i came across this film on the net by fluke and i was horrified by its content of vivid abuse violence and torture scenes. it was a relief to know it was not real after reading the comments. what dangerously sick animals of a person make something like this and for what purpose goes beyond belief. i was even more shocked to see people appraising the film in the comments section of this site. this is a extremely disturbing film indeed which could change your life forever. the people behind this should be bought to justice asap. today they shown a girl getting raped and butchered on screen tomorrow it could be a child. even its fake or not its very very deathly disturbing,nauseating indeed.


I usually enjoy watching Laurel and Hardy, but this is obviously one of the films they made while they were on their way to becoming a successful comedy team.

The plot is all too simple, and is mainly based on one joke; how strange kilts and Scotsmen are. And that's all. Okay, there are some other jokes, but I didn't find them very funny at all; they are outdated and (I guess) were not very entertaining when the movie was first released.

Still, the movie has got two of the most charming faces in history, and they make the best out of the awkward story (which I expect was filmed without a proper script) and the scenery is nice to look at.

In my opinion, watching this is only worthwhile for Laurel and Hardy fans, other people should stay away from it.


Exceptionally silly actioner with braindead leads in a story which would have suited a fill-in issue of Spiderman. The action sequences never really flow as they should, leaving some cool bits orphaned in a sea of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I really wonder how they'll release this one in the West. Sam Lee overacts like crazy, newcomer Edison Chan doesn't display any acting talent yet. The robot is clunky and not very impressive, and the CGI effects (though done by US sfx-people) are ridiculous, totally destroying any remaining suspension of disbelief. I am NOT looking forward to Gen-Z Cops...


This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to"FIGHT"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are "good fighters"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0/10.


I somehow managed to make it all the way through this movie, but was dumbfounded by the complete lack of entertainment delivered. My friends and I are fans of HK film, but WOW. This movie has it all, and by all I mean everything a movie shouldn't have. Underdeveloped and stereotyped characters, way over-the-top overacting, cheesy special effects, talking robots, no less than 20 double-foot jumpkicks, impossible situations, unfunny "gags" and "jokes", elementary school premise, mindless killings, and too-long running time for the material. Throw in the fact that Gen-X Cops was a decent film and this movie becomes even harder to bear. Quite simply, if you're entertaining the idea of watching this film...don't.


I saw this movie on VHS some time ago (27 Jan 2003), just because of the name of Paul Rudd on the cover. I liked his performance in `The Object of My Affection' very much and I really expected a good work. However, I found this film a complete mess. The story has a very confused screenplay and the characters are not well developed. Further, the low-budget special effects do not help much. I do not know the previous generation of Gen-Y Cops, but this next generation is not good. I do not recall exactly why I gave this grade (and I do not intent to see this movie again), but my vote is four.

Title (Brazil) : `Gen-Y Cops A Nova Geração' (`Gen-Y Cops The Next Generation')


This movie is over hyped!! I am sad to say that I manage to watch the first 15 minutes of this movie and anything beyond that, I will have to force myself real hard to sit down and watch the rest of the movie. It's totally stupid and very fake. The robot in the movie looks like a man wearing those steel suit and the acting is really bad especially the one playing the character Alien.He is totally annoying!! Don't waste your money watching this sequel to the popular Gen-X Cops. I'd rather sleep or spend my money on some other things rather than watching this movie. 1 out of 10. If possible,I'd give 0.


Her bit-part as a masseuse, in the lurid sequel to the original 'Emmannuelle', evidently gave someone the bright idea of putting a spanner in the works of the French soft-core series' gambit by inverting the Caucasian carnality and casting Javan stunner Gemser in a leading role in this, the rather tame first of a series of sexploiters that became increasingly depraved as sleazier directors took on in-name-only sequels.

Someone (and surely not the English-language over-haulers Warner?) was also anticipating an 'A Star Is Born' type meteoric rise out the results, judging by the way the actress is credited merely with the eponymous moniker of the on-screen heroine, albeit with a couple of consonants sacrificed as insurance against litigation.

Gemser's tenure in the series saw her as an 'intrepid' photographer, allowing of course for all manner of subsequent globe-trotting adventures. But, whilst she may well have been one the very most beautiful actresses on the screen at that time, any thespian talent that may have been there to discern becomes mired in the same sort of unfeasibly facile cogitation ("I have to confess that since I've been in Africa, I find white skin less appealing...") that was to be found in the French films.

And in this particular entry, much to the consternation of the raincoat brigade the essence of on-screen carnality is as much to be found in puerile symbolism (pumping engine pistons!) as it is in prosaic couplings - although naturally these include generous dollops of 'exploratory' lesbianism. Connoiseurs of kitsch are however guaranteed a continuous stream of aural delights, what with such epithets of ethnographic wisdom as "I do nothing to be a perfect black, she does everything to be a perfect white".


The success of the original French "Emmanuelle" series (I've only watched the first, which wasn't too bad considering) led to a spate of imitations; the Italian counterpart, which even changed the race of its heroine, was clearly less polished and more exploitative - descending more and more into vulgarity as the series went along. Incredibly, there were 16 "Black Emanuelle" films in total, with the heroine even having the spelling of her name changed to avoid copyright issues!! Still, Laura Gemser - the titular object of desire - became almost as much of an icon as the original Emmanuelle, Sylvia Kristel (although, personally, she's too skinny for my tastes)! Here she's even billed as "Emanuelle" rather than with her real name - with the director, likewise, becoming "Albert Thomas"!

In itself, the film offers little of interest: as a matter of fact, one would do best to approach it as a travelogue with some decent footage of the African wildlife. With respect to the sex scenes, I don't know how complete the version I watched was but, while there was a lot of nudity, none of it was very explicit - or even titillating (the scene that came closest, perhaps, was when Gemser - who works as a photographer - and her companion Karin Schubert turn the camera on each other, naturally sans clothes, in the middle of the jungle)! The film also features an artist made up to look like Salvador Dali but, mercifully perhaps, his scenes do not take much of the running time. The score by Nico Fidenco is typically bland 70s pop and, really, nothing to write home about.


When I was young, I'd get up early every Saturday morning not to watch cartoons but to turn on the local channel for what was called 'Kung Fu Theatre.' It wasn't as if these films were works of art. It wasn't as if these films all came from China, Japan, Korea, or any country in particular; if the story had to do with fighting  be it swordplay or fisticuffs  and if the fighting didn't resemble much of anything going on in any American gym class, then that was good enough. It wasn't as if they were really even very good. They were just great action flicks with incredibly over-dramatic music where the hero reaped his vengeance over a whole host of bad guys, and then the credits would roll.

"Sword in the Moon" is much like these films of my youth, arguably a bit of a thematic throwback given a welcome twist by muddying the characters up enough that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the bad guys from the good.

Yun (Cho Jae Hyun) is known throughout the kingdom as 'the human butcher.' He kills quickly and mercilessly on behalf of the Chun Dynasty, the chief bodyguard of an Emperor who spared his life and the life of his men in exchange for his service. However, an equally merciless rebel and his lovely sidekick appear in the countryside and start murdering imperial ministers, and Yun agrees to find these rebels and kill them. His task becomes one of personal discovery when he learns that the two rebels are Choi (a friend from his past) and his former love, Shi Yeong.

Sadly, "Sword" doesn't have much to distinguish itself from other action films. Some stunning cinematography is nearly entirely wasted on shoddy editing with portions of the film put together so loosely its hard to believe that what inevitably made it to the film was what anyone intended. While the atmosphere and story tend to gravitate toward a dark mood, the tone is almost sacrificed to the never-ending parade of flashbacks as each of the main characters is given a healthy story arc. What should've been a quick and easy action film gets weighed down by far too much personal baggage, and the film suffers as a result.

I've read that this film marks Korea's first real foray into the world of art-house action pieces along the likes of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Next time, I'd strongly suggest that the producers stick with a little more 'martial' and a little less 'art.'


I'M BOUT IT(1997)

Developed & published by No Limit Films

>>Pros: Absolutely none

>>Cons: I don't even know where to begin!

Plot summary: Master P plays a drug dealer that looks, talks, and acts more like a live-action cartoon character. That's all the plot I got out of this movie.

Review: I remember back when I was in the ninth grade during its release and everyone in my class praised this clown called Master P. This movie is so bad, it's not even funny. All the characters in this film are extremely tired stereotypes, the audio is only audible when music plays, and the movie looks like it was videotaped off a public access channel. Luckily, I didn't buy this film like all my other inner-city degenerate classmates.

My rating:1 out of 10

My verdict: Avoid this video like its a sexually-transmitted disease.


this is one of the more poorly made movies I've ever seen. One has to take anything by Truffaut seriously; it's not just some B-movie cranked out by hacks.

evidently Truffaut couldn't decide whether he was making a noir or a sentimental chick flick. and neither could Deneuve, whose dozen (?) character flip-flops are simply unbelievable -- not even badly acted; just not acted at all. Among other things, how a woman as beautiful as Deneuve could be a person such as Julie/Marion is simply beyond anyone's ability to suspend disbelief; the role absolutely demands someone not so beautiful. Belmondo's acting also suffers although imho his character is not quite as unbelievable as Deneuve's. The cliché ending (which I won't describe) is unfortunately all too appropriate for this complete mistake.


I'm trying to find something of value here. The best I can muster is that Truffaut wanted to make a movie as tedious, painful, puerile, annoying, illogical, and brainless as the experience of being in love. If that was his goal, then he succeeded, but the solution to his exercise is really a drag to watch.

There is one scene that screams for a spoof: Belmondo compares the features of Deneuve's face to the features in a landscape . All I could think the whole time was "glacier," "ice floe," "two lonely fishermen wearing Army surplus on a frozen lake in Minnesota."

The only other point of interest was the resurrection of Buffoon's theory of climatic determinism. The tropics are presented as paradise, and things get progressively worse as they get colder, hell being Calvinist French Switzerland. That was kind of funny.


The first 1/3 of this movie I loved and thought it was going to be one of Truffaut's best films. I loved the plot where a pen pal marries a man from half way around the world--sight unseen. Especially when this woman turns out to be a fraud and was responsible for the death of the REAL pen pal so she could take her place! She then cleaned out the husband's huge bank account and disappeared! I was really hooked and wanted to see more,...

And then, the movie fell apart and became just plain dumb! Despite her coming from New Caladonia (an island in the Pacific) and he from Reunion (an island in the Indian Ocean), when he goes on a trip to the South of France, he stumbles upon her almost immediately. Hmm,....odds are 187,000,000 to 1 but he finds her. Then, instead of either killing her or turning her over to the police, he forgives her--even when she acknowledges what she has done. Okay--this is tough to believe, but okay,...but then he helps to hide her from a private detective by murdering him!!!! No one is that stupid! Yes, the character Catherine Deneuve plays is quite beautiful but come on folks--this is just silly. Plus, if he only wanted her as a sex object, then why would he do this for a woman who is often frigid and completely selfish and evil.

This movie, due to it's very ridiculous plot, does not deserve such high ratings! Unless you are a die-hard Truffaut fan, try another film--even one of Truffaut's--just NOT this one.


François Traffaut's "Mississippi Siren" had an unconvincing plot. The screenplay required too much elasticity in suspension of disbelief. The plot went at a glacial pace. It started off in an interesting setting but soon drifted onto the shoals of melodrama that lacked logic or intelligence. What were the critics thinking? This one is overrated even to be described as a loser. Even Catherine Deneuvue, who charmed in "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" and "Belle Doe Jour," managed to be simply annoying.

We rented this movie at the same time as we rented another Traffaut film. We watched this one first, and found it to be so bad that we sent the other one back unseen at the same time.


These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the "surprise" ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say "it was all in his/her head" and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).


Let me first start out by saying 1 out of 10 is too good for this movie. It's unfortunate that IMDb doesn't have tenths of a star... I watched this abortion of a movie in the middle of the night due to insomnia, and it was absolute garbage. The plot was horrible. The acting was horrible. The movie was utterly boring. "malachi" looked like the Shadow with Alec Baldwin (The Shadow is infinitely better than this as well) The character Eve was so undeveloped and 2 dimensional she didn't even grab my attention. I didn't even know her name was Eve. Don was interesting when he kept his mouth shut. The "TWIST" (if you can call it that) was laughable and pathetic. When it came, the movie had done such a horrid job of building suspense or attachment to any character that I simply thought "Who gives a S***." The only thing that made me even lift an eyebrow about this movie was the fact the med. teacher was Dyson in Terminator 2 (Also a movie that was light years ahead of this motion picture massacre.) Anyone who was involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves for wasting 90 minutes of countless people's time. It's no wonder no actor from this movie ever had a fruitful career. In summary.... This movie is so bad, I feel dirty and need a shower. Worst movie in history, Gigli was better, Prom Night (the remake) was better and dare I say it Saw IV was better...........


Breaking Dawn starts in a Californian college as Professor Simon (associate producer Joe Morton) tells his students that they have to perform an intensive six week study of a mental patient in Cape State Hospital as a crucial part of their education, fail & they will never become qualified Doctors. A bright, young, attractive & intelligent student named Eve (Kelly Overton) is given a particularly difficult patient to study. His name is Don Wake (James Haven) & is a convicted killer, he was found covered in blood besides the dead body of a woman (Diane Verona) & her young daughter (Jenette McCurdy). At first Don won't even look at Eve much less talk to her, but like the trooper she is Eve persists in trying to figure him out. Eventually Don begins to talk but what he says frightens Eve, he says that someone is watching her & mentions the name Malachay. Eve then begins to see a dark shadowy figure at her every turn, as Don churns out the conspiracy theories & bizarre statements Eve slowly begins to lose her mind as the line between fantasy & reality becomes more & more blurred. Is there something more to the supposed nonsense that Don talks other than being the insane ravings of a psychiatric patient...?

Written & directed by Mark Edwin Robinson I have nothing but negative feelings towards Breaking Dawn. Now, we all like a good twist ending, the sort of ending which catches us unawares, surprises us, works well with the rest of the film & stays in our memory like the cool twist endings to The Sixth Sense (1999) & Fight Club (1999) to name just two good examples & to a lesser extent the endings to films such as Scream (1996) where the identity of the killer comes a nice surprise & isn't that obvious. Then, of course, there are films whose endings spoil everything that has gone before & as an example lets take, oh I don't know lets say Breaking Dawn because I have never seen such an awful ending to a film, never. Breaking Dawn starts out as a decent psychological horror thriller with spooky things starting to happen to Eve, it's not the most action packed film ever by any stretch of the imagination but it holds ones interest, it's not the most absorbing film ever either but it is more than watchable & it's not that bad a film until the twist ending, I have to keep mentioning it because everything else up to that point (which was OK to be fair to it) suddenly becomes irrelevant. I am sure there are people out there who think they have this muddled mess of an ending figured out down to the last detail, all I can say is that no one will be able to explain this thing in a satisfactory way to me & as far as I'm concerned it doesn't make a bit of sense & never will. Breaking Dawn is crap & it's a waste of time watching it to be rewarded with the lamest ending in film history, it's as simple & straight forward as that.

Director Robinson doesn't half make a mess of what could have been a decent thriller, maybe he thought what he had shot would play out OK or maybe it was ruined in the editing room but I'd imagine it was more likely down to a rubbish script as he tries to tie all the absurdities together within the space of a few muddled minutes & give us all a happier than happy final shot. He builds the tension quite well during the first 80 odd minutes but it's all for nought at the end of the day.

Technically Breaking Dawn is fine & it is generally well made throughout. The acting is pretty good, Overton is nice & easy on the eyes & puts in a decent performance. Was it just me or did the guy who played Don look like John Morghen star of such Italian sleaze classics as Cannibal Apocalypse (1980), City of the Living Dead (1980), The House on the Edge of the Park (1980), Cannibal Ferox (1981), Stagefright (1987) & The Church (1989)? OK, maybe it was just me...

Breaking Dawn is rubbish, I hated it all because of the final few minutes. Don't get me wrong it wasn't exactly getting me excited up to that point but it was OK. Definitely one to avoid as far as I'm concerned although it seems to have it's fair share of positive comments on the IMDb...


From watching the trailer, the movie looked pretty interesting. The production of the movie is also pretty good--it looks like they had a good budget and doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. The acting ranges from good (Joe Morton as Professor Simon) to OK (Kelly Overton as Eve) to bad (James Haven as Don).

The actual content and plot of the movie is weak. The movie starts out like it could become interesting and ends with a poorly executed, disappointingly boring, twist. Watching the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes of the movie would have made this movie OK but everything in between makes this an absolutely boring movie to watch. It's as though they made a short movie then tried to force it to be over an hour long by stuffing the middle with an hour of filler material.

If you want to waste a good hour and half of your life, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay away from this extremely boring movie.


I cant explain what a load of rubbish this film is. Like really i cant. its just that bad.

plot=crap acting=crap budget=so low its laughable

Jesus, its like the only good thing in this movie is the fact the main character was fairly hot.

The only people i feel, that think this movie is good are the ones who took part in the film. I'm sure they are not the ones who funded it because there was no money put into this. (HAHAhaha to the bit where there heads get shaved)

This movie has already wasted too much of my life so i am not going to waste anymore time writing my review for it.


The opening of "The Jungle" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better).

As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness.

The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do.

Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the "mammoths" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really "attacking" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***

So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the "traditional ways" and the elements of "mixed race" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema.


What do you do with all the material that does not make the final edit of a film? You might keep it aside in case a director's cut or extended version is released one day. You might sell some it as stock footage to be used in a part of another film. You might just bin it. Or you might collect it, accumulating more and more from each film you make and then use it to make another film, disregarding coherence or any sense. Throw a very primitive skeleton of a narrative into it and line up a number opportunities (nay, excuses) to slot in your celluloid cast-offs. Excuse the abjectly nonsensical nature of the plot by framing it all in the mind of a horror film director and you've got yourself an awful film. This can all be done with just a few days shooting. And idiots like me will waste two hours of their life watching it. And then come on here and try to warn others away. The whole chain of events is one big waste of time.


Starts off with Fulci playing a version of himself, writing down some ideas for how people could die. Followed by a fake-looking cat eating what is presumably a brain. The copy I watched was dubbed in English, which I always hate, but I was particularly disappointed not to get to hear Fulci in his own voice.

Fulci is in a sort of feverish state working on his latest horror movie. His stomach turns when he sees things that resemble effects from his movie, and he starts to hallucinate that he is witnessing acts of horror. He visits a psychiatrist, who hypnotizes him and unfortunately he does not have his improved mental health in mind. I was reminded of the psychiatrist played by David Cronenberg in Clive Barker's Nightbreed (1990). The shrink in this one is played by David L. Thompson, who is pretty bad. Probably a real life friend of Fulci's, he has a big toothy grin when he kills people, though this may be Fulci's black humor at work which I thought was pretty poor too.

The movie is composed of a lot of clips from Fulci's movies, either as if Fulci is on the set directing them, watching recordings on TVs, or witnessing the acts. I've never been too much of a fan of clip shows in TV series, and I also think things like Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment cutting their old films down and putting three such cuts together as new anthologies are pretty lame. I guess they need to make money?

The shrink in Cat in the Brain makes reference to the theory that violence in movies begets violence in real life. One of Fulci's co-workers talks about having a documentary crew follow Fulci to see what his life is like. Lots of self-referential stuff like this.

In the end, some of the characters sail away on a boat named "Perversion."


Mr. Bean is just a bunch of unfunny slapstick humour. It is the most shallow humour TV series ever made in history. The scenes are often disgusting and the horrible canned laughter sends chills through the spine. Mr. bean is a selfish and rude character and one can only sympathies how pathetic he is. It is incredible that such a TV series of low quality can be sustained for 5 years. It is a complete waste of time to watch even 1 episode and one can't help but to express disgust and pity why Rowen had portrayed himself as such a 2-dimensional, unfunny and ridiculous character. Or pity yourself why you had even bother to watch an episode. Watching this is an aggravating experience.


This one kind of is like an earlier movie from 1987 "Masters of the Universe" based on the cartoon "He-man". Basically, you have a great old world and they for some reason have to have nearly all the action of the movie take place on modern earth. Well I guess it is not so modern earth now and that it is an ancient world now of strangeness and a den of good times gone by. Well I guess I can figure why they did in fact place nearly all the movie in modern times in this and that movie. To save money on costumes and sets. It is a lot easier to recreate what is going on in the present than a strange world like that of Eternia in He-man or an ancient world with cults and strange pyramids, sacrifices and strange creatures that hug you to death. This movie is forgettable and not very entertaining, your first clue that it is not going to be the best movie in the world is that Robert Z'Dar is in it. The only thing this one has going for it is the animals which are not as prevalent in this one as they were in the last. Marc Singer is back and it is sad to seem him in this state, the guy was a fairly good actor reduced to trying to make a sequel to a movie that really did not need one, and even if it did it came five years to late.


If you are ever in the mood for a truly terrible film, it would be hard to find something that could even compare to this. I have spent a lot of time watching a lot of terrible movies just for the sheer joy I get from it, and man, this is one of the worst. This movie was so bad, I had to buy the third Beastermaster online. That one wasn't as bad, which is amazing since it was straight to video. This is one of those films that is hard to comprehend how it was made in the first place. I mean, someone had to actually have read the script (or many scripts, I'm sure they made several drafts) and said "Yeah, that's it. Here's some money." Actually, they probably just wanted to make a Beastmaster 2 before they even had a script, then went with whatever they had. Ack, horrible. So, if you are a fan of really bad movies, watch this one. It is a true classic, and film doesn't get much worse than this. And if it does, please let me know.


I love the first and third Beastmasters, but this one was an abomination. It was almost as horrible as 'The Never Ending Story 3', for the same reasons. They took a fascinating fantasy world of Barbarian tribes, farming villages, witches, supernatural creatures, and a cult of religious fanatics using a pyramid; and thought it would be funny to mix in our materialistic pop-culture world of rock & roll, sushi (I think thats what it was), and flashy sports cars. These two worlds do not belong together. I do not want to see a bunch of ancient barbarian looking people dancing to some rock song on the car radio. I have a sense of humor, but this is just stupid. This is what Hollywood does to good fantasy movies when they run out of ideas. Don't give up though, the Eye of Braxus is much, much better. That one I gave a 10. This one, Portal of Time, I give a 1. Believe me, I don't always give such extremely high or low ratings. I just tend to comment only such movies.


Truly flatulent script, and I was very disappointed with Marc Singer for agreeing to be in it.

I actually walked out of the theater about 15-20 minutes into it, and demanded my money back. I have actually walked out of a movie only 3 times in my life (I am 43 years old) and this is the only one that made me mad enough to demand my ticket price back. If I could have, I would have gotten a refund on the popcorn, too. This was a truly lousy movie, and there is no excuse.

For one thing, how does someone who was raised as a pre-tech barbarian learn to DRIVE A CAR? IN California!!!? (Driving a car is a somewhat tricky skill, and in California, even tricker...I should know, I live there.)


This is the greatest example I can think of to prove the theory that when Hollywood runs out of good ideas, they make an awful sequel and ruin the first one. Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the first Beastmaster; I even liked the third one pretty good, but this movie is atrocious. I am a huge fantasy/sword & sorcery movie fan and I hated to see such a terrible sequel made to such a classic as the first Beastmaster. So why do I hate this movie so much? Well, where do I begin? First of all, the whole idea of the movie is ridiculous. Dar and his evil older brother Arklon(who was nowhere mentioned in the first movie..Huh?) cross over into our world via a handy dimensional time-portal gate. Ya see, Earth just happens to be on the same parallel interdimentional plane as Dar's world. Whereas with the first movie, you're led to think the movie just takes place in the past, but with this one you're shown it's a completely whole other world altogether...that's just one of the many things I hated about this sequel. It didn't work with "Masters of the Universe", and it sure doesn't work here either! Movies like this should take place and stay in their own time-line and their usual surroundings. For Christ's sake, what's next? Hercules in New York...er, uh..bad example! Moving on...

Arklon's after a device called a neutron detonator to use as a threat against his enemies to rule his own kingdom. So, it's up to Dar, his ferrets,his eagle,and his tiger(not a spray-painted one this time) to go off and save the world...but along the way they have the help of a young, cool, and hip Senator's daughter who gets caught up in this whole mess and she show's Dar around L.A., takes him for a joyride in her BMW, and helps get him out of tight situations here and there. How convenient right? And speaking of convenient, I found it awfully convenient and easy for Arklon to sneak into a highly guarded military base and get away with a stolen, highly destructive nuclear weapon...even with half the U.S. Army and L.A.P.D. after him....waaaaay to easy, even for an evil barbarian sorcerer from another world. There are sooo many plot holes in this I don't know where to begin; like why did Arklon go to the L.A. zoo for at the end of the movie?!? He absolutely has no reason whatsoever to go there; and wouldn't that be like the last place you'd lure your greatest enemy who just so happens to have the handy ability TO CONTROL ANIMALS?

And don't you just love these kinds of movies where the police are portrayed as total idiots and even with half a dozen cops firing at one guy, they still don't manage to hit him? The police in this movie belong in the "Police Academy" series! They are about as useful in this movie as reading glasses are for the blind! Even the title of the movie makes no sense: "Beastmaster 2 : Through the Portal of Time"...they never actually went through a "time" portal because the movie isn't set in the future of Dar's world, it's set in a parallel world along ours in the astral plane, so they NEVER actually go through time, only a dimensional world along theirs; so NO actual time-travel is involved at all! This movie tries to come off as funny and it does...not because of the humor, but because it's just so bad...and that's putting it mildly. The acting, dialogue, plot, characters, and ending are all so cheesy it's hilarious. What more can I expect from the guy that brought us "Return of the Swampthing"(another bad sequel)? Sorely missed here is Don Coscarelli's wonderful directing and serious feel of the first one!! Avoid this stinking piece of garbage like the bubonic plague and stick which the first one and maybe the third one if there's nothing better on T.V.


This time The Beastmaster(Marc Singer) returns only to face off a new enemy Arklon(Wings Hauser) however due to an annoying teenager(Kari Wuher) they are transported to the future where they then duke it out. Lots of (lame) fish out of water jokes ensue. You honestly don't get sequels this rotten to the core. Beastmaster 2 is a painful movie to behold. The references and "hipness" date the film badly (This was made in 1991) and really who wants to see The Beastmaster in the present times? Also of note is Wings Hauser who's embarrassing performance is easily the film's best asset. Singer looks awkward, Wuher is irritating and the whole 1991 slang just makes the movie downright unwatchable. This is easily one of the worst movies ever made.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)


Although the story is good and portrayals what I expected of Sam Elliot my DVD copy contained almost unbearable synchronization problems. The dialogue was almost 3 seconds behind the lip movement throughout the whole film.

I would therefore be very careful in purchasing any DVD of the film without checking for the problem.

I would also follow the recommended censors classifications particularly in relation to language and drug usage.

This film could become a silent classic cop movie and with the above cautionary notes I can recommend it to prospective viewers


I just finished watching Dog Watch. I thought parts of the movie were hokey with more than a few implausibilities. The acting wasn't too bad and the plot wasn't bad. BUT, as the saying goes, the devil was in the details.

Some examples:

1) The bleed-through on Charlie Falon's (Sam Elliott) bandage was shown to be coming from the back of his hand while it was his knuckles that were bleeding.

2) Would a detective dispose of his murder victim from a very well-lighted area? This seemed very silly to me.

I am not unusually picky about a movie but, in my humble opinion, this one is definitely NOT recommended by me.


I made it about 8 minutes into "Steel Frontier" before I turned it off. Then, glutton for punishment that I am, I watched some more the next day. Today I had to iron a pile of clothes, so I decided to finish the movie, and that was its own punishment. Here's what I don't understand: Robert Rodriguez and Shane Carruth each spent $7,000 on their debut features and created two remarkable movies. Yet here we have two directors with arguably way more money, and they churn out a huge, steaming pile of crap. Let me see if I can figure out the logic: "It's 'Road Warrior' but it's like a future Western. We'll get the cheapest 'actors' we can find, we'll have my mentally challenged cousin write the script, and we'll spend the budget on a bunch of explosions. We can't lose!"

Seriously. I don't think even the MST3K guys could improve this. But if you insist on watching it, I recommend getting very drunk first.


As other reviewers have noted, this movie is a cross between (i.e. stolen from) stories we have seen before. Specifically, this looks like Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter inserted into Mad Max. Remove Clint's cigar, and replace with a cigarette; remove his horse and give him a high-tech motorcycle, and voilà, an updated drifter. In this movie, the "hero" is even more blatantly a "Savior" than High Plains Drifter. Now our hero has long brown hair, suffers a wound to his left side, and his entry into town is preceded by a plea for "salvation" by the surviving townspeople--a pretty transparent reference to a "Second Coming." I watched the movie on a hot, humid morning. Sleep was impossible and upon arising at 4:30 am, there was nothing else on TV. So the movie served its purpose. While unoriginal, with characters that are almost comic caricatures, the movie is still somewhat entertaining...at least at 4:30 in the morning.


If you take the films, Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome, and the movie Steel Dawn with Patrick Swayze, you will have a pretty good idea what the film is about. The only problems is, that the film lacks the production values of either, and represent mainly cheap copy of the former two. True, the film has plenty of action, but asks the viewer to suspend belief. No one can shoot a 50 Caliber Machine gun by holding it in his hand - and miss everything to boot, nor can you shoot at a group of people with an automatic weapon and miss the whole bunch. There is also a problem with poor editing, when the school bus flips over, it is easy enough to see the cannon used to do the job. And the lady driving the truck through it is superfluous, since she had more than enough time to stop the truck. If you are interested only in mindless action and violence then the movie is easy enough to watch. But don't expect anything on paar with Thunderdome, or even the somewhat cheap and tacky Steel Dawn.


I know that Trey Parker and Matt Stone really hate celebrities and spoof them in every single episode of South Park (if not showing them, then mentioning them) and they love to mock and joke and make fun of themselves too, but I felt this mockumentary went too far.

For one thing, the most common running theme in the "documentary" is that they're episodes are meaningless pieces of crap they put out just for the money. Obviously, that's completely untrue if you even bother to watch any episode, and the constant "You know, I learned something today..."'s said at the end of almost every episode by the main characters. The creators are also depicted as pompous, arrogant asses who only care about money, including a supposed-to-be-funny-but-isn't scene involving Isaac Hayes delivering lines for Chef (over the phone) and Trey Parker yelling and screaming at him for sucking and hanging up. I guess it's supposed to be funny, but the pretension in it just really made it... cringe.

The way they interview employees working for Trey and Matt shows the duo as tyrants who push their employees to the limit, all just for money, in the end. Completely untrue, obviously, and all a joke, but it's just not funny. It's disturbing, even though it's just a joke.


Some spoilers**** A Soap has some wonderful moments to recommend it. When Charlotte and Veronica get close to intimacy is a beautiful, low key, truly erotic scene. I also loved the music score and the soft, muted cinematography. I'm not clear if the curious stop and start structure of the film comes from it being digested originally in serialized form (the announcer describing the action in sections is quite annoying). My biggest problem with this film is its rather absurd depiction of a transwomen and her life. Of course, she has to be shown as a sexworker (what else), scatterbrained, impractical, absurdly frilly/girly, completely hopeless when it comes to dressing and incapable of making any interpersonal attachments in the world. Moreover, she's always shown with two days growth of beard (for some bizarre reason) as if to emphasize how tawdry her life is. And she's waiting to get gender reassignment surgery when she seemingly has done nothing else to forward her transitioning. In truth, the character resembles a drag queen, not someone in the midst of transitioning.

These are typical fantasies of people from the outside who really aren't connected to transpeople. The film's fetishization of GRS surgery is a way of objectifying people who are going through transition. Not impressed with this aspect of the film in the least. At the very least, why not have the character played by someone who really is transgender... I thought the male actor portraying Veronica was okay but no better than that. Much better was the woman portraying Charlotte, a very complex character full of energy, self-loathing, desire and contradictions. If she was so fascinated by someone with female energy, a Charlotte could go out to a women's bar in two seconds and find it. Yes, she was drawn to Veronica but more as an abstract idea of someone with male/female characteristics (a gentle touch but with a good punch), not as a unique person. Yes, what A Soap says about love is often lovely and moving, but that doesn't mean an already stereotyped minority has to be stereotyped some more in the process.

This film also proves that Danes are lousy dancers. For such a promising premise (better executed in a film like "Different For Girls") the final film is a letdown.


I am so disappointed. After waiting for 3 years for repeats/the DVD of the original masterpiece series "Darkplace" i couldn't wait for this series. The first episode just ended and I am appalled. Everything that was great about Darkplace has been erased here, pretty much. Worst introduction: canned laughter. this takes the original point of it away and just renders it nearly unwatchable. (one joke about Garth's eyes fertilizing the audience was good... the rest i can hardly remember...) it feels like a poor quality "Knowing Me, Knowing You." I hope this improves as the series goes on, otherwise i shall be seriously disappointed. back to "Darkplace..."

"You are the most compassionate man I ever known. And i know God..."


Okay now this movie is a piece of work. It's full of stupid jesus refrences and dialougue that would render most human biengs to question whether or not they should be wattching movies at all. Big names like Roddy Piper, and David Carradine draw you in but, take it from me, this movie sucks. The story is incomprehensible, and lacking completley in intellegence. The sets, veihicles, and costumes come of as a cross beetween bablon five, and a bondage flick. I'm sure theres porn with better dialougue.


I say "flick" because this doesn't deserve the appellation "movie", and certainly not "film". I regret paying for the rental, and although I've never walked out on a movie before, this would have been it, had I seen it in a theatre. A society living underground in the future (oooh, THAT'S original), lots of burning barrel drums, unexplained ambient light shining through windows, an ungrateful woman and her shock-muted son...the list goes on and on. C. Thomas Howell affects the husky voice of the stereotypical loner; you know like Eastwood's been done to death. He needs special sunglasses to remember his wife and child, yet in the flashbacks, he's the same age! Talk about a poor memory! I stared incredulously when the little boy Abe randomly pushes a code into a door and it opens! No tension, pithy religious (what religion?) under/overtones...saddest of all: I expected better from Roddy Piper;

Quite possibly the worst movie experience in my life.


First of all, let me start by saying that I have been a devoted follower of C Thomas Howell's career ever since "The Outsiders" and "The Hitcher". He was an up and coming star in the 1980s - with hits such as "Soul Man" also. The future was bright for this young actor and he had the potential to go on from there and really assert himself in Hollywood. Put it this way - Tom Cruise had a bit part in "The Outsiders" while Howell had the lead. Look at Cruise today !!! But picking material like this drivel will only denigrate Howell's career even more - if that was possible. Why does he pick stuff like this? A small part in a major movie would be of more benefit to him than this rubbish.

Essentially the story here takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where everybody lives underground where chaos reigns. Howell is a Shepherd - protecting the flock of various religious leaders by killing off any undesirables. He's a hit-man in other words.

The sets are so bad, they wouldn't look out of place on a Thunderbirds episode. The use of slow-motion needlessly repeats itself throughout the movie but is well backed up by bad acting (and bad is a kind word here), no continuity, scenes that are thrown in for no reason whatsoever, vehicles that looked like they were made from a Corn Flakes box and a directorial style that bordered on stupidity. Oh yeah, and the storyline was pathetic too.

I hate writing bad reviews about films - especially those in which I really like the star - but this film is so bad I don't believe for one second that anyone could have been proud of it. I am not a filmmaker nor am I a director but I would hide my head in the sand if I'd spent whatever amount of money and time on this movie.

In short - this was a monumental waste of time and energy and I would not recommend anyone to EVER see this film. It came free with a DVD player I bought but I still turned the thing off halfway through because I was embarrassed for Howell. Come on C - give yourself some credit and wrestle yourself away from these non-hit wonders and try to knuckle down and get a good part - however small.

1/10 - and only because there is no setting for 0/10.


Planet Earth has suffered a terrible environmental disaster so humanity now survives underground split in to different religious cults . What caused the catastrophe ? I have no idea ? why is humanity split in to different ecclesiastical factions ? I have no idea . Since the surface of the Earth can no longer support human life how are the humans able to grow crops in order to feed the population ? I have no idea . What sort of producer thought this screenplay deserved to receive funding ? I have no idea

SHEPHERD is one of these films that creeps up late at night on cable channels . The sort of film where you consult the IMBb to see if it has any merits . The number of people who've commentated on SHEPHERD on this page hasn't yet reached double figures and this is a film that was released nine years ago . Perhaps the people who have never seen it are the lucky ones ?

As for the rest of the plot it's very routine . Grumpy former cop Boris Dakota whose wife and child died several years previously meets a woman and her child and it's up to him to save their lives , almost like a futuristic western . Throw in a former wrestler who now runs the God channel , a fascist Christian bloke who's trying to snuff out Boris , a ventriloquist , some T&A for the sake of it and you've got a mess of a film . I guess after seeing this Neil Marshall's DOOMSDAY is possibly a masterwork of cinema in comparison


If "B" movies, tired and corny scripts, and golf carts dressed up as some sort of futuristic mode of transport are your sort of entertainment, you'll probably enjoy this. Otherwise, forget it. The topless newsreader, though completely irrelevant, did give a few seconds of amusement.


I have NEVER fallen asleep whilst watching a movie before.

I did with this one.

Avoid at all costs, give your time and money to a worthy cause instead.


This is the story of a maniac cop who, for some reason, has it in for a young college stud and his mates. After they report him to his supervisor who in turns suspends him pending psychiatric evaluation, he finds an opportunity to psychology torture them when, on a bet, the kids hack into a department store's security and unlock the door. Only, they get locked in the store, along with the weirdo. Murder and mayhem are afoot, and the kids are running around trying to survive until morning when they may be able to escape.

'Dangerous Game' would have been a successful cat-and-mouse psycho thriller probably if it was set in a different location. The thought of psychotic cop chasing around a bunch of innocent teenagers in a department store just didn't work. Especially when he comes face-to-face with his flinching prey quite frequently and yet, does nothing serious quite often. There was no real confrontation as would be sufficient for this kind of story, and may've worked better if say, for example, the teens were loose in the neighborhood and left to fend for themselves against this weirdo (especially if that took a few days while he makes them increasingly paranoid...although granted, even that is clichéd).

What a shame, too, that it could not have been a better thriller, considering a funky cast of young Australian characters. Even a light hearted adventure despite the madness of the villain interspersed through the picture might have even made it a more satisfying picture. Instead, it started out fresh, and sure did have plenty of action sequences, but wound up verging on the ridiculous.


The Man with the Golden Arm (the movie) is a decent career vehicle for Frank Sinatra, but fails abysmally as a good adaptation of a fantastic book. You always hear about how books are "changed" when they are made into films- things are cut out, dumbed down, etc. Well, you can't even say they "changed" anything with the movie- they just told a completely different story. The characters and setting are the same sure- but not the ambiguous characterization, the depth of the men and women of Polish Chicago in the book. As for the setting, it's become merely a play stage, complete with the unnecessary "supporting role" players walking all too busilly down the claustrophobic, interior exterior streets. The movie is a dumbed-down, completely different take on Frankie Machine and drug addiction. When this happens, Zosh, Frankie, Sparrow, all lose their psychological edge. Frankie's drumming, a modest dream in the book, becomes his full passion in the movie (probably because Sinatra is a musician). And drug addiction is treated as shlock, exploitavely. The acting is decent, especially the snakelike Louie, who is more menacing in the movie than the book. But it's just a shame this kind of movie can be heralded as a classic alongside the book it is "based upon," the real story of Frankie Machine. The movie just goes to show Hollywood can' get anything right without dumbing it down and adding a happy ending. In this case, they just changed it completely, cheapening an important and realistic story into Hollywood fluff. I'm sure as hell biased because I read the book first, so I can't really treat the movie honestly by knowing how good the book is. I actually thought about turning the movie off (and I never do that), just so I wouldn't get its silly plot confused with the beauty of the book. But this is an overrated film, and while it's not so bad, the book should come first, as it was the first. And it should have remained the only story of Division Street and Frankie Machine.


Despite the fact that this was a Made-For-TV movie (and an obvious one at that: ie., cheap looking), CLASS WARFARE left me wishing I could get my money back, and considering this lame production was partially funded through Canadian dollars, I might just be entitled.

What made me sit through it in the first place was seeing actress Lindsey McKeon, who I've watched for the last couple years in her role as "goody-goody" Mara Lewis on the soap-opera GUIDING LIGHT, taking a turn at playing "the bad girl" for a change.

Surprisingly she does quite well, as Kristen, a spoiled rich-b*tch who suddenly finds herself dirt-poor, but with a conniving streak, and a twist of fate, that will possibly change her fortunes back around. The twist of fate is provided in the character of Richard (Robin Dunne), a socially-radical outcast who discovers that he has just gone from having nothing to winning $23 million on a lottery ticket. Now, put Richard, Kristen, her jock-boyfriend Jason (Wade Carpenter), and their camcorder-obsessed mutual buddy Graham (Dave McGowan) together for the weekend in a remote cabin, cut off from the world by storms, and just guess what unfolds.

The film suffers from congesting both the story and characters'personas and motives too much. Everyone is pretty one-dimensional and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that some things, and some people, are going to go very bad, very quickly. I don't think this is that original a plot and it doesn't go out of it's way to make itself anything more. The acting is OK, McKeon is spot-on as the manipulative female lead, and Dunne is very good, perhaps a little too good at times, but no one else is worth writing home about. The only other real credit I can give the film is the one twist I didn't see coming towards the end (not the very end though, that one is so obvious it hurts). Regardless, I sat through all of it and lived to tell the tale so I can't say it was a complete write-off.

4/10. A "something-to-watch-when-nothing-else-is-on" type movie.


I just watched this movie on Bravo! and it was absolutely horrible. It has the plot of a Shannon Tweed movie without the nudity. The premise was interesting enough, a winning lottery ticket in a secluded area and people who have reasons why they want the money. The characters were trite as were the observations on human nature and greed.

For a movie called Class Warfare it had very little to do with class differences other than the first 20 minutes and the predictable ending. This movie could have done a lot better if there had been more characters with motivations to get the ticket and was a "who done it?"

The acting wasn't fantastic but it's hard to seem believable with such a terrible script. Lindsey McKeon is very cute and I'd like to see what she could do in a better production with a better script. She's probably the only reason why I sat through the whole movie.


Clifton Webb is one of my favorites. However, Mister Scoutmaster is not one of his best. His patented curmudgeon role seems forced and even unpleasant rather than funny. The film itself is overflowing with mawkish sentimentality. In addition, the viewer is presented with numerous ham-handed references to religious faith and U.S. patriotism that come off as over-reverent rather than genuine. Clifton Webb does his best with a poor script. Edmund Gwenn plays yet another jovial clergyman and is given nothing to do. The child actor lead is played by a talentless child who displays a flat affect throughout the entire film. His sole claim to fame as a performer evidently is a bullfrog-like low voice unusual for someone of his age. However, once you've heard it, you've heard it and you don't need to hear it again. Unfortunately, he is in the majority of the film's scenes. I find this child so irritating that I fast forward whenever he shows up. Since he has a lot of scenes in this film, this means that I fast forward through a lot of the film. There were and are so many talented child actors; it's a pity this film doesn't have any of them in it. Still, Clifton Webb in the traditional broad-brimmed hat and shorts is a sight worth seeing.


As a physicist, talk about blackholes and cosmology gets my heart racing. However I found this presentation too slow and not packed with enough information for the interested layman (who is most likely to see it). If you have more than a passing curiosity in this sort of stuff, go to the library and check out some books. You will find they explain current scientific cosmologies with far more detail while at the same time filling you with more of a sense of wonder than this movie does. Also to set the record straight: Hawking is NOT considered the "greatest mind" or the world's "smartest person" as commonly asserted even among the user reviews here at the IMDb. Hawking himself has commented that "It is rubbish. It is just media hype. They needed somebody to fill the role model of disabled genius. At least I'm disabled." To be fair, he is probably a genius but among history's greatest scientists, people like Einstein, Newton, Gauss, and many others easily are even more highly regarded. This is not to disrespect Hawking who is a undoubtedly a great scientist but rather not to disrespect others who have done even more than he has. Anyhow, see the movie if you are truly into science. But if not, I think it would be boring for you.


You'd hardly know that a year later MGM put Norma Shearer in THE DIVORCEE which glows with MGM technical know how. How far they came in one year. CHENEY is a very stagey early talkie. The camera hardly moves. Shearer is her usual charming self and Rathbone does well in a romantic leading role. They are all very careful to speak clearly and slowly into the microphone source which does mitigate against a naturally flowing dramatic scene, but the play is a sturdy and fun warhorse so one can enjoy oneself if one's expectations are not too high. Oh, by the way, the plot involves a ring of upper class jewel thieves who infiltrate themselves into society to prey on their victims. There are some clever twists in the script and true love conquers all. An Oscar nom for Best Screenplay Adaptation.


I found this early talkie difficult to watch and I'm a Norma Shearer fan! It's not her fault, but the primitive production values of this film would cause any viewer to become bored. 90% of the movie is filmed with "medium shots," and it's very similar to watching a dull play.


This version is very painful to watch. All of the acting is very stilted but especially that of Norma Shearer who is still acting as though she were in a silent movie instead of a talkie. Check out the 1937 version with Joan Crawford, Robert Montgomery and William Powell which is much more entertaining.


I saw this movie as part of a Billy Graham program. The church I attend was part of a community wide outreach to present God and Christianity to our community (Hartford, Ct. USA). I was one of the counselors who helped attendees (who were invited to come forward and make whatever kind of religious profession they wanted...and to follow up on them after the movie. As such, it did what it was supposed to do, and I personally found it to be a medium to strengthen my faith in God.I also found it to be very helpful to those I counseled. I especially like the work of Kim Darby in this movie. And the parents (the Wintons?) were , in a way, a little overdrawn....no one says to their child if they think that he or she may be the parent of an illegitimate child something like the Wintons did "oh, no, no, not thaaat." That isn't exactly what they said, but the sympaathetic audience I saw had a laugh at whatever it was they did say, and also at the son's emphatic "No, MOm, not me." Don Berghuis


It's exactly what the title tells you...an island inhabited by fishmen. Shipwrecked doctor Claudio Cassinelli and crew land on the island, they're either picked off by the fishmen or roped into working for treasure hunting lunatic Richard Johnson. Cassinelli discovers that Johnson, who believes he's found the lost city of Atlantis, has been keeping disgraced scientist Joseph Cotten and his daughter Barbara Bach hostage for 15 years so the fishmen can uncover a treasure trove beneath the sea. Cotten, of course, is a complete madman. Bach and Cassinelli have great chemistry. This insanity was directed by Sergio Martino and is not, surprisingly, without merit. It's fast paced, reasonably well acted and the fishmen look pretty convincing (though it's unlikely anyone could prove that these things DON'T look like actual fishmen). There's an excellent music score by Luciano Michelini.


Yes, the video cover of this movie made me want to watch this film as a child. It was called "Screamers" on this particular cover with the tagline "Men turned inside out!". It even featured this warped looking skeleton on the cover as well that made all sorts of cool gory images run through my mind. Perhaps some sort of movie about some strange virus that caused a person's flesh to burn off, maybe a movie about undead zombies that are more bloody looking than what you usually get, a science experiment gone incredibly wrong and now strange men with the flesh dripping off their bones go on the rampage. Yes, all these thoughts ran through my mind, one that did not was fish guys on some island with virtually no gore and all bore. This movie is really more like the Island of Dr. Moreau than anything else and quite frankly that movie bored me too, it is way to much scientist and not enough killing for my tastes. These films are to much figure stuff out and not enough blood for my tastes. Yes I know, I have strange tastes, but I can not help it, I like my horror movies either really bloody or fast moving and exciting this movie is really neither.


OK by the time you read this I MIGHT have stopped crying. This movie was so horrible as to be quite vexing. The creatures are kinda cute, but the only really good thing about the movie was the growing attachment among the prisoners and their guard after getting marooned on this daffy island. Even seeing Barbara Bach with her hair all riffled was no payoff for buying this sterling bit of poop. She goes about with a whispery I've-never-used-my-voice-before breathiness that just don't wash when one is screaming bloody murder. (Hey the leading man was cute too but I'm still not assuaged.) This is a cry-into-your-beer ripoff of the good ole Island of Dr. Moreau. Poor Richard Johnson, who was surely born for better things, is just unrelievedly bad as the bad guy. I mean, HOW bad can a BAD guy BE? (Ask Richard Johnson). Joseph Cotten tries hard not to look embarrassed as he staggers through his cameo appearance. In the name of all that's holy, don't rent this darned bomb.


I watched this movie only because I was under the impression that I was going to be treated to a cheesy horror flick. I mean, look at the tag line: "They're men turned inside out! And worse... they're still alive!" Does that not scream cheesy horror movie to you? And the then there's the title itself-- "Screamers." What a perfectly apt title for a horror movie, I thought! Unfortunately, I wasn't aware that the real title was, properly translated, "The Island of the Fishmen."

So, about an hour into watching this I realized that this was not a cheesy horror movie at all-- it was a cheesy "adventure" story about slimy fish-men from Atlantis. "Men turned inside out"? No. There was nothing of the sort. I was grossly disappointed.

Damn you, misleading taglines! I want those 81 minutes of my life back!


I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job.


I think its safe to say that if you only really watch box office standard films or any premium production don't bother with this film as you will hate it. If you are an overly critical film buff don't bother either. If you love science fiction films and don't care what capacity you get a glimpse of the future in then you'll be mildly entertained. It is very obvious that the budget for this was super super low but what they have done with the money is worth a pat on the back. Some of the burning fire scenes were pretty bad and the evacuation scenes were terrible but it is quite obvious that they had some good support from a computer perspective as the planet scenes and the alien images were quite inventive. The dialog is down right hilarious but acting not altogether poor. As for the story well, I'm not too sure what actually happened at all to tell you the truth.


This movie is proof you can't just go to a Redbox and read descriptions of films and pick one and give it a try.

While I'll give 'em great credit for having produced a film with halfway-decent special effects on such a low budget, and at least a halfway decent script and story line... unfortunately, it was only just that: halfway decent.

If you like movies where things aren't all neatly wrapped up, and don't mind low-budget effects, you might like this film. Honestly, it wasn't really my cup of tea. I should've just gone to bed rather than spend my time watching.

For a better science-fiction movie produced on an even LOWER budget (!) have a look at "Primer."


It is OK movie if it would be done by high school kids for their friends. It is way below limits be called "professional". There isn't plot, no actors' play and visual looks like you see it through the plastic film. I was so glad that I have FF button on my remote, 32x worked really well. I understand that everyone need to start somewhere, but it shouldn't be reason to bring it to the public. If you have concerns about quality and budget - "Open water" was made on $60000 and more than half went to the guy who provided the security in the ocean and trained sharks. And that movie looks 100 times more professional and it was an event in the indy film-making.


I was excited about this movie after reading other reviews. What a disappointment! There are so many ways that this movie is bad. The computer graphics were lacking to say the least. I found the acting stiff and unbelievable. Watch the sand as the lost "e-pods" (what an original name!)are found. Where did all the tracks come from? I immediately recognized portions similar to other movies, ie Alien, Pitch Black. Come on,one huge ship to transport one prisoner? And what is with the prisoner? Does he speak, can he speak? I kept waiting for something to tie the bits of the story together, but it never came. If this movie was made on a low budget, it shows. The only part of the movie I liked was when it finally ended. I don't mean that I liked the ending, I didn't. I just liked the fact that it was over. A trip to the dentist would have been more enjoyable. In my opinion. don't waste your time on this one.


Going to need to take a deep breath for this one...

Terrible special effects that tried to reach far beyond the limitations of the budget. Blatant and unashamed plagiarism of other sci-fi movies (like Pitch Black). Terrible acting. Endless slow motion scenes of characters walking aimlessly across sand dunes. Meandering dialogue that does nothing to further the story. Characters wearing turtle neck sweaters on a desert planet with two suns. A "cargo" ship staffed by a camouflage-wearing crew of gun-toting soldiers (why exactly would you need forest-camouflage in space anyway?). Some of the worst casting choices in the history of no-budget film-making - a steroid swollen "captain" who comes across more like a muscle-beach jock than a trustworthy commander, and a "convict" who looks and acts about as dangerous as a bunny rabbit. 70 minutes in length, 35 of which could have been trimmed out if the director had any concept of "compression of time through editing"...

I won't go on. Suffice it to say that while some components of this awful movie can (and should) be forgiven due to it's low budget; the bad conception, laughable plot holes, and snore-inducing script are unforgivable on *any* budget. The end result is a tedious, dull, waste of time. Sorry guys, I hate to be so harsh on an amateur film, but you've no excuse for turning out this kind of work.


Even with it's low budget this movie could have been worth watching if there was a story to tell here. It started out pretty good, and fairly engaging and believable. The actors and characters were interesting although there wasn't much character development. My favorite scene was when they were all eating their rations. Some seemed to hate it, and some seemed to think it wasn't too bad. The story starts out very airtight. And then...

And then it dipped into a little horror which is usually a death sentence for most sci fi. Suddenly no scientific basis for any of the goings on. No real believable end game for the villain? No real explanation of what's going on. Generally if a movie has to use the F word for every other word it usually spirals down from there too. I still get offended believe it or not. I often wonder what inspires people to make bad sci fi? Isn't there a universe of fantastically good stories out there? Don't people feel like they are wasting their time and everyone else's when they put out stuff like this. Why do we get so much mediocre sci fi like this? No female actors/characters either? None at all? This had the makings to be another "Predator" but alas fell far far short.

My final comment - poor editing and finally too low a budget to build a real campfire? What gives?

My advice for any low budget sci fi movie production companies out there. Make sure you got a good story before you start, and edit out bad special effects - it's better we see nothing than something that looks fake or ridiculously fuzzy.


I really didn't like this film~!!!! it was boring and didn't interest me that much at all.. i'm more of an action girl, and it had NONE. i went and rented this movie because of the other comment that was left.. but was totally mislead! don't get this movie unless you like the dessert and plenty of boredom. i just really didn't like the movie. it wasn't my style, but it could be yours.. you would just have to watch the previews or something but it's my recommendation if you're a girl.. don't get this movie! This Scandinavian production draws on some of the observational strategies of Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, allowing us to reflect on patterns and phenomena of human and natural existence from both intimate and sweeping viewpoints. this just isn't for me!


I've got 10 plus year old computer games with better special effects! Plot is choppy and very predictable. Most of the actors seem like extras with no experience! Everyone has Scottish accents. It's like watching a crew of 'Scotties' from Star Trek without the personality or charm. Needless scenes of people putting up tents! Tents with all of the supposedly high tech equipment! Actors looking like they were not sure the camera was on them. Nothing to make you care if these people survive or not! Looks like it was made in someone's backyard and garage using low end equipment! Nothing seems original or even slightly entertaining. Do not waste your time!


This movie was awful, plain and simple! The animation scenes had absolutely terrible graphics. It was VERY clear to see that this film had about the budget of my grocery bill!! The acting was just as bad.. I've seen better acting in pornographic films. I would seriously like the hour and twenty minutes of my life back. In fact, I registered on IMDb just so that other people don't get sucked into watching this like I did. Don't get me wrong though, I love sci-fi films! This one seemed more like the intro to a video game :( I'm glad I only spent a dollar to see this one! The story line reminded me of the movie pitch black, A prisoner on a ship in outer space escapes. Oh my goodness.. what are we gonna do??? I would not even let this play in the background of my house while I was cleaning! Bottom line here, you can do better.


I pride myself in being able to sit through everything. I think "if I've paid the rental fee, then I'm going to at least watch it". I have found the exception to this rule- The Planet. I don't know what the exchange rate is, but reading through the other comments I can only guess that £8000 must be around $150. I'll date myself but this movie reminds me of the old Steve Reeves movies of the 50's. He was a bodybuilder turned actor. He was in these really awful Italian, dubbed movies that starred Reeves as Hercules or some other muscle bound hero. As a kid watching them you couldn't quite articulate why these movies stunk- you just knew they did. Mike Mitchell IS the new Steve Reeves. That's it.. that's what this really was- a new telling of an old Italian "Spaghetti Sand and Sandals" movie. And, I kid you not- where was Reeves born? Glasgow, Montana. This movie isn't so bad that it's kind of fun to watch- it's just plain bad.


I went through great efforts to get this movie after reading the comments on this site. I really don't have time to write reviews but I felt this was my duty as a sci-fi horror buff. This is only the second review I have written. The other was for Dracula 3000. Now to the point. This movie sucked. Plain and simple. I kept wondering if I was watching the same movie as those who wrote all those "lovely" comments. I have seen movies with bad effects, bad acting, bad sound, you name it and I've seen it. But this really sucked. I don't care how much it costs or didn't cost to make, movies like this and Dracula 3000 should be banned and the whole cast and crew arrested and jailed for time murder. By the way, Did I mention that this movie sucked. I mean really sucked. The plot was non exist and the acting was weak. It seems like the writer saw Pitch Black and got upset because he didn't think of a plot like that first so he decided to make his own ripped off version. But instead, the suck factor took over and possessed him. DON'T WATCH THIS. You'll have more fun if you pull down your pants and sit on burning coals.


I really did not want to write a harsh review of this movie because I genuinely appreciate how hard it is to make any kind of movie on an incredibly low budget, let alone attempt something as ambitious as a sci-fi.

However this movie is truly awful. The acting is among some of the worst I have ever had to endure and as a fan of low budget movies that is a pretty serious accusation to make. There are plenty of aspiring actors out there who would work on a deferred payment scheme if they believed in the movie and what the director was trying to achieve. I'm sure the actors did their best as did everybody else involved in this production, but it simply was not good enough to pull off something of this magnitude.

Then there is the dialogue. Very poor indeed. There is no excuse for that. I got the impression the script was hastily written on the back of a beer mat after some epic boozing session. I hesitate to use the word 'laughable' but that's exactly what the script is. I had no empathy with any of the characters. Indeed they grated on me with the result that on more than one occasion I wanted to thump a couple of them Mr Stirton has overstretched himself by taking on too many roles. Clint Eastwood he is not. Again, there are talented people out there willing to work on deferment if they believe in the project.

Much has been made of the special effects in this movie. For the money, they are exceptional, if somewhat overused. It is like someone said "I have after effects and boy am I gonna use it". Whoever did the CG work was among the most talented of this crew.

Quite simply the money was not available to make as ambitious a movie as this attempts to be. Kudos for attempting it, but unfortunately it fails to reach its heady goals in far too many ways.

I salute everyone involved with its production, I really do, but for their next effort they either need to get a better producer or lower their sights to something more manageable.

In conclusion I cannot recommend this effort to anyone other than the most enthusiastic of film students or habitual insomniacs. If you want to watch a true masterpiece of low budget sci-fi films try the student made "Dark Star" by a certain Mr John Carpenter.


I felt compelled to write a review after seeing the only review which gave this film a suspiciously high 9/10 rating. I say suspicious because it looks less like a review but more like a publicity statement. Perhaps the filmmaker himself, or one of his mates, has written that "review"? Naughty, naughty.

I watched this movie on the Propeller channel on Sky TV expecting it to be truly awful. The special effects used were to be honest very, very good for a low budget film, and some of the acting wasn't that bad either, but most of the acting was really awful, but well done for trying, as I expect most were pals of the filmmaker.

I think the filmmaker has done really well by trying to punch above his weight. I did find some of the film funny because it was trying to be super cool when it just wasn't.

If you don't take this film too seriously and watch it whilst drunk with some mates you might well have a good time but probably not in the way it was intended. This film is no way a 9/10 but worth watching for a laugh bearing in mind it was made on a very very low budget and in fairness due credit to those involved in it's production.


I had known Brad Linaweaver at Florida State U in the early 70's when he was an inspiring, inventive writer who I thought was headed for greater glory.

And that is why I rented this video. Well, well, well, the time has not been kind to Mr Linaweaver. I suppose the pressures of making a living makes higher aspirations expendable. Another flower whose bloom has come and gone un-noticed in the summer breeze. Amen. There is nothing more to say. And nothing more to add. A sad epitaph to a once blossoming career as stated above. But it is the price one pays for chasing shadows without a firm foundation or goals for oneself in life. Because this movie has no goal, no purpose, and I kept telling myself, what happened to Brad's creativity, his once shining genius? Gone, gone, years of neglect has deteriorated his once shining mind.


I bought this out of curiosity. How did John Carradine (who died in 1988) and Cameron Mitchell (who died in 1994) make appearances in a film made in 1995? Thanks to the miracle of unused film can footage that's probably been sitting on a shelf somewhere for ten years, that's how! You can tell because the film stock used to shoot their scenes doesn't match the film used for shooting "Jack-O." The curse of Ed Wood lives on. The good thing for both Carradine and Mitchell is that this is exactly the kind of movie you'd expect to find on both of their filmographies. Same goes for Scream Queens Linnea Quigley, Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith.

The setting is Oakmoor Crossing on Halloween, and some kind of curse is released when dumb, beer-guzzling teens disrupt a grave. The result: a hulking killer with a scythe and a big plastic pumpkin on his head! He (it?) goes after the wholesome Kelly family for revenge (and kills others who get in his way). The father opens a Haunted Garage for the neighborhood kiddies. The son (Ryan Latshaw, son of the director) has one continuous, perplexed facial expression for all his scenes and one hilariously badly acted dramatic scene lying in a grave. At least he's a kid. The mother's eyes about pop out of her head while she strains to read her dialogue. There is also an annoying woman who shows up to explain things who seems to be trying to phonetically pronounce all of her dialogue.

So what about the name actors? You see Stevens, Wildsmith and Mitchell briefly on a TV screen (they're used to pad out the time). Linnea has a bigger role as a babysitter, and she does exactly what she can with it. Her enthusiastic performance helps a little bit. There's also one out-of-nowhere laugh when an ultra-conservative couple who watch a Rush Limbaugh clone on TV bite it. The woman slips on a rug and stabs a toaster with a knife. She's electrocuted and the end result looks like a flame-broiled Muppet.

All and all, pretty entertaining stuff! I wasn't bored!


Man, this movies sucked. It appeared to have like seven different plots going on at once and they all made little to no sense. The special effects, costumes, and all that stuff were beyond awful. The acting was particullary bad. Everything seemed so forced, especially the lines from the woman with the huge eyes and the little kid (his "Noooooo" as he gets burried is so unenthusiastic it's laughable). A good portion of this movie is rather funny anyway. The one woman's death where she shoves a knife into a toaster, gets electrocuted, and magically turns into the crapiest skeleton dummy in the world had my friends and I laughing for a good ten minutes.

Bottom line: If you're into watching really horrible movies, seek this one out. If not, run for your life.


I've always loved horror flicks. From some of the usual well-known like "The Exorcist" to some of the more underrated like "Black Christmas" or "Just Before Dawn". But who are people kidding,even calling this trash a b-movie. It's straight up bottom-of-the-barrel Z-grade. The acting is the worst ever on film. Really,I've seen better on an episode of the "Young and the Restless"...SPOILER...Lookout for when the woman comes to tell them about the legend of Jack-o. She pauses sometimes for a matter of seconds as if someone is flashing her cue cards and she's struggling to read her lines. A RIOT!

Oh,and besides the bad acting,absolutely no gore or F/X. And Jack-o looked like a plastic lit pumpkin. Watch Linnea Quigley in "Night of the Demons",or "Silent Night,Deadly Night",far superior flicks.


I bought Jack-O a number of months ago at a Blockbuster video sale, and at the time I wasn't expecting anything outstanding from it. Upon watching it, I realized I not only got less than I could have ever bargained for, but a whole lot more as well. It seems, strange, I know. And it is. But it's perfectly fitting when you consider that the utter weirdness that is "Jack-O"

The movie follows a young boy named Shawn Kelly. Somehow, thru ancestral ties, he is marked for death at the hands of a demented, scythe wielding Pumpkin man. This pumpkin man was killed by Shawn's Great-grandfather-uncle-cousin-etc, and now that the villain has been resurrected, Shawn's death is apparently crucial to his hell-bred mission of vengeance. Anyway, much "horror" ensues as Jack-O hacks his way thru various neighbors before battling Shawn to the finish.

I'm not so much here to discuss the plot as I am to determine who may find any worth in this movie. I can honestly tell you that Jack-O is one of the most poorly made movies in the history of time. The acting is deadpan (except when it should be), the script is apparently a 1st grade group project, and the production budget must not have exceeded $150. Some of the most laughable death scenes are carried out in this anti-thriller, and they're all the more humorous when you realize director Steve Latshaw actually seems serious in his movie-making.

And yet I heartily enjoyed the film. I can call it a terrible horror movie, yes. But I can also say I had a great time watching it with my friends, and have watched it several times since that fateful first viewing. Many people (including some of my friends) will find this movie intolerable and needlessly time-consuming, and that's understandable. If you're like me and enjoy ridiculously bad horror movies that take themselves seriously, you'll find Jack-O an instant classic, which is also understandable.

That's why it's so hard to rate this movie. If I were rating Jack-O's quality as a film, I wouldn't give it anything. In fact, the studio would owe me stars. Yet if I were rating it's on the basis of pure enjoyment, I'd give it an 8 or a 9. I'll give it a 4, so to be somewhere in the middle. I recommend everyone go out, rent this, and form their own conclusion.


When you watch low budget horror movies as much as I do, you get to where you can tell who was involved in creating the movie, as each film-maker adds his own flavor to the cheese. Such is the case with Jack-O. When I watched this truly awful movie, I was left with the undeniable feeling that Fred Olen Ray was involved, maybe not as director but in some fashion, and as I researched, I found that I was correct. Only Fred and a handfull of others could write something this pathetic, and this movie just reeked of Fred Olen Ray. Unless you like Fred Olen Ray (and God only knows why anyone would)avoid this movie. If you're going to rent an Olen Ray pic, rent Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, it's the only bright shining star in Olen Ray's dark cheesey universe of terrible movies.


This is, without a doubt, the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. Seriously, if the makers of this movie are ever discovered, they'll put guys like Jim Carrey out of a job. Rent "Jack-O" tonight! Believe me, you won't regret it!


This thing, it shouldn't be called a film, is almost worse than "Manos", but you just have to see it it's hilarious. If you see it at video store rent it, if you see the 10th anniversary edition, yes there is a special edition, for under $10 buy it, if your friend has it borrow it, you just have to see this. The acting is so bad, and the gore is is so fake. After viewing this you'll be asking yourself why did they make this insult of the art of film? That's assuming your face doesn't melt off like the Nazis's in "Raiders" . If you manage to see this, be sure to vote this movie as 1 (awful) so it can make the bottom 100, it really deserves a spot there. I'm surprised it's not number 1, right now.


In Halloween, three friends seek an ancient cemetery in the suburb for fun and remove a cross from a tomb, where Jack-O was buried many years ago by the farmer Arthur Kelly. The evil creature is unleashed, kills the trio and seeks the descendants of the Kelly family for revenge.

The cheesy "Jack-O" is a combination of a terrible story with awful acting. I was curious with the name of John Carradine in the credits and I can not imagine how a relative authorizes the use of archive footage in such a bad movie, showing a total lack of respect with the name of this great actor. It is impressive how bad the acting is, shifting the film to a comedy instead of the proposed horror genre. This is the type of movie good to see with a group of friends, drinking beer, making comments and laughing a lot. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Jack-O  Demônio do Halloween" ("Jack-O  Demon of the Halloween")


Ugh. Pretty awful.

Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.

Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.

Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing "The Coven," in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.

Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.

There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.

The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.

Not recommended, not even for Halloween.


Wow! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.


I hope this group of film-makers never re-unites.


If you are looking for a cinematic masterpiece, this ain't it. If you are looking for one of those awful movies that are so horrible that they are actually good, then this may be for you. There are so many unintentional laughs in this film, that it could almost be considered a comedy. Let's start with the opening titles, that say "Jack-O", and then add the word "Lantern", as if the viewer wasn't able to figure out the movie was about a pumpkin by the giant pumpkin shown on both the cover and in the opening scene of the movie. After that, the movie goes in about 20 different directions, none of which make much sense. Jack-o is everywhere, he's in people's houses, in the woods, and yet he doesn't ever seem to do much of anything. He does make a few kills, but the long buildup to those killings is so poorly acted and constructed you almost wish Jack-o would take out his rage on you the viewer. Other than that, the plot consists of poor acting, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous plot line. The acting in this film is among the worst I've ever seen in my 35 plus years of movie-watching. The boy who is the lead in the film (the director's son) has about as much emotion as a corpse, and just about all of the other actors/actresses are just as bad for numerous reasons (especially the bug-eyed lady with eyes bigger than saucers). But, having said all this, if you take this for what it is, (that is a steaming pile of dung) then you will get a few laughs from this movie. What I also found amusing is that the makers of the DVD saw fit to release a "10th Anniversary Version" of this movie (as if the original wasn't good enough). And someone actually had the idea of making a "behind the scenes" mini film which is also included in the 10th anniversary edition (I'm not sure why).......I'll give this 3 smashed pumpkins out of 10...


If you are in search of a masochistic thrill, rent this movie, and show it to a group of your friends sober. This movie is just plane lame, but there not completely without value. The brief tits are nice, and there is one victim's death that is funny as hell. Other than that, this is straight garbage. But it is still better than "Grim" or "Spookies"


My mother and I rented this gem a few years ago while she was here visiting for Thanksgiving. I have rarely laughed so hard. This is a typical low-budget horror movie with dumb special effects, a worse plot, and even worse acting. But are you really expecting a classic when Linnea Quigley receives top billing? I thought not.

Since this movie does have some entertainment value, I give it a 3 out of 10.


Three delinquents disturb the tomb of an ancient warlock who after summoning Jack-O (a less then menacing pumpkin-headed figure) to dispatch said hoodlums, continues on his sworn vengeance to kill every decedents of the family that offed him. That includes young Sean Kelly and his horror-loving family. Of course it's up to Sean to find a way to save the day.

Such a stupid low-budget B-movie. The acting's atrocious and the plot isn't much better. Throw in a extremely lame killer, a possible pedophile who laughs way too much & a couple of stereotypical cardboard cutout 'conservative' couple and you have this film in a nutshell. Not really worth your time save to see how superbly well Linnea is aging.

Eye Candy: Linnea Quigley is always good for some T&A and she doesn't disappoint here with a lengthy shower scene; Rachel Carter also gets topless (although it could be a body double)

My Grade: D-


Warning Might contain spoilers

i just sadly spent 5 bucks on this movie on amazon and i wish i never spent it. I have never seen suck horrible special affects, or acting. I mean Jack-0 is just a laughable monster and his costume looks like something u could buy at a Halloween store or make yourself. The acting is just horrible especially Sean Kelly i mean come on he is so pathetic with his little lines "COme get me PUmpkinman" low i laughed so hard on this its just stupid. I mean the movie is so awful they had to put a few minutes of nudity in it just for people not to shut it off low. I think the most laughable scene is when the woman sticks a butter knife in the toaster and gets electrocuted. I mean come on that looked so fake and the dummy i could buy that at any Halloween store or make it myself. Well I recommend not watching this cheesy movie cause it will be time you will never get back.


OK, I could only find three reasons to consider this film worthwhile considering the extremely low budget.

First there was Linnea Quigley and Rachel Carter. Actually, the two of them gave me four good reasons to watch, and watch I did.

The only other reason to watch is that a lot of was filmed right down the road. Now, I didn't know this beforehand, but I saw an Orange County car tag and said, wow! this was shot in Florida.

I was impressed by the flashback to the past and the ancestors of the young kid, but that was really it. The killings by the pumpkin man were pretty lame, with the exception of the biker.

If you want to see Quigley and Carter, OK, but Return of the Living Dead will give greater thrills.