My grandad gave me this DVD. With friends like these. The front cover looked quite scary thought i'd watch it. What a bloody mistake.

Basically the film follows three people on a bus and what happens to them involving friends.

The first one is about a guy who buys a car that talks to him. The second is a about a guy who wakes up to find a cassarole clone in his fridge. And the third is about a woman who does online dating but it turns out he has a robotic arm.

The DVD case rated this film 18 but even a 5 year old can watch this and not be scard or entertained. The film should be rated 12 for slight scares and the swear word bloody.

All in all this film is utter shite don't go near it.


I acquired this film a couple of years ago and on trying to find some info about it I found that even the mighty IMDb didn't have it listed. That should have been all I needed to know.

With Friends Like These is an anthology that plays like a collection of second rate Twilight Zone / Outer Limits episodes all linked together by a bus journey that never really seems to tie in with the rest of the film. Of the three stories, the only one that I gleaned any entertainment value from was the second episode in which a man (of sorts) grows out of the bacteria in a guys fridge. This episode wins points for a few spots of humour and it's bizarre premise. Other than that there is an episode with a talking car (bland and directionless) and an episode where a girl visits a very unique dating agency (my dog guessed the ending of this one).

As has been mentioned in other comments, the 18 rating is entirely unwarranted. There is nothing to offend here. If you're after a good horror anthology check out Asylum or the Creepshow films instead.


Well, after the hype surrounding the film and after Surya labeling the film as PATH-BREAKING, I went into the theatre expecting something big. Boy was I disappointed.

First of all, the characterizations in the film are SO weird! Which wife would do what Kundhavi (Jyothika) did? An idiotic, coo-coo one? And what was the point of her standing in the rain with her child (Baby Shreya) after she and her husband had a fight? What was the purpose of that scene anyway? To start a vulgarly shot "Maaja Maaja"? Not only was the song not canned aesthetically, it was just not needed in the screenplay. NOT NEEDED AT ALL! Secondly, the first half of the had practically NO STORY. The entire first half was a FREAKING drag. Every scene in the first half of the film had no significance what so ever to the real story of the film. And also, how did Aishwarya (Bhoomika Chawla) change so radically all of a sudden? And how did Gautham (Surya) and Kundhavi lead a happy live together after six years even though they were SO unhappy about marrying each other? And if Gautham did love Aishwarya like he claimed he did, why DID he even marry Kundhavi even if it was his uncle's death wish? WHY? That's the question you keep asking whilst watching the film! And how fair is the ending to Aishwarya? After all, she was Gautham's first wife? Krishna, the director of the film, claimed he worked on the script of this film for two years, but his script is filled with flaws and leaves the audience utterly irritated! Thirdly, Krishna's un-imaginative picturizations of Rahman's awesome is just disappointing. Surprisingly, Anthony's editing (usually superb) for the "New York Nagaram" song just sucks! The whole song looked like it was a slide show made on Microsoft Power Point! "Munbe Vaa" Rangoli chorus was wasted showing Gautham PLAYING FOOTBALL!!! Who wants to see the freaking dude playing football during such a beautiful chorus?!? Whats more, the whole movie only needed TWO songs. Munbe Vaa and Kummi Adi. The rest of the songs inclusive of "Machakari", "Maaja Maaja", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" are just not needed. Rahman's fine efforts are simply wasted on a stupid film directed by an amateur director! Fans of Rahman, you ask why Rahman keeps moving to Bollywood. After looking at the way his songs are picturised in Kollywood, why would he want to stay here? What's more irritating is that after Krishna decided to include Machakari into the film, the song was cut by half which truly, truly annoyes.

Surya looks handsome in his new get ups save the ones during the college scenes and packs in a so-and-so performance. His expressions during all the songs he was featured in really do not fit the way the singer sings the songs. Was Jyothika even acting in the film? All she did was CRY! Would you call all that crying acting? One of her worst performances ever! What's more, her new hairstyle does not suit her. She looked way better in Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu. Her costumes during the "New York Nagaram" song are way off. Bhoomika Chawla is just gorgeous during the film and does justice to her role. Vadivelu's comedy is ANNOYING. When one is watching him, one wishes they could slap him on the face. It is Santhanam who is the show stealer during the comedy scenes. And why the heck did Sukanya even agree to do such a minuscule role which could have done by just anyone? And why is her make up so heavy when she has perfect complexion? Music by A.R. Rahman is just awesome. "Machakari", "Munbe Vaa", "New York" and "Jillunu Oru Kaadhal" deserve special mention. R.D. Rajasekhar's cinematography is OK and isn't as good as his previous films though the scenery during the "Kummi Adi" song deserve special mention. Anthony's editing is really really disappointing. The film is just so freaking draggy and could be trimmed severely.

Krishna's direction just sucks. Dialogues (A.C. Durai and Krishna) are just too corny to digest especially the part where Bhoomika professes her love for Surya. The screenplay and script (Krishna) are horibble. The film moves in the more un-interesting pace ever. And Krishna's script is just filled with unexplained sub plots.

And for goodness sakes, why was there so much advertising in the film? Pepsi, Maggi, Suzuki, you name it. Was the producer of the film (K.E. Gnanavel) low on budget or was he just desperate? Overall, Jillunu Oru Kaadhal is a damp squib. With a title like that, one would expect a heart warming and cooling love story but what you end up is a painfully botched up love story. Really, really disappointing.


This film's a big bore. It has a plenty of Predictable plots & endless sentiments from the start. It starts good with a classy number but seems lost midway.

Surya & Jyothika's on screen chemistry works out really good & a good part by Bhoomika. Why include Vadivelu in it? He disappears totally after a good half an hour!. Santhanam proves his wit again by timing comedy.

AR's tunes sure will last for sometime. But he could have done better. What ever be the drawbacks still it's worth watching once if you feel alone at home or looking for a good time-pass.


Extremely slow movie.There are fine performances from all actors which is why above 5 score.Surya and Jyo are supposed to be this ideal husband and wife and we are shown this till it gets to a point you start asking is there a story.Then one day Jyo discovers Surya's diary to find his failed college love story .The college love story is totally unconvincing as Surya is an arrogant Senior who is always picking on Bhoomika, beats up her friend, yells at her in public and despite being terrified of him she falls in love for him.Even after that he continues to dominate her using crude language.I certainly could not appreciate the meek character played by Bhoomika, I don't think any self respecting woman will fall for such jerks in real life.So Jyo decides to bring them together and what happens after that is the climax. The story is extremely weak in its characters.A extremely arrogant Surya to Bhoomika is the exact opposite with Jyo( and there is no reason given for the sudden change in character).Again a extremely meek Bhoomika becomes a big extrovert when she returns.Wonder, if she had turned so super confident why didn't she try to find her love as she no longer feared anyone.


I bought this movie for 99 cents at K-mart several years back (along with "Hawken's Breed") figuring anything with Gabriel Byrne and Amanda Donahoe is surely worth that much. It wasn't. "Dark Obsession" (the title I bought it under) was a slight cut above "Hawken's Breed" (IMBD rated at 2.4), but not enough to allow me to even keep it in the house. I threw both movies in the trash.

This thing fails on so many levels it's hard to narrow it down, but let's just say it's tawdry, incredible, boring, hedonistic, confusing and even at 100 minutes, way too long.

I love Byrne as an actor, but this schlock really looks bad on his resume.


Seven pioneer kids strive independently across many miles of Indian territory and harsh weather to reach Oregon.

According to history, young'uns who traveled by themselves through long distances of land - such as with the 'Children's Crusade' - were manipulated and exploited by being abused and sold into slavery, but these kids are pretty tough and they try their best to prevail in accomplishing their goal of making a homestead out west. Film is a little too syrupy at times, but OK for fans of 'The Waltons' and 'Little House on the Prairie'.

Dean Smith gives a cool performance as 'Kit Carson'.


Take a bad script, some lousy acting and throw in a politically incorrect morality tale and what do you get? Something that is supposed to pass for quality family viewing.

Seven Alone is the story of a family in the 19th century who travel across America in a wagon train, hoping for a new life in Oregon. There are seven children (three boys, three girls and a baby whose sex I'm not quite sure of) hence the title of the film.

The story opens up with the family living a seemingly normal 19th century life on a farm in the middle of nowhere. Eldest son John is a precocious teenager, 'lazy and good for nothing' as his father constantly reminds him. We see right off the bat that he has a penchant for practical jokes when he ties string to the hair of his sleeping sisters and connects it to a nearby mule. When the mule is moved of course the poor girls are jolted out of bed. John is caught by his father and is immediately punished with a strap.

That same day a wagon train passes through. Pa is tempted to join up as it promises a new life in the wild, wild west. So the family hitches up their belongings and head off.

From the very beginning the film seems weak and amateurish. The acting is below grade, as if from one of those films shown in school about the pioneers. I can't blame the actors, however, because the lines in this film are silly and just too sickeningly sweet and optimistic.

I must tell you that I caught this film while flipping channels one boring Saturday afternoon on a Christian television station. Not of a religious mind myself, I watched in horror as Seven Alone offered up moral statements that were not only outdated, but downright offensive! If I were a good Christian I would hope that I would have had the good sense to complain to the television station for airing such trash. However, because I am a cynical, non-believer with a wicked sense of humor, I chose to sit back and laugh myself silly.

In one of the opening scenes, the role of the father as the stern ruler of the house is established when he proposes the idea of heading off for Oregon to his wife. Her response is a heated "Over my dead body." We are expected to laugh, I suppose, as the film cuts to the next scene with Pa and Ma smiling as he steers the wagon along through the prairies. Oh I suppose even the most staunch feminist would have to admit that this 'Father-knows-best' attitude was the norm in those days, and one could argue the need for such dictatorial rule when living conditions were difficult, but I somehow got the feeling that this film supported that notion, even for today. Lovely message coming from a Christian television station.

Anyway, things get worse for the family, and the films moral integrity is further diminished. An Indian (or Native American) robs John as he lay sleeping in a field. Like a common savage, the Indian takes Johns clothes and belongings. Thankfully Pa, with the help of passerby Kit Carson, is able to kill the Indian, as well as a couple of his delinquent friends. Kit Carson tells John that his father is a true hero.

The family is accompanied by the wagon train's resident doctor, Dr. Dutch (played by Aldo Ray). He shares Pa's sentiments about John, stating that he is a useless brat. Perhaps so, but he also the best thing about this film. Aldo Ray's doctor is buffoon, who seems unable to tie his own shoes, let alone treat one of the girls for a broken leg. Thankfully the young child didn't cry when the wagon ran over and snapped her leg in two, because Dr. Dutch didn't seem to have the appropriate bedside manner. We know the drawbacks of constantly belittling a child. Here's a film that promotes that behavior.

Later on Pa develops food poisoning, or something, I wasn't paying much attention, and he dies. His death bed scene is the stuff great acting is made of. Frankly, the man didn't even look sick.

Soon after, Ma dies too. The children are left to fend for themselves. And that's when the real adventure begins. Slugging it through the rapids, encountering more Indians (these ones are nice though) and venturing through snowy terrain, these children do it all. And I was left thinking, "What a bunch of garbage!"

Sorry, but there was nothing redeeming about this film. This low-budget Little House on the Prairie is a shameful waste of time and an insult to 'families' everywhere. I'm surprised that in 1975, at the tail end of the feminist movement, and at a time when treatment of Native Americans was coming into focus, that something like this could actually be made.


Staten Island filmmaker Andy Milligan is well known in the horror community for being an even worse director than Ed Wood. And with this as a dim example of his output I'm apt to agree with them. In "The Ghastly Ones" we basically have three bickering couples traveling to their childhood home (located on a conveniently secluded island) to collect an inheritance. There they are killed off one by one and the events unfold in murder/mystery fashion with a scarred retard hunchback butler added to throw you for a loop. The film is in such bad shape that it looks like someone just ran it through a dishwasher, the sound is terrible, the dialog is otherworldly bad, there's some primitive mannequin gore (plus some dismemberments and guts) and it's technically inept in every possible way it can be inept. But is it enjoyable in a bad movie kind of way? Sort of. It's excruciating to watch but oddly entertaining in a train wreck fashion. Approach with caution. If you're not a fan of horrible movies better deep six this one.


This film was released in the UK under the name Blood Rites. It was banned outright and never submitted again for release.

As The Ghastly Ones, it was supposedly a hit with the horror hungry denizens of New York City's famed 42nd Street Grindhouse circuit. If you are looking for some bloody horror, then you will find it in this film.

Unfortunately to see the developmentally disabled Colin (Hal Borske) chomp down on a live rabbit, you have to put up with shaky 16mm camera work that makes Ed Wood look positively marvelous.

Three sisters are to spend three days in the family homestead with their husbands before the old man's money is disbursed. Naturally, in such a situation, people start dropping dead. Family secrets are exposed and lots of blood is spilled, especially during a gruesome dismemberment.

Maybe it was the bunny bit that the Brits objected to, I know I did.


Out of all the films I could have chosen, it had to be this. When I was last in New York I went into a Times Square store and out of the hundreds of DVD's they had I chose Joel M. Reeds Bloodsucking Freaks (1976) and this, on a double feature DVD that also included Seeds of Sin (1968), did I regret it? Read on to find out. The film opens on an island (near Milligan's Staten Island home) where two lovers are walking along with a massive parasol seemingly made from paper, at one point he gives her the top of a weed as a gift. Out of nowhere Colin (Hal Borske) a retarded hunchback pops up and kills both of them for no reason at all. After the opening credits which are joined by some of the worst headache inducing music I have ever heard, at least it got me used to it as it's used constantly throughout the film, we are introduced to three couples. The wives are all sisters, Vicky (Ann Linden) and Ricard (Fib LaBlaque), Veronica (Eileen Hayes) and Bill (Don Williams) plus Elizabeth (Carol Vogel) and Donald (Richard Ramos). They each receive a letter from a lawyer, H. Dobbs (Neil Flanagan) that request a meeting so he can read their late father's will. Dobbs informs them that they must spend three days in their childhood home 'Crenshaw House' and fill it with 'sexual harmony and marital love' that it had never known because of the strained relationship between their father and mother. He informs the couples that the will is highly irregular but legal. After three days the inheritance will be settled. The couples are also told about the servants, Martha (Veronica Radburn), Hattie (Maggie Rodgers) and the retarded Colin, who welcomes the couples by killing and biting chunks out of a rabbit in front of them. Later on that night whats left of the dead rabbit is found in one of the couples beds with a note that says 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit'. This starts a series of events which end in gruesome murder and reveals dark family secrets.

Co-written, photographed and directed by the talentless Andy Milligan. This is an absolutely horrible film in every way possible. Lets go through just some of it's faults. The music, it's awful and headache inducing. Sound, you can barely hear what characters are saying and certain scenes don't have any sound effects plus at certain points you can hear Milligan shouting out orders to his actors, oh and there's a constant hiss on the soundtrack throughout as well. The acting, probably among the worst I have ever witnessed. The very un-special effects, Colin pokes someones eye out in the opening sequence, it's the size of a tennis ball, the part where someone is tied down and has his stomach opened up with a saw looks really awful as are the various hands and legs that are chopped off. Photography, Milligan has absolutely no idea how to stage or film a scene, he regularly cuts the top, bottom or sides of peoples heads and faces off the screen and his camera jerks and shakes around like it's operated by someone who is constantly tripping over. There is also at least one scene so badly thought out and filmed that a crew member is seen. The film is often so dark you can't see whats happening, too. Editing, again some of the worst I've ever sat through, he seems to cut scenes before they've finished, cutting away while characters are in the middle of a sentence. The script, if there was one, credited to both Milligan and Hal Sherwood (It took two people to write this!?) is all over the place and is incredibly stupid. There is one unbelievably bad sequence where the killer follows a victim down into the basement, the killer walks right behind him, at one point the potential victim turns around. What does the killer do to avoid being spotted? They duck down right in from of him, the killers close enough to give the guy oral sex yet he doesn't notice them, right in front of him. You have to see this sequence to believe it, I still can't believe what I saw. Bizarre sub plots just happen and then totally disappear, check the scene out when Richard has to borrow money from his brother Walter (producer and co-writer Hal Sherwood), who turns out to be a gay priest who has had an incestuous relationship with his brother before he was married! A strange scene that's there for no reason at all. Martha the housekeepers reaction to the first murder, she's more bothered by the fact that it's thrown her dinner schedule out! There's load of insane dialogue as well, Patty and Martha discuss Colin, Patty says "if only I didn't beat him so hard" Martha sympathetically replies "you have to Patty, you have to!", delivered totally straight faced. And don't start me on how ugly the wallpaper looks throughout the house! The only good thing I can think of saying is that the costumes look reasonable, for the time period it's meant to be set in. I could probably go on all day about how amateurish this is, but I think you get the idea. One to avoid unless your a serious masochist! I didn't regret buying or watching it for a second, though!


Well well, at last a view of this underrated flick. But you can't find a good copy of it, terrible copy full with green drops, the editing isn't syncronized, the sound do has sometimes that terrible hiss and sometimes you even can hear the camera recording. Overall it's too dark, a waist of time you should say but it isn't. It's a bit slow, the first half part of the movie it's all talking and making love to each other. It is even still weird that the girls in movies from the 60's never wear any bra's. When they enter the sleeping room it's full glory. Anyway, banned in the UK since 84 and still on the video nasties list. The reason is simple, it's gory for their time being. It really has some nasty dismemberement's and it's creepy in some way due the fact that it is filmed handycam way. So every shot the image is moving, things they do these days with the steadycam. The Ghastly Ones could have been better if the quality of the film was better but still better then other films of the time like Schoolgirls In Chains.


I saw this film purely based on the fact that it was on the DPP Video Nasty list, and while I'm glad I saw it because it's now 'another Video Nasty down' - on its own merits, Andy Milligan's film really isn't worth bothering with. There are, of course, far worse films on the infamous list; but that doesn't make the pain of viewing this one any easier. The film was obviously shot on an extremely low budget, and that has translated into the script; as Blood Rites works on an idea often seen in horror cinema, and doesn't do anything new with it. Basically, the plot centres on three couples who find themselves at a house awaiting the results of a will. It's not long before they start getting picked off...blah blah blah. For most of the film, nothing happens; and then when we finally get down to the scenes that justify the movie being banned, they're so amateurish and silly that they're impossible to take seriously on any level. It's a very good thing that this movie doesn't have a very long running time as otherwise it could have been used as a particularly nasty method of torture. It all boils down to a fittingly tedious ending, which also succeeds in being a non-event of epic proportions. Apparently, this movie is still banned here in the UK; but somehow I doubt it's because of its shock value. Basically, Blood Rites isn't worth seeing and I personally can see no reason to recommend it. Unless, of course, you've made it your business to see everything on the Video Nasty list...


Lord David Cecil wrote an interesting book in the 1930s EARLY VICTORIAN NOVELISTS, where he looked at the works of Dickens, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Mrs. Gaskell, Charlotte Bronte, and Emily Bronte. He selected these writers as the popular favorites of the first half of the Victorian period, and he explained their strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them) to the reading public. Some of his comments are quite relevant to this day, but like all criticism it gives an idea of the spirit of the times of the critic's life as well.

Cecil thought highly of George Eliot (Mary Ann Cross), who wrote about seven or eight books (including sketches and poetry). But for most modern readers, they are usually acquainted with her shortest book, SILAS MARNER, which is still read in some high school curriculum. The other books, FELIX HOLT THE RADICAL, DANIEL DERONDA, MIDDLEMARCH, THE MILL ON THE FLOSS, ADAM BEDE, ROMOLA, SCENES OF CLERICAL LIFE, are still in print (Penguin, for example, has most of them in print), but are mostly unread. The one of most interest today is her last novel, DERONDA, where she discusses the Jews in English society, and an incipient, pre-Hertzl type of Zionism. ROMOLA is her sole attempt at a historic novel (about Savanarola's experiment of a religiously pure republic in Florence in the 1490s). Her meatiest novel is MIDDLEMARCH, which is concerned with English society in the provinces in 1832, the year of the great Reform Bill of Lord Grey. I had to read MIDDLEMARCH in college for a literature course. It certainly is a thoughtful book (Virginia Woolf called it the most grown-up book in the English language). But it suffers (like all of Eliot's novels) from one defect - she cannot write livable, exciting prose. While Dickens is overly exuberant at times, and Thackeray can become pompous and prolix, and Trollope can become (as Lord Cecil says) very ordinary in his discussion, and Charlotte Bronte can fail to explain certain relationships well, and Mrs. Gaskell seems best dealing with female characters, all of them (and Emily Bronte in her single novel) hold the reader's interest. Reading most of Eliot's novels is like trying to chisel sentences out of blocks of marble with a toothpick!

To date I have read about fifty pages of MILL OF THE FLOSS. I notice that one of the other reviewers never finished the novel too. But I have read a synopsis of what it is about. The Tullivers (Maggie and her brother Tom) are the central figures - they own the mill in the title. Although close at the start of the story, Maggie falls in love with the son of a neighbor whose father is involved in legal difficulties with Mr. Tulliver Sr. Tom takes a dim view of this relationship, and the tragedy of the story is regarding the split between the siblings, culminating in their demise at the conclusion (Maggie runs back to the mill to rescue Tom during a heavy flood, and they die together). It must have been a success with Victorian readers, but it is very gloomy and depressing to modern audiences.

The movie changed the ending a little - Maggie (Geraldine Fitzgerald) does die at the end with her lover, and Tom (James Mason) notes their deaths at the conclusion in his record book. The story is totally rewritten, except for a double death in the flood at the conclusion. It doesn't really help matters. Although Fitzgerald and Mason do pretty well with their parts, they can't really pull the film up by their work alone. The end result is a fairly minor film, that fortunately did not hurt the lead's careers. The only other thing to note is that the boyfriend was played by Frank Lawton, who two years earlier played David Copperfield as a grown up opposite W.C.Fields, Lionel Barrymore, and Maureen O'Sullivan. But then, Lawton never really had a major film career - he just happened to always be around in pictures, some good, some mediocre.


'The Mill on the Floss' was one of the lesser novels by Mary Ann Evans, who wrote under the male pseudonym George Eliot. I tried to read this dull and very turgid novel years ago, but was unable to finish it. I'll review this film version solely on its own merits, as I don't know how faithfully it follows the original novel.

The film's opening credits are printed in an Old English typeface that suggests the mediaeval period, and so it's a very poor choice for a film with a 19th-century setting. (On the other hand, about halfway into the film, we see a close-up shot of a handbill advertising an estate auction. This handbill is set in authentic Victorian type fonts, and looks *very* convincing.) Most of this film is extremely convincing in its depiction of the architecture and clothing of early 19th-century England. The precise location of this film's story is never disclosed, but - judging by the actors' accents - I'd place it as somewhere in the Cotswolds, perhaps Warwickshire.

The plot, what there is of it, involves a mill that changes hands a couple of times (over a couple of decades) between two rival families, one wealthy and one working-class. I disagree with another IMDb reviewer who claims that James Mason has only a small role in this film. Mason has the largest and most central role in this drama, as the scion of the wealthier family. As the spoilt and petulant Tom Tulliver, Mason is darkly brooding and impetuous. His performance here belongs in a better film: it made me want to see 'Wuthering Heights' recast with Mason as Heathcliff.

As this is a multi-generational saga (something which George Eliot did much better in 'Middlemarch'), several of the main roles in this film are split among two actors apiece: child actors in the prologue, adults in the main narrative. The prologue of this film features a very well-written scene, establishing Tom Tulliver as wilful and bully-ragging from an early age, and young Philip Wakeham as decent and thoughtful. Through hard labour, Philip has earned a halfpenny: Tom tries to bully it away from him, but is unwilling to take the coin by brute force: he wants Philip to *give* it to him. All the child actors in this movie, male and female, are talented and attractive. Unfortunately, all of the children speak their dialogue in posh plummy-voiced accents that are utterly unlike the accents of the actors and actresses who play those same roles as adults. This discrepancy calls attention to the staginess of the material. Regrettably, none of the later scenes are as good as this prologue.

The climax features a crowd of labourers in a rainstorm, much better paced and photographed than the earlier scenes. But modern viewers (in Britain, at least) can no longer take this sort of material seriously. By now, practically every British comedian has done a "trouble at t' mill, squire" comedy routine, parodying precisely this subject matter, so I had difficulty watching this movie with a straight face.

The character actress Martita Hunt is good in a small role, but the opening credits (in that Old English typeface) misspell her forename as 'Marita'. I'll rate this dull movie 3 points out of 10: one point apiece for James Mason's performance, the early scene with the children, and the authentic Victorian typesetting in that auctioneer's handbill.


This was shown on a premium channel, so I didn't realise it was made for TV. Even so, I like some of the movies on lifetime (Lifestyle here in UK), but this was awful. The family were so cheesy, "Love you mum" "Love you even more honey" Then after they were broken into for the second time, 10 mins later, they were at it again, "Love you mum" big cheesy smiles etc... She phones her husband, and tells him not to bother coming home. They were only broken into by a guy that wanted them dead, have a nutter living next door, who needs help? She has her teenage daughter and a cat (not for long) to look after her.

However, as a comedy, I'd give it a good 7. I might even show it to my friends next time I have them round. Could be great fun after a bottle of Vodka or 10!


So bad as good - not only the script is obvious, but the acting is not just poor, but pathetic. The worst of all is the definition of the characters: unrealistic ingenuity, affected reactions, camera forcing to watch superficial aspects, which are introduced as keys to the plot.

Can't prevent laughing when, at the end, main character says to second something like 'your daughter plays no soccer and knows no cooking'. Such offense to female intelligence defines the level of this film.

Is the film about the psychological behaviour of the second character?, about its impact on the main character?, or just a sequence of events set in order to heat for the obvious ending?

Pls, make more of these - I had a good time guessing what next would go wrong...


The acting is awkward and creepy, and not in a good way...at all. The writing, the dialogue, and the chemistry between the actors is horrible. Nothing makes sense and every close-up of an actor's expression or reaction lasts 3 or 4 seconds too long, making it seem like a Mexican Soap Opera (telenovela). Everything about the writing is unrealistic, and all of the actors involved make it that much worse with their campy interpretations of the script. Am I the only one who sees this??? To use the word cheesy to describe this Canadian disaster would be the understatement of the century. Did the director even watch the final cut before it was put on the air???


... or should I say unintentionally hilarious? Either way, this is one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time. I was laughing throughout at the antics of some of the dumbest fictional characters this side of Homer Simpson. It's just one forehead-slapping, painfully stupid scene after another as the clownish, dim-witted cardboard cutouts substituting for actual humanoid characters push, pull, and drag the "plot" to its inevitable and obvious conclusion.

If I had to describe this movie to someone, I'd call it a mutated hybrid of Fatal Attraction, Dumb and Dumber, and the Three Stooges, with a "climax" uncannily similar to the episode of Family Guy in which the whole family gets into a knock-down fistfight in the living room.

Advice to Benson family: next time you get a new pet, do the poor animal a favor and DON'T name it Fred!


I can name only a few movies that I have seen which were this bad. This movie has terrible everything: The dialog is corny and cliché', the acting is poor for the most part with a few exceptions, the cinematography is nothing to cheer about, and the plot is silly (A fat woman stalks a suburban family because her daughter didn't make the soccer team). This is so bad, it's funny to watch. If you can catch this on lifetime, I'd recommend it highly as a comedy. As for being a serious movie, I'm afraid i'll have to rate this a 2.

Don't watch this film if you are a serious movie fan and looking for an interesting and challenging storyline, or good acting. There is none to be found.

Edit: Hmmm... I think a group of people who work for lifetime must have written some phony reviews and voted all the negative ones down. Don't believe them. This is a really crappy movie.


Too fractured to be enjoyable, too loose to be interesting and too clumsily photographed to be tolerable MR LONELY is an interesting idea ruined by really bad film making. Like a Ken Russell film at its worst, or DAY OF THE LOCUST remade by amateurs, MR LONELY might have seemed like a good idea on a few scraps of paper (no script, you see) and a free holiday to somewhere, but in the end we have a widescreen film that seems as if it was made by film students whose parents told them that EVERYTHING they did was a brilliant creation. Or did I get the film maker right? MR LONELY is a waste of resources, trying to be (gawd!) quirky and deliberately off kilter. It ends up being annoying and indulgent.. and pointless. What's the point of going to a commune in Scotland? What a stupid idea in this film about Hollywood delusion. Maybe Korine wanted to remake GODSPELL ... well the result is GOD-AWFUL. Oh and there is some subplot like leftover footage from FITZCARRALDO including Werner Herzog, nuns and a plane. Add slo-mo drifting and violin music all wistful and melancholy, add James Fox who seems to hope he might be seen as daring (like in PERFORMANCE) and the result is amphetamine fantasy alphabet soup in widescreen. It might have been fun to film but the result on the screen is a mess. Imagine American PIE BAND CAMP with food poisoning.


Why would anyone make a film like this? Why would anybody invest in a film like this? Why would anybody in the film business work on a film like this? Why would any theatre show a film like this? Why would any TV channel program a film like this? Why would any critic bother to review a film like this? Why would anybody watch a film like this? Why would mental examinations not be made of the writers/producers/directors of a film like this? Sometimes there are movies that are so bad they're good. This is a movie that is so ghastly that it's horrible. IMDb really must institute a "0" or even a minus scale to embrace works of this appallingly pretentious awfulness.


Korine's established himself, by now, as a talented and impressive image-maker. The promotional posters for Mister Lonely all include the film's most impressive compositions (though there's one in particular I've yet to see in promo material: that of a blue-clad nun teasing a dog with a stick, surrounded by green forest with torrential rain pouring down). The opening images of this film, of Michael Jackson lookalike (Diego Luna) riding a small motorbike round a track, is strangely compelling and beautiful: Roy Orbison's "Mister Lonely" plays on the soundtrack, and the images unfold in slow-motion. There's also a funny and terrific sequence in which the same character mimes a dance, without music (though a radio sits like a silent dog next to him), in the middle of a Paris street; Korine splices in sound effects and jump-cuts that evoke both a feeling of futility and dogged liberation in the character's dance routine.

The first instance of the segment dealing with the nuns is also strangely poignant; Father Umbrillo (Werner Herzog) is an autocratic priest about to fly with some nuns over, and drop food into, impoverished areas nearby. In a scene that is both light-hearted and affecting, Herzog must deal with a stubbornly enthusiastic local who wishes to make the plane trip with them in order to see his wife in San Francisco. As the exchange develops, Herzog draws out of the man a confession: he has sinned, and his frequent infidelity is the cause of his wife having left him in the first place. This scene, short and sweet, gains particular weight after one learns its improvised origins: the sinner is played by a non-actor who was on set when Korine and co. were filming - and his adulterous ways had given him, in real life, a lasting, overwhelming guilt.

Henceforth, the film is hit-and-miss; a succession of intrinsically interesting moments that add to a frivolous, muddled narrative. Whereas Gummo and Julien Donkey-Boy maintain their aesthetic and emotional weight via coherent structural frameworks, Mister Lonely feels like a victim of editing room ruthlessness. A few scenes were cut from the film, which would have otherwise painted fuller pictures of certain characters, due to continuity errors in costume - a result, no doubt, due to the absence of a shooting script and Korine's tendency for improvisation. One deleted scene in particular - in which 'Charlie Chaplin' (Denis Lavant) and 'Madonna' (Melita Morgan) have sex - would have added much more emotional conflict to a scene later on in the film (I won't spoil it, but it's there to deflate any feeling of warmth or celebration, and, as it is, only half-succeeds).

The two strands of the narrative, unconnected literally, are best approached as two entirely different stories with the same allegorical meaning; one compliments the other and vice versa. (It's something to do with the conflict between one's ambitions and the reality of the current situation.) But there's not enough of the Herzog scenes to merit their place in the film, and so any connection between these two allegorically-connected threads is inevitably strained - and the inclusion is, in retrospect, tedious.

This is an ambitious step forward from Julien Donkey-Boy that suffers mostly, at least in the lookalike segments, from having far too many characters for the film's running length, a flaw that would have been even worse had big star names played everyone (as was originally planned).

With many of the imagery's self-contained beauty, and moments of real, genuine connection with the soundtrack, this feels like it'd be much more suited to an art installation or photo exhibition. As an exploration of mimesis and the nature of impersonation, it'd lose none of its power - indeed, for me, it would perhaps be more impressive. The loneliness attached to iconic performativity (such as that encountered by both the icons themselves and those who aspire to be like them) is well-captured in images such as that wherein 'Marilyn Monroe' (a gorgeous Samantha Morton) seduces the camera with a Seven Year Itch pose in the middle of a forest, or when 'Sammy Davis, Jr.' (Jason Pennycooke) settles, post-dance rehearsal, with his back to the camera overlooking an incredible, tranquil lake.

As it is, moments like these, and all those where the titles of randomly-chosen Michael Jackson songs crawl across the scene, are married to one another in a film narrative far less affecting than it should be.

(For those who see it, I lost all faith during the egg-singing scene, late on. You'll know which scene I mean because it sticks out like a sore thumb, as some sort of gimmicky attempt at the new cinematic language for which Korine has previously been hailed.)


Harmony Korine. I'm not sure what he was trying to do with this film. If it was to turn my good day feeling into a night of disturbing memories than I guess he succeeded.

I know that there were big questions raised in this movie like, who are we really, what are we here for, is there really a God. All great questions, But I really don't think that is funny when you have the questions along side such tragedy. I'm all for real life being portrayed but come on. It's never funny when a wife is being raped, someone killing themselves (and family and friends find the body) and people die for unexplained and unnecessary reasons.

The only good thing about this movie was the location it was filmed. There is a lot of beautiful places.

I'm not a film student or even know all that much on the subject I admit this, but I do know that when I leave the theater with a feeling of disgust, then it was not a film I would recommend to anyone.


I watched this movie and all I can say is this...I am not a film student, nor am I some artsy intellect who tries to look for a deeper meaning into everything that I don't understand. However, IF I were to do that with this film, my thoughts would be...

Yep! He's on drugs and I can picture it now...he was tripping one night and sat around with his buddies laughing and saying stuff like, hey...wouldn't it be funny if nuns really could fly? Like what if one just fell out of a plane and free fell for a while, bounced to the ground and got up and walked away? *cackles* or if buckwheat gave the pope a bath? oh my god, I'm cracking up just thinking about it! Dude! We gotta make a movie about it! And then he says to his friend as he's laughing...Oh and wouldn't it be hilarious if people loved it and called me a genius for it? So to me, this is what happens when some guy does one too many drugs and writes a script and produces a movie. Should I have been doing LSD to understand what this guy was thinking so I could have had a laugh too? Because I have to tell you, I wasn't laughing. I was yawning and checking the time.

I think everyone who is trying their hardest to find a deeper meaning is hysterical. I had never heard of this director until I came to read the reviews, which I did because I was mad that I lost that last 2 hrs, or how ever long it was, (it felt like 12 hrs of my life) and I can't ever get it back, anyway...I have read that this guy is a heroine addict and he wanted to die for art?? what the heck is that? So my point is sort of proved. This guy is not all there, he's a drug addict, and his movie is evidence of such...So please quit trying to find a deeper meaning to it. If one really wants to understand everything in this movie, go drop some LSD and sit back and relax, then it might actually make sense.

It reminded me of the time I watched Gus Van Sant's Last Days, another movie I was mad about watching. I cannot help but wonder what the ratings would be for that movie, if the same people reviewed it who reviewed this one. It seems like, if the movie's director is totally off his rocker, or if it's a french movie with sex and subtitles, or if it's a cartoon, it is going to get great reviews, hands down, anything else is boring and has already been done. BLAH, bring on the boring please!


Harmony Korrine - hate him or hate him? On this evidence, loathe might be a better word. Not him of course, just everything he does. But it could've been so different because the first ten minutes of this film promises so much including a fantastic idea of a Michael Jackson impersonator falling in love with a Marilyn Monroe impersonator. Fantastic. And set in Paris! This could be great. But unfortunately, Korrine may spark the odd decent idea but because he is an awful writer, the story fails on every level and the audience walkout I witnessed about an hour in is proof positive that he is the most boring and pretentious film-making out there. Apparently the walk-out rate at its premiere in last years Cannes festival was quite shocking. Instead of focusing on the two protagonists, he switches the story stupidly to the confines of a château to introduce a bunch of other impersonators making the whole experience tedious and narratively barren. When will the independent cinema stop funding this upstart?


I just watched this yesterday and wanted to read other peoples scathing comments but found some high marks.

WHAT??? This was probably the worst Asian horror movie I've seen.

*spoilers* There were just so many fundamental problems with the story. A lot of Asian horror has the twist of spirits trying to help but just looking scary (with notable exceptions: ringu and Ju-on). This is the case here except they aren't scary. A pretty Asian woman who looks a little pale isn't scary at all. The "monk" character straight up explains everything as being a perfectly natural cycle of life; nothing scary there either. But the woman just doesn't get it, she would rather kill herself and her baby then let this poor ghost be reincarnated. My friend and I were just laughing when she jumped off the building twice and the ghost waits until after the second time to tell her why she's been following her around. That information would have been nice to know before she started jumping but whatever.

*That said I did like a couple of parts right in the middle. First she rides a taxi with a ghost (ghosts ride taxis?) that has a whole lot of extra hair which inexplicably IS creepy. Right after that at the bus stop, well you need to see it as it's pretty messed up.

All in all this movie is a total bomb, I gave it an extra point just for those two scenes above. This is a poor quality Asian horror that manages to make ghosts flying into women's wombs almost beautiful while trying to scare you with the same images.


(The beginning might be a spoiler...)

"The Eye 2" is the sequel to "The Eye". It's about a pregnant woman who is able to see ghosts and spirits after an incident happened to her.

The sound effects scared the hell out of me though momentarily but that's the only scary thing. Some of the scenes from the prequel are comparatively similar and repeated so the chilling effects certainly have chilled.

"The Eye" has quite a frightening and indelible impression whereas "The Eye 2" is a forgettable horror-cum-drama film. Omit watching this. Watching "The Eye" is good enough.


****Probably will contain spoilers****

After a successful attempt to get attention (I would not call making sure that you get help before you die a "failed suicide attempt"), Joey finds out that she is pregnant and starts seeing images of spirits.

Overall the movie was a little slow going, but entertaining enough to watch the whole thing. For a horror movie, there were only a few minor creeps and thrills. Halfway through, however, was a really good scary scene (I wont give it away though) :) I watched this movie because I really liked the preceding movie, The Eye.

I was a little confused, however to determine that, other than being a "supernatural suspense" movie from the same creators, The Eye 2 had NO relation to The Eye, *whatsoever*; different cast, different story. The Eye2 does not even have anything to do with eyes :\

The movie had a few questionable scenes: Joey attempts suicide 3 times (4 times, if you count the time when witnesses say they saw Joey trying to jump in front of the train), she is associated with brutally defacing an attacker, she freaks out in a restaurant and witnesses say she was "attacking" people and yet she is allowed to go about her business freely, without even so much as a psyche evaluation or put in the hospital (for reasons other than her pregnancy).

The movie was not the greatest horror movie, the story was rather far-fetched (even for a fiction movie :P ), the spooks were either few and/or nothing we have not seen before. However, it was an "interesting" story and once you know what the "truth" is behind the spooks, it was an interesting twist on the "ghost" story.

I rate the movie 3 out of 10.


This for one has nothing to do with the absolutely fantastic first flick. And of course us Americans just have to remake everything successful into English, because man reading subtitles is SOOOOO Hard isn't it! From what I've see in the new trailers with the adorable now pregnant Jessica Alba (well that sure ruins every teenage boys fantasy everywhere doesn't it!) It looks EXACTLY the same but probably w/double the budget. I thought the original was one of the best horror/suspense/mystery flicks I have seen in any language in quite a long while. I would recommend watching that one and skipping this one all together, there is no reason to watch this as there is no reason this even called "The Eye 2" except to capitalize on the excellence that was the first flick. Do yourself a favor watch "The Eye" with the volume turned up and get ready for some probable jumping. I watched it w/headphones on and was pleasantly surprised on the excellence that was the direction of the Pang brothers. If "The Eye" remake does well which I'm hoping it does for the sake of the Pang Brothers movie careers, but at the same time it seems a shame that people won't/can't see the original, because very often/almost always the remake isn't as good as the original. Watch this one if one wants to be mildly kinda of boring flick, but the original is no comparison to this sequel in name only flick.


Altioklar's populist approach manifests itself in all his titles, from the worst to the best. He doesn't care (or has no clue) about art, all he cares is to make people think they've got a kick in the groin by watching his movies. The problem is, the effort is way too evident, and as events unfold with all the senseless exaggeration kneaded into them, the effort fails badly.

On this "Turkish" movie (who knows where the original or originals were made, since it felt extremely Hollywoodish to me), Altioklar is trying to be some sort of Tarantino. (Mr. Tarantino, if you're reading this, please watch the movie for the best comedy of your life!) He doesn't use subtle moves to do that, all he does is to use extreme stuff, and it gets unbearably absurd and laughable.

Levent Üzümcü as the forensic guy with the cow-licked hair is just hilarious. I'm hoping to meet him in person and ask how he felt about this movie himself. Because I really found the role insulting for him. Demet Evgar groping her genitalia was also uncalled for, and did nothing other than making everything look fake. Another specifically idiotic aspect of this movie was the 100% faulty pace setting. When things need to be taken slowly, scenes flow abruptly. And at other times, it makes you sleepy to watch the slow ridicule going on.

If Altioklar is so deeply in love with lame Hollywood superficiality, he should use Michael Sixarrows as his name instead. Even such a move wouldn't be half as ludicrous as what he has done on this movie. He should first learn not to imitate directors whose levels he'll never approach, then realize he's not in Hollywood, and then take private lessons from Zeki Demirkubuz or Reha Erdem on how to lay the flow of ideas out in the plot. This useless movie couldn't be saved even by those, but perhaps he can make watchable movies in the future by taking these steps.

By the way I've seen some infamous failures such as Propaganda and Otostop, and I still can't divert from saying this one was the worst Turkish movie ever.


Persuaded by the 7.0 points in IMDb, which is pretty good, i decided to watch this movie. However, i found this movie quiet boring (about 2 hours) and full of clichés, A little girl getting multiple personalities after a childhood trauma etc. Tamer KAradagli is quiet funny in this movie, dialogs motions etc, you will have to see it, he is kinda the tough cop you see on American movies, perhaps copied too much. I would describe this movie as ordinary American thriller with a little bit of Turkish touch, Unfortunately yet again I'm convinced that comedies and dramas are the only genres worth watching in Turkish cinema Anyways i gave this movie a 4, its too boring and full of clichés


Altioklar: Master of the thieves.

Watch some movie, steal some parts of them, write a script... It must be very easy to be a director in Turkey. I think Altioklar watched "Identity (2003)", "Saw (2004)", a few series which is about crime, murder etc. then he said "Eureka, eureka"(i have found it!) after that he wrote the script of the movie.

You can guess the murderer at the beginning of the movie. It took only 10 minutes for me. He shouted "I'm the murderer, i'm the murderer.". There is no mystery.

Tamer Karadagli is same(sux). Exaggerated mimics, funny macho man.

There is only one good thing in the movie. The performance of Demet Evgar is very good. You may see the movie just for that.


I understand the purpose of the director to tell stories that aren't stories, but the way he tried to show time passing by (the couple of joggers, who first appear jogging together, than jogging with a stroller (sic!), than the man alone...) and to link the "adventures" of the characters (the final scene, with the maid climbing a mountain seeing the big black guy on another cliff, and then seeing the boat with her former employer and saying "Oh, a boat!") were awful. At the same time, I liked the way he portrayed the middle-high class, even in an excessive way. I think it is a lousy movie. If you want to watch it, do it as a film school student, trying to see technical aspects and issues. It will help a lot.


While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.


It is sad that some find this film worth watching. I am Russian, and I am disgusted. There is nothing in this film that deserves praise, except cinematography. However, I am not one of those who find beauty in death or perversion. I think this film is poorly designed and directed. There is nothing more irritating and even enraging than shameless speculation in art (if you can call this garbage art). Balabanov wanted to shock the viewers by pervasive evil, and he succeeded in creating a hopelessly dark film. But the biggest shock is Balabanov's primitive directorial work. I would never advise any of my friends to watch it. Huge disappointment!


People call a 976 "party line" to talk dirty to strangers, and perhaps meet up for a sexual liason. A deranged, somewhat incestuous sister and occasional transvestite brother use the line to find people to kill, usually married men, but they don't discriminate! A pair of sixteen year old girls also call the line for fun, pretending to be older, of course. One of them works as a babysitter for a married man who's hot for her (or anyone).

Meanwhile, a vice cop is borrowed by homicide when he's the first to discover one of the siblings' victims. He's teamed with a female assistant of the District Attorney.

Nothing too special here. Richard Roundtree has little more than a cameo as the police chief. One of the dirty-talking sixteen year olds is played by an actress who also voiced Peanuts character Peppermint Patty! According to the IMDb, the other died quite young, just several years after this movie: sad.


Yep, it's me again! Mr 'I sit through crap so you don't have to'.

What do you think this is about? Could it possibly be about a woman who call a sex line and arrange to meet bachelors in a secluded area? Then her cross-dressing boyfriend comes along and slits their throat with razor, before they make off together with his cash? Wow, what a guess! And if I tell you that the cop who is put on the case is forced to team up with a sexy assistant DA to nail these suckers, what conclusion will you come to? Do you reckon the sexy DA will go undercover wearing a flimsy red dress to an attempt to meet the drag queen, but then end up being kidnapped and having to be rescued by the maverick officer? (who has already handed in his gun and badge) ZING! You get 10 points!

Frankly, this film bored me to tears. Why do people insist on making this kind of rubbish? Its a waste of our time, their time and yet they still carry on regardless.. filming a movie that no-one gives an iota about. If it has any redeeming features, there's the fact that it has some of the prettiest ladies I've seen in a motion picture for a while. I hope they spent what meagre wages they earned on plenty of botox and colonic irrigation. They'd look great on the cover of Vogue, or perched on the top of a car in a bikini. They should just leave acting to the professionals (like Shannon Tweed).

Talking about future careers, I ran into the director the other day. He sure does whip up a tasty chicken burger meal. I must say too, that the uniform really does suit him. I asked him about 'Party Line', and his eyes went to the floor before he mumbled something about extra fries. Oh well, guess it didn't quite work out. Never mind, they're letting him take over the drive-thru tomorrow!! Hurray!! 1/10


Thats what this movie really takes. A big piece of cheeze. This movie is about a sister and brother Bonnie and Clyde type of duo that creates their own party line in order to lure their victims in and trap them and kill them. But for what reason? Just for the fun of getting away with it? In comes Richard Hatch who comes across as a wishy washy ladies man. A real BAD version of a ladies man. And he gets involved with finding who's behind all the killings across LA. He finally meets a teenager who helps him find the killer and rest is for your fun and amusement. But there are parts in this film that really get me going like the scene with Lief Garret dressed in his mothers wedding gown acting like a sissy in front of his sister telling her that he needs her and can't live without her and watching as she slaps him across the face dominateing him. I can't believe that was Lief!!! Well, I guess I could. But it's worth watching but only to see one of Garrets worst films that he ever did.


Terror in the Jungle is a real find. If you saw it, you're one of the few lucky ones. It's hilarious!

The story is about an airplane crashing in the middle of the south american jungle. The crash scene has to be seen to be believed. Everyone dies in the crash or they're subsequently eaten alive by crocodiles. Only a young blonde boy survives. A nearby tribes brings the kid to their village and they (all males) venerate him because of his golden hair! I kid you NOT! At the end, there's a lot of wrestling between the natives and the man on the search for any survivors of the downed airplane. All the while, the kid sits on a throne and his blond hair is surrounded by a golden halo and he cries nonstop!! It's a hoot!!!

Very obscure and contains very questionable subtexts. A must if you're into obscure, it's-so-bad-it's-good movies.


If the following sounds tempting, then by all means rush down to your local Blockbuster and rent this movie post-haste:

1. Awful 60's hairstyles, from pathetic perms to dodgy ducktails.

2. The worst child actor in the world ever, who does nothing but cry and say DADDY in the most annoying voice imaginable.

3. Lots of stock footage of alligators and monkeys that doesn't mesh with the film. At all.

4. Stereotypical Indians who use blowpipes and talk gobbledegook. Oh, and it goes without saying they whoop around a campfire.

5. Hilariously fake plane crash mechanics where the cast actually throw themselves into the corners of the cardboard set.

6. The exterior shots of 5, which look suspiciously like a toy jet on a string being led around a studio lit with blue light.

7. Terrible special effects which make the ones used in the first Star Trek series look cutting edge by comparison. ( Special mention: The little boy's blond hair glowing. Oh dear..)

8. Laughable editing and continuity, where background items move between scenes, the soundtrack changes completely without any warning etc.

9. Not got enough money to hire a professional dancer? Get any lady from off the street to prance about like an idiot! No-one will notice the difference! Er..

10. A 'thrilling' climax involving quicksand, snakes (more stuff from the archives) and a ton of fake blood. Don't forget to put in a stupid 'tribal' sounding song either!

The more sensible among you however, will wait for it's inevitable appearance on MST3K when this classic TV show is resurrected and then you can watch it in the spirit it was intended. Any other kind of enjoyment to be derived from this crap is unthinkable.. not to mention unworkable. So don't even try it. 0/10


If there's anything worse than this movie I don't want to see it. I remember so many amazing things--a nun dropped out of a coffin to make a raft for a little blond boy; the little blond boy himself adored as a god; lots of stock footage of Peru as an ideal vacation spot. Shining Path and Alberto Fujimori should blast away any notion that Peru is a vacation paradise. The whole thing is so awful that Plan 9 or even Robot Monster is an aesthetic treat by comparison. This film should be bombed and strafed and bombed again.


This is indeed a spectacularly bad film, but it is the rare kind of badness that is endlessly, jaw-droppingly entertaining! I want to add to the other comments on this film.

The "rock band" on the plane look like three skinny drunks from casual labor wearing bad wigs.

Watch for the severe continuity problem with the kid's stuffed tiger: it turns into a lion, a leopard and back again; it's filthy or clean depending on the shot.

*SPOILER! The stuffed tiger turns into a real animal to save the kid (and the writers)!

The sight of little Jimmy floating down the Amazon in a coffin, clutching his stuffed tiger and squalling away will stick permanently in your memory.

Listen for one of the most inept sound effects ever: late in the story when the priest is setting out to find Jimmy, the guide demands his monk's robes as payment-the priest drops on one knee in a moment of resigned contemplation and there is the sound of a bell, not the deep "BONNNNG" of a church bell, but the "ding" of a bell from a boxing match!

This is an absolute hoot to watch.


An unbelievable plot, laughable characters, and obvious errors (in one scene where several grass huts are supposed to be burning, a gas torch can be seen repeatedly trying to ignite one of the huts), this film is a real dog.


The movie that would be included if Mystery Science Theater 3000 had a home game version! The source material for tacky comments in this movie are endless. I found the video of Terror in the Jungle at a garage sale. What a find!


This is a silly movie with much singing and dancing. Acting is average, but writing leaves something to be desired. There are rememberable performances by Buddy Epsen, with a short but outstanding performance by Gypsy Rose as the bitter wife of a rich playboy. A totally unbelievable portrayal of college life which ends with a superb ice skating exibition of Alice in Wonderland. Many parts are worth watching, but do not be afraid to fast forward through parts of the movie


POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILER

It's not a terribly objective review but I just found this movie horribly depressing. Like a lot of Russell T. Davies'

work, it asks more questions than it can answer. His best work (Bob & Rose, Doctor Who) revels in hope against the odds and perseverance even after apparent defeat. These uplifting themes seemed strangely absent here. I suppose the fact that I'm still thinking about it days after viewing is a testament to the quality of the program but the resolution was just too bleak for my tastes.

I would, however, disagree with the reviews I've read complaining that the end feels "tacked on." I think each conclusion follows logically from its premise and the ending represented a sound personal belief that neatly resolved the primary theme of the show. While I never really questioned the progression of events, I felt like there was much that could have been expanded upon. I've also read that it was originally conceived as a four part series instead of two, and it's possible that the truncation has done some harm to the completed piece. However, these flaws appear throughout, in sequences and themes that sometimes feel rough or sketched in.

To his credit Davies is totally unafraid to write big, and you have to admire the sheer audacity and scope of this project. The premise he tackles here is the stuff of movies or novels  it is a brave and ambitious thing to tackle it in the medium of television. Strong points include Christopher Eccleston, who is positively mesmeric in the lead. For me, he was and remains the best reason to watch. The depiction of the Messiah's humanity was brilliant, thought provoking and engaging and a real credit to both Davies' writing and Eccleston's acting. I also thought the depiction of the modern world's reaction to the second coming rang true.

So, two stars simply because I personally want my entertainment to be entertaining. I would rather be uplifted or, at least, distracted by my fiction. I have a whole big real world around me  as filtered through CNN or the newspapers -- if I choose to be horribly depressed. There are definitely less subjective reasons by which to judge this piece but I'm afraid my judgment in this matter is clouded by my emotional response.


As I don't have a TV, and had never heard of this mini-series, I didn't know what to expect from The Second Coming and hired it purely on the strength of its plot synopsis, which sounded interesting.

Dear God! (Every pun intended.) If someone told me that this had been written by a class of thirteen year olds who had been given the project of turning the second coming into a school play I wouldn't have been surprised.

Why, oh why did they decide to portray Jesus mark II as what amounted to an idiot savant? Is there anything in any of the gospels to suggest this? Okay, an ordinary bloke, but a Great Northern Moron. I don't think so.

Apparently all Jesus did to impress people was his miracles, because according to this take his preaching sure as hell never impressed anyone. Certainly without the night into day stunt Mr Jesus Eccleston would have been floundering without a canoe, a paddle or any kind of following at all.

And the odd little gay polemics put in willy-nilly, without rhyme or reason. Other than, of course, Russell waving to his QAF fan base. Jesus turns up in the pub to recruit 'disciples' (more gormless Northern losers and, of course, the gay writer's standby - the harpy woman, nag, nag, nagging away). Gay rights are rammed down his throat to no real purpose, almost like Russell thought he 'owed it to the lads' to put Jesus on the spot.

I can't really see the real Jesus coming out with "Well, I've nothing against it personally, mate." Only someone truly middle class and woolly could imagine Jesus to be quite this wet.

And don't start me on the ending. 'Please come in and eat rat poison because the only way we can be truly free is if God dies'.

It was like an Eddie Izzard sketch of God as Bill Gates. "Hello, I'm Bill Gates, and now you've pointed out to me that my global domination is cramping your style I'm going to give it all to you, my customers." And eat the rat poison, of course.

I'm often mystified by the ratings on IMDb, but the high rating on this one takes the biscuit.

Never mind Jesus for the new millennium - this is Jesus for brainless MTV lads.

God help us all indeed.


One should have the right to expect from people who make a film about the Second Coming and the Third Testament, that they had read the other two, or at least knew a little more about them than miracles and Judgement Day. This film contains absolutely nothing of relevance for viewers who are interested in Jesus, religion or philosophy -- there is only the standard British social realism with guttural dialects and plump characters in pubs.

Actually, good candidates for a real Third Testament have been published several times - like "A Course in Miracles" or "Conversations with God". They all have thought-provoking new twists and angles for Christian faith and theology.

The most interesting information in IMDb's rating is not the number of stars, but how many people who have bothered to vote. In four years, only 387 people have bothered to vote for this film. As usual, the enthusiasts are the most eager. For comparison, have a look at "Jesus Christ, Superstar" - original version from 1973.


I went into this movie hoping for an imaginative twist on the Second Coming. Boy, was I ever wrong. BBC are dullards at pacing a movie, total idiots at creating suspense, fools at building intensity. And this movie is no exception to the rule of how much BBC sucks.

Ugh, the pacing and time-wasting laborious dialogue was just painful to sit through. The first 30 minutes felt like 2 hours. I kept looking down at my watch wondering when the pointless, monotonous drivel would end. They wasted a perfectly good actor in the lead role, because the material is so lazy, and sloppily, written. Everything that happens is just to kill time.

Out of 155 minutes, only 15 minutes are interesting (the controversial ending). What a shame. Reading the plot summary is more interesting than watching the movie. The preaching, the "am I God" endless blah blah blah-ing, the dumb as doornails boring miracles... UGH.

DO NOT WATCH THIS CRAP.


I remember seeing this years ago, It had a reasonably promising start, with an interesting premise, but then it degenerated into nonsense quite quickly. Uninteresting characters, failed attempts to add drama and tension, and a bit of simplistic philosophy thrown in too, all culminating in a terrible ending.

Simply, it's trash.

Before I saw this TV film, I didn't think I would ever have any film that I thought was the "worst" I had seen, but after I finished watching this, I knew that from then on, if anyone asked me what the worst film I had ever seen was, I could say without hesitation - "The Second Coming".

Avoid.


This movie was definitely on the boring side. The acting was decent and the film looks pretty nice, the soundtrack is definitely for fans of Kenny G and Michael Bolton. Speaking of the soundtrack, I found it very ironic that a film about telling the truth and not stealing decided to use a song in it's titles that was a BLATANT RIPOFF of Paul Simon's "You Can Call Me Al" - except that they don't acknowledge it at all. Isn't there something a little hypocritical there? The scene that the main kid was in where he was mimicking a game show host was my favorite. 10 lines? I have to write ten lines about this movie to be included? What a ripoff, I don't think it's too fair to FORCE people to write more than they would just to get it included!


Telly Savalas hams it up as the Mexican revolutionary (though he's matched by Chuck Connors as a military martinet) in this jokey yet rather boring pastiche on the famous historical figure's life and times. An earlier attempt, VILLA RIDES! (1968) with Yul Brynner in the role and co-starring Robert Mitchcum, dealt with these events more soberly and on a grander scale. As such, PANCHO VILLA is an all-too typical European venture and an undistinguished one at that, despite its credentials; the end result is more often silly rather than amusing - though a few moments, most notably the action set-pieces and a scene involving a brawl inside a church, offer some mild pleasure. Oh, and Savalas even gets to sing over the end titles!


Telly Savalas put on a passable (but no better than that) performance as Pancho Villa, the notorious Mexican bandit/revolutionary in this account of Villa's raid on the town of Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. Villa is not really a historical figure who I'm overly familiar with, so I won't say much about the historical details of the film. As a movie, this isn't great, although it has a smattering here and there of both action and humour. Chuck Connors' performance as Colonel Wilcox, commander of the U.S. Army base near Columbus struck me as a bit over the top, and Clint Walker as Villa's Gringo sidekick Scotty didn't really do very much for me. The movie is obviously a pretty low budget effort of limited technical quality. For a movie with a runtime of only slightly over an hour and a half I have to say that this movie dragged in places, particularly in the last 20 minutes or so. Villa's raid into the United States was an interesting (if, in the overall scheme of things, not especially important) historical sidebar, and probably deserved better treatment than this. 4/10


A couple of clarifying comments are in order. Herschell Gordon Lewis contributed a brief introduction to the video release of DOCTOR GORE (aka THE BODY SHOP), wherein he touched upon his collaborative efforts with J.G. "Pat" Patterson, director and star of DOCTOR GORE. Patterson concocted the "gore effects" for THE GRUESOME TWOSOME and a few other Lewis movies in the late 60s. Lewis remarks that whereas 2,000 MANIACS was a "five gallon" film (referring to the amount of stage blood required), the Lewis-Patterson productions were "fifteen gallon" pictures. Lewis does not describe DOCTOR GORE as a "fifteen gallon" film -- he's only talking about the films he & Patterson made together. Lewis has confessed (elsewhere) that his introduction to DOCTOR GORE was improvised before he'd even seen Patterson's film! So take it with a grain of salt.

This may be an "unfinished" film, but like some unfinished novels it does have an "ending." It's just missing some connective tissue.

Patterson has definite stage presence & a dry sense of humor, helping to make this simplistic show somewhat more watchable than it should be. There's an extremely bare-bones plot -- even BLOOD FEAST is more complex -- and a gratingly repetitive musical score by William Girdler. A bit of nudity & lots of skin. The entire middle section of the film involves the construction of a "perfect woman;" this is concentrated gore for the bloodthirsty, and laughable.

Patterson the director is in way over his head, but he tries hard to tell his story creatively, if it's possible to use Frankenstein clichés creatively. But the best reason to see this film (on Something Weird's DVD, if possible) is that it features a perfect Nashville weeper, Bill Hicks' "A Heart Dies Every Minute." Ain't it the truth!


The lines in the title of this review are the first lines in this film's theme song, a wonderfully demented parody of the (in my opinion horrible) song "My favorite things" from "The Sound of Music". And this fun little detail isn't the only aspect that makes "The Body Shop" aka. "Doctor Gore" (1973) recommendable to my fellow Gore/Trash fans. The film, which was created almost entirely by J.G. Patterson Jr., who served as producer, writer, director and leading man as the eponymous Dr. Gore, is crap, no doubt, but it is also beyond doubt that it is amusing, and that everyone involved, probably Patterson especially, was aware that they were not exactly making a masterpiece.

Dr. Brandon (Patterson) a famous but totally insane plastic surgeon, looses his beloved wife Anitra, a model, in an accident. Along with his hunchbacked assistant Greg (Roy Mehaffey), he henceforth kidnaps beautiful young women in order to build himself a new, perfect wife out of their body-parts...

"Doctor Gore" is doubtlessly a film of the 'so bad it's good kind', but it is also has qualities beyond the usual ridiculous trashiness. Mad science has always been one of my absolute favorite Horror topics, and, as a matter of fact, it is also one of the coolest topics for ridiculous Gore Trash flicks. Obviously shot on a minimal budget, "Doctor Gore" pays some homage to the "Frankenstein" films, especially James Whale's masterpiece "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), and resembles the look of the early Troma / Herschell Gordon Lewis Gore flicks such as "Blood Feast" (1963) - only that this looks a lot cheaper and crappier. Obviously J.G. Patterson's motive was not merely to make a fun gore flick: Being a rather ugly, weird-looking fellow, his role of Dr. Brandon gave Patterson the opportunity to make out with a couple of hot, scarcely dressed young women (who would later end up as body-part donors in Dr. Brandon's laboratory).

Most of the gore is actually pretty well-made regarding the obviously tiny budget. The dialogue includes some extremely hilarious lines ("Get that, it might be the door... and put a coat on so they don't see you're a hunchback."). Besides the aforementioned theme song, "Doctor Gore" also includes a wonderfully crappy appearance by a country band called 'Bill Hicks and the Rainbows' - my new favorite band, NOT. For the rest of the film, I kept wondering whether Bill Hicks and Roy Mehaffey, who plays the hunchbacked assistant, are twins or even the same person - the two look exactly the same, and having two unrelated obese, red-bearded guys looking this weird in one film would be a huge coincidence. Other than J.G. Patterson, most of the cast members never did any other films. This is the first film I've seen out of the few by Patterson. Sadly, the man died of cancer in 1975.

Overall, "Doctor Gore" is a film that certainly isn't for everyone. As a matter of fact, it is total crap. But it is also amusing, and recommendable to my fellow fans of weirdness and cheap camp stuff. Dictionaries should show a screenshot from this film under 'trash flick'.


My friends and I have watched this so many time I have lost count. This is worth seeing for those in the right frame of mind, meaning that this is not so much a good horror film as a film to lampoon for its funny quotes and bad effects. This film is best watched with other like minded individuals so you have someone to laugh with.

You'll laugh as Greg leaps and shuffles around the lab, petting his pet rabbit, while his hunchback shifts from right to left on his back. "Greg, stop clowning!", scolds Dr. Brandon. You'll laugh as J.G. Patterson gives hand signals to direct Greg to the other side of the operating table, while his hand is in the shot. And you'll probably chuckle when you realize that the final woman has none of the features he used to construct her with.


After the wife of a plastic surgeon dies, he gets his hunchbacked assistant to help him bring her back to life with various parts of other nubile, young, girls. This film wants to be a Hersel Gordon Lewis-type romp, but fails miserably. The acting is beyond bad, the gore effects atrocious (no, not in the good way), the plot almost none-existent and no fun to be had. Skip it. You want to know how incompetent it is? At one point you can actually see a movie slateboard quite obviously.

Eye Candy: Candy Furr gets topless and again in a flashback

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Commentary with Jeffrey Hogue and Cynthia Soroka, A second feature "How to make a Doll"; Alternate Title sequence with Hershel Gordon Lewis intro; 2 shorts ("Quest of the Perfect Woman" and "Maniac Hospital"); Cover art gallery with music by the Dead Elvi; Trailers for "Dr. Black Mr. Hyde", "Boots and the Preacher"; "The Doctor and the Playgirls", "the Gruesome Twosome"; "Wizard of Gore"; "Awful Dr Orlof"; "Wacky world of Doctor Morgus"; "Proffessor Lust", "Monstrosity"; "Fanny Hill meets Dr. Erotico"; and "I, Marquis DeSade"

Easter Eggs: Theatrical Trailer; a scene from "Just for the Hell of It"; and a trailer for "Axe"


I can't believe I even tried to watch this filth. As an avid B-Horror movie fan, I was more than riveted at the prospect of this film by popular budget horror filmmaker Herschell Gordon Lewis. Unfortunately, right from the opening of the film, I could not, for the life of me, think of a worse movie than this. Well, maybe Gigli, but I firmly believe Dr. Gore (The Body Shop) is worse when I think about it. A horrible plot that moves incredibly slow, the movie drags on with no real horror to speak of. However, I will admit to the pure hilarity of a couple scenes when Dr. Gore is mesmorizing his soon-to-be victims. The camera zooms in on his overly large, bulbous eyes, while the whole time there is this purely putrid soundtrack to add to the amusement. I laughed for the better part of 10 minutes. After he erects his "miracle woman", the movie wastes away nearly 20 minutes just showing him and his "girlfriend" as he is teaching her to speak, then they talk, frolic among marigolds, have picnics, etc. Unfortunately, there is only music playing during this whole fandango with no speech whatsoever. This portion of the movie will leave you wishing you had slit your wrists with the dull edge of a butter knife. I almost want to puke at the very thought of this movie. If you like movies that are bad, watch this one.


I know this movie is a low-budget horror movie intended for those in favor of shocks and "inexpensive" gore, but even considering that, this movie is just too dull, filled with an incoherent plot, along with awful music, and obvious signs that this movie was never finished.

Without giving any spoilers, I'll just say that by the final reel, things are wrapped up with no explantion at all, either by film or narration. The girl Anitra is real attractive, but yet that is not a good enough reason to enjoy this movie.

If you are a fan of those gore movies from the 60's and 70's, then you should watch it, but be warned that it does not even reach to the usual plateau of these kinds of movies.


**Spoiler* It gives away the very irrelevant ending**

At the beginning of this movie, there was a brief intro to the world of gore by the master of gore movies, H.G. Lewis. He talked about how this movie was lost, and then found years after the director's death. He also talked about how gore movies were measured by the amount of stage blood used in it. Blood Feast was a 2 galloner, 10,000 Maniacs was a 5 galloner. But, then he goes and claims that Dr. Gore was a 15 galloner. I want to know where half of the 15 gallons went. Watching the movie, I saw very little near 15 gallons. Agreed, there was a fairly large amount of blood, but no where near 15 gallons. Some of the dismemberment scenes were definitely pretty gory and realistic, strings of flesh and all, but I wouldn't say 15 gallons.

"END!!! ENNNNNNNNNDDDDDD!!!" Does that sound familiar? That's what you should have been saying near the last half of this movie. After the Igor character was tossed into the acid bath, the movie slowed to a painful crawl. There was no coherent end, as it didn't fit into anything the 90 minutes before it provided. She drove off in a van with a total stranger, BIG DEAL! That's what happens when you keep an individual (I won't say person, because she doesn't qualify as a person) very innocent about the world around her. The doctor teaches the girl that a man is to be loved, so every man she meets, she loves.

Even though H.G. Lewis told us at the beginning of the movie that we may not like the acting, the directing, or even the gore... I will go with choices A and B. BOTH WERE TERRIBLE!! It was enough to give me bad dreams of cut editing and people with shifty eyes as they talk to one person. But, I made it through the movie, and came out stronger. Too bad I couldn't say the same after finishing ROBO C.H.I.C.

This was a BAD movie. I can usually take my doses of vinegar in good stride, but every once in a while, you get a movie that bites back. I think this movie took off an arm or a leg (haha... *sigh*) Admitted, I did enjoy the stare down scenes, where the good doctor stared at his future victims and opened his eyes REALLY wide and just stared. It was VERY similar to Fuad Ramseys in Blood Feast when he stared at that lady in his catering shop, and did not use his power after that. I guess this movie picks up where Fuad's powers left off.

*Final Judgement* The movie should have stayed lost. Good day

-Scott-


One of the commenter's is wrong. This is not the only Pat Patterson film and he didn't die two years after this was made. He shot a film called the "Electric Chair" in Pineville, NC. He shot this a few years after Doctor Gore. Patterson died in the late 70's. I know this because he used my house and he left a cat there!! It sucked also. This was a big deal when the movie came out. No independent horror films were being made in NC. This movie didn't help matters. Patterson used to do gore effects for H. G. Lewis. He was also good at magic. His gore scenes in Body shop were actually well done. The film was shot in a building that also housed a 7/11. You can actually see the tops of the walls in some scenes. The budget was less that $20,000 and the script looked like a child wrote it. Only Patterson could understand it. Still...it's entertainment and it's a classic.


Before I saw this movie I believed there were two kinds of bad cinema. (1) Your average, completely uninspired fare (i.e. "Constantine"), and (2) the work that is charmingly bad, or so-bad-it's good (a la "Manos The Hands of Fate"). Now that I've seen "Dr. Gore" I know there is a third kind of bad movie: the utter crap sandwich. That will be irrevocably tattooed on your memory. A work that is mind-bendingly execrable. Anathema.

I have hated certain films before, but I've never hated a film so much that my loathing reached its thresh-hold and became SELF loathing! Have you seen a movie that not only makes you regret losing the hour you spent watching it, but makes you grieve for another hour after that? Mystery Science Theatre disciples beware, this is soul-sucking cinema. Go Rent "Circle of Iron" or "The Killer Shrews" instead.


I own this movie. And it is terribly hard to find. It is a unique low budget little gore flick about a doctor seeking the perfect companion. It has the really humourous low budget feel to it, and the gore is suprisingly good for what appears to be a $500 budget. The director is claimed to be the master of gore. I wouldn't go that far, but maybe in his time he was. Overall 6/10 on the gore chart.


Ah yes, it's yet another retelling of the classic, "sociopathic murderous doctor creates female Frankenstein and falls in love".

From the same director who brought you such timeless classics as "10,000 Maniacs" (no, not the group) and "Blood Feast", this "unfinished" film virtually cries out for the MST3K treatment. The doctor's assistant even has overtones of Torgo from the classic "Manos: The Hands Of Fate". I don't know if the graphic, if fake-looking violence or the frequent stretches of dialogue-free tedium could have scared the crew off, though.

The main reasons to bother sitting through this movie are for the hysterical 'hypnosis' scene, the laughably serious ending and the rock-bottom production values. I actually watched all of the credits after this movie, for the same reasons you're inclined to slow down your car when you pass a serious traffic accident. That and the sheer genius of the end theme that sounds like a watered down "My Favorite Things" played on a toy piano. Goblin this ain't.


Nothing but the director's juvenile fantasy come to life. This 'movie' is nothing more than an excuse for the director/actor to play kissy face with an attractive young woman who would otherwise never give him the time of day.

The plot is simple, the direction is nonexistent and the movie drags while the actor/director/writer/narrator narrates. Don't be fooled by the 'X' rating, there is no nudity and minimal gore.


Ouch!! What a mess we have here. Not so much of a mess as a painfully dull, half-assed excuse for exploitation. Brought to you by the one and only, J. G. "Pat" Patterson, yeah, the same one from Moonshine Mountain. Doctor Gore, formerly known as The Body Shop, is, I guess, somewhat inspired by Frankenstein, and God knows what else. The Late Mr. Patterson also stars in this joke, as a heartbroken scientist/plastic surgeon, who has recently lost his wife in a car accident, and is driven insane from grief, to the point that it becomes clear that the next step is to slaughter countless females, then maybe rob a few graves for body parts, in order to "put together" the perfect mate. It won't be easy, but thank goodness his pal Gregg the hunchback is available to lend a hand, and to offer moral support.

If proof was ever needed that some peoples goals are not meant to be accomplished, here it is, gang. This Patterson hayseed obviously never had any business directing anything, much less, following in the footsteps of good ol' H. G. as a master of gore. I've never seen a gore movie that just flat-out refuses to give the viewer a single reason to keep watching. Even the gore is boring. Almost remotely humorous at times, but impossible to tell whether it's intentional or not. I pick "not".

Shot in Charolotte, North Carolina (home of the California Axe Massacre), on, most likely, a 3-digit budget, by a guy, as untalented as he may have been, who probably had an appreciation for drive-in trash, so, maybe we should give good ol' J. G. a break, I mean, he tried (I assume) which is more that can be said for most, and this movie is better than any of the big-budget super-hero garbage the theaters put out these days, although, I realize that isn't saying much. Besides, Doctor Gore is quite the improvement over Patterson's previous failure, The Electic Chair, so it's slightly possible he would have improved his craft in time, had he not died, so maybe it's not all that terrible, especially compared to the other movie on the DVD, How To Make A Doll, so what the hell, check it out. 4/10


Bought for £1, Project Vampire is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Wooden acting,lame effects and a terrible storyline all add up to be a movie you have no reason to even want to see. PV is one of those movies that don't even have the good grace to be bad in an enjoyable way, instead this bile seems to try to make itself as offensively dull,stupid and crap as humanly possible.

A vampire has created a serum he sells to old people as a life-enhancer, and those who take it fall under his control. A former lab intern teams up with a nurse to try and stop him. Someone should have stopped the makers of this rubbish.

No one has any reason to see this movie, and I am actually appalled at the human race on the grounds that at time of writing 2 people have given this atrocity 10 out of 10.


How poor is this movie? Well, I got it less than two months ago and can hardly remember what it was about...

I also paid a £1 for this on DVD, the old story of 'put-a-new-cover-on-the-box-and-some-fool-will-buy-it' syndrome. All I really recall it that the cast ran around a lot, use of cars must have been too above the budget and that a vampire was involved. Then again, guess you could know that from the film's title.

Straight to video rubbish or straight to cheap-jack DVD as it is now. This stuff will be in the bargain bins at rental shops, supermarkets and charity shops until the death of the sun. Only cockroaches will rule the earth but this trash will still be around. God bless the dawn of the DVD age....


A friend of mine loves tacky horror films so I often get to see low budget stuff like this. This is, however the first time I have been compelled to write a review of one...

Put simply this is probably the worst film I have ever seen! Even worse then Boggy Creek II!

The entire budget for the film seems to have been spent on a brief scene in the middle when Dr. Klaus stands in this chamber thing & turns all vampire-ish.

The only good thing to say about it is that it was hilarious after a few beers (but for all the wrong reasons).


A really terrible movie, really low-budget, with terrible acting, a convoluted and inane plot, a modest reworking of the vampire tales mixed with modern science.

The result is a total mess, without meaning for most parts, with very limited and cheap effects. It is not even fun, like several of the low budget independent movies of this kind

A waste of time


This is seriously the worst movie I have ever seen, right from the start the movie goes straight down hill with its cheesy music score, poor acting, and total lack or real story or plot. Even for a B movie this is down right awful. After reading some of the good reviews i thought i'd keep an open mind and watch it. But all the bad reviews were so right. I totally can't understand how anyone could have enjoyed it. I'm a huge Sci-fi fan and this was way more than i could swallow. Definlty do yourself a favor a move on to a different movie. They are many other better movies that deal with this subject matter. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.


Dreamland started out moderately interesting but never went anywhere except Tedium city. A low rent affair with no name actors and laughable effects, not recommended for any reason. The best thing that could be said is it looks like they really filmed it on location in the Nevada desert. That's it, I can't think of one thing good besides that about this stinker. The finale is supposed to be some kind of revelation but falls flat like the rest. Oh, I thought of one other good point about this cheese, it clocks in at just over an hour although it still wears out its welcome long before then. When the girl starts walking around in the desert at night it seems to last forever and just keeps getting worse from there. The attempts at horror aren't effective in the least. The story is an attempt at a twilight zone style feel but fails badly. Check out "Retroactive" for a good science fiction B-movie.


I watched this because of the description and cover art and yet again was deceived.I am getting sick of all these new stupid straight to DVD horror movies.Once in a blue moon 1 will be OK. It started out with a confusing scene and then jumped 30 years and showed a couple one night during a thunderstorm which was OK because I like storms and it set a nice mood.Then it turned into a cool road trip where they ended up at a diner encountering bizarre people.The rest got weird and then got confusing.I did watch it til the end but was even more confused when it ended so badly.I had higher hopes for this movie but it was more like a science fiction then horror and something that should have been made for TV.


I watch a TON of movies and enjoy the occasional B movie but this movie was awful. Aside from the "homemade" quality of the film it was very slow and seemed to make no point. I'm only commenting b/c of another comment I saw here that said it was great! WOW! Maybe OK to watch on a rainy day when nothing else is available.

The characters were disjointed and didn't fit any discernible pattern of reality. The dialog between characters was forced and at times very confusing.

I guess if you were very into the whole area 51 and understood some of the nuances other comments reference, it may be good - but for me - the Average Joe - I don't get it!?


The lives of Megan(Jackie Kresler)and Dylan(Shane Elliott)change in the Nevada desert between Reno and Las Vegas. They stop to eat at a small greasy spoon where they reluctantly learn about the infamous Area 51 by the café proprietor(Jonathan Breck). After getting back on the road in their forty year old Lincoln, the radio gets a little crazy broadcasting Hitler's speech at the 1836 Olympics and then later a 1958 news bulletin of Elvis Presley being drafted into the military. The car slowly breaks down and the two are in for the scare of their lives as mysterious unexplainable things happen in the lonely radiation-poisoned desert; remnants of nuclear testing. Megan meets a lost little girl(Channing Nichols)and a wounded WWII soldier. The nightmarish journey doesn't end there. Kresler is impressive to a degree and writer/director James Lay makes good use of Patsy Cline tunes. All in all, moderately interesting Sci-Fi.


I never comment on a film, but I have to say that this was one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I feel it was made by a beginner film student and not to put down talented film students, but this was horrible! I did not buy the lead actress and felt I was in acting class with her while she was on film. Her decisions were very safe and I feel she was mimicking other actresses in films and not acting and making her own decisions. The direction was very confusing and the sound was louder than the actors themselves. The end may have made a little more sense if there was someone narrating the events and not a song. I love Patsy Cline but she her songs appear quite frequently in films. Maybe the song selection could have been a little more original. The song "crazy" was such a cliché. As I said before I never comment on films and have seen my share of good and bad, but this was the worst. Sorry.


I have to say this is the worst movie that I have ever watched in my life, I cannot believe that I wasted $10 at blockbuster ; this movie should be burned and who ever thought of it has issues. Who ever actually spent money to make this movie was insane =D This movie has TERRIBLE actors and some of the scenes make absolutely no sense. Well, the whole movie doesn't make sense. Also the part where those "men" come into the diner ( department of national securities )that happened to be the worst part of the film. How dare they say Frank Sinatra's name in vain? Also, what is up with those glasses? When the guy and girl are in the car and she "drinks" water, you can totally tell that she isn't even drinking! Also, what is up with the freaky dinner guy. And everyone knows that you don't stab tires, you slash them.