocre. It is well photographed on location in Paris, although subtitle-readers should note: quick-fire dialogue AND good cinematography may make for frustrating viewing.

This film is no "Wings of Desire" or "Wonderful Life". Despite its shared themes (heavenly intervention averts suicide, angel/mortal relationships ensue), Besson does nothing to enlighten or inspire us. Even the well acted, teary moments, rapidly descend into toe-curling sentimentality.

The film's flawed ideology irritates; an Angel whose message of love and respect for self is constantly undermined by her own violent and promiscuous behaviour; a "happy ending" which negates the hero's supposed journey from helplessness to self-esteem and independence.

Verdict: Quite nice to look at but confused moral and philosophical messages tarnish the film precisely where it should shine. 4/10


This isn't a dreadful film, merely insipid. The plot is deeply flawed and implausible. It tries to be a number of genres and fails at each. It fails as a comedy, as a suspense thriller and as a horror movie. It almost succeeds as science fiction. The direction is uninspired and Katie Holmes, cute cherub face that she is, should be modeling teen clothing, not acting. The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 out of 10 is Helen Mirren. Her performance is fabulously nefarious and is (almost) worth suffering through the rest of it. Her ability to transmute from imperious to faux sympathetic to deviously manipulate and control her prey shows masterful range. Other than Marissa Coughlin's delightful Exorcist rendition, Mirren is the only reason to see this movie. A solid 3.0.


Going into Teaching Mrs Tingle, all I wanted was a fun, enjoyable teen comedy that would entertain me for it's running time. Despite a rather good first half hour, the film quickly subsides into a dull, clichéd mess that's about as entertaining as pulling out your eyelashes with pliers. Rusty pliers, at that. 'Scream' writer Kevin Williamson wrote and directed this movie, and proved that Scream may well have been a fluke. Most of the elements of this movie have been seen a million times already in other films; and while it was OK for him to steal elements from other movies in Scream, due to the fact that it's meant as a slasher tribute; here, it just looks like he's completely ran out of ideas. The plot follows the cleverest girl in school, played by Katie Holmes. After being caught cheating along with two of her friends; the three decide to take the teacher that caught them hostage in her own home. However, this isn't just any teacher; it's Mrs Tingle, the meanest bitch in school. She isn't taking being tied to the bed lying down either, as she begins to play mind games to turn her captors against each other.

The plot is very similar to the 1997 flick 'Suicide Kings', and a whole host of earlier films. It's actually not a bad idea for a movie, and if Williamson could have populated the film with interesting characters; it could have worked really well. The character of Mrs Tingle is the most interesting in the movie, but she's massively one dimensional, and like all the other characters in the film; is merely a caricature. The acting is largely diabolical, with the exception of Helen Mirren in the title role. She's suitably evil in the role, and while she doesn't have a lot to get her teeth into; she clearly enjoys herself playing the central figure. The teenage cast isn't worth mentioning, with only Katie Holmes standing out; and that's only really because of her star profile, not her acting talents. Williamson has draped nearly every scene in dull soft rock music, which would be really annoying if the film wasn't absolutely terrible anyway. Honestly, this movie does have a few moments that are rather good; but basically, if you want to see a good example of the teen comedy - this isn't the movie that you want to see.


I don't think I'm spoiling anyone's experience of this film by telling you not to see it if you have anything better to do, like clean under the stove. It gets dirty under there and you've gotta clean it sometime.

I think the movie suffers from a lack of sex and violence, though there is one car chase stunt that looks so dangerous it could only have been filmed in a country where life is cheaper than beer. "Gargoyle"'s heart is in the right place, but its aspirations are conservative. It is at least not pretentious. But I had a great time acting in it, playing the perennial idiot in the horror movie who says "What's down this hole?" and dies for his hubris. Plus I got to meet Michael Pare. Every film junkie should work with a B-movie staple at least once before death. And Romanians are the loveliest people I've met. Literally the loveliest. Walk down the street in Bucarest: if 7 of every 10 women aren't absolutely beautiful, you're walking down a street I didn't come across; and be consoled by the fact that at least 5 of the 10 are available for drinks.

Part of the film was shot in Casa Radio, an abandoned, unfinished Classic Communist Bloc-cum-Georgian Nightmare edifice originally intended to house KGB propaganda ministries, i.e. Radio Not-so-Free Europe. The building's five stories tall and takes up a city block; best of all, while its facade radiates Big Brotheresque state solidity, it resides near the city center like a post-apocalyptic ruin in a jungle of burdock and hemp peopled by dozens of Gypsies and scores of wild dogs. Construction on Casa Radio was suspended when Caucescu and his wife were executed on TV in 1989, and still there are gaping holes that drop from the sun-baked top floor (offering surreal vistas of a modern quarter-mile stretch of concrete roof, decorated with jutting rebar and old car parts, overlooking a crumbling ancient city) all the way down to the damp, creepy sub-basement (which doubles in the film for the Gargoyle lair.) No American-style guardrails or warning signs for Bucarest.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, Casa Radio has hosted several non-union film shoots, including "Highlander III". It is attractive to producers because it's a cheap location, massive in terms of scale and available space, bizarre looking, and free of insurance headaches as it's still state property. Plus no one complains if you don't clean up after your production: anything left onsite is interpolated into the resident Gypsies' construction of their shanty town in this actual urban jungle.

An assistant director was bitten bloody by a wild dog during the shoot of "Gargoyle". The apples provided by catering were pressed into service by cast and crew as projectiles in order to keep the prowling dogs at bay. I too was bitten by wild dogs in Bucarest, once in a bar (!) and once in a city park. I also survived two car wrecks in two weeks, both in taxis and neither of which was seen by the drivers involved as grounds for stopping the cars.

GEEK NOTE: The Sci-Fi Network or Channel or whatever was one of the backers of this film (the smaller the budget, the more producers on set), so it's a little weird that nobody had a problem with the original title, "Gargoyles", until it was almost time to show it on the network, even though Sci-Fi already had an unrelated series of that name. The title was changed sometime relatively close to release, as I have a color-corrected copy labeled with the former title.


To this day, Malcolm McLaren is telling anyone daft enough to believe him that the Sex Pistols were his idea and that the band members were his puppets to be used to make him money. There is a good reason for him doing this, namely that he is a liar.

Here are some real facts.

* McLaren was actually approached by the band to be manager, not the other way round.

* The Pistols were a proper, organic band and not created by McLaren or anyone else. Jones and Cook were childhood friends. Rotten and Vicious went back a long way too. This is something that has led to unfair criticism of the Pistols down the years as they have been likened to manufactured boy bands.

* The band and no one else wrote the songs, recorded them, played live, created the publicity and gave the interviews.

* McLaren did not instigate the Bill Grundy incident. The Pistols only appeared on the programme because Queen had pulled out. According to the band, McLaren was cowering in the back in case arrests were about to be made.

* Johnny Rotten walked out of the band. He was not sacked.

* Far from outwitting the Sex Pistols, John Lydon (Rotten) actually successfully sued him in the 1980s for control and a considerable sum of money. Some of the evidence used by Lydon's lawyers was from McLaren's boasting in 'The Great Rock & Roll Swindle'. This would suggest that McLaren is none too bright despite his affectations.

* The sackings and subsequent pay offs from A & M and EMI were, again, not engineered, it was merely the way things panned out.

* McLaren boasts about the money he made from the band. If he had been competent, he could have made a great deal more. It seems he coudn't even organise gigs properly.

* McLaren's claim at the start of the film that he invented punk rock can be disproved in about ten seconds. The Pistols were not the first punk band, merely the most high profile.

This is a terrible film. The only parts worth watching are the genuine footage of the band, later put to much better use in 'The Filth And The Fury'.


The brief existence of The Sex Pistols and the making of this film after the controversial, groundbreaking English punk band's break-up both happened before I was born. However, I started listening to their only album, "Never Mind the B*&%@#&s, Here's the Sex Pistols", in 2003, when I was a teenager, and quickly became a big fan. I didn't see "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle" until 2006, but saw it a couple times that year, and thought it was pretty good (certainly not great, but pretty good), even if I could only remember bits of it, and didn't see how it all connected. Seeing it a third time, nearly three years after the second, I didn't care much for it at all. I'm not even sure what I found so good about most of it in the first place (can't remember now).

This film is a mockumentary, in which Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren tells his side of the story of the band and its members; guitarist Steve Jones, credited here as "The Crook"; drummer Paul Cook, credited as "The Tea-Maker"; bassist Sid Vicious, credited as "The Gimmick"; and John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten) credited as "The Collaborator." McLaren claims that he created the band (and even the genre of punk rock) as a scam to make money. He tells much of the story to Helen Wellington-Lloyd (a.k.a. Helen of Troy), in various places where they go together. It's basically a hodgepodge of McLaren talking, Pistols songs, live footage of the band, fictional scenes (often silly, strange ones), several cartoon sequences, etc., all put together in one film, to tell the Pistols manager's side of the story in a bizarre way!

It has been well proved that McLaren is a liar, I know many have already pointed this out, including band members themselves. He was NOT the driving force of the band, he didn't create them (nor did he invent punk rock, and The Sex Pistols weren't even the first punk band, though they were unique). The band members were the ones who made the band what it was. "The Filth and the Fury", a much more believable film about the band from Julien Temple, who made this film, is told from the point of view of the band members, who contradict McLaren's claims. However, the dishonesty of "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle" is not my biggest problem with it. If it were actually entertaining (which I used to think it was to a certain extent), I would be able to overlook that, like I obviously used to be able to do. During my third viewing, apart from Sex Pistols songs, some live footage, and at least one mildly amusing cartoon sequence, it was pretty dull! I found the "Who Killed Bambi" song mildly amusing at first, but it got tiring very quickly.

Is this mockumentary worth watching for Sex Pistols fans? It seems a good number of fans would say it is, not to learn about the true story of the short-lived but groundbreaking 70's punk band, but for entertainment. That was once my opinion on "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle". After the first time I watched it, I couldn't remember a thing McLaren said, and by the time I saw it the second time, I was aware of what the Pistols manager was using this film to imply, but could still barely remember anything I heard him say! Obviously, other aspects of the film were what I found impressive. Now, after my third viewing, I can definitely remember some of the things McLaren says, but it still wasn't 100% clear. Like most of the film, I guess his words are not that memorable, probably because of the way they're presented. If you're a Pistols fan, I guess it wouldn't hurt to give "Swindle" a try, but to me, for the most part, it's just an incoherent, boring mess that tries to be funny but fails.


Let me state this right from the start. I do NOT hate this show. I actually quite like some aspects of it. In fact, when i first started to watch it, I quickly became hooked. I was just starting to come out of the whole "anime is for kids" stereotype, and the mature elements of the show had me intrigued.

Unfortunately, after seeing the whole series through and a few of the films, I can say that my overall disposition has changed, and it falls into almost all of the pitfalls that plague "bad" anime. Seven or eight friends and myself started watching this series on TV. By the end, only one friend and I were still watching and neither of us liked it.

Allow me to explain the plot for you. You can skip this paragraph if you don't want to know. Kagome is an average high school student, who one day falls into a magical well near her family run shrine. When kagome comes out of the well again, she has been transported back in time to the feudal era of japan. She meets up with many other characters and they form a group of five or so companions who set off on a journey of revenge/justice/groping in one characters case =). Overall, they are trying to recover the pieces of the sacred jewel shard which enhances the power of demons who use it.

While there are many, MANY side stories and story arcs, there is no were near enough material to occupy 167 episodes. The only story arc that is interesting enough to watch is still sort of dull (the band of seven). After the half way mark in the series or maybe even before, it becomes painfully obvious that the plot is frozen in place and whoever made the series decided instead to put in dozens and dozens of filler episodes.

These episodes have little to no impact on the story, and rarely even on the characters. In some cases, some characters who had an important role in the story will disappear for dozens of episodes at a time. Many episodes follow the exact same cookie cutter patterns as the stories before it. Inuyasha shoots wind-scar at enemy. Windscar deflects. Characters gasp in horror. Enemy turns out to have barrier. Characters spent three episodes trying to kill enemy before Kagome finally fires sacred arrow at him and he turns to dust.

Also **MAJOR SPOILER: THE CONCLUSION WILL BE REVEALED** the lack of any conclusion makes it seem like you have waisted 83 hours.

**MAJOR SPOILER OVER**

The animation itself is above average, and in some cases excellent. Even so, reused animation cells plague most action scenes, and it is very hard to ignore them when it is clear that the exact same boulder has flown past a character five or six times in a row.

On the brighter side however, all of the characters are very well developed and the romances between some of the characters were truly captivating. Also, the character designs (appearences) were brilliant and at times among the best I have seen, particularly with the band of seven. There is definitely no shortage of Cosplay opportunities here. Even so, I found myself hoping that a character would die just so there would be some sort of movement in the plot. And some of the humour in the show between characters is used again and again. One particular joke (sit boy) is found within the first five episodes, and you can literally expect it to be used again and again for the remaining 162 episodes.

Although there are some good aspects of the show and it is easy to see why it has a huge following, the series seems to be dominated by obsessed fan girls who drool over Sesshomiru and InuYasha.

Bottom line: Definitely worth checking out, but not worth watching the whole series. The first 30 episodes are very clever, original and enjoyable for anybody. But after that, it simply becomes dull and tedious. Watching a TV show should never feel like a chore, but somehow this series accomplishes just that. Don't expect much from "InuYasha", because you will only feel let down.


Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.

A group of horror-film clichés hold up in a warehouse/lab/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.

I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.

Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.

Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.

Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.

I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.

Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.

4/10


Christopher Lambert attracted me to this movie. What a waste! The plot has more holes than my string vest the special effects were not very good, it did not take much to figure out who the creature's mother was and the creature owed more than a little debt to Predator. Anti-climatical this movie could have been done a whole lot better. It does raise one interesting point however. When is Hollywood going to discover the rich vein of European folklore out there just waiting to be mined?


I am a fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved.


Boring, rank nefarious plot, some of the worst direction I've ever come across, inane acting and horribly clichéd. The movie ends with one of the main characters waking from a dream. WHAT's WITH THAT? Even JR from Dallas couldn't survive that lame twist.

You have what can only be described as an inappropriate relationship developing between a main character and a young girl, which is ostensibly meant to be fatherly, but which comes off as perverse. You have freshman community college movie school special effects with loopholes the size of the Kimberly Hole. This is like Children of the Corn meets Passion of the Christ imposed on an endless loop of government administration training video - by the end of it, if you aren't contemplating ending it, you have no brain.

Don't bother.


my friends and I are always on the lookout for chuck norris films to just bash and make fun of. One of our favorites so far is Lonewolf. i went to a wal-mart Christmas shopping and i came across this movie in the 5.99 bin. i had to get it. i had high hopes for this movie and although being absolutely hilarious at times, we agreed that bells of innocence is the worst movie we've ever seen, made, produced, thought up, etc... who the hell would think this is a good idea. not only is it confusing at times, but the acting is just hard to watch. the man who plays oren has acting i can compare to my own vomit, and chuck took a dive on this one, he's not the greatest actor, but this was terrible. and what kind of names are oren, conrad and jux........ jux. come on people. if you honestly thought this movie was at all watchable, great for you because it was hard for me and i seriously had a headache and stomach pains after watching it. I'm telling you now if you haven't seen this movie, DON'T!!. For the love of god please do not subject yourself to such a horrible 90 minutes of your life.


Nico Mastorakis's banned movie was quite disappointing in my opinion. The movie is about a couple, who go to a Greek island to kill of all perverted people (apparently). You know you got something pretty sick when one of the first scenes include a guy having sex with a goat and then killing it off.

But things only get worse from that point as all scenes pretty much look alike. They meet some people, so they either kill or have sex with them (preferably both).

The ending is OK allright when the couple turn out to be brother and sister and she is just letting him rot somewhere but overall one would have expected more. No substance here I'm afraid.

3/10.


****SOME SPOILERS****

There's nothing in this movie that you haven't already seen browsing the net. Nothing is shocking about this film. In the film a man sodomizes a goat, there's a bulldozer decapitation, and a lesbian's face gets burnt off. All of these scenes of "extreme violence" are so fake, it makes one wonder why anyone would even want to resurface this piece of trash. I simply cannot believe I spent hard earned money on what certainly has to be the worst film ever made. Don't let reviews fool you, this film would be a shame for ANYONE to own...except maybe prisons who want to torture inmates. For a REAL exploitation classic, look to Bloodsucking Freaks or even the more recent Doom Generation. Island of Death sinks to the bottom of the movie toilet and needs to be flushed out of existence.


While the film has one redeeming feature, namely some striking shots e.g. the shot of the sheep hanging from the tree, the scene of the funeral procession on the raft, or the scene of the boats leaving the village (which seemed influenced by the scene when the warships approach in the fantastic "Fellini Satyricon"), these were more photographic than cinematographic, and would have been better appreciated hung on a wall in an art gallery than embedded in a painfully slow-paced film that comes in at a whopping 162 minutes and suffers from terrible dialogue, extremely poor character development, over-acting, uninspired symbolism and heavy stylisation. This is the first film I have seen by Angelopoulos, and his reputation having preceded him, I expected a lot better, but can honestly say that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I won't go out of my way to watch any of the director's other work in the future. The four friends I went to see it with agree.


I guess if you like snow boarding you may get some enjoyment from watching some nice scenery and some nice tricks. but that is all the film has to offer. the story line is non-existent, and any jokes that may have been in the film were not funny, even on a sympathy level. I also disliked the characters, the main actor (Adam Grimes)tried his best, and for a comedy like this that doesn't have to be much, but when surrounded by so many other bad actors he had no hope of making this film good. but i shouldn't be too harsh on them, for all i know they might have great skill, but with a script that i could have written in ten minutes, what ever skills they had were ran and hid for fear of appearing in this film. my advise is don't watch it, i wish i never did!


I am a big fan of British films in general but especially gangster movies. Unfortunately this film was shockingly bad. I think its pretty depressing that this film is getting any good customer reviews. The idea that this film is gritty and realistic is laughable. I have read and heard fist hand quite a lot about the real life events shown in this movie and they have nearly all been glorified with over the top violence etc. The only gritty true to life event in the whole film was the Range Rover murders where some overblown bouncers got rubbed out for messing with people they could not handle. This film is a disgrace to British cinema! It has no plot and no decent acting and just relies on being violent( gritty and realistic as some people like to put it) The sort of people who made this film should not be allowed near a budget or film camera just as the sort of people this film is about should not be given the opportunity to tell this pathetic violent little tale of no consequence.


This was like watching the trailer of a up and coming movie, except that there was no movie coming up. The film is so unsatisfying and obviously unfinished as to be almost laughable. The subject of this film is over a very short time frame and frankly, nothing much actually happens in the 90 odd minutes of screen time. I was hoping for the definitive Australian film about our soldiers in WWII and how they fought against incredible odds in awful conditions.This is most certainly not it.

Having said that, the acting was great and locations authentic. This could easily have been a great movie given a lot more money and time, instead it isn't even mediocre and I cannot recommend it at all.


Could possibly be the worst film ever made. At least plan 9 From Outer Space was funny. I can't believe they talked someone into actually putting up money to make this thing. Complete waste of celluloid. Before I saw this crap I had some respect for Kristophersson. I guess somebody needed a tax write off. Please, in the name of all that which does not suck, stop whoever made this, before they suck again!This movie should be avoided by all people who are not on LSD, or my crazy cousin that insists we're part Native American.If you are in the woods, and an owl starts talking to you, see a psychiatrist. It is not necessary to make a movie about it.


I watched this movie so that you don't have to! I have great respect for Kris Kristofferson, but what was he thinking? He did this for scale?

At least the film's title practices truth in advertising, since people and objects routinely disappear throughout the film, adding to the confusion. Kristofferson mentions this in his commentary that even he wasn't sure if Genevieve Bujold's character really existed. This does not bode well for the viewer being able to follow the story!

The "making of" feature was far more interesting than the movie itself. It explores the difficulty cobbling together funding for an indie, even as the film is being shot.

To it's credit, this movie is visually pleasing and doesn't in any way look like a movie made with just slightly over 1M. Too bad the money wasn't spent on a better project.


Maureen O'Hara is always beautiful and appealing. Here she plays an actress terminally ill. We don't know with what.It is a bit of a precursor to "Love Story" in that respect.

William Bendix is good, as is most of the supporting cast. John Payne is meant to be grieving but he seems to sleepwalking. The girl who plays the child he and O'Hara adopts does her best with a contrived plot device: Of course! Adopt an orphan. She will live on after the passing of your wife. It's a sweet movie but it doesn't feel sincere.I was hoping to be moved. I was, by O'Hara's gentle performance. But I don't like to feel manipulated.


Back in 1995, Barry Sonnenfeld directed a movie that ended up on many critics best of lists by the time the year's recaps were being printed in entertainment publications. The movie was Get Shorty and it gave lead star John Travolta his second big hit in as many years after Pulp Fiction put him back in front of the paparazzi's lenses. Based on a novel by Elmore Leonard, the film focused on wise guy Chili Palmer (Travolta) and his attempts to break into the movie business. I, for one, was completely captured by the diverse characters and crisp dialogue of the original. So much so, that when I heard there was going to be a sequel, I seemed to forgo my usual shivering that occurs when a studio tries to rehash what was a good idea over ten years later. The sequel, also based on a novel by Leonard, is this time directed by F. Gary Gray who's Italian Job in 2003 was one of the years highest grossing films. Couple that with the cast now expanding to include Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Cedric the Entertainer, The Rock, Vince Vaughn and James Woods and you have all the makings of a great continuance in the exploits of one of the more interesting characters of the 1990's. This time round we pick up as Chili (Travolta) is leaving the movie business after being disappointed in both himself and the industry for participating in the making of a sequel to his successful first film. Thanks in small part to his friend, Tommy Athens (Woods) and the misfortune of his death, Chili decides to look into the lucrative and dangerous music industry. This first leads to the famous Viper club where Chili meets singing sensation Linda Moon (Christina Milian) who as lead of an upstart trio, can belt out tunes like Whitney Houston (that is, the Whitney before Bobby Brown started bringing home the small packages of sugar). Linda is under contract with Raji (Vaughn) who, with his overly apparent gay bodyguard Elliot Wilhelm (The Rock), plan to ensure Linda fulfills the final five years of her contract even if that means putting Chili on ice. So with Linda's future in the balance, Chili weaves an interesting web which will include a record producer (Thurman), a gangsta sound mixer (Cedric), the Russian mob, the police, Aerosmith's lead singer Steven Tyler and a whole lot of angry gun pointing. Woo-Wheee! That sounds exciting. So why wasn't it? Be Cool tries too hard to, well, be cool. But the result is a film that unlike the original, has no heart and no soul. Be Cool feels instead like it was directed by a Saturday Night Live producer as there are individual scenes or skits that don't string together over a whole movie. Take for example the scene where Travolta and Thurman dance together for the first time since Pulp Fiction, as Black Eyed Peas performs live in the background. The scene is forced and should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Instead, it is coupled between two other needless chapters that do nothing to push the story forwards with any real thrust. The Aerosmith concert, and The Rock's trip to a boot shop are also prime examples of individual moments that don't amount to much of a movie when put together. But those aren't the only issues with the sequel - which could probably be renamed Product Placement with the amount of 2-Ways and Diet Pepsi's that seem to stare at you more intensely than Chili's serious look. The story contains just about every stereotype imaginable and each one has just enough screen time to become slightly offensive or embarrassing. Whether it is the gangsta entourage or the gay muscle guy that has a movie poster of Sylvester Stallone's Rhinestone on the wall, no characters is above offering us anything we haven't seen many times before and in much better films. With the magic all but gone from the first film, we end up with an inferior product that is the second film in the past six months (Ocean's 13 being the other) that cram a bunch of stars onto a marquee only to end up as a movie that no actor would bring to an open audition. Be Cool was a major disappointment. I so wanted it to be the Get Shorty of the new millennium and I ended up with a film where the outtakes must have been a gas, but experience left me with a stinker.


I'm a fan of Get Shorty. This is the sequel for the movie that needed no sequel.

Chili is back but Rene Russo is gone without a peep. Unfortunately Chili's game was played out in the first movie and rather than find an interesting personal arc for him, they just have him stand around repeating lines from the first movie. It's pretty tepid. Travolta looks old here. It's like they move people around him because his bones are getting creaky. His pink lip gloss and the blue eye contacts are very weird. The 2nd bad role is Edie (played by Uma Thurman). She's a music producer, a role that requires her only to be the female Reuben Kincaid. ("Hey these kids have a great new sound.") In any scene she strikes the wrong pitch motivationally or emotionally or both. It's painful to watch. Despite it's plentiful problems, Be Cool gets better after a very unpromising start.

I certainly got my laughs out of it (Vince Vaughan running around on fire, Cedric the Entertainer, Ludicrous, the Rock, a t-shirt that says "widow" on it), but it offers no great memories after it's over. It's a helium-light love fest from the first frame. There's no one as pricelessly idiotic as Gene Hackman in the first movie. It's just about doing good in the world, for a couple of kids who deserve a chance (Beyonce & the Rock). Ho-hum. The first one wasn't preachy.

Working in (repeatedly) gags & lines from the first movie is annoying as is the dumb concession to the Rock's wrestling fans (he raises his eyebrow twice) as are the droll inside jokes: Steven Tyler saying "I'm not the kind of singer that make appearances in movies" ar ar.

The all-star spectacular line-up is part of the problem. The first movie wasn't burdened by "stars."

For a buck rental let's call it even.


That movie while slightly flawed was entirely entertaining. About half an hour into Be Cool, I started to have Hollywood Homicide flashbacks. But guess what? This is worse. Even the dance number is bad. I like most of the cast in this movie, so that makes me feel bad about writing a negative review of it but I feel obligated. The Rock, Andre 3000, and Vince Vaughn were in a comedy. No one else seemed to decide what movie genre they were acting in. I feel bad for Travolta because he brought the same Chili Palmer from Get Shorty to this movie. He was totally consistent in the role, but this movie is so different from the original that the character sticks out like a sore thumb. I was going to give this movie 4/10 because I like the actors so much but there is a conversation in the movie about a certain song that is so asinine I couldn't believe the performers actually said it. If you want to go to the movies this weekend there should still be some Oscar contenders out there. That would be a much better way to spend your time.


Stupid horror film about five 20 somethings (3 guys, 2 girls) going to this place in the middle of nowhere. What they don't know is Dr. Chopper and his female assistants attack and kill anybody who ventures in their woods. They use their body parts for some experiments...or something. Also five college girls and two lesbians are thrown in to be killed off and show some cleavage.

Pretty desperate. The story is confusing and boring; the gore is laughably fake; Dr. Chopper and his assistants overact TERRIBLY; there's some dreadful black "humor" in here and people just stand around while their friends are being attacked or just stand there and let the people kill them.

This was pretty insulting. There are a few pluses. A twist an hour in was pretty good and the five young actors are actually good! Chase Hoyt is great as Reese; Butch Hansen is OK as Jimmy; Ashley McCarthy is also good as Tamara and Robert Adamson has his moments as Nicholas. Best of all is Chesley Crisp as Jessica--she was excellent! Some of the dramatic scenes between these five were well-acted and interesting. Unfortunately the dialogue wasn't really there for them. I'm giving it a 4 for their performances--but nothing else here is worth mentioning. Hopefully these actors will get roles worthy of them.


surely this film was hacked up by the studio? perhaps not but i feel there were serious flaws in the storytelling that if not attributed to the editing process could only be caused by grievously bad, criminal indeed, writing and directing.

i understand the effect burton wished to achieve with the stylised acting similar to the gothic fairytale atmosphere of edward scissorhands, but here unfortunately it falls flat and achieves no mythical depth of tropes but only the offensive tripe of affectation. ie bad acting and shallow characterisation even for a fairytale.

finally not that scary, indeed only mildly amusing in its attempts. the use of dialogue as a vehicle for plot background was clumsy and unnecessary. the mystery of who is the headless horseman would suffice, no need for the myth about a german mercenary, although christopher walken did cut a dashing figure but not that menacing - seeing the horsemans head makes him seem far friendlier that a decapitated inhuman nine foot tall spirit as in the original legend.

no real rhythm or universal tone was ever established and not a classic in burtons oevure. stilted and clipped as my parting shot...


Several things become apparent after the first few minutes of this film. First, the scenery and special effects are incredible -- the best, and if everything else worked as well, its austere presence might have made it a great film.

But as soon as the actors open their mouths, you suddenly realize that you are sitting in your den watching a movie. The story itself is full of cleché and melodrama, and the dialogue is some of the worst I've ever seen. And as if that weren't bad enough, they made a fool out of the protagonist, and in my experience, you don't want to do that unless the film is a comedy.

Bottom line: I had a hard time getting into it, and I wouldn't recommend it.


The comments already left for this show are way more funny than the show itself and they are all accurate. I feel exactly the same way, that I am very disappointed at how far Rick Mercer has fallen when he used to do some really great things on This Hour Has 22 Minutes but now he is just clowning around, going places and talking to people. He does some bits in the studio about things going on in the news but they are never funny at all, just really sad and predictable jokes about headlines. Most of his show is him going somewhere to talk to people, for example this week he is going to a rodeo and the video pieces are all of him making funny faces and acting scared of the wild horses, etc. He used to be funny but has gotten way less funny since leaving This Hour Has 22 Minutes and that show is also not funny at all any more. Now that Air Farce is off the air (finally thank goodness!) Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes have got to be next in line for the axe, just old tired predictable comedy that almost nobody finds funny any more. It's sad really considering Rick Mercer used to be the funniest man on Canadian TV!


Book of Revelations starts very well. Daniel, an egomaniac dancer is kidnapped, abused and sexually raped by three masked women.

After that, nothing else really happens. There is some hint of rediscovery but the movie gives nor explanation nor a real ending. Daniel reactions after the abuse are very basic. He quits dancing, has sex with every women around and finally starting a relation with very simple and common woman.

I have seen a good share of art-house movies but this has something missing in it.

The main leads are fine; but some characters does not seems to be completely defined.


Let's see: there's a civil war, a lost city, a talking gorilla, some regular gorillas, a previously unknown species of killer albino gorilla, the most powerful laser ever known to man, a *lot* of diamonds lying mined and loose in the sand, attack hippos, an active volcano, and a hot air balloon packed in a suitcase in a downed plane. That's not too much, is it? I've had more coherent fever dreams ("... and then the Romanian guy picked up a bunch of diamonds, because this was a lost city that he had been looking for or something, but then the mean gorillas that we had seen before came out of nowhere and ate him. Now somehow the talking gorilla was back from visiting the regular gorillas, and, as a kind of earthquake or volcano started, the woman industrialist/doctor built a gun using a laser and this big diamond she had just found in her dead fiance's hand..."). It's a blast if you're looking for more ammunition against the pernicious influence of Michael Crichton in American entertainment (and hence world entertainment), and if you keep firmly in mind the extent to which this cynical and half-hearted attempt fell on its face at the boxoffice. But, sadly, the men responsible -- Crichton, sceenwriter John Patrick Shanley, director Frank Marshall -- probably never lost a dime. Shame on them, and I mean that. 1/10


This is one of Crichton's best books. The characters of Karen Ross, Peter Elliot, Munro, and Amy are beautifully developed and their interactions are exciting, complex, and fast-paced throughout this impressive novel.

And about 99.8 percent of that got lost in the film. Seriously, the screenplay AND the directing were horrendous and clearly done by people who could not fathom what was good about the novel. I can't fault the actors because frankly, they never had a chance to make this turkey live up to Crichton's original work. I know good novels, especially those with a science fiction edge, are hard to bring to the screen in a way that lives up to the original. But this may be the absolute worst disparity in quality between novel and screen adaptation ever. The book is really, really good. The movie is just dreadful.


Oh My God, this is so idiotic. Completely pointless, offensive, and repulsive. Why do the writers have such a problem with actually getting Zoey and Chase together we all want them too! in normal shows, there's actually MORE THAN ONE plot conflict in the show, wow, what a concept. also, you cant even tell the Zoey 101 episodes apart from each other because the same thing happens every time. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. Quinn exploits Dustin for some weird thing, Nicole is giggly and stupid, Zoey is just kinda there, Chase slobbers after her all the time but she amazingly fails to notice, and Logan is a jerk. repeat. it's like a shampoo bottle. and the end of the movie, omg again. so pointless NOTHING HAPPENS. it's like they specifically designed it so that the movie could fit between any two episodes of the show and the show would go completely unchanged after the movie plot.


I can't say I was surprised at this atrocity when I watched it a couple months or weeks ago (can't remember). I saw it as a two part episode of Zoey 101, because that's how they showed it here in Canada.

I was incredibly annoyed at the Makeover a Nerd thing, it's just an example of how unaccepting, unappreciating, superficial, negative, biased, and stereotypical the people in the entertainment business is and frankly I'm extremely peeved. It wasn't at all funny. A nerd is a stereotype and it makes people very offended.

Secondly, the people in Zoey 101 don't have real problems. Logan has a big house, he has a famous dad, he has everything and Zoey is rich too. They never have to deal with the things that today's tweens and teens have to do deal with such as peer pressure, and stereotype problems. Also, the actors are horrific. Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't deserve to be in a television show as successful as Zoey 101 (what is wrong with the world?), she doesn't have any talent as an actor. In fact, she's worse than Britney! The Chase and Zoey thing was incredibly predictable, I mean how could the show go on with Zoey and Chase dating? What other problems could they possibly have? Except for the fact that Chase doesn't get the girl he wants, everything is perfect! The absolute worse 48 minutes of my television watching life. Ever. 0/10 (and that's being generous)


To be honest, the movie was SO HORRIBLE that I loved it. Never in my life have a seen such a TERRIBLE movie. I was in shock. I mean, i don't even know what to say.

The characters couldn't even keep their own guns, one minute a guy had an M16 and his friend had an MP5, then in the next scene they switched guns. (Don't ask, trust me I know my guns)And i will never understand how they got from a place that looked like Vietnam, to an Arizona highway, to my backyard, and then to a chemical plant in California, that is what i took from it.

Why would you be afraid of a guy in a Halloween mask wearing a trash bag for a cape and shot plastic arrows at you? How is that frightening? I wanted to swallow arsenic halfway through the movie. I love how the "skeleton man" randomly decided to go on a killing spree at that particular day. But hey, whoever made this movie should be shot in the knees and fed to a mound of fire ants.

Good day.


My wife and I enjoy bad science fiction movies. Some movies are so bad they are good. Mansquito was one of those. That one was bad but it had some redeeming qualities. It makes you wonder how a self respecting actor approaches lines like "Hey! Mansquito!"

This one is so bad it has now taken its place as our standard for bad. It isn't just a bad movie, it really stinks. There was the coed strike force, the "Indian" that rode around in a black cloak and used a SWORD for crying out loud. He shot down a helicopter with an arrow!!

We tried to laugh at this movie but there were no points at which it didn't rise above pitiful. We couldn't come up with any redeeming features except for one. Those were the words "The End"

There seemed to be no plot, no character development, and no point to the movie. Someone in Hollywood needs to be fired.


The scientist Charles and his wife (or assistant) Marissa receive some objects and a skull from an ancient Indian cemetery, and while cleaning a vase, they are attacked and murdered by a mysterious being, the Skeleton Man. Then, a military squad commanded by Captain Leary (Michael Rooker) seeks out two groups of four soldiers each that vanished in the jungle. They face the Skeleton Man, shooting him while he kills each soldier. Then the Skeleton Man goes to a power plant, and Captain Leary explodes the facility destroying the supernatural being.

I bought "Skeleton Man" on DVD expecting to see a funny trash, but I found an awfully boring, annoying and senseless crap, with shoots and explosions. The imbecile story is totally disconnected and does not make any sense, and the military team is composed of imbeciles, insisting in shooting the supernatural Skeleton Man until they are totally slaughtered. Their leader is also the most stupid, with the blow-up of an entire facility in the end to destroy the supernatural rip-off of the extraterrestrial warrior Predator. On DVD, it is possible to use the fast forward button along the movie and reduce the suffering of the viewer. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Skeleton Man"


This may contain ***SPOILERS***

Where to start on this particular empty wasteland? Well it would have been nice if they actually had a plot. Acting talent, decent dialog, suspense, humor, hey even gratuitous sex would have helped this flick. Unfortunately there was only a lot of gore, (even that wasn't done well), shooting automatic weapons and missing.

There seemed to be no reason to attach the basic premise, a Native American cursed to protect the bodies of the tribe he murdered, with his being tracked down by a Federal Special Ops team who dressed in civvies(?). Most of the time involved violating one of the basic rules of conduct in a Horror movie, separating from the group so you can be picked off one by one. You'd think this team would know better, especially because they are actually the third team sent to investigate, the other two teams disappearing without a trace. When they finally realize they're being picked off they make one of several stands and fire their weapons only to hit the trees a whole lot. Tree shot scene repeats endlessly in this movie to save money.

When they're not shooting trees they're tracking this spirit who leaves no trail, (who knows how they're tracking it), and spouting a lot of macho BS. By the way, did I mention that most of this team are women? Interesting listening to them talk tough. Not very entertaining, but interesting.

All in all, You can find better movies in the bargain bin at Kmart.


I hadn't heard of Soap Girl but I saw a poster with a five star review from Film Threat outside the theater so I figured, how bad could it be? Well, I soon found out. My god this film was awful. The most wooden acting I have ever seen outside of a porn flick. Absolutely agonizing dialogue. I just can't understand how this was made and why anyone agreed to be a part of it. And I find it completely unfathomable that this was actually being shown in a theater and money was being charged to see it. How did this happen????? And most importantly WHAT THE WAS THE GUY FROM FILM THREAT THINKING?!?!?!?!


The director has no clue. I know ... That is the obvious comment. Maybe, we should delve into the story ... the relationships ... how about the quality of the actors?

The story is ... well, idiotic would be a simple yet honest answer.

The actors are ... they tried very hard. Can they be faulted for the director's choices?

All I can say is ...

Why was this made?

Well, isn't this an embarrassment to the Korean-American film industry?

Should we be selective about who we support?

Am I being too harsh? Check it out for yourself.


I am a pretty much a sucker for those Ghost Hunter shows. From the Cheesy mockumentaries like Discovery Channel's "The Haunting" to Scooby Doo Reality shows like "Ghost Hunters". When I saw promos for A&E's "Paranormal State" I knew I was going to watch. Especially when "Paranormal State" was juxtaposed against a weak Monday Night Football game.

By the end of the pilot of "Paranormal State" when the main "character" in this reality dance macabre gives a Creepy Kid a bottle of Max Von Sydow Holy Water and reassures him by telling this boy that he, too, had a unspecified bad experience as a child with things that "came out of the closet" and the (Catholic) Church gave him a Holy Water to fend off the Things Coming Out of the Closet I knew I should have given Monday Night Football another shot.

The shtick behind "Paranormal State" is a group of Penn State students all got together and started their own Ghost Hunting club. Or Society. Or Super Adventure Club. And they run around Pennsylvania researching the most terrible hauntings and the lost plot to an M. Night Shymalan Movie.

The "They" is kind of a misnomer. Really Paranormal State revolves around a Nittany Lion named Ryan Buell who would probably be running Penn State's yearly Anime Convention if it wasn't for this show. He is often accompanied on "investigations" by hot co-eds and some other people seen in the credits but rarely caught on camera. Hey, are they ghosts too?

This is Ryan Buell's show. Paranormal State is his "vehicle" as we like to say in the Biz. And, oh, what a dull ride in a vehicle he can be.

Did I mention Ryan narrates the entire episode of Paranormal State in a star date-less "director's log" voice over? Almost immediately that gets annoying because the obvious intention is to give Ryan's ghost hunting some gravitas, but his filtered monotone does nothing but provoke grunts and laughs. Seriously, every serious intonation sounds like the radio chatter from a Call of Duty video game.

The "investigations" -- the plot that each episode revolves around -- are interesting on the surface. No haunted Inns or Restaurants to be found in "Paranormal State". This is a show about fearing the unknown like a good Catholic Boy and by god they give you stuff to fear.

Small children are harassed, things loom in the dark, voices encourage the living to kill, and the Aleister Crowely in me rubs my hands. Of the two episodes I watched each revolved around violent, nasty hauntings tied to violent, nasty deaths.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Everything in "Paranormal State" is short-handed into half hour, "Dog the Bounty -- er, Ghost Hunter" blocks. Every time there is an interesting, verifiable shred of evidence -- the murder of a family in a farmhouse in the 1800s -- the proof is waved in front of the viewer like a con artist trying to convince you a stack of papers currently under your nose is proof of that ten million coming from Nigeria and then yanked away before you can get a good gander.

At least with Sci-Fi Channel's "Ghost Hunters" there is a somewhat over-exhaustive need to trot out every possible shred of evidence and present it to the viewer. EVPs that could be a rat farting, cold spots in a drafty house, and "orbs" that even the Ghost Hunters themselves discount as dust. It is a sort of Scooby Doo like approach that makes "Ghost Hunters" ... almost believable.

Whereas "Paranormal State" claims to have EVPs but gives the viewer a ten second video clip of a wave file in Garage Band with no audio. Yep, see, an EVP, right? People are claiming to see dark figures in the basement... Well, we will just go and see about that... while leaving the night vision camera on an enthralling stationary shot of the living room. Ryan, the intrepid leader of this pack of Penn State Graduates, is claiming to see "visions" of a demon's name he knows and that might be involved in a paranormal haunting... But he can't tell us, the audience, or his team of gothed out undergrads, because... He can't. You never say a demon's name out loud, Ryan informs the wide eyed Co-Ed who dare inquires.

Well, how very very convenient for you. Especially since this is a Television Show where the audience cannot read your mind.

"Paranormal State" is all Turn and no Prestige. The audience gets told what is supposedly happening but you never see an ounce of proof that the creepy kid is seeing Dead People. Not even grainy video of a chair moving, or a black blob running between prison cells. Nothing. You are just told what happened by Ryan in yet another mechanical voice over.

If you are going to try and spook me dress it up a little. If you are trying to sway me, show me a orb or a blob and have the fat chick who works days at Hot Topic tell me why that black orb is really the spirit of an ax murderer. And if you want to make me watch a ghost hunting show give me something besides trotting out Lorraine Warren by the second episode.

"Paranormal State" is weak sauce. Not really worth watching unless you are hard up for TV time, or just have that thin of a DVD collection. Or unless you want to know what really happened in that closet with the Holy Water.


Another film to punish us for the crime of enjoying "Pulp Fiction."

If you like watching people get killed by machine gun fire for an hour and a half, this'll probably fit the bill. Fans of the debut episode of "Aeon Flux," wherein the title character slays literally thousands of seemingly faceless soldiers single-handedly, will really go for it.

Otherwise, it's not exactly a clever movie. In fact, all it is is an excuse for a bunch of young people to act rude and shoot people. Sometimes an entire scene goes by, and the only thing that happens is, you guessed it! someone gets shot. Or, to spice things up, twenty people get shot. First, they're just sitting there, the next minute, they're sitting there dead. Yahoo!

Rough plot: A young American goes to Paris (An American in Paris, get it?), hires a prostitute (the ethereal Julie Delpy), gets in touch with some old French buddies, one of which has AIDS, they plan and attempt a bank heist. Of course, movie convention states that no bank robberies on film go off w/o a hitch, and this hitch takes up about three-quarters of the running time (it's like "Dog Day Afternoon" without the Sidney Lumet's wit, patience, or humanity). While at the bank, things go wrong (surprise!), and the Parisian with AIDS, goes wacko with his Uzi several HUNDRED times. No spoilers here, but suffice to say that you're at such an emotional distance from these characters that it's not likely you'll care who lives and who dies by the end of the film.

Some have called it stylish. Perhaps it is, but it's someone else's style, it's a movie that's already been done, and "Killing Zoe" is trapped by convention. Nowhere in the course of the movie does the director (Roger Avary, co-winner of the "Pulp Fiction" screenplay Oscar) do anything really original, stylish, funky, or outrageous. Unless you consider the fact that no movie that has taken place inside a bank has had such a high body count, there isn't anything else to set this one apart from the multitude.


Simply put this movies is without any substance whatsoever. Just take my word for it and save yourself the time it is a complete DUD!! I would say the characters are one dimensional but that would imply there was some sort of character development. I thought Eric Roberts was going to jump out any second it was so close to B-Movie status.

The girl from That 70's is beautiful...but unless you are a stalker type fan of hers this movie has nothing for anyone.

Avoid..Avoid...Avoid

This movie was straight to DVD for a reason...that being...it is a train wreck!!!


This movie was really bad. I mean really really bad. The scenes were like from a parody and special effect sucked a lot. And it was filmed in 2003!!! i think this was a great waste of time and money and Michael Shanks with his 'Shaggy from Scooby Doo' image just made me laugh. Never waste your time with this picture... I really don't know what the director was thinking after seeing the final cut of this movie but the fights were so unrealistic that it hurt my eyes to look on them. The 'latex cat women' fighters were like sheep just rolling around the scenes and looking frightened around like they had no clue what to do on the scene... I think this is a beautiful example of Bottom 100 picture.


1st watched 2/9/2008, 4 out of 10(Dir-J.S. Cardone): Sexual political thriller that doesn't really succeed in any of these areas very well except early on where there are some interesting soft-core scenes. The movie starts off portraying a couple exploring their sexual fantasies amidst their work environments or wherever and whatever suits their fancy. The couple takes an excursion to a retreat and bathhouse where they run into a woman that's willing to be a part of a three-some and fulfill some of their fantasies. At this point, we only know that this couple is well off but we don't know until they return that the fiancé is part of a well-to-do political family. The man hopes to be on the rise to the point of possibly getting a congressional seat after the marriage. They then receive a package in the mail from an anonymous source with explicit pictures of their encounter at the bath house and their qwest begins as to how and why they were filmed, who sent the package, what they want, and how to clear their names before any of this gets out. This qwest becomes an obsession that leads them deeper into seedier worlds and takes a lot of their time, to the point where their friends & family wonder what they're doing all day and why they look rundown all the time. This movie is interesting at times but drifts into ridiculousness as they personally seek out the problem instead of getting the police involved early on because of their pride. This mistake, of course, keeps the movie going. The performances are fine despite the no-name cast but the lunacy of the situation overrides and the movie starts to become ho-hum about ½ the way through. And of course, they throw in a twist at the end that defies and challenges everything that happened prior(as is the norm these days when they don't know what else to do to spice up the movie). This doesn't help this movie one bit, though.


First off, the first thing that came to my mind after I finished this film last night was "Why the title of 8MM 2?", because I saw the first one obviously, and what did this have to do with the first movie's plot? The only thing that was similar was the fact that the couple had to go into the porno industry and that wasn't even needed in the plot, because after you see the ending that I will not spoil, it just didn't make any sense.

A diplomat and his fiancée are in Hungary and notice a woman who is swimming naked in the pool area, she's very attractive, so when they see her at a club, they decide to have a little fun and have a steamy threesome. But things get extremely intense when the diplomat is mailed pictures of them all having the affair, fearing that it might go public and jeopardize his career, they pay off the guy who sent the pictures, the diplomat freaks out and "kills" the guy, leading into a murder case. He and his fiacee decide to find the girl they had the affair with, but things just get deeper and darker as they go further into what they got themselves into.

What could have been an alright thriller, turned into an unexplained and not well thought out movie, which was sad. Like I said, the title really has nothing to do with the first one, so don't fall for it. It's just a sexual thriller that makes no sense, but it's good for those nights alone, because quite frankly this is one of those films where it's so close to porn that it might as well be labeled as soft core.

4/10


Well, this stripped my nerves raw, they got that right. I first rented this movie back in the 80's, when my friend opened a video store that carried every rare movie he could find. He also carried all the shock, horror, and exploitation movies he could dig up, and I went through almost of all them. Previously I had seen Blood Feast and 2000 Maniacs, and the Wizard of Gore. They were gruesome (especially for the time period), and the Wizard of Gore got pretty nasty. The Gore-Gore Girls, however, was the one I remember as being the most disgustingly gory.

I rented it on DVD a little while ago because I wanted to hear the commentary, and thought it might have some cool dancing and clothes. I forgot that it was made in the early 70's, so fashion had kind of gone downhill by then. I also realized this was a movie I didn't really need to see more than once. It had amusing parts, but gaaaah! It was much more disgusting than I remembered. I'm very jaded to movie gore but a couple of times I just got too grossed out and had to look away. This wasn't a good choice of movie to put on DVD all crisp and cleaned up with better sound and picture quality. The commentary is amusing in parts, and interesting (I think HG said the budget was $6100.00) Maybe HG Lewis wasn't feeling well that day, but he sounded tired overall and also had the nerve to get offended when the interviewer from Something Wild compared him to Ed Wood Jr. Sorry pal, but you're not exactly Martin Scorsese yourself.

The extremely thin plot is about a series of murders of topless go-go dancers in strip clubs. A cute reporter and a really unattractive private detective team up (sort of-he can't seem to stand her) to try to solve the crimes. Henny Youngman owns a strip club. A bunch of really ugly murders happen.

I'm going to apologize in advance because I don't want to sound like I need to lighten up, but this movie was so misogynistic it p***ed me off more than "Company of Men". Mainly because the main character's and the director's extreme dislike for females- and the audience- just oozes from every frame. It's not just the murders. The highly unattractive detective goes out of his way to treat the female reporter like dog dirt at every opportunity, for no apparent reason, (he's not exactly a threat to George Clooney, like I said) and she still follows him around like a puppy. She faints upon seeing a horribly mutilated body and he looks distastefully at her, then pours cold soda from a can onto her face to wake her up. Later he calls the police to report the crime- "No...no hurry...she just seems to have...lost face." This guy is THE HERO. You can imagine how the other characters feel about women. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Please note that I am making this movie sound much more politically correct (and much more fun) than it actually is.

Most of the cast are the type of actors you pray will never take their clothes off- not too easy on the eyes, so don't watch the movie just to see the nudity unless you're not too picky. The go-go dancers all look like they desperately want to have the scene end so they can get their $10 or whatever the going rate HG paid them was and get their drug fix. OK, it's not quite that bad, there was one dancer that looked like she might have been a pro and also one other cool dancer with a huge afro that didn't look as miserable as the rest, but still not too thrilled. The only slightly entertaining things were a couple moments of brief unintentional humor, such as when a policemen in charge at a murder scene angrily yells "Get outta here before I have you all arrested!" not to a bunch of reporters but to some other policeman calmly going about their work (they mutter and stroll off, though). Henny Youngman is kind of funny though, like Lewis says, he said his lines so fast that they almost needed subtitles (I'm sure he was trying to get the whole day over in a hurry so he could get paid and get the hell out of there, though he doesn't look like he minded watching some naked chicks).

Might be worth seeing just out of morbid curiosity- for the era the movie was made, it was probably the most gruesome thing on film at the time- or if you're really big HG Lewis fan and find him or low-budget film-making by anyone fascinating. Otherwise, if you've seen it once, you've seen it and can move on to other disgusting but much more entertaining low-budget movies from the early 70's...this movie doesn't even come close to, say, "Pink Flamingos" when it comes to the skip-the-popcorn factor. If you've never seen an HG Lewis movie, I recommend you try "Blood Feast" first instead, you'll have a much better time.


...but memorable because it includes an actor I actually recognize! James Horan is, by these types of movies' standards, Lawrence Olivier. He's given some decent performances on stuff like Highlander and various Star Treks, so it's kind of amusing, if mildly depressing, watching him degrade himself here. Okay, yeah, there's a plot. Horan's character and his wife are fighting, he's having an affair with a movie reviewer while trying to do his "masterpiece" film, and their guest decides to enjoy the wonders of stripping. But watching Horan is really the only enjoyment to be found here.


I've been trying to remember the name of this movie for years (not consecutively, of course). I saw it at the local dollar theater when I was 11, and it was so atrocious I almost walked out; I think I didn't realize one was allowed to leave before the movie ended. Anyway, it stuck in my mind as just about the worst movie I saw growing up. I can finally give it the rating it deserves.

1/10 (that was strangely satisfying)


Generally speaking, I'm a an admirer of Jess Franco's film-making but, for some of this movies, I really have difficulties understanding the motivation behind them or even their reason of existence. Like this sick puppy, for example. "Sadomania" has absolutely no cinematic value, it's poorly made without any sort of plot and featuring some of the most ill-natured sleaze footage ever captured on film. This is another filthy women-in-prison film where rape, lesbian-action and violent torture games are daily routine. The guards are crazier than the prisoners and the institution is protected by an impotent governor who only gets sexually aroused when he spots a girl having sex with a dog (!). The girls are all very beautiful and naked throughout the entire film, yet you can't really enjoy this sight with all the perversion going on. The dubious highlights include a barbaric hunting game (you can guess what he prey is), a duel-to-death between a guard and a prisoner and the image of a poor girl having a needle injected all the way through her nipple. Auch! Avoid this sick mess and you'll save yourself the trouble of taking TWO baths in order to wash the filth off.


Hercules wound up falling into the same category as many promising television productions that could have been a really great classic, only to become a sad joke.

I really like Kevin Sorbo and his supporting cast, but I didn't care for the direction the show took since their movie equivalents either. I believe the show would have had a much more successful run if they had kept the same format they did for the movies.

I watched in the beginning and lost interest along the way. I did encounter the odd episode afterwards, but my attention span towards it was lucky to make it to commercial break.


Well, now that all of the director/ productions company's friends and relations have posted their shill reviews after seeing this at various festivals, I guess it's time to show reviews written by people who actually paid 10 bucks to see it.

Like the director's "Dear Jesse" (the only other one of his films I have seen), "Loggerheads" suffers from a lack of focus and too many ideas crammed into an indie budget. I swear, this guy might have better luck doing miniseries. I kept waiting for the various plot threads to come together, but they only intercepted at points blatantly forshadowed in a way obvious to all but the most dense viewer. It was like watching a season of Lifetime made-for-TV movies crammed into one, long (did I say LOOONG) sketch on the old "Carol Burnett" show. Maybe an enterprising male suitor could take his girlfriend to see this and then exclaim "Hey...remember all of the chick flicks we went to last year...the one about the adoptive mother...the one about the gay guy...the one about the Christian housewife. We went to THREE Chick Flicks last year; so now we have to go see Terminator 4!" I guess one has to do anything to cast a familiar actor to get funding, but what oh what is Bonnie Hunt doing in this flick? She isn't exactly known as a dramatic actress, and this attempted "performance" won't be sending Mr. Oscar to her door. I mean (speaking of Lifetime Original Movies), wasn't Valerie Bertinelli or Farah Fawcett available? Ms. Hunt has always come off to me as cold, maybe she should have played the other mom? I wish I would have chosen "Capote" to fill my weekly Gay-themed Indie Allowance..oh well, maybe next week. I think there is a good reason why Capote is playing at tons of theatres all over the NYC area and this one is playing at only one; let the distributors faith in this flick assure to to run in the opposite direction if you don't trust this review!