"San Francisco, Oh you marvelously desolated town, Thank You, God, for destroying it, and making bricks fall on our collective heads, and for pummeling into oblivion tens of thousands of Your innocent, obedient sheep, oh Lord, who art so merciful in thy Heavenly ways..." These should have been the lyrics to the title song of this oh-so inspiring and utterly mindless film.

The movie starts well enough, with Gable discovering a Cinderella with a highly annoying but much-appreciated operatic voice, and she soon shoots to stardom. One of the many problems with our Cinderella is that she is played by Jeanette MacDonald, who, if one "takes the time" to look through all that make-up and 30s glitz facade, realizes that she is kind of ugly. Too ugly to be playing THIS role, anyway. Yet Gable and everyone else fawn all over here as if she were some damn beauty or something. Another problem with Cinderella is that her character is so utterly humble, wholesome, innocent, God-loving, kind, and generous - enough to make you vomit for a full hour. MacDonald plays her (admittedly one-dimensional) role with the sort of "ahhh", "oh", and "ooh" that serves to annoy rather than make her sympathetic.

Tracy has been better, and had better roles, than playing this clichéd, heart-of-gold, God-loving, non-child-molesting priest (who boxes in his "free time" - as if priests have anything to do - how cute). Even the ever-reliable Gable is not up to his usual standard; he is far too animated, and his character is far too selfless for someone who is supposed to be an ambitious Western "scoundrel" (though this, obviously, is the script's fault).

The plot is basically this: Gable and his rival Holt play ping-pong with Cinderella - using her as the ball. How? Well, first she is working (singing) for Gable, then she works for the square Holt, then she goes back to Gable, only to return very soon to Holt. (And, of course, both want to have her as girlfriend/wife.) And if the earthquake hadn't interrupted this table-tennis plot, it's a safe bet that she would have been bouncing back-and-forth another ten times, the wishy-washy little princess that she is.

There are many, far too many in fact, musical numbers. It's almost as though they tried to make the first "disaster-movie musical" ever. How silly. The stuff she sings in Gable's "joint" is okay, but when she starts belting out those high-pitched, annoying whines during the opera segments, that is when I felt that my ears were unprovokingly and unjustly attacked by enemy sound-fire. In fact, there is an opera number that lasts 6 DAMN MINUTES. 6 may seem like little, for those who haven't had first-hand Vietoperanam experience with such horrors of audio torture, but it's like with dog years; a dog's year is equivalent to seven human ones. A minute of opera is equivalent to 100 minutes of Chinese torture (or a dog urinating acid on your leg).

I thought this was a disaster movie, but it's more like a near-disaster movie. (I read that some of the dialog in this film was written by a SILENT-ERA FILM DIRECTOR. Jesus...) The melodramatic, and only occasionally amusing, proceedings get interrupted by the real star of this movie (namely, the earthquake), only after well over one-and-a-half hours. When Joe the earthquake finally does shake up the city, and our clichéd characters in it, I almost felt like saying "Thank God, death and destruction are finally here!". Unfortunately, Joe comes too late into the movie to save it from its increasing mediocrity; the scenes of devastation are very good, but even the earthquake part of the movie gets ruined (pun) by a highly annoying, religious ending. You see, Gable, who professes to be an atheist all along (without actually using the word itself), finally finds MacDonald alive - after having searched for days - and suddenly he is converted into a believer because Cinderella is alive?!! How stupid! All that tells me is that Gable's character is a weak-minded moron.

The movie ends on a very dumb note, indeed. Gable, having said "thank you" to God for "saving" his girl (and he does his on his knees) "finds" God (sees the light), and the movie's little old devil Gable converts himself into a believer. How very God-fearingly American an ending...

Of course, no one thought of asking this "God" why the hell there was an earthquake in the first place! The sad and unintentional irony is that Gable in the end becomes a "sucker"; all along he had made fun of "suckers" who fall for the holiest scam of them all - namely religion - and in the end he himself becomes one. Now that's what I call a triumph of the human spirit! Another irony is that the ending was supposed to have improved Gable as a person, but I see it quite differently; on the contrary: it took only one big Joe to turn Gable into a God-fearing, meek, little, obedient believer - who joins the world's sheep family. And as if this intellectual downfall of Gable's wasn't pathetic and disappointing enough, this first-ever "earthquake musical" ends with a truly hair-raising (take this word as you will), noble, and hope-inspiringly beautiful mass-choir scene: dozens (or hundreds) of earthquake survivors and proud, proud citizens of Frisco spontaneously (or did "God" perhaps arrange it?) sing all together the title song in hope for a better, brighter, Joe-less future. Hallelujah! If you are a "sucker" for Hollywood sentimentality, do not skip this movie.


This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the "Jeanette MacDonald picture;" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good.

The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..


I was expecting to view a more exploitation style of film but unfortunately this turned out to be just a badly made low budget action flick that just doesn't have the talent for that. Story is about a very beautiful woman named Teri Marshall (Heather Thomas) who's boyfriend Rick (Jeffrey Combs) works for a secret agency and he has invented a motorcycle that is bullet proof and can shoot lasers and rockets and has a helmet that can shoot lasers as well. The head of the agency Bosarian (Martin Landau) has made a 5 million dollar deal to sell it and sends two hired thugs to kill Rick and Teri and collect the bike. A tall blond thug named Rolf (Dar Robinson) and his partner Hanna (Dawn Wildsmith) manage to kill Rick but Teri survives. While at home she discovers a video tape that Rick left describing his invention that helps Teri on what to do next.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Teri is being chased by several agents and she gets caught and tortured but doesn't talk about where a piece of the motorcycle that is needed but she gets help from a federal agent named Waters (Martine Beswick) where they end up using the motorcycle for a bloody shoot-out.

This film is directed by Fred Olen Ray who has made his career out of making ultra-low budget exploitation films but he made a dire mistake here by leaving out the exploitation aspect and trying to make an action film. Aside from a quick shower scene at the beginning there is no nudity and the usual titillation that viewers are accustomed to seeing in a Ray film is no where to be found. I don't think anyone was expecting Thomas to get naked but she doesn't wear one sexy outfit. Not that it stopped me from ogling her in those tight jeans and admiring her near perfect form but Ray really blew it in this case. Like all of his films the cast is fun to watch and many familiar faces have roles like Robert Quarry, Huntz Hall, Troy Donahue, Tim Conway Jr., Michael Reagan, and Russ Tamblyn. Stuntman Dar Robinson died shortly after this was made and it's his last acting effort and the film is dedicated to him. You have to wonder why Landau would waste him time with such junk like this but I was interested in the casting of Combs in a very rare romantic role. Is Thomas any good in this film? Who cares! I think she showed that she could have become a popular "B" movie starlet if she wanted but it never did happen. Ray wastes everyone's time with this effort although the cast is fun to watch but he left out the elements that make him an enjoyable filmmaker.


Although I am a fan of Heather Thomas and I have a few of her old bikini posters around here somewhere, I can honestly say that if the only movie I had ever seen her in was "Cyclone", I would never be able to guess why she had made it as far as she had in show business.

Directed by Fred Olen Ray (about as good an omen as seeing buzzards circle over head in the desert), this tale of a woman (Thomas) who must protect a high-tech motorcycle from unscrupulous types is about as "B" movie as it gets (or in Fred Olen's case, "B minus").

The cast itself should tell you something. It's not every movie that combines Thomas with actors the calibre of Beswick, Hall, Combs, Donahue, Tamblyn and Landau (!!). If you're lucky, very few movies do. And even though they seem to be having fun, shouldn't some of that fun be passed on to the audience? I vote yes, seems they voted no.

Of course, if you ever wanted to see Heather deliver an uppercut to another woman, use the "F" word and get hooked up to battery cables, you've probably been looking for this one. Myself, I'll be content with old "Fall Guy" reruns.

One star, given in hopes that when another "Cyclone" hits town, Heather runs for shelter. I know I will.


Rarely does one find a movie so bad that it achieves the often-sought paradigm of having so little redeeming value that that alone makes it worth watching. "Cyclone," I am happy to report, is such a film.

I knew I was in for something good as soon as I found the videotape. I am at least its fourth owner: It has a "Used Movie Sale! $9.95" sticker on the front, and a yard-sale sticker for one dollar. I picked it up at a thrift store for fifty cents.

The Used Movie Sale! sticker covers much of the front cover artwork, meaning that what I see is a truly odd blended still of the front of the Cyclone super bike, a car flipping over on fire, and Heather Thomas, wearing Flouncy Eighties Hair with her mouth open in an expression that says, "I 'ave a 'ooth ache." I saw that and thought, "All RIGHT." The case, honestly, was enough ("with nowhere to turn and no one to trust, Teri is plunged headlong into a maze of danger and deceit"), but I surprised myself by actually getting around to watching it. I always make time for the really bad films. That "Fight Club" tape can wait.

Meet Teri. Teri is a stunningly well-crafted character, as we can tell from her introduction, in which she and her friend do exercises that highlight her breasts and, later, her legwarmers. Then Teri goes off to hook up with her boyfriend for the evening that goes horribly wrong. Before she knows it, Teri is driven "straight into a web of deadly double-crosses in CYCLONE." The VHS box tells it like it is.

Left out of the box summary - perhaps out of some faint hope that actual copies of this film would be sold - is how awful the acting is. It might have been just me, but I kept thinking I could read the characters' thoughts through their eyes. "This is dumb," thinks Heather Thomas. "I know," thinks Bad Guy with Too-Wide Mouth.

A driving force (no pun intended) for the second half of this epic picture are the car chases. Those were actually pretty good, although I'm inclined that gasoline doesn't need coaching on how to explode. What really impressed me is that, in all the chases, the streets were pretty much empty. It's like there are only twenty people in this huge city.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Gee Wilikers! I have to see this movie!" The sad thing, though, is that you can't find it. Oh no. "Cyclone" is a film that finds YOU. Just wait. Some day - perhaps during lunch, perhaps late in the evening, perhaps "when military scientist Jeffery Combs ('Re-Animator')is murdered by hired assassins" - you will hear the rustle of legwarmers, and know that it is time.


This movie was in a box set with 20 others, with varying quality, & I can safely say that this title was right at the bottom of the heap.

It is pointless to go through the plot, what there was of it, picking out what was wrong, as I haven't got all day & life is to short, which reminds me, I have just lost around 85 minutes of mine watching this tripe.

The acting was diabolically bad in a way that made it funny, though only just, whilst the comedy elements like the two idiotic cops must have made any Laurel & Hardy fans groan. One of the only barely funny moments was when the leading lady made a joke about her former friends plastic T*ts, which would have been okay if I hadn't had to watch them bob around whenever she waddled on the screen.

The lowest I can give is one, & it probably deserves that for having Heather Thomas in it, as she was certainly sexy & shapely, though her acting was as bad as everyone else.


The only thing I expected that this film didn't have was an intelligent, talking motorcycle.

This film is just plain awful. I gave it 1 star, which of course, means I enjoyed it tremendously. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad fight choreography. The only real actor in this movie is Martin Landau, who of course does a good job playing the villain, although the character is your standard cardboard cutout evil CEO/Villain. Even the so-called "plot twist" at the end was no shock.

There was so much to make fun of in this movie, I enjoyed it a lot. And it did have a few impressive car wreck stunts.

Like bad movies? Check this one out, ouch. Want a good movie? Not here.


Cyclone is a piece of dreck with little redeeming value, even on the so bad its entertaining front. A friend of mine took the tape from an overflowing St. Vincent DePaul clothes bin. Okay, that may be a little bit dodgy but it was meant to be a clothes bin, not a crappy old VHS bin, something the less fortunate members of our society don't really need to make their lives better. It could be considered a mercy. Watching a movie like Cyclone would really only add to their problems. Anyway the basic premise of a woman with a super-powerful motorcycle that it armed to the teeth with rockets and lasers isn't even properly exploited. The two 'high speed' chase sequences involve vehicles travelling at less than hair raising speeds of around 40 KMPH and a super-fast motorcycle that is in danger of being overtaken by a crappy old station wagon is not that awe inspiring when you get down to it. There is only one scene where the bikes goofy weaponry is used, at the film's climax, and it is laughably ineffectual, or just laughable, when it is. This includes laser beams that look like they should be coming out of the hands of an evil wizard in a cheesy eighties sword and sorcery that produced large bursts of flame which seem to have no noticeable effect on their targets even when they hit directly. The rest of the movie is just tedious hard to watch filler. Lots of bad actors, yes even Combs and Landau suck in this, most of whom seem like they have been lifted from the set of a porno movie stand around exchanging really bad dialogue in a desperate attempt to pus forward the barely coherent plot. There are a few badly staged fight sequences and some excruciatingly unfunny comic relief scenes with some cops and the owner of the motor cycle repair shop. Comedy of the sub Benny Hill horny old man can't stop staring at the female leads chest variety. Basically the 'money' scenes involving the bike actually doing stuff are few and lame and the rest is clunky filler material. Skip it.


Being (somewhat) an independent filmmaker myself, I really understand what these guys were trying to do and it sounds like a good idea. On paper. On 16mm film, however, it's awful. I didn't realize the thing was made in the mid 90's because the film was so grainy and bad I would have sworn this was one of those 30 year old flicks where a porn producer tried to go mainstream. And the sound! Ugh, I don't know what kind of mic they were using to record but it sounds like someone is walking over dead leaves throughout the entire thing. I guess I shouldn't judge too harshly, after all, how many feature films has MY company put out? None, but I'd like to think that we'd at least have good picture and sound quality to go with our poor acting, writing, and directing. A+ for idea, F-- for execution.


Gave it two stars because the DVD cover was good enough to make me buy this piece of horse manure. I paid a dollar for it at the local DVD exchange and I want my money back. I have a couple of good movies(at least I think they're good) that have never seen the inside of a video store. After seeing this, I'm really insulted by that. Light years worse than anything I've ever seen, I can't even recommend this as a campy joke movie. It is so bad, instead of making you laugh it makes you angry. How did this awful film find any kind of distro? I can only believe it was self distributed as the amateurish DVD authoring would suggest. To the producers of this "movie" get out of the business, it's obvious you have no talent for it.


This movie has one or two slightly interesting gags but they are NOT worth the wait. After an unexplained argument between two guys picking up litter in a drive-in movie theatre we cut to a family leaving! Hollywood and driving driving driving driving their camper van across the screen again and again as inane dialogue is voiced over. At least I think it's inane, the terrible song that accompanies this montage is mixed so loud it renders the dialogue at times almost inaudible.

Finally the camper van arrives, at night, at a gas station where the family get out, have another inane conversation, before driving off. The camera then pans across to reveal the actor we have just seen drive away. He talks straight to camera and we realise he is the director of the movie we are watching which is about him, and how he came to make the movie.

A nice idea which ALMOST (but not quite) makes the previous sequences worth the pain.

As the movie unfolds he encounters the two characters we met picking litter at the start of the movie and they all form a motion picture company.

All sorts of not very funny and clumsy comedy ensues as they put together a crew and attempt to raise the cash needed to start filming.

This movie was obviously put together on a shoe string and a promise and there is a nice little idea in here struggling to get out but the execution is so inept that the idea gets lost. Comedy is more than things just falling over and everyone talking (or shouting) at once. So much of the dialogue here is shouted by several actors simultaneously - Robert Altman can do this sort of thing well because he has a script, rehearsals, decent sound techies, and editing facilities. Everyone shouting at the one mike which, by the sound of it, was hidden in a dustbin in the next room, does not make for clarity.


With the little respect it deserves, I would like to state that this movie was horrible. The filmmakers had good intentions, but the overall quality of the direction and production value was obviously lacking a great deal. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good hard laugh and then wasting two more hours of their life enduring a truly painful experience. I'm surprised I even found this movie on the $1 DVD rack where it was aptly placed. I thought maybe it was going to be good and that I might discover some amazing independent film - I was wrong. I wish I had never seen this movie. My 3-year-old cousin couldn't make a worse film. I'm glad I saw the film because I can finally tell people I've seen the worst movie ever made, and be sure of it.


This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.

Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.

Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'.

There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.


Admittedly, I watched the MST3K version of this, but it's not actually too bad outright, at least compared to others which deserve my cinematic hatred.

The story centers around a troubled girl wrongly sent to a "reform school" called Girls' Town. Along way, races, redemption, and wackiness (unintentional) happen. The story and acting are a little flat, as is the action. However, the entire thing is actually entertaining to a degree if you are absolutely bored.

Overall, just a simple sub par 50's flick, but far from the worst movie ever made, with some bright spots in the movie (The Ave Maria sequence was good for me).

If you get a chance to watch the MST3K version, you won't be disappointed. By it self, not so much, but I can think of worse methods of torture ("Spiker" anyone?).


Froggie is upset that he never has a big party like all the other kids. Spanky and the gang seek to remedy that by giving him a surprise party. Unaware that all the decorations and preparations are for him Froggy sabotages everything only to find out too late that the party is for him.

Okay Our Gang comedy works in fits and starts. The bits work but I don't think it really works as a whole. Part of the problem is that we all know where this is going and since much of the humor needs to have some form of surprise for it to work the whole thing falls down. I think in a weird way the film just sort of misses. Its the type of thing that had they actually thought about it might have amounted to something more than a misfire. Worth trying if you lower your expectations


Two years after this short, the last "Our Gang" short was made. After seeing this, you wonder how it even lasted that much longer. The quality of "Our Gang" nosedived soon after moving from Hal Roach to MGM, and this short is a perfect example. The gags are all very unfunny and Froggy's last line of this being the happiest day of his life paints a bad picture in your mind of what it's like for him the rest of the time. A very poor example of film making.


For an indy film this is probably a bit better than a 3 out of 10, but in general it only gets a 3. The effects aren't horrible and at least they have some adults playing adult roles rather than all kids as a lot of indy low budget horror films do. The acting is very wooden, but at least they had a better "display" than some films in the shoestring budget category. It's filmed a lot inside a building rather than a friend's basement. The plot as a whole isn't the worst. It's a Resident Evil rip off about an evil corporation invading a small town and an outbreak makes people into zombies. I would have liked to have seen some sort of creatures rather than the big baddie just be another "super" zombie. I try not to write spoilers but this review has one so be warned!! SPOILER ALERT!!! Not only do some of the cast just seem to shrug past the zombies (the same ones are recycled over and over but at least they have more then 5 people playing them). But one of the plot twists really doesn't fly with me. The deputy who goes inside turns out to be on the evil corporations payroll. He kills one of the other employees in cold blood and then meets with the head bad guy in an office talking about cleaning up the mess. The deputy has just shown us that he is a real bad person too and talks like he can clean it up (meaning kill all the surviving witnesses) no problem. But then 2 seconds later, he is helping them out. There was no real "change of heart" emotion or anything to make me feel that this bad guy went from killing an innocent guy just minutes ago and then talking about taking everyone out no problem to being their savior. There was no incident or anything to make me buy into this. Worth watching if you are a fan of low budget flicks, otherwise you will not enjoy this.


This film is perfect for over the top cheesy zombie lovers. its a film you can laugh at from the acting to the terrible zombie action. that being said, i gave this a 4 outta 10 for effort cos horror is a hard genre to make. going down the list the bad points of this film were as following.

#Bad make up #terrible sound and sound effects #really bad continuity #cheesy dialogue #one song played through the whole film #stein couldn't act and in my opinion one of the worst I've seen #terrible ending #racist moment and stealing Simpson's character named

the good points #good costume #police officers seemed to have the best acting exp #the actors with less lines or small roles did appear to be better #good attempt with gore

i don't wanna bad mouth the film, its funny to watch cos of these bad points and i think thats what makes this film OK. if it was any better i don't think it would of made any difference but it wouldn't be interesting to see a remake with all the same cast as i believe they have possibly improved over the last 7 years.


The film is a pathetic attempt to remake Ingmar Bergman's "Autumn Sonata"(1978) starring Ingrid Bergman,Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson.It did not take me more than 5 minutes to figure that out.

It is time Film journalists like Khalid Mohammad took out time to do some creative thinking. It makes me sad when potentially good film-makers waste their talents by making substandard remakes of Hollywood and European films.

You've got to give the film-maker something though. The film he picked for copying is one of Bergman's classics, and easily one of the finest instances of the portrayal of a strained human relationship in European cinema.


Certainly not a bad little low budget film, this "Bride of the Gorilla", but nothing special, neither, and not memorable enough to be ranked among the meaningful Sci-Fi efforts of its time. Director Curt Siodmak was an eminent scriptwriter during the 1930's and 1940's and delivered stories for some true genre classics ("I walked with a Zombie", "The Wolf Man") but, as a director, he obviously lacked the required competences. "Bride of the Gorilla" is similar to the aforementioned "The Wolf Man" in story and atmosphere, but the film looks a lot more amateurish and pitiful. Both handle about cursed men that turn into large animals at night, but the titular gorilla doesn't look half as threatening as the werewolf, even though the film got released a whole decade later. During a cheesy opening speech, actor Lon Chaney tries to convince us that the jungle is an ominous place and hiding many mysteries, but actually there's no real mystery in the plot. It's just handles about a plantation manager who's jealous at his older colleague for having such a beautiful young wife and he kills him. A native woman witnesses his crime and puts a spell on Barney that causes him to transform into a hideously big gorilla at night... Or maybe she just wants him to believe he's turning into a hideously big gorillaLon Chaney himself plays the police commissioner charged with the murder investigation while Raymond Burr (who starred in about a thousand Perry Mason TV-movies) portrays the greedy plantation manager/nightly gorilla. Siodmak attempts to make the film look like a supernatural thriller  is it or is it not all just happening in Barney's head?  fail miserably and it causes way too much talking and too few jungle-action. Several of the jungle-settings are nicely pictured but the rest of the "special" effects are tacky and poorly done. Still the acting is pretty good, Barbara Payton is looking beautiful and  although very predictable  the story is strangely compelling until the very end. Weird movie, it probably voodoo-cursed me


It is a story as old as man. The jealousy for another man's wife and possessions. There are even commandments against it.

In this story, Raymond Burr ("Perry Mason", "Ironside") is the manager of a runner plantation who lusts after the owners wife and feels that he isn't treated with respect. The wife, the starlet Barbara Payton, who was trying to make a comeback after a string of sordid affairs, was lusting after Burr, who killed her husband, Paul Cavanagh.

But, lurking about was a strange woman, the housekeeper (Gisela Werbisek) who sees everything, and who was capable of some voodoo to avenge the wronged, which also included another young woman (Carol Varga) to whom Burr also professed love.

Burr is poisoned and becomes , or thinks he becomes, a gorilla. Payton will have to mate with Kong if she ever wants her marriage consummated, as he goes into the jungle every night.

The end is predictable. But, the stirring question of this film is why Payton would ever be afraid. With those sharply pointed missiles jutting out from her chest, no animal could get near her to do harm.


The cast and crew of this cheap horror potboiler are more interesting than anything that occurs throughout the movie itself; we have Barbara Payton, Raymond Burr, Lon Chaney Jr., Tom Conway, Paul Cavanaugh and Woody Strode in front of the camera and writer-director Curt Siodmak, cinematographer Charles Van Enger, editorial supervisor Francis D. Lyon and production assistant Herman Cohen behind it. The ill-fated Payton turns the head of virtually every male she comes in contact with deep in the African jungle where she lives on husband Cavanaugh's plantation: doctor Conway secretly desires her while hot-headed foreman Burr's approach is, quite literally, more hands-on. On the other hand, Chaney is (surprisingly enough) the laid-back but knowing authoritarian figure and Strode is a native police official. The plot is very simple but, frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense: after a particularly agitated dinner complete with thunderstorm, Burr and Cavanaugh (art imitating life  more on that later) come to blows in the garden over their affection for Payton and, conveniently for Burr, a large snake just happens to be crawling near where Cavanaugh hits the ground! Witnessing the event from behind the bushes, Payton's enigmatic maid (a native witch, no less), for some inexplicable reason, puts a curse on Burr (who has in the meantime married Payton) that periodically turns him into a gorilla...starting from his very wedding day (when his hand briefly turns hirsute)! Consequently, Burr takes to losing himself in the jungle for days on end  even if the ape creature itself is barely glimpsed throughout the film. It must be said, however, that the version that I watched ran for just 56 minutes when the 'official' length is elsewhere given as either 66, 70 or 76!! Therefore, the film feels understandably rushed and disjointed if never less than campily enjoyable as it culminates in the gorilla's subjectively-shot chasing of Payton in the jungle, with the former being itself pursued by the gun-toting Chaney and Conway. To get back to the film's tragic blonde leading lady for a minute: after a promising start in movies next to such Hollywood legends as James Cagney and Gary Cooper  in, respectively, KISS TOMORROW GOODBYE and DALLAS (both 1950)  her career soon nose-dived into B (and lesser) grade territory thanks to her own 'colorful' off-screen antics: her most notorious misdemeanor was being the cause of a much-publicized bar-room brawl between suave husband Franchot Tone and brutish former lover Tom Neal which ended with the former in a coma and Payton actually deserting him for the latter shortly thereafter!! But that was not all: nymphomaniac Payton also boasted that Woody Strode was among her conquests (a controversial issue at the time); short-lived husband Tone, having caught Payton's infidelities on camera, spread the damning photographic evidence around Hollywood and this virtually served to end her days as a starlet  her last film appearance being Edgar G. Ulmer's MURDER IS MY BEAT (1955) which I happen to have in my "Unwatched Movies" pile. The last 12 years of her tumultuous life were spent on Skid Row in the throes of booze, drugs, prostitution, beatings, arrests and even a stabbing  before, eventually, dying in 1967 in her parents' home at the young age of 39!


This movie was cheesy and it was more than that. It was about this guy who gets a curse on him and he turns into a gorilla. I had to see how bad it was because of the title. Before this guy turns into a gorilla, he gets married. I was a little upset because she wasn't a bride of a gorilla: she is now the wife of the gorilla. She should have married him when he was a gorilla then the title would have made more sense. There are all these people in the middle of the jungle too and they all want to leave. This isn't just a B movie, it's more like a Z movie. I didn't even see any bananas for a wedding gift. Oh, right he wasn't cursed yet.


Barbara Payton is the suppose-to-be sultry sexy young hot Chickie wife of the geezer plantation owner somewhere in a jungley back lot set at a cheap studio in Hollywood. Raymond Burr wears his working shirt with the top button undone as the hunky chunky plantation foreman who Mrs Payton is desiring to blow the joint with. There is another girl, some sort of peasant slave thing that Burr used to fool around with but he's given her the old heave ho so the obligatory squatty old voo-doo hag is conjuring up a good spell to cast on him and the Payton tramp. I watched this only part way through because its really awful, so didn't even get to see the star of the show---which I guess is a gorilla that the voo-doo hag turned someone into or whatever.....who cares. I give this one half star out of a possible ten. It's not even campy, just really bad.


Of course I have disappeared into the movies. The Neil Young concert film 'Heart of Gold.'

There have been many great concert films through the years. The best being Martin Scorsese's 'The Last Waltz' which filmed the Band's last concert at Filmore West. A phenomenal concert and a phenomenal film, that is if you love rock and roll and felt as if you had been born into it and were part of the music, and could be in the band if you had a better guitar and someone would show you the chords and that with a few chords and a lyric or two you could change the world...as you can guess I felt all five to the bottom of my twenty four year old soul.

Neil Young was in 'The Last Waltz.' They had to digitally, before digital actually, they had to manually scrape a big hanging cocaine rock that extruded from his nose so in the film there's a bright light that is not the star of Bethlehem dangling above his lip and below his nostril...it's a famous bit of rock and roll history.

But 'The Last Waltz' was made when the Band and Neil and everyone else was in their thirties and 'Heart of Gold' was filmed last year when Neil is in his sixties and his band looks as if they are in their late nineties and the entire movie could visually be used by the Christian Right and the DEA in the same way that those Ohio State Patrol films of the perils of drunk driving were used when I was in high school showing dead teenagers hanging through front windows or dangling from trees or bloody in a ditch.

Close your eyes and it is a terrific concert, open them and view Dorian Grey's hidden portrait. Case in point, the once ethereally beautiful Emmylou Harris literally coming out of the darkness to sing with Neil and from dark to light appearing to be a ring wraith leapt full borne out of the river in front of Rivendale. Ghastly, ghostlike, a nose that doesn't appear in nature and is not an advertisement for plastic surgery, eyes that make buttons on dolls look lifelike, and the ability to express any emotion, human or not, constrained by unrestrained over indulgence in Botox. My mind reeled...porcupine...Peru...Jack Daniels...living hard for decades...my god...sweet Emmylou Harris who I saw sing for free at Fred's in Boulder, a face a 2000 year dead Pharoah would not accept. But the voice, as pure as a thick lipped bottle of Boulder beer brewed from the waters of Boulder Creek and I closed my eyes and smelled ammmmmbbbererrrrrrrrrgerrrrrrrssss (an homage...one must use homage at least once in any film review...to Fred's hamburgers on Boulder Mall and the Steve Martin Pink Panther movie).

It would have been a terrific concert sitting in the dark in Ryman Auditorium, maybe twenty rows back. But, close up, in close ups, it was a medieval morality play depicting the horrors of indulgence and the consequences of a sinful life.

The concert theme, emblazoned on the scenery, A Prairie Wind...the last song, massed guitars (I counted eight) and I wondered if irony was at play. I don't think so. A Native American bass player, a lead guitarist who looked and dressed like Buffalo Bill, a piano player whose face looked like the screamer's face in Munch's The Scream, the chick singers (actually matronly singers, mostly reminding one of the lost youth of senior United flight attendants still plying the friendly skies) dressed in matching full length distressed denim dresses...no it was played straight.

None of them had seen, I would bet, A Mighty Wind.

It will be a great CD, and would be glad to tell tales of hippy dippy Boulder when Neil was a long haired Canadian crooner whose indecipherable lyrics seemed to mirror heartache and loss, feelings as universal then as now.

But, only in a dark bar.


I walked into Heart Of Gold thinking I was going to watch a documentary about Neil Young. Instead, I witnessed a self-serving tribute to the arrogance of aging baby boomers who have lost their edge and forgotten their roots. Highly rated by aging baby boomer critics, directed and performed by more aging baby boomer artists, Heart Of Gold is a bore-fest from start to finish, that is if you can manage to sit through the entire near 2 hour movie. Neil Young and crew have long lost their edge and want the rest of us to join them on a cushioned rocking chair of middle-of-the-road mediocrity. What happened to the raunchy guitar of his earlier solo efforts? I guess all of his fuzz boxes rusted out and his over-driven vacuum tubes exploded in the hot air of his generation. As far as Demme goes, this is the daring director of Something Wild & Melvin And Howard? A student filmmaker could have made a more daring film than this poorly visualized surface performance film. Don't waste your $$ on Heart Of Gold and go straight to The Last Waltz and Gimmie Shelter. And if you really want to dig deep into the personality of a rock and roll icon, scrounge up a copy of Chuck Berry: Hail Hail Rock And Roll which is sorely out of print. And baby boomers, don't bother squawking about how this review is jaded by someone younger. I too am one of those baby boomers who listened to Cinnamon Girl on acid and danced in the streets to the Stones' Street Fighting Man. Go back and watch Don't Look Back or Gimmie Shelter and then come back and tell me that Heart of Gold has any worth as a document.


This movie has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a "10") from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given.

The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here.


Julien Hernandez is certainly an attractive and likable on screen persona. In fact, his character pretty much carries this whole film, or what's worthwhile about it. The problem is, with the exception of his gal pal (played by Marisa Petroro) and Paul Lekakis (as a trick/date/ boyfriend for some of the characters) no one else even comes close. Hernandez plays a 30- something director of Cuban heritage, and unknown sexuality, who comes to L.A. and gets a job making a gay documentary. In the process of meeting a group of gay people while finding subjects, he comes out...but very s l o w l y. Even at 88 minutes, the film has obviously been stretched out and padded with various film-school devices, most of which only end up pointlessly interrupting the narrative (which ain't much to begin with) or pointing out the overall amateurish-ness of the film-making.

Which is a shame, because there's a love story in here somewhere, and the final three minutes, when Hernandez's Sebastien finally clicks with a wealthy West Hollywood party- thrower (nicely underplayed by Lonnie Henderson) and they share some sexy soulful kisses, it works despite all that came before. But we don't really care about any of the other characters or their situations: Why would handsome Dante have a Eurotrash priss for a boyfriend? He wouldn't. And don't even get me started on Sebastien's friend Paulie's "rules" for dating -- no gay man I know, hell no sane person, period, would put such constrictions on himself or others. And please tell me how Sebastien gets a peeled banana (which is normally fairly shmushy, right?) stuck up his butt and has to go to a doctor to get it removed?

I noticed Hernandez won an award for this film as a "short" -- it probably should have stayed that way. All this said -- I'd look forward to seeing Hernandez on screen again, in a better scripted comedy with more assured direction.


I really wanted to like this film but it barely eked out a 3. It's surprising that equal amounts of the votes were 10, the other half 1. All the characters were entertaining and even talented but as a whole the film didn't pay off. Sebastian Hernandez is appealing; charismatic and likable (he even physically resembles Marc Anthony in a more approachable yet ultimately conscious sort of way...) but even he couldn't save this mess of a movie. Scenes dragged on far too long and points were ultimately beaten to death. The banana scene fringed on self-absorption, seemingly showing how much movement was in his boxers. But in his defense it was his first movie as director (that I'm aware of) and I appreciate his labor of love. It just left me empty despite what was trying to be said. Ultimately I think the story would have been better handled by a more experienced director. From what I've seen of the 'extras', there is a real story behind this and, perhaps when I finish watching them, I'll appreciate this attempt more.


I unwittingly walked into this "trap" of a movie.

If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.

It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.

It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.

This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the "Gayness" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.

I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as "loud" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.


Greedy land baron in the tiny western town of Prairie City wants all the ranchers off their land, using intimidation tactics and arson to get them to vacate; seems the town is swimming atop oil, and when a Swedish farmer refuses to leave, he's mowed down by the baron's hired gun. The farmer's seafaring son soon arrives, slowly realizing what he's up against and attempting to rally the rest of the residents to fight. Another lawlessness-in-the-West story, with everybody under the thumb of the villain (who naturally holds all the cards). Derivative and uncomfortable at times to watch, with a long wait before our stoic hero finally gets his dander up. Sterling Hayden's half-hearted Swedish accent is a big problem, though he cuts a sturdy, sympathetic presence on the screen and almost makes the picture worth-watching. Director Joseph H. Lewis stages most of the scenes stiffly, like a TV western, and Gerald Fried's bugle-heavy score is no help, though the rich black-and-white cinematography by Ray Rennahan is excellent. An independent production released via United Artists, the film has a bizarre start (beginning with shots from the finale, followed by shots from the movie's midsection), yet it does have a certain needling power which most assuredly gets the viewer on Hayden's side. ** from ****


Big (and we mean plus sized big) baddie Sebastian Cabot is trying to run salt of the earth farmers off their land in order to get the oil rights. When sea faring Sterling Haden's pop is killed, how will Haden put an end to TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, armed only with a harpoon?

First off, this isn't a B-western. There are no singing cowboys, no daredevil stunts, no interesting action sequences. It's just an independent movie -- you know, the ones that use unimportant actors to say "important things" and cover the general low budget vapidity of the goings on with Interesting Camera Angles.

Second, this movie, to avoid compromises (one expects) that would cause the elimination of Trumbo's Important Statements about Justice in America, and the rather sick relationship between the chief henchman and his girl, IS really low budget. The main problem that causes is that the acting is really, really bad. Sterling Haden is decent enough in tough roles, but he is the last guy you want playing a sensitive Swedish sailor gone to find his fortune in the West. Sebastian Cabot tries to do a Sydney Greenstreet as (very) bloated plutocrat. It's not a bad idea, but Cabot does not have the acting chops for it. The guy who plays the hired gun with the missing arm and soul (Johnny Crale) has the best role in the film. He does nothing with it.

Third, the script really isn't all that. Trumbo gets some digs in about the immigrant isn't going to get a fair shake from the sheriff in a corrupt town, and the people, when up against real oppression tend to back down. This is a pretty stale movie message by 1958 -- High Noon, Bad Day at Black Rock, Devil's Doorway -- are all Westerns that deal with the evils of Western society with an eye to the evils of 50s America. Trumbo, in '59, certainly had every personal reason to agree with those sentiments, but he isn't doing anything new or interesting with them.

So, given all the negatives, why does this movie get a 4? Mostly because there are interesting quirks throughout the movie. (The relationship between Crale and his girl is, um fascinating.) And Trumbo, while a mediocre writer when pursuing his political affectations, is very good in creating both interesting characters and intelligent interactions between them. Just when one is ready to pass out from Indy movie boredom, will come an exchange of dialog or simple quirkiness that gets one realize that guy writing the script was not simply a hack.

If you don't like Trumbo or westerns, give this one a miss. Otherwise, try it. You might like it more than I did.


Sebastian Cabot is a rich jerk who wants to buy up all the land because there is oil--though none of the locals are aware of the oil. With the help of an evil gunfighter in black, they kill and terrorize everyone. When the son of a murdered man arrives, he refuses to back down and stands up to these forces of darkness.

Wow. As I watched TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, I felt as if I'd seen this film many times before and would probably see something like it again. That's because aside from a few novelties (such as Sterling Hayden using a harpoon on the bad guy), it has a plot that is too familiar. Once again, we've got a rich guy who is trying to drive out all the farmers in order to gain control of all the land. And, to do so, he's brought in hired guns to force people to sell or kill them. Been there, done that in just too many films.

I love Sterling Hayden in films, but just couldn't recommend this as anything other than a poor time passer.


First of all, let me just say that after watching this movie I felt like I'd been sold a bill of goods. Mind you it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has it listen as a comedy first and a horror second (although I don't know how that's entered...maybe some moron from the film's crew put it in). Being a fan of the horror/comedy genre, I checked it out based on that and I'm so, so sorry I did. Where to start? First of all, to touch back on my beginning, there's no comedy in this movie. It tries once or twice, but never gets more than a chuckle at best. My reaction was primarily rolling my eyes and wondering why someone thought such tired material would be funny. Also, there's no horror here. Not a second of tension can be found. You think I'm exaggerating...I am not. No tension, very little blood, and not much violence on screen (sorry, but in a horror flick cutting away just as the good stuff starts is a major foul). Hell...there's even zero nudity. Call me a purist or juvenile...I prefer some in a horror flick if it can't come up with an original plot/premise. And that tired as all hell "reality TV show gone wrong thing"? It's been done before and a lot better. Like Wrong Turn 2 or...ummm....whatever that movie was called with Edward Furlong. That's how bad this movie is. I don't even remember the name of that movie, but it was better than this. I also enjoyed the one comment claiming the timing for this was good because "reality TV is taking over". Did someone from the past post that with a time machine? Are you freaking kidding me? This thing is trash...and not in a fun way.


Realty television crew are assigned to cover a small town high school hockey team running into a serial killer wearing a black mask and hoody. Lots of interviews where the members of the crew(and some of the locals who live in the town of White Plains where most of this film is set)talk into the camera about each other, those they encounter in the town of White Plains, their current situations, and the showbiz side of their lives. The screenplay is often acidic, cynical, and caustic and Killer Movie essentially pokes fun at realty television shows, featuring a cast of characters one might find on The Real World. If this plot is attractive to you, knock yourself out. I found the characters tiresome and the satire is old hat. Out of the cast, Paul Wesley, the director needing a big break, encountering more than he could possibly bargain for, Jake Tanner, is a nice guy, coming off very likable and tolerant of the crap he must contend with, considering the prima donnas and immature people in his entourage who often cause nothing but migraines. Particularly irksome is his producer Lee(Cyia Batten), a tyrant constantly barking orders to everyone, her poisonous attitude creating much tension..she's the type of producer who wishes to capitalize on a small town eruption regarding the killer, using the hockey team cover story as a front to exploit the tragedy occurring in White Plains. Those familiar with Kaley Cuoco know that by now she has perfected the pampered princess, got it down pat because it's the only role we ever see her in most of the time. As Blanca, she's polarizing the way she demands attention, milking what little celeb status she has to the hilt, manufacturing much friction as she becomes a source of frustration, and has quite the potty mouth(Cuoco may've taken the part just so she could escape her usual television sitcom roles, allowed to spout profanity without restriction) Cuoco, along with the entire cast, services Killer Movie as eye candy, but it's hard to find any character you wouldn't want to see hacked to pieces with a meat cleaver. Jason London is the sound/equipment guy, a real creep with a sour attitude, often tormenting the others with his foul comments that are uncalled for. We witness lots of personality clashes, watching how these self-absorbed Hollywood types in the cast snipe at each other. The killer's identity shouldn't surprise anyone, it's quite blatantly obvious. Some minor gore, but most of the violence is shot off-screen. Despite some tame lesbianism, not even this is satisfying. Leighton Meester pops up in the film as a cute victim. Director/writer Jeff Fisher assembles quite an attractive cast, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish this from the innumerable slashers that have stocked the horror shelves over the last ten or so years since SCREAM. While I've never liked any of Cuoco's characters, I never tire of looking at her, but eventually she needs to come up with a role that doesn't consist of her preening, with smug arrogance, always whining and complaining.


I tried. I really, really tried to think of something that would merit rating this higher than a two. It's not that I don't "get it" -- I'm a big fan of Asian cinema. The truth is, the movie is infantile in construction, long-winded, and painfully disjointed.

I suppose that if you are of Alfred Hitchcock's school of thought "Don't tell them, show them," then you could try to appreciate this movie, but you would still be hard pressed.

First of all, The Terrorizers tries stream-of-consciousness in the style of Jean-Luc Godard and fails in this. Edward Yang seems to understand the basics of the technique, but he's very unskilled at it. (Perhaps he gets better with age; I don't know as I haven't yet attempted other Yang films.) The point is, he uses a dearth of "show, don't tell" that really only serves to interrupt the procession of the story. Sure, he gets in some visually arresting images, but they don't draw the story together, and they don't help to make it any better.

Additionally, the major concept behind stream-of-consciousness and "show, don't tell" is that with the right images, the right drama, repetition, and tight correlation, the viewer will be able to make his or her own inferences; not to say that these will be the correct inferences, but those can be amended as the story progresses, and every director should strive for some of this type of audience interaction. In this, Edward Yang sorely disappoints. The viewer is constantly on the periphery. There is no reason to be drawn in, no reason to consider the characters or their motives, no reason to get emotionally involved, and really, no reason to stay alert.

Finally, Yang gets lost in the story that he wants to tell, not the story that the movie itself is telling. His art moves in one direction, but like a large dog he can't control, he's constantly yanking the lead, trying to get it back onto the course he wants, not the one that it is naturally following. The most egregious example of this is the ending. The ending really should have occurred at the moment of the husband's revelation. The ending of the book that the movie is focusing on, (and by extension, a possible ending for the movie) has already been told to us. If Yang had chosen to end at that point, he would have had a much more powerful piece, leaving the watcher in suspense -- does the story play out as the book says, or does Yang's "real world" play out differently? Asking the viewer to think about this is the sort of viewer interaction that Yang painfully needs. Instead, he continues to tell the story he wants to tell, straining the natural conclusion for the sake of what? For the sheer sake of lingering on a main character -- we didn't' need to know more about her superficially, and Yang wouldn't feel the need to tell us if he hadn't made her into a veneer instead of bothering to make her a more engaging and deep character to begin with.

Why else does Yang prolong and torture his movie? To get in some more of those "visually arresting images." The movie truly suffers for it. It wants to end, it has a conclusion that feels natural and leaves the viewer unsettled, but instead, Yang pushes on. Instead, Yang constructs a complex ending that leads the viewer on, causing him or her to constantly ask "so what?" The first ending, the one that Yang ignored, that was good. The second ending, well, my thought was"so what, who cares?", because it's not as if it is introducing something that hasn't been put forth in the storyline already... but the last ending? That really was a waste of time. Not only did the "real" ending leave me disengaged, but I also felt it was an affront to what the story could have been. Yang sacrificed a potentially good story for the bubblegum-melancholy-noir-tinged conclusion that he had insisted upon all along.

My last problem with the movie has nothing to do with the movie itself, but rather its post-production. The subbing (if you see it subbed) is horrible. Long sentences stay up for a second or two, while short ones stay up far too long. Also, as Yang quickly changes images, the subtitles are removed from the screen. This is one of those rare instances that subtitles should be able to stay on the screen even as the image has changed, because there's not much dialog going on anyway.


I still remember when Frog Baseball first aired on MTV. In some sort of odd, surreal manner, the cartoon captured the stupid actions that I think every boy growing up in America engages in. I cringe now thinking about how I burned a crippled grasshopper using a magnifying glass, but it was interesting at the time for some reason. Growing up in the 1980s we all knew "stoners." These were the kids who wore Iron Maiden t-shirts to school, grew their hair long, had immature moustaches and were at least two inches taller than everyone else because they had flunked a grade or two. We laughed at them because they were so stupid even when not stoned. So it was easy to understand Beavis & Co because we already knew them, some of us were even them. To the extent that GenXers like myself would spurn the excess of the 1980s and embrace the grunge movement of the 1990s, Beavis & Co were sort of a strange post-modern anthem for us. Strange because like Beavis & Co we didn't care if we had an anthem. It was just an inside joke that we all immediately got even if it was awful.


I don't care if this show is suppose to be communicating profound messages about human existence.

The show is crap....how can anyone derive pleasure from watching it? Yet it was received so well. This reflects a sad state of affairs for Joe Moron out there.

I tried watching this program when it first came out as friends were talking about it. The inane laughing between the two main characters and the pitiful dialog made me want to cry.

It is beyond belief that people can watch this show. Yet I guess the creators had the last laugh....making themselves wealthy by taking the p.ss out of the very people that would watch a show such as this.

I would wager they are laughing all the way to the bank.


According to Milan Kundera, a porcelain-cat holding a red rose is denying the crap. Well, those criminals guilty of making this series probably wanted to show how to make a total opposite of the porcelain-cat holding a red rose. Because teenaged sleazoids Beavis and Butthead are enthusiastically from the place where the sun doesn't shine and their crappiness infects the whole stoopid series. MTV has received a LOT of bad-mouthing from it's half-nude stripper beauties, while THIS is gathering positive reviews in IMDb. Well, newsflash to everybody - your butt is cool too, if you go out showing it in the middle of the winter - something these two probably would do. Still, there is no need to make a film about your butt - and yes, these two probably would do that, too.


Seriously... I'm amazed at all the good feedback this show has here. All we have in this show is two stupid kids who keep doing an annoying laugh and they do OCCASIONAL funny things only in like... 2 of the shows, while most of the others sucked... as then they comment on music videos which I cannot stand personally while they either love or like.

In most episodes, the only things you will hear are the repitive "let's go score with some chicks", or "I'll kick your ass beavis", or the better yet and usually used quote "that was cool", and above all, their annoying laugh.

If you want a good animated show, try The Simpsons, Ren and Stimpy, South Park, this show is just not worth the time or energy it takes to watch this awful MTV series truthfully.


Dreadful film about a doctor who goes fishing and winds up catching a mermaid when he is thrown overboard. She traps him into bringing her back with him.

Glynis Johns, in the title role, is really a silly individual with a tail hanging out.

Margaret Rutherford is the nurse who is supposed to be so eccentric but we see no eccentricity here. In fact, Miss Rutherford was not allowed to use her true comedic gifts.

Nice to see David Tomlinson in the film. He would get together with Johns in the far superior "Mary Poppins," 16 years later.

Miranda causes mischief in that two guys, a neighbor's fiancée and chauffeur (Tomlinson) fall for her.

Ask any mermaid you happen to see, what's the best tuna, Chicken of the Sea! As for this film, forget it.


Yumiko (Wakana Sakai), the pretty adopted daughter of a recently-deceased Japanese businessman, inherits control of her father's company; her uncle Kazuo (Shun Sugata), miffed that he wasn't left the business to run, orders a hit on his niece. When jug-eared chef Kensuke (Takashi Okamura) enters the wrong hotel room by mistake and knocks out hit-man Invincible (Jung Yuen), he is mistaken for the killer and sent to kill Yumiko. Instead, he falls for the pretty heiress and ends up vowing to protect her. However, she is kidnapped by Kazuo's men while Kensuke is preoccupied playing an arcade game with cop Daniel (Sam Lee).

Uncle Kazuo keeps Yumiko in a hypnotic trance, and takes control of the business, but runs into a spot of bother himself, when his gangster pals threaten to reveal his illegal activities unless he allows them total control.

Meanwhile, Kensuke teams up with two martial arts experts, Lam Kau (Yuen Baio) and Lam Doi (Candy Lo) who are hunting Invincible. He learns Kung Fu and attempts to free Yumiko.

A mixture of broad slapstick humour, spoofery and fight scenes, No Problem 2 is a disappointing film considering the talent involved: 80s kung fu superstar Yuen Baio manages a few fight scenes but is getting a little old for acrobatics these days; director Kar Lok Chin delivers the kind of dumb parody schtick I'd expect from a Scary Movie film; Jung Yuen resorts to mocking his character in Operation Scorpio; and Sam Lee well, Sam Lee is as annoying as always!

On the other hand, Collin Chou, as gangster Ben, impressed me; he has an obviously strong screen presence which has not gone unnoticed by Hollywoodhe has since starred in two of the Matrix movies and is soon to appear in D.O.A., directed by Corey Yuen. I was also impressed by Wakana Sakai, but for an entirely different reason: this beauty is easy on the eye and should go much further in the film business.

There is some fun to be had from working out what movies are being parodied, but at 104 minutes I found this film a real chore to sit through. If people pulling funny faces accompanied by silly sound effects makes you burst your sides laughing, then No Problem 2 might appeal to you. Otherwise, I would leave well alone.


Unless there's some huge ironic conspiracy going on, my jaw dropped when I read the positive reviews of this film; I cannot believe that this film was even released, it's so bad.

I admit it is not my kind of movie, but I tried to watch it objectively anyway, you know, so bad it's funny, and was still offended at its sheer awfulness.

The acting is atrocious, they can't have watched the rushes and I'm guessing there was one take per scene, it really is that terrible. It is the worst film I have seen in many a year, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a film, it's a tragedy. The gay black friend, whom no-one actually calls "gay", it's just implied because he's so crazy? Homophobic. This is not good, in fact, this is downright vomit inducing. The jokes die on their pathetic arses, the music is so bad it defies belief. The person who compiled the soundtrack essentially chose the most ear-mutilatingly bad songs they had ever heard and put them in this waste of film stock. Oh my good Christ I can't believe the 80's produced utter garbage like this, I grew up through them, and I cannot find one thing worth of note here, it must have been a dark time to be a cinema-goer.

If you even contemplate watching this film go see a psychiatrist, he will then accordingly slap you, you sick, sick person.


Nearly everything that Stephen King has ever written seems to have been turned into a film or TV series; in fact, I'm surprised that no one has tried to make a mini-series from the guy's grocery list. Let's face it, if they did, it couldn't be any less interesting than Children of the Corn.

Based on one of King's many short stories, this 1984 horror flick sees Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton playing a couple on a long car journey who run into a spot of bother when they chance upon the sleepy Nebraska town of Gatlin, where all of the adults have been murdered by children who worship an ancient evil that lurks in the corn fields.

Although director Fritz Kiersch does manage to build a fair amount of atmosphere at the beginning (after Hamilton's silly song and dance, but before we get to meet the freakish Isaac, leader of the killer kids), he completely blows it with endless unexciting scenes in which Hamilton and Horton are hunted down by the town's homicidal half-pints. Courtney Gains, as violent redhead Malachai, manages to appear genuinely menacing, but the rest of the children are not the least bit threatening; as a result, many of the film's 'scary' moments fail to work.

Towards the end of the film, when we finally get to see the malevolent force that inhabits the field surrounding Gatlin, the film descends into a glut of terrible 80s visual effects that probably looked pretty ropey almost 25 years ago, but look positively laughable nowadays.

Children of the Corn might be of interest to King fans keen to see how the writer's work has been translated to the big screen, but your average horror-film fan will be most unimpressed.


I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.

Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.

The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.

A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other "Children of the Corn" aren't really all that scary.

Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video


While this is horribly dated, I MUST insist...PLEASE, NO REMAKE! Frankly, it just won't help, as there's nothing which could be added or changed, contemporarily, to make this cinematically better.

The novel upon which this is based, was atmospheric, well written, truly spooky work, but on film, it just doesn't translate. Most of King's written masterpieces fail to translate to film. I'm not sure why this is, but when you view this work, if you view it, you are likely to see just what I mean.

The book? It's wonderful. It's not a masterpiece, but it's more than just entertaining.

The movie? Do something else. You can thank me later.

It rates a 3.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.


I'm sorry, but for a movie that has been so stamped as a semi classic and a scary movie, but seriously, I think when the director has me laughing unintentionally, that's not a good thing. The characters in this film were just so over the top and unbelievable. I just couldn't stop laughing at Issac's voice, it was just like a high pitched whiny girl's British voice. Not to mention Malicai's over dramatic stick up his butt character.

Children of the Corn is about a town where all the children have killed off the adults and worship a God that commands them to sacrifice any 20+ aged people. When a couple has a bad car accident they come to the town for help, but of course they get caught in the kid's trap and are getting sacrificed! But Malicai has other intentions when he is sick of following Issac's orders.

Children of the Corn could've been something great, but turned into a bad over the top movie that you could easily make fun of. As much as I love Stephen King, I'm sure this is not what he intended and it was a pretty lame story, or at least the actors destroyed it. Like I said, for a good laugh, watch it, but I'm warning you, it's pretty pathetic.

3/10


A traveling couple (Horton and Hamilton)stumble onto the town of Gatlin, where kids have slaughtered the adults and are always eager to slaughter more, along the way they're separated and Peter Horton of course must save his wife from these tiresome, er terrible tykes in this very bad adaption of one of King's best short stories. In the original story King managed to create tension and draw personality of his characters, however all of that has been zapped from the production and all that is left is a repetitive bore which is far too predictable to be all that suspenseful. Also the effective ending used in the story is in favor dumped for a happy ending which makes the overall impact mute. There is some atmosphere and stylish directing but no plot to back any of it up. The kids are woefully unconvincing also.

1/5 Matt Bronson


The first word i can find to describe this movie is Awful.

This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. First of all is the plot a very thin plot (Wont comment further on this part) and a plot which a lot of movies from this genre is following. This makes the movie so bad, because you know whats going to happen. Secondly does the movie contain a lot of questions which never is revealed. One of the questions (and this is no spoiler) is: WHAT THE HELL ARE THE KIDS DOING IN THAT CORN!!!!!!!!!! Thirdly is the characters very bad, not only because the movie is bad, but also because of the sorry actors. They are bad as they can be.

The last thing that make this movie bad, is that its a horror movie. You are supposed to be scared of the killings or the sudden shocks, but you are not scared, you a not horrified because you know whats going to happen.

Conclusion: The movie is as bad as the movie about the killer ants! I hoped that it was a very great movie but because the story is bad, the actors are bad, the film raises a lot of questions and because its not scary, the movie is best unseen.


Having loved Stephen King's novels and short stories for many years, I, like most reviewers, have been consistently disappointed in the adaptations to film from his printed works. A few notable exceptions are "Stand By Me" from "The Body", "Carrie" from the novel of the same name, and "The Shawshank Redemption" from "Rita Heyworth and Shawshank Redemption". This movie is by far the worst thing that has ever been produced with Stephen King's name attached to it in any way. It is no surprise that Mr. King has pretty much disavowed any connection with it. I feel the thing that most offended me about this poorly acted, cheaply filmed, hideously directed piece of garbage is that they had the audacity to COMPLETELY change the ending Don't waste your time or money on this amazing bow-wow of a movie!!


i found this movie to be a complete waste of 96 minutes. jones was a weird kid and is severly messed up! According to my memory which might be wrong, wasnt he only 16 or 17 years old? **Spoiler** why did he leave college and rent an apartment with a two crazy girls who feud over boys for a pasttime? and the cowboy who lives underneath jones creeped me out too, how he knew what happened in the apartments didnt float past me for a minute. i do not understand his thinking about the girl that took pictures for fun and stayed in her room when mandy moore was always over and is was quite obvious that she wanted to be more than friends with him. i dont really find this movie funny or artsy or dramatic or anything, i found it to be stupid and a complete waste of time (D- F+)


There could be some SPOILERS AHEAD but I doubt it. I have no idea how the screenplay for this one made it past the shredder. It's horrible. Completely unwatchable. I hung in there for 45 minutes (about half the running time) and just couldn't stand it anymore. I was an Elijah Wood fan in the '90s (see "The War") and I learned to enjoy Mandy Moore's shifts from bubbly to serious this year (see "Chasing Liberty" which is surprisingly entertaining). I've seen bits of "Run Lola Run." So with three leads I liked this should have been fine. It wasn't. Nobody turned in a good performance. Wood's Jones was flat. For an aspiring writer he had next to no imagination (his violent fantasies looked like they were ripped off from "A Christmas Story" and his lustful ones were--huh, a cross between boring and alarming). Potente is absolutely unlikable from the first second and I'd only know that she was supposed to be "THE girl" by reading the box. Speaking of the synopsis--whoever they employed for that job made the film sound funny, quirky, romantic, and quite enjoyable. Whoever that person was, he or she should have been employed to rewrite this script. By the halfway point, I didn't care about ANY of the characters anymore. Moore's Lisa is an aspiring actress who's bubbly and a little conniving (for no apparent reason at all) but her ludicrous period play (which is supposed to be funny in presentation) is on a par with the rest of the script. There is supposedly a happy, romantic comedy ending to this turkey--given the character material they had to work with, I just can't envision it. Save your money. Warn your friends. DON'T watch this movie.


No spoiler needed to steer you clear of this...well, bizarre film. Canada becomes part of the USA. OK. So, I guess I'm unusual, but I expected something about the implications of Canada becoming part of the USA. Silly me. Continue with this movie and you are off to cloud coocoo land. The opening premise has nothing to do with the rest of the film in which you will (trust me) not care a squat for any of the characters. Slings and Arrows and Due South have to be among the most imaginative series ever. But in this case, Paul Gross, I'm so very sorry to say, didn't have a clue about making a coherent film and wasted a lot of talented actors in the process. A real disappointment.


I wasn't sure where this was headed until the ending. when it turned out that this was all a liberal conspiracy to hand the world over to European wimps and the United Nations. What a load of right-wing crud! Incidentally, the bit about Canada joining the US didn't really have much to do with the plot at all and the idea was never developed. The only point of it seems to be that it made the main character eligible to run for President(but they could have just made him American and dispensed with that). In any event, this was a load of bull and not worth your time. If you wan't to see this kind of thing done well, check out the brilliant BBC political thriller "State of Play."


MGM hodgepodge of Jimmy Durante throwing a big party for everybody in Hollywood. No major stars show up--we get the Three Stooges, Laurel & Hardy, Durante and Lupe Velez. I didn't recognize anyone else--they were probably unknowns (for good reason). The movie contains annoyingly unfunny jokes and some truly dreadful songs and choreography. The only things that save this from being a total disaster are Laurel & Hardy's "battle" with Lupe Velez and a wonderful color Disney cartoon called "The Hot Chocolate Soldier". It's a beautiful, very colorful cartoon that gives the movie a huge boost. Otherwise, the movie is a colossal bore. There's no director credited--what does that tell you?


Poor Bela Lugosi. Just another day at work. A group of saboteurs attempting to disrupt the American war effort from the inside. It's pretty hard to figure out at first because, while we know these guys are up to something, their method of operation just isn't very clear. I won't spoil it, but the ending in pretty amazing. There are a series of murders perpetrated by our hero. A police force that doesn't know what is going on. What a coincidence that all the victims seem to come and go from the same house. There are comments like, "A true patriot would do this or that." It's obvious while suspicion abounds most of the world wouldn't know a spy or a subversive if it jumped up and bit them. I also was surprised to see Clayton Moore (the Lone Ranger) in a romantic role. I never realized that he ever did anything other than sit on a horse. There is, of course, the smugness of the criminals as they think that they are immune from the killer's guest list. Anyway, Bela is sort of a good guy and a bad guy rolled into one. The best scene in the movie is at the end, but I won't spoil it. As a curiosity, and a period piece, it may be fun to watch for some people.


This film is truly a sorry excuse for film making. The pacing is poor, the budget must have been depressingly low, and the acting is cut-rate (that is, except for Bela Lugosi). The audio at this point in time is also terrible, with so much extra noise in the background that it sounded to me as though a jet were taking off for the entirety of the movie. If these things bother you at all, don't watch this film.

If you can get past this, however, you will find that the idea behind the film is a very good one. A German plastic surgeon (Bela Lugosi) was hired by the Japanese to operate on several Japanese agents and turn them into the likenesses of upstanding American businessmen whom the Japanese have kidnapped and killed. After completing his work, he was betrayed by the Japanese and thrown into prison. He later escapes and travels to America to seek revenge on his patients through a series of highly-publicized murders.

It seemed as though Bela Lugosi was the only decent actor in the film, and, to be honest, the rest of the actors were completely forgettable and stodgy. The leading actress ended up being rather boring and stereotypical, while the police officer assigned to her case was the common, chauvinistic and always correct dominant male that is found in many films of this time period.

I also found that the camera work was completely uninspired, often taking the exact same angles of the exact same rooms time and time again. After a while, this tends to drag the film down, setting a very slow pace for the "action," which is more or less non-existent anyway.

To me, the idea is a fascinating one, and with a better writer, director, script, equipment, and actors it could become an excellent film. Sadly, these handicaps keep the film back for now, and I can't recommend it to anyone but the most open of movie lovers.


"Black Dragons" is a second feature WWII propaganda film popular at the time. It's not as bad as some would have you believe.

 A secret meeting hosted by the respected Dr. William Saunders (George Pembroke)is interrupted by a mysterious stranger names Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi). Shortly thereafter the participants at the meeting begin to turn up murdered, their bodies being placed on the steps of the Japanese embassy in Washington. Colomb is suspected. Federal Agent Dick Martin (Clayton Moore) is assigned to the case and meets Saunders niece Alice Saunders (Joan Barclay) who tries to assist him. The reasons behind Colomb's actions are not explained until the final reel. Until all is explained at the end, the story is hard to comprehend.

 Lugosi who had by this time been reduced to appearing in a string of low budget quickies, is actually quite good in this one. He is not allowed to over act as much as he ususlly did and credit for this has to go to director William Nigh. Lugosi's character slinks through the shadows and is reminiscent of his Dracula even to the point of the full close ups of his piercing eyes.

 Clayton Moore, a one dimensional actor at best, would become TV's Lone Ranger in a few years. Joan Barclay makes a good heroine.

 Although a little dated now, "Black Dragons" is not a bad way to spend an hour.


This was a strange film. A bit horror and certainly film noir. Some fifth columnists meet and mysteriously start dying off with a Japanese dagger in their hands after Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi) shows up.

Soon the Lone Ranger arrives in the person of FBI Agent Richard 'Dick' Martin (Clayton Moore). Martin is ineffective in finding the killer as he is more interested in the niece (Joan Barclay) of a missing doctor, who is part of the gang.

After the last man dies, and the doctor is horribly disfigured by some strange serum, the true story of the group comes out and that is where it gets interesting and weird. I won't spill it.

Lugosi was marvelous as the skulking killer.


I probably have to blame myselfbut I sure as hell expected more from a movie that goes by the title "Black Dragons" and revolves on secret WWII conspiracies, Nazi plastic surgeons and revenge. This film is a dull failure with an incomprehensible structure. The actual plot (which basically is rather ingenious and intriguing) only becomes clear during an explication near the end, but the problem is that you stop caring a long time before. We see how horror icon Bela Lugosi infiltrates in a society of prominent American politicians and kills them one by one. The story is timed right before WWII and  especially after witnessing the ending  it surely is a premise with lots of potential, so it's quite a shame it isn't elaborated more proper. There is however one great dialogue that I can't resist sharing! Man towards woman: "Do you want to marry me?" "Why?" "So I can beat you upit's the only way you'll leave this place!" It's the only highlight in an overall very boring movie. Bela Lugosi is lovely  as usual  but his spooky performance alone is hardly worth purchasing this film. If you're interested in seeing other ghoulish performances of his (in movies with decent screenplays), check out "Invisible Ghost", "The Corpse Vanishes", "White Zombie" and of course the 1931 Dracula version.


Bela Lugosi is a real enigma. In the early 1930s, he was on top of the world after appearing in Dracula. Yet, again and again, he made lousy decisions regarding his career. Perhaps he had a bad agent, perhaps his drinking and drug use had a part in it or maybe he was just crazy. Regardless, he ruined his reputation by appearing in pretty much any film--ranging from excellent horror films (such as THE RAVEN) to big-budget flicks (like NINOTCHKA) to grade-Z flicks for the cheapest and shoddiest of studios. Interestingly enough, although he agreed to do this terrible film, he actually turned down the role that later went to Boris Karloff in FRANKENSTEIN! As for this movie, it is a very silly an horridly produced WWII propaganda film that featured a dumb plot and wretched editing. Lugosi spends much of the movie murdering saboteurs--not a bad thing at all. But at the end, we find out that he is himself a Nazi plastic surgeon and all the American-looking men he killed were actually Japanese!!!! The funniest part of this is during a flashback. You see Lugosi talking to a group of Japanese men before he changes them to American-like men. When the camera scans them, the men are clearly Asian. But, on all the other non-close-up shots, they are all VERY Western looking--many with bald heads!! They looked absolutely NOTHING like Japanese men. I suspect the plot must have undergone a re-write and this might account for the obvious mistake. Or, it could just be shoddy production values and editing. In fact, early in the film, they show a street scene in the city and all the cars (circa 1942) are old Model T Fords--obviously from stock footage!!! The bottom line is that the film is bad but also very dull. Unlike PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, it's hard to laugh at the ineptitude--just be put to sleep by it.


First - nick-623, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, not 1942. They didn't have to predict the bombing.

Second - did nobody notice these six industrialist/lawyers/whatever were missing for a rather long amount of time? They were killed *before* the surgery took place! Third - how the heck did Lugosi get out of cabs without being seen? Fourth - why did the Japanese not just kill him, instead of putting him in jail with a convenient look-alike companion and his surgical kit? Fifth - oh, what's the use? This movie has a few interesting moments in it, but by the time they explain what's going on, you'll probably have stopped watching. If not, you won't care.


When a group of businessmen start dying in the presence of the mysterious Mr. Coulomb, FBI agent Dick Martin is assigned to the case. As the deaths continue to mount, Mr. Martin obviously isn't having much success. By the end of the movie, the strange truth is revealed, which I won't reveal here.

One of the other users commenting on this states "This is a Classic film and should be ENJOYED and not picked apart". I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion. It is "classic" only in that it is old, not in any sense pertaining to its quality. I've enjoyed a lot of low budget "B" movies from around this time period, but this isn't one of them.

The pacing is unbearably slow, the camera work is pretty bland, most of the acting is fairly wooden (even Lugosi isn't great in this one in my opinion) and the plot, while it has an interesting premise, seems to be thrown together in a very difficult to follow manner.


** Black Dragons (1942) William Nigh ~ Bela Lugosi, Joan Barclay, Clayton Moore

"Just prior to the start of World War II, Dr. Melcher (Bela Lugosi), a world-famous surgeon, is brought in by Japan's Black Dragon Society as part of a secret plan. Dr. Melcher operates on six Black Dragon Society operatives and transforms them into exact duplicates of 6 high ranking American businessmen who are replaced by these look-alikes. With their operatives in place, the Black Dragon Society's plan to sabotage the American war effort appears to be set but, the F.B.I. Chief and an agent begin to piece together the clues that hopefully uncover this sinister plot," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

That synopsis gives away the entire ending; which, in this case, might be a good thing. "Black Dragons" is an incredible, wildly inconsistent muddle. A wiser course of action would have been to stay with the teasing supernatural angle. In early scenes, Mr. Lugosi (as Monsieur Colomb) is effectively creepy. Confusing Joan Barclay (as Alice Saunders), future "Lone Ranger" Clayton Moore (as Dick Martin), along with a cast of old stage and silent veterans do the best they can with a story that looks as if filmmakers were making it up as they went along.


I had expected a fairly straightforward R-rated graphic, sexual, crude teen-comedy when I sat down to see this... it turned out to be fairly accurate... only it was far more sick and disgusting than I would have thought. I don't know if the director/writer Gregory Poirier is sick or deeply messed up sexually, but I doubt that a normal person could have made a movie like this. I could probably have taken it if it was just that, if the only thing that was wrong was it was that it required a tough stomach... but it isn't. The film is also horribly mean-spirited and disturbing... every single character that has more than one full second of time on-screen is an extreme... sexually, mentally or physically. I don't know if this is just the director's sense of humor, but I just found it to be... wrong. Just wrong. Even in a comedy, there is supposed to be some seriousness. The plot is stupid. The acting is bad. The characters are inconsistent and poorly written... all of them. There isn't one single likable character in the film. The humor is disgusting and goes way too far. The film is just so incredibly poorly done that I really don't think it's worth anyone's time. If you like R-rated, crude comedies with plenty of sexual innuendo and graphic stuff, watch The Groomsmen, or, better yet, American Pie... or Road Trip, my personal favorite. But don't watch this. I can't possibly describe to you how bad it is... you would have to experience it for yourself. However, this is one of those times where I'll say that you're better off wondering. That way you can just imagine that this film goes very close to the bottom... without knowing that it goes through it, and far lower than that. This movie most of all looks like a group of horny teenage guys got together, put together a film crew, and every-time one of them got an idea, they filmed it, and later put the entire thing together. It lacks structure, consistency and taste. I recommend this only to horny teenage guys who have seen every single other R-rated crude teen comedy and who don't care about quality. Everyone else... do the sensible thing; avoid this. It's not even worth it to see the booty. Believe me. 1/10


I mostly rented this movie to see Shannon Elizabeth. She played well in this movie, but the plot sucked. The movie wasn't really about anything just about trying to stay single after making a pact when one of Jerry O' Connell's friends gets married. The other friends put together this money and who's ever last to get married get's the money ($10,000) from all his friends. Anyway the movie just try to follow through by making no since and trying to make it more funny then making since. I'm glad I only paid .50 for this movie. It really wasn't good at all. I rated it **** out of 10 stars!


What can you say about a movie whose funniest episode sees a fat man wrestling a garden hose? The acting, particularly that of lead man Jerry O'Connel, is embarrassing. The dialogue is so contrived and unfunny it makes you cringe. The controlling idea is actually not a bad one for this genre (infantile teen comedy), but, somehow, the director manages to make the least of it. I rate it a 2 out of 10.


Highly flawed but just about watchable `comedy' that runs like a Farrelly brothers reject. The most criminal thing about it though is the casting. I couldn't for one minute believe Jerry O Connell and Jake Busey in the role of superstuds, who could pull any woman at the drop of a hat, nor could I believe (the very beautiful) Shannon Elizabeth as a streetwise tough cop!. Story is predictable but does manage to raise a titter on a few occasions, although, the `gross out', meant to be `shock comic' scenes, (one involving an amputated testicle, and another set in a sperm bank) are just plain awful. If this film is on TV then its probably worth watching if you are extremely bored, but please don't waste your money renting it!!


Right then. This film is totally unfunny, puerile, has gags from other films, has songs from other films (Blink 182's "Mutt", Grand Theft Audio's "We Luv U"), an unlikeable leading man, a ridiculous plot, and lame parodies of films like Mission Impossible 2 and American Beauty. Redeeming features? Shannon Elizabeth and Jaime Pressly. Enough said.


This is movie is garbage, it looked really funny on the previews but I didn't laugh once through the whole movie. Do yourself a big favor and don't waste your money on this, don't waste anyone's money on this. I gave it a 1/10 believe me I would have given it less if I could have. I'm a 15 year old guy and I thought it was trash if you wanna see a good movie go out and see Jay and Silent Bob strike back.


Horrible, misogynist drivel. My neighbor brought this turkey over, subjected me to it, and didn't have the courtesy to apologize. The plot was laughable, my four year old could write a better movie.


Here's the spoiler: At the end of the movie, a little piece of you dies. You'll spend the rest of your life searching in vain for that missing piece, but it's gone, it's gone. You'll wander the streets at night peering into your neighbors' windows as they sit down for dinner. Friends and family will try to pinpoint when exactly you turned into the walking dead. You'll answer their questions and concerns with a blank stare and some mumblings about a runaway testicle. When AMC inevitably makes Tomcats the "movie of the month," a series of mysterious murders will take place in your city. You'll wake up the next morning balled up on the floor of the kitchen with a faint taste of brains in your mouth. Then you'll crawl into the living room and onto the couch. You'll stare at the wall, wet yourself a little and then begin to laugh maniacally. Because once your dead inside, Jake Busey in a thong is actually pretty damn funny.


If you want to see someone accidentally eat another man's testicle, or look at a row of pathetically fake hard-ons at a wedding, or listen to a man talk about how good it felt to have sex with a girl while she was throwing up, then this is the movie for you. Alternating, in neck breaking fashion, between romantic and gross out comedy, Tomcats is certainly interesting. The lovely Jaime Pressly plays the wife of Horatio Sanz(tell me another one) who is found in many silhouetted situations with other women, but there is, surprisingly, no nudity. Jake Busey is thoroughly revolting as a hound dog who you wouldn't want as your friend. Shannon Elizabeth and Jerry O'Connell are both good and make a convincing couple, but the movie is far too busy trying to disgust to be any good.