Occasionally on talk shows a good topical debate sparks some interesting opinions from the audience, unfortunately there is always some desperately sad person seeking acceptance who will end any interesting debate instantly by getting up and saying the proverbial "Everyone should get along and love each other" as they know they are guaranteed to get applause and affirmation, as no one would dare disagree.

Well they are the same people who marked this film as good, why did they do that? INSECURITY. Anyway that's all I'll say on that matter.

The Film, it starts of reasonably interestingly so you hope it will build, and if like me you've settled in with a nice couple of glasses of wine and some cheese then you will give it even more of a chance simply because you can't be bothered to move.

But then you daydream, you wander, your mind drifts of onto other things, why? because the Director did too! he took his foot off the gas, and then he realized 'ooops' so to compensate he accelerates hard, but then he drifts again, and again so do you, the story slows, the plot thins and almost disappears, you even wonder to yourself 'so what happened again?' as you ponder your screen will show Nick Nolte running around with some supposed purpose, but you will have long since cared as to what he is doing and he will appear as nothing more than a screen saver in the background to your day dreaming.

Michael Moriarty who plays John Converse has an amazing ability to speak without moving his lips or indeed his face, somewhat like a ventriloquist, he must have gone to the Nicolas Cage school of expressionless facial acting, or he was attacked by the Phantom Botox injector.

Tuesday Weld was to play Marge Converse, but instead she played Mia Farrow to perfection.

In all there are hundreds of thousands of films to see, so leave this one to one of the last, you see I've just wasted an evening watching it when I could have watched or done something else, learn by my mistake, nights off relaxing are precious so don't waste one watching this boring tale, do anything else, dust off that old game of Cluedo, practice gurning for the evening or have an argument with a loved one, trim your nose hair, get rid of unused files on our laptop, it will be time better spent what ever you should choose.


Just plain terrible. Nick and Michael are WAY better actors than this. A "C" rated flick at best. The plot was weak and the characters totally undeveloped. Even the film and sound quality was terrible. I suppose that these were all young actors at the time and this script just filled a job nitch.


Start with the premise that you will do anything to replace your lost love with a look-alike. Throw in your scientific knowledge of a deforming disease (isn't this the stuff that Leo G. Carroll contracted from the spider venom in "Tarantula"). Throw in the fact that the main character, instead of finding some way to attract the young woman, engages in heavy-handed stalking, until he totally draws attention to himself and has to hatch this insane plot: If he can make the girl's father sick, then help him recover, she will marry him. The problem is that most of the events are random and unpredictable. Anyone with half a brain would have seen through things. There's a third party, a woman that the doctor, played by J. Carroll Naish, has treated with great insensitivity. You know she is going to be a factor. There's also a gorilla kept in a cage who is used occasionally for heaven know's what. Oh well. There is so little sense to this who thing that it plays itself out and people get their just desserts.


"A scientist has developed a serum which grotesquely distorts the victim's hands and heads. The scientist decides to use his serum on a concert pianist to extort money from him for the cure as well as take the man's daughter for a wife," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. J. Carrol Naish (as Dr. Igor Markoff) plays "The Monster Maker" in the low budget Bela Lugosi mode.

Mr. Naish's serum causes a real disorder, "acromegaly", which American Heritage defines as, "A chronic disease of adults marked by enlargement of the bones of the extremities, face, and jaw that is caused by overactivity of the pituitary gland." Ralph Morgan (as Anthony Lawrence) plays the afflicted man with some dignity. Pretty blonde Wanda McKay (as Patricia "Pat" Lawrence) is the daughter desired by mad scientist Naish; in early scenes, Ms. McKay and Naish emote hilariously.

Watch for Tala Birell (as Maxine) in a surprisingly good supporting performance; she plays the somewhat Garbo-like, and long suffering, assistant to Naish. Ms. Birell definitely steals the film; and, you've got to question Dr. Markoff's sanity in casting her aside. Glenn Strange (as Steve) and a crazed gorilla (Ray Corrigan) add to the fun. The monster makeup (Maurice Seiderman) is very good.

**** The Monster Maker (1944) Sam Newfield ~ J. Carrol Naish, Ralph Morgan, Tala Birell


Dr. Markoff is a mad scientist who is experimenting , trying to find a cure for a viral cause of acromegaly. When he attends a piano concert, he is stricken by the beautiful daughter of the pianist and sets out to woo her. But when she wants nothing to do with him, he infects her father with the acromegaly virus in an attempt to extort money and his daughter in exchange for a cure.

That is the basic premise for this B-grade low budget thriller. I have to say I was underwhelmed by this movie. Not that it was terrible-it wasn't, but there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it either. It was entertaining enough for a viewing but is not one that will stay in my memory.

The dialog is a bit corny at times and the acting is just mediocre. The story is fairly predictable and doesn't really give us anything new. Of course, I can't complain too much about a movie that has a guy in a gorilla suit who serves almost no real purpose and a doctor with a Svengali-like stare that fails to mesmerize his victims.

It may be worth a watch if you like this sort of movie, but don't go into it with too many expectations.


(Some Spoilers) PRC quickie that has J. Carrol Naish playing Dr. Igor Markoff who's not really Dr. Karkoff but an impostor who took over his identity back in Europe.

The real Dr. Karkoff had a affair with Dr.Markoff's wife that lead to him to murder the real Dr.Markoff and then having his wife Lenore infected with acromegaly that made her look like the "Elephant Man's" sister. This was done so that no one would ever want to look at her and he could keep Lenore all to himself; but the disturbed Lenore later got even with her insane husband by killing herself.

This nut, the fake Dr. Markoff, then spots Patricia Lawrence, Wanda McKay, one evening at the theater where her father Tony Lawernce, Ralph Morgan, a world famous pianist is giving a concert. Enchanted by the lovely Patricia who's a dead ringer for his dead wife Lenore Dr. Markoff becomes obsessed with her and goes to extreme lengths to marry her even though she's want's nothing to do with him.

After getting ridicules in his efforts to get Patricia to fall in love with him, by sending her flowers with syrupy love notes attached to then as much as five times a day,Tony goes to see the crazed Dr. Mankoff to tell him to stop annoying his daughter. It's then that Tony ends up getting knocked out by the good doctor who has him injected with a dose of acromegaly that turns him into a somewhat unsightly fellow. With his hands and body swelling up and not being able to play his beloved piano Tony is told by his Doctor Dr. Adams,Sam Flint, that the only one who can cure him of that dreadful disease is non other then Dr. Markoff! the person who gave it to him.

The movie has the usual sub-plots with Dr. Markoff's assistant Maxine,Tala Birell, who's also in love with him jealous of the phony doctor making a play for Patricia. There's also Dr. Markoff's hulking butler Glenn Strange who, like his pet gorilla, is just a big clumsy oaf who can't even subdue Maxine who's less the half the size. Strange ends up getting bopped on the head and knocked out cold by Patricia's boyfriend Bobby Blake, Terry Frost. As for the Gorilla he turns out to be but a big hairy wimp when he also tries to do in Maxine and is chased away, and locks himself back up in his cage, by the pet dog Ace. Dr. Markoff in his desperation to get Patricia to marry him promises her to cure her dad only to have her father break out of his chains and in the ensuing struggle with him ends up shooting Markoff dead with his own gun.

There is a happy ending to this whole mess with Maxine, who knew as much about Markoff's cure for acromegaly as he did, injecting Tony with a secret serum that made him as good as new. The movie ends, like it started, with Tony playing the piano to a packed and cheering house at the local theater.


No one in this movie has very much to do. This is probably the longest 65 minutes I've ever spent watching a movie. The makeup effects on the pianist with macromeglia are pretty good, but that's the only thing that keeps this from being rate a 1. The doctor's assistant goes through extreme mood swings from passivity to hysteria in seconds and then seems to forget where she was in the next scene. The director assembled a lot of the right ingredients for a mad-doctor movie, but somehow forgot the skeleton of a story to hang them on. Unless you know someone in the cast or crew, I wouldn't recommend even sampling this one.


J Carol Nash and Ralph Morgan star in a movie about a mad scientist in love with a pianist's daughter. When his advances are spurned he injects the father with a disfiguring disease so that she will be forced to come to him to get a cure.

God this is awful.Its dull and boring and you'll nod off before the pianist gets uglified, I was on the verge. Yea it picks up once things are set in motion but this is one of those old movies better remembered then seen again.

If you must see it come in late

4 out of 10


Oh God, Why? I am aghast at the sheer ineptitude of this delicious blathering nonsense..as if all that makes sense. Well, like this film from bottom rung poverty row of 1940s Hollywood, nothing in this door slamming horror - made on three sets - makes much sense...except the horniness of Dr Markoff (jerkoff?) who lusts uncontrollably after some plonky piano-player's daughter who has big melons and a flouncy hairdoo. It is just terrible ...and even has a gorilla and a big dog for pointless added distractions. More Elephantine than Elephant man and that is just at 62 minutes!. ....THE MONSTER MAKER is the sort of film kids in 2005 just howl at with disbelief and wonder what the hell their grandparents saw in their youth that made them the lovable movie kooks they are today. I guess you just had to be there. In 1944 or whenever the hell this mad drivel was shown to impressionable 13 year olds in glorious 3000 seat velvet movie palaces on a wet day. Somehow. It was made for no reason, by botchville crapshooter movie scammers PRC Pictures in the war years by escaped German refugees who knew who to make a film since they got out of Europe as the Nazis advanced on UFA studios...the monster in this film, like the mad scientist is actually a Nazi nightmare.


When I watched this movie it was an afternoon after I got home from work. I love horror movies and have seen some really cheesy ones, but this takes the cake. The plot presented to the viewer in the beginning of the movie seems a little intriguing, but as the movie progresses the script makes a wrong turn with horrible cliches and bad presentation, which in turn makes the movie completely dull and boring. I don't mean to keep criticizing the script and plot, because believe me that is not the worst part. I have to say as a whole the acting was not terrible for beginning actors, and I was impressed with Taylor Locke, this being one of his first movies. The worst part of the movie was the special effects. They reeked of low budget, and really ruined the viewers entertainment, even if he had been remotely interested in the plot. I do recommend you watch this movie to understand the power of a bad script and plot. Only then can you really appreciate good writers and directors.


'Book II' isn't a film, it's a sermon. This nauseating, sickly and almost unbearably tedious misfire probably works as religious propaganda but has no entertainment value beyond a few wisecracks from George Burns. Louanne plays a little girl who is asked by (ahem) God to mount an advertising campaign that will get people to believe in him again. No really, that is the story. It's a leaden load of old cobblers that has far too much self-justifying, 'explanatory' religious waffle but barely any decent dialogue and certainly a total absence of anything even approaching magic or charm. 'Miracle On 34th Street' this ain't. Suzanne Pleshette breathes a bit of life into this rancid puddle of quick-setting concrete but the pudding-headed script and rubbish performance by the irksome Louanne quickly send this one down to the fiery depths of you-know-where.


I saw bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this.


I liked some of the characters, but our lead relied too heavily on a charming smile. I didn't care two whits about him. He makes bad choices and I really didn't care since he did not seem to either. He seemed rather unintelligent. There were a couple of moments that provided a chance at some human insight (the scene with the whale was interesting), but these are lost in the general malaise of the film. The love interest was acceptable and the other various characters were mildly interesting, but the plot meanders around too much and left me wanting at many points in the film. In the end, I wondered why I stayed so long.

There are some tepidly humorous moments, but ultimately I did not care. I cannot fathom rating the film higher. - 3 of 10


Films like this infuriate me simply because they don't deserve the funding that enables them to end up in my DVD player. This movie is ambiguous in its jacket blurb and even more impenetrable in its casting choices (why is Ms. Song a romantic interest? Did they just want an Asian woman in there, or does her unconvincingly wise character actually lend this "message" movie's story a fresh perspective)? One has very little to go on in approaching this film, and even less as the story unfolds. But a good hour into the proceedings, I realized the dull casting is all the casting agent could dredge up, the unconvincing character studies are the result of writers' brain-fart, and the story is amorphous and plagued by unsubtle references to the woes of capitalism, materialism, and getting ahead in the postmodern world. Towards the end of this film, just before I nodded off and missed the last two minutes, I got the sense that "Everything's Gone Green" is a product of "connections" in the world of film - someone with very little talent knew someone with very little directorial skill, knew someone with absolutely no marketing sense (but plenty of disposable ego) and out popped this dull and inefficient attempt at whimsy and humor-with-a-conscience nonsense. And this is what is most maddening - how many infinitely better scripts were passed over in favor of this almost unwatchable tripe? Skip this film, and feel good about yourself for doing so.


This is a textbook example of how Hollywood didn't (doesn't) trust moviegoers, and panders to its big name stars. The character of Christian is completely re-written, the anti-semitism Noah faces from his own army unit is virtually eliminated, Michael's story is changed significantly, and the end result is to decimate the power and terrible beauty of the book. I almost wish I hadn't even seen it, because of the ability of movies (sounds and images) to resonate so powerfully in your brain; I would have much rather just been left with the impression of the book. The book could have been written today, it is that honest and brave. The movie, neither. My advice: SKIP the movie; READ the book.


This is a fine concept piece and the acting by Brando is a fine piece of work. Dean Martin isn't bad and Montgomery Clift is quite good as well. Unfortunately, it's a very disjointed, very long piece that really should have been edited down to something closer to 2 hours (it's almost 3 hours).

We follow the lives of 3 men from 1938 through the end of WWII and watch as they discover who they are and what they might become as they discover both the world about them and what they're made of. For some, it's the women in their lives that brings about this realization, for others, it's the broader general circumstances. All too often however, I found myself asking what had just happened or what the import of a particular scene was.


After the book I became very sad when I was watching the movie. I am agree that sometimes a film should be different from the original novel but in this case it was more than acceptable. Some examples:

1) why the ranks are different (e.g. Lt. Diestl instead of Sergeant etc.)

2) the final screen is very poor and makes Diestl as a soldier who feds up himself and wants to die. But it is not true in 100%. Just read the book. He was a bull-dog in the last seconds as well. He did not want to die by wrecking his gun and walking simply towards to Michael & Noah.

So this is some kind of a happy end which does not fit at all for this movie.


This film was strongly recommended by a friend and, being a great fan of Brando, I ordered this film from Harrods and eagerly waited for it to arrive. I have seldom been so disappointed by a film. Brando was good as a German officer but the rest of the film was simply unbearable. You never get to like or care for any of the characters (except Brando, maybe). The acting was OK. Story, what story? Maybe that's the point. It's war after all, but I've seen far better war films. (Lawrence of Arabia, Apocalypse Now, even Star Wars) It was so boring I kept checking my watch...

Overall this is one of the worst films I have seen. Please don't waste your time and money on this. May I also add that this is the first user comment I have written, I just had to let my feelings about this film known.

By the way, my all time favourites are: Casablanca, The Godfather 1 &2, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp Fiction and Amadeus. If you haven't seen them yet, please spare the time to do so. And Amadeus MUST be in widescreen 2.35:1


This glorified discovery channel documentary, part biblical study, part treasure hunt, all misappropriated, might have sat well in it's television origins but falls flat as a feature film. Right from first glance of it's cheesy looking cover art, one may cast doubts upon the integrity behind this serious subject, shown on front case relegating the search for Jesus's tomb to a generic action font that looks more National Treasure or Tomb Raider then any informed debate and examination of the historical burial site should. Such is the underhanded way in which the entire proceedings revolve.

More curious child then worthy researcher, Simcha Jacobovici's explorations come across as self-indulgent while his research comes across as manipulative. For all the fascinating revelations this filmmaker tries to impart on his viewers through supposed evidence, a flood of repetitious statements reiterating the same research and findings over and over proves The Lost Tomb of Jesus has very little information to back up the bloated, albeit entrancing claims. What this amounts to is a very frustrating attempt to beat the audience over the head with the same small factual evidence in support of this tomb's authenticity, which ironically detracts from it. While tirelessly linking together many of these mini-coffins found together to support the Jesus of Nazareth theory, this research forsakes a well-rounded approach to continuously pursue this romanticized archeologist's singular obsession. There may be some impressive factual data which helps shed some light on many traditional dogmatic Christian-held beliefs, but essentially the shady nature of this project made it come across as merely an exploitation piece, financed at a time when The Da Vinci Code was all the rage.

In the end, the cheesy cover art was right. Despite my appreciation for documentary form, The Lost Tomb of Jesus takes an always interesting topic and turns it into overlong and unvaried geriatric adventure hunt, substituting any relevance and sacredness for the uninspired motivations behind this team. By the time these tomb raiders have finished their explorations, reluctantly having to stop research because of social demands, viewers are left with the sense the director was insistent on forging this mystery whether it was there to begin with or not. There are a few genuinely potent moments where the halls of history come marching through this documentary in unassuming ways, but all the decoding, exploring, and theorizing in the world still left this misguided vanity piece in an uneasy void of apathetic response.


The theatrics and the drama included in the movie is fantastic, but the facts and the research is far from solid. When quoting Dr. Bovon, where the documentary tries to establish a connection to Mary Magdalene from Mariamene, Dr. Bovon later clarifies it should be used for literary purposes (ie: fables of that time) not for a historical figure. In fact he states, he does NOT believe the Mariamene ossuary in Talpiot is Mary Magdalene. He further comments on his public letter, that he was not informed that his words would be used for this documentary but rather for information regarding Acts of Philip (a literary work in the 4th century).

So what we have here is a director that took one clip for a 4th century Acts of Philip fantasy and used it specifically to support a 1st century ossuary inscription. A very sad stretch and Dr. Bovon calls the Jesus/Mary Magdalene connection as "science fiction" -- as this documentary should be rightly labeled.


Contain spoilers! These guys are total scam, they did the Lost scrolls of Judas, saying Judas was a huge friend of Jesus... And now this? This is clearly a tryout to destroy a religion, and should be illegal. They have no proof, it could be clearly a setup. How can we know and trust these people? What if they carved the tomb and "said so"? And at the end they SEAL the tomb forever so no one can go there investigate? How stupid they think we are, really? Are we supposed to trust that they are trustworthy people? Who really found a tomb of Jesus? And how can you stab all the Christians like this? I think this documentary should NEVER be made by a non religious man. It can ONLY be made by a Christian and I mean the DIRECTION AND SCRIPT. It should be illegal for Jews to film a Christian related documentary, specially if the documentary makes accusations about Jesus not being a "Son of God who resurrected" (nothing against this, they could be Buddhists or atheists, anything but Catholic).

To me this is a total hoax, a pure documentary-scam. They sealed the tomb so people "wouldn't" think about checking things out. This documentary is a total failure, how stupid they think the Christian people are? And what about the Lost pages of Judas... that was a total scam as well, they seriously said at the end, something like: "We know a few people that could do a fake scrolls just like these, and no one would know it was a fake"... Oh my god, they just said it.. "Dude we might have done these"... This kind of documentary should be illegal, it is a stabbing on all Christians and catholics they should be behind bars!!! I am not a fanatic, I am an ex-Jew, now atheistic, but I have valors and will always respect others people religion, The part when Israel orders the tomb to be sealed forever was PRECIOUS!! PRECIOUS!!


I really hoped for the best with this one, but it just didn't happen. Financed at a very non-dutch manner and still looking great, with a style and pace that's very much like Hollywood. What I don't understand is how-with all these great benefits- the director,writer,producer still managed to make this film a completely horrible picture to watch. Filled with bad jokes, cheap nudity and actors that just can't really talk [act] in the english language. Kudo's for pulling it off, but what was this guy thinking!


I'm just filling this comment out, because I couldn't stand the fact that a positive comment was featured on the "complete information" page. I really think this to be the worst movie ever made in my country. This is not only because of the terrible plot, the crappy English and a tension-curve that is as flat as our country. No, it is because this was a serious attempt to make a good action movie, conform the Hollywood standard. It had to be "The European Action Movie of The Year".For this purpose they even hired Fejda van Huet, actor in the Academy Award- winning picture "Karakter", to do the job. I don't mind bad films, I can even enjoy them if they are pretensiousless b- movies. but I can't stand movies that are terrible, but supposed to be a-type movies.


I was looking forward to this movie. I like road trip thrillers. I like sex, drugs, youth, action and a great sound track. And I was especially interested in taking the movie trip across Europe to see if I recognized any of my own travel spots.

From the first scene, however, this movie was unwatchable. What was Guy doing driving on the wrong side of the road? What could possibly have blown up the van that rolled gracefully down a shallow grassy incline? If they're such bad drivers, why would they take a delivery job? And that's just the first scene! Not even bad enough to be campy or silly. Just Horrible! Horrible! Horrible! Waste of time. Move on to something... anything else!


This is a road movie. At least the movie is in yellow anf I think that suggests a road movie (?). I can't say much positive about The Delivery. It's bad acting, certainly their English. Camera looks like it is done by a kid, there's a bomb with counter, and suddenly a Beetle is falling from the sky. Since it was so cliche we actually laught the whole time -- and that was the most fun of the movie. This movie should be released in America, but I'm not sure you should go because that might suggest that is the quality we produce. The explosions look boring. Basically everything is over the top. Everything is just too much: the yellow quality, the sound, the babe, etc. Find all the cliche part in other movies, put them together and you have The Delivery.


If this movie is coming to a theater near you, consider it a threat. I was unfortunate enough to see this movie here in Tokyo. Since I'm Dutch, I was surprised to find a Dutch movie playing in a metropole like Tokyo is. I figured it had to be somekind of special if a Dutch movie makes it all the way to Japan. So I went there with some friends, and we were happily telling the theater's staff that we were Dutch and that we were so curious about the movie. As it turned out, this was one of the most infantile, silly, dumb, worst acted, with worst spoken English movie I've seen in maybe 10 years, and I left the theater trying to avoid the staff, because feeling almost responsible for this disaster movie. Sometimes you get the feeling you know what the director was aiming for: Lola Rennt, Trainspotting kind of like movie. Instead it was more like MacGyver on drugs with outdated breakbeat music as a score. But if I wasn't feeling too annoyed, the movie was unintentionally quite hilarious once in a while, as it showed Holland at its smallest.


Help, I've ended up in cinema hell! What a completely stupid film this is. Really nothing is good about it.

Let's spit it out:

1) The story is incredibly far-fetched: an anti-EU terrorist group is chasing a bunch of guys who drive around Western Europe carrying a delivery of see-through bags full of xtc pills. And the worst thing is: they are serious about it!

2) The level of acting should put great shame on all faces involved.

3) Some money-eyed guy decided to let every one talk English so that the international market would catch on. Ugliest advertising ever! The French and Dutch native tongues talking smart make all but sense and the result is laughable.

4) The soundtrack is totally misplaced and ill-chosen.

5) The camera, edit and effects work is supposed to be of some post noir road movie kind of style, but is hardly worth some thing and not meant to accompany this story (read: anti- story).

6) Hidde Maas. The hero of Wildschut never fails to convince. A true actor. Usually I would give an extra point just for the sake of him being around. But no, sorry, not this time, I would just not forgive my self...


Everything this film tried to do is done better - and superbly in "Run Lola Run". The Red Haired Hip Cutie, the critical deadline(s), The Lover in jeopardy, and the "Crime Pays-Sometimes" message. BUT, unlike "Lola", it just isn't believable or well put together. It is a labored knock off that might have worked for me if I had seen it before "Lola" - but it pales in comparison. Yes! The Falling Beetle was nice! But that was about the only surprise in the film. Do yourself a favor and see the Real McCoy - (And the REAL hip Red Head!) - in Run Lola Run!


I was in this movie as an extra in the Dallas filming in July 1975. Some of the things you see today,and take for granted in movie making, were implemented in this movie. The movie premise, the costumes, the special effects, the acting. It all was ahead of its time. It opened the door for movies such as "Star Wars," the "Terminator," the "Matrix," and "X-Men" movies. Now people look at it and they say, "Well this does not add up to this new special effects story..." It did not have any computer graphics and such as the new movies do these days. It did have a story, and a wonderful cast, and a hell of a director! The places it was filmed like the Dallas' World Trade Center, and the Zale Building,and the Ft. Worth Water Gardens were at that time the most modern and futuristic backdrops in which to film. The director Michael Anderson was very creative and he tried to show a perfect future that was flawed by human desires and frailty's. It was my first film experience, the first of six films I have been in. Just because it was filmed in Texas does not make it any less a wonderful piece of filmmaker's art. Watch it again and appreciate it more. This movie was the foundation that set the standard for many great films that we now enjoy. Well, my hand is blinking... I got to run. Santuary awaits...


This screened at Sundance last night to a receptive if mute crowd. Clearly the story is worth relating, it's powerful and true, but did the director have to cast every single role with a recognizable face? I mean, really, you spend have your time saying "Oh look, it's the guy from 'Armageddon'", or "Hey, it's Easy Rider!" and you lose sight of the story. Perhaps it's the only way this guy could get his movie made, but it's a little distracting, sort of like 'The Love Boat", or those old Towering Inferno movies, that were 'chock o' block with stars!'. I wish he's just told the story simply with less famous faces. Also, the camera work seems kind of lazy, like there wasn't any thought about where to put the camera to best tell the story. All in all, I thought it was okay, but could have been really good.


Throughout this movie I kept thinking why on earth did they make this as a "documentary," yet not include real footage of the people who were interviewed? Sure, it would have been just like any other documentary, but then it would have been up to the film makers to find the meaning for the movie to deliver.

Using a host of well known movie stars (many of whom apparently asked to be in it) to portray "real" people gave me the feeling that there was a pre-determined message to be delivered, and the director was so intent on it that real people couldn't be trusted so actors and rehearsed scenes were used. (Yes, I know this was also a play, but a documentary should be a documentary.) I really found myself getting put off by the various stars, and kept expecting one of them to drop character for a moment and say "I'm a good person because I'm in this."

This movie could have had a much more powerful social commentary had it been more objective or let us see Matthew Shepard and his murderers as people rather than symbols. (The much superior "Boys Don't Cry" had an unflinching view of those involved--good and bad.) Instead The Laramie Project gives an almost relentless lecture that someone's sexuality should be accepted regardless, and little else.


This film infuriated me for the simple fact that it was made only because Shepherd was gay. The men who murdered him are clearly wicked. What happened to the poor man was truly horrible and a tragedy. However, where was Hollywood when four religious white kids were executed, after being forced to perform a host of sex acts on their killers and each other, by two evil black men in Wichita just two years ago? The celebrities only mug for the camera when it serves a political purpose. Also, Laramie is portrayed in a poor light by this pseudo-documentary, which of course is hardly surprising because they are the backward hicks who must be educated by omniscient and enlightened Californians. Still, it's always a treat to see Laura Linney.


There's nothing new in this movie. Nothing you haven't thought about before, nothing you haven't heard before. The story of a gay man who is brutally murdered in a small town and the reaction of people can be broached in many ways, and this movie has chosen the most demagogic and slushy one. One of the biggest flaws in this movie is that it isn't neither a movie nor a documentary. The director has used the transcriptions of the original interviews and made the actors play them as if it was a movie. The result is weird. And finally, I read in previous comments that stated that people who don't like this movie are anti-gay. I'm pretty sure this comments come from people who consider themselves tolerant but don't tolerate that other people don't like this movie. This is a funny world.


I finally rented this video after searching for it for many months. Initially I only wanted to see it because I'm an out and out Neil Pearson fan (Patrick, boyfriend of Isobel, the lead). However, the movie stands up very well without Neil (although he handles himself very well in this movie, he is overshadowed by the three main female characters). It's an eerie, intense movie, the sort the Brits do so well - definitely a "chick flick" the house and it's isolated setting giving the movie an almost "Wuthering Heights" aura. The movie is full of tension and the ending, shocking, yet somehow inevitable. I'm glad I watched it, it was worth the wait


What a tedious turgid boring mess. This is a classic example of all that is wrong with contemporary English theater & film. About as exciting as a closet full of dirty socks. The very opposite of living film. Only the presence of Joanne Whalley gives it any spark.


Hey! The Grudge 2! What up, man? I have a friend I would like you to meet. The Grudge 2 meet Johnny's Worst of 2006 list. Johnny's Worst of 2006 list meet The Grudge 2.

What's going on here? I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a sequel to The Grudge rather than a remake. If that's the case then why does it do nothing but rehash the original? This floater doesn't even feel like a movie. It's just a 90-minute soundtrack of the weird contortionist chick making that annoying croaking sound.

A sound on which I'd recommend you not get me started. It was kind of creepy the first time I heard it, but I've heard it about 12,367 times since 2004, so it's pretty much run its course. And it's made even more annoying by the 20 people in the audience who thought it'd be funny to imitate the sound whenever there was a quiet spot in the movie. Sigh.

Folks, YOU'RE NOT FUNNY SO JUST SHUT UP! I promise you, EVERY SINGLE TIME that a character was walking slowly through an empty room (which is approximately 97% of the movie), somebody in the audience would start it up, "Uhhhhkkkkkkuuuuuhhhhhkkkkkk." Yes, I know that's a horrible way to replicate the sound with letters, but you get the gist. So then some dude in the audience would giggle, and not to be outdone, deliver his own rendition. I was very close to just walking through the audience and punching random people.

I told you not to get me started.

There's absolutely nothing about The Grudge 2 that I can recommend. There's not a single original scare or idea in the entire film. There's not one memorable acting performance. Are you a Sarah Michelle Gellar fan? Welp, enjoy her two minutes of screen time and one line of dialogue. Are you an Amber Tamblyn fan? I hope you can deal with the fact that she's given nothing more to do than walk around looking like she's suffering from a pinched nerve. Can you believe the story (if you can call it that) is even worse than The Grudge's?

At least the original was fairly creepy and boasted a few effective jump scenes. I didn't jump once during this lametrosity (yeah, I made the word up, deal with it). That's right. Not a single time. The "scares" are so manufactured and they are so blatantly telegraphed that there is absolutely no shock value once the "gotcha" moment arrives. Watching this movie is like playing a good game of chess - you're always four or five scenes ahead.

There are also some weird scenes thrown in that make no sense whatsoever. One that immediately comes to mind is a scene where a girl drinks a gallon of milk and then begins to regurgitate it back into the jug. Huh? I say HUH?!?! The audience laughed. I shook my head and sighed. There was a lot of that during the movie. Laughing. Sighing. Head shaking. Falling asleep (I did twice).

The movie even makes a 1/5th-hearted attempt at a plot "twist." Wow. It's so bad that I don't think we should even dignify it by labeling it a twist. Did they really think anybody would be surprised at the revelation of who was hiding under the hoodie? Please. It was as shocking as Elton John coming out of the closet.

And of course the ending goes the whole non-closure "look, we might have another sequel" route. As soon as the credits rolled the audience booed. My sentiments exactly. Had the audience paid money for this turd burger then things would have most likely gotten violent, and I would've gladly led the charge.

We learned from The Grudge that there's a Japanese belief that when someone dies in a powerful grip of rage, then a curse is left behind. Much like a Ben Affleck movie, it's a "stain" that forever becomes a part of the place where the death occurred. Well, in The Grudge 2 we learn that when a horror movie covers its budget during its opening weekend then its sequel will be rushed out, and more often than not it will be as bad as this and will leave a stain on any theater where the movie shows.

THE GIST

If you're a total wimp and never saw The Grudge then this might provide a few cheap scares. But I strongly recommend saving your money, otherwise, there's a good chance you'll be the one walking out of the theater with a grudge.


Okay, first the good thing : If you saw the trailer then you know about 100% of the "scary/jumpy" moment of the movie. And yes, it's a good thing because you should just stick to the trailer and not go see the movie.

I now understand why Sarah Michelle Gellar did not stay alive in that movie for very long, she did not want to associate her name with this production. I wish her the best for "The Return".

You have to follow 3 different story in this movie, and they are all disconnected (in time and meaning) until the very end. And even then it's a very bad climax. And god forbid even open the door to another sequel.

Yes, in this movie, "The Rage and Fury" is on the move. No need to visit the house anymore, just be close to someone who when inside and you're done. It's not a curse anymore it's kinda like a virus. Go inside the house, get scared, return back to USA and spread the joy in your apartment building.

It's not that difficult to follow, but you just don't really care about anyone. The plot line is slim to none and you have many scene in this movie where you just laugh and shake your head... Milk anyone?? I saw Ju-On 2 at the Fantasia movie festival last summer, different story completely but much better than this dud. It's not a remake, but this time, maybe they should have simply done a remake....

If you must see it, wait for the DVD.


In Pasadena, Mrs. Davis (Joanna Cassidy) sends her daughter Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) to Tokyo to bring her sister Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar), who is interned in a hospital after surviving a fire, back to the USA. After their meeting, Karen dies and Aubrey decides to investigate what happened to her and gets herself cursed in the same situation, being chased by the ghost of the house. Meanwhile in Tokyo, the three high school mates Allison (Arielle Kebbel), Vanessa (Teresa Palmer) and Miyuki (Misako Uno) visit the famous haunted house and are also cursed and chased by the ghost. In Chicago, Trish (Jennifer Beals) moves to the apartment of her boyfriend Bill (Christopher Cousins), who lives with his children, the teenager Lacey (Sarah Roehmer) and boy Jake (Matthew Knight). On the next door, weird things happen with their neighbor.

"The Grudge 2" has scary sound and visual effects, with the creepy woman and boy, and I have startled a couple of times while watching this movie. However, the complex screenplay with three subplots is totally confused, making the entwined story a complete mess. There are too much characters and situations, and in a certain moment I was completely lost with the disconnected and fragmented narrative. In the end, I was completely disappointed with this confused, but also spooky film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "O Grito 2" ("The Scream 2")


The Grudge 2...Let's see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Japanese Horror Film or Horror or Grudge basher. I loved the first one and the Original Ju-On. I feel that much more justice could have been done for this one. Aubrey only existed to fill in what needed to be 'discovered' in the ending, (which if you've already seen Ju-On before this, you already know the whole movie) all it was really was a complete remake of Ju-On, just more closely followed than The Grudge. Though everyone may have thought that it's coming to America was a bit interesting, it was expected as the house burning in the end of The Grudge left the 2nd hungering for a new plot.

Save your $6.50 and wait for this to come out on DVD, rent it, watch it, then decide if you want to buy it. This movie is good for a fall asleep at 2 in the morning film. But overall, I'd say a 4 out of 10. Sorry Grudge fans, it's just...They just failed at this one.


What a horrible movie. This movie was so out of order and so hard to follow.It was so hard to follow and was just confusing. The whole time I was watching it I was wishing it would end!!I felt like I wasted 2hours of my life that I will never get back. Save your money and don't rent this movie. I now see why Sarah Michelle Gellar was barely in the movie. The first movie was great but this was just sucked. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Save your money and watch the trailer because that is about the only thing that is worth seeing with this movie. This movie had no real story to it either. I am still wondering what I watched.


Hollywood movie industry is the laziest one in the entire world. It only needs a single hit to flood theaters with the same old crap re-invented over and over again. Take superheroes for example, for each X-Man and Spiderman, there are Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider and Hulk. Japanese horror remakes are even worst. It only took The Ring, which was pitch-perfect (mostly because of Mr. Gore Verbinsky), to bring a ton of look-alike creepy-woman based horrors, e.g. The Ring 2, The Eye, Dark Water (which was fine, but pointless), and the grudges.

The first Grudge wasn't entirely bad. It was scary most of the way, which is what one could expect from it. Plus, the plot had some brains mixing narratives. Grudge 2 is exactly like the previous; this could be a good thing, but hey, what boy Men in Black II? Was it a nice thing to xerox the entire screenplay and just change the villain? For the Grudge 2, the critic goes the same way.

Tired scares, bad acting (except for Amber Tamblyn), and clichés all over the place. Three stories take place, on different places and time. There is Aubrey (Tamblyn) investigating what drove her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) to death; Allison (Arielle Kebbel) who is taken by colleagues to visit the house where the incident depicted in the first movie took place; and finally, an American family that witness strange stuff happening on the apartment next door. Glad to say (and I mean it) that everything is tied up at the end, but one must not rely on the end to make a good picture, when everything else is simply tiresome and dull.

The chills are all over there, a girl alone in the lockers, someone who shouldn't enter a house, others that dig too deep. Meanwhile, ghosts keep killing and killing and killing, which seems even more deadlier than ten world wars or the Ebola epidemic. Hey, doesn't that seem just like another bad Japanese remake, something called Pulse? Yeah, day after day it's getting easier to hold a grudge... against Hollywood bullshits.


Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) travels to Tokyo to investigate the mysterious disappearance of her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and gets caught up in the same mysterious curse that has killed so many people. With a group of others, she tries to solve and end the curse for good.

The Grudge 2 rehashes everything from the first one and it produces only a couple of scares. The first Grudge was an average movie at best. The premise was decent but the acting was wooden and some of the scenes were really ridiculous. The Grudge 2 is even more silly and less scary than the original. Also, Scary Movie 4 has made it nearly impossible to take these films seriously and I had trouble keeping a straight face during the "scary scenes" which should encourage laughter more than fear. How Takashi Shimizu messed up his own franchise is unexplainable yet he succeeded at creating a decent atmosphere. Unfortunately, he kept the film at a slow pace with a bunch of dull characters and lame scare tactics. Clearly, he did this movie for money and I'm glad it failed.

The screenplay was pretty bad, mainly because it made no sense and they didn't develop the characters at all. In the movie, there were three different stories going on and each of them were somehow related to "the grudge". The connections were weak and a bunch of people were killed without a real reason. They don't explain the rules of the curse very well and it ended up being a bit of blood bath because of everyone dying although the PG-13 rating kept things from getting interesting so even some of the death scenes were pretty lame. The dialog was weak and none of the characters were likable or developed well enough to truly care about.

The acting was on par with everything else and it was a lot worse compared to the first one. Amber Tamblyn was annoyingly wooden. She moved on screen very slowly and all of her emotions seemed fake. Sarah Michelle Gellar was okay although she just had a cameo. Jennifer Beals gave the best performance, she had a few good scenes and was kind of effective. Arielle Kebbel was okay, a little bland. The rest were either horrible or just too forgettable to mention. Overall, The Grudge 2 was a disappointing sequel. It lacked a lot of things and it's not worth watching. Rating 4/10


I would not deny that I have quite enjoyed watching any Japanese horror films, but everyone must get quite fed up with them after you have seen the same thing over and over.

The film follows the story of the Grudge. Audrey, as requested by her mom, is going to get her sister back. But when she arrives, something strange happens to her sister and then her sister is killed. She wants to find out the truth behind the curse and later a photographer (Eason) joins her. On the other hand, there's also something happening to a family and three girls, but they seem to realise it too late...

In fact, I can't see the points for the three girls from international school to appear in the movies as they're not (quite) related to the story. The reason why the woman holding the grudge keeps killing people is still not very clear (it seems to me they're just telling the same things I saw in the grudge). And the sudden appearance of Audrey in front of the boy is undoubtedly odd, which I suppose is an attempt to make the story about the family related. The killing scenes are absolutely the mixture of those in the Ring and Shibuya kaidan. The acting would be another bad point. As a Hong Konger I would really like to support Edison Chen's first effort in Hollywood, but as a film lover I really can't find any point to support bad acting. Other actors like the father , though he just appears in a few scenes, should also have done better. What is kept good is the atmosphere of the film, especially when I watched it in the middle of the night alone.

If you have time, really enjoy any horror films and have seen all the possible horror films except this, like me, you can go for it to kill some time. But if you really like Japanese horror films of this kind, you should spend some time watching the Japanese version of the Ring.


I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.

Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.

Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said "I've been to the house". A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.

Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just "Huh?" I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the "I won't call you mother" scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.

The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares.


People may say I am harsh but I can't help it. The movie is so bad I was absolutely stunned. The first movie was bad enough if you ask me. It was greatly exaggerated and silly but this one, despite the creepy scenes, has a seriously ass-stupid story. They actually went deep into investigating Kayako's past and found out that she had a mother (Who miraculously speaks English) who was an exorcist and "fed" evil spirits to her daughter. Stupid? Yeap. OK, it started out with Kayako who was an ordinary housewife who had an affair with some bloke and got herself dead. This part is still OK. Because of this moment of rage, she became a vengeful spirit who kills anyone who enters her house. Acceotable. Now, her killings began to stretch a little where she actually had the opportunity to travel throughout Tokyo just to finish her victims. (Her victims were travelling, weren't they?) This struck me hard. Now if a ghost could actually do such a thing like travelling throughout a country without paying public transport fares, I wouldn't mind being. Ask someone to come kill me then *snorts*. And to crown things all up, the ghost who was once depicted as a very vengeful one (In Ju-on: The Grudge, which was way better than this trash) is now depicted as some spectre who truly enjoys herself and felt that it is her mission to finish of people. Things became worse (For me, the viewer) when the ghost became coming in forms of large strands of hair. I mean, ??? If a ghost had such power, I seriously dun mind being one. I never really liked movies depicting ghosts as MONSTERS cause they're not. The overall results is just plain bad. Like The Grudge 2. With a better storyline and less exaggeration, this show would have been better


Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).

That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) "it sucks" is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.

The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.

Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).

Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what?


That was a waste of 9 dollars. the movie was terrible. all the "scary" parts were pointless and sadly repetitive. Seemingly all of the tense parts could be completely predicted, and did not seem to hold any bit of the audiences attention. Also, the plot line didn't advance at all during the entire movie, and it was all just a big setup for the grudge 3. When it seemed like the movie was about to make a big plot advancement, it turned out just to be a pointless scene. these directors need to follow Hitchcock's example: every scene has a point. Porbably 90% of the scenes in this movie could have been left out with no change of the plot. Final opinion: Don't waste your time, energy or money!!!


This "remake" is a complete disgrace: so mediocre, cheap and prosaic, it wouldn't deserve more than a couple of spiteful lines.

It's also a cheat, with a laughable script served by such contrived and amateurish "acting", you're always aware there's a set, a camera, a fake, no direction, no suspended reality whatsoever to allow you delve into the story.

The claustrophobic, stifling tension of the small spaces and rooms in the original Japanese masterpieces (Ju-On 1 & 2) is all but lost here in overblown sets and spaces.

But worst of all, the moral enormity and unbearable suffering, which both imparted a ruthless logic to the original mother and child victims turned into relentlessly vindictive ghouls, is completely ruined by utter nonsense and hollow boogie-man style scares.

If American audiences aren't willing to read subtitles and rise above the lowest common denominator, preferring to swallow this kind of patronizing hogwash instead, they fully deserve this pathetic curse: the movie itself.


Don't waste your time or money on going to see or even renting it. It is by far the worst move I have ever seen. Its two hours (WAY too long) of your life you're never getting back. If you're looking to be scared, go see something else. We went with someone who still has nightmares about the Gremlins and she wasn't scared in the least.

There are so many things that make this movie an incredibly poor attempt at making money. Now before I begin, let me say that I loved the first Grudge! However the second one is something of a different story. The plot is very in-depth and intricate. However in the end you are wondering "what the heck was this or that all about." The acting would be considered poor in a B list pornography film. I could site several examples but I don't want to spoil it for those that are glutens for punishment, but I can sum up two horrible hours in two simple words.... it's spreading.


All the way though i was thinking to myself "Oh god why!" At the very beginning i thought "Right it might be average," but the acting and plot on most parts was atrocious.

Every part in it was so predictable, even though the first movie seemed to bare a large resemblance to the ring, it was a half decent movie, but this just seemed to take all the good things about the first and made them terrible. Some bits made everyone in the audience wet themselves, Eg. The part were Geller falls off the building had me in stitches. My girlfriend had to keep telling me to quiet down i was kept commenting on what was bound to happen next, and more times than less i was right.

Why does going into the house make her come after you, it doesn't make sense. It was a poor excuse for a lot of killings, and no really depth was seen at all.

You can see everything coming, which just left you feeling that there was no point in watching. Oh shes behind her ... didn't see that one coming *yawns*.

Surely these people must have thought to... oh i don't know, carry a knife round or at least try and fight back, instead of being eaten but someone hair? At best during the movie i was very mildly scared (and i mean mildly), i was just crying out for the credits, as they rolled i exhaled a short "Oh thank god." If you haven't already, don't waste your' time and money on this; pointless, plot less, sorry excuse for a sequel!


This film was utter tripe. Possible that it is in fact a pollution. The subtle tense atmosphere of the original remake are no where to be seen. Sarah Michelle Gellar is given nothing to do, even in her death sequence, but still she is the best performance in this film, and the her death is the best thing about it, even though she did deserve a better death. Its the sign of very bad writing and directing. I'm guessing she did this film to end her connection with it as its turning rubbish.

Not scary. Not tense. Not funny. Makes no sense at all. And as said above Sarah Michelle Gellar gives the only reasonable performance out of the entire cast.


I went into this movie with very little in terms of expectations. I went with my girlfriend and two friends, and none of them could explain the story of the Grudge 1 to me. Well, if the first one couldn't leave an impression on them to explain the plot, then I doubted this one would be any better.

Let me summarize what the trailers let you know: The Asian lady is back and so is Sarah Michelle Gellar. Luckily for her, she isn't around very long. That decision may have saved her career.

The movie has three story lines, and none of them make sense. And even worse, none of them are developed. You almost start to understand, and then someone dies and the story gets left behind. Okay, killing people could be scary, but I was left more confused over the attempted plot development than I was frightened. They jump back and forth between all three story lines, which aren't related... OR ARE THEY?!?! *SOUND EFFECTTT*~~~ The timing of the three stories are displaced, and you can tell right at the start that the movie is going to have a twist at the end. BE PREPAREDDD. Oh Wait. Sorry, this isn't a Fight Club or Vertigo quality twist, you could see this one coming from miles away. And probably envisioned a MUCH better twist in your head... they should've hired me. Instead of the girl making her "SURPRISING" appearance, maybe it could've been Michael Jackson instead? That part of Scary Movie 4 scared the crap out of me.

The killing sequences were terribly done. Unlike horror movies of the past, where a killer pops out of nowhere, a closet or behind a door for example, and everyone in the theatre jumps (and subsequently the fat guy behind you spills popcorn down your neck)- this lacked any frightening pop ups. They zoomed in on where the random Asian woman or kid would show up, and you knew exactly what was coming. Instead of having the music get really loud, then quiet, then a pop out to psyche you out, the music actually gave you timing for the scary scene. If I know it's coming, it won't scare me.

The movie began with explaining what the "Grudge" is; when a person is killed during a fit of rage, a curse is placed on the location where she was killed. So why does the Asian lady being cursed by her mother have any significance to the story? And why is the grudge now moving countries? This movie was absolutely terrible.

All it did was leave me begrudging my friends for making me go- we should've seen one of those animated Pixar movies. It would've been scarier.


I am a huge fan of the first four Ju-on projects. I own them, and watch them every few months. I lend them to co-workers and friends just so they can get a good scare from quality Japanese film making. I think Takashi Shimizu created a great story, and presented it very effectively in these four installments.

I was somewhat excited about The Grudge 2 opening in theaters. I saw the first American Grudge before watching the four originals. The Grudge was actually pretty good. Of course, the originals are better, but I got a good Halloween scare from the 2004 American Grudge.

The Grudge 2 started off badly, and went down from there. I kept waiting for it to get better, to make sense, to show Shimizu's talent - nothing like this happened. The thing that's great about Shimizu's Ju-on work is the story. True, it's usually told in a disjointed style that you have to think about to connect its components, but it is still a great story. There was no story in The Grudge 2. It was a series of gratuitous deaths from characters that you never had time to even start to care about.

The editing was atrocious. Disjointed (as in the Japanese originals) is one thing, but the complete randomness of scene sequence was exhausting. I just kept thinking, "This is so stupid," and, "No - he didn't really sell out this much did he??" It made me want to walk out of the theater, run home, and watch the original work, simply to reassure myself that Shimizu has not always made this dumbed-down, generic, boring, non-sensical, thrown-together tripe.

If you really have your heart set on seeing this movie, I suggest you wait the 2 months to rent it. Really. Two of the five people in the theater with me walked out about 45 minutes into it. I debated on whether to do that myself. Going home and cleaning the house actually sounded like a better way to spend my time at that point.

I am truly shocked at how bad this movie was. Let's pray Sam Raimi doesn't put out more cash to make The Grudge 3. It's just not worth it anymore. Sigh.


The original GRUDGE (the original American remake) surprisingly pulled off just about everything you could do right with a ghost flick. It had suspense, dark and moody atmosphere, some good jolts, and some genuinely creepy images. THE GRUDGE 2 attempts all of these techniques, but ultimately fails, only showing us the same old stuff we saw in the first movie, as well as a messy storyline constantly switching from Tokyo to California. It begins in Tokyo with some schoolgirls who wander into the house, now heavily blocked by one strip of police tape. One of them comes face to face with a similar wide-eyed ghost girl while trapped in a closet. She gets out, screaming frantically and they all run out of there. Next we cut to America where Karen's sister is sent by their mother to Japan to find and bring her back home. We eventually find ourselves following a very familiar concept involving a curious guy and girl investigating the history of a mysterious house. We cut back and forth to the girls from the beginning who are disappearing one by one as well as a young boy hearing strange noises in the next apartment at night, all leading up to a very unsatisfying ending. The "scare" scenes are dull and ineffective. Like The Ring 2, avoid this god awful sequel...


The Grudge 2 is one of the films that makes me wish there were more synonyms for "terrible" in the English language. With a plot replete with more holes than a trawlers net, this film fails to make compulsive viewing for a fan of even the most inane films, which I am. I felt compelled to remain in the cinema until i had extracted £5.70p worth of entertainment from it, though i feared that I would be there for some years. A better film could be made from the out takes of the first installment of The Grudge, though I am not altogether sure this isn't the result of such an exercise. As expected, what passes for a plot in this dire example of wasted celluloid, finishes with no resolution whatsoever, thereby leaving the producers with the option of inflicting 'The Grudge 3' upon the public when the time comes that they feel yet another pang of true hatred for civilisation.


To start off, I didn't bother seeing The Grudge. The previews for that movie didn't make me jump, didn't scare me, and didn't entertain me. But when a group of friends asked me to go see The Grudge 2, I accepted the invite, a little curious as to how this movie would be. I mainly went because of my friends. Not even 5 minutes into this movie, I realized I threw away $7.50. The acting from the get-go is horrible. The schoolgirls in the beginning look as if they have never acted in their entire lives. Then, the movie plot takes over. Let me tell you, I could not stop laughing this entire movie. It is just so stupid. I'm pretty sure they tried to not make it scary. They don't make anything jump out or anything. It shows the kids, then shows them "attacking". It builds up to it, it's not an "all-of-a-sudden" thing. And even in the middle of the movie, the core of the movie, the acting is still horrible. It leaves so much time in-between the dialog for someone to add in their own comments. This movie is honestly one of the funniest "horror" movies I have ever seen. Poorly written, horrible acting, horrible script, horrible "unable to act" cast, and a horrible concept. The movie blacks out and changes situations more times than you can count. Each part eventually plays out and then ties up at the end of the movie. I would never again pay to see this movie. I wouldn't even watch it on cable, for free. This movie is a joke. Please DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE!!


I loved the first Grudge, I watched it in an empty theater,and in all honesty, I was freaked out. Never before had I heard the unique audio of chilling sounds, it truly was gripping.

The Grudge 2 however, had a couple of good jumps, but the story line was real messy, and not entirely believable, and all over the place, with a couple of scenes, (like a female urinating herself out of fear, or another one of a young woman drinking a jug of milk then vomiting it all up again) which really made no sense, and did not help to enhance the creep factor of the film. During these scenes, and a couple of others, people in the sold out audience actually laughed out loud. That was a good indicator to show how this film lacked the thrills, chills, or creeps. The acting was decent, the emotions portrayed were believable, so hats off to the actors, but the cluttered storyline and its lack of direction was something I couldn't shake throughout the entire movie. I was annoyed more than anything, same old grudge gagging noises, a couple of quick unexpected scenes to make me jump, but overall, I was very disappointed.


All I can say about this movie, is it is absolutely boring. The intro to the movie is quite possibly the worst intro to a horror film I have ever seen, I mean a angry chick hitting a guy in the head with a frying pan isn't at all frightening which is what I assume the director was aiming for, but in fact it was "mildly" funny.

The acting in this picture was beyond pathetic; a note to directors, if your making a horror film, please hire some good actors, not some popular teen soap star who has no idea how to act.

The death scenes in this movie were beyond boring... no gore, and i'm sorry but horror movies without gore, or good suspense are just cheesy. I mean this girl gets killed by hair wrapped all around her in the middle of Tokyo, and not one person sees it happen, they just declare her as "missing", wow thats awesome!

In conclusion if you and your friends want to see this movie, make sure u bring some sleeping pills, because I guarantee you won't make it to the end.. Me and my friend walked out cause we didn't even care what happened at the end.

Cheers


My best guess is this piece of work will come out on DVD sometime before Christmas.

This movie was terrible. The time line jumps all over the place. This wouldn't be so bad if it left some suspense for the end. It was entirely predictable. Bitch girls pick on outcast, outcast wants to know why they hate her so much, bitch girls die a terrible death, outcast girl goes home and looks crazy. Outcast girl brought evil spirits with her, makes neighbors go crazy and kill each other. Creepy kid understands what's going on. Oh, and the younger sister not being good enough for Mommie, sick mother sending younger daughter to bring the golden child home.

To be fair, there were some great moments here and there. First of all, Sarah Michelle Geller's character dies in the first few minutes. Definite plus. Didn't see that one coming. I didn't expect the wife to pour bacon grease on her husband's head, either. If the movie had kept up those kind of thrills, I would have loved it. The beginning showed so much promise.

I was disappointed because I enjoyed the first one. It made me jump, I didn't expect most of what happened, and though I questioned some of the movie, it was still a fun watch. I didn't watch any previews for this the sequel, because I wanted to be surprised. I was, but in the wrong direction.


Spoilers ahead JEEEEEEEESUSSSSSSSSSS.... I have a saying: "Insecticides kill insects and Moronicides kill morons..." The "ghost" in this movie kills morons. Several of the people who get killed in this movie are actually ASKING to get killed, by running into abandoned houses, going after ghosts, etc...

On a strictly cinematic aspect, this movie sucks real bad. The three story lines are shown to be parallel and suddenly, we learn they are separated by at least a few days. It's a cheap shot...

Also, the "thrills" are so cheap, they are laughable. Even "Nightmare on Elm Street" didn't sink so low as to show someone being attacked by his own sweater... it's pathetic.

Save your money, stay home, and you won't have a grudge against the filmmakers..


Not well done at all, the whole movie was just the Grudge going around and killing random people out of nowhere. Random people that have nothing to do with the story get killed, like the 3 school girls for example.

The family at the beginning has nothing to do with the story either, I believe them to be a random family that never went in the house, and never had anything to do with the killings of the Grudge.

Did not impress me at all, I was not scared, I didn't jump at any parts, and the whole movie was just a random piece of crap to get more money off of. Makes the Gridge 1 look like crap also, which was actually an alright movie.

I believe that The Grudge 2 is like a leading movie to The Grudge 3, if they ever make one. They shouldn't have even called this the Grudge 2, they should of called it the prologue to the Grudge 2, and you will see if you watched it, because I am not going to spoil anything. Not that it would have mattered anyway.

1/10, not scary, bad story, and is just completely random.


Mr. Brento wonders if this movie was produced by the same who produced the Dragonball Z TV series. Of course not.

This is a Hong Kong real action movie based on the first episodes of the Japanese original cartoon (which was also based on a comic book series). And I really don't know if it was produced under the license of the Dragonball creators...

However, the story of the monkey-boy with special powers is an ancient tale known all over Asia (in Japan, the name of the boy in the tale is Songoku; in China, it is Sunwukong; in Korea it is Sonogong; etc) and the story in Dragonball has much to do with that tale.

By the way, as I said, this movie is based on the first episodes of the Dragonball series (which was followed by Dragonball Z, although I think the US version had a different airing order). And all the scenes related to sexuality were also contained in the original cartoon series (without so much overacting and so much insistence on it!), but because of your comments I may suppose they were completely removed in the American dubbing.

Anyway, I agree with you about the overacting in the film and about how poor this adaptation of the original cartoon is. But maybe because of that nobody can forget it after watching it...


Just an hour ago I finished watching this my friend. As a fans of Dragonball we think that this movie is so bad that is good. We will say one thing : without a sixpack beers there is now way you can survive through this movie. This movie should be watched with a many Dragonball fans to laugh their ass off. The best character in the movie is the lord Horn, his makeup, his laugh, and behaviour crates the unforgettable experience. What we liked in this movie, was the fact that the island of Turtle Man was the same as in cartoon version. We believe that the only character similar to the one in the cartoon is the Turtle Man. He is also a sex maniac and kind of idiot too.


When you first sit down to watch this movie, keep in mind that you are about to see something you've probably never seen before. Keep in mind that this is a movie where they obviously spent INSANE amounts of cash on explosions and not enough on acting or anything else for that matter. The crazy thing I noticed is that every character is completely over-portrayed, and it seems (most of the time anyhow) that the film had been 'sped-up' to make the characters move faster! (I wonder if the Hong Kong version was dubbed too?) I understand the cartoon had this, but it doesn't work for live-action. It just looks odd... as if the camera crew decided to act because they couldn't afford real actors.

The English version is horribly dubbed, and the character's words do not match the mouths at all. I would have preffered subtitles, but since this is a kids movie, and since some kids cannot read well, I'll let it go. But there is something extremely odd about this movie. It's supposedly a kids movie, but there's a lot of material about SEX, RAPE, and STRIPPING which isn't exactly for young Western audiences. (In the Orient, they have different laws and sexuality in children's movies is much more accepted). But parents be warned! There is a scene where two characters talk about rape, multiple scenes where people say 'sex maniac' and a scene where this insanely young japanese girl does a sexy dance for one of the 'sex maniacs' and shows him her breasts! Who was this movie made for anyway?

Oh, and the special effects are laughable. You can tell the spaceship-like things that bomb the village are cardboard cutouts (or animation, I wasn't sure) that look unconvincing, even to a kid. The makers of this movie left out a lot of cool things from the cartoon, simply because they couldn't budget the kind of money they'd need. I didn't like how the names of all the characters were changed... it made me wonder if this movie was made by the same people as Dragon Ball Z.

I don't really recommed this movie to anyone. Kids, adults, or Dragon Ball Z fans. It's just a poor representation of the cartoon, and obviously, one will be able to tell that this movie was rushed and no care whatsoever was put into it. I won't even get into the camerawork... just wait until the end credits at the still picture that sits there for 2 minutes... most of the shots are not framed correctly AT ALL and the movie just seems made by amateurs. Grainy film quality too.

Just all around horrible!!!!


Live action version of Dragonball via Taiwan.

Evil lord comes to earth to get the seven magic dragon balls...er pearls which when brought together will cause a dragon to appear and grant your wish. Lots of action and bad comedy ensue.

What can I say that "the best way to watch this film is with lots of drunk but witty friends" doesn't? I don't know. This is a really bad but funny in the way that really bad movies can be. Come on this is one of the few martial arts films I've ever seen where you actually see the wires. Its a live action cartoon and not so far removed from what I've seen of the show that it makes me fearful for the big budget American version now filming.

If you have some drunk friends and feel like picking on a movie see this film. If you're going to see it sober (like me) avoid it.


A low-rent, cheaply made police thriller that's kept bearable by some fair humorous bits, the nice chemistry between the two leads and, especially, by James Remar's satisfying turn as a narcissistic, psychopathic (and, naturally, indestructible) villain. Obviously a low-quality picture, both visually and dramatically, with a rather resigned Burt, but not unwatchable. (**)


I was sick one day and was skimming channels and I came upon this terribly rank movie. The plot and even the subplots (if you can find one) have been done to extinction. BUT, as bad as the story was, I reserve a special comment for Liza Minelli. Her character was absolutely one of the most annoying characters I have ever has the misfortune of seeing on film. Her only two competitors in this category are John Leguziamo in "The Pest" and Julia Stiles in anything she's done (or half-done). Maybe she performed exactly as the script suggested or maybe (groan!) that is the limit she has to her acting range. Either way, they should have had a rewrite and killed her off in the first 30 seconds of the film (eg. Like the girl that fell off the balcony in Lethal Weapon (I) (but at least she had nice breasts))

Most Humbly Submitted...Douglas Neidermeyer


This 1988 movie was shown recently on a cable channel. We wanted to see another film, which supposedly was starting, but because a mix up, Rent-a-Cop, was shown in that time slot. Never having seen it when it was commercially released, we took a chance at it. Bad decision.

One wonders what possessed the people behind the picture to go ahead with "Rent-a-Cop", or how they sold it to the studio behind the distribution. It appears this movie misfired big time. This film doesn't add anything new to its genre. It's totally predictable, as once the basic premise is shown, we know how it will end.

Burt Reynolds plays a wooden Church. This actor can do better, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes, or perhaps the direction given to him by Jerry London, had the opposite effect. Mr. Reynolds has one expression throughout the movie. He just doesn't register any emotion at all.

Lisa Minnelli, as the hooker who witnessed the original slaughter at the Chicago hotel, makes no sense at all. The romance between her Della and Church seems phony from the beginning. She and Mr. Reynolds play one dimensional characters.

Don't waste your time with this turkey.


Being a fan of Marlene Dietrich's films, I was very anxious to see this "documentary." I also got sucked in by reading rave review after rave review from the national critics. That should have tipped me off.

The movie is just plain boring and obviously extremely overrated. You don't even see Dietrich. She is heard in the background, discussing her movies and this video. She does almost nothing but complain about everything. What a drag!

The filmmaker, Maximilian Schell, constantly complains himself and pleads with her to be on camera.....all to no avail. She just keeps refusing to cooperate. After awhile, this sort of thing gets really tiring. With her attitude, why would Schell continue with this project? He should have just told the prima donna to "shove it."

Regardless of what you read, do not waste your time with this.


My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.

WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.

And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is "Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch."? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that.


The film is very fast-moving, bizarre and colorful, it's like Mad Max on speed whit tons of colorers and make-up. Also very Cartoonish, as that said; cartoon sequence pops up here and there. The plot is also very saucy, but I'll believe it's meant too be. The thing that really drives me crazy in this movie, is the characters, they are painfully irritating, especially Rebecca played by Lori Petty, she's really annoying (I'll believe she is the most annoying creature I've ever seen). The editing is also annoying, very MTV stylized. Another thing that's missing from Tank Girl is an exciting adventure. The humor isn't much funny either. It has some nice visuals though.

However a lot of people love this film, most of them are women, and that's not weird at all, because this movie is all about girl power.. Tank Girl this is a real chick flick, and the best example of an hate/love film.


I made the mistake of buying this since I collect comic book inspired movies. Even at 6$ it was too expensive. I thought there might be some campy fun in it, a "so bad" it becomes good vibe perhaps, I was wrong. I had watched it once long ago and didn't remember any of it. Now I know why. I was bored out of my mind and was looking for distractions to do something else. I'm all for grrrrl power, punk attitude and absurd humor but Tank Girl does not work on any front. The script is bad, you don't care about the characters and the humor is mostly lame except for a few amusing one-liners. The special effects or locations are poor or often replaced by comic panels or animations that are just too jarring compared to the live-action. It's like they didn't have the money to shoot the cool stuff and so resorted to drawings, however cool they might be (an uncensored animated feature would be way better for Tank Girl now that I think about it). The action scenes were cheesy but not in a fun b-movie way. The tank itself was far from impressive or dynamic although it was interestingly decorated. As a matter of fact, the best action scenes involving the tank were in animation.

It does have some interesting songs by known artists such as Bjork, Hole and Portishead but instead of improving the atmosphere, they just don't fit most of the time. Once they even break into a ludicrous song and dance number that was just senseless and horrible. I think that's when I totally tuned out. I suppose Tank Girl, played by Lori Petty, looks the trashy punkette part but beyond her "attitude" and sometimes barely amusing retorts, is more two-dimensional and superficial than the worst comic book characters. Jet, played by Naomi Watts, is probably the only saving grace of the film and it's amazing how such a good actress was involved in this mess. Malcolm McDowell wasn't too bad playing his usual villain role. It might be a cult movie for some but please consider that it's really different from the original independent comics and the original creators were disappointed with the movie themselves (check out the entry for Tank Girl on Wikipedia).

Rating: 3 out of 10


Maybe it's because I'm no fan of the comics (but if the comics are of the same "quality" as the movie, it's hard to believe there are any), but this has to be one of the worst movies ever made. Non-existent plot, laughable acting, dumb dialogue... This movie is so bad that it hurts. A lot. That some people actually gave this one 10/10 is an insult to any good or at least mediocre (or at least bad) movie. If you hate yourself, then watch Tank Girl! On another thought, if you hate yourself THAT much, maybe you should just commit suicide... My rating: -34/10


This film doesn't know what it wants to be: is it making fun of action movies in general? Is it satirical? Is it supposed to be a black comedy? This is truly one of the worst films ever made.

Lori Petty is annoying. There, I said what everyone else is thinking. It's bad enough that she's such a terrible actress (Route 666, Bates Motel), but she doesn't even qualify as a mediocre b-movie actress. Her screechy voice, strange mannerisms, and poor comic timing dot this film from start to finish, until you just want to put your head in a vise and end the pain.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs. You'll be glad you did.


Sometimes a movie cannot easily be classified. Such a film is "Tank Girl", part cartoon, part comedy, and part action flick. I'm sure somewhere there is an audience for "Tank Girl', but it is extremely small, perhaps punk comic book readers. Most viewers will be looking for an early exit or living with the fast forward button. The only redeeming quality are short bursts of humor "find me a microscope and a pair of tweezers", but these tiny moments of comic relief are far outweighed by the sophomoric action sequences. There is no character development, which is not surprising, since the source is a comic book. Do yourself a favor and avoid, avoid, avoid. - MERK


Why Lori Petty was cast as tank girl, I'll never know. Her acting performance is lack-luster. Her voice is grating. It's almost impossible for me to put into words how bad this movie is.

There are several "modern-pop" references in the film, which I found to be very strange, given that the movie was supposed to take place far in the future. It wouldn't have been hard to make this premise interesting either. Some better writing would have helped loads.

Naomi Watts makes an appearance in it as a mild mannered techno-geek. I think they should have probably switched roles.

I'll never know why anyone would like this movie, unless they were a Petty fan.

Try not to see this movie. Total waste of time.


"Tank Girl" was, I suppose, meant to be the "Buckaroo Banzai" of the 90's and was marketed as such. The comparison is, admittedly, appropriate; both movies have so many things going on in any given frame of film that, as impossible as the story is to sort out, it certainly isn't boring.

"Tank Girl" is a fun enough ride if you turn your brain off before the movie starts. Otherwise you'll end up with a skull-cracking headache like me.


It's as if the editor and screenwriter only had 40 minutes of real running time. This is supposed to be a remake of a Chinese film, which is obviously far superior to this trash. It's clear that some brainless Hollywood suit or writer decided that this movie would be mano a mano, man against man, instead of just letting the story play out with the personalities of the characters that were built in the first 40 minutes. At this point in the film, the characters just don't act like regular people and not even like their own personalities. It makes little sense. It's quite clear why this film flopped. It's just not believable at all and that's too bad - it started out with promise. Don't be fooled.


On the scale of 1 to 10, I gave this a 4. I thought the film was not very good, with too much violence and not one character to like.

On an erotic scale, I give this a 6. Many of the sex scenes were tinged with an underlying ugliness. I always enjoy nudity, and Nancy Travis and Faye Grant come through, but the sex scenes were more humiliating than erotic.


This has to be one of, if not THE greatest Mob/Crime films of all time. Every thing about this movie is great, the acting in this film is of true quality; Master P's acting skills make you actually believe he is Italian! The cinematography is excellent too, probably the best ever. This movie was great; and I have the brain capacity of an earth worm.


This is one entertaining flick. I suggest you rent it, buy a couple quarts of rum, and invite the whole crew over for this one. My favorite parts were.1. the gunfights that were so well choreographed that John Woo himself was jealous, .2. The wonderful special effects .3. the Academy Award winning acting and .4. The fact that every single gangsta in the film seemed to be doing a bad "Scarface" impersonation. I mean, Master P as a cuban godfather! This is groundbreaking territory. And with well written dialogue including lines like "the only difference between you and me Rico, is I'm alive and your dead," this movie is truly a masterpiece. Yeah right.


When I saw this movie I think I was a freshman in high school and I still feel like charging Master P for the hour & 20 mins or so that he took from my life that I'll never get back.

The guy who already posted is completely right. Master P is a wannabe mobster. He, like all the other rappers in this country made his millions off of selling rap cds to young impressionable white kids in this country. It's widely known that the mob was not a black thing and blacks were not allowed to be part of it. Unfair as that might be rappers can't deal with. This movie paints Master P as a mobster named Nino? The script is terrible with the acting to match. Completely unbelievable. While searching I came up with a link or something that said he was planning on making another movie called "The Black Sopranos"!!!!

Please spare us that and stick to Nickalodeon. You are not a white mobster, your not even a good actor Master P, please stick to your music for the sake of whoever listens to it these days...


This movie rips off of every mobster/gangster film ever made. MP Da Last Don has a reference to every movie. The acting was by far the worst i have every seen. Who the hell is John Mario anyway? His acting was by far the worst I have ever seen. He makes bad actors look good. As far as Master P goes, he's selling out quicker than an N*sync concert. I really wish I was there to tell the whole production company: WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING WHEN PENNING THE SCRIPT?" Obviously these people are so fixated on the gangster image that they decided to make a movie and live out their gangster lives for real in their minds. One thing I do know is that there wasn't anyone who wanted to distribute this film so it seems (and how predictable) that the guys at NO LIMIT had to start; NO LIMIT FILMS. I've said enough! This movie is terrible and it does not deserve to be called a movie!


Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the "glad it was short" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.


The moral of this show is that bad eating habits give people bad hair, bad taste in clothes, bad posture, bad jobs, and on and on. They are obviously miserable and loathe themselves. However, if they learn to eat broccoli, they will be wealthy, successful, and attractive.

TLC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this blatant exploitation of parental fears and guilt. If nutrition is really that important, they should be able to develop a show using honest and truthful methods. If they really believed in their computer simulations, I'd like to see them do a double-blind test by finding some 40-year-olds, finding out what their eating and exercise habits were as children, and age-progressing the kids' photos. Then compare to the real things. Hey, that sounds like a project for Mythbusters! Discovery Channel--are you listening?

TLC must stand for Tabloid Lies and Cons.