I just saw this movie. I liked the soundtrack.I saw first the trailer and was magnificent, like all Hollywood movies, they know how to sell.But the movie is almost awful, first 30 minutes are interesting, but then.... like almost all new movies they blow it up. I don't get the idea, why that kid died??Is a cliché, every nigga' movie must have a kid to be killed, and everybody must become good after his death.LOL.I don't understand what is the connection with the movie... And is so predictable, you know the end from the very first minutes.Nothing new in this movie. I saw 'You got served' same idea but also... something new... this is something like 'Honey', but is not a little bit difference between them.If you have no other option watch this movie, but be sure is the last option you take. And the choreography is worst than everything before. This is NOT a must see for sure...


This is probably the only film I've seen where the IMDb reviews on both sides of the spectrum are 100% accurate. "The Stupids" is an atrocious, dim-witted film with absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever, and is a denigration to a director like John Landis. And that's what makes it great.

In order to appreciate "The Stupids", you have to keep in mind a little-known, but very true maxim spoken by director Abo Kyrou: "I urge you to learn to look at bad films, they are so often sublime." In order for any film to work, the film must establish and follow it's own logic, and if it does so convincingly and sincerely, then it's actually possible for the film to work. For example, when you watch "Freddy Got Fingered" as a traditional gross-out comedy, it's complete and utter garbage; when you watch it with the understanding that it's actually a neo-surrealist comedy, it's brilliant.

It works with good movies too. If "Jaws" hadn't accepted the reality it created, the air-tank explosion ending wouldn't have worked. But, a lot of people think "Jaws" is vastly overrated for this type of reason, and they aren't wrong. But it has it's strengths, doesn't it? The point being that a movie like this makes sense if you look at it with the right perspective. Some people, like me, get it right away, while others never will no matter how often it's explained. Jim Jarmusch made a compelling defense of "Showgirls" once, and even afterwards I still can't see it from his P.O.V. Doesn't mean he's wrong though. If you have the right frame of mind when you watch this movie (and NO I DO NOT MEAN STONED, I'm gonna put that to bed right now), you can actually enjoy the movie for the dumb, cheap, pointless slapstick late-80s/early-90s-style farce that it is.

The defenders and haters of this film are right: It's STUPID, and that's the point. The movie accepts the stupidity of the characters much in the same way "The Jerk" accepted Navin Johnson's idiocy. And because it takes that and runs with it, the movie focuses exclusively on using that to forward the plot and to define the characters. A "bad" movie would actually do this and fail to use that logic properly; bad movie are bad because they make it up as they go along, whereas movies like "The Stupids" knows where it's going, what it's doing and why from the beginning.

I can't defend the film from an artistic standpoint, which is why I give it such a low rating. The acting is mostly bad, the jokes very superficial, and the live-action quality probably ruins what would have worked as a cartoon. But I can't deny that it IS entertaining in its own way, and that's why I defend it. I got it right away, and I pity those who don't.

I'll admit I was drawn to this movie because of Christopher Lee's delicious cameo appearance (hearing him say "Release the drive bee!" would have been worth the rental price even if I hated this film), but was amazed to find that, aside from the TV Studio Applause Sign segment with Jenny McCarthy, I was never bored, and never disappointed. In fact, many of the jokes, because of their cartoonish context, were hilarious (in particular the airbag-cigarette explosion). They were dumb, but they were funny. And the movie doesn't pretend to be anything else: a STUPID comedy about STUPID characters and instead of apologizing for it, it enjoys itself.

And that's exactly why it works.


This is beyond a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie I have ever seen. It's been a long time since I've seen it, but the jokes are NOT funny, the plot is painfully forseeable, calling the main characters stupid is to vastly upgrade their intelligence...uggh! I just wanted to punch Tom Arnold and make him cry because he wasted two hours of my life when I was done watching this piece of cinematic filth. I don't even know why I ever wanted to watch it, but remember if you see this movie: DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.

PS Tom Arnold's character sings a song in this movie called "I'm My Own Grandfather." Nuff said.


Would it be too trite of me to create a review of just me saying the word "STUPID" over and over again? Probably.

This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen. Seriously. There are better movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I saw this movie for the first time at a friend's birthday party when it was still in theaters. Even though it was actually *with friends* and at one of their *birthday parties,* I had to leave. I actually had to leave. I just excused myself and walked out. Fortunately, some of the parents were doing the same thing, so I didn't look like a total jerk... Anyway, this film is awful. There is nothing to like about it. It's painfully (as in actually causing physical pain) slow, and sickeningly (literally does induce vomiting) unfunny. You almost feel sorry for Tom Arnold, but then you don't because you remember he was actually IN the movie. It really does pain me to even THINK about it.

It was on TV a few months ago, and I decided I had to watch it all the way through, just once. I remembered then why I walked out in the first place, and felt guilty for boosting its ratings by even one viewer. The gags aren't funny, the characters arn't interesting. it's just a senseless mess of pratfalls and stupidity.

There is a small crowd of then-eight-year-old kids who watched the movie when it came out and considered it "brilliant." If you think that having your face removed piece by pece with an ice cream scoop is brilliant, then by all means, go rent it. But if you have any dignity whatsoever avoid this big STUPID mess altogether. SCORE: 0/10 ... maybe a negative 1, actually.


This movie was chosen, quite frankly as a pig in a poke from our local Video store. It turned out to be quite a pig. The plot line-such as it is-was disjointed, inconsistent and predictable. The actors constantly looked embarrassed to be mouthing the poorly written lines. The only funny moment in the entire film revolved around the dangers of smoking and the inadvertant deployment of an airbag. The remainder of the film lacked the punch to amuse either of my young daughters (aged less than ten years), myself, my wife, my mother-in-law, or even the cat or the dog. My advice, if you are tempted to borrow this turkey, is to save your money and your time. Look for something else...


I don't care what anyone else says, this movie is the worst piece of trash committed on film. What was John Landis thinking?

I know it's based on a series of children's books, but c'mon! Even kids hate this movie. It's pointless and boring. Tom Arnold once again amply demonstrates that his only talent is wasting production money.

I think the only reason The Stupids hasn't appeared on the 100 worst films of all time is that only 20 or so people will admit to watching this garbage. At least Hobgoblins made it on MST3K.


I couldn't even sit through the whole thing! This movie was a piece of crap! I had more fun watching "Dont' Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead"! It was just too painful to watch. Say, besides "Austin Powers", has Tom Arnold ever been in a hit movie?


I vaguely remember this film. I do remember it for the one solid reason that it is the only film that I have ever walked out on!! and since then I have never seen it available to rent ANYWHERE!! I can't spoil it for anyone cos I can barely remember it!! To think, looking at the cast, it seemed a winner, with John Landis directing, but good god, they must have been paid a whole lot for this drivel!! All I can seem to recall is that the dad goes missing and the family try to search for him, by trying to put an actual photograph into the disc drive of a computer. I walked out after about half an hour of this. I must confess though, I'd love to see if I can get a copy, just to see if it really was that bad!!

It wouldn't surprise me if this was on every actor's black list! I mean Christopher Lee was in this?? The legend of all bad guys, who'd been in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings?? As I said - black listed movie, The Stupids!


How this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.

Send it back to sender as soon as possible.


Stanley Stupid (Tom Arnold) and his wife, Joan, like to sleep in bed with their heads under the covers and their feet on the pillows. They have two equally challenged children, Buster and Petunia. One day, Mr. Stupid notices their garbage is gone again....there must be someone stealing it from the curb. He goes off in roller blades after the garbage truck. When he finally gets to the dump, he is startled to learn not only that "other folks garbage" has been stolen, too, but that there is a secret organization meeting at the landfill. He is determined to defeat the garbage nappers of the world, it seems. Meanwhile, Petunia and Buster visit the police station and a Chinese restaurant in search of their parents, for Joan comes up missing, too. Will they bumble their way through their problems? This is just a stupid, stupid movie, with the culprit being the terrible script. The books by Allard and Marshall are hysterical and only a couple of situations from the books ends up in this film. Arnold is actually quite nice as Mr. Stupid and the other cast members try very, very hard to make the film work. The production values are very high, with the dog and cat belonging to the Stupids adding a little oomph to the film. But, it is all for naught, as the plot is wandering and weak. Perhaps, someday, someone will take another stab at translating the very funny Allard books to the big screen. Therefore, if you love to laugh, rent something else while you await a new production and, by all means, go get the books, too. But, stay away from being stupid yourself, as anyone who watches this movie to the end could hardly be called intelligent.


This is a stupid movie. When I saw it in a movie theater more than half the audience left before it was half over. I stayed to the bitter end. To show fortitude? I caught it again on television and it was much funnier. Still by no means a classic, or even consistently hilarious but the family kinda grew on me. I love Jessica Lundy anyway. If you've nothing better to do and it's free on t.v. you could do worse.


Most of you out there really disliked this movie... you were right. A small minority of you really loved the movie... can't say you' re wrong. For me, this movie was too stupid. I have seen many dumb, silly comedies but this one surpasses every one of them. As I was watching I couldn't stop rubbing my eyes, not believing what I was seeing and trying to decide if I should laugh or cry, as *REALLY STUPID* stuff were going on on the screen, and people were leaving the theater.

According to the leading characters, time travel is accomplished, just enter any museum and you will actually travel to the past. Plus, if you are seeking an after death experience, just go to the nearest planetarium, there you shall meet Lord - sorry, Loydd and be given important commands... All te above doesn' t really make sense, right? Well, go ahead, watch the movie (I almost never regret the movies I watch), you probably won't like it, but you will be intrigued by the writer's ability in producing the ultimately STUPID script...

I' m giving it a 3 out of 10, not good, far from being the worse...


Perhaps it's just me, but this movie seemed more like sequel or follow-up than the separate project. Why? When it was filmed (just few years after the war) most of the viewers probably knew why Rommel was so famous, why his death was so important to Allied, why he was Hitler's favorite general, but now, 50 years later, it isn't so obvious anymore.

"Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel" is a decent war movie, but it's just isn't in any way explained how Rommel did get his nickname, what was he doing that Allied considered him as their best general, why their soldiers were so afraid of Afrika Korps? That's what is missing in this movie - we see his fame, his character, his way to treat soldiers and enemies, but f.e. we also see that Hitler was complaining about his achievements in Africa, calling him coward, etc. So, we're missing the big picture here - it is "The Story of Rommel", but unfortunately the "Desert Fox" part is missing.


For me this movie was a disappointment. Somehow I expected that it would explain the reason for General Rommel's popularity and his success as a military strategist in WW II. But there is none of that, it deals with the last year or two of his life and tries, in a way, to whitewash him. So I just have to suppose that Rommel was primarily an amoral and apolitical technocrat in the conquering and killing business, without any particular charm or notoriety in behaviour. Such real life people just do not make good movie material. I almost feel sorry for James Mason, really one of my favorite actors, who had to impersonate a pretty wooden character. Actually, a good director and a lot of great acting talent was wasted on this movie  with the exception of Luther Adler who gives a really memorable and weirdly naturalistic portrayal of Adolf Hitler.

There might also be a cultural problem for people like me who are part of the German speaking world. Famous British actors impersonating Germans are just not credible. Rommel, for example, is perceived here not just as a German but as a typical Southerner" from Baden-Württemberg. You immediately think of a certain dialect, a certain kind of wit, a certain way of seeing the world (the total opposite of eg a Prussian junker"). I also think that there are now mixed feelings about the assassination attempt of July 20th, many of those who were in on the conspiracy were not democrats and just wanted the German troops to join the Western Allies against the advancing Bolsheviks (thus prolonging the war forever).

The best movie portrayal of an intellectual, intelligent military mind is in my opinion still Patton (1970). Incidentally, General Patton can be glimpsed for a short moment in the ample documentary footing used for this movie, a low angle shot while he is inspecting passing vehicles. The open holster and the revolver with the mother of pearl grips are clearly visible!


Despite the fact that he worked for the worst government of the 20th century, Erwin Rommel is generally well-regarded by historians and World War II buffs as a gentleman, a soldier's soldier, and a brilliant tactician in the field of mechanized warfare. If only Hitler had given him the troops and materiel he had desired in Africa, the argument goes, things would have gone very differently. And that's probably true. Rommel was, in fact, a military genius, and by all accounts an upstanding, honest man.

But this film goes out of its way to portray him as a near-saint. He does his job, trying to win the war for Hitler, but constantly the Fuhrer interferes and gives him ridiculous orders, which Rommel (James Mason) expresses amazement with but rarely actually questions and never, ever disobeys. Only when it's patently obvious that Hitler is leading Germany to ruin does Rommel think of treason against him; this dilemma plays out as the main theme of the film, a good man in bad circumstances trying to do the right thing.

Mason is fine as Rommel, but it's hardly a memorable performance along the lines of, say, George C. Scott as Patton. Of course, Rommel wasn't as colorful as Patton, but this film is so intent on making him look like a decent human being that it forgets to make him interesting. He occasionally lapses into some warmth when with his wife Lucie (a young Jessica Tandy, well-cast), but usually Mason is called upon to give a stiff British performance  as if the Brits were trying to claim Rommel for themselves (though in all fairness all the Nazis have English accents except Hitler).

Done on the cheap, with any battle scenes swiping stock footage, and the beaches of southern California doubling for Tunisia, there's nothing to particularly recommend this film. A remake could be interesting (I'd pick Ed Harris only because of a slight physical resemblance and, well, Harris can act) were it spiced up a little, but this movie mostly demonstrated to me how much more demanding we as viewers have become in the last fifty years; a biography this bland would never cut it any more.


I hoped to learn something from this movie, but I was disappointed. It is all about Rommel and lauds him as a great general, but at no time in this entire movie did we ever get an idea of why he was great. What made him so successful? Was it his drive, his unwillingness to accept defeat, his discipline with his men? I was looking for a Patton-like rendition that really gets into the character, but this fell way flat. Most of the dialog is contrived and sensationalized, and feels stale and artificial. There is some good action here and there, but not much. The tail end of the story, which discusses his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler, was the most informative part and probably the most interesting. But as a history lesson on Germany's greatest general, this was a failure.


Oh boy. Films like this really bother me. If this movie is supposed to close to truth, then I assume that Rommel knew Hitler for a time before WWII started. In the movie, Rommel mentions how Hitler had changed from before. Well I can't imagine that Rommel wouldn't have known something about Hitler's government policies so Rommel must share some guilt for the German atrocities. With that in mind, I have a problem with a movie that makes Rommel's life at the end a tragic one. He made his choices and we have to feel bad for him? I can't do it. I also can't buy the theory that if the more competent generals were allowed to fight the war, the allies would have had more trouble winning it. If more competent people were in charge, WWII may never have started in the first place. From a movie watching aspect, the film jumps from place to place and most of the time seems like a history special with big name actors playing the historical roles. Leo G. Carroll has a couple of good scenes with James Mason and I liked the fact that everyone spoke English without the ridiculous accents. But other than that not very essential.


Basic summary: Ipswitch used to be a community of witches and escaped the Salem witch hunts by forming a covenant of secrecy. The first born males descended from these families have supernatural powers, and must come to terms with the seductive, addictive nature of using those powers.

Well, I usually give movies the benefit of the doubt and start from a 5, going from there:

Production: -1 for very obvious audio out of sync, +1 for nicely done special effects, the darkling actually gave me chills, +0.5 for nice colorization (I like the dull blue), -0.5 for the stupid sound track, +0.5 for the opening sequence -- I'm a sucker for stylish compositing and flashy title design.

Story / Script: +1 for decent main idea, -0.5 for DBZ/Matrix/Street Fighter ripoff/pastiche, -1 for not explaining some plot threads very well (spiders, darkling), -1 for boring, predictable ending, -1 for gratuitous exposition, both as words on the screen and as bland monologuing

Acting / Characterization: -0.5 for bad bad acting, although it gets a little better as the film progresses, -1 for lack of character development, especially among all the females

Other: +1 for gratuitous male and female nudity, which is fun to watch, and +0.5 for no sex scenes, which for this genre are usually done very badly and end up being boring rather than hot, +1 for hitting its target audience, teenage sci-fi/horror/thriller fans, even though this movie is not exclusively any of those genres.

Conclusion: This is not a "film," this is a MOVIE. There's really nothing to analyze, it's just good, (relatively) clean fun. Lots of really attractive actors and actresses. Lots of boys fighting in the style of DBZ and Street Fighter. If you like cute actors and actresses, supernatural special effects, and/or mindlessly fun plots, this movie is for you. If you prefer Oscar-worthy, exquisitely-produced film masterpieces with tons of multi-layered, allegorical plot threads and groundbreaking visualization techniques, you probably won't like this film.

Using my twisted logic, this movie gets a 4/10.


It seems whenever a mainstream film company wants to make a movies for teens it concentrates on only one thing: sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude but the fact that these people seem to think getting my rocks off is all I'm interested in is highly offensive. Take The Convenant, a film that relies so heavily on you finding the main characters attractive it thinks it can get away without a plot and/or a script that wasn't written by a six year old. This is essentially The Craft with (supposedly) hot guys. And, yeah, that's it. It bored me to tears. Even my friend, who usually laps us crap films, hated it. It is really stunningly bad, to the extent where it can actually be funny. I would have laughed if it wasn't for the fact that several other females in cinema attendance seemed to be enjoying it. They were accompanied by several shifty looking guys who positively curled up and died when the (really cliché) boy on boy kiss happened towards the end. Watching them squirm really was the highlight of the film. I don't think mainstream, Hollywood cinema will ever put out good films for teenagers (or, indeed, for anyone) so I think I'll give up. Unless you're a teen who likes The Pussycat Dolls, thinks Paris Hilton is "hot" and watches MTV it's like some sort of wasteland. Life's hard when you're a fifteen year old who likes art house. :( P.S. Someone should have told the Director that not all teenage girls find would be boy band members "totally HAWT LOL!!!111!!"


let me say first off I didn't go in expecting much, and watching it at prime-time on opening night should have helped. I believe it would have, had there been more than 20 people in the theater.

It sucked so hard. the acting was robotic at best and nothing was really explained until the last 30 minutes of the movie. I guess that was their way of twisting the plot; keep everyone in the dark on crucial info to understand the movies direction until the end and THEN explain things and hope it feels like a twist of plot.

Unknowns until the end of the movie: -What the Eff is a dark-ling? the CG was cool but I want to understand! -why cant powers be willed? especially if mass murder is the ultimatum. -why is willing away powers so bad? your just normal after, right? -who farted?

roughly 50% of the minutes with just men on screen, were shots of them in wife beaters, sleeveless t's and then a gut wrenching pool scene of all teenage men in the skimpiest low riding speedos knowing to ever have been manufactured. I swear you could see the start of the one guys.... well, it was close to soft-core. And of course there was a shower scene, and to mix it up it was of the DUDES. Butt cracks were abundant, a sausage fest in progress. But there was a single girl shower scene in which nothing was seen and she ambles around the best looking dorm bathroom for around 12 minutes. Then there was a girl talk PJ party. the other thing I couldn't get over was the amount of driving that Caleb did in his SUPER COOL ford mustang GT. it was a ford commercial for around 1/4th of the movie.

Don't see it. or go see it with a friend who likes to make fun of bad movies. then it could be worth it. but don't expect anything breathtaking.


When I saw on the voting panel that some people had given this film a score of 10 I assumed they were unaware that the score wasn't out of 100. This is a disaster movie in the real meaning of that term. Poorly written and weakly directed with so-called actors unable to act, but able to grimace when ordered to. For the first 60 minutes the story appears to be going in one direction, then it changes tack and gets involved in a power fight, with extremely poor special effects. Unable to work out an intelligent way for the hero with limited powers to beat the villain with super powers, the "writer" cheats. It is obvious that the father was added to the so-called story-line because it was easier than working out an acceptable denouement. Not that the write would even know the word "denouement." Some movies go directly to DVD. This one should have gone directly to the dustbin.


Wow! I just don't even know where to begin with what made this movie so awful. Maybe I should start by just saying that during a "heated confrontation" between the antagonist and protagonist, I had to leave the theater because I was laughing so hard. Yeah. The acting really was that bad. The acting was not even the worst part though. The plot was almost entirely shown in the previews. The characters are all grossly underdeveloped. The dialogue and "dramatic moments" are ridiculous. The bad guy is a caricature of an out of control, power drunk, sadist.

But hey the actors are pretty, so guess that was supposed to make it all better.


"No one really knows how the Power came to be. Not even the Book of Damnation recorded its beginning, but those who mastered it have always been hunted The families of Ipswich formed a Covenant of Silence bla bla bla" After this intro, we suddenly see Take That. Or was it N'Synch? The Backstreet Boys, perhaps? Well, I don't know which of these they belong to, but one thing's for sure: the descendants of Salem are a boy-band. Can you tell them apart? I couldn't. If you can tell me which is which, I'd very much appreciate it. These boy-band boys looks so damn alike! Seriously now. Is this a horror movie or a film for teenie-boppers? It's sad that the (anyway weak) horror genre has been kidnapped by teens. And this is one of the teeniest I've seen so far. The movie is visually solid, but the cast is so bland, the acting so awful, that it was a trial finishing the movie. As bad as the cast was (after all, boy-bands and fashion models are rarely good actors) the absolute "stand-out" in this regard was the guy playing the villain, Sebastian Stan. This guy's overacting is right up there with the worst in the history of film. I have rarely seen someone make such annoying and silly grimaces in such a short space of time. What's worse, he has the most baby-face of all the boy-band baby-faces in the entire cast. I mean, it's a joke.


210 minute version (extremely hardcore, or so I hear) or the R-rated version released into theaters? Both are terribly awful, of course. Peter O'Toole and Malcolm McDowell have both claimed they wish they had never made this film (the latter of the two men reported this in an IMDb interview!), and I can see why. Nothing but a nonsensical mess of softcore porn and a half-hearted attempt at a plot.

Not much of anything here, other than cheap tricks and stupid scenes. I liked what McDowell himself said about the film: "It was like one moment I'd be staring, admiring my mule or something, and the next scene would be two lesbians going at it."

How true.

What an awful movie.

1/5 stars.


As a semi-film buff, I had heard of this infamous movie a long time ago. I had heard that it was basically a 15 million dollar film about the tyrannical rule of the Roman emperor Caligula, complete with hard-core pornography. What struck me was that it was a porno movie yet it had great thespians like Peter O'Toole, John Geilgud, Malcolm McDowell and Hellen Mirren in it!!?? A week ago I saw a documentary about Caligula on the History channel and this film came back into my head and finally my curiousity got the best of me, I foolishly rented the DVD and even more foolishly watched it.

Within the first 30 minutes I was seeing acts of sex and especially violence that would earn an NC-17 even by todays standards. Was it really necessary to have a scene of a man having his urinary track closed and then have gallons of wine poured into him and then have his stomach cut with a sword (all in very graphic detail). And a scene where a guy gets his d*** cut off and fed to dogs (again in very graphic detail)....and this just scratches the surface. The argument for this movie from those who like it seems that it is the only film that honestly portrays pagan Rome and it's excesses. When in fact what this movie really is, is sheer exploitation. From beginning to end you see nothing but endless torture, and decapitations and every kind of violence and crude behavior imaginable (sadomasochism, rape, necrophelia, it just never stopped). There is no insight into Caligula himself, what might have propelled him to go mad, the horrible childhood he had that molded him into a sadist as an adult. This is not a historic film, it is sleaze. Even the porn in this movie stinks, and through much of this when I wasn't gagging I was just incredibly bored. By the time it was over I was depressed, didn't feel much like eating and this movie does the impossible, it actually can turn you off of sex.

What were these great actors thinking when they got into this. I did read that the porn segments were filmed after the principal shooting was completed (which explains why none of the main actors are in any of these scenes and why the quality of these scenes is so poor). But still and all these actors must have known what they were getting into. Right at the opening credits it says "Penthouse Magazine and Bob Gucionne Presents". And the scenes that the famous actors actually take part in are completely repulsive in and of themselves. Apparently director Tinto Brass wanted his name removed from the completed film entirely, as did the screenwriter (Gore Vidal of all people). Even John Geilgud and Peter O'toole were begging people not to see this when it opened at the Cannes film festival.

For the amount of money the producers spent on this, the movie's quality is terrible. Everything is underlit and murky as if the film was dropped in a swamp prior to being developed, and that's when you're lucky enough to view a scene that's actually in-focus. The sound is poorly dubbed, much of the music is awkward and the editing is god awful.

Anyway, I brought this movie on myself. My advice...don't watch this, don't watch this, don't watch this......as for myself tomorrow night I am going to watch something lighter....like DAWN OF THE DEAD!


Who really wants to see that? Disgusting violence, disgusting sex, for such a long time. I do not want to, but I always stayed true to my philosophy to watch any movie as bad as it may be. This was the hardest (right after "Next Friday").

It's basically just crap. How can you possibly call it anything else? The story of a Roman emperor as an excuse for gore and T&A. Yeah, yeah, "Hey, it's realistic, they have been like this." Fine, but why bother us with it? I don't care if it has been like this (and there are a lot of scenes where I truly doubt it). The point is, why should anyone wanna see it? Problem is, there is only one reason you could like the film and that would be that you like violence. There's nothing special about it, just cruelty. You can say "Cool!" as you'd say in splatter-slasher-movie. But horror movies with violence at least can give you chills and excitement, maybe characters you care about. But here everything is dark, dull and boring. Every character is mad. "The story of an emperor who can't deal with his power". What? In the very first scene he runs naked through the woods with his sister! I have no problem saying that we saw a madman for 2 1/2 hours.

But maybe you get turned on by seeing Helen Mirren, being pregnant and dancing. Or 5 minutes of hardcore scenes that some people see as the message of the movie. Or castration, yeah right, that was fun! Real birth scenes, how hilarious! Humans, animals, who cares, let's just treat them as toys.

I don't care what anyone says, this is no movie, this is just 2 1/2 hours of blood and sex, degrading and disgusting. Go watch a porn movie if you want sex or watch a horror flick if you want violence. At least those movies don't pretend to be some artistic masterpiece. And they are shorter.

[0/10] [6 (1+ - 6-)] [0/4]


Probably not the same version as most of the other reviewers because there`s no real hard core sex . What do people mean by hard core sex ? The sort of explicit hard core sex seen in films starring Traci Lords and " Big " John Holmes ? Well anyway this is really poor film , I doubt if I`ve ever seen so many big name actors wasted in a film . The script is really poor and plotless , the directing and cinematography is awful and the editing is non existant . It truly is an absolutely awful film. You could watch this ten times and still not understand what the hell it`s about . The only memorable scene is the one where people are buried up to their necks and a giant lawnmower comes along and decapitates them . Yes you read that right , a film set in Roman times has a scene with a head chopping giant lawnmower !

Trivia point. Many years ago a pirate copy of THE THING ( 1982 version ) was doing the rental rounds on my Island and it been copied onto a rental tape of CALIGULA meaning the pirate version of THE THING starts with the first few seconds of CALIGULA of the man and woman walking through the forest then the title sequence of THE THING starts . This led people who`d seen the pirate tape to believe the forest scene was the opening of John Carpenter`s 1982 film and were very confused as to what it meant. Well that`s what you get for renting pirate videos . But having seen the whole of CALIGULA I don`t know what it meant either


"Caligula" shares many of the same attributes as the 1970 "Fellini Satyricon" with bizarre sights, freakishness, and depictions of sexual excesses all set in the "glory" of ancient Rome. But Fellini it ain't... First of all it is not as entertaining. Far too much screen time is devoted to bug-eyed, rubber-faced McDowell in the titular role. His performance is far too fey and campy to be convincing. The portrayals by Jay Robinson in "The Robe" (1953) and David Cain-Haughton in "Emperor Caligula" (1983) are far more persuasive and believable, with the latter being the most nuanced. Relief could have been judiciously provided by developing the surrounding characters more fully. As it is, they are little more than cyphers. One example is the role of Macro, played by Guido Mannari who has tremendous screen presence in an important role, but is mostly left in the background. The only positive features to credit are the adroit use of some Prokofiev and Stravinsky themes in the music score and the inclusion of some of the distasteful but nevertheless accurate actions of the despot. These two factors are far less than what is needed to relieve the prevailing tedium, however.


I rated this movie a 3 and that was generous. The scenery is ponderous and gaudy, the acting for the most part is terrible. I do think Peter O'Toole did a good job of acting (Tiberius), but he must have been mortified when he saw the final cut of the movie. John Gielgud, howsoever brief his appearance in the movie, still seemed to be playing a role from Hamlet. The hard core pornography parts were neither erotic nor did they do much to further the story. Okay Malcolm McDowell had a nice butt and the guy who played Macro was handsome. The guy who played Claudius, looked more like the traditional depictions of Nero and was certainly at odds with Robert Graves' picture of Claudius. The climactic (?) assassination of Caligula, wife and child is inaccurate in that it shows him after death lying on stairs in an open-air area, when in fact he was assassinated in the underground passage on the palatine hill which ran along the front of the Domus Flaviana that still exists today. There are places in this movie where virtually anything drew my attention away from it--merciful distractions. If you want history, read Suetonius or Tacitus, if you want pornography and sadism, watch Passolini's "Salo", but by all means stay away from this movie.


I'm almost embarrassed to admit to seeing CALIGULA twice. The problems with the production are almost too numerous to mention. The script is sub-standard (it's easy to see why Vidal tried to disown it). The direction is worse. Most of the movie consists of long shots inter cut with close-ups interspersed with cross cuts of mostly un-erotic porn (more prevalent obviously in the "uncut" version). The cinematography is especially sub par, giving the whole production a cheap washed-out look that undermines some of the elaborate set designs. The movie should've looked a whole lot better. The overall concept of placing name actors in what would've easily been an X-rated movie (Guccione called it "paganography") wears thin after the first hour after Peter O'Toole and John Guilgud exit. Bob Guccione obviously lavished a lot of bucks on this but it all seems like a big waste. If you want a far better understanding of the Roman Empire in the 1st Century watch the mid-79's BBC production of I, CLAUDIUS instead... and if you want porn, jeeze-Louise, look somewhere else.


Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and/or proceed with caution  for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored  with a running time of barely 77 minutes  but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. "Eyes Behind the Wall" can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's "Rear Window", the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.


I was expecting "Born to Kill" to be an exciting, high-tension film noir. Instead, it's got two good action set-pieces (one at the beginning and one at the end) and some marvelously atmospheric cinematography by Robert de Grasse (usually a "glamor" cameraman and a surprising credit for a noir), but the rest of the film is pretty boring. Lawrence Tierney goes through his psycho kick but it's a strictly by-the-numbers performance, mechanically churning out what the audience expected from him after "Dillinger" (an overrated movie but at least better than this). Claire Trevor's character is too stupid and unmotivated to have any audience appeal, and the action (such as it is) stays so resolutely inside that damned house in San Francisco the film becomes claustrophobic instead of genuinely thrilling. It's one of those movies in which the supporting players -- notably Elisha Cook, Jr. (whose character's homoerotic itch for Tierney's is one of the few subtleties in an otherwise pretty obvious script) and Isabel Jewell -- out-act the leads. It also doesn't help that, nearly half a century after Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins revolutionized the depiction of psycho killers on the screen in "Psycho," Tierney's is so gross and obvious he might as well have "PSYCHO" tattooed on his forehead. Also, there's no indication in the film as it stands as to why the source novel was called "Deadlier than the Male" -- but perhaps James Gunn made the female characters stronger and more interesting than they are in the film. "Born to Kill" is a real disappointment from Robert Wise, who already had some quality movies under his belt and would go on to a stellar career.


This HBO original is pretty straightforward and pretty dumb. Armand Assante, once again doing a poor Stallone imitation, is Ray Wellman a ex-con just out on parole. All he wants is his old girlfriend Lacy, played by a young Marcia Gay Harden, back. Unfortunately for Ray, Lacy has hooked up with stalwart Elliot, played by Sam Neill. Further complicating matters is that Ray's old Cell buddies want some favors and they kidnap Lacy to make sure they happen. Ray and Elliot team up, despite mutual dislike.

What follows is violent and slow, but Marcia Gay Harden shows us why she would win Oscar in the future, she's not as polished here, but her raw emotion, sincerity and some rather explicit nude scenes almost make this worth watching. Almost.

Rent "Fever" (no the title doesn't fit the film) if your a fan of hers, otherwise skip it and be grateful it's stars went on to better things.

Note-this is a hard "R" flick for language, violence and nudity.


I was looking forward to watching this film and was therefore extremely disappointed when I found it to be complete and utter rubbish. Akerman's direction is both heavy handed and cliched (how much more cliched can you get than Paris at night?). The male cast seems to have been chosen entirely for their resemberlance to Egon Schiele's angst ridden self portraits. Yet the themes of jealousy and betrayal which should have been the primary focus of a film of this type are left virtually unexplored. What is left is a turgid melodrama which takes an age to get started and even longer to finish. The only advantage with this sort of film is that it makes you realise how good Goddard and Truffaut really are.


This film is about a woman falling in love with a friend of her boyfriend. From then on, she has to divide her time for the two boyfriends: Jack during the day and Joseph during the night.

This film feels like as if it was made with minimum budget. The majority of the film is set in a flat with minimal furniture. There are only three main actors, all the other actors listed in the credits make only momentary appearances. The wardrobe designer doesn't seem to have much to do, as the actors wear very down to earth clothes, and actually most of the time they are naked anyway.

The film is very dialog heavy, which should have made up for the shortcomings described above. However, the dialogs sound too composed and awkward. In the beginning of the film, most of the dialog is a person saying a very long sentence, and then the person says 'Me too'. After the frenzy of agreement, the dialog descends into a mess of disjointed and confused word salad.

The only merit of this film I can think of is that it serves as a feminist outlet which conveys that it is not just men who can be unfaithful.

This film is a great disappointment.


One of the most boring movies I've ever seen. Three immature young people have sex and talk about very little except their "love" of each other. They don't seem to be interested in much but each other, and only passively so. I was left feeling shut out. Most of the exterior scenes take place at night, so one can't even enjoy well-lit sights of Paris! I gave up after an hour and ten minutes.


Strikes me as routine, as far as TV movies go. I can believe that it's based on a true story because the plot seems too clumsy to have been written by anyone with storytelling skills.

For instance, good old John Ritter (now a rather bulky and bearded villain) poisons his wife enough to make her ill, then accuses her of being psychosomatic and leaves to marry another young woman immediately. Fourteen years pass before the story picks up again. Why fourteen years? I would guess that though the narrative doesn't demand it, history does.

Some of the particular scenes, however, are so cinematically apt that they were almost certainly dreamed up by a writer. Pawing through her attic, Helgenberger, Ritter's first wife, stumbles across an old electrical appliance and has one of those black-and-white flashbacks with stings on the score -- suddenly she recalls when, fourteen years ago, she discovered Ritter shaving selenium filings from a rectifier, carefully collecting them, and putting them in her shampoo and her eyelash liner (or whatever it's called). Later it develops that he was putting it into her coffee as well.

Frankly, I don't believe it. I don't believe either that she had that particular epiphany in the attic or that Ritter put selenium shavings into her shampoo or eyeliner. Selenium is referred to in the movie as a "toxic metal" and I suppose it is, in sufficient quantity, but it's also an anti-oxidant that's sold over the counter in drug stores and swallowed. Someone will have to demonstrate -- as no one does in this movie -- that it is a topical poison. Many people have tried the nicotine patch and failed. So how come some selenium in her shampoo gives Marg Helgenberger immediate and drastic headaches? And her eyes become as painful as boils when she applies makeup? I think the anthropologist E. B. Tylor called this simple-minded idea "sympathetic magic," but I'm not sure.

Mais je divage. Anyway Ritter evidently tries the same stunt with his second wife fourteen years later, although no evidence of trickery is ever produced when she becomes ill with the same symptoms. Wife Number Two is taken to Mexico and apparently cured but suddenly drops dead shortly after her return. Circumstantial evidence piles up against Ritter, who plays the villain with all the stops out -- when his first trial is dismissed he SMIRKS at Helgenberger, who has prompted the investigation.

You see, Helgenberger was good friends with Ritter's second wife and was terribly disturbed at her demise and its manner. (I'll bet.) And she wants to prevent the same thing from happening to the wealthy young woman who seems lined up for third place in Ritter's marital schedule. (Sure.) The best performance is given by the guy who plays Detective Mauser -- Lawrence Dane? Everyone else acts by the numbers. They project emotions and thoughts with the subtlety of a warning at a railroad crossing. But Dane does little things that are original. "I'm told you want to report a murder. (Long pause while he sits down and waits), then abruptly thrusts his face towards Helgeberger and inquires in a reasonable and curious voice, "So who was murdered"? I suppose except for the bare bones of the historical events, nothing prevented characters or their actions from being drawn differently than they were in real life. I mean, what the heck, Ritter is still in jail convicted of murder and Helgenberger's character is dead, so who is to object? I wish the forensic stuff had been made clearer. Ritter seems to have used so many poisons and toxic metals -- let me see, selenium, cyanide, a massive dose of chlorine, and maybe something else -- that I was confused by it all. Not that I was rooting for Ritter. Here's a mathematician with a Ph.D. who insists people call him "doctor." He even corrects people who address him merely as "professor." Most Ph.D.s get that narcissistic problem behind them very quickly. "Jes' call me Whitey, even though I know how to get a standard deviation and you don't." Average TV fare.


Okay, last night, August 18th, 2004, I had the distinct displeasure of meeting Mr. Van Bebble at a showing of the film The Manson Family at the Three Penny in Chicago as part of the Chicago Underground Film Festival. Here's what I have to say about it. First of all, the film is an obvious rip off of every Kenneth Anger, Roman Polanski, Oliver Stone and Terry Gilliam movie I've ever seen. Second of all, in a short Q & A session after the show Mr. Van Bebble immediately stated that he never made any contact with the actual Manson Family members or Charlie himself, calling them liars and saying he wanted nothing to do with them, that the film was based on his (Van Bebble's) take on the trial having seen it all from his living room on TV and in the news (and I'm assuming from the Autobiography and the book Helter Skelter which were directly mimicked through the narrative). So I had second dibs on questions, I asked if he was trying to present the outsider, Mtv, sex drugs and rock 'n roll version and not necessarily the true story. This question obviously pissed off the by now sloshed director who started shouting "f*** you, shut the f*** up, this is the truth! All those other movies are bullsh**!"

Well anyway, I didn't even think about how ridiculous this was until the next day when I read the tagline for the film, "You've heard the laws side of the story...now hear the story as it is told by the Manson Family." Excuse me, if this guy has never even spoken to the family and considers them to be liars that he doesn't want to have anything to do with, how in God's name can he tell the story for them!? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard! The film was obviously catered to the sex drugs and rock 'n roll audience that it had no trouble in attracting to the small, dimly lit theatre, and was even more obviously spawned by the sex drugs and rock 'n roll mind of a man who couldn't even watch his own film without getting up every ten minutes to go get more beer or to shout some sort of Rocky Horroresque call line to the actors on screen. This film accomplishes little more than warping the public's image of actual events (which helped shape the state of America and much of the world today) into some sort of Slasher/Comic Book/Porno/Rape fantasy dreamed up by an obviously shallow individual.

The film was definitely very impressive to look at. The soundtrack was refreshing as it contained actual samples of Charlie's work with the Family off of his Lie album. The editing was nice and choppy to simulate the nauseating uncertainty of most modern music videos. All in all this film would have made a much better addition to the catalogues at Mtv than to the Underground Film Festival or for that matter the minds of any intellectual observers. I felt like I was at a midnight Rocky Horror viewing the way the audience was dressed and behaving (probably the best part of the experience). The cast was very good with the exception of Charlie who resembled some sort of stoned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast more than the actual role he was portraying. The descriptions the film gave of him as full of energy, throwing ten things at you and being very physical about it all the while did not match at all the slow, lethargic, and chubby representation that was actually presented.

All in all the film basically explains itself as Sadie (or maybe it was Linda) declares at the end, "You can write a bunch of bullsh** books or make a bunch of bullsh** movies...etc. etc." Case in point. Even the disclaimer "Based on a True Story" is a dead giveaway, signalling that somewhere beneath this psychedelic garbage heap lay the foundation of an actual story with content that will make and has made a difference in the world. All you have to do is a little bit of alchemy to separate the truth from the the crap, or actually, maybe you could just avoid it all together and go read a book instead.

All I can say is this, when the film ended I got a free beer so I'm glad I went, but not so glad I spent fifteen dollars on my ticket to be told to shut the f*** up for asking the director a question. Peace.


The only thing of interest about this movie is its subject matter. Taking a look at the Manson "family" from the point of view of the family members themselves is a great idea. However, trying to make sense of the uncomprehensible is something that can really only be accomplished in a masterwork -- and this ain't it.

Presumably because there was so much information to squeeze into a screenplay, this film was done in a faux documentary style, with reenactments thrown in. Trouble is, the writing and directing make it impossible to establish those things that make a movie watchable, like character, story, theme and so on.

Worse, there's an incredibly weak sub-plot thrown in that follows a little band of latter-day Mansonites as they go after a reporter who's working on a story on the anniversary of the killings. It's dumb and pointless, and a complete waste of time.

All in all, this movie is one big wasted opportunity. The one ray of sunshine is the acting of Marc Pitman, who plays Tex, who in real life did most of the actual killing. Whereas the female characters come off as giggly airheads in the 60s flashbacks, Pitman manages to convey real feeling.

In short, don't bother with this movie.


I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.

This is a supposed "new look" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a "new look" then it's probably "new" as in "fresh and totally inept": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.

I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a "Manson tape" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of "the family" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing "Manson"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this "Manson" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.

Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.

PS. The recent US TV production "Helter Skelter" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to "Manson Family", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad "Manson Family" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.


I heard legends about this "film" (quotes used so as not to insult films) for a while, so when I finally got the DVD with it, I impatiently started watching it. By the end, I *had* to fast forward through just a few of the most moronic, ineptly made, nonsensical scenes of this pointless childish mess to make it end quicker.

This may be the worst film I've even "touched" - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. "Manson Family" makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a "plot" it has, the revoltingly bad "acting", the painful, inept "directing", the sets and props with their "dollar ninety nine" look (I especially "loved" the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out "brains" will love this "film" (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various "Worst 50" lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen "Superbabies" or its sequel, but I strongly wish that "Manson" joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many "1" votes - and so much the better!


This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.

While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.

Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.

The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows!

Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?"


A paranoid scientist creates a wolfman by transfusing wolf blood into a meek, quiet, but very large gardener, in order to prove an hypothesis. So the gardener begins nightly rampages and the scientist tries to use him to reclaim his credentials, but is rebuffed by his former colleagues for tampering with nature. Island of Dr Moreau, Frankenstein and various wolfman films all blended together into a terribly dated, goofy, morality play.

Though the subject matter is pedantic and unoriginal at best, this film is not too poorly made, and interesting to watch as a representative of horror film making of its time. Like most mad scientist films, this is a weak warning against fooling around with Mother Nature. It doesn't have the power or intellectual challenges of Frankenstein, but it doesn't ever extend its reach anyway. The acting is passable, as is the cinematography, and the film moves along at an entertaining clip. Some of the dialog is utterly ludicrous, but hey... it's just a movie - and a B minus one at that. There are also a few nice shots of a wolf, and a smattering of humor tossed-in to prevent the film from appearing to take itself too seriously - always a plus for this genre.


I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and THE MAD MONSTER is one of the movies in the set.

I am sure that George Zucco was a good actor; but, this was only the second film in which I saw him, the first being DEAD MEN WALK, in which he played two parts. However, even good acting couldn't save THE MAD MONSTER.

Zucco plays a mad scientist, Dr. Cameron (who was banned from academia because of his unethical and inhumane experiments). He believes that he can control evolution by bringing out the characteristics of one animal into another.

In this case, like so many others of its ilk, it is a transfusion of (I assume) wolf's blood into humans. His goal is to create an invincible army, which he can control through the antidote. The subject of his experiments is his hired hand, a retarded gardener, whose dialogue slows down this snail-paced classic to almost a full-stop.

Beyond his experiments, Dr. Cameron also plots revenge on those who discredited him, using his transformed gardener. However, he loses control of his subject, who begins to transform without the transfusion -- yikes!

The werewolf transformations are classic Hollywood stop-action / makeup effects. No doubt these were groundbreaking techniques of the time; but, in today's digital age it's hard to imagine audiences being scared by this.


George Zucco was like Boris Karloff in the fact no matter how poor the film he appeared in was, he would always maintain a sense of dignity and turn in a fine performance. "The Mad Monster" is no exception to that rule. It is by all standards a poor (if entertaining) film. The filmmakers obviously didn't know how to make the most of their low budget and the script seems as if it was turned out in one or two days. Still, Zucco is fine and believable as the mad scientist.

The film itself is enjoyable on a camp level. Normal horror movie fans for the most part won't take a liking to PRC films. However, these "Poverty Row" productions have a small but loyal cult following. Occasionally they would rise above their limitations with "Detour" being the best example of this. Usually they looked like this. For all its technically poor qualities, "The Mad Monster" is an amusing enough way to kill a rainy afternoon. The DVD from Retromedia is recommended, as it pairs this with another PRC production "The Black Raven", the original theatrical trailer, and best of all an interview with Glenn Strange talking about his role in this movie. (4/10)


A scientist (George Zucco) wants to create wolf men out of American soldiers to fight the Nazis, but is branded as mad. He uses a simpleton gardener (Glenn Strange) to experiment on by mixing his blood with the blood of a wolf. Strange, constantly embedding his dialogue with the tones of Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men", has no idea what's going on, only that he sleepwalks. The victims begin to pile up (including a little girl, which modern viewers might find rather disturbing, and two of Zucco's rivals). There is some good dialogue on how man should not mess with nature (still prevalent today) and play God. Zucco's motives may be honorable, but his methods are most questionable. And then there is his daughter, Anne Nagel, who is sympathetically nice to Strange, yet has no idea of her father's deeds. Johnny Downs is a reporter who gets on Zucco's bad side by questioning him, but wins Nagel's heart, thus creating the usual and always dull romantic subplot in classic horror films. At 77 minutes, this is about 15 minutes longer than usual for a horror film of the early 40's (particularly one out of PRC, who released this one), so the romantic story could have been trimmed for costs and to speed things up a bit. Zucco, fortunately, is never hammy; He left that to Bela Lugosi (who always hammed in a deliciously theatrical manner which endeared him to audiences) and England's Todd Slaughter. But try not to think of "Bride of the Monster's" laboratory while looking at the one Zucco works in, or some of Lugosi's dialogue in that now classic cult film. "Mad Monster" lacks a cult following more because it is not delightfully bad, just has dull pacing in more than a few spots. For PRC and Monogram lovers, I would recommend "The Corpse Vanishes" or "Fog Island" higher than this


OK, this movie seems to have been pretty well covered by earlier comments, but there are a couple of items I wish to add. The mad scientist is producing a serum from the blood of a caged animal in order to turn a man into a werewolf. If we suspend our disbelief enough to buy into that, fine. But the animal in the cage is a coyote. That would make a werecoyote. Did audiences in 1942 not know the difference between a wolf and a coyote? They're easy to tell apart. That's weak.

Secondly, this movie was covered in the third episode of MST3k (on the Comedy Channel). It took Joel and the bots a number of episodes to get up to full riffing steam, and they weren't up there quite yet on this one. They DID add enough to this snoozer to keep you awake until the end, but it was not one of their better episodes. They never even mentioned the glaring omission of an actual wolf, and THAT joke was just hanging in the air waiting to be smacked.


OK, I've now seen George Zucco in at least four separate horror/suspense films recently as I worked my way through various 50 pack collections, and I have to say, the guy had a limited range, but he was good at what he did. He wasn't Karloff, but PRC was lucky to have him.

But the poor guy was stuck in a kind of back-water ghetto of horror films, and he wasn't good enough to take them to the next level of interest....not with the thread-bare screenplays and direction and budgets he worked under. That's the case here.

This movie is, well, slow, stodgy and unexciting for the most part. The "heroine" seems to be doomed to be a rent-a-center version of Judy Garland, the "hero" is bland as white rice, and the poor guy playing the monster doesn't even get a good transformation scene out of the deal. His make up effects aren't scary at all - he looks like a slightly more shaggy version of a farm hand, is all.

It's not a total waste. Zucco looks good on camera, he chews the scenery while managing to deliver some terribly affected and contrived set speeches without flinching or losing the flow. There are some moody B&W shots here and there that don't completely suck.

So all in all...this movie helped some "C" through "Z" level actors pay their rent for another month, and it never sinks below a certain hacked out level of quality. Watch it once if you like George Zucco, or just feel the need to see every wolfman-themed movie ever made.


Thankfully you don't need a lot of "book learnin" to understand where this thing's going... Obviously a poverty row cash-in on Universal's big hit THE WOLF MAN (which was made just one year earlier), this finds the always-watchable George Zucco in another of his patented "mad doctor" roles as brilliant, vengeance-minded scientist Lorenzo Cameron. Cameron, who has set up shop deep in the swamp lands of what I'm presuming is the Louisiana bayou, is plotting revenge against four of his former peers who both humiliated him and forced him to resign from his previous job. You see, they scoffed at his claims of being able to mix man with beast to create an unstoppable army of wolfman creatures that would come in handy during war-time. Thankfully Cameron has found the ideal test subject for his wolf blood injections - a hulking, child-like half-wit named Petro (Glenn Strange). Petro is pretty clueless as to what's going on, doesn't ask too many question and lets the doc strap him down to a table and shoot him up with whatever happens to be in his syringe. This results in a time-lapse change of man turning into a werewolf. Cameron lets him out of the mansion using a secret passageway, so you basically get a big guy (Strange was 6'5") dressed in overalls with a bushy beard, hairy paws and a set of over-sized plastic teeth, running around in the woods the majority of the time. After an eyewitness sees the beast and a little girl is killed, the locals grab their rifles and organize a posse to hunt it down. Dr. Cameron, who can control the beast with a whip and also has a handy antidote to reverse the effect, also drags Petro along to the big city to try to track down the professors who had made a mockery of his original theories and destroyed his reputation in the process. Also hanging around the house is Cameron's daughter Lenora (Anne Nagel), as well as Lenora's nosy reporter boyfriend Tom (Johnny Downs), whose first inclination is that they're dealing with an upright-walking prehistoric creature (!)

Though a typically chintzy PRC flick in many ways, with unimpressive sets, cinematography and make-ups, as well as a fairly bland supporting cast, it remains watchable thanks to the histrionics of star George Zucco. I have no clue why Downs received top billing; he shows up half-an-hour in and really doesn't have a whole lot to do, nor is he all that impressive doing it. This is Zucco's show all the way and he's great ranting and raving, talking to himself while fantasizing that he's talking to his peers ("I'm not interested in your imbecilic mouthings!") and temporarily sliding in and out of sanity. Strange seems to have patterned his performance as the hilariously naive and slow-talking semi-retarded country bumpkin around the entire oeuvre of Lon Chaney Jr., from his turn as Lenny in OF MICE AND MEN, to his performance as the aforementioned WOLF MAN. In any case, Strange and Zucco do a fairly good job playing off one another. My favorite part is when Zucco calls him his "guinea pig" in front of a colleague while Petro just sits there grinning and staring at a doorknob. Some of the foggy swamp scenes are pretty atmospheric, too.


"Dr. Cameron, a discredited scientist succeeds with his experiment in creating serum the transforms men into wolf-like creatures. Originally developing this formula to help the world, the scientist decides to use his newly created subject to exact revenge upon the scientists who were responsible for his ouster from the scientific community. The scientist's daughter Lenora grows wary of her father's actions and shares her suspicions with a newspaper reporter. When the scientist loses control of his creature, it falls upon the scientist's daughter and the reporter to stop it," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Mad scientist George Zucco (as Lorenzo Cameron) creates his formula rather unimaginatively, by mixing human and wolf blood. This brings the beast out in hulking Glenn Strange (as Petro aka Pedro), who is directed to act like Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Johnny Downs (as Tom Gregory) and Anna Nagel (as Lenora Cameron) are a likable werewolf hunter and damsel in distress. Certainly, "The Mad Monster" is no substitute for "The Wolf Man"; but, it's a serviceable addendum. The grainy black-and-white photography enhances the foggy, cow-webbed atmosphere. "God" (uncredited) strikes up a well-done ending, too. Like Blaine (Robert Strange) said, "Mingling the blood of man and beast is downright sacrilege!"

**** The Mad Monster (1942) Sam Newfield ~ George Zucco, Johnny Downs, Anna Nagel


First of all, I have to say that I am not generally a big fan of werewolf movies in general. It's not that I don't like them, just that I don't like them a lot. There are some that I have enjoyed...Werewolf of London (1935, Stuart Walker), An American Werewolf in London (1981, John Landis)...and some that I have thought were okay but nothing special...The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner), The Howling (1981, Joe Dante), Dog Soldiers (2002, Neil Marshall) are some examples...but overall, the werewolf sub-genre is not my favorite. But I had this one on one of those 50 movie sets so I thought I'd give it a watch and see how it was.

Spoilers follow...

The Mad Monster is a werewolf tale, but the werewolf is primarily used as a vehicle for revenge by a mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco). Dr. Cameron has discovered a way to transform human beings into beasts, specifically wolves, but was ridiculed and ostracized by the greater scientific community. Forced out of a prestigious position, he goes mad and plots revenge on those who mocked him in an old country mansion, where he lives with his daughter Lenora (the lovely Anne Nagel) and his assistant Petro (Glenn Strange) of limited mental abilities. Using his serum, Dr. Cameron transforms Petro into a werewolf and sends him off to kill his old rivals. Eventually, though, the werewolf Petro gets out of control and both the mad doctor and his creation are killed.

The movie also plays out somewhat as a murder/crime drama, with Lenora's journalist suitor (Johnny Downs) investigating the doctor's strange behavior and the rash of murders. The story seems to borrow many elements from other big pictures that came before it. There are reminders of Frankenstein (1931, James Whale) in the creation of a monster which runs amok, and the creature killing an innocent child. Visions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931, Rouben Mamoulian or the 1941, Victor Fleming version) and The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner) also come to mind. And that is one of the problems with this movie in my view-it comes across as a mediocre melding of some great films. It doesn't add much to the genre.

True, there are some redeeming qualities. George Zucco's performance was convincing, and the scene showing Dr. Lorenzo talking to his visions/hallucinations of his tormentors works well for me in showing his insanity. There is some reasonable character build up, at least in the case of his character. But Glenn Strange's character is not at all convincing, and seems to have this comedic quality-whether intentional or not, I'm not sure-that just doesn't fit into the movie as a whole.

I seemed to like it more than most IMDb users based on my rating of 4/10, but it was still a below average film. Perhaps worth a view if you are a fan of early werewolf movies or a big fan of the 1930's and 1940's horror films, but unlikely to appeal to you if you are not.


There are so many holes in the plot, it makes you wonder if they knew they had an audience for this and just threw it together. I don't know much about George Zucco, but I've seen him in two movies. Obviously, he has been cast as the loving father, mad scientist, vampire guy. He looks so ordinary. I'm surprised that he ended up in the genre. This is the typical, "I will create monsters that can be used to fight as an army." By transferring wolf blood (or is it coyote) to his hired hand, he turns him into a werewolf. Glen Strange, who was one of Karloff's successor's as the Frankenstein monster, plays the kindly, lovable hired man who is victimized because he trusts the mad doctor. At first the scientist is able to control when Petro (his name) can be transformed. But, like the invisible man, suddenly he starts morphing on his own and becomes a liability. There is a little love story of the daughter and a reporter with kind of a high pitched voice (Golly Miss Brooks). She wants to leave but her father, the doctor, won't allow that. He is also driven by a group of his peers who mocked his research before and now he is going to have satisfaction. The way he plot to embarrass or kill them is pretty far fetched and depends a lot on Petro and the guys sitting around waiting to be attacked. It's not a very good movie. The strong point is atmosphere of the woods as people and monsters lurk around the Spanish moss. Once again, the townsfolk are a bunch of morons, who look like they escaped from a bad western. One thing that stayed with me was that a little girl is the first victim and that seems unusual for a film of this era. There's also a pipe smoking old lady who knows about werewolves but nobody listens to her.


Pretty bad PRC cheapie which I rarely bother to watch over again, and it's no wonder -- it's slow and creaky and dull as a butter knife. Mad doctor George Zucco is at it again, turning a dimwitted farmhand in overalls (Glenn Strange) into a wolf-man. Unfortunately, the makeup is virtually non-existent, consisting only of a beard and dimestore fangs for the most part. If it were not for Zucco and Strange's presence, along with the cute Anne Nagel, this would be completely unwatchable. Strange, who would go on to play Frankenstein's monster for Unuiversal in two years, does a Lenny impression from "Of Mice and Men", it seems.

*1/2 (of Four)


For reasons I cannot begin to fathom, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco) begins injecting wolf's blood into his dim-witted handyman, Petro (Glenn Strange). The result  Petro is transformed into a hideous (as hideous as someone with a bad wig and pointy teeth can be) killer beast. Dr. Cameron uses Petro to get his revenge against those in the scientific community who scoffed at and ridiculed his ideas (and why wouldn't they, Dr. Cameron's nuttier than a fruitcake).

Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in "God's domain" (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster.


George Zucco was a fine actor, often playing gimlet-eyed villains with a lascivious intensity. However even he couldn't save this dull and flat-footed B flick.

Zucco plays the usual mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron, who believes that wolf's blood, injected into humans, can create an invincible army of wolf men who can win the World War II (go figure!) Experimenting on Pedro the handyman(Glenn Strange) Zucco creates a werewolf that looks rather like the ones Dave Allen used to play in his comedy sketches! Pedro is obviously based on Lennie from Of Mice And Men, and you almost keep expecting him to say "Duh, okay, George!" There's one startling moment when the werewolf kills a child by reaching in through the window and grabbing it, but for the most part this is a routine and pedestrian - very pedestrian - 77 minute tread through all the old clichés that are done far better in other movies.We also get the revenge motif from the Devil Bat worked in, in itself a borrowing from Son Of Frankenstein!

Zucco is wasted, and you only have to see him in films such as Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy's Hand and Dr. Renault's Secret to see how wasted. A few atmospheric swamp scenes are all it has to offer, really. And the scene where Zucco demonstrates his wolf-man technique to those who doubted him (again shades of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde) is unintentionally hilarious.

Not one of the better 40s B movies.


Not to be confused with the 1943 George Zucco movie "The Mad Ghoul," "The Mad Monster" is a film that Zucco appeared in the year before. In this fairly paint-by-numbers affair, Zucco perfects a way to turn his dim-witted handyman, Petro, into a wolf/man hybrid by means of wolf's blood injections, and then wastes little time in sending the transformed doofus to slay the former colleagues who had scoffed at his experiments. It is a very simple plot, really, and an extremely low-budget production. Glenn Strange, who plays the man/wolf here, would soon achieve greater fame playing the Franky monster in films such as "House of Frankenstein" (1944) and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948). The makeup job on him here is pretty lame, and only succeeds in making him look like a hippy with bad teeth (like the one in 1957's "Teenage Monster"). The sets in this film, in addition, are fairly nonexistent, and the denouement is abrupt and unconvincing. I have given the movie a very generous 4 stars, in part because I have an abiding love for 1940s horror films, but truth to tell, most objective viewers would probably deem it laughable crap, and I suppose it is. It's certainly no well-crafted Universal affair or Val Lewton masterpiece, that's for sure! Still, Zucco is always fun to watch, even in undemanding piffle such as this. If you can spare 72 minutes of your life, I suppose you could do worse than "The Mad Monster" (not TOO much worse, of course!). Oh...one other thing. This DVD is from Alpha Video, and you know what that means: fuzzy images, lousy sound (indeed, the worst sound of any Alpha Video DVD I've encountered so far) and no extras. You've been warned!


The Mad Monster starts in Dr. Lorenzo Cameron's (George Zucco) laboratory as he perfects his discovery of how to turn a human being into a vicious wolf like monster by injecting animal blood into a human subject who happens to be his dim-witted servant Petro (Glenn Strange), apparently he plans to put the serum at the disposal of the war department who will use it to create an unstoppable army of these monsters, the ultimate soldier! However, first things first as Dr. Cameron has his sights set on some sweet revenge on the people who dismissed his experiments, forced him to resign & subjected him to public ridicule. Dr. Cameron puts his plan into action & uses his monstrous creation to murder Professor Blaine (Robert Strange), in an unfortunate turn of events Dr. Cameron is unable to control the beast & is spotted by a local farmer Jed Harper (Eddie Holden) who spreads the news like wildfire, in another unfortunate coincidence a reporter named Tom Gregory (Johnny Downs) gets wind of the story & starts to investigate, he starts to suspect Dr. Cameron & since Gregory is going out with his daughter Lenora (Ann Nagel) he has plenty of opportunity to sniff around...

Directed by Sam Newfield this is really low budget stuff from the 40's, even worse it's dull unoriginal low budget stuff. The script by Fred Myton drags the extremely thin premise out to almost 77 minutes which is far too long, there is no variety in the story & it's basically the same thing over & over. The character's are dull clichés, the mad scientist who conducts pointless experiments that create a monster, the fragile pretty daughter, the reporter who plays the hero & by pure coincidence happens to both be investigating the mysterious deaths said mad scientist is responsible for & is romantically involved with his daughter, the dumb servant, stupid idiotic police & stereotypical shotgun wielding farmers who are always accused of being drunk. This was probably clichéd even back in 1942! The film plods along at a fairly slow pace & director Newfield never manages to maintain or generate much in the way of excitement or atmosphere which is a bad thing. Technically the film isn't great, obviously the budget was minuscule & the mad monster itself looks lame resembling an old homeless wino who hasn't shaved for a few weeks & has had a pair of plastic joke shop fangs placed in his mouth. The black and white cinematography is basic & static like most films from this period while the good Dr. Cameron's laboratory consists of a couch & a table with a few sorry pieces of scientific equipment on top. The acting is stiff & wooden with Petro looking like he's on dope throughout the entire film, Zucco as the mad scientist doesn't convince & is forgettable. The Mad Monster is a pretty lame horror film, there is very little here to entertain although at least I made it through to the end in a single sitting which when I think about it is a bit of an achievement in itself!


As I sit and think about Poison for the Fairies, I realize that I may not being fair with the film. My rating of 3/10 may have more to do with my disappointment with the film than its actual quality or entertainment value. Based on the plot description, reviews on IMDb, and the 7.6 IMDb rating, I would sure that I had stumbled on a little known gem. Sadly, it just didn't do much for me. For whatever reason, Poison for the Fairies all but put me to sleep.

Poison for the Fairies is the story of two young girls in 1965 Mexico City. One of the girls, Veronica, is a compulsive liar and tells her friend that she, Veronica, is a witch. The other girl, Flavia, is so gullible that she believes and is frightened by everything her friend tells her. That's really about it. In reality, nothing much happens and the film drags on and on as Veronica attempts to terrorize and dominate Flavia. One commenter on IMDb described it as "the scariest film in 80's Mexican cinema". My comment  if that's the case, there must not have been many horror films made in Mexico in the 80s. Another commenter wrote, "Watch it if you wanna get scared." My comment  are you sure we're talking about the same movie? My opinion is diametrically opposed to these examples I've given. To me, it was dull, uninspired, and poorly acted. The scene framing is especially annoying as director Carlos Enrique Taboada doesn't ever show the faces of any of the other characters. Veronica and Flavia carry-on long, drawn-out conversations with members of their families and their teacher, but we never actually see these peoples' faces. It's an annoying gimmick.


Two little girls strike a friendship. One tries to convince the other she's a witch. The other is a pushover who bends to the would be witch's will. On and on the movie drags with the pointless interaction between the two little girls, with many a dramatic cut away as they pose "shocking" questions. You know, the kind sweet little children shouldn't ask, such as, "How do you make a deal with the devil"? Oooh... creepy.

In the end, the pushover is sick of being controlled by her witchy friend. Her belief that her friend is a witch leads to a tragic end. But by the time it comes, you won't care in the least.

I can imagine this film may have been frightening to a very religious 1960s Mexican moviegoer, but it doesn't even hold up as a charming relic. It merely drags on. It is boring. It is pointless. It is not to be watched.

There are many here who have a lot of good things to say about it, based on their knowledge of the director's other works and, of course, that common denominator everyone says about pointless films: "Ah, the cinematography is wonderful!" Those reviewers probably have a point. But for the ones who found this movie with no prior knowledge, who don't care about its "photography," its "atmosphere" or its...whatever else it has -- for these viewers, then, who just want a *good* movie that will entertain them for an hour and a half, do yourselves a favour, folks:

Skip it.


Seymour Cassel gives a great performance, a tour de force. His acting as supposed washed up beach stud Duke Slusarski will always have a place in my heart. The film is centered around a nerd who just came to the beach in hopes of honoring his dead brother's dreams. What he gets is lame surf hijinks. Guys cheating, guys fighting, and guys getting drunk going to watch surf documentaries with the whole town of LA on a Friday night. Duke takes the nerd in and tries to teach him how playing volleyball is like touching a woman. Next time my woman talks back I will pretend I'm spiking the ball.

Back to Seymour Cassel. The end of the movie turns into a good drama, since the first half of the film really had no point. Duke plays a wonderful game of volleyball, the best he's played in over ten years. The way the scene is shot is beautiful. You can feel the heart this man has for the game and the love of being on the beach. Those five minutes will go down as one of my favorites of all time. 3/10 Bad to Fair, the rest of the movie was lame.


As Jennifer Denuccio used to say on Square Pegs, "Gag me out the door." I would definitely vote this movie on IMDB's Worst movie list.

Dennis Christopher plays T.T., a guy from Chicago who goes to California peddling his brother's jazz records. He is supposed to be a barney placed in the locals-only surfing community. But he acts more like he is new to civilization (just try to get through his sex scene without squirming). There are also the on-going adventures of the rest of the local population that the viewer must endure. That of Duke (Seymour Cassell), the volleyball expert who tries to get T.T. to act like a normal human being, the obnoxious drunk surfers who cheat on their girlfriends, and the guy who makes a bet with another that he can live in car for sixth months.

California Dreaming is just a big old mess. It starts out like a typical seventies romp, complete with bad 70s music (even though this movie came out one year shy of the 80s). And Dennis Christopher comes off as the most irritable loser, it makes the movie hard to watch (keep your finger on the fast forward button). Even if this movie was supposed to be about the surfer culture, the surf scenes are almost total garbage. The people at the surf contest look as though they can't keep from falling asleep.

I guess the only cool thing is seeing Tanya Roberts outside of her role as Midge on the sitcom "That's 70s show." And Cassell wasn't bad, he was just in a bad movie.


i've heard a lot about the inventive camera-work and direction in this movie. i thought both were a mess

also some truly terrible acting. the main 'heroine' in the movie is irritating beyond belief and has absolutely nothing useful to contribute in any situation. everything she does or says is stupid, and she generally just seems to mess peoples lives up. if she could fight, i might forgive her

overall all the women in this movie are stereotypical 'broads' in need of a man to save them. and all the men in this movie are muscle bound dim wits capable of saving no one

this is a poor movie, and i urge you to avoid it. watch something like 'the sword of doom' instead, i hear its much better than this confusing mess of a film.


This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It's supposed to be a remake or update of "The One-armed Swordsman", by Chang Cheh. The ham-fisted direction and crappy fight choreography mean that the fight scenes aren't even worth watching. The script tries desperately hard to seem serious, but is full of cliches like, "And I knew then that nothing would ever be the same again..." or "If only I'd known what a heavy price I would have to pay." Ugh! And who is that girl who plays Sing? Someone find her and have her eliminated!! She's awful. If you like Chinese martial arts movies, you'd be better off with Lau Gar Leung. This stinks.


I've watched hundreds of kung fu movies and I've heard some good thing about this movie, so I decided to give it a try. What I saw was one of the worst displays of movie making I've ever seen.

I can't help but feel like the director want to have every muscle guy in Hong Kong in this movie. Everyone overacts to the point of stupidity. Even Conan the Barbarian had some civility. This movie just has half-evolved men screaming in every scene and stupid women who has no self-respect. The narrator's character should've be killed for sucking so much...she really didn't deserve to live til the end. The entire movie was a melodramatic mess, with horrible acting, bad directing and bad action. They should've just rename this movie to 'The Stupid One-Armed Caveman with a Blade" Here's a question...why do some director use quick cuts for some action movies? Answer: To can hide the deficiencies of the actors. Nearly every scene was close up and quickly cut without any kind of flow. The movie tried so hard to show intensity, but it became almost laughable. Please stay away from this movie it you have any kind of taste in kung-fu movies...or any taste in movies.


This is among one of many USA attempts of remaking a old classic British TV show, that's more famous than this one. From what I see none of you haven't mentioned or even acknowledged that you knew there was a TV 50's-60's called "Secret Agent Man" The original Secret Agent Man starred the great Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner,Braveheart,Ice Station Zebra,The Phantom, etc) a man who was tapped to be the first James Bond, but he turned it down because McGoohan was a very devout man and he considered James Bond's bed hopping and violent ways to be against his values.

This show was done in black and white, and it's a pity for those who haven't seen it,you are missing out on a lot. The character Mr. McGoohan played in "Secret Agent Man" was named Drake, and after he finished with that show he went on to the do the very popular though at times bizarre and controversial TV series called "The Prisoner". The character he played in "The Prisoner" was that of a agent who's identity is not revealed is kidnapped and transported to a island where he does not know where he is or who it was that is responsible for kidnapping him. What he does know is that his captors want to know the reasons behind his resignation from the British Secret Service, and on this island the populace don't have names but they are referred to by numbers and Patricks character is assigned a number which is "6" It was argued that his Prisoner character was in fact the same character he played in Secret Agent Man but McGoohan himself disputed this.

Ofourse there is the unmistakable famous theme song that the original Secret Agent Man spawned. It was written by Johnny Rivers a famous 50's and 60's pop musician and from what I read some of you are actually think that the song comes from THIS version of the show. You're very wrong about that. It was Johnny's and it comes from the original TV series so let me help to set the facts straight. To those of you who complained about the name of the show being stupid, well in England, it was actually called "Danger Man" and in the US it was retitled "Secret Agent Man" For such a supposedly stupid name the show did well enough when it was first aired.

Granted this current show has little to do with the original, no such main character named Drake in this one, and I guess they did their best to make this show their version of "Secret Agent Man". But it does use the redone version of the original theme song so that does tell you that this show was indeed meant to be a redone albeit however inferior redone version of the original series.