I saw this movie and I thought this is a stupid movie. What is even more stupid is that who had thought an idea that there should be a volcano in Los Angeles? The fact is that there are no volcanoes in Los Angeles. This movie should not be filmed in Los Angeles, it should be filmed in Honolulu Hawaii. Hawaii has volcanoes which is a real fact that this movie should be made in Hawaii's state capital. This movie should be filmed in Hawaii because this is the real idea and not in Los Angeles. There are earthquakes in Los Angeles, but there are no volcanoes. To be honest with you, this is unbelievable nonsense and very foolish. In conclusion, I will not bother with this movie because a volcano in Los Angeles is nothing but nonsense.


The world now seems to be in an odd stage of downsizing, in which objects such as DVD and CD players are steadily decreasing in size. It is obviously much cooler to have a smaller iPod than a larger one. This is not so with theater screens, as is the case with the IMAX, the enormous, widely-known theater system that has stunned audiences upon its release, and to this day. As long as the material's right.

The main problem with 'Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D" is that it uses the huge screen as its main advantage. It is dull, uninformative, and relentlessly eager to please and amaze us with its corny special effects and inspiring quotes from famous names such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Another problem with the film is that it doesn't even take the time to sit down and interview those lucky few who have had such an extraordinary experience as to have been to the moon. Instead, the writers have simply pressed COPY and PASTE and hired famous voices such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Paxton, and Matt Damon to imitate their famous quotes. This tactic is unrelentingly repetitive and tedious.

I'd say without one moment's hesitation that I didn't learn one piece of information from the film that I didn't already know.

And it repeatedly insisted on irritating the crap out of me with its insistent sentimentality. Every three minutes there seems to be a cue for Tom Hanks' voice to say something like "Without the contributions of these brave men and women..." Watching the film is like watching a bad commercial. For forty agonizing minutes.

1/4


The movie is nothing extraordinary. As a matter of fact, it is an insult to the horror genre. Nothing about it borders on scary... not even close to the threshold of scary...

It's just another case of "another teenage horror movie"-seen one and you've seen em all. First few minutes in the movie and you'll know what will happen next. The worst part is, the script is blunter than the most recent installment of scary movie. Would have been better if it's written in Spanish. And don't get me started with the inside jokes and punchlines.

Though i will give a little credit for the special effects. But trust me, like any other Hollywood made horror movie, CGI's and special effects has little or no effect to a horror movie's ability to scare. In fact, it makes it worse.

Between the fresh faced Anita Briem and the spooky location, there's not much to see in this movie.


Let's cut through everything in the first paragraph. "The Messengers," the newest film by the Pang Brothers (Danny and Oxide), as a horror movie, is profoundly bad. And just as a movie in general, is a big disappointment. It's nothing but a rewarmed "Sixth Sense," and as long as that picture is still available, there is no reason on Earth to pay money to see this turkey.

Lately, horror/slasher films such as the "Final Destination" series, "Wrong Turn," "Boogie Man," "The Ring 2" and "The Grudge," are becoming increasingly more reliant on big shocks with no payoff (for instance, something jumps out at the person on screen, elicits a gasp from the audience, but turns out to be a cat or a crow or something.) Little goes into making it a genuine frightening experience like "The Sixth Sense," or "Signs," or some of the classic horror movies of the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

"The Messengers" relies upon the same old, tired clichés as these newer, far inferior films, and is therefor old, tired and - to my surprise - ended up as one of the most boring movies I have seen in awhile.

The plot has another stupid family, led by dad Roy (Dylan McDermott, "The Practice"), mom Denise (Penelope Ann Miller, "Awakenings," "Kindergarten Cop," TV series "Desperate Housewives"), big sis Jess (Kristen Stewart, "Zathura: A Space Adventure") and toddler Ben (Evan Turner), who move to North Dakota from Chicago.

The reason for the move is never really outlined here, but it has something to do with the dad's inability to find work and Jess' drunken driving escapades. We know there will be trouble immediately because they move into a big Gothic house in the middle of nowhere; a domicile that looks like the Munster's summer home. Oh, and the first five minutes of the movie show something really horrible happened there.

Jess hates the place (hey, who could blame her), but optimistic pop hopes to make a go out of raising sunflowers (despite the unusually large amount of crows fluttering about). But when he meets Burwell (John Corbet, "Raising Helen" and looking like Kevin Costner in the film version of "My Name Is Earl"), an itinerant drifter and expert on raising sunflowers, things start to pick up.

But then weird things begin to happen; Jess is terrorized by a violent unseen force in the house (of course, no one else but the two-year-old Ben can see it, so she's labeled a flake) and the crows keep hanging around. Ben also is able to detect the unearthly creatures, but since he's two, he cannot articulate it. Scene after scene of people telling the little boy to tell them what he sees finally had me wanting to yell to the screen, "He can't tell you! He's two - freaking' - years old!" Yes, have the only protagonist who can solve all of these things be a mute toddler is real smart.

Anyway, we're left to ponder the sanity of Jess; when and if Ben will ever properly describe the paranormal visions he sees; if dad will make the sunflower thing work; if the high plains drifter is a good guy or bad; what the point of the George Plimpton-looking Realtor is; how a pitchfork plunged in the back can only be a flesh wound; what mom's role in the family is; and where are all the crows coming from.

All of this while waiting and wondering for something - anything - to happen. The conclusion is really lame, as well, and once again begs the question of how a spirit which has no physical body can cause harm to a living person. Very dull, pointless and most terrible of all, not frightening in the least.

Oh, and there are a lot of crows in this movie.


This movie was trying to something, but failed miserably. All the attempts at suspense were cheap, and there were so many tired gimmicks and plot holes I ended up laughing and making fun of it the whole way through. At least I was entertained.

The ghosts are attempting to warn the family, so why do they attack the girl, whose name I didn't care to remember. And what was with the black and white at the beginning? I know what they were trying to do, but they fell far short. And where the heck did that guy (John Corbett's character) come from? He just waltzes in from no where in a vast field. And why did he suddenly lose it again when the ravens came? And if the ravens were a manifestation of the spirits of his family, then why did they attack him if it would make him try to kill the family? Makes no sense. So many things in this movie just don't make sense, and the acting ain't too pretty on the part of the main girl character. It's not terrible, just a little like her kiddy movie days.

So all in all this movie wasn't brilliant, but I had a good time ripping at it, and sometimes that's all a horror movie needs to do. Rent for entertainment not quality.


I didn't understand the people who rated it over 5. I think it's a horrible film from any point of view. Plots, acting, art, dialog, music, whatsoever! I don't mind a low budget..However you have to get some point. Wandering, wondering..pointless..then two boys started kissing in bed. awful,,just awful. I love indie films, don't mind it is slow. However this movie disappointed me from any perspectives. Even the Graffito, not artistic.

I was wondering what kind of people would like it. I am a female in my 30's. Is it for teens who have some kind of the loneliness about life, or I just don't get it? What I gained then? Wasting time! Please go for some others.


I wouldn't have given this film such a low rating (2) if its average hadn't been ridiculously high, but someone had to bring it down to something more reasonable. I sat through most of this film, watching scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. No dialog, just tagging and shoplifting. Finally the two taggers kissed. Something happened. But then back to tagging and shoplifting. I left the screening. I recommend this film only to those who are impressed by pretentious film-making. I disliked the directors previous film (a self-righteous defense of man-boy love) but at least that film had a story, interesting characters, dialog. The Graffiti Artist had only scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. I want more from a film than this.


My wife received tickets for our family to attend the premier of this movie from her employer for free. I only regret the price of the popcorn and the two hours of my life wasted on this garbage film.

I own the DVD of the original Mask, and quite enjoyed it. I expected a remake nowhere near the original in production values or writing.. but wasn't prepared for this vulgar pile of trash. Weak acting, poor plot, a bad CGI baby passing gas and urinating in hyper "mask mode".. a woman turned into a giant nose, spewing mucous.. Fun huh? My eight year old son loves movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars. After this was over I asked him what he thought. His exact words; "I hated it. It's like the Scooby Doo movie. They take something good and have to put all that gross stuff in." My twelve year old daughter and wife hated it as well. My wife later told me that my son asker her twice during it if we could leave. He's never done that before. I'm proud of him. Lest you think I'm some kind of puritan, from the groans, and lack of laughter I heard in the theater, I think most of the patrons agreed with me.

This film represents everything bad about children's entertainment today, and any positive reviews MUST be from people financially connected with the film.


This movie isn't worth going to the theaters to watch, i did and i didn't like it, the effects on the movie are really well done, and you get a laugh here and there, but the story is really bad, it seemed like they had run out of ideas, and what is that of loki and odin getting along? that totally destroys norse mythology, and i guess they forgot that loki's powers only worked during the NIGHT!! If you really MUST see this movie rent it when it comes out, don't go to the movies for this!

They could have done a lot more with this than they did, it felt like they just wanted to do a movie to show off cool animation and effects


Son of the Mask is a terrible movie. I don't like the baby and I don't like the dog. Jamie Kennedy and his wife are a cute couple but that can't redeem sitting through this garbage. Even at only 88 minutes (or so it says), the movie could not end soon enough for me. The only real laughs come at the beginning with a brief appearance by Ben Stain. That's it. The rest is just a rehash of the first movie. Actually that is just an insult to rehashes. Why was this sequel made?? This movie cost millions of dollars to make. Why would I sit through a movie with a baby and a dog intentionally trying to drive the dad crazy? Jamie Kennedy is talented but he has nothing to do in this movie. I am not bothering to be nice to this movie. 1/10


Brought to you by the following among others:

1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew יגאל כרמון) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Yigal's Career:

Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982

2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)

3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their "Anti-Defamation" name title.

Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!

I think, therefore I am.


Five Fingers relies heavily on barbaric, shock value Hollywood tactics to elicit apparently a positive movie-going response. This is where this movie fails throughout, primarily because it is too graphic to be taken seriously. I was repulsed and disgusted that Five Fingers was even made, and essentially had to force myself to continue watching it. Torture in and of itself is gruesome. Even the sounds coming from a room where someone is being tortured are gruesome. But obviously the makers of this stinker of a movie felt that was not enough. It had to go way beyond what was needed, and simply and effectively ruined any chances this movie had of making some sort of valid point. For this reason, this movie came across as nothing more than being self-gratifying. Five Fingers also pretty much relegates itself to a B-movie status solely by its indulgence on manipulation of time. In other words we are shown the present and then the past is revealed in snippets. This is a little bit of a twist of the normal Hollywood manipulation of time. Whereas the viewer normally is shown page 95 in a 100 page script as the beginning of the movie, and then the rest of the flick is essentially explaining the ending, Five Fingers is dedicated to flashing back, which gets quite tiring by the end of the movie. Overall, Five Fingers made me feel stupid for watching the whole movie, because torture is obviously obscene, and it certainly was not necessary to resort to graphic mutilation to make this point. I am surprised that Dick Cheney did not make a guest cameo appearance at the end as some sort of torture superhero. This movie is a perfect example of what happens when an important topic falls into the hands of greedy, mindless dolts.


I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.

The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.


I'd give this film a 1/10. This film is devoid of common cinematic substance and concentrates way too much upon the current "skin trend" in Bollywood movies. I'd definitely not recommend teenagers to watch this movie. What really makes me feel dejected is how could such an impressive banner like Yash Chopra Films ever succumb to such an awful production? They have perhaps forgotten to keep in view that there is a larger audience than "adult" audience too, which when exposed to these sort of gross movies,may wreck their growing mind set and succumb to things devoid of sense and recognition.

On the whole, films must not only be entertaining, but also must comprise of some sense as well. Certainly, this film is an immense disappointment to Yash Chopra fans, especially me myself. I am really disappointed over the plot, acting and everything else. Why can't people put in some substance that can be cherished after confronted with in the films, at least for once throughout the film? The point is clear. I'd like to put my opinion in short: "Horrible - Disappointment - Lot of Adult Material - Lack of sensible "substance" - Lack of normal psyche - Worthless - Could grab a Cornetto or a Temptations chocolate instead"


This film is absolute trash and proceeds to become even worse towards the, very protracted, end!

The plot is confused and laboured, the actors have a couldn't care less attitude (maybe they were paid in advance - bad move, or knew they weren't going to get paid), and the sets were featureless, boring and cheap.

I fell asleep twice and actually decided to not bother with the last 5 minutes as I assumed the actors would have fallen asleep themselves by then. More unrecoverable life time wasted!

If you must watch it, then take it to the bedroom and forget the sleeping pills for once. But maybe you'll need an antidepressant instead!

Sometimes it's good if celluloid degrades.


This movie "Vampires: The Turning" isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to "non-existent" because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy


I watched this movie tonight and I do need to say that it is horrible! I expected it to be great, because you know, usually we don't have many movies about Asian vampires mixed with Asian culture; but already in the beginning it started in a bad way: the introduction of the movie seemed not to have an end! The plot is so weak and if you take the fights and the soundtrack off, you really don't have anything useful at all! The director of this film doesn't look to have some important notions about how much time to spend in introduction and flashbacks for example.( not to mention some other things)

For people like me, who wants to watch a great vampire movie, I really recommend to watch ''Lost Boys'' or ''The Interview with the vampire''.


Firstly, I'll admit I haven't seen Vampires: Los Muertos, but I've seen the original Vampires film and love it. I rented this film having heard nothing about it. I didn't expect to be impressed. I wasn't.

I love the idea of shifting the action to the far east, which should have opened up a lot of new avenues for the action sequences as well as the story line, but not enough was made of this. The fight scenes and the motorbike chases were painfully boring.

There were some parts I liked, like the way the slayer team weren't shown as heroic good guys, as they were in the first movie.

I'd been hoping since I saw the old Hammer movie Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires a few years ago that someone would one day make another good Asian-based vampire film. This was not it.


There are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of "puerile" should now read: "sex lives of the potato men"! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!


This noisy, dizzying football film from director Oliver Stone seems to have everyone in the cast - well, everyone except William H. Macy, who could have tackled the role played by Mr. Stone, the team doctors, or the "fruitcake" selling cereal. If you're a fan of the foul-mouthed, there are some great, profanity-laden knock-down, drag-out, put-down phrases you can try-out on two-faced friends and way-ward lovers. The film is sometimes good as lively background party atmosphere, especially during the first two hours; it even features some MTV-styled music video scenes.

** Any Given Sunday (12/16/99) Oliver Stone ~ Al Pacino, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid


It's about jealousy, it's about racism, it's about manipulation, but the underlying message is love. Geoffrey Sax tried to pull off Shakespeare's Othello, by bringing it to modern day context. However, the actors were not convincing enough to pull this off. There were extra bodies to help put everything in to perspective, however, John Othello, played by Eamonn Walker, over reacted a lot in this film, causing for the down fall of Keeley Hawes, Dessie Brabant, eventually ending in Dessie's death.

Ben Jago, played by Christopher Eccleston, was seen as the main character in the film. He didn't give enough evidence for Dessie to be cheating on Othello, with Michael Cass, played by Richard Coyle. Instead he just played a friend to all and gave one reason as to why she "was" cheating. In the play, it took a lot more convincing from Iago to make Othello even suspect anything. This change made the movie more about rage for the wrong reasons, than what the book was based off of. However, the movie did have a few good points. It turned the army scenes into more a racist group toward blacks, where Othello is the main chief of the police squad. These scenes are made believable by the raging crowds, and burning fires. You are able to sense the amount of racism in the movie, more so than you can in the book. This book plays up the modern day scenes by making it much easier to understand, than the Shakespearian times it was written in. In the play Iago (Jago) gets tortured at the end, but in the film he gets his satisfaction, and gets Othello's position. He never gets what he deserves and is never caught for telling the lie to Othello until it is too late. I saw this as a downfall in the movie, because I feel that the villain is granted his treasure of the promotion out of lying, and in the book, he is found out by Rodrigo. Overall, the movie could have done a better job based on the play than what it did. I feel that the director of the movie left out some of the most important parts of the play that were mentioned or there to make the play flow, or make it more of a tragedy. I would say that you should read the book first, in order to understand all of the events that happened in the movie, otherwise you may find yourself lost, and confused.


I really tried to like "Saw." The story was good, and I admire the breakneck pace of the way the film was shot. However, there were too many clichés and elements that while they may have looked "cool," they really made no sense.

First, what I liked about the film was the overall tone of the story, and I thought the premise was fantastic. The character of The Jigsaw Killer was intriguing and reminded me of vintage Dario Argento. Danny Glover was excellent in his role as an obsessed detective, and Monica Potter was good in a thankless role as a doctor's abducted wife. Shawnee Smith's scene was incredible and both Wan and Whannell should be commended for using that scene as a demo to get the backing for the film. The whole notion that the Jigsaw killer finds a way for his victims to kill themselves is an excellent notion, but once the film got going, logic began to get away.

Once they showed that Zap was the one holding Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter hostage, it was apparent that he was not the Jigsaw killer, and part of it. The scene where he puts a stethoscope over the heart of the terrified Diana while Allison screams at him through her gag was one of the most gratuitous scenes I've ever seen. It was supposed to be chilling, but establishing nothing. Also, since the Jigsaw killer finds a way for victims to kill themselves, he has no problem slicing the throat of a police officer. I guess it's a way to show that he doesn't want to get caught and will go to any means necessary to ensure that doesn't happen, but to me it just didn't make any logic, especially when he shows no remorse over the death of another detective (which I did like that setup, just would've been better if given to someone who actually deserved it).

I felt Leigh Whannell was fine as Adam. It wasn't really a showy role and he has a lot of potential as a character actor. However, I wasn't too fond of James Wan's direction. The story may have been original, but the direction sure wasn't. I guess I'm tired of quick, MTV style cuts in favor of the old approach to directing, but a lot of scenes involving the Jigsaw killer reminded me too much of "Se7en," way too much of it. As the film progressed, to me it was starting to become a series of demo reels like "Hey, look what I can do." Instead of being intriguing, it became very distracting. But hey, it worked. He's now directing "Final Destination 3" so he's on a path to a successful career, and I think he will become a top notch horror director in years to come.

What really did it in for me was the ending. Like I said, I knew that Jigsaw wasn't Zap, and I liked how Adam discovered the mini tape player after killing him. It would've had a terrific ending, except for one fatal flaw: I felt they should've left it where you didn't know who the killer was. The way it was done was only done for one reason: Boy, are we clever? Uh, no. To me, it just didn't make sense.

Some of the better horror films are made for a reason, where there is a reason for the violence we see in the story. While "Saw" started out very well, it started to become undone by the filmmakers' insatiable need to be "cool" and detract from the winning story they had. Perhaps if they weren't too insistent on making the films themselves, and relied on a more experienced horror director to helm it, I think it would've been the horror classic that it undeservedly has been given over the past four months. If this and "Cabin Fever" are the future of horror, I'm very scared.


I'm a big horror film buff, particularly of the 1980's subgenres. Name one  I've probably seen it. Last year, a new little horror movie that seemed to slip under mainstream radar called "Saw" was about to hit theaters. I was moderately excited. Having not heard anything about it, I thought it looked quite promising judging by the previews and posters (well, except the back and white ones with the severed hands and feet...those just looked terrible!) I saw the film on opening night. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. This movie was literally mentally and psychically painful to watch. Because it was scary?...NO! Because it was one of the most awful movies I had ever had the displeasure of seeing! First off, the construction of the screenplay and editing was utterly atrocious, even by horror movie standards. Starting off a sequence in an interrogation room with a victim (Shawnee Smith) who recently survived a serial killer's attack, then showing a flashback of what she survived? NOT SCARY! It was impossible to feel any type of tension WHATSOEVER knowing that the aforementioned victim was perfectly alright. Sure, that reverse-bear-trap thing was creepy...but WHY should I feel in the least bit frightened when CLEARLY, you just showed me she survived the ordeal? Unfortunately, the entire film was constructed this way. It starts with two guys in a cellar. Then, they show flashbacks of how they were abducted...NOT SCARY! Why? Because we already know what's gonna happen to them, seeing as how we JUST SAW the result of the attack. THEY'RE FINE! Move on with the story! Even more unfortunately, the actual story was meager at best. I couldn't have cared less for these annoying, pitiful excuses for "characters" and the acting didn't help. Cary Elwes was solid for the most part and then suddenly towards the end he started crying like a lost infant while straining to keep his American accent in tact (it didn't work  the audience I saw this with was in stitches). This drove him to a rash and idiotic decision even the most simple-minded wouldn't attempt. He had other options. Better ones. SMARTER ONES. Even given his intense emotional state (horribly communicated through horrible acting), it was still irrational. I didn't buy it. BAD WRITING ALERT! Furthermore, even when certain sequences were played straight-through and flashback-free, they were painfully predictable. I constantly found my foot tapping impatiently waiting for the dumb sequence to end. This happened for the entire film. I saw every single "twist" coming. Twenty minutes into the film, I had already called the killer's identity, not to mention his connection to his "accomplice(s)" as SOON as they appeared on screen. Better acting might've been able to overshadow the awful script. Instead, the actors might as well have had "RED-HERRING" or "ACCOMPLICE" tattooed across their foreheads.

By the end of the movie, I was utterly outraged I had wasted even a fragment of my life on this film, and the entire theatre was laughing hysterically at the downright horrendous finale. Seriously, you'd think they were watching a Monty Python movie. I would've been laughing too, had I not been so angered at the film's total and utter failure to accomplish ANYTHING it set out to do. When we left, there was (no joke) a line to speak to the manager of the theatre to get their money back (didn't happen). I was absolutely positive the movie was going to be a box-office bomb. The following week, you couldn't have imagined my shock to find out "Saw" had hit number one at the box office and EVERYONE was talking about it (mostly individuals who found "Napoleon Dynamite" to be a thought-provoking epic tale and thought "satire" was some type of rubber). I am so utterly sickened to hear people praise this film that I often feel as though I'm going to vomit. It's entertainment for the most feeble and simple-minded of the human race. Those who find some weird Jigsaw clown-puppet riding on a tricycle threatening (it's a doll  knock it over and leave  what's so frightening about that?).

Don't get me wrong, I own every "Friday the 13th", love my splatter movies, thought "Napoleon Dynamite" was hilarious, can't get enough of Freddy, Michael, Pinhead, or Leatherface, have a font appreciation for unknown horror gems and rank "Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers" amongst my Top 10 Favorite Slashers. However, I realize these films aren't the most sophisticated American cinema has to offer  I appreciate them for what they are  quick, easy fun. "Saw" is cinematic garbage. The film attempts to be a smart and semi-sophisticated, nasty little thrill ride, and bogs down to an irritating, annoying waste of time, money, energy, and celluloid. Atrocious on all accounts. Every single copy should be incinerated, along with its feeble-minded fans. Shame on all of you.

Will I see "Saw II"? Maybe after I take a double-shot of Liquid Drano before I gouge out my own eyes and impale white-hot shish-kabob brochettes into my ears and colon. My Rating: 0/10. Avoid at all costs.


There are bad movies and then there are movies which are even worst. Saw is just that.

The movie is simply bad on all points. The plot, the acting, the camera work, the music and everything else is absolutely terrible and I cannot begin to comprehend how such trash made it to the big screen.

The simple fact is that Saw is riddled with plot holes. The beginning is enticing and leaves much to be expected but it does not hold up and the plot becomes absolutely ridiculous and absurd. The film is not creative and will not leave you with a single bit of credibility. People that claim that this movie is gory, violent, sadistic and scary are sissy girls who have nightmares after watching CSI because it is far from that.

So I am warning you know, do not attempt to watch this if you have any form of intellect, because you will be disappointed. A true bore and a mediocre film as can be.


I don't understand how some people can stand playing "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" when there are so many better first-person shooting games available.

"Counter-Strike" is a game that doesn't use any imaginative ideas in its weaponry. All the weapons in the game are real-life weapons, but there could have been at least a cheat that allowed players to have access to a "supernatural" weapon, like the all-powerful BFG in the Quake & Doom games.

Another problem is that the player actually has to reload the weapon manually. This can become extremely annoying, especially while in the middle of a firefight when you are so close to killing the enemy. The reloading delay also gives the feeling that the gun is slow at performing its task.

There are not many choices of characters to choose from. If I remember correctly, there are 4 types of characters each for the Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist forces. This means that many of the characters look the same as each other, which really brings down the game's realism.

The game is pretty sexist when it comes to character selections. In the early version of Counter-Strike, there was a woman available to choose (in the Terrorist force selection) which was good for the female gamers. In the latest versions, however, the female character was deleted and replaced with another male character. I wonder if the women who played the game were disappointed at the newer versions.

Finally, the maps in the game are very small. The biggest map seems to be the desert map, but it has standard detail. In fact, all the maps in the game have standard graphics. In other words, nothing new.

To sum up, I think "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" is the most un-imaginative first-person shooting game of all time. There are plenty of better & more imaginative shooting games to play, so why waste your time on this boring game? You're better off playing the Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Doom games. Avoid this over-rated & over-hyped game.

I give the game a 1/10.


In his feature film debut `Yellow,' Chris Chan Lee attempts to enlighten Hollywood's portrayal of Asian-Americans by departing from the stereotypes typically depicted in mainstream film. However, in so doing, Lee commits a far more heinous crime: he exaggerates Asian-Americans' own stereotypes of themselves to the point of incredulity. The result? Dreadfully one-dimensional characters and an outrageously shallow script triggers the cast into a frenzy of over-acting, ultimately resulting in a film that is physically painful to watch.

Don't be deceived by any of the positive reviews garnered by `Yellow'; each falls into one of two camps. In one corner (e.g., right here on imdb.com), you find Asian-Americans who are so elated that an Asian character can be depicted onscreen without thick glasses and a math book, that they somehow neglect the idiocy of Lee's final product. On the other hand, you find movie critics who have simply presumed that it'd be uncool to give `Yellow' the thorough bashing that it deserves; after all, it's an edgy Asian-American film made by an independent Asian-American filmmaker... protected territory for now.

Case example: main character Sin Lee (Michael Chung). Writer/Director Lee accomplishes a monumental feat with Sin, by editing `Yellow' in such a way that Sin never appears onscreen unless he is either scowling or yelling. See Sin resenting his friends' support. Scowl. See Sin walk along the beach and brood. Scowl. (Yelling ensues.) See Sin closing up his father's shop. Scowl. See Sin urinating. Scowl. See Sin breathing. Scowl.

Gee, I wonder if Sin is full of Asian-American angst. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Scowl.

Just to be thorough, Lee introduces us to Sin's father, Woon Lee (Soon-tek Oh). Throughout the movie, whereas Sin simply scowls or yells, Mr. Lee scowls *and* yells. In fact, this is Woon's principal role in `Yellow': simultaneous scowling and yelling.

Gee, I wonder if Woon is an Asian father with an authority complex. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Yell.

If Lee's one-dimensional characters don't annoy you, his story line will. Meet Mina (Mary Chen) and Joey (John Cho), two characters that exist in this film solely for the purpose of spinning a tangential and entirely irrelevant love story into the film. You see, Lee learned in film school that every good movie must include some sort of love-related subtext, and these two characters allow him to fulfill the obligation. Mina and Joey's excruciatingly inane flirting dialogue consists of one-liner insults culminating in a kiss: `Nerd!'; `Stupidhead!'; (eyes meet); (understanding smile); (kissing ensues).

But rest assured, somewhere out there, Sin is scowling while this all takes place.

That neither Mina nor Joey contributes in any way whatsoever to the film's plot does not perplex me so much as Lee's insistence on the most hackneyed movie cliches to accomplish his nonsequiturs. And trust me, the flirting sequence is just the tip of the iceberg.

Towards the end of the film, we find Woon Lee attempting to explain his constant scowling and yelling to Sin's girlfriend, Teri (Mia Suh), in what I am sure Lee meant to be a poignant moment. What a surprise: as Woon invokes a metaphorical story about the homeland to illustrate his point, ripped straight out of Reader's Digest, his voice quivers in that extra-special paternal way. The camera pans into an obligatory shot of Teri's trembling hands. We feel compelled to roll our eyes, except we realize that Woon's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. But lack of substance didn't stop Lee from making the movie, so why would he cut this particularly ineffective scene? After all, the world can always use another cliché.

Well, you say, the movie may be painful, but at least it *must* be a technical masterpiece -- say, like, `What Dreams May Come.' Sorry, on a technical basis, `Yellow' disappoints as well. Lee's edits are awkward and disrupt what little rhythm exists in the film at all, but I'm sure Lee thought they would seem hip. To make matters worse, every frame is either underexposed or overexposed. Although the light meter was invented in 1932, somehow the newfangled technology didn't make it onto the `Yellow' set.

In light of the film's utter deficiency, supporting actor Burt Bolos, who plays Sin's best friend Alex, performs relatively well. Although Bolos overacts slightly, you can't really blame him when Lee's script consists solely of scowling and yelling. Bolos' castmates, on the other hand, show no restraint in their overacting whatsoever.

I have not seen a film as bad as `Yellow' in a very long time. And I truly pray that I will not see a film as bad as `Yellow' for quite some time, as well. Please do not waste see it; life is already way too short. Thank you.


Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.

I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates "All Dogs Go to Heaven" is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.

Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.

The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.

I still like "All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.

4/10


Whatever the producer was going for, he missed entirely. The Lone Ranger is not camp, but "the" icon for good-doers all over the world. And it's a total violation of the spirit of the character that the only real Lone Ranger, Mr. Clayton Moore, was forbidden to wear his mask in public appearances when this movie was released.

Whelp, long story short, the single saving grace of this gross (and poorly done) distortion was that in that year, I had the honor of meeting Mr. Clayton Moore in Columbus Ohio, as part of a tour resulting from the bad press over Mr. Moore's treatment. Needless to say, Mr. Moore's character, integrity and presence far outshined the movie.

Some things cannot be done better. There is only one Lone Ranger.


I watched the first show of each series just to see and what a waste of time. The girl from Emmerdale she was fat so yeah she should be in fat friend but no one every lost weigh.

Like Itv made a big mistake with this.

Bad Girls is 100times better.

I feel that the whole show was just about large people trying to loose weight but never did then they tried to have love storyline oh my god what a a waste of time and also air time. This show has not been repeated on ITV2/3/4 yeah thats how good it is.

I would say do not by th box sets just a waste of money.

BEWARE


Well, I didn't know what to expect from 555. Matter of fact, I had never even heard of it until a few months ago. But, being a collector of just about all types of horror I figured I would go ahead and grab this obscure 80's slasher.

Basically the storyline has to do with a killer that kills every 5 years for 5 nights in a row. What the third 5 in the title means... nobody knows. Anyway, the killings start as the killer searches for young teenagers fooling around in obscure places. He decapitates the men and brutally knifes the woman to death. After this, he proceeds to rape the dead corpse. The police think they have a lead on the killings but really have no idea what is going on. How will they find the killer? Does anybody care?

This movie is filled with some of the worst actors I have ever seen. No wonder none of these actors went on to do anything else, literally. The three lead actors consist of two detectives and a "sexy" female reporter. I am being sarcastic when I say sexy, she is about as un-sexy as it gets. The two detectives are like watching tweedle dee and tweedle dum. One of them underacts his part and the other one may have gone to the Shatner School of Acting. The acting is so bad that it almost forces you to lose your interest in the movie, thus almost putting you to sleep.

The only thing holding this terrible movie together is a few decent gore scenes. For a movie on this budget the makers must have put all of there money into the special effects, which still aren't that great.

Unless you are like me and have to own every single horror movie out there, I would suggest steering clear of this movie. 4/10


For all its many flaws, I'm inclined to be charitable towards "Thing". There is the nugget of an interesting, creepy, claustrophobic Hitchcock style story here. Put this in the hands of a writer like Theodore Sturgeon or (if you prefer British perspective) Robert Bloch, or the guy who wrote "Day Of The Triffids", and you might have had a nasty, unsettling little spook story that was the best thing in an book anthology of horror and suspense stories.

However, someone chose to tell this story as a feature length movie, and a cheap, 2nd rate at that, and so most of the potential is wasted. A story like this really needs a voice like Sturgeon's to bring out interesting quirks of character in a better light. His classic story "The -widget-, the -wadget-, and Boff" is an example of how he can gather together an isolated group of "ordinary" characters and in the space of 40 pages can turn them into the most amusing, sympathetic and fascinating people you've ever met. A good writer can, with a few chosen words, make the reader "see" some of the most vivid and memorable events ever to scar his emotions.

Instead, we get a movie where some of the most irritating and unlikeable characters ever made are lumped together and made to interact in unconvincing "Where did that come from??" moments that just lie there. (IE the blond psychic girl declaiming that "You're all evil and I hope you are destroyed!"). We get leaden pacing and slow motion blocking and dull sets and stiff actors. I blame the director for the 'stiff and shallow' part. These are all 3rd rank character actors who never made the big time, but they are also 'real' actors, and a good director could have gotten better performances out of them. We get uncalled for lesbian overtones that make the viewer feel uneasy and exploited without delivering any kind of payoff. (If I'm going to have my baser instincts exploited and feel guilty about it, I want done by stuff staged better than this). And we get over an hour of creepy build-up diffused in about 35 seconds in one of the worst anti-climaxes I've ever seen.

Good things about "Thing"? Um, well...some of the closeup shots of the warlock's head silently mouthing its directives were pretty effective. The miserly and shrewish widow rang true to life (even if I wanted to stuff a sock in her mouth). The first scene where the big, "simple" ranch hand silently turns on the oily cowboy and kills him had a bit of shock value, because the plot had taken the trouble to establish the big guy as a fairly sympathetic character. And like I said earlier, the idea of an insidious force from the past turning the members of an isolated community against each other is a good one and can sustain interest far above the actual merit of a bad performance.

Which this definitely is.

But, as I said, I'm inclined to be charitable, because the director was probably working under a penurious budget, breakneck time constraints and the best actors he could find for the money. Heaven knows how future generations will judge facile crap like "The Cave", "Wrong Turn" or the remake of "House of Wax" 40 years from now. I hope they are charitable towards our own tastes in supporting our generations wastes of film stock.


Boy Oh Boy, does this movie stink. This movie is one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever seen in my whole entire life. Please, even if your life depends on it, DO NOT, and I repeat: DO NOT under any circumstances, view this horrid piece of garbage. Only watch this thing when it comes on as a MST 3000 Episode. That was the only way I could sit through the whole thing. If I had to watch it without that show, I would've stopped watching it before it was over. It does have one use: A Cure For Insomniacs!!!!!


"The Apartment Complex" is a campy comedy full of kookie characters created in lieu of a real story which tells a young psych student (Lowe) who takes a job managing an apartment complex and becomes embroiled in a murder mystery...um, if you can call it that. This low cal watch contains no suspense, no thrills, no drama, no action, precious few funny moments, a dash of nudity, and almost no romance. "The Apartment Complex" is passable, forgettable junk food for only the most needy couch potatoes.


This miniseries/movie was so terrible at times that I nearly broke down and turned it off. I am a great fan of the novel, however this movie suffers from multitudes of problems. The costuming is poor, and many of the more emotionally charged scenes are blase. The departures from the novel are poorly chosen, significant nuances are missed or rewritten.


That's a weird, weird movie and doesn't deserve a better mark than David Lynch's one! The special effects are badly made, the actors are majorly bad actors and in this movie it's not about a race which is the minority of a planet and tries to fight against the dominators, but it seems to be a crazy movie, which pays homage to sect kind of organisations. That's surely not the will of Frank Herbert, the author of the six part epic! Check out David Lynch's one, that's the perfect tribute to the novels!


"Music and lyrics written and performed by Charlie Daniels"... 'nuff said. Just don't be expecting anything along the lines of "Devil Went Down To Georgia", ol' Charles sorta talk-sings through one song early in about the Whiskey Mountain (duh) and that's it for lyrics. Hey though, fans of arty rape scenes will get a kick out of the Polaroid montage (my second-hand copy is classified as a FAMILY film) and who doesn't love interminable scenes of rednecks gawking at purty wimmen? The box art made the movie look a hell of a lot weirder than it was, with the promise that "you can lose your life-- or your mind!", but mostly it's two couples trekking through the sticks and "acting" natural. Love that hermit.


This movie is too stupid for words. Even if you consider it to be a parody on movie-making, if you consider it to be completely camp, even than you're wasting your time watching it - for you've seen it a hundred times before. But maybe you are a big fan of high shrieking girl voices, you're still loving Barbie and Ken and you can stand this typical '80s electric guitar background noise... Well, than you'll have a chance.


I only wish there was a grade lower than F to give it! i scored it a 1 in the vote tally.I am grading this not even as a regular film,but as a T&A film,and this is the worst,lamest,crappiest and most awful movie i've seen.the acting,story and music are all terrible,not to mention there isn't even any nudity for the T&A connisuer.it's about a male cheerleader and the viewer is made to sit through many painful scenes of him doing cheers.avoid this piece of trash at all cost! this is the worst of bad 80's teen cinema.


I got hold of this film on DVD with the title Evil Never Sleeps, it gives front cover billing to Carrie Ann Moss, but she plays such a minor character that I didn't really notice her in the film.

I'm afraid that I consider this one of the worst purchases I have ever made. The dialogue was stilted and the delivery wooden, I found the acting to be disconnected from the plot. Graham's performance to me was of someone who's wondering whether she's left the gas on at home.

All in all both my wife and I found this film painful to watch, and it is not a valuable addition to my collection, watch it at your peril, but spending 90 minutes having your fingernails pulled out would probably be a better way to spend your time.


This film is just another waste of time. The plot is ridiculous, forced USA drama. The characters were all really weak, especially the uncharismatic Goya and the bad interpretation of Bardem, who only was alright in his classic interpretation, when acting as french ally.

Just another chance lost of have spent the money in a good film. I guess it was no a low budget film. Definitely not recommended. Maybe the director's should think a bit whether the film has sense or not before wasting so that money. Maybe they do not bother as they have profits before launching them in the cinema.

No more hope in cinema...


I've never understood this type of spoof movies. You get some serious/semi-serious movie that everyone knows about and takes the seriousness out of it through immature fart-jokes and such. We've seen it many, many times, and it's never really been funny. It's just an easy way to laugh at something you don't understand, in my opinion. This seems to be one of the more obscure and less liked of the genre, though I honestly don't see anything in this that is much worse than that of Spy Hard or Hot Shots. This movie, as is clearly understood simply from the title, concentrates on making childish fun of Pulp Fiction. That's the main reason I decided to watch it, as I found that film to be overly indulgent of Tarantino's sick mind and powerfully overrated. I had hoped for one or two good jokes, making fun of the overly violent and pointless type of movie that Pulp Fiction was in every aspect, in my (anything but) humble opinion. I was sorely disappointed. The plot is pretty much a rip-off of Tarantino's film, with a few scenes spoofing other, often better, films, in the same childish and humorless fashion. The pacing is poor, and often you'll sit there, being able to guess the outcome of every scene, predicting every joke, often thinking of a better one at the spot, bored out of your mind. The acting is bad. The characters are clichés and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work. It just makes the movie that much harder to sit through. The humor is juvenile and lame. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that they managed to find some actors that looked like the people they were supposed to look like. The film is an awful waste of the actual real actors involved. Possibly slightly entertaining to fans of the typical spoof movies of the same kind. I recommend this only to people who truly loathed Pulp Fiction, or fans of the Zucker parody films. Everyone else: avoid. 1/10


I was so excited to finally watch "Pulse" after receiving it from Amazon, and I have to say I was utterly disappointed. I perhaps think I was too hyped up. I had expectations set by its fans that simply couldn't be met. After loving other Asian horrors, I thought I knew this would find a place in my heart.

The story was slow, painfully so. I am a diverse fan of horror. I love the brutal, bloody craziness of "The Devil's Rejects" and I love equally the steady, growing macabre of "A Tale of Two Sisters". "Pulse" offered little from either spectrum, sadly.

Along with the sluggishness of the plot, it was also very muddled. I hadn't a clue why characters were doing what they were doing and how what they were doing would help their problem. It seemed as if the director spouted off the plot in a sentence or two and the rest was improf from our actors. Unlike "A Tale of Two Sisters", which also has a rather hard-to-follow plot line, "Pulse" clears up very little at the end and left me feeling frustrated, confused and uninterested in the characters' endeavors. My closing statement about the plot was its inconsistency. At first it seemed as if the story was about the ghost world overflowing and their medium of escaping is the Internet. That's a damn original idea. I like that. But as the plot drones on, plot-holes and unexplained happenings rearing their heads in, it seems the director switched to some apocalyptic tale (as evident by the ending) that just hasn't been clear enough throughout to execute.

I realize the dreariness of the shots and the setting was intentional to make the viewer feel bleak and isolated, but the dullness of the movie was only intensified by the grainy, shadowy surroundings. I will admit there was a certain feel of surrealism with the movie, but that may have just been my attention waning in and out.

The actions of some of the characters are a little bit ridiculous as well, and perhaps if I was more enthralled by the story I would've been able to suspend more disbelief but as well myself being unmotivated so too were some of the characters. Like I mentioned previously, the logic behind what certain characters did were absent and contributed to the incoherence of the plot. Perhaps it was a result of the plot's incoherence that the characters do questionable things. To be honest I don't really care.

The acting was decent. Certainly nothing outstanding but nothing terrible either. No outliers to mention on either side of brilliant or plain awful.

Now I'll stop sounding so sour and mention that there were a handful of creepy moments. One towards the end especially that if there were more like it throughout, I would've enjoyed this movie (almost) wholly. I thought whenever the website was shown it was pretty unsettling, as well as some of the ghostly encounters our two main characters face. The things that went on between these ghastly run-ins were just too lackluster, baffling and "WTF" for me to truly appreciate.

Now for something pertaining to the DVD itself... Magnolia's release of "Pulse" comes with subtitles, yes, but the subtitles are off. They aren't said at the correct time of the character's speech. It may sound nit-picking but it bothered me a little and it may bother some others. I think this is the only North American release of the film though so you either have to deal or watch dubbing (NEVER WATCH DUBBING!!!) I tried to like the film, I really did. I WANTED this film to live up to the hype... but sadly, it fell flat for me. If you're looking for other creepy Asian cinema I can recommend you "Audition", "Shutter", "A Tale of Two Sisters", "Strange Circus" and "Marebito" -- all of which are more my palette.


I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad ("What if something strange is going on?"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of "jolts" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??

To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?

I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.


Other reviews have talked about how frank this film is, especially in terms of male frontal nudity. Well, those who've seen Grande Ecole with its frequently naked actors and expect something similar are in for a big disappointment. Other than a few seconds in the judo team locker room, the two leads' side by side shower lasts a grand total of 15 seconds. The female lead has comparably brief frontal moments. A lot of this film's marketing is geared to the gay male audience, but those expecting even a hint of homoeroticism between the two male leads (best friends who have a three-way with the girlfriend of one of them) will be most disappointed. There is not even the hint of either one's being interested in the other, or even scarcely aware that the other is part of the menage a trois. As a film, Douches Froides is curiously uninvolving; the viewer gets very little sense of who these three young people are, of how they are feeling, of why they behave as they do. About one hour of the original cut was deleted; perhaps this is why the finished film seems frustratingly undeveloped. Stick with Grande Ecole, a French film which more than delivers on its promises.


Honestly - this short film sucks. the dummy used in the necro scene is pretty well made but still phony enough looking to ruin the viewing experience. the Unearthed DVD is crisp and clear and I haven't made up my mind if this helps or hinders it. If the film was a little grainy it might have added some "creepiness factor" to what was going on. I have no idea why this film has so much hype surrounding it other than the subject matter - but to be honest the necrophilia scenes in films like NEKROMANTIK and VISITOR Q among others, are more shocking than in AFTERMATH. All this talk about the film being about loneliness and all other manner of deep philosophy is bull****. This is an expensive, beautifully filmed turd. It's not that shocking, it's not that disgusting. if you insist on viewing it - rent it. I give it a 3 for the fact that not many people make explicit movies about necrophilia (there should definitely be a bigger selection for us sickos ;) - the filming is good and it does have some "gore" (if watching a rubbery looking doll get cut open is considered gore...) but other than that - absolutely nothing going for this over-hyped mess. On the other hand - GENESIS - Cerda's "sequel" to AFTERMATH (now available as a "double feature" released by Unearthed films) is an absolute masterpiece of a short film, really showing what a good director Cerda really is when given the right material. Although I don't care for AFTERMATH at all, GENESIS is so well made that I will forgive Cerda and Definitely keep an eye out for him in the future...


Eaten Alive follows a young woman (Janet Agren) who searches for her lost sister. Turns out her sister have joined a sect that has disappeared into the jungles of Borneo. With Vietnam veteran Mark at her side she sets off to find her sister.

As per usual, the acting isn't of the highest quality but you do get cannibal flick poster girl Me Me Lai spending most of the time on screen with her breast bare, female lead Janet Agren covered in gold paint and abused with a dildo dipped in snake blood among other things. Now that's gotta count for something!

But, I must say that I find it bit hard to recommend this title. If you are fan of the genre, you will most likely recognize every gore scene in the movie bar a select few. And I mean that literally. A lot of the gore scenes are lifted straight out other Cannibal movies, like MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and LAST CANNIBAL WORLD. There's probably more movies stuck in there.

Ultimately, this is one for die-hard fans to check off their list. If you haven't seen any Italian jungle movies, you'd be better off watching CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and if you're an avid fan, you have seen most of the gore scenes in other movies.


While most of Wayne's B efforts are entertaining in a fun way, this film is so sloppily edited and written, it is a dud. The first ten minutes alone show Wayne and bandits in nighttime scenes intercut with stock footage obviously shot in the day. Dwire plays a half white, half Apache bandit with a heavy Mexican accent and he cannot seem to pull off any nationality! I give this a 3.


"An astronaut (Michael Emmet) dies while returning from a mission and his body is recovered by the military. The base where the dead astronaut is taken to becomes the scene of a bizarre invasion plan from outer space. Alien embryos inside the dead astronaut resurrect the corpse and begin a terrifying assault on the military staff in the hopes of conquering the world," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

A Roger Corman "American International" production. The man who fell to Earth impregnated, Mr. Emmet (as John Corcoran), does all right. Angela Greene is his pretty conflicted fiancée. And, Ed Nelson (as Dave Randall) is featured as prominently. With a bigger budget, better opening, and a re-write for crisper characterizations, this could have been something approaching classic 1950s science fiction.

*** Night of the Blood Beast (1958) Bernard L. Kowalski, Roger Corman ~ Michael Emmet, Angela Greene, Ed Nelson


After reading the mostly glowing comments about this movie I decided to rent it despite some suspicions of TV movies. I should have followed my instincts.

I tried so hard to warm up to the movie and find merit in it but I just couldn't. The story never draws you in or rings true and the acting is perfunctory at best and laughable at worst. Everything in this production is amateurish.

Always a joy to watch, Mary McDonnell may be the only performer to escape this disaster without damaging her career or reputation. I won't even bother checking the name of the leading man - hopefully he's back doing commercials.

Even poor Vanessa Redgrave, whom I adore and respect, seemed to be channeling Katherine Hepburn all the time appearing as if she were really drugged in the home. Maybe she needed the money.

If I can save one person from wasting 100 minutes on this tripe I will feel vindicated.


This movie was nothing like the book.

Everything was mixed up or changed. Most of the movie was things that weren't even in the book.

This movie never should have been viewed. It was a great disappointment to me when I enjoyed the book so much and then to watch how this movie trashed the entire thing.

I would never recommend this movie to anyone that is a fan of Nora Roberts or J.D. Robb.

Honestly this movie is not worth watching with how off from the book is really is.


Honestly, on the subject of the death penalty, I could take it or leave it. The problem I have with this documentary lies in the fact that it is a complete love-fest for the murderer, with absolutely no sympathy for the family. The Execution of Wanda Jean, with it's completely one sided view, only reinforced my view that she should have been executed for her crimes. It tried to argue that she was mentally retarded, but nothing in the video supported that view. She seemed uneducated, but so did her entire family, but that doesn't mean they were all retarded. I can completely understand if someone is opposed to the death penalty, but to completely ignore the crime, as if it didn't happen, and try to put Wanda on some moral mountain top, is offensive in nature, and that's not the side of the issue I would be associated with.


I will never, ever forget watching this show around the age of 13. Even at the young age I remember thinking, "This is a Baywatch rip off show without the one thing that makes Baywatch tolerable. The girls in bathing suits." Nonetheless I was too small in those days to be the holder of the remote in my house. The high point of Pacific Blue was an episode in which a couple of thugged out gangsters are coming to whack someone with submachine guns ... on bikes!!! As a thirteen year old I never laughed so hard at something that was supposed to be taken seriously. Even I knew that the task of going out and acquiring Uzis (for murder) is a task that should never come before borrowing someones car for the day. That had been the defining moment of this show. Simple Crimes and situations tailor made by hack writing so they could be taken care of by the unsung hero of the crime fighting world The Bike Cop. Does not get much Dumber.


The film tells you to be aware and conscientious. It also destroys any and all things, the Bible claims to be true. To people like me the first episode was interesting and the second was disastrous. It has been called "blasphemy", and it is, if you are a believer. It is sad to hear, that many people think of it as a good sequel to the Bible. However, the film shows you a lot of things and subjects, that can be interpreted as a filmic version of the "Revelation". Some of us think, that such things are not to be abused. One good thing about the film is, that it strongly encourages ethical awareness and makes you consider your actions twice. The director just seems to forget, that some people act that way already solely based on the fact, that they believe and love as prescribed in the Bible... Why attempt to change that, unless you be the Devil yourself?


There needs to be a 0/10 option for bilge like this.

It was painful to watch, but strangely compelling all the same. Compelling because it seemed unbelievable that a movie could actually suck this much. I kept thinking "it must get better." It got worse. And worse.

How on earth were people conned into producing such a categorical piece of junk I'll never know. The most surprising thing of all though, is all these reviews I see of people actually loving the movie. Yes, the acting was good, but the movie was very very very bad. Worst movie ever!


I'm sorry, perhaps this is part of the wave of praise for fireman since 911, perhaps it's an old fashioned story, perhaps it's not meant to knock your socks off but I'm sorry, this film is awful. As in the title, cliché 49, I think it has at least that many clichés. It's a dreary story (impressive managing to be dreary when there's dangerous fires and lives being saved) about a fireman. And his dreary life, told in a pointless, 'scene from now' flashback to the past style. We begin the film with the hero in peril in a collapsing burning building. The entire film is about trying to get us to love this guy so we squeeze a few tears out when he meets his end in the finale of the scene from the start of the film. I found it hard to care and wished he'd gone up in smoke earlier. Clichés abound such as - death of best friend, love at first site, hazing in a new job, firstborn, a worried wife with a husband with a perilous job, a father figure boss/superior, 2.4 kids (well 2 but close enough), sacrificing your life to save others, awards for bravery....on and on. It's every fireman's life, every police officer, nurse, doctor in some way. It was lazy, if it was meant as a 'life flashing before his eyes' as he died, then God help the poor chap, I'm surprised he didn't suck in more smoke to go quicker. The flashbacks are mostly mundane and predictable, dully acted and with a soundtrack that could put The Laughing Cow out of business it was so cheesy, it actually sounded like muzak or copyright free elevator stuff!!! To be avoided at all costs unless you need something to watch with granny of a Sunday evening. Or maybe if your related to a firefighter - warning - your life will end horribly or you will be scarred for life if you are a brave fireman according to this movie. Unless your John Travolta (strange Velcro style hair in this one!!)


Is there a fire fighter cliché that is NOT used in this film? From the opening line "I'm getting too old for this" through the "antics" of the firemen, to the "worrisome wife" the loss of his best friend in the firehouse, to the final funeral for the fallen brethren, this film looks and sounds like it was written by the marketing department at Disney ("Our studies show that audiences really like it when..." and then they stuck it in).

There is nothing original here. Any emotion we feel for these guys is brought in for our admiration and feelings for firemen.

Go watch Rescue Me if you want to see real heroes: Everyday guys with flaws that think nothing of running into a burning building to save strangers.


Jeff Fahey has such alert eyes and a smudgy, insidious smile that every character he plays seems villainous; therefore, it doesn't really work to cast him as the good guy of the piece, the audience is just waiting for his character to crack and start blowing people away. Drew Barrymore, fresh off her acclaimed role as "Poison Ivy", must have done this film simply as a favor to director Phedon Papamichael (he was the cinematographer on "Ivy"); playing a character named Daisy Drew (!), she's bumped off right away, which leaves us with no one to look at but Jeff Fahey and Sean Young (who hasn't had a single subtle moment on camera since "Blade Runner"). This witless script, by Michael Angeli, concerns a police sketch artist who draws his own wife's face from a murder witness's testimony, and while that's not a bad idea for a plot, it would be much better suited to an hour-long TV series. This cable-made movie is short on inspiration (beginning with the casting) and shorter on surprises. * from ****


"First Snow" has an intriguing beginning. A traveling salesman has his fortune told by an old man, who's predictions turn out to be amazingly correct. From this point on the movie plays out like a bloated "Twilight Zone" episode. I mean nothing but car trips, phone calls and paranoia. William Fichtner gives his usual interesting performance, but Guy Pierce is anything but a sympathetic character, disregarding other people's well being for the sake of his own paranoia. The ending is especially weak, with absolutely no payoff for the long suffering audience. Do yourself a big favor and avoid this one. Not recommended. - MERK


Tom Stern and Jeremy Slate are swing bachelor's planning to hijack a casino, ala "Ocean's 11", and pin it on the Hell's Angels. Bad move. For a film with the words Hell's Angels AND the number 69 AND featuring actual Hell's Angels, this movie is surprisingly tame. The Hell's Angels truly deserve a better film to be centered around them. Not this snoorefest. Luckily this is one of the DVDs that features commentary by Joe Bob Briggs so the pain of having to sit through it is greatly alleviated. If you watch it any other way, let me recommend something to you. DON'T!!

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Joe Bob Brigg's commentary; Conny Van Dyke's message to her fans (she has more than one?); Photo gallery; Theatrical Trailer; and Trailers for "Blood Shack", "Hell High", "Samurai Cop", and "The Hollywood Strangler"


The writers missed so many opportunities and created so many plot holes.

Example: When Dave retrieved his keyboard from the rain, I was eagerly anticipating the funny sounds that were going to come out of it. Nothing! Are you kidding me? A truly witty writer would have not only had a field day with that, but it would have eliminated the major problem of the entire audience wondering how a digital keyboard can become completely soaked but then work perfectly.

There were at least 10 other similar situations. Overall, small children will enjoy this, parents will endure it without too much complaining.


That is the answer. The question is: What is the single reason to watch this movie? I loved her in "My Name Is Julia Ross." That is one of the best films noir of all time. Noir or whatever one may call it, it's a very unsettling movie.

She is fun in one of the worst major studio releases of all time, too. That would be "The Guilt Of Janet Ames." This one has a spooky, promising title. It has a good cast. It has a fine director. I was expecting something dark. Maybe something a little tawdry. Instead, it's an uninspired, routine espionage movie. It's pretty much is a total bore. At least it was to me. Ms. Foch is captivating. And that is about it.


As with many sequels, this one just doesn't have the quality or the impact of the original. The first one belongs up there with the rest of the greats. This one just doesn't cut it. The first film had a magical "good time" feeling about it that is totally missing from this film. We became enamored of all these characters (minus Richard Dreyfuss) in an age of innocence. Now, a few years later, they have changed so much that they are largely different people. While this is what happens in real life, we don't expect this to happen to our favorite film characters! The film doesn't have the humor that the original had, and we were expecting to laugh. What little humor is there is dark. The first film also featured what is probably the greatest soundtrack ever, while this one is good but not even close to the original's. This film is so totally different from the original that it isn't even actually a sequel. I gave it a 4.


all i can say about this film is to read the back of the video case and then put it back on he shelf and pick anything else, i mean anything, a blank video, would be better than watching this.


I don't understand the exaggerated good critics about this film, except that a lot of people from Venezuela are understandably very excited, based on that the Venezuelan cinema is really a bit behind of what other countries are in the region.

The movie first of all is too repetitive, a lot of scenes are almost identical from each of the both leading roles, so you get the impression that it's a time filler. A time filler is also a good point, as this movie is definitely too long with 105 minutes, you will start to get tired after a while and watch on the clock.

All actors are quite bad, by exception of the venezuelan guy Edgar Ramirez, who brings in a bit of slapstick and plays the role of the venezuelan recruit "Pedro".

By the way, this is not a representative movie about the people of the region (caribean zone), it tends to ridicules them.


Well, after seeing "Beginning" I thought why the hell they burned Schraders Version and did that poor one. But now, after seeing "Dominion" I deeply understand this decision. Even they got it not much better.

Sorry, but this movie is really crap. Some good moments, but a really boring story-telling and some major plot-holes are killing this movie.

I thing the Exorcist-story has a lot and in a prequel on this you can built on a lot and give references the audience will like to see. But there is so much little of it in the movie. The effects are really bad - not even TV-standard.


Once again, I've been duped by seemingly intelligent reviews making seemingly intelligent comments about an obviously crappy movie. I actually put my shoes on, got in my car, burned expensive gasoline and drove to the nearest rental place AFTER reading said reviews and paid the requisite 4 dollars and change to rent this thing. I'm telling you, this one's not worth the minuscule kilo-calories spent on lifting one's index finger to switch channels on a TV remote.

I even gave it a few more minutes after seeing all the tell-tale signs of a pedigree dog-pile. These presented as clinical symptoms of a director who is a. going senile or, b. is only marginally interested in the film he/she is obligated to create. I saw similar deterioration with John Carpenter's string of ridiculous caricature's over the past number of years.

Here are a couple of scenes as incriminating evidence. The priest is having a disturbing dream...supposedly a harbinger of nastiness to come since he seems hell bent on opening the archaeological feature which houses the demon. The dream is a goofy collage of disjointed images right out of the Twilight Zone's stock footage. A ticking clock careens through the dream scape's blackness implying, what?, the unfathomable mystery of Time?....big deal! A disembodied head, painted in demon features with convenience store quality Halloween make-up, flickers back and forth in a convulsive frenzy. Every time I see this effect, a big fat rip-off from Jacob's Ladder, it pisses me off. This, in itself, almost instantly discredits a film.

The whole build-up of the archaeological dig itself is laughable. Everything is so obvious...so tired and over-wrought...the only possible response is boredom. At one point in the dig, the priest comments on finding the statues of Angels surrounding a sarcophagus...they're all pointing down toward the crypt with their weapons. He queries "Look at these surrounding statues....It's as if they are holding..something..down!" This is supposed to build tension...critical mass..but it doesn't even come close! How can there be suspense if you treat the audience like a bunch of morons having to EXPLAIN the suspense as you go along. The imagery is over-done in the first place but the added comments only add insult to injury in my opinion. Soon thereafter, the tomb is "decorated" with the remains of the soldiers placed there to guard the main atrium (another shameless rip-off of The Keep, btw). Who, for crying out loud, did the make-up effects for this film??! The blood actually had that pinkish quality one might see in 70's Tromaville flicks. At this point I became almost convinced that they simply forgot the make-up and had to go to Wal-Mart in the interest of time and money.

DON'T listen to glowing comments on this one! I'll be keeping a suspicious eye on Schrader too. Looks like it might be time to hang up his gloves. Perhaps a close friend will offer a gentle admonition to quit while there's still dignity in memory of films gone by.


OK, last night I saw the world premiere of Paul Schrader's The Exorcist: The Beginning at the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Films. With all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated.

The director was there and so were most of the stars (except Skarsgard).

Unfortunately the movie sucked big time. It was a real disappointment for me because I'm a huge fan of both Shrader and Friedkin's (RIP) original 1973 film.

What was wrong with it? Most of it actually. The FX (you would think that the Matrix and LOTR digital revolution never happened: it was so badly rendered!), the editing (no real pace or rhythm), the acting (only Skarsgard at times could convince). The script was a, IMO, set up to explain the African scenes in the original film. So the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing.

The only thing that I did like was Vittorio Storaro's cinematography although I've seen better from him (Apocalyps Now).

All of the time I was thinking this was just a rough cut, a work in progress. And that, given the (well known) circumstances, is probably what it is. But that doesn't change the obvious problems with the script.

I had the chance to meet Schrader (very briefly) but I didn't have the guts to tell him what I thought of the film and I was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote Taxi Driver for Christ sake!!) that I forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his Taxi Driver script...


I cannot stress how bad this movie is. This director took every cheap little unintelligent shot at making these people look so "distressed". Why are their clothes so dirty? Why on earth would you get the new clark kent to play a crack head? You should be banned from motion pictures for the rest of your life Buddy Giovinazzo.

I take serious offense to this fool wanting to cast real actors as thugs and lowlifes as some kind of clever joke. Why would you ask Clark Kent to play a crackhead? Why are they yelling so much? Why is everyone so mean? Why are those kids so filthy? No one would want to be so filthy? Not even a crackhead child.

You need to grow up and not make any movies ever again.


It pains me to say this about an Australian film but Mr. Accident ranks with the worst of the worst films I have ever seen. What's even more tragic is that it doesn't fit into the 'it's so bad it's good' category. What annoys me the most about this film is the fairly large amount of money that has been frittered away on a pointless, unfunny, underdeveloped, inept screenplay. Dumb performances (What are Garry McDonald and Elisabeth Gore aka Elle McFeast doing in this trash?), inadequate direction, no plot and a general sense of meanness totally take away from the interesting production design and leave you with a truly horrible taste in your mouth. Comedy! Ha! Do yourself a favour and stay away!


This movie stars Ben Kingsley as Frank, a hit man for some Russian mobsters based out of Buffalo. He is also a raging alcoholic, and this has caused his job performance to decline. After he falls asleep in his car during a would-be hit, his mob boss uncle sends him to San Francisco, where he is to attend AA meetings and get a job as a mortician's assistant. If you're thinking that this makes absolutely no sense, you're not alone.

It gets worse. Well, it actually gets better, but not before getting much, much worse. Frank suddenly becomes a master mortician in spite of a complete lack of training, but his reactions with the people in the funeral home and the AA meetings are interesting. The viewer starts to root for him as they notice positive changes in his life. Luke Wilson is a welcome addition as Frank's sponsor, although he is given almost nothing to do (his character does tell us he is gay, but this ends up having no significance whatsoever). The movie plunges headlong into idiocy with the introduction of the Tea Leoni character. She is completely unrealistic, and her role as a love interest to Frank flounders, as the two actors have no chemistry together. Around the time she comes into the picture, Frank becomes much less engrossing as a character. His characterization is seemingly random; there is no consistency in his behavior. The comedy is low-key and only intermittently funny, especially disappointing considering the comedic pedigree of the cast.

Problems abound in this one. Kingsley's accent is terrible and inconsistent. It alternates between Italian, Russian, and Hispanic. Throughout the course of the movie, Frank tells numerous people he is a hit man (including an entire AA group), but nobody seems to care, or wants to do anything about it. The movie relies on cliché scenes to carry it through its final act, most notably when Leoni's insufferable character chases Frank down at the airport, just when he is about to board a flight back to Buffalo.

Though it has a strong premise and an interesting first half-hour, the movie quickly becomes a total disaster and devolves into complete nonsense. At the end of the film, Frank celebrates one year of sobriety. I hope to celebrate many, many years of not having seen "You Kill Me".

My Grade: D+


To paraphrase the previous reviewer's comments, if you're a Stooges fan, avoid this one at all costs! My basic question is, being the experienced troopers of comedy that Moe and Larry were, why did they insist on attempting to continue the act when it was so obvious that their home studio, Columbia, was so clearly not interested in giving them serious writers and veteran comedy directors? This movie plays like someone who's giving a pale imitation of the trio and you can see how very hard Moe and Larry are working to make every little bit of slapstick relevant. Joe De Rita, despite his background in vaudeville is just not up to the job as a replacement for Curly, Shemp, or even Joe Besser. If that's who Moe and Larry had left to pick from, they should have just closed up shop and enjoy their retirement years. Leaving us fans with better memories of far better films they had done earlier. Always leave them laughing is the motto for comedy and always quit while you're on top. Hence Seinfeld's leaving the sitcom while right up there, instead of sticking around for the inevitable decline.


Well, after the hype surrounding the film and after Surya labeling the film as PATH-BREAKING, I went into the theatre expecting something big. Boy was I disappointed.

First of all, the characterizations in the film are SO weird! Which wife would do what Kundhavi (Jyothika) did? An idiotic, coo-coo one? And what was the point of her standing in the rain with her child (Baby Shreya) after she and her husband had a fight? What was the purpose of that scene anyway? To start a vulgarly shot "Maaja Maaja"? Not only was the song not canned aesthetically, it was just not needed in the screenplay. NOT NEEDED AT ALL! Secondly, the first half of the had practically NO STORY. The entire first half was a FREAKING drag. Every scene in the first half of the film had no significance what so ever to the real story of the film. And also, how did Aishwarya (Bhoomika Chawla) change so radically all of a sudden? And how did Gautham (Surya) and Kundhavi lead a happy live together after six years even though they were SO unhappy about marrying each other? And if Gautham did love Aishwarya like he claimed he did, why DID he even marry Kundhavi even if it was his uncle's death wish? WHY? That's the question you keep asking whilst watching the film! And how fair is the ending to Aishwarya? After all, she was Gautham's first wife? Krishna, the director of the film, claimed he worked on the script of this film for two years, but his script is filled with flaws and leaves the audience utterly irritated! Thirdly, Krishna's un-imaginative picturizations of Rahman's awesome is just disappointing. Surprisingly, Anthony's editing (usually superb) for the "New York Nagaram" song just sucks! The whole song looked like it was a slide show made on Microsoft Power Point! "Munbe Vaa" Rangoli chorus was wasted showing Gautham PLAYING FOOTBALL!!! Who wants to see the freaking dude playing football during such a beautiful chorus?!? Whats more, the whole movie only needed TWO songs. Munbe Vaa and Kummi Adi. The rest of the songs inclusive of "Machakari", "Maaja Maaja", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" are just not needed. Rahman's fine efforts are simply wasted on a stupid film directed by an amateur director! Fans of Rahman, you ask why Rahman keeps moving to Bollywood. After looking at the way his songs are picturised in Kollywood, why would he want to stay here? What's more irritating is that after Krishna decided to include Machakari into the film, the song was cut by half which truly, truly annoyes.

Surya looks handsome in his new get ups save the ones during the college scenes and packs in a so-and-so performance. His expressions during all the songs he was featured in really do not fit the way the singer sings the songs. Was Jyothika even acting in the film? All she did was CRY! Would you call all that crying acting? One of her worst performances ever! What's more, her new hairstyle does not suit her. She looked way better in Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu. Her costumes during the "New York Nagaram" song are way off. Bhoomika Chawla is just gorgeous during the film and does justice to her role. Vadivelu's comedy is ANNOYING. When one is watching him, one wishes they could slap him on the face. It is Santhanam who is the show stealer during the comedy scenes. And why the heck did Sukanya even agree to do such a minuscule role which could have done by just anyone? And why is her make up so heavy when she has perfect complexion? Music by A.R. Rahman is just awesome. "Machakari", "Munbe Vaa", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" deserve special mention. R.D. Rajasekhar's cinematography is OK and isn't as good as his previous films though the scenery during the "Kummi Adi" song deserve special mention. Anthony's editing is really really disappointing. The film is just so freaking draggy and could be trimmed severely.

Krishna's direction just sucks. Dialogues (A.C. Durai and Krishna) are just too corny to digest especially the part where Bhoomika professes her love for Surya. The screenplay and script (Krishna) are horibble. The film moves in the more un-interesting pace ever. And Krishna's script is just filled with unexplained sub plots.

And for goodness sakes, why was there so much advertising in the film? Pepsi, Maggi, Suzuki, you name it. Was the producer of the film (K.E. Gnanavel) low on budget or was he just desperate? Overall, Jillunu Oru Kaadhal is a damp squib. With a title like that, one would expect a heart warming and cooling love story but what you end up is a painfully botched up love story. Really, really disappointing.


This film's a big bore. It has a plenty of Predictable plots & endless sentiments from the start. It starts good with a classy number but seems lost midway.

Surya & Jyothika's on screen chemistry works out really good & a good part by Bhoomika. Why include Vadivelu in it? He disappears totally after a good half an hour!. Santhanam proves his wit again by timing comedy.

AR's tunes sure will last for sometime. But he could have done better. What ever be the drawbacks still it's worth watching once if you feel alone at home or looking for a good time-pass.


Out of all the films I could have chosen, it had to be this. When I was last in New York I went into a Times Square store and out of the hundreds of DVD's they had I chose Joel M. Reeds Bloodsucking Freaks (1976) and this, on a double feature DVD that also included Seeds of Sin (1968), did I regret it? Read on to find out. The film opens on an island (near Milligan's Staten Island home) where two lovers are walking along with a massive parasol seemingly made from paper, at one point he gives her the top of a weed as a gift. Out of nowhere Colin (Hal Borske) a retarded hunchback pops up and kills both of them for no reason at all. After the opening credits which are joined by some of the worst headache inducing music I have ever heard, at least it got me used to it as it's used constantly throughout the film, we are introduced to three couples. The wives are all sisters, Vicky (Ann Linden) and Ricard (Fib LaBlaque), Veronica (Eileen Hayes) and Bill (Don Williams) plus Elizabeth (Carol Vogel) and Donald (Richard Ramos). They each receive a letter from a lawyer, H. Dobbs (Neil Flanagan) that request a meeting so he can read their late father's will. Dobbs informs them that they must spend three days in their childhood home 'Crenshaw House' and fill it with 'sexual harmony and marital love' that it had never known because of the strained relationship between their father and mother. He informs the couples that the will is highly irregular but legal. After three days the inheritance will be settled. The couples are also told about the servants, Martha (Veronica Radburn), Hattie (Maggie Rodgers) and the retarded Colin, who welcomes the couples by killing and biting chunks out of a rabbit in front of them. Later on that night whats left of the dead rabbit is found in one of the couples beds with a note that says 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit'. This starts a series of events which end in gruesome murder and reveals dark family secrets.

Co-written, photographed and directed by the talentless Andy Milligan. This is an absolutely horrible film in every way possible. Lets go through just some of it's faults. The music, it's awful and headache inducing. Sound, you can barely hear what characters are saying and certain scenes don't have any sound effects plus at certain points you can hear Milligan shouting out orders to his actors, oh and there's a constant hiss on the soundtrack throughout as well. The acting, probably among the worst I have ever witnessed. The very un-special effects, Colin pokes someones eye out in the opening sequence, it's the size of a tennis ball, the part where someone is tied down and has his stomach opened up with a saw looks really awful as are the various hands and legs that are chopped off. Photography, Milligan has absolutely no idea how to stage or film a scene, he regularly cuts the top, bottom or sides of peoples heads and faces off the screen and his camera jerks and shakes around like it's operated by someone who is constantly tripping over. There is also at least one scene so badly thought out and filmed that a crew member is seen. The film is often so dark you can't see whats happening, too. Editing, again some of the worst I've ever sat through, he seems to cut scenes before they've finished, cutting away while characters are in the middle of a sentence. The script, if there was one, credited to both Milligan and Hal Sherwood (It took two people to write this!?) is all over the place and is incredibly stupid. There is one unbelievably bad sequence where the killer follows a victim down into the basement, the killer walks right behind him, at one point the potential victim turns around. What does the killer do to avoid being spotted? They duck down right in from of him, the killers close enough to give the guy oral sex yet he doesn't notice them, right in front of him. You have to see this sequence to believe it, I still can't believe what I saw. Bizarre sub plots just happen and then totally disappear, check the scene out when Richard has to borrow money from his brother Walter (producer and co-writer Hal Sherwood), who turns out to be a gay priest who has had an incestuous relationship with his brother before he was married! A strange scene that's there for no reason at all. Martha the housekeepers reaction to the first murder, she's more bothered by the fact that it's thrown her dinner schedule out! There's load of insane dialogue as well, Patty and Martha discuss Colin, Patty says "if only I didn't beat him so hard" Martha sympathetically replies "you have to Patty, you have to!", delivered totally straight faced. And don't start me on how ugly the wallpaper looks throughout the house! The only good thing I can think of saying is that the costumes look reasonable, for the time period it's meant to be set in. I could probably go on all day about how amateurish this is, but I think you get the idea. One to avoid unless your a serious masochist! I didn't regret buying or watching it for a second, though!


People call a 976 "party line" to talk dirty to strangers, and perhaps meet up for a sexual liason. A deranged, somewhat incestuous sister and occasional transvestite brother use the line to find people to kill, usually married men, but they don't discriminate! A pair of sixteen year old girls also call the line for fun, pretending to be older, of course. One of them works as a babysitter for a married man who's hot for her (or anyone).

Meanwhile, a vice cop is borrowed by homicide when he's the first to discover one of the siblings' victims. He's teamed with a female assistant of the District Attorney.

Nothing too special here. Richard Roundtree has little more than a cameo as the police chief. One of the dirty-talking sixteen year olds is played by an actress who also voiced Peanuts character Peppermint Patty! According to the IMDb, the other died quite young, just several years after this movie: sad.