A couple of clarifying comments are in order. Herschell Gordon Lewis contributed a brief introduction to the video release of DOCTOR GORE (aka THE BODY SHOP), wherein he touched upon his collaborative efforts with J.G. "Pat" Patterson, director and star of DOCTOR GORE. Patterson concocted the "gore effects" for THE GRUESOME TWOSOME and a few other Lewis movies in the late 60s. Lewis remarks that whereas 2,000 MANIACS was a "five gallon" film (referring to the amount of stage blood required), the Lewis-Patterson productions were "fifteen gallon" pictures. Lewis does not describe DOCTOR GORE as a "fifteen gallon" film -- he's only talking about the films he & Patterson made together. Lewis has confessed (elsewhere) that his introduction to DOCTOR GORE was improvised before he'd even seen Patterson's film! So take it with a grain of salt.

This may be an "unfinished" film, but like some unfinished novels it does have an "ending." It's just missing some connective tissue.

Patterson has definite stage presence & a dry sense of humor, helping to make this simplistic show somewhat more watchable than it should be. There's an extremely bare-bones plot -- even BLOOD FEAST is more complex -- and a gratingly repetitive musical score by William Girdler. A bit of nudity & lots of skin. The entire middle section of the film involves the construction of a "perfect woman;" this is concentrated gore for the bloodthirsty, and laughable.

Patterson the director is in way over his head, but he tries hard to tell his story creatively, if it's possible to use Frankenstein clichés creatively. But the best reason to see this film (on Something Weird's DVD, if possible) is that it features a perfect Nashville weeper, Bill Hicks' "A Heart Dies Every Minute." Ain't it the truth!


**Spoiler* It gives away the very irrelevant ending**

At the beginning of this movie, there was a brief intro to the world of gore by the master of gore movies, H.G. Lewis. He talked about how this movie was lost, and then found years after the director's death. He also talked about how gore movies were measured by the amount of stage blood used in it. Blood Feast was a 2 galloner, 10,000 Maniacs was a 5 galloner. But, then he goes and claims that Dr. Gore was a 15 galloner. I want to know where half of the 15 gallons went. Watching the movie, I saw very little near 15 gallons. Agreed, there was a fairly large amount of blood, but no where near 15 gallons. Some of the dismemberment scenes were definitely pretty gory and realistic, strings of flesh and all, but I wouldn't say 15 gallons.

"END!!! ENNNNNNNNNDDDDDD!!!" Does that sound familiar? That's what you should have been saying near the last half of this movie. After the Igor character was tossed into the acid bath, the movie slowed to a painful crawl. There was no coherent end, as it didn't fit into anything the 90 minutes before it provided. She drove off in a van with a total stranger, BIG DEAL! That's what happens when you keep an individual (I won't say person, because she doesn't qualify as a person) very innocent about the world around her. The doctor teaches the girl that a man is to be loved, so every man she meets, she loves.

Even though H.G. Lewis told us at the beginning of the movie that we may not like the acting, the directing, or even the gore... I will go with choices A and B. BOTH WERE TERRIBLE!! It was enough to give me bad dreams of cut editing and people with shifty eyes as they talk to one person. But, I made it through the movie, and came out stronger. Too bad I couldn't say the same after finishing ROBO C.H.I.C.

This was a BAD movie. I can usually take my doses of vinegar in good stride, but every once in a while, you get a movie that bites back. I think this movie took off an arm or a leg (haha... *sigh*) Admitted, I did enjoy the stare down scenes, where the good doctor stared at his future victims and opened his eyes REALLY wide and just stared. It was VERY similar to Fuad Ramseys in Blood Feast when he stared at that lady in his catering shop, and did not use his power after that. I guess this movie picks up where Fuad's powers left off.

*Final Judgement* The movie should have stayed lost. Good day

-Scott-


The lives of Megan(Jackie Kresler)and Dylan(Shane Elliott)change in the Nevada desert between Reno and Las Vegas. They stop to eat at a small greasy spoon where they reluctantly learn about the infamous Area 51 by the café proprietor(Jonathan Breck). After getting back on the road in their forty year old Lincoln, the radio gets a little crazy broadcasting Hitler's speech at the 1836 Olympics and then later a 1958 news bulletin of Elvis Presley being drafted into the military. The car slowly breaks down and the two are in for the scare of their lives as mysterious unexplainable things happen in the lonely radiation-poisoned desert; remnants of nuclear testing. Megan meets a lost little girl(Channing Nichols)and a wounded WWII soldier. The nightmarish journey doesn't end there. Kresler is impressive to a degree and writer/director James Lay makes good use of Patsy Cline tunes. All in all, moderately interesting Sci-Fi.


I know this film was shown on local TV when I was a kid, but I can't remember whether I watched it or not; seeing it now, considering how utterly forgettable it is, I still don't know  so I counted it as a first viewing! There have been several films featuring the title character, a creation of visionary French author Jules Verne; these include: 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA (1954; with James Mason in the role), MASTER OF THE WORLD (1961; Vincent Price), MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1961; Herbert Lom), CAPTAIN NEMO AND THE UNDERWATER CITY (1969; Robert Ryan) and THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND OF CAPTAIN NEMO (1973; Omar Sharif).

This version stars Academy Award winner Jose' Ferrer. However, even if the premise itself isn't half-bad  awakened from suspended animation in his submarine, "The Nautilus", and finding himself in modern times, Nemo adopts all his ingenuity to aid the U.S. Navy in defeating megalomaniac scientist Burgess Meredith  it emerges as easily his most infantile adventure yet! For instance: five seconds into the film, Meredith's assistant  donning a steel mask  rants that "The World Shall Be Ours!"); equally hilarious are the zealous gesticulations of the similarly decked-out midget, whose task it is to fire The Professor's all-important "Delta Beam" - and how about those android-type minions aboard Meredith's vessel who never seem to do much of anything?!

Ferrer manages to maintain his dignity throughout, but Meredith is an embarrassment (in what is virtually a retread of his Penguin characterization from the 1960s BATMAN TV series and film) where the budget was so tight  mostly invested in bland production design and shoddy special effects, no doubt, and both evidently influenced by STAR WARS (1977)  that, apparently, they couldn't even afford him a decent costume (he looks positively idiotic wearing a tie in a sub)! The supporting cast includes Mel Ferrer (playing a saboteur in the vein of Joan Fontaine from another Irwin Allen production, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA [1961], and who engages in a swashbuckling routine with his namesake inside the engine-room of "The Nautilus"), Lynda Day George (unsurprisingly, she's the only female character around) and Horst Buchholz (as the King Of Atlantis  for whatever reason, Nemo is obsessed with locating the famed Lost Continent).

By the way, having been reduced from a three-part mini-series for theatrical exhibition, the film obviously feels choppy  though one is still able to discern where one episode ended and another began.


Meet Cosmo (Jason Priestley), a nerdy young bookie content with his boring life crunching numbers for the mob and living in a stark basement apartment at a senior citizens center. His only recreation is watching TV and the occasional tryst with his quirky prostitute pal, Honey (Janeane Garofalo). But one day all this changes, when the mob boss is killed and the well-regarded Cosmo is selected by the smooth and persuasive new chief, Gordon (Robert Loggia), to become a full-fledged hit man. It's an offer the reluctant Cosmo cannot-repeat, cannot-refuse, and he quickly trades in his mundane, solitary existence for a crash course in revenge under the tutelage of veteran mobster Steve (Peter Riegert), a relaxed, suburban bon vivant who relishes the job's maximum pay and minimum hours. In no time, Cosmo surprises both himself and mentor Steve by displaying an absolutely uncanny aptitude for the work. Though he's never touched a gun before, Cosmo proves to be both a crack marksman and, after an initial wave of moral hesitancy, a cool, detached killer. Soon, Cosmo is dispatching deadbeat clients with speed and style and his natural flair with a gun quickly establishes him as an invaluable addition to Gordon's mob.

Reality gets in the way though, when one night, while being massaged by Honey, Cosmo admits feeling a bit uptight and she recommends he try yoga to relax. Cosmo takes her advice and joins a nearby yoga class taught by a beautiful young woman named Jasmine (Kimberly Williams). Cosmo is instantly taken with the kind and gentle Jasmine, who soon becomes drawn to Cosmo. Now if she can just get rid of her pesky, abusive boyfriend, Randy (Josh Charles), maybe she and Cosmo can actually start something. Cosmo, using some of the "skills" of his new trade, eventually persuades Randy to disappear and his relationship with Jasmine takes off.

Writer/director M. Wallace Wolodarksy, a two-time Emmy Award-winner for his work on "The Tracy Ullman Show" and "The Simpsons", has fashioned a script fusing his three genre loves: "I like comedies, gangster movies and romances," explained Wolodarsky, "so I essentially smashed together all three to create this film." But what he's come up with is a film so disjointed and improbable that it looks just like a very long sketch on Saturday Night Live. It's monotonous tone doesn't so much match it's droll sense of humor, as underline the fact that a lot of money was spent on a vehicle for Jason Priestly to blithely shatter his nice guy image, which doesn't even fully succeed because he plays his character not as a nerd, but as a laconic zombie. A nerd may be naive, but a nerd has passion. Passion for inwardly directed things. But Priestly plays his character as mentally deficient, almost the anti-Forrest Gump. Unfortunately, "Coldblooded" doesn't have the sense of scope to actually BE the anti-Forrest Gump.

Peter Riegert (Local Hero, Animal House) turns in a fine performance as usual, and Kimberly Williams does her best with what she has to work with, but Janeane Garofalo (HBO's Larry Sanders Show) is practically wasted in her role as Cosmo's friend. Probably not for long, though. Garofalo has all the enthusiasm and charm of an apple waiting to be picked and it's just a matter of time before she'll be given a meaty role, hopefully doing a tag team thing with Marisa Tomei.


Solo is a poor film - that cannot be ignored. The acting for the most part is very wooden (the only exception is Adrien Brody's performance as Solo's creator Bill) and the story is slight enough that you would probably forget it WHILST you where watching the film. That said, such films are more about the action than the plot/acting and, as such, live or die by the action set pieces - that after all is the point of such films - to give 14 year-olds something to smile at whilst the adults watch films of actual substance. And even on this Solo fails to deliver - what little action there is is poorly done, dull and uninspired. After seeing the trailer for this on television I was hoping for something along the lines of Predator with a robot replacing the Predaot. Instead I got a fairly lifeless action film with a poorly constructed attempt at depth by taking on message that robots can feel too. Watch Terminator II or Predator instead.. both classics that this film desperately wants to be except it lacks the inspiration or, to be fair, the budget.


Pacino, and Maconadump really hit the mark with this stinker. I swear, I am an avid movie goer and fan. I have been a fan of most of the people in this abortion at one time or another. Until now. The story-crap The acting- crap(Rene Ruso-Major League was good) The plot-crap The subplot-garbage The teenage attempts to relate to sports betting-junk

I have vowed to watch Romy and Michelle's High School reunion 2 times a day for the next seven days as my punishment for not turning this colostomy bag of a movie off after 10 minutes. I was out of town for a seminar, and this pile of mung cost me $9.99, and 2 hours. I have been cheated. This director should be in jail for fraud.

Get with me if you have other review questions. I am always right.


This is by far probably the worst film Al Pacino could have starred in. The movie had no real plot. It kind of careens into 24 different directions. It seems that the target audience for this film are people from gambler's anonymous.Mat Mcconaughey's character is not believable enough to be Pacino's protégé'. So he won a few bets for some degenerate clients as a sideline to a shitty job recording on a 900 service. Does that automatically supposed to convince an audience of his skills? It was just plain stupid to think of. The trailer did promise to show us how he makes his sure-shot picks but after going through the whole film I have yet to see what skill if any he ever had. If you want skill try looking at Robert de Niro's character in Casino now that is showmanship. At some point in the film, Mat's character picks his winning bets at a flip of a coin. Anybody could do that. Al Pacino seems to talk a lot and I mean blabber mouth in your face dialog. I think that style started with Scent of a Woman and worked for him because he finally won an Oscar but now I think its just irritating. He seems to be always sermonizing. He does do a mean act of portraying a man having unstable angina (that's an impending heart attack) its typically reminiscent of his acting in Godather part 3 which he plays the aging,diabetic mafia don corleone but other than that Pacino's talent is wasted on this film. Rene Russo is just plain eye candy for this film. She's kept in shape and shows it off in the tight clothes she wears throughout. This film is plain crap. Do not waste your money on it. It is much worse than the gambling picks of Mats character in the film.


The Bermuda Triangle ,we are told in this waste of celluloid, is the portal to another time and dimension and can be crossed using cheap special effects by bad actors spouting inane dialogue

I simply was unable to decide who the makers of this excresence thought would be its target audience as it seems impossible anybody could derive even a modicum of pleasure from the outcome Avoid-its not even bad enough to be good.


It starts quite good, but after a while you start to expect more from this film than you are actually getting. Everything becomes unclear and unclear it stays. Czech filmmakers were good 20 or more years ago. But after they transfered to Capitalistic country, here it is, Czech unofficial but well known mentality ... COPYING ... COPYING ... COPYING of everything they consider good, when they see it in another movies or countries or elsewhere. I think that this is a good example of making "art" and "politics" and "horror" and "humor" and "film" and money. And it remains me of the /One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest/, which can not be compared to this film in the way of ART and ACTORS and STORY and POLITICS. I think this film is boring. It could be done better. At least, they tried. Sorry guys. :-( CANOT NOT Recommend


A woman finds herself caught up in an apparently inexplicable rash of suicides. Then again, are these really suicides? It seems as though there's a ghost on the loose. Guess what? The ghost has long black hair that hides its face, and it moves about with its head or arms twisted this way or that, making for a very weird looking specter. Recurrent theme music plays from unexpected locations to announce the arrival of the ghost, and bizarre sound effects--which resemble the sound of small twigs being snapped--always accompany this hapless spirit. Does any of this sound familiar? Well, if you've seen a few Asian horror movies in the last 10 years, it should. Borrowing heavily and unabashedly from "The Ring", "One Last Call" and a few other recent horror hits, this film tries to carry an uninteresting and worn-out plot to a climax, but we've seen it all before. Avoid it unless you're desperate or haven't seen any other Asian horror movies in the last 10 years.


This very finely crafted film commits the unforgivable (which is ironic, given the film's theme). No one coming into this film knows what they are in for. Worse than that, 3/4 of the way into the film, no one still has any clue of what they're in for because everything up to that "moment" is a different movie.

As a front-row fan of Dutcher's first two films, easily competing for the Best 2 Mormon films to date (competing with Saints and Soldiers and, now, New York Doll--saw that at a screening), Dutcher had me wanting to see his film for a very long time. I was there. I wanted to believe, believe that I'd see the next great Mormon movie, one that would hold the Numero Uno spot for a very long time. But no. Three-fourths in the film took the sharpest of left turns and dragged me through something that I never wanted to go through. He takes on the Mt. Everest of all moral issues, yea, both of them, with little time or emotional capacity left to adequately address them, but instead waves them both off with a nod towards Jesus as if that will make all things well, instantly. (True it is that Jesus saves. Don't accuse me of not believing that. That's not Dutcher's problem.)

Is the film shot well? Indeed. Do the actors act? They acted their pants off. Was the music appropriate? All but whatever was over the closing credits. Everything about this film was superb, except the story, which was so dank and wrong, that all else doesn't matter. (I learned "dank" from New York Doll, very decent show, by the way.) The third act of the film was neither desirable nor pleasant nor faith affirming. I know Dutcher was bending over backwards to make it so, but I was so far shoved out of the movie at that point that nothing, no thing, could have brought me back. The preposterous unbelievability of dozens of details in the final minutes didn't help. Anyone who's been on a mission knows what I'm talking about, especially anyone whoSpoiler Alertis familiar with events surrounding someone being sent home from a mission early for moral and/or psychological reasons. It's as if a parallel universe suddenly sprung up where normal rules or behaviors suddenly don't apply.

There are a million things good about this film, but they were created and beautified only to be trampled upon and thrown away in a knee-jerk fit of "ooh, this will really get them" elitism. Hence, unforgivable. I can only hope that when Dutcher puts the finishing touches on his next film ("Falling", apparently), that he remembers that film critics can only buy so many tickets and that it's the fans that pay the bills. That's why the first God's Army was such an unqualified success.

Dutcher's shock and awe approach proves that when it comes to the Big Issues he is in way over his head, having neither the spiritual nor creative maturity nor business sense necessary to take them on. I praypray!he learns his lesson and that years from now he and we all look back, with a chagrin, and rejoice that he pulled his head out of where the Light doesn't shine and really, successfully, takes on those and other issues and changes the world forever because of it.


All right, let me start by saying I love the original RS for the 64. The graphics were new, the ships were really fast and cool. The missions were a challenge, but you had a strategy to come up with. The computer didn't tell you every step of your mission, you could wander and explore.

That's the first thing that's wrong with RL, everything you do is under a timetable and controlled by other people. I mean, shouldn't you, as the leader, be telling people how to handle each and every mission?

And speaking of missions, why do they intersperse the original trilogy with completely made up crap? Never mind.

I was so waiting for this game when I heard they were going to allow you fly through the asteroid field from Empire Strikes Back. I think anyone who is a fan of the films wanted to do this. So, they give it to you. It's the stupidest level in the game. You start by flying through the asteroid field with ties chasing after you, and your whole objective is to get farther into the field while shooting the ties. You have to kill them all to get ahead. Hey, remember how many Han killed when he was in the field? None, they all had poor piloting skills compared to him. I just wanted to be able to dodge the asteroids as they came at me, but instead I have to use my automatic aim guns to kill ties behind me.

That was the biggest disappointment, you have no control over your flying, everything is sluggish. All except for the A-Wing, probably the fastest and most maneuverable ship in the entire fleet. But, oh yeah, didn't Han say the Falcon was? Anyway...

You finally get to the Battle of Endor. Here is the ultimate level, you get to destroy the death star, everyone's first instinct is to pick the Falcon and be the leader. But, of course, you get there and have to do stupid pre-chosen strategies like finding (not to mention deciphering the difference between) the tie-bombers. This is impossible in the falcon, by the time you have spotted one group the frigate gets destroyed. The only way to get passed this part is to pick the A-Wing. After this you have to attack the star destroyers and that's a real stupid chore. This game makes you feel like you're the only one defending the rebel alliance.

After you frustratingly get through that 'fun' fight, you get to the death star. And here, you might think 'yay! I get to destroy the death star', and again, like in the Asteroid field, you have to do some tedious thing while narrowly getting passed the tunnels of impending doom. Your mission is to protect the ship in front of you, remember that from the Return of the Jedi? It's so moronic because if you pick the falcon, you'll die because you're not maneuverable enough, but if you pick the x-wing, you have to keep locking and unlocking your s-foils. So it's a choice to either kill the bad guys, or try to catch up to Lando, who apparently doesn't know how to maneuver. Thus dying in the process.

The bonus stages aren't even worth aiming for as each level just gets more and more frustrating. It makes me feel the way I did when I saw the new three films, upset and in need of killing something. Lucky for me, Smash Bros Melee exists.

I hope with the Wii they come up with something a lot better and have the original trilogy levels to full capacity. I'm going to sell this game the first chance I get.


... why watch a TV drama (billed as a comedy) in which none of the characters are likable or even interesting people ? I can sort of see what the writer David Renwick was trying to achieve: the misdirections and bad-taste surprises that he put into "One foot in the grave", etc. I admit that the script made a bit more of an effort than most on British TV at the moment. But really ... who cares about these people ? They are cold bores.

Another poster mentioned the scene in which the woman sits down to watch a video of herself and her deceased ex-boyfriend shagging. That was the moment when I switched OFF this programme, never to return.

P.S. It's interesting to note that the posters who didn't like this series are all British, whereas those who praise it are mostly in other countries. This reflects the fact that when the BBC broadcast this series it was ignored by viewers and sank like a stone.

P.P.S. Good news for those who liked it ! There will be a second series in Autumn 2007 - though without the male lead. It sounds like the BBC have decided to turn it into a more conventional 30 minute sitcom.


This is the worst exercise in middle class pretentiousness yet to hit our television screens. I unfortunately did not see it when it was first shown but paid for the joy of watching six hours of excruciating drivel - and I'm still waiting for the laughs to arrive. I love Tasmin Greig having been a big fan of both Black Books and Green Wing and therefore know that she is capable of the very best of comedy parts. However, she played this part as well as she was able considering the lack of any decent comedy material provided. Please broadcasters bear in mind that the Trades Descriptions Act may well be invoked if you continue to bill as comedy material which is at best pseudo psychological romanticism and at worst a drama which poses as a quirky comedy to hide the fact that is neither fish nor fowl.


So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!


Lois Weber's film "Hypocrites" was and still kind of is a very bold and daring film. I enjoyed it and was very impressed by the filming and story of it. The priest sees the hypocrisy of the people in his church and tries to show them the "naked" truth. The people are appalled when he reveals the naked statue portraying truth, after failing to lead them to it and the few that did, help along the way. The people do not want to face the truth that they are doing anything wrong, but it shows them putting things before God, going to beach parties acting inappropriate, their materialistic ways, and other things in which the people of our world do that tend to not be morally right. In the end, failing to gain any followers, he must enter into the gates of heaven alone. This film seems to me to be very bold, in the fact that a naked woman is shown throughout it, especially considering the time period in which this film was made. The imagery and symbolism portrayed in this movie I found incredible. The way they made the naked woman translucent and using a naked woman to symbolize the naked truth shows a lot of creativity and art. Showing the different sins of the people as they walked down the road and refused to follow along the path, each with different excuses, setbacks, and/or higher priorities, was a great way of representing the people of today. This film does a very good job of getting the moral message across to its audience. Lois Weber has a tremendous way of capturing her spectators' attention with her creativity, symbolism, visuals, and through auditory. Even the music of the piano throughout this film is very beautiful and fitting with the whole theme.


Franco Zeffirelli's ("The Taming Of The Shrew," "Romeo And Juliet," "Jesus Of Nazareth," "Othello") third stab at transferring Shakespeare to the screen works very well, with the casting of Mel Gibson ("Mad Max," "Lethal Weapon" and pre-"The Passion Of The Christ" notoriety) in the role formerly owned by Sir Laurence Olivier (and rightly so; see my review on his "Hamlet," arguably the best interpretation of one of the Bard's timeless (and most quoted) tragedies) and redone 5 years later by Kenneth Branagh as a full-bloodied treatment, explaining its 3 hour 22 minute running time, combined with a dream cast (and a lot of little additions, which were well-chosen and expertly done by the contemporary master of William Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh, the director of "Henry V" and "Dead Again." Joining the "Lethal Weapon" star are Glenn Close ("The Big Chill"), Paul Scofield ("A Man For All Seasons"), Alan Bates, Ian Holm, Michael Maloney (who would be cast as Roderigo opposite Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne in Oliver Parker's "Othello" (see my review of Olivier's "stage" version of the tragedy, though he only starred in it) and who Branagh would cast as Laertes in HIS 3-hour version of "Hamlet" (a proper homage to Sir Laurence Olivier and his classic version of the play; see my review on that one as well) 5 years later), Nathaniel Parker (who would be cast as Cassio in his brother's version of "Othello" 4 years later) and Helena Bonham-Carter, who would be cast in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" 4 years later.

Zeffirelli intended this movie as a homage to Sir Laurence Olivier (who had died 2 years prior to this movie) and it works pretty well, for the most part. What I was slightly uncomfortable with was Zeffirelli's misplacing a lot of lines and in one scene, he gives one of Hamlet's lines to the Ghost. Also, Helena Bonham-Carter DID NOT convince me as Ophelia. She was too dull and unreal, whereas Jean Simmons (who had immortalized the role in Olivier's version) and Kate Winslet (who did an acceptable job in Kenneth Branagh's uncut, epic revisionist reworking of "Hamlet") were good in the role, with Jean Simmons being the BEST Ophelia ever, that's why she was nominated for Best Actress in 1948 (she didn't win-what a shame). Ian Holm said his lines too quickly, not slowly as I expected him to, in a scene with him, Laertes and Ophelia. But then again, I'm more used to Felix Aylmer and Richard Briers' interpretations of the role and I think that they did better jobs than Holm in their respective versions of "Hamlet" (both done by great directors, actors, text-editors, producers AND stars of all their versions of the Bard's work) as Polonius.

The rest of the cast, however, was excellent. The scene where Hamlet confronts his mother was very well done, but Olivier and Branagh heightened the scene to better lengths to create even more emotional intensity and suspense that the scene required.

I recommend this version just to pass the time, but it's ideal as a teaching tool for 12th-grade English teachers (I recommend showing Olivier's version first, then Branagh's and finally this version). Despite the film's "PG" rating, there was really nothing objectionable in the movie. Only what the play called for.

The Best Versions Of "Hamlet" Are:

#1 Sir Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh. Both were so good that I can't decide which one was the best. See my reviews on these versions for more information.

#2 Franco Zeffirelli. This one was alright. It started out alright with a scene not in the play, but should've then progressed to the actual beginning of the play, where a guard cries out "Who's there?" "Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself!!" That scene scares the hell out of you because you're sitting quietly and then-bam!!, you almost jump out of your skin. In short, that scene sets the tone for the rest of the play. HUGE blunder on Zeffirelli's part to omit that scene. It also misplaced a lot of lines (and cut others that I think should've been put in), such as the line where Hamlet says to Ophelia "Get thee to a nunnery, why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?"; that line was supposed to have occurred in THAT scene, NOT where it was placed in the film (after the "To Be Or Not To Be" soliloquy. This version struggles between cutting out too much or too little from an excellent piece of literature. Kenneth Branagh would remedy that 5 years later with his uncut version of the tragedy, making HIS version a more fitting homage to Sir Laurence Olivier, as several of the actors (aside from him) had performed "Hamlet" on stage/or on film many times on different occasions. However, Zeffirelli's take on "Hamlet" IS faithful to the play and THAT's what I was looking for. The setup for the final act duel was the same as in Olivier and Branagh's versions, only that the denouement in Branagh's version was more violent than the denouement of the previous two faithful versions (more in line with the play; Olivier toned it down...and it worked equally well) and stuck more closely to the play, with Branagh throwing in a few harmless touches of his own...to very good effect.

This version is Not Rated.


(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.)

I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.

Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.

But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.

Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.

But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.

It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.

If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time.


Think 'Charmed' with testosterone instead of estrogen and you get the general idea for this picture. A very lame story with mediocre effects and an anti-climax ending to let the door open for a part 2. Let's hope someone has the sense to spend their money wiser. I'd suggest a 'Charmed - the movie' because compared to this 'Charmed' kicked ass and I only watched that show to please my girlfriend!!!! Wait and watch it on DVD on a rainy Sunday when you've got nothing better to do. Or better yet download it so you don't waste your money. The first 15 minutes were alright. But the funniest line from the movie and also the only highlight of this movie is when Reid says : "Kiss my ass Harry Potter", while driving of a cliff. Although they are not worthy to kiss Potter's ass, because Potter is way cooler and at least his movies have a story. The Goblet of fire was even scarier than this!!!


Well Wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800 - as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published - but it is HIS not Austen's and shouldn't claim to be an adaptation.

Mrs Bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. This is a pampered woman - they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair, etc)? But Wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest, rough hands and working in the kitchen. And the pigs wandering through! If he wants bucolic, he should try Tess.

Mr Bennett - the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. The scene where he stops Mary playing is supposed to make you cringe - not pass in seconds. If it doesn't - don't include it.

MacFadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of Pride by numbers acting. The first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. Most of his lines, he could as well be reading a shopping list.

Lydia is awful. Completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. Indeed, Knightley plays Elizabeth more like the giggling inane character Lydia actually is in the book, at times.

And Elizabeth. Half the time Knightley is, clearly, mimicking Ehle's voice and intonation - close your eyes to see what a copy it is. And in her role you see Wright's major error - there is NO PREJUDICE.

From the first encounter with Darcy she clearly fancies him. When he comments to Bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt - not shocked and affronted. The latter should set up the prejudice side of things. And when she and 'caroline' are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease, obviously all over him. And by virtually cutting out Wickham you don't get Elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship.

And apparently it is Caroline not Miss Bingley. And Mr Bingley happily wanders into Jane's bedroom. And and and - Wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. But a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for Hardy) don't excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place.

The cinematographer - who clearly wants awards - should have been reined in. He veered between Bronte and Hardy throughout the film - and wasn't the last proposal shots/lighting from Tess? The need to see Darcy walk along through the 'scape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. But most importantly - when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one - Austen. (She'd have laughed out loud at the Elizabeth = sad, therefore = rain, running through to picturesque folly, wet Darcy rubbish).

I admit I found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. I was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. But to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and Darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful, made it almost unwatchable. I could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when Knightley wasn't aping Ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise - but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn't a substitute for a poor script and poor direction) - although for some it was simply a case of bad script.

Tom Holland alone would escape censure. While he toned down the comic aspects of Collins, he did turn in a very interesting approach. Dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in Oscar Wilde - but this was supposed to be Lady Catherine De Bourgh NOT Lady Bracknell. She was just a little too sane.

The shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter, surely? Not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. Elizabeth couldn't have come up with the £10k figure. And while they wanted to cut time with her learning of Darcy's involvement in Wickhams marriage the lines didn't fit with Lydia. It was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece.

It really is appalling stuff. Anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone I frankly don't believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. Wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. I'm not convinced he has read the book - he certainly doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand Austen's acerbic wit or lightness of touch - he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it.

What is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the 'I love you, I love yous' all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. The fact that it has no place in a work by Austen is apparently irrelevant.

Anyone who reviews it as a film alone? Well, more difficult for me except I would note the poor acting, the weak Darcy, and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. If you are going to adapt you can change a lot - but if it loses the spirit and key motivations, then don't insult the book by taking it's title.


This film is a completely inaccurate depiction of the real story of Noah's Ark. The producers probably did not even read the Bible. This is the worst movie I have EVER seen! Noah's wife was never mentioned by name in the Bible, but the writers of the film "gave" her the name Naamah. This movie depicts the destruction of Sodom a good 1000 years before it happened, and what about Gamorrah? It too was destroyed at the same time Sodom was. (Maybe the producers thought that not including Gamorrah in the story and showing the city of "Sodom" as in you-know-what would raise more eyebrows.) This film is utter filth and mocks God and the Bible. It is a wonder that any true Christian would want to participate in the production of this abysmal, hideous, reprobated mockery of the Bible.


wow, this movie sucked.

This movie was a embarrassment to the original sandlot.

Everything about this movie was awful.

The acting was horrendous. Every part except the part of the 'mexican' sandlot manager was terrible.

Luke Perry, though only bit parts was absolutely awful. This was is worst role ever. Even the kid actor playing him as a kid was someone you'd want to punch, even in the end, lol.

This movie reminded me of those kid movies that go that extra mile making a part goofy way beyond the funny stage. The humor was for 6 year olds.

If your over 12 and want something worthwhile to watch, skip this movie and watch a sitcom instead.


I generally LIKE Sion Sono's work, but this movie was completely retarded. But sadly, not retarded enough to make it entertainingly retarded. I just sat, mouth agape, wondering when it would end. The plot makes only a whisper of sense. I think it was intended to be campy. I mean, haunted hair extensions - how could it not be? But the humor, such as it was, fell flat. Not funny. Not scary. Not gory. I would say perhaps Sono was a hired hand on this project, but he appears to have written this boring trash as well. I still need to fill a couple more lines, what else is there to say? I suppose I could finish by saying: Better luck next time, Sono-san.


The story isn't very strong. Don't expect a "Bourne identity" kind of movie. It started of strong, Tara speaking Russian and it even sounded credible. (Not that I'm the Russian language expert.) Moscow had that darkish depressing look what gave this movie potential, I still believed in it. To bad it only took about half an hour to see they really missed the spot with this one. Acting was poor, maybe because the story itself was not very strong. There is this part in the movie where Gordon Patrick (Nick Moran) is having a conversation on the phone with the C.I.A., like you're listening to a Chinese synchronizer. W.T.F!? Too bad, the writer didn't even take little effort to give the main characters depth. Also, bit of a cheap and easy ending.

Plus point is almost every scene where Tara Reid is in. Not that she's acting that well, in fact, she doesn't. But she really looks great in this movie. Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. Rental material.maybe.


My mistake for thinking this was a serious war-is-hell movie prior to seeing it. That all ended seconds into the film when the "MTV" logo appeared. It might as well been called "National Lampoon's Sexy-N-Loose." And it did play to the "MTV" crowd; the movie that followed those comical first few seconds played like the music videos they used to play 40+ years ago. At least Disney was smart enough to ship its Rated R stuff over to Touchtone and allowed us to take it seriously. Okay, I'm being harsh; it wasn't that bad of a film. However, it definitely has its share of overacting and the film is extremely biased/one-sided. Admittedly, I'm not a war movie buff. I can't watch 'Platoon,' 'Full Metal Jacket' or 'Saving Private Ryan' more than once. Sure they were good movies, but they're not my forte and they all seem to blend in after awhile to where I wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the next. Following a tour in Iraq, Phillippe plans life after the war but is drawn back in due to a clause in his contract. Or, at least, that's the military's plan until he goes AWOL and the characters speed cross-country on a few bucks amazingly never caught. No, I haven't been in any war, nor to Iraq, nor do I agree with it. I also don't have all the knowledge when it comes to recruitment or signing their contracts. I can say this: though I am sorry they're drawn back into this conflict, I can't feel too much for someone so dumb not to read the fine print. It's like someone on their deathbed leaning over to finally read the Surgeon General's warning on their box of cigarettes and say, "Oh, they're what? Deadly? I'll sue them!"


Strained and humorless (especially in light of its rather dubious psychology), but well-paced and comfortably lurid, this genteel body count movie highlights the unusually hypnotic presence of Angharad Rees as a young woman periodically possessed by Jack the Ripper, thus allowing for some nasty gore effects amidst the Edwardian propriety. It's all pretty standard stuff for Hammer, but is handled with a good deal of visual elan, even if the central relationship, between psychoanalyst Porter and Rees, drives the narrative without ever being satisfactorily explained.


Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.


This movie is a bad movie. But after watching an endless series of bad horror movies, I can say that it is a little different from many I have seen. Not in the plot, which is a fairly regular slasher story, but more the way the scenes are cut. Murder Weapon gives us a lot of inane dialogue scenes, but they go on for a lot longer than in most movies of this type. Because of this some of the victims seem slightly less like cardboard cut-outs. Just slightly. I had a difficult time figuring out exactly what was happening at the beginning and kept wondering if certain events were dream sequences. My favorite scene is when two guys are on the run from the killer and take refuge in a car. In the glove compartment, they find a handgun. "Thank you, God!" one of them happily exclaims. That guy's head suddenly looks like a mannequin's head, and it went on for just enough time for me to wonder, "What is that? Where is that mannequin in relation to the two guys in the car?" Then BOOM! The head explodes and I figured out that it was supposed to be one of the guys in the car getting his head shot off with a shotgun. I love that scene, but the movie is a very bad movie. 3/10.


Anyone who knows anything about evolution wouldn't even need to see the film to say "fake". "it's never been disproved" also is a weak argument. Saying the universe was created by a giant hippo cannot be disproved. Although, to be fair, it does seem like the only people who do believe are the same people who open email attachments from people they don't know or give their bank details to a dude in Zambia. No bones of any primates are have been found in the United States or Canada. There is also a good reason why legitimate scientists don't bother studying this. The same argument goes for the Loch Ness monster, ghosts and god.


I usually like period films but this one just seemed to drag and drag. I'd perk up during Rupert Graves' scenes, but Vanessa Redgrave just put me to sleep.

I was disappointed in the film. It lacked a little "punch" at the end that I'd hoped it would have.


Flesh Feast starts at Miami Airport, ace reporter Dan Carter (Harry Kerwin, he is also credited as production designer) phones his mate Ed Casey (Phil Philbin) to let him know that he has just returned from South America where he has been investigating Carl Schuman (Doug Foster) & that he was onto a big story but while still talking on the phone he is stabbed in the back & killed. Schuman meets Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake, she also executive produced) who has recently been released from a mental institution, together they discuss their grisly plans. The news of Cater's death has reached Casey & he decides to take the story up himself & do some investigating, well actually he gets his secretary Viginia Day (Marth Mischon) to do most of the investigating & just report back to him, lazy bugger. Virginia informs Casey that they have someone on the inside named Kristine (Heather Hughes) since Dr. Frederick rents her spare rooms out to nurses, Kristine reports back to Casey about Schuman & Dr. Frederick's grotesque youth restoration experiments involving human flesh & specially cultivated maggots...

Co written, co-produced & directed by Brad F. Grinter Flesh Feast is a pretty poor film on all accounts. First lets start with the script by Grinter & Thomas Casey who was also responsible for the cinematography (you get the feeling that most of the cast & crew had more than one job), basically it's terrible. The character's are one dimensional idiots & have no personality, I didn't like anyone in this film. For what it's worth I quite like some of the ideas here, the flesh-eating maggots, the basement laboratory, stealing bodies from a hospital & that unforgettable 'twist' ending that's almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for on it's own. Unfortunately the dialogue is so badly written, stiff & unnatural sounding it's untrue, I mean there is one scene in which a nurse says that they "won't let us out of the house" which is fine except for the fact that she is speaking OUTSIDE in the garden to someone. No thought has been put into the story as no explanation is ever given for why flesh-eating maggots are able to restore youth, in fact at one point near the end when questioned about this very thing Dr. Frederick claims there is no time to explain at that point which to me sounds like the people who wrote this didn't have a clue either! Even at an extremely short 68 minutes long Flesh Feast is very slow & dull, the poor editing doesn't help with scenes & shots lasting for far too long, for example there is a scene in which an Ambulance pulls up outside a Hospital, drives up to the doors, the guy gets out, he walks to the back doors & opens them etc. etc. did we really need to see every single detail? There is also another sequence in which Dr. Frederick enters room & puts some gloves on, then she takes them off walks into the opposite room & puts another pair on! I personally think that Grinter probably didn't shoot enough material so he stretches every scene out as much as he can to make the run time up. I do like that bizarre ending though, I really do. Technically Flesh feast is complete crap, I'm not sure what the budget was on this but it must have been small, very small. Just about the entire film takes place in one house, Dr. Frederick's laboratory consists of a table, some plastic beakers & test tubes, some ancient looking electronic medical equipment & a strange screen with funny colours on it (don't ask). The cinematography is poor, the music sucks & the entire film looks dubbed, badly dubbed too. The exploitation elements are also disappointing, there are a few maggot shots but they don't actually do anything other than wriggle a bit, there is a brief scene where a dead body has it's leg sawn off & a OK looking dismembered corpse & limbs hanging on hooks. The acting is awful from everyone concerned, & I mean really bad which makes the rubbishy dialogue even worse. Do yourself a favour & avoid Flesh Feast, yes there are one or two unintentionally funny moments & that ending is, well unique to say the least but for the most part this is real amateur film-making that quickly becomes painful to watch. I doubt most people will make it through this is one sitting, I can tolerate just about anything but even I considered switching it off. Definitely one to avoid, you'll be pleased you did & if you really have to see it don't say you weren't warned!


This may just be the worst movie ever produced. Worst plot, worst acting, worst special effects...be prepared if you want to watch this. The only way to get enjoyment out of it is to light a match and burn the tape of it, knowing it will never fall into the hands of any sane person again.


Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and/or proceed with caution  for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored  with a running time of barely 77 minutes  but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. "Eyes Behind the Wall" can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's "Rear Window", the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.


This film is about a woman falling in love with a friend of her boyfriend. From then on, she has to divide her time for the two boyfriends: Jack during the day and Joseph during the night.

This film feels like as if it was made with minimum budget. The majority of the film is set in a flat with minimal furniture. There are only three main actors, all the other actors listed in the credits make only momentary appearances. The wardrobe designer doesn't seem to have much to do, as the actors wear very down to earth clothes, and actually most of the time they are naked anyway.

The film is very dialog heavy, which should have made up for the shortcomings described above. However, the dialogs sound too composed and awkward. In the beginning of the film, most of the dialog is a person saying a very long sentence, and then the person says 'Me too'. After the frenzy of agreement, the dialog descends into a mess of disjointed and confused word salad.

The only merit of this film I can think of is that it serves as a feminist outlet which conveys that it is not just men who can be unfaithful.

This film is a great disappointment.


Not to be confused with the 1943 George Zucco movie "The Mad Ghoul," "The Mad Monster" is a film that Zucco appeared in the year before. In this fairly paint-by-numbers affair, Zucco perfects a way to turn his dim-witted handyman, Petro, into a wolf/man hybrid by means of wolf's blood injections, and then wastes little time in sending the transformed doofus to slay the former colleagues who had scoffed at his experiments. It is a very simple plot, really, and an extremely low-budget production. Glenn Strange, who plays the man/wolf here, would soon achieve greater fame playing the Franky monster in films such as "House of Frankenstein" (1944) and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948). The makeup job on him here is pretty lame, and only succeeds in making him look like a hippy with bad teeth (like the one in 1957's "Teenage Monster"). The sets in this film, in addition, are fairly nonexistent, and the denouement is abrupt and unconvincing. I have given the movie a very generous 4 stars, in part because I have an abiding love for 1940s horror films, but truth to tell, most objective viewers would probably deem it laughable crap, and I suppose it is. It's certainly no well-crafted Universal affair or Val Lewton masterpiece, that's for sure! Still, Zucco is always fun to watch, even in undemanding piffle such as this. If you can spare 72 minutes of your life, I suppose you could do worse than "The Mad Monster" (not TOO much worse, of course!). Oh...one other thing. This DVD is from Alpha Video, and you know what that means: fuzzy images, lousy sound (indeed, the worst sound of any Alpha Video DVD I've encountered so far) and no extras. You've been warned!


As I sit and think about Poison for the Fairies, I realize that I may not being fair with the film. My rating of 3/10 may have more to do with my disappointment with the film than its actual quality or entertainment value. Based on the plot description, reviews on IMDb, and the 7.6 IMDb rating, I would sure that I had stumbled on a little known gem. Sadly, it just didn't do much for me. For whatever reason, Poison for the Fairies all but put me to sleep.

Poison for the Fairies is the story of two young girls in 1965 Mexico City. One of the girls, Veronica, is a compulsive liar and tells her friend that she, Veronica, is a witch. The other girl, Flavia, is so gullible that she believes and is frightened by everything her friend tells her. That's really about it. In reality, nothing much happens and the film drags on and on as Veronica attempts to terrorize and dominate Flavia. One commenter on IMDb described it as "the scariest film in 80's Mexican cinema". My comment  if that's the case, there must not have been many horror films made in Mexico in the 80s. Another commenter wrote, "Watch it if you wanna get scared." My comment  are you sure we're talking about the same movie? My opinion is diametrically opposed to these examples I've given. To me, it was dull, uninspired, and poorly acted. The scene framing is especially annoying as director Carlos Enrique Taboada doesn't ever show the faces of any of the other characters. Veronica and Flavia carry-on long, drawn-out conversations with members of their families and their teacher, but we never actually see these peoples' faces. It's an annoying gimmick.


i've heard a lot about the inventive camera-work and direction in this movie. i thought both were a mess

also some truly terrible acting. the main 'heroine' in the movie is irritating beyond belief and has absolutely nothing useful to contribute in any situation. everything she does or says is stupid, and she generally just seems to mess peoples lives up. if she could fight, i might forgive her

overall all the women in this movie are stereotypical 'broads' in need of a man to save them. and all the men in this movie are muscle bound dim wits capable of saving no one

this is a poor movie, and i urge you to avoid it. watch something like 'the sword of doom' instead, i hear its much better than this confusing mess of a film.


I've watched hundreds of kung fu movies and I've heard some good thing about this movie, so I decided to give it a try. What I saw was one of the worst displays of movie making I've ever seen.

I can't help but feel like the director want to have every muscle guy in Hong Kong in this movie. Everyone overacts to the point of stupidity. Even Conan the Barbarian had some civility. This movie just has half-evolved men screaming in every scene and stupid women who has no self-respect. The narrator's character should've be killed for sucking so much...she really didn't deserve to live til the end. The entire movie was a melodramatic mess, with horrible acting, bad directing and bad action. They should've just rename this movie to 'The Stupid One-Armed Caveman with a Blade" Here's a question...why do some director use quick cuts for some action movies? Answer: To can hide the deficiencies of the actors. Nearly every scene was close up and quickly cut without any kind of flow. The movie tried so hard to show intensity, but it became almost laughable. Please stay away from this movie it you have any kind of taste in kung-fu movies...or any taste in movies.


First of all, even IMDb is slacking with this movie, as the list of cast is VERY "gappy". Even main characters are missing from it like Buddy for example.

Now back to the movie. I love watching movies, but this one tortured me throughout the whole 82 or however many minutes. It was HORRID. Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And the reason why it bothers me so much, is because I was quite excited about seeing it beforehand.

The plot line itself is good. It could have been a great film if done properly and with careful casting. Golden Brooks was a HUGE disappointment. I now see that the only role she can be good in is the loud, fun-loving, energetic sexy chick she plays on Girlfriends. Melodramatic roles are not for her at all. She basically killed her character, Rachel.

I love some of the cast, like Deborah Cox, Mel Jackson and Darrin Dewitt Henson, but even they couldn't save this catastrophic movie. Of course it is only my personal opinion that I can not stand Hill Harper as a man, and he didn't help me get to like him more here either.

Golden Brooks' voice bothered me so much that I actually had to force myself to finish watching the movie. It seemed like she whispered throughout the whole joint. The director I won't even waste board-space on, he did such a bad job. The editing, photography/camera focus and just about everything about this movie was SAD. Not to mention the dialogs! Absolutely unreal and many times straight hilarious (when it was supposed to make you cry and search deep within yourself).

As I said, it could have been a very nice movie, but it was seriously messed up. I would NOT recommend it to anyone, unless they are cinematography major and want to see a 'What not to do' example for their future work.

Have a great day, Everyone!!!


I got about halfway through this movie and was very disappointed. It was just flat out boring and completely unrealistic. I can get past being unrealistic in a lot of movies, but not when it's supposed to be a crime drama thing. The evidence collection and interview processes were just plain oddball. I started fast forwarding to see how it ended. And then got bored with that and just turned it off and returned it. The main character, played by Ellen Barkin, just wasn't believable at all. Peta Wilson acted very well in this film, but her character was way out there and there wasn't anyone for her acting talents to play off of that made it work.


...than you easily spot the biggest fault of the movie. What was the motive? The details of the murders were used, but never explained. I guess the team got too much into the atmosphere, which is great, but the story is definitely lacking. There is no thread to follow. I guess if that was done properly, the movie would've lasted a bit longer, but it would've been worth it, at least for me.

Casting is very good, I loved Wilson as the vulnerable Vicky.

Not much more to say, really. But I really wish they've concentrated a bit more on the less obvious.


Mercy the movie, actually starts out as a somewhat decent film, and ellen barkin does give a strong performance. But if you have read the book and actually got to know the characters and cared who done it the movie just does not compare. It is always hard to brink a book onto film and unfortunatley this one ends up failing...... 3 out of 10


What is this!! its so bad. The animation looks so terrible , it looks like a ps1 type game. The actors are awful, they just cannot act to save their lives. I sat through all of this film an then at the end I was annoyed when I realised I had wasted 3 hours of my life. I've not heard of this film, did it ever actually come out in the cinema or did it go straight to DVD? A girl got shot?! What is up with that, it was just a stupid film. They totally copied 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Its got to be one of the worst films i have ever seen. I would definitely recommend to people to not waste their time with this. You could spend your time watching 'The Day After Tomorrow', its a lot better. Well thats what I think of the film. Actually why have I wasted my time writing about it, ah dam!! Its really annoying me, its wasted 3 hours and 10 minutes now.


I think "category 6: day of destruction" was very unrealistic. The digital effects where like a children's cartoon.

The actors didn't act realistically, for example, when the girl was shot she acted like she got tomato sauce splatted on her.

The movie was boring but I watched it because it was on.

The only interesting character was Tornado Tommy, he was funny!

Please keep the special effects real.

I liked the comment: "What did we do to p.i.s.s-off Mother Nature?"

I don't know what else to write to fill up the 10 lines. What else can I say the movie is so boring, I think my comment will be equally boring.


I wish I had read the comments on IMDb before I saw this movie. The first 1 hour was OK, though it did make me wonder why everything was centered at Chicago and why no one reported any weather anomaly from outside US. Isolated acts of nature (of this magnitude) are unthinkable. But beyond the first 60 minutes, the movie just drags on like a never-ending story. The screenplay is horrible. As for the actors, very poor choice. Only the people hired to run in panic stick to their roles. But I do have to agree that this movie has got some good 'special effects'. If you rented it on a DVD and would want to watch the movie, despite the reviews, then play it on maximum speed your player would allow!


Although it's been hailed as a comedy-drama I found "Crooklyn" to be mostly depressing. It's hard to imagine how Spike Lee could look back affectionately on so much chaos, petty cruelty, irresponsibility and mean-spiritedness.


From the makers of Underworld, we have, by far, the worst werewolf movie I have ever seen. It is basically a reconstructed version of Underworld, yet lacking vampires (not a big deal), cool effects (a BIG deal), and generally just about everything that can possibly be done right to produce a decent film dealing with lycanthropy (the biggest deal of them all!). A twenty-something lycanthrope chocolate maker named Vivian is currently residing in Romania ever since her family was hunted down and executed in front of her years ago in America for being werewolves. There, she belongs to a small society (or pack) of werewolves and is apparently chosen to unwillingly wed the pack leader, Gabriel, whose son - some toad with a British accent - takes it upon himself to hunt outside of the pack. They have apparently been discovered in other countries prior and want to remain settled in Romania by avoiding negative attention, so of course, such activity is considered forbidden. Vivian ends up falling in love with an American artist who is oblivious to her involvement with the group of blood-thirsty predators. When they end up discovering the secret relationship, things get messy when someone is killed and the human is forced to participate in a deadly tradition in which he is set loose in the woods and is hunted - giving the pack a chance to transform into their "wolfy" selves. All this really consists of is a big leap before they light up and land as a wolf. Very cheezy effects. The entire movie is like a tamed down Underworld with some drippy, romantic montages and very little action. Watching this in the theater, I could not wait for it to end. A devastatingly boring disappointment. Avoid!


I have always loved bad creations, rhetorical criticism and my film professor validated that for me in college. This is not as bad as The Star Wars Holiday Special, there is nothing bottom of the lunchbox than that mistake. This The Fantastic Four film, complete with the I-have-no-idea-why-hes-excessively-tweaking-his-fingers Doctor Doom, is high on the list of colossal mistakes. Doom's dialogue "Kill him!...Let him go!" is classic as it is staggering in its hilarity. The editing is good, and the director of photography isn't half-bad...those are the up-sides. I cannot, however, subject all my friends to watch in its entirety, but if I can get the chance I show them the "can Jonny and Sue come to outer space with us!" scene I do. I also include the final scene scene, where Redd Richards in his FF outfit for some reason, alongside his bride Sue in her wedding dress, get into the limo...the payoff is the extendo arm in farewell as they drive away. Most people are in complete disbelief that something like this exists.


In a nutshell the movie is about a gang war in the 1950's. Leon, the leader of the Deuces, starts the gang after his brother OD's on "junk". He vows to protect the neighborhood. The leader of the rival gang is just getting out of prison and wants revenge.

The movie didn't really do it for me. The "Good Guys" weren't any more good than the "Bad Guys". Very little was shown to suggest that the Deuces really cared for the community. I suppose the writers were going for realism here, but I just didn't care which side won. None of the characters were likable, or even capable of drawing my sympathy.

On the plus side the courtship between Annie and Bobby had some snappy dialog, and the acting overall was well done.


This movie was perhaps the biggest waste of 2 hours of my life. From the opening 10 minutes, I was ready to leave. The cliches there slapping you in the face, and the plot was not only predictably stupid, but full of more holes than swiss cheese. I am considering suing for that lost 2 hours, and $6.25 along with the fact that I am now stupider for watching this waste of film. The T-Rex's must be flipping in their graves, so to speak.


Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.

What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.

Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.


The English translation of the title on the DVD version of this film is "Graveyard of Horrors," but I think that must be an error. It should have been called "Graveyard of Horribles." Horrible acting, horrible editing, horrible story, and horrible music all make this a horrible film best left in a horrible graveyard.

Horrible.


I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was awful; it was pointless and just plain stupid. the supposed plot concerned a prospective bridegroom too caught up in the problems of the world to relate to his bride and the other people in his life. He disappears on his wedding day (in a tux no less) and hooks up with an assortment of weirdos.

We saw it with a bus-load of people on the way down to Atlantic City and everyone agreed that it was a terrible movie. It was trying to be profound but it wasn't; it was stupid and offensive. If I wasn't on a bus I would have walked out on the movie. Anyone considering seeing the movie or renting or buying the video you have been forewarned.


Being a long-time fan of Japanese film, I expected more than this. I can't really be bothered to write to much, as this movie is just so poor. The story might be the cutest romantic little something ever, pity I couldn't stand the awful acting, the mess they called pacing, and the standard "quirky" Japanese story. If you've noticed how many Japanese movies use characters, plots and twists that seem too "different", forcedly so, then steer clear of this movie. Seriously, a 12-year old could have told you how this movie was going to move along, and that's not a good thing in my book.

Fans of "Beat" Takeshi: his part in this movie is not really more than a cameo, and unless you're a rabid fan, you don't need to suffer through this waste of film.

2/10


It's rare to see film that strikes out in every aspect but "Caligula" surely must hold this title. I'm not sure what is more horrendous; the violence, the sexual perverseness, the acting or the plot (or severe lack thereof).

The two and a half hours basically follows the ascension of the infamous Roman Caesar "Caligula" to to throne in 37AD and shows the atrocities and perverseness he supposedly committed whilst in power. The acting is lifeless and dull - but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously knowing that this film was severely lacking of anything legitimately interesting, the directors decided to throw in as much nudity and orgy scenes as was conceivably possible. But don't be fooled, these scenes don't ease or take focus away from the hideousness of this film. The camera work is shoddy, dialog is laughable in fact you'd have to congratulate Malcolm McDowell (playing Caligula) for keeping a straight face through such farcical lines. And then there's the violence....

If you are about to see the film be prepared. Some atrocities are committed in the film (not just through the writing) but through disgusting violent acts which are of little point or purpose other than to repulse the viewer. This is only objective this movie achieved. One must wonder how the makers of this film thought that bestiality, necrophilia and castration (just to name a few) would be appealing to anyone. When it belatedly ends after two and a half hours you take nothing from this film other than some disturbing images and the knowledge that you may have witnessed the worst film ever.

You've been warned


It's a rare sensation to come across a film so embarrassing that you feel an urge to turn away from the screen. But when you see a noble actor like Sir John Gielgud surrounded by naked, copulating couples that's just what you'll want to do. Add to that Peter O'Toole as syphilis-ridden emperor Tiberius and Malcolm McDowell sticking his finger up a male victim's anus, and you begin to appreciate that Caligula is solely of interest to addicts of sick/outrageous films.

The film charts the life of notorious Roman emperor Caligula (McDowell), a highly disturbed individual whose story is told through a series of sexual encounters, decapitations, betrayals, murders, incestuous relationships and lesbian sex scenes.

Although Caligula was totally mad in real life, and probably did succumb to his base instincts more often than not, the film is still inexcusable filth. The sex in the film isn't used as one aspect in a multi-layered story - the sex IS the story. After a while, all the nudity, hip thrusting and nipple sucking becomes tedious due to sheer repetition. The performances are totally undisciplined, particularly McDowell who throws caution to the wind and gives a performance that is all wild-eyed posturing. O'Toole seems to be treating the script with the contempt it deserves (surely he's in it purely for the money?!). Rumours abound that additional pornographic scenes were added without the director's consent during post production, but in truth there isn't a single minute in Caligula that is dignified or well-made. It is doubtful that this amount of time, talent and money will ever be thrown at a porno film again, so in that sense Caligula is a one-of-a-kind experience... on the other hand, it's so monumentally awful that perhaps the fact it is "one-of-a-kind" is a blessing in disguise.


Carole Lombard stars in this transition period film. This film is a typical example of a very early "talkie" (First practical sound film was "The Jazz Singer", 1927). Overall, the acting in this film tends to be extremely broad and very melodramatic.

The viewer may easily note that the actors are still "acting" for a silent film, and this combined with the overly pronounced, overly earnest dialog (It seems most likely a diction-elocution-drama coach was employed extensively to teach the "silent" actors to speak lines), creates some rather comical scenes which were not at all intended to be comical.

Carole Lombard's later great acting ability is all but unrecognizable underneath all the broad gestures, melodrama, and eager earnestness.

Mainly interesting as an historical curiosity of the period, and for it's completely unintended comedy-camp value.


HOW MANY MOVIES ARE THERE GOING TO BE IN WHICH AGAINST ALL ODDS, A RAGTAG TEAM BEATS THE BIG GUYS WITH ALL THE MONEY?!!!!!!!! There's nothing new in "The Big Green". If anything, you want them to lose. Steve Guttenberg used to have such a good resume ("The Boys from Brazil", "Police Academy", "Cocoon"). Why, OH WHY, did he have to do these sorts of movies during the 1990s and beyond?! So, just avoid this movie. There are plenty of good movies out there, so there's no reason to waste your time and money on this junk. Obviously, the "green" on their minds was money, because there's no creativity here. At least in recent years, Disney has produced some clever movies with Pixar.


I remember when they made a big deal about this when it was coming out. They showed clips every week on WWF TV and everyone was excited. It debuted opening weekend at number two behind Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Then it did a nosedive. Critics HATED this film. I don't remember seeing one good review. Everyone agreed it was bad and sometimes grotesque. I didn't know they meant back then but now I do since the movie makes references to gay bars, women getting slapped hard and nearly raped and a disgusting looking bar restroom with overflowing urinals lol. When I was younger, I didnt care for that. It was Hulkamania, brother!!!

Now I find this pretty bad, but still fun to watch once in a while when its paired with Bodyslam (which has a better storyline). First off, Hulk Hogan's acting skills just aren't great. he is one dimensional like the character he plays in the wrestling ring. And actually, Rip and Hulk are not to far off from each other. Kurt Fuller is a good actor, but he is not good at playing the bad guy. He is better at comedy and nervous drama characters. He is just not believable as Brell. There isn't much character development in this film and the ones that suffer are the characters of Randy, Rip's brother and Charlie the trainer (In wrestling its unheard of a trainer escourting a wrestler to the ring lol). Tiny Lister plays Zeus the way its supposed to be played, so there isnt any problem there. Joan Severence is passable and for all you softcore hounds, she does have a lingerie scene lol. By the end, you figure, what's the point?

For this one (as with other wrestling films or films that feature wrestlers as the main star), turn your brain off. You'll enjoy it more if you do.


Hulk Hogan plays Rip a professional wrestler who has a big heart but is pushed to the limit when his girlfriend(Joan Severence) is kidnapped by thugs who are forcing him to take on another wrestler(Tiny Lister Jr.)Bottom of the barrel actioner is such a failure that even Hogan looks ashamed to be in it, and with the evidence portrayed, he should be.


One of the worst films I have ever seen! After watching it i walk out like, what happened? I am confused to this day, can someone explain that movie to me please? both the acting and picture quality are so bad ,you'll think you're watching someone's school project made with a home camcorder. First,I can not believe that how some people could give 10 star to this movie.Because,.it's unbelievably bad movie! This movie isn't scary at all! There is even no Typical horror clichés,too. The plot and acting of This movie was terrible. It's not,fantastic,surrealistic or horror,It's just hideously bad Turkish feature film.And finally there were a lot of unnecessary scenes and unnecessary characters. When I watch 'Gomeda' I fell into so hopeless,so sad for young Turkish movie maker.Please,please don't make 'cinema' like this!


Unfortunately, I went to this movie for entertainment purposes based on the limited information I had seen on Fandango. Since I am a sci-fi buff the notion of a movie about UFOs interested me.

Instead, this movie quickly revealed itself as an evangelical Christian propaganda flick. Appropriate for an audience of like-minded individuals but very un-Christian like to exploit the movie mall scene and preach to an unsuspecting audience, especially considering the costs of tickets and concessions. Shame on you! At least the Da Vinci Code did not hold back its wild-eyed craziness.

So, this B-grade movie (and I am being kind) production will be appreciated in those churches with similar beliefs, probably shown to Wednesday and Sunday evening youth groups. But if you are a mainline Christian or non-Christian you will not be comfortable.


How awful is it? Let me count the ways: 1) It is a bait-and-switch movie that starts out being about a UFO investigation, then turns into a high-pressure sales job for Christianity. C'mon! If the makers of this movie felt so strongly about their message, why disguise it? It annoys non-believers and pushes fence-sitters in the opposite direction. 2) It's not even a good sales pitch! If the characters in this flick asked me to go to church with them, I'd run like Hell in the opposite direction. They're scary! 3) The acting is terrible. They all behave as if they were in an educational film about etiquette in the workplace. 4) The cinematography is home-movie bad. Wait, actually its not even that good. 5) Script bad, bad, bad. All dialogue, no action. Like a tennis match, they bounce back and forth between the "talking head" close ups. 6) Direction... what direction? Oh, there must have been a director there somewhere. I challenge you to figure out where.

Believe it or not, I have some positive comments about this movie. The editing seemed professional, but couldn't make a difference. A good edit of bad material is still a bad movie. The opening theme music was actually very good! Very scary and UFO-ish. Too bad the movie wasn't about UFOs.

If you can't tell already, here's the bottom line. I wasted my money seeing this movie, and it made me angry. If they had not disguised what this movie was really about, I could say it was my fault.


This is the worst movie I have seen to date. 85 minutes of utterly bad acting,(half the cast seem to be suffering from Asperger's syndrome) ghastly wigs, strange make-up (including tide lines around wig areas) and holier than thou characters with holier than thou dialogue that makes you want to puke. One comical aspect of this film, if you have the patience to watch it, is the sheer overwhelming number of costume changes the unfortunate cast appear in from scene to scene - was this film backed by a catalogue manufacturer of desperately dodgy pastel casual wear? Were the cast paid in clothes for their efforts? They certainly did not deserve paying with anything else! This appalling effort of a film delivers a rambling plot in the first half, blending into an equally confused arch Christian biblefest in the latter. The entire cast and production team should be burnt at the stake, or at the very least crucified!


Randy Bowers (John Wayne) comes upon the Half Way House at just the right time to take a break from the trail, and discovers a slew of dead bodies inside, among them a man he was supposed to deliver a message to - Ed Rogers, proprietor of the establishment. He's observed by the dead man's niece Sally (Alberta Vaughn), from behind a hidden room, where she remained unobserved during the carnage.

"Randy Rides Alone" was directed by Harry Fraser. He uses a filming technique here as in other of his films, where he fast forwards the action from one location to another, usually involving a rider on a horse. It's pretty well done and appears quite innovative in these 1930's era Lone Star Westerns.

Pre-Gabby George Hayes is on hand, sans whiskers, and this is the first time I've seen him as a villain. In fact it took a few scenes to realize it was him in a dual role, first as hunchbacked businessman "Matt the Mute", communicating via pencil and paper, only to turn into Marvin Black, leader of a gang of outlaws. Black's gang was responsible for the murders at Half Way House, in an attempt to coerce Sally into selling out to Matt/Marvin. Another staple player is here as well, Yakima Canutt as a Black henchman named Spike. Interestingly, Yakima portrayed a villain named Sam Black in another Fraser/Wayne oater, "Neath the Arizona Skies".

There's a fair amount of time-killing horseback riding back and forth between Black's Gang and the Sheriff's posse, as John Wayne's character maneuvers to expose the bad guys. In the end, he saves the day by securing Sally Rogers' thirty thousand dollars, at the expense of destroying the Half Way House, where he exchanges some sticks of dynamite for the loot in a safe. Greedy Marvin Black attempts to open it with his six-shooter, and the explosion is a fitting end for the villain. In his best "Aw shucks" attitude, John Wayne falls under the spell of the pretty Sally Rogers, and alas, Randy rides alone no more!


my friend and i rented this one a few nights ago. and, i must say, this is the single best movie i have ever seen. i mean, woah! "dude, we better get some brew before this joint closes" and "dude, linda's not wearin' a bra again." what poetry! woah! and it's such a wonderfuly original movie, too. i mean, you don't usually find a slasher film where every single murder is exactly the same. i mean, exactly! now that's originality. and almost all the transitions between scenes are these great close-ups of the psycho in the ER scrubs. how cool! the acting is so wonderful to. the dad was just brilliant. must have studied REAL DADS before filming. and how many movies do you find that just don't make any sense? not many. but this is one of those gems. i mean, how cool is it that one guy waited outside for like six hours to pull a prank, while his friends were both inside? that's really cool. overall i'd say this is the single greatest film of the genre, nay, in the world! *****


I would most definitely have to say that this is the most terrible movie I have ever seen. It's not just the actors that are bad, but also the fact that the camera person taped the wall and the clocks for about 5 minutes at a time. Anyone that likes this must be crazy! THIS MOVIE IS A WASTE OF TIME


In my opinion of this movie the entire video portion of this movie was absolute trash!!!! However the soundtrack that was used contained the music of a great heavy metal rock band, I recognized the music as being a band called Firstryke and the album was "Just a Nightmare" and it was very well written!! and I am curious to see what the rest of you movie buffs out there think of it, if can remember back that far I would appreciate the feed back, I collect old movie, and obscure movie sound tracks. It is a very time consuming hobby but is very rewarding. I have seen this bands music being sold in Germany on the net for around fifty dollars per album. Not to bad Hugh?


Does anyone else think that "Reba" is basically a ripoff of "Roseanne"? Just look at the characters from the two families, Connors (Roseanne) and Harts (Reba) ; the blonde bombshell elder daughter (Becky Connor and Cheyenne Hart) who's married to a moron (Mark Healy and Van Montgomery), the sarcastic brunette younger daughter (Darlene Connor and Kyra Hart), the little brother (DJ Connor and Jake Hart), and the quirky relative (Jackie Connor and Barbara-Jean Booker Hart).

And then, of course, there is the biggest similarity, Reba Hart and Roseanne Connor. "Reba" tried to copy the sarcastic and tough-love style mom without giving her the same lovable qualities as Roseanne had. Or, perhaps, they made her *too* lovable, for Reba Hart seems to waver between being mean and scary (hence Van's line to his wife Cheyenne "I'm not afraid of you, I'm afraid of your mother!") and being sweet and caring with little transition in between. Roseanne at least managed to get it across that she was being cruel to be kind, since she was always mean and sarcastic and, whenever she tried to open up, it was hard for her. As inconsistent as Reba's character is, it's hard for her to be believable.

But even if the characters weren't completely ripped off of "Roseanne", nothing could've saved the show from being sub-par in the plot area. The writers try to give the show substance but they really can't lay off the corny jokes long enough to give any impact. And you'd better believe the jokes are corny; it's as if they were written by a twelve-year-old who thinks that any joke is hilarious. While occasionally they come out with something that's funny (I don't pretend that I didn't laugh at a few episodes) these gems are too few and far between to make "Reba" witty.

Overall, "Reba" is a very mediocre show with obvious ripoffs of "Roseanne", sub-par plots and sub-sub-par humor, and (let's face it) terrible acting. The show might be a bit better, actually, if they replaced all the actors, especially Reba herself, who is more community- theater quality than prime-time sitcom quality.

I give it a 3 out of 10 just to be fair to the good jokes that make it in.


This is truly one of the most awful movies of all time. It's dull, ponderous, badly acted, and teeth crawlingly pretentious.

I watched for about an hour waiting for some kind of drama to unfold, before realising there wasn't any. The shot on a shoe string budget was particularly painful. These have to be the worst day for night shots since Plan Nine from Outer Space.

The only barely redeeming feature is the ludicrous 'demons' wandering around the countryside with a plastic cat basket. How scary is that? And I did like the moggys used as extras, I suppose they are least cheap. Though it did seem a bit obvious that they had been enticed into camera by the careful placement of some tuna.

This film is so dreadful, it should have a public health warning. There was a queue at my local video store when I took it back, of people demanding their money back. I kid you not!


This one and the one prior "Toulon's Revenge" and the next one seem to be completely different from the first two movies where the puppets were not so nice. It is basically choose your series, the first two go together and paint the puppets as killers, while the next three are a series of them being the good guys. This one plays out to much like some cheesy television series episode to be as good as part three was and I never really had the urge to try and watch part five of the series. Basically, a kid gets the puppets while some strange dark lord or something sends his evil puppets out to kill, this dark lord looks like some sort of enemy from one of those live action Japanese shows like Ultraman. The movie is over before you know it though so it has to get credit for not inflicting you with a very painful to watch movie. Just to many plot holes and things in it for it to be considered an okay movie. You do get to see the guy who played Toulon in the last movie though then you have a very anti-climatic battle and wham the movie is over before it really begins.


...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.


Hard to believe - but it is! I shouldn't be surprised. Commercials try to show how unique and "funny" a show can be. Yet not only didn't the commercials announcing this new show have the slightest iota of humor to me, I've not spoken with anyone who found the commercials amusing, either.

I don't recall ever seeing a pilot so devoid of cleverness, cuteness or humor. The characters were insufferable for the most part. Especially Selma Blair's (which is astonishing she would agree to be in a fecal sample of a show like this). The few moments where the characters were slightly redeemable were considerably hackneyed and trite.

Rare is the show with no redeemable qualities at all. And this is not one of them. Kath and Kim has exactly ONE redeeming quality - and that's Selma Blair. Despite wearing repugnant outfits and acting like a pitiful, whiny stupid excuse for a young woman who seems like a cross between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, Selma is still nice to look at.

But if you want to look at Selma, go rent Hellboy. You'll at least maintain a modicum of respect for her instead of searing this abominable character into your brain to associate with her.

All in all, Kath and Kim is a waste and truly epitomizes the worst that TV is or ever has been. It sets a new low.


I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any redeemable qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video libraries. Don't you watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your head. You will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the one- dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and shoot you dead.

Even if you are the biggest Sandra Bullock fan in the world, it is not worth even watching the two or three short scenes in which she appears.

I want to kick the asses of the sleazy marketing people who put Sandra's huge picture on the face of this DVD box and have them thrown in jail for mugging me or something like that. I really wish I had the chance to read a review of this film before I bought it.

Please, give me a call, and I will pay you $10 to remove this movie immediately from my inventory before it stinks up the whole place! (just kidding--please don't call)


This movie is #1 in the list of worst movies I have ever seen, with "Lessons for an Assassin" on the #2 spot.

The acting is lousy (sorry, Sandra Bullock, but even your performance was horrible!), the music score could have come from a bad x-rated movie and the story was downright ridiculous. It had this in common with a typical action movie: the dialogues were short and consisted mainly of one-syllable words. But contrary to the average action movie, there was no real action in this one. Boring.

The only reason I continued watching it was in the hopes that at one point, there would be at least one interesting scene in this movie ...

Thumbs down on this one.


First Off, I am a huge fan of Robert Blake, always have been.

This movie came on Movieplex last night 10/13, and the title interested me & of course the star. But after watching it I was left more confused than I was before it started.... There are some good scenes, and I thought they would lead somewhere, but they didn't, it turned out to be an "anti-cop" "anti-buddy" "anti-hippie", pretty much "anti-everything movie", with an extremely confusing plot that also went nowhere.

Robert Blake is great as the lead, well as great as someone could be with this bad movie, I am still a huge fan of Mr. Blake and love his acting even in crap like this...But this drug induced 70's tripe, well... better stay away from this one...And, that ending, what a pisser.