I saw the preview in Femalien and thought it could be a cool film. Turns out, it is an awful garbage. There isn't much nudity in the film, not to mention not having much sex either. There were just some dumb and corny dialogues along with some noninteresting dancing you usually expect to see during audition. In our case, you may even see it in the actual films. Conclusion: I ain't got none for it. Just leave it alone.


When a BBC murder thriller is this rife with heterosexual dysfunction, you know who the killer must be: The Homosexual.

Who murdered the sexy blonde teenager (who's also a pathological liar) on her way home from school? Let's see, could it be the mother who (against all common sense) is letting her teenaged son make unchaperoned visits to his serial-killer father behind bars? Could it be the moody son, who's impressed by his dad's no-nonsense attitude about women? Could it be the serial killer himself, who seems able to manipulate events from behind bars, a la Hannibal Lecter? Could it be mom's boyfriend, a teacher at the school whose affair with an ex-student led to his wife's suicide? Or could it be boyfriend's daughter, who goes blabbing everyone's secrets at school, causing untold misery? No, it's none of these likely suspects. It's...The Homosexual!

The only mystery for the viewer is guessing who The Homosexual is. Of course, it could be anybody, since the only characteristics of The Homosexual are shameful secrecy and a propensity to murder and otherwise make life complicated for the "normal" folks. The Homosexual is the invisible root cause of society's ills; only when this person is exposed and eliminated can the fractured family come back together, and things can return to normal...whatever that is.

As for the cast, both Jemma Redgrave and Robson Green are now officially past their sell-by dates. The world could get by marvelously without ever seeing either on screen again, but as long as the BBC has roles for The Aggrieved Woman and The Misunderstood Man, I suppose they'll keep coming back in movies like this one.


I couldn't wait for the end. This is absolutely the worst film I have ever seen. If you thought that just about anyone could make a watchable movie, these folks prove that there is a minimum skill set required. This is a film with no redeeming features whatsoever. It scores a zero in every department. This is more than just 'amateur' as the audience is given no consideration or regard at all. There is no serious attempt to act or entertain. The storyline is aimless, pointless and senseless. The cast look very uncomfortable and completely lack direction. The technical aspects of the film are poor.

As a DVD it makes a good drinks coaster.


Why this worthless piece of French cinema has garnered any sort of attention, other than negative, is beyond me.

Don't bother renting this one. It shouldn't have even come into this country.


This movie had a very convoluted plot and very contrived setting, that I, frankly, could not follow, which is surprising considering the acting and dialogue could have only been the product of a kindergartener's writing. If you like Kathy Ireland, then maybe you'd want to see this. The movie was probably made as a vehicle to try to get her into Hollywood, but if that was its goal I would have to say that I hope she didn't invest too much money in its production.


Back in the 1960's, those of us who were bad movie aficionados thought that "Plan Nine From Outer Space" was the worst movie ever made, and would remain so for all time. To put things in perspective, though, we also thought that $3,000 was a lot to pay for a new car.

As we grew older, our innocence was gradually stripped away as we were exposed to movies like "Hercules in New York" and "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank," which completely redefined the "bad movie" genre. In this context, last night, my son and I saw "Alien From L.A.," which pushed the envelope to an extreme unimaginable just a generation ago. To call this movie "bad" (or wretched or execrable) completely fails to do it justice, as does any other label existent in the English language. Even if there were words with which to accurately describe this movie, it would be of no consequence, since they would be banned in civilized society.

The Alien referred to in the title is played by Kathy Ireland, who apparently took some time off from modeling swimsuits for Sports Illustrated, to kick off her cinematic career. Her casting might seem some sort of recommendation, until you actually see the movie. The makeup artists earned their money by making Kathy look so drab and unappetizing you would not want to touch her with the far end of a broomstick -- no mean feat. To put it bluntly, in this movie she has a face that would freeze Medusa. Even worse than her look, though, was her voice, which was so raucous that I initially failed to credit it as originating with a human being. Throughout the movie, I found myself longing for a chalkboard to drag my nails across to cover the screechy twang of her dialog. At the end of the movie, Kathy finally gets a makeover and finds herself in her beloved swimsuit. I suggested to my son that the movie would have been better if they had put her in the swimsuit at the beginning of the movie, so at least we would have had something to watch. My son perceptively pointed out that if they had then removed the swimsuit and stuffed it into her mouth, it would have considerably improved the movie on two counts. I defer to the plain brilliance of his observation. If you have any doubts, compare this dreck to "Barbarella," in which a competent filmmaker shows how to exploit the assets of an ethereally beautiful leading lady in the fantasy genre.

Of the plot, itself, there is little on which to comment, since there was so little in evidence. It is said that if a million monkeys typed unceasingly for millions of years, eventually one would come up with "Hamlet." By the process of elimination, the rest of the time they would come up with something approximating this screenplay. Imagine, if you will, a modern-day Alice falling into a hole and dropping 500 feet onto a rock slab, following which she gets up, dusts herself off, and starts looking for her long-lost father in the city-kingdom of Atlantis. Once in Atlantis, she spends most of her time running, fighting, or climbing stairs and ladders, and basically trying to keep out of the hands of a general who seems to have no soldiers to do his bidding, and who would make Tiny Tim look macho. This summation, as abbreviated as it appears, is probably longer than the shooting script.

On the plus side, as you revel in the production values and take in whatever you can of the sets and costumes through the smoke and haze, you realize that this is one movie in which you can actually see on the screen where all $20 of the budget went.

The thought that kept going through my mind was that filmmakers ought not be given access to drugs and alcohol while they are shooting a movie, or perhaps prior, if it leads to results like "Alien from L.A.," though in fairness I have to acknowledge that I don't know whether they were actually involved in substance abuse, or were simply brain dead at the outset of the project.


Because they all just watch there MST3K with their artificial friends who make (mostly) not that funny and obvious comments about movies. And that's the only way these people watch them and then they comment and down-vote them on the IMDb based just on that, they don't even try to watch the film on it's own.

I watched this film on it's own, I didn't read the reviews first, I didn't have some people telling what to laugh at, I just got the DVD (bought for the flip side Morons From Outer Space, an old fave) and watched it.

Of cause I knew kind of what I was in for when it's a Golan Globus, Albert Pyun film, but usually they can be quite entertaining.

The film is a non too stressing on the brain Alice down the Rabbit-hole story done so many times, and kind of similar in basic structure (but completely different in content) to Warlords of Atlantis, another entertaining B-Movie.

The voice, was annoying, but then that's the idea, which they even poke at with a few lines in the movie.

The hero character had one of the worst over-the top voices/accents in English language film history, but you grow to accept it and enjoy it.

It's not a good film, but it's not a really bad film, it's just a bit of an average B-Movie DTV kind of film, nothing too new nothing too outstanding, and probably would be enjoyed more by a younger age bracket (say 7-14 year olds) than I. It's a bit of light-hearted Fantasy.

Will I see it again, probably not maybe about 10 years ago I would have.

Don't be so harsh on a movie because a couple of puppets told you too, this film isn't taking itself seriously and it's certainly no Troll 2 or Space Mutiny.


Impressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"?

I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.

"Hero" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??

No, thanks.

But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!

Viva


I'm sorry, but they did leave the impression that these commandos fought zombies before. But they sure didn't act like they even seen a zombie before. Jumping and turning their backs on them like amateurs. Second, the characters are pretty badly written. The actors did the best they could with what was given, I blame bad writing and bad directing. Lastly and here is where the spoiler warnings are highest. They loose the sample twice and the girl Jennifer Holland doesn't know if she's been bit or not. How stupid is that? As much as it hurts to be bitten, one would think you would know, plus gallons of blood leaking from your body is a good clue. Dumb, the first movie had it's flaws but it has re-watchablity, unlike this disaster of a movie, which I could barely get through once. I give the HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: NO GUTS, ALL STUPIDITY THE CRAP-O-LANTERN


When one of the stars of a movie is named Sticky Fingaz, you should know enough to stay away. Stay away. HOUSE 2 is just more of the same, this time with zombies overrunning a college campus (man, how that must have saved on money). As usual, the "zombies" are given no direction so speak of, and provided very little makeup or costuming. They look like the zombies in one of those endless Italian zombie cheapies from years ago. Which is to say, they don't look like the kind of zombies we know and love from George Romero and Dan O'Bannon zombie flicks. The folks battling the zombies are all nonactors who get to shoot guns and do little else. Some who have written here feel the sequel is slightly more focused than the original. All I have to say is I'm glad the sequel's director did away with the 360-degree pan shots that helped to ruin the first movie. HOUSE 2 is still just more of the same, which means a lot of nothing happens for 80 or 90 minutes. There is one set piece, involving soldiers tussling with a zombie football team, that might at least have been funny. It's not.


I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.


This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.

This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.

First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.

So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.

After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.


There is nothing good to say about this movie. Read Revolution For the Hell of It or any of his other writings. Abbie was often dismissed as the clown-prince of the '60's, but he was a man of ideas who used his cleverness, his sense of humor and pop culture, and his flamboyant personality to get attention to his ideas. The media too often concentrated on the man, not the ideas, and that's the problem with this movie, too. Later in his life he did suffer from depression. But this flick is like a National Enquirer version of Abbie. He deserves better. If you don't know Abbie or his times, this movie won't help.

 This film lies. I give it a zero.


This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected "snuff" movie is real.

Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the "snuff" movie. Assisted by a "smart" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.

Ironically, "machine" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces "machine" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that "machine" looks just like the normal 08/15 guy from the street. Then "machine" says: "blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!"

I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, "everybody loves killing people" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly "I have to kill these people"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.

To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.

Don't waste your time with this.


Where do I start? The plot of the movie, which is about a love between two high school students during wartime, while one is a living weapon, and their struggle to maintain that love is a very good plot. It is based on a manga by Shin Takahashi which was also turned into an anime in 2002, both of which I have yet to read or see.

This review is about this live action adaptation however. Sadly, this honest to goodness was a terrible movie. It isn't as if one could site certain aspects, and say, for instance, the budget is at fault, or the acting is to blame. It is, sadly, a series of underwhelming and ineffectual elements that bring this film down.

The acting is poor. Not to say Aki Maeda and Shunsuke Kubozuka are bad actors, but they didn't have much to work with, and seemed miscast. Neither seemed to have the physical range to draw the viewer in the story as well as being too old for their parts to a distracting degree.

The script was weak, the leads act unrealistically, and behave irrationally. The film also plays for the heartstrings, but ends up being predictable, all the while not being compelling, and under-developing the characters. There are also pacing issues.

Visually, it is unremarkable. The film uses green screen heavily and unnecessarily in too many scenes. The other special effects also have a cheap look to them, especially where minimalistic practical special effects could have been used. There is also no visual flair, as if there were no cinematographer or art designer to make the scenes look consistent and stimulating.

The music and sound effects were fine, but unremarkable.

Overall, the movie isn't devoid of enjoyment, and fans of the series shouldn't be discouraged to see it at least once just for the sake of completion. People unfamiliar with Saikano, this probably isn't the place to jump in as it isn't a very good movie or melodrama. It isn't the movie or the cast and crews fault, it just isn't inspired, and that is what kills it.


I hate to comment on something I didn't finish, but if I spare one person what I sat through for almost an hour before turning it off in disgust, it will be worth it.

I decided to watch this with an open mind, knowing it was on the bottom 100.

Bad idea. I usually love crude humor, or can at least tolerate it. I love so-called "black" comedies. I'm not easily offended, either.

It started off okay and quickly went downhill. I laughed a few times (for example, when the main character got stuck in the airplane toilet), but that was it and didn't compensate for the strong disgust I felt.

I didn't laugh when the dog got sucked into a jet engine. I usually can't see the humor in animals dying (except in Animal House). I didn't laugh at much else of the nastiness, either. I turned it off after an incident involving a blind man and a baked potato that I don't care to repeat the details of, only that the wave of nausea still hasn't passed over me.

Simply put, it was smut-filled and simply not funny with barely any plot. This is one of the times when if you don't have something nice to say, you should get the word out.

Don't say I didn't warn you.


Frankly I did not think there was anything humorous about this movie. It was really lame and poorly done with no plot whatsoever. Surprisingly it got some chuckles from me at the beginning with the Malcolm X terminal and that was about it. Seriously Soul Plane made even the worst movies such as Gigli look like a Emmy winner. This movie is really not worth seeing unless of course you were blind like Johnny Witherspoon who played the blind man in the movie (another sad character). I cringed at majority of the stereotypic jokes and ruining Tom Arnold and D.L Hughley by casting them in this movie. This movie could be summarized in just one sentence. Nashawn wins $100,000,000 and creates his own airline, sex, drugs, homosexuality, more sex, drugs, did i mention sex? If I could I would rate this movie in the negative integers, however, the beginning was amusing which brings this movie to a 1/10. Doing the "t bag" pfft!


Well to start with I'm straight up as black as black gets, and I can tell you it's very sad when black people think a "black movie" sucks. I can't say i've ever seen a movie this badly directed or a worse story line.

Snoop is my dawg and all but he wasn't feeling this movie at all, I don't know how much they paid him to be in this bucket of crap called a movie, but i hope it's enough to wash the smell out.

I'm all about supporting a bothers movie, but this one was bad, really really bad. It blew chucks in every aspect, no real plot, story sucked, cast couldn't act and the best one there was the white guy!

I almost demanded a refund on my way out the door of the theatre, half the crowd up and left before it was over, I'm still wishing I had too. Save yourself some pain and go see something else, anything else...


I'll be honest-- the pimped out purple plane with Snoop Dogg at the helm is an amusing visual gag. It would have been a decent concept for a 30 second commercial, or maybe a 3 minute music video. But the producers have committed the age-old concept comedy sin of stretching 30 seconds of material into an hour and a half of film, and the results are predictably lame. The remainder of the 89 minutes are filled with the typical gamut of racist and sexist humor and fart jokes, offensive and-- worst of all-- painfully unfunny. The threadbare plot screams under the weight of its contrivances. Best to be avoided unless you are drunk or stoned.


Ugh. Stephen Baldwin. I never noticed until I got the DVD home and saw his name in the credits. Double ugh. What's worse, HE'S the NAME in this low budget, mindless, wandering, wannabe shoot'em up. I mean, where did they find the guy to write this refuse? Driving a caterpillar in the LA City Dump, while hoping to break into the movie game? The whole plot is ridiculous situation piled on ridiculous premise. Baldwin is as convincing as a poster boy for American Gothic, sans pitchfork. His whole acting repertoire is looking like he needs the potty and then looking like he found it.

So, there you have it folks: bad script, bad acting by no-name actors, low-budget setting and a hero that's about as convincing as a girl scout looking for a cookie customer as an action hero. It's too late for me to get my money back on the DVD, but you can spare yourself-- unless you're one of those who likes to look at the dogs for a laugh...frankly, this one is too boring to be funny.


This must be one of MGM's and FRANK SINATRAS worst films. An oddball musical comedy that fails in almost every aspect. Silly plot has SINATRA trying to carry on his fathers reputation as a KISSING BANDIT. He's no bandit and doesn't kiss!! He does play the "nerdy" character as well as could be expected given the dialog he has to speak. The scene stealer's are J. CARROLL NASH and MILDRED NATWICK. Too bad they didn't have more scenes together. I've given the film two stars because the sets and costumes are superior and one of the songs sung by KATHTREN GRAYSON "Love is Where You Find It", is sensational. Could have had a repirse of that one. Also, a comic type dance number by RIDCARDO MANTALBAN, CYD CHARISSE and ANN MILLER if fun. So for those reasons and those reasons only, it is watchable. KISSING BANDIT is part of the Frank Sinatra early years collection.


Well another shootem up. Typical run around film with guns, revenge, and violence. Not much of a story. In fact I forgot most of what this film is about. Don't rent this one. I think the exercise infomertial would be more entertaining during late night.


If you're an average guy like me and enjoy good acting, good plot, good scripts, novel ideas, or being entertained, you might want to skip this one. I was honestly bored from the opening credits to the very end, but tried to give the film a chance, and watched it all the way through -- only to be disappointed at every turn.

The acting was unbelievably sub par, but I'm not sure if the actors themselves are to blame or if it was the ridiculously wooden and horrible dialog coupled with an even worse script. The plot is very vague and underdeveloped and I think the audience is supposed to derive some kind of deeper meaning from it, or be able to look past it in some way, but honestly to do so would be a waste of time.

The film has a kind of crude sexuality to it which doesn't serve any purpose other than to show off some tattoos and lingerie. No one seems to have any motivation except making money off of some kind of "investment" deal that is never really explained. The connections between the characters aren't terribly clear, and there is little to no character development.

This is either some kind of sub-culture film meant for a very specific audience to enjoy or absolute crap, but you can decide for yourselves.

I gave it a 2 because it is definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen, but probably not THE worst.


Asia Argento has never done a film (so far as I know, and this includes ones directed by her own father, Dario) where she fails to show all of her anatomy at some point. Sure enough, in the most boring opening dialogue scene ever, poor Madsen has her coming into his office and right there, reminding us that even though her hair is up, she can still stick her fingers in her crotch at any given second (which she does but in such a random "what? am I really seeing that?" kind of way). The DVD box, packaging, makes this look like a femme fatale film so you keep waiting to see her turn into a sleek and minimalist killer.. no such luck. She's verbose, hung up on some aging has been and even worse, has no credible skills in physical agility other than (surprise!) taking off ALL the clothes when any scene allows it. Her accented English would be cool if only she didn't try to make it sound so affected and try to talk like a 12 year old. How about this plot? Weak-minded but simultaneously nymphomaniacal woman is suddenly driven to kill while she already has another affair on the go and is running some cheap drug deal ... huh? what? does anyone have motivation in this movie to do anything other than buy a hamster? The screenplay seems to be oriented by letting everyone talk a lot about the same things over and over (I was expecting to see the worst acting on this appear as a producer who dumped money in it just to have some screen time) - there is nothing going on sub the obvious flaws of Asia's character that at any point in the movie delivers what the DVD cover promises. She's weak... but she knows how to kill. she flails A LOT. She flails naked, she flails half dressed, she even flails in a dead woman's clothing.. she is very floppy and unmotivated. In fact "Floppy" would have been a great name for this movie.. and a shot of Asia passed out looking angry on the cover would have been a better representation ... there are actually shots of her eating airplane food!!! What's that about?

THe ending makes 0 sense - everyone is just annoyingly wishy washy in their intent and their execution of all objectives. The wife of Lester doesn't deliver any REAL vengeance (taking someone to bad karoeke IS life threatening but not really valid).. and Lester just floats around without really making much proclaimation of anything. Totally misleading key art... yeah, we know Asia lost the baby fat of her first born but really, a whole movie trying to pretend like that's interesting enough to drive a film about a passive-aggressive chick is not worth your while. See Point of No Return instead.


The story is disjointed and poorly written. We are given threads and a possible hook in act one, only to see it vanish. Had the writer bothered reading his work carefully, it wold have been apparent that Madsden's character's initial problem and meeting with the 'bad' girl suggests that there will be a troubled alliance between them as they try to solve his problem.

The problem goes nowhere. The relationship goes nowhere. And there is no sexual tension in any of the relationships. No-one digs anyone and no-one is appealing. The writing and directing is laughable. You can feel someone struggling with the mess and shifting the story focus about trying to extract some excitement. There is none. The writer/director is simply a beginner whose muddled efforts somehow became a movie. From simple errors such as '...they took polaroids...' - in Japan in 2007 ? to insulting errors such as nudity for eroticism, this movie is an insult. You cannot make them much worse.

And by plastering 'Madsden' on the talent list, the producers thought they'd have some success. He is hardly acting. Asia certainly is... and the result is some heroin-chic panto.

Give it a big miss.


I have never seen a movie that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. This is not a funny movie. I must say that the plot line is awful. I did not had patience to watch it so that i only saw half of it, but it was enough for me. The characters are not very inspired. Just terribly annoying. This movie is all about a goofy guy trying to hook up with his tyrannous boss's daughter. When he finally manages to talk to her, she asks him to go at that night at her home to watch her father's owl, and he thinks she had invited him to go with her at a party and to be at her home at 6 pm. He gets to be very disappointed finding out that he only has to take care of the owl and that she has a boyfriend. After her father leaves home leaving precise orders, about taking care of the house and his beloved bird, appears a secretary, a renegaded son and all sort of NOT funny stuff happens in the house. But he finally hooks up with his boss's daughter. TRUST ME THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is by far the most awful movie I have ever watched. I have never before rated a movie 1 out of 10. My advice is don't watch it. This doesn't even classify as a movie.

You'd be better off sitting on the couch bored rather than watching this movie. Acting was terrible but what was worst by far was the storyline. Highly unlikely sequence of events which aren't even funny. They are actually very lame and stupid. Very foolish choice by Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid to act in this movie. Might even upset their careers a little.

When I walked into Blockbuster, the main focus was on this movie , so I decided rent it. I sincerely regret it.

Once you're 10 or 20 minutes into the movie you could basically predict what was going to happen. I was hoping it would get better , but instead it got worse.

I am not exaggerating this. The movie is terrible. Don't watch it. Hope this helps.


"There are some things you just don't do" so says the tag-line of this, a 2003 David Zucker comedy about a young man caught up in one horrendous situation after another entitled My Boss's Daughter, and it's the tag-line which should speak for both the people that made this junk as well as those contemplating watching it. There are indeed some things you just don't do, with the placing of mostly all of the sort of content to be found within My Boss's Daughter counting as wholly items you just should not do to the medium of cinema by including them in your picture. My Boss's Daugther is a sordid; creepy; grotesque experience, a clunky and heavy handed piece which is infantile beyond words and disgusting beyond expression. To see it is to endure it, to endure it is to survive it and to survive it is an accomplishment all by itself  if any of the cast; writers; extras; Hell, even the guys that worked as runners on the set, aid in producing anything as Earth-shatteringly poor as this again, then it'll be either because they've been sent here by the devil Himself to destroy the medium of film or, it'll be because they've most probably garnered employment on behalf of the Friedberg/Seltzer mob.

My Boss's Daugther, (which I'm pretty sure ought to be titled "My Boss' Daugther", grammatically speaking), revolves around its hapless male lead, named Tom Stansfield (Kutcher), and a night in at his boss' house as he chases that seemingly elusive 'goal' that is his young, blonde daughter Lisa Taylor (Reid) - someone whom works within the same department as he does in a towering Chicago office block whilst under the strict eye of Jack Taylor (Stamp). Tom spies Lisa early on, she's taking the subway to work with all the other shmos despite the fact she owns a car and that her father is the boss of the damn company. After trying to talk to her, but having his attempts foiled by a puking baby and a dog for the blind more interested in Tom's crotch than anything else, he finally gets his chance in the office when talk of an after-dark party elsewhere arises and that he ought to come round to her house to visit her - and yes, she does still live with her father. Think Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho with the gender roles between Norman Bates and his mother reversed and then played for laughs.

The distinct establishment of character is made painfully apparent in the opening scene in which Tom sits on the subway train and travels to work with his yuppie cohorts. They are a ruthless and smarmy bunch, whom it's made apparent swipe the briefcases of those unfortunate enough to get them stuck in the door in the ensuing morning rush, without ever returning them. One day it happens with Tom there, and his wish is to return it, thus pounding into us that he's-not-like-other-guys(!) This, as he first sees Lisa down the carriage and is somewhat shy to approach her as the other men treat the whole situation as if it would be a breeze if they were in his position. This rather obvious and flat-footed attempt to try and get us to 'side' with Tom sits uneasily with what it supposedly takes to earn a place amidst these co-workers in this company.

It is, however, as close as My Boss's Daughter comes to any level of film-making. From a seemingly harmless premise of a boy meeting a girl and wanting to get to know her arrives the comedy from Hell. Tom's arriving at the house will not see him invited to the party, instead he is charged with house sitting Jack's pet owl and generally keeping out of mischief whilst maintaining a spotless house. It's been established Terrance Stamp's character means business in the strictest of manners, firing people for the smallest of things such as the making of a bad cup of coffee. It's not that Jack is a shrewed businessman, he's a cleanliness freak; obsessed with control and a borderline sociopath in his placings of bear traps in the garden so as to keep the children next door off his land. You can imagine, that when we're let into his large and exquisite house with the orders that nothing should go wrong, there's obviously going to be trouble.

The film has fun with this premise of danger for about ten minutes. The first time someone uses the worktop to crack open a beer thus marking the pristine top, you may smirk, but by the time half the house is wrecked and Michael Madsen has shown up urinating all over the rug, you've got your head in your hands. Each joke in the film is set up in an almighty clunky manner before it is played out in a way that is closer to slow and excruciating than slick and faultless, the only thing missing as it follows through to the next gag is the sound effect of someone incorrectly changing the gears to a car as it clunks and creaks onto the next pratfall. Inbetween the gross-out wackiness, the film takes time to roll down a route of yucky, saccharine driven romance as Lisa and Tom bond whilst talking of in-workplace and out-of workplace persona's, and that maybe they have more in common than first thought. By the hour mark, the film's opted for gross out gags and hate filled jibes more than anything when there's an entire scene that exists purely to target paraplegics and a dumb subplot to do with a head-injury sporting neighbour on a blind date in which some truly unwatchable sight gags are unfolded. Throughout, Stamp's character enjoys putting people down and asking if the simplest of tasks are too difficult for them, to which the common-place reply ought to be whilst channeling Jack Taylor: was reading the screenplay first too complicated-a concept for you, Stamp?


This film made me so angry because of its stupidity that I felt the need to create an account on IMDb to share with you my opinion. I liked Ashton Kutcher in "A lot like love" and this is why I still wanted to see this film despite it's current 4.2 rating. It is highly over-rated. I trusted that an actor (any of them) would judge the script and would not agree to participate in such low/now quality production. It is very disappointing. The theme of home-sitting was much better used in "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo". Things that did not make sense here: fist of all, the house owner leaves his precious pet with somebody who doesn't know anything about taking care of it. Secondly, the rule is not to let anybody in the house, but the house-sitter fails to follow this simple rule. The door is not locked?! And so on..


...a film comes along that manages to be absolutely terrible from the opening titles on through to the studio logo tagged at the end of the closing credits. This was such a film - the very type you can not stop watching for fear of missing a moment of its ever-descending quality.

Forget the low budget that's indicated by a slow, monotonous opening sequence that shows secret service agents running alongside a presidential motorcade with no crowds, no traffic or location discernible. Forget the jumbled logic needed to even remotely make the actual plot seem plausible. Forget that Roy Scheider delivers some of the hammiest dialogue whilst completely failing to hide his shame.

This clunker is terribly paced, bombarded by a score that's simply laughable, and seems edited by a third grader. All the while twisting scenarios to cover up the hardest thing about filming a presidential storyline on the cheap: making him seem presidential.

I honestly feel asleep briefly in the last reel, and when I awoke, I ran it back so as not to miss a single excruciating frame. Try this drinking game: take a shot every time you see it blatantly aping another much better film. You'll doze off, too.

Not since 'The Man' w/ Samuel L. Jackson and Eugene Levy have I seen such a delightfully unredeemable project. I may give out copies as Christmas gifts. Zero stars. A thousand laughs.


It's the one film I almost walked out of, and would have if my friends hadn't been in the movie theatre with me. Normally, even if I don't like a film, I think it's still worth sitting through it to the end. That way, you can really claim to have given it every chance to redeem itself. But with The Million Dollar Hotel, it was so dreadful I just badly wanted the experience to end as quickly as possible. I think I probably would not have been so sourly disappointed if this film had been made by a lesser director, one I didn't normally like so much. But coming from Wenders, it was all the more shocking to behold. I know Bono from U2, a good friend of Wenders's, wrote the script to this abysmal film, and I wonder why Wenders let him, as buddy-buddy as the two may have been. "Stick to the day job, Bono", is a sentence that easily springs to mind whilst viewing this mess. Pretentious, disjointed, a mish-mash of every possible contemporary film stereotype, a naive and transparent attempt at coming across as kooky and daring, with the most irritating characters I have ever set eyes upon, especially the leads, Jeremy Davies, Milla Jovovich and Mel Gibson, none of whom I dislike normally. The happiest ending I could have wished for would have been for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their collective heads so as to get it all over with as soon as possible. On a positive note, the first five minutes of the film are extremely good, with an extremely stirring soundtrack from U2. But the film's opening shots make the rest of the film (which takes a spectacular nose-dive from then on) all the more disappointing as they are a promise of cinematic quality that's just never delivered, not even close.


Pretty pictures with a cool sound track do not constitute a 'movie'. Like all pop promos, MDH's pretentions are are outdone only by its' unjustifiable budget. One dollar spent on this aimless, purposeless dross was one dollar too many. Stick to penning pop songs Bono.


they (dueringer, dorfer) are good stand-up comedians, young, not ugly, have money, the girls love them, the audience is appreciating everything there doing

and then they made this film ...

no story at all, some jokes were old in the fifties, the acting is awful. save your money for something useful, like a gift for your girlfriend.


Circus could have been so much better if they had reduced the number of twists and developed each better the film features a very gifted cast that mostly perform well , however it totally loses the audience basically everyone is back stabbing everyone else and not back stabbing them at the same time because they are backstabbing someone else and working with .... did i lose you? well the film is even more confusing clearly written by a first timer writer , it has some redeeming qualities though in the acting especially Famke Janssen shines as Lily but sadly gets a lot of USELESS screen time just standing there doing nothing.....the dialogue is a bit cheesy and the accents sometimes irritating but its still worth watching if you're a fan of any of the actors especially John and Famke who get the most screen time just remember to watch it with a notebook so you can write down who is double crossing who every second....


We see Thomas Edison, with a glowing smile on his face, trying to electrocute a 5 ton living being. Eventually he was successful, and so the first animal snuff film is born, cleverly disguised as an amazing achievement in technology. This is scientific arrogance at it's worst, folks. It ranks up there with the doctor who decapitated a monkey just to prove that he could keep its severed head alive for 22 minutes.

Oh yes, there's the absurd excuse that the elephant had been convicted of "murder" and sentenced to death, and that this was a fair and humane "execution". To all the people who are satisfied with this sophistry, please form a line on my right. I'm going to give you all a big collective Three Stooges slap across the head.

Go watch "The Advocate" (1993), a movie based on the true story murder trial of a pig in Mideval France. 500 years later, humans are still a bunch of morons I see.

What's next? We arrest birds for stealing our blueberries? Arrest pricker bushes for assault and battery? Thomas Edison, I hope you have a big fat worm crawling through your eye socket right now. Oh wait, that would be trespassing, wouldn't it? lol


This was my very first "Bollywood" movie and I found it in the same way many other recent viewers did -- through "Ghost World". Having done a little bit of reading up on the film industry of Bollywood this week, I understand somewhat why there are seemingly unrelated musical numbers and romance and comedy in a horror film. But "Something for everyone" doesn't always add up to a cohesive product.

The ultra-groovy musical dance number "Jaan Pehechaan Ho" has captivated the world in a way it probably could not have done in 1965. It's all over the internet now, with many folks scrambling for a good English translation. Laxmi Chhaya does an amazing job dancing take after take, making it all look fresh, new and fun even when any normal person would be exhausted! She rules!

On the beach with Miss Kitty is a light-weight fun and pretty tune in total contrast to the horror plot. Still, I find myself singing it in Hindi a week later. I found a rough translation:

if you want to live in this life then listen to what I say leave your sorrows behind and join the party take my advice

those who want to live live with laughter and singing let your hair down and relax people of this world what do you know? come to me and I'll explain

whoever there is who will see me will stop worrying in this world fish swim freely here and there

My second favorite number in the film is The Butler's Dream where Mehmood is entranced by Miss Kitty's dancing. The electric tiki-like idols are just wonderfully tacky as is the entire set of this number. Online, I'd seen it described as what would happen if "Liberace threw up"!! Way fun.

Gumnaam is not a good movie as a whole. That's why I gave it a rating of 3. It's actually a real stinker of a film with some fun, kitschy musical numbers that have nothing really to do with the murder plot.


This is unique in films of Hitchcock's that I've seen, in that I didn't really enjoy it.

In fact, I actually found this quite predictable and annoying.

Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine are a newly married couple. He's the kind of "lovable rogue" character that you've seen in many films, without ever being lovable as far as I am concerned!

In fact, it was a barely believable relationship at best, and at times seemed particularly false and implausible.

Unable to hold down a job and trying to live an opulent lifestyle, Grant is led to borrow money that he cannot pay back.

Fontaine is convinced that he is trying to kill her in order to get the money she is insured for; and presumably what her late father was worth.

Average and rather uninteresting all round actually, but as usual you can see the influence on films that have come at a later date.


I am a big fan of Deepa Mehta's work, especially Fire and Earth 1947. Unfortunately, this movie of hers lacks _all_ that is needed for a good film.

The movie attempts to showcase the plight of the widows in India in the early 20th century and the new wave of ideas of their rehabilitation around the same time. Shown with a child widow as a central character, although the plot too banal from an Indian standpoint, it could still have been a very powerful movie. Alas! the movie lacked both the sensitivity of Fire and the intensity of emotion in Earth 1947.

Even if one assumes that the story is a given, although there are hundreds of things I would have liked different in that as well, the movie making is especially unfortunate. Everything is said. Everything is shown straight. Absence of sensitive implied sentences. Absence of things left unsaid. I just couldn't believe that this was a Deepa Mehta film.

There were some very standard Hindi movie characters - like an old widow with her own vested interests, or a father who has double standards of the highest quality. Can one not write a script without having these old-style standard Indian movie characters?

Many people acclaimed Deepa for making a movie and proving a point against hindu fundamentalists. Well, I agree that she took a bold step, but should one not worry about the quality of movie, or is it being a controversial one an end in itself? Its obvious, that if you start with a story as in Water, you will end up feeling the pain of the widows in consideration --- It doesn't take an accomplished director to achieve that. And the movie had nothing more than that!! So where is Deepa's contribution to the film?

And talk about acting etc. - pathetic!!! Lisa Ray has a pretty face, an extremely pretty face - but thats where it ends. She can't speak Hindi; she can't emote. John Abraham is no better. Most widows seem unnatural. The saving grace are Seema Biswas and the young girl. They are fabulous.

And this was a period film - but the Hindi dialogues suck big time. Even there utterance is also as unnatural as it gets. No rustic accents!!! No local slangs. No nothing. The only thing right was probably the shooting locales. I thought that the set of the vidhwa-ashram was reasonably real. The overall blue tinge in the whole movie is also apt.

But all and all, don't watch this movie. You _won't_ get anything. There is nothing in the story, or direction. If you have to watch it watch it for the little girl's acting.


Copy cats have copied this movie from a 1974 Hindi movie called "Call Girl"! "Call Girl" had an identical story line. The way in which the protagonists fall in love, then rebel and the climax all same in both these films! "Call Girl" is better than Water, at least from the story telling point of view. It was not as agonizingly slow as Water! Water on the contrary does not progresses at all. The aim is perhaps to make the audience sympathize with Kalyani for ever! Are Indian film makers any better than just being great copiers these days? Well they call it "being inspired". In their language it is: "getting inspired (without any citation that is!)"! :)


Deepa Mehta, Arundhati Roy and a host of other so called intellectuals get the title of intellectuals because of the fact that they love portraying India and hinduism in a bad light...and Deepa Mehta makes her money from it anyway. Anyway Hindus are too gentle or scared to protest the way muslims protest so anybody can take any liberties with Hinduism. And it is a fact that during the 1930's women in the west were also illtreated when they were widowed...just that nobody likes to point out anything bad about the west or anything other than India and Hindus. She paints an inncorrect portrayal of India and the situation of widows there. Nowhere is it mentioned that child marriage is illegal. She ended the movie saying there are 34 million widows in India. Of course among a billion people, there will be that many widows. But how many are living life she has depicted in the movie?? Deepa Mehta finally is selling India and poverty to make dollars. How pathetic....


What about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for "zero gore". It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, "If it doesn't fit, I throw it out". 2/10


I don't think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame me.


The original "Assault on Precinct 13" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this "Assault" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.

I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply awful.


Where to begin.... This hideous excuse for a motion picture makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look well thought out. The music? It's culled from every single overwrought piece of PD shlock in existence. The focus? Hell, doesn't matter if in one shot there are thirty people standing in the road; the new angle shows a lone Packard with a waitress posing for Argosy Mag shots. Paul Le Mat, Diana Scarwid, Louise Fletcher, Wallace Shawn: fine actors who must have all been starving to death at that point in their lives and the director lured them to sign on with tempting bits of cat food. The production budget must have skyrocketed to well over fifty cents with the addition of The Space Alien Phallic Transportation Machine which, for a time, must have meant that the Oscar Meyer Wiener Mobile was not available. When Bad Movies Happen to Good Actors


Rarely does one find a movie so bad that it achieves the often-sought paradigm of having so little redeeming value that that alone makes it worth watching. "Cyclone," I am happy to report, is such a film.

I knew I was in for something good as soon as I found the videotape. I am at least its fourth owner: It has a "Used Movie Sale! $9.95" sticker on the front, and a yard-sale sticker for one dollar. I picked it up at a thrift store for fifty cents.

The Used Movie Sale! sticker covers much of the front cover artwork, meaning that what I see is a truly odd blended still of the front of the Cyclone super bike, a car flipping over on fire, and Heather Thomas, wearing Flouncy Eighties Hair with her mouth open in an expression that says, "I 'ave a 'ooth ache." I saw that and thought, "All RIGHT." The case, honestly, was enough ("with nowhere to turn and no one to trust, Teri is plunged headlong into a maze of danger and deceit"), but I surprised myself by actually getting around to watching it. I always make time for the really bad films. That "Fight Club" tape can wait.

Meet Teri. Teri is a stunningly well-crafted character, as we can tell from her introduction, in which she and her friend do exercises that highlight her breasts and, later, her legwarmers. Then Teri goes off to hook up with her boyfriend for the evening that goes horribly wrong. Before she knows it, Teri is driven "straight into a web of deadly double-crosses in CYCLONE." The VHS box tells it like it is.

Left out of the box summary - perhaps out of some faint hope that actual copies of this film would be sold - is how awful the acting is. It might have been just me, but I kept thinking I could read the characters' thoughts through their eyes. "This is dumb," thinks Heather Thomas. "I know," thinks Bad Guy with Too-Wide Mouth.

A driving force (no pun intended) for the second half of this epic picture are the car chases. Those were actually pretty good, although I'm inclined that gasoline doesn't need coaching on how to explode. What really impressed me is that, in all the chases, the streets were pretty much empty. It's like there are only twenty people in this huge city.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Gee Wilikers! I have to see this movie!" The sad thing, though, is that you can't find it. Oh no. "Cyclone" is a film that finds YOU. Just wait. Some day - perhaps during lunch, perhaps late in the evening, perhaps "when military scientist Jeffery Combs ('Re-Animator')is murdered by hired assassins" - you will hear the rustle of legwarmers, and know that it is time.


The only thing I expected that this film didn't have was an intelligent, talking motorcycle.

This film is just plain awful. I gave it 1 star, which of course, means I enjoyed it tremendously. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad fight choreography. The only real actor in this movie is Martin Landau, who of course does a good job playing the villain, although the character is your standard cardboard cutout evil CEO/Villain. Even the so-called "plot twist" at the end was no shock.

There was so much to make fun of in this movie, I enjoyed it a lot. And it did have a few impressive car wreck stunts.

Like bad movies? Check this one out, ouch. Want a good movie? Not here.


This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.

Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.

Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'.

There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.


Julien Hernandez is certainly an attractive and likable on screen persona. In fact, his character pretty much carries this whole film, or what's worthwhile about it. The problem is, with the exception of his gal pal (played by Marisa Petroro) and Paul Lekakis (as a trick/date/ boyfriend for some of the characters) no one else even comes close. Hernandez plays a 30- something director of Cuban heritage, and unknown sexuality, who comes to L.A. and gets a job making a gay documentary. In the process of meeting a group of gay people while finding subjects, he comes out...but very s l o w l y. Even at 88 minutes, the film has obviously been stretched out and padded with various film-school devices, most of which only end up pointlessly interrupting the narrative (which ain't much to begin with) or pointing out the overall amateurish-ness of the film-making.

Which is a shame, because there's a love story in here somewhere, and the final three minutes, when Hernandez's Sebastien finally clicks with a wealthy West Hollywood party- thrower (nicely underplayed by Lonnie Henderson) and they share some sexy soulful kisses, it works despite all that came before. But we don't really care about any of the other characters or their situations: Why would handsome Dante have a Eurotrash priss for a boyfriend? He wouldn't. And don't even get me started on Sebastien's friend Paulie's "rules" for dating -- no gay man I know, hell no sane person, period, would put such constrictions on himself or others. And please tell me how Sebastien gets a peeled banana (which is normally fairly shmushy, right?) stuck up his butt and has to go to a doctor to get it removed?

I noticed Hernandez won an award for this film as a "short" -- it probably should have stayed that way. All this said -- I'd look forward to seeing Hernandez on screen again, in a better scripted comedy with more assured direction.


I still remember when Frog Baseball first aired on MTV. In some sort of odd, surreal manner, the cartoon captured the stupid actions that I think every boy growing up in America engages in. I cringe now thinking about how I burned a crippled grasshopper using a magnifying glass, but it was interesting at the time for some reason. Growing up in the 1980s we all knew "stoners." These were the kids who wore Iron Maiden t-shirts to school, grew their hair long, had immature moustaches and were at least two inches taller than everyone else because they had flunked a grade or two. We laughed at them because they were so stupid even when not stoned. So it was easy to understand Beavis & Co because we already knew them, some of us were even them. To the extent that GenXers like myself would spurn the excess of the 1980s and embrace the grunge movement of the 1990s, Beavis & Co were sort of a strange post-modern anthem for us. Strange because like Beavis & Co we didn't care if we had an anthem. It was just an inside joke that we all immediately got even if it was awful.


I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.

Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.

The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.

A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other "Children of the Corn" aren't really all that scary.

Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video


The first word i can find to describe this movie is Awful.

This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. First of all is the plot a very thin plot (Wont comment further on this part) and a plot which a lot of movies from this genre is following. This makes the movie so bad, because you know whats going to happen. Secondly does the movie contain a lot of questions which never is revealed. One of the questions (and this is no spoiler) is: WHAT THE HELL ARE THE KIDS DOING IN THAT CORN!!!!!!!!!! Thirdly is the characters very bad, not only because the movie is bad, but also because of the sorry actors. They are bad as they can be.

The last thing that make this movie bad, is that its a horror movie. You are supposed to be scared of the killings or the sudden shocks, but you are not scared, you a not horrified because you know whats going to happen.

Conclusion: The movie is as bad as the movie about the killer ants! I hoped that it was a very great movie but because the story is bad, the actors are bad, the film raises a lot of questions and because its not scary, the movie is best unseen.


This was a strange film. A bit horror and certainly film noir. Some fifth columnists meet and mysteriously start dying off with a Japanese dagger in their hands after Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi) shows up.

Soon the Lone Ranger arrives in the person of FBI Agent Richard 'Dick' Martin (Clayton Moore). Martin is ineffective in finding the killer as he is more interested in the niece (Joan Barclay) of a missing doctor, who is part of the gang.

After the last man dies, and the doctor is horribly disfigured by some strange serum, the true story of the group comes out and that is where it gets interesting and weird. I won't spill it.

Lugosi was marvelous as the skulking killer.


Rare and auspicious are the moments in film-making when greatness stands as a defining monument for the rest of the industry to measure themselves against and for us to immerse in that glorious moment.

Some stories transcend their time and aspire to the lofty reaches of a classic and the stuff of legends. Throw in the refined skills of an ensemble cast of thespians who are at the very top of their game.

"Where has all the originality gone?" It is here, as this story and it's cast sashay through a plot and story that will not only educate but also entertain even the most seasoned of Shakespearean/action/love story connoisseurs.

I cannot begin to imagine where the writers dreamed up this extraordinary tale. Where do geniuses get this kind of inspiration? I now have hope for mankind, knowing that this kind of talent still exists gives me hope that we will make it to the stars and beyond, perhaps to the very gates of heaven.

I have, like others before me, dreamed of greatness. Though I did not write this movie I did see it and because of this movie's noble greatness, I feel as if I have been elevated to a higher level of being, a higher level of spiritual wholeness.

It is no wonder this kind of glory eludes most of us. What would become of our world if we all could attain this level of magnificence? We would probably be consumed in a white fire of super-nova glory as we evolve into trans-dimensional spiritual beings capable of omnipotent creative power.

The most important thing to know, with all your heart and the very essence of your being, is that "Tomcats" is nothing like what I have been talking about. "Tomcats" is the antithesis of all I mentioned. It could very well destroy our world. For as some reviewers rate a movie on a star system, i.e. 1 through 5 stars, or even zero stars, I'm going to rate "Tomcats" a black hole.

I am willing to donate money to a cause that will put a stop to these kinds of atrocities that, as of late, seem to be running amuck at box offices. I'm not even adverse to the use of nuclear weapons. It must stop. How much more of this can we take before aliens from outer space come down here and blow up our planet because we have so many stupid, crass, vulgar, unimaginative, and degrading movies spewing out of Hollywood? I'm not even going to dignify this movie by mentioning anyone's name that starred or produced it. I'm not even going to waste my time describing the story, since we've seen it a ba-zillion times, and all of the past versions were at least a ga-zillion times better.

By the way my head nearly imploded during this movie, but with supreme selfless effort and lots-o-luck I survived to warn the public. You have been warned.


I thought it will be a Ok movie after seeing the commercials about it. It was funny at some parts and some very nasty. The only person I felt sorry for is Horatio Sans who got a hot wife who is cheating on him with other women. But he never got a chance to have a threesome with until the and that was good but they should have made more bigger thru out the film.


Ah the sci-fi channel. How often do you disappoint me? Quite often I think, do you ever show good movies? OK you have given me the great 'Heroes' and the reasonably good 'The Lost Room' but they are series, and as for the movie well there really is nothing positive to say. Bad acting, bad directing, terrible characters and a shallow story, and that is just for starters. I checked out the director Allan A Goldstien and was not surprised to find nothing of interest in his resume (in fact I am half thinking that this is a pseudo name). The premises of four motor bikers out motto-crossing in a national park when one of them has an accident that needs a park ranger to come rescue them only for them to get caught in a forrest fire is weak and predictable that you know every beat before it happens. Leading man Bryan Genesse the park ranger is so bad it is terrible. Cast as the action hero martial arts boy in the footsteps of so many others this guy makes Seagal and Van Damme look like De Nero. The supporting cast are little better and well before the end one was left hoping the fire would engulf them all then the film crew. Avoid at all costs


**MAJOR SPOILERS** Watchable only for the action sequences not the story or acting in it "Nature Unleashed: Fire" has one of the longest and excruciating endings in modern motion picture history. We have the fearless Ranger Jake, Bryan Genesse, leading this trio of hysterical bikers to safety in of all paces an explosive fume beaching mine shaft! This during a raging forest fire! It seems that Ranger Jake with all his knowledge of the great outdoors didn't realize that a mine shaft that's leaking with dangerous and explosive methane gas is the last place to go when all the woods around it is on fire!

***SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ON*** All this started some time ago when Ranger Jake in an effort to save the not that on the ball miner Tiny, Chris Harz aka "The Sherd", let him slip through his fingers and fall to his death at the bottom of the mine shaft, or did he! Even though we were kept in suspense to who's setting the forest fires for the first half of the movie it wasn't a surprise at all the Tiny was the culprit! As you would expect in movies like these Tiny seemed to be made of hardened steel in that nothing that ever happened to him, fires explosions as well as impaling, could stop the crazed miner.

Before Tiny's reappearance, or resurrection, Ranger Jake got involved in rescuing bikers Chris Mel Sharon & Marcus, Josh Cohen Melanie Lewis Anastasia Griffith & Ross McCall, who were trapped in the woods with fires breaking all around them. Having the usual know it all-Marcus-among the bikers things don't go as smoothly as Ranger Jake wanted them to go. Marcus not only eggs on the meek Chris to do something stupid, jump with his bike over a 10 foot pile of logs, but has the guy break his leg. This makes it almost impossible for Ranger Jake to have Chris air-lifted out before the fires consume him as well as his fellow bikers!

For the remainder of the movie Ranger Jake, who put himself in charge, makes boner after boner in his attempt to save himself and the trapped and lost in the woods bikers! All this ends with Jake's brilliant idea to hide in a dangerous and abandoned mine shaft with the rescue party just yards away from rescuing them if they only stayed put and in the open where the rescue team could find them!

Even though he was supposed to be the life of the party, or movie, Tiny for all his efforts in being another indestructible super villain came across as a man who spent too much time out in the sun. The make-up job on Tiny was so outrageous that he looked like he dumped a jar of spaghetti sauce over his head instead of having it burned to a crisp.

Ranger Jake came across as either somewhat very naive or retarded in his being so taken in by the dangerous Tiny in always trying to save the rampaging psycho who never hid his feelings about what he had in mind for the play by the rules Forest Ranger. In fact Ranger Jake actually encouraged Tiny to do both him and the bikers in by showing him how incompetent he was in trying to save them. The fact that Ranger Jake was successful wasn't because he was so smart but because Tiny , despite his indestructibility, was so brainless!


There is a point in the film where the female boss of the "death machines" (a multi-ethnic trio to please everyone, being inclusive I think it's called these days) talks about using leverage on a business man. Except such is her delivery that it sounds like "leatherage." At which point this viewer perked up thinking this dull film was turning a corner into new world of kinkiness. But it didn't. The boss lady had to do the talking as the "death machines" did not say a single word during the whole film and talk she does. Interminably. There is action in the film but it is not that exciting and the plot staggers from one cliché to another. The three mute "death machines" live to survive another day at the end of the film. Hopefully there wasn't a sequel.


Really bad Italian horror movie, a sort of remake of Hammer infamous Frankenstein must be destroyed, this time with a lady Frankenstein taking over the business from father. A few nudes, several botched bits of dialogue, no tension at all. forgettable


This movie was sheer, slow, plodding torture. Not being a fan of slasher films, and preferring classic horror, I may not be the best judge. Slasher fans may enjoy this as an early entry into the slasher genre. I really would like the 90 minutes I spent watching this back. The only reasons to watch this are 1) a young Vanna White (pre Wheel of Fortune) who has about 3 minutes of total screen time. 2) an early role by scream queen Linnea Quigley (with nudity), and legendary beauty EJ Peaker as the school secretary, who added a bit of humor and sex appeal. Otherwise, an 80's band called Felony makes an appearance, which while interesting, drags on WAY too long. Just like the movie.....I had to keep checking how much time was left and couldn't wait to "Graduate" to a better film.


Ru Paul plays a secret agent called Starrbooty. She teams up with another drag queen agent to fight the evil Annaka Manners (Candis Cayne)and get her kidnapped niece back...or something like that. Seriously-- I had trouble concentrating on the plot! The movie is seemingly directed by somebody with severe ADD--quick camera cuts nonstop that make it impossible to focus on anything. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times and when you can hear it you wish it remained incomprehensible! The acting is actually pretty OK except for Ru Paul who overacts to an embarrassing degree. Also the film is full of disgusting bathroom humor that is just revolting and not even remotely funny. After 30 minutes I had to leave because I was bored, sick and just couldn't stand it anymore. I pride myself on sitting through anything but this went WAY beyond my limits! People are comparing this to the early work of John Waters. I disagree. Waters' work is sick but good--this is just sick. Avoid.


What a great cast and what a pathetic attempt at a film. The script is full of holes from beginning to end. Incoherent, not cohesive...utterly ridiculous. One of the most talented/beautiful actresses in the world (and I'm talking about Nastassja Kinski) is without a single memorable line here. Worse, she supposedly dyes her hair halfway thru the movie, but it's obvious she's just wearing a cheap black wig bought from a drag queen costume shop. The best moments are given to a character actor and his dog in the apartment building that lead actor Peter Coyote lives in. Fairuza Balk is photographed poorly, to boot. She looks like an overweight freshman who's pigged out at too many all-you-can-eat-student-cafeteria-buffets. I was so looking forward to this film. I WANTED to like it, but I think I'd rather watch Nastassja read the phone book, with her OWN hair.


I bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.

First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing.

If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.


So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.

Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.

What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.

Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.


I generally loved the Carry on movies but this one is actually pretty awful. There are very few laughs because the whole thing is so forced.There is plenty of talent on the screen and some come off better than others. June Whitfield, Kenneth Williams, Hatti Jaques and Peter Butterworth are fine but Barbara Windsor looks tired and Sid James is just tacky. Joan Sims comes off well but in the case of the usually wonderful Charles Hawtrey its just plain sad. When you think of the sad end to his career the movie is almost too depressing to watch. The homophobia of the movie is nasty and its a very unpleasant experience. The set looks cheap and unlike other movies in the series the movie is very clearly set in England. The sea side looks cold and there is little attempt to create any illusions here. It looks like a cheap production. You will be surprised at how miserable you become watching this especially if you loved the series.


The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.

What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.

The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.

I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken.


This story starts at the end ! So the film's opening credits advise us. Unfortunately that's not true as we then are treated to around 70 minutes of a typical B science fiction movie of the 1950's. The story is dreary; the plot is very weak and has clearly been filmed on a low budget, as was often the case in those days.

The story could have covered any situation where people are taking refuge in an isolated house and being threatened by someone outside. it just happened to be adapted to fit round a sci-fi story.

The scenery consisted of a few rocks, bushes, and smoke. - Oh yes there was a pool of water as well. Someone wore a rubber mask with a beak like face and what looked like feathers.

Written by Lou Rusoff, who penned several sci-fi stories around that time including The She Creature and It Conquered The World The filming was completed in a matter of days, not allowing the actors time to develop their characters to better advantage. The low budget restraints also prevented this film reaching its potential. It could have been a much better film than it turned out to be.

Mike Connors and Richard Denning brought some life to the film, but even they could not lift this film into the category where you could say- 'I enjoyed that film' Richard Denning's acting career began in 1937. He starred with Gregory Peck and Deborah Kerr in An Affair to Remember and later became more well known on television in the series Hawaii Five-O and The Flying Doctor series.

Directed by Roger Corman who has many films to his credit both as a director and producer. He has made some good films and is still making them. He became very well known for his direction of films from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe, often starring Vincent Price. He also made other low budget films; some were good and entertaining for one reason or another, and most were much better than this.

I would not recommend this film to anyone.

Darnmay

10th September 2007


I remember watching this movie on TV a few years back. It was so bad, I can only remember the scenes that just made me die laughing. The only plot summary I can give you (without any spoilers) is picture a home movie made by college kids who were high.

(Spoiler alert starts here...) When the movie starts, a guy's running, being chased by the "Demon Cop", when in fact, the man was really being chased by a Halloween costume gone wrong. A car pops out of nowhere, hitting the guy who was running. It sends him flying over the top of it, and what does the driver do??? Watches the man as he falls, gets back in his car and drives away. What kind of hair-brained dolt would do that? I would've at least asked if the guy was okay.

Then, some black guy stares the Demon Cop straight in the face, then, later tells reporters, "I didn't get a good look at him." My sisters and I, by then, were almost choking ourselves to death with laughter.

Then, there's some scene in an alley, where this girl with an afro, pulls a machine gun out of her teeny-weeny little purse. It couldn't have possibly FIT!! I can hardly remember certain scenes. Maybe it's because they were just that bad.

Cops in the film can't even jump a fence, and the acting is so wooden, it makes planks of wood look like better actors.

All in all, this movie brings shame to Hollywood, way more than any other flop could. You have to see it to believe its sappy cheesy plot, which it has none of, as far as I can tell.


^^contains spoilers^^

This movie is utter crap. Do not watch.

There is no one in this movie to root for, or even like, except for the wife, and she wins by default. Everyone is selfish, and many things happen that make no sense.

The acting is mediocre at best and everyone breathes too heavily about everything. No one can even cry believably.

If you leave the room for even a second, then something totally out of left field will happen, and it will make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

For example, I left the room for a second, while Jennie Garth's character was sleeping with her manager. I come back, seriously about 4 minutes later, (also I'm pretty sure there was a commercial somewhere in there) and she's sleeping with that Berko guy.

I gave up on this movie around the time that Berko was being an ass to his fiancé in the car, because she didn't want to call off the wedding.

I wasted 2 hours of my life. You shouldn't.


This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of "Caribe," a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in "The Ultimate Warrior" (1975), and "The Frisco Kid" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on "Mystery Science Theatre" it would have been hilarious.


"Disappointing" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.

One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.

What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.

In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere.


After reading so many glowing reports of 'To Serve Them All My Days' I went out and bought it for Christmas. A waste of money, I'm afraid. I was looking forward to something in the same league as 'Brideshead Revisited' and some of the few other great productions from British television but this is decidedly not among them.

The characters are all too good to be true, swathed in a very predictable plot and with the most trite and eye-rolling script I've heard in years. Yes, it has its moments, but they are very thin on the ground. The lead actor is interesting, mostly because of his uncanny resemblance to Anthony Andrews (Sebastian in 'Brideshead'), only dark. But his undoubted talents are wasted on a character who is insufferably self-important and priggish. His prickliness is attributed to the effects of his experiences in the Somme during WW1. He does the early episodes, centered around his nervous condition, better than he does playing the the squeaky clean, socialist do-gooder later on.

The women are completely unbelievable, as in un-real. His first wife is annoyingly chipper and chirpy, the girlfriend, the perfect sophisticated slut, and the last lady a hodge-podge of political bosh. The most interesting characters are Howarth (Alan MacNaughton) and one of the other masters, named Hobarth, I forget the actor's name.

The high-minded preachiness of the script is typical Andrew Davies, screen-writer, in his early years, and becomes tiresome within the first two episodes (this mini-series is 11 episodes long!). By episode 4 I just wanted to get through the blasted thing.

The music is equally tedious, limited mostly to one mawkish piano tune and a chorale sung by boys during the credits. No expense was spared on the location settings which gives some visual relief to an otherwise excruciating viewing experience.

I like stories of this sort, as a rule, and am very disappointed at the maudlin nature of this series. If you want to watch something riveting about WW1 and its after-effects there are many other far finer vehicles to rent or buy. One that comes to mind is 'The Unknown Soldier' from 1998. The characters in that Masterpiece Theater presentation are real and fascinating and move one, unlike the 2 dimensional puppets in 'To Serve Them All My Days.' As for films on boys' schools stick to 'Goodbye Mr Chips' or 'Tom Brown's Schooldays'.

I know this goes against the general favorable view of this mini-series, but I strongly recommend thinking twice before shelling out $80.00 to Acorn Media for their 4 DVD set, 2 discs of which on my set had insurmountable problems with freezing and skipping.


So what is one to do if you are a porno star with fading looks? I know, become a pop star! This documentary - and I use the term loosely - follows the trials and tribulations of Colton as he tries to transform himself from a gay porn star into a singer of electronic (read: dance) music. I only wish Mr Ford's voice was as muscular as his arms...sorry to say his vocals are painfully thin. There isn't much interesting going on here but Mr Ford and friends are eye candy.

See him record a song that sounds exactly like every other mindless dance tune. See him travel to New York to make "connections." See him go back to L.A. with little success. See yourself look in the mirror and ask, " Why am I wasting time watching this mess?"


For the first fifteen minutes the story of NAKED FAME is interesting: two late thirties male porn stars in a seemingly healthy relationship decide to leave the Porn industry and try for the world of singing and acting. The two very buff and preening men are Colton Ford and Blake Harper. With the aid of Kevin Aviance and Marc Berkely, Colton makes a dance track that is then marketed in New York with the hopes that Colton Ford will become an instant star - a unique disco singer touting his background as a Porn Star for PR.

The remainder of the film is grumbling and in-fighting and commentary by Porn Producer ChiChi LaRue and the film slowly sinks into repetition and doldrums. Not a bad idea for a film if there were a bit more depth revealed in each character's drive to move away form a successful career (though one greatly influenced by the youth both characters have lost) into an alternative one. It is just that a one-note song wears thin quickly. Grady Harp, November 05


What bird is that ? A maltese falcon. The only thing remotely funny about this movie is Michael Caines hair. Which has more depth and character than the man underneath it.

The Malta settings are as dry and as barren as the dialogue. Salutes to Raymond Chandler and Humphrey Bogart and crime fiction etc... seem obtuse and just plain silly without the salvation of any humour or pertinency. The reason this film has no 'longevity' and near forgotten is it's so vacuous, an hour and half of pointless time spent in the company of second rate actors and film makers - This film is what the title suggests...


I usually seek to find good in movies, even the bad ones.Unfortunately this movie is one where I fail miserably-and the fact that there's barely one positive review on this board shows many IMDb reviewers share my pain.

I don't usually watch sequels but I just had to see this since I love "Rosemary's Baby" so much. What a mistake that was. It simply reaffirms my belief in the fact that most sequels are lousy-though thankfully, very few are as bad as this. In fact in my mind this isn't even really a sequel, it's a satire on how bad a sequel can be. Movie recommended very highly for not viewing-at any time-ever.


To date this is still the worst piece of rubbish I've ever viewed. So annoyed I even complained to Blockbuster for stocking it. Me and some friends rented it after looking at the back cover thinking we were in for a good horror film. The plot line seem to change during the film and there was lots of irrelevant padding. The film ended quite abruptly, I'm guessing they ran out of film. Sound quality was dire and the first female character had a very thick Spanish accent although she talked utter nonsense anyway. The guy provided a brief bit of eye candy until his bizarre attempts at murder. After wasting all the time to go into in-depth discussion on the workshop and its many power tools, he opts to put a plastic bag over her head. All in all on second thoughts I think you have to watch this film to actually believe it exists.


I had the misfortune to see this film recently and have to sit through it. A friend purchased it for £1 and insisted we watch it as it sounded good from the story on the back cover.

10 minutes into the film it was apparent that the actors were amateurs and this was an extremely low budget effort.

The scenes were very poorly acted, the script was stupid and the story contained many scenes which seemed unnecessarily long, just so the movie would be of a reasonable length.

For instance when the lead character rents a warehouse, the film spends a ridiculous amount of time on this scene, with meaningless dialogue which serves no real purpose or necessity to the plot.

The lead actor is supposedly carrying out revenge on a woman who sleeps with guys to give them HIV, he never once thinks to get tested. Instead he turns into a crazed killer deciding to torture her before killing her and sawing her into pieces.

If this sounds good and you are thinking this will have lots of gore, think again. This film has no real gory sequences and is quite tame for this type of film.

It does not scare, it does not make you think, it does not offer fast paced fun. It may however put you to sleep, it is certain to bore you to tears, so please save yourself the despair and follow my heading.

AVOID THIS FILM 1/2 out of 10 (this does not deserve even 1)

The film was 78 minutes but seemed as if it was 2 1/2 hours.


Firstly, few colleges allow students to take courses from their parent's lover. Secondly, few women professors are sleeping with dorm cooks. Thirdly, few brassy coeds have a dad who cooks in their dorm. Fourthly, once a SECOND member of a college small-group project team meets a violent demise, the college PRESIDENT will disband the whole class, and NOT turn a blind eye as the professor merrily steers the rest of the group toward grisly deaths. Since the supernatural elements of CULT make absolutely no sense, it is useful to study the mundane content of this film to truly appreciate how much this flick really sucks!