Seriously, folks...I was getting ready to actually write the Razzie Council and recommend this movie as Razzie Champ for 2007...until I got on IMDb.com and realized its copyright date was 2006 and not 2007. Seriously, though, this movie could have easily been a Razzie Champ. This movie sucked! How in the world this piece of crap was overlooked even for a Razzie nomination in 2006 is beyond me, because it easily could have competed with Basically, It Stinks, Too for the 2006 Razzie Championship.

I rented this movie on the recommendation of a female neighbor of mine who told me, "Oh My God, after seeing this movie, it's going to be a long, long time before I ever stop at a rest stop ever again!" I couldn't believe how not scary and awful this movie was! Possible spoilers below, not that you'll be missing out on anything.

OK, first of all...the problem...the rest stop itself. Obviously the director of this piece of crap doesn't know the first thing about women. The toilets in that rest stop were on the same level as the one in the movie Trainspotting. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about women, but one thing I do know is that women, for the most part, are total and complete hygiene/neat freaks. Given the choice between taking a crap on either of those toilets and possibly catching something or squatting in the woods, a woman is going to opt for squatting in the woods. I know, because I've gone camping with them before, and they have no problem squatting in the woods. So right there...major plot hole and untruth.

Second of all...she comes out of the rest stop, and her boyfriend who drove the car is nowhere to be found, not him nor his car. He just left. She starts screaming his name, wondering where he is. Ummm...hello? You're standing on wet mud...did it ever occur to you to look down for some tire tracks? I mean, his car is gone...it didn't just get up and fly away. And actually, that makes me think...I actually was looking down at her feet, and there weren't any tread marks in the mud. How...exactly...did that happen?

Third...the Bible thumping mobile home family with the freak midget in the back taking Polaroid pictures...Wtf!?!?!?? They made absolutely no sense at all, and it's as if the director just threw them in to be weird for the sake of being weird. They made no sense at all and had no place even being in the movie.

Fourth...Oh My God, this...I mean, finally...near the end of the movie...she finally sees the escape hatch on the ceiling inside the rest stop. I'm like, "You...dumb...bi**h. You've been locked up in this rest stop for all this time...and you just..now...see...the escape hatch on the ceiling?" I mean...it's like they threw that in just because the killer tossed gasoline on the floor through the window and was getting ready to light a match. So she needs to get to higher ground to avoid being burned, and...oh, look! A perfect reason for her to get to higher ground! An escape hatch on the ceiling! It's like...Why didn't she go through that before? Most people in that situation would have seen that from the moment they were locked in that rest stop and gotten the f**k out of Dodge. When they showed that escape hatch at the end of the movie, I was like, "You have got to be kidding me."

Fifth...what was the deal with all the of people she encountered continuing to just disappear? The girl in the broom closet in the rest stop? The dumb cop? Her at the end of the movie when she ended up in the broom closet herself? It was never explained. Personally, when they did this, I thought to myself, "Oh, Christ on a cracker, it's her. She's the killer. Wonderful. She killed all of those people, doesn't remember doing it, and the writers of this movie just ripped off a certain French horror flick that I can't mention on IMDb.com or I'll be blacklisted for giving away the ending (that movie sucked, by the way, too, people)." But it wasn't. She wasn't the killer, and the whole deal with the dead people disappearing was never, ever explained. Oh, for the love of God, people, stay away from this movie! This movie sucked balls, and I have now got a serious bone to pick with my neighbor. It's on the 2 for $1 rack at Family Video, don't even rent it if someone gives it to you for free!


Obviously Raw Feed Video is smarter than all of us who wasted our money renting this flick! They will make millions from video rentals and their low budget investment is going to pay off big, which will finance "Rest Stop II" (unfortunately). I figure they spent a maximum of a few hundred thousand dollars American to hire the actors, rent the rest stop locale and burn a truck and drag a motorcycle along behind the truck for a bit plus pay for the technical stuff. That's it. We should all be as smart as these guys, I won't knock them for having the genius to promote a stinker into good monetary returns. Premise of the movie was good, and it could have been a really adequate horror movie, but it failed by not delivering a clear story line. I am always looking for a gem from the upstart film companies, but I didn't find it here and neither will you. I'm only sorry I wasted $3.99 plus tax to find out.


Continuing in the string of "stalker/slasher" flicks in the vein of "Wolf Creek," "Hostel," "Joy Ride," etc., comes "Rest Stop." The most unoriginal and useless one of them all.

We start, reasonably promising, with the violent death of a pretty young girl in a filthy restroom.

This is where our interest is lost. We, then, move to the cliché road trip couple, on their way to LA with their eyes on acting stardom. . . which, doing movies like this, they'll never achieve.

From the sexual romp in the park, the couple drives, arguing all the way, to a deserted and disgusting rest area for the girl to use the bathroom. Harmless enough until she exits and finds her boyfriend missing and realizes she's being stalked by a lame version of "Joy Ride"'s Rusty Nail. . . only driving around in Mater from "Cars".

Honestly, if this had been directed/written/produced/acted by anyone else, it might've been fairly good. But no.

Because then comes the ghost story. Yup. . . you guessed it. Plenty of "oh, i'll help you, but wait, you're dead" to "wait is this stalker a person, monster, or ghost?".

But wait? Who comes to the rescue to save the girl's life and possibly the movie? That one Lawerence brother. Excellent. We're saved. (sarcasm) Oh wait, no we're not.

You know. . . if you want to laugh off a pretty bad, or if you get free rentals like I do, give it a try.

If anything, you'll learn how NOT to make a movie.

-AP3-


Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible for a number of reasons:

No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension

In a word - no.

Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.

Once again: Under no circumstances watch this film. It is terrible.

No plot No structure No direction No acting to speak of No visual style No tension

In a word - no.

Best thing about it the box and the fact it eventually ends. Who would have thought 85mins could feel so long.


It wasn't the worst movie that I have ever seen. However, that is only if I get to count home movies made by 8 year olds. This movie was horrible from start to finish. Nothing about it made it worth watching unless you wanted to show new filmmakers how not to make a film.


OK, so I'am chilling in my room when mom knocks on the door. I open the door and what do I see in her hands? "SLEEPY HOLLOW HIGH". I thinking it has to be an older horror movie, because there's noway anyone could be stupid enough to name a movie that after The blockbuster hit "Sleepy Hollow" starring Johnny Depp. But to my surprise the movie is at least two years older then the original. That alone should have stopped me from putting it into the V.C.R. But no I had to take a chance, I had to believe that this movie could have one small ray of hope. Little did I know that the rays where no where to be seen.

Number one, the story line is so ridiculous that it's probably true in some country bumpkin town. Two, the actors seem more like people real life people who just happen to wonder on the set when the director yell cut. Three, just about any movie starring the director is always awful. But the funny thing is that this is yet another movie directed by Kevin Summerfield. I've become to rely on his movie to bring me to the floor with side splitting laughter.

Where to start on this movie? I know, let's start with the jogger in the woods. The camera lighting was so bad that I lead to believe that the jogger was standing still and the camera man was running. I love how the woman's stop to eat a candy bar. I mean it's just about dark, or just about light, who could tell with the camera lighting. And she stops running to eat a candy bar, I mean a CANDY BAR WHAT THE HELL. So she ends up being the first victim because of stupidity, and already I'am ready to break the tape, find the director, burn his little hands.

Then out of nowhere some guys like trying to fix a car that probably been broken for some years now. Then in come the fake Mack 10 and a very real prostitute, who happen to be part of our main charter cast.

The some of the movie is about a group of kids who all get into trouble. And are given the choice to pick up trash in the Sleepy Hollow park or face suspension forever. There sent in the woods with one of the teachers(Mr.E or a.k.a Kevin Summfield) who suppose to watch over them and make sure that all goes accordingly. The funniest thing is how undeveloped the charters really are. I mean what is with the fake Mack 10 dude and who's ever heard of Hacker trying to kill themselves. And some how one of the students has had an affair with the teacher Mr. E, before all of this community service crap had even came up. Yet the school still thought it was a cool idea for them to let him go. Also there's one student named J who purpose in the movie is to keep annoyingly popping up out of no where trying to make the audience jump, when all he really does is add to the cheapness of the film. The sound was so horrible in this movie. I mean there was one seen when two guys are fighting, and the guy punches the other guy in the stomach, and out of the T.V. comes this sound effect that sounds like someone punching a stale wooden box. It began horribly and ended dangerously stupid, even my taste. I will say this though, the music in the back ground made the scenes look some what tolerable. But not that much tolerable. My conclusion is this, if you want to left at yet another movie that Kevin Summfield took serious buy "Sleepy Hollow High.

P.S I'am still thinking about shooting myself to remove those images of the fake Mack 10. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Whoa, this is one of the WORST movies I have EVER seen! The packaging for the film is better than the film itself. My girlfriend and I watched it this past weekend, and we only continued to watch it in the hopes that it would get better...it didn't...

The picture quality is poor; it looks like it was shot on video and transferred to film. The lighting is not great, which makes it harder to read the actors' facial expressions. The acting itself was cheesy, but I guess it's acceptable for "yet another" teenage horror flick. The sound was a huge problem: sometimes you have to rewind the video because the sound is unclear and/or muffled.

It holds no real merit of it's own; trying to ride on the coattails of "Sleepy Hollow." Don't bother with this one.


Great concept, perfect characterizations and voices, but a complete waste of time. A real shame since had it aimed higher, it would probably not have been the bomb it was (is); way too dependent upon scatological humor, for starters. I'm amazed by comments from "educated" reviewers referring to the "good science" behind this piece of puerile trash. Unlike "Finding Nemo," where (with a bit of suspension of disbelief) attention to detail was staggering and the science was as good as the context would allow, "Osmosis Jones" was utter nonsense; don't kid yourself about the science. Humor aimed at eight-year-olds but subject matter suitable more for some unsophisticated teens.


This movie just was not very funny. There's not much else to say, other than that it was kind of embarrassing for Laurence Fishburne and David Hyde Pierce, both of whom deserve much better than this. Also, I don't understand why, after this movie completely and utterly bombed, WB insisted on making it into a TV show.


What a total lump of poopoo this was! You've got to be kidding people! Any positive reviews of this movie are plants or insiders from the movie makers themselves! yuuck! disgusting movie!, not gross digusting but just plain awful!


What a boring movie. While it did have humorous parts, it was just plain boring and lengthy (for a 90 minute movie). I believe that the cause was a lack of action.

When I rented this movie, I expected to see white blood cells combat the evil viruses, but no such luck. It was more that the virus was thwarted than defeated.

The movie had promise, but since made for little kiddies in mind, it did not meet its potential, in my opinion.


When I was driving home after work, I bought some movies for my four year old twins. I had bought this movie my kids would enjoy. I watched this with my children. My 10 and 17 year old were about to throw up. In this movie ,the dad acts like a tard. My little ones would watch it every day.One day, they threw away all our movies.I SOLD THE Omosis Jones movie on Ebay. My Grade: F++++++++++++++++ I rather be seen on the worst dress list.

My kids now hate this dumb movie. If gives the idea that germs can talk to each other. I wonder how the dumb movie sounds in Japenese. I broke the CD in half when I got irritated of seeing it over and over again. No offence but, Brandy & Elena's acting was the best


OK, if you are a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and love to mock movies, then you will have a lot of fun with this. Otherwise, it may really be TOO painful to see.

Plot: Obsessed cryptozoologist sneaks a huge crate containing a Chupacabra onto a cruise ship (apparently not having to declare it at customs, or even mention that he's bringing aboard a live animal -"no really, it's research equipment, the air holes are just an accident"). Some dipsticks he hired to lade it open the crate, figuring he paid bunches of money, maybe there's something to steal. Once the WOOD CRATE is open, the Chupacabra breaks through the STEEL BARS inside and goes on a killing rampage.

Yeah, whatever.

By a stroke of sheer coincidence, a Marshall (I assume a U.S. Marshall, since he was in the gulf war, not just some guy named Marshall) is on board, investigating some money that went missing from the ship's safe. He's posing as an insurance salesman ("Lady, I'm the best insurance you've got..."). Other scintillating characters include the captain (John Rhys-Davies, and sadly his dignity is the first victim of the film), his tae-bo instructor daughter (snicker - Tae-bo), an annoying old stuck-up lady with a tiny dog which should be fed to a cat (guess WHAT eats it...?) and an incredibly unpleasant gigolo who might have been believable in a movie made in 1964, not in anything more recent. Much of the acting was really bad, and the characters were just there so that you can laugh hysterically when they died.

Overall - SCREAMINGLY bad. Bad on many levels. BAD BAD BAD. What??? Bullets don't even make Chupacabra flinch, but the Tae-bo bimbo can punch him and scare him away???? Hey Sci-fi Channel, you desperate for scripts or what?


A Cryptozoologist captures a mythical chupacabra on a Caribbean island.To get it back to civilization he bribes his way onto the cargo bay of a large luxury cruise ship with funny and I think the script intended disastrous results.

Lets start with the one thing I really did not like about this movie.... The monster really just looked like a guy in a rubber suit.The CGI scenes looked like a different movie. OK thats off my chest now onto all the enjoyable bits about this B movie.

The best thing was John Rhys-Davies(his daughter the eye candy a close second.)John was intermittently funny and suave and no matter what the writers made him say, he said it well.Good job given what he had to work with.The Cyptozoologist was over the top and fun to watch too,he had some funny bits.The marines all were OK and make good cannon fodder for the monster as did some of the crew and guests.There are a few pretty funny lines in this movie,and a pretty amusing sub plot involving a thief.

The special effects are generally med to low and I swear they reused the same blood spray on the wall scene in about four different parts of the movie. I did like the gore of the legless man.Really since this movie was not scary at all I feel a bit more gore would have gone along way in improving the watch ability of this movie.

All in all if you like B monsters this one is worth a visit.


First, and foremost, I take issue to the title of this movie. 'Chupacabra' is not a Spanish word. The name to which they are referring is 'Chupacabras'. I imagine they dropped the 's' because it sounds plural that way, but I assure you, it is singular in Spanish.

Next, I thought this movie had been done years ago. It came off as one of those B horror flicks I watched when I was an early teenager at home when my stepdad was out of town. Then it would have been kind of scary.

Let's talk about the special effects. The most important 'effect' is the costume used for the Chupacabras. Given that it is the main character, you would think some serious money would have been put into it, but that isn't so. The shape, color, and texture were all goofy like some stupid haunted house at Disney World.

There were times when the Chupacabras was walking where no man could walk. His movement were jerky and strange at these times, but moving around on the floor looked like any normal man.

Another thing I take issue to is that there is no animal in the world that goes around slaughtering everything it sees with no regard to actually eating it. The Chupacrabas would kill one, then the next, but it never seemed to actually eat the victim. You say, "It's just a movie," and I agree. But the idea is so far out there that it's stupid.

What country is Dr. Pena from? He sounds sort of Jamaincan/Hawaiian/British/Something-Else, but I think he's supposed to be Latino. The problem is, his accent is so bad that even a Russian could tell he wasn't Latino.

The soldiers fired round after round at this thing, and weren't making a dent, yet the continued to fire. I'm no military man, but don't soldiers, especially the special tactical forces such as this, have to have some wit about them to perform their duties? Wouldn't they figure out that it was a waste of time to shoot and try something new? They didn't. They just kept firing away while the Chupacabras continued to slaughter, and not eat, them.

Did they have to kill the little dog? :) Anyway, my vote was 3 for this flick, because it was bad. Why did I watch the whole thing? I'm sure you've done the same on occasion, so don't give me an flack. ;)


Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito), a "crypto-zoologist" (fancy term for one of those self-deluded losers who likes to study extremely rare - read: nonexistent - animals) and his crew of hunters manage to trap a Chupacabra, a big, scaly, elusive fast-moving beast. To get it to the mainland, they smuggle it on a Grecian cruise ship and some idiots open up the crate containing it despite being told specifically not to. I guess the strange growling noises coming from inside weren't a good enough deterrent either. The monster then does the monster thang; running around biting chunks out of various passengers until the ship's captain (John Rhys-Davies), a square-jawed special agent pretending to be an insurance salesman for some reason (Dylan Neal), a squeaky-voiced blonde Tai Bo instructor (Chelan Simmons), a bunch of guys with machine guns and others try to stop it. The main victims (who I think are supposed to be the comic relief but it's hard to tell) are an old rich bitch (Paula Shaw) with a yippy terrier and a snobby effete gold-digger (David Millbern). Apparently the monster can be knocked out with a single tranquilizer dart, but can live through dozens of bullet hits. The Chupacabra design is acceptable (though unoriginal) but the rest of the movie is devoid of suspense, surprise or interest. A boring Sci-Fi Channel "original" movie; they've made dozens of movies just like this with nearly interchangeable characters and plots, but with slight alterations on the creature. Enough already!


Chupacabra: Dark Waters has to rank as one of the most insipidly moronic movies ever made. I had expected at least some passable entertainment because John Rhys Davies was involved, and after seeing this movie, I can honestly say I lowered my opinion of Mr. Davies substantially.

Why? The acting is incredibly poor. An excellent actor like Davies should have demanded more from the cast and the director. It was painfully obvious that Mr. Davies was just clock-watching and hoping the check would not bounce. To say that he just showed up would be an understatement. But at least he did show up. The rest of the cast looks like they mailed it in from their respective jobs at the various Los Angeles restaurants where they work as waiters. Talk about a cast of unknowns! This is the kind of cast that never appears in movies again. They act as if they were auditioned while waiting at the unemployment office.

What about the special effects? Store bought firecrackers, Styrofoam, a cheap rubber suit and CGI effects that look like they came from my 1980 Atari Game. I have seen some horrible special effects used on Sci-Fi Channel movies, but this stuff looked like cut-and-paste done at the kindergarten by someones' child. I expected Mr. Crabs and Sponge-Bob would show up at the end to battle the Chupacabra. Not to mention that all the accounts of the creature describe it as a small gremlin-like critter. It would have been a good film for a Leprechaun-like character. Instead, we get a gigantic hulking creature that is shown walking with stop-action speeded-up effects that are laughable. The chupacabra is in one place and then it shuffles at super-speed down the hall and it is worth a few laughs just to see this.


Well, the Sci-Fi channel keeps churning these turkeys out... and they seem to get worse every time. When normally good actors like John Rhys-Davies and Giancarlo Espositto come off as rank amateurs, you can imagine how abysmal the REST of the cast in this waste-of-your-time effort is. The only halfway decent thing is the rubber outfit of the creature(which is glimpsed in such quick flashes that you don't really have time to see how phony it really is). The dialogue...the plot...if this "movie"(and I use the term loosely) was food, Jack-In-The-Box would be a gourmet meal compared to this. Watch a re-run of "The Munsters" for the 372nd viewing- your time would be better spent(and a lot scarier as well)!


In general, I prefer horror movies that creep me out so much I'm afraid of everything for the next day or so, not the ones where people act stupid and get killed by an indestructible monster. This is one of those movies. The chupacabra of legend is a dog-faced lizard-skin greenish-gray monster that hops like a kangaroo, has fangs and claws, has a row of sharp spines sticking out from its back, and sucks the blood of livestock. As in many horror movies, good and bad, this movie takes liberty with the legend. It not only attacks humans, but it eats their intestines and has a bulletproof, nearly indestructible constitution. So tell me, how can a hypodermic needle penetrate its skin when bullets can't? And why, when the marines figure out that armor-piercing bullets can hurt it, do they split up so the chupacabra can pick them off one by one? John Rhys-Davies gives a performance that rises above the bad movie, and Chelan Simmons and Dylan Neal deserve credit for their performances, too. Otherwise, the rest of the acting was poor to bad, just like the rest of the movie. My rating is based on Rhys-Davies, Simmons and Neal.


Apparently in early 2005, SciFi Channel threatened to release the incriminating photos they have of John Rhys-Davies and said, "We need you to star in another SciFi Original." The scary thing is, he's actually pretty damn good in this movie. That's really saying something since this is a silly SciFi creature feature; you've gotta put some feeling into it in order to be well-acted. Unfortunately, nobody else does. It's your stereotypical "moster-run-amok" movie on a cruise ship. The cryptozoologist wants to keep the creature alive, the Navy SEALs think they have everything under control but they don't know what they're dealing with and they all end up dead, a girl jumps into the "movie sexpot" role as Rhys-Davies' daughter and the creature mauls about 100 or so shipmates. What this movie has going for it is, it's VERY fast-paced and lively; you're never bored or waiting for another kill. Other than that, though, it does nothing to distinguish itself, and it's silly that this thing crawls all over the ceilings and can't be wounded by Navy SEAL machine guns, but can be karate-kicked into submission by Rhys-Davies' daughter. Kinda went back and forth on giving this bad boy a 5, but for the above silliness I'm giving it a 4.


I found this movie to be a big disappointment, especially considering the cast. The characters are not believable, as are the ridiculous circumstances in which they find themselves. The only part of the film I enjoyed was when the most annoying characters finally get killed. The special effects consist mostly of scenes of gory dead or dying bodies. A typical unimaginative slasher flick.

It's hard to believe, make that impossible to believe that a reclusive creature that sneaks up on goats in the middle of the night could be captured by a group of clumsy, noisy idiots. Equally impossible to believe is how they knew exactly were to find it, in spite of the fact the creature has evaded capture, or even photographing.

The man that pulls off the impossible in capturing the Chupacabra alive is our one dimensional Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito). The only thing Dr. Pena is more obsessed with than the creature is his dart gun. A dart gun that works were mere bullets fail.

The captain of the ship (John Rhys-Davies) is introduced as a 'war veteran'. He employs his military prowess by having his men shoot at the creature, regardless of were on the ship they happen to be. The Navy Seals that show up from nowhere repeat the pattern of shooting at everything.

Dylan Neal plays an insurance investigator brought on board the cruise ship to catch a thief. He spends most of the movie tagging along with whomever is trying to kill the creature at the moment.

The creature doesn't even closely resemble a Chupacabra. It doesn't behave like one either. Instead of a small, shy, secretive animal that hunts by stealth at night, we get a bulletproof Freddy Kruger, killing everything in sight. A simple search on Google would have been very helpful to the writers and the special effects crew.


Without John Rhys-Davies, I have to admit that this would never even register on my movie-meter. But in spite of that single fact, this is not a bad little thriller, considering the low budget, the low quality effects, the stiff acting and the Sci Fi Channel aspects. The blood effects are very convincing, and the Chupacabra actually looks realistic... regardless of what you think a Chupacabra looks like this is one good-looking Chupacabra.

Aside from the positives, this runs kind of like Kolchak: The Night Stalker (Darren McGavin, remember?) meets the Love Boat, but in spite of the ultimate cheese of this work, it still holds something resembling a plot, and actually attempts to gain your respect while making you laugh and roll your eyes.

As conflicted as this work is, I still managed to find some enjoyment herein. Maybe you will, too.

It rates a 5.2/10 on the Made 4 TV Scale.

It rates a 4.1/10 on the Movie Scale from...

the Fiend :.


In case you're wondering the buffoonish Loren C*****n of (Cryptozoology Inafame) is a living idiot and any information he's provided is to be tossed out with the trash. The guy simply is a news paper clipper.

As for the story line it was was a predictable train wreck, the actors were mechanical, the lighting was awful, and the props/clothing was cheap.

Bobcat Goldwait should have starred over the clowns in this film. I was physically ill after seeing ten minutes of it.

There are insane/retarded monkeys still in charge of films I see.

Dan


I didn't like this movie for so many reasons I can't even say then all.I thought it was poorly made just because of the whole story line. I mean who is gonna believe that they captured the chupacabra and it broke loose on a cruise liner. LAME!!! It was all right for a lame straight to video movie,but not worth spending money on it. I can't believe someone actually gave this movie a ten. But I guess there are people that like this movie. I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 just because it was about the chupacabra and it had the guy off of lord of the rings. If you want to see this movie I would stay home and wait till it comes on sci-fi channel. DON'T waste your money on seeing this movie. Believe me.


"Chupacabra Terror" is saved from a '1" by the presence of Canadian cutie Chelan Simmons as the heroine. She is a delight to watch, from the front, back and side. Otherwise, what you have here is your standard monster movie, playing like a low-budget, shipboard version of THE RELIC. John Rhys-Davies plays the captain of the ship on which the monster is being transported. And the very nonscary monster is simply a man in a suit. He does commit about 100 senseless, gory killings, at least, so the body count in this one is pretty awesome. Formulaic, to say the least. I love the moment when Simmons ominously tells someone what chupacabra stands for: Goat eater! Oooohhh...scary!


I watched this movie knowing that it would be awful, but damned if it didn't break new and revolutionary ground in the field of making fecal matter acceptable as entertainment. The plot is Deep Rising with cruddy effects and HORRID acting. The lines in this...well...wow there really is no way to put this movie down because i think the words have yet to be created in the English language. The sad part is that the filmmakers thought they were actually making something good. You won't believe your eyes when you see how many movies they ripped off without even trying to hide it. There are scenes/plot devices straight out of Deep Rising, Alien, Jurassic Park, Predator, Jeepers Creepers, and the list could go on forever. However, unlike any of those movies this one just falls short of celluloid stool. The most incredulous thing about this film, aside from the way it tries to be competent but fails, is that Gimli him-freakin'-self is in it. How the hell can they afford John Rhys-Davies but not decent effects, writing, actors, or sets. Really awful...and not the type of bad that's good.


Just been on sci-fi channel UK, 5th July, its was ****. Shame on JRD! May be he was bored one week ! He cant be skint after LOTR. I suppose he wasn't to blame. Mr Sheppird was. I turned off after 50 minutes, couldn't bear it. The cgi ship was bad and the creature looked like a large 5 foot bat. Who funded this project? I think the whole thing must have cost $250 bucks. Avoid at all costs, don't think about buying the DVD if they release one, I cant imagine they would spend dollars on producing one. Lets hope someone makes a decent Chupra film and a decent BIGFOOT movie. Sasquatch was okay, poor Lance. Its a shame a big studio and direct wont risk it, no more super hero films please!


Chupacabra Terror: 2/10: It was the Navy Seal team that tipped the balance from bad cheesy movie to just bad. Up till then there was a lot of bad movie baggage but the Seals They are wearing bicycle helmets painted black. You know the ones with air holes that make every adult who wears them look like a complete tool. Of course the bass fishing boat they took to greet the cruise ship might have been another clue (it wouldn't make it across Tampa Bay let alone an ocean) and their tactics wouldn't pass muster on an 3rd rate XBOX game.

Does director John Shepphird have photos of John Rhys-Davies in a compromising position with a Hobbit? Because I can't think of any other reason he would be in this movie. The other actors have a great excuse. They are talentless unattractive hacks that couldn't get hired for an infomercial. The plot is that two men try to smuggle the mythical Chupacabra (Love saying that name) aboard a cruise ship and it gets loose.

The sets consist of horrible cruise ship fakery (complete with airshafts the size of a small apartment), the monster killings are bottom of the barrel, there is no nudity, and a lot of really bad actors refuse to finish their death scenes. Of particular annoyance is a gigolo character from a 60's Doris Day movie.

The cast bleeds ketchup while the Chupacabra bleeds day green glow in the dark blood. (Why a goat eating Mexican mammal would bleed anything but red is beyond me.)

Every B movie has a tipping point that makes it a fun time (Hey it's a lesbian shower scene, OMG that guy just ate is own eyeballs) or not so fun (Did they just call those forty something overweight guys wearing coveralls and bicycle helmets Navy Seals?) Chupacabra falls into the not so fun B movie side with a thud.


Oh my God... where to begin? "Chupacabra Terror" is one of the worst B-Horror movies ever made. This crap makes "Demon Slayer" look like "The Exorcist". Special note: A Horror B-movie needs to have at least one sex scene. Don't expect even a hot girl in this one. With that inexcusable mistake, I should begin with the complete bash.

First of all, if you're going to make a Horror monster movie, you should spend big part of the budget in creating a "cool" monster outfit. The monster in this movie looks like a $10 Halloween costume. There is no way the Chupacabras (yes, this is how it is spelled) looks menacing in the movie. It's an actor in a Halloween outfit please!! it looks so cheap it makes me mad.

Second, the gore effects are the spinal cord of any direct to video monster Horror movie. Again, the producers decided not to spend for decent gore effects. The blood looks damn fake! Please take a close look at the guy that gets chopped in two. That's probably the best scene in the movie and it lasts for about ten seconds. The ending is a very poor scene that won't leave you satisfied.

The acting is the last thing you should expect to have quality in these kind of movies; but in this movie it's beyond terrible. A cast of nobodies with no acting experience make the fool out of themselves for about 85 minutes. Special mention deserves a blonde guy with curly hair that tries to convince SWAT members that he is sick. The coughing he fakes is beyond laughable. He's probably the worst actor ever in a B-Horror movie, no kidding. Also, Captain Peña delivers a terrible performance in the first ten minutes of the flick.

The TRUE story behind the Chupacabras is not even told. All you get to know is that the monster sucks goat's blood. Why bother with this piece of crap? Plesae, do not even watch it even if you have the chance. Not even if it airs on cable.

I usually support low budget Horror movies because the people involved in them at least try to do something "different" than Hollywood but that doesn't means that Horror fans like me should accept this kind of garbage.


Excerpt from TV GUIDE:

This week on THE LOVE BOAT, Captain Stubing has his hands full when a cryptozoologist gets on board with an unexpected cargo! Join the Captain, Isaac, Gopher and Julie in a fun-filled Halloween Special. Guest starring a guy in a really bad lizard suit as the Chupacabra.

This is typical, lame Sci-Fi Channel cut-rate fare. The Captain of a cruise ship, played by the once respectable John Rhys-Davies, is in charge of a Carnival cruise along the coast of Mexico. His daughter is along for the ride, and she's earning her keep by being the ship's kickboxing instructor. Pay attention, everyone, that kickboxing will come in handy later! It should be noted that the Captain's daughter is pretty uncoordinated and painful to watch. It would have been good if she might have taken a couple of kickboxing classes before trying to play an instructor in a movie.

Captain Stupid and his daughter join Mrs. Thurston Howell from Gilligan's Island, a kooky cryptozoologist and a dark, mysterious stranger on this 90- minute ride into boredom.

That's right, I said cryptozoologist. He keeps mentioning that he brought some precious cargo on board that he needs to check out. Needless to say, the box contains a Chupacabra that somebody decides to let out. From this point on, a man in the rubber Chupacabra suit runs around the ship, killing people. Captain Stupid is powerless to stop it. He decides to call in the Marines but telling them that there are a bunch of terrorists on his ship.

The Marines respond. They say all that Marine-speak stuff like "Hooya" and "Get Some". But those silly Marines are no match for a Chupacabra. They don't really tell anyone where they're going either, so there's no help in sight. I guess no one will really miss some lame battalion of lost Marines. But don't forget... Captain Stupid's daughter is, thankfully, a Kickboxing instructor. Yay for Little Stupid! She comes in right in the nick of time, she beats up the bloodthirsty Goat Sucker and saves the day. Chupacabra means Goat Sucker. Therefore, Chupacabras suck. But there's no way that Chupacabras suck anywhere near as much as this movie.


This is one of the most horrible 'scary' movies I've seen for awhile. I had to wonder if John Ryhs-Davies was just bored and wanted a distraction to do this movie. Th Chupacabra looked like a cross between the Sleetaks from Land of the Lost and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Additionally they should have used someone who was a bit smaller as the Chupacabra of legend is much smaller. All in all however the movie was soo bad it was funny. Why couldn't bullets and electrocution stop the Chupacabra but the captain's kick-boxing daughter do OK?? Watch if you are sick at home or feeling down and need a good laugh.


This is another Sci-Fi channel original movie staring Rhys Davies where its hard to decide whats worse, the acting, or the writing/directing/producing (John Sheppherd helms all three.)Basic story: obsessed exobiologist captures chubacabra monster,smuggles it in a cargo container aboard a cruise ship it escapes and the blood bath begins. Clichéd sci fi cast of the sturdy captain with the beautiful daughter, handsome hero and mad scientist. Captian calls in a terrorist alert for the ship (since of course wouldn't believe a monster story.)No dramatic Helicopter drop of the Navy Seals here. Budget only allowed for entire force force of eight seals to arrive in a fiberglass fishing boat and ride a ships wench aboard. Puleeze. Also cheesy computer animation of the ship you could do better on your computer. I also loved when the Seal commander looking thru standard binoculars from ten miles away was able to see three people jump of the ship. If the Sci-Fi channel is going to continue original movies I hope they realize there audience is not kindergarten level and purchase better scripts and directors. If this were direct to video you would find it in the 99 cent bin.


First off let me say that this movie is nothing spectacular. The cast is like the saved by the bell reunion, the monster is a guy in a bad outfit and like always; the military is useless. It would seem that the more training you have and the bigger your gun, the more likely it is that you will die if you're in a cheesy low budget horror movie. Apparently the people in the movie business have little respect for the navy seals, the marines and ninjas, who get it the worst. The plot is thin, a nutcase cryptozoologist by the name of Dr. Peña traps the Chupacabra. He then smuggles it aboard a cruise ship where two members of the crew let it loose. You can do your taxes and watch this movie and not miss a beat. The most noteworthy part that really makes it all worthwhile revolves around the captains daughter. Toward the end she goes all martial arts on the monster and kicks his butt. Let me get this straight, the monster wipes out the entire navy seals unit, while they are using ARMOR PIERCING ammunition!! OK, its a movie it can happen right? But here comes the captains daughter who can't be older than 19 and kicks the crap out of the chupacabra with front and side kicks. It was hilarious. They should get a medal for coming up with that.


Horrible Script, which was apparently directed by...no one? The Marines can't fend off the monster with machine guns, however it backs off when a 15 year old girl karate kicks it in the face a few times. It's supposed to be a luxury liner, but the Fancy Dining Room looks like a Cafeteria in a hospital. It appears that they rented a High School for the summer, and pulled out chairs and stuff to decorate the set with. In the end shot, they are pulled from the water and into a boat and less than 3 seconds later they are apparently about two miles from the ship as it sinks.How do movies like this get made? I guess anyone can be in a film these days. Aaron James, NYC


Seriously, Sci-Fi needs to stop making movies. They're all horrible. And this one had John Rhys-Davies in it, and he couldn't help the movie. Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito) captures the legendary goat eater of Mexico, the chupacabra, and brings it aboard a cruise ship captained by Captain Rudolf (John Rhys-Davies). The creature then escapes and starts killing crew and passengers. Captain Rudolf and the crew then go after the creature, guns ablazin'. But they can't stop it. So they call in the navy. They can't stop it either. Then the thing kills all 5 (or however many of them there are). Then the captain and his daughter along with some other guy, figure out how to kill it. Stay away from this movie. The chupacabra looks incredibly cheesy, the navy men shoot at the slightest movement,throw grenades on the ship, and the acting is horrible. 3/10.


It´s all my fault. They all told me I should avoid seeing this movie because I´m a huge fan of the old TV-series. They were right. While production values are good and the actors themselves (including "don´t look now") Julie Christie aren´t that bad, the whole film displays a cheekiness and self-conciousness that clearly is without any justification. A comparison between the Karloff "Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns 2000" comes to my mind. In fact Belphegore 2000 owes much more to the new Mummy films than to the old series. But then, scripting is terrible, speed there is none and sometimes the film is full of unintentional jokes (The first scene in the tomb looks plain stupid), with cats clearly being thrown when they´re supposed to jump (landing with their backfeet first). Belphegore moves around like a statue on wheels neither impressive nor scary and the psychological drama that unfolded in the old tv series when the heroine had to learn that she´s a villain is completely neglected. This movie is so WASTED (wasted money, wasted actors, wasted blueprint) that it hurts. It´s a below-par Mummy-rip off that´s only good for some laughs but has nothing at all to do with the Greco classic (She has a small role in this movie too - on the graveyard).


I saw this movie only because Sophie Marceau. However, her acting abilities it's no enough to salve this movie. Almost all cast don't play their character well, exception for Sophie and Frederic. The plot could give a rise a better movie if the right pieces was in the right places. I saw several good french movies but this one i don't like.


My blurred childhood memories have kept the echo of the cult serie of Belphégor in the French 60's... so I was eager to see the big screen adaptation. I should have kept my money and gone for a stroll in the Louvre.

The idea of the scenario is still very apt and interesting (the fantom of Le Louvre) but the adaptation is ridiculous. The dialogues hesitate permanently between French irony and serious "American business" without achieving neither but not without sounding asinine.

Acting leaves somehow to be desired and special effects are meager compared to what one could expect (low budget ?).

What is left of all that. Not much outside a few good shots of Paris ... which is seldom a disappointment.

Belphégor was worth more than that.


After putting a mummy in a local museum goes through the cat-scan, a metal object in it's brain reacts adversely to the procedure, thus freeing the spirit,or phantom if you will, of the mummy, Belphegor. Due to convenient circumstances, Lisa, who lives close to the museum finds herself possessed by the evil spirit. Soon enough she's stealing the museum's Egyptian treasures out from under their nose. Detective Verlac comes out of retirement to catch the supernatural thief.

This is a serviceable enough, if you haven't seen any other incarnations of "Belphégor" before. If you have, I recommend skipping this particular version as it can't help but pale in comparison to the others despite the nice locals and scenery.It plays out like a (slightly) higher budgeted Sci-Fi Original film, and I don't really mean that as a compliment.

Eye Candy: Sophie Marceau shows ass & side boob

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: none


This was a pretty dull movie, actually. I think the problem with a French horror film, is that the French must be easy to scare or something, because this movie wasn't just that frightening. The special effects with the mummy's ghost looked like they didn't even belong in the film, as though someone put them in during post-production to spice them up, because the actors barely react to them.

The plot just kind of meanders, which is the opposite of real storytelling. I guess this was based on a French TV series, where they had to distill it down to a two-hour movie.

The plot is that a mummy is brought out of storage in the Louvre, which apparently has such weak security that this girl and her boyfriend can break into it multiple times. (So THAT'S how people keep stealing the Mona Lisa!) The boyfriend and the police officer from the 1960's version of this film get together and try to exorcise the demon.

So I'm not sure if this mummy was supposed to be a bad guy or not. He kills two guards during the course of the movie, but he just wants to get to the afterlife.


The movie is apparently based on a popular French horror novel, by Arthur Bernède, from 1927. Not that I had ever heard about it before but Belphégor has been a popular subject before for movies and mini-series. The first movie got released way back in 1927, simultaneously with the novel. Arthur Bernède was a part of a group of writers who wrote and produced films and novels simultaneously. The character Belphégor is one of his best known creations.

Once upon a time Sophie Marceau was a promising new European actress who would conquer Hollywood. She has now however dropped back again to movies like this one. Nothing wrong with playing in French quality movies, since it's the country she originates from but this movie is just ridicules.

Problem is mostly that the movie relies on its special effects, to make the movie good and scary. Well, horror and special effects never really have been a good combination though, with some exceptions here and there. It's not like the special effects are bad in this one. Especially for an European movie it is simply good but it;s just misplaced, since the movie gave the feeling it could had easily done without its effect. It would had actually made the movie a better and scarier one to watch, no doubt about that really.

The movie is just not ever tense or engaging to watch, also since the movie seems to have difficulties picking the right approach. At times the movie picks a light and just less serious approach, while at others it clearly attempts to be a good scary horror movie. This is mostly the reason why the movie just doesn't work out on any level. You can say that the movie is even a bit boring. It all also definitely gets worse toward the ending. After a while you just stop caring about this movie and its story and you start wishing you had decided to watch something else instead.

The editing seems totally off. It uses too fast cuts, without much style, while the fast editing was obviously intended to give the movie a good, modern style. Also the time-line is just plain messed up at times, as if some sequences got edited in the wrong order.

The musical score is also really annoying and at times doesn't even sounds to fit the movie, as if it all long got scored before the movie finished shooting. I can't believe composer Bruno Coulais is an Oscar nominated composer. The musical score is almost just as annoying as the movie its sound effects.

The movie is filled with many characters, which you however just couldn't care less about. It also just seems very unlikely that a woman like Sophie Marceau would ever fall for a man such as Frédéric Diefenthal. The movie also features Julie Christie, which is nice but just doesn't add much to the movie.

A horrible watch.

3/10


OK, I admit that I still associate Sophie Marceau with La Boum. That was the main reason I went to see this film. But it was so boring, that I nearly felt asleep. Sorry, but her talents as actress are not very convincing. Furthermore, this film was presented as having outstanding special effects and CGI. Yeah, for a B-Movie it is not that bad. After having seen her in "Marquise" some years ago (also a very crappy film), I thought that she would play more convincingly. But La Boum (and may be the James Bond "the world is not enough") seem to be the only good films with her. Is it her "talent", does she have a bad taste when choosing her films or simply bad luck ?


A confusing, senseless script with plot holes the size of the Eiffell Tower. Terrible acting by all involved - no exception! Laughable and cheesy dialogue. Lame attempts at humor and romance. Extremely cheap special effects. All this makes for a giant mess of a film, you'd best avoid.


If you thought this is the french The Mummy and if you're hoping for another "Vidocq"...well look elsewhere. It does have the same kind of story like The Mummy concerning this book of the dead and a soul that needs to find 7 missing pieces that are scattered in the Louvre. I found the movie to be slightly entertaining, boring for the most part. The special effects aren't bad, but it's nothing spectacular as I was expecting big explosions and perhaps the eiffel tower crumbling down until I realized that those kind of scenes were in The Mummy and this is Belhpegor. Apparently based on a french cult tv series, Belphegor could have been so much better. I voted this film a 4/10 only for the beautiful Sophie Marceau...she must be almost 40 and she looks breathtaking!


"An evil spirit takes over a girl and diffuses panic in the Louvre museum" that's all I think, the summary of the movie and the movie itself ! Which I think it's one of the worst French or non French movies ever made in the history of cinema !

Nothing good in here except the music (of the credits only !), some tender moments of (Sophie Marceau), and of course the movie's finale shot.. Not because it ends ages of what seemed to be a countless years we had in watching THAT CRAP but also for being so perfect as one magical C.G.I work that was too good to be true in here !

By the way I want to change the plot summary to be like this "An evil spirit takes over some cinema artists to make lousy movies".. Just like this one for sure.


Even Sophie Marceau's presence and the few (very few) good French gags are unable to save this otherwise slow and boring movie! A disappointment. The story is weak and so is acting. This movie was advertised as the French version of The Mummy, but the Mummy has at least spectacular and enjoyable effects...


With all the potential for a good movie in its gorgeous settings, cast, and cinematography, this film's lacklustre script, leaden pace, and wooden performances produced only a major disappointment. With decent direction, editing, and musical score, this could have been a good movie, perhaps a dark version of Blake Edward's '10', instead of a weepy version of Ron Howard's 'Splash'.


I usually don't categorize a moving as boring. I am not big on action flicks and my senses do not need to be stimulated during a movie. In fact I enjoy a good rational logical dialogue and story line. Unfortunately, this movie has none of those characteristics. Diane Lane is the only saving grace in this movie and even her beauty cannot save it. Terrible overbearing music equals the moronic dialogue and acting. None of the actors actually connect with each other and as a result the movie does not connect with the audience. I guess the scenes where the townspeople are marching somewhere were suppose to add to the story but it seems that they were inserted just to fill space. The scenes appeared choppy and incoherent. There were some nice shots of the ocean and the beach which were beautiful.


I've seen soap operas more intelligent than this movie. Bad characters, bad story and bad acting. It would be a love story between a man and a mermaid. Really awful.


Julie Delpy stars in this horrific film about a sadistic relationship between a father and a daughter in France of the 14th Century. The film attempts to shatter the romantic chivalry image of the heroic medieval knight, by showing a rather dreary image of the period, defined by psychological dysfunction, and violence.

The movie opens with a child, François, growing up in the shadow of the Hundred Years' War, told by his father to keep his mother safe and to wait for his return. François takes action when he discovers his mother with a lover in bed. François murders him in the name of defending his father's honour. Like father like son, François grows up, and leaves his family, also to go to the same war. This setting is somewhat of an explanation for the events to come, as on his way home, we already notice that something is wrong with François. The war has not done well with him, he has changed.

The daughter, Béatrice de Cortemart (Delpy), awaits her beloved father, to return from captivity of the English. She is pure of heart and she was left to take care of the estate while her father was gone. In her father's absence, Béatrice needs to deal with financial difficulties, which strengthens Béatrice's hope that her father will return to save her. But, upon his return, she notices that he lost the will to enjoy life, and he tortures and humiliates everything around him, even his own daughter. From this points the film depicts various ways how François torments his family. Starting with humiliating his own son, and ending with the rape of his own daughter, Béatrice.

Setting the film in the Middle Ages supposed to soften the blow, as the viewer may tell himself, that these kind of violent acts were held in difficult times. And indeed, many films on the topic of Incest, such as Tim Roth's "The War Zone (1999)" which are contemporary were more shocking because of that.

Delpy appears in this film in several daring nude scenes. Indeed she appears to be angelic and beautiful.

I was annoyed when I saw some animal torture scenes. I believe, and this is not confirmed, that some birds were killed for the making of this film, which really upsets me. The quality of a film drops when real violence is used towards animals. I would hope that this movie will be re-released without those cruelty scenes. Those scenes do not contribute much to the film storyline.

Overall, the movie is too long. The script is problematic. We don't get to see François and Béatrice before the war, we don't really get the answer why is he changed to such extreme. I would have pass on this film, however, I have to mention a few scenes that made this film worth watching:

* Scenes of a young child being able to murder in cold blood is truly shocking. I saw it first time on "City of God (2002)". Here, François, murders his mother's lover, while his father away at war. Excellent scene and very graphic. * The scenes from Béatrice being raped by her father till she finds out she is pregnant from him are truly shocking and interesting. The scene after the rape, where Delpy burns her cloths and cleans herself. She asks her brother to kick her in the stomach with hopes to have a miscarriage.

* The brother humiliation scenes where the father dumps his son's head into the food - humiliating him then ranting about the war. Later, dressing his son with women's cloths.

The film won the César (French Oscar) for Best Costume Design, I agree, the costumes here really make the film look authentic for the time period. The movie location is Château de Puivert, a real 12th century castle and a historical monument, located in Aude, South-Central France. Beautiful castle and mountain view, really helps you set into the period of this film. The film also nominated for 3 more César awards, but they were all snatched to the widely successful French film "Au revoir, les enfants" ("Goodbye, Children", 1998).

--- Released as "Beatrice" in New York City, March 1987. Only to be screened in France on November 2007. Watched it on YES3 on 3 May 2007, 17:45, at work.


Very odd, this seems like a very average movie to me, if not slightly less. It is brilliantly shot but, together with the performance of R. Lee Ermey, that's about the only redeeming aspect I found in the movie which consists of two separate parts.

The first part covers the basic marine-training which, watching it in 2007, comes off like something I've see a zillion times before in dozens of other movies and series and it's not particularly gripping. After 30 minutes I got the idea and wished they could just get on with it. The drill sergeant is about the only believable character while everyone else seem to be just cardboard cut-outs. The general acting is staggeringly haggard and the screenplay is devoid of anything interesting and consists of little more than the Sergeant shouting. The boys make it through their training and end up in Vietnam. Oh, and the fat weirdo shoots the sergeant (what a surprise..), probably in the mistaken belief that it was actually the scriptwriter.

So, one hour passed and nothing worthy of note happened. Nothing...

Then we have the Vietnam-part.

It opens with a bunk-scene where reporters of Stars and Stripes are bored and are making small talk to pass the time. At first I thought they were re-enacting some movie scenes from old films, it sounded pretty bad. But no, they were actually muttering their script lines. Then the camp is besieged. Some 20 Vietcong enter the camp through the main gate. Too bad for them they are being dropped like flies because they simply walk into several manned gun posts with no means of cover. Is that normal behaviour? Were the Vietnamese all suicidal? If so, how come the US didn't win this war during the first two months of engagement? The rest of the movie continues with even more completely illogical war scenes.

Furthermore, the whole plot is altogether pointless. None of the characters inspire much sympathy and the story is frankly rather uneventful. It shows little more other than some war-reporters hooking up with a platoon with some guys getting shot because they are disobedient morons and who also seem to think that somehow a gaping hole in a wall will protect you from bullets.

What was the message of this movie..that people died in Vietnam? That people are animals in war situations? That if you want to dispose of really dumb people, you send them to a war zone? Or that somehow in Vietnam concrete can actually burn?

I'm sorry, but if this movie deserves an 8.3, then Apocalypse Now deserves a 38.3

5/10


It's hard to write 10 lines of copy about this so-so film noir. There just isn't a lot to say about it. It is not memorable enough to add to your collection, and I have a considerable amount of noirs.

Paul Henreid plays a tough guy in here. He's not one I would think of to play this kind of role, but he's fine with it. He's a fine actor, anyway.

Everything, including the cinematography, is okay-but-not memorable. One thing that stood out: the abrupt ending. That was a surprise. It was also a surprise to see this under the heading "Hollow Triumph." I've never seen the film called that. It's always been called "Scar."

If you read about a "tense film noir," etc., don't believe it. "Tense" is not an accurate adjective for this film.


Let me start off by saying I love Japanese cinema, literature and culture generally. I've seen many Japanese movies and enjoyed them, but "Portrait of Hell" (aka Jigokuhen) makes itself ridiculous. The two characters who dominate the action -- the "evil lord" in his privileged bubble and the "stubborn, crazy artist" are pure types with zero subtlety or nuance, and all their actions emanate from cartoonish extremes. The film wants to show horrible scenes of violence and raw emotion but many of these scenes are so over the top they actually become laughable and the overall feeling is that of a made-for-TV movie that went off the rails. If this rarely screened movie falls in your hands or comes to your town, spare yourself and give it a pass.


So you have the spoiler warning---but I would argue that you cannot spoil what is already rotten. I assume they changed the name to "The Cavern" just in case "WIthIn"s reputation had preceded it.

After paying the cable rental for this movie, I considered saving my household garbage for a month and mailing it to the writer/director. He had his garbage delivered to my home, so I thought it only fair that I return the favor.

The movie opens with a suggestion that the scene is in the desert of Kazakhstan. I'm not sure why they picked Kazakhstan; maybe the writer is a fan of the Ali G Show. But they should have just started inside the cave, because the outside was obviously not Kazakhstan. It was the first clue that I was going to hate the movie.

The movie has no redeeming qualities, save one: it's consistent. Everything is terrible. The writing, the directing, the acting, the cinematography---every aspect of this film is just bad. And I like bad films, goofy films, B-horror films . . . but this was just plain bad. And stupid. And hackneyed. And predictable. And boring.

To get a feel for the film, go into your laundry room with 5 of your friends, and turn off the lights. Put a flashlight (turned on) into your dryer and start it tumbling. Now all of you start screaming and yelling at the top of your lungs. That's it.

For a complete re-enactment, have 5 of the 6 people in the laundry room play dead on the floor. Toss Karo syrup on them. Turn the lights back on (stop the dryer). Now have a guy in a gorilla costume enter the room and rape the last person standing.

FIN

ADDENDUM: Reading through the other comments, many find it remarkable this movie was made on a low budget. That's not remarkable. Making a crap movie on a HUGE budget is remarkable (Waterworld). Making a good movie on a low budget is remarkable (like Blair Witch, which I thoroughly enjoyed). Making a crap movie on a low budget isn't a bit surprising, and you can expect more of the same if these people are still making movies, because I can't imagine anybody would hand them a pile of cash after watching this.

Is the low budget an excuse for a terrible film? No, and it's certainly no reason to watch it. Would you eat a dog-dung sandwich just because it was cheap to make?

The IMDb rating for this film over time will be interesting to watch. It should trend farther downward, but only if the number of unsuspecting innocent viewers can outpace the movie makers' ability to beg their personal friends to give it 10 stars.


My first post at the IMDb has to (unfortunately) be to warn others not to waste their time with The Cavern! There is no story, no character development, no scares, and no good lighting. It doesn't make any sense. If you enjoy bad acting, people running through small portions of caves, bouncing cameras posed at bad angles, and people screaming while the screen is in complete darkness, you'll love this movie. I could shut the lights off in my house and scream too, and I wouldn't have to pay for the rental. The only thing that scared me was that someone actually made a movie this awful.

... one of the worst movies I've ever rented.


The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to "Pull it together" or "Just calm down!" Repeat this as many times as their are characters left. In between these things, you get to enjoy blank, black screen. These are not quick but rather several seconds long. I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.

I notice other mentioned "Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy. However, this movie takes that to the extreme. Every single time the characters move the camera is bouncing. Sometimes so much that you can't make heads or tales as to what you are looking at. That brings us to lighting. Way too dark in some areas. I get that they are trying to make us feel like we are in a cave, but Helllloo... I'm watching a movie here, it would be nice to be able to see.

Then there is the ending. I actually blurted out loud, "Are you kidding me?!" (I was watching alone too). Dumb, dumb. I think the ending was purely the effort of the people who made this disaster to shock us after so much time of boredom with a so called "twist". At this point of the movie you could have seen the "monster" picking his nose and it would be considered a "twist". Truly horrible. You have been warned.


Possibly the worst movie I ever saw. The person who shot this movie probably never learned not to film directly into a shining light. You can't see anything in this movie. It is way to dark. The parts where you can see something the camera is directed straight at a light source so you get big lens flares. So you still can't see. This movie should have been a radio play or something. Some parts of the movie are actually edited upside-down for some kind of crap effect. Low budget movies can be done so much better then this. And low budget is no excuse for this. An editor should have said something when he started editing and saw that you couldn't see anything. Maybe the makers should have spend some of their low budget on a preview monitor so they could see what they shot. The only good thing about this movie being so dark is that you can't see the awful acting. It also covers up the crappy sfx. People at beginner film schools make better movies then this. Movies shot with handy cams look better then this.


The Cavern: 2 out of 10: Blair Witch meets The Cave and gives me a headache.

I have something to ask all film schools, could you please teach future directors how to hold a camera steady. Flailing the camera around like Aunt Betty with 12 drinks is headache inducing.

Also film is primarily a visual medium directors may want to point their camera's in the general direction of the action. Film also requires light to work. Perhaps a light source should be employed so one can see the action on the screen. I know it is a cave movie but there is absolutely nothing frightening about watching pitch blackness for minutes at a time.

For that matter showing the film upside down doesn't indicate confusion on screen it indicates confusion in the editing booth.

A last note to the director I'm sure there was a good reason to have a horribly fake CGI campfire. I honestly can't for the life of me think of one.

Now on to the screenwriter. Try to make at least one character likable. I'd prefer two or more but one decent person I can root for or care about might help. Also if you are going to have flashbacks make them relevant to the story.

If you are going to have a surprise ending it is probably best if it doesn't contradict every single thing that comes before it. And try adding some fancy spelunking terms to a cave movie. You might have wanted to start with spelunking.

The Cavern is a pretty bad film, poorly shot with a confusing, improbable and anticlimactic ending.


When I checked out the review for this film after I'd watched it, I was surprised that there were people giving it good ratings.

This is a film of bad camera-work. Everything 'frightening' happens off screen, usually accompanied with a closeup of someone yelling "Did you see/hear that?" Well, no, we didn't see that! We can't! And when there weren't any close-ups, the camera was doing something weird like rotating upside down, or shaking back and forth really, really quickly, to either convey action or to make us physically sick.

The characters were unlikeable because every two minutes, they started screaming the same thing over and over again. I don't care if that's what it would 'really' be like, I did not rent a scary movie to see reasonable things! I expect unreasonable things, like aliens, demons, or good acting! They were stupid, too- Let's go have intimate relations in a cave! With all of our clothes on! Speaking of which, the ending somewhat contradicts what Domingo said immediately before he died. This bugged me a bit, though not nearly as much as the fact that the ending resulted in a... serious invasion of one girl's privacy.

No plot, no climax, no good acting, terrible camera-work. What's left? Oh, right. The ending may have had a 'twist' but generally with horror movies, the twist at the end actually has understandable relevance to what occurred during the film. Sixth Sense does- it explains a lot. Hide and Seek did, too. But the Cavern had a lame twist that served as an 'explanation', if you could call it that as it doesn't. Explain. Anything.

Don't see it. Please.


Sometimes you ignore that little voice in your head that says "stay away from this movie". We should all pay more attention to that little voice. This may be the worst movie I've ever had the non-pleasure of sitting through, or it may be the best reason to remember that your DVD player has a fast-forward button. Made on a budget somewhere in the vicinity of $1.99, "The Cavern" is obviously a quick cheapie made to piggyback on the current bunch of scary cave-lots of darkness-claustrophobic spelunkers-unknown menace flicks like "The Cave" and "The Descent". A few years back there was similar rash of look-alike movies that used sea-going vessels instead of caves. All had scary boats/submarines-lots of darkness-claustrophobic adventurers-unknown menaces...same old same old. "The Cavern" is really "The Blair Witch Project" only this time we're lost under the earth and not lost on top of it. Throw in a flashlight with failing batteries, a cow skull with fangs glued on it for a monster, and one of the stupidest "twist" climaxes ever put on film. That being said, let me urge you to listen to me, the little voice in your head. I'm your friend. I want you to have a happy life. Stay away from this movie.


A group of cavers with a sad history take an author on a 'hairy' adventure through an uncharted cave in Kazakhstan. In these times of remakes and sequels and film companies trying to cash in on any winning combination of cinematic components, The Cavern has only one relatively different twist on the previous eight cave movies over the last few years, and that twist seems to be taken from an X-File. I like to give every film the benefit of the doubt, but there were just too many little annoyances for me here. The camera work can give you a headache as they seem to constantly confuse which way is up. Not being a caver, it doesn't really matter to me whether the filming was realistic. There is entirely too much unnecessary PANNICK from supposedly experienced cavers, by the last half you're saying out loud one of two things  oh just shut up and concentrate on saving yourselves, or I hope you all die by the end. It must have been very tiring for these decent actors to make this film. A moderate amount of gore and nothing special in the dialog or characters. While you're pretty confident you know what's going on by the end, the last five minutes explain all the details. But I would have had a better opinion of the movie if they would have left the last minute on the cutting room floor. It just wasn't necessary. I suggest you hit eject immediately after your suspicions are confirmed and save yourself the setup for the sequel. I've long thought that the film industry should share a modified restaurant industry's checkout scheme. You pay for the materials to make the film before you go in, but any profits for the film come from the tips you give when you leave the cinema. I can't blame what I don't like about this film on its low budget.


First let me say that those of you that voted it "10" are only kidding yourselves and trying to get the votes to a respectable level... something that this movie doesn't deserve. (The only movies deserving a 10 IMO are the classics... Godfather, Shawshank, etc. Look at the top rated films of all time for the complete list.) I also noticed that many people gave this a positive vote for being so realistic as far as what it's like inside a cave. Though I would have to agree with them on the surroundings, they simply aren't rating the movie as a whole... they are infatuated by the surroundings but miss the overall review. That would be like me voting a 10 for the movie "From Justin to Kelly" because I think that the beach scenes remind me of what it's like in the Florida Keys... though that may be true, it does not merit the film getting a 10 because the movie as a whole was rancid.

I wish I could tell you that something saved this movie, as usually if one thing stinks in a horror flick, something else picks up or makes up for the weakness. (Ex. - Bad actors are overshadowed by a great plot and/or great camera work and scenery.) We started the DVD and it all started out fairly normal. We jokingly started to pick out who would be the first to die... after a brief bit of driving and hiking, they set up camp for the night. At that moment, I keyed in on some things which really made me tune out the rest of the film. Two main problems I had: Bad effects and an even worse story line. The first thing that we all noticed was that the campfires weren't real... you can plainly see the "cgi" or fake flames that they were all sitting at. For a horror film to have such a blatant effect flaw should have told me what I was in for the next hour.

Only minutes later, I was shown how poorly written this film was. I don't remember exactly how they arrived at the point, but basically, we find out that the "token Nerd" is writing a book about exploring caves, etc. Another guy in the group wants to tell a story about an experience, but hesitates stating "I don't want this story in your book." The author convinces and coaxes the other that he will not put the story in his book and that he can trust him. (A direct quote: "If I tell you the story, you will definitely want it in your book.") At this point, I was fully expecting a nice 5+ minute story, complete with flashbacks and heartfelt acting. What I got was a short, poorly told (and acted) statement. I say statement because what he ended up telling was about 10 seconds and 5 sentences. I don't remember the exact quotes, but basically he says: "We were in a cave, the cave flooded, a girl died as our friend watched her drown." You may think I am over exaggerating and being really critical, but that isn't far off from a direct quote, line for line, from the movie scene.

Over the next 50 minutes or so, the film takes place in the cave and though the lighting is what I would imagine to be like in a cave, I could have really done without the really fuzzy/hazy look to the film, and the camera shaking is just one that I didn't go for. (I have really good vision, and after watching the main parts of the film, I felt like I was legally blind.) I was emotionally detached from this movie, therefore the parts that probably should have been scary weren't. Maybe had I been able to overlook the very slow and poorly acted start to this film, I would have at least been scared, but I don't remember anyone in the dark room even twitching at any of the "action" scenes.

The last scene was probably one I will never forget, and that isn't a good thing. Basically, two women are trapped in a room naked. The "monster" comes in to attack/kill the women... he is stopped when he sees a picture of a little boy. A flashback occurs where we find out that the "monster" was injured as a little boy, and spent his entire life in the cave. Cut back to present time, and he takes his "mask" (a large skeleton with what appears to be a deerskin shirt). He glances at the picture and the two women appear to have found the caveman's weakness/soft spot. At that point, he stabs and kills one girl, then proceeds to rape the other woman, rather graphically. After about 30 seconds of watching the camera jiggle and shake as he rapes her, roll the credits, movie's over.

Honestly, if I had to do it all over and I wasted money on renting this movie, I could have saved myself an hour and watch the first scene and last scene of this film and still left with the same thoughts about it that I have now.

Those of you comparing this to Blair Witch are way off... if any of you had read up on how the director and writer ran the filming of Blair would realize how revolutionary it was... handing each cast member a script the day/night of filming without the other cast members knowing what the other actor was doing is genius.

If IMDb would let me, it would get a negative score... I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can recommend this movie.


I can't say if "The Cavern" is a ripoff of "The Cave" because I haven't seen that. I've seen "The Descent" and that's not terrible but it is very hard to watch and so is this one. Hard to watch, as in, there's very little light and lots of fast motion so you're hard pressed to say what you're looking at. There are times when I guess, you're supposed to be scared, judging from the music, but scared of what? Bad camera work? Poor lighting? If that's the case than this should be the scariest movie made. The story is that a bunch of cave explorers go to a cave in Kazakhstan (home of Borat) and make their descent, but something is (of course) in there with them. And what is it? One guy says it's a wolf/bear hybrid, that is, just before he gets ripped apart, but whatever it is, you can't see it. And just when you think (or hope) the film is ending, since the screen goes dark for a bit, you see the two remaining cavers (the two women) wake up somewhere in Betty and Wilma attire and start trying to find their way out of wherever they are. They do drink some water and start eating SOMETHING until they figure out what it is and start puking....and then the mystery of what's in the cave appears, and you'll just be astounded. Maybe, maybe not. Dumb dumb dumb....I think I'm pretty well done with cave movies at this point, 2 out of 10.


Horror films are a curious thing, sometimes they manage to stumble across a formula that works very well, sometimes they try valiantly to tell a worthy story despite time and budget problems, sometimes they're so bad they're actually kinda fun...and sometimes they're "The Cavern".

A good horror/suspense film should contain vagaries that keep you guessing, they should allow you to be interested in the characters and their motivations so that you actually have some sort of reaction when they die. However, The Cavern chooses instead to introduce elements that work at first, only to be negated by it's own lackluster storytelling.

All the characters are completely forgettable and any actual back story that might make any of them even remotely interesting is blurted out within a 30 second monologue, making it impossible to do anything more than laugh as characters are picked off almost at random and on more than one occasion in the least possibly frightening way.

(To spoil a scene a bit, one victim is taken during a complete blackout which might have been a little frightening if the sound effect used to indicate his killing wasn't reminiscent of stirring a pot of too thick Macaroni and Cheese) Add to this formula the camera that work makes me think the director saw one too many Nine Inch Nails videos and an ending which in an attempt to be shocking serves almost no purpose but to annoy and confuse the viewer and you have an almost completely unwatchable horror film that fails on every level.

I'll be honest with you, if you want a claustrophobic caving horror movie go watch "The Descent", and I feel weird saying that because I didn't particularly enjoy that movie either.


I love movies...and rarely do I see a movie that I hate...but this was the worst movie I have ever seen, or at least close to it. Any movie that ends with a rape scene is awful. Hands down... I cant believe I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this movie. I'm really mad, I want my money back and my time back. AWFUL! Do not go to see it, the cinematography is awful, the plot is awful, the ending is awful. I didn't know what was going on during half the movie cause I could not see it(and I was watching on a very nice, and big, TV) Rent saw, the hills have eyes, or house of wax...any of those are better if u want something scary.


The person who wrote the summary and rave review for this film is either an idiot or an avid fan of shitty movies. From the beginning, this just spoke of cheap-ass ripoff of "The Descent", a far superior film that definitely does NOT start off slow.

From the very first moments of "The Cavern", I was amazed at how bad it was, how uninspired and unoriginal it was, how badly written, badly acted and badly directed it was. This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying a lot, considering I recently suffered through "Pulse". I can't believe this piece of garbage actually won awards, which just goes to show the quality of marijuana and other illegal drugs is much better in Australia and other countries than in the U.S.

The scenes where the group is running from the "creature" are badly directed, especially the retarded "upside-down-camera", intended to show disorientation, but only coming off as a cheap effect which a first-year film student would be suitably berated for by their teacher.

Sadly, this "director" will probably go on to make other movies, more than likely of the same low quality as this "film", since I'm sure he hasn't learned from his mistakes, which on this picture were excessive.

If I had my way, the entire cast and crew would be sent up the river for life without parole. This film is a crime against humanity.


If it is true that the movie only cost 150K to make, it explains a lot. But, it doesn't explain why it has no real plot. Midway through the movie I honestly didn't care if they made it out or not. I just wanted to finish the movie and go to bed. The ending was really dumb and made me wish I would have just shut the movie off and gone to bed early. Pretty good acting considering there wasn't much to go with. If you enjoy really bad movies with horrible lighting (even for a cave)and bad camera work (even for a cave)... then you'll really like this movie. By the way, if the boy's plane crashed in 1980 when he was about 10 years old or so, how could he have forgotten how to speak, and built up so much anger?? Wouldn't he have wanted to get help from the first people he had seen even if it was 14 years later?


What a shocker. For starters, I couldn't stand the constant screaming and noisy panicking all the time. It didn't make me scared, horrified, or make me sympathetic towards the characters; it was simply annoying. The jerky camera movements were also annoying. The plot was the same as pretty much every other cheap horror. There was a few pathetic attempts to give the characters some depth, but it didn't really work into the rest of the plot. And then there's the ending. I'm still not really sure what to make of it. I guess it was supposed to be clever twist, then shed some light on the situation, but it was just stupid.

The case had a couple of those little award winner/nominations symbols on it, so I figured it couldn't be too bad. I was wrong. If you see it, you should probably just leave it on the shelf.


I consented to watching this movie with a group of friends despite my extreme dislike for horror movies. However, it was not the shock of a monster that turned me off this movie, it was the horrendous acting and absolutely disgusting ending. Within, or the Cavern, has no redeeming qualities- it is poorly made, laughably scripted, sickeningly bloody and the inclusion of the gratuitous final scene repulses me. No, it is not my dislike for horror movies that makes me hate this film-I've seen such wonderful teen horrors as "House of Wax", its the fact that the film leaves you with the awful understanding that by renting the video, you are supporting the creators of Within


If I could give this excuse for a film a 0 or negative rating I would. I was stupid enough to pick this DVD up in the shop, read the blurb and think, that sounds quite good, I'll spend £10 and buy it. all I got at the end of it was a £10 coaster. Absolutely awful, I don't even know where to begin. I have no idea why anyone has given this more than 2 stars because I can't think of one good thing to say about it.

The plot is basically, 7 people go into an unexplored cave, one of them is a reporter. no-one else knows they are there. When they get in the cave, they can't get out and they get killed off one by one by a monster. There turns out to be no reason for the reporter. One of the characters has some past demons where his ex girlfriend drowns in a cave 2 years ago... there seems to be no relevance or reason for that either, just a rubbish attempt at character building I assume? Anyway, The monster turns out to be a guy that wandered into the cave as a normal little kid and has lived in there all his life. This for no reason makes him superhuman, able to glow, see in the dark, take bullets, breathe underwater, be in 2 places at once and have insane strength (able to move boulders, carry grown men as dead weight, etc).

In the end scene there are 2 women left alive, they wake up naked, just covered in some bit of rug or something. They then find a picture of a kid. The Monster then bursts in the door, wrapped in a carpet with some sort of animal skull over his head (says in the directors commentary it was a crow's skull, if so that would be the frekin biggest crow I have seen in my life) and quite literally goes "Raaahhh" like a kiddie on Halloween. I was watching it with my boyfriend and at that point he literally burst out laughing. The guy then sees a picture of himself as a kid and has a flashback to him sitting under a tree with his face all burnt and then getting up and wandering into the cave. That is the extent of the back story to why he mutilates people and it leaves you feeling a bit cheated for a story. The monster then kills one of the women and brutally rapes the other one, cut to end credits. I know the rape scene was designed to be shocking, but as a woman it just made me feel quite ill and was the thing that affected me the most in the whole film. He could have killed her and cut her into pieces and ate her and it would have been less horrific than the rape scene.

There are so many things that are left unanswered at the end. Aside from all this, the scenes where there was minutes at a time of just black and nothing else was annoying and the constant nauseating camera angles where it's all upside down and you can't see what's going on wound me up so much at one point I almost turned it off. An absolutely terrible film. You might as well get the money you were going to spend on it and set fire to it, it would be money better spent, as like some clever person posting above me said, once you've watched it, you can't un watch it.


I have recently seen a string of caving movies and this film managed to cobble together all the worst aspects of this kind of film. You get very little appreciation for the caving surrounds or the monster that they face, while the characters are clichéd (spiritual guy, leader with tragedy in recent past etc) and the ending was just weak. It really annoyed me that the director kept shaking the camera or showing almost total darkness to create atmosphere. I have read that this movie gave a real representation of caving and yeah, I imagine that caves are dark. Showing near total blackness for half the film really brought that home. I quite enjoyed "the descent" which, for my money had better acting, showed more tight caving situations, better monsters and had a good ending.

****spoiler******

The monster turns out to be some guy whose plane crashed and parents were killed, leaving him to grow up in the caves. He seems to have developed super strength and speed, but why is never addressed - maybe the same force that drained their torch batteries caused this but during the film whenever someone is killed you get the impression of something large with claws that tears up each victim (see how much blood splatters the walls!) but in the end its just some dude with a fur draped over him and a mask? I would be willing to overlook this if great heights of suspense were reached but this was hardly the case. Then he starts raping the last remaining caver and roll credits... Almost absurdly bad I thought. Sometimes a film is soo bad you can appreciate it and maybe have a laugh, but this films fails to take itself lightly as well.

You watched it, you can't unwatch it!


I am an avid movie watcher and I enjoy a wide variety of films. However, I found NO enjoyment in this movie. It is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. I do not feel that it had much of a storyline, the characters were not likable and the relationship between the characters was dysfunctional at best, and the ending only made me dislike the movie more. It is definitely not in the same category as "The Cave" which was, in my opinion, the best cave movie ever made. Even "The Descent" was better than this movie.

It was a waste of the $3.79 rental fee and of my time to watch this. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one.


I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!

Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.

Then there are the "black" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...

I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.

There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.

And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.

And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.

All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line.


Monday, October 02, 2006 So I got together with my dad as I always do. We ordered some Japanese take-out, turned off the lights and pushed play. I'm an avid fan of horror movies. However, The Cavern released on DVD this October was most certainly a let down. It seemed promising, meeting all the standard requirements of any horror movie machine: drawn out beginning with antagonistic character present, a cannot be omitted sex scene, and the all too familiar pre-spook (when they spook you unexpectedly but it turns out to be the idiot buddy). Then finally when it got down to the nitty gritty, I was ready for some real gore action. The director, I admit was keen. Of course you would have to be to fill in an entire 81 minutes with people running back and forth in a space about 10ft wide. It all begins when some college bound "cavers" get together for yet another cave dive. They all seem like seasoned pros, very serious and spiritual about the whole cave experience. This time they bring a new-by along, some annoying photographer too blinded by his National Geographic cover to understand the full dangers of cave diving. As they descend deep into what they call "Hell Pit" they soon realize that they are not alone in the chasm of death. I will politely leave out any spoilers if you are naive enough to not heed my advice and avoid wasting your time. Although the atmosphere and background music was spooky; and there was sure a lot of blood and gore, when the moments approached to witness some actual dismemberment it was more like watching porn without the full frontal. The camera work was purposefully dark and sketchy. I guess the director used it for effect. I suppose the thing I like most about the movie were the moving characters. They deserved Acadamy Awards for those touching bickering scenes. I almost shed a tear when they finally "got it"... A tear for joy! If you like dry horror, soft porn, and you hated Braveheart. Then this is the right movie for your next Saturday night.


There seems to have been some money behind this film, but it would be impossible to imagine a film this badly planned and executed if I hadn't actually started watching it.

To begin with, once we are in the cavern with the characters (the usual young adult stereotypes we've been meeting in horror films since the early '80s), the film is shot almost entirely in close-up. Since the actors are wearing helmet lights, this means all we see are glaring lights alternating with utter darkness - we never get to see what the characters see; so when they shout out "Look there!" we are left to beg "What?! Where?!". Ultimately the film has a nauseating, confusing strobe-light effect, with no sense to it until we get to the end.

And I won't tell you what 'the end' means - but you will recognize it if you've ever seen the old early '60s Arch Hall laugh fest"Eegah!" with Richard Kiel.

But what crazy person would ever want to make a variation on a theme like "Eegah!"'s, long remembered as one of the worst films ever made?! But that's what we have here, folks. Except that, unlike "Eegah!", "The Cavern" is not anyone's idea of goofy fun. It is unwatchable. (I ran it at x2 the normal speed, just to get it over with, hoping I would actually be able to see something by the end of the film; but when I did, it was just stupid.) This film did provide me with one satisfying moment, though; since it only cost a couple bucks, after I got it out of the DVD player, I was able to smash it with my own hands - what a relief!


when i sat down to watch this movie i thought that it might be slightly good. but no. it was a OK film, not good, but not bad for most of it but then you get to the ending and it losses all credibility. they should have just left then dead. they did not leave the last bit it did not make any sense. if they had something at they beginning about a plane crash yeah but we didn't so it didn't work. the first bit is OK and i give them credit for that but the rest is just plane bad and unnecessary if you are thinking about going and watching this movie DON"T it is awful go and rent something that is actually worth watching. i give it 2/10


This must be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. On a par with Blair Witch and just as annoying. The flashing helmet lights made things difficult to see and I think that epileptics should take heed as there are moments with strobing that makes this movie even more annoying. I think if they had been quieter they might have found a way out. Then when you think the geek might come up trumps even he resorts to a nervous breakdown. Oh and when is the guy who is having sex realise that when the girl says she can hear something. She Can Really Hear Something. One of these guys must have at least seen Scream (where they draw your attention to such things) It is also a big let-down when a premise offers so much promise and then someone writes the script. So sorry folks I got this on weekly at the video shop and I would still like my money back.


A virtual carbon copy of The Cave save for a fewer lower budget effects and a slightly different plot. I knew the movie was going downhill when I saw the fake campfire flikering lights clearly reflected in a facial close up of one of the actors. The conflicts between characters and subplots seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever, and added nothing to the film except fewer moments of silence. The acting wasn't as bad as the typical B movie, and there was some believability in their fear, but as professional cavers, they seem to be too psychologically unstable for their chosen profession. Overall not worth wasting $4.50 to rent.


If you are a bit masochistic and like to waste some time you should try this one. I wasted enough time myself watching it, so I will waste no more explaining why it is so awful. Be warned!!! Oh, I see that I have to fill 10 lines or more. Here we go: every year or so some people think it is fun to start shooting a low budget film about the scary monsters of the underground, that hopefully will prove to be some sort of a hit. The Cavern is one of those. I didn't have high expectations about this one but the acting is so bad and the production so poor that I'm seriously thinking of asking for a refund. Phewww ... one more line about a useless movie ... Oh, I'm done.