Worthless movie. A complete waste of time and nothing what I expected it to be. The packaging makes it seem as if it is of the American Pie genre (it isn't). rather it is a ridiculous stringing together of coincidences that makes the movie seem more like a writing exercise (let's try to see how many mix ups we can write in to make what should have been a bad SNL skit into a full length feature presentation). What is remarkable is that the director's (based on their commentary on the DVD) take themselves completely seriously. I have been a huge fan of the movies that National Lampoon lends its name to, up to and including Van Wilder. With this one, I feel completely cheated. In fact, I FEEL DUPED. I was expecting a Van Wilder like farce to relive my college days but instead was served an hour and a half of garbage. What lead to my ultimately unmet expectations? Well, for starters, the fact that the cast all appear naked (with an enormous sausage covering what must be covered) on the COVER of the DVD. Add to that the imagery on the back of the case as well as the description and you mislead people into thinking this is a movie that it is not. To make matters worse, the movie starts off as one might expect it too with half-naked drunk college students feebly trying a photo stunt, but ultimately this has nothing whatsoever to do with the movie. In fact, I didn't even realize that the people in that opening sequence where supposed to be the characters in the movie until I was told so by the directors in the commentary. Don't get me wrong, I love plot twists and being surprised by movies, but I hate the fact that this movie tries to pawn itself off as something it is not. Ultimately, it does itself a huge disservice (artistically, though most likely not financially) because it sets its audience up for confusion and disappointment simply because it neglects to deliver what it advertises.

In short, do not rent this movie based on what you see on the case. It is not your usual National Lampoon movie. The only thing funny about it is the fact that many of the actors have appeared in other movies and TV shows that make their involvement here entertaining.


When i went to the video rental shop to get a movie i saw this one and i immediately thought it would be funny. The picture made it seem like a classic comedy type involving teenagers (such as road trip)which i thought would be worth watching. When i turned the move on i was disappointed as the jokes were awful and cheesy. The only bit which the director may have thought would be funny was somebody slipping over on a wet floor. This is not a joke and would not make people laugh. I actually considered turning this movie off coming to half way through. I was annoyed with this movie as it was just a waste of time and money renting it out. Not enough care was taken making this film and not enough time and work put into it. I found the acting to be quite bad as well. The only time i laughed was at the extremely bad 'jokes'or actions done which were really not funny!!!. I rate this film a 1/10. I hope you found this comment useful.


Me and a buddy rented this movie the other day. At first look, it seemed to be another teen movie, which was also what we hoped for, being fans of simple horror and comedy.

It seems that the movie is designed to disappoint the viewer as much as possible. It quickly accelerates into something that holds a lot of potential. Unfortunately it never quite leaves the ground. We had watched it for something that seemed like 1 hour, when I finally, half-sleeping, managed to say :"Dude, this movie sucks" It was only 35 minutes actually... Dude agreed.

The problem is: the movie is simply not funny. It was undoubtedly supposed to be funny, but it failed. It failed in a way that made me sad. It kind of reminds me of myself. I had the potential to be anything I wanted, and instead i ended up watching cheap horror/funny movies all the time. I pity the makers of this movie from the bottom of my heart. Its so sad. All that potential.. and nothing.


I have little to no interest in seeing another awful movie, that totally lacks anything new creative or funny, abusing the National Lampoon tag. How ever something caught my eye in the cast of this movie. I see Danielle Fishel's name i'm a big fan of boy meets world! But the movies shes in are awful. More so as a fan i'm not rewarded by seeing her terrible movies with the treasure of bare breast. So this is where my question comes in.

Has anyone seen this movie? And if so Does Danielle Fishel get naked in it? Would save me the 2 hours of my life i would never get back watching this terrible movie. Thanks a lot


This movie actually hurts to watch. Not only did I not laugh once, I ended up getting a serious headache. At times, I felt so sorry for the actors involved. The best way to sum it up is to note that among sex comedies, it is probably the least funny and least sexy of all time. I'm only sorry I can't give it a vote of less than one. To give this a rating of one is an insult to every movie that scores two or better.

Now I see that they're filming a sequel. Hearing that someone is actually paying these people to make another movie convinces me that there's just too much money in Hollywood. RAISE THEIR TAXES!!! Making a sequel to this movie may very well constitute a crime against humanity; perhaps an international tribunal should be convened, or U.N. sanctions applied to the filmmakers.

In short, it's a really bad movie. Really, really.


The box is why I originally picked up this movie and the back is why I rented it. But I soon learned that I had been duped. I had thought this movie would be something like a Road Trip/Eurotrip/American Pie deal. But I was wrong. This movie is one of the dumbest I've seen in a long time. The unrated version teases you in to watching but will completely disappoint you. The acting was terrible and sound effects just gaudy. It appeared very low budget with the entire setting taking place in the same building. Go out and get Eurotrip or Road Trip instead. I can't believe National Lampoon put its name on this. DON'T BUY IT, DON'T RENT IT. Don't waste 2 hours of your life on this.


A stupid teen supposed comedy that revolves a serious of misunderstanding including (but not limited to) a hooker being confused with a foreign exchange student, girlfriend beating, a girl loving a gay guy, and the straight guy that loves her, and bitchy gossipers. None of the following is funny or even amusing. Nation Lampoon's use to be hilarious back in the day. Now the name is sadly synonymous with crap. And this one is NO exception. I use to think Topenga was kinda cute when she was on "Boy Meets World", but it seems she let herself go (and yes I know she has a name, but into she does ANYthing else worthwhile, she'll stay as Topenga)

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Kati Lohmann gets topless; Boti Bliss relies on a body double (BOOOOO!!!)


Look at the all the positive user comments of this movie, then check to see how often each one posts user comments. They post once. It seems companies are probably paying for services which post junk pro-movie comments on IMDb.

This movie was awful. The plot was stupid. The acting was poor. The jokes weren't even funny. The movie included minor nudity from what looked like porn actresses but none of the other characters.

It was clear from the first 15 minutes that movie wasn't funny. There was some slapstick here and there but most of humor was supposed to be derived from the characters talking behind each other's back and spreading rumors. This isn't even done well. Every joke is obvious and you see it coming.

The movie is worthy of fast forwarding or better yet not watching.

I regret watching this movie and if I could charge the studio and distributor for 1.5 hrs they stole from me I would.


This was the worst movie my wife and I have ever seen. The only concessions is that we did not pay to see it at the movies as we rented this on DVD from the video store. Simply - No plot worth mentioning (I only watched it 5 minutes ago and already I have forgotten), annoying characters played poorly by two-bit actors and if this was suppose a comedy I am still waiting to laugh. In fact the only laugh we got out of the movie was that we joked with each other that we agreed it was truly awful.

Put simply this movie was quite utterly pathetic and I warn others to not waste their time. A travesty of the National Lampoon name , Rating 0/10.


This movie was like a gathering of people that had been in other movies and they decided to make a really bad movie. It had a dude from "Detroit Rock City", a girl from "The Cosby Show", that dork that kissed the chick and bought that sausage was in "Sorority Boys" and there was more. OK that doesn't make a bad movie in itself, that was just something I noticed. The whole thing with the hooker and the french girl having the same name was dumb and the thing with 37 people writing these notes and if you think they are going to get mixed up.....shocking enough.......you called it. And the purse thing, that was just plain stupid. It was so bad that I watched the movie in two parts and still only made it to the 50 minute mark. If you are watching this and expect "Van Wilder" or a movie like that......Don't.


I love movies in this genre. Beautiful girls, toilet humor, gratuitous nudity. So why didn't I like this movie? No movie like this should add even the slightest confusion to the plot. Who's who, where is the money, it's not SE7EN, just make me laugh. Maybe it's me, but i never felt this frustrated watching American Pie movies or any other more modern National Lampoon's movies. This movie has no flow that keeps me smiling, waiting for what's next. Instead, I find myself stopping to think, "Why did they keep that scene?" I do not recommend this movie. If you are expecting Van Wilder, think again. The only fun I had watching this movie was guessing what movies the actors were in when they were kids. 2/10 generously.


If anyone at National Lampoon is reading this PLEASE STOP THE CRAP YOUR PULLING OUT OF YOUR BUM, really now! Why the hell are you doing movies like these? They're not funny and watching it for the sexual content is a complete waste of time, really. It is such a horrible movie you may want to shoot yourself while your watching it. I am serious here, guys, it makes Harol and Kumar go to blah blah blah look like an actual good movie (and we all know that H&K is one of the worst movies ever made) It really sucks, it REALLY does. How bad it is? Well, even losers that actually like National Lampoon shall hate this movie...they'll want to murder the director, I swear to God. I hate you, National Lampoon, die already. Die.


When I was young, I was a big fan of Chuck Norris. I just begun getting out all his old movies on video so I can see them through adult eyes. I remember that I really liked this one in particular, and thought it was one of his best. Now that I'm a little older, I can say that although it's thoroughly average, I still consider it one of his better films. In an acting stretch for him, Norris plays a cop haunted by his participation in the arrest and capture of a dangerous serial killer movie. Serial Killers are all the rage nowadays, and people would like to think of them as a wholly 90s invention. In contrast, it's good to see where the current infatuation has sprung from, most obviously, action movies (as well as stalk n' slashers) of 70s and 80s. While Norris attempts at both humour and any form of human compassion are ham-fisted and laughable, nobody could kick someone in the head quite like Chuck. Being a big fan of Steve James also, I can recommend this film, ditto for genre legend Billy Drago, as well as seeing Mitch from The Blue Brothers in a supporting role. Not great, but it's better than anything Norris did in the 90s.


I picked this film up from the local Family Video on sale for $1.50, which was probably the first sign it wasn't going to be good. Watching it with 2 friends, neither of them even wanted to finish it because of how awful this movie is. I, strangely, couldn't stop watching it. But this film is definitely a textbook case of how not to make a movie.

The plot is simple enough and sounds great: Chuck Norris has nightmares about a serial killer he put behind bars. The serial killer escapes and his nightmares begin to become reality once more. Serial murder, Norris, roundhouse kicks... this sounds like a great film.

And some of it is pretty good. The flashback scene where a man breaks a ladder with his teeth is intense, a scene where a van cascades off a cliff and gets crushed is amazing -- and I learned how to break out of prison using nothing more than Chapstick, gun powder and dental floss. But there is plenty wrong with this movie.

One: the editor is a moron. When making an action or suspense film, you have to keep the energy moving. There are far too many scenes that are not crucial to the plot left in this movie, slowing it down and distracting from the overall story. At least 10 minutes could have been cut and the pacing would have improved and the film would be slightly better. Two: The sound guy is a moron. Apparently somebody tried to film most of this movie in an area where you can't get decent sound, so most of the dialog is voiced over, killing the stereo and not lining up with mouths. Also, the music is far too dramatic in some scenes. Three: The casting director is a moron. They cast Billy Drago as a psychiatrist. Billy Drago is a great cult actor (from Brisco County, the Hills Have Eyes, and others) and would have made the proper serial killer or some sort of villain. His character is so vanilla that Drago's skills are wasted. Four: The writer is a moron. Two plots are in this film - the hunting of a serial killer and the romance between Norris and his pregnant girlfriend. Every time I saw that woman on screen, I wanted to claw my eyes out. And sure enough, she never figured into the other plot, making her story completely pointless.

Will I ever watch this again? Maybe. But unless they remaster this film at least a dozen times, you never should. Not recommended.


"Hero and the Terror" is a fairly dull thriller - a la: no real character substance, predictable plot, and... Boring. For a thriller I found this movie slow in working up to its pitiful climax, as it just seemed to drag along until Chuck's wife's baby is born... and then it drags on from there until it reaches the end - which I can hardly remember already even though I only saw the film 10 minutes ago.

I give this film 3 out of 10 - for the first 10-20 minutes.


This is simply another bad Chuck Norris movie. Norris plays a cop on the trail of a twisted serial killer of women. He put the guy away three years before, but the guy somehow gets through the bars in the nut house he's in by using what looks like dental floss. Then the killer escapes in a cleaning van and drives it over a 400 foot cliff and survives to spend time around a theater undergoing renovation. Irish Jack O'Halloran is the best thing in this movie, but like in Superman II, he doesn't say a word. Somehow that's supposed to make him more menacing. Ron O'Neal of Super Fly fame and Steve James are wasted playing the city's mayor and Norris' sidekick respectively. The film also contains the idiotic subplot of Norris and his girlfriend having a child out of wedlock; it's so 1980's. When coupling Norris' "serious" acting turn with over-the-top musical cues signaling every forthcoming scene in predictable fashion, the film becomes a chore to sit through. The build-up while searching for the killer in the theater is interesting enough with Norris crawling through the shadows to discover the hideaway, but the end fight is disappointing after beginning in such a promising way. It's yet another disappointment from Cannon Films, and it plays like a movie made for television. * of 4 stars.


For a Norris movie this is pretty tame. For an action movie it is kind of dull, and as far as predictability goes my friend and I almost had every turn of this movie nailed. It was nice that the killer's every moves were not telegraphed by the cliche's of 80's action movies, but come on, the only non-predictable move defies the plot and the set-up of the editing. Mainly, it is said rather early on that the killer (Jack O'Halloran, whom is one of the few slightly known actors) only kills women. YET, he all of a sudden stops his M.O. and kills men, huh?. I guess it can be construed and rationalized some way, but why is the movie edited to show that he is going to kill women??

Yet again, I'm sure that there is a reason (i.e. to build suspense), but why spend the time watching it when many other suspense movies are vastly superior.

Fans of "Renegade" may enjoy the small cameo by Branscombe Richmond as Victor, but his brief appearence cannot save the movie and even a vote of 4 seems generous.


Well, the Hero and the Terror is slightly below average in my opinion. Yes, Chuck is a real martial artist and kicks some butt in this film but it is rather slow and the acting in my opinion is for the most part subpar although I think Steve James does a decent job. Like my friend Ryan, I was confused as to why the psychopath chose to go to the theatre at the end of the film rather than to go after Norris's girlfriend. Until than, the killer had only killed women. Oh, well, I guess it wasn't as predictable as I thought. Definitly a film you can pass on.


This was painful. I made myself watch it until the end, even though I had absolutely no interest in the plot, if there was one. My patience was not rewarded. The ending was even worse than the rest of the film. Chucky walks into the hospital with a priest and his concubine says "I do". How vile can one movie be?


This film could cure sleep disorders, thats how bad it is. The story dragged, and the bad guy is not that scary. You will not even see this one on TBS reruns. This film made me wonder about Chuck film choices. He work on a real dog with this one.


Chuck Norris stars as Danny, a cop who took down a hulking serial killer however when said killer escapes, Danny knows he is the only one able to stop the terror. However Danny harbors a secret, he knows that it was sheer luck that got the terror arrested and even more luck that Danny survived, now a final battle is waged but is Danny ready? Right there in my description tells what the problem of this movie is. Norris is playing a wimpy hero who still suffers from psychological trauma. In the hands of a better actor, this concept would be interesting and could make for a great thriller. In the hands of a Norris thriller it just makes it ridiculous and hopelessly unheroic. Also on board is American Ninja's Steve James and Superfly's Ron O'Neal but any attempt at character development is defeated by the atrocious script. Also there is hardly any action and I always preferred a Norris movie with more fighting and less talking. Given the rating on this website, I must not be alone.

* out of 4-(Bad)


Cops Logan Alexander and Debbie Rochon escort five black juvenile delinquents cross country and end up stranded out in the sticks when their van breaks down. After a deadly run-in with a racist, white trash bitch with a shotgun (played by the director), the survivors take refuge in the house of a blind voodoo priestess. One of the teens senselessly uses a spell to call up Killjoy, who finally shows up about midway through this bore in a subpar make-up job and bigger, greasier 'fro that looks like it could slide off his head at any moment. He then proceeds to kill off the stupid characters while spouting some of the worst one-liners heard since Hee Haw was canceled.

The acting from the "teens" is terrible, the dialogue even worse, the FX stink and it looks a lot cheaper than the first film. Although I enjoyed him in his earlier Troma films, Trent Haaga (trying to imitate Jim Carrey here) is awful and no match for the hyperactive overemoting of Angel Vargas in KILLJOY 1 (which at least had a few dumb laughs).

Yet another nail in the coffin for Full Moon studios, whose reputation as a fun direct-to-vid franchise has completely vanished since the TRANCERS/PUPPET MASTER days.


I really don't know why I agreed to watch this movie, but like a complete fool I did and for that I deserve to be shot! I had seen the original Killjoy, well I say I have seen it.... I started watching it but found it that bad that I ended up watching it in 4x speed to get it over with and get rid of the annoying dialogue, but I said I would watch it and I did even if it was in 4x speed.

To cut a long story short Killjoy 2 kicks off where Killjoy left off. By this i don't mean the plot, I mean the complete and total bag of dirt known as acting and cheapness. I have nothing against low budget movies, in fact I kinda enjoy them, they are something different from Mega budget blockbusters, but this film is just terrible! The acting is diabolical and the script... well i think you could of given Stevie Wonder a pen and paper, and he would of produced something much better! This movie is just annoying, not to mention the annoying laugh the clown has which is so obviously dubbed! I didn't make it through this movie anyway, about three quarters of the way through it was time to turn it off and throw it through the window. It may of been a rip off to buy as a DVD but as a frisbee it was a mega bargain!

Please for the love of mankind itself DO NOT watch this muck, it is possibly the worst thing I have ever seen and considering some of the muck I've seen thats saying a lot!

My rating on this movie would be.... Nailgun to the head/10


Killjoy 2 is the same as killjoy 1. Bad acting, bad characters, annoying clown, bad lines, you name it. Honestly, I'm not all that surprised that more people haven't seen this movie. The only reason I watched Killjoy 2 is because I wanted to think that the filmmakers learned from their mistakes. They didn't. This movie is just as bad, if not worse, than the first one. That clown.... that goddamn clown.... I hate him! I hate him so much! And I don't hate him because he is a good villain... I hate him because he is annoying beyond belief! I hope that the filmmakers realized after trying and failing again that this movie is unrepairable. The last thing we need is a Killjoy 3.


One day I thought to myself....what is the worst possible thing that could happen today? I answered my self with a simple," Oh, it already happened. I rented Killjoy/Killjoy 2" on DVD. Well, what is there to say? The budget was not large enough to rent a police uniform, the movie cuts out sex scenes and death scenes. There is one funny line that I can remember, and the acting is far worse than the first one. There seems to be no lighting on the "set" (the woods somewhere) and the killer clown known as Killjoy (who makes Leprechaun look like The Exorcist)is less than spectacular. This time, he is not portrayed by Angel Vargas and is completely changed as a character from a crazy irritating clown to a different kind of crazy irritating clown that says "CHILD" a lot. Somewhere between Freddy Krueger and a blade of grass... lies this version of Killjoy. Somewhere between a pile of dirt and a pile of s---t lies Killjoy 2. It's badness is underrated. This movie does not have any redeeming qualities, except the song at the very end over the credits... which at leas provides some enjoyment. Killjoy 2 is not even really a movie, so much as an exercise in tension. Killjoy 1 is at least good enough to be considered as the worst movie I have ever seen. MINOR SPOILER######### Let me describe one of the supernatural kill scenes. A girl is locked in a wood shed of some sort (maybe an outhouse?) when Killjoy peers in through a hole. He has some small chattering teeth (like the ones you can buy at Spencer's Gifts) and he does something with them (maybe winds them up?!). Then he holds them in his hands and says a terrible line (which can't be written on IMDB). From what I gather of this scene (not from what is shown by the movie) the teeth went into the outhouse and killed the girl in some interesting, but unshown way, and then came back to Killjoy. If I were those teeth I would have run. Run far from Killjoy so he could never ever get his hands on me again. Killjoy 2 is hopefully the last Killjoy we will have to endure. Even as a fan of movies others would say are very bad, I think that this "film" could unify the human race and create world peace if it were promised that this film and anything reminding us of it would be destroyed. I give it 2/10 - simply because the creators succeeded at making the pictures move.


I have never seen the first Killjoy film, and I have also never heard a good thing said about it. So I see Killjoy 2 in the local Blockbusters and pick it up and look at the back. Starring Trent Haaga and Debbie Rochon it boasts. Now being the massive Troma fan that I am there is no way I'm not going to rent this film out, how can it possibly be bad with these two in it? Oh how wrong I was. Even Trent and Debbie cant save this excuse of a film from being as bad as it truly is. Trent quite frankly stinks as Killjoy although this probably is more the fault of the writers giving him some of the worst one-liners in the history of film. Debbie does put a solid performance in but it isn't enough. The kills are terrible as are the gore effects. For example check out when the guy is supposedly impaled on something or other. And just to top it all off the ending is just amongst the worst I have ever seen in movie history. The film doesn't even work on a so bad it's good level. Avoid like the clap.

2/10


I have never seen the first Killjoy film, and I have also never heard a good thing said about it. So I see Killjoy 2 in the local Blockbusters and pick it up and look at the back. Starring Trent Haaga and Debbie Rochon it boasts. Now being the massive Troma fan that I am there is no way I'm not going to rent this film out, how can it possibly be bad with these two init? Oh how wrong I was. Even Trent and Debbie cant save this excuse of a film from being as bad as it truly is. Trent quite frankly stinks as Killjoy although this probably is more the fault of the writers giving him some of the worst one-liners in the history of film. Debbie does put a solid performance in but it isn't enough. The kills are terrible as are the gore effects. For example check out when the guy is supposedly impaled on something or other. And just to top it all off the ending is just amongst the worst I have ever seen in movie history. The film doesn't even work on a so bad it's good level. Avoid like the clap.

2/10


It would be wrong and reprehensible of me to advise you to watch Killjoy 2, you must have better things to do, washing the car, throwing stones in a stream, but at the same time it's nowhere near as awful as you probably think it is. It's almost a proper film, which a lot more than most straight-to-DVD sludge can manage. Killjoy 2 is helped a great deal by Trent Haaga's manic turn as the eponymous clown, he throws himself into the role with such fevered abandonment that he almost tips the scales in the movie's favour, but, of course, it takes more than one man in big shoes. Tammi Sutton gives the most entertaining director cameo since Roger Corman in Creature from the Haunted Sea and the whole thing is nearly destroyed by the rushed, sugary ending. All over the place and almost good fun.


There is a fantastic song in Killjoy 2 that goes on about how clowns are usually really nice and fun but Killjoy is a killer. I don't recall the song in the first movie but when singer Olimpia Fernandez sings 'Killjoy, yeah Killjoy 2' is sounds like the 2 may have been added in for this dire sequel. The film is much worse than the first movie and that was really bad. This time the cast, including the usually excellent Debbie Rochon have given up trying and director Tammi Sutton creates no tension and presents merely a dull and steady film. Full Moon pictures produced this during their 'Urban' phase, none of which was very good but none so bad as here.


some would argue this is better mainly because of the acting; but it is indeed far worse for reasons that outweigh the improvement.

the source from which all the problems stem; the story. aside from one of them people being shot point blank, with a shotgun, in the chest and surviving for hours without medical attention, there is a bigger problem. Nic, the gangsta with the golden heart is willing to do anything for the friend he just met that day; and that includes asking an evil spirit for help. Ce-Ce, who comes out of nowhere with a past in voodoo, is willing to summon Killjoy, so long as Nic can "hook her up." the acting, while improved, is still horrid. these people couldn't convey emotion out of a paper bag. the script doesn't help them either. stupid lines, and i can only assume no direction from the director. this script was read like Shakespeare in high school with a teacher whipping them as they went.

while this movie (if you can call it that at its 80 min. run time (thankfully)) is perhaps even funnier than the first because of all these things, it is definitely more painful to watch. 1/10.


I am sorry but this is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I cannot believe that after making the first one in the series they were able to get a budget to make another. Not that the budget could have been much - this is the least scary film I have ever watched and laughed all the way through to the end (actually I can't believe we watched it to the end) but I think it is because we couldn't quite believe it.


This movie sucked! The first one was way better. No one from the first has returned in this dumb sequel and in some way that is a good thing because of the bad acting but the characters in this film are not even better. Killjoy in the woods? Come on! Give me a break! I'm suprised killjoy's friend the Blair Witch didn't show up to make a cameo. Bad acting, bad story and just plain out silly and boring. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!


Both Killjoy 1 and Killjoy 2 stunk, but the first was better. The special effects in this movie were not special at all. Even though the killings were better in this installment, they were not anything to brag about. One thing that was worse in part 2 were the characters. They changed emotions suddenly, and some of their lines were just dumb. For instance one character quoted, " You better have some R.E.S.P.E.C.T. or you'll find out what is means to me." Once I heard that line I figured it was of the worst I've ever heard. Another thing that I hated about this movie was the fact it was too short. A successful movie has to go more than one hour and twenty minutes, like Killjoy 2. If Full Moon makes part 3 of Killjoy, that would be stooping to the lowest level they can possibly go. Overall, 1 of 10.


...the first? Killjoy 1. But here's the review of Killjoy 2:

(contains spoilers, so beware readers)

Oh my. Oh, my, my, my. I'll start off with telling you that I had no hopes in the least bit that this movie would be good. Considering that Killjoy (the first movie) is without a doubt the worst movie ever made, the sequel didn't have much promise.

As expected, it didn't deliver.

The deaths were even lamer than in the first movie. There was absolutely no eye candy whatsoever, and every single prop looked so fake that I wouldn't be surprised if they had a kindergarten class make them.

Look, I don't even know where to begin. Hm, for starters, the movie wasn't even feature length. It was only an hour and eight minutes long (68 min.), but then again, ending it early was actually a reprieve. In fact, that's the only reason that this movie wasn't as bad as the first, because the first was longer.

Usually, I don't give spoilers in reviews, but since I don't want any of you to go through the torture of watching this waste of film, I'm going to spoil away. Not that there's much to spoil.

Let's start with the ending. KILLJOY IS THE PUSSIEST KILLER EVER. It takes explosions, firebombs, guns, etc. to kill all of the normal serial killers in horror movies. Guess what it took to kill Killjoy? A F***ING GLASS OF WATER. No lie. In the end, a girl picked up a cup of water and threw the water on Killjoy's face. Then Killjoy started screaming, and they tried to make it look like his face was melting by putting dried rubber cement on his forehead. Then he laid there, and the people went to sleep.

Now let's hit the acting. VERY TERRIBLE. Not even one person was believable in the least bit. I don't even know what to say, other than it looks like they just hired a few hobos living on the streets to act in this film.

Seriously, I honestly doubt that they spent any more than 100 dollars total to make this movie. They had nothing. Most of it took place in the woods, which wouldn't have cost them anything to film on. The actors weren't giving in any effort whatsoever, so it's blatant that they were probably "working" for free. They didn't have any kind of special effects or nice props, and they probably used ketchup for the blood. Hell, who am I kidding? They probably didn't even spend 100 dollars. They probably spent $3.29 on a bottle of ketchup and that was it. A f**kin' movie made with a budget of $3.29.

For Bob's sake, they couldn't even afford to rent a cop uniform. In the end, after Killjoy dies, the girl wakes up and says "Where is he?" and the main woman replies, "He's gone." Then, suddenly, some fat goofy guy with scars on his face pops out of nowhere with a cell phone saying "You have a phone call." The girl answers and says "Oh, hi mom!" and smiles. Then the fat goofy guy walks along to reveal that it's a police officer. However, he's wearing khaki pants, and a regular button up green shirt, with a lame badge on the front pocket. Hell, it was probably the badge that the director got when he was in safety patrol in 3rd grade. Then they all got into a tan blazer and drove off as the credits rolled. They couldn't even get a police cruiser so they just got a tan blazer. F**kin' lame. Killjoy didn't even have the ice cream van that he had in the first movie.

Killjoy is without a doubt the most flamboyantly gay slasher EVER. If there was a slasher that wore hot pink spandex and carried a rainbow flag, he STILL would not be as gay as Killjoy. Killjoy isn't funny either (and believe me, he DID try to be).

The only good thing about this movie is an extremely lame threat given by one of the delinquents. Somebody makes a comment to some boy about not passing third grade, to which the boy responds, "I'll show you third grade!" in a threatening manner. That has to be the absolute worst threat that I've ever heard. "I'll show you third grade!"

This movie doesn't even work on a "so bad, it's good" level. It's filth. Unless you did something bad, and you are feeling so guilty about it that you want to punish yourself severely, DON'T watch this movie.

Just remember; if a flaming homosexual clown with a huge black afro tries to bore you to death with gay jokes (and attempt to kill you at the same time), just throw some water at him. Case closed.

FINAL RATING: .1 out of 10


Thats not saying much. This Killjoy film has better cinematography and is more professional looking than the last. That doesn't mean it's more professional sounding. That horrible last film was about gangsters killing a kid and then being haunted by a voodoo clown. I thought the guy that played Killjoy in the last one was a bad actor, but wow!!! This Killjoy is honestly the downright worst actor I've seen in any movie, and I've seen a lot of movies. Thed last movie the clown came in about 15 minutes in, this one's shorter and the clown doesn't even come in until 40 minutes in, and it's only 65 minutes long!!! I give it a 2 because the acting from some characters is OK.


Suburban kids meet the forest. Killjoy is better in this part. He is more wicked and stronger as well. Nevertheless, most part of the acting is bad as well, like in the first one. Sometimes the characters say things to each other that do not make sense and are not convincing. I made an error to watch this one sober. You'll probably enjoy it more if you are not ;-). If you did not already stop loving clowns after the first movie, you definitely will after the second.....;-)

Problem kids and their watchers are on their way to a camp in the forest. And what a coincidence, their car broke right in the middle of a forest and.....at night? That's just their luck. They find a house and one got shot, one of the watchers stays behind (why I do not know) and the rest eventually finds another house. In that house a voodoo priestess lives.....but she is not responsible for the resurrection of Killjoy. Who is it then? Well, you better watch the movie and find out for yourselves....


I really hope the makers of these "movies" read these reviews so that they know that people just dont want their movies. They are just trash and an embarrassment to the killer clown genre of horror. whether or not this was better than the first doesn't matter cause theyre both just plain terrible. I'm surprised they didn't learn their lesson from the first movie. Stop Now!! Warning to horror movie watchers, DONT WATCH, RENT OR LOOK AT THE BOXES OF "URBAN" HORROR FILMS, AND ABOVE ALL, DON'T BUY THEM!!!!


Killjoy 2 surpasses the first movie by just a little bit.The stuff that improved in here was the acting,the Killjoy make-up,and story.This one is more of a gore fest,it doesnt have the supernatural elements like the first one did.In this installment,Killjoy kills his victims in more normal ways,he doest set them on fire,and he doesnt shoot them with bullets that were in his mouth.The only thing I didnt like about this movie,was that the ending was a little half assed,in fact it was half assed,they killed Killjoy in a very cheap way.I would strongly recommend this to anyone who like horror movies.Seriously,the first movie was good,but the second is better.9 out of 10.


It is extremely rare that I see a movie from 1955 that I don't love. Noir, JDs, Sci-fi, Drive-Ins; I dig it all the most. Robert Aldrich is a director who has done plenty of excellent work, and most of this cast has fine performances under their belt. So what went wrong?

When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called "actors' movies." Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like "actors' movies" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose "give it all they've got" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say "he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way." Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).

Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations.

I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a "3" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent?


The quality you're likely to remember after viewing The Big Knife is how claustrophobic it is. It's pacing is sacrificed to a uniform texture of dialog. It's talky in the extreme. Modern viewers will feel every point has been made (and then some) but the movie will still not move on, or do the viewer a favor and change the scenery. It's very inert. At the 45 min mark I was sure I had watched two very slow hours. My beleaguered response was, "Good God, where is this going?" It feels like Odets was paid by the word...

This is a good place to note the decline of drama from it's high point in the 40s through the conceit-laden projects of the 50s and 60s until actual filmic merit was rediscovered in the 70s, only to vanish again. Here we get show-offy, conventional, emotional outbursts from Steiger, Lupino et al. and camera moves pre-arranged to meet over-practiced blocking. This is due to the rise of the Method; the regrettable trend of sacrificing every other merit of film, to grant actors their most selfish wishes. "Great acting," ho-hum, has killed thought in movies.

Jack Palance's forehead & pompadour retract and thrust forward every time he reacts to something. It's disturbing.

This is awfully boring stuff.


I've tried to watch this film 3 or 4 times, but I just can't get past the fact that everything about it is just awful. I'm sure it was a courageous move by somebody to cast Jack Palance as the protagonist, but there is not one single fiber of my being that believes that he could act at all, much less act against type.

Yes, I understand that Clifford Odets was a brilliant author, but it's not evident here. This odd and forced mish-mash of 50's hipster dialog seems to obfuscate any genuine meaning, which explains why none of the actors, even the good ones (Steiger, Ida Lupino, Shelly Winters, Everett Sloane) seems to know how to deliver their lines - it's as though they don't understand the meaning of what they are saying. And in the meantime, Wendell Corey and Palance stage a terrific contest to see who can be more stone-faced.

The direction is amateurish and completely overwrought. The physical interaction between the characters is as stilted as the dialog.

And can we discuss that hideous set? It's so busy, ugly and contrived that it adds to the robotic, disconnected quality of the characters, the dialog and the portrayals.

This film seems to suck the energy right out of me. It looks like everybody took an overdose of Valium each morning when they arrived on the set. It takes a pretty lousy movie to make Rod Steiger and Shelly Winters look bad, but this one succeeds.

I can see that it might have been effective as a play on or off Broadway, where intellectuals and beats could have congratulated themselves for appreciating the power of the plot and the artsy flourishes of the pseudo-hip dialog.


The Big Knife, a movie about the dark side of the Hollywood motion picture industry, is ironically far more like a filmed play than a film itself. Apart from a few very brief expository scenes, all of the action takes place in the living room of the film's hero, played by Jack Palance. He's a movie actor who wants out of his contract with his studio because of the lack of redeeming qualities in the films they put out. His on again, off again wife (Ida Lupino) is also fed up with the studio, not to mention her husband's philandering ways. Unfortunately for them both, the head of the studio (Rod Steiger) is a real bastard. He has blackmail material to force the increasingly tortured actor to sign a new contract. But it's only a matter of time before he pushes the man too far.

This film is not, I repeat NOT, a film noir. Rather, it's an exceptionally theatrical sitting-room melodrama. The plot proceeds at a snail's pace, and is so intricate and confusing that it is in violent disharmony with the static setting and carefully contrived blocking of the actual scenes. The acting is overwrought in the extreme, and veers sharply between out and out histrionics and softer, but no less unsubtle, soliloquies that are obviously meant to be poignant but come across as pretentious twaddle, especially in the hands of the woefully miscast Palance. Aldrich was obviously going all out for a stylized "something" here, but I doubt even he knew what it was, and certainly the audience never does.

I think the main lesson here is that films and plays are very different mediums. What might have worked in a play did not come across as even remotely natural or plausible on film. The result? A big waste of time. There's little to enjoy here.


This is the slowest "film noir" film I've ever seen. Very weak script only provides opportunity for Jack Palance and Rod Steiger to deliver exceptionally well, lines that were made for an acting audition. Palance and Steiger both affirm they are indeed serious actors who can portray their respective roles with power, emotion and drama. The story itself moves at an incredibly slow pace, mostly taking place in a living room. The director obviously moved the actors around in a rythmatic circles as they delivered exhaustingly long lines, to keep the slow pace from becoming noticeable to the audience. The action doesn't pick up until the last ten minutes of the film. If you're one who's looking for more depth in a crime drama, this one's not for you!


An excellent cast who do their best with an awful script, inept direction, and some of the worst score that I have ever heard. More TV movie of the week than serious drama. Which is sad when one considers that the source material is very serious and very real. The film makers decided that instead of building drama and character, it was better to just show the most graphic and violent bits and hope that the audience would be shocked into sympathy and caring. In my opinion, one the most blatant forms of cut and paste film adapting.


The idea behind this movie was great. The story of a little girl facing abuse (both emotional and physical) and trying to deal with it and survive. What makes the movie fall apart is the terrible use of voice overs and the corny dialog. The actors have to point out the most obvious things over and over again. Also, there is very tedious, almost funny, overuse of metaphors in the voice overs. The high point is the acting of the little girl. Nice try, but this one's a stinker.


Perry Mason: The Case of the Glass Coffin finds Raymond Burr defending David Copperfield/Rick Blaine like magician Peter Scolari from a murder charge involving one of his assistants. A trick involving a suspended glass coffin in midair goes awry and the body of Nancy Grahn comes a tumbling out.

Nancy was one of six female assistants who work with the act and we learn two things about her. First in a moment of drunken weakness, Scolari got seduced by her and she claims she was impregnated. Secondly she is living under an assumed name and had a secret from her past.

Billy Moses who probably never thought he'd be doing such rough stuff back in law school gets to tangle with a couple of good old boys when goes seeking the truth in Grahn's home town. A little more action than usual for Ken Malansky, he almost gets himself killed.

One big flaw in this mystery is simple forensics. The medical examiner's report should have provided concrete evidence that the victim was killed in such a way that Scolari could not possibly have done the deed. The police should have been looking in a different direction for the killer.

When you see who the killer is you won't blame the individual, but you'll also see how the investigating officer James McEachin got it wrong from the start. It kind of spoils this particular Mason film.


In Los Angeles, the alcoholic and lazy Hank Chinaski (Matt Dillon) performs a wide range of non-qualified functions just to get enough money to drink and gamble in horse races. His primary and only objective is writing and having sexy with dirty women.

"Factotum" is an uninteresting, pointless and extremely boring movie about an irresponsible drunken vagrant that works a couple of days or weeks just to get enough money to buy spirits and gamble, being immediately fired due to his reckless behavior. In accordance with IMDb, this character would be the fictional alter-ego of the author Charles Bukowski, and based on this story, I will certainly never read any of his novels. Honestly, if the viewer likes this theme of alcoholic couples, better off watching the touching and heartbreaking Hector Babenco's "Ironweed" or Marco Ferreri's "Storie di Ordinaria Follia" that is based on the life of the same writer. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Factotum  Sem Destino" ("Factotum  Without Destiny")


I have waited a long time to see this movie. IFC finally ran it one night. I thought it would be something like "Barfly" from Barbet Schroeder. Wrong. This film doesn't recreate that underworld of chintzy, dirty, smoke filled, character filled bars you associate with his stories. It also fails to capture that Bukowski attitude that Mickey Rourke did so well in the above mentioned film. That natural smart-ass attitude. Fans of Charles Bukowski will enjoy seeing scenes from his books on screen but those unfamiliar with his books could get the wrong impression about his works. This film looks like just another 'Movie Of The Week" about a drunk and his relationships. If you want to get a better idea about Charles Bukowski's world watch "Barfly".


Clearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of Charles Bukowski's work. The autobiographical Henry Chinaski character in Bukowski's stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by Mickey Rourke in 1987's 'Barfly', also starring Faye Dunaway. Anyone who has seen 'Factotum' should certainly see 'Barfly' to get a better look at how Bukowski wrote his character. 'Factotum' lacks the greasy seediness of Bukowski's screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. The inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of Chinaski's misadventures doesn't work for Dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood-soaked Rourke. Rourke's character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night's misbehavior a place-setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. Dillon's character misses these marks in favor of a strutting, handsome, relatively clean-looking wanna-be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of Chinaski's story. Dunaway's sleazy heroine Wanda is the perfect complement to the ne'er-do-well Henry. The women in 'Factotum' can't hold a candle to Dunaway's 'distressed goddess' and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in 'Factotum' proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to Bukowski's raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. I was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in 'Factotum' (Marisa Tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip-off from 'Barfly').

If you want to see the best Bukowski stories on film, see 'Barfly' and 'Love is a Dog From Hell' (which also goes by the title 'Crazy Love').


This movie has some good lines, but watching Dillon's less-than-masterful Rourke impersonation just left me wanting to see the original. I like Marisa Tomei but she's no Faye Dunaway.

Also, in my opinion, the number one movie rule is to make the lead character someone you care about. You might not LOVE the character, but you should care what happens to him. This is achieved in Barfly with the hilarious running gag about the fights with Eddie the bartender. The main fight in Factotum is when, completely unprovoked, he stalks up to the Lily Taylor character in a bar, punches her to the floor and calls her a whore.

The whole thing just didn't work. Again, some great lines -- some laugh-out-loud funny -- but as a movie overall it's a fail. Mediocre attempt at reinventing something that was brilliant, and you can't get past that. Next? Let's remake Breakfast at Tiffany's with Kate Hudson.


doesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less.


A boring movie about a miserable loser...that's Factotum in a nutshell. Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, alter ego of author Charles Bukowski upon whose novel the film is based. As we meet Chinaski he may be a writer but he's certainly not a successful one. He floats through life, getting fired from one menial job after another and not caring a bit. The fact that he's always drunk may have something to do with his not caring. He meets a woman, Jan, played by Lili Taylor and a relationship ensues. Chinaski moves into Jan's apartment and now instead of getting drunk by himself he can get drunk with somebody else. Good times. Eventually he's had enough of this relationship so Chinaski strikes out on his own. Unfortunately he still can't hold down a job so soon enough he's broke. At this point Marisa Tomei shows up and for some reason her character, Laura, decides to rescue this miserable drunken loser whom she doesn't even know. We soon meet some of Laura's acquaintances and the film veers off into a sort of bizarro world with this rather eclectic bunch. Soon enough Tomei and friends are out of the picture and once again we're left with Chinaski and his drinking and his miserable little life. There's some more time spent with Jan but mostly there's just time spent being a drunk, unemployable loser. And then the movie's over and not a moment too soon. 94 minutes of absolute monotony and it seems infinitely longer as the movie drags on. Nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. If you want to spend an hour and a half of your life watching Matt Dillon drink then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a compelling story, well developed characters or any entertainment value whatsoever then you've come to the wrong place. Dillon's performance actually isn't bad at all. Too bad the movie which surrounds him is in fact rather bad.


Some twenty or so years ago, Charles Bukowski was a hero of mine. I blindly accepted the image that was created by intellectual types and seen in various films. Of course, I never got to meet the intellectual types that prescribed Bukowski as a hero. They usually could be found safely behind the counter at hipster video stores and record shops. These people hardly talked and when asked a question, usually sneered and nodded in some vague direction. They were useless when it came to locating a specific title, but their shelves were always stocked with strange and unique titles. To be inducted in the secret hipster club, I believed I had to shed my bourgeois up-bringing and espouse the counter-culture.

My introduction to Bukowski started with the movie Barfly, the late 80's film that starred Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunnaway. I was a fan of Rourke at the time. He also embodied a sort of modern male fantastical anti-hero, a brooding intellectual type. At the time, this appealed to me. Barfly's hero scoffed at convention. A mid-30's tramp, who lives life with no ties, answers to no one, --Oh--and to be recognized as a genius by a hot female literary snob, icing on the cake. Afterwards, I read Post-Office and Hollywood, the later being Bukowski's take on his experience with the film.Now, allow me to fast-forward to the latest film based on Bukowski's book Factotum, one which I read and enjoyed. Bukowski takes the form of Chinaski in this novel. I often wonder where Bukowski ended and Chinaski began. 20 years after Barfly, the fictional movie Bukowski is still the same. I have watched about an hour of the movie and I have yet to see signs of the facade cracking. Here is why Factotum Bukowski was my hero. Chinaski is handsome (played by Matt Dillon). He has clean neat hair, styled, but not over the top. When Dillon smokes and writes, he looks cool. Chinaski goes from job to job, ignoring and/or fighting with various bosses. He screws two floozies, one of whom he lives with, walks out on, only to return to with little repercussion. Chinaski is his own man and we never see him emote. He's a sterile, one-dimensional, 30 something, James Dean archetype. Factotum lies to the viewer. It does so by haranguing the idea of a man (a writer) without consequence. A poor man, who's suffering for his art. What could be cooler than that? Now, let's say there are some truths to Factotum, in that the events took place. What the audience is missing is the pain that shrouds Chinaski's existence. Maybe the point of this movie, and most movies, is that for 80 mins., we need to escape the world that's filled with consequence and pain and take-up vicariously with an anti-social womanizer, that smokes, talks, drinks with detached coolness. One who rejects conventional behavior of job and family. My hero used to be Movie Bukowski. Long ago, that would have worked. It was easier then. Now, I have yet to claim a hero. Things are not as easy. Hipster logic and movie renditions of counter-culture icons offer no solutions or even ask questions.


After Matt Dillon's phenomenal performance in CRASH, most will probably rush to pick up a copy of FACTOTUM to see if Dillon is for real or simply got a lucky rebound from a great script.

Well, Factotum certainly has its moments, but the plainness of ...everything will most likely turn viewers off. However nothing should be taken away from Dillon. His performance is wonderful and full of excellent deadpan humor, proving he's a solid actor with significant chops; it's just a shame about the directing and script.

The story is about Henry "Hank" Chinaski (Dillon) and his refusal to conform to anything resembling normalcy. He quits or gets fired from jobs in mere minutes, only to find himself back in a dreary pub meeting even drearier women while trying to write a nonconformist novel. We never really know what the novel is about except that it involves "everything" (cancer, movies, you, me).

Skipping from workplace to workplace and constantly returning to Jan (Lili Taylor, THE HAUNTING), a loser girlfriend who's just as dispiriting as himself, Hank tries vainly to discover what his life is supposed to hold for him. Whether he ever learns what that is is up for interpretation. Some may say that he never does, while others might argue that his life is simply a path to obscurity.

Regardless, there's not much substance to Factotum even with Matt Dillon's fine performance. The story meanders through Hank's life without much thought given as to where to take the audience. And that's a shame. Dillon's performance would've shone even brighter if given a decent script.


Rented this from my local Blockbuster under the title SPECK - that may be the way to look for it if you still feel the need to see it after this review.

It's a movie about the serial killer Richard Speck, who killed several nurses in Chicago in the sixties. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling that it follows the crimes to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a good movie.

Another problem I had was the near-constant music letting us know that this was a SCARY MOVIE, and some god-awful narration letting us know what's motivating Speck. The acting was average for this type of film; to give credit where credit is due, the movie is very beautifully photographed for my taste. Your mileage may vary.

Over all, if you're interested in the subject matter, it may be worth your time.


I watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and disturbing.


Where to start with 'Speck' the true story of Richard Speck, a killer of eight nurses in the 1960s. Director Keith Walley has worked on a few of the extremely low budget Full Moon Releasing movies (such as Birth Rite) and here works from a script by (at the time) Full Moon regular Don Adams. Unfortunaly whilst the film seems like a accurate portrayal of the horrendous crime the script isn't great, perhaps because the real Speck's ramblings were not terribly interesting!? Despite the care that has been taken to make this authentic it wreaks of a cheap cash-in of the acclaimed cinematic serial killer movies of the same period (such as 'Ed Gein'). Filmed in a dirty brown, not quite sepia, for the most part and narrated by star Doug Cole the film fails to present the horror of the crime because the narration is irritating, the colouring distracting from the story and the crime, though gruesome and upsetting to watch, is merely that and no editorial work seems to have occurred on what is pretty much a very poor quality camcorder viewing on the events. There is no examination of the motivation or of Speck's life really, just a cheap shot at a gruesome crime. Released by Full Moon there is little evidence of Full Moon's better output here, Charles Band ignoring his own rule that his films feature fantasy killings (e.g. dolls, monsters and so on) and not quite knowing what to do with this new reality. Incidentally Band introduced a special label for these films called 'Shadow Entertainment'. Band has said that he regrets the period of Full Moon output alongside Tempe Entertainment (whose Creator J.R. Bookwalter and regular Danny Draven also speak very badly of Charles Band). The Tempe era features uniform Apple Mac editing and brutal hand-held camera filming, very much like a home movie. Speck retains these qualities and whereas Witchouse 3, for example, managed to use these well, Speck is merely boring and gross.


"Speck" was apparently intended to be a biopic related to serial killer Richard Speck. There is, however, not much killing to be found in this movie, and none of it is explicitly shown. The most disturbing scene in the entire movie is perhaps when Speck stomps one of the eight unfortunate nurses to death in her own bathtub, yet even this is merely implied, and not shown, save for a few unconvincing downward thrusts of Mr. Speck's leg. The most entertaining part of this movie is most likely the voice-over, which should be a testament to the mind-numbingly boring nature of this movie. Every aspect of this movie is horrible. Unless you have a fondness for boredom, don't bother. This movie only clocks in at 72 minutes, but it feels like an eternity.


This movie is terrible. A true hockey fan would have to assume that the people that appeared in and produced this movie never played or watched a real hockey game. I got this hoping that it would be a "guy movie", but the only people that would probably enjoy this movie are females between the ages of 13-17. The hockey scenes are terrible, defensemen playing like they're 5 years old, goalies diving at shots that are 10 feet wide of the net, etc. It's so difficult to predict the end of this movie, though!! For those who have seen it, who would have guessed?? For those that haven't seen it, don't waste your time!

I figured it out less than halfway through the movie. To call this movie a drama is ridiculous!!


I should know better. I've seen too many of Rob Lowe's early work to expect anything good from this movie, even if it is about Hockey.

Here we have, yet again, another tired sports theme. Kid has potential for greatness, has the apparent to go far if his cocky attitude doesn't screw things up. And, boom, he comes out of it as that helluva player kind of champion. Is that all that can be said of sports movies? Surely, there must be other feats that athletes undertake.

Nonetheless, this movie has got to be one of the biggest cheeseballs. Everybody's interactions are just downright silly, and not in a stupid-funny kind of manner. And I can't think of any ancillary qualities that could enliven my position. Not the actors (certainly not Swayze who plays Lowe's reluctant mentor), not the story, not the music, and very little from the skating sequences.

Normally, I'm a sucker for 80s movies, even if they do tend to be a little fishy (i.e. North Shore, the Karate Kid), but this doesn't even make for good 80s trash. For a good 80s sports movie, check elsewhere. There's plenty of them out there.


Give me a break. How can anyone say that this is a "good hockey movie"? I know that movies tend to do a pretty p***-poor job of portraying hockey to the general public. And yes, this was made back when the U.S. hadn't embraced our sport to the extent is has today, but really. I have played hockey all my life and have watched even more, and this my friends is sheer lunacy. The scenes on the ice were stupefyingly bizzare... the particular instance to which I am referring is the "sword fight", er I mean the "stick fight" at the end of the film... during which everyone is just standing around and watching, not with fascination that this is actually happening, but in wonder as to who will win the duel between Youngblood and his nemesis Rakkie. Yes the story off the ice is a little better, I do stress LITTLE.

I don't know, maybe there is no point in going on... I mean let's face it: the film is right. Hockey is just one big battle on ice... oh yeah with a little piece of vulcanized rubber bouncing around- occasionally into what is loosely termed a "goal". Youngblood is either appalling or hysterical, I can't figure out which... maybe someone else will have more luck.


Another awful movie about hockey. I if never watched hockey and saw Hollywoods version, I would hate the game. This movie doesn't make Canada look that great either. I can laugh at it and not take it too seriously. All the same this movie is awful, with every thing you can put in a 80's movie. In the end don't even watch it on TV. 4/10


The game of hockey I play and watch has something called "speed" which the actual hockey scenes in this limp movie never even come close to capturing. Add to that a storyline that is cliché, predictable and stupider than stupid with some of the lamest '80s music numbing your senses in every scene and you have "Youngblood". Oh, Keanu as a French Canadian, yeah, whatever. Gimme Dunlop, Braden and the Hansons anytime... ONE out of TEN.


This film goes into my "Worst Films Ever Made" file. I have a copy of this film which I watch when I want a good laugh, and this isn't even a comedy. I am disappointed that such great actors agreed to be in such a piece of garbage. This film is inaccurate (in its portrayal of hockey), offensive (to Canadians), and I wasn't even all that impressed with the acting. Even the story was a bit weak. If you have never seen this film, you're lucky. If you have, I'm sorry.


THE PLOT: A trucker (Kristofferson) battles a corrupt sheriff (Borgnine) by getting his fellow truckers to band together and form an unstoppable convoy that stretches for miles and soon creates a national media frenzy.

THE NEGATIVE: The film's setup is weak and the ending even weaker. It has all the good-ole-boy/trucker clichés without adding anything new in the process. It ends up making SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT look brilliant and inspired. Kristofferson is much too laid back for a leading man role and cannot carry the picture. Borgnine's character is portrayed awkwardly. At the start he is made to look like a real jerk of a sheriff who overacts to a minor contrivance that starts the whole thing rolling. Then at the end he is made out to be a little more sympathetic and even secretly siding with Kristofferson, which doesn't work at all. In either case Jackie Gleason is a much better actor for this type of role. The worst part about the movie though is director Peckinpah's attempts to throw in a 'serious message' into this silly action flick that does nothing but slow it down and bomb in the process.

THE POSITIVE: The only good scene in the whole film is the fight sequence inside the truck stop restaurant. Director Peckinpah puts a funny spin to his trademark 'slow motion' violence and the result is amusing. Unfortunately he starts putting all the action into slow motion during the rest of the picture until it eventually becomes tiring. McGraw is always a pleasure to look at, but unfortunately she is given very little to say or do.

THE LOWDOWN: If you've read the synopsis than you have essentially 'seen' the movie. The song that this movie is based on is pretty good, but the movie adds nothing to it and should never have been made. This is all very uninspired stuff for such a maverick director.

THE RATING: 3 out of 10.


Like another user I got this cheap - I thought. 85 kroners (£8). Although not worth that amount of money it is a total classic that I - like the other users - first saw when I was a kid and was looking forward to seeing again some 20 years after. The story is amazingly thin (which is why it might have worked for kids), but all the radio language and trucker stuff makes up for it. It'll look good on my DVD shelf in years to come. First viewing (1980): 10/10. Second viewing (2002): 4/10


They have taken a story dear to the people of Edinburgh's heart, a true story and changed it as Hollywood has done before to many a tale. The end result is a movie however well done for those how do not know the story yet totally different and inaccurate. The original movie of this tale that Walt Disney himself oversaw used the right breed dog that is crucial for this tale and did not make that John Grey was anything special he was a poor Shepard who died in poverty at the inn. If you like the story, watch the Disney original for a better heart- warming story. It's a Shame the cast and the potential was there for a terrific remake of a classic tale. Read the book for an accurate occurrence of the story. And if you really like it, you can visit the real Kirkyard in Edinburgh.


But like the Disney film of two generations ago, this film fails as well in the accuracy department. But at least Disney used a Skye Terrier.

Is the true story to mundane for movie producers? I don't think so. There is ample documentation to accurately portray they true story instead of the fictionalized accounts we have had to suffer through.

Some day, a movie will correctly portray Bobby's owner, John Gray, as the Edinburgh Policeman that he was, and correctly portray Bobby's license a being paid for by the Lord Provost. When that happens, I'll be at the theaters.


Greyfriars Bobby was NOT a westie - Bobby was a skye terrier. A highlight of my childhood day trips to Edinburgh was to go to the monument to Bobby. I grew up with the story of the valiant and loyal little dog, as every child in my generation did, and I remember lining up with my mum outside the cinema - with many, many other Dundee children and their mums - to see the wonderful Disney film. How could a movie based on such a wonderful story have been made using a Westie, for heaven's sake. That's like making a movie about the life of Robert Burns, for instance, and portraying him as an Englishman. I say,give Bobby back his breed!


Living in Edinburgh, and have a great thirst for history, I was very put off by the "libertys" taken. Wrong breed of dog for a start!! Bobbys owner Old Jock was an old single man, who came to Edinburgh and died a pauper in lodgings, not like in the film at all. For anyone coming to Edinburgh and hoping to see sights of the film,you will not find the graveyard in Princes St Gardens!! There were a few moments were a tissues would have been great. The actors were fantastic at padding out a rather flimsy script. I don't feel the poor wee Bobby actually got enough screen time, possibly due to being "lost" at one point. All that said, the film was fine and any 8 yr old will enjoy.


Just saw the film tonight in a preview and it's a film for kids only. It does not improve or add to the original Disney film in any way. There is a corny Scottish pastiche style throughout, not helped by weak writing (where motives are lumped in by the spadeful) and acting that is uneven and often unengaging (despite what reads like a decent cast). I have no problem with the wee dog - although there is a certain "Skippy the Bush Kangaroo" (see below) quality about his shots.

* For those that don't know, "Skippy" was an Australian kids' TV series from the 1960s where the kangaroo would be an essential part of all the stories. It is said that to get poor old Skippy to "act" they stuck an elastic band round his muzzle that he then tried to get off with his paws - sort of appearing to be communicating with the human actors!!! Bobby has a similar range and you just don't buy his series of heroic rescues at all.

Advice would be to take kids aged 8-12. Below that, they might be scared. Above that, if they or you love it, good luck to you, but this is strictly cardboard cut-out film-making for the undemanding. It's a missed opportunity since there is real pathos and cuteness in the story of Bobby and this film fails to deliver it.


Enough talent and sincerity went into making this film that I wish it turned out better. Everyone is clearly doing their best to be true to an intriguing premise, but it's too deep a vision, too involved attempt at disentangling mental delusion to survive a transition to the screen. It is an attempt to capture the dimensionality of gossamer patterns on celluloid -- the result is muddled and slow. I give it a 10 for effort, but a 5 overall.


This movie defines the word "confused". All the actors stay true to the script. More's the pity, because the acting is fine, but the script is a confused pastiche of pseudo-psycho-analytic random ideas. The pacing is mind-numbingly slow, and the soft-focus-lens cinematography gets on the nerves quickly. I give it 4 out of 10.


I had the misfortune to catch this on a flight recently. I had the bigger misfortune of having it played on my RETURN flight as well. Obviously Demi's attempt to get some "arty" cred, the movie is a shambles because of her lousy acting ability. A better actress might have made this work, but a simple look at the face of Moore shows the emptiness within. At least she's not ruining American literature this time out.


I went to see "Passion of Mind" because I usually get a kick out of the genre of alternate reality romances, i.e. "Sliding Doors," "Me, Myself, I," etc.

But this was the worst one I've ever seen! I had to force myself to sit through it. I didn't even stay through the credits which is unheard of for me.

The magical realism was completely missing because Demi Moore was grim and the lovers she was two-timing were guys who usually play villains, though each was kind of sexy and appealing.

There was actually a psychological explanation provided for the dual lives, with a distasteful frisson of The Elektra Complex; maybe the magic shouldn't be explained for this genre to work.

(originally written 5/28/2000)


Before I speak my piece, I would like to make a few things clear: 1)I am a chick who's not into chick flicks ("Kate&Leopold" and "Someone Like You" are EXTREME exceptions- Hugh Jackman's ass). 2)I only picked this one up because I am a Fichtner fangirl who looked forward to see him in a bathtub. 3)I am not a Demi fan, though I think her performances in "Immortal" and "A Few Good Men" were sublime and have earned places in my vid library- also I think she's a little crazy (no way is she NOT still sleeping w/Brucie).

If this is a character study of an unfulfilled woman living dual lives of independence and happiness, then I'd say we have one narcoleptic melodrama. Marty: Literary agent. Makes 6-figure salary. Lives in an upscale Manhattan penthouse. Easy for her to read several hundred manuscripts and fall asleep at her desk for some highly suggested nocturnal escapism. Or perhaps stepping through an interdiemsional portal? She has the career, the looks, a cool car, a great pad, now where are the man and kids? In steps our boy Aaron- some real escapism. What are architects? They're artists who can do math, dreamers that make real money. Aaron gives Marty the dream of security and fills a void where she, obviously has no self confidence.

On the other side of the coin, there's Marie, still living out her schoolgirl fantasies while she muddles through motherhood. Her children are her career and life. But what about Marie, does she only exist through her children? In waltzes William, a Parisian stranger who helps her focus on the one thing she has lost touch with: herself.

A supposed journey of self-discovery and late a coming of age thrown in some with angst and some resentment to Marty/Marie's own mother. This gets a 3/10. All I could say is thank God for the BPL multimedia division, I wouldn't waste my $2.99 at Blockbuster on this, put it toward a Harlequin Blaze title.


The year still has three weeks to go but unless a really horrendous turkey shows up before then, Passion Of the Mind may be the winner of my lousiest movie of the year contest. An interesting idea badly executed. And, for that matter, badly acted. Demi Moore is very good at curling her lip and smoking cigarettes, but is that all she does? And why so many cigarettes. Did Ligitt and Myers or one of the other bad boys of nicotine have some of their illicit profits invested in this production. It's confusing, silly and moves at the frantic past of a arthritic earthworm. I gave it a 3. Should have been a 2!


I love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 2 out of 10.


I wouldn't call myself a big fan of the genre inventive silliness, so i might not be the best audience for this show. Although, being a critic i do have a sense for what i personally like and dislike, this being the later.

Lack of humor is a big turnoff when it comes to comedy, things can be catchy, cool and perky for about 4 minutes and after that you start getting bored unless its the badger animation from a couple of years ago (?) This is the exact opposite, with a stiff script and all overacted voice-overs its just plain silly and very very boring to be subjected to. Unfortunately, since it did have a big market ahead of itself, and a lot of potential.

A waste of time.


I watched Cheats a few years ago with my friend. He hyped it up as a great funny film that is one of the best comedies ever. I think he was on crack or something. I just recently learned that this film was not released into theatres, I can understand why perfectly.

THe basic plot involves a group of guys who cheat on pretty much all of their assignments in school to get good grades. That is the main problem of this film is that the morals are all bad. There are other teen comedy films where students do bad things but it is most often stuff that does not take place at school. So I think that the concept of having a whole movie that basically has kids cheating on everything is pretty bad.

I did not like the characters in this film either. The main character guy is a completely smug arrogant idiot who is not a good protagonist. Actually I am not sure if you could say that there is a protagonist due to the fact that they all are cheating at school which is wrong. THe other supporting characters were not funny at all and basically the cast blows in this film.

This film has a bad message and even worse acting and characters. There are other teen films that are way better than this film. So you do not have to see this one and that is a good thing because I do not recommend this film at all.


Andrew Gurland's "Cheats" is his fictionalized "true story" about four high school friends who maneuver to cheat on tests. The quartet are: supercilious school-hating Trevor Fehrman (as Handsome Davis), his likewise good-looking pal Matthew Lawrence (as Victor), their chubby school-hating chum Elden Henson (as Sammy), and crooked geekster Martin Starr (as Applebee). The adults include high-strung North Point principal Mary Tyler Moore (as Mrs. Stark) and pornography-loving father Griffin Dunne (as Mr. Davis). The high jinks begin with Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Lawrence supposedly urinating on a teacher's grade book. Put this one at the bottom of the pile; and, be thankful it doesn't go on anyone's permanent record.

*** Cheats (2002) Andrew Gurland ~ Trevor Fehrman, Matthew Lawrence, Elden Henson


I'm generally not a fan of high school comedies, they rely heavily on humor in bad taste and rarely stray far from clichéd story lines and characters and downright dull dialog. However, I've had my share of guilty pleasures, particularly when I was still in high school myself. Seeing the oh-so-recognizable teacher figures get their butts kicked always cheered me up and an occasional laugh could also be the case. These movies only work if at least one of the characters is an instantly likable one, this was not the case in 'Cheats', especially not the protagonist. Of course, it didn't help that the actor in play was one of the most irritating, no-talent, arrogant kids I've ever seen in a comedy.

To act in a comedy is no joke, it's hard to be funny: the delivery has to be just right or the material goes to waste. In this case there wasn't much good stuff to begin with and the jokes that were half-funny were screwed up professionally by the cast.

This movie felt 3 hours long, the director never heard of pacing obviously. Stay away from this one, there are many other enjoyable teen comedies out there such as 10 Things I Hate About You, Who's Your Daddy and Superbad.


Totally un-funny "jokes" that fall flat, amateurish acting (with one or two exceptions), boring characters and dialogue that's, at best, mediocre. After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, "I MUST make this film." No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release.


So.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...

This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!

If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!

But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.

Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!

so.. deal for yourself! good luck


I figure this to be an "alternate reality" teen flick...More precisely a Ferris Bueller type character as the leader of a cheat ring . Yeah, I know it's not meant to compared to Ferris Bueller, at least not in a "oranges-to-oranges" way, but it will none-the-less.

Bottom-line: It's galaxies away from even being even a minor classic. It is watchable, though only if you're not expecting very much. That said, the main character has some charm, but the premise wears thin because the writing just isn't clever. The movie just did not deliver enough laughs, twists, or tension to keep my interest.

To be honest I did continue watching...Watching with hopes to see if anything suddenly clicked. It didn't. So, stylish as it is, I wouldn't recommend this movie. BTW, it seems odd to see Mary Tyler Moore as the principal. She's truly miscast, I hope the paycheck was inordinately big.


Thought I just might get a few laughs from this long drawn out film, but was sadly disappointed. This film is all about losers who spend most of their time trying to get a passing grade with out even trying to open a book or accomplish anything. The film also portrayed teachers and the principal, Mary Tyler Moore (Mrs. Stark),"Labor Pains",2000 as complete idiots. I know this was suppose to be a comedy, but it never made me laugh and I thought the entire film was a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME! However, all the actors gave excellent performances and had the hard task of trying to make this film an enjoyable and entertaining FILM! Just plain studying and getting good grades for college is the only way to GO!


I usually love teen/high school genre flicks, but this film was really lacking in originality. The only premise this film has is four friends cheating their way through high school and the strain it puts on their friendship. There's just not enough depth in the story or the characters to keep the viewers attention for the full length of the film. The acting isn't all that bad although the actors don't really have much to work with as the dialog is tripe and cliché'... After watching this movie, one must wonder how on earth a producer could come across a project like this and think, "I MUST make this film." No wonder it couldn't get a theatrical release. Andrew Gurland is a hack, avoid or burn.


This is an old-dark-house movie. A young couple creep around a weird mansion said to be run by Satan, where they run from and into one after another of an ill-assorted crew: a lady in distress, an ape, an ape-man, a midget, various odd-looking people, and (for some reason) two Chinese. They end up in a throne room where the hero is required to play a "Price Is Right" sort of contest involving a climb up seven steps with seven illuminated footprints; hence the title. For my taste it's too much of the same thing. The creeping around fun-house corridors is amusing for a while, then becomes repetitive. By comparison with Harold Lloyd or Buster Keaton or Laurel and Hardy doing the same bit in two reels, it isn't truly funny. It's not frightening either, and apparently wasn't intended to be: the household is too absurd. Most films in this genre balance the comedy with a genuine threat, and usually two--one that the characters are led to believe is real, and another for which it's a cover. Here the cover isn't to be taken seriously, and neither is what covered. A few moments of fun emerge from the mix, but it's rather heavy fun. The novel on which the film was based was a straight thriller and I think could have been played straight to better effect--and still could be.


I guess if you like watching dudes get "pumped up" to outrageous sizes,this is right up your alley.Otherwise,it's an exercise in ego. I don't need to do either.Anyhoo,it's of historic interest,I guess,to see how these muscle positive and brain negative chumps got that way(before/after/and in between steroids)-but otherwise,this isn't going to influence many guys and,as for women,well,I'm not one so I can't say....


This old stinker makes the Flash Gordon movies look sophisticated. It's so terrible I love it, and I wish I could find a tape, but none of the catalogs I've checked list it. The rock band leader who calls himself Commander Cody must have loved it too, because he named his band after it.


The comments for Commune make it sound like a very interesting film, one that I would be deeply interested in. Unfortunately, the producers didn't see fit to include closed captions for the hearing impaired and deaf. That leaves me and countless others like me, who depend on closed captions to follow a movie, completely out.

This is inexcusable for any film produced in the year 2005. In a world where all manner of handicaps and disabilities are accommodated, it's infuriating and ironic that the ever sanctimonious entertainment industry fails to demand that all productions and movie theaters be closed captioned.


Ugghhh!!! This is exactly the sort of Pre-Code film that could incorrectly convince the viewer that films from this time period are lousy--and they are NOT--it's just that this particular film is horrid. Horrid because while the film tries very hard to be "hip" and "adult", it also is so hopelessly old fashioned, dull and hokey that I was torn between laughing at the film or just falling asleep!! This is a unique combination, to say the least.

So why, exactly, did I hate it so much? Well, the film is incredibly sleazy but has no style and the film is meant to shock but lacks subtlety and takes too many ridiculous turns to be believable. The film begins with a cliché--a hooker with a heart of gold. Dorothy Mackaill is a prostitute and she appears to accidentally kill a man! Shortly after making her escape, she meets up with an old boyfriend who insists on marrying her (he doesn't realize her profession). Seeing this man's innate goodness, she determines to change her life and stop living the wild life. This is tough when she hides out on a fictional Caribbean island. Here, alone and waiting for her man to return, there is nothing to do and the place is infested with super-horny and totally unappealing men. In fact this portion of the movie is so dull, that the audience might have a hard time staying focused. The men on the island are so inflamed by the presence of Mackaill that they perpetually seem on the verge of raping her--only to be rebuffed because she isn't that sort of girl any more. Frankly, I got very tired of all these salacious scenes--there is simply too much eye rolling and tongue-wagging to make it seem anything other than a very bad film. And looking at all these ugly horn-dogs was just annoying and stupid.

But wait,...it gets a lot worse. The man she THOUGHT she killed shows up on this tiny island (what are the odds?!) and he tries to rape her as well. However, he's not to be dissuaded and she ends up shooting to save her new-found virtue. While the jury on the island is about to acquit her, she rushes back into court and lies--telling them she meant to kill the man and it was premeditated (?) because even if she's acquitted, she knows the evil jailer will have his way with her when she is sent to jail for a gun possession charge. Given that the jailer himself gave her the gun to set her up, her rushing into the court and saying she was guilty seemed really, really silly. Why didn't she just tell them the jailer's twisted plan?! Supposedly she did this in order to preserve her virtue but to admit to killing someone so people will think you are a virgin?! So, in order to avoid a short jail sentence (and, once again, the threat of rape), she doesn't consider telling the court that he is trying to force her into a sexually compromising situation (the jailer has promised to rape her when she is locked up). And, just before she is taken to the gallows (in order to avoid the rape), the boyfriend shows up in time for her to send him off and the credits roll.

Impossible situation and coincidences abound--coming so often that the film is just dumb. Combining this with all the sexual innuendo, this makes for a bad AND sleazy mess of a film which will only appeal to the most die-hard fans of Pre-Code films. All others, beware, this is very sticky and silly from start to finish!


I am in awe of the number of people who consider this film to be decent...much less great! Do the majority of people even have basic standards for a film they watch? I just don't know anymore.

This "commercial cinematic product" doesn't really deserve the respect of being called a film. To call Dean Cain talented is a gross injustice to anyone who actually has talent. I have had a lot of respect for Lori Petty but most of that has gone right down the tubes. At least her role was extremely small. Maybe she had a bill that desperately needed to get paid.

The ignorance I saw while viewing "Firetrap" was amazing. Let me start out by getting this off my chest: if you can't show fire realistically then don't show it at all. Okay?!! It's an embarrassment to all involved when you show lame effects that don't even come close to simulating an actual burning building.

Some interesting tidbits: 1. A janitor opens the door to a large storage closet and finds the entire room engulfed in flames. What does he do? He tries to put out the fire with his broom! 2. The same janitor (who knows the building is on fire) later comes across a door marked "HAZARDOUS MATERIALS". His brilliant mind tells him that it would be a great idea to open said door. Big mistake! 3. A woman is giving a fantastically generous donation of $100,000 to a greyhound rescue fund but...she's wearing a fur coat to the charity event they're holding! (Wouldn't people who care about animals kinda frown on that sort of thing?) 4. Several of the people in the movie are forced into a vault of some sort with massive steel walls that even an electromagnetic pulse(!!) couldn't penetrate. Yet they have a spacious air vent leading right into the back of the thing that anyone could crawl through. That sure seems like a lapse in security.

I could go on and on but I have grown tiresome thinking about this lame movie. Our "hero" whom we are supposed to be cheering for is a career criminal who early on tries to kill some police officers. What a swell guy! If the general public wants to waste their minds away on this drivel then more power to them. I just wish I could have it erased from my memory. 1/10


Another stinker from the PM Entertainment group, and thankfully one of their last.

'Firetrap' is effectively a very low budgeted remake of 'The Towering Inferno' I don't mind Low budget B Movies as long as some effort is put into them - there is no effort whatsoever in 'Firetrap' is stars Dean'Superman'Cain, who is an absolutely terrible actor, seriously he has all the acting abilities of a porn star, but he turns out to be the best actor here and that's saying something, the rest are just a bunch of no hopers given the boot from various daytime soaps. The special FX are just rubbish, shots showing the burning building from the ground are among the worst I've ever seen, the fire looks like someone scribbled an orange pen at the front of the camera. on top of that there is not one character you actually root for - you hate everyone and hope they all die well before the 90 minutes are up.

The script is embarrassing - The red herring's are signposted well in advance, someone else has mentioned this but 'The scene where the janitor fights off a blazing fire engulfing the building with his broom....hilarious, or same janitor going into a room marked 'Hazardous Material', Were these scenes supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? somehow I doubt it

The one good point and only one good point was there was a fair bit of action in amongst the daytime soap dramatics which kept my attention, but so little care was given to everything in the film, I can't recommend it - Watch 'The Towering Inferno' instead

3/10


This film was so bad it became enjoyable. If you want to see a soap opera cast decide to do an action film, this is for you! Overacting, irrelevant incidents, implausible dialogue - it has it all. The main character has a split personality and can not make up his mind whether he is thief, a loving father or a hero who will risk his life for others. He is plausible in none of these roles. This sets the standard for many of the other characters. The boss of the company whose building is set ablaze displays the same unpredictability, and so does his wife. And the punch line - who has taken the "chip" - beggars belief. I found myself laughing heartily and for that reason, I recommend you watch it.


Dean Cain, the one time Super-Man, plays Max Hooper the super-thief. He can break into any company and steal any thing for the right price. Unfortunately his latest heist ends him up in a high-rise in which someone else has set a fire to hide their own attempts to steal the product. Now the thief finds himself having to be the hero rescuing everyone in the building. Unfortunately the other thief is still in the building and the F.B.I. & C.I.A. are outside waiting for Max.

The movie is barely passable. Dean Cain is a fun actor and has done much better with more improved material but here he is saddled with a weak script and pretty poor direction.