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...


The following "review" is one from the wrong side of the tracks, meaning two things: You will hear nothing but praises coming from me and don't be fooled by my rating. I also could tell you that this review contains no spoilers, but technically... that's a lie.

Well,... Screw the review. I'm just going to ramble a bit. It has been a while since I had so much fun with such a bad film. And if you cannot enjoy this piece of utter drivel, then you simply have no sense of humor. First off, this movie was meant to be taken seriously, and that's the main aspect were the fun is coming from. The story? A doctor's son is terminally ill. Daddy-Doctor decides that a hart-transplant must be the only way of saving his son. So, in true mad-doctor-style, he decides that the heart of a gorilla will do the trick. Of course, the gorilla-heart is "much too potent for a human", so sonny-boy transforms into this hideous Ape-Man that immediately breaks free and goes on a killing and raping spree (because that's simply what any horny beast would do, isn't it?). The make-up of our Ape-Man is hilarious. There's simply no other way of putting it: The guys' face looks like a turd! I'm talking human excrement here, the solid brown kind! Beautiful! The gore in this flick is wonderful too: Aside from real footage of an open-heart surgery, we also have incredibly fake (but quite nasty) looking blood & gore effects: a decapitation, an eye-gouging, a throat-ripping, the scalping of someone's skull,... It's hilarious, and indeed it's quite incomprehensible why NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES ever made it to the notorious UK Video-Nasties list, because all of the nasty things portrayed in this film are simply too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Oh, and there's only one bloody ape running around in it too, by the way. So, needless to say that LA HORRIPILANTE BESTIA HUMANA is a much more accurate title for this terrifying and convincing tale of science gone horribly wrong.

When not trying to shock with poorly staged acts of bloody violence or random portrayals of female nudity, this movie manages to be highly entertaining with ingredients like nonsensical dialogues, cheap cardboard sets, plot stupidity and incredibly bad acting. Just a few random examples, maybe? About the sets: One can clearly see that the set-designers just used the same walls, doors, windows (etc.) over and over again to be build various different interior sets (e.g.: One side of the hospital room - the window side - where the unconscious wrestling girl lies, looks suspiciously similar like the window side of the basement-laboratory from where Ape-Man escapes; The set-designers also took one of the side-windows from the laboratory, made it a bit larger and just placed it in the conference-room of the hospital; All the walls in any building are the same grey-ones;...). Then there's the setting of the park. Clearly shot in a studio, you can see (on several occasions) that the grass is loose. Whenever there's some struggling/fighting/raping going on, the grass just shifts and shuffles and you can see the grey concrete from the studio-floor beneath it.

Just a few random lines that come out the actors' mouths:

-- In the conference-room where all the doctors are debating the disappearance of Unconscious Wrestling Girl (a disappearance that would of course mean bad publicity for the hospital), Daddy-Doctor intelligently utters "We find ourselves in a situation that is difficult".

-- During that same debate a colleague-doctor cleverly remarks "A sleepwalker! Any sleepwalker gets up.", hereby providing a solid excuse for the disappearance of Unconscious Wrestling Girl.

-- After our investigating detective, through the amazing process of his own logical deduction, concludes and tells his superior that the murderer must be a half man/half beast, his superior answers that it's absurd, adding the line "It's more probable that of late, more and more, you're watching on your television many of those pictures of terror"... Truly one of the best lines of the movie.

Other sources of laughter:

-- The two scenes were Daddy-Doctor and his Igor-like assistant kidnap the gorilla from the zoo and Unconscious Wrestling Girl from the hospital - these well thought-out acts of abduction are like taking candy from a baby.

-- Daddy-Doctor speaks to God a lot, doesn't he?

-- Sonny-boy calling Daddy-Doctor "Papa" on more than one occasion.

-- An old lady screaming "Aaargh!!! A dead man! A dead Man! A Dead Man!! A DEAD MAN!!!".

-- The plot periodically stops to wallow in scenes of women wrestling, only to go on again and do nothing with that concept. Sure, Daddy-Doctor replaces Sonny-Boy's gorilla-heart a second time with that of Unconscious Wrestling Girl, but do you think something spectacular happens after that? Like Ape-Turd-Man growing breasts or something, trying to rape men this time? Our leading living wrestling beauty (Norma Lazareno) doesn't even go into a climactic wrestling contest with Ape-Turd-Man near the movie's finale... But Ape-Turd-Man does start to show some motherly love near the end... almost (and I say "almost") in true KING KONG-style (i.e. the top of a building and people on the ground pointing and screaming).

Okay, I think that's enough now. I chipped in more than my two cents here. Vomitron's Rational Rating for this sleazy piece of hilarious dreck: 2/10. Vomitron's rating From the Wrong Side of the Tracks: 8/10. Go see this film, people. It is well worth it!


This film was a Mexican made horror film from the late 60s. It's not that good, but really not so bad either. There is plenty of schlock and it is padded pretty heavily with nudity and violence, but it had a plot and at least tried to keep to it (even if the plot was the same damn Frankenstein inspired "don't tamper in God's domain" b-movie fare). There was some padding mixed in with the female wrestling, but it was made in Mexico and wrestling does seem to be popular in Mexico.

The plot is that a doctor wants to save his son, who is dying from leukemia. The other doctors have given no hope for the poor guy, but dad has the idea of transplanting a gorilla's heart for his son's to save his life (I don't know, I'm a lawyer not a doctor). The transplant works, but sonny-boy ends up becoming a man-ape who terrorizes nude women and kills anyone who gets in his path. There's also a subplot involving a cop and his girlfriend who is a wrestler (this really didn't add too much, but if they wanted to throw in some masked female wrestlers here's a good reason to do so).

The film was kind of cheap, but not too bad for a b-movie of the day. The plot was basically just recycled and there were a few things that weren't tied in that well. However, this film is kind of fun in its own way (I don't know why, maybe because it's a Mexican horror film and sticks out in my normal bad movie diet). I guess it may be because it's a mix and mash of some very weird things.

Watch it if you like cheesy foreign films, nudity, and female wrestlers.


Dr. Krellman wants to save his son Julio who's dying of heart disease. He decides a heart transplant with an ape will cure his son (no--I'm not kidding). He does the transplant and (somehow) his son changes from a frail guy into a muscle-bound man with a dime store mask that (sort of) resembles an ape! Naturally he gets out, kills men, tears the clothes of women and wreaks havoc. This is all inter cut with the boring romance of police lt. Arturo Martinez and lady wrestler Lucy Ossorio. We also get pointless female wrestling sequences that add nothing to the plot. It all ends by copying the end of "King Kong"! This is (obviously) a pretty stupid movie. The plot makes little sense, there's the gratuitous female nudity (a staple of any exploitation film) and VERY graphic gore that looks laughably fake (except for the open heart transplant). Still this does have merit. The whole cast takes everything dead serious and actually aren't too bad as actors. Also the dubbed in dialogue was (for a film like this) well done and interesting with surprisingly good dubbing. Also I saw an excellent DVD print with bright strong color (which helps). We're not talking a classic here but an OK exploitation movie.


Acclaimed Argentine horror director Emilio Vierya directs a script from Jack Curtis and Antonio Ross. Cheesy and ridiculous are in the mix for the method to the madness. A doctor's son is nearing his early death, until his desperate father transplants an ape's heart into his chest. As expected, things are going to get weird; when this young man turns into a mask wearing monster and roams the beaches scouting out nice looking party girls to make his slaves. When heroin is injected, his beauties become zombies. The monster summons his dazed minions with strange organ music. So bad...well...it's just bad. In the cast: Jose E. Moreno, Alberto Caneau, Mauricio De Ferraris, Gloria Prat and Gina Moret.


Cult purchasers are unquestionably familiar with the term "video nasties". This was a notorious British list containing all the films that could bring 'damage' to society if viewed by irresponsible audiences (dramatization). For gore buffs, this is an excellent checklist as it contains inhumanly cruel and disturbingly realist movies (Faces of Death, Cannibal Holocaust, Driller Killer) as well as outrageous and ultra-sick horror films (The Burning, Nightmare City, The Toolbox Murders). Keeping this in mind, it's quite unusual to see "Night of the Bloody Apes" listed among the other "nasties". It sure is gorybut the blood and violence are so poorly presented I can't imagine anyone would be offended by it. And the silly plot (about a desperate doctor transplanting a gorilla's heart into the chest of his dying son) isn't exactly what you would call disturbingly real, neither. All that remains is a fairly amusing pulp-horror flick with awful acting and pointless sleaze. The man-ape make up effects are laughable and there's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere. Enjoyable only if you're in the right mood, in other words. The few sequences showing detailed matches of lady-wrestling (which one of the lead-actresses does for a living) are very cool.


Aside from the gunfight scene, I felt the movie was a waste of celluloid. Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening could have played those roles in their sleep. The dialog was marginally tolerable (and there was plenty of it--no one sat together quietly in this movie), the plot was all over the map as if they could not decide how many themes to cram into the story, there was no subtlety at all--foreshadowing hit you between the eyes and they led you by the nose through most of the story (I think they added all the dialog to make sure you didn't miss anything), and the editing really needed tightening up (each actor's screen time was more quantity than quality--again, too much dialog).

The entire story took place over the course of a few days, but everything that happened took on epic proportions, much like how day-to-day happenings seemed HUGE to you in high school, but in the grand scheme really weren't THAT important. Yes, the bad guys beat up and killed Mose, they beat up Button, they killed the dog--all things which would get Boss and Charley's blood up. But the importance was diluted by all of the "deep, meaningful" conversations which dominated most of the movie. These guys worked together for 10 years and they're just now talking about this stuff? The only time there wasn't much dialog was in the gunfight scene--which is probably why I liked it.

Finally, someone give Annette Bening a hairbrush! The wispy strands of hair around her face that were (I suppose) to make her look a bit more romantic actually made her look a little deranged. If she worked outside the home, it would have made more sense. Plus, why WASN'T she married already? There seemed to be several "kind and gentle" (her words) single men in town aside from the marshal and his cronies. In fact, none of the bad guys seemed to want her either (a usual plot device in other movies). She stayed cooped up in the house most of the time and really didn't seem to have much connection to the people in town. Makes you wonder......

In all, the movie was entirely too long, too chatty, and too contrived for me. It felt like a star vehicle with lots of screen time for the big stars, but not enough character depth to interest me, despite all of the dialog.


this film is what happens when people see like in this particular one blair witch project and say hell people running around with cameras, acting slash documentary themed no problemo i can do it and start out with a lame idea make up a terrible script and get a bunch of talentless actors and start shooting a film. plot is that in africa there a halfcaste a breed of man like animals who hunt and kill humans, the locals think that it's a demon or a evil spirit but our wild bunch are in africa to get some proof of there own. no need for more words on the plot this movie get's a 1 out of 10 and i am trying to find something good to say about this movie but after a long time thinking nothing nada zero null.


In this horrible attempt at a Blair Witch mockumentary, a bunch of people go to Africa to investigate a creature called the Half-Caste. It's pretty obvious that there was no script to speak of, and that everything was improvised. That can work if you have good actors, which this film didn't.

This movie tries to gain points for originality by exploring a more obscure myth and an exotic culture. As a result, there are a lot of scenes out in the bush where characters do "quirky African stuff" like eating elephant dung. There is also some pretty good footage of lions eating (from a National Geographic perspective) but there's not a single scare in the whole movie.

If you've seen Cannibal Holocaust or the Blair Witch Project, this movie will hold no surprises for you, and you can probably watch better lion footage on the Discovery Channel.

Definitely a Half- Aste effort.

A note to the filmmakers: guys, do us all a favor and next time save the "How I spent my African Vacation" home movie for your family and close friends. Nobody else wants to see it.


You know those movies that are so unspeakably bad that you have to laugh? Half-caste wasn't one of them. Which sounds good, right? But no, it's not. It's not a bad attempt at a horror movie that's fun to watch because it's lame, or not well acted, or has bad special effects or anything else like that. No, Half-caste is just plain boring. They don't even make an attempt to be scary until the last 20 minutes are so. It's just kids running around in the African bush country and getting high off of elephant dung for the first 75% of the movie, and it's not even funny. The last 20 minutes, though, are HILARIOUS. I have no idea what happened, but it was really fun to watch that CGI leopard rip out the throats of all of those white guys I couldn't tell apart anyway. If you're in the mood for a bad horror movie, don't rent this one, because you'll go to sleep before they get to the fun stuff. If you do accidentally rent this movie, I'd recommend fast forwarding to the end, and skipping any scene that happens in daylight. You won't miss anything. You won't have any idea which character is which or exactly what is going on even if you do watch all of the back-story.


I swear, I had never seen such a bad movie as Half Caste is. Not only because it just makes no sense, is a huge piece of egolatry and self-confidence that makes me puke.

Sebastian Apocada (in Spanish Apocada has a similar pronunciation to "apocado" which means "out of life and happiness") makes here a one man army movie thinking he is Sam Raimi or the boys who directed the Blair Witch project. This is the Blair Kittie project, with an expensive low budget.

The story, a couple of American Filmmakers that go to Africa to make a documentary of the Half Caste, is just no-sense. The way of filming, inserting high speed shots with slow motion shots, just revolts your stomach more than the stupid lines (what the hell is that dialog about Bestiality?) or the lame performances. By the way, I don't believe this cast (or caste?) is American, they all look European to me.

To finish this, just say that the filmmakers made an intelligent move about selling the movie. They put a fake award achievement (as most original film) and a nice cover (in Spain the cover had the Half caste image in negative), so I feel now unhappy, because I can't demand my 14 Euros back.


This movie was a big disappointment. The plot sounded great, about a half-human, half-leopard creature in Africa that becomes the subject of a documentary by young American adults. When many of the crew members are found dead, the 2 survivors are taken into questioning. I wouldn't even call this a horror movie, since most of the movie is actually about the (mis)adventures of the aforementioned, narcissistic 20-somethings, which include sex and smoking animal dung to get high (isn't as entertaining as it sounds--trust me). You rarely get to see the creature, and the main actor (who also happens to be the director, screen writer, editor, and producer!) is incredibly annoying.

I was finally so annoyed by the never-ending dialogue that I fast-forwarded to the end. I had guessed the ending in less than 10 minutes into the movie...and I was right. Thus, this awful movie is utterly predictable, too--as if it wasn't bad enough. Moral of the story: avoid movies that are acted, directed, edited, produced and written by the same nobody. And avoid this movie, unless held at gunpoint.


Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so cheesily filmed, the focus is not even on this supposed "real half-caste", it is more on the crew coming from Hollywood to make the movie. No cinematic significance whatsoever, and if I could take back the almost 1 1/2 hours that I spent watching this film, I would feel much better.

At first, it starts out giving you the impression it will be filmed somewhat generically, like an actual Hollywood production. However, then they go into the narration of the story, and it's filmed so f***ing terribly. It's supposed to be a take on "Blair Witch Project" really, since they pretty much use what you would think is 'real camera footage', it's not, don't be fooled.

Worst movie I have ever seen . . . on the positive side, it has like one semi-scary scene in it, and the visuals of the half-caste weren't too bad looking at all. DON'T RENT


I remember seeing this at my local Blockbuster and picked it up cause I was curious. I liked movies about mythological creatures. I like movies about werewolves, vampires, zombies, etc. This is based on half-caste, a half-human half-leopard creature that preys on the people of Africa.

The movie is horrendous! The actors are terrible! There is no script whatsoever! It's all improvised! The whole thing is filmed at night because they say that is the only time you ever see it. It's obvious bull*bleep*! They film at night to make it scary. But, they have failed to scare me. After the first person was killed, I put this back in the case and took it back to Blockbuster. One of the most boring movies I've ever seen.

Now you are probably saying I have no right to review a movie if I haven't finished it. Well, this is one of the films that didn't deserve to be watched all the way through.

1 star out of 10. This is really BAD!


An annoying and talentless American documentary maker learns of a legendary

South African monster, the Half-Caste. Tradition says that it is a half-human, half-leopard creature with the closest parallel being that of the werewolf of European tradition. Rather than focus on the creature, the film follows the meanderings of the film crew. There is little action or suspense until late in the film. This problem is exacerbated by numerous irritating characters generating a ceaseless amount of even more irritating talk. The basic premise is wasted since it is sidelined by the inexplicable focus on the documentary crew.

Perhaps the director was influenced by the approach of The Blair Witch Project (1999) or The Last Broadcast (1998). Regardless, the film fails on most levels. Avoid at all costs.


Terrible acting, terrible script, wholly unrealistic. The Bumblebee Flies Anyway exemplifies the cliches and sentimentalism that movie studios love to cram down viewers' throats. Elijah Wood is unimaginably bad in the primary role, and the plot points are contrived and sappy. Cook's and Wood's relationship is laughable at best. But the worst element of Bumblebee is the script. This is some of the most mind-numbingly bad dialogue I have ever had the misfortune to hear. Bumblebees actually crawling inside my ears and stinging my eardrums would be preferable to hearing Elijah Wood robotically spit out his pseudo-profound lines. I wish a "Bumblebee Project" would be performed on me, so I could mercifully have no memories of this stinker.


I rented this movie because Elijah Wood has done some good work and I thought this might be an overlooked treasure. It was not a treasure. I don't know if this was straight to video, but it should have been straight to the dump.

Elijah Wood fans will like the fact that he appears shirtless in a much-too-brief shower scene. But, no sane person would like this script. Imagine Memento played by teen actors, but ten times more confusing and a hundred times less plausible. Case in point: Janeane Garofalo plays a caring psychologist (apparently `keeping the chain of mediocrity alive').

As if false memories syndromes and mind-over-matter medicine weren't hokey enough, the movie also hinges on one of those unexplained psychic twin bonds that keep the plot moving and the audience baffled. This same twin bond creates a few too many contrived love scenes between Wood's character and the girl from She's All That, who plays the saintly sister of Wood's angry cancer-victim friend.

Adding to the triteness of this screenplay, Wood's other friends are a mentally challenged cancer victim and Kidney, a young black boy afflicted with a mysterious kidney disease. Kidney's dying wish comes true when Dr. Garofalo gives him his own Walkman. This character's hackneyed function in the story is matched by his on-again, off-again relationship to walking. Usually bound to a wheelchair, Kidney has several inexplicable scenes showing him pushing others around in it.

Kindey's characterization may be one small detail, but it is indicative of this film's many other flaws. The Bumblebee Flies Anyway is definitely bumbling, but it never flies.


There ought to be some kind of prosecution to punish producers from financing screenplays this stupid. I feel that some kind of criminalization of bad film might prevent more films this idiotic from being made. Sure it has an interesting cast of characters, but I don't think I've ever seen a more cardboard performance from an entire cast as in this uniquely crappy piece of crap. That director ought to be punished somehow for not eliciting at least some kind of performance out of these people. So detachment is a theme, (no really, they'll beat you over the head with this one), it doesn't mean every character has to recite their lines as if they on NPR. Did I mention this movie was crappy? Lastly I'm not sure what connection one's memories would have with terminal bone cancer, but I'm reasonably certain if you were totally brain dead your cancer would continue to grow regardless. This movie is an insult to cancer patients, medical professionals, and non-retarded people. Oh, and lastly, bumblebees fly because they produce a sufficient amount of lift for their mass by beating their wings just like every other flying insect. I absolutely despise people presenting false knowledge as fact. Next time do a little research before using an imbecilic misconception as a premise for an entire freaking movie. JUST KIDDING BELIEVE IN JESUS!


I know...I know: it's difficult (if not paradoxical) for there to be such a thing as "believable" fantasy. But, to me, there is also such a condition wherein TOO MUCH UNbelievability interfere's with, or distracts from my overall opinion of the movie. The latter was the case for me with regard to Goliath Awaits. Not only did I have too many unanswered questions concerning the storyline, but some of the acting, too, I thought, was a bit over-the-top. (Maybe, though, it was the writing: asking them to recite too many trite, predictable, cliched (over-?) reactions.) Others have said enough about the plot. I just wish that it was done - and, I think that it COULD have been - more convincingly. P. S.: This is a FRESH comment about this film - I just finished watching it a couple of minutes ago; not a recollection from years ago.


I just finishing watching Goliath Awaits that I ordered from my library. I remembered it vaguely from years ago and wanted to watch it with my son. Anyway, the movie was less than 2 hours running time and I thought it was much longer when I first saw it. The back of the VHS box states that the Goliath "emtombs a Nazi file whose secrets could destroy the free world forever." The divers were supposedly on a covert mission to retrieve the demonic document. There was nothing even spoken about retrieving this document. Also, the box says that the "bestial ship's insatiable boiler feeds on human blood." That would make this a horror movie and there was also nothing revealed in the movie about this. I can't remember the details when I watched this years ago on TV...but could the back of this box actually be true? Maybe the 3 hour movie revealed more details??

Just wondering if anyone knows anything about this.


Well, Dude Where's My Car might be at least a novelty as one of few Hollywood films that seems to have been written, cast, filmed & edited in less than a day. I honestly can't believe this got made (or that I allowed my friends to make me sit through the entire thing). The jokes are too stupid and predictable to be "dumb-funny", and the actors involved don't seem like they would be capable of pulling off any kind of funny had the script actually provided it. Oddly enough, unlike most mindless slapstick comedies, this movie actually has TOO MUCH plot - every scene seems to introduce a new moronic and uninteresting subplot. Of course, they were obviously going for moronic, but it doesn't work on any level whatsoever...There is only one aspect of this film I enjoyed: Donkeylips from the old Nickalodean show "Salute Your Shorts" has a very small role. This is the role that will turn him into the next Richard Gere though, you just watch...


There no doubt in one mined that this movie is stupid and unfunny joke, but tell the truth it is quite entertaining (if you re first time viewer and try not to analyzed anything) Over all the movie have a very good ideas but badly written.

The story of the two losers, waking up to find out that they can't remember what happen to them the day before. Only to find out later that they are after by the angry twin girl friends, aliens, transsexual stripper, Aliens nerds and some gangs members.

Isn't it like The Bourne Identity? Yeah yeah, I know - how can I compare the two movies, but what the hell? They both have no memories; peoples were after them and so on.

Anyway the movie is stupid and is only for the viewer that like stupid movie.

Reason To Watch: · Loads of young talented actors, · Very stupid (after all you know it a stupid movie, why not make it extreme)

Reason Not To: · If you like to analyzed, then forget it, · Talented Young actors turn bad, · Good plod turn really bad

Rating: 4/10 (Grade: E+)

------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ----

'Dude Where's My Car' -wait, what do you expected from Ashton Kutcher's movie. I think almost every people got the same answer for this guy - 'A really stupid movie'. Apart from 'That 70s' Shows' this guy really has nothing to offer his fan. (He should thank the series for his reputation). 'Dude Where's My Car', is one of his trademark -'stupidity'. Somehow his film is even worst than Adam Sandler's movies, (can you imagine that). The movie is really non-sense, no story line, and no nothing. Mara Sokoloff, Jennifer Garner, Alison Sweeney and S.W.Scoot should not have wasted their talent on this garbage. They even came up with 'Seriously, Dude Where's My Car'. This shows how the movie companies are dying of making money rather than quality.

Max: 4/10

Recommendation: Borrow it from your friends or just forget about it


Well, I am SO glad I watched this on HBO instead of paying for it in the theaters or video store. The movie has some points, but, if you want to make it a worthwhile movie, I suggest that you become what the main characters are called...stoners.

2/10


SO THIS IS where Columbia's head of their Short Subjects Unit got his Directorial start, eh? Yeah,it's none other than Mr. Jules White who is credited (or is it rather, "exposed") as the Director of this entry into MGM's DOGVILLE Series. Given co-credit as co-Director is one Zion Myers; whose name is heretofore unknown to us. Mr. Meyers was, no doubt, the guy who controlled the four-legged thespians and was responsible for training and "acting". In short, he must have been the Dog Trainer on the set.

THE TITLE OF this comedy short is no doubt a play on the MGM feature of the same year, THE BIG HOUSE; which starred Chester Morris, Wallace Beery, Robert Montgomery and a stellar cast in support. We must plead ignorance in regards to this title; not having seen it up to this point. (Sorry,Schultz!) But there are many of the doggie gags that relate to what we've read about the movie*; not to mention some particular character specific gags. For example, we observed a canine convict who st-st-stuttered and deduced,correctly, that the bow-wow actor was mimicking character comedian, Roscoe Ates. We later cross-checked with the cast of THE BIG HOUSE and presto, his name is there! (Brilliant deduction, one fit for Holmes & Watson!)

THE PRACTICE OF lampooning popular features was already a tried and true practice in the realm of the comedy short. It was one that seemed to draw no objections from the producers and copyright owners of the major films; but rather quite contrarily received heaps of tassive approval. After all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery; besides, any producer would welcome even some seemingly irreverent parodying.** AS FOR THE movie, itself, we found it to be interesting in a sort of perverse manner. Seeing so many of "Man's Best Friends" being so artificially animated into one, long and boring sort of anthropomorphic gag seemed very tiring to we, who make up the audience. I mean just how many pooches were made to bark, needlessly, in order to achieve the illusion of 'talking'?

WHEN IT COMES to pets, or "Animal Companions" as the Politically Correct crowd prefers, we are quite eclectic; favoring not only dogs; but also cats, hamsters and parakeets. We don't enjoy seeing any animal exploited in such a non-funny,extended play format.

AS INCREDIBLE AS it may seem, the step that Mr. Jules White made from MGM's Shorts to heading up Columbia's 2 Reeler production would seem to have been not only a $tep up in the area of finance$; but al$o in the Arti$tic Content. We never thought that being Producer-Director for the likes of such luminaries as the 3 Stooges, Andy Clyde and Hugh Herbert, as well as some who certainly had seen better days, such as Charley Chase, Buster Keaton and Harry Langdon; would be a step up cinematically.

IN CASE WE haven't made our point yet; we're officially panning this one. So, view it at your own risk. We warned you!

NOTE * We read excellent accounts of both THE BIG HOUSE and the Laurel & Hardy send-up, PARDON US (Hal Roach/MGM, 1931) in both MR. LAUREL & MR. HARDY by John McCabe (1962) and THE FILMS OF LAUREL & HARDY by William K. Everson (1967). Both books have our most enthusiastic endorsement.

NOTE ** The Prison Picture became a Genre of its own; all owing a debt to THE BIG HOUSE. In PARDON US, Laurel & Hardy, Hal Roach and its Director did a first class spoof,the first of many; for a Prison comedy became a required theme for so many a screen funny man to come.


Five years after the US Civil War, western folk are more concerned with the age old war between homesteaders and cattle ranchers. The cattlemen herd their wares, from Texas to the trail town of Abilene, Kansas. There, the cowboys find not only big money, but also big confrontation, with homesteaders. Tall in the saddle Marshal Randolph Scott (as Dan Mitchell) tries to keep peace in the town. Mr. Scott has experience mediating between trail hands and saloon patrons. He also juggles the town's finest looking women: sexy saloon singer Ann Dvorak (as Rita) and pretty church lady Rhonda Fleming (as Sherry). Boozy county Sheriff Edgar Buchanan (as Bravo Trimble) offers more comic relief than sharp-shooting assistance.

"Abilene Town" begins with some promising symbolism and contrast: gunshots interrupt Scott and Ms. Fleming singing a hymn in Church; then, the camera switches to Ms. Dvorak sexily singing her saloon number, which causes a man to fire his gun in pleasure. After that, it really becomes quite a standard western; it is somehow duller than it should be, but not quite awful. Young Lloyd Bridges appears as one of the homesteaders. Dvorak's leggy costume is the film's greatest asset; in it, she is a real mover.

**** Abilene Town (1/11/46) Edwin L. Marin ~ Randolph Scott, Ann Dvorak, Edgar Buchanan


this western/musical/comedy is not one of the best of the genre i have seen.i found it much too slow.it just plodded along to the inevitable end.i also found it disjointed.i couldn't wait for it to be over.Randolph Scott is the headliner here,and Lloyd Bridges also stars.but for my money money Edgar Buchanan is the best of the bunch.Buchanan appeared in many westerns in his day,many times providing comic relief,as he does in this picture.i also liked Ann Dvorak as Rita.otherwise,though,i can't think of much to recommend this movie.the movie is based on a novel by Ernest Haycock,who also wrote the novel Stagecoach,which was mad into a movie of the same name in 1939,and remade in 1966 and again in 1986.The 1939 version of Stagecoach,is in my mind,one of the best movies ever made.anyway.as for Abilene town,my vote is a 3/10


It seems incredible that the same decade which brought Star Wars to the silvery screen disgorged such unutterable tripe as this and many other 'adventure' movies. I am reminded of the similarly lavish, but equally wretched 'Ashanti' outlined elsewhere.

Whatever motivated A-list actors to sign-on for such wastes of celluloid is frankly beyond this writer. They must have been very, very desperate. To be perfectly candid, Roger Moore's appearance in any movie is the kiss of death. Although extremely handsome in his youth, his entire acting career has been predicated upon an ability to raise one eyebrow. Every emotion from A to B is conveyed by this simple stratagem. His were the dog-days of James Bond. Lee Marvin on the other hand has featured in some very worthy outings, perhaps most memorably 'Paint Your Wagon' and 'The Dirty Dozen'. He has a comic streak, but he is much better when he plays it straight.

The excellent Ian Holm is a throwaway, hardly recognisable blacked-up as a mute African. Everyone else just turned up for their pay-cheques.

The only plausible and watchable element is the German cruiser. It looks like a very large model. But it is believably massive and appears authentic - as do its crew. The rest isn't even hokum. The childish comedy jars with the brutality and violence in a story that meanders clumsily about, as if the script itself had had too many whiffs of Lee Marvin's gin. Here is a director who simply doesn't know where he's going. There are hints of 'The African Queen', a snatch from 'The Pride & The Passion', 'Gold', and one or two other rip-offs from movies who's titles don't come readily to mind.

Strangely, I have seen it 3 times, each occasion it has been shown on television when I have been laid low with a cold or the flu. Perhaps that is influencing my judgement - but not much.

Compare it with any Indiana Jones movie and you will see what I mean.

I have given it two stars; one for the battleship and the other because it finally comes to an end, though heaven knows it takes long enough to do that.

Time for another Lemsip, I think.


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.


I liked Half-Life. I am still it's fan. It was frightening, intelligent and challenging. I don't tell any news it is one the best FPS ever made. Maybe I'm too hardcore Half-Life fan but the so called Half-Life 2 is not Half-Life 2.

And I have a question: is THIS the next chapter of Half-Life? Maybe the creators -Valve- thinks so but I don't. Where are the intelligent enemies? Where is the frightening atmosphere? Nowhere. I believe they wanted to make a bit different Half-Life (instead of another research station story), but they didn't just made a very different one, they made something that has to do with Half-Life like for example Quake does to Doom. The entire game so unsightly and unreal that it's almost forlorn.

Though the physics are truly great and there were a few good level to play, the idea to make a revolutionary physic-driven gameplay has utterly failed. When you get the Gravity-gun, that can move objects, you can expect with rights to use it as a weapon- that would turn the schematic FPS gameplay upside down. The truth is, you can't use Gravity-gun as a real weapon. Why? Because the best you can do is throwing boxes and barrels that don't do much damage. If you want to keep an object in front of you to protect it can fall from about 3 shots. If you want to throw an exploding barrel to your enemy it can explode in your own "hand". The gravity-gun doesn't work as a weapon. The best usage is solving some physic-puzzles. I ask Valve: Why? The truth is you must use your boring, schematic FPS weapons to the end(except for last level) Weapons are not that made original Half-life a classic. If Gravity-gun would be always like at the last level -a real weapon- I'd admire what Valve did. But not this. This is disappointing.

So if you want Half-Life then you are searching at the wrong place. Maybe you will enjoy it but I repeat: it is everything but not Half-Life and even not a faithful continuation of that. This is the greatest disappointment of all time. Valve have shown they can make awful games too. They have managed that.


I just got back from seeing, "Comedian". It was...alright. It kept me looking at the screen. Its just not the type of thing I like to go pay $7 to see.

Now don't get me wrong, it'd make a great HBO feature. If this were something I was watching on TV, i'd be hooked right in. It gives an amazing look at what comics go through before and after getting on stage. It will interest anyone who likes watching comics.

But when I go to the movies, I like to be entertained. I'm not there to be educated. Now I know what its like for Jerry Seinfeld before he goes out on stage....great. But truthfully, I'd rather just laugh at his jokes than worry about any of that.

One more thing: With the bad attitude Onry Adams has; I'd expect to see him taking my order from Burger King before I see his HBO special. He wasn't funny. He's the kind of person that you love to hate.


The IMDB plot summary erroneously makes it sound like it is Noah Taylor's movie, when Fairuza Balk is the central character. It is unbelievable how such a cast of established actors could have been in such an amateurish, pointless, non-movie. Balk breaks up with Boyfriend Taylor, sleeps with the Devil (I guess - played by Dempsey), and accidentally kills Taylor -- who follows her about for the rest of the movie as a ghost. May be the worst movie I have ever seen.


This flick, which is a.k.a. "Life In the Fast Lane" is easily one of the least entertaining movies I've seen in a long time. I think it was made in mind of the sick, twisted and jaded L.A. women who represent about .00000001 of the population in the States. The characters are all one-dimensional, even the lead. After she stabs her boyfriend in the head with some scissors, a cheap laugh is attempted (and unsucceeds) by sticking a cork in the boyfriend's skull to stop the bleeding. Oh, clever! Patrick Dempsey (whose movies are almost always a class act --sarcasm) plays this "devil" who changes her life - but from what we've seen, her life was this series of vignettes to begin with. No emotion, no laughs, no story. The only reason I give this a 2 is that Jeffrey Jones is ok as the priest and there is a bit of style (albiet zero substance) in the camerawork. Otherwise, one of the 5 worst films I've seen. Grade 2 out of 10 AN F! I think that even the most drugged out junkie who would laugh at a toilet seat falling would dislike this film. I can't stress enough how much you should stay away.


1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.


First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.

I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!

The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!


Esther Williams plays a romantically unattached water-skiing secretary who longs to stop "walking on the water" and be some man's wife; Van Johnson and Tony Martin are her potential choices for a husband. Despite fine aquatic sequences filmed at Florida's Cypress Gardens, this romantic comedy is awfully stale. As helmed by plodding director Charles Walters, everything here is made to seem intentionally innocuous, which doesn't lend the picture much staying power. Even Esther's big moments in the water are not quite up to the mesmerizing leaps from her other swimming vehicles, though they are preferable to the asides with the men, both of whom are colorless. Carroll Baker, in her film debut as Martin's disgruntled ex-girlfriend, is the liveliest of the bunch. Flimsy stuff, indeed. *1/2 from ****


Not many people remember "The Carey Treatment", and I can't say I blame them.

Blake Edwards did this during his lean years (i.e. - between "Pink Panther" movies.) and for a story of a doctor turned detective (Coburn) working to solve a murder in his hospital, it's actually pretty forgettable.

Coburn is dependable as always and O'Neill is beautiful as always but there just seems to be something missing from the proceedings. The story twists and turns aren't very involving and even the climax, which is supposed to be nerve-wracking, is gut-wrenching instead.

A missed opportunity altogether, and an unfortunate one at that, since it was based on a Michael Crichton book.

Oh well, at least Crichton didn't write a sequel to it.

One star. "Carey" on, Coburn.


Hip, distinguished doctor James Coburn (as Peter Carey) arrives to accept a position as pathologist at a Boston hospital. Almost immediately, Mr. Coburn beds beautiful nutritionist Jennifer O'Neill (as Georgia Hightower). While sleeping with Ms. O'Neill, Coburn is awakened by an emergency involving a botched abortion - the fifteen-year-old who bleeds to death happens to be the daughter of the hospital's big donor, Dan O'Herlihy (as J.D. Randall). Coburn doesn't believe the man arrested, doctor pal James Hong (as David Tao), committed the crime; although, Mr. Hong admits to performing illegal abortions on the side. While trying to clear his friend, Coburn wades through a thickening plot

**** The Carey Treatment (3/29/72) Blake Edwards ~ James Coburn, Jennifer O'Neill, Michael Blodgett, James Hong


What a terrible movie this was! I made it about 50 minutes into it and started skipping chapters until the end. The plot is nothing special, and the dialog from the movie deviates from the main story so much that your head will explode out of rage. Many useless minutes wasted just listening to characters jabber on about something irrelevant to the plot, AND/OR something that could said in a shorter amount of time. The camera work is shaky, and grainy. It seemed Mr. Milligan needed to take his finger off of the zoom button! I noticed also that at some points during this movie it seemed that Andy was having seizures, and would uncontrollably shake the camera. The splices between scenes were jumpy and didn't flow. The murder scenes were nothing special - incredibly, and laughably fake. Barely any gore, as the title suggests. This movie runs about 1 hour 20 minutes and the murder scenes take up about 1 minute TOTAL of the whole movie - if that. What a wretched piece of garbage this movie was. Andy Milligan is in fact probably one of the worst directors to plague mankind with his talentless directing, and camera-work. Usually, I can make it through really bad horror movies, and laugh about it later. BLOODTHIRSTY BUTCHERS, however, I can't. I am just angry I wasted an hour and a half of my life watching this (what I wouldn't do to gain it back). Take my suggestion, and DO NOT see this movie unless you plan on falling asleep. TERRIBLE.


For the uninitiated, almost any Andy Milligan film is a shock, but despite the fact that I've seen many of his films, this one still takes the cake for sheer shoddiness.

This is, of course, Milligan's take on the Sweeney Todd tale, done with period costumes (but not necessarily period hairstyles, in some cases) and the usual headache-inducing camera-work & grainy quality. As for the gore, well, the version I saw may have been cut some, for there's not a lot, for a film with "bloodthirsty" in the title. The best indication of subversive film-making here is a meat pie consisting only of some poor victim's tit.

So, while I will still treasure this piece of, uh, work, on my video shelf, it's definitely somewhat of a letdown as far as content though. Recommended for only the foolhardy & morbidly curious. 3 out of 10.


You know the story of "Sweeney Todd" now, most likely thanks to Tim Burton's recent movie. You probably don't know it though, from this take on the old tale from Andy Milligan-that notorious sleaze merchant that gave Al Adamson and Ted V. Mikels a run for their money.

It had to happen eventually. In my years of watching horror and exploitation from the 60's to the 80's, I'm finally reviewing an Andy Milligan movie. You see, from 1964 to 1990, Andy gave us many an exploitation and horror movie-none of which was any good, and barely watchable. "The Bloodthirsty Butchers" is no exception.

There is dialog and well, there is talk, and that's one of the things you will find here-lots and lots of talk. The movie reaches almost "Manos The Hands of Fate" levels at times, as you wait tirelessly for something to happen. While I love cheap looking gore effects, the violence is too few and far between, and in spite of it's reputation, the "breast" scene isn't that shocking.

I love cheap and sleazy exploitation as much as the next trash cinema devotee, but "Bloodthirsty Butchers" is the kind of bad that MST3K would tear apart mercilessly. Sadly, Milligan would die of AIDS in 1991, and if there is any movie of his I'd say I sort of like, it would be the delirious "The Ghastly Ones." This is no "Ghastly Ones" though-it's just bad.


When I bought this film, I expected to get a fun, 1970's exploitation film. Instead, I got this bore fest by amateur auteur Andy Milligan. Ah, Andy Milligan. With his tight editing, breakneck pacing , and wonderfully well known actors, you'd almost think you're watching...one of his home movies! Seriously, I couldn't even stay awake the first time I tried to watch it. The scenes of boring people dragged on an on, and whenever someone got killed, the film would slow down. Sometimes it would speed up too, making the characters voices sound like chipmunks, which was probably the best thing about this film. The script actually seemed a bit better than the film, and seems more well suited to be in a soap opera than in a grainy 70's sleeping pill where the actors constantly stumble over it's lines. The cover said "Their prime cuts were curiously erotic...but thoroughly brutal!" Trust me, there is nothing "erotic" about this film. Oh, we do get to see characters that resemble extra lumpy cottage cheese making out, but that's about it. And as far as "brutal", well, the viewer is brutalized the most with this here film. And another thing...


The word "boring" gets thrown around way too often when referring to exactly how bad a low-budget Horror movie might, or might not be. I've seen many a B-movie. Many horrible, terribly inept B-movies. Some with a production value of a few hundred bucks. Does ineptness, lousy acting, worse continuity, and embarrassing budgets really make a movie unwatchable? Some would no doubt way yes. Most of which are probably huge fans of The Matrix. Well, I hate big-budget movies, so I say no. Bad can sometimes be funny (Blood Freak), sometimes even mind-blowing (Troll 2), but Boring will always be unwatchable... Hey, kinda like Bloodthirsty Butchers, which reminds me, I'm writing a review for this pile of garbage... Uh, yeah, anyway. This is one of late British director Andy Milligan's many alternatives to sleeping pills. This one is based on Sweeney Todd... Great. Milligan takes a boring story, and still manages to "butcher" it. Hey, that's pretty funny, I said bu... sorry, I keep getting distracted. This isn't exactly easy. On second thought, I'll make it easy. No gore, no scares, no entertainment, just unlikeable, annoying people having incoherent conversations. that's Bloodthirsty Butchers. Oh yeah, and something about a barber killing people, and something or other about meat pies. I don't know, it's not important.

For something a little more rewarding from Andy Milligan, there's always the only other one I've seen, The Rats Are Coming, The Werewolves Are Here. Yeah, you heard me. But hows about we forget about this Milligan guy all together, and pick up something sweet like Sick Girl or Teenape Goes To Camp. Whatever you decide, just know, Bloodthirsty Butchers sucks, possibly even more than any other version of this already lackluster tale. And that, B-movie fans, is really saying something. 2/10


This is awful, you just could't believe it. The score is annoying, the filming is bad, for example, sometimes you see the shadow of the cameraman appearing on some actors faces. The quality of the movie is ultra bad, seems like it was made in the 20ies. It's terrible. There is a bit of blood in the beginning and through the movie but always too dark filmed. No gore no effects. The director made some better one like Blood Rites. But out there there is a following of the man, 'cause searching to find this cheap flick isn't that hard but you have to pay hard earned cash for it. Surely this will get in my top ten of worst horrormovies ever, I don't know if I would call it horror. There is too much talking, you will get bloodthirsty after watching it


....is the boob in the pie. Every thing else in it is an abortion, a malformed failure of a film. At least you can SEE and HEAR what goes on in an Ed Wood movie (usually). High schools drama clubs do better than this on a routine basis. Once you've you've seen the breast pie bit, you can turn it off and go watch "Hannibal".


As I write this user-comment, Tim Burton's interpretation of the Sweeney Todd tale is making big money at the box office and the film even earned a couple of Oscar nominations if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen it yet, but I sincerely hope Burton didn't look for inspiration and/or stylish trademarks in good old Andy Milligan's "Bloodthirsty Butchers". Yes, even though the title distinctively mentions butchers, the main characters in the plot are a barber (the infamous Sweeney Todd) and a female baker. Together they form a vile alliance where he kills the customers in his shop and she processes the bodies into her famous London meat pies. In other words, an Andy Milligan premise at his most typical, derivative, delirious and amateurish. I think the IMDb rating for this film speaks for itself. Although the actual story definitely isn't the worst I've ever seen, Milligan somehow inexplicably attracts sheer ineptitude. The production is one gigantic mess, with an incoherent narrative structure, truly hideous photography, poor lighting, lousy acting and directing, laughable gore and zilch tension or atmosphere. More than half of the footage is pure padding and words fail to describe how BORING the film is, even with a running time of a mere 80 minutes. Ed Wood, Ted V. Mikels and Bruno Mattei; you guys need not fear as none other than Andy Milligan is  hands down  the worst director ever, but I don't think he cared. Maybe if you dispose of a really high level of tolerance, "Bloodthirsty Butchers" is worth one viewing.


Andy Milligan, the independent movie maker from New York, directs this little "treat" as his version of the Sweeney Todd legend. Sweeney slits the throats of customers in his barbershop and his cohort Mrs. Lovett turns them into meat pies. Thankfuly I was well-informed of the plot prior to seeing this film travesty. Milligan, for my money, has to indeed be running in the lead of worst directors of all-time race. Ed Wood looks like Orson Welles in comparison. This movie is so bad in oh so many ways. Let's take Milligan's direction for starters. The film quality is grainy. The sound quality is grainy. Many scenes look as if Milligan was using a camcorder to film. The credits say "Photograped and directed by Andy Milligan." He wants to take credit for ceilings showing up after a death scene? How about the atrocious musical score selected for the film? The film cuts with one poor transition after another. Little logic is used in the creation of the plot. The story has little to do with the actual legend of Todd. The murder scenes are plentiful but not horrifying in any way. Hands, legs, and other appendages are cut with the skill in which the editing was done: choppily! And let's take the breast in the pie scene. Yes, it is in there. The pie maker didn't know that an entire breast with nipple filled an entire pie crust? Later we hear from our characters that they "have been careful not to get caught" for the 200 plus murders they have done. Obviously they are a couple of boobs not able to keep abreast of what is going on(sorry it was too tempting). The actors are not too terribly bad to be honest. Some even have glimmers of talent, and all seem to be genuine English articles. Many non-erotic nude scenes are forced throughout. Milligan seemingly has some issues regarding sex. Plot strands are left untied. The ending is almost unwatchable due to poor camera work. I could go on and on. Did I like anything about the film? Not much to be truthful. I have a high level of acceptance for films of this ilk in terms of low budgets and marginal talent, but this film lacks any real purpose other than to be crude and sick.


I have recently become a huge fan of Patton Oswalt. I think he's the most deliciously original comedian to come along in ages. He is refreshing and fearless in his routines, which run the gamut of topics from how much Bush sucks to the sleazy exploits of 1970s producer Robert Evans. I'm a longtime fan of Maria Bamford and her wide-eyed innocent/schizophrenic routine. Whenever she effortlessly switches her naturally high-pitched voice to one that is clipped and throaty, I can't help but giggle. I liked Brian Posehn long before I even knew he was on "Just Shoot Me", and there is something so innately funny about his aging nerd persona. All three of these talented, unique comedians headline "The Comedians of Comedy", a Netflix documentary about their U.S. tour. They truly deserve to be stars, and this tour gave them the recognition they so richly deserve. I thought,no, I KNEW I'd like this movie...

But I was wrong. Instead of the three comics each getting their own routine segments, "The Comedians of Comedy" is bogged down by meandering and dull documentary scenes that contain no humor, no insight, nothing of real interest. I think there is a total of 30 minutes of intermittent stand-up routines total in the 109 minute movie. What a rip-off! Come on, is anyone really interested in seeing our stars banter in their RV? Where's the humor in seeing Posehn in an arcade and a comic book shop? Does anyone find random diner scenes particularly funny? If this movie couldn't have shown our comics strutting their stuff, at least make it about what life is like on the road. It's not even about that. Worst of all, the comics never appear to be having real fun. Oswalt admits how bored he is doing a radio interview, Posehn sheepishly admits to how much he sucks at giving a tour of his home, and Bamford nervously improvises every time the camera is pointed at her, and her humor there is only sporadic.

Sheesh, these guys deserve a chance to show the world their unconventional, amazingly crafted humor that is a refreshing change of pace from the brainless entertainment of mainstream comics like Dane Cook. Instead, we have to sit through their mundane, everyday routines on the road in a substandard bore of a movie whose quality could easily be surpassed by any student film. If you can locate any of Oswalt's, Posehn's, or Bamford's performances on DVD, by all means do. Their talent should be a joy to behold, not a chore like it is here.


The use of the term 'comedy' with relation to this documentary is an insult to the art of comedy, and worse yet is the pain that is inflicted on the viewers of this production. Almost nothing was funny.

This documentary followed a small group of stand-up 'comics' on the road as they travel from town to town to perform in small clubs.

It's interesting to note that their conversations and behavior off-stage and on-stage are indistinguishable, but sadly, equally unfunny.

It's possible to understand the self delusions of grandeur which the featured 'comedians' possess, but it's harder to grasp the sounds of laughter heard from their audiences. Perhas these are the same audiences for whom the lame sitcoms on TV are intended.

This was possibly the worst film I've ever watched in my 50+ years of movie viewing.


The name of Bad Company's greatest hits album is called "10 From 6". You could have just turned up this album and cut the sound on this movie. Most of the songs played in the movie were from this album. I guess oldsters during the 1970s were probably tired of all the period pieces made then about the 1930s and 1940s. That's how I feel about movies made about the 1970s. The characters in the movie looked like they were auditioning for Danny Terrio. Why is it that movies have to exaggerate the 1970s. The only good period piece I liked was "Freaks and Geeks". They cut that television show. It was exactly like things were in high school when I was there back circa 1980. I was old enough to remember the 70s and no small town was like this. It was totally youth dominated. There were no reactionaries talking about the hippies and about the inner city of Philly. That was more the 70s that I remember as a kid. This movie was very dull and cheesy. At times, I was falling asleep. I don't know why an actor who was acting during the 70s, appeared in this one. He was probably trying to lend it some credibility. Walken didn't even show up until the second half. I guess the only true thing about the movie was the "baby boomers" were/are a spoiled lot. All the kids in the movie were spoiled brats. I don't know what they had against their father.


File this one in the `How do movies like this get made?' column. A seventies-drag indie version of `Macbeth,' adapted fairly faithfully (but pointlessly) in a conventionally unconventional black-comic style. The cast gives it a shot, with Christopher Walken phoning in the eccentricity as McDuff, and with Maura Tierney rising above the dull script as Pat McBeth. The other actors are wasted, as is the audience's time. Knee-jerk fans of this brand of quirk may like it, though. 4 out of 10.


The cast played Shakespeare.

Shakespeare lost.

I appreciate that this is trying to bring Shakespeare to the masses, but why ruin something so good.

Is it because 'The Scottish Play' is my favorite Shakespeare? I do not know. What I do know is that a certain Rev Bowdler (hence bowdlerization) tried to do something similar in the Victorian era.

In other words, you cannot improve perfection.

I have no more to write but as I have to write at least ten lines of text (and English composition was never my forte I will just have to keep going and say that this movie, as the saying goes, just does not cut it.


As a Scot I find the idea of "Macbeth" shifted in Time and Space to America totally moronic.I am sure this doesn't apply to broadminded IMDb Users,but why are so many Americans unable to relate to ANY film concept that isn't set in their Country ? This attitude does Americans no favours in the Big Wide World out here.

It was bad enough that "The Wicker Man" was remade and set in the USA ,totaly stripped of its Cultural context, and with a Polticaly Correct gender change for a leading Character.

One wonders what next,Robert The Bruce as a New York cop ?,Mary Queen of Scots as a "Soccer Mom" juggling ,kids ,a career and relationships ?

Come on Hollywood, open up to all the other Cultures on the Planet!


I saw this film last night.

And I'm worried I'm turning into one of those left-wing liberals they rightly make fun of in South Park. Because I found it hugely offensive. Am I being ridiculously sensitive? Firstly, there's the old staple that is America being the only country in the world that is physically capable of anything, ever.

Secondly, and chillingly, there is the early meteor strike hitting some (unnamed  why do they need a name?) Asian country. The reaction to this is to look at it as a warning. As in "my god, imagine the tragedy that *could* happen". Because, you know, it happened to Asians. It might happen to white Americans, and *that* would be tragic.

Then, later on, a bigger meteor hits Paris. Our cast on the ground are irritated, because this might mean our boys have less time than they thought. Not much upset in America. No mention that a lot of people have died.

Then there's Michael Clarke Duncan. A wonderful actor, wasted. Never has a black man been so token. Among a team of hardcore drillers, his job seems to consist of standing in the back, occasionally saying "Hey, you da man." Really. Why did they even bring him? It's not like he's petite - he weighed down that shuttle for nothing! Not once does he lift a tool, steer a space ship or even help fix anything that blows up.

Even if you ignore the Russian Cosmonaut (Peter Stormare, another great actor wasted in a pointless role), who seems drunk most of the time and hits things with spanners instead of fixing them because "Dat's how we do dese dings in Russia", it's pretty horrific.

All cemented of course by the site of blond, blue-eyed American children all celebrating in corn fields at being saved and everything being all right. Because all the death and destruction to the rest of the world is irrelevant.

You expect the bad script, the dodgy acting, the implausible plot (fat, middle aged men being trained in 12 days to be astronauts? Including one who appears to be retarded?). But I couldn't believe the racism and xenophobia implied in the film, and the callous disregard for the lives of anyone not corn-fed American.

It's a chilling indictment of the attitude of a section of Western Society to the world.

And it's a crappy film too.


Half of the movie is is flashing lights and shaky camera. The rest is made up of predictable characters (think science vs. government, 'know-how' vs. authority, etc.)

What is the worst aspect about this movie? Is it the cars being thrown around in the first 5 minutes, is the horrible 'Russian' accent of the 'cosmonaut', is it the uninspired characters, the poorly integrated Top 40 hits, or the "US will save the world" vitriol? No. It's the fact that regardless of the "sad" ending - there is very little suspense in this movie - we basically know what's going to happen.

The one good part of this movie: "American components, Russian components: all made in Taiwan!"


I like action movies. I have a softspot for "B" flicks with bad dialogue and wooden acting. So, I've been wracking my brain to come up with one of my guilty pleasures that was worse than this blockbuster. I can't. You'd be hard pressed to put together a bigger piece of cr*p than this Bruce Willis vehicle.

Armageddon is the story (and I use that term loosely) of a team of "Super-Drillers" flying off to destroy an asteroid before it destroys the Earth. Realistic? Not really. But who cares? It's an action flick. I'm not blasting the premise.

Minor spoilers:

The movie begins with a couple of scenes designed to introduce the threat and the characters. Bruce Willis is the tough-as-nails leader of the team, and spends his first bit of screen time chasing around Ben Affleck with a gun for the unforgiveable act of sleeping with his daughter. For some reason, that didn't make me laugh. It was forced, like everything in this movie.

The team is called in because they're the only people in the whole wide world who can drill the asteroid. Okay, I'm prepared to accept that premise if it gets us to the action - the supposed meat of the movie. More attempts at humor, with each character going out to do some crazy, nutty thing before blast off. Again, lame. Finally, they take off. Here's where the movie really pi**ed me off. They arrive on the rock, and set to work. Would you believe it, nothing works right and everything has a suspenseful countdown!!! Whoah! Ten, nine, eight... one - Oh, surprise surprise we saved the day again!!

And don't even get me started on the jerky camerawork. When I saw it in the theater I thought I was going to be sick. I can only assume they were trying to cover up the gargantuan holes left by the insipid performances by cutting away to a different shot every few seconds (and this from someone raised on MTV - Mr short attention span himself).

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse... wait - there's a manufactured tearjerker ending that was so tacked on it made the rest of the film a virtual Citizen Kane.

Summary: The witticisms weren't witty. The plot - well, I said I'd let that one go. The acting was bad. Really bad. Even Billy Bob couldn't rise above the script, which was worse. Camerawork - again, bad. (I didn't even mention the dumbest love scene in the history of motion pictures - think animal crackers).

Rating: 1 out of 10. (I'm giving a half point for Steve Buscemi, who makes me smile against my will and another half point for the times I was able to look at the lovely Liv Tyler and attempt to ignore her acting performance) This is far and away the worst movie I've gone to see in the theater... ever.


spoilers

This movie is not action packed; it's slow and boring. It's not funny or exciting, it's predictable and plays on cheap sentimentality and vague patriotism. The special effects are not imaginative or impressive. They are noisy and uninspired.

The acting talent is wasted on hopelessly stupid one-liners and clichés. These are spouted by characters they ought to just be called `gentle giant black man,' `eccentric genius who is about to crack,' `square jawed hero coming of age,' `by-the-book coward,' `luckless gambler who lives by a code of honor,' `impulsive princess' and so on.

And the writing! How many undramatic countdowns did they think they could fit in this thing? Does a scene where people have to defuse a bomb by cutting one or another wire even count as fiction anymore? The drama of the last 15 minutes of the movie depends on the audience caring if some jerk can put aside his personal differences with Ben Affleck and say bye bye to Liv Tyler in time TO SAVE THE EARTH. All the work is done; we just have to wait a couple more seconds for Harry Stamper, the jerk, to toss off a few cotton candy lines. I know Bruce Willis is a generally charismatic guy, but his Harry Stamper character is an obnoxious bore. I thought he earned the Golden Razzy he was awarded for this role.

Since the movie is so long, the plot so obvious, and the dialogue so disposable, one can't help but notice the lame inaccuracies, inconsistencies and plot holes. 800 feet into something the size of TX is less than a pinprick. Try walking 800 feet into TX and see how close to the center you are. After all the discussion about the artificial gravity on the Russian station, it appears to be arbitrary once inside. Actually, gravity comes and goes throughout the movie. Does it make any sense that anyone besides Michael Bay would give these morons a couple shuttles and send them to blow up an asteroid threatening the earth?

The sentimental phone/insurance/cola commercial style montages were revolting.

I do like action movies. Really. This one is boring, stupid and really stuck on itself. It deserves hatred and scorn because it's everything Hollywood's most expensive efforts have become - a bunch of cheap cliches running from one expensive explosion to another. Oh yes, the whole thing is permeated by a Neanderthal conservative outlook on sex, politics and so on.


I remember thinking that due to the cast, the subject matter, and the director, I was going to love this movie.

Stepping into the theatre and taking my seat, I was like a giddy schoolgirl as my anticipation for the opening scene built.

I was not disappointed with the opening and felt that I was truly going to love this movie.

If you haven't seen the movie and feel that anything that gives away scenes might be seen as a spoiler, please stop reading. I'm not going to give away anything really important, but it might be seen as such, so that is the warning.

Spoiler may be included below, beware.

I think that the first scene that really hit me as just utterly ridiculous was the Russian space station scene. I mean honestly, refueling a shuttle with no real prior warning, and then to simply show the station as being so fragile that a simple little mistake can cause the entire thing to just explode.

While all of this is possible, it seemed to me to be way over the top. I'm not sure if it was just the situation or if it was the cheesy acting, the silly view of the Russian technology, or just the campy attitude of the scene itself.

It only got worse for me after that because then we endure what seemed like 2 hours of constant super loud explosions in space...you know, that place where there is no sound because it's a vacuum.

But the coup de grace for me, honestly, was the gun scene. (spoiler possibility) - Earlier in the movie, we see Bruce Willis tearing apart their land vehicle (the vehicle that they will use to drive around in when they get there and to help them drill) when he is told that this is what they will be using. He is taking pieces off and complaining about it because much of what's on it is heavy and not required for what they are doing.

So then, as we are wandering onto the asteroids, we see that they have opted to add a massive gatling like gun to the vehicles...you know, standard NASA fare is to have heavy weaponry on all space missions in case, you know, aliens or something.

I could have taken the explosive 2 hours, the silly Russian space station refueling scene, the cheesy love scene near the end, the Bruce Willis character being nothing more than most of his other past characters, but the Steve Buscemi going mad and shooting the space vehicle's gun all over the place and causing havoc/damage, well that threw the entire thing over the top for me.

Save your money and time and avoid this movie. If you want a good meteor movie, see Deep Impact, if you want a fun space movie with awesome special effects, see Space Cowboys, but no matter what, avoid this flick.


Like many people in my general age range, I remember going to see this movie as a kid in '98 and coming out of the theatre practically in tears. It seemed, at the time, to be one of the most important, awe-inspiring cinematic experiences of our generation. At once riveting, action-packed, funny, heartbreaking, and truly inspirational, Armegeddeon really did have everything going on, right down to the catchy Aerosmith theme song and sappy tear-jerker of an ending.

Sweet Jebus. What were we smoking? I watched it for the first time in years last night on one of the movie channels, and... I cannot even describe it. This is, truly, one of the worst movies ever made. Where to even begin? Leaving aside the plethora of LAUGHABLE scientific errors ('personnel trackers' on astronauts? yeah, sure, thanks for that, Billy Bob), I'd have to say the worst thing about it was the remarkable - dare I even say unmatched - way in which it combined crappy writing with crappy acting. There are too many examples of this to even begin listing here, but one in particular springs to mind - the scene where Bruce Willis is telling the Feds exactly where to go to track down each of the oh-so-charmingly-roguish members of his oil drilling team ('check every bar in New Orleans', 'the craps tables in Vegas', 'the only black guy on a motorcycle in Sturgis'... all to the tune of 'Come Together'... it reminded me a bit of the "NEWS TEAM! ASSEMBLE!" scene from Anchorman, except serious). Ben Affleck proves, once again, that he is by far the most overpaid actor in Hollywood, having less depth, range, and overall talent than anyone else in the business. Not that Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler, OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS GODFORSAKEN PIECE OF GARBAGE was much better.

(I have to say, though, I got a kick out of seeing a pre-stardom Owen Wilson get killed off half-way through... is this the only movie where his character dies?)

Peter Stormare is perfect as THE MOST STEREOTYPICAL UNSHAVEN Russian COSMONAUT YOU HAVE EVER SCENE. (Then again, Peter Stormare does seem to have a talent for playing over-the-top Eurotypes.) It really was quite amusing how, almost IMMEDIATELY after the Americans dock with the Russian Space Station (which is actually called that in the movie), Ben Affleck succeeds in singlehandedly causing the whole joint to explode in spectacular Hollywood fashion. I also love the fact that, in the end, Paris is the only place on Earth to get destroyed, and that absolutely no one seems to care. And on top of all that, it at points literally turns into simultaneous ads for Lockheed Martin AND Kerr McGee. Oh how proud I am to be an American.

There's plenty of other stuff to rant about, but I won't... suffice it to say that this is a really, really, REALLY terrible movie, that I feel ashamed to have ever genuinely liked.

I give it two stars just for the mockability factor.


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 used to like some of the Hollywood action blockbusters of the 80s. They had icons such as Arnie and Sly but I think the action movie in the '90s has plummeted to new depths. The worst of these, I believe, was Armageddon.

The plot is shamelessly contrived and pulls off the worst cliches as it seeks to excite viewers. The melodrama is so cringingly saccharine and awful that you actually cannot wait for Bruce Willis to disappear from the screen. Liv Tyler, who had acted admirably in several fine independent features directed by such masters as Bernardo Bertolucci and Robert Altman, regrettably decided to jump onto the commercial bandwagon. This movie symbolises the new Hollywood aesthetic of grand special effects and precious little good dialogue or authentic melodrama. That is the norm these days and I begin to wonder if there is a role in Hollywood for screenwriters. It seems as though they just employ hacks and committees to write the facile scripts. The rest they leave to technology. There is not a single piece of grand, heartfelt human emotion in Armageddon. It just feels empty and bland. I can think of only one good aspect of this movie and that involves Liv Tyler's dad who doesn't even make an appearance in the film. Steven Tyler's band Aerosmith provide a theme song for the movie - a ballad that really soars and at least tugs at the heartstrings a little when the end credits come up.

I weep for Western civilization if people like this predictable, cumbersome movie. It stands for shallowness, lethargy, and a decline in the human intellect. I would even prefer to watch the eighth Friday the 13th.


I can't remember when I've seen a worse movie. The acting was overwrought, the dialog trite to the point of being painful to listen to, the special effects second-rate and the overall story laughable.

I've never wanted to walk out on a movie more, and if I'd been alone that's what I'd have done, about 30 minutes into it, and saved myself nearly ANOTHER TWO EXCRUCIATING HOURS of nausea-inducing dialog and a plot with more holes than a swiss cheese "the size of Texas." I just can't overemphasize what a miserable experience sitting through this collosal waste of perfectly good celluloid was.


This movie has bad writing and bad editing. It is difficult to follow what is going on because nothing any of the characters do makes much sense. Some major calamity occurs every 30 seconds. As a result, none of the "action" sequences are at all interesting. The movie is two hours worth of "throw away" scenes which are connected merely by the fact that they share common actors. This movie doesn't even have enough of a sense of humor to be a good "bad" movie.


Two movies: "the fifth element", "armageddon". The same subject: to save the world. The same main actor: Bruce Willis. One difference: "Armageddon" is very inferior to Luc Besson's film. Some spectacular special effects don't succeed in hiding a labored and globally conventional screenplay. Several parts of the movie are showing it. I think about the president's speech and especially Willis' relationship with his daughter, "Grace". At the beginning of the movie, he tends to neglect and overprotect her and this makes her weary. Then, at the end of the movie, it's true love and understanding that shine in him. On another hand, the movie falls in the following trap: Michael Bay takes his subject too seriously. Of course, the movie tries to be funny but the result doesn't work as the humor introduced in the movie is often crude and pretty low-level whereas in the "fifth element", the humor was zany, involuntary and enabled to overlook the serious side of the action. The movie suffers from two other handicaps: it often falls into the ridiculous (the Russian astronaut) and almost all the actors are bad used. Bruce Willis is all the contrary of his "fifth element"'s character. He plays the he-man, he hams it up and sometimes, he's unbearable. The other actors are barely credible in their own roles, particularly, Willis' sinking crew. It seems that this crew is here just for having fun. One of them is taken for being very qualified but he looks like a fool. And poor Liv Tyler! She's at the NASA just to be decorative.

When the movie was released in France in August 1998, Bruce Willis expressed is weariness of saving the world. His weariness was probably justified by this spectacular but poor movie.


The acting was horrible. The special effects, while exceptional, dominated the movie. The writing was pathetic, and the dialogue was unbelievable. And the silly little love story between Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck was out of place.

But the worst offense of "Armageddon" was the total lack of scientific reality. "The asteroid is the size of Texas," says Billy Bob Thornton. Er, that's 800 miles wide! No one in NASA even sees the asteroid until a midday meteor shower wrecks havoc in New York? Suuuuure. NASA hires a drilling team to join the astronauts and trains them in a week? Yeah, right. Someone brings a sidearm on the Space Shuttle with them? Yeah, that's realistic. And Bruce Willis blows up the asteroid with three seconds to spare. How Disney-esque!

How bad was this movie? I rooted for the asteroid!


Being an unrelenting non-stop over-the-top explosive melodrama, this movie is one of the worst action flicks ever produced, and utterly unbelievable in every way. The pace is constantly fever-pitched, and all the action and the actors are gripped by total hysteria. It is nigh unwatchable, and a stain - nay, a blotch - on the careers of everyone involved.

The wildly exaggerated attempt at excitement undermines itself, resulting in a movie where you just go "Come on!" all the time. The setting and the events are impossible to take even remotely seriously. I can only rate this abomination a 1 out of 10.

If you want to see a good asteroid movie, see Deep Impact, which is intense, sensitive and thoroughly engrossing. Everything Armageddon is not.


Dear Readers,

I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.

An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.

Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.

With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt Macleod

Parental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle.


I watched this movie about six years ago and I recently did so again. If I remember correctly I did not like it at all the first time and I appreciated it slightly more this second time.

This movie is obviously on a big budget. The effects are mostly top notch (except for one or two "impacts") and the cast is impressive. However, there are some elements that destroy the overall impression of the show.

Firstly, whoever decided that Peter Stormare should act as a crazy Russian astronaut should be fired. Being a Swede and a fan of Peter, I'm pretty sure he can play a Russian character well. But his performance in this case is plain stupid, both with respect the lines uttered and the acting. So... something must be wrong with the script. I'd like to see Peter as a professional Russian astronaut instead.

Secondly, the action scenes that take place on the surface are so intense that it is nearly unbearable to watch. It is a total chaos that lasts over thirty minutes with too few moments to catch one's breath. In addition to this, the events that unfold are simply not credible. I'd like to see a much more sensible and stripped down version of this part of the movie.

Finally, the scenes that involve flying space shuttles are too action-biased. The shuttles are maneuvering like if they were a couple of MIGs, at zero safety distance, while bouncing off car-sized ice blocks like ping-pong balls. The director should watch Apollo 13 to learn the limitations of spacecraft like these.

I like the music score because it is dramatic to a degree making it very touching. The overall performance of the actors is great. Apart from the things mentioned above the story is interesting and quite easy to follow.

With some minor changes this would have been a 8/10 movie. I'm sorry it isn't!


This 'schlock-buster' should carry a government health warning. If you play it in your DVD machine, you are in serious risk of opening a rift in the space-time continuum and disappearing without trace into it - so bad is this 'movie'.

The fact that this movie was so successful is evidence of the true desperate state of modern Hollywood cinema, and the continual commissioning of films that appeal to the 'lowest common denominator' - although I truly dread to think of the 'lowest common denominators' that this film actually appeals to!!

I think Hollywood were just conducting some kind of proving trials when they made and screened this film! I can imagine the executive boardroom meetings at the studio ... "Just how bad a film can we actually get away with making - and STILL make loads of money!??! Holy cow, I didn't realise we could go THAT bad!! Woooo hooooo!!"

The only films worse than this that I can think of (and trust me it is close) are Die Another Day (RIP the Bond franchise as I knew it) and Independence Day!

AVOID - AVOID - AVOID!!!!


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.


I agree with Jessica, this movie is pretty bad. I'm surprised anyone took it seriously. Characters are one-dimensional, even the good guys and especially the bad guys. The only merit here is that it's so lame it's funny. Actually for me, there is the added benefit that it was shot in a state park not far from where I live, so seeing some local sights on the big screen is a hoot.

The lead character is a off-duty cop, and makes a big point of lecturing a good guy that vigilante justice is not just a bad idea, it's against the law. Imagine how long that lasts ...

Most of the movie's Northern California characters are blown-dried Hollywood cheese-balls, looking like they've never actually been in a fight. The story line is totally predictable. This film is ripe for a MST-3K lampooning. CAMP value only. I'm pretty forgiving of films in general, but seeing the old positive reviews I had to speak up. This is a dog. I give it a 3 out of 10, and then only for laughs.