Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.

Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).

The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.

"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...


Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).

Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.


I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie "Far North", and even though I loved her in her one other film "Slow" (2004) where she plays "Francis", this is by far and away her strongest role.

Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of "Driver".

Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.

Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: "You son-of-a-gun!", "You son-of-a-witch!", "Shoot!", and "Well, Forget You!"

O.K. Bye.

P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster?


A handful of nubile young college sorority sisters decide to go camping with a professor. A giant druid want to sacrifice them to prevent the apocalypse come the year 2000, they also have to contend with bikers, an Indian and a loch ness monster type thing. Worth watching for only 3 reasons, George 'Buck' Flower (a sadly unsung B-movie staple) is on hand as a hobo and the other 2 belong to the stunning Savannah (in one of only 3 non-porn roles she had). Both have very small roles. Too bad everything else in the movie is horrendously bad.

My Grade: D-

Retromedia DVD Extras: Original Trailer

Eye Candy: 4 pairs of breasts, 2 asses


Oh my. Started out with such great potential - a bunch of cute sorority girls walking around practically naked, check. Then off to a bar where the 80's cheese gets turned up a notch, check. Off to a woodsy state park the next morning, check. A bunch of girls and their professor, rowdy bikers, a General store guy, and that dood from They Live acting as the local drunk - makes for a nice body count, check (and speaking of body count, notice the strong resemblance on the DVD cover to the foreign horror flick - Body Count! aka Camping del Terrore). A whacky Indian in the woods doing some sort of ritual, hmmm, OK I'll let it slide, check. And then, oh brother, all downhill from there. Terrible. The Lochness monster head in the pond had me cracking up though.


This movie is so irredeemably bad, NOTHING about it makes it worth seeing. NO effects, no suspense and poor dialogue poorly delivered. Oh, and neither a CAMP or any FEAR does it contain. Do yourself a favor and go see the original Friday the 13th or (preferably) Sleepaway Camp, but what ever you do, DO NOT see this movie.

Even Michele Bauer's appearance at the very beginning can't save it. Usually, in these kinds of films you expect violence, suspense, and a little gore and some T&A. The violence was poorly executed, the "suspense" was laughable, there was NO gore, and the T&A is plentiful IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES, then, NOTHING. At least one of these things, properly done would have at least made it watchable.

To say at least one nice thing about it, Buck Flower is great, he seems to be the only one who understands they are making schlock and rightly hams it up. If everyone else had fit that tone it would have been campy fun, no pun intended.


This movie starts out the way every movie should start out, with a bunch of hot babes in a dorm walking around in their undies and/or topless. A couple of them take showers. I'm liking it so far! Unfortunately, we then meet or main characters. They're just not particularly likable. Usually in these movies, the actresses aren't really acting, they give very "natural" performances, and they're quite sympathetic, fun, and likable. Not here. They don't have much of any personality and I didn't care for them much.

Some of the girls go on a camping trip for school. On the way they stop at a backwoods gas station and meet a biker gang. The biker gang should really have been left out of the movie - it was cheesy before, but now it's just plain stupid. The head biker looks like a middle aged guy dressed up as John Bon Jovi for Halloween. The girls go out to the woods and later the biker gang follows them.

I don't really know what the heck happens after that. There's a bunch of stuff about the world ending because it's the end of the millennium, then some of the bikers get killed by a mysterious Indian dude who keeps disappearing. Somebody gets eaten by a cheesy Lock Ness Monster thing as he's swimming across a lake. Some guy in silly makeup is apparently a Druid, and he needs to sacrifice some of the girls in order to forestall the end of the world. Or maybe cause the end of the world, I'm afraid I wasn't paying much attention. First he dresses the girls up in animal skin lingerie.

It could have been a really fun cheesy movie, but the biker gang kind of ruined the atmosphere and the plot was so scatterbrained that it didn't even live up to my grade Z schlock expectations. They really should have eliminated half the plot elements and just focused on one or two things. Instead it's all over the place. Overall, if you're looking for late '80 schlock, I imagine you could do worse. If you tried really hard. There's plenty of nudity at the beginning, but the characters are kind of crummy and the plot is too nonsensical to be even the least bit satisfying.


Why you ask does this man claim to have the truth behind the existence of the almighty? Well its deductive logic my friends, you see I know God exists because Satan does, how else would my poor eyes have been soiled on such a horrendous film? Yes there is no doubt about it, on a cold Friday in the year 2006 Satan possessed me and forced me to watch this film. He what? You wonder; the devil makes little girls spit up vomit and climb ceilings, why would he waste his time in making you watch this film? My only conclusion to that query is that Satan believes watching Camp Fear is the worst form of mortal punishment, not gouging out your eyes or making you speak in tongues, instead making you sit mindlessly through one and half hours of the most awful film making ever. Can this film be as terrible as he says? Yes my friend watching this film is the equivalent of getting kicked in the sack about fifty million times, maybe more. But maybe I am being too harsh, this film does have a few moments in it, the beginning for example, starts in a sorority house with a lot of topless girls; now never being in a sorority I am unsure if girls really do this, but hey one can always pray. Now after the five minutes of boobs and butt cheeks has ended we are presented with a scene on campus at an all girls college; the girls themselves (about eight in all) are in an archaeological class, where they discuss virgin sacrifices and ancient mounds. Flash forward the professor of the class (who happens to be the only male at this girls college apparently) takes a handful of his nubile students, plus girlfriend, to a remote lake in the mountains, their quests, to find ancient Indian artifacts; yeah right professor, we know what angle your pitching. Now this is where the movie gets going, the group of five, four girls, one guy stops at a gas station to get some directions, but lo and behold a biker gang pulls up and harasses the girls, only to eventually leave them alone and go their separate ways. Moving on they get to a "campsite" consisting of four logs and some trees and then things start to go horribly wrong. First the prof. and his girlfriend go wandering away to have some alone time when one of the girls takes it upon herself to find them, only to be captured by some unknown force. Continuing on the other two girls begin searching for the missing girl when the bikers, plus one drunk guy, come looking for them, their plan, to rape the girls and do horrible things to them. The movie goes on with something about a druid needing four virgins for a sacrifice to save the world from some kind of water monster before the year two thousand; but their is a hitch to this plan Mr. Druid, one of the girls is devirginized right before us, so away goes that plan. Now since I said there would be spoilers I'll go ahead and ruin the end of the movie for you, the four girls get taken, drugged with some green goo and then are ready to be sacrificed, after one of them is killed the two remaining bikers and the prof. come to save them; they stand upon a ledge where the not lead biker says, "I think I can make it down there!" only to leap down and break his leg. The prof. runs at the guy and gets subdued only leaving the once rape-minded-now-heroic biker left to fend off the 6'3" giant druid. First he makes a pathetic attempt with a stick then pulls a knife, the knife reflects some lazer beam within a gold snakes mouth and lights the druid on fire instantaneously. Afterwords they carry the wounded away via emergency stick stretchers and ponder if everything is really over, only to have the lake bubble showing the monster within it still lives. In a nutshell that is the film and this is my review, which unfortunately will go unread by most eyes since this is only the fifth posted review for a film that has been out for fifteen years. Thankfully Satan can only get to some of us and not all. The Judge would like to make one heartfelt apology to the poor girl at Circuit City I am going to let borrow this movie; "I'm sorry Sheila, please don't hate me for letting you watch this."


If this movie was made two years earlier it could have been a lot better. But unfortunately, it was made in the decade that had no idea about how a horror movie was supposed to look or act. When I first heard about this movie, people on IMDb were classifying it as the sequel to Cheerleader Camp. Oh how wrong they were. Yes, Betsy Russell was in it but Uma Thurman sure wasn't. I'd really like to find the person who started that whole sequel rumor. I'm sure a lot of us would though. I'm not gonna give anything away because frankly I don't remember how this movie even ends! I'm just gonna tell you to watch a real camp horror movie... The Burning starring Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, Holly Hunter & the geek from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. A word to the wise - Just because a horror movie has the word camp in the title, doesn't mean its gonna be worth watching. Oh, and another thing, ANY HORROR FLICK MADE IN THE EARLY TO MID 90's WAS EVER CONSIDERED EVEN REMOTELY GOOD!


I thought this would be a fun comedy with no sex or nudity in it. Well, there's no sexual content but as for being a "fun comedy," I only remember laughing a total three times during "The Green Butchers." The hilarity is centered around cannibalism and mental retardation, which is just sick humor, in a bad way.

I should have walked out of this film and I'm kicking myself because I didn't. In fact, I shouldn't have seen this movie in the first place. The only good that came out of this film was was the fact that Bjarne and his brother finally made amends and put their ugly past behind them. I advise any well-meaning individual to steer clear of this gross-out flick.


There is so much bad to say about this movie and so little that's good!

The plot has enough holes to sink the Titanic, the characters are completely unbelievable, the monsters are so unrealistic, and I'm sick and tired of seeing movies that involve an ex-husband and ex-wife being thrown together in some bizarre emergency - it happens far too often in films and it's become another bad cliché.

I find it hard to believe that anybody would have invested $1 in making this garbage, never mind the $100 or so it must have cost.

You could make a better movie with more convincing special effects on your home computer! I didn't think movies could get this bad! Avoid it at all costs - do something that's more fun and enjoyable, such as having a tooth pulled, or an enema!


Even by the standards of most B-movies, this movie is by far the worst I've ever seen. The graphics are so poor that a man in a monster suit looks more realistic. the ocean water effects are especially laughable, including the one scene where they board the mini-sub, and the "water" looks like its frozen in place. The problems with this film are so numerous that I'll just stop here with the details. needless to say, I kid you not when I say that even Uwe Toilet Boll himself could do a better job. Avoid this movie at all cost, there are other B grade movies out there that, despite being horrible, are at least a good way of passing the time by.


Some giant scorpions are on a submarine and kill everybody. Two months later, some Marines and the scientists in charge of the scorpion project go to the sub to retrieve their cargo. After finding 200 dead bodies, the Marine commander tells the doctor "I need to know if there's anything down here that could be a danger to my men". Uh, gee...ya think? She refuses to tell him what is down there, citing "need to know". Yup, that pretty well sizes it up. One of the scientists is apparently some sort of idiot savant - real heavy on the idiot, light on the savant. He's given the task of fixing the lights. He finds the control panel for the lights, cuts a wire, and shrieks like a banshee. Then he does it again. Then he takes a hammer and smashes the control panel to pieces, which causes all the lights on the submarine to start working.

And so it goes. Apparently this was made in Sweden; I'm not sure if the Swedes have a really weird sense of humor or if they're just really awful movie makers. I'm inclined to think they're awful movie makers. If you guessed that there's a huge explosion at the end of this thing, well, sorry, but that's on a need-to-know basis, so I can't tell you.

If you've absolutely got to see a giant scorpion movie, let me suggest Tail Sting, which is a cheesy and fun movie about scorpions on a plane, or Bugs, which is a fairly descent B movie about scorpions in a tunnel. Look at this movie as an absolute last resort. Oh, it's watchable, it's hard to turn it off just because of the sheer lunacy of it, but that's about all it's got going for it.


I'm a fan of low budget B-movies and campy horror flicks, but this was too much, even for me.

If you can get past the weak plot, the cheesy effects and the uninspired acting, then the horrible writing will kill you, or you'll wish it would. The dialog was most likely written by high school stoners, who thought that saying "sir, yes sir" over and over again, made these guys sound more military.

The characters were all the typical cardboard stereotypes: Gung-ho sarge, sorta gung-ho other guy with sensitive side, evil scientist with secret agenda (bald or course), bitchy brainy chick who would be hot if she tried too, dumb sexy chick with vital piece of information, idiot "genius" nerd, random other sorta military dudes who die soon enough, and spoiler character alert, crazy scientist who was in charge "until something went horribly wrong" Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there is a secret military (navy?) submarine, sitting on the ocean floor, 5 minutes from HQ (or so it seems), full of radioactive scorpions (ok?) and dead bodies. Your mission is vague and poorly defined.....

If you watch this, don't say you weren't warned.


At the very beginning, the look at a control panel that reads "8 miles of the cost of California", and no, I didn't misspell that, they really did not realize the put of the cost instead of off the coast. These people must have been morons.

It's good if you're into terrible movies, but the sheer fact they couldn't catch a simple spelling issue make me believe they really didn't put any effort into creating the movie whatsoever. The Navy uniforms are not correct at all in any manner whatsoever.

Wow, completely ridiculous, but good if you are looking for something insanely stupid to watch. How these folks made any money off this is beyond me.


Stinger starts '3 Months Ago' on the submarine the SS Newark where genetic experiments have gone awry & the crew member are brutally slaughtered by large killer scorpions... Jump to 'Camp Pendleton' a couple of months later where General Ashford (James Cagnard) brief's Lieutenant Williams (John Miranda) on his mission to board the Newark & assist genetic scientist Dr. Carly Ryan (Michelle Meadows), before anyone knows it a group of corporate scientists & marines are on-board the Newark & are shocked to discover he mutilated corpses of the crew apart from Dr. Mike Thompson (Casey Clark) who doesn't make much sense. It's not long before the scorpions attack, first to fall is Lt. Williams so Sergeant Sam Harmon (Christopher Persson) is promoted & takes the responsibility to get everyone to safety & end the menace of the giant scorpions forever...

This Sweedish America co-production was directed by Martin Munthe & he also handled the cinematography & I thought this was a strictly by-the-numbers uninspiring creature feature. It's early into the new year & Stinger is the first giant genetically mutated monster/creature/insect type film I've seen in 2007, hopefully things can only get better... The script by Mat Nastos is incredibly clichéd & gets all of it's ideas from other films most notably Aliens (1986), lets see there's the isolated location in this case being a submarine, there's the hastily assembled team of marines including one who chews on a cigar throughout the entire film, there's the scientists including a blonde Sweedish one to try & explain it all & the evil money grabbing corporate villain who puts the mighty dollar above human life & the final ingredient being the monster/alien/insect or whatever, in this case there's loads of large scorpions running around but they're not utilised in any sort of unique or imaginative way so they might as well have been killer grasshoppers. Yeah, it's all here, unfortunately Stinger isn't an Aliens if you get what I mean. It's a touch long at over 100 minutes & it's throughly predictable although it moves along at a reasonable pace & as a dumb creature feature you could do worse despite what many say on the IMDb...

Director Munthe doesn't distinguish himself, it's not scary, there's a lack of atmosphere & the action scenes are dull & unexciting. There's not many scorpion attacks & it's almost an hour before any significant action occurs, the special effects are at the bottom end of the scale but I have seen worse that's for sure. I mean that's not to say the effects in Stinger are good but I've seen worse. There isn't much blood or gore, there's some mutilated bodies, some decapitated heads & someone is ripped in half. The only clever & amusing moment in the entire film is when the naked Sweedish female scientist ask's her lover to turn her on by talking about all the money their going to make from the scorpions... However there was a moment which had me groaning & tearing my hair out in it's stupidity as a bloke tries to repair the submarine's circuitry & get the lights working by hitting the power supply/computer boards with a hammer & it works as well...

Technically Stinger is average at best & there's the usual endless amount of dark corridors which gets monotonous. Stinger was shot in Stockholm in Sweeden if your interested. The acting was poor & there's nothing else to say.

Stinger isn't a great film & it isn't a great horror film either, I can't recommend it at all but I've seen worse. If you liked Stinger (unlikely) you might like the similarly themed 'giant scorpions on the loose' films Tail Sting (2001) or Scorpius Gigantus (2006) (just as unlikely).


I starred as Eugene Morris Jerome in my high school adaptation of the play and this film definitely doesn't live up to the script or the imagination of Neil Simon. I know this play backwards and forwards and I can honestly tell you that the acting was off, The production was cheesy. The changes in the play's script were poorly done. If you want to really enjoy this play you should see the actual play, not a Hollywood movie adaptation. The Eugene character lacked soul and was overly sarcastic in all he said. The other characters were off key as well. A general disappointment, messy, disloyal to the play, amateurishly executed!


My tolerance for shlocky direction was overwhelmed by some of the choices in this could-be-really-good time-waster.

When the "romantic" intervals were of a nature to take me out of the story and into "How-and-why-did-the-movie-maker-do-/that/?" mode, you got to figure something is missing in there; restraint and tastefulness, I think.

Brian Brown is a capable, empathetic actor - usually. I think he didn't like the project or the people, and it shows. I don't remember anything the other guy did. Can't even picture his face.

On the other hand, it doesn't have to be any good to be entertaining; some of the vignettes and twists are fun and even ingenious.

I watched this movie ($2.00 purchase at the vid rental place) against the advice of the screenwriter; I understand he was tempted to remove his name from the credits. Matter of pride, I bet.


Casper Van Dien... what can I say? I enjoy the guy! His movies bring a certain flair to them that is actually not brought on by the director or producer, but by him! Recycled plots... check. Rip-offs of better movies... check. Wooden acting... check. It's not that Van Dien is a bad actor (he has been effective in Hollywood gloss as Starship Troopers and Sleepy Hollow) he just really has not been offered a script worthy of his talents; and yes, he does have acting talent other than being eye-candy. This movie offers a slight hint of what Van Dien can offer but is bogged down by the production of it all. The script can be better developed (see Oliver Stone's U-Turn). The directing can be better utilized (see Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn). The DP could've made the desert more exotic (see Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat Faster Kill!). This script is weak because this is something we have seen before many other times so the double/triple-crosses are expected. The direction is weak because it is not offering anything new and telegraphs many of the weak script moments. The cinematography at times paints a lovely autumn desert flavor to it, but at other times it doesn't take advantage of the scorching light and the beginning sequence is horrible in cornflower blue.

Now to the acting... Van Dien shows some grace and charisma to his Jake. He neither gets too methodical nor too campy in his role. A nice balance especially since the rest of the cast seems too distracted as to how they should be acting in this film (bad script or bad direction... you make your opinion). The only other person worth mentioning is Bryan Brown's villain as it provides the only real credit for acting in this film... aspiring actors forget trying to learn how to act in green screen, try learning how to act in a horrendous script and take notes on Bryan Brown in this film. He adds extra depth to his role and is a nice counter part to Van Dien's character. Jake always seem to either be one step ahead or control of any situation whether if it is out of his control. The femme fatale is weak (this is a desert noir after all) and is another nail in this film's coffin (you decide... script or direction). The Rosalita character should've been thrusted forward in the movie instead of being pushed into the back ground later on to make room for the real femme fatale. So watch the film for Van Dien and Brown; and for fun, try to skip a rock across the plot holes laced within the film.


This movie was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot could have been made to work, had the movie been written better. The acting was some of the worst I have ever seen. I was very slow and made me want to leave/turn off the movie several times. I watched the entire movie in the hopes that the ending would make it worthwhile but it didn't. this movie I think should be rated in the negative numbers. (In my humble opinion)


This was a crappy, miserably acted movie based on sublimated male fantasies. A shame that it was based in Texas, an otherwise excellent state. I would recommend this movie to no-one, and wish that it had never entered my consciousness as I am now so irritated that I wasted my brain cells even paying the slightest attention to it.


This is species already hatching into a beautiful model (Mathilda May). A smashing baby with an urge to kiss and kill!

The movie begins with a strong launch, and infected by a bore-virus throughout the middle to end.

The weakest spot is the presentation of the basic plot/story. As you should have compared it, Natasha Henstridge's Species got the same plot, but adds up much interesting side plot and not mentioning good actions and strong clymatic ending.

This explain why Patrick Stewart joins the fleet of enterprise in Star Trek Next Generation; he wanted to find more models in glass cage, floating inside Halley-Comet.

A must see for a science fiction fans.


Even though this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes good pyrotechnics. Its plot was terrible. Its horror wasn't really that good. Its sci-fi was even worse. But its pyrotechnics were excellent! (Mathilda May was extremely beautiful too.)


Usually, any movie with Steve Railsback in the lead is a good movie. However, this movie does not conform to that opinion. Lifeforce is a below average movie that is extremely confusing in the beginning (reminds me of Star Trek: TMP), but is able to pick things up a bit towards the end when London becomes Zombie City. A horror/sci-fi mess that is very hard to sit through, although the naked spacegirl/vampire is very easy to look at. This movie deserves a rating of 4 out of 10.


A poorly-paced sf/horror venture that takes itself much too seriously, memorable only for (a) the beautiful Mathilda May wandering around naked through the chaos and (b) terrible miscasting. It has a few mildly gruesome effects and startling moments, and some unintentionally funny scenes, but is mostly a waste of time.


First, I am a big fan of Alien and Alien II - in my opinion both of these movies created and defined the Si-Fi Horror Genre as we know it today. I noticed Lifeforce was often compared to the Aliens saga - after viewing this movie I would highly disagree. There are some okay special effects with the alien vampires, and the story line might have been acceptable. I just can't get past a naked woman space vampire throughout the whole movie, this is absolutely absurd (although she does look good). Add in a bunch of bad British acting and it's pretty much OVER. Most of the movie ends up taking place in London or somewhere in England, so after the first 20 minutes you lose the outerspace setting and any hope of some real Si-Fi Horror action and suspense.


I was really excited about seeing "Cold Mountain". Alas, like most movies I'm really excited about seeing, it was a letdown! Were it not for that miraculous invention called a DVD, I think I would've put my head through the monitor, I was so bored!

I closely watched Kidman and Law when they meet because their characters are supposedly "destined" for each other. Yet Law's face showed anything but dumb-struck love, while Kidman seemed to be counting the seconds until she could run back to her trailer! Zellweger's character is pure Granny Clampett (as if we don't get it, cornball banjos mark her every entrance), and so over the top, it was all I could do not to laugh! Ironically, her performance serves to highlight just how stiff-as-a-board the leads are.

Ada nearly starves because she freed her slaves; we never learn why. More perplexing is why didn't any of them stay on as Ada and her father were unusually benevolent, and (as shown in one scene) it was a very dangerous time for Negroes (as they're politely called here). Why didn't the neighbors teach her how to milk a cow or grow a crop? Heck, why didn't she just sell the farm and go home? And for all of Ruby's practicality, when she dispatches Ada's "evil" rooster, that kind of puts the kibosh on them having any more chickens!

By the time her beloved finally returns, Ada doesn't need him or anyone else -- which is the big joke! Indeed, she may be physically intimate with Inman, but her real intimacy is with Ruby, who has turned Ada into an Über-Babe version of herself. Did anyone else notice how they walked down the hill holding hands, happy as two peas in a pod, as they left Inman behind?

I doubt that Minghella recognized this as he was too busy making an anti-Bush movie. Inman tells us he is "like every fool sent out to fight with a flag and a lie", and Ada's father says "I imagine God is weary of being called down on both sides of an argument". These "observations" are historically inaccurate and insulting. While slavery was the basis of the South's economy, the reasons for the War were more complex. It was incomprehensible for a soldier to think that the cause was "a lie" (in fact, most in the rank-and-file were indifferent to it). For filmmakers to stamp their views onto a period where such views were foreign to those who lived in that time is beyond obnoxious.

Structurally, the film is choppy and episodic. Law and Kidman are miscast, and have zero chemistry! The script is little more than half-baked dialog, and an egregious bunch of clichés and banalities. "Small moments like a bag of diamonds?" Ugh!


This movie was so bad, I thought I was going to scream in the middle of it. It was all I could do to sit through it. The beginning of the movie where they are at war was promising. Only it smacked of "Saving Private Ryan" to me...or at least an attempt at it. Only we don't care for these people. There was no build up to the characters. The kid that dies I guess was suppose to make us cry...but for some reason it just irritated everyone. Then we have to listen to line after line of sappy dialog that tried desperately to mimic "Wuthering Heights", which of course was also quoted in the movie. Go figure. There was nothing original about the movie at all, it was like sitting through the most mundane parts of every war movie ever made, with a little bit of humor thrown in to keep you hoping that it was going to get better. Sadly it doesn't. 3 hours later, I leave the theater feeling cheated. Anthony Menghilla should be shot for trying to duplicate the English Patient, which for it's time was a good movie, but now I wonder....should I rent it and make sure I wasn't just caught up in the HYPE??? Maybe I was, but I definitely wasn't caught up in the hype of this film. I really went to the theater wanting to like this movie. I am a die hard Nicole Kidman fan. Save your money, rent it on DVD and laugh through it, as I did.


***MILD SPOILERS*** Dear Inman, Kind words are hard to find for me to describe the movie I have just been subjected to that stars you. The problems are far and wide and painful for me to recount. . . yet I feel I must, if only to prevent others from suffering the same anguish as I did. This is NOT a film for anyone under 50, it's sloooowwwww, soooooo slowwww, and when the big reunion of Ada and Inman happens. . .the biggest and most important scene in the film, NOTHING happens, it is a epic letdown. Now, like the director should have done, I will keep my words short and end with this warning, your film is disjointed, boring, has no flow and Jude Law is tragically mis-cast, he showed more emotion as a robot in A.I. - be warned, the film should be retitled . . . Bored Mountain. Love, Ada


Critics are falling over themselves within the Weinstein's Sphere of Influence to praise this ugly, misguided and repellent adaptation of the lyrical novel on which it's based. Minghella's ham-fisted direction of the egregiously gory and shrill overly-episodic odyssey is one of the many missteps of this "civil-war love story". Are they kidding? After Ms. Kidman and Mr. Law meet cute with zero screen chemistry in a small North Carolina town and steal a kiss before its off to war for Jude and his photo souvenir of the girl he left behind, it's a two hour test to the kidneys as to whether he will survive a myriad of near-death experiences to reunite with his soulmate. Who cares? Philip S. Hoffman's amateurish scene chewing in a disgusting and unfunny role pales to Renee Zelweger's appearance as a corn-fed dynamo who bursts miraculously upon the scene of Kidman's lonely farm to save the day. Rarely has a performance screamed of "look at me, I'm acting" smugness. Her sheer deafening nerve wakes up the longuers for a couple of minutes until the bluster wears painfully thin. Released by Miramax strategically for Oscar and Golden Globe (what a farce) consideration, the Weinsteins apparently own, along with Dick Clark, the critical community and won 8 Globe nominations for their overblown failure. The resultant crime is that awards have become meaningless and small, less powerful PR-driven films become obscure. Cold Mountain is a concept film and an empty, bitter waste of time. Cold indeed!!!


This movie really has nothing going for it. With the Reverend played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman complaining about his constipation and other toilet humor in a 2.5 hour movie, you know that they made no cuts at all and left the crap in, literally. It's a waste of good talent, and a total embarrassment. Dreadful!


Jude law gives Keanu Reeves a run for his money as the most wooden actor around, Renee Z's character is straight out of the Beverly Hillbillies, and the two leads have about as much chemistry as Darth Vader and Queen Amedala. The "bad guys" are the worst kind of cliche, and there's not a subtle moment in the film. Incredible that some critics actually liked this movie.


I had to write a review for this film after I saw it last night and read some of the comments of people trying to classify the displeasure of this film go down to wfmitchell's post)). I don't fit any any of those classification. The other classification that needs to be on the list is 5) people didn't like this movie because it was not good. I found the film to be booring and forced. My wife picked it for us to see because she is a huge Kidman fan and she also likes Jude Law.

Speaking of Law, it took a long time and a huge amount of suspension of belief for me to believe his southern accent. I can't help but wonder if they didn't make his character less talkative on purpose so we would't have to hear that tortured accent so much.

As far as the movie, it took a long time for it to get interesting (about 1 or 1.5 hours), and then fell flat in it's ending. What was interesting, is that I did not know that this film was directed by Minghella. About 40 minutes into the movie, I asked my wife "this isn't going to be another English Patient is it?" It absolutely was.

As far as the battle scenes. I'm trying to think of a word to describe the opening battle scene, but I think the most descriptive word that accurately describes it is simply "dumb". It was forced, it was unbelievable, it was silly and it was dumb. (After the battle I looked at my wife and asked "was that just dumb?" to which she vigorously nodded her head).

The only bright point in the film was the performance of Zellweger. The role was a bit over acted like any decent comedy relief role, but it worked. From her speech pattern, her walk, her mannerisms and esp. her little quips (my favorite: "If you want to get 3 feet up a bull's ass all you have to do is listen to sweethearts talk to each other"), she was able to create an almost cartoon-like character who did her job extremely well.

I simply did not like this movie and I have to wonder about the kind of people who do say they like it (or the English Patient for that matter). I suspect you could categorize them in one category: 1) Soap opera fans


I found the first 90 minutes of this film to be very interesting, even though a few parts of it were ridiculous (i.e.. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character). The last 60 minutes were distasteful and I began to lose interest in the film. The last hour lasted forever, it seemed.

The movie is nicely acted and I can see why Rene Zellweger won an Academy Award since her character was so interesting. The movie also is beautifully filmed and the story is an emotional one. However, I found the message to be a bad one: not surprising these days in Hollywood. In this story, "Inman" (Jude Law) deserts the Confederate Army during the Civil War. His reason: his girlfriend misses him and wants him home. He's also getting disillusioned with war. (Can you imagine if every soldier who was in a similar boat deserted the army in the two world wars??!)

Yet, in this film of course, all of that is perfectly acceptable. Then again, what Liberal filmmaker has ever had a nice thing to say about the U.S. military?? To add to their left-wing slant, they portray a vigilante-like posse going after deserters as cold-blooded sick killers. Well, in the world of films, as we know: good is portrayed as bad and bad is good.....and only Liberals would portray deserters as heroes.


Her embalmed look was totally inappropriate for the role. Her face remained too white, hair too coifed, clothes etc. too clean (and well-fitting, especially her father's old hat and coat in the scene where Inman comes home) for any sense of accuracy. It would be one thing if the production had allowed all the other actors to remain clean and perfect, too, but she was the only one who didn't get messy. There was never even a smudge on her powdered cheek. Are we to believe she was the only person in the Civil War with a bathtub and a mirror? She certainly looked like the only one who used them. Tweezers, too; I mean, what's with those eyebrows? She looked absolutely mean!

The love story was implausible. She only went over to the guy because someone told her that he had said he thought she was cute. So, she goes over to tease him, then flirts with him a couple more times, and suddenly this is a love on a par with Odysseus and Penelope? Please.

I should have known better than to expect anything better from the man who brought us "The English Patient." My reaction to that one was the same as Elaine's on Seinfeld: "It sucked."


Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, and Renne Zelwigger. They are all horrible. Especially the star, Jude Law.

It's directed by the same guy who did the english patient and its based on a best selling novel of a man risking all to get back to his lover but unlike the wonderful English pateint, this movie sucks. It is really bad.

Worst dialogue ever. "But we've only know each other for a moment" "But they were a thousand moments, like diamonds in a bag"

or

"In some cultures you just have to say I marry you 3 times and you're married" lovey-dovey-"I marry you, I marry you, I marry you, I marry you..."

I'm ashamed I sat through it all.

the whole movie was awful, horrible....Ughh no words, I'm sick.

1/10 (the one is for the really loud bullet sounds, the sound crew did a good job)


The two leads, an Englishman and an Aussie filming an American Civil War story in Romania, have not the slightest spark between them, are utterly unbelievable as lovers, and wholly unsympathetic. There is no story, no characterization, virtually nothing to keep the eyelids separated during this interminable bore fest. Renee Zelwegger, also hopelessly miscast, practically chews the fence posts, but at least watching her embarrass herself provides some comic relief. Nicole Kidman is a decade too old for the role and has not the slightest idea what's going on. Jude Law's moron role could have been played equally as well by any of the Romanian extras. The only requirement is to wander about the forest looking stupid while watching a parade of guest stars steal the show. Not that it mattered, because all of the guest star roles were completely unnecessary as they did not advance the so-called plot by one iota. And as if all that wasn't enough, the auteur felt it necessary to throw in some spinning, whirling, kung fu jumping off horses. What was that about?


What gives Anthony Minghella the right to ruin two extraordinary works of fiction?? First, he destroyed The English Patient, which was bad enough, but now I discover he's butchered Cold Mountain - butchered!!!

I had such a strange reaction to The English Patient. My son and I went to see it the first weekend it was released, and I was so disappointed, but told my son I felt like I needed to read the book. I drove straight to Barnes and Noble, bought it, read it, and tried to figure out what in the world the critics were talking about when they said Minghella had trusted enough in the intelligence of the movie-going public to give them a great film. That is what he most surely did not do.

I do not ordinarily read a great deal of fiction, but Cold Mountain was so highly recommended by friends that I felt compelled to read it. I did not see Cold Mountain, the movie, when it played in theaters, and it was because of what Minghella had done to The English Patient. But like a fool, I rented it today, and I'm so upset, I had to vent my frustration and, most of all, my sadness, that someone could have taken this beautiful story and crafted it into something almost as beautiful on the screen, and now they never will.

READ THE BOOK AND LET THE MOVIE ROT ON THE SHELF. I will never be taken in by a Minghella project again. I think he may be one of the worst directors working today, and I'm tired of the praise Hollywood heaps upon his head. It must be that no one in Hollywood reads anymore. This movie bears no resemblance to the book, except for the names of the characters. Minghella's ego must know no bounds, and if he didn't like the book, then why didn't he write an original screenplay and leave the book alone. Even if I hadn't read the book, I would still consider this movie one of the worst I've seen from 2003; and I've seen almost everything that's been released for viewing in the USA.

Elaine, you aren't going to like this one either.


Another tiresome bore from Anthony Minghella, who seems to thrive on these big bloated super-productions that take over two and a half hours to do what any reasonable filmmaker would do in about ninety minutes.

The story centers on Inman (a somnambulent Jude Law), who goes off to the Civil War having just barely started a sort-of romance with Nicole Kidman, a Preacher's Daughter who has recently arrived in the prettily photographed backwater town. The story cuts back and forth between Inman's trials and tribulations at war (which is, guess what boys and girls? HELL!!) and Kidman's trials and tribulations back at home (which are, very predictably, incredibly boring). Renee Zellwegger appears on Kidman's farm to help Kidman get it back into shape after Kidman's saintly Daddy dies of Inconvenient Character Disease. Zellwegger acts all squinty and bossy in that Granny Clampett kind of way, dispensing enough Tough Love and Homespun Wisdom to turn the stomach of even the hardiest watcher of Touched By An Angel.

This film is, quite simply, excruciating. Avoid it like the big bloated Oscar-bait Bogus Pretentious Literary Adaptation nonsense that it is.


Kidman and Law lack the chemistry to make this sloppily directed, poorly written romance/melodrama work on any level other than grandiosity. Kidman pouts and

pines wistfully for her absent lover Law. She's just met him when he's whisked off to do battle for the South in the Civil War, and they've only exchanged about 5 sentences and one kiss, yet they're totally smitten. Law's main direction throughout seems to be `Look vacant and shell-shocked, but sensitive.' Rene Zellweger is about the only spark in this dreary script, but she plays it way too broad and over the top, like she was starring in `Annie Get Your Gun.' Yee-hah boy howdy! Something about her character felt more like it belonged in a Monty Python sketch - the one from `Holy Grail' where the peasants spend all their time wallowing in muck making mud pies for no reason. Kidman is a smart enough actress to stay out of her way whenever she can. Their scenes together are like a comic book hidden inside a Victorian Era novel.

Whenever the action bogs down into total tedium, which is frequently, all the writers do is shout `Cue the Simon Legree-type Villain!' and Teague (Ray Winstone) comes galloping out of nowhere to do his unspeakably dastardly acts, like kill and torture innocent God-fearing townspeople in the name of loyalty to a fast-fading

Confederacy. All other times, he's missing in action, which is preposterous even in this cornball script. There is a plethora of other talented actors who give credible performances in small roles. These are the characters Law meets as he does his Johnny Appleseed trek from the front lines, where he has deserted, to the hopefully loving embrace of Kidman back in Cold Mountain. Ultimately though, none of these characters matter. Law has no time for them or their lives. Each of these little mini-movies has the same tired theme: war is gol-durn heck, and turns otherwise decent Christian folk into rabid animals.

And the script is far too predictable, too heavy-handed. Moreover, the pacing of the story is dreadfully slow. You spend the entire movie waiting for Romeo and Juliet's inevitable reunion, with Kidman wringing her hands and sighing, Law overcoming incredible odds and dodging bullets. And when it finally comes you just don't care anymore. You'll be looking at your watch wondering how much more of this clap you have to endure.

I give it one star out of five for the battle scenes. There is a potent anti-war message here. The incredible lack of concern for the loss of life by the Generals on both sides of the conflict is powerful stuff. But it's only about 15 minutes of this 150-minute dog.


Some movies are not for everyone. This accurately describes Igmar Bergaman's movie, Skammen (Shame). At only 18, I still have what I guess you could call a minor form of ADD and well, I watch movies to be entertained. Shame was a movie with a very interesting premise, of trying to convey the effect of war on the common people, it however fell short of accomplishing this for me. I don't know if it was the subtitles, black and white filming, length of the movie, or the fact that it took two hours out of my studying for a huge chemistry test, but I did not enjoy it. I understand it is considered a great movie and very important in the history of cinema, however, I think as my teacher pointed out, not everyone has liked or likes it. I guess I just wish it finished all of its many side plots. Maybe the translation lost something, but I felt there were infinite little off shoots that never met a conclusion. You would meet characters and never see them again, or really understand why they were included in the movie. My overall recommendation for this movie is that it's worth seeing, but only to form your own opinion on it. Whether or not you like or dislike it, it is necessary to respect the point that it is trying to convey.


I just recently viewed Shame which is directed by Ingmar Bergman. The film was interesting and very unique. I liked how it was in Swedish with English subtitles and that it was also in black and white. These features allowed me to better relate to the characters, the time period, and their stories. I didn't like how the movie was very slow in the beginning and how you didn't know what was really going on. At first, it was mainly a story of Eva and Jan's relationship. The movie also ended on a very depressing note because nothing good came out of all of the conflicts and changes throughout the movie. I probably would not go see Shame again, but it was a very cultured experience.


I felt that the movie Skammen, directed by Ingmar Bergman, was very dry. It shows the things people will do to survive during a war and the shame that comes out of these actions; however I feel that it was not complete or attention holding. He never fully got into the plot or deep into the character emotions or reasons behind their actions. The only thing that I found rather attention holding in the movie was the transformation of the two main characters, Jan and Eva. Many times during the movie was just the two main characters sitting around or doing their daily chores and not even having a conversation. I understand this was to show the reality of these people however I feel there are other ways to show reality and have it be entertaining. I think that Ingmar Bergman could have filmed this movie in a more riveting way.


I liked most of this film. As other reviews mentioned it has a good cast, the plot is interesting enough. All in all it is fun to watch.

But the ending, I feel, is completely botched, it left me bewildered. Yes, you expect people crossing and double-crossing each other in this sort of movie, but quadruple-crossing? Well, if it's justified by the plot then why not?

But that's the bad part, there's completely no need for it. After a certain point it's all scheming with completely no meaning. (here comes the SPOILER). After the airport scene Enrico and his accomplices already HAVE the money. I couldn't understand the need for the rest of the scam. Is it all necessary just to rub Federico's nose in the fact that he's been fooled? I don't buy it.

So 6 out of 10 for 3/4 of the film and 2 out of 10 for the ending.


I was so offended by this film that I had to write SOMETHING about it, so please humour me.

Its only redeeming virtue, outside of some good acting, is that it doesn't go on past 107 minutes. Even that length is about 30 minutes too long.

Comparisons have been made here to the brilliantly dark 'The Grifters,' but I can't see it. They are two different films altogether. The closest 'Swindled' comes to an existing film is 'The Sting,' made in 1973. It borrows (sorry, STEALS) liberally from this splendid George Roy Hill 'entertainment,' which is exactly what is was. I enjoyed it because it didn't pretend to be anything else.

There are so many red herrings in 'Swindled' that I thought I was in a fish tank. It's very confusing, but that's only one of its many problems. The principal one is this: if you make a film where everyone lies to everyone else, where everyone is conning, we have no 'anchor' to ground us. The inevitable result is a mish-mash of very sloppy seconds from other caper flicks.

Just about everyone in this film is conniving and objectionable. Surely a basic Film 101 class would tell us that the audience has to 'care' for someone. We can't 'care' for anyone here: they're ALL swines. It might have worked as a rakish comedy, but it plays it straight from beginning to end.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS FILM, READ NO FURTHER. BIG 'SPOILER' COMING. SORRY, BUT I HAVE TO DO IT.

There's so much fake blood and so many fake killings that it doesn't strain credulity -- it destroys it. The ending is absolutely ridiculous -- a 'murder' in a crowded airport that isn't really a 'murder' at all? And the 'murdered' guy, blood-soaked, simply stands up, brushes himself off, and walks away, fake blood dripping, with the booty? All while the police and hordes of people are looking on, and no one intercedes? The director must have a lot of cojones if he thinks we're supposed to buy into this. Noirish B-movies from the 1940s did better.

I'm a great fan of European flicks, but this confirms that schlock doesn't always come from Hollywood. As far as 'Swindled' is concerned, my judgment lies with a famous line from the oft-misspoken producer Samuel Goldwyn, who knew all about schlock: 'Include me out'.


Although the acting was excellent, I spent the whole movie waiting for the nasty boy who caused so much grief to so many of the characters, get his final nemesis, and instead everyone else suffered except him and he gets the job of the husband whose wife's death he causes by running away from his friends, wins the girl he gave an overdose to and tried to rape. Even his friend gives money to his father, but the butterfly effect completely fails to return to its cause.

This is a very dark film as each character that gets affected, suffers never ending depression. None of the normal avenues for relief seem to be effective and the only thing the authorities seem to do is give out quantities of stress pills.

If this is normal behaviour in Finland now, I'm never going to go back just in case I am affected by such an amoral butterfly and end up as destroyed as the characters in this film were.


Let's see. This movie is many things to different people. To Finns, as shown by the comments, it can be OK or dreadful or boring. To other folks, it can be something different. First off: if you do not speak Finnish (I do), you will understand half of what is going on, as subtitles are dreadful and even the title is translated incorrectly ("Paha maa" would probably be idiomatically translated as Badlands in UK English).

Why did I not like it? Because it is a Tarantino-style movie: it simply takes a very harsh reality and throws it back at you, as brutally as possible. I, however, am not American, and thus I am not particularly fond of this proceeding, because all it does is show that the director has really nothing new to say. Technical prowess (camera work is brilliant), script (not that unoriginal) do not rescue this movie from the bottom where it belongs. Should you wish to see a Finnish movie, then go for any of the Kaurismäki brothers' movie, who match talent and directorial skill, with very good actresses and actors.

This director ought to review his intention and priorities: none was intelligible, and thus this film failed. By not watching it you won't miss much.


If this is what's best in the Finnish cinema at the moment, I'd say those big tax euros spent at supporting "culture" have gone to waste here in a horrible way. Paha maa is the worst kind of example of trying to make a Finnish "European film" for big audiences. I'm sure they wanted it to be all state-of-the-art, smart and touching at the same time. The result is crap.

To make it short: - The story is pretentious, naïve and not credible. The same goes for the characters. I can imagine them brainstorming about making a film where "everything would, like, turn to ***t and people would be hurt and feel, you know, really bad inside, because Finnish people are so notoriously depressed, too, and their self-esteem is so bad", which brings us to the fact that...

- The film is loaded with clichés, mostly about "the Finnish mentality". The way the it deals with people's problems and their causes could be straight out of a regular women's magazine or a cheap bull-psychology-self-help book. ("We feel so bad inside!") I'm sure they watched some Kaurismäki, too, to find out what it is about his films that people like, misunderstood him completely, and came up with a boring, depressing story about people going through all kinds of s**t for no other artistic purpose than perhaps social pornography. It's a crying shame they threw in Tolstoy here. It's just a sign of trying to be smart. And of not being.

- I think the worst fault, however, is the complete lack of vision and depth. The film is highly unoriginal. It is also frustrating to watch endless sulking and suffering without any real revelation brought to it. I can go through this kind of mind**ck if the film is funny or ends up being an elaborate joke, or better yet, something sublime like in e.g. von Trier's Breaking the Waves. There was none these in Paha maa. Actually though, I did start laughing at some point because the turn of events was again just too predictable, over-the-top and incredible.

Who does this crap? And who likes it? I hope they're pretending.


I recently waisted 8  by going and see this movie in the cinema. It was a waste of time and the only feeling you get going out of the theater is a slightly nauseous of all the disgusting social pornography.

It could have been interesting if it had a quite absurd twist but it hadn't so it was just plain awful with maybe one or two scenes which could have been taken out and made to very nice short movies.

Another thing I thought about is the way the director uses all the Finish stereotypes as characters. It is quite extraordinary how you as a Finish director can make a movie with the worst stereotypes of your own nationality. It was sad to sit and and hear the audience sitting and laughing at things that they thought was typical Finish but in general just is making fun of people.


Some Janapese modern horror movies are very good. Strong plot, scary moments, good acting, while others are just.... unfortunately, Uzumaki belongs to the latter camp.

I will rate the movie based on 3 elements: Plot, Scary Factor, and Acting.

1) Plot - true to the name the movie, the plot moves in circle and never really explains itself. OK, the town is captivated by the spiral curse, but why? And why do people act so foolishly? There is a fleeting attempt to explain about what is happening by the reporter.. unforutunately...

2) Scary Factor - if this was meant to be a horror flick, it has failed miserably. I can't really remember one good scary scene with plenty of build-up to it.

3) Acting - very monotonous. People walking around, saying meaningless phases. I can't really feel much empathy for our tragic heroes.

All in all, there are much better modern Japanese horror movies out there with coherent plot and strong characterization. Don't bother wasting your time on this wannabe.


I thought it was weird and just gory, not scary. I have seen a couple of the Japanese horror films, Ringu and Juon, and loved them; but this movie was a disappointment. It never even explained anything about the curse. I just didn't see any horror... it wasn't scary to me at all. The whole time I was watching I was waiting for Kirie to discover the secret of the curse and why it was happening now. If this was some ancient curse, why didn't it happen before Shuichi's father? And it never told us what happened to her father. I kept waiting for someone to tell us the meaning or the reasoning behind this curse and then it just ended. I was very disappointed.


Uzumaki, which translates into "spirals", arriving within this new wave of Asian Horror films following such hits like Ringu, Ju-On and The Eye (two of them with remakes.. and much more coming like Dark Water and Tale of Two Sisters), falls short of the spooky, supernatural thriller element so characteristic of the other movies, the only thing that remains is weirdness and not in a Tim Burton or David Lynch kind of way, but in a irrelevant and dull way.

Its start with a girl, some other kid with a crush on her, her best friend and his dad who's obsessed with Uzumakis! Everything that happens concerns Uzumakis, people die and you see Uzumakis. So okay, It'll go along with it, I'm kinda amuse by spirals myself, characters don't seem to go anywhere, but I'll play along. We find out the town is cursed by Uzumakis, people start screaming at Uzumakis and the point is Uzumakis are everywhere, the movie is a disaster, it doesn't know where to go, except to show you the power of Uzumakis!!!!!!!!! There are some cool concepts like when the mother cuts her fingers because she sees Uzumakis on her fingerprints but then there's another scene where she hears her husband (from beyond the grave!!) tell her that she also has Uzumakis in her ear, the way they handled that scene was just laughable, not even cheesy fun, there are also some (a little bit) of cool visuals, like the collection the father has of Uzumakis and the girl with the Uzumakis hair.. yep, Uzumakis hair, its out of context though, its seems like it was taken out of a Fruit Snack commercial where if you eat an Uzumakis fruits snack, its taste is so incredible your hair turns into Uzumakis, now if this wasn't bad enough, suddenly, out of nowhere there are Snail Men.. or ManSnails whatever and you know why? right? Because in their shells they have Uuuuzuuuumaaakiiiis. That only left time enough for a crappy anti-climatic ending and by that time I was sick of friggin' uzumakis.. uzumaki here uzumaki there, sure, look around you, how many Uzumakis can you find If you want to see a movie about spirals go see PI (3.1416) now there you'll find some pretty cool uzumaki concepts in between the meaning of life and Dark City has also a little bit of a spiraling thing in there.

This movie could have worked as a music video, it has already garnered a cult following and thats why I was compelled to see it, but after doing so, I'm not sure why people think it's great. I was truly disappointed.


This feeble attempt at veering your typically bland Japanese horror movie more towards a creepy cult hit did not have the ammunition needed to keep the viewer involved throughout. Translated to vortex, Uzumaki is about just that- an irrational and overabundant tribute to the strange downward spiral into nothingness that has seemingly captivated a whole small town into dementia obsessed lunatics. While this certainly makes for a pleasurable b-movie on the surface, the traditionally tiresome acting, direction, and script will have all but Asian horror buffs shaking their heads in dismay. What could have roughly translated into Japanese equivalent of an early David Lynch piece, instead wares out it's spiraled gimmickry before it even has a chance to explain itself- which of course it does not. Aside from a few clever techniques employed, the movie rarely connects the dizzying thematics with the dull script, ultimately coming across as a cheap exploitation into the cult genre, substituting hollow imagery for genuine substance. When the movie had ended there was hardly anything that was gained from any of the interactions, save a tiny few scenes or images that rose above the one note film. I do applaud the makers for at least trying to take the genre into more supernatural, metaphysical realms and understand the rough losses lost-in-translation, but with zero substance to back any of it's freakishness up this will likely be relegated to obscure fanboy's bong-ridden basements.


OK, let me start off by saying this isn't a horrible movie by any means. It's just not good. I recall one poster saying the acting isn't campy it's just nuanced. No. I've seen nuanced Japanese and Asian acting. I'm sorry, you're wrong. This is camp.

The characters are totally unsympathetic, the deaths are totally random and utterly meaningless. The writing is bad. I'm fine with suspending disbelief, I'm fine with not having everything handed to me in terms of plot. But this movie has no plot. One reviewer stated "This movie is set in a small town where people are going nuts over vortexes and spirals." That's not a blurb, that's the entire freaking film. Congratulations, I've just saved you nearly an hour and a half. There is nothing more to it. No character development, no plot development, no explanations, no resolution. And not even the "Acceptable within the realm of J-Horror" lack of resolution. Just nothing.

In addition, the musical score is done by someone who obviously wasn't actually watching the movie at the time because it's random enough to cause whiplash. Cognitive dissonance is one thing and done well it can be brilliant (see Dark Water), but here it just seems as if the score was designed to go with another movie all together.

The best example I can give is it's as if the Japanese remade Evil Dead without any of the clever bits or good acting. It just falls flat. It's J-horror without the horror.


This movie started out as a quite decent-looking film but it never really kicked off, instead it became predictable and even a bit silly. Some scenes were quite well made, the photography and the cuts used in combination with sounds and such made it a bit more interesting to watch, but since the story was quite slow it didn't manage to keep the interest alive. And more importantly, its not scary at all! It's supposed to be a horror movie but there wasn't a single scene that was close to frightening or even exciting..

To be frank, the actors weren't all that great either, no colorful characters you ll remember for the rest of your days..

Overall a watchable movie but it doesn't add anything and once you've finished watching it, it wont last long until its already forgotten.

The reason I watched it was because I had read some review giving it top scores, but I disagree and instead I would grade it 4 out of 10. If you still want some Japanese horror, I would suggest you watch Ju-On instead!


Worst.film.ever Nothing more needs to be said. Aaron Carter is utterly repellent and the rest of the cast should fire their agents immediately. It really is a terrible terrible movie from beginning to end. I wish I could be more eloquent in describing the movies many (oh so many) flaws however I cant be bothered/get too angry to form proper sentences.

In short I absolutely hated everything about this movie and not in "so bad its good" kinda way...

It was unadulterated drek.

Gavin


The only people i would recommend this film to are both blind and deaf, although i'm sure a sadomasochist would get a kick out of it. This film had nothing; no acting, terrible music, awful script- only the power to suck any happiness from your soul. You may be wondering by now why or even how i managed to sit through the full hour and a half of sheer inanity, and it is honestly a difficult concept for even myself. Firstly, i had to pace up and down as the film progressed as i found it extremely hard to get comfortable. Secondly, i only made it without gnawing off my own arm in order to have something to beat myself to death with by phoning friends for moral support when the plot became particularly slow. The problem was it became a matter of pride for me to finish it after the opening thirty minutes, and that was a fatal error on my behalf. I normally like films to leave you with something by the end, but all this did was take..... For the sake of your sanity do not watch this film.


What really stood out to me about this movie was how little the plot made sense. So many characters were randomly introduced, it was like how I imagine Tommy Wiseau's "THE ROOM" would be re-envisioned for the Disney Channel set. We had the wise elderly couple who kept on hanging out where "Jane" worked, telling the same story about how "soda" brought them together, or Jane's Mom/Stepmom/random crying woman who would all show up at random times.

Aaron Carter's acting is definitely the highlight of this film: I actually looked forward to every scene he appeared in. The editing is painfully bad, with scene cuts that make no sense. The "Jane" character is really irritating, mooning about and moping about "J.D. McQueen." The scenes with the "Music Awards" are more depressing than anything else. And the ending of this movie is surreal.


I rented this movie with my friend for a good laugh. We actually got laughed at by the clerk at the video store because of our questionable movie tastes. Unfortunately, I don't remember the first half of the movie because all I did was stare at the giant metal braces Jane wore. and I didn't hear anything either due to the incomprehensible lisp. The other thing that was able to grasp my attention besides her metal mouth was her questionable fashion sense. This movie was made in 2005 but it seems like the wardrobe people jumped all the way back to 2000 for the clothes. If you remember the days when Aaron Carter was considered a "popstar" and you like high waisted jeans, ankle socks and knee length skirts, then this little trip down memory lane is perfect for you.


Honestly, the only reason I picked up this movie from Blockbuster was because Aaron Carter was in it. Okay first thing's first. Do you notice how ugly Aaron Carter has become?? I mean, he used to be so cute but now..with that lanky body and blotchy skin - EW. I think he should stick with singing and the directors of the movie could've found a much better-looking guy who could lip-sync. No offense though. I thought this teen movie was majorly lame - and this is coming from me, being a teen myself. The 'mean girls' in there are oh-so predictable, the acting is so amateurish it makes you cringe at times (especially from Aaron) and overall I just didn't enjoy it. Although, I give out points for the storyline - that was alright, but not at all realistic. Anyway, stay away from this movie by all means you can unless you happen to have wads of cash on hand and have absolutely nothing better to do with 94 minutes of your time. It's not worth the $6.50!!

(P.S; this review of mine may not be applicable to younger kids under the age of 13!)


It was funny because the whole thing was so unrealistic, I mean, come on, like a pop star would just show up at a public high school and fall in love with the girl who happens to be obsessed with him? Come on, people!

Everyone but the lead girl were completely horrendous at acting. The dialog was cheesy, the premise was stupid, and the camera work was poorly done. I felt like I was watching a badly made home video.

I feel as if I've wasted almost 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.

I don't have anything else to say, except that I'd rather punch myself in the face multiple times, than watch this movie again.


My summary refers to the fact that this film has 1479 votes--just 21 short of making it eligible to be on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list--the 100 lowest rated films on the website. With a paltry score of only 1.8, this would place the film at approximately between #38 and 46 on the list--talk about a very dubious achievement!! My score of 3 isn't that bad--but it does bring the film that much closer to the dreaded list.

As for the film, it stars the once-cute Aaron Carter--yet another prepackaged and forgettable pop star of the 1990s. When he first broke onto the scene, he was a cute kid with some songs that appealed to pre-teens and tweeners on Radio Disney. His songs, look and image were all scrupulously groomed and created by marketing folks and did the trick--leading to some huge album sales. Unfortunately, by 2005, sales were in decline and Carter had hit his awkward stage of life--something ALL kids his age have to deal with eventually. To put it bluntly, he isn't cute any more in this film and is at a very tough stage of life. I assume now he's a gorgeous young man...but in "Popstar" he's no longer the heart-throb he once was. Here, he is just very normal...a death sentence for a kid in his position as a "pop sensation".

Interestingly, the film has some appearances by some other ex-teen heart-throbs from the last few decades--including a roles for David Cassidy and Leif Garrett--two guys who also know what it's like to disappear from the limelight. Cassidy managed to pick up the pieces and make a niche for himself, while Garrett is a great example of a pop star whose life after stardom has been a bit of a joke. Hopefully Carter will take after Cassidy in the future and so far, thankfully, he's managed to avoid the negative publicity and court appearances of many ex-pop idols. I was far from thrilled with the film but seriously wish him best in this department. It's not his fault he was plastered across the radio and television throughout the early to mid-1990s.

In this film, Carter doesn't exactly need to stretch himself--he plays a pop star. However, despite making millions and being adored by girls, he doesn't "have it all". He's quite dense--mostly because he has little interest in learning. The problem is so bad that his mother decides to no longer home school him--forcing him to go to public school. The problem, though, is that he is rather phobic about taking tests...and making the grade in school is difficult. So, he gets the idea of finding a smart girl to date--one who would naturally be obliged to help him out in school. He picks the cute but bookish Jane (Alana Austin) and pretends to really like her in a sad attempt to make this scheme work.

This plot, by the way, isn't bad and could work even though it seems a lot like an episode of a show like "The Brady Bunch" or a Nickelodeon sit-com. Sure, it's predictable and you KNOW that the formula will mean that she will eventually learn his plot and be hurt AND he will eventually realize that he actually does care for her AND by the end of the film, all will be forgiven and they'll be a real couple. But, given good acting and competent direction, this could be worth seeing for his teen fans, as predictable isn't always bad. And, as it turned out, this ISN'T exactly where the plot went...but it was awfully close.

There are a few good things I liked about the film. Seeing Tom Bosley and Stella Stevens playing Jane's grandparents was very nice--their role was quite sweet and it was good seeing them again. Also, 1970s made for TV movie star Andrew Stevens appeared in the film--it was nice to see him again--though part of me hated him, as he looks so great after all these years and I look ever bit of my 45 years! He did a fine job and it was nice seeing him in the same film as his mother (Stella).

As for Carter, with his many prior experiences on TV, he was, not surprisingly, pretty good. While his relationship with Jane didn't seem very believable, he and Ms. Austin gave it their best. The film wasn't great, but they did try and I think most of the problems with the film were in the writing--with a better and less formulaic plot, it could have worked much better. Plus the whole "testophobia" angle seemed pretty contrived...and rather insignificant. Who cares if a mega-millionaire star gets anxious taking tests in school?! Overall, not a rotten film as the current rating would imply, though there isn't much here to attract a wide audience. People who grew up loving Carter probably will enjoy the film. Older folks will probably care less as well as really young people who probably haven't heard of him. For them, there is no nostalgia value in the film.

My favorite part of the film...Leif Garrett giving Aaron advice. I felt like screaming "don't listen!!" but didn't!


Horrendous! I'm a teenager and I don't mind teen movies but this is horrible! Aaron Carter plays this popstar named JD McQueen and to keep his grades up or something, he works together with the 'nerd', Jane whateverherlastnameis. But the 'mean girls' are too predictable and such The clothing most of the girls wear in the movie isn't realistic. How would any of those girls get away with wearing no bra, tube tops and shirts that expose the belly? IN HIGH SCHOOL? At my school, we'd be sent home for something like that.

And one part of the movie where JD texts Jane, she says 'Sleep tight? He must think i'm an idiot! I didn't know texting was so stressful!' How is texting stressful? And how obsessed Jane is with JD and how he 'falls' in love with her is very stupid. The dialogue is cheesy and stupid, the acting's terrible. the music is somewhat enjoyable and the plot is little to none.

For tweeny-boppers who still love Aaron Carter, you'll enjoy it. If you're a casual watcher like me, this is NOT the movie for you


This is a disaster-movie, in both meanings of the word. Every character, every role, every conversation, every twist, everything in this movie stinks big time. It's a shame to see Dennis Hopper's talent wasted in this dreadful movie. I can give you 100's of examples but see for yourself.

Or rather : don't.


I found myself getting increasingly angry as this movie progressed.

Basically, Dr. Crawford (Dennis Hopper) has predicted a meteor will hit the earth. The "powers that be" don't believe him so he sets about building a survival shelter inside a mountain for a small collection of people.

Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati) is a down on his luck reporter for a trashy tabloid who gets a tip from a friend he thought was dead that something is going on in the mountains. He sets out to investigate.

While trying to get into the secret survival shelter Jake spends a great deal of time shooting people to death or beating them to within an inch of their lives. He spends the rest of his time bitching at Dr. Crawford about who gave the doc the right to decide which people should get to survive the meteor.

I found myself wishing Jake would do the future a big favor and turn a gun on himself.

Don't waste your time on this turkey.


Not only did the effects and acting in this movie bite, but the story was terrible.

A scientist discovers that a comet fragment will hit the moon ... world leaders ignore him ... he builds a shelter ... then, everyone is upset that he is "playing God".

How lame! He built the thing, why is everyone "entitled" to access? Totally lame story, don't waste your time!


Like many others, I counted on the appearance of Dennis Hopper to make this not a complete waste of time. I was sadly mistaken. Everything negative said about this flic is more than true. What takes the cake however, is the horrible, horrible storyline for the main character.

Here's why: The planet might be destroyed, the ONLY way to recover from it, for the ENTIRE human race to be saved trough it, is to get as many smart, capable, nice, competent people into an underground hide-out. And Dennis Hopper is the lone seer/scientist with vision who was prepared for the worst, and who has realized this. But what's the main motivation of Stevens (Sonny D'Angelo)?? He's angry because Dennis has decided who is to be saved or to be doomed! While it clearly explained to Stevens that Dennis' character has done everything to warn people of the danger but that he was laughed at. The Hopper-character was the boy with the finger in the dike, and now Stevens is blaming him for 'picking and choosing'??? And if that isn't enough, he wants to stop everybody from entering this hideout, because "it isn't fair!?" AND.... he's responsible for the death of the one guy who is humanity's saviour! OH MY GOD, how stupid can you get?

What's also maddening that IMDb forces one to write minimal ten lines about this piece of crap. I mean, TWO MILLION in budget, what could have been done with that? Think Clerks, Blair Witch, and lotsa other movies who have been made for under 100.000 dollars and were still better. AAAAARGH! I count myself lucky that I didn't pay one penny to see this crap, and to sit through the end of this utter, úber-crap, is one the most heroic things I've done this year. It's no wonder that the writers of this pile of dung had jobs as camera operator and title designer before ...


Peter Crawford discovers a comet on a collision course with the moon. But when the government doesn't believe him (dumb fact #1). He builds a shelter in deep underground and is drawing lots to see who will go. Plus is willing to kill to save humanity (dumb fact #2). With millions of dollars of technology, how could a civilian see what NASA could not? Plus, the ends justifies the means moral of this story is just plain WRONG!!! This movie is improbable and totally unbelievable. What was running through these people minds, why the hell do crap piles like this get the green light? Some times I wonder who someone has to **** to get a movie made in this ****ing town.


this is complete crap do not watch the main character is so f u c king concerned that the doc's bomb shelter is not big enough for everyone thus he claims the doc is playing god by saying who lives and who dies all during his 13itching, he kills people without thinking twice and beats people to near death also, the main character is an selfish little a$$ wipe as because of him, the doc who made the shelter died and his friend died. he also killed several no name cops the main character is just a f u c king dumb hillbilly s h i t head that's got no concept of the greater good also, this movie makes no f u c king sense. tell me why a comet would cause seismic activity? (if you say gravity, i will f u c king rape you cause the comet is smaller then the moon and you don't see the moon causing volcano eruptions and earthquakes and avalanches).

why does a comet cause atmospheric discharges (the red lightning, also why is it red?) in addition, if you don't know, the F U C KING MOONS BEEN HIT BY COMETS THOUSANDS OF TIMES!!! thats why there's f u c king craters everywhere on the moon. the size of an object needed to shatter the moon into the fragments as portrayed in the movie would require a comet around the size of the moon itself.

it takes huge amounts of KE to cause an satellite to explode like that.

a goof in this movie is that the nuclear explosion in space resulted in a disk shaped shock wave. this is incorrect as in space, the explosion should have produced an spherical shock wave. this inaccuracy is also apparent when the comet hits the moon.

also, someone tell me why the commander (the person who drives the big old broken plane) suddenly felt the need to die? i mean he's just like walking with them to the shelter, then he stops, he salutes the main character.

WTF?!?!!?!? the main character is also an ugly @$$hole, he's got a huge forehead and thinning hair. disgusting.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!


Not only that the VHS and DVD cover(at least in Europe)show a scene that has nothing to do with the actual plot of the movie, the acting is so bad, that the movie is crying out for being made fun of. If you have nothing to do, you are with some good friends and you want to have some laughs about a movie, that is supposed to be serious, watch Tycus and Peter Onorati, a man who will teach you how to knock over bad guys with empty carton boxes! Shame on Dennis Hopper, following Travoltas example by starring in his very own "battlefield earth". For those who want to watch a good movie about the earth being destroyed by a terrible force, please do not choose Tycus, but do yourselves a favor and watch "Armageddon" for he 20th time!


'Tycus' is almost as bad as a science fiction film can go.

I can hardly find something good to say about this film. The premises are completely wrong. A comet is supposed to hit the Moon and cause catastrophic damage to Earth, but nobody believes the scientist who predicts this.A whole underground city plus a launching pad for nuclear armed rockets is build in the California mountains without anybody noticing. When the comet nears Earth the news make it to the TV and newspapers hardly a day before the event. And so on, and so on ...

Neither does any kind of emotion make it to the screen. Is the genius who discovers the comet and builds the underground city a savior of humanity or a beast? The director or Dennis Hooper who is playing the role did not seem to decide until the film was done, and actually it does not make any difference because acting and directing is so confusing that you end by wondering what does this film try to say. The special effects are so cheap that not only that they cannot be convincing in the era of computer effects, but they could not have been convincing even in the 50s, four decades before this film was made.

A total waste of time.


Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. My lifetime was drastically wasted by this pile of stink. I would rather chew off my arm than watch this film again. Painful story line, painful characters and a painful two hours.

The best way of describing this movie is a follows:- I would rather stick pins in my eyes and cut out my brain than watch another minute of this tripe.

Advice is to stay well clear and let your local dustman do you a favour of removing this rubbish.

Lin, you told me this was good!!!!

Goodaleebyeload.


Oh, boy, it's another comet-hitting-the-earth film. Coming within a year or two of Deep Impact, Armageddon, Space Cowboys and various other stupid flicks with rap stars in them, you'd think people would be burned out on this concept. Apparently not, since I rented it, hoping it MIGHT not be awful: Dennis Hopper was in it, after all, and he's a good actor, right?

I forgot something important: along with Peter O'Toole, Robert De Niro and quite a few other esteemed actors, Hopper has a penchant for appearing in dreadful films. Not only that, but he seems to prepare for them by taking forget-how-to-act classes. His performance in Tychus is so awful that you expect Divine or Edith Massey to appear in some scenes.

I don't know what else to say about this rubbish, other than if you're into things crashing into the earth films, watch Deep Impact, and then Armageddon and Space Cowboys at a stretch. Forget the others altogether. This one really is bottom of the pile.


Unimpressive and extremely low budget sci-fi without any charm and appeal. Even the scenes related with the fall of the asteroids are stolen from other movies with the same plot. It's just a bad rip-off of "Asteroid" (with Annabela Sciora) and "Deep Impact" (with Morgan Freeman). Mr. Hopper seems to be anxious to slip away from this pointless and dull sci-fi entry.

I give this a 2 (two). And don't say I'm not a good guy!


Tycus is one of the worst films direct to video films that I see ever.

I am not amazing that this product does not appearing at the cinema.Bad Visual effects (The start is dreadful)Bad actors (I don´t understand Why appear in this film the great Dennis Hopper)and Bad screen Without sense.My alternative:Armaggedon or Twister. SENTENCE FOR TYCUS:Do not watch this film.


I have read all of the reviews for this direct to video movie. I can agree that the movie is not "Armageddon" or "Deep Impact" quality. Nevertheless, if you are looking for a way to pass ninety minutes or so, then this is a movie that is bearable.

I started looking at the film early in the AM hours as I was doing some geek stuff. It was very nice, because I was able to switch back and forth between what I was doing and watching the movie, with out missing a beat. It is a predictable movie, and the acting is not up to par for some of the veteran actors (for instance, Dennis Hopper).

But I should point out that I paid only $2 (US) and as the old adage goes: You get what you pay for! If you are looking for some deep meaning movie that will have you have to watching it over and over again, then this is definitely the long video. On the other hand, if you looking for something to pass the time, then there is nothing wrong with Tycus (Which incidentally was called "Comet: Final Impact" in Mexico where I found this video).


It's certainly a direct-to-video, but the story is not as bad as most of the other reviewers think. I quite like the fact the hero is doing the wrong thing most of the time.

The hero's reactions and the reactions of the rebels are just human. The Hopper character is actually playing god. That might be the right thing to do, but one may not like that anyway.

In the end, the god player is doomed to death, and the hero, who would have spent his own life, can live. Quite a morale. :-)

The most unrealistic thing I saw, is that earth is doing so well with no moon stabilizing its rotation.


I actually enjoyed Tycus, if not for much more than mocking the production values. Dennis Hopper was just fine, although I wonder if he would have signed on the project had he seen the special effects they used. And furthermore, what was with the scene with the ninja?? That was just completely out of pace. Perhaps someone came up with the bright idea mid-shooting. Oh well, This movie is great if you're drunk and need a good laugh. Cheers.


This movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. Normally a huge fan of Eric Roberts in "B" list movies, this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real B list clout! And Charlie, please go back to hoping for a Diagnosis Murder revival rather than this.....you can't blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum...beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie, but YOU are a former TV star man! Pull yourself together. Don't even get me started on Stuart Pankin. For the sake of all that is good Stuart, you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie! Bryan Michael Stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time).

Really, this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. Mostly, it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and....well poor everything. I watched it because I read an article in some mag about agent MJ's involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. I now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he, like at the trial, showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second, is he ever really considered lucid?...I digress). And Agent MJ? Is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character? Sheez. What a startling piece of originality! Or, maybe that was supposed to be funny? Putting Marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first, but overdone and annoying after all is said and done.

Spare yourself the grief of watching......don't say I didn't warn you.


Do the following: Get a copy of this movie and a friend. Wager the friend $10 that they can't sit through this entire movie. They cannot divert their gaze or be distracted by anything. Now watch your friend. Win or lose, you get $10 of entertainment.

It angers me to no end when people see a movie and are quick to give it 1 out of 10, or sum up their thoughts with "it sucked". (And when asked "Why?", they respond, "Just because." Arrgh.) That is why this movie exists. It's sole purpose is for me to say, "There! THIS is a horrible movie! THAT is 1 out of 10!".

This movie is absolutely appalling.

While the recent trend of movie parodies has forced them to become increasingly formulaic, this movie falls short in every single aspect. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. And for some of the parodies, it's completely inaccurate! Horrible acting. Unfunny dialogue. A witless story. Terrible "special effects". One INANE gag after another. And to make matters even worse, there isn't even gratuitous nudity to somehow make it even fleetingly worthwhile.

This movie leaps past idiotic, stumbles over stupid, and lands face first on moronic. Even I, who loves a good "check your brain at the door" movie, found myself physically agitated watching this. This movie isn't even "Hard Ticket To Hawaii" so-terrible-it's-good bad... IT'S JUST BAD.

NOTE: I actually challenged a friend to watch this as described above. Not only couldn't he make it all the way through, but he had a headache and needed a couple minutes afterward because he felt a little ill. True story.

I could not accentuate this rating any more... a resounding 1 out of 10!


First, I would like to apologize for my rating of "1"... The only reason i give this film such a high rating is that I can't delve into negative integers. All "This is a spoof" musings aside, and while I certainly have tried to give it due consideration, have left me with a certain notion, namely; "This is quite possibly the worst film ever made." On any level and in any plausible quantification of qualitative measurement... Seriously, I tried, I'm just as in to any indie born-for-cult-video-distribution film as the next buff, but seriously, this movie sucked rhino balls...

Honestly, if I had directed this "film" I would have seen it as a legitimate cause for suicide.


While traveling with a team of misses for the dispute of the Miss Galaxy, the airplane piloted by Maximus Powers (Eric Roberts) and Mike Saunders (Charlie Schlatter) crashes in an isolated, where lays Noah's Ark protected by the Jurassic Pork. While the group fight to survive, alien apes plot to use the ark to destroy the human race and dominate planet Earth.

I like parodies, but "Miss Castaway" is an offense to human brains. The awful story and the special effects are very, but really very bad. There are spoofs with "Lost", "Castaway", "Jurassic Park", "Sixth Sense", "Titanic", "Planet of the Apes", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Congo", "MIB", "Perfect Storm", "Austin Powers", "Jaws", "Mission Impossible", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Star Wars" and "Hulk", but the problem is that most of them are very silly and not funny. In the end, the trailer is better than the film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Missão Quase Impossível" ("Mission Almost Impossible")


You should never ever even consider to watch this movie! It is absolutely awful! This isn't an overstatement!! It is so unbelievable and exaggerated, it gets boring. It is just a movie where they have taken stories and plots from several movies and put it together in one. They writer hasn't been able to pull it off in a good way.

If you'd like to see pretty girls in bikinis and no brain this might be the movie for you, but still, you should plug your ears and just watch. It's not worth listening:p There are so many great movies out there, and if I could choose one, this would be the last movie I would pick. But all in all, it's your choice!!!

Enjoy!


holy sweet murder this is quite possibly the least funny movie i've ever seen. you can take my word for this as truth because it's playing on television right now. it's really one of the most pathetic productions i've ever seen. there is not a single redeemable aspect of this flick. it just lacks any humor whatsoever. the only good thing it possibly has going for it is that it's so unfunny that it's wholly unmemorable. in fact, i just sat through some ridiculous sub-plot and i can't really tell you what went on. the only reason i can even possibly remember having seen this movie is because it's so absolutely humorless it will stick in my mind forever based on that alone.

an absolutely must miss. if your friend wants to show it to you, shoot him and save yourself the boredom.


As an indie filmmaker, I try to at least make a decent film . This piece of ____ was beyond low budget. It was shot on video and not 24P mini-DV at least. The look and feel of this was just baaaad. I met the director a few years ago at ShowBiz Expo in LA and he was talking about that book, Film-making for dummies that he was putting together. I thought this little video was going to be something but I guess I was wrong. He could have brought the value up a little by shooting 16mm film instead of that awful video. The plot was stupid as well as the acting and all the fake green screen and sound and the whole nine yards. I had a choice tonight to rent any movie and made the wrong choice. Damn!!!!! I did buy JoyRide which was a hell of a movie. Maybe the director should read real motion picture books on film-making and not try to cut corners when trying to make a low budget flick. Maybe he should learn from the masters who made, Night of the living dead and The Evil Dead and Chain saw massacre. just to name a few of the all time low budget great hits. This is one video that should have stayed dead. I cannot call it a film because he did not use film.


There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.

This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.

The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.

And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.

This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned.