OK, we were going along with the stereotypical bad orphanage experience and explaining to our son, adopted from Russia, that this was over-the-top acting and dramatization, so we could get to the dog playing soccer (since he plays soccer). But the last scene, in which the dog goes back to his original owner put my son over the edge and he cried for 15-20 minutes, "he's been replaced!!!!" This from an elementary child. I DO NOT recommend this movie to any family that has an adopted child; it displays adoption, orphanages and adults badly--and in the end, even though they win the game--the dog that the boy bonded with has to leave--and this is too much. PLEASE be wary if you have any adopted children, and beware families with biological children, because the impression of children who are adopted is not positive and paints a stereotype that is unhealthy and nasty. (The dog is cute, but not enough to save our family's reaction to this movie....)


Even my five year old was bored.

Very predictable, and overacted. This movie couldn't make up it's mind as to whether it was slapstick, or wry commentary on the state of "pee -wee" sports.

Characters were underdeveloped, could have done more with the connection between father and son both coming from an orphanage.

Did not like the reference regarding the goalie slipping the laxative to his teammate...very mean spirited for a kid's movie.

Typical "Mafia" behavior was boring and stereotypical.

The dog, however, was so darn cute!!!!


This stinker is in mystifyingly frequent rotation on one channel here, and I've found myself watching in horror again and again. The script is like something one would come up with friends over several too many drinks, and the production values match admirably.

It's meant to be a children's movie, but features a grotesque (and poorly explained) kidnapping scene; the star dog has a lack of star quality equaled only by the other actors; and it in general has the look of being filmed in someone's backyard (the climactic soccer game features no more than three dozen extras sadly cheering in the background).

It even all wraps up with a budget-ran-out voice-over sequence when the story, to one's relief, simply stops. The high-raters here must be either the producers - or the majority of the extras from the soccer game!


A blatant rip-off of "Air Bud", this movie is REALLY about parents worrying too much about parenting. All the foibles of the characters (eg; adult coaches who dont know the game) are taken to the extreme- so much so that they are totally unbelievable, not funny.

There is no semblance of reality here, folks and you'll not develop sympathy for ANY of the characters.

The best thing about the movie is the good looking kits (uniforms) of the opposing team in the first game the dog plays. Perhaps chosen because the setting is supposedly near Arlington Heights, IL, the home of the Columbus Crew's franchise player, Brian McBride.


What can be said about a movie about a cross dressing gangster? Not that much. With the average indie style film-making, this film has the timing all wrong. Editing is just awful. As far as the gangster story, it might have been pulled off if the gangsters didn't lack character. Everyone just seemed to be there for some sort of punch line. None of which were funny. The usual suspects in this film are the hooker with the heart of gold, the dying mafia father that wishes his son would make his business legit, the best friend with the "zany" one-liners. But the main character, the gangster that likes to dress up like a girl. Only his motivation for dressing up like a girl is that he got mugged by a woman? Weird. The ending of the movie had to be the nail in the coffin. It was anti-climatic to say the least. I mean I understand how indie filmmakers don't have the equipment for a proper shot out, but they might as well been using water guns. Overall, I would say the hype leading up to it, (red carpet premiere in Vancouver), it was a disappointment.


There are some great Canadian films. There are some crappy ones. Last night, I watched one of the crappy ones. It wasn't the typical Canadian film where it tried to be so different by being arty. This film tried to be some type of Hollywood gangster movie. It was terrible.

From the beginning I had a sense that it would be a bad movie. It had some of the cheesiest dialouge a movie can have. There was this voice over for one scene and then it never returned. That always bugs me, when filmmakers just use voice over when they can't think of another creative way to tell a story.

I know being in the Canadian film industry, I should support my fellow brothers, but this movie is junk. The premise is something like a Soprano's episode only not realistic. Some banker's mafia boss dad is on his death bed and orders the son to make the business legit. Not so original. And the workers complain about it, but they just take the fact that they will soon be out of jobs like nothing. To make it legit they use extortion. Irony. But not the good kind. Then some freak show girl who had an awful Elvis wig and birthmark that covered half of her face robs the main character and kinda rapes him. Anyways, this guy for whatever reason now likes to dress up as girls. Then this banker hooks up with a hooker, when he has a beautiful future wife at home. But he falls for the hooker because the hooker dresses like a man and puts make-up on him. She blackmails him with some photos of him wearing bra and panties. Yet, he still loves her. He also has no reason to leave his fiancé, but he does in order to be with the hooker.

For a movie about organize crime and sexual fetish, there was neither action nor sex. It was like a late night Cinemax porn movie without the good stuff. The would-be sex scenes weren't hot or sexy. It was all too amateurish. The movie had nothing going for it, just the lame plot.

I don't think it was the actor's fault. I think they had a terrible script to work with. What stuck out the most was the ridiculous characters. The bad guy's name was Uncle Bunny or something. But the name wasn't important. It was they all were cliché. The dialouge was laughable throughout the movie, and fellow movie-goers laughed aloud at some of the movies "serious" moments. Then, the worst of it all. It had to be the cheapest ending. If you can ever remember playing shoot out as a kid with either imaginary guns or toy guns. That was basically the ending of the movie. But I was more than happy it ended, and I had to warn my fellow Canadians to not waste time or money watching this film.


Everyone knows that late night movies aren't Oscar contenders. Fine. I mean I'll admit that I was a bit tipsy and bored and figured I'd get to some skin-a-max. It's pretty bad when the info on the TV guide channel makes fun of the movie in the description. It even gave it half a star. To be fair, I did sit throw the whole thing cause man it was soooooooooo bad. I couldn't stop laughing. I mean the words coming out of these people mouth and how they were trying to be serious. Most of the time I think the people on the screen were trying their hardest to not to laugh. In fact I think in one scene they did laugh. Anyways the movie didn't make sense. It was like that one Sopranos episode with the fat gay guy. Only the Sopranos is great show. But it was terrible, I mean, no nudity, just sex scenes out of the 90's. You know the kind that use shadows and silhouettes instead of flesh. I gave it a two cause this flick makes for a good drinking game movie. I mean with all the cheese, it helps to get the wine out. If its late at night, and all that is on TV is this and that Tony Little guy and his exercise bike, then I suggest Tony Little.


In a world full of films -- like "You Got Served" -- that blow your mind with its vast amounts of errors, you'd never figure that there would be worse films... until now. Ron Hall's "Vampire Assassins" does more than cheese you off. It KNOWS that you are mad at it. First: there are no assassins in this movie. In fact, there's only one good guy fighting in the whole movie. Second: The location... is basically one location: some jackass's house (or basement. It's up to you.). Third: The special effects (bluntly stated) can kiss my ass. Fourth: The acting beats "Plan 9 from Outer Space" in the worst-acting-ever category. Ron Hall can't act to save his life. Finally (and definitely not the smallest problem): THE EDITING. The person who edited this film better hope that I never find him. The cuts and shots are HORRENDOUS!!!! Other issues: Lighting (virtually none), the fact that the guy on the cover isn't even in the movie, and the fact that this film exists.

To sum this film up, let us just say that I tortured the DVD copy before taking it back to Hollywood Video (don't worry! I used the MVP membership, so it was free!). NEVER SEE THIS FILM!!!!


Ron Hall pulls a triple threat as he writes, directs and stars in 'Vampire Assassins'. Derek Washington (Hall) is your clichéd cop-on-a-mission who finds himself up to his neck in some nasty vampire action. Tossing away his badge he searches for the last vampire slayer (no not Buffy!) to take back the streets and vanquish the bloodsuckers back to the grave.

'Vampire Assassins' is a horrible film. It rips off so many other films (can you say Blade?) that it never even attempts to establish it's own identity. The script is non existent. The action is horrible. Who says a micro-budget stimulates creativity? There is nothing even remotely interesting here. You will get nothing out of this except a headache. Stay away at all costs.


I've spent a year deployed in Iraq, and amongst the hundreds of movies I've seen here was this little gem called Vampire Assassin. Judging from the cover (African-American with corn-rows with a curved blade, leather coat and the demeanor of a badass), I expected a Blade rip-off. Fair enough.

So I pop it in and observed a borderlined overweight African-American with no blade, no cornrows and, well, nothing at all really except...I don't know. If you've read any of these other reviews, you get the gist of the flick. It sucks. Bad. Really bad.

I don't know if it was the Highlander-esquire lightning after killing an immortal vampire, or the karate-kick sound effects for camera zooms, or the twenty dollar budget on props, or the "ok, we have 90 minutes to film this before we're caught filming in a Johnson & Johnson parking lot," or the martial arts that is as exciting and fast-paced as two old people having sex, or the 7th grade acting talent, or the eccentric Asian Master who's either senial or on acid, or what, but the movie manages to force you to question your existence. And that's awesome.

Not many movies can be so bad that your head will explode like Scanners. If you heckle (or MST3K) with your friends, this is the flick for you. I've seen it three times already, and I think it might've caused permanent damage on my psyche. If you STILL don't have any clue as to the quality of the film, people were trying to give it away for free and no one would take it. Not even by force.

Long story short, watch it. Either as masochistic pleasure or punishment. It will rock your skull (and for the most part, for all the wrong reasons).


A dark, yet humorous tale involving a cop who has a first hand experience with vampires and decides he must quit his job to pursue these evil beings.Most of the film contained questionable acting,plot, props, and filming. The fight scenes were as hokey as a middle schooler's rendition of a WWII battle. The lines delivered were spoken as if the actors had no motivation for being there. The props were bad because they did not even look like they could function in the slightest amount. the majority of the film appeared to be shot in someones basement (in some scenes you could see the rafters overhead in a scene that was not supposed to look like that of a basement). The plot had no motivation to move forward or go backwards, it just appeared to stand still at times with no reason for some characters actions. I felt at times the sounds effects were out of place for this horror type genre and more of a cartoon series. It is similar to the movie Blade, in that he is an African American vampire hunter. However, that is where all similarities end, and the movie looks closer to a Saturday Night Live spoof.


I rented this movie expecting it to suck, and it didn't let me down. I rented it with some friends as a joke. But, what we got was worse than anyone could ever imagine.

It starts off sucking before you even take it out of the box. It looks like a Blade rip-off and the guy on the cover is nowhere to be found in the movie. Its called vampire Assassin, but isn't an assassin someone who kills for hire? Well this guy kills the of his own volition, so that doesn't make him an assassin.

Then, when you actually put the disk in it gets worst. First off the menu animation is lame. But, when you actually start the movie every thing from the set design to the lighting (or lack thereof) is terrible. You know a movie is bad when the credits even suck. The acting is Laughable. The action is childish. The writing is elementary. And the directing is the worst>


It's 2005, my friends...a time of amazing special effects and an age of technology. So, why can't we see a movie that's a little more thought out than this cheesy low-budget film. I've seen a lot of low-budget movies that rock my socks off, but this one...it's almost as if it's trying to be horrible. Just...don't...watch it. I can look past lack of special effects and computer generated scenes if the acting itself was at least good. I feel like a small child produced this entire movie. There's not even an original plot line. Vampire Assassins, in itself is one big plot hole with an attempt to mock itself. Can someone tell me if, perhaps, this was designed as a comedy movie and I just didn't know it? It makes me wonder, what does the sequel have in store for us who so loved the first installment?


i don't really know where to start here.just imagine a movie that is so bad in every way from the acting to the props to the story that it makes you angry. This is one of the worst movies that i have ever seen and that is saying a lot because i have seen some bad ones. when i saw this movie i knew it was a blade knock off, but i thought that hey its got kung fu and vampires, a combination that i thought could not fail. That is until i popped this into my DVD player. How Ron hall managed to mess up something as cool as vampires and martial arts is beyond me. first the acting. i didn't expect to much here to begin with because its an action movie and a B one at that, but the acting here is so bad i couldn't help but be bothered by it. expressions and vocal tones were way out of place, there was absolutely no emotion in almost the entire film and when there was it was so laughable it thought i was watching Mad TV.for example that girly man scream Derek lets out when he has to kill master kao who should have never been born in the first place. all in all I've seen better acting at elementary school plays.then there is the action. not even sub par compared to the things that have been done in action cinema as of late. but still the action was not a total let down as Ron hall does seem to posses some martial arts skills. but even the skill he does have is over shadowed by the stupid things he does, for instance the part of the movie where he starts spinning and then the camera changes. i almost ripped a pillow in half.and the fight scene where his prison buddy fights off vampires by swinging his arms at them. WOW.OR how about the part in the jail where Derek all of a sudden knows magic and can preform chants that make tap water holy water. and as far as the props go. the guns look like walmart toys, the teeth were stolen from Halloween costumes, and words cant describe how bad the CG graphics are. i could go on for hours about all the things wrong with this movie and trust me this is just the tip of the iceberg. its only getting a 2 because it made me laugh. even though i was laughing at how badly the movie was done, a laugh is a laugh. i would say steer clear of vampire assassin unless you want to laugh at a horrible movie or are planning on getting tortured for long periods of time and want to practice


This movie actually almost made me cry.

For starters the fake teeth. Then you spot a nice plastic or drawn set. To make it even more boring all the action is followed by a bright light flash. Then the talking: sound levels are so different, sometimes too hard, then too soft, never exactly good like in good movies. Also, it echoes so much that i think they had one microphone on the entire set. And to make matters worse, EVER heard of stereo? If the camera switches, the sound always stays centered. The actors talk like they are reading from a board staged behind the camera. And the zooming into another scene, how terrible childish.

The music is so badly chosen that it never adds something. It only destroys any accidentally created excitement.

To finish it up, the fighting scenes... my 3 year old niece would make a better fighting scene.

This movie is not even good for a laugh, it's just that bad...


Do NOT avoid this movie. Simply because it is so bad that it is absolutely hilarious. It possibly is the worst movie I have ever seen but it was so bad that my friends and I were able to laugh at every single moment of this film. At times we actually debated whether it was this bad on purpose but we're pretty sure that it is not. Characters appear out of nowhere as if they have already been established, the scenery changes mid scene to this warehouse constantly, and the Vampire Assassin ends up having around 6 climactic fights with enemies before finally getting to the head vampire. You will also be able to enjoy the one and only face of the Vampire Assassin as he never changes his expression despite his obvious attempts to. So if you want to watch a movie that will make you laugh histerically then I suggest this one as long as you go in with an open mind. Don't expect a good movie, expect the worst... and it will be even worse than that. I seriously want to buy this movie and place it atop my comedy movie selection. Right next to Anchorman.


As I said, sometimes low budget is good. You get to see a good movie without a lot of the extra BS that can hide an otherwise piece of crap. Well...this was that piece of crap. If anything, I thought it had humor, unfortunately the humor was unintentional. The only half-witted acting came from Bill Smith and his part was cut out (that's a joke). There was never a Bill Smith, nor was there anyone cast who could act. Even Gerald Okamura sucked, and he's been cast in nearly 40 movies. The fight scenes were comical and made me feel like I could kick all their $%#@#$. The sound was horrible, as if all sound was recorded on the set. My 10 year old could have written a better script...BTW, my 10 year old fell asleep...no kidding. I give a B+ to editing for cutting the movie to only 90 minutes...60 minutes would have been an A+.


I hope the people who made this movies read these comments. The choreography was horrid, the plot was nill, and the actors where so low budget power rangers appears 5 star to this junk.

The fight scenes where so slow you could actually see the actors waiting for each other to perform the next move. Camera cut-aways and poor lighting could not cover up the cheap effects. The lightning was just plain stupid. The weapons looked like something out of a final fantasy game, and the dual bow and arrow was just dull as anything I have ever seen.

Next movie you decide to make try investing in some wireless mics, better script and try actually spending some time on your stunts.

Honestly there are shows on t.v. that play ever night and are thrown together in a few hours that look better than this one.

Stick to martial arts (unless its as poor as your acting) then take up quilting.


This movie has got to go down in the history of bad movies as the worst one I've ever seen. It wasn't even a bad b movie...I would have rated it at as a z. The special effects were ridiculous...err if you could even call them special effects. I think the reviewer before hit the nail on the head...it was the box that sold the movie, while the cover art was great and the synopsis intriguing (which both is why I rented it) it was a waste of not only time but money as well. I didn't last long. I took it back to the store and switched it out for another movie I believe my local video store took it off the shelf because they had SOOOO many complaints about this horrible movie. My 6 year old could have done a better job filming it/writing the script!


This movie was pathetically awful. The sound was terrible, the action was ridiculous and the effects were nauseating. If you have a life don't see this movie, cause you will want to kill yourself. This movie totally rips off Blade (which is undoubtedly a really good movie...or trilogy I should say).

I don't care who the actors are, this movie is just horrible. I watched 10 minutes of it and had to come to my computer and comment on how absolutely just bad this movie is. I actually don't know why my family is still watching it...oh wait, yes I do. They are laughing almost non-stop at the stupid action, dialogue and acting.


OK, normally I am fascinated by Z movies. Some of the actors, directors, writers, etc. in those movies have a shred of talent. They want to get that talent out so unfortunately for them, they have to associate with crappy people to make their films. But some Z films do have at least one thing that may be noteworthy about them.

Not here.

As soon as I saw it I thought...'Wow, a Blade knock-off.' Believe me, if this movie could have lived up to that label that would have made it a better movie.

Instead I was subjected to some of the most horrible acting I have ever seen in my life. Master Kao was bad, so bad that I believe some of my neurons in my brain exploded trying to comprehend his acting. I am still trying to make sense of his enunciation and why he would raise his voice in speaking certain words...to add dramatic effect I'm sure...but it was for no apparent reason. Simply mind boggling.

Oh and then there is the black guy in the purple cape near the end of the movie. Purple cape guy fights the hero for about 30 seconds, but he is so bad that it actually looked like he was scared of fighting.

The main hero and the main villain did decent jobs. The main hero (Derek Washington) seemed like he actually knew martial arts.


If you came here, it's because you've already seen this film and were curious what others had to say about it.

I feel for you, I *really* do. And I profusely apologize as a Canadian (because that's what we do) that this film ever had to cross your eyes, if only for a moment. I hear there is no cure for the retinal bleeding reported out of every dozen cases.

I, like everyone else, rented this movie believing it to be some stupid B-movie ripoff of Blade. I thought, "sure I could use a good laugh at a stupid movie." I'll give the creators of this film ONE positive comment about their 'creation': Thanks for removing the REC XX/XX/XX from the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. I can see how that would have been a distraction from seeing this movie.

And for the record, I *saw* the movie, but did not watch it. The dialogue was incoherent and most of the scenes took place in my grandmother's trailer, I swear to God.

You know what? I'm not writing anymore about this. It's just too painful.


So, this is the WORST movie you will probably ever see. It's up there with "Crossbones" and "Southern Comfort", but if your a bad movie fan like I am, this atrocity of a film will be the most fun you've had in years. WHY does the camera make old-school kung fu noises when it zooms? WHY does that random guy stuff a nascar commemorative plate in his bag? And who is he anyway? WHY do the vampires shoot lightning after they die? What is this? Highlander? Dracula McCloud? Who cares! Just laugh at it. This movie has no continuity, no plot, no anything, really. Ron Hall's range of emotions are always off. He looks happy when he should be sad, angry when he should be confused. The rest of the cast couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. The special ("Short bus" kinda special) effects are randomly placed, and never needed. Most scenes are lit with a desk lamp, if they are lit at all. Mel Novak has the AUDACITY to look off-camera for his line, and it's not even edited out. They just keep on filming. In fact, half of this movie isn't even on film at all. It's 1/2 film, 1/2 sony hand-cam. For most of the film it seems that they left their boom mike at home. This movie doesn't just have a few plot holes, it's a mine field of confusion and mental pain! But OH do I love it! Thank you Ron Hall, for this cinematic abomination. I went out and bought it, cause it's just so damn funny. ($1.99 on Amazon, and I had it rush delivered!)

"I have weapons! I have weapons! I have WEAPONS!"


I don't normally give movies a "1." Although I am a HEARTLESS critic, I try to find anything that makes the movie worthwhile (that is to say, watchable). The main thing I look for is a coherent plot. If it has that alone, I can watch it! Let me start by saying, this doesn't even deserve to be called a movie, this is more like an elementary school project...gone horribly wrong! And I've seen every Sci-Fi movie special that was ever made.

Many times I've read professional critic reviews that say crap like "This played like a Made-for-TV...(etc, etc)" and I kept saying "Oh come on, I wish they'd think of a REAL criticism." Well this is worse...much worse! This is truly the worst "thing" I've seen that's lasted the length of a movie (if I DID consider it a movie it would be my new worst movie of all time), and I've seen every movie Uwe Boll made! This movie makes Uwe Boll look like Francis Ford Coppola! :) I'd rather watch Jaws the Revenge all day then see this one more time...even 5 minutes of it...there was one good scene and it was the END! ;-P OK enough bashing the works of Ron Hall, now for the serious criticism.

The script is poorly written, the dialog is delivered in a wooden manner, the effects are cheesier than those in a Power Rangers show, and don't even get me started on the screen zoom-in transitions (ugh). Someone actually watched this thing, edited it, and then said, "ok release it"? I would have rather burned this than release it! In closing all I can say is "Thank goodness DVD and VHS players have a Stop and Eject feature!" My advice...don't rent it, if you do, you'll be glad you have stop and eject too! :)


A friend of mine showed me this film yesterday, and I was really amazed that someone could make a movie this terrible!

Mix the most awful, clichéd dialog, with the most wooden acting you've ever seen, with the cheesiest special effects know to man, and you get this magnificent beast!

'Vampire Assassins' is funnier than most comedies I've seen, it really is awful!

I was in stitches during the scene where the ex cop/vampire assassin character is having coffee with the internet journalist. Just watch it and you'll see what I mean!

I honestly can't believe that someone made this with serious intentions.

Tragic, but a really good laugh. It has to be seen to be believed.


I wasn't able to last ten minutes on the this terrible film. In and age of DV cameras, it looks to have been shot on VHS without aid of any color correction or microphone.

As a filmmaker myself, I know the constraints of indy film-making and, even keeping those things in mind, I'm amazed films can be made this poorly.

The only praise I can offer is that this film got distribution as I've seen considerably better films still seeking modest domestic or international release. I'm guessing the box is what sold it...it does have good box art, but it all goes downhill from there.

Side note: It seems the director has 11 friends since no one on the this planet would give this film a "10".


Incredibly, "Vampire Assassin" is significantly worse than such atrocities as "Tequila Body Shots" and "Zombie Nation" - and those movies are TERRIBLE. Writer/director/star Ron Hall is devoid of both charisma and acting ability, and is also clearly incapable of the most basic directorial concepts. Possibly the worst camera-work, editing, lighting, sound, visual effects, music and fight choreography I have ever seen in a movie. Rarely do two shots cut together, nor can you see much in the beyond-dim lighting. The terrible dialogue is spoken extremely slowly by a supremely untalented cast, stretching the movie to a near-deadly 87 minutes. This is a truly laughable embarrassment for everyone involved. Obviously, aficionados of terrible film-making will want to see this, but it's very hard to sit through no matter how experienced a bad-movie viewer you are. The fact that Ron Hall thought this was actually releasable is astounding. If you are a movie director, and you actually think it's OK for the opening credits of your movie to include a few frames of the words SLUG before the title appears, left over from your rough edit - and you apparently can't muster the energy to edit those frames out - then your standards are obviously so low as to be insulting. I am astounded that Lions Gate/Maple agreed to release this movie on DVD. In spite of Rudy Ray Moore's very brief cameo, this movie is a work of supreme self-indulgence on Ron Hall's part - he clearly thinks he is a formidable actor, and must also believe he possesses superior writing and directing skills - but the movie is so unbelievably inept that it's hard to believe he'd actually want people to see it for fear of being brutally excoriated like I'm doing right now. A jaw-dropping, insanely terrible movie. I'm not kidding.


I watched this as part of a vampire movie marathon with research intent, otherwise there is no way I'd have watched it all the way through. The first scene wherein a bunch of vampires in very bad wigs seemingly get electrocuted by various slow moving weapons wielded by an even slower moving Van Helsing wannabe... in black and white... with a voice over, sets the pace for the entire rest of the film. The fight scenes look ridiculous, the dialouge would be funny if the acting wasn't so bad, what passes for plot doesn't make sense, and the production values bite (from the pleather knock off of Spike's coat worn by the hero to the cheesy cheap magician's cape their lead vamp swooshes around).

I've seen some bad movies (check out The Magic Sword with B. Rathbone, or the Raven with a very young Jack N.), but this one gets my vote for worst of all times.


Low-budget murder mystery about a Public Defender trying to clear his client of a murder the man had been convicted of 12 years previously. Complicating things is the fact that he escaped custody after his conviction, but the PD believes the man to be innocent of the murder and works to find the real killer. Gig Young as the PD is okay, and James Anderson as the convicted killer is actually pretty good, but the picture as a whole just rambles along with little suspense, and despite some good character actors in the cast, the performances are generally below par. Director George Archainbaud was apparently more at home making westerns--he was churning out Gene Autry's TV series at Columbia at around this time--but even if he had tried to inject any liveliness into this picture, the hack script would have defeated his attempts. Average at best, the film climaxes with a courtroom scene that's straight out of an episode of "Perry Mason" and is just as predictable.


Some people thought this was funny because they loved the political issues discussed in this piece. I, however, am so tired of the state of the two party system in our country that I can't stomach propaganda from either side. I was hoping for a horror show, but got "cute" zombies and partisan bull crap. I watch my horror films to be scared. This didn't even attempt to be scary. Also, this doesn't have the wit of Romero in his political/cultural satire laced in his movies...this was a blatant, no-imagination story that was hard for me to stomach (for the wrong reasons). On the bright side, if you hate Bush...you'll love this (I'm not condoning hate or Bush with this statement)


I disagree 100% with the reviewer who disagreed 100% with the reviewer who gave this short movie an "F" grade. Cashing in heavily on political propaganda only obscures Joe Dante's lack of ability to pull another Howling out of his bag of tricks. The Masters of Horror series was a phenomenal collection of truly horrifying tales, save for this episode.

Despite gaining acclaim from those who wish to promote it's political slant, "Homecoming" is the least effective episode of MOH season one. Unlike the rest of the series, Dante's entry is a parody of the genre, falling short of both horror and humor in it's ham-fisted delivery of a hackneyed political point.

Dante can really only be blamed for pulling this stinker off the shelf, as it wasn't his creation. The zombie sub-genre is very popular this decade, and among the crop of predictable George Romero tributes and vacuous fantasies are a number of works designed to push political or (ir)religeous messages. Such works are not written by or intended for true horror fans. Maybe Dante really isn't a a Master of Horror, either. What has he been up to since The Howling, after all?

If you want a lame anti-war zombie flick with a few pop culture references passed off as humor, Homecoming may be just your thing. If you are a horror fan looking for something Masterful, pick up... most any other episode of the series. My personal favorite was Dario Argento's "Jenifer," based loosely on a classic comic short by the team of Bruce Jones and Berni Wrightson -- truly creepy.


There are places for political commentary in film, but "Masters of Horror" is not one of them. I get enough of this stuff from Newsweek and every other editorial in the newspaper. Now I've got to watch this in horror movies? C'mon! All I wanted was a good zombie schlock film, not another "Bush is bad!" rant. If Joe Dante wants to express his politics, let him go on Air America. And if you must insist on making a "message" film, be a little more sly about it. This had all the insinuation of being slapped in the face with a dead fish.

By the way Joe, do you really want the left-wing voting block to be associated with brain-dead zombies? Might want to think about that before making another political horror movie (God help us).


The last sentence of this review is a major spoiler.

I have enjoyed Joe Dante's work since Piranha. He's done a great deal of different genre parodies that were both funny and honest.

But this is pure crap. This is the kind of satire - in line with Thank You For Smoking - that is so literal and direct that it leaves nothing a) to be laughed at and b) to leave the audience to think about.

It's a shame, because the plot and the material is so rich, timely and ripe for intelligent commentary.

By the way, there is absolutely no reason for the main character to shoot the Ann Coulter character at the end of the film. It's just flat out ridiculous.


I was looking forward to Dante's contribution to this excellent horror anthology series from Showtime, but this was easily the worst of the bunch. It's really too bad. Part of this may be due to the poor, if odd, choice of source materials. Why Joe didn't just write an original, I have no idea. Instead, we get this soapbox episode where the "message" overwhelms the script, the characters, the staging, everything, and by the end I was just wondering whether it could get any worse, and I won't spoil it...but it ended up getting worse. What a stinker by such a talented creative team. Skip this one and buy the John Carpenter one instead. It manages to balance all of the elements: horror, humor, character, vision, and it's fun. Homecoming is about as fun as having a bear take a dump on you while you sleep.


Dear Mr Dante,

Dude, seriously... the title of the show is "Masters of Horror". And be that as it may, it is supposed to be an opportunity to show of your horror chops, to show the world why you deserve to be called a "master" of the genre. Appearantly you misunderstood the exercise. Appearantly you thought it was your opportunity (or worse, your duty) to educate the American public on your political beliefs. And your attempt comes off as disgusting, overbearing, and above all preachy.

The only reason ANYONE marked your short as a high score is because their political views match yours and they are the type of people that don't mind having that sort of politics shoved down their throat.

I, on the other hand, don't give a damn what you believe, they believe, or I believe... I just want such obvious (not subtle) and unfunny (not satire) messages out of my horror. And while there were certainly other "Masters of Horror" that were big time disappointments or where I was just generally confused why that director (william malone?) would be considered a genre "master"... yours fails far beyond the rest for just missing the entire point of the series.

So next time... can you please just keep your preachy politics to yourself?


I can appreciate satire that goes against my own views but it must be witty and well-placed. This film is...how can I possibly explain it. It does not make the slightest attempt at subtlety, much less intelligence. In fact, it's hardly even horror. Dead soldiers come to life but they're not interested in brains, only in voting booths. Why? Cue a never-ending stream of the most idiotic, banal, bloated windbag ravings of "bad president, bad conservatives, bad Republicans." What a self-indulgent, schmaltzy, cornball piece of hog manure this was.

Even if they agree with the episode's "points," only the stupidest of liberals would say they enjoyed watching it. Then again, assigning a degree of stupidity to the crazed, angry, hostile, anti-social and anti-anything-halfway-normal liberal spectrum is a tall task in itself.

Avoid like a liberal convention.


I had enjoyed the Masters of Horror Series until I came upon this infantile dung heap.

This anti-Bush propaganda piece masquerading as a horror film comes off like an episode of the original Batman done by Michael Moore. Political satire should be clever, this however, pulls a ten on the simpleton scale with all the style and credibility of an L. Ron Hubbard film.

In its campy, inane way, it accuses the Republicans of stealing elections, going to war for absolutely no reason and treating servicemen and women as mere cannon fodder. It even takes a swipe at the Second Amendment and religion. All that was missing was Caesar Romero as the President cackling in glee about how he orchestrated 9/11.

I guess the ending was supposed to be the "we support our troops" moment, but I think they would be more offended than pleased with the entire endeavor.

I'm sure the Hollywood elites are sitting in their Malbu mansions patting each other on the backs for this "pithy" work while the misinformed anti-war drones hail it as genius.

Time to get fitted with new tinfoil hats kids.


---------SPOILER ALERT----------------------------

This was the worst of the series, it is horror disguised as political satire and it is as subtle as a sledge hammer, not very scary and not very insightful. Did Micheal Moore have anything to do with this piece of Garbage.?

I'm really sick of Hollywood using entertainment as a political campaign against George Bush and constantly repeating the same talking points over and over again. This movie wants to be DeathDream, but unlike that movie which subtly poignantly tackled the problems soldiers who came back from Vietnam by clever making the main character come back as a blood craving zombie and slowly built on this theme: it was a true horror film that was also good social commentary, because it didn't get sanctimonious, exploitave and preachy.

I guess Joe Dante, thought this was trying to make a horror film to scare Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians and me being the last in that list found this film to be totally ridiculous, manipulative and exploitave all at the same time and I don't mean the good type of exploitative, that you often find in the " drive-in" type movies, I mean exploitative in the most sickening and vile manner: using the deaths of our soldiers as a manipulative political statement disguised as a horror film.

This film assumes that all the soldiers who died in Iraq, would vote against a conservative president if they would come back to life as zombies, which is a flawed premise, because as I recall for the most part and going by George Romero's rules; zombies are mindless, flesh eating creatures, operating on pure impulse and even though the zombie Andy, in DeathDream could talk, he couldn't really hold a conversation and he was driven by his addiction to human blood. Okay, zombies are mindless creatures driven by impulse and not intellect and obviously they are dead, so why would dead people be allowed to vote in the first place? My interpretation of this film is that the only war a liberal democrat could win is by having mindless, dead people vote for him, I guess they meant to say the people that vote for presidents like George Bush are the mindless zombies, while the real mindless zombies, are actually the ones making the intellectually sounds decisions. Yeah, whatever. Dawn of the Dead tackled this idea much better, but user the idea of mindless consumerism. This film isn't Dawn of the Dead by any stretched of the imagination.

The film addresses the issue while the soldiers are alive that a majority of them voted for a Bush like president, but after they die they would vote for a liberal anti-war democrat after they are zombies, who are normally considered brain dead creatures and laughably has them destruct after they vote.

If you are gonna make a zombie movie Mr. Dante and invoke George Romero's name in it, you better have mindless zombies that like ripping people apart and eating their intestines, not zombies that vote. I also like how the zombies just go "evil" conservatives who support the war.

If you want a good movie with social commentary skip this poorly made, preachy piece of junk and watch DeathDream instead.

The worst of the Master of Horror Series hands down.


I disagree with Dante portraying the Democrat-supporting zombies as creatures with an average IQ of 23. I do believe their behaviour should reflect a lower IQ than that, something in the order of a Pelosi IQ... A single-digit figure, please.

The MOH series is quite uneven, and this is the very worst episode. Dante, yet another mindless Hollywood liberal (or an apolitical nerd who sucks up to the Leftist establishment in order to re-kindle his pitiful career?), must have finally realized that his directorial pursuits had been stuck in a low gear for nearly two decades now, hence came up with this cringe-inducing, unsubtle, left-wing "satire" of the Bush administration, Republicans, and capitalism. Perhaps he felt he hadn't been overtly political before. He wouldn't exactly be the first no-talent to use asinine political propaganda to further his career, when all else fails. The maker of turds such as "Piranha", "The Howling", and "Matinee", Dante has been as useful a contributor to the horror genre as Adolf Hitler had been to world peace.

TH uses lowest-common-denominator humour, cheap and predictable gags which even the bluest of all blue-collar union members wouldn't have trouble understanding. Or have you ever seen a clever, subtle, intelligent liberal satire? Populist manure has the basest of all messages, hence the language and manner in which this message is communicated has to be as simple and basic as Sean Penn's name. And what better people to send this message to the popcorn-munching sheep than a couple of cocaine-sniffing Tinseltown losers who've all fallen so low that they're forced to write for TV...

I don't want political propaganda, either Left or Right, in any type of movie. But placing it in horror - of all genres - is a testament to the endless stupidity that reigns so supreme among Hollywood's anti-intelligentsia. So vapid was Dante that he even failed to notice the hilarious suggestion that zombies would vote Democrat... (That's what you get for finishing a movie school: not a source of wisdom or useful knowledge by any stretch of the imagination.)


Homecoming; what a HUGE disappointment!! After reading the plot summary (the dead coming back to vote - AGAINST George W. Bush!!!!!) I couldn't wait to see this. It started off interesting and it immediately caught my attention. Unfortunately, though, it slowly descended into a boring political satire that I didn't need to see (I can just watch some good old Aussie comedy for that!). There was pretty much only one or two scenes of horror and they weren't even that scary. I couldn't believe this came from Joe Dante, who could easily have pulled it off with an equal balance of thrills and satire.

The worst episode so far.

2/5.


The only reason I gave this episode of "Masters of Horror" a 2 instead of a 1 is because the two lead actors are good, and it wasn't shot on VHS. The story, the dialog, and the plot are ridiculous.

Talking / Driving zombies who come back to vote and sway the political tide against the war! Give me a break! What next, zombies who come back to go skydiving? Maybe zombies who come back to host QVC shows?

I never supported the Iraq war, but I do support the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces; and "Homecoming" was disrespectful in that it mocks the TRUE horror of war.

With zombies being mass produced in today's market... this is the SPAM of zombie-related entertainment. How "Homecoming" made it onto "Masters of Horror" is beyond me.


Okay, it features one lovely blink-and-you-miss-it-joke (when the dead are rising from their tombs, the names of the old time "horror" directors like Jacques Tournier and Jean Yarborough are featured in the tombstones) and the smashing of morally bankrupt Repu/con/rightist villains is on-target: whorish skanks preaching morals etc. But why these soldiers are anti-Republicans? Because they have gone to the war, most of them should be Republicans, right? Why they don't go to killing the enemies who killed them or something? Why they ALL want to vote against the Republicans? Why this story has made of a movie? Questions never answered...


Just a few words: it's a good thing George A Romero is still among us cause if he were dead, he would be forced to rise from grave to vote against the people who made this 'political satire' And the saddest thing of all is that I actually agree with these people's sentiments. Yeah there's zombies in it and they do have a good reason to come back from beyond the grave: to vote. Oh, and one of them finishes off The Doctor from Startrek Voyager. That's about as scary as it will get, people. If you are looking for a horror-movie I suggest you keep on looking. And if you are looking for a witty political satire you're also in the wrong place and not just because this series is called Masters of Horror. But don't let me hold you back: maybe you see something I've missed. Though chances are you'll be wasting your time with it just as I have. Let's just say I prefer my Zombie-movies with the zombies standing in frónt of the camera.


I think this movie lacks so much of substance, it is even not worth a discussion.

In the first, the package is really disgusting. Especially the stereotype filming and photographing. Surely, Joe Dante's cinematic stile was appropriate and interesting in "Gremlins" and "Small Soldiers", I mean the imaginative and visual pretty story telling of a Spielberg-wunderkind (I really loved these movies), but in "Homecoming" it was a completely failure. Attacks of toy soldiers and hairy creatures is simply not comparable with zombie-invasions (dead, stinky, rotten beings trying to kill the living - without any logical reason, just because they hate them).

Zombie flicks are characteristic in plain, direct, unconventional and brutal cinematography. Nothing to be seen in Joe Dante's debut. Another point is the annoying content: really stupid dialogs between the two main characters, a gruesome exploitation of the "elder brother dies and leaves the younger traumatized" and bad acting. And, by the way "Homecoming" is neither scary, nor gory - and even less entertaining. You see, it is even not a horror movie.

Zombie movies in the decade of their birth - it the end of 60s/ start of the 70s - used to be revolutionary, provocative (espicially through its gruesome, explicit content) and of subtle social critic. THE ORIGINAL Zombie film was actually a midnight-movie named "Night of the Living Dead" (1968). This one was a low budget movie that covered so many controversial themes, it's hard to name them all: a visual style of Hitchcock/Raimi, the American lifestyle of the 70s, political aloofness, the upcoming breakthrough of the human rights of black people and the even more upcoming racism as a result on the side of the conservative Americans (remember the shooting of the black main character in the end of the movie).

If you are interested in the creativity of midnight movies and want to learn more about the most important ones, I recommend you "Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream ".

So steer clear of "Homecoming" and even so of Romero's "Land of the Dead".


I can get over the political parody; even if this was SUPPOSE to be a "Masters of Horror" flick.

But, what I can't get over is the blatant usage of our war heroes (and their sacrifice) as pawns in some washed up horror maker's political statement.

To me it was purely insulting to desecrate Arlington, and our heroes. I have family at Arlington. The idea that this guy (Dante) would even portray the Arlington graves being disturbed just makes me want to puke.

I'm done with Dante, and done with MOH.


" While sporadically engrossing (including a few effectively tender moments) and humorous, the sledgehammer-obvious satire 'Homecoming' hinges on comes off as forced and ultimately unfulfilling. With material like this, timing is everything (Michael Moore knew to release "Fahrenheit 9/11" before the 2004 elections), and the real tragedy of Dante's film is that it didn't come out 2 years ago, when its message would have carried an energy that would have energized the dissidents further. In 2006, mockery of the well-settled Bush Administration hardly seems as controversially compelling (or imperiled) as it did then."

frankly anyone that could be convinced of anything by a ham fisted zombie flick has questionable intelligence.

and if you didn't notice, michael moore didn't exactly help to defeat bush.

there was nothing engrossing about this film. i just felt disgust at how blatant and frankly stupid the film was, it was painful to watch. if you are going to do something like this you need a bit of wit. sadly this has none. a poorly done satire actually has the opposite of its intended effect. as they say, with friends like these who needs enemies.


Detective Sergent Vince De Carlo (James Luisi) and company are on the case of a vicious Serial Killer/Rapist. Can Psychologist Carol (Susan Sullivan) help, or will she become the killer's next victim? And what is with the killer's hilarious White Dude Afro?

Inspired by the case of serial killer Ted Bundy, "Killer's Delight" aka "The Dark Ride" is a rather dull Serial Killer tale from 1978 that doesn't offer much. If anything, it's more of a police procedural flick than a horror movie, as much of the violence occurs off camera. Sure, we get mutilated bodies, but we don't get a whole lot in the exploitation department-especially considering that they are from the aftermath, and not during the crime. Those hoping for the likes of "The Toolbox Murders" or "Maniac" will be very disappointed.

Fortunately, there is an impressive scene involving a woman trying to escape the killer that get's the tone right, and is quite suspenseful to boot. Also, John Karlen is quite effective as the killer, though his hilarious hairstyle (white guys with Afros are always worth a chuckle) is more than a bit distracting.

"The Dark Ride" is too routine and mediocre to really warrant a recommendation, as it lacks the proper exploitation elements, and is dated even by the standards of the time. Those looking for a better example should probably turn to "Don't Go In The House" and a few others instead, as this just doesn't cut it.


A killer (John Karlen) with a penchant for really bad disguises (afro wig on a white dude?) cruises around in his van looking for victims. Detective DeCarlo (James Luisi) is on the case and finds the killer rather easily by just hanging out by the local pool and looking for anyone looking weird (again, the afro wig comes into play). Tracking the killer to his home, DeCarlo decides to set up a risky sting involving a female police psychologist.

Inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy before he was caught, KILLER'S DELIGHT is a pretty predictable and cheap serial killer flick. Director Jeremy Hoenack has no idea how to pace a film or even make it suspenseful. He does know how to show lots of close ups of the killer wringing his hands though! The only thing this really has going for it is the captured 70s atmosphere (look out for the bathroom wallpaper). Well, that and a downbeat ending. The Media Blasters/Shriek Show DVD has lots of nice stuff though including an audio commentary by Hoenack and Karlen, plus video interviews, trailers and an alternate opening.


I rented this film out of the local video store one day, you know, the kind of movie with box art that just reaches out and tells you to 'rent me'. Well, if you see this dull film in your video store, walk on by. Fight the urge, rent a porno, because this film is BOOOoooorrrring. Despite the interesting opening, the film lapses into repetitive murders and a hardboiled cop stumbling around, dealing with the usual problems (wife, bastard of a boss, etc). Wondering if the fast forward function on your VCR works? Rent this film and put your concerns to the test.


There is no "fun" poking fun at the desperate plight of illegal immigrants! Or the desperate plight of head-shop owners, for that matter! That the richer-than-God Brian Glazer didn't see the irony of having the "heroes" do exactly what the villain does - rob honest, hardworking people of their life savings - doesn't surprise me! Hell, how do you think he got to be richer than God?!

In this alleged satire about greed, these mental midgets reveal their own hypocrisy: the McMansions, the McToys, the McChildren, the McIllegals who are paid peanuts to take care of the McMansions, the McToys, and the McChildren! But the main problem (aside from the revolting bigotry) is the premise: as the former executive of a now-infamous company, Dick would be the Big Scalp for every corporate headhunter in the country! No soup kitchens for him! And, raking in high six-figures, you'd think he wouldn't be caught dead around a Gore/Lieberman poster!


Dick and Jane Harper (Jim Carrey, Téa Leoni) wind up on the unemployment line when the corporation Dick works for is caught in a corruption scandal, and after desperately and unsuccessfully trying to find jobs, the duo turns to crime in order to get them out of poverty.

I've always been a fan of Jim Carrey. It's been awhile since he has made a straight up comedy. The last one was Bruce Almighty which was pretty good. He has proved that he can do serious dramas but comedy is his real element. Fun with Dick and Jane proves that he still has it. Even though the film was funny, it was still kind of disappointing. It wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. It's worth watching once though unlike most of Carrey's movies, it doesn't have a good repeat value. Part of the problem is the script. I was surprised the script was weak since this is the same guy that made The Forty Year Old Virgin. Some of the jokes just fall flat and other times they seem to be trying too hard. If Jim Carrey wasn't in it, than the film would have been a lot worse.

Next to Jim Carrey is Téa Leoni. She's an okay actress but she just isn't very funny. She doesn't match up well with Carrey and she seemed to be phoning in her performance. They should have gone with someone else. The supporting cast includes Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins and Aaron Michael Jenkins. The latter plays Billy Harper and he actually gives a decent performance. He wasn't as annoying as most child stars are. Alec Baldwin was okay and Richard Jenkins tried too hard to be funny. To be honest, I'm a little bias here. The film altogether was pretty average but I liked it more because of Jim Carrey's performance. Fans of Jim Carrey should enjoy it but that's about it. In the end, Fun with Dick and Jane is a fun way to spend 90 minutes but its not very memorable. Rating 6/10


See Dick work.

See Jane work.

Dick and Jane are married.

They are successful.

They have a son.

They have a nice house.

They have a Latino housekeeper.

The housekeeper teaches Spanish to the son.

The son speaks Spanish.

Ha-ha.

See Dick get promoted.

The pompous CEO is a crook.

See Dick take the fall for the pompous CEO.

Jane quits her job.

Oops.

See Dick and Jane out of work.

Dick & Jane turn to crime.

As a plot device, they decide to rob the CEO.

See the robbery get botched.

See Dick & Jane fund the company's pension plan with the money from the robbery.

Yay. See the end credits.

Okay, so you've got the plot. Beyond that, Dick and Jane careens from one scene to the next. One barely connecting with the last one or the next one. The whole thing is terribly episodic in nature.

Jim Carrey didn't bother to bring his "A" material, he just seems bored and slightly ashamed of the whole thing. But heck, when you're getting paid $20 million plus, why bother. Tea Leoni is frantic. I guess I would be frantic not to get blamed for this flop.

There's just something sort of off about Dick & Jane. Carrey and Leoni aren't funny and have little chemistry. The script isn't funny. And it's not well-plotted.

But it may be bigger than that. The reality of Dick and Jane is, perhaps, a little too real. Maybe it's just not funny for people to lose their jobs in an Enron-like situation, when real-life still lacks a happy ending.


Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).

However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.

Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.

The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.

The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.

Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before.


Oh my lord, what were they thinking about with this one. It not only is frantically unfunny, but worse, a very good original was trashed in the bargain. Jane Fonda, believe it or not, actually turned in the performance of her life in that one. Even better than where she plays the whore in the other so called performance of her life. Maybe she is just flat good as a crook. Any other time, wow, what a waste of time. But she and Segal team up beautifully, so if you even remotely got a glimpse of anything funny in this baby, catch the anvil upon which it got beaten into a pulp from.

Because very very very little of that one remains, to this ones horror. Nothing in this baby is remotely funny except for maybe a couple of moments when Dick and Jane are bulging lipped up as lepers and cant kiss..... and uhh........oh my lord, that's it? Well, looks like it.

It truly is that bad a film.


A satire about greed and money, what? There is more greed in the intentions behind this fiasco than in any of the themes they pathetically try to make fun of. Jim Carrey's reign was certainly short lived. He is an unbearable presence on the screen. The insincerity of his portrayal is nothing short of creepy. He produced this, this "masterpiece" as well, so he can't blame anyone here. "The number one comedy in America" shout the desperate TV adds. Of course, Jim Carrey was suppose to guarantee full houses but the game is over. If I sound angry is because I am. I spent a sunny afternoon in California, plus, between tickets, parking, flat Cokes etc, almost 45 bucks on this thing, starring and produced by Mr Carry. Not anymore, do you hear? Not anymore.


What a terrible misfire. Not only the title but the idea is the same as that Jane Fonda, George Segal vehicle of a few decades ago. Why? I wonder, someone with the clout of Jim Carrey will, not only star, but also produce this tired, ugly, pointless excuse for a comedy. He could be taking comedy to a whole new level, instead, he goes for what he may assume is safe territory. Money, money, grosses, Christmas. But I'm sure this uncomfortable mess will have very short legs. I call it uncomfortable because that's how I felt. Aware as I was of the desperate attempts tried out on the screen to be funny. And failing, miserably. It could have been an outrageous, politically incorrect, mirror comedy of the post Enron days but no, that would be pointing too high, too risky. What a shame!


I thought the movie was sub-par. The acting was good but not great, the story was funny but did not come out that way. The director dropped the ball on this movie. It was not James (jim) or Tea. IMHO it was the music that killed it. There is a scene where things go down hill and Jonny Cash music is playing - man was that depressing (not funny) killed my mood. After that the movie could not recover. The deportation scene had potential funny situation, good acting good set up - I even smirked but the music again was unsuited to the scene. The music kept me from being pulled in to the movie.

I say it had potential but was poorly done, i would even say rushed into final production. Kind of reminiscent of the prequel to the exorcist: the beginning. The theater release was good, I though so after watching it, but the movie release exorcist:dominion was a helluva lot better. Same story just different director. Same should be done here.


Part of the movie's low rating is the emphasis on unemployment and the suffering we have to endure. While this is good for drama, in comedy, we know the pains it need not be emphasized. As a result Fun with Dick and Jane is not an appropriate title and I was just plain disappointed failing to see any fun with Dick and Jane. It is true that this is a copy from the movie of the same name, but it fails on the execution and the title was not appropriate for the story line.

However, if the movie was retitled to be "The Art of the Steal" and the emphasis on bungling slapstick comedy more takes on the robbery and the plans to steal (stupidly of course) would have given the movie a major boost. While, at the same time the movie should show the CEO at least in the beginning to be a crook, so it will be easier to project the pains to someone responsible early on and just leave it at that. The movie suffers a viewpoint issue and with that in mind, a comedy cannot work if the viewpoint is not done properly. A scheming husband character who is that of a Wile E. Coyote on the Road Runner would be more funny, including the slapstick comedy. But in this case, a steal instead of the capture of the bird with complicate contraptions would be extremely funny here. I mean you can make many of these and put them in the movie. But since the viewpoint was done wrongly, the robbery part had to be limited.

You will enjoy the movie the first 15 minutes (during Jim Carrey's great rise), but to make the problems they had to faced to be more comical since it is a comedy, that is the part that needs a major overhaul. It can be funnier, if problems were faced more like John Travolta's Civil Action during the downfall. That movie was a serious one but the problems they faced were somewhat comical.


As a big Jim Carey fan I took my seat in the cinema with optimism. After all, Fun With Dick And Jane appeared to have all the raw materials to make this another Carey success. After the opening five minutes of good humour it seemed that this film would provide but it went wrong as soon as the plot kicked in. The idea that a charming, charismatic, top V.I.P employee could suddenly find himself turning up to work in his nearest supermarket is just so hard to believe and then to get your head round the fact that this guy has also become a master criminal is virtually impossible. The actors seem confused with the situation as well. Of course, the stereotypical, rich, uncaring head of the operation doesn't struggle one bit to pull off his one dimensional character but for Carey and others around him the job is a whole lot harder. One minute Dick is seen as a cocky office pro, obsessed with possessions, the next minute he's a bumbling mess who can barely string two words together, and ultimately he becomes a petty thief who is able, quite happily, to put a gun to another man's head. Jane is equally confused with her role and her character never really gets going.

The idea behind the story is such a good one and it is a shame that this film has not managed to make it work. The odd moment of laugh out loud comedy can be found but it is usually more physical humour than anything witty or clever. Carey tries his best in parts to save a sinking ship but his comic talent can never flourish in a character that has so many gaping holes to his personality. Carey shines when he is presented with a strong, daring character (Man on the Moon, The Truman Show, Ace Ventura) which this film never presented him with, despite its best efforts.


Unfortunately this is not as good as any of the other films that Jim Carrey (producing and starring) and Brian Grazer have worked on together, but bits of it are definitely worth a look for laughs. Basically Dick Harper (Carrey) thinks he is being promoted to a better job. That's until the company of Dynocorpe sinks and closes down. Now Dick and his wife Jane (Téa Leoni), and their son of course, are in trouble with money. No matter what they try, they can't raise the kind of money they really want. So they start robbing a few places. And then they decide to rob the guy that set Dick up, his ex-boss Jack McAllister (Alec Baldwin). I think the most laughable bits are when Carrey's in the elevator singing "I Believe I Can Fly" and the bit when he ties up someone in a robbery, and is speaking with a voice changer (he sounds like a crap robot). Okay!


This movie was, perhaps, one of the most unoriginal and unfunny films I've seen in a long, long while. To be fair, I was not expecting some revolutionary comic formula, but I was anticipating to at least be entertained. With such low expectations, how could I manage to be disappointed?

Jim Carrey, possibly my favorite actor (not sarcasm), did little more than tread water in this film. He seems to have temporarily returned to his funny-face-making roots and created a character no different from his Fletcher Reede from Liar Liar. This new character, Dick Harper (a.k.a. Fletcher 2.0) is a poorly rendered and miserably written whelp. If you find yourself smiling while watching this pitiful and essentially boring character, it is most likely because Carrey is trying so hard to bring a third dimension to him. Carrey's outlandish posing becomes humorously awkward--and, ultimately, sad.

Tea Leoni as Jane does little more than provide the Abbott to Carrey's Costello. I typically find Tea Leoni refreshing and underused, but not in this case. Jane Harper could have been easily played by any actress from age thirty to forty-five, and it is in that non-specificity that the character of Jane becomes uninteresting to watch. She simply has no defining trait other than her following of the movie's general theme, which seems to be that... Wait, no, this movie has no theme. Unless you count "Big Business Is Evil" as a theme. I thought that was more of a given.

Richard Jenkins and Alec Baldwin both deliver believable (though tired) supporting performances, but neither man seems truly invested in the role they're playing. It's very clear that Alec Baldwin was putting about as much effort into playing his role as the sinister C.E.O. as he puts into eating a sandwich (which he seems to be doing a lot of lately).

Slight tangent, but has Alec Baldwin played any roles in the past few years that hasn't required him to be a powerful jerk in a suit?

Anyway, take my advice if you haven't already witnessed the horror for yourself: save your money. This is the one to catch on HBO in a few months. Dick and Jane are present, but there's no fun to be had.


I would give this a zero if they had that rating. Fun was no fun at all. I grew tired of the movie about ten minutes into but endured to the end thinking it had to get better - it did not. The others I watched this movie with also agreed. The acting was annoying. I am tired of Jim Carey's over the top ham acting. The supporting cast was no better. While this movie was a statement of corporate greed and the plight of the worker who gets stepped on when a large company goes under, the vehicle for this would have been better served another way. I actually disliked the leading characters (Dick and Jane) so much that their antics were never funny but pathetic. I am trying to recall one scene where I or anyone I was with laughed and cannot. A worthless movie and a total waste of time.


I was looking forward to seeing this movie, unfortunately I should have listened to my daughters advice. This should have been a spoof, but it took on a realism that corporations had a lot to answer for.

Jim Carrey after all the work he has done is still Jim Carrey and his comedy does not get any better, his co star was not able to back him up. Their son in the movie was invisible.

The life of crime was a blink, and that was the missing link of the movie. The film showed 2 or 3 robberies and they were richer than before, that where it lost it for me.

I did laugh in some parts butthrough the whole not good enough, AlecBaldwin I felt was there to add some weight to the film. His character was not strong enough. There were just too many gaps to make this a smart and tight movie.


Can't liberals like Alec Baldwin get it through their heads that they lost the elections of 2000 and 2004? The ridiculous. lame swipes at WalMart, non-union workers, George W Bush and the stock market not to mention the intentional GWB accent that Balwin's character uses in the film just makes him look silly and bitter on screen. As the credits roll the sour grapes continue as "Special Thanks" are given to Ken Lay, and other CEOs from Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and IMClone. Let me clue you in to something - if you put all your money into one company's stock YOU'RE AN IDIOT. We don't need this excuse for a movie to tell us that. What a waste of Jim Carrey's talent - from the trailer I expected a completely different movie - what I got was a 90 minute DNC commercial on how to scare people into not investing for their own future, keep them stupid, and keep them dependent on government. No wonder Hollywood is in trouble and can't make a decent movie anymore - maybe you guys could get an original idea and put it on screen for once...although I shouldn't be surprised since Jane Fonda was cast in the original.


Fun With Dick and Jane failed to entertain on so many levels. There were loose ends with the writing, for example, it seems as though one of the major conflicts was the indictment of Jim Carrey's character DIck Harper, but the writers never follow up that particular conflict. Basically the story is weak and mostly unfunny, but Carrey saves a few scenes with his physical humor, but honestly, Jim Carrey wasn't very funny in this movie, and Tea Leone might as well have been there just for her appearance because she wasn't funny either. This is just another example of Hollywood banking off franchise actors with a lousy unoriginal story.


Maybe it's just that it was made in 1997, or maybe whoever managed to get this up to a 7 has a soft spot for kids with AIDS. But really people, the maniacal laughter & mayhem during the withdrawal scene? Did you not see that coming? I'm surprised there was no baby crawling across the ceiling and sickboy addressing the camera. The acting was fine, sure. But to me this is just one example of a movie from a time when situations and subject matter could pass for cinematic language. Things happen, but that's it. There's no glue or motive that can be detected on screen, allowing the subject matter to use pre-existing emotional connections to furthur the plot, without the script doing it like it's supposed to.


For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own cliché and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting überwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clichés and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.

This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.

Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one.


This has to be one of the worst movies ever to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel. Here is how the movie starts, Women are the only humans on this planet due to the fact that in the not to distant future chemical warfare is A OK as long as it only targets soldiers (In case your wondering, Men) However the virus back fires (Big shock)and all the men on earth slowly die. Then all of male kind is condemned to die when the madam president is shot and killed by a man. now we are taken around 60 to 70 years from now, two female scientists are working on cloning a female baby and one of them says "Hey, why don't we bring men back?" The other one says no the world is not ready for that, but promptly ignores her and thus a man walks the Eath again.

First off, this movie assumes that all men who are not genetically altered are blood thirsty monsters. Secondly, the writer forgot to mention that present day soldiers are a good mix of Male and Female officers so there is no real reason to have a virus like that. This is the biggest waist of time you can find. This movie managed to insult my intellect not only by the bad story, but with the Lifetime style acting. Avoid this movie at all costs.

I give this a 1 out of 10 but only because I could go no lower.


The makers ask for a huge suspension of disbelief, you grant them it in the hope that given a little time they'll convince you it's possible. Alas, with TV movies it seems as though they specifically set out to make cheap Cosmo questionnaire films. With a small budget and big claims you should spend every penny on the details to convince the audience. Not here though. The film gets a few points for the good performance the two leading ladies give against the odds, but unfortunately it's not enough to save the day. oh, and the less said about the ending the better. Happy Film-Viewing Everyone !


Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree.

 To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis


It's a male bashing bonanza. I saw this on Sci-Fi a while ago, and the idea seemed interesting. It could have been a good movie, and the plot itself I don't see as male bashing, but certain specific references to men get really annoying. I might still watch the movie again though because it does at least try to redeem itself by hinting that maybe the women in the movie aren't really as non-violent as they claim, but it still doesn't compensate for the really tiring male-bashing. I mean, I can understand a little, it's part of the movie's plot, but come on, it gets really tiring after awhile. Not only that, but to assume that the majority of women in the world would accept becoming homosexual that easily and that the few remaining heterosexuals would be such a minority as to go "in the closet". It's just too unbelievable. There are far too many women out there with cultural or religious restrictions that would balk at this it is totally implausible. I mean I know its sci-fi, and I love sci-fi, but the best sci-fi has at least a hint of it being possible, and this is too implausible. The phrase "Truth is stranger than fiction" came about because fiction has to at least seem plausible to be welcomed, but truth isn't always. This movie is not that. Other than that, the movie does have some good acting and the eventual morals of the story, that something like what happened was wrong, do redeem it a little, but not enough.


This movie is awful beyond belief. It's a low-budget, badly written, piece of pointless garbage. But the Saturday afternoon I stumbled across it on TV still sticks in my mind as one of the most entertaining I've ever spent in front of the television. The badness of this movie is epic -- maybe not Ed Wood epic, but close. The premise is hysterical (men are banned for being too dangerous and imprisoned in -- haw! -- football stadiums), the pseudo-dyke culture is laughably bizarre (there's an underground sex trade with women who dress up like men to service "deviants") and the "last man" of the title is a pitiful reincarnation of Rocky from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I didn't get to see the end of it, which I have to assume was so dripping with syrupy "what have we all learned from this?" nonsense it would bring on an urge to brush the teeth, but everything in the first two-thirds was so memorably bad, even if the last third turned out to be a pale imitation of the rest, it's still worthwhile for anyone who gets a kick out of campy, stupid, brainless sci-fi B-flicks.


... but had to see just how bad it could get. The plotline was thin to begin with, but it just kept getting worse. A female genetic engineering grad student uses her research on accelerated mitosis to artificially create a male, because a biological weapon used in WW3 killed off 97% of the worldwide male population. The surviving men are either high prices gigolos in back alley clubs, or crazed lunatics in run down football stadiums plotting to overthrow the 'Lesbian Conspiracy'. The entire process resembled the microwaving of a large bowl of jello. Press a few buttons and ding you get a baby. Not only that, but he will age to mid 20's in a month, and then begin to age normally (how convenient). Eventually poor Adam gets bored with the secluded cabin in the woods where his creator had raised him and steals her car to 'see the city'.

This begins 90 minutes of unlikely chases, convenient plot twists, and several subplots that we never see resolved. As Adam quickly learns, what men did survive are treated as outcasts/criminals, because they are dangerous beasts that cannot help there genetic predisposition to violence. The propaganda machines have been in full swing, scaring women into believing all men are rapists and murderers. This has led to lesbianism being the norm, the fall of Christianity, female only reproduction via cloning, and oh yeah world peace among other implied results. All of which seem unlikely given that only ~30 years had elapsed since the war. Adam stumbles from one bad situation to the next, all the while being genetically programmed to be non-violent and unable to really do much on his own behalf. With the FBI on his trail, madams looking for fresh meat, and his creator trying to recapture him (for herself it seems), he learns that violence is not limited to the male species after all.

All in all, I would not recommend this movie.

I did however enjoy Veronica Cartwrights portrayal of the 'love to hate her' Director of the FBI, and Julie Bowen didn't do bad as Hope the 'closet hetero' geneticist either.


They used footage of some real protest spliced with some woman talking about a society with no men to make it seem like these people were cheering for the 'gendercide' of men. The funny thing is, you can see a man cheering on his own death in the background.

OK, the plot. Some lady says there should be a society with no men, and the crowd in front of her (which contains some men) think its a great idea. So then all the men are killed or something. So there are no more.

Then this blonde scientist creates a man, but removes some chromosomes so he can't be violent. The male grows very quickly and soon is a full grown man. Not long after, he takes the blonde's' Volkswagen beetle and drives into the city where he's discovered. Now you would think the lone man in a city full of lesbians would be the happiest guy ever but no way. The police chase him.

I didn't watch the rest but it probably ends up that they've got to race against the clock and some people, or something bad will probably happen. Somehow the man ends up in a stadium with some other men who want him to lead the rebellion. These brave warriors hiding in a stadium might have had some sort of plan which laid out the details of how they'd single handedly get rid of a planet full of women, but I didn't watch. And neither should you.

If you're up late and channel surfing and this happens to come on, don't watch. Watch anything but this. You'll find those ads for Bowflex or the ones with women in bathing suits asking you to 'pick up the phone to meet women just like these' in your area will be more satisfying entertainment.

(Oh yeah, there's this funny thing when they're pulling in with their cars. I don't know what they did, it looks like they drove in real slow and careful but then tried to speed up the film to compensate but it just looks really weird.)

The blonde girl was kind of cute and I'm feeling generous, so... 2/10.


The plot - in the future when nearly all men have been killed by a Y-chromosome-targeting virus, a (hot) female genetic engineer 'creates' a man in a chem lab - is intriguing. Despite the somewhat promising premise, the movie falls flat in nearly every regard. The dialogue is laughable. The characters are paper thin. The exploration of a single-gender world is shallow. The worst part of the entire movie is the Asian detective who delivers lines so cheesy and contrived that you'll want to vomit.

I can't imagine how on earth this trash got produced. Most of the movie is male bashing. "All men are violent." "All men rape women." "Men are only animals." All of the women - even the 'closet hetero cases' - seem to display anger toward-, fear of-, and hatred for men. If you want to see a sci-fi film something along the lines of this movie's premise, you'd do best to look elsewhere.


I don't think this can legally qualify as "film." The plot was so flimsy, the dialogue so shallow, and the lines so terrible that I couldn't believe that someone actually wrote the lines down, said, "Holy sh*t! This is a masterpiece" and then actually pitched it to a producer. I, for one, am still dumbfounded and will forever remember this film as the mark of the degeneracy of intelligence in America -- that, and "Crossroads," of course.


Pure schlock from beginning to end. The average 12 year old might find that it has an interesting take on discrimination. Otherwise, it's a pure camp-fest endurance test. Like one of those so-so episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation that thinks it has Something Important To Say.

You'll see every plot twist a mile off in this by-the-numbers romp. However, it's worth seeing for its portrayal of drag-king prostitutes, a brothel where young women pay old men to have sex with them (how's that for role reversal), and lesbian soap operas. The ghost of Valerie Solanis lives!


All I ever heard while being raised was equality of the sexes, and here we have a film that not only exemplifies imbalance, but continues through with a whole concept that one sex is better. All the while watching I was hoping for that redeeming quality to make the viewer feel as though there is hope for the future, and there wasn't. I'll admit to not finishing the film, I had to turn it off at the part where the old man whore told the genetic man Adam that it was ok to be a whore and get, and I quote, "More tail than any man in the past time." I know not finishing it is a bad review on myself, but it is the responsibility of the writer and crew to develope a story that will keep a viewer interested, and they failed. This film betrays all true female nature qualities of the mother figure and the need for balance. Instead it exemplifies what America ran by lesbian natzis would be like,and I'm not against lesbians. Thank you Mr. Director! Someone please give me a redeeming quality... wait I have it! There's no sequel!


This movie stunk. There is not much more to it. The final fight looked like Walker taking on my grandmother, not some supernatural demon with the strength of ten men. I found the commercials more interesting. The plot twists and jokes could be seen coming a mile away. The only redeeming quality of this film was that it ended. Avoid this at all costs...unless you enjoy bad Chuck Norris movies.


This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever in Calvin Levels and a weak script. The characters were terrible, and it has hardly any action,plus even Chuck Norris stinks in this!. Christopher Neame is very weak as the main villain, and the story was not very interesting plus Norris seemed bored with the whole thing and i don't blame him as i was too!. Calvin levels gives one of the most annoying performances in a movie ever, i couldn't stand as i was tempted to rip the tape out of my VCR, plus Norris and Levels had no chemistry together!. If your looking for some great martial art moves from Norris don't go near this, however if you want a movie with an uninteresting story, hardly any action and bad acting look further!. This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever from Calvin levels, Avoid it like the plague!. The Direction is incredibly bad. Aaron Norris does an incredibly bad job here, with no suspense or thrills bland camera work, and keeping the film at a dull pace!. There is a little bit of blood and violence. We get 2 gory impaling's,ripped out heart, exploding body and a few gunshot wounds. The Acting is really bad. Chuck Norris is not AMAZING as he usually is here and seemed very bored here, his one liners are flat, and his acting wasn't that great and i am a huge Norris Fan, this is his absolute worst! (Norris still Rules!).Calvin Levels is INCREDIBLY annoying here, his whiny wimpy performance severely grated me, i was so hoping for him to get it good!, but sadly he didn't. Christopher Neame is pretty weak as the main villain, his voice was cool, but he over acted big time!. Sheree J. Wilson is beautiful and did okay with what she had to do. Rest of the cast are terrible. Overall Please avoid this it's not worth the torture, even if you are a huge Norris fan (like me). BOMB out of 5


For the most part, I considered this movie unworthy of a comment, but the last 10 minutes prompted me to write one. You see, right then we learn (SPOILERS...if they can be called that) that the Devil's emissary has no chance of properly preparing the domination of the world by his master, because he is not skilled at martial arts! "Prosatanos" has been lying in a hole for centuries, waiting for "human greed" to release him, only to be defeated in a simple one-on-one match against 54-year-old former karate champion Chuck Norris! Imagine what would have happened to him if he had taken on Jackie Chan... (*1/2)


Norris plays a Chicago cop who stumbles upon a devil's apprentice? who wants to, well, create Armegeddon. He eventually kills the creature by, get this, throwing a solid gold 24 inch spike, not very sharp, about twenty feet, hard enough to penetrate the chest. Unlikely? So is the rest of the movie. Much of it consists of CN and his sidekick driving cars and talking nonsense. The Israeli (or Arab) kid is there ostensibly to humanize CN. OK. Doesn't work, makes no sense, and advances the plot, so-called, not one bit. Also, no cops ever every get invited out of the country to be interviewed by other cops. It is ridiculous as a premise. The whole thing is bad. Unfortunately, it's not so bad as to be entertainingly bad or campy. Just plain bad. But--one can see how Norris was trying to find his way to the successful Walker: Texas Ranger series.


This piece of Crap is actually the BOMB, as in Bottom of the Barrel. I can't figure out which is worst; Norris' dull portrayal of anonymity (not a great trait in an action protagonist) or Christopher Neame's hysterical overacting. This film doesn't deliver on any level what so ever. The action sequences are tame, the plot is paper thin, and the scenes that are supposed to be horrific look like a cliché from the fifties. You can't just fill a room with smoke and men in rubber suits, and expect the audience to scream in terror.

Visually the film does nothing for me. It actually looks like an unfortunate mix between a cheap porn flick and a Miami Vice rip-off with a little sprinkling of hell-spawn. No, wait. That should have been hell-yawn.


I concur with the other users comment. Hard to believe that this movie actually came out in 1994 because it screams mid 80's. I think it is dubbed because the sound and the picture don't always match up. If anyone can truly say this is a good movie, they need to be locked up. It is so sad how money has so much power over people that they will do anything to get it. I feel I lost intelligence from watching this. I used to have a little respect for Chuck Norris before I watched this but now I just feel bad. I bought this as part of a 3 movie pack for $9.99 and I can honestly say I would have been better off literally throwing the money away. Forgive me Jesus.


This is the worst film I have ever seen, so bad it is astonishing. I am glad that I have never seen that black sidekick in any other film: OK, it wasn't his fault that someone gave him those lines, but he could have refused the role, and tried to learn how to act instead. How did anyone get the money to put this film together. Is there some corporation in Hollywood that deals with trash for male college students with no brain? "Oh yeah, they will love this one: it's got no believable plot, some kungfu movements, Chuck Norris, a black sidekick with bad corny lines, a sweet little Israeli (or is he an Arab, or does anyone care?) boy pickpocket, and the devil." Brilliant, and many thanks to all concerned for enriching the human race.


This film is bad. Not so bad it is good. Just bad. It is however hilariously bad. I watched it out of some morbid curiosity and never intend to watch it nor any other Chuck Norris film ever again. If you have to choose between this film and death, you should happily choose this film, however, as it is is a masterclass in terrible film making (hence the hilarity).

It is a constant depression to me, as I grind away at my desk job, that some people get to be involved in movie-making and decided to produce things such as this.

1 out of 10. Still better than "Starship Troopers" however.