The opening scene of the beach at Fircombe while amusing in itself, unfortunately provides a suitable metaphor for the film - insipid and washed out. It is actually not as corny as most of the others in the Carry On series, but maybe because of that doesn't really deliver much fun. It's a fair bet that the title will appeal to fans of the Benny Hill show but those looking for attractive females in bikinis and miniskirts, while they will see some in this, will probably enjoy some of the other titles in the series, such as "Carry On Abroad" or "Carry On Up the Jungle" more. The emergence of early 1970s feminism is used as a plot device which seems rather self-defeating.


Lovely music. Beautiful photography, some of scenes are breathtaking and affecting. But the dramatic tension is lost in a film that is so poorly edited it is hard to know what exactly is going on. At times, the dialogue is incomprehensible. Then there is Richard Gere. He's supposed to be a factory worker who gets into trouble and gets work on a farm. We see dozens of farmhands sweaty and dirty in the hot sun. Then we see Gere, looking like he just wandered away from a Calvin Klein ad. Sam Shepard, another glamour guy, is supposed to be terminally ill. But he looks great. Nice try, but it just doesn't work. Brook Adams try hard but she gets lost in the scenery.The real star is the girl.


Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.

A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.

So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.

Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.

There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.


Okay, you have:

Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!

Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.

Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)

David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.

and finally:

Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.

Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.

So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?

Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)

First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"

Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."

Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.

Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)

And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."

When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.

To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.

OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)

Great drama.


After three hours in the Cinema hall,the strongest impression garnered was that their is something amiss. What was clear was that the Directors forgot to direct, the actors to act and most importantly the script writer to write. Evervbody shouted without reason and made one cringe. The script moved on and on with lots of avoidable twists and turns ending in now, too familiar Priyadarshan theory of Converging actors at a single point. This theory worked well in Hera-Pheri and Hungama but somehow managed to irritate this time, so did the habit of every actor's incapacity to answer asked of them directly. Simplest questions such as " what is your name would be repeated N times".

Finally what was amiss was that the director forgot that his audience have something called intelligence.


Bhagam Bhag was a waste of money and time big time! I wonder y Govinda did this movie? Govinda...dude...m your big fan, u have to make right decisions now in choosing movie? i wonder he had any role in that movie.Govinda's role could be given to Johnny Lever. Akshay Kumar steals the show here! Akshay...dud u rock! u have created space in everybody's heart all over the world! Lara Dutta, Tansuhree ....u guys deserve better. Paresh Rawal is good at his witty! overall there were few scene where i laughed...otherwise i was just wondering "y the hell did Priyadarshan made such a stupid movie?" Anyways, lets wait and watch upcoming movie.


Ok, I'm normally pretty open minded about movies. I can normally see a good side to a film which has been totally pandered by others. This is an exception.

I won't waste to much energy telling you what happens, but think along the lines of Bill and Ted meets the worst Police Academy movie out of all of them and you won't be far off.

The thing that really got me about this film was the stupid purile racism that was evident throughout. The general theme of latino/black guys = cool, white guys = lame is slightly amusing for the first couple of jokes but when the same joke has been reiterated for the 500th time (not an exageration by the way) it gets both tiresome and offensive.

I spent months waiting for the laws of Karma to get back at John Leguizamo for this film. I had almost given up hope when the 'My VH1 Awards' were screened live in the UK. What followed was Mr Leguizamo performing the rare feat of a comedian bombing on stage. You'd have to be a complete sadist to laugh at him. Ahem. Ha! Ha! Ha!


This movie is pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script (was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor. Just plain horrible.

I had seen 'The Wishmaster' a couple weeks before this movie and I thought it was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw 'The Pest' and suddenly 'The Wishmaster' didn't seem so bad at all.

Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.


I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.

There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has "family" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.

I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature.


If like me, you enjoyed the first film "Bruce Almighty", my advice to you is not to get your hopes up too high; in fact disregard any hope you possess for this movie if you are above the age of 12 and have any film-sense at all.

Without giving too much away, the story sees Evan (Bruce's nemesis co-anchor from the first film) move home with his family to the Virginian suburbs to "Change the World" with a new political path. What follows is a rather far-fetched and quite 'silly' storyline, which is obviously set out to target young children as the main target audience. Unlike it's predecessor, Evan Almighty is a family orientated film with the ambiguous genre of 'comedy' tagged upon it's misleading position of 'sequel' to which some would regard a modern-day comedy classic that can be enjoyed by a slightly more mature, upscale audience.

Generally speaking, Evan Almighty comprises itself of terrible cinematic values. The acting; omit Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman, was rigid and many of the characters were seemingly thrown in to use up the unnecessarily large budget issued for the production. Additionally, the cast includes acting legend John Goodman who makes an appearance as a heel and is seen just a few times in the movie's entirety; I didn't quite buy the character though and thought the storyline from which he was involved in lacked depth even for a family comedy. Every other character in the movie (especially the wife and kids!) deserve a mention for their acting so cheesy it could fill a king-size Kiev. Be warned though; it is the typical Americanized cheddarfest associated with many mainstream family-orientated films, so I'd advise you defend yourself with the nearest grater in sight.

It may seem the movie is worthless thus-far, however, it does have -some- promising aspects. The CGI was outstanding and it was clear that a lot of time went into modelling the Ark and producing water effects and animation of the computer generated animals towards the end. The particles, renders and textures used were aesthetically stellar. Although part of me couldn't help, but think these were undeserving to a movie with such poor ideals and were, in my opinion, 'too good' for this piece of cinema and carried the movie throughout.

Overall I view this film as a disaster in terms of continuing what was a franchise with huge potential, but unfortunately it fell short to a bad conclusion in the Almighty series and approaching the end of the film I had set my expectations high for an epic and somehow meaningful finale to make up for the mediocre content I had so far witnessed. This wasn't the case and I was deeply disappointed and confused come the closing credits. As I sat discontent I couldn't help, but think the movie wasn't anywhere near as 'Mighty' as I hoped for. In many ways the film reminded me of a watered down "Night at the Museum" as it showed similar styling and characteristics, but unfortunately was leagues below even that.

I give this movie 3 out of 10, as it is watchable, but it's definitely one to be avoided! If you HAVE to see this film, be prepared for disappointment as 'mildly entertained' is the best you could hope to obtain in watching the said production.


The only way I can feel good about having handed over these precious minutes of my life is everyday telling someone how awful it was. And even if I say it once a day, every day for the rest of my life I will not fully get my point across. Just dumb.

There's a difference in movies like this and movies like Elephant or Fat Guy Goes Nutzoid, two of my other least favorite movies. The latter two were terrible, yes, but that was that. Evan Almighty takes a strong cast and attempts to kill them all. Wanda Sykes, Jonah Hill, John Goodman and Steve Carrell...WHY GOD WHY!? All these people have much better talent, now every time I see any of them I will think of this terrible movie.

The only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 was when I saw the movie, there was a mentally challenged elderly woman who thought the barrage of bird poop and getting-hurt-by-tools-while-building jokes were so funny that she didn't stop laughing the entire time, nearly stroking out at several times.


I can't believe that someone actually paid to have this film made. Stupid, unrealistic, and stereotypical. Right from the take off of the massive 747 the pilot pulled the throttles back to increase speed. then you have 5 armed persons with semi to fully automatic weapons firing without so much as one bullet breaching the walls of the pressurized cabin at 38,000 feet. Then once below in the belly of the plane a stray bullet hits a FUEL line and we see the fuel leaking from the side of the plane. The acting was just horrid and forced. There just didn't seem to be any direction. I have seen some pretty horrid B movies in my lifetime but with the names that were in this film I was extremely disappointed.


Watching this movie really surprised me. I have never found myself to stop watching a movie in its entirety because 3 dollars to rent a movie is a good amount of money and darn it, I should at least watch the whole thing and get my moneys worth. I made it through about 30 minutes of this absolutely crappy movie when I thought to myself, I am now a little more dumber after watching this movie. I can't believe that the director and actors in this movie actually had that low of respect for themselves to allow this to be released!

There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by the other reviewers, but even in the worst of films there are usually one or two decent performances...not in this piece of pathetic garbage. I've seen better acting in high school plays. Every, and I mean every 'actor' is bad beyond belief, and what's truly amazing is the uniformity of the badness...gosh, it must have been the director. Where did they get these people?

This is possibly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Although entertaining in places due to its laughable script and even weaker acting, and I use that term very loosely, it is unfortunate that this film was not consigned to B movie hell for all eternity. What could have been a good idea has been ruined by an ultra low budget, poor sound and effects and actors who probably earned their wings in children's television, and poor children's television at that.

Please, STAY AWAY from this movie. Not even worth a minute of your time.


I have always had this morbid curiosity when it comes to notoriously bad and unpopular movies. I also have always enjoyed so-bad-it's-good flicks, you're looking at someone who actually liked recent cheese filled kid flicks like Catwoman and Thunderbirds (2004).

So I watched this, and it turned out that all the critics are right about this one. It's a MAJOR flop, but unlike a lot of flops, it isn't even enjoyable on any level, not even just to make fun of. It's just one boring cringe-fest after another all the way through.

I had been warned. I didn't listen. I am a fool.

Don't be a fool, don't waste time and money on this pile of trash.


I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.

Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.

And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.


Me being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.

1/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0/10)


Emotionally insecure Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt) reads the secret diary of his sexy wife Leeza (Courtney Lercara) and is dismayed to discover that the love of his life has apparently been sleeping with every bloke she meets; this shocking revelation sends poor Tom off his rocker, and he proceeds to wreak bloody revenge on the men who he believes have been rogering his old lady.

In my experience, really, really bad films can often be as much fun as really good ones, and no film featuring a decapitation by machete-enhanced ceiling fan should ever be considered completely worthless; but even though Killing Spree very occasionally manages to entertain with its inventiveness and cheap and cheerful gore, I found that the terrible direction, awful production values, ugly cinematography, muffled sound, dreadful lighting, mind numbingly tedious and daft narrative (which includes a really dumb plot twist that is telegraphed from the beginning, plus a pointless zombie finale), nasty synthesizer score, inane dialogue, and thoroughly amateurish acting all served to make this effort from writer/director Tom Ritter a virtually joyless experience.


I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.

Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.

The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.

The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.

If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.


This movie had an interesting enough plot about clones and organ usage, but it fails as the lead actor is so annoying and whiny you want him dead. Not that anyone else is very good in it either, but when you hate the character that is supposed to be garnering your sympathy the movie just fails to work. Funny enough, it looks like a movie is coming out in the near future that has a plot that mirrors this one with more action and a better cast, still though I won't be able to think of anything else, but this film if I were to watch it. This movie has a super dumb clone that is somehow smart enough to figure something is wrong with his camp where people bicycle at one mile per hour and wrestle for no reason. The counselors tell them that when they are ready they go to America, but our "hero" has his doubts so he snoops around and learns the awful truth which sends him on the run from the bad guys who shoot and hit the guy repeatedly. He goes on the look out for the man he was cloned from. Peter Graves is in it and so is Dick Seargent, but they add nothing to this movie which looks like something that was made for television. On the plus side though when "The Island" comes out the makers of this film can proudly say "we thought of it first".


The only reason I'm even giving this movie a 4 is because it was made in to an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The horrible direction is only slightly overshadowed by the characters complete inability to act. The lead is an actor i have never seen in anything else and it shows. No chemistry with the love interest and so bland you almost don't care what happens to him. Dick Sargent was not convincing as a villain least of all this guy was suppose to be super evil...he was more annoying then anything. Peter Graves was the only person the movie that wasn't awful, his part was small and even he couldn't compensate for his co-stars lack of talent. In 2004 someone tried to make this mess all over again it was called The Island...I personally didn't see that movie but from what i understand its the same movie. If you want to laugh at this movie get the MST3k episode its really funny...full of bewitched and biography references it makes this movie finally watchable


SLOOOOOOOW, tepid, poorly produced 70's schlocker made moore cowvincing because of today's headlines; nonetheless, this film is worthy stink-fodder because of uncowvincing acting, absent direction, and silly 70's clothing(sadly, the MooCow remembers when Adidas clothing was all the rage...). This has the same sort of feel to it that some better 70's sci-fi moovies accowmplished, namely "WestWorld" and "Logan's Run". While the premise interesting(rich people clone themselves to keep a ready supply of body parts to keep them alive theoretically forever), the film makes the mistake of saddling us with Richard(Tim Donnelly), a clone who is at once both boring and irritating. Hollow acting by Donnelly doesn't help, but fits right in with the rest of the cast. Even such B-illuminaries as Dick Sargent("Bewitched" tv series, "Ghost with 1,000,000 Eyes), Keenan Wynn("Dr. Strangelove", "The Dark", "Laserblast"), and Peter Graves("Beginning of the End", "Killers from Space", "It Conquered the World")provide only the moost tepid performances. Produced, directed, and edited by a bunch of nobodies, it's no surprise that "Clonus" fails to horrify anyone in the least, much less keep anyone's attention! Truth be told, there's nothing in the feeble flick that even schlock-fans would love - wanna see some realllly bad, funny 70's films, put on anything by Greydon Clark. "Clonus" is no bonus; the MooCow says even the MST3K-version is a yawner, so proceed at yer own risk! :=8P


Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.

Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.

The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.

But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.

Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.


Summary: Not worth the film

As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.

I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.


Ok with this film there are a number of ingredients at work:

First put in loads of hillbilly truckers--good ole boys who have secret desire to take law into own hands. Second put in evil hillbilly cops controlled by a Texas bred outlaw. Third put in karate fighting trucker played by Chuck Norris. Fourth put in a chump teenager as Norris's nephew captured by evil hillbilly cops. Fifth show Chuck Norris fighting in slow motion.

Now mix all together and what have you got?

You guessed it...one very mediocre movie!


If you are looking for the feel-good hit of the summer, Dark Harvest 2 might just be your ticket. The production values of this movie are extremely high (looks as if it were filmed with a Sony Handicam and edited using iMovie), especially the sound effects -- they sound straight off of a "Spooky Halloween Sounds" CD! The scarecrow from the cover, although he doesn't appear in the movie and otherwise has no relevance, is terrifyingly realistic! From beginning to end, you'll watch as a man aimlessly searches for his daughters through a, pun intended, MAIZE! At the climactic ending of the movie you'll see, well...you'll have to watch for yourself.

What I'm really trying to say here is, don't come within 1000 yards of this movie. I rented it because I thought it would be a campy sort of "Troll 2" funny, but it's not. I cried after I watched this movie, because I realized I had spent money on it (and I found the $4 I spent on renting it). I actually fell asleep for 20 minutes and still knew what was going on.


Many times the description "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" is used and is right on target. Unfortunately "Code 46" lacks both sound and fury. A bit of fury would have been greatly appreciated. Tim Robbins character (William) is so lacking in passion that the idea of his falling instantly in love with Maria (Samantha Morton) seems almost absurd. These folks are so passionless that one begins to wonder if perhaps the water supply of this future world has been dosed with thorazine. There is a "Brave New World" sort of atmosphere to the film that is helped along by every scene being shot about 2-3 stops overexposed. Unfortunately this technique gets tedious and rather hard on the eyes. The cutesy mishmash of languages also grows tedious when there seems to be no apparent reason for its existence. Many futuristic, scifi films are criticized for being all flash and no substance. This film has neither flash nor substance. Its a code 6 all the way.


If I guess your "palabra", will you let me go through?- Asks William Geld, a Tim Robbins that keeps on acting like if they told him a fantastic joke and he is attempting not to laugh.

He is trying to get to a forbidden area. The woman stopping him continues blabbering: -Your "palabra" is Carrefour.

-How did you know?- the lady asks, surprised. He answers, in the name of Wisdom: -I was hearing when you weren't talking. :/

Yes, this defines the movie. This precisely. It doesn't matter if Carrefour is "road conjunction" in french, or if the Future is coldly bureaucratic and mixes languages. Or if Samantha Morton has nothing, nothing of Spanish (Maria Gonzalez being her name in the film) with her Irish, Scotish whatever tone.

It's boring and dull. If you fall in believing there are multiple symbolisms, you will buy the most bizarre, sickening love relationship ever, set in a future that may well be in seven seconds. I can guess this movie's palabra: it will be "painful".


What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?


"Three" is a seriously dumb shipwreck movie. Masquerading as a psychological thriller, it's closest relative is the monumentally superior "Dead Calm" (also featuring Billy Zane). "Dead Calm" provided well drawn characters to root for in the form of Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman's grieving parents attempting to re-define their relationship on an ocean cruise. They end up being terrorised by Zane's adrift psycho-killer. It provided sharp, increasingly ratcheted suspense, a scary feeling of claustrophobia in open seas as the cat and mouse game of life and death unfolded.

"Three" suffers from poorly drawn characterisation (the audience doesn't care what happens to any of them), a stupid and unnecessary voodoo plot device, a total lack of suspense or excitement and some thudding, hammy performances from the principal players. Zane in particular goes way over the top in an irritatingly mannered fashion. In "Dead Calm" he was menacing, wired and seething with barely controlled sexual violence. Here he is bombastic, petulant slimy, and unravelled. And where does he get his seemingly inexhaustible supply of dry cigarettes and cigars? And how come his lighter stays full of juice for over a year? Ms Brook is very picturesque, stunningly pretty, but both her chest and rear appear to have been wildly over-inflated by some sort of life-raft pump. They do, however, succeed in acting with more skill and conviction than the rest of her. Dramatic actress, in the purest sense of the term, she is not. The guy playing the voodoo-hexed Manuel, the third component of this sorry triangle, could have been replaced by a lump of driftwood - no one would notice. In fact, judging by his complete lack of ability to deliver dialogue in any meaningful or dynamic way, driftwood represents a potential improvement in the casting stakes (excuse pun).

Plus sides: the scenery is nice and the cinematography (above and below the water) is credible.

I'm guessing this had a very limited (if any) theatrical release or went straight to rental and retail DVD. The reason for this is it's not very good. If you want something decent along these lines, get "Dead Calm." It was made by people who knew a bit about cinema.


I wish I could use the time travel machine to jump back to the moment I considered seeing this movie and make other plans instead. I saw a free screening of A Sound of Thunder, so I can't complain about the price, but I wish I could get my 103 minutes refunded. The acting was mediocre, and the special effects were deplorable. People shouldn't make movies about dinosaurs if they can't afford to make the prehistoric creatures look as good or better than those in Jurassic Park. Spielberg spoiled us. Edward Burns as Travis Ryer was the movie's only saving grace. I noticed that females under 18 rated the movie the highest, and the only explanation is that they ogled over Burns the whole time. The whole long 103 minutes. This movie should have been over in about 80 minutes. It just dragged on and on and on. Don't waste your time or your money on this far-fetched flick.


It's a pity to throw away such a good idea. The main idea of the movie is travel into past lives which - fortunately - is not a time travel but a journey inside man which has nothing to do with the past or the future. (Maybe they shouldn't be called past lives at all in the film now that I think of it... Another minus, I guess). It's all in the present, in a different space... Very interesting without causing much religious distress.

However, the music is totally repetitive, melodramatic, sentimental and out of place (not to mention "western"!). There should have been more variety and more thought on where there should be music and where there shouldn't. The flashback romantic scenes take a lot of space and running time and are totally unnecessary. The acting is not bad although the language has kept me from understanding better.

I believe the idea needed a little more thought, developing and unfoldment. The inside scenes could have had better background settings because in many cases they seem unreal. As a whole, I would say that this movie leaves a lot to be desired...


Shameless waste of my time as a viewer. This is one of the worst films I've seen in ages. Please do not rent it as you will regret doing so! Guaranteed! I wonder how Kathleen Turner ended up in this! She is a legitimate actress and people would perhaps be attracted to this film because of her. But it really is better to act as if this title was never made! It should not have come into existence!


This movie was disappointing for at least one of two reasons. The suspense created disappeared because of horrible acting or lack of direction from the director.. I don't know.. it was like a tasty bubble gum that seemed to run out of flavor yet you continue to chew on it because it once tasted great. Like most thrillers The Hitchhiker had promise yet failed to deliver when it had me bright eyed and ready to turn the volume down(I was watching the movie alone.. in the dark) This so called thriller simply came apart like it was made of Lego transforming into something else. It simply ran out of gas and left me staring at a made-for-TV-like style movie with one exception.. it was probably rated-R.


About the spoiler warning? It's not "may contain", it -does- contain spoilers. Readers beware.

Okay, first I need it to be known that I'm not bashing the actors. They're just working with what they're given. The problem was the script. It was horrendous. There was NOTHING believable about it at all. Sure, when you have a movie based on a murderous hitchhiker, there's going to be the bad mistake here and there that puts you in the terribly horrific, movie-worthy situation. But these girls just made stupid decision after stupid decision. The only girl smart enough to ever try and call the police was the girl added towards the end because he'd already killed one and hit another with a car. Speaking of hitting her with a car...why the hell did she try and outrun a truck rather than run to the side like a normal person? Also, does the one who wrote the script honest to god believe cops are not going to investigate a door covered in blood? Frankly, it wasn't suspenseful either. The only suspense I was feeling was the frustration at just how retarded the girls were. Well, this rant has gone on way longer than I meant to for such a bad movie, so I won't bother to touch on the end besides the fact it's unrealistic and lame.


This is one the worst movie I've seen and certainly worst movie Nagesh Kuknoor has made. I can't believe person who has created movie like Teen Deewarein can create utter crap like this.

Plot of the film itself is really faulty that Zeenat has to search Meera and get her clemency to help her husband avoid death penalty in Soudi Arabia. Common logic says if Zeenat cannot search Meera easily so won't the Soudi Government, so Zeenat can safely forge Meera's signature or thumb-print and produce it before the Soudis. Another silliest thing is Shankar has given incorrect address in his passport, so Indian government officials cannot get to the address but after sometime Meera gets Shankar's suitcase through Soudi government. Wow! Doesn't it make Soudis well networked in India more than Indians?

Nagya makes a slightly more than cameo in the movie with role of Chopra, who is eyeing Meera and seeks Meera's Father-in-law, Girish Karnaad(this guy is just wasted)'s help to get her as a keep.

Nagya cannot speak Hindi and he has been assisted by other guys to translates the English dialogs he writes, in Hindi. This time, it seems that his aide was in serious intoxication, when writing dialogs like "Imaan ki Chalaang" (leap of honesty). Within minutes, to our worst nightmares, Meera not only takes this honest leap, she taps her feet to do "Imaan ka Naach" (dance of honesty).

One of the only bright spot movie has is its cinematography and really nice hues. But since Bollywood has learned the thing called Post-production, almost all the movies have vibrant colors and nicely blended backdrops, so no big deal.

Conclusion is that making a cheesy movie is not limited to Chopras or Johars or Barjatyas, Nagyas and all are ready to get affected.


I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5


Ed Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any young

aspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using to

line a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching this

movie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you to

make your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds it.


I cannot see why anyone would make such a movie. From start to finish this film is really, really bad.

The characters are all very shallow, terribly acted and downright annoying. There is absolutely nothing going on below the surface at all with either characters or plot.

The 'humour' if you can call it that is aimed at an adult audience ( I presume from the language and nudity) although it comes across as mainly toilet humour and would have problems even drawing a smile from a half-witted 16 year old.

I would recommend avoiding this excuse for a comedy. It has nothing whatsoever that would appeal to a film fan. Non-existent laughs and a plot that barely exists lead me to ask "Why has this film been made, why, why, why?"

I expect in the fullness of time to see this film topping the top 100 worst films.


Took a chance to see if perhaps a really good WWI film had slipped my notice--this isn't it. John Phillip Law and Don Stroud are both stiff in their acting and miscast for their roles. The dialogue is dumb or non-existent; the flying sequences are okay but pretty repetitive. Compared to the terrific "Blue Max" this movie should never have been made. Watch George Peppard,James Mason, and Usula Andress in the BM and you get why that movie is one of the best war films ever made and this isn't. Recently released on DVD Richtofen and Brown is presented as some great 'lost classic' from the 70's, I resold mine the day after I bought it. Don't waste your time or $.


In this film Gary Oldman plays a defense attorney, who was formerly a prosecutor. He is a bit tormented, but is more or less playing a regular guy rather than some sort of figurative or literal monster. Funny thing is, he doesn't quite pull it off. I guess you can't quite get to normal from there. Kevin Bacon was sufficiently creepy. The scene in the park was way too long with way too many false scares. And the odd sex scene with Oldman and Karen Young seemed to have come from a different movie, although the rest of the time Miss Young did just fine. This film suffers from oddness trying to cover up the predictability. And failing. Don't bother.


Amitabh and Jiah Khan, raised great expectations, by their press conferences, though it was quite easy for the critics, and the fans too, that after all, this much hyped, Ram Gopal Verma Factory product, is going to fall flat on it's face, in all the probabilities ! Why, because Jiah was so immature and childish, and Bacchan, mixed up guilty, and unsure . they themselves didn't know, what the hell they were talking about, to the press, keeping up with the tag line, that some love stories are not to be understood, or some such rubbish ! Why the title is Nishabd ? Ramu needs to refresh his knowledge of Sanskrit, as Vidhu Vinod needs to study Mahabharata, tagging in line, another glorious flop of the year, Eklavya ! Comparison with the Sweet hearts, and Lolit's is inevitable, as the so-called plot line is supposed to have inspired by them. but sadly, Ramu has hardly made any serious effort, to delve deeply into the psyche of the aging, and the young ones. is lolly pop sucking the ultimate indicator of the innocence ? and contrary to that streak of childishness, the leg show at the dining table, with a Vijay, that is Bacchan in that role, bursting into squeals of shameless laughter incessantly after wards ? this girl, is in fact at her seductive game, luring poor Vijay to think, she is in love with him. the legs,too are skinny enough, and that act of putting the water hose through the legs, is down right obscene. it's beyond any one's understanding, how can a girl , coming as a guest to some body's house, can be so brazen, brash, and over powering ? and why the hell that stupid wife, played by Revathi, remarkably well, though scripted poorly, and characterized unrealistically, encourages her own husband, to dance with a sexily saying young girl ? that part of Vijay, trying to gain some refreshers to his humdrum life is absolute bullshit. because, apparently it seems that he is happy as he is, with a well settled life, and a hobby to recreate. This reminds of Blame it on Rio, the older daddy, and his young love, superbly played by Michael Caine. Bacchan looks terrible in close ups, and over all, where as kevin spacey and Jeremy Irons looked debonair and handsome, which is why the young chicks some times get attracted to older men, for their charming persona, compared to the vulnerability of young boys of their age. only good thing about this movie is those green , sprawling land scapes , winding roads, and pleasant cinematography. no substance, or even any sparkling show of emotions, drama , or even intriguing, stormy sex like in Lolita, this shallow movie has no wonder, fallen flat on it's face, and had to be wound up from the screens during first weeks ! next time round, before mindlessly copying any such theme from Hollywood, Ramu should do his home work, and Bacchan should think twice ! you can not fool all the people at all the times, Mr. Bacchan!


That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why would someone make a movie about getting away with murder!?! Mr. Allen again plays the only type of character that he's able, the sexually stunted man who can't get the girl. Get a clue, Allen, there's a reason that's the only character that you can successfully portray. Stir clear of this movie! It's a waste of time, unless you want to know how to successfully murder someone. I feel sorry for the actors who say 'yes' to Woody Allen. Look at his cast, and tell me how many of those people are still working. My respect for all of the actors, who work for him, immediately goes down, because they chose to participate in the film.


This movie was a dismal attempt at recreating a crucial time in English history. The film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate but the overall historical accuracy of this movie was way off. This film implies that the war was started over religious differences but the Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant. Cromwell was never present at the battle of Edgehill, nor did he ever "save the day". The royalists did not win, the battle ended in a draw.

As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the "Five Members" who were to be removed from the House and arrested.

Overall, this movie was decent. The producers tried WAY to hard and it didn't turn out so great.

definitely could have been better.


After seeing the previews awhile back, I looked forward to seeing Steve Martin in a comedy that I thought might be a keeper. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Problem was, the previews were the only funny parts to the movie. The rest of the movie was pretty much a bunch of junk, scenes that have been done to death and characters we've all seen a thousand times.

This movie was proof positive that if you put enough cash on the table, you can talk anybody into anything. Steve Martin is a favorite of mine but this one was a big clunker. The only actor in the movie who was worth watching was Eugene Levy; he was the best of a mighty lame group.


Won't be long on this movie. The first half an hour was one of the most boring i have had to face since i've started watching movies. The story didn't advanced, nothing was explained about any of the characters. It felt like a non-movie. (A lot of people had already left the audience at this point).

A lot of the scene were totally unjustified and unexplained.

The director should have studied film a bit more to know that each sequence, each scene, has to make the story go forward. He never did that.

The supposedly funny moments were contrived, and only a few people laughed (people with a weird sense of humor, i guess).

Prize of the Jury in Cannes 2002.....don't know what the jury was thinking about....probably the "politicly correct effect".

I would have loved to love it, the disappointment was therefore even bigger.

You have to see it to believe it. But wait for the video.


National Lampoon's Dorm Daze is easily the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen the movie Kazaam. Anyone reading this who thinks this movie was good in any way, shape, or form has no idea what a good movie is, and should never watch another movie again because they are indeed so stupid.

Its hard to name everything wrong with this movie. First off, the plot is all over the place and can't follow all the multiple "misunderstandings" very well at all. The acting is awful to say the least, and the whole thing was poorly made. Any and all who worked on this movie should not be in another movie of any kid Ever Again!

It is too hard to sum up this movie in just a paragraph or two, because it is so bad, but for anyone out there reading this please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!! If you want a good movie to watch, go turn on anything else on television. Even U.S.A. has better movies than this.

_friend.


When i went to the video rental shop to get a movie i saw this one and i immediately thought it would be funny. The picture made it seem like a classic comedy type involving teenagers (such as road trip)which i thought would be worth watching. When i turned the move on i was disappointed as the jokes were awful and cheesy. The only bit which the director may have thought would be funny was somebody slipping over on a wet floor. This is not a joke and would not make people laugh. I actually considered turning this movie off coming to half way through. I was annoyed with this movie as it was just a waste of time and money renting it out. Not enough care was taken making this film and not enough time and work put into it. I found the acting to be quite bad as well. The only time i laughed was at the extremely bad 'jokes'or actions done which were really not funny!!!. I rate this film a 1/10. I hope you found this comment useful.


This film could cure sleep disorders, thats how bad it is. The story dragged, and the bad guy is not that scary. You will not even see this one on TBS reruns. This film made me wonder about Chuck film choices. He work on a real dog with this one.


Cops Logan Alexander and Debbie Rochon escort five black juvenile delinquents cross country and end up stranded out in the sticks when their van breaks down. After a deadly run-in with a racist, white trash bitch with a shotgun (played by the director), the survivors take refuge in the house of a blind voodoo priestess. One of the teens senselessly uses a spell to call up Killjoy, who finally shows up about midway through this bore in a subpar make-up job and bigger, greasier 'fro that looks like it could slide off his head at any moment. He then proceeds to kill off the stupid characters while spouting some of the worst one-liners heard since Hee Haw was canceled.

The acting from the "teens" is terrible, the dialogue even worse, the FX stink and it looks a lot cheaper than the first film. Although I enjoyed him in his earlier Troma films, Trent Haaga (trying to imitate Jim Carrey here) is awful and no match for the hyperactive overemoting of Angel Vargas in KILLJOY 1 (which at least had a few dumb laughs).

Yet another nail in the coffin for Full Moon studios, whose reputation as a fun direct-to-vid franchise has completely vanished since the TRANCERS/PUPPET MASTER days.


It is extremely rare that I see a movie from 1955 that I don't love. Noir, JDs, Sci-fi, Drive-Ins; I dig it all the most. Robert Aldrich is a director who has done plenty of excellent work, and most of this cast has fine performances under their belt. So what went wrong?

When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called "actors' movies." Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like "actors' movies" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose "give it all they've got" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say "he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way." Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).

Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations.

I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a "3" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent?


Enough talent and sincerity went into making this film that I wish it turned out better. Everyone is clearly doing their best to be true to an intriguing premise, but it's too deep a vision, too involved attempt at disentangling mental delusion to survive a transition to the screen. It is an attempt to capture the dimensionality of gossamer patterns on celluloid -- the result is muddled and slow. I give it a 10 for effort, but a 5 overall.


I love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 2 out of 10.


Andrew Gurland's "Cheats" is his fictionalized "true story" about four high school friends who maneuver to cheat on tests. The quartet are: supercilious school-hating Trevor Fehrman (as Handsome Davis), his likewise good-looking pal Matthew Lawrence (as Victor), their chubby school-hating chum Elden Henson (as Sammy), and crooked geekster Martin Starr (as Applebee). The adults include high-strung North Point principal Mary Tyler Moore (as Mrs. Stark) and pornography-loving father Griffin Dunne (as Mr. Davis). The high jinks begin with Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Lawrence supposedly urinating on a teacher's grade book. Put this one at the bottom of the pile; and, be thankful it doesn't go on anyone's permanent record.

*** Cheats (2002) Andrew Gurland ~ Trevor Fehrman, Matthew Lawrence, Elden Henson


So.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...

This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!

If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!

But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.

Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!

so.. deal for yourself! good luck


Another stinker from the PM Entertainment group, and thankfully one of their last.

'Firetrap' is effectively a very low budgeted remake of 'The Towering Inferno' I don't mind Low budget B Movies as long as some effort is put into them - there is no effort whatsoever in 'Firetrap' is stars Dean'Superman'Cain, who is an absolutely terrible actor, seriously he has all the acting abilities of a porn star, but he turns out to be the best actor here and that's saying something, the rest are just a bunch of no hopers given the boot from various daytime soaps. The special FX are just rubbish, shots showing the burning building from the ground are among the worst I've ever seen, the fire looks like someone scribbled an orange pen at the front of the camera. on top of that there is not one character you actually root for - you hate everyone and hope they all die well before the 90 minutes are up.

The script is embarrassing - The red herring's are signposted well in advance, someone else has mentioned this but 'The scene where the janitor fights off a blazing fire engulfing the building with his broom....hilarious, or same janitor going into a room marked 'Hazardous Material', Were these scenes supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? somehow I doubt it

The one good point and only one good point was there was a fair bit of action in amongst the daytime soap dramatics which kept my attention, but so little care was given to everything in the film, I can't recommend it - Watch 'The Towering Inferno' instead

3/10


Proud as i am of being a Dutchman, i'm truly shocked by flicks like these. Why? why this cheap acting? Why this storyline that just sucks? why a dozen sequels? why o why? they add a lot of hot Dutch chicks in an effort of saving this movie from redemption, and guess what? all the underaged breezergirlies in Holland go and see it. I was forced to watch it at a party. all the girls were going crazy when Daan Schuurmans entered the screen, all the guys took a another beer and grumbled... But the thing that really bothers me, is the fact that this kind of flicks are the only sort of movies Dutch filmmakers can produce... (apart from "Van God Los" and "Lek") This doesn't prove our superiority to other countries.. It doesn't add anything to our imagination... It just F**ks up the brains of little 13 year old girls... Johan Nijenhuis, I hope you will burn forever!


Woof! Pretty boring, and they might as well have shot it in black and white, it was so colorless.

The movie starts with rolling text explaining cryogenics, and asking whether god or Satan is behind it. There are some protests outside a cryogenics lab. Some people rob a bank, and many of the robbers and guards get shot. The father of one of the robbers (I think) arranges to have his son frozen. There's a lot of jumping around in the beginning from scene to scene introducing characters without us knowing how they relate.

There's a power outage, and the cannisters containing the frozen people get struck by lightning, and they emerge as zombies. They're all wearing silver mylar-like suits, and their skin is dark green and wrinkled (no idea why they look so bad - being frozen evidently didn't preserve their looks), and they have silver eyes. They go around killing people, sometimes lurching like zombies, sometimes moving like normal people.

Linda Blair keeps showing up every once in a while, to what purpose I'm not really sure. I think her character works at the cryogenics lab, but she's not very important to the plot, and her role is very small.

The movie ends with some freeze frames with text captions that tell us what happened to the characters next, which are pretty silly.


It is sad what they are letting into film festivals these days. I had to sit through over twenty minutes of this dreary short that wasn't funny at all to get a good seat for a feature film that I wanted to see at a local film festival. The festival planners paired this horrible short with a great feature. I am just glad the feature was good, otherwise I would have not been a very happy camper!

For a comedy short film it got no laughs. The title says it all.


Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.

The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.

The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.

0 stars


This is truly a re-make that should never have gotten out of the stable. It has two casts that are acting in entirely different strata. At the top of their game are Joan Plowright and Maximillian Schell. Every nuance of the Franks is in plain sight. at the rock bottom are Melissa Gilbert and Doris Roberts. I cannot imagine how Schell and Plowright manage to play so well when Gilbert and Roberts are working their anti-magic. Gilbert ruins every scene she's in. It's like Father Knows Best in the Ghetto. She's Ann Frank light. Her run at Helen Keller was thin but not awful. This is sacrilege. Doris Roberts makes Mrs. Van Damm merely annoying. She is a completely inappropriate choice to play the sexually hungry woman whose flirtatious, dissatisfied presence caused so much trouble in het Acherhuis. This needed to be played by a woman who could convince us that she at least remembered what it was like to voluptuous. Her weight is not the problem. Joan Plowright could have played this part beautifully. Roberts was on a career high when this was made, getting lots of press and many opportunities. Her performance here displays her weaknesses as an actress shamefully.

James Coco and Clive Reville, have most of their scenes with Gilbert and Roberts , and , strong though they are, they are completely incapable of undoing the damage done by their partners. Reville is a wily actor capable of the kind of iconic performance given by Ed Wynne in the original film. He gets no support from Gilbert . She drain the color out of every scene.

I've read with dismay the comments by those of you who grew up watching this version, filled with attachment to these performances. It's a lesson in how the version you see first attachs to you. It makes me reconsider my attachment to some inferior products I loved in my childhood. I encourage you to watch the original. It has very few weak spots and it's head and shoulders above this mess.


Rarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name.


The Evil is about a big house where a bad spirit is foolishly unleashed to torture all inside. What a washout of a movie! There's not a single scary scene. Not one! Richard Crenna overplays a nothing role. There's some animated ghosts, a disfigurement by power saw, and a ghost-rape. After nothing special happens for almost the whole movie The Evil gets personified into...Victor Buono. Great! Where did the filmmakers get the idea that Buono is scary. He looks like he was on the bum for a guest starring paycheck to pay his liquor bill. By then its too late to turn it off, because the damn thing is over. I felt like throwing the videocassette out the window. Please avoid this junk! Hopefully it will never see the light of DVD and will fade into obscurity.


It must be remembered that the Gammera movies, like many of the first-series Gozilla films, WERE in fact aimed squarely at kids. Little Kenny and his cohorts are living out the daydreams of the kids in the audience: they get to run around and play with top-secret stuff while the adults stand by and allow it; they get to cavort with monsters, and even when the bad guys enter, they are never in any real danger.

Perhaps the first Gammera film is an aberration because the child DOES get punished and IS put into danger, but the rest of the series is pure wish fulfillment.

As one critic said, these aren't failed adult movies but successful kid's movies.


This is another notorious Mexican horror film: however, while the original Spanish-language version is quite tame, all sorts of gore and nudity were inserted for the English-dubbed variant (prepared by Jerald Intrator - who did similar duties on THE CURIOUS DR. HUMPP [1967/71] - and, like the U.S. version of that film, had previously been available on DVD through Something Weird/Image)!

I watched the original first and, while no great shakes, it was fairly engaging - especially with a plot as familiar as this one was: a doctor goes beyond the call of duty in attempting to save the life of his terminally ill son; he even has a hulking, game-legged assistant (played by Carlos Lopez Moctezuma, who had essayed a strikingly similar role - though in a more sinister vein - in THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]). I know that several Mexican films mingled horror with the "Lucha Libre" (Wrestling) genre but I had never watched one myself; this element is present here - in fact, the heroine is a wrestler - but the two styles are, perhaps thankfully, kept apart (that said, the wrestling sequences are competently done, with some of the moves proving highly amusing).

The doctor's son is transformed into a monster (looking like The Incredible Hulk with mud splashed over his face!) after having had an ape's heart transplanted into him - but, then, when this is replaced with that of a comatose female wrestler, he stays this way and grows a pair of fangs to boot (shouldn't he realistically have turned into a transsexual...though I guess that wouldn't have been very interesting)!! The climactic rooftop sequence in which the monster kidnaps a child and meets his demise at the hands of the police is reminiscent of THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942). My favorite unintentionally funny moments in the film, however, occur when the doctor, trying to comfort his son, tells him that he'll soon be cured - only to turn his back soon after on the verge of tears - and also the impatient look he gives his crippled assistant (as the latter staggers slowly into the car) when they're about to chase the monster who has escaped from the lab.

The alternate nude scenes work for the film (these were actually done by Cardona himself for a racier Mexican version entitled HORROR Y SEXO) but its reputation is largely based on the added material showing over-the-top violence, such as an eyeball being gouged out of its socket, a scalping and even a person's head being torn off. There are also several graphic operation inserts which, however, give rise to a goof: while it's made clear that only two people are involved in the operation, we see a third pair of hands constantly holding an oxygen mask to the patient's face!

The film is also said to be a loose remake of Cardona's own black-and-white horror film DOCTOR OF DOOM (1962) but, since I haven't watched that one, I can't say how much of it was actually pilfered for NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES...


This film had all the ingredients of a good adventure movie, but it revealed incompetence at almost every level.

The presence of Roger Moore in the cast list is usually a sign that the movie is not going to be anything more than mediocre, because Moore always has lead roles and he can't act. But this movie also had Ian Holm and Lee Marvin in it, and was based on a Wilbur smith book, so I thought I'd give it a chance when I saw the DVD for sale in the bargain bin...

It was a mistake. The opening scene appeared to start in the middle of a reel, with sound suddenly appearing as if the first second of the soundtrack had been truncated. The scene showed a dreadnought at sea with a German crew. This bad editing was a sign of things to come, but the scene with the dreadnought was interesting enough to keep me watching. The special effects were good, and the crew wore the proper uniforms and spoke in German, indicating that the director at least paid attention to historical detail. I was surprised.

So I kept watching, and then Moore appeared and my supicions were confirmed. Bad acting, clichéd lines, clichéd cinematography and cheap humour...but worst of all, there is a disastrous attempt to blend the light-hearted feel of the film with serious drama and tragedy. It just does not work.

The film ends as suddenly and as badly as it started  in the middle of a reel.


First of all. I do not look down on Americans. I know lots of people that are intelligent people from the USA. But this Movie is so utterly bad, that i just had to comment on it.

First of all...Movies are mostly far from the truth. This movie is no exception. Lots of scene's are so incredibly false. For example the departure of the 2 space ships. You see them drop off the full tanks in space. Just a small distance from each other. Remember what caused the space shuttle to explode in the past ? Just a tinsy winsy part that came off. In here it is just common to drop fuel tanks that are as big if not bigger then the whole ship. What idiot would let 2 spaceships lift up and do that at the same time ??? Second of it is that the Russian station is a piece of (s)crap. I hate to bring this up to you, but astronauts nowadays go to Russia. Since their equipment is much more reliable then NASA's. The Space Shuttle is retired. And NASA uses it just to pay off the bills. And there is no better alternative for it. And the list of whoppers goes on and on. This is truly an insult to people that do take space travel serious. And i know half as much as these guys do. But the most annoying part ( read: the whole movie ) is the Propaganda and patriot crap that u get choked with. MY GOD !!!! I thought i was looking at a CNN business commercial for like an hour. The actors solve their petty problems by shooting at each other, giving the middle finger to everyone they come face to face with, start up fights, ignore the police, etc, etc... But when it comes to their love for their country and sacrificing their lives, suddenly everyone stands in line to commit suicide for it ( bomb detonator ) ?? Maybe i lack the feeling of being a true "Patriot", that can sing the national anthem backwards in Swahili. Whilst riding with George Bush behind the steering wheel of a golf cart, driving in circles until the battery is empty. But this movie was too much for me too handle. And when i finally got hold and pulled the flag pole and fabric of the American flag out of my hiney. I realised that i was glad this movie was finally done. I do not know why so much good actors participated in this narrow minded, stereotyping, propaganda movie. But i pity them. This represents a country where you can get away with murder if you have money or power. As long as "Uncle Sam" thinks you are a good patriot. Where everyone is happy as long as it is another country that has been devastated, no one cares.


I have to say that I had low expectations for the movie before viewing it. All the people around said it was great, but I perfectly knew what they like. They like Aerosmith's song which is indeed great, they like the amazing special effects which had coasted a lot, they like the comedy side of the movie and of course many girls who love Affleck who according to my opinion is a really bad actor who tried not to be one, failed and now he is nothing. And all these things plus the reviews and the ratings I read in internet, gave me a clue the movie would be a huge disappointment since I am a big disaster kind of movies fan. Well, I've been right, but at least I was prepared.

The movie is really commercial. It's been said, but I will say it as again. We have over #100 million budget, we have a romance between Hollywood stars Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler and many other famous actors, who are popular with the fact that they rarely agree on becoming a part of the cast of a commercial movie if their names aren't written with big letters on the screen. Such as Billy Bob Thornton and Steve Buscemi which are highly respected actors that I also like a lot. They could play many characters in many different kind of movies. They could improvise, they could turn tasteless lines into hilarious jokes. On the whole, they could turn small movies into really interesting, funny or dramatic motion pictures, people love and will always love. Such as Fargo in Buscemi's case or A Simple Plan - Thornton. And to be honest, I am really disappointed they took part of Armageddon. Thornton plays a smart and refined man involved in politics if I remember correctly. Buscemi is one of the members of the deep core drilling team which is sent to save the world by destroying the asteroid which is about to vanish the world.

What I didn't like - well, I guess I've been already understood. I pointed out bad factors. The story is dull, artless and silly. It is so obvious that the movie depends on the effects and the dramatic ending that it's ridiculous. At least movies like Deep Impact and Godzilla have something special that might be considered as art. At least it ain't that obvious that the movie is made of financial purposes. Other than that, bad performances from all the huge stars. The jokes ain't funny, the lines are absurd and sometimes, they doesn't make sense at all. In fact, I recently read that on the stage, Ben Affleck has asked Bay whether it would be easier if they teach astronauts to drill, than drillers to becomes astronauts and Bay's reply has been simply "Shut up!" which is a really funny story which perfectly shows the creators's desperation.

And enclosing, I'll give an explanation why I give 4 to the movie. Well, I like "Don't Want to Miss a thing" and I was impressed by the special effects which are obviously the only good thing in the movie. The first scene is memorable. These are the the only 2 good things I liked about the movie. Michael Bay is an average director, but The Rock and both Bad Boys were hundreds of times better than Armageddon which was, is and will always be one big bad movie.


This movie started with some promise: big name cast, good looking sets, but then it fell apart.

Most of the time it can't tell whether it's a serious movie or a comedy. One minute they're talking about how there's no joy in killing and the next there is a fight scene set to funny music and funny banter.

Some of the acting is pretty bad, mainly from Patrick Swayze and Piper Perabo. She also gets some groaner lines like, "When I marry, it will be about love." Ugh.

But the worst thing about this movie is that it's just boring. Not enough action, not enough humor, not enough plot, not much of anything really. Just a lot of clichés and cheesy moments.

Also, a movie with "Dragon" in the title should contain a lot more dragons than the few (and pathetic CGI dragons) that appeared in this movie.

Can't the SciFi channel show *any* good movies?


I have an affection for these twists on British social norms and it is rare that one loses me. But Our Betters did lose me a bit. It's a tale of social climbers and their joy at breaking the rules but personally I found it a little dull.

I liked the duchess though she whines a little too much and Constance Bennett amiably fills the role of Lady Greyston, a role that Bette Davis could have played backwards.

But the movie comes the life in the third act when Ernest joins the party. He is so lively and fun (and in truth probably wears more makeup then Lady Greyston). He gets the last line of the film and it's a gas!


I thought that this movie lacked the building dramatic suspense the first movie had. This is hard to accomplish when the film takes place over a week. The original movie lead up to the final climatic scene over a period of a year and it still was less violent than the sequel. One good thing about this film was the movie went by relatively quickly, because the plot seemed rushed. When Rachel's best friend died there was no funeral mentioned in the movie. Another bring down was the involvement of Amy Irving. All her scenes brought down the movies pace. The dialog in this movie was terrible. It in no way reflected the way kids talk. In conclusion this movie could have been a hit but fell apart after the opening scene.


I have to say that this movie was really quite awful. the acting was average the pacing of the movie was terrible as well as the soundtrack and cinematography.i found that i was bored in most parts of the movie and the cliché lines did nothing for me. the two boys that played the main roles looked terrible at times and did'nt pull off the emotion that was needed in the movie. the little girl was creepy at times and looked like a doll which was scary. the ending wasn't satisfying although the movie to be over the ending didn't make me feel anything for the characters. this movie was boring and did nothing for me, I recommend this movie to no one.


I've watched this film about thirty years ago and it stuck in my mind until now. When I came across it on DVD, I didn't hesitate too long, even more, because I have a predilection for early Belmondo flicks. But what a bad surprise! Some movies should be allowed to resign from public exposure, to preserve a certain memory, and not to shock audiences.

Widely hailed as one of Chabrol's rare cynic works, the only lasting impression I got from re- watching it is... boredom. Some movies really do not age in style. But what about movies which didn't have any sense of style at all?

The flaws in the script, uninspired acting - presumably due to the lack of direction -, a sort of production design, which doesn't deserve its name, less than mediocre photography and, last but not least, the worst editing job I've seen in ages, make this one truly hard to stand.

My impression was, that there was a bunch of people with too much money and equipment but obviously, no idea or any skills at all. It really comes as a surprise, that this one didn't abruptly end Chabrol's career. Don't blame it on the overall bad taste of the 70s, this one is crap in its own right and a worthy contender for the most useless waste of celluloid ever.


When I first saw this movie, I said to myself, "Hey what the heck it sounds like a good movie, why not rent it?". So yeah, I rented it and went back home to see it. When I inserted it in my DVD player I was shocked.

Well FIRST of all, no one told me it was a Mexican movie and was spoken in Spanish, good thing it had subtitles.

SECOND, it was nude, nude NUDE! Since I have no background whatsoever in Mexican movies, you could see my shock when I saw it. *GASP! Covering virgin eyes, NOO*

THIRD, predictable to say the least, but actually being it predictable was no excuse to me in liking movies, because I don't seem to care if it's predictable, unless it's way over the top.

FOURTH, how Heidi and Kike were reunited, so cheesy.

FIFTH, how the movie ended. It was a BAD, BAD ending. How Mr. Van der Linde's sudden approval to the mayor's election was because her daughter, knew how to throw the party... BLAH, Blah. I was hoping that he wasn't that easy to accept it, the director might have just rushed it.

After all of this bashing of the bad stuff, the good stuff's are here to come. The movie was actually quite hilarious at some point with Maribel being clumsy in the kitchen and all, Heidi's attitude, Valentina being poetic with words. What I really also like about it was the song that Valentina made with her girl friend. That's all, and for the other stuffs that I haven't mentioned they were just so-so.


I went to see this film over Matchstick Men, in fact buying the tickets to Matchstick Men and going to the other, because it looked like a fun movie with action, romance, thrills, jungles, and exotic locations. They had all that but so do a lot of movies with a conception of story.

All I can say is WHY WHY WHY WHY did they not just make it a straight narrative instead of some sappy flashback story.

Here is all the movies from what I've seen the film was derived from: Of course, Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone, but also True Lies, Proof of Life, that old 80s Tom Selleck movie, Bananas (Woody Allen), and Hero (from the use of digital extras).

PS the only scene in the movie that was cool is when the central character finds her room blown up.


I have to say that this movie was not what i expected. Even though i have not read the book the fact that plants can one bait and then wait for a killing to happen only to have it drag off a corpse for lunch is about the worst scenario anyone has come up with. With the title ruins you would think that out of 3000 years that some kind of deity or ancient animal or god would be the culprit. This is like another movie primeval where you would think it was something strange that villagers fear the most, but not a crocodile. Either way this film was like that, it entices you to think about ruins of Mayan or Inca folklore resulting in awakening and old god or the people had another agenda for sacrifice or something to that effect. But plants?.... come on, is there nothing else producers can come up with to wow a crowd?. As for this movie it will hit the 'b' list in no time. I have to say that some of the gore was excellent to see, but it didn't make up for the rest of the film. And a plant mimicking a cell phone sound or peoples voices is just too much to be believed. I am a fan of horror films but i am not a stereo typed fan who relies on just gore or mechanical effects. I do rely on great suspense and whats the next scene going to bring for more suspense. The thing had a better story line than this did. Even the ring had me jumping for more, but the ruins is just that..... ruined for using a plant to coax victims into killing or be killed by the villagers. The premise was alright for the villagers to keep it at bay with salt and such but still a simple blow torch and lots of napalm can easily do the trick to end those pesky plants with a flesh eating disorder.


From what I understand, Fox was embarrassed they released a PG-13 Alien/Predator movie not so long ago. It was not well received by any means.

Not exactly sure where to go next, seeing as they thought Anderson was the best director for the franchise and they had produced a true sci-fi gem, Fox turned to it's small, but knowledgeable group of monkeys for answers.

These monkeys were by no means veterans of writing sci-fi flicks, but had seen Burton's Planet of the Apes remake and House of the Dead.

Their first task: hire actors. Fox gave them a reasonable budget but the monkeys wanted to save the money. They hired fifteen TV actors shortly after.

Now, the script. The monkeys wanted to save more of the budget so they wrote the movie themselves. Leaving out important aspects of the two franchises was the easy part. Thinking of great new lines for the general audience to remember years down the line - that was more difficult. They butted heads awhile and came up with a truly award-winning screenplay equipped with cliché characters, idiotic decisions an gaping plot holes.

Fox was pleased thus far with the results but wanted to see what was to become of the centerpieces to the film - the aliens and predators. The monkeys again wanted to save money in the budget so they decided to trash the great robotics used in the otherwise terrible AvP original and go with the man-in-the-suit Alien seen in the old films. The actors playing the aliens had trouble fitting into the suits as they weren't properly sized by the monkeys so they jiggled their plastic heads throughout the film with honor. As for the predators, the monkeys decided one predator was enough this time around (again, saving budget) to fight the hordes of aliens that seemingly come out of nowhere.

But what about the effects, you ask? Come on now, people. They may be monkeys but they clearly knew CGI would play a key role in the film. Without diving into the budget, the monkeys used a standard Final Cut program and cut and pasted some very nice fire and spark effects throughout. Putting red and green filters over the camera lens provided some excellent Predator visions.

The setting was something the monkeys thought long and hard about. If this was to be on Earth, in Colorado of all places, they needed to make it realistic. This was where they admitted they might have made a mistake. See, the monkeys didn't have proper training in this department so they thought turning the lights off in the city and having the movie play out in the dead of night and in the rain was the right thing to do. They simply forgot people like to see the creatures instead of looking at shadows and rain the whole film. To add insult to injury, the monkeys accidentally filmed all the fight scenes incredibly close so no one could see what was fighting or who it was. But again, rookie mistake.

The rating. Fox told the monkeys to make the movie R-rated. That was easy. Without showing how many of the injuries or deaths actually happened, the monkeys made a habit of showing the carnage after the fact. It was simple: the viewers got the gore they desired and the monkeys didn't have to film the majority of action shots involving that violence.

Some of the actors originally had questions concerning the screenplay. Why does a blue liquid the Predator has endless amounts of magically disintegrate whatever he wants it to and nothing more than that? Why is an ex-convict driving around in a police car the entire movie? Why did the monkeys forget to show a full body shot of the Aliens? Why does a clock play a more memorable role than any of the main characters? The list of questions just kept growing but the monkeys ignored them and finished their masterpiece.

Fox was thrilled with their work. So thrilled that they opened the movie nationwide on Christmas Day and even spent a few bucks advertising it the week before it came out. The monkeys had successfully made another installment in these cherished franchises.

But some ask, what ever happened to the budget the monkeys forgot to use? They put it towards their next film: Aliens vs. Predator vs. Hulk Hogan. They knew the general public would be upset with the title but they have since released this statement:

"To the people- do not worry about our upcoming film. It will be rated R and will have violence."

And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.