Heart of Darkness was terrible. The novel was difficult enough to understand, but when a production company decides to release a film loosely based on it, then that just messes everyone up. Not only did those in charge decide to change certain characters and completely eliminate others, but the acting was horrid and the overall impression I got from the movie was that it was a complete dud. I watched the film in hopes of understanding the novel a bit better, but it just threw me and my fellow classmates off completely. I think the movie was a waste of time, and I was disappointed to see Tim Roth in such a disappointing film, especially when he has awesome flicks like Pulp Fiction and Resivior Dogs under his belt. Same with the very cool John Malkovich.


Too bad, I really like Kristen Cloke and Gary Busey. But the director failed to put this together. There's a lot of action, a lot of promise, but it all comes off hokey. The director didn't do his job. Promising action comes off lame. So much seems contrived in a desperate attempt to save the film. This version of "The Rage" (DirecTV credits it as 1996) simply isn't worth the time to watch it. Another director would have done a better job.


Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead.


As Americans, we have come to expect crapiness as "par for the course" when it comes to HORROR and unknown directors directing unknown actors acting for unknown writers. We truly expect this to suck & when they don't suck,it becomes an over night success.

This is NOT an over night success, nor is it an over the weekend or over the month success. This blows from start to finish and my only recommendation is this: GO INTO THIS KNOWING IT SUCKS, enjoy it for what it is, for what it isn't & if you have something better to do, keep this on the back WAY BACK burner. It's entertaining in the way watching the elderly cross a busy street during rush hour, but don't expect much-they almost never get hit by an actual car, its just a lot of hoopla.


The thing that's truly terrifying about this is that the filmmakers thought they were making something intelligent and sexy. Instead they made probably the stupidest horror picture of the year!

This movie starts with a bunch of art snob friends at a gallery. This trashy European weirdo walks up and starts talking pretentious fruitiness to the main character, sounding like he just walked out of an episode of Dark Shadows. He then offers her up some stick to smoke(yes, a freakin' stick), which she eagerly agrees! He picks off some red crap and puts it in a spoon for her to freebase! If this ever happens to you in real life, don't do it!

She's transported to some weird wannabe Jean Rollin netherworld that's supposed to be sexy but isn't, where there's this thing that looks like a rotted creature from the black lagoon!

Soon she turns all her artsy sleazeball friends onto her new form of supernatural crack. No matter how much these idiots freak out and turn blue they can't leave it the hell alone. At one point she even makes out with the rotten creature!

After the final battle and the stupid woman is vaporized or whatever, the so called hero is left alone to pack up his copy of Michael Moore's Dude Where's My Country and can't resist smoking that stick one more time to try to rescue his moron lady friend. What a dope.

Rates four stars for sheer unintentional humor.


What can you expect from a direct to DVD film? You know what you are getting yourself into when you rent this. The quality of the cinematography reminds me of reality TV shows.

Why are they shots always up so close to the actors!? And why are they always centered? There isn't anything to look at. (And the actors are that great looking, so that blows.)

The writing and dialogue is just plain awful. That intro scene, with the British Guy is hilarious. Just try and listen this words, they hardly make any sense, just goes around in circles. The lines in the rest of the movie sounds like they were pull out of romance and sci-fi novels, as if the writers had no idea what they were doing. The characters definitely sound like they have no idea what they're saying.

This is a terrible movie. I feel bad for the actors tied to this project. Embarrassing!


The film is somewhat entertaining, but the greatest feature is Shalom Harlow's laughable performance. It has been 4 years since this movie was released and hopefully Harlow has gone through more training. Perhaps she should stick to the more worldly, somewhat corruptive characters that she has generated in other performances.


Out of the handful of alternative titles in English, "The Sexorcist" is definitely the most appropriate one, since this is basically just a shameless rip off of William Friedkin's classic horror film in which they replaced 13-year-old Linda Blair with the 19-year-old Stella Carnacina only so that she could gratuitously show her ravishing naked body. I'm not sure what exactly Satan tries to accomplish here, but he exclusively seems to possess the young girl to play sexual tricks on her! Poor Danila masturbates around the clock and tries to seduce priests and even her own father into having sex with her. The young girl is introduced as a smart and ambitious theology-student with an odd-looking boyfriend (driving a stupid yellow car) and loving, albeit adulterous parents. When she takes a peculiar crucifix home to renovate, the ancient relic comes to life and no less than Satan himself (played by Ivan Rassimov of "Jungle Holocaust" and "Planet of the Vampires") starts to torment her. The overlong masturbation sessions and some bizarre nightmare sequences cover about three quarters of the movie, and then finally director Mario Garriazzo begins with the actual exorcism. That final segment is even more embarrassing and amateurish! The priests don't really do anything apart from saying some vague prayers but, somehow, Danila seems cured all of a sudden. There isn't much gore, the dialogues are horrible and the producers seem to compensate every little flaw by adding more sleaze! This is one of the strangest Italian exploitation efforts of the seventies (why the hell are they referring to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"?), but definitely not one of the best. If you fancy clones of "The Exorcist", I recommend "Demon Witch Child", "Beyond the Door" and "The Antichrist".


I just can't get it, freaks out on the planet are talking about this one as a must seen, they even dare to call it a (s)exploitation because the possessed girl is seducing priests and is masturbating all time. Don't let me laugh. I watched the movie, seducing is only at the end of the movie and don't call it seducing,it's just bad language that's she is talking. And the masturbationscene is a big laugh too, she tries to seduce her father while masturbating, let me be clear, with her clothes on you perverts out there. It isn't gory or bloody at all, everybody is vomiting on Beyond The Door, well, let me tell, that one is for me better than this flick. Only the last 5 minutes the possessed one is vomiting and having weird eyes. If I had know that this is so bad then I would never caught me a copy. If you really wan't to see a (s)exploiation about exorcism watch Angel Above, The Devil Below or other cheesy ones. a waist of time this is.


WOW! What a horrible, hideous waste of time this celluloid atrocity turned out to be. I remember seeing it years ago and thinking it was fun but now...it's just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that it is a blatant rip-off of "The Exorcist" to the point where it was re-released at one point under the title "The Sex-orcist". The only real difference is that the producers have the gall to further discredit themselves by slapping on the claim that the events in the film are REAL! Who in their right mind would actually believe such a bold faced lie? To make matters even worse, there was a video release in circulation with cover art that blatantly tried to cash in on the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" by throwing a pair of lips on the cover! How low could one possibly sink? Do not be fooled by the false claims, blatant lies or title rip-off because you will be SORELY disappointed if you do!


An art student in Rome is possessed...or something. She has dreams of being nailed to a cross and Satan himself raping her. He possesses her (I think) and turns her into a sex addict. That's about all I could take and I turned it off.

A pointless "Exorcist" rip off. I caught this on cable back in the 80s and was horrified...and not in a good way! This movie is supposed to be a horror film but turns into nothing more than a sex film disguised as a horror movie. There's tons of pointless female nudity and the actress playing the lead has to degrade herself more than once. We see her being raped by Satan (a hot-looking guy), masturbating, coming on to her own father...Gotta give her points for bravery. Add to that bad dubbing, editing (the rape scene looks like it was cut a bit), lousy acting and a story that makes next to no sense. The one disturbing sequence (her being nailed to the cross) ALMOST works but the lousy "special" effects ruin it. This is one of the few horror film that was so bad I stopped watching. Skip it.


Kinda boring, kinda gross, kinda unsettling, this wasn't horrible, but not too good. There's a good creepy bit when the statue comes to life, though, props to this scene. Not much happens, and the movie just feels sort of scummy. I was happy when it ended, and don't believe anything about this being a true story....very surprised this is averaging around 6.


Brilliant acting, excellent plot, wonderful special effects! This is what I would say about this movie if I had been watching it with a bag of diarreha on my head for the entire film. Instead, I endured a 2 hour crap-o-rama. Our "brilliant" story begins with some billionare who has nothing better to do than look in volcanoes in a vain attempt to find his lucky charms. Instead, he finds a 5'4" man in a cheesy rubber dinosaur suit and some queer cave-folk.

In his infinite wisdom, (along with his infinitely large nose)he decides to go inside this volcano with a team of "special" people. To travel to this underground land, they go by plane? No. Boat? No. They use this giant soup can with a "solid metal" drill on the end that I swear I saw wobble. In summation, this movie was faker than....Oh that's right! This was the fakest movie I've seen! For those of you who haven't seen it and are thinking of sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with this wonderful movie; I warn you! If you watch this movie you should be prepared to cut of any shred of your manhood and give yourself a full frontal lobotomy.

ECCCHHH!! The rating system only allows for a minimum of 1/10. I give this a -10/10!


I had nothing to do before going out one night so I didn't want to watch anything too heavy, I picked the perfect film. This must have been a gift to Barrymore from someone she slept with, the director Raja Gosnell has made nothing but silly crap and the writing on this one is just atrocious. In what high school can you register without a parent present and no proof of age or former schooling? They let kids all come to the prom with no shirts, in skin tight leotards, ass shorts and one girl was dressed as Eve wearing only fig leaves? She announces that she's 25 and her brother is 23 but there is no reprisal from the school, parents or lawsuits of any kind against the newspaper for fraud or spying? The newspaper boss wants to catch the teacher in an underage sex scandal but doesn't realize the teacher is coming on to a 25 year old so any case would be entrapment? They allow a camera in and record peoples private conversations with under age kids? I wonder if I hired my younger sister to go back to HS with a camera on her and filmed under age girls for my personnel use I would not get in some kind of trouble??? NAHHHH No problem. Didn't she have to take gym or go to the bathroom at some point? The secondary characters in this were like cardboard cutouts of what high school students are thought to be and everybody was a stereotype. Jessica Alba is just embarrassingly bad in this mugging for the camera at every chance. In what world do the parents not get suspicious when their uber-geeky daughter is miraculously asked out by the school stud to the prom? And they don't ask the guy inside to meet him like every other parent in history. If some guy in my school or any other school for that matter had conned my sister and thrown eggs at her in her prom dress he would have been in a body cast for the rest of his life. This movie is so contrived and predictable it's nauseating, and why at the end is everybody (the Alpo girls included) cheering for this chick when two days before they hated her????

DUMB, DUMB AND DUMB.


There is a reason to call this a teen flick. Out of 100 possible points I would put it somewhere in the teens. It is predictable, the acting is horrible, especially the minor roles, and above all else it is super predictable. The ending is so hokey that I should have left early and maybe it would have passed. By the way, could you call the male lead a pervert? I bet if it really happened, someone in my school district would have said so. Finally, in the school I grew up in, even though the average class had over 1000 students, we could have picked out a chump like Josie as being a fraud and we would have singled her out of the crowd. My final word is save your time, when it comes on TV watch something better, like the stock quotes.


...an incomprehensible script (when it shouldn't have been) dependent on a rather flaky voice-over.

The animation, however, show real talent.

Quite visually impressive.


It is the early morning of our discontent, and some friends of mine and I have just gotten through watching "The Wind." Truly a disaster film. Not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace, but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. To give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb, I'll give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. If given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and, say, boiling myself, I'm afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. But rather than simply ranting "ad peliculam" with lousy one-liners, I'm going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and I panned this particular film.

To start this off, I like low-budget horror flicks. I even like artsy, low-budget horror flicks. I liked "Cold Hearts", "Midnight Mass," "Jugular Wine," etc. Films that were ambitious and daring, even if they were lacking in production value, execution and even acting. Generally, an interesting premise, unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. With these provisos in mind, I would like to say conclusively that I hated "The Wind."

The movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. From the actions of the main characters, to the flow (?) of the plot, to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film, and left the viewer, expecting something more, with a sense of much ado about nothing). The dialogue was spotty at best, woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. By this I mean, no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did, or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. There was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem.

Character interaction and development was abysmal. Claire, the "lambent sex goddess," or so the aggravating, passive-aggressive lamesters in the movie thought, was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. Nevertheless, she was the shining high point of the film. The other main characters (with the exception of Mick's Milfy Mom, who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. Let's see if I missed anything: borderline personality, co-submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy, spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose-lipped bimbette-suddenly-and-unmasterfully-turned-Caligari. No, I think that about covers it.

Lack of scope was also problematic. How did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish, unbelievable, poorly-portrayed lust pentagon (well, what would you call it?) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere? There were no witnesses to the "atrocities" presented. There were no witnesses anywhere in this film.

The believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. Case-in-point: If that guy Bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym, and here's the key, ****every day****, there's a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. One would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods, said town would have been in an uproar, the characters would have been questioned, etc. But instead, there wasn't a witness in sight (other than Earl, the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). We suggest that there be no witnesses *for* this film, either.

As for the quasi-homosexual meanderings present, I don't have a problem with those either. It's not as if they came as a surprise, considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. Again, not problematic in and of itself, but thrown in for the wrong reasons. It was utterly unnecessary, thrown in for pure "shock" and/or "dangerous art" value, and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. What we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring, clumsy movie with a boring, clumsy plot. The poorly hinted-at sexual tension, which was only hinted at heavy-handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene, only pushed this film further down the totem pole from "mediocrity warranting criticism" to "film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue."

So it is with most of the film, a lot of artistic fumbling, very little meat and a lot of aggravation. It's not that we don't get it. Oh, we got it, alright. We just don't want it. Look, the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the *only* tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. Rather than moving briskly along as its name implies, this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it's way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. Argh. That sensation pretty well sums up the gut-wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. There is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie, only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized, putrefying before coming to fruition.


pretty disappointing. i was expecting more of a horror/thriller -- but this seemed to be more of an episode of dawson's creek but with out the acting. there were some very impressive shots, though -- almost worth seeing. maybe future efforts will improve.


This was the most uninteresting horror flick I have seen to date. The premise is glaringly forgotten after about 1 minute. The acting is terrible. The scariest thing about this movie is when the two guys kiss, yuck! What were the film festival judges thinking when they gave this garbage a 'best film' notation? The only reasons I didn't turn this movie off were to see what NOT to do as a filmmaker, and if the paper-thin plot line could really keep going on as is was. I was not disappointed by this latter notion. There wasn't even a single bit of nudity or gore to keep the kiddies interested! Also, I thought it was tacky to use about 3 minutes of "Resident Evil 2" in the movie... Was that supposed to be filler? 'cause it was the goriest and most interesting part of the movie.


Somewhere in USA, the young Clair manipulates her friends Mic, Billy and John, showing a letter that would be sent by Bob to her and the group cowardly beats Bob and Mic kills him with a piece of wood in the forest. Mic feels sorrow and decides to tell his mother what he did, but John and Billy threaten him, with tragic consequences.

I believe "The Wind" is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The awful screenplay is ridiculous, and it is almost impossible to write a summary, since there is no story or plot, only sequences of disconnected scenes. The amateurish direction and acting are amazingly poor and terrible. It is unbelievable how producers invest money in such garbage, distributors release this crap worldwide and viewers like me buy this DVD. I waited until the very last scene because I was curious to see how bad this film could be and I was impressed, since it is worse than I could imagine in my lowest expectations. In the end, I question why IMDb does not offer zero in the vote system, since the garbage really deserves this vote. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "Força Invisível" ("Invisible Force")


OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie!


alright this movie might have been good if there was a plot behind it. the title didn't even fit the it after the first ten minutes. the wind didn't have a whole lot to do with the rest of the movie. the acting was sub-par and the writing reminded me of something you would read in a children's book of scary stories.

as far as horror movies go this shouldn't even be classified as one. this was a disgrace to horror and thriller fans everywhere. I hate to be so harsh but I felt I want the time I spent watching this movie back. hopefully there will not be a follow up to this. this movie should be locked in a vault and never released to the public for viewing.


The Wind. Easily one of the worst films ever made. The only good that comes from this kind of pointless drivel, is the fact that seeing films like this get distribution makes indy horror filmmakers like me confident that my upcoming feature will make the cut too. I mean, if this represents the market for indy horror, I could make a fortune videotaping myself taking out the garbage for 83 minutes.

A complete list of what this film lacks would take way too long to write out. But, the highlites are: no story, terrible acting, awful cinematography, and virtually no editing. That last one bothered me the most. As an editor myself, this film drove me absolutely crazy because it had almost no editing at all. Every scene was shot in a master. They had absolutely no coverage at all. For anyone who doesn't know..."coverage" is shooting a scene from multiple angles to have cutting options when editing to make for a desirable viewing experience. Yeah, this movie had none of that. I'm talking about even the simplest of scenes. Example: an ordinary conversation scene between two people sitting at a table would typically start out with a master establishing who's in the scene and where they are. Then, as the conversation goes on, you would cut back and forth to over-the-shoulder shots as the conversation continues. You may even throw in a cutaway shot or two of something on the table, or in someone's hand. Anything. This is "Film 101" stuff guys. It seems as though these people had no idea this is how films work. Every shot was a camera lock-down. No movement, no cutting, no nothing. If I was teaching a course in filmmaking, this would be the visual aid for my "What not to do" lesson.

In closing, don't waste your time folks. The only amazing this about this film is that it ever scored distribution at all.


I found this dvd in the store and figured, why not support some indy film and watch a cool horror flick. Please save your time and money and pass this one by. The acting, the script, practically everything with this film is sub par. There really isn't much of a story, and there is no character development. I found myself not caring what happened to the people in the movie as long as something happened. Everyone is supposed to be college age, but they all look like they are in their mid thirties, except for the woman who plays a mother who looks like she is pushing 40. In fact the worst part of the film is that every single scene is shown in a master shot. There is no editing, no cut ins or close ups. Do yourself a favor and skip it.


The beginning voice over sounds like 'The Wind' could be quite an intriguing movie, but as the story unfolded I knew it was downhill from there. The major things about this movie that blew were the terribly bad acting jobs all the main characters did, (except for a few scenes involving the inner turmoil of Mic), there was a total lack of character development and absolutely no point to the plot - What were the writers thinking?

Michael Mongillo won 2 'horror/sci fi' awards for 'The Wind'. HUH? What was so scary about this movie? NOTHING! Except for the resident evil 2 video shots, the rest was more of a 'made for t.v thriller' - it wouldn't even have to be edited. If you want a far better movie about 'murder among friends' rent "Shallow Grave" instead.

'The Wind' */*****


Screenwriter Steve Tesich's sophomore effort (following upon the wildly overpraised BREAKING AWAY) is a compendium of clichés, coincidence, and dour melodrama. Perhaps he lived some of this; if so, I'm sorry to say he was inexplicably unable to dramatize any of it convincingly.

In fairness, he's not helped much here by Arthur Penn, a talented director who's done remarkable work in the past (BONNIE AND CLYDE, LITTLE BIG MAN), but fails to inject any energy or verisimilitude into Tesich's narrative.

The cast struggles as best they can but are saddled with weak motivation and dialogue. Sympathies should be reserved particularly for Craig Wasson, whose morose performance presages the impending quick fade of his leading man career, as well as the embarrassingly untethered Jodi Thelen, miscast as the film's extremely unlikely 'femme fatale.'

It all seems longer than it is, and any points made are heavy-handed and obvious. See Arthur Penn's earlier take on the subject of the 60's, the droll and elegiac ALICE'S RESTAURANT; it's everything this one isn't.


Have I seen a worse movie? No I can't say that I have. This was pathetic. If the director is still alive: 1. He shouldn't be. 2. He should be ashamed. 3. God, how I would like to take out my 2 completely wasted hours of time on his a$$.

To give you guys a few pointers of the "film":

1. (I'm a male) and I would rather give myself a papercut on the opening of my urethra before viewing this again (seriously).

2. It does have a few known names in it (Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio). They don't help, and their careers in cinema after this "film" are officially over by the way.

3. The dialog is the worst I've ever heard. "I want to ejaculate on your bozonkas."? What kind of writer did they have on this film? Was he still using hooked-on-phonics and just got his letters mixed up to make these horrible sentences?, or was he trying to get the Director killed by the few people who saw this?

4. Watch this "film" backwards. Because I PROMISE you that you do not want to watch it forwards.

5. This "film" would make Helen Keller get up and walk out of the theater.

6. The set of the movie looks like an adult sized McDonald's playplace. I was just waiting for this so called "Dracula" to fall in the ball pit at some time in the movie.

7. Also, I like that in the year 3000 they still have headsets with wires that go to their mouth. No bluetooth, no wireless headsets, no chips placed in the brain, but they use headsets borrowed from a telemarketing agency that went out of business in 1983(Nice job Set director on this one. Real professional. I hope you're currently unemployed and reading this.)

8. I don't know who was in charge of special effects, but I could have done better in my backyard with my VHS camcorder that doesn't have a battery.

9. I was a devout Catholic before this "film". But since viewing it, I know there is not a God, because if there was, he wouldn't have let this film be produced. I am now an atheist.

10. I'll be honest I can't talk about the ending. Last time I tried to explain it I fell into a coma.

Folks however bored you get, however curious(or brave) you are, however many laughs you THINK you will get out of this movie, please DO NOT WATCH THIS. It has literally ruined my life. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

Comment to the director: I hate you. You have ruined my life. After viewing this I feel empty inside. My wife and kids have left me and hate me because I couldn't speak or hardly move after seeing this. I lost my job, my dignity, and above all my pride. I will never forgive you in this life or the next(which is not looking good from my newfound beliefs) .


Considering that they wanted to do a vampire movie in space, I thought, "Well, it'll probably be pretty cheesy, but at least interesting enough to see a different take on the whole genre." Whoops. I don't care what kind of movies you like; even if you're the biggest vampire, horror, thriller, or suspense fan in the world, or adversely, if you've never seen a horror movie before and would expect that your first would be impressive in any way whatsoever...you're wrong. I don't think I've ever seen a "made for TV movie" or after-school special this bad. I've never seen a TV pilot show this bad. I've never seen footage of animals sleeping or shitting that's as bad as this. This is, by far, the single biggest waste of hours you could otherwise spend contemplating the importance of dish towels and their effect on your life. I would far rather be trapped in a bathroom for weeks with nothing to consume but my own urine and excrement than watch even a single clip of this movie again. Watching this made me wish for the fates that the characters fell to instead of dealing with knowing that I paid money to watch it. It was, however, like a train wreck: so bad you just couldn't help but watch, hoping something good might happen. It didn't. Please, for the love of God, if you or your friends - even if using illicit substances while doing so - even consider watching this movie, choose instead to have a contest to see who can shoot a snot-rocket farther. It will bring you far greater enjoyment and entertainment.


Space is a vacuum, right? Therefore, space sucks. Vampires also suck. A really bad vampire movie set in space would have twice the sucking power, right?

It started with what could have been a fun premise. Retelling Bram Stoker's Dracula story in the future. There's a salvage crew that's sent out to investigate a cargo ship that's lost in space called the Demeter. Fans of the original novel will unwittingly assume that this is to be a straightforward retelling of Dracula set in the future... unfortunately, short of sharing character names, this one takes the lowbrow route and goes into the B-movie galaxy twenty minutes later when Coolio becomes a vampire. Trust me when I tell you he's the best actor in the movie, and that's not saying much.

Casper Van Dien should be peddling his wares on daytime television. Erika Eleniak should have quit after she left Baywatch and poor Udo Kier is having trouble reading from the cue cards. The guy who plays Dracula in this one is more ridiculous than Frank Langella was in the 1970's version. If you can manage to sit through the whole movie, you will be rewarded with the worst ending imaginable. The ending makes one wonder if the actors and the crew realized what a piece of garbage they were making and walked off the set.

Take heed, vampire fans. This one sucks twice as hard.


I'm at a loss for words. This movie is beyond description. I don't believe there is a language on Earth that has a word that can describe how horrible this movie is. If you do attempt to watch it, be sure to stick around for the "suprise ending". I only made it about three quarters of the way through this piece of crap before I couldn't take it anymore. Fortunately(or unfortunately) a couple of my buddies stayed till the end. When they woke up from their coma and after a couple of weeks of therapy they were able to fill me in on what I had missed. This movie has no story, no plot, horrible writing, and even worse acting. If you enjoy watching train wrecks or auto accidents then this film is for you. I think my IQ dropped about 30 points from watching this (insert expletive here).


My goodness. And here I thought that there were no directors worse than Uwe Boll.

Imagine the number of decisions necessary to produce a motion picture. Conceptual approval. Scriptwriting. Dialogue editing. Casting. Set and prop design. Location selection. Acting. Timing. Cinematography. Lighting. Music. Sound and video editing. Direction.

Now imagine that every single one of those decisions was made wrong.

Result: Dracula 3000.

For a film supposedly set in the 2900s, this movie looks surprisingly like a cheap gangsta flick of the 1970's. The set is ridiculous for the period. The dialogue is atrocious. The timing of each scene is ludicrous. The acting is beyond abysmal. Everything stinks.

Let's just take props, for example. If you have a movie set on a space freighter built in 2900, how likely is it that it will have the exposed piping and hydraulic doors of a 1960's era oil tanker? What, technology hasn't changed in 900 years? The 'Professor' uses a standard tandy keyboard and Radio-Shack flipswitches to "reprogram" the computer. What, they haven't figured out voice control yet? Of course, the Prof is tethered to a wheelchair. With wheels. Even though, you know, they've got intergalactic hyperdrive...but apparently not even a motorized wheelchair, much less a floating one, or bionic legs or something. And apparently this freighter was carrying an intergalactic consignment of rosewood caskets. How convenient. Then there are the weapons -- the crew carry standard late 20th-century firearms. In a ship. In the vacuum of space, where one bullethole would kill them all. Nice planning there, prop department.

Oh, why go on.


Being a huge horror movie fan, one of the most difficult things to be considering the lack of abundance of good movies in the genre, and having seen hundreds of them in my lifetime, I have to say that Dracula 3000 is by far the most uninspired, lame and poorly done piece of trash I have had the misfortune to see. STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE! It's so bad it's not even laughable. The special effects (did I say "special"?) were probably achieved spending a couple of grand, the acting is terrible and the script should have ended up in the trash bin after the first read by the studio that decided to take on this miserable project. The whole movie was literally filmed in a warehouse. Also, for you guys out there who like nudity in your movies, don't be fooled by the R rating. If you're thinking you get a chance to see Erika Eleniak even half-naked, you're wrong. She is fully clothed throughout the entire movie. And the cover art is completely misleading! There is no scene in any part of the movie that even marginally resembles the awesome cover art they put on the box to draw unsuspecting horror fans.

Too bad the rating is only 1 to 10. I would give this movie a -10. Be warned. Don't waste your money or your time on this one.


Dracula 3000 is the epitome of painfully cheesy cinema. From the get-go, I assumed I was in for something pretty nasty. With a cast line up that featured Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, and Tiny Lister, what could be expected? Well, let's just say that expectations were crushed...

If I really start up, I feel like this review will go on for ages, so we're gonna keep this simple. The vampire isn't even named Dracula. The space crew is carrying coffins from the Carpathian sector of the Transylvania system. In his big scene, Coolio speaks of the most horrible things ever spoken of in film history. In the year 3000, everyone wears bad clothes by today's standards, they don't have anything more advanced than a modern wheelchair, and they decorate with neon lights that appear stolen from a roller rink.

To top it all off... the ending. Sweet merciful God. It doesn't deserve to be ruined. It has to be sen to be believed.

I've rated this movie a "1" and I wish I could give it a zero... yet I feel compelled to make you watch it. What madness is this?


This might quite possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. I knew it was a B-movie before watching it (it was actually the reason for watching it), but I'd never thought it could be this bad. The title promises Dracula in space and does deliver, however, the story makes no real use of the fact that Casper van Dien's character is a descendant of Van Helsing. And watch out for the ending of the movie, it comes at you fast. I've never seen an ending scream out "And now we're over budget!" in a clearer fashion. Their resolution of the movie was rather comic though, the story had so obviously painted itself into a corner. If you feel you have to see it, watch it with a friend who shares your love of B-movies. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have made it to the end.


A space ship cruising through the galaxy encounters a mysterious cargo ship apparently adrift in space. The crew investigates, hoping to lay claim to its cargo and acquire the ship. However, once aboard the ominous vessel, their own ship mysteriously disengages, leaving them to fend for themselves and battle none other then Count Dracula or Orloff as this creature calls himself.

Not a bad start. I mean it follows any number of typical sci-fi/horror plots. The genres have been around enough that even the most original story will inevitably invoke comparison to some other film. But, when you start with a fairly typical horror convention, the legend of Dracula and vampires in general, and combine it with a fairly typical sci-fi convention, a crew happening upon something and becoming marooned to battle whatever they're forced to confront, the filmmakers better have some clever up their sleeve to imprint their own mark on the familiar genre staples.

Director Darrell Roodt, who also wrote Dracula 3000 with Ivan Milborrow, is primarily responsible for this utter failure. So, no, Roodt and Milborrow have nothing up their sleeves but their arms.

This film begins ominously enough, with a very poorly delivered voice over by Caspar Van Dien, essentially providing enough exposition to explain who the crew on his ship are. I should also point out that Van Dien's character is named Van Helsing. And, oh so very cleverly, this Orloff character is from planet Transylvania in the Carpathian System. No kidding. I mean, come on guys, we get it. And, again, don't be goofy and use such names unless you got something special in store.

So, after Van Helsing's introduction of the crew, we have, essentially, a film about this crew trapped in a space ship with a vampire lurking about.

I'm a very forgiving viewer when it comes to low budget films. Occasionally, they can be brilliant, see Raimi's first two Evil Dead films. Dracula 3000 had a decent budget, enough for some decent special effects and for the salaries of 3rd stringers like, Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, etc. However, unlike, the EVIL DEAD flicks, there is no talent behind the camera. In front of the camera, the talent is marginal, but I'm going to give the actors some benefit of the doubt. It really seems like they don't know what to do. The best actor of the bunch, Alexandra Kamp-Groenveld, gets killed off quickly and the ever-enjoyable Udo Kier is reduced to being an exposition vehicle for the viewer as the deceased captain we hear and see via a video journal. Grant Swandby is also okay as the Professor, but it's hard to take seriously a scientist in the year 3000 who wears glasses and rides a wheel chair. And, yes, it's a WHEEL chair as in there is nothing futuristic about it. As for the rest of the actors, well.I'm sure Coolio really tried to be scary after getting turned into a vampire, but, well, I don't think irritating qualifies as scary in most people's book. Tiny Lister and Erika Eleniak don't really provide much either. Lister is never really more then the IL' big brawny black stereotype. Eleniak actually appears unhappy throughout the film and never tries very hard. Eleniak is a pretty girl, even in her mid thirties, but looks a little worn out and uninterested for the movie's duration.

This brings us to Count Dracula/Orloff played by Langley Kirkwood. To be honest, I can't recall who exactly the vampire is supposed to be. He introduces himself as Orloff but at some point he acknowledges himself as Count Dracula as well. Go figure. In any case, you will be absolutely astounded by just how lame this vampire is. Have you ever scene those cheesy horror show hosts local networks would have on their creature feature time slots? Yes, it's that bad. Langley Kirkwood, the actor playing Orlock, must have found it almost impossible to concentrate in such a ridiculous outfit. I'm sure he's still getting hassled by his friends.

There isn't much to the plot. The vampire is the last of it's kind and wants to go to Earth, for some reason, and also, there is some lip service about wanting to defeat Caspar Van Dien's character, Van Helsing. Most of the crew get turned into vampires, including Van Helsing, and the crew use conventional machine guns and pistols to try and defeat them before they figure out the old stake in the heart routine. Yeah, that's right, bullets, and yes, the year 3000. Keeping in that baffling vein, one of the main areas the crew hole themselves up in while battling the vampires, or vampire, since there is really never more then one threatening them, is filled with old Soviet posters and insignia and such. What the? There are also references to God/religion being antiquated systems. But these references only confused me. Did the Soviet Union make a comeback? Is there some point Roodt and Milborrow want to make with this? It never really goes anywhere, seems dumb and the posters, etc. just look cheap.

On the positive side, the film is competently shot and edited. The cinematography is nothing spectacular, but it's clearly done by professionals and, I had no problem with the special effects. The ships look like ships in outer space. Although, as I write this, I recall how god awful the corpse of the captain looks when the crew discover him. What were they thinking? Why didn't someone say something? See how difficult it is to say something positive about this film without falling back on the negatives? I guess, ultimately, that's the thing. Whatever positives you try and grant this sci-fi/horror debacle, you become overwhelmed by it's lack of quality.

Poor Udo Kier.


Greetings from Lithuania.

This is the first question that comes to head after watching this "movie".

You know, I saw a lot of bad movies in my life, but after watching this one, i only had two questions: 1) Is this was just a parody (spoof)

2) How could people create such a thing!?

If You never saw this "film", than you REALLY don't know what is a REALLY bad "film". I mean BAD. The script - Are you kidding my? Acting is so horrible that i thing "the actors" where just having fun in this movie. I know, this is "B" movie, but come on?? Is this have to be a reason to be such a garbage??

Oh! And what an ending!!! A must miss ending! Just when you thing that this is the worst thing you have ever saw, wait until the ending - because THAT kind of ending You have NEVER saw before (and I hope You will never see).

Awoid this "movie" at any cost, and don't say i didn't warn you...


Dracula 3000 or Van Helsing "Dracula's Revenge" (Cheap cash in on another lame Vampire flick) as I saw it is a master class in how not to make a movie. A rag tag collection of misfit salvager's board a previously lost cargo ship "The Demeter" in the (cough) Carpathian System (which later is upgraded to the Carpathian Galaxy) and awake a relentless evil (in this case the script). The film is a bizarre bastardization of Event Horizon and whatever the lamest Vampire film of all time is.

****Spoliers Follow**** After a plethora of production company logos and a credit sequence that most of the budget must have been blown on, we open with a cheesy exposition type speech from Casper (silly name) who plays Captain Abraham Van Helsing (sillier name) and in lieu of actual character development, goes on to describe the twisted, unintelligible oddities that make up his crew. Van Helsing himself sports a spray on stubble and wears a body warmer throughout in a sort of retro 80's tribute to Han Solo (I guess). Now and again the Captain of the Demeter pops up in some sort of mad video diary to tell us nothing of consequence in a pronounced German accent (subtitles sadly not included). Crewmember Mina boards the derelict ship (alone???) armed only with a gun shaped torch and thick east-European accent while conversing with Van Helsing on his ships bridge (which is basically a single glittery wall). Mina wearing a gas mask with rubber hoses glued to the front, encounters what can only be described as a skateboarder in a black cloak who continually glides by the camera. Why this happens as the Vampire is not yet made flesh is never explained. This leads on to a shaky camera chasing Mina down the hallways until she runs into Humvee. It's possible Will Smith could have been drafted in to write Humvee's lines as most of them consist of Humvee reminding us he is black every ten seconds and saying the word "ass" enough for a Guinness book of records entry while delivering all this in a "from DA hood" accent (this is the year 3000, does "DA hood" even exist?) One of the main problems with this film is that it insanely tries to pretend its set in the year 3000. Unfortunately anyone with healthy eyes won't buy this, as the Demeter looks suspiciously like a soviet style ocean going tanker. Possibly the film crew thought it would be okay to leave hammer and sickle symbols everywhere and a sexy poster of Lenin next to a bunch of lockers and explain it away as some sort of futuristic communist comeback special. The crew's clothes look as if they were raided from a Oxfam collection box (sealed since 1993) and they are armed to the teeth with latest in 20th century automatic weapons (with added year 3000 zing when fired) which of course are absolutely no use against vampires. Healthcare is a thing of the past (in the future) as the simpering Professor not only has glasses but is in a wheelchair??? My god what happened to all that genetic engineering stuff.

The professor is an interesting character as he is a direct rip off from Alien Resurrection who had their own rag tag misfit crew with a guy in a wheelchair (who oddly wasn't killed). Fans didn't take to Prof as he appears scared in a lot of scenes If I were entombed in a non-wheelchair access soviet ship pursued by bad acting vampires, and everyone left me because I was such a whining wimp, I'd be scared too.

During the UN-dramatic Mina chase scene the prof informs us (with feeling) "this is disconcerting". The rest of his lines are also disconcerting "bugger", and "We're all going to die" X 100, follows.

Erika Eleniak appears as the Vice Captain (what happened to 1st officers?) in what I thought would be the tired, standard issue, hard nosed, no nonsense, "don't eye me up unless I tell you too", beat up 10 stuntman at one time super-babe, but this is a Z-flick so she basically wears a tight low cut top and even tighter leather trousers. Coolio's performance boosts the ham factor by 90% and is camper than a row of tents but luckily for us he dies soon enough. Although he seems to keep his heart on the right hand side of his body.

After a lot of running up and down the same corridor, using clunky soviet style controls, and sitting in soviet style locker rooms the crew find themselves stranded as their own ship buggers off to find a more interesting crew (probably). Why Dracula is even mentioned is unknown as the main bad guy is called Orlock which is Space Transylvanian for "crimes against fashion" as he dandies about in a big puffy, frilly shirt and even bigger starched collar making Hammer Horror Vampires look slick by comparison. Orlock stops to explain his entire back story (off camera) to Erica Eleniak, but fails to kill her in another rip-off twist from Alien Resurrection. His back story is such a load of mince it's not worth repeating. As the budget can't afford fight coordinators, special effects, original music, script (not written by a chimpanzee) and even proper end titles (the first cast list I saw, were same characters but completely different and Italian names) the film begins to destroy whatever sanity you began with. The crew luckily are able to fight back with the help of a ships computer that contains obscure, millennium old references on how to kill fictional creatures and some handy 20th century pool cues they find in the ship recreation room (up yours "holodeck"). The ending is awful and a little suspect, either they ran out of money or the ex-soviets demanded their ship back. I walked into this film knowing it was bad but oblivious as to how bad it really was.


Imagine the worst thing that could ever possibly be conceived by human intellect. Now imagine something infinitely darker - I mean, worse, than that. Then multiply that by the quantity of the suckiness possessed by the Star Wars Holiday Special. This movie is by far worse than that.

"Dracula 3000: Infinite Darkness", starring such illustrious and reputable actors such as Coolio and Langley Kirkwood (as the film's "horrifying antagonist", Count ORLOCK) is equatable to eating one's own feces exclusively for one's entire life, condensed into approximately one hour and twenty minutes. To be frank, there is no way to approach a review of this cinematic tragedy - riddled with Communist propaganda, promotion of drug use, futuristic anachronisms, and quite possibly the worst special effects since the (original) "War of the Worlds".

The hammer and the sickle of the Soviet Union can be seen proudly displayed throughout the dingy sets they dare call a spaceship. Lenin can be observed on several posters throughout the "film". And of course, religion has been abolished for two centuries by then. So they don't know who this "God" is, even though they have no reservations about using His name in vain. But of course, in the Socialist Republic of space (presided over by interstellar President Baker), death-stick like drugs are legalized and quite common. Yet handicap mobility seems even worse off than it is today (they don't even have a wheelchair ramp).

Racial tension still festers throughout the galaxy in quite a familiar/predictable fashion. We receive great commentary on ethnic division through lines such as "is Dracula a brotha?", "us brothas gotta stick together", and "once you go black, you don't go back." Speaking of the token black characters, one is played by Coolio. Playing a stereotypical stoner, Coolio becomes possibly the most annoying and ridiculous vampire ever. Oh wait, SECOND most ridiculous vampire ever. That prized title goes to our friend COUNT ORLOCK, from PLANET TRANSYLVANIA, in the CARPATHIAN SYSTEM. These two make quite a pair, between Coolio's attempts to cripple a paraplegic, strange attempts at making high-pitched animal noises, a hairstyle 1004 years old, and GIGANTIC stretches of completely worthless dialogue; and Count Orlock's twenty dollar generic Halloween-style vampire costume, exploding coffins, or confusingly inane back story.

One wonders if they did not simply give Coolio the opportunity to get "as high as a kite in space without gravity", let him interact with the other "actors", and just went from there.

Count Orlock's motivations are also somewhat in question. Does he want "infinite darkness", as the film's subtitle would have you believe? Does he want to eat the crew? Or does he want *Coolio* to "kill them all"? Or does he desire to give handicapped people a chance in such an inhospitably future? It doesn't really matter, because none of this film's plot makes sense anyways.

The highlight of this movie has to be it's ending. More for the fact that it means the movie is over than by any merit of the abrupt trainwreck of a climax they phone in before the credits. Instead of facing Count Orlock off in some sort of duel (the closest we get is a shot of Orlock flailing around at breakneck speeds in front of our protagonist, who dies shortly afterwards), our heroes beat him by cutting off his arm in an ordinary door. Orlock then proceeds to collapse, screeching in pain at a totally mundane yet understandably painful injury. This is by far the most fun you'll get from this movie. Watching a vampire's contorted face as he cries in pain will have you on the edge of your seat - with laughter. Almost worth the four bucks for that alone. Of course, right after that we're treated with one of the film's worst one-liners, the mandatory allusion to sex, and perhaps the most ABRUPT EXCUSE FOR AN ENDING *EVER*. They're driving into the sun, and their ship literally just blows up before they even come remotely close to impact. I think they just outdid the Wachowski bros. for the worst finale ever.

I can only sleep at night because we know that a sequel is impossible. Secure in this fact, we can safely say that this is the WORST MOVIE EVER CREATED, and one which will never be exceeded in low quality, lower budget, and lower-est acting talent.


Oh dear Gods, this is awful. Stay away, just stay away. If you think you've seen bad movies, think again. Never before has my brain hurt as much as it did after I watched this movie. The acting, if it is allowed to be called that, is enough to cause internal bleedings inside your head. The story is so thin it is just barely there... no wait, scratch that. There is not a complete story there, but once in a while, there is a few thin lines that stick up from all the amount of horribleness, and believe me, those few lines should have been shot. The best way to enjoy this movie is to drop napalm on it, and watch the cozy fire from a distance.

Some may call me sarcastic in this review, but I am only trying to spare some of you of a serious headache. However, should you be, what I like to call, a visual masochist (like myself), please, go right ahead and watch this monstrosity.


...and that's a goddamn shame! Please make the sun rise and have it incinerate all copies of Dracula 3000. This must be the WORST vampire-flick of the new millennium so far (I haven't seen REIGN IN DARKNESS yet, but they don't get much worse than this). Don't be fooled be the movie's cool H.R. Gigeresque cover. This is so bad, it's almost hilarious. I can't describe all the emotions this movie conjured. I laughed my ass off, I yelled at the screen, I sat there numb, nodding my head in disbelief,... This film has 'cheap & cheese' written all over it. The best thing of this movie are the opening-credits and the opening-shots which feature more or less okay CGI of two space-ships. But when Casper Van Dien's voice-over comes on, you start smelling something fishy. And, indeed, it all goes downhill rapidly after that.

The crew of a salvage-spaceship finds an abandoned vessel, the Demeter, which seems to be heading for earth. They enter it, thus sealing their fate. This movie is, above all things, a shameless low-budget ALIEN-rip-off, mixed with vampires. Right down to the plot-twist were Erika Eleniak's character, Aurora, reveals she's a robot. Coolio goes badly over-the-top as the dope-smoking, bloodsucking 187 (pffff, code from the hood as a name?!?!). Casper Van Dien's character's named Capt. Van Helsing (hahaha!) and he looks like...,er well, Casper Van Dien. Udo Kier as Capt. Varna, former commander of the Demeter, is only shown on a monitor-screen and he really does seem to have trouble reading his lines from an auto-cue (poor Udo, what where you doing in this flick?). And then we have Langley Kirkwood as count Orlock, one of the most pathetic and laughable Dracula's ever to (dis)grace the silver screen. Just look at his outfit. Instead of some cool-looking futuristic black suit or something, he's wearing a cheap old-school Halloween-suit with fringes. You thought Richard Roxburgh was unconvincing as Dracula in VAN HELSING? Then wait until you see Langley's performance!

The set-designers went overboard on this one. The interior of the Demeter looks like a cross between an oil-tanker and an old steel-factory, which they decorated with awful lights and colors like green, pink, blue and yellow. The prop-master must have forgotten that this movie takes place in the year 3000, because the characters use guns which look like today's .45 magnums and "Prof" uses a non-motorized, non-floating wheelchair. It has to be pushed around in order to move.

Aside from one dried-up corpse, a few impalements and one dismemberment there's absolutely no gore. And the vampire-fangs and contact-lenses look fake as hell. Add to that also the most lame, stupid and abrupt ending ever: Humvee and Aurora are the only survivors. Instead of having one final (bloody) showdown with count Orlock, they lock themselves in the control-room. Then Aurora explains that before her program was upgraded and joining narcotics, she used to be a "Protheus 3.2 PB", in other words: a pleasure-bot. So she says "Well then, what are you waiting for". Humvee answers "Ain't gotta tell me twice. Come on, girl", picks her up and... "BOOOOOOM!!!" the ship explodes and credits roll. No sex-scene, no Erika flashin' her boobies, no bloody climax,... Just one more shot of Udo Kier reading a line on the monitor and it's over.

So, this movie is a must-see for every bad-movie-lover, but I must warn them: It gets really painful at times. And everyone claiming that VAN HELSING, UNDERWORLD or even QUEEN OF THE DAMNED is the worst vampire-movie of the new millennium clearly is insane, or just hasn't seen Dracula 3000 yet.


My original comment on this particular title was deleted, by a IMDb user or the staff, only because I just happen to dislike this film to the point I had to sincerely write what I felt after seeing this poor excuse for a film. where's my freedom of word?

Obviously this movie was made by students, 'cos so lame and amateurish it felt. Of course even they have to start from somewhere? The script was incoherent mess and so was the acting. With low budget and b- class actors, what can you expect? There's some CGI in places, so poor, it looks like done with an old PC. Some may say, this is sort of an "Alien" clone, only this time it's Dracula (in a vintage costume) who's sucking the other cast dry, one by one. The sets are unconvincing, cheap and small (boiler rooms), although the story takes place in a large space craft.

It would be fun to know what the stars (Erika Eleniak, Casper Van Dien, Coolio and Udo Kier) thought about the film after it was released... Coolio must be the worst rapper turned actor ever!

It was a total waste of my time and money, don't know why I even bothered to rent this flick. Honestly, I just hate this film. With Uwe Boll's House Of The Dead, Dracula 3000 shares the questionable honor of being the worst movie ever. (Well, I've seen even worse than these two)

Avoid! Any other film will do better.


Hmmm! is it worst film ever? well sort of, for some of the cast its a shame to see them in such a film but hey if it pays the bills why not, as for the film well. OK cg effects not to bad for such a cheap film ,music is just about OK again for a cheap film, end credits are OK lol

BAD to many to list but, cast, acting, sets, script, ending..what the hell ,Drac..........worst Drac EVER!, many more but can not be bothered to put them all down.

Idea was OK but needed ten times the budget and more thought and much better lighting and style and change all bad points, i do say however to see this film so you to can say"What the FU%$ was that all about"as the credits run.Also its kind of a must see just to see how bad it is.


Well it is about 1,000 years in the future and we have finally breached traveling the vast distance between galaxies!! But sadly we still use guns that shoot bullets, black men are still calling each other brothers, and getting high, stoned, fighting etc.. Common stereotypical urban black men are still getting the short end of the stick! Babes in tight black rubber pants that look like they're from Baywatch share close quarters with the captian and crew. Crippled people still require wheelchairs to move, no fancy cures, implants, or robotic legs. Dracula still looks and acts gay. Need I go on... In short this move was shot on a typical sci-fi set low budget props, actors, and no real special effects to speak of. The beginning, the middle, and the ending was pathetic. I have to go off and shoot myself now there is nothing left to live for.


Wow, there's a lot of venom directed at this movie, and a lot of it is deserved, but it's not the WORST movie of all time. (That's probably "Zoolander".)

Anyway, if you're high on something, really drunk, or just in the mood for a "B-minus- minus" movie that you can make fun of, this may be your cup of tea.

Yes, as others said, the first part of the movie makes you think you're watching an updating of the Bram Stoker novel. Two of the main characters are named Van Helsing and Mina, the ship is the Demeter, and they're in the Carpathian galaxy. You later find that Van Helsing is a descendant of the original, and he just happens to be on a ship in the 30th century with Dracula. Suuuuuuuuuuure.

Oh yeah, and to add to the originality, this "spooky ghost ship" movie has another character named Ash. Sound familiar?

There's paper-thin character development and anachronisms like the aforementioned manual wheelchair, and Coolio and Tom Lister talking 20th century black slang. But what really makes the movie ridiculous is the ending. If THAT's what happens to the characters, then the previous two hours have been a waste.

Like I said, it you want a dumb movie to play "Mystery Science Theater" with, and your mind is in approximately the same mode required for viewing the "Great Vegetable Rebellion" episode of LOST IN SPACE, then you may find this diverting. Otherwise, put a stake in it, it's done.


Hey if people thought ed wood was a bad director then they totally have not seen this movie. I mean there were gaping plot holes and under utilized cast. Shoddy special effects. I mean I cant believe that this movie came out from a Hollywood studio. A high school drama club could probably come out with a better product. I mean they had Erika Eleniak who is gorgeous Casper van dien and under rated actor. Their agents should be shot to ask them to sign on to this dribble don't they read scripts. I still cant believe that tiny lister was a survivor in the movie i was banging my head the whole time at why him and not a descendant of van helsing be the last man standing. I am a fan of vampire movies and this is by far the worst they should stake it so that it never sees the light of day.


This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen! Me and my husband own over 600 DVDs, most of which are Sci-Fi and Horror B-Movies that aren't top quality, but still entertaining. Dracula 300 had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all! The writing was horrific, and the acting was even worse. It took us a 3 tries to get through the entire movie, because we could only tolerate it in 30 minute intervals. We thought surely it must get better...we were wrong. I would rather watch a corpse being embalmed than to have to sit through that again!!! When it ended me and my husband just looked at each other like "Uh..is that it?" The ending seemed like there was supposed to be more, but they ran over their apparent $500.00 budget and were like "Oh, crap...we are broke..end it now...quick..roll credits!"


I won't reiterate what so many others have said about this film; I'll try to add a few new points. The Coolio-as-vampire bit is a nod to fans who are familiar with his turn on the Blondie song "No Exit" in which he assumes the role of a rapping vampire (it actually works as a musical concept and is in fact a great song). Casper Van Dien is no worse than Brad Pitt and is actually more handsome. And really what does anyone go to a Brad Pitt movie for other than eye candy? Same here, although this is poorly filmed (check out "Starship Troopers" instead). And of course Udo Kier, after having played Dracula in the Morrissey/Warhol film, has little more than a cameo. Enjoy it if you can.


It is quite rare that a movie comes along that is so useless, that I with IMDb allowed the use of negative scores. In fact, I reflect back upon this movie and I truly cannot think of a movie that had so little going for it. Acting: Your Kidding right. Direction: No. A plot: No. This movie has nothing going for it if you take it as a serious movie, this is often the case with movies of this genre, but most movies of this nature can be watch as if they are a comedy and you can laugh at how pathetic the characters and situations are and almost get your times worth. This movie is so empty, that it cannot even suit that purpose. I have to give this a -1/10, three points lower then any other movie I have ever rated. I truly feel that the staff involved in this movie should pay me for the 83 minutes I spent watching it. I do not really have the words to describe how bad this is. No one should ever watch this for any reason again.


Please don't waste your money on this sorry excuse for a motion picture. The only way I could see someone watching this is if they are a die-hard fan of Erika Elaniak, but you would be better off surfing the internet than to watch this piece of crap. I would rather watch paint dry than go through watching this.

They lure you in with Casper and Erika and lead you to believe it is a sci-fi Dracula movie, but it quickly works out to be a farce about Van Helsing's great-great (you get the point) grandson, here ironically for one last show-down between himself and Dracula.

The movie also tries to make a political statement, I believe, when it appears that none of the characters in the future know who God is, that they have not been taught about him and don't understand when they see a cross. Could have done a lot more with this idea. It's a shame it turned out the way it did.


OK with Coolio in it I should have known better! But Noooooooo.

Within 3 mins you've encountered 5 bites from other movies & and TV shows...

8 mins Casper Van Dien should have learnt by now!

10 mins you're feeling sorry for Tom 'Tiny' Lister Jr. that he has been reduced to doing movies like this.

15 mins Erika Eleniak Shows up looking like Zena.

20 mins you're ready to shoot you're self...

How these movies receive funding is beyond me! And yes I watched the whole thing. The Ending is priceless!!! Just stay away!


This is my first comment on a movie in here. I have to say that of all the bad films I ever seen, including Braindead for an example, this is really WORSE! I promise. Don't even look at it. It is boring, bad acting, bad script and plot, bad effects the whole movie is one big piece of crap! If I could I would give 0 stars out of 10, but since the lowest is 1 which is awful, I need to vote that. But I would say the movie is worse than awful.

Don't pain yourself by seeing this movie and hoping it will get better because I can tell you already now, it wont! I hoped that there might would come one single scene which would be worth watching. There didn't came any good scene at all.

What an excellent piece of crap.

And Coolio as a vampire? LOL! LMAO! YARGH!


This was on SciFi this past weekend, and I had to check it out. After all... it was science fiction, with vampires and Erika Eleniak. What could go wrong with this B-movie?

A lot.

To start with: It can't even be classified as a "B-movie," because that would put it in the same league as Roger Corman... and this movie doesn't even meet his expectations. The most money they spent was on the contact lenses for the vampires.

Secondly: The casting was horrible. Yes, casting Udo Kier as the captain of the Demeter was a smart move... but the director clearly couldn't even get Kier to memorize his lines. Casting Eleniak, in a vampire movie, is also a smart move because it means a bunch of horny guys are going to buy/rent/record this flick to watch her get seduced by a vampire. But, the director, writer and producer screwed that one, too. Granted, they got some money out of the poor, unfortuate souls who enjoy watching vampire movies with hot women in them... but no one is going to remember this movie in another two or three years.

Thirdly: Little things that just emphasize the laziness in this movie. For example, Van Helsing calls a cross a "crucifix," and, when Mina is staked in the coffin, the viewer can clearly see the fact that her "chest" is nothing more than pillows.

Oh, and one other thing: Why did they go for the George Hamiltion-type Dracula instead of something that would look decently scary? Does George Hamilton have an overwhelming hold on our future? Why didn't everyone who saw Dracula just laugh at him for his get-up?

A waste of time. Even with a TiVo remote in your hand.


I normally like Casper in his movies, a real credit to STARSHIP TROOPERS. But the box cover on this video SSOOOOO mi-sleds the renters. At my local video, people rent it expecting a (PERHAPS) Borg like vampire, and instead they get a bad re-make of Lon Chaney. It had great potential, and fell very flat. Ireally think I could have written a better story line and screen play. Why is it in EVERY science fiction movie, they (the cast) constantly refers to a solar system as a galaxy? Didn't any of these screenwriters or authors stay awake in science class? It is a pet pevee of mine, but a solar system is a single star with planets, a galaxy is a WHOLE bunch of solar systems. It is like referring to a can of coke as a gross of six packs. Makes it sound even dumber.


My guess is that the producers of this low-budget space/horror film wanted a serious movie but the director had his heart set on a parody. So...this is what we get. Set in an abandoned spaceship 1000 years in the future and peopled with characters and props right out of the 90's. The set is some industrial complex, maybe an oil tanker, whatever. They use is AS IS so the controls consist racks of old TV equipment. One location is obviously the employees lunchroom and sports an old TV and VCR as well as a water cooler with plastic demijohn. Tiny Lister and Coolio get the best lines, arguing throughout the story. The dialog is packed with terms that are pretty dated even now ("A-OK, Daddy-O") but then maybe the 30th century is very retro? When the captain declares the ships cargo is a load of coffins from "The Transylvania Station" you know this is all a put-on. Its a bit of Alien, part JasonX, shameless rip-off of all the best sci-fi and horror titles. At one point Casper VanDien even tells his pilot to "make it so" with a straight face. This film would have been better if they had just let everyone run with the satire but they keep attempting to make the story serious....maybe the backers were on the set that day. Anyway, not a bad boredom killer if you aren't too picky. FX are as good as the sets are bad.


Chuck Jones's 'Odor-able Kitty' is the cartoon that introduced Pepe Le Pew to the world sort of. There are a few key differences between the Pepe we know and love (or hate, in the case of some people) and the character in this cartoon. For one, the disguised cat who Pepe amorously pursues in 'Odor-able Kitty' is distinctly male. Also, Pepe is exposed as a fraud whose real name is Henry at the cartoon's climax, his French accent dropping away when his wife and family turn up. Pepe is not even the lead character here, the focus favouring the put-upon cat who disguises himself as a skunk to scare off his enemies. For the most part, the storyline largely follows the usual format of a Pepe Le Pew cartoon but Pepe's aggressive courtship is lacking the usual wisecracks and straight to camera addresses that make him such a great character. He is also not nearly as handsome as he would become and rather awkwardly animated. In fact, 'Odor-able Kitty' is a fairly ugly and clumsy looking cartoon all round. Its main source of appeal comes from its concept which was original at this stage before it became the template for every Pepe Le Pew cartoon that followed. This subsequent development has robbed 'Odor-able Kitty' of any impact whatsoever and to modern viewers it just looks like a rather dull Pepe Le Pew short with a weird surprise ending. As a child, I hated Pepe Le Pew. As an adult, able to appreciate his more sophisticated, verbal and risqué humour, I love the character and most of his cartoons. 'Odor-able Kitty' makes me feel like a child again!


After nearly getting killed by a big dog, a stray cat thinks to herself, "Why can't I be a skunk? Then everyone would leave me alone." She looks around the junkyard and gets an idea: white paint, black paint and some Limburger cheese and some garlic......hmmmm. The next thing you know, we have the forerunner to "Pepe Le Pew," although in this cartoon, she's still a cat, she's a she, and just a skunk in disguise.

The cat also is enjoying and taking full advantage of her new status as a smelly skunk. He's a happy, content guy now.....until a real skunk (with the Charles Boyer imitation voice) shows up!

I did appreciate the cat putting on a Bugs Bunny outfit. However, overall I never cared for these French-takeoff characters, finding the stereotypical dialog overdone and not really funny, so I only rate this as "fair." I do this a point, however, for the moral at the end of the story.


I just saw this stinky old boiler on TV. Best watched with a very large flagon of Dr Jurd's Jungle Juice at hand, this exploitorific cheese-fest is hilariously bad. On the (very slim) plus side, Raquel was in her physical prime, she looks good, and you get to see a fair bit of her, since she plays a go-go dancer; she had great legs, that's for sure. There's also some minor interest for screen buffs in the footage of Los Angeles ca. '69, and in spotting actors in minor parts who went on to better things. Veteran thesp Ron Rifkin ('Brothers and Sisters') delivers a toe-curling early performances as "Sailor" the "faggot junkie" barman who rats Raquel out to the bad guy. You might also recognise the gun-toting security guard in the hit-and-run scene -- it's a very early appearance by Gordon Jump, who gave such a lovely performance in 'Soap' as Piece of Chelief Tinkler.

The 'plot' of 'Flareup', such as it is, follows the travails of an exotic dancer (Welch) on the run from her murderous ex-husband (Luke Askew). This turkey is classic production-line Hollywood sludge -- a paint-by-numbers script, pedestrian direction, hokey shots, edits and effects, ultra-cheesy stock music, plywood sets, and performances to match.

The cast is as uniformly dreadful as the screenplay. Although Raquel is capable of fair performances in the right vehicle, this wheezy old clunker is SO bad that she doesn't really stand a chance, and neither does the audience. One of my favourite moments occurs when Raquel awakes up in the hospital, sees the Vegas cop who's pursuing her murderous ex, and asks "How did you get here?" -- to which he of course replies "In a plane." Oh the humanity ... And you won't be able to take your eyes off the doctor (Michael Rougas) who has what might well be one of the very worst walk-ons in the long sad history of bad cameos. I don't think I've ever seen anyone stand in one spot so badly before.

Raquel's love interest Joe (James Stacy) ambles through the film with a fixed look that's somewhere between bemused and embarrassed -- and no wonder. This bomb puts the cast through just about every made-for-TV cliché in the book, from Raquel's spectacularly dreadful turn in the dreadful nightmare montage, to the pure schlock of the 'romantic' horse ride along Leo Carillo Beach.

**Spoiler Warning** -- just about the only interesting thing in the whole film is the denouement, in which Raquel finally gets her own back, and hilariously enacts the title, by setting the baddie on fire. Whoever the stunt guy was really earned his money on this one -- he goes up like Yorba Linda in a heatwave. Yet even this fairly spectacular scene is compromised by the fact that one of the crew moves into shot near the end.

There are so many crappy things about 'Flareup' that it's oddly compelling; I found yourself wondering if this could be one of the worst films I've ever seen made. The answer seemed to be a resounding 'Yes' ... until I saw the film that followed it, Roger Corman's mega-trashy 'caged heat' classic 'The Big Doll House', which takes Awful to a whole new level. I can heartily recommend these two shlockers as a double-bill. You'll laugh yourself silly.


It's okay ... a few years later Chayefsky's classic "Network" will be his true cinematic BIG home run ..., but for now, this dark comedy isn't the classic it aspires to be. It's mostly awful, although it has some good scenes: the first murder victim being found, the E.R. clerk responsible for billing patients making a surprise discovery, Drummond's delusional confessional, and the very last scene where Scott's character regains his professional integrity and self-respect. It also has some ludicrous scenes: Scott's character's whiny monologue during his early visit to the hospital psychiatrist, Scott's character's raping Rigg's character, Dysart's horrible mugging in his brief scenes, and the O.R. doctor pouncing on the operating table to resuscitate the wrong patient because "I already have one malpractice lawsuit".

Chayefsky also tries TOO HARD throwing every conceivable hurdle at this one hospital (i.e.- the murders, the administrative mistakes, the poor people protesting outside, etc). It might have worked better as a look at the industry as a whole. Acting-wise: Scott is passable, Rigg seems miscast, Hughes is inspired, and Dysart mugs through out his brief performance. The rest of the cast is TOO one-dimensional.


Cowardly and cynical, `The Hospital' represents the nadir of Paddy Chayefsky's special brand of celebration of the status quo disguised as satire.

Thanks to ham-handed director Arthur Hiller, this ludicrous script gets the visually ugly, poorly paced presentation it deserves.

Only a great performance by George C. Scott, in the sort of mean-spirited role he was born to play, keeps `The Hospital' from being a complete disaster.

Ironically, though, Scott's performance does viewers a disservice. His magnetism keeps them watching when they might more profitably turn off the VCR and clean out the closets, stare at the clouds, or watch re-runs of `Baywatch.'

Certainly, anyone who emotionally invests in the set-up _ modern medicine apparently gone amok _ will feel cheated by the dismal payoff, where Chayefsky reveals that The System Works Just Fine, So Quit Your Carping.

While the first half of this film provides some entertaining black comedy, it all turns out to be a red herring. Before that becomes clear, though, Chayefsky gives some good lines to Scott as his middle-aged, middle-class, white male stand-in.

Bitter, alcoholic, impotent, Scott's Dr. Herbert Bock has alienated those who know him best, and he has the bile to keep alienating them. In Chayefsky's worldview, all that of course makes Bock a magnet for a hippie chick half his age.

Playing a collection of adjectives, the long-haired, long-legged, braless and almost bust-less Diana Rigg struggles in the part of `the girl.' The British Rigg is miscast as a southwestern free spirit, but any other actress would struggle as well. Like the rest of a good cast gone to waste, Rigg can't overcome a script that isn't interested in any character except Bock, or any philosophy beyond banality.

For fans of George C. Scott, this is another star turn and worth watching. For fans of black comedy, turn it off after the first 45 minutes. For anyone else, don't bother.


I have to ask myself, do movies like this get their support by people associated with the movie itself coming here and critiquing it? How can something so awful score this high? My parents went to see a lot of the more adult themed movies when we were kids, anything with an R in it until we were old enough. I only remember two films that had them saying yech! when they got home. This one, and "Catch-22".

The movie is comprised of bumbling physicians and staff in a filthy hospital, rambling narratives, and a pack of inner city people (who look like rejects from a 1970s Norman Lear sitcom) staging a protest. The worst part is the "murder mystery", a crazy old guy doing "God's work" by killing doctors and others. When he confesses, Scott and his girlfriend show little emotion. They only care about him getting out of there where he will "be safe and happy". A doctor that drops dead of a heart attack is faked as the man so he can get away. Oh, my, what a fun movie.

This movie didn't "make me think", chuckle, or have any other feeling other than "It must get better", but it never does. People wonder why it was a failure, no wonder here. I wonder how IMDb has enough members that think this movie is good. YECH.


I'm amazed that "The Hospital" has been so well-received by the critics and the public. I found it dreary, visually ugly and generally meaningless. After the first virtually unwatchable 40 minutes, the film does improve (relatively), but it remains WAY too far-fetched (not to mention unfunny) to be successful as a satire, and has too little substance to succeed as a drama. The film's uncertain tone is its biggest fault, overshadowing even Scott's terrific (as usual) performance.


This movie is worse than "heaven's gate" or "plan 9 from outer space". Don't know why it got even one Oscar, it should have gotten a million raspberries, just like the audiences that either walked out or didn't show up in the first place. The Hospital was a first-rate financial failure, but I'm certain the elite classes of left-wing, gutter-mouthed intellectuals railed that the American public was far- too plebeian to appreciate biting social-commentary when they saw it, and on and on. George C Scott, in one of most-artless and embarrassing roles, along with aging sex-symbol Diana Rigg spend most of the movie trying to cuss in an increasingly-blasé manner as they push along a silly plot. Poor old George is impotent and is just crushed by the event, but after lots of dirty language between him and Rigg, he rapes her multiple times on lovely night in a filthy, crumbling NYC hospital that looks so disgusting that I wouldn't want a dying pet rat treated in it. There's also some sacrilegious junk-dialog tossed about hither and yon, laced with plenty of cussing as well. It ends by portraying the faulty notion that unusual stress without physical exertion always brings on cardiac arrest. Never want to see another minute of this awful movie again.


The premise of this movie is ugghhhh. The guy is married and yet everyone on this site seems to think, "Yeah, this is funny, cute, and a good movie." What the Hell?!?! What is funny about immature girls fornicating with a married man with a new baby? What is cute about the fact that he is cheating on his wife? What have been wrong with them finding some teenage boys to have sex with before starting college? Noooo, that is not good enough, the guy has to be married, off-limits, off-the-market, that's the one we gotta have. Dumb-ass GIRLS! Then one of the girls decides that she "loves" the guy. No, she just "loves" the way he makes her feel. Two of the girls are having fun with it, they think it is funny and no one seems to have any moral problems with what they are doing. It just shameless, but yeah this is all good with everyone one this website. The dark-haired girl even has the audacity to have her dad pick her up from the guys house, under the ruse of baby sitting. This is a morally disgusting movie and where is the wife? Poor woman working and paying the bills while he screws the baby sitter.


This movie tries to be artistic but comes across as puerile as a film school student's first attempt. Next it tries to be erotic but comes across as clumsy as a virgin's first attempt. Lastly it tries to be cruel & gripping, but aside from Kinski's performance--which is powerful but conspicuously misplaced amidst the amateur melodrama--it's about as gripping as your hand around a wet noodle (which is an appropriate metaphor considering how un-erotic this film is). It features a blowjob scene which is even lamer than Chloë Sevigny's career-burying performance in The Brown Bunny. Run away now while you have the chance. Go find yourself a Victoria's Secret lingerie catalogue instead--it's more artistic AND more erotic than this tripe.


This is one of the worst films I have seen in a while.

The problem is that it doesn't know whether it wants to be an intelligent political film, 'artistic' or an exercise is eroticism. As a result it fails on all accounts.

The acting is atrocious, the narration off putting and the supposed symbolism pointless.

Klaus Kinski is probably the best thing about this film but that isn't a good thing. Sure he has an intense and 'unique' look but ultimately he can't actually act. Just look at how he reacts when his mistress leaves....

Really don't watch this film, some say it needs repeat viewings I say one is too many.


I bought this film on DVD despite the "stale" review and that was idiotic... That review was completely accurate and I have never seen any worse "erotic" film in my long life! Even if it partly was lovely filmed and had interesting surroundings, plus a nice cover... But my own Extreme Erotica (c) films are over 100 times more erotic (just in the soft delicious aspect) with probably less than 100 times of this films budget! The story have no logical connection with the first film or the famous book... Or any new (exciting) element of slave training, except some very strange and sad developments... Then did the main male character - Klaus Kinski - not look a bit like the second Master of "O" he try to play... And not even lovely Arielle Dombasle, did look delicious in any scene!


This film is sometimes called 'The Story of O-Pt.2',which tries to pass itself off as a sequel (of sorts)to the French erotic S&M thriller 'The Story Of O'. Although I've never seen the original version, I did, however get to see this sorry mixed bag of sexual & social politics. I guess the 'O' angle comes from the occasional S&M overtones (which were never as explicit (and unpleasant to watch) as the ones in 'Mistress'. Klaus Kinski is the only recognizable face in this French/Japanese production (but speaks his lines in English--at least in the version I saw). The unnecessary use of surrealism only manages to make this some what boring example in pseudo porn even more pretentious (what are they trying to prove with depicting a piano floating in water?). It's obvious that after the whole "porno chic" trend in cinema petered out (ouch-sorry,bad pun!)about 1975, producers had to scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to please the mavens of adult cinema,not to mention Foreign/Art Cinema,so film goers had to contend with dreck like 'The Last Woman',and others like it.


I really like Kinski he is a great actor. I've seen this movie because I've heard that there are autobiographic aspects in this movie.

The film is full of symbols like a piano sinking in a river or strange shadow-pictures at the walls. Then the narrator always says abstract sentences like: "A kid sells fortune, but her box is empty now." This is really disturbing and wasn't really necessary, because everyone understands what this movie is all about. The movie shows how Kinski's character treated woman, and how he kept them under control. If there are really some aspects of Kinski's life in this story - then he really was an swine. So there is no need to watch this movie, unless if you want to see Kinski naked or if you like sick trash movies to laugh about.


When The Spirits Within was released, all you heard from Final Fantasy fans was how awful the movie was because it didn't seem like Final Fantasy. This is a different story, for better or worse. The familiar settings, characters, music, story, and over the top action scenes should thrill fans of the original game. The problem is that it just isn't a good movie in its own right.

The direction during the fight scenes is often sloppy, switching camera angles ridiculously fast in an attempt to make the action seem more frenetic, but only serving to make the scenes look jumbled and confusing.

The CG itself is exceptional, but I can't say it's the best I've ever seen since Spirits Within had much more detail on the characters, although I must admit that Advent Children's characters moved much more naturally.

The plot is virtually a black hole. It's a giant deus ex machina designed solely to bring Sephiroth back for one last fight. Old characters reappear, but serve no real purpose other than to please fans. Character development is nonexistent and the film does nothing at all to resolve any of the plot threads left hanging after the game's end. But it's packed with neat-looking fight scenes with magic, summons, and limit breaks, which is probably what fans wanted anyway.

In the end, Advent Children is a very flashy, but totally brainless action flick that serves more as a side story for Final Fantasy VII than a real sequel.

By the way, don't think you're hurting my feelings by voting Not Useful. It just makes me feel superior knowing that fanboys/fangirls resent my objectivity so greatly.


First i will say that i am going to be as subjective as I can.

There will be some potential spoilers ahead so beware.

I hardly ever review movies, but this one in particular i felt i had to review. This movie Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children, based off the ultra popular rpg (Final Fantasy VII) for the ps1 has been in the works for quite some time. After the years of hype and the dozens of trailers (none of which i ever saw, i had only seen stills) this movie got the legions of fans really excited about seeing their favorite characters on the big screen. I myself had played and completed the game a few times like any good fan, and being such a movie freak i was pretty excited myself. So i had thought to myself, "WHAT COULD GO WRONG?".

Well, the movie started out OK in the first 20 minutes, but then things get out of hand as the movie progressed. Without a doubt, this is the best looking CGI animation around, but that won't help a weak plot, undeveloped characters,and over indulgent action scenes.

Here is the story basically. These three silver haired nancy boys in leather who have nothing to do with the game, are supposedly clones of Sephiroth (he's the villain of the game who had supposedly murdered all his supposed clones)are trying to kidnap all the children for some reason that was not really explained all that well, probably to make an army (of kids?) They also center some of the story on some kid named Denzel, i don't know who this kid is, or what his point is, he just seems depressed all the time. So the sephiroth clones also are involved in some kind of scheme involving some disease called geostigma, that only affects the children, this disease seems to cause boredom and small amounts of skin discoloration.

So now Cloud must save the day from these guys. Apparently Cloud and his fellow team mates have learned the ability of flight, i felt a little insulted that these characters where flying around a city fighting a dragon and landing on there feet all the time. Maybe if the movie wasn't so over the top, then the view relax into it and then they can be amazed by something incredible. The real problem of this movie is logic. Now i know what you are gonna say, "But it's called Final FANTASY! it should have those ideas in it!" well that is a foolish way to think, the game based itself in some kind of reality and the movie should follow through in that CONTEXT. Context and logic in this movie is inconsistent, i could explain it all, but if i did, i would end up writing the screenplay.

Also some scenes in this movie were extremely contrived and trite. like when all of the characters from the game show up just in the nick of time for their obligatory screen time so as not to upset the fans. They show up, do there bit and pretty much have no point in the story.

If this is too long here is the simpler review-

the pros- the first 20 minutes top-notch cgi animation decent action scenes visually stunning

the cons- illogical over indulgent action/ unbalanced action (leaves the viewer jaded at the climax) weak plot super human characters=no suspense the j-rock soundtrack/score (what happened to the orchestra?) Horrible ending

BIG TIME SPOILER-

Now the ending of this movie really disappointed me. they could have had gone the really cool and sweet ending where cloud dies and meets up with aeris in the after life but after the great battle at the end cloud gets shot in the back, the kinda wound where the bullet blast out through the chest. then cloud has his 100th flashback in the movie and then wakes up in a pool of lifestream. (now i remember the lifestream in the game, but it did not have resurrecting properties, if it did, they could have brought aeris back to life, thus making a completely different story) so cloud is brought back to life and everyone has a party and dives into the pool and we have a ultra cheezy hallmark/ lifetime type moment.

not that the movie doesn't have it's moments. its is worth seeing for its visuals. but thats all.

other than that it's not really a good movie. it is strictly for blinded fans of the game. not for people who care about plot and character and story telling.


I was giddy with girlish-glee when I found out about this movie shortly after seeing Spirits Within.

After years of anticipation, they gave November 2005 release date. Well, November came. And went. Followed by December. Oh, look, today's January 31, 2006. No US release as of yet.

Oh well, I'm so glad I had a friend with a bootlegged subtitled copy. ;D

Well, the cg was great. Not as good as expected, but near perfect. I cringed, however, at the unnatural movements made by the children throughout the movie. I had thought that we were passed this by now. Also, I didn't really care for the anime look given to their faces. I was under the impression that they were shooting for a realistic look to the film, and yet most of the characters have larger-than-norm eyes, especially the girl characters. They had personality, though, I'll give them that.

Even though I'm not a big fan of anime, I do have to say I was impressed with the wild fight scenes. They were animated beautifully and had me hanging onto the edge of my seat.

For about the first two.

And there-in lies Advent Children's biggest flaw. It's mostly just a bunch of hyper-stylized fight scenes.

A FF7 sequel of epic proportions had been promised for years. Instead, they gave us a pretty piece of cg with barely a plot to excuse it's just-under-two-hours running time.

Where Final Fantasy is famous for its intricate stories, this movie falls short. You don't really get to know the characters. The only way you'd have any understanding of most of what occurred in the film would have been if you had played the game. We barely got to see them before they were battling it out with whatever current threat.

What hurts the fans even more is the awful cameos that the majority of FF7 characters were given. They were nothing more than Cloud's "I'll call if I need you, but I probably won't" back up singers. And, to add to the hurt, they had each character individually throw Cloud higher and higher. This little part here was so cheesy I almost turned it off. I would have been much more impressed if he had just simply jumped up all on his own, ricocheting off of walls to get himself up higher.

It hurt even more when they reduced the Turks to less-than-just comic relief. That was fine for the game, but this is cinema. People do not act like cartoon characters in a harsh battle. They took away their dignity :/

And, spoiler (yeah right, most of you probably already know, anyhow). Who remembers Darth Maul being hyped up in SW: Episode 1? Yeah, now, picture that, but with Sephiroth. That's right. He had maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Maybe that. End Spoiler :P

If this movie was made for the fans, then way to go Square. If this is any indication of the direction you're taking the FF series, I doubt you're going to be seeing much of my money. I played your games for the wonderful story and the excellent characters.

You had a chance to make something epic. Something truly beautiful, a masterpiece that flies in the face of all of the Disney CG films.

Instead you gave us a pretty piece of flesh with hardly anything underneath to hold it together. Way to go.

And I'm sure if the rest of the fans paused for a moment and tried to just pay attention to everything but the CG they'd know what I'm talking about. Well, I was gonna rate this a 5/10, but after thinking about it while righting this, I'm giving it a 3/10 because they could have done better. They have done better. And this is just sad.

If they're gonna remake anything FFVII, they need to do this one first.