I managed to see this at what I think was the second screening in the world, a few days after its opening at the Dublin International Film Festival. While I was attending another film two nights later at the same theater, I saw Brendan Gleeson, Paul Mercier and the rest of the cast & crew at another promotional screening of Studs.

I have to say that I was bitterly disappointed with the film, I was by no means expecting a masterpiece, but what was presented to me, I believe lacked all the crucial elements of the genre it had set itself into. Before I continue, two things, I accept that some filmmakers like to subvert generic expectations, here this is simply not the case. Secondly, I know that it was based on a play (which I haven't read but have been informed that it isn't a shimmering piece of literature), but this does not excuse the massive narrative problems that permeate the film.

My main problem with the film is the script, forget that it was based on a play, as a sports comedy it simply doesn't work, the down and out team are trying to win a football cup, few of the games are shown (when they are, it is very short) and we are not given any satisfaction due to any of their sporting achievements. Having read so far, you might assume that it is not a strict sports film but a psychological study of the relation between a "charlatan" of a manager and his hopeless team. It certainly does not achieve this, I'm not even sure if it was aiming to. Any attempt to shed light on the history of any of the characters is hackneyed and peripheral. Overall, I found the script lacking in many respects.

I do think the performances and the music were good and technically, the film was well made. But aside from those points, which should be expected from any Irish film at this stage, I left the theater feeling very disappointed.

My judgment may seem harsh but I do think there is some hope for a strong national Irish cinema in the near future and this simply does not back that argument. As Studs has become a recommended Dublin Cineworld film (I was part of the audience at that screening), most people would seem to be disagreeing with me, so that means you should probably make your own judgment of the film.


This was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with "dramatic" angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).


I'm glad I never watched this show when it came out.

I just wondered why it lasted 4 years. It reminds me of the terrible 80's with fake people, fake clothes, and fake music. How did I ever survive growing up in this era?

The acting in the majority of episodes I have watched are forced. This makes for very boring shows. The plot lines are not very interesting as the old Twilight Zone shows. The old show inspired the imagination and made one look forward to the next show.

Stick with the old Twilight Zone shows and spare yourself the pain of watching garbage.


Two stars

Amanda Plummer looking like a young version of her father, Christopher Plummer in drag, stars in this film along with Robert Forster--who really should have put a little shoe black on top of that bald spot.

I've never seen Amanda Plummer in a good film. She always plays these slightly wacky characters in films that don't quite add up, and she does so yet again in this one.

Firstly, we have two young women, sisters, who don't resemble in the slightest, who allow themselves to be picked up, separately, by questionable men along the roadways.

Amanda's character, Sandra, does at least have a good reason for allowing Dr. Jake (Robert Forster)to pick her up in the first place. She has been run off the road, seemingly by a maniac, and her car is pretty much destroyed.

Warning - Spoilers ahead!

However, as we go along, we realize Dr. Jake is not playing with a full deck any more than Amanda is. He makes every decision based on the flip of a coin.

When Dr. Jake and Amanda arrive at a motel, who do we see but the maniac's car, and what does Amanda do but get inside his station wagon and start snooping around. What her motive was for doing this is never clear considering the man is apparently dangerous and might try to kill her. One would think the last thing she would do is place herself in such a precarious situation.

Not only does she snoop around, but she finds some money and takes it.

Shortly after this we have several other things that don't add up.

Dr. Jake, with Amanda as his passenger, runs out of gas, and the two of them abandon his car and begin walking. One would think crossing a desert, he would have checked his gas gauge--this seems a very unlikely thing for him to allow to happen. Then later, he is seen driving the same car. When or how did he get the car back?

Dr. Jake tells Amanda he knows she has taken the money. Now how would he know that? He didn't see her do it as far as I know, and she didn't tell him she did it.

Then later we have a character named Santini (David Thewlis), the man who was driving the station wagon, give the two of them a lift and I'll be darned if he doesn't know Amanda took the money as well. How would he know that?

It loses credibility at an alarming rate the further we go.

When Alice, Amanda's sister (Fairuza Balk)gets in the clutches of the killer and decides her fate on the toss of a coin - one would think she would be very, very careful that the coin she swaps for a trick coin would definitely be the trick coin - but apparently it isn't.

It's jarring things like this, that destroy any credibility this movie may have had.


Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****


I enjoy watching Robert Forster. That was the main reason that I rented this movie. I also wanted to see a story take place out in the middle of nowhere where the characters could work off of each other really well with no distractions.

Unfortunitaly I found the movie to be dull. I couldn't get interested in the characters. I couldn't get interested in the story which seemed to meander nowhere.

After watching this movie for an hour I turned it off. I will rate the movie 4 out of 10. This falls well below the mandatory 7 rating that makes a movie worthwhile to watch.


OK look this show is the worst show on nick@ night. I love so many shows on nick@night and I love them. When this show came on to nick@night I was so annoyed. It's such a boring show and it is corny. Out of all the times I've watched I found one episode slightly funny. This show has some of the most unfunny and stupid jokes ever. This show sums up to terrible. Give props to Fresh Prince of Bel-air and George Lopez. This show is boring and not the least bit clever. This show should have been canceled much earlier. I don't think it deserves to be played on nick@night alongside some great classic shows. This show is lacking cleverness, good jokes, and style.


this show disturbs me. it takes up slots on nick at nite that could be reserved for the fresh prince or George Lopez. even full house and Roseanne. they're all better than home improvement. first off, the mother Jill annoys me SO much. she is an oversensitive whiny baby and i really despise her. brad is a fat toad, and he is annoying too. and the youngest brother, i don't even know his name! i don't notice him at all! that's probably not the actor's fault though, it's probably the writers'. Tim is just a stupid ass. although Jill is DEFINITELY my least favorite, i don't like any of them. the only reason i gave this stupid show three stars is one star goes to randy. as the middle child, he is still a pesky little brother, but an older brother, and i like his fun character. the other star goes to Al. as the chubby friend, his character is likable. other than randy and Al, this show sucks.


honestly I don't know why this show lasted as long as it did. ah well, humor is subjective eh? but yeah, this show is incredibly unfunny if you ask me. Tim Allen is annoying. Jill is annoying. the boys are annoying. Al is annoying. the neighbor is annoying. it's just more annoying then funny. the plots are all the same, Tim makes Jill mad and has to make things right again. and the latter seasons? less said about them the better, who the hell things cancer would be good for a damn sitcom? yeah, great idea jerks. so yeah, home improvement isn't a very good sitcom. I'd recommend you go watch News Radio or Seinfeld. if i had to give this show a rating I'd give it a 1/10 seeing as it never made me laugh once. ever. so yeah, it's still better then The Nanny though.


Tim Taylor is an abusive acholoic drug addict. He's a coward and a child and has absolutely no redeeming qualities as an actor or a person. The only film with him in it that is enjoyable is "Galaxy Quest" and that just because his character - a boozed out washed up actor from a former hit TV show - was so close to real life for him. The rest of the cast is equally bad. I HATE the mother and the actress that played her Patricia Richardson, she sucks! Ever cliché is there, the stupid woman who is fat and likes opera and only cares about her children, while in real life she's proclaims family values and gets divorced after having twins. And the child actors were about as interesting as a root canal.


These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.


I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.

Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.

It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).

In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.


You get an hour and a half of braindead i have to save the world action all the way, one liners and a woman somewhere in the equation. This time he plays a guy who help people in the witness protection program. to quote the cover of the movie. He erases their past to save their future. Woppi, this have to be cool :) I bet younger people will like it though but it is a little over the top for my taste. And the one liners are really something else, and i don't mean that in a good way. After killing a crocodile he manage to say. "you're luggage" If you are in the right mood you may enjoy the movie. And as far as braindead action go, this is not very bad. But almost before the movie starts you know exactly what is going to happen. But if you like these kind of movies, you will probably enjoy this one. I rate this movie 4


!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

With the exception of THE TERMINATOR and TOTAL RECALL I don`t think Arnie`s action/adventure movies are up to much . They`re better than his comedies for sure but that`s hardly saying much . The problem I have with his all action blockbusters is that they`re overblown and lacking in any sort of morality

Morality ? I mentioned in my review of TERMINATOR 2 the scene where good guy Terminator blows the kneecaps off the SWAT team . Are we to think that because the hero maims people doing their job instead of killing them we will admire him in someway ? This is the problem with ERASER , when James Cann`s character is revealed as a traitor within the US Marshal department Arnie`s character John Kruger goes on the run with a witness he`s protecting but in several later sequences Kruger kills a fairly large amount of marshals working with the villain . Are we take it they were all traitors too ? Surely many of them were honest men who were trying to stop Kruger because the bad guy told them Kruger was the traitor ? It`s a rather uneasy thought that Kruger killed several people who were trying to genuinely up hold the law <br /><br />Despite costing one hundred million dollars the special effects aren`t all that impressive . Look at the scene where Kruger lets go of the jet wing and scrambles to put on a parachute . It`s obvious as the action intercuts that it`s a stuntman who`s doing the free fall sequence while Arnie is in a studio in front of a blue screen . ERASER is also a film that has unnecessary CGI featuring killer alligators , not only unnecessary CGI but unconvincing CGI too . There`s also a few plot holes like in the opening scene involving a couple of witness protection people that the mob has caught up with . Kruger opens a car trunk and pulls out a couple of bodies and starts a fire thereby throwing the mob of the scent . Kruger is next seen rearranging the dental records via computer of the couple he`s saved . It would be logical to do this but would ALL the couples dental records be kept on computer ? Most importantly of all are we to believe the US Marshal department keep a freezer full of bodies for such events ?

So they`re you go , a typical Arnie thriller long on unlikely set pieces and short on intelligence and it`s interesting to note that ERASER didn`t make much of a profit at the box office as the production costs almost outweighed a potential audience figure . After ERASER Arnie didn`t do much more business at the box office save for TERMINATOR 3 : RISE OF THE MACHINES which was an event movie and it`ll be interesting to see if he`ll be remembered as a politician rather than a movie star


Why do they keep making trash like this? because it makes money that's why. Eraser is not so much a film but a string of action set pieces strung together. It's well filmed but predictable and it's all been done before, only better. This is basically a Nineties version of 'Commando'.


I did not enjoy the film Eraser whatsoever. It's awful acting, boring storyline and average special effects made this an annoying arnie film, as it had a mountain of potential. With other action films of the time Eraser fell very short!!!


Ten years ago I really wanted to see this movie on the cinema. But I missed it, and then forgot about it. Oh boy, am I glad this movie didn't get to ruin my teenage eyes back then.

I saw it yesterday, and seriously, this must be among the 10 worst movies ever made. And I'm talking about movies which has had too much attention, such as those wonderful trailers on TV, and too much money spent on actors and the making of the movie.

The script sucks and the acting sucks even worse, do I need to say more?

Please, Hollywood, NO MORE ARNOLD!!


So I got this from the rental store where I work before it was released (release is 8/21), just watched it today, and now I'm speechless. They could have had a decent movie here, but they screwed it up in some painfully obvious ways.

First of all, the parts with John Krasinski were funny, and are the only reason I gave it above a 3, but they are broken up by bad acting and terrible "serious" reflections on life between the main character (Andrew Keegan) and his girlfriend (the annoying Lacy Chabert). It would have been much, much better as a straight comedy ala Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

I wanted to like it, because I think Krasinski is funny and want to see him do well. The story wasn't bad either, just not very original. But the directing (and a lot of the acting) was terrible. I swear they had trouble keeping peoples faces in the shot and just went with it anyway.

Their carelessness is showcased when the gun expert corrects another character and says that a "Dirty Harry" gun is not a .357 magnum but a .45 (it was, as everyone knows, a .44 magnum).

So see this if you 1- really like John Krasinski 2- like to watch low-budget (and poorly-directed) movies or 3- Have too much time on your hands (this is me!)


I found this movie to be okay.

On paper, this movie has everything a person may want! Romance, comedy, drama. A bank robbery, a unique cast, great music and storytelling!

In reality, this movie ended up being mostly garbage, and I'll tell you why.

a) This is my biggest problem: The editing. This movie has by far the worst editing I've ever seen short of local-car-dealership commercials. The editing could've been done better by a deaf Parkinson's patient tapping away at iMovie with a a dead cat. There are scenes where two characters are talking to each other and you can see their lips moving and the audio/video isn't in sync because its clearly dubbed. Why was it dubbed? I don't know! Its English dubbing English! The voices were done in a studio elsewhere in certain scenes! Could they not find a boom-Mic?! They're not expensive; Jesus, even I own one! And i don't make films!

b) Andrew Keegan's performance lacked. It really didn't seem like he wanted to be a part of this project, and his acting was the equivalent of a skit performed by D.A.R.E. for schoolchildren. At least John Krasinksi showed some enthusiasm.

Yes, John Krasinski is the only reason I rented this flick, and its the only real reason worth watching. He's did a good, witty performance and he was the most three-dimensional character. Dean Edwards' character was quite thin, as was whats-her-face.

Final Word? If you're a fan of John Krasinski, this is worth your time. If not, don't even bother. The editing


I have to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.

This film has loads of technical/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).

It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.

How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?

Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.


This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.


Other than John Krasinski, this movie was absolutely terrible. The Lacey Chabert and Andrew Keegan love story was as clichéd as possible, full of unbelievably bad lines about how her parents wouldn't ever let them be together and super-hammy longing looks. None of the "emotion" had any depth or reality whatsoever. The two accented-characters (Dean Edwards as Rupert and whoever it was playing the gun expert)....once they saw how bad the accents were, couldn't they have decided to just drop them and rewrite a couple of lines to avoid giving the audience headaches? Apparently not. I don't even know where to start with the editing, particularly the sound editing. If you hate obvious over-dubbing as much as I do, don't watch this. That being said, Krasinski was great. Off the bat I'll admit that I'm a huge Office fan and that's why I rented this. But he's quite entertaining as the "off-the-wall friend with crazy ideas". He's got a clichéd role, but he still manages to make it as entertaining as possible. The ending was awful. Just flat out terrible. The idea of the robbery gone awry had potential, but Keegan floundering around after being shot, all the way to his studio to fall ontop of a painting of Chabert (which looks nothing like her) is the most cringe-worthy scene.


This World War II film, set in Borneo, tries so hard to work on so many levels, it is a shame it fails on all of them.

Nick Nolte is an escaping American who witnesses the executions of his comrades by the Japanese. He wanders deep into the jungles of Borneo, lost. Cue Nigel Havers, who finds Nolte's adopted tribe. Nolte, now looking like Robert Plant, has become his tribe's new king. He defeated a staunch warrior in a bloody battle, and had a telling tattoo on his chest (a dragon). Now before you go out and get a painful tattoo and a one-way ticket to Borneo, things are not going well in Nolteland. Havers wants the tribe's help in fighting the Japanese, who are invading the island. He teaches the natives how to use machine guns, and a whole lot o shooting begins. As the tribe becomes more successful, they run up against a new squadron of Japanese who are not like the others. This squad cannibalizes the villages they conquer in order to keep their strength up (talk about your sushi), and they move through the jungles even quicker than the tribe. Since we know the outcome of the war, we know eventually the tribe triumphs, but with heavy casualties. Here come the spoilers: Havers is injured and returned to "civilization." He gives the location of the kingdom and Nolte is captured. Havers then goes through the trouble of releasing Nolte, and the end credits roll.

Milius' direction is certainly adequate, but the screenplay here is rather vague in its motivations. It presents story ideas, then abandons them in order to get to the next story idea. Nolte is awful as the soldier turned king, desperately trying to channel the spirit of Marlon Brando's Colonel Kurtz. He talks about freedom, and the beauty of the jungle, and the richness of his people, and you will not believe for one second the words he utters. He is often unintentionally funny, especially his initial bug out in the jungle, and he spends the rest of the film sounding like a hippie. Nigel Havers spends the movie looking at Nolte like he was Raquel Welch. The vague homosexual undercurrent between the two goes beyond friendship, not quite to sex, and settles into an unspoken relationship that must have had the natives talking.

Havers often stands around and has an internal conflict, repulsed at the tribe's headhunting, but basking in Nolte's attention. His fellow straight laced British servicemen go native faster than the Bounty landing party in Tahiti, but all I saw concerning Borneo is that it is very humid and has lots of green.

The climactic betrayal, where Havers gives away Nolte's location, is completely devoid of any reason. There is not one thought given as to why Havers does this, except to keep the film going. I was angry, when by chance, Havers and Nolte end up on the same ship going to the Philippines, the ship happens to run aground, and Havers runs to the hold to free the freshly shorn Nolte. No goodbye kiss, but Havers says farewell to the king, explaining the title.

If you were fighting a war, and an enemy squadron was eating your allies, would that not freak you out? This elite Japanese squad is not shown enough, although their eating habits are so horrific I would become a conscientious objector right away. The same type of ghostly enemy was handled much better in "The 13th Warrior."

Other types of interesting ideas are dropped. What about the fact that then modern technology brings about the deaths of so many backward people? Why did King Nolte let the Brits use his subjects without too much hesitation? Why can't Hollywood find a decent actor to play General Douglas MacArthur?

In the end, "Farewell to the King" is a letdown, not anchored by a strong lead, and trying to be too many things without thinking and exploring its options. I cannot recommend this one.

This film is rated (PG13) for strong physical violence, strong gun violence, some gore, some profanity, some sexual references, and adult situations.


The story of Farewell to the King is intriguing. An American "deserter" (I had the impression he and his 3 comrades were only trying to escape capture in the Philippines as their desperate escape by raft to Borneo is not your classic desertion). But no sooner do they come ashore when they are discovered by the Japanese. Nolte's character (a sergeant) has only moments earlier walked down the beach alone and was not noticed. And incredibly, no one noticed his footprints in the sand which would have led the Japanese right to him. But anyway, Nolte is taken in by a tribe of headhunters and becomes their king after defeating another tribesman. So he's out of the war. Then the British commandos show up and want the tribe to assist them in fighting the Japanese.

Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.

There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.

Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.

What a waste.


I just caught "Farewell to the King" on cable, and maybe it's just because I'm a girl, but I thought this was on the craptastic side. The script and direction are pretentious (once I found out John Milius was responsible, it all became clear). The supporting actors actually weren't bad - James Fox was outstanding. The biggest disappointment was Nick Nolte, who I usually enjoy. Once he goes native, he starts speaking a very stiff, stilted English, and half the time, he seems kind of distracted, as if he'd just smoked some of the bounty of Borneo's rain forest. And then the end -- what the ??? Learoyd just happens to be on the same boat as The Botanist (by the way, had the Botanist dumped the girlfriend, or what?)??? The boat just happens to run aground conveniently close to an island ripe takeover by a crazy Anglo ex-headhunting Army deserter??


A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.

They've fallen into the "because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc." trap.

"Romeo and Juliet" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).

Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.

If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.

Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.


An interesting concept turned into carnage...

My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When i first took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interesting concept...

Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne Gangland

A very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...

Pros: -Interesting concept

Cons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologue

Overall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)


The story of Macbeth was one of the most successful Shakespeare ever wrote. This may be due to some features that place it close to the slasher genre, murder, murder, kill, kill, gallons of blood, a tense sexual relation between the main characters etc. More than this, the original play is very appealing taking into consideration the length (it's only half the size of Hamlet) and the focus on Macbeth for whom we are constrained to care in spite of his bloody nature. The play would seem ideal to base a movie on. Not so lengthy it gives the directors the possibility to explore it's many levels, a good actor can play the role of his lifetime, the film has deep meaning in any historical period. Unfortunately this has not been the case with Macbeth. Polanski's version comes quite close but it insists too much on the medieval period. Welles' film is too personal, with an interesting twist towards totalitarianism, the 1990 or so TV version is too shallow. This 2006 movie is no exception. It is very far from a Shakespeare film, but it is interesting to see how the director understood the story and where he places it in contemporary life. No knights in shiny armor but gangsters in shiny cars. A lot of drugs and trippy music replace the dread of night in the original play. The idea of Macbeth is so simple that to take and implant it in modern day life doesn't need Shakespeare at all. The worst part in the film are the lines. Most of the poignant scenes of the play, such as the dagger scene are trimmed so much they seem pointless. Replacing the knocks in the door with doorbells and horses with cars seems funny. If they wanted to make a movie about power and its temptation they could have done it easily without Shakespeare. This Macbeth seems to be a looser with a brain injury not a valiant warrior, brave and ambitious that wants power so much he is prepared to to kill and who gets caught up in a net of fears and despair. The movie doesn't make clear what drives Lady Macbeth to madness, it doesn't give a reason why some of the characters should fear Macbeth and his "terror" (since there is no hereditary ascension to the throne, what with no throne and all) and it places Macbeth in an awkward position, since the leadership of a gang is as far from kingship as this whole movie is far from any Shakespeare. In conclusion, we have two superimposed ideas that never quite meet making this a film that's ultimately pointless.... Stand not upon the order of your going but go!


Macbeth is one of the most frequently told stories in cinema and has been translated many times in numerous theater and celluloid settings. Originally written by William Shakespeare in the early 1600's, Macbeth tells the story of betrayal among royalty and one man's quest for power. Director Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper) tries his hand at updating Macbeth by setting it in the contemporary Melbourne underworld. A film where the characters substitute swords for guns (ala Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet) and royal vassals for gangsters, Macbeth is a gritty, violent, but critically flawed film.

Macbeth (Sam Worthington)works for King Duncan (Gary Sweet). After being elevated to the Thane of Glamis by The King (as was prophesied to Macbeth by three witches), Macbeth starts setting his eyes on the throne. One night the King comes to stay at Macbeth's house and Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hill) talks him into killing The King to assume power. Macbeth kills his master and then assumes his crown. But success has it's downside, as Macbeth soon finds out, when he has to go to hideous lengths to protect his murderous secret.

OK, first things first. The film's major fault is Sam Worthington. His portrayal of Macbeth is in a word... boring. I honestly didn't care about Macbeth while watching the film. I had more sympathy for Victoria Hill's Lady Macbeth because she bothered to act at least. Worthington sits sullen and wood faced throughout the entire film. I felt like he was doing his best impression of Johnny Deep's George Jung character from Blow... but without the charisma. I have never seen Worthington in a film before so I'm not sure if it was his or the Director's fault, but either way the glue that should have tied everything together into one cohesive unit is weak.

The dialog is good, but when matched up to the Geoffrey Wright's Australian Gangster Motif seems a bit out of place. Frentically paced action sequences mixed with long Shaksperian musings creates pacing conflict within the film. I understand that this is Macbeth and that the director wanted to use the original dialog intact. But hard, fast action scenes following a three minute soliloquy tends to get annoying if not a bit pretentious.

The camera-work is highly stylized, and for the most part, it works well. One thing that I found annoying was how the camera would slowly jostle back and forth, almost constantly. I don't mind shots like that it's just overdone. It's passes beyond the realm of being cool and stylish and instead becomes irritating. Other than that, the art direction and cinematography is fairly well-done.

For all of the good qualities Macbeth possesses; stylish direction, Shakespearian dialog, a strong soundtrack, supernatural nude witches(the weird sisters), and good helpings of brutal, bloody violence. All of these strengths are forgotten when one considers Sam Worthington's uninspired portrayal of Macbeth. The role of Macbeth was essential for tying everything together and in this respect Geoffrey Wright and Sam Worthington failed miserably, making Macbeth a forgettable foray into Shakespeare.


The Play Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare between the years of 1604 and 1606. Ever since then, many other versions of the play have been produced, including remakes completed in 1948, 1971, and 2006. Akira Kurosawa even directed a Japanese version of Macbeth in 1957 entitled, "Kumonosu jô." The play starts out with King Duncan hearing about the success of two of his generals, Macbeth and Banquo, in a recent battle with the Irish and the Norwegians. After a quick promotion from Duncan, Macbeth instantly gets an uncanny feeling for lust, greed, and power and does everything in his power to gain access to the crown: even if it includes murder.

Geoffrey Wright tried creating his own version of the famous play in 2006 by setting it in the modern Melbourne underworld. Just imagine a lowly Macbeth slaying hundreds of soldiers with an AK-47 and rapping his own rendition of, "Low" at the same time. Just kidding about the latter, but one thing he does do is utter the traditional Shakespeare. And he keeps it going throughout the whole movie. That's right! Shakespeare meets ghetto. It's all you could ever hope for! Not The newest Macbeth is rough and violent enough to match up with any other modern day action film, but it lacks decent acting, the right lingo, and a good technique of camera work.

The modernized movie starts out with Macbeth (Sam Worthington) who works as a hit man/drug dealer for Duncan (Gary Sweet), a drug lord from Melbourne, Australia. After being promoted to the Thane of Glamis by Duncan (as the three witches had predicted), aspiration starts to take over Macbeth as he sets his eyes on the throne. After promoting Macbeth, Duncan invites himself over to Macbeth's house for a night of drugs and alcohol. Before the festivities begin, Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hall) talks Macbeth into killing Duncan to take power over the throne. After the bodyguards are drunk and everyone's asleep, Macbeth sneaks into Duncan's room and stabs him to death. After his murder, Macbeth takes all of Duncan's belongings including hid title and crown. Just as soon as he thinks he's got what he wanted, he finds out that it will take more than bribery and running away to solve his problems.

One major flaw of the movie was the acting. A once seemingly flamboyant and empowered Macbeth suddenly turns into a sissy. And he looks like a sad puppy dog throughout the entire film. I don't really know if this was Worthington's or Wright's fault, but either way, one of the two should have realized Macbeth was a king, not a knot on a log that took everything his wife had to say literally. Like I said earlier, Macbeth should have been rude, arrogant, and spiteful. But when his character changes over to a drug lord, he changes personalities as well I suppose. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth really knew how to nip it in the bud when it came to recognizing and personifying her character. She didn't seem quite as spiteful as she was in the play or the 1971 version, but she reminds Macbeth that compared to murder, anything else he could possibly do, wouldn't quite match up.

Another thing I found distasteful was all the nudity. This fluke HAD to be Wright's fault. The witches didn't do a bit of acting, unless you call parading around in your birthday suit acting. At one point in the film, I started to wonder if I was watching Macbeth or Unique Positions Vol. 2.

Don't get me wrong when I say I find the Shakespearean dialogue out of place. It's spoken flawlessly, but when it's spoken by an Australian gangster, it's just really weird. When Macbeth starts to kill people off, he first lets them know by talking to them in Ye Olde English. Macbeth contains plenty of action, blood, gore, and nudity to last anyone a lifetime. You forget all the positive facts though when you start to think to yourself, "Okay, what in the heck did he just say in that last sentence?" At some points in the movie, I don't even think the actors themselves knew what they were saying. The new age-ness of the movie could have easily been pulled off it weren't for the, "Thou's" and the, "Thee's".

The camera work was just simply fair for me. One thing I could not stand was the constant pacing back and forth between characters. The camera technique used gave off that Blair Witch sort of vibe and made me throw up a little in my mouth. Matt Reeves tried to attempt the same concept of camera work in, Clover field but it just doesn't work. It makes me want to get out of my chair and look around for the little barf bags they have conveniently planted on every seat in the airplanes.

Looking back on it all, the gangsta' Macbeth holds one positive: plenty of action. Other than that, the movie contains nothing more than uninspired acting, correct English usage, and stomach-turning camera work. The soundtrack holds one or two of the same songs, but each song is edited or remixed differently for every scene. There is never a variation of interesting or captivating media used. From now on out, directors should leave the dangerous drug underworld to Al Pacino and Robert Deniro. Future renditions of Macbeth should be created just as Shakespeare intended the play to be 400 years ago. I would recommend using medieval clothing, Ye Olde English, swords and shields and a soundtrack prepared by Enya. But either way, the modern Macbeth makes you yearn for some good 'ole folk music, a camp fire, and a bustier.


This movie illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.

Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.

An "adaptation" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.

And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.

Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.

I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.

A shame. An absolute shame.


Recap: Not entirely familiar with the Shakespeare story of Macbeth, but my wild guess is that this is pretty close to the original, only set in present time. It tells the story of Macbeth, a member of a crime syndicate in Melbourne (?). He is a valued hit-man and in the favor of leader Duncan. But he and his lady has higher ambitions than that, and plan the murder of Duncan, and any competition of the throne. This is a story of betrayal and cold, brutal death.

Comments: Very interesting idea, I must say. To use the story but change the setting to present time, but still keep the original (?) dialog. It sets a huge contrast between the classical poetic work and the violence. Promised to be extremely violent, it is a promise that it keeps, but not in the notion I imagined. It is very bloody indeed, but the violence is slow. Not just figuratively speaking that it is calculated, which it is too, but also literally. A lot of action is actually slowed down to slow motion and that is what brings the movie to its knees.

What could have been a unique strength, the contrast between the superfluous and poetic dialog and the extreme violence, now turns into something else entirely. Now both slow the move down painfully much, so much that it actually becomes dull and boring at times.

Also I can't figure out the context the three witches act within. Set to present time and reality I figure that such magical witchcraft had no place in the movie. Apparently it does, but to me it seems completely out of place. Not a subplot but a complete sub-story with it's own rules, completely different than the rest of the movie. Seems completely out of place. Surely it must have been possible to convert that part too to something modern. Drug-induced hallucinations perhaps (which I suspect that the director hints at but then he has left way too much witchcraft in it to be believable)? Now they only bring stretches of the movie that is clearly beside the story and I just waited for the real movie to begin again.

A clear disappointment, but maybe something for Shakespearean-buffs?

4/10


If you want a horrible interpretation of "MacBeth", then this is your answer. Filled with archaic Shakespearic English language in a 21st century Australian setting, this film lives to disappoint and leave you scratching your head. But that isn't all.

Not only is there sophomoric action sequences but there are plenty of scenes where the female body is displayed. The witches, played by actresses that resemble school girls more than witches, put on a soft porn display with MacBeth in a unremarkable display of affection. Welcome to stupidity and depravity - all at the same time.

Its a wonder why this project was green-lighted. So much for modern cheesy movies. "D-"


Geoffrey Wright, the director of "Romper Stomper", transplants Shakespeare's "Macbeth" in the contemporary, criminal underworld of Melbourne, Australia. The result is a semi-awful piece of cinema. Sam Worthington is Macbeth, and walks around looking very self-conscious and bored. Victoria Hill, who wrote the script with Wright, is Lady Macbeth, and she's neither awful nor good. Lachy Hulme, who plays McDuff, is the only actor in the cast who exudes any kind of authority. The rest, including Gary Sweet, are wasted and misdirected. Shot on HD by the late Will Gibson, the movie's visuals lack character. Everything is too clean and too deliberately lit. Wright's direction is uninspired in the extreme and the action sequences are confusing and inept. Marketed erroneously as "the most violent Australia movie ever", the film is violent at times and reasonably bloody, but it fails to deliver a single impactful moment. Slow moving and terribly pretentious, this umpteenth silver screen version of the classic play is the personification of wrong-headed.


Aussie Shakespeare for 18-24 set.with blood ,blood and more blood.and good dose of nudity. this will not be for every one on may levels, to violent for some too cheap for most. done on low budget they try and do there best but it only works sporadically.and this macbeth just seem to be lacking ,its just not compelling. although there is some good acting on the part of most you don't get into there heads especially mecbeths. the best performance came from gary sweet and the strangest mick molly. if your into Shakespeare then see it,but if you like your cheese mature you will love it.it not a bad film but it not that good either. sam peckenpah would of loved it, that is if it was filmed as a western. i was expecting a lot from this, as i loved romper stomper. but this is was a vacant effort.


Love sublime says the title. Another blurb during the promotions of the film talked about inner vs external beauty. Well in this case the beauty - you decide inner or external - is provided by scantily clad (or is that scantily dressed/ undressed) Zeenat Aman who the director Raj Kapoor called "a volcano of talent" while the film was being made. One can't accuse him of sarcasm of course - after all he was promoting his own film.

The paper thin plot is about a woman with a disfigured face who has a - er - well proportioned body , a great voice (thanks to Lata Mangeshkar) with whom the hero Shashi Kapoor falls in love. He doesn't want her face only her voice. The acting is desperate and even the 4 is because of the music with Lata Mangeshkar giving some good numbers. The rest is of course bunkum. Avoid - save your money. Inner beauty vs Outer beauty. !!! You need not be an Einstein to figure out which one the director was concentrating on


This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the VCR or DVD player! Michael Dudikoff and Lisa Howard are two bounty hunters in love, yet they are total opposites. She is ambitious and organized, while he is laid back and totally scatter brained.

In this movie, bad guys are chasing Jersey Bellini (Dudikoff's character). This opens the door to bad Godfather impressions, ludicrous fight scenes, and Tony Curtis playing the most effeminate looking mob boss I have ever seen! The ending has to be the most...unbelievable scene I have seen in a movie in quite some time. I would believe the Terminator, even the Matrix, has a better chance of possibly being true than this ending! This movie just reeks of cheapness. The script had to have hit someone as being totally ridiculous. Yet, the green light was given for this piece of dung to be made and let loose on on unsuspecting public. I watched this movie with several other people who all agreed that we had been cheated. No one in the group could say anything good about the film except that it was over.


I only bought this DVD because it was dirt cheap and it seemed interesting in its own special way ("special" meaning "retarded"). The movie turned out to be quite uninteresting - boring camera work, nothing really driving the story, and of course the acting is horrible. It wasn't even "bad" in a campy way - it was just plain bad. There are actually a handful of great lines of dialogue but for the most part its awkward and weak. All I could think about while watching this was that this could actually be a good movie if the script was given a major overhaul (if it were written by someone who actually understood drug culture) and if some decent actors were cast. I wouldn't recommend "Weekend With the Babysitter" unless if you plan on a career in film and want to learn what not to do in a movie.


I've just seen this film in a lovely air-conditioned cinema here in Bangkok. And since the temperature outside is hovering somewhere around 37C with very high humidity, my 100Bt was not wasted.

Failing that, I haven't seen such a piece of extremely well-made junk in a long time. This is the kind of film that provides a test of taste, as it were. Anyone who claims to like or love it goes immediately onto the same list of tasteless phonies who still go around talking about the superiority of British television. At least the gormless old broad in the wheelchair was good for a few guffaws.

Pseudo-profundity and fat lips, while characteristic of much French cinema, really do not a good movie make. I'd rather watch Independence Day 10 times in a row than sit through this stinker one more time.


After watching the first movie in BCI's new Aztec Mummy Collection, it's difficult to believe how excited I was about the set and how upset I was when the release date was pushed back. I've watched a lot of Mexican horror in recent months. Some great  The Curse of the Crying Woman. Some entertaining despite obvious flaws  Night of the Bloody Apes. And some Cheesy  Pick any Santo movie. One thing that all these movies have in common is that none can be called "dull". Well, that's not the case with The Aztec Mummy. It's been awhile since I last watched something so sleep inducing. I wasn't hoping for or expecting a great movie, but at least entertain me! The Aztec Mummy takes every situation that could be interesting and sucks the life out of it through repeated scenes of people doing nothing and then extending those scenes for what fells like an eternity. I guess that's what happens when you make an 80 minute movie with only 30 minutes of material. Padding extraordinaire! For example, for anyone who has seen the movie, what purpose does The Bat have other than to bring a masked wrestler type to the screen and to extend the runtime by 15 or so pointless minutes?

I can only hope that the other two movies in The Collection are more entertaining than this one.


First of three Aztec Mummies film is the only one that to the best of my knowledge was never completely dubbed into English. The film was chopped up and used in pieces by people like Jerry Warren in other films (he combined it with another Mexican horror comedy with Lon Chaney to make Face of the Screaming Werewolf. And it showed up in Attack of the Mayan Mummy and elsewhere.) The longest of the three films, a good chunk of this film makes up the two later films which use this as a basis of flash backs. The plot of this film has a scientist conducting a past life regression experiment which causes his subject to travel back and discover hidden chambers in an Aztec pyramid. The group, as well as a sinister figure known as the Bat, hope to use the information to discover hidden treasure. Instead they discover a living mummy who has other plans. Long and long winded this film has way too little action to sustain its 80 minute running time (worse the mummy doesn't even show up until an hour has passed). Probably the least of the three films, its easy to see why this film was cut apart, it's the only way to fashion a non-sleep inducing film. Watching the film late last night I found myself fighting to stay awake. It was a tough haul and I found that I ended up scanning to the point where the mummy showed up. Given the choice I'd take a pass and watch the second two films.


Being a science fiction fan from my early childhood (long time since) I always hated implausible plots. It's a pity that most authors of science fiction stories for children do not show this kind of respect for their audience. I always suspected them of thinking: "children are to dumb to realise, so we don't have to strive". The writer of "Science Fiction (2002)" is no exception. The story is about a boy who is instigated by his new friends to spy after his parents, because they think that the parents are aliens. As intriguing the idea sounded to me, as much was I bored by its realisation. It seemed to me that the filmmakers had exactly this one idea and tried to stretch it over the ninety minutes by dunking it into a dark, stylish and painstakingly slow atmosphere. The only thing that kept me in my seat was the question "how do they manage to get out of this implausible rubbish"? And then - bang - they did not even try. So if you are looking for good entertainment for both children and parents, go and watch "Klatretøsen (2002)" instead.


First off just to say i didn't get the edition I thought I would - I chose the Italian version over the R2, but what actually arrived was a UK release from 1998 - claiming to be a special edition - i never knew there WAS a UK DVD release - but the promised biogs were not actually on the disc - just a couple of duff trailers. Anyway - as to the film itself - just as I was recovering from "Night TRain Murders" my second genital mutilation thriller turns up in the same month - this time in (an Italian) UK nubile schoolgirls are being offed and Teacher Fabio Testi - (unhappily) married but nailing one of his students - becomes the main suspect. Joachim Fuchsberger is the detective on the case. Sorry to say I was less than entranced. It was watchable but more than equally miss able,and aside from the aforementioned gruesome nature of the crime, the "surprise" killing of Cristina Galbo which was actually "spoilt" by the DVD cover telling me about it - Grrrrrr!!!! and a surprise twist that cast the "victims" in a new light - i thought this was very routine. Itwont put me off the two "sequels" though. with Karin (Hannibal Brooks)Baal and Camille (I Spit on your grave") Keaton.


Solange is not a great Italian thriller. Get ready for the spoiler - the main suspect, the professor, didn't do it. But is it really a spoiler? No, because you know that he couldn't have been the murderer from the very beginning; he and a student witnessed the first murder. So, there is absolutely no suspense as to whether or not the professor is the killer. There is a long, tedious build up to the final explanation of the mystery. The solution is interesting, but it comes out of nowhere. The rest of the movie (and it's not a short movie) is just not exciting enough to hold your interest. Even in the tradition of "wrong man accused" it fails, because the police never seriously accuse the professor, and the killer is never after him. Dull, dull, dull.


I love watching a good gory giallo. Unfortunately, SOLANGE is definitely not one of them. It's long. Very long. The story is tacky and makes very little sense even if it's very obvious. The script spends so much time on the killings and the girls but it spends almost no time at all on the killer. This leaves a big hole in the story: we might get to see a bunch of young women showering together but we get zero characterization of why the killer decided to murder those girls. Yes, what happened to Solange is terrible but we still pretty much left in the dark over when, why did the [boring] killer decided that it was worth going through the effort of offing those oh so naughty girls. It's all so contrived that I couldn't get into it one bit.

As for the look of the film, again, boring. Nothing memorable about it. The actors? Boring. The script? Laughably boring. The whole "torrid" love affair between the teacher, the blond and the student was really embarrassing. What planet are they living on? The music? Boring. Skip it.


Let me preface by stating that I have lived in Louisville, Kentucky all of my life. I grew up about ½ mile from Waverly. In the wintertime we would pull our sleds down Maryman road and cross Dixie Highway to go sleigh riding on Waverly Hill. Many times during the winter of 76-77 we would climb into the Tunnel to warm ourselves. The place was still being run as a "Geriatric Center" at the time. We would go all the way through the tunnel up the hill to bang on what we thought was the "Door to the Morgue". I have to be honest. The only sensation we felt was that we were getting away with something we should not be doing. I would have to say we went up that tunnel over 50 times that winter. Nothing stranger than teen-aged boys acting stupid ever happened. I love the fact that it is getting attention after all these years. One evening when I was young we looked out our front porch and it appeared that the entire hill was on fire. There was an older hospital on the hill that burned down. It burned for hours while the entire neighborhood sat outside and watched. The thing that gets lost about Waverly is that many people survived TB there. Let's face itThe doctors back then did everything they thought was correct to save people. It took a lot of guts for people to work there knowing how contagious TB was. Too much is focused on those who suffered. I also have traveled into the building several times in the early 70's. We would go and visit shut-ins in the Nursing Home through a church youth group. By the way, the doors there were not prison like steel doors with chains and padlocks as portrayed in the film. They were wooden and opensometimes too open. It did smell of urine and feces and you saw the occasional open gown associated with patients with dementia. It was true that it was closed by the state in the early 80's. A lot of that may have to do with the age of the building or the right guy wasn't paid off. This is after all Kentucky. The part of the documentary that turned me off the most was the piling of bodies into a cart. If I am not mistaken it appears to have been Holocaust footage. That was added for dramatic effect. It left me with a sour taste in my mouth for the filmmaker. I am a skeptic when it comes to "Ghosts". I do believe that many around here truly think the place to be haunted. Waverly for me however symbolized a fun place for adventure for a boy with a sled.


I am very into Waverly Hills and first watched Death Tunnel The Movie.Couldn't have been much worse. Then I heard that the documentary was coming out and got excited thinking that since it was a documentary it would be more serious and not have the horrible special effects.Wrong the same guys did the documentary and ruined it with effects instead of producing it raw the way a documentary should be.Waverly Hills doesn't need help with goofy effects its fine just the way it is. Tours are $20.00 per person and $100.00 for 8 hour overnight investigation per person minimal group of 10 for overnight investigation.Tours must be set up ahead of time. Awesome place for the Ghost Hunter!


I watched this AFTER seeing "Death Tunnel" (this being, without question, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life) so you can understand I went in rolling my eyes a little at seeing the directors and producers of that cinematic gem being in charge of this one. First of all, I thought the director and producer were the same guy. They both are Kid Rock meets Dawg the Bounty Hunter. I watched the TAPS investigation, and I am not a skeptic- I think TAPS is the closest one will ever get to a scientific method in the field. That was cool and believable- I do believe they are haunted.

But this, like the reviewer above mentioned, like taking a tour. Okay a tour, fine, but the "investigators" and "group leaders" seemed to make a pretty penny and have a financial investment into whether its haunted or not, so when THEY have fantabulous stories, I have to take it with a heaping teaspoon of salt.

As someone else mentioned, I could make out whatever they wanted me to see in the picture about 50% of the time. The rest of the time, I couldn't make out anything. Also without any context to the photos- time of day, type of camera, moisture in the room, dust particles (which 75% are what the orbs are), weather and a ga-gillion other factors, I cant accept them. I also cant help thinking that some might be doctored.

Why would that band keep the numbers from the door? Vandalism? Also during the TAPS investigation, they tried to dig up the death certificates of those nurses- and they only found one which was ruled "accidental" (people didn't want to officially proclaim suicide). Yet when one of the guides was mentioning this, he said "yep, and its marked suicide." It really felt like the guides to the haunted houses here in October.

I DID however like the interviews with the patients and staff from the old hospital(s), that really gave it a lot of perspective and a personal touch. I'm also glad that they mentioned that the staff had the best of intentions, and weren't some ghoulish-wardens. They weren't the best methods, but its all they had. They were desperate to stop the disease.


The first film I saw from these people was "Children of the Grave" and when I heard that this one was coming on I thought it would be good to watch mostly because Waverly is a real place that is rumored to be haunted. This documentary/film was AWFUL! There was too much fake commentary from the producers, directors, camera men...they needed to keep their faces out of this film. Waverly has been rumored to be haunted for a long time yet if anyone in doubt about it watches this film they will no doubt start to believe that every story about the place is as fake as this documentary. The paranormal proof was horrible and almost non-existent. I have heard better EVPs from high school students with tape recorders in a bathroom! They tried too hard to make things scary and the end result was that nothing was scary. Not the stories, not the blurry too dark to see anything videos, not the pictures, not the tape recordings! Children of the Grave was bad as well but at least it had some substance and a little bit of a creep factor. The only reason I am giving this a 3 is because the history portion of the show was very good and informative. Learning about how the hospital came about, the daily life there,and how it ended was the only thing worth while in this 2hr piece of crap.


Basically, this was obviously designed to be promotional material for the movie produced by the same horrible director, which happens to be even worse than this documentary and absolutely the worst movie I've ever seen, so avoid it at all costs.

As for this documentary, it's entertaining; entertaining and blatantly misleading! Most of the "historical" looking footage is most likely just that, historical footage from completely unrelated events that were sadly cut and pasted into this documentary to make it more dramatic than it would have ever been otherwise. There's no doubt that Waverly is a pretty interesting place with plenty of it's own fascinating history, but manufacturing a documentary to market the locale and the related production is, for lack of better words, appallingly useless.

And yes, I've lived in Kentucky my whole life, and I have visited the location numerous times. Waverly Hills deserves respect; and there's nothing respectful about this lame documentary.


How is this a documentary? Much more like a walking ghost tour one might take in any given Southern city. Quotes were generously dropped throughout without the first effort at identifying the source. George Orwell was the most identified quoter.

Documents were referred to without ever being produced in any form. Flat out fraudulent shots depicting period film stock were spliced aside historical film reels with no separation from reality and self-promotion. Film reels which were entirely unrealistic and improbable for the time at hand were dropped in, as if trying to ape Blair Witch, hoping to drum up a spook house on what would otherwise simply be dead real estate.

Is this not in some way a great disrespect to actual victims of TB, a dance on their collective graves for the sake of commercialism? The line between actual footage and manufactured self-service is so thin; the drippings of doubt so insignificantly played down; the scientific boundaries so blatantly ignored... how could this possibly be listed in my TiVo as documentary?

It's a vacation promo, and at that it fully succeeds.

Hell, I'd visit the joint if I could locate it on Google Earth. Not scary said a previous poster. Not too serious either, says I. Fascinating story. Flimsy film-making.


It was like someone was trying to make a scary video game and a documentary at the same time. The historical aspect was great. Everything else was horrible, the plugs for the directors other movie that seemed to happen every other minute, the video of the actual ghost hunting was edited like a scary movie rather than an investigation, they had haunted house music and sound effects that would distract you from what was happening. THanks for wasted 2 hours of my time! When there was evidence, it would fly by! Most of it was just people talking about the place.The episode of the Ghosthunters show that went there absolutely destroys how this show was. I am so upset with sci fi channel for playing this, I haven't watched it since it aired.


This is just a long advertisement for the movie "The Death Tunnel". Although it is an interesting history of the Waverly Hills Sanatorium, the whole ghost theory is up to your interpretation. More "Ghost Orbs" which you can duplicate with dust in front of a flash camera, and the "Ectoplasmic Mist" is just someone's cigarette smoke lit up with the camera flash. I couldn't see any "Shadow People" until they drew an outline around the blurry distortion of the image. No scientific explanations were suggested for the phenomena, only paranormal. Perhaps these are only events one would have to see to believe, so be sure to make plans to visit the Sanatorium on your next vacation in Louisville, Kentucky.


The incomparable Paul Naschy, horror film icon of Spain, lends his talents to this entertaining if not scattershot film. What begins as an action flick ends up a horror story. All I can say is just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Paul Naschy plays a cold-hearted hit-man hired by some shady Japanese diamond hunters (one of which is his flame who is carrying his child) to swipe a cache of diamonds from a Belgian businessman. When the deed is done, the allure of the diamonds is too tempting for Paul to dismiss so he kills his Japanese cohorts. His girlfriend, whose brother Paul killed, vows revenge and chases Paul through the forest, shooting him up and leaving him for dead. However, Paul is found by an egghead with two horny daughters and brought to his estate to recuperate.

At the estate, the two daughters, Silvia Aguilar and Azucena Hernandez, fight for Paul in his weakened state, with the busty Silvia Aguilar determined not to lose out to the sweet and prim Azucena. But things get hairy for Mr. Naschy who begins to see the ghost of the daughter's long dead mother on the estate grounds. Couple this with the Japanese lass looking to finish the job of killing Paul and he gets pulled from two sides.

STORY: $$ (The story goes a number of ways and doesn't fully satisfy. The script builds up a fight for Paul between the daughters but Silvia, whose character seems assertive and volatile, simply lets Azucena win in the Paul Naschy sweepstakes without putting up a fight. Personally, I would have preferred the ghostly apparition story to the revenge seeking of the Japanese woman)

VIOLENCE: $$$ (You get gunplay, a blown-up babe and pigs eating some poor schmuck alive. Gore hounds will not be letdown with this Naschy flick).

ACTING: $$$ (Paul Naschy, as always, is fun to watch but he does spend a bit too much time in bed recovering from his wounds. Starring with him again are the luscious Silvia Aguilar and the beautiful Azucena Hernandez, who teamed with Mr. Naschy in the little gem "The Craving." Both girls do a fine job).

NUDITY: $$$ (You get very brief glimpses of both Aguilar and Hernandez but they are strategically placed, keeping the naught bits covered. Full nudity is supplied by the two lesser appealing actresses: the Japanese woman chasing Paul and the African maid that works for Silvia and Azucena).


I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar!


This is my opinion of this movie, expressed in its dialogs.

To be more serious, i can't say this movie is a bad moment but i didn't enjoy it either.

First, I was simply indifferent & couldn't get my mind into the apes world. Even though the make-up are very realistic, the constant screaming was irritating. May the film have changed apes for cats and it's a cult movie for me in relation to my fondness of the latter.

The second part is more interesting, with the talent and freshness of then newcomers (Macdowell & Lambert), but i felt alienated: all the story is located in a big British mansion: no matter how luxurious is it, it was like a prison for me.

At last, it could be a good adaptation of the Burroughs' story of Tarzan ? I don't know, having never read the book (or seen the Disney): .

In conclusion, i don't have any good moments to remember, so one viewing would be enough for me.

I should have guessed my boredom after the endless freeze called "Overture" at the beginning... What's the meaning? Only the director knows it.


I am very interested in animal children and I have read many Edger Rice Burroughs novels -- but this awful movie couldn't keep me interested, nor could I stomach all the absurd, unrealistic scenes. I only managed to sit through the Africa part and John's first few days in Scotland. Let's talk about 'unrealistic' and 'downright silly'! The actors in ape suits looked like extra large chimps, rather than great apes (there is a difference). They did not move with the grace that a wild animal would. (For comparison, see some of the better Planet of the Apes movies where they trained their actors to move in simian fashion). The apes eat large haunches of meat -- not a common ape practice as far as I know. I am a sucker for animal stories but the script did not make me care about the apes. The great white hunters of the expedition that finds John Clayton are charicaturish entirely. The parents of Clayton were shipwrecked on an ocean beach, but somehow it is a very long trip down the river to get to the coast -- give me a break! Let's talk about 'slow'. Even the folks who think this is an excellent movie admit that it is not an action movie. Far from it. It tries to be a character study -- unfortunately the downright silly part predominates! I did not read Burroughs' Tarzan books, but many of his other series -- they were packed with meaningful action and heroic purpose! This film just isn't there.


A female friend invited me to see this in the theaters.

After half an hour we walked out, and went into the next multiplex (yeah, we broke the rules) in time to catch the beginning of Against All Odds.

I remember too many apes dancing around saying, "oog, oog." Very little about the characters or introduction to the story captured either one of us or was even memorable. It just dragged to the point of being painfully boring (and believe me, any excuse was good enough to spend time with this particular friend).

The production values were excellent, good photography and lighting, but this was a major studio release, and we came to see a movie, not an art gallery. It seemed like Ralph Richardson and Andie McDowell were going to be wasted in such a poorly written film.

Perhaps if you make into the second hour, there is something worth seeing. I do not have so much patience with my time. 4 out of 10.


Here's why this movie fell very short of its potential(I don't read much, so I don't care WHAT the novel was like). 1. I think Brendan Frasier copied his Encino man from Lambert's Tarzan. It was stiff, and while his Tarzan call was a little more realistic, he had no humanity. 2. They screwed with the story. Maybe that's how the book goes, but for as long as I can remember the first utterances of Tarzan were "Me tarzan, you Jane". Jane is the first human tarzan encounters. I did like the natives a bit more than the shoepolished midget pigmys in Weismuller's version, but those bows and arrows were a bit cheesy. 3. Tarzan is primarily a love story. I'm sorry, but the love interest enters over an hour into the picture. That qualifies her for a supporting role at best. Supporting roles and leads don't fall for each other, not enough screen time, sorry. Not only was Andie McDowell's vioce over pathetic(most likely because her strong southern accent couldn't be masked) the chemistry scale between Tarzan and Jane was a whopping 0. I never believed they loved each other, which made the Belgian dudes closing voice over, quite frankly, silly. When Tarzan sees Jane for the first time in the jungle, he feels an urge, if you will, a feeling he's never felt before. Jane brings out the humanity in him, and he brings out the untamed side of her. Its this chemistry that compells the story of Tarzan. Not that Lord Greystoke's dying wish is to keep his land whole and that johnny boy is going to do it for him. Even a good face lift couldn't help this movie. It needs massive internal reconstruction. Oh, and could we possibly shoot more in the jungle, or at least use camera angles that don't show off the sound stage like qualities of the place. Final judgement, 4 out of 10. Sorry Tin-man, and by the way, if you want to see real acting, drop Lambert and check out Leonardo Dicaprio.


This DVD is barely 30 minutes long, and has dull interviews that reveal that the average Slipknotian has an IQ of around 30. But these aspects are the least problematic here.

The real trouble is that Slipknot is one of the least talented metal bands to ever sell over 100,000 units of their crap. (The only reason I say "one of the" instead of "the" is because System Of A Down are even worse.) Much like Ed Gein's girlfriends, this band's music is pieced together from age-old metal clichés, which are to be found in both their image and their ultra-dull music. In fact, their image is kind of fun; their videos are like snippets from cheesy horror films hence they fulfill at least some purpose as entertainment.

Their music, however, consists of nothing of quality - whatsoever: just a bunch of gimmicky, heard-them-a-million-times-before played-solely-at-the-guitar-neck riffs that are in no way related to each other and yet are randomly grouped together to form "songs" that have no cohesion, no highlights, no nothing. But if the riffs are truly bad, then the vocals are even worse: Slipknot's singer has a stereotypical hence uninteresting "evil" growl - the kind 90% of all metal bands today have - but that is nothing compared to when this deluded hick starts trying to sing! Still, what could one expect? Rule no.39 of the "Nu Metal" handbook says quite clearly: "You will alternately growl and sing. Ignore the fact that the two styles don't mix well, because most of your fans are so tone-deaf they will love you even if you **** into the microphone." Slipknot are at their absolute worst when their "singer" starts belching out "melodies".

But back to their image. It's stolen, copied, ripped off, nicked, borrowed, taken without asking from none other than Mr.Bungle. You've never heard of them? Of course you haven't. You only listen to nu-metal, and Mr.Bungle is quite far from that, and beyond any categorization anyway. They too wore masks - grotesque, horror ones, similar to those of Slipknot, I might add - in the late 80s and early 90s. This band, whose frontman is Mike Patton from Faith No More, never hit it big because their music wasn't directed toward the average music fans (to put it mildly).

So, basically Slipknot aren't even original in the image department. They have nothing at all new to offer hence will be forgotten in several years: once the masks become boring to the legions of their zit-faced fans, which is when Slipknot will be forced to compete in the music market solely with their generic music.

Speaking of Mike Patton, it's interesting that a number of nu-metal bands often site his singing as a major influence. Predictably - and thankfully - Patton is not flattered by this and has denied being in any way proud to have been an influence for one of the worst metal sub-genres ever...

Having said that, enjoy this short DVD and the cheap thrills it might provide to the untrained ear and bored eye... And then polish those Slipknot posters, because in a few years no-one will be taking care of them, the poor dears.

Having seen Corey in the documentary "Get Thrashed", I finally understand why he wears a mask: he is a blue-eyed baby-faced ginger, looking like Dave Mustaine's younger brother! Not exactly scary.

For more of my music-world rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/1

Please punish me hard, very HARD, by clicking "no" below. That'll teach me...


Some of the greatest and most loved horror movies have a wicked sense of humour, but when a film comes along that isn't as original as the "classics" but just goes at it for laughs then a bunch of po-faced, wanna-be critics completely slag it off. This film made me laugh aloud several times, this is testament to the way this film was approached and it shows. The two main leads look natural and believable together and this really helps this film. You root for them the whole way and laugh along with them, everyone has friends like both of these guys. Another highlight for me was the monster truck, it's awesome, intimidating and really well shot. Taking inspiration (completely stealing) from loads of films, the most obvious being Duel, Jeepers Creepers and probably in reference to the Jack Black alike co-star Orange County. But really you can pick any road trip gone wrong movie and find a reference here. But so what, it's not trying to win any Oscars just give the viewer a good dose of frights and laughs and on that score it's a 10! Obviously It's not getting a 10, I give real sensible reviews and scores unlike 99% of the people on IMDb. There is no-way this movie can get a zero like so many lazy idiots give to too many films and as fun as it was it ain't getting a 10 either. It's just a good fun movie for anyone with a sense of humour and a liking for scares. You really can't get anymore simple than that.


Fans of horror comedy will like this one. Others might get quickly annoyed and shut it off. It's sort of a buddy film, with over-the-top violence and gore, deliberately stereotyped characters, and a lot of craziness.

It looks to have been made on a budget of about $100, by a bunch of fraternity guys after a big beer keg party. There's a lead who's a frustrated nerd, and his loudmouth prank-pulling friend who mocks him about 30 times per second. There's a cool monster truck chasing them for hundreds of miles, which is the highlight of the film. Whenever this thing and its gnarly-mask wearing driver appear, it's a great scene. There's a mysterious girl who randomly appears in their back seat, and plenty of giant guys in overalls hanging out in red neck bars. The nerd's friend never shuts his yap, and gets them in one mess after another. Their arguing got on my nerves, but other aspects of the film make up for it.

Sight gags poking fun at several "psycho tormenting and trying to croak somebody" films are everywhere. Take your pick which one is riffed the most: Hills Have Eyes, Saw, and Jeepers Creepers were some that I recognized.

It's enjoyable insanity, if you're in the right frame of mind. Sensory-dulling brewskies with your friends can make viewing this more fun; it's a good bet that's the condition of the movie makers when they put this thing together.


I completely disagree with the previous reviewer: this movie has amusing moments but hardly a laugh riot. (unless you really think sipping from a septic tank and heads exploding in a vice are a laugh riot) In fact, the only reasons I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 are because a.) two of the actors are decent b.)the soundtrack is above average with some tuneful pop songs thrown in for contrast and c.)the monster truck is pretty terrifying.

Other than that, this is a movie with some intermittent, creepy or interesting ideas which are overwhelmed by unrelenting crassness, crudity and vileness. The former best friend character is one of the most annoying I've ever seen and the small grace that the hitchhiker character had disappears in yet another contrived twist ending that makes little to no sense at all.

A waste of the lead actor who shows some nervous charm and the aforementioned actress portraying the hitchhiking character...


I would like to know who conned the producers of this movie to pay for its production - That persion is a genius of sorts. This movie somehow held my attention for about two thirds of it until I realized that it was going nowhere fast. I think the music managed to make it seem like something was going on, but nothing really was. It was not scary. The dialog was poorly written. The first 90 minutes should have been covered in about 15 minutes. This would have been a moderately acceptable Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode.

At this point I'm just mad that I wasted all that time. That's a couple hours that I will never get back.

I hope these comments save someone from wasting their evening. Take a nap or hit the gym instead. Or if you want to be scared, turn on a cable news channel.


Last night, I am sitting in my TV room, beer in hand, bowl of pretzels on the TV tray & I decide to put the movie "Monster Man" into my trusty VCR. Expecting a fun-filled, gory, crash & bash cheesefest of a movie. What do I get instead? One of THE most silly, stupid, unfrightening & predictable films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. And what's even worse, all during the(& I use this next phrase loosely) "sex scene" the girl keeps all her clothes on! I'll make this summary short & sweet: mix "Dude Where's My Car" (about a good 1/2 of the film) with a very watered down "Hitcher", add a redneck version of the antagonist from "I Madman" as the primary villain & finally some incoherent black magic mumbo jumbo & you'll kind of get a clue how rotten this movie is. It's also utterly predictable throughout. The only notable factor to this buddy movie disguised as a "horror film" is that some of the moments between the 2 guys (even though the "hero" is one MAJOR annoying geek & the other is a Jack Black clone) are kind of funny (just mediocre funny i.e..like most of SNL skits). Other than that, "Monster Man" is a monster mess! 3/10 (This one I'll be handing out at Halloween time-just hope after the person views it I don't get my house egged or worse)


Heard some good remarks about this film as being very gory and frightning, but it's neither. Obviously the screenwriter wanted to do a scary horror film but at the same time inject some teenage comedy for the young target audience. Scares and comedy seldomly result in good films, the same goes for MONSTER MAN.

Not really funny, nor scary or overly enjoyable on ANY other level.

Aproaching 39 years of age I've seen my share of horror movies. I have seen good ones and terrible ones, but the crop of films released these days are so frighteningly mediocre it bores me to watch 'em. The acceptance these days for bad films like this is what really annoys me. Let's face it, they produced a lot of crap in the 70's, 80's and 90's but they were regarded as such then as well. Today they're regarded as "good entertainment". - Bollocks!


Wow, where do I begin? After suffering through this wretched $1.00 rental (thanks a LOT, Family Video) I just had to make a few comments. I did not bother to write down the names of the 3 actors in the film, but hopefully you will know who I am talking about.

A monster truck terrorizes the countryside and chases two college-aged buddies to their doom. They encounter a hot girl wearing slutty clothes. I mean, this just sounds fantastic in theory. I was laughing hysterically at the DVD box while I walked it up to the girl behind the counter at the video store.

Acting: the hot girl, played by Aimee Whatever, is visibly laughing through many scenes where she is supposed to be scared. The other two major actors in the film, the fat prankster and the vanilla straight-guy are both terrible. The fat guy thinks he's Jack Black. He's not. The other actor, our hero, over-emotes and misses all his cues and comes across as some generic character you might see in a made-for-Nickelodeon movie about skateboarding in the early 90's. Look: I don't expect great performances in movies like these, but at least the actors can make an effort to not be annoying. You can be an incompetent actor but still be agreeable (i.e. John Wayne). At least that Aimee gal is attractive.

Script: Holy ****, who thought this dialogue was funny? I wouldn't have the nerve to play this out in front of my grade school drama class, much less pitch it as a film script. Unfathomably bad. More on this later.

Production: OK, this is the one place where the film definitely succeeds. Production quality is amazingly high. The look of the film is very good. Apparently the only talented person who worked on the movie was the director of photography.

OK, here are my biggest gripes: 1) The guy driving the car never drives faster than 25 miles an hour.

2) The guy driving the car is well out into the country before he realizes there is a fat man in a mask in his back seat. He is supposedly meticulous about recording gas mileage and keeping his antique car in good condition but he does not notice a 300lb Jack Black impersonator in the back? Come on.

4) Characters never change their clothes. There are two hotel scenes. Presumably, showers are available to our characters yet over the 3 days this movie takes place, none of the characters bothers to change their clothes.

5) Comedy. Lighthearted, slapstick comedy does not mix with horror. Period. You can't have our characters running away from a monster truck one second and the next second have them verbally jousting one another with some dopey light/comedy music playing. This kind of pacing virtually ruins any tension in the movie. Movies like Evil Dead 2 which mix comedy and horror understand that tension can be loosened yet never completely eliminated with humor. Monster Man doesn't get it.

I'm irritated that what could have been a VERY funny horror movie was ruined by a director who thought he was a lot more clever than he really was. Oh well.


Now don't get me wrong I love bad movies... no I adore bad movies, Troll 2.... ouch painful, Manos The Hands of Fate... just watch Torgo go, Guru the Mad Monk.. is that traffic noise in the medieval background? OK so that's clear, but this is one of those films that was quite obviously trying to be something better, but didn't make it. Why not? Well it would be easy to blame the plot, but heh we've seen worse, there weren't too many holes and heh I know there's not a lot of originality in it but then that needn't kill a film. The effects aren't bad (if you completely ignore the last scene), the monster is OK, the truck quite menacing so where did it go wrong? Well I'd love to blame it on the 'Chris Moyles' look-a-like Harley... so I will! Comedy and horror are difficult to mix well, bad comedy and horror even worse and there's the problem. I loathed this guy from the moment he stuck his head up (literally), the continual bating of the overly meek Adam becomes annoying, so annoying that you lose belief that the mildest of people wouldn't react by pushing him out of the moving car door... and I thought it was the monster bits that the director was meant to have trouble convincing us of. Why are bad movies fun? Well you have great fun poking holes in them, laughing at the script, all the howlers etc. This film doesn't make the coveted category of 'Worst Movies' because its just bad due to being annoying nuff said. Don't bother, go watch anything else and you'll be a better person for it... I promise! (Fade to chants of Torgo Torgo Torgo)


What an absolute joke of a movie. The case for this film would have you believe it is Duel meets Jeepers Creepers meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Three good films in their own right and you would think, using their blueprint, MM couldn't go far wrong. Well that's what I thought, and I was very, very mistaken!

We follow two college students as they travel miles across the desert to reach a wedding. They pick up a girl (no she doesn't get her clothes off), then they get chased by a Leatherface rip-off in a Monster Truck, whom they aptly name F**kface (AKA Monster Man).

The Monster Truck I will admit is a very cool vehicle, but the less than suspenseful chase scenes ruin it's potential.

So MM decides he's got a bit of a grudge against these guys and chases them for a bit, they loose him for a while and stop at a bar full of amputees, then they go to a motel where lead character Adam sleeps with hitch-hiker Sarah (though they both wear underwear!). Then they are caught by MM, taken to his home where they escape death and try to kill MM, but fail, hence the set-up for the sequel. Apart from a minor 'twist', that's it.

If you can get past the first 2 minutes  where Adam's friend Harley pops up from hiding in the back of Adam's car to try to scare him, with no explanation as to how Harley even got there, how long ago or how Adam even failed to realise  without thinking you hate it already, then you may just enjoy this film.

Monster Man has very poor cinematography and direction which is immediately off-putting. This is the kind of movie that you'll be able to pick up as one of those films in a box set of 20 horror movies that you've never heard of.

What is so irritating is Blockbuster stock so many of these poor quality films that are shot on digital by some amateur film students, and that's exactly what MM is (though IMDb states this particular director was born in 1961).

The acting throughout this film is atrocious. The script, which the writer obviously considered to be funny, is irritating and childish. You get the impression only one draft was written before they started shooting. In fact, the script is do dire a lot of the film seems improvised, full of those boring, un-entertaining conversations that are only funny or important to the actual people involved. Imagine you filmed yourself and your buddies having a conversation, sure, points are funny  TO YOU, but mostly it's trash. That's what the script for MM is like.

Don't watch it for the gore either  it's fairly minimal and there are much better gory films out there (Bad Taste, Evil Dead et al)

Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, even with their cheesiness and plot holes, are far superior to this film. Compare the intro of Jeepers Creepers to the intro of Monster Man and you'll see what I mean.


Okay, so when a friend of mine told me he was supposed to direct MM2 and MM3, I thought, heck, I got to check out Monster Man and see what its like, maybe I can get a part in it, but when I popped it into my DVD player and and tried to choke down the first 45 minutes of nothing but bad, bad I mean horribly annoying bad comedy from that fat ass thinking he's funny, not to mention how looooong the director spent on the pointless desert road trip, I cam to the conclusion that these guys didn't have a clue of what they were doing and missed the boat by a long shot. The story had potential to be somewhat different than the usual BS you see on the Blockbuster/Hollywood Video shelf put out by Lions gate these days, but they surely messed this one up. Why put so much time and effort in shooting annoying bad acting and bad jokes, why not shorten the road trip and put more of the plot in the movie. Myabe the writing was so bad that they had to cut out a lot of the movie or maybe the director didn't shoot enough of the horror and gore, that they had to find filler to make the usual 84 minutes???? All in all, and I'm being easy here, maybe because a friend of mine is the bald redneck in the bar scene that gets his skull crushed when chasing the three leads out into the street, I will give it at least 1 star for trying, and the gore/kill scenes weren't that bad, again, they tried. Too bad, Lions Gate could have created a cool franchise from this idea, but failed. I don't recommend paying to rent it, maybe you can find a cut down version where the movie starts from the hitch hiker scene. CRAP!


This "space snippet" was kind of dumb. I guess it was supposed to be a shocker unexpected ending, but IMHO it was just a huge letdown. Joseph Campanella and the rest of the earthbound actors do a great job in this one; their performances are not done justice with such a silly ending though. How this ending could ever have made it through any kind of review by the producers is beyond me. The other comment on here is not correct, the tongue in cheek vignettes only came in during the second season, this thing was supposed to be taken seriously! The producers and writers could have been a little more creative with the ending to do the rest of the episode justice.


Although I could sum this pathetic episode of Night gallery in two words, those two words being "horse manure," I am obligated to write a minimum of ten lines. This is a very sophomoric episode, not worthy of the standards of Rod Serling, but rather an inept attempt at some sort of ironic black comedy. The premise of giant rodents inhabiting the moon, a lifeless orb to be sure, is totally ridiculous, as is the construction of a giant mousetrap. I suppose we are to also assume that the moon is made of green cheese and that is how these absurd creatures survive. I can only assume that this episode was presented as a filler to supplant the other two episodes first aired on that date. All in all, a waste of film, actors and air time.