One of the last surviving horror screen greats - Conrad Radzoff - dies and has his body placed in a mausoleum with televised-before-death snippets of the great Conrad greeting you as you visit. Unfortunately for him and his captors, Conrad's body is "borrowed" by a gang of four boys and three girls and taken to a huge manor where they drink with him, toast him, dance with him, laugh with and at him, and then put him to bed in a casket which just happens to by lying in a room upstairs. News of the missing body reaches Radzoff's widow and her friend(who happens to be proficient in the black arts) and she holds some kind of ceremony that brings Conrad back to life so he can, in his own words, get "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Well, Frightmare is an interesting "bad" film. Sure, it is cheap. The sets look like they were borrowed(which I am sure they were). The special effects and blood and guts are done liberally and with little credibility. The acting is average to below average with a few exceptions. Jeffrey Combs of Re-Animator fame is in tow, but really he does little in this rather thankless role as a horror obsessed teen that needs to steal a dead man's body for kicks. None of the "kids" except the pretty girl playing Meg is any good. Nita Talbot plays the "friend" of the Radzoffs with withering interest. Also, look for the big - I mean big - guy that plays the policeman. That is Porky himself of Porkys fame. But thankfully for all of us, one performance does rise above the material. Ferdy Mayne, an oft overlooked actor from Germany who had Christopher Lee features and did star as a vampire in The Fearless Vampire Killers, does a more than commendable job as the aging horror icon in public life and a real demon of a man in private life. Conrad Radzoff in a bad human being in life, living solely for his own pleasures and we see him kill twice before he is even dead(obviously none of the swinging teens at that point). Mayne is able to look very regal, speak very elegantly, and convey menace with ease. If for no other reason, one should see Frightmare for his performance. I do; however, believe that when they showed black and white clips of Radzoff that they used Christopher Lee footage(anyone have any thoughts?). Anyway, one can guess what happens and it does indeed: Radzoff goes out and goes after the kids that disturbed his peace. Again, the formula is trite and overused. The acting for the most part is anemic, and the direction oh so ridiculous. But Mayne gives a good performance in a sea of ineptitude. Definitely worth a little peek. Watching Mayne keep popping up on screens in his mausoleum brought a wry smile to my lips each time.


My parents used to rent a lot of horror movies when I was a child. We loved watching them even when they were bad they made for some enjoyment. This was one such movie, kind of hard to review as I have only seen it the one time as a child, but it is not anything I want to track down again so I can do a more in-depth review. The story has some old horror actor legend dying. I seem to remember he acted a bit like an over the top Vincent Price, without being likable and classy. He commits murders and dies, but what is this? Is the movie over already? No, as some kids for some reason snag the body and are prepared for a fun night of being killed by the ham from beyond the grave. I remember the murders were nothing all that special after the first couple and I remember this movie was rather disappointing. Seemed to have a good premise, but it just failed to deliver the goods as more cool kills were needed and that super horror actor needed to add a bit to his repertoire.


Frightmare begins with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.

The first ten minutes is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as "House of Death") and never really gets that initial spurt of energy back.

Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch "Matlock".

The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.

The only redeeming quality of this film (besides the beginning) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought "that's Jeffrey Combs" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest "Intruder" or "Popcorn", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time.


It's Saturday, it's raining, and I think every movie should have at least one comment... so I just watched "The Crime Doctor's Courage" all the way through. It's a murder mystery with a typical cast of characters, and a couple of the usual suspects -- each with their own possible motive for the crime. The story starts abruptly and the viewer is thrown into the plot with no character development or storytelling whatsoever. I guess that's not too surprising for a B movie of this period. There are also some moments which look and feel like this is pre-WWII, but perhaps that is due to the writer's background in radio shows.

The "Crime Doctor" is the sleuth who happens to be visiting California for some R&R from his psychiatry practice on the East coast. He hooks up with a mystery novelist friend with whom it is implied has been along for one or more previous mystery solving capers. The novelist occasionally fills the role of sidekick to our sleuth (AKA Dr. Watson), and also occasionally lightens things up with a bit of comic relief (sort of).

There is also a somewhat simple, but not quite bumbling police captain who at times is annoyed by the meddling sleuth. And then there are the mysterious Braggas, a brother and sister who are dance artists at a night-club. The dance is sort of an interpretive dance that happens to be one of those moments which feels more like the 30's than the 40's. Though the story location is California, the Braggas appear to live in a castle!

There was one plot element which managed to keep me somewhat amused, but I won't divulge any more than that because I always enjoy movies more when the story is discovered, rather than known in advance. (even though I can think of many, many, B films which would rate higher and it is difficult to say that watching this one is time well spent) I have not seen any other movies from the "Crime Doctor" series, so I can't make any comparisons.


I caught this on IFC last week and I thought it was typical of the indie short subject film: heavy on style, little on substance and originality. Does it comes as any surprise that a coming out film stars an unusually attractive (and blond to boot) boy with 70s shag hair and too-cool-for-school clothes? Plus, this film wallows in late 1970s chic, which works for some (Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides" comes to mind) but not for this director.

Another reviewer compared this to Harmony Korine's work and I agree. Yet I don't view this as a positive thing (what has HE done lately, anyway?). "Bobbycrush" is really just a waste of time and energy for all involved. If you happen to see it late night on cable, turn the channel and watch something else instead.


Acolytes presents an interesting mix of original concepts in "screaming teen" cliché horror with a more thriller-like pacing. In some ways Acolytes is very successful, but in many other ways the film fails miserably.

Overall Acolytes avoided the typical archetypes of the naivety and innocence of youth of endless horror films in the like of Cabin Fever, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and countless other films where unsuspecting and relatively naive and innocent teenagers, have sex, run around screaming and one-by-one are plucked off by some sort of monster. Instead this innocence is replaced with pride, retaliation, and arrogance. The characters had several opportunities to save themselves from immanent death and despair, but failed to do so due to their own personal demons. In the end you were left with the feeling that there were no (and perhaps are no) innocent victims.

As the name implies, the film also touches greatly on following a leader or authority. This was used in a direct sense of if the main character would become like the serial killer and was also used less directly throughout the film. Following a central figure is a reoccurring theme throughout the film.

Through all this, the film makers also incorporated a lot of cliché, which I suspect was intentional and gave the film a unique mixture of depth as well as shallowness which I found intriguing. This, perhaps inadvertently, plays well with the characters who are, at first appearance very shallow but as the story unfolds it becomes obvious that they are, at least the two main male characters, quite complex.

Technically the film has a lot of problems however. The cinematography, which is typically regarded highly, I find rather sophomoric and over-stylized, utilizing formulaic 2/3 approaches far too rigidly. Many transitions I felt were also over-stylized. The use of symbolism was not only vague, but also greatly over used.

The plot was poorly planned and relied exclusively on misinformation in order to achieve a rather hokey twist ending, which was poorly resolved and leaves viewers confused. Methods used to resolve the climax are cheap and ill-prepared, motivations are routinely unclear, and major plot points remain untied in the end.

Overall, the film's relative originality, themes and thesis are lost in a maze of poor technical execution, over-stylized imagery, unclear motives, obtuse and unnecessary symbolism and cheap twists maintained only by a lack of or entirely incorrect information.

If the film were better executed, it would have been excellent. However, Acolytes receives only two stars in my opinion.


This was a decent movie for the first half. Too many cheap BOO! moments but the tension builds, the bad guys are creepy and everything seems to be setting itself up nicely. The kids are not particularly deep but hey, that works for teens.

Then it just gets ridiculous and tries way too hard- the "why in the world would he/they do that?" moments overwhelm anyone's capacity for suspension of disbelief, the twist involves too many ridiculous coincidences, and the title comes from a late attempt to philosophize some meaning into the film that goes nowhere and is quickly dropped. There was laughter in the theater at moments that were in no way supposed to be funny.

Great premise but just badly written and doesn't hold together. Some very nice shots but they're hard to enjoy while you're rolling your eyes.


A rather lame teen slasher from Brisbane. While the plot hinges on a fairly decent idea, the writing is profoundly lame and two of the three main teens are absurdly wooden. The problem is that for the kids to go through with their plan they have to be far more reckless than shown, but if they were that devil-may-care, it would perhaps be hard for them to be likable, so they end up being neither really. In fact, I only started enjoying the film when I started wishing for their death. One of those movies where in about a thousand places the most sensible option would be to call the police. I realise we wouldn't have a movie if they did, but it would be nice if we could believe that they actually wouldn't. Avoid.


I was completely bored with this film, melodramatic for no apparent reason. Every thing just becomes so serious and people are swearing with really dumb expressions. Then there is a serial Killer who apparently can Kill one person to get the title of serial Killer. Well the serial Killer likes butterflies and is illustrated by sound effects you might hear in the dream sequence of most modern films;

why oh why? I nave no idea. It really really wants to be scary, but I think in this universe scary equals talk a whole bunch and add dark ambient noises.Just for the record, this is in no way is a horror film, its most definitely a thriller (barely). Really movie makers nowadays need to do their homework before making "horror" films or at least calling a movie a "horror" film. it makes me say (in too may words ironically) "acolytes, you take forever to say nothing."


Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as contrived as any you've seen. "The neighbours would never know about this guy," one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. "But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door." Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that nobody saw. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.


The film opens with a cult leader attempting to resurrect a dead member with his followers chanting for his rebirth as the sun strikes upon them in the desert. Reanhauer(Bill Roy)believes wholeheartedly in his power, and gets so worked up that he collapses with what appeared to be a heart attack. Unable to keep him alive, all those involved, doctors and nurses, are sentenced for attack with Reanhauer's demonic spirit invading the curvaceous body of nurse Sherri(..big-chested Jill Jacobson)targeting each one using her as a tool of vengeance. Forced against her will, with no memory of inflicting such harm, Sherri's host body murders selected victims. Fortunately, Sherri's fellow co-worker, nurse Tara(Marilyn Joi)begins a rather blossoming romance with a blinded patient, Marcus Washington(Prentiss Moulden), once a star football player, whose mother was a practitioner of voodoo. Through Marcus' knowledge, passed down from mom, Tara finds out about possession and how to possibly save Sherri before she murders everyone unknowingly. Meanwhile, Sherri's lover, Dr. Peter Desmond(Geoffrey Land)worries about her present condition and welfare.

Well, this was my first Al Adamson film and I must agree with his detractors that, just from this film alone, it seems he holds them together with paper clips and Elmer's glue. The animation with which we see the spirit take control of Sherri is beyond awful and rather laughable. A little soft-core nonsense as filler, some demonic possession thrown in the mix(Sherri actually speaks in another voice when she's possessed), with naughty nurse behavior(..the three nurses focused on in the film all are quite sexually active and free-spirited)and a little bit violence/gore. The film is essentially shot in tiny rooms with dull dialogue from a rather mundane cast. The sexual situations aren't that hard-core and Al often shoots them without revealing all that much. The film looks embarrassingly cheap and there's an absence of thrills, although the chilling score(..which sounds like something from Dark Shadows)does help a little bit. Jacobson and Mary Kay Pass(..as nurse Beth who seems to be a nymphomaniac if she'll even screw a nutty patient, always complaining of illnesses he really doesn't have, with enough chest hair to declare him a Neanderthal)aren't bad looking, and Adamson's story-line, although frail, is somewhat coherent(..it seems he rarely directs films which are). Overall, the movie looks like it cost 5 bucks and Adamson just can not overcome the budgetary restrictions(..or, in my opinion, create an unpleasant enough atmosphere due to a sometimes plodding narrative and tedious scenes which do little for the story). John F Goff has the role of the hospital's psychiatrist who wants to commit Sherri, not believing the idea that she was possessed;he constantly bickers with Peter over her. I watched the unrated "lost" version which I guess is the real version to watch of Nurse Sherri.


I bought this on VHS as "Terror Hospital", and when I got home I checked IMDb and was like OMG it's the legendary "Nurse Sherri"!!! So here's another one from Al Adamson, who had clearly learned some minuscule amount about film-making since the "Blood of Dracula's Castle" days. Where that earlier effort is a more or less totally sclerotic lump, this one mixes it up a little, adding a definite element of variety and surprise amid the incompetence. Sure half of the movie is a blind post-op football player shooting the breeze with his stacked nurse, but at any moment we might be cutting away to the cackling disembodied head of the satanist mastermind, or Nurse Sherri running a farmer through with a pitchfork, or a wee bit of abstract student-film quick cutting to go with the pulsing-blob effects in the possession scene, or the most gratuitously half-hearted topless bit ever, or god knows what else (I forget, to be honest). As dumb-ass pieces of sh*t go, this one runs toward the high end. Congrats, Al.


This is a hard film to rate. While it truly deserves its 3 (or perhaps even a two), for an Al Adamson film, it's exceptional--and practically Adamson's very best. That's because unlike many Adamson films, there are times when NURSE SHERRI almost looks competent. But, being an Adamson film, you know that sooner or later that crappiness MUST rear its ugly head!

The film begins with some bizarre cult leader of a huge congregation (six) trying to resurrect a dead guy who looks like he's made of blue cheese. However, in the process, the cult dude has a heart attack and it taken to the hospital. He apparently dies, but it also seems like many of these hospital scenes are missing and a few of them appear much later in the film. In other words, when you see the film, he appears to have possibly recovered--only to hear later that he'd died. Because the guy is the b.f.f. of Satan, however, his evil soul can't die and he comes back to both haunt one of his henchmen and to possess Nurse Sherri.

Now, Sherri is obviously a very disturbed lady--demonic possession or not. At times she acts like a zombie and at others she's violently homicidal. So I ask..."why didn't her boyfriend (a doctor) think this was, perhaps, problematic?!". In other words, after trying to kill a patient, he neither gets an exorcist nor commits her to the booby hatch!!! Oh, and speaking of boobies...this movie is NOT the breast-filled sex romp its title and posters would indicate. While there are a few bare breasts here and there, they are irrelevant to the plot and only seen very briefly (1/2 second or so) in all but one scene. So, if you are a perv, this movie is not for you--though a few places in the film (such as the nurse undressing for a patient) make it look like the film MIGHT have, at one time, been designed as a porn flick.

If you are a bad movie fan, however, there is enough to whet your appetite. Some examples of incompetence are the inability of many of the actors to deliver lines that aren't zombie-like--and I am not even talking about Sherri. Especially noticeable is one of the very final scenes--I have never seen and heard some stilted acting and dialog in my life--and this includes Ed Wood's films! There are also a few more cheap touches, such as the bad animation of the "green stuff", the doctor finding a murdered nurse yet continuing to investigate in a house where walls are covered in blood (I'd get a cop...better yet, an army of cops).

So despite these problems, why do I think it's good for an Adamson film? Well, the story isn't all bad and he was able to build tension very well. Many false alarms early on made my heart race a bit. Also, the car crash, while irrelevant, came off pretty well and was practically big-budget for Adamson.

Overall, not a good film and one most people would be bored watching. However, fans of Adamson or inept films will like it--it does deliver some entertainment in a cheesy manner that will provide a few laughs.


I only came here to check Terror Hospital for an alternate title so I'd know what not to pick up. Not only do I get the original title, but I come to find Terror Hospital is one of seven more aliases.This one is a real clunker. Movies like this can usually be forgiven for any number of reasons, mostly unintended consequences of the feature on every level of production that result in at least a mild form of entertainment, mostly amusement. This has none of that. Instead, the viewer is witness to redundantly unnecessary and way-too-convenient-for-the-situation exposition and drawn out scenes of characters warily moving from room to room, and all this is half of the film. Forget trying to figure out where anybody is (or who they are) during darkened or nighttime scenes, too; you probably won't care, anyway. There is also a random car chase sequence that seems quite dull when compared to some of the old driver's ed movies I slep... er, I mean sat through and watched way back in high school. Really, we're talking about mysticism, possession, and a killer on the loose here - not a bad recipe for trash cinema. Unfortunately, there's nothing here to make it even "good" trash; when joined to the aforementioned, the bad acting and not-so-special effects are just that - bad acting and not-so-special effects. This one's just trash, pure and simple. Leave it on the rack at the pawn shop or in that box at the yard sale. There's a reason its there...


The first 20 minutes were a little fun because I don't think I've seen a film this bad before {acting, script, effects (!), etc....} The rest of the running time seemed to drag forever with every cliche in dialog used to no effect. These people seemed to not really like horror movies or how to make them or any other movie. There's no adult language, a bit of brief nudity, and no gore except fake blood smeared over no open wounds, etc.. It would have been rated PG in the early eighties and PG-13 nowadays. I'm not sure how it got an R rating or if it really did. I saw the American International release titled Hospital Of Terror. I've seen 100 horror films in the past 12 months and this is probably the worst film I've ever seen. Here's an example of how bad it is: There's one scene where something green comes through the door. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be but what it is on screen is some kid's green crayon scribblings {I'm not exaggerating} super-imposed over the film, semi-moving inside the door, then its supposed to do something to Nurse Sherri to possess her I suppose. I could not believe they had the lack of pride to show this embarrassment.


This film, which I rented under the title "Black Voodoo" should be avoided. I was expecting a blaxploitation/horror flick; but what I got was a very dull, standard "ghost extracts vegence". In this case the ghost was that of a religious cult leader who tried to refuse treatment, but who's plea was ignored and he died in an operation. The result: his spirit posesses Nurse Sherry and forces her to commit acts of murder. The only voodoo connection was to one of the three black characters, in this case a blinded ex-football player, who's mom practiced voodoo. The film is very slow and very dull. There is a very standard ending that provides on excitement, followed by a horrificly stupid ending (warning: SPOILER)

In which a woman actually manages to defend herself against murder charges by saying she was possessed. This movie is slow, and bad in a non-funny, just stupefying way. Avoid it at all costs.


Maniratnam, who in India, is often compared with prominent world film makers and is regarded a genius in film-making, has yet again proved that he can only make the frames look visually good, without offering much food for thought.Forget about pure cinematic pleasure that can be derived from cinema as a very old form of art.

While I would not like to claim and portray myself as someone who has seen all the beautiful movies made around the world, still any thoughtful and a bit educated film goer can identify that his films do not contain innovative ingenuous plots, does not contain lingering effects afterward and MOSTLY contain ridiculous ending and a LOT of melodrama, seen profusely in Indian movies.

Overall, Maniratnam has successfully confirmed my distaste for his films once again.

Sorry for those who on this board were claiming otherwise. My suggestion to you: WATCH SOME BEAUTIFUL CINEMAS MADE AROUND THE GLOBE.


Jacqueline Hyde starts like any other normal day for telemarketing individual Jackie Hyde (co-producer Gabriella Hall) until her boss (Robert Donovan) fires her for taking personal calls at work, however it's not all bad news as the call she took was from a lawyer informing her that her Grandfather (Malcolm Bennett) has recently died & that he left her his mansion & fortune (why doesn't stuff like that ever happen to me? Sigh). Very excited Jackie heads on over there & makes herself right at home, while looking for the thermostat late one night Jackie stumbles upon a secret room where her Grandfather stashes the bright red formula that he invented that allows whoever drinks it to change their appearance. Being a bit on the porky side Jackie finally settles on the glamorous Jacqueline (Blythe Metz), however Jackie's better looking alter-ego starts to take control...

Written, co-produced & directed by Rolfe Kanefsky I thought Jacqueline Hyde was complete total & utter crap from start to finish & it's as simple & straight forward as that. According to the opening credits Jacqueline Hyde was 'inspired' by the classic Robert Louis Stevenson novel 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', frankly if Mr. Stevenson could see what was being done to his story here he'd turn in his grave. For a start I think Jacqueline Hyde was/is intended to be a horror film, the IMDb certainly lists it as such but there isn't any horror in it at all apart from just how bad it is. I would say that Jacqueline Hyde is more a soft-core porno than anything else & extremely tame with it, why sit down & watch this softer than soft porno crap when you can watch you proper hard-core stuff that actually delivers the goods? Why, that's the question I ask here. It's not even good porn either, besides being far too soft it's dull, boring & the not-worth-mentioning sex scenes are few & far between. The most intelligent aspect of this film is the title which would have been quite clever if not for the fact that another film used the Jacqueline Hyde (1998) title during the last century & judging by the IMDb's plot summary it sounds a hell of a lot better than this piece of rubbish. This is one of those films you have to watch yourself to see just how bad it is but just hope that you never get the opportunity.

Director Kanefsky was obviously working on a low budget but that's not an excuse these days, shot on a digital camcorder the film looks cheap & the few instances of CGI look like they came from a Nintendo Gameboy, the final 'shocking' twist has probably the worst morph effect I've ever seen & is pretty good for a laugh as is the scene when Jackie's breasts grow via more terrible CGI. That's another thing, the film takes itself far too seriously. The subject matter sucks, is far too predictable & makes for a poor film but maybe if the dialogue had been intentionally funny with some dirty porn talk the film might have been more fun to watch, alas it isn't so it isn't. Forget about any decent horror, violence or gore as there isn't any apart from a surprisingly bloodless decapitation at the end.

Technically Jacqueline Hyde is home made film type stuff, the photography is of the flat hand held point-&-shoot variety, the music, production design & special effects are of a suitably low standard to match the script. The acting was awful, seriously this is bad.

Jacqueline Hyde in my opinion a load of crap, there is not one positive thing about this turgid film that I can think of. Any proper film lover will have an almost impossible time trying to find any redeeming value in this crap, definitely one to avoid.


Sorry, but Jacqueline Hyde (get it??? - Jack L and Hyde - Jekyll & Hyde) has some of the worst acting this side of hardcore porn, not to mention a script apparently written by a first-grader with undiagnosed learning disabilities.

Jackie Hyde inherits an old mansion by a grandfather she never knew she had. Guess who? Yes, an inventor of the special formula that slowly takes over one's body and mind - yes, that Mr. Hyde!

Despite some nice skin scenes, this film fails to register any feeling or emotion other than uncontrollable laughter.

As much as poor Jackie tries she just can't stay away from granddaddy's special formula and the result is an hour and half of wasted time.


This film seems well made, and more efforts should be made to promote films by women. That aside, this film is also profoundly disturbing in that it justifies the manipulative and psychotic machinations of a character that is profoundly disturbed. If you've seen any of the promotional material, you might think this is a poignant film about a relationship that's reached its end, but none of that suggests how really disturbing the central premise is:

A woman threatens suicide unless her soon to be ex agrees to relive here most treasured memories of their relationship. When told how unfair (to say the least) that such a threat is, Tessa (the purported protagonist) suggests that "life's not fair."

Huh??? This character also uses tears to manipulate her former lover into staying, and coaxes him into sexually oriented behavior (which she initially denies as a motive) all the while assuring him "this isn't sex."

Reverse the genders, have the leads played by Tracey Gold and Brian Austin-Green and this could air in feature length on Lifetime with a title like "Hostage to Obsession." There is no medically accepted definition of sound mental and emotional stability that would encompass Tessa's behavior in this film.

Props to Kristen Thomson for playing a border-line psychotic, manipulative ex to a T, perhaps too well because there is no well-adjusted person, male or female, who could watch this and not have shivers run up their spine.


It hurt to watch this movie, it really did... I wanted to like it, even going in. Shot obviously for very little cash, I looked past and told myself to appreciate the inspiration. Unfortunately, although I did appreciate the film on that level, the acting and editing was terrible, and the last 25-30 minutes were severe thumb-twiddling territory. A 95 minute film should not drag. The ratings for this one are good so far, but I fear that the friends and family might have had a say in that one. What was with those transitions? Dear Mr. Editor, did you just purchase your first copy of Adobe Premiere and make it your main goal to use all the goofy transitions that come with that silly program? Anyway... some better actors, a little more passion, and some more appealing editing and this makes a decent movie.


Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.

Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in "Singin' In The Rain." Here, Kelly's "Danny McGuire" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at "Sgt. Bilko," is so stupid in here as "Genius" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.

The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty.


Like 'Singin' in the Rain', 'Cover Girl' has a trio of two guys and a girl. In 'Cover Girl', Phil Silvers (Genius) is the comic relief. He corresponds to Donald O'Connor's funny man part in 'Singin in the Rain'. In Cover Girl, Gene Kelly's love interest is Rita Hayworth and in 'Rain', it's Debbie Reynolds. That's where the comparison ends.

Whereas "Singin' in the Rain' is a classic American movie musical, 'Cover Girl' is mediocrity incarnate. The story isn't very complicated. Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) is a dancer in Danny MacGuire's low-rent nightclub in Brooklyn. Rusty decides to enter a Cover Girl contest sponsored by a wealthy publisher, John Coudair, who made an unsuccessful play for Rusty's grandmother years ago. Coudair introduces Rusty to Broadway producer Noel Wheaton who makes her into a star. Danny feels slighted when Rusty starts showing up late for rehearsals at the nightclub and decides to close the club down and go on the road entertaining the troops along with his sidekick, Genius. At the last minute, with Rusty at the altar with Noel, she realizes the error of her ways and runs back to Danny. They live happily ever after.

Gene Kelly has the least developed part in the movie. All we find out about him is that he owns a nightclub and is madly in love with Rusty. Coudair and Wheaton act like besotted teenagers toward Rusty and Phil Silvers delivers some thoroughly goofy but unfunny shtick. The most interesting aspect of Rita Hayworth's performance is the scene in which she gets drunk. This foreshadows what happened to her in real life. Anyone who has read her biography will learn that she disliked Hollywood, pined away for a normal home life which she could never attain but eventually began drinking and ended up with full-blown Alzheimer's during the last years of her life.

Almost all of the songs in Cover Girl are old-fashioned and not very tuneful. Gene Kelly has only one really excellent dance number and that's the scene where he dances with his 'alter ego'. Earlier, the trio has another number which is a pale precursor of 'Make em Laugh' from 'Singin' in the Rain'.

The most annoying thing about 'Cover Girl' is the way in which Rita Hayworth is put up on a pedestal. A couple of decades later, Raquel Welch had the same problem. Both actresses later in their careers would always try and find scripts that showcased their acting abilities. They wanted to be known as 'actresses' and not 'pinup girls'. Unfortunately, 'Cover Girl' is an example of how Hollywood used to exploit women for financial gain.


Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has smitten boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly tired piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical sketches (the two worst of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with false sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the rest of the time he's flying on adrenaline. The script is a lead weight, not even giving supporting players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1/2 from ****


"Cover Girl" is a lacklustre WWII musical with absolutely nothing memorable about it, save for its signature song, "Long Ago and Far Away." This film came out before Gene Kelly really hit his artistic stride, and while there are evidences of his burgeoning talent here, mostly he plays sidekick to Rita Hayworth. And there's the problem. Rita Hayworth is gorgeous, no doubt about that. But she's simply not a compelling screen presence. I've always found myself wanting to like her more than I actually do, and this movie is no exception. She's simply not a very good actress, and she's not even a very good dancer. Good looking as she is, there's something vapid about her, and this movie suffers because of it.

Grade: C-


Formulaic slasher film, only this one stars three ten year olds (all born during a lunar eclipse) as the killers. Nice, huh? A little bit of gore and a nice nude scene may make this worthwhile for diehard fans of the genre, others beware.

*1/2 out of ****


Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:

Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only redeeming quality is the fact that kids are doing these awful things, which raises the bar a little.

Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.

Nudity/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.

Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few good laughs with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just bad, not funny bad.

Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the lower end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing ending. It almost ruined the movie for me.


'Bloody Birthday' is an odd and, at times, humorous low-budget horror flick along the lines of 'Mikey' or a less intelligent version of 'The Good Son'.

Set in a small Californian town, three babies are born at the height of an eclipse, where planetary alignment means they are somehow born without emotions. Ten years later, our three little psychopaths take themselves on a killing spree, doing away with parents, siblings, teachers and anyone else who irritates them. Only one teenage girl knows the truth to be able to stop them. There is no explanation for why babies across the world born at the same time aren't equally as twisted but there you go!

For a slasher film, it's very tame in terms of violence and gore, which I suppose highlights the problem of casting child characters as the killers as there is only so much you can expose the young actors to. Instead, it's amusing and a little disturbing seeing three ten-year-olds plotting murders and carrying out their plans using guns, knives and crossbows. The main reason why it doesn't descend into being totally ridiculous is because the child actors are very convincing in their roles with the way they slyly play the little innocents in front of undiscerning adults while showing their dark side to the girl who knows the truth.

'Bloody Birthday' is rather mediocre as a horror flick, with few scares and little blood, but because it has the shock factor of having kids as the killers, it is a bit unique in that way. One to watch if there's nothing else on.


When people say children are annoying u think ya my little cousins can be annoying and i said LITTLE. These children are turning 10 and they are without a doubt the most annoying bratty children you will ever encounter (in a film). Lets start with the blonde - Debbie - She's a slut of a girl, i mean come on she wears mini skirts, she has stupid frizzy blonde hair and a freckley red bunny like face. She acts so innocent. Next we have the second child - the Geek - who thinks he's so cool, with his long range shooting and his use of a silencer (a coat over the gun) and most of all his evil bratty smile. The next kid is the quiet one you don't care about so thats all on him. This film angered me at the children's intelligence and the only enjoyment i got was from my cousin who kept bitching about them.


When you make a film with a killer-kids premise, there are two effective ways to approach it; you can either make it as realistic as possible, creating believable characters and situations, or you can make it as fun as possible by playing it for laughs (something which the makers of "Silent Night, Deadly Night" did, for example, on an equally controversial subject: a killer Santa). The people who made "Bloody Birthday", however, do neither of those things; they simply rely on the shock value of the image of a kid with a gun (or a knife, or a noose, or an arrow) in his/her hand. The result is both offensive and stupid. The whole film looks like a bad idea that was rushed through production (and then kept from release for several years). It's redeemed a tiny bit by good performances from the kids, but it's VERY sloppily made. (*1/2)


Bloody Birthday is a totally rubbish slasher movie from beginning to end.

I found the acting to be pretty good considering the genre of movie and its obvious low budget. I don't know what was going on with the cinematography but it looked ghastly. Way too over-saturated. Maybe this is a bad transfer to DVD or maybe it always looked like that, I don't know.

There really are no redeeming qualities to speak of. There are a few deaths but not really gory. I wouldn't bother with it if I was you. The best thing about the DVD was the 15 minute interview with producer Max Rosenberg who was very amusing and honest. He didn't have anything good to say about director Ed Hunt and admits the movie was a failure, but he would like to re-make it as he believes it has a decent plot. However, he died in 2004 so I guess it will be up to someone else to take on that challenge. With the way things have been going in the last few years it wouldn't surprise me, there's at least one re-make per week at the cinema these day. It couldn't be any worse than the original I suppose but I couldn't care less whether it got re-made or not.


A mean spirited, repulsive horror film about 3 murderous children. Susan Strasberg is totally wasted in a 5-minute cameo, even though she receives star billing. If your a Julie Brown fan, you'll want to check it out, since she's naked in a couple of shots. All others,avoid.


This movie cannot be serious because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so ugly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly glasses. The actor probably wandered on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the Nerds.

Another thing that I hate so much about this movie is that Curtis takes his sweet time shooting people. I kept my finger on the fast forward button because he took too long and what was up with his voice? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another thing I hated was that he kept smiling like an idiot and there was no point to that.

Then they put that annoying kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't make any sense and neither did the music. The music didn't fit any of the scenes.

This movie is slow, boring and a waste of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.


Bloody Birthday opens to a shot of Meadowvale General Hospital. There three babies are being born at precisely the same time during a total eclipse. A caption informs us that it is now 'Meadowvale, California June 1, 1980'. Two teenage lovers, Duke Benson (Ben Marley) and Annie Smith (Erica Hope) are getting down to business in an open grave. They hear noises and Duke investigates. Both Duke and Annie are murdered. Sheriff Jim Brody (Bert Kramer) is baffled and only has the handle of a child's skipping rope that Annie was holding, as a clue. Unfortunately before Sheriff Brody can solve the case his youngest daughter Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy) and two of her friends Curtis Taylor (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) and Steven Seton (Andy Freeman) murder him. Just as they are finishing Sheriff Brody off another young boy from their class named Timmy Russel (K.C. Martel) turns up, the three killers are unaware of how much he saw. Soon after the incident Timmy plays with Steven and Curtis in a junkyard. Curtis locks Timmy into an old locker. Timmy manages to escape and tell his sister Joyce (Lori Lethin), but she doesn't believe him at first. The three children carry on their murder spree. Their strict teacher Miss Davis (Susan Strasberg) a lovemaking couple (John Avery and Sylvia Wright) in a van and Debbie's older sister Beverly (Julie Brown) are among their victims. Joyce begins to have her suspicions about Debbie, Curtis and Steven which makes her and Timmy a target for the evil trio. Will they be able to convince the authorities that these three innocent looking 10 year olds are really soulless killers?

Co-written and directed by Ed Hunt I have an intense dislike for this film. I think it's absolutely awful and doesn't have a single enjoyable aspect to it's 83 minute running time. The script by Hunt and Barry Pearson gives us no explanation for the child killers motives beyond the solar eclipse that blocks out Saturn and therefore for some bizarre astrological reason these three children don't have any conscience, so these are the only children ever born during a total eclipse? If that is true why do they wait until just before their tenth birthday's before starting their killing spree? I guess it just suddenly kicks in, right? To it's credit it is reasonably well paced but I still found it incredibly boring and tedious to sit through. The film as a whole is very unexciting and predictable, the children are revealed as the killers within the first 10 minutes and as I've mentioned next to no motive is given. It's very silly at times, too. Check out the scene where Debbie stops Steven by throwing a bowl of water over him! The Sheriff's death is put down to him falling down some steps, yeah right the injuries suffered from that type of accident aren't going to be the same as if your beaten to death with a baseball bat like he was in reality, any competent Doctor or Pathologist would have spotted that within 5 seconds. There isn't a single drop of blood spilt in the entire film and all of the lame killings are dull and unimaginative. There is some out-of-place looking nudity as Debbie charges 25c to let boys peek through a hole while her sister Beverly strips. There is an early scene just after the 5 minute mark when Joyce walks from the kitchen to the living room and the boom mike is clearly visible at the top of the screen, not even a little bit of it the whole damn thing. The general incompetence continues throughout the film. The whole production is bland and instantly forgettable. The acting is poor throughout, those three kids are very annoying and got on my nerves right from the start and made sitting through this film even more of a chore, especially Curtis in his geeky over-sized glasses. I just hate this film really, simple as that. I can't think of a single good thing to say about it. Definitely one to avoid.


Might end up being the biggest disappointment that I will see in 2009. I seem to be the rare person who disliked Park's Oldboy, but I think that his "Lady Vengeance" and "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" are among the best films I've seen in the 2000's decade. Therefore, I really was looking forward to see this, especially as it got such positive reviews. Instead, I found the film clichéd, and broke little, if any new ground to the vampire genre. And while I can appreciate a bit of gallows humor in movies like this, I felt Park did this at very inopportune times.

Others have compared/contrasted this to "Let the Right One In," and I have to say that "Let the Right One In" was far superior to this one, and was a fresh take on the vampire genre. Sadly, Park's take was a tired one.


For years, I've been a big fan of Park's work and "Old boy" is one of my all-times favorite.

With lots of expectation I rented this movie, only to find the worst movie I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and even the "light" part is so lame, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he got from this. For me, an idol has fallen.

If you loved movies like "Old boy", the Mr & Lady "Vengeance" or even his short films on "Three extremes", don't waste your time, the film's not worth it.


Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.

Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie:

* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.

* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.

* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.

* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.

* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.

* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.

In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.


Some may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.


An obvious vanity press for Julie in her first movie with Blake. Let's see. Where do we begin. She is a traitor during a world war; she redeems that by falling in love; her friends (who are presumably patriots because they are German citizens) are expendable and must die; and she winds up as a heroine. OK. The scenes with the drunken pilot and the buffoons who work for French intelligence can't even be described, and we won't even mention Rock's romantic scenes with a female. (By the way, when they visit a museum, look at his gaze - I reran it on video and it's priceless). Is it a farce or is it a romantic classic or is it a war movie? I don't know and you won't either.


Blake Edwards tried very hard to change Julie Andrews image in this film. He tried to make her sexy not realizing she already was. I think they were both still a bit irked that Julie had not been chosen to film her Broadway success of Camelot and was passed over as not being sexy enough. Unfortunately, they chose this vehicle to try and assuage this belief. It gets to the point where it is almost funny seeing Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, kissing Julie every 2 minutes throughout this movie. It seems now that they were not only trying to make you believe that Julie was a femme fatale but that Rock was straight. Sadly, they have absolutely no chemistry together and the unending kissing scenes start grossing one out. The other error they made with this picture was not knowing what kind of movie they were making. It is almost three separate movies. There is the drama of Julie as the German spy trying to get military secrets from Rock. There is an air war movie with lots of footage of WWI vintage planes swooping about and there is the stupid attempts at humor that Blake Edwards seems to think he has to insert in every one of his pictures whether it is appropriate or not, In this case, it was not. The only truly redeeming qualities in this film are looking at the always lovely Dame Julie and hearing her sing in that crystal clear bell-like soprano. Of course if you love her, you may overlook the weaknesses of this film just because of her. You can always tell yourself, afterward, that it was a hell of a lot better than sitting through STAR!


Julie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like "Star!" and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until "The Tamarind Seed" came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can work up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1/2 from ****


Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.

Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.

Mind you, the version on the DVD is the "director's cut", or in this case, "let's salvage whatever we can" from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.

One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment "I'll give you three guesses" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned "raunchy" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another "wink" at SOUND OF MUSIC.

The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her "uncle" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like "what happened here?"

The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her "uncle" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there.

The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The "Girl in no man's land" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?

The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.

How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release.


David Bryce's comments nearby are exceptionally well written and informative as almost say everything I feel about DARLING LILI. This massive musical is so peculiar and over blown, over produced and must have caused ruptures at Paramount in 1970. It cost 22 million dollars! That is simply irresponsible. DARLING LILI must have been greenlit from a board meeting that said "hey we got that Pink Panther guy and that Sound Of Music gal... lets get this too" and handed over a blank cheque. The result is a hybrid of GIGI, ZEPPELIN, HALF A SIXPENCE, some MGM 40s song and dance numbers of a style (daisies and boaters!) so hopelessly old fashioned as to be like musical porridge, and MATA HARI dramatics. The production is colossal, lush, breathtaking to view, but the rest: the ridiculous romance, Julie looking befuddled, Hudson already dead, the mistimed comedy, and the astoundingly boring songs deaden this spectacular film into being irritating. LILI is like a twee 1940s mega musical with some vulgar bits to spice it up. STAR! released the year before sadly crashed and now is being finally appreciated for the excellent film is genuinely is... and Andrews looks sublime, mature, especially in the last half hour......but LILI is POPPINS and DOLLY frilly and I believe really killed off the mega musical binge of the 60s..... and made Andrews look like Poppins again... which I believe was not Edwards intention. Paramount must have collectively fainted when they saw this: and with another $20 million festering in CATCH 22, and $12 million in ON A CLEAR DAY and $25 million in PAINT YOUR WAGON....they had a financial abyss of CLEOPATRA proportions with $77 million tied into 4 films with very uncertain futures. Maybe they should have asked seer Daisy Gamble from ON A CLEAR DAY ......LILI was very popular on immediate first release in Australia and ran in 70mm cinemas for months but it failed once out in the subs and the sticks and only ever surfaced after that on one night stands with ON A CLEAR DAY as a Sunday night double. Thank god Paramount had their simple $1million (yes, ONE MILLION DOLLAR) film LOVE STORY and that $4 million dollar gangster pic THE GODFATHER also ready to recover all the $77 million in just the next two years....for just $5m.... incredible!


I'm not a big fan of musicals, although this technically might not qualify as a musical. But I thought I would give it a chance as I love war movies. It was mediocre at best.

Hudson seems totally out of kilter in this role. It just didn't work for me. Julie Andrews probably played her part as best as she could, but I just find it hard to buy her as a conniving, deceptive spy. Sorry, I know that is classic stereotyping on my part. But I have to say I think this is Julie at her most beautiful and feminine looking. I always thought of her as more matronly, but then surely that's a result of her roles in Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. No doubt they were desperately trying to get her out of that typecasting in this role. She was quite beguiling in appearance here, but I still didn't buy her as a spy.

I couldn't keep my focus through the whole movie and found myself tuning in and out - and having conversations with those in my room (which I usually never do - I'm always shushing everybody). So that tells you how little it held my attention. Don't waste your time!


Blake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, "24 million dollars worth of film and no picture".


A tough sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of "King Lear" (during an Air Raid!), yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit, whose dresser was Ronald Harwood, this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the next he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real feeling in the film. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's nothing much to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1/2 from ****


I wish I knew what to make of a movie like this. It seems to be divided into two parts -- action sequences and personal dramas ashore. It follows Ashton Kutsher through survival swimmer school, guided by Master Chief Kevin Costner, then to Alaska where a couple of spectacular rescues take place, the last resulting in death.

I must say that the scenes on the beach struck me as so stereotypical in so many ways that they should be barnacle encrusted. A typical bar room fight between Navy guys and Coast Guardsmen ("puddle pirates"). The experienced old timer Costner who is, as an elderly bar tender tells him, "married to the Coast Guard." The older chief who "keeps trying to prove to himself that he's still nineteen." The neglected ex wife ashore to whom Kostner pays a farewell visit. The seemingly sadistic demands placed on the swimmers by the instructors, all in pursuit of a loftier goal. The gifted young man hobbled by a troubled past.

The problem is that we've seen it all before. If it's Kevin Costner here, it's Clint Eastwood or John Wayne or Lou Gosset Jr. or Vigo Mortenson or Robert DeNiro elsewhere. And the climactic scene has elements drawn shamelessly from "The Perfect Storm" and "Dead Calm." None of it is fresh and none of the old stereotyped characters and situations are handled with any originality.

It works best as a kind of documentary of what goes on in the swimmer's school and what could happen afterward and even that's a little weak because we don't get much in the way of instruction. It's mostly personal conflict, romance, and tension about washing out.

It's a shame because the U. S. Coast Guard is rather a noble outfit, its official mission being "the safety of lives and property at sea." In war time it is transferred to the Navy Department and serves in combat roles. In World War II, the Coast Guard even managed to have a Medal of Honor winner in its ranks.

But, again, we don't learn much about that. We don't really learn much about anything. The film devolves into a succession of visual displays and not too much else. A disappointment.


Alas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day.


Wow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.

And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero.


It seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we get a movie that claims to be "The Next Officer and a Gentleman." There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.

We get the usual ripped off scenes from OAAG ("I want you DOR," the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the sun rising in the East and is horribly miscast on top. Costner plays his usual "wise teacher" character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his limited acting abilities here. Kutcher is terrible in the Richard Gere character, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.

The main problem with this OAAG wannabe is the two main characters are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go "so what? The movie leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say "oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie..." What's more baffling is the great "reviews" I see here. The general public's opinions never cease to amaze me.


This is a pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.


Once again Mr. Costner has dragged out a movie for far longer than necessary. Aside from the terrific sea rescue sequences, of which there are very few I just did not care about any of the characters. Most of us have ghosts in the closet, and Costner's character are realized early on, and then forgotten until much later, by which time I did not care. The character we should really care about is a very cocky, overconfident Ashton Kutcher. The problem is he comes off as kid who thinks he's better than anyone else around him and shows no signs of a cluttered closet. His only obstacle appears to be winning over Costner. Finally when we are well past the half way point of this stinker, Costner tells us all about Kutcher's ghosts. We are told why Kutcher is driven to be the best with no prior inkling or foreshadowing. No magic here, it was all I could do to keep from turning it off an hour in.


I`m in two minds about FOLLOWING , the film debut of Christopher Nolan . Part of me admires it for costing 6,000 dollars to make but part of me hates it for being too art house . In many ways it reminds me of the cult movie PI , a film I disliked , and I can`t get my head around the central plot of a man who wants to be writer following people around . Wouldn`t it be more logical for someone wanting to be a writer to sit in front of a keyboard and write ?

Oh well I guess FOLLOWING gives indie film makers hope that just because they made a no budget movie costing $6,000 over two thousand IMDB members will vote for it and over five hundred members will comment on it , but you have to wonder if this movie would be so well regarded if it wasn`t made by the director of MEMENTO ?


the usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).

The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big "climax" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.

For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it.


I have watched this movie twice in the past six months (what I go through so you don't have to).The first viewing left me half crazed and babbling.The second viewing at 5am on a rainy morn was a little better.I only screamed in agony once.

 Seems Pocona (The Aztec Mummy)had the hots for a certain Aztec Princess who was"supposed to keep her maiden".Obviously they gave each other the business and were put to death for it.(Now that is severe!).But before they are the film tries to put us to death with a screeching Aztec ceremony.The singing will make your ears bleed.

 Anyhow there is the usual reincarnation nonsense. Not to mention a treasure map on a breastplate & bracelet guarded by that swathed slob,Pocona.By this time Pocona looks like he's been on a 2000 year bender and is after the defilers of his tomb.His groans & moans sounds like he has a bad case of Montezuma's revenge(or he read the script for this movie).That will make your breath stink.

 An evil Dr Von Krupp appears wanting the Aztec treasure(possibly to finance acting lessons & screenwriting classes for cast & crew).He is called The Bat because in The Curse Of The Aztec Mummy he wore a bat like cape, hat and something like a ski mask over his face.Guess it's better than the Laughing Fat Man.

 The Bat in typical mad scientist fashion wants to rule the world. He stresses this by rolling his eyes,laughing maniacally and chewing the scenery.He has cobbled together an invincible robot.Looks like the 'bot was made from a garbage can, a chandelier and the grill of a 1957 Buick.This will make your eyes bleed.A company even takes credit for making this tin can!

 Well the mighty showdown between Pocona and the Robot takes place in the Mummy's new crypt having been made homeless earlier.

 About half of this movie is culled from "La Aztec Momia"never released in the US in its original form but in a chopped atrocity from Jerry Warren(see my review on "Attack Of The Mayan Mummy") and "Curse Of The Aztec Mummy".The robot is frankly stupid as are most of the characters.If that and the plot doesn't make you howl with laughter nothing will.

 My first impression was so bad it would have gotten a one. But after seeing "Mayan Mummy"(which is a movie deserving of being burned) and watching "Robot" again, it garners a 3.You have to watch this with no expectations at all. Then it can be naively pleasant.


"RVAM"'s reputation preceded it. I first heard of it in one of those Medved style movie books, "The 50 Worst Movies Ever" or "The Golden Turkey Awards", or something like that. Every review of the film basically said that this movie was so bad that it would make you bleed from the eyes to watch it. So when the Exposed Film Society finally got around to showing it, I was anticipating the kind of cathartic experience that only a true cinematic stinker can provide.

However, "Robot" wasn't really all that bad.

Oh, this is definitely a "Z" film through and through. Some of the voice dubbing (as is usually the case for K. Gordon Murray imports) is awfully cheesy, and the movie itself seems to be structurally something of a Frankenstein, since a huge chunk of it seems to be footage from a previous "Aztec Mummy" movie, narrated with a voice-over by the leading man. A dead giveaway: anytime the question "Then what happened?" is asked more than twice in the dialog, you are looking at reassembled footage put together with little regard for plot coherence or momentum. In RVAM, "Then what happened?" or "What happened then?" is uttered at least four times in the 1st hour.

Even without the structural problems, the plot and dialog don't translate well to an older American audience. For instance, as the hero explains (and explains and explains) the back-story. he includes a remark about Doctor Krupp, "a doctor who suddenly turned into an evil master criminal" and began his quest for the treasure that the Aztec mummy guards. No background, no explanation, he just "suddenly turned evil". Obviously, this was aimed at a pretty undiscriminating audience.

The clincher, though, is the "Robot", the supposed "showcase" of this movie. This Robot is the worst robot special effect since "Undersea Kingdom" or even "Santa Claus Vs. The Martians". Compared to this hunk of junk, the Tin Man from the "Wizard Of Oz" looked like the Terminator chassis that chased Linda Connor through the foundry in T2. The Aztec Mummy himself is well designed and executed; he's recognizably undead, familiar enough to look like a mummy, and yet distinct from the "Boris Karloff" bandage collection familiar to most American audiences. But whoever designed the Robot in this followup had no feel for the concept...or no budget. They could at least have given him some knees, for heaven's sake.

In addition, the titular battle is terribly executed and lasts less than 60 seconds. (I've seen shoving matches on junior high playgrounds that are more convincing.) Then the movie basically just stops. That seems a bit of a rip off considering the amount of time the movie spends building up to the battle itself.

In spite of all these problems, the movie isn't horrible or incompetent the way a Coleman Francis film or a Larry Buchanan film was. Compared to "Monster A-Go-Go" or "Attack of The Eye Creatures", "RVTAM" is like a Coppola film. It's just kind of dull and boring and silly. The actors are competent (in a mannered B movie way) and reasonably photogenic; Dr. Krupp, in particular seems to be having a wonderful time as he leers and plots and capers about in his cape and "Phantom Of the Opera" suit. I often found myself rooting for him, in spite of his being the villain.

Anyway, I've seen much, much worse. File this with "Samson Vs The Vampire Women", under "interesting Mexican juvenile oddities".


This movie should have been billed as three movie-summaries linked together to form a full-length feature film (including lots of shots of people slowly walking down dark corridors and streets). BE WARNED! The first hour of this movie is simply a re-hash of the first two Aztec movies as told by the main character. The actual movie doesn't start until the thing is almost over. I must say, the overacting on the part of the Bat is quite hilarious.

As for the robot, I thought a robot was a mechanical device that may or may not resemble a human. The Bat's "robot" consists of a radioactive reanimated corpse encased in a lead robot-body. As Tom Servo put it, "He's not that impressive; he doesn't even have knees!" That, and it takes the robot about an hour just to lumber across the room. But once he catches you, WATCH OUT! He'll disintegrate you with a touch (powered by radium? Pluh-ease!).

This is a great movie when accompanied by Joel and the Bots. Otherwise, you're just a glutton for abuse.


Despite having a very pretty leading lady (Rosita Arenas, one of my boy-crushes), the acting and the direction are examples of what NOT to do while making a movie.

Placed in southern Mexico, Popoca, the Aztec Mummy (real Aztecs, by the way, DID not made mummies) has been waken up by the lead characters and starts making trouble in Mexico City suburbia, during the first movie (The Aztec Mummy). In this second part, the leading man and woman want to find th mummy and put it in its final resting place (a fireplace would have been my first choice...)

Into this appears The Bat, a criminal master-mindless stereotype of a criminal genius who creates a "human robot" (some idiot inside a robot SUIT) to control Popoca and (get this) take over the world. The final match between the robot and the mummy is hilarious, some of the worst choreography ever witnessed. The funniest part is that this movie was made and released by a serious Mexican movie studio!

The acting is just as awful hearing the movie in Spanish as it is in English (they dubbed the over-acting!). You should watch this movie through MST:3000. The comments are even funnier.


I am a big fan of bad horrors, cheap horrors, b movies, and all that bottom 100 movies, and I do not deny those are the worst stuff ever to enter the big screen, or even your home video for that matter. Some of them, e.g. the infamous Manos The Hands of Fate, are truly bad, and watching them, especially on your own without any friends and beer around, is a torture for a good cinema taste.

La Momia Azteca Contra El Roboto Humano, however, was not that bad. Well, of course it's BAD - it's silly, dated, corny, cheap, etc., there's an Aztec mummy, a tin robot, a fat masked villain, a mad scientist, Mexican mobsters, etc. the montage is poor, the lines, well, let's say the lines are not theatrical, the FX and SFX are the best what the Mexican low budget production could've offered, etc. etc. Still, the movie is FUN. it's so bad it makes you laugh cheerfully for an hour time. Sure it depends on one's sense of humor, however I'm pretty sure La Momia should teach any newcomers to this kind of cinema how to enjoy it. Please note: the movie lasts for about an hour, and I think it's just enough time of silliness one is able to easily digest.

There's also another thing - watching La Momia can give you a clue what was the whole SF/Horror genre concept back in the fifties, when you compare it to the present day Matrix era of cinema entertainment. I think it also shows how both the industry and the audience evolved, due to the fact the watches like La Momia still attract full house in the theaters for some special shows (movies like this are special alright), and very often receive a standing ovation.


I saw this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.

UPDATE: I saw "Epic Movie" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore!


Ah, such an original title for a very shoddy film. The dubbing is hilarious since the voices and mouths never seem to match. As a result, I had no idea what was going on as I watched this mess unfold. There are flashbacks within the flashbacks and no real time takes place until towards the very end. The Aztec ceremony had me laughing. I rewinded it twice and got the best ab workout ever. The singing Aztec lady is comic naturale and the dancing and costumes are a hoot. Some guy gets a face full of acid, there's a lot of fighting, you have no idea who any character is (not that I really cared), and it's a whole noir mess. Oh, and the actual fight doesn't happen for awhile, so during the movie feel free to get up, take a nap, take a trip. You won't miss anything exciting.


2/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it feels like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a case that it's one of the biggest rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.

I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiful, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a "robot human" or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called "Android vs. the Aztec Mummy", but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says "I might as well begin at the beginning...." what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say "start at the beginning" so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of utilitarian film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.

I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making it.


The first 2/3 of this film wasn't that dissimilar to the American mummy films of the 30s and 40s. Two lovers in ancient Mexico dared to defy the law and were doomed to die. One became an Aztec mummy whose job it was to guard the sacred treasure and his lady love. And the lady was reincarnated in the present day and the mummy was naturally attracted to her. So far, it's all the typical mummy film...though it's quite a bit slower and duller than the American versions. Oh, and of course the Aztec mummy looked really, really crappy.

However, into this standard but boring film there is a super-villain. Why? I dunno--it sure didn't make any sense to have one. It seems this villain wants the treasure and he manages to hypnotize the lady and have her show them where the Aztec treasure is buried. Why does he need the treasure? Well, to buy the equipment needed to make an army of atomic robots, dummy! But first he has to construct a single mummy to defeat the mummy, as the mummy has so far been unstoppable.

You've got to see these "human-robots" as they look like the enormous clunky robots from Flash Gordon and other serials BUT they have a rubber head of a supposed dead guy inside! They really look hilariously funny and seeing the conclusion when there is a huge battle between the lethargic mummy and the equally slow robot is worth sitting through the rest of the dull movie. Both battle in super-slow-motion like they are bathed in taffy... and it's done in such an artless and silly fashion that it is bound to elicit chuckles--certainly not thrills.

Overall, the film is dreadfully dull and a muddled mess--especially at the end. However, for bad movie fans, it's a must-see--it's bad but unintentionally funny and great to watch and laugh at with friends.


Following the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout.


**SPOILERS** The third and mercifully last of the Aztec Mummy trilogy in the fact that the series major star-besides the Mummy- actor Ramon Gay, as Dr. Eduardo Almada, was gunned down by the outraged husband of a woman he was having an affair with on May 28, 1960! Still that didn't stop Gay, in him being edited into them from his previous films, from being in a number of future Mexican horror movies made over the next four years after his death.

In "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" we have the once again mad scientist Dr. Krupp trying to get his hands on the Mummy's golden breastplate and bracelet in order, by having them deciphered, to find the Aztez treasure that's been secretly buried somewhere in modern Mexico City over 500 years ago. "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" is not much as a movie in itself in that its made up of stock footage of the previous Aztec Mummy films that take up over half of the films running time.

After getting introduced to the movie's cast members, some who have been killed in the previous Aztec Mummy films, we get down to the real nitty gritty in it involving the evil as well as criminally insane Dr. Krupp also know as "The Bat". Dr. Krupp-who looks like a wild eyed and crazed Orson Wells-is a man with boundless visions of grandeur in him not only uncovering the long lost Aztec treasure but now, unlike in the two previous movies he was in, creating life and using it in making an army of human robots to take over the world. An idea he must have gotten from watching Ed Wood's 1955 "Atomic Superman" classic "Bride of the Monster".

Unable to handle the Mummy in his two other encounters with it, where he ended up getting thrown by it into a snake pit filled with deadly rattlers, Dr. Krupp had created a robot, with a human cadaver stuffed in it, to the job, of doing in the Mummy, for him. With he Mummy sleeping in its tomb at a local Mexico City cemetery Dr. Krupp has his Robot-Man brake into the Mummy's crypt to do battle with it and destroy it with its bolts of deadly radiation.

***SPOILERS*** The big built-up to the Aztec Mummy Robot-Man confrontation turns to be a big let-down with the Mummy having no trouble at all dispatching the "Tin-Man" in less then 30 seconds together with its creator Dr. Krupp. All this while both Dr. Almada and his friend and assistant Pinacate, who came to the Mummy's aid, have nothing at all to do but sit back and watch the action. Now without the mad and off-the-wall Dr. Krupp annoying it the Mummy can go back to its eternal resting place without ever worrying about the problems of the modern world at large, like Dr. Krupp, that it has really no interest in.


With the dialogue in the dubbed version of this film, I don't think that Shakespeare is in any great danger. This is the story of an ancient Aztec mummy who has been disenfranchised. His stuff has been taken and this really ticks him off. He seems to know who's doing this even though he's a gyrating, raving entity. I loved the two dull men who tell the story of how the mummy was found and the doctor who is determined to destroy the creature. There are all these scenes in this ridiculous graveyard, full of cheap crosses and other junk. There's a mausoleum where the mummy is kept. I can't begin to reproduce the idiocy of this, including a snake pit where the good doctor is thrown (there is a door next to it so he can crawl out) to the robot, a mass of metal cans with a guy inside. The dialogue is awful. There are long pauses between speeches as if someone offstage is feeding them their lines. I love the scene where the two little kids accuse their mother of going out at night (she goes into this zombie state or something). Nonetheless, if your looking for a film that you can laugh at and never takes itself seriously, watch this. Have a couple beers first. Like a direct line from the mummy's tomb, "Watch this and your eyes will bleed and your breath will stink." What more can I say?


Mexican 'classic' was the third entry in the Aztec Mummy series. As you will soon find out, this movie is anything but a classic, instead, it's more like a movie that deliberately tries to bore you.

Some scientist wants to steal Aztec treasure from a tomb, but guarding that tomb is that walking toilet paper commercial: The Aztec Mummy. Knowing he can't beat the Mummy, he then builds a robot, and a very bad one at that. We only get to see Mr.Robot in the last reel, as he clunks around, and does battle with the Aztec Mummy.

I have seen a lot of lousy Sci-Fi films, hell most Sci-Fi films I see are lousy, but this one, for it's entire duration of 64 Minuites, is the worst movie I've seen, with Fubar coming in a close second....

In conclusion: Don't waste your time.