Crap

Rating: 1/10 (7 June 2004)

I thought that this film was nothing more than someones experiment to see how over-the-top hype would affect ratings. The film looked like it could have been the lowest budget film ever made - which I think it was. seriously. I don't understand why people would want to see a film that was obviously a cheap load of crap. After all, the same team behind this load of garbage ploughed some of their vast prophet back into the sequel, which flopped probably because of the old saying "once stung twice shy" if you get the gist.
If the film was that good: why did they not make their follow-up with a cam corder?