Scarier than any horror movie ever made because you're in controlled of this blood fest which make it more scarier than watching other people doing it on the big screen or on your television screen. This game got two CDs which make the game much more entertaining.

Each cd contains a different character with a complete different story line which make the game much more fun. I recommend you to buy this game and the first game too (isn't as good as this game, still fun though)

****


On top of the fact that Skylar is a complete douche bag and his cons are unimaginative, his schemes require way to much preparation to make any of his scams worth while. Without giving away any spoilers (as if it matters with this piece of crap) his cons are such a sham because it takes the effort of days and days of planning, and the use of multiple accomplices and an entire camera crew etc. just to scam someone into a service that would cost less than a hundred bucks.....in addition if you read in the credits they re-stage some of the phone calls etc. because they don't pan out...The whole concept of this show is bunk because all of his cons have the cost in both the crew and the effort of ten times the actual cost of the service he is trying to get for free...what is the con?


I have decided to flush this show from my memory down the toilet of bad TV show into the obscurity of forgetful, disappointing, pointless, garbage TV show hell.

The Skyler guy who is the host/star/creator of this show is boring, uninteresting, unbelievable, not particularly good looking and not at all funny, in short why is this guy on TV and especially why is he in a comedy show when he's not funny, pretending to be a professional con man when he definitely is nothing but an obvious pretender? Others have said it here already but this guy is a total fake and fraud, if you believe any of these cons I think you should seriously consider going to get your head checked because they're all fake, and the ones that might possibly be true are so pointless, like spending all day to con someone out of giving you an average meal at a restaurant? Seriously this guy needs to go away, glad this show got canned.


What exactly is the point of pretending to "con" people out of things like ski passes and pizza? I fail to see a point. I'd not clever or original and it strikes me as being extremely pointless.

Skyler Stone doesn't seem to be a very down-to-earth or even a nice guy. He has very little charisma and just about anyone could do what he does in this show.

The worse thing about this piece of crap, is the fact that a lot of the phone calls are reenacted, so not only are they apparently conning the poor people on the other end of the phone, but they are also conning the audience who don't have enough time to read the "disclaimed" that flickers across the screen for about half a second at the beginning at the end of the show!

Not only that but he also claims this is how he lives his whole life. What an lie. No one could live their lives like this and the fact he says this is not only yet another con to get his show watched, but it's also one of the most fabricated, blatant pieces of bull$hit I've ever heard. This guy is an @$$!

What makes them think that going to all the trouble of, for example, write and record a song, get someone to pain a HUGE picture of you and two mates, get dance lessons and actually travel to a ski resort is actually worth only getting free ski passes and some food for free? What is the point of that? It's an awful lot of trouble to go to just for a few ski passes and a bit of snow.

As far as "comedy" goes, this is bottom of the barrel stuff.


I just finished watching this movie and largely found it a waste of time with little or no redeeming factors. I really don't understand where all the positive reviews came from -- the animation is clunky and unrefined, the plot makes no sense at all from an objective standpoint, and there is no sense of intrigue or suspense in that which is trying to pass itself off as an intriguing and suspenseful film. I have never read the book so I can't say if the movie was faithful, but as with most movie adaptations, it tries too hard to cram as much information into the shortest amount of time possible. The result is a disjointed and illogical storyline that doesn't really let you understand or relate to the characters, or, actually, anything at all. Overall, I felt completely detached from the characters and the plot to the point where I couldn't bring myself to care about what happened to them, and the only way I can see how this animation could be considered beautiful is if your normal standard of animation is a Scooby-Doo cartoon.


"Blame it on Rio" is a romantic comedy 80's style, with more than an eye full of sex throughout its 101 minute running time.

The plot concerns two middle-aged men in crisis, one of whom is sorting through his divorce, the other dealing with the possibility of that same prospect. Both good friends, they decide to take a vacation in exotic Rio de Janeiro, each with a daughter at their side. Complications set in when one of them gets involved with the other's daughter.

This potential riot of a story is fairly funny and there are some good lines, however it never really becomes hilarious, as it could have. Any attempt at handling the moral issue seriously doesn't work either, and perhaps director Donen should have stuck to the humour of the situation.

Not a bad film, but what really ruins it is Michelle Johnson's awful performance as the naughty little temptress Jennifer. While she uses her body to full advantage, it's the only thing she's got. Michelle's acting prowess leaves a great deal to be desired. No wonder we haven't seen her in anything else.

Friday, January 7, 1994 - Video


All in all, don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.

And if you want to see a movie that will take you back to 1983, this will do that for sure. The only reason I gave this movie 2 points more than it deserves is for 2 reasons:

#1. Michael Caine

#2. the people, the sights, the culture and the music of Brazil

The movie is almost completely carried by Caine as he commits the seemingly impossible task of transforming it into a viable and semi-believable story. Even Joe Bologna and Valerie Harper fall short.

Michael Caine is pure class, as always. Besides being a gifted classical and comic actor, Caine brings a blend of introspection, mischievousness and sensitivity to every movie he does ... the focus of his charm as far back as his role in Alfie...and the reason why he won the Academy Award for Hannah and her Sisters 2 years later. In this farce, he is tenderly beguiling...funny and vulnerable... melancholy and sentimental....and besides the jewel that is Rio de Janeiro, the ONLY reason to not seek out a better form of entertainment.

Well...maybe a glimpse at the 2 lovely young actresses, Michelle Johnson and Demi Moore would be a reason. But look is all you can do at Michelle (though her look seems sorely dated)....there couldn't be a more painful movie experience than watching her "try" to act (most of her dialogue seems overdubbed, too). Demi's acting and looks hold up 100 times better and you could easily transplant her, as is, into any movie today (she doesn't really look much different to be honest). Ms. Moore is surely underused, especially considering she was the bigger star of the 2.

Save the fact that it is a silly farce, at the end, I actually kind of like the maturity with which all these people handle this scandalous situation...that it doesn't end friendships nor marriages and that an affair, even with the underage daughter of your best friend, could be forgiven and everyone can move on. The injured parties do show anger and disappointment at what transpired, but all works out for the best....a bit unrealistic for sure, but surprisingly refreshing. Hope always is.


Not the funniest movie ever.....but I have to watch this film at least once a year just so I can fall in Love with Michelle Johnson all over again. She never looked better than she did in this film. by the way The story is good too.


This movie should be called Blame it on the Script. Directed by Stanley Donen, of Singin' in the Rain fame, this celluloid mid-life crisis is not all bad. It's got some lush scenes of Rio de Janeiro and various scantily clad extras cavorting with each other and romping around the beach to the sultry sounds of samba, but there is just something about watching fifty-something Michael Caine get it on with whiny teenager Michelle Johnson that makes you feel...well, sleazy. This storyline is a complete stretch, too. Nobody but pervy and vain old studio execs in Hollywood could have green-lit this embarrassment. Maybe they are so used to having young bimbos as arm candy that they forget it's their fat wallets that hold the key to their appeal, not their huge Larry King-style spectacles and yellow cigar-stained teeth. It's one thing for a nubile young sexpot to have a crush on an older man, but on her best friend's father who happens to be married? And then to throw herself at him shamelessly? Ugh! There's nothing entertaining about that. It's rather pathetic and grotesque. Take note of a young Demi Moore's budding *cough* talent.


I saw this in the theatre a couple decades ago, and fuzzy recollection suggests that I liked it. However, seeing it for a second time two things stand out: (1) very poor acting on the part of Michelle Johnson, and (2) very poor music throughout.

It's not that all the music was bad. Some of the Brazilian music was fine, but the theme song and others that clanged their way in were reminiscent of the worst of '80s pop music.

Johnson's voice seemed all wrong, possibly dubbed. This was distracting.

On the positive side: (1) The story's not bad, (2) it's interesting seeing such a young Demi Moore, (3) Valerie Harper never looked better, and (4) Johnson did look quite fetching in various stages of disattire.


Yeah, I know the girls are hot and the scenery lovely but for someone knowing the place, it's hilarious.

If you want some accuracy, this is not a movie to rely on. It starts with the flight from São Paulo to Rio aboard a 747. This will never happen on the 400 km flight. Smaller planes such as 737 or A-320 shuttle passengers between the two cities every half an hour. The drive from the airport home if shown on a map would reveal an intricate zig zag back and forth. Perhaps the producers tried to emulate one of the very known taxicab drivers itineraries when faced to tourists. Not that it would be a local habit as I myself got ripped off in very serious places such as Switzerland. The girls, yes. All topless. That's something an outsider will never understand. Brazilian chicks will be happy to expose 100 % of their incredible bodies at the Samba Schools parades and wear almost non-existent bikinis at beach, but never go topless. A handful beaches across the whole country will allow it. All carefully secluded and out of town. Oh, the indoor decoration; the amazing wallpaper... maybe in Disneyworld... Apart from that, it is very entertaining and, yes, Demi Moore is absolutely splendid.


Michael Caine's character has problems. He's a plain, nearsighted, insecure man in his mid-40s. He's married but his wife doesn't seem to love him anymore. He has a poor relationship with his only daughter. But his most immediate problem is that a stunningly beautiful young woman, played by Michelle Johnson, is pursuing him too ardently, kissing him, groping him, and trying to initiate sex at every opportunity. What's the poor fellow to do?

This movie should be taken out of the Comedy section and placed under Science Fiction. Only an intergalactic brain chip can explain the actions of Michelle Johnson's character. Let's see - 3 billion men in the world - she can pretty much have her pick - she goes with an clumsy, aging loser. This goes beyond a middle-aged male fantasy into something so delusional, you just hope that everyone involved voluntarily submitted to therapy.

There's not really anything funny here. There are some quick attempts at wit from Caine, who often seems to playing Hawkeye Pierce more than a new character. Joseph Bologna is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Michelle Johnson is no actress - she has one crying scene that wouldn't pass muster in a high school play - but she is beautiful and she does take her clothes off. So buy the DVD, skip to scenes 4 and 9, and forget the rest.


I never intended to write a review of this movie. Actually I was just on the sight looking for the name of the star of the film and then I started reading reviews... I guess I'll never learn. This movie is horrible! I'm not going to justify my comments with specific reasons because I really find it hard to believe that anyone with any taste actually LIKES this. A guilty pleasure? Okay, I guess. But a film this bad that wasted talent so good (Caine, Gelbart, and Donen) is a reason for mourning not a pleasant diversion. A low point for all involved except perhaps Bologna, who must sit up nights trying to figure out which bomb was THE bomb that destroyed his career.


This movie just arrived to Mexico and since I read very good reviews here about it I decided to go watch it with my friends and girlfriend, but i was greatly disappointed, I don't understand how people can rate it 10/10 I mean screenplay and directing were beautiful, but a great overall movie need a good story which this flick lacked altogether.

I've enjoyed several dramatic Asian and European films but they had a good story, watch this movie at your own risk unless you are eastern European or orthodox i don't think you will like it.

Half the people on the theater left including my 4 friends who waited outside since they were really bored so was I but I always wait till the end of the movie.

Regarding the movie, it was extremely slow paced, with a lot of time wasting scenes, the full length of the story could have been shown in no more than 40 minutes, but they made it longer by having scenes of the monk getting coal that is like 15 minutes of the whole movie plus panoramic views and so on, until they made it a full length movie a really boring one.

I recommend you listen to me if you still watch it come back and rate this comment as useful after wards to help people avoid this waste of money.


This puddle of derivative drivel stole from every Soviet film of note and failed miserably. I was left with an experience of everything that is wrong with organized religion in general and the Russian Orthodox Church's particular shortcomings (mind you this comment comes from a person of faith). Even the outstanding cinematography left me uninspired. I spent its most beautiful moments very aware of the masterworks that it was poorly imitating. I would not recommend seeing this movie unless you have a deep passion for the Russian Orthodox Church, its monastic traditions, miracles in the face of Communism, and Saints of the Seventies. It is a meaningless film from (and about) a narrow perspective that did absolutely nothing for me.


Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.

 I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....


An absolutely baffling western featuring flash-forward sequences set in an insane asylum, South of Hell Mountain was one of the first films produced by the schlockmeisters at Cannon Film. Co-directed by William Sachs, who would later deliver such fan favourites as The Incredible Melting Man and Galaxina, the film tells the very dull tale of a trio of gold robbers who stumble upon a cabin occupied by two women who are hiding some secrets that aren't worth discovering. The cast (most of whom never made another film) try gamely, but are hamstrung by the screenplay, which generally makes no sense. The asylum scenes are edited in to little effect and are punctuated by ridiculous sound effects and tape loops. Ultimately, it's a lot of talk and little else.


I went into this film expecting/hoping for a sleazy drive-in style slice of seventies exploitation, but what I got was more of a bizarre pseudo western with far too much talking and not enough action. It's clear that this film was made on a budget; the locations are drab and poorly shot, while the acting leaves a lot to be desired also. The plot focuses on a trio of robbers (a father and two sons) that steal a load of gold after killing some miners. They come across a cabin inhabited by a young girl and her stepmother...and all this is told in flashbacks by the young girl, currently residing in an asylum. It's clear that directors Louis Leahman and William Sachs thought they were making something really shocking; but despite its best efforts, South of Hell Mountain is just too boring to shock the viewer. The film drones on for about eighty minutes and most of it consists of boring characters spouting off boring and long-winded dialogue. The only good thing I have to say about the film is with regards to the music; which is good in places. The ending is the only other good thing about the movie; and that's only because it's the last thing that happens. I wouldn't recommend anyone bothers tracking this down...there was much better trash made in the seventies.


Well.....horror this ain't, but.......!!!??? A terrible low low budget backwood-flic of the worst kind, sort of AND...therefore quite charming and funny to watch...at least on my tv set!!! A cross between Pete Walker, Herschell Gordon Lewis and...say....damn, I give up...just can't come up with any "prettier" resemblances for this trashy movie. Everything is soooo wrong that I just have to enlist it in my film collection alongside with....Death In Venice.....Nekromantik.....Blue Velvet and The Good,Bad,Ugly... right !!?? People with some small talent for adding gory inserts or sexy happenings to film they buy offa other people, should pick this film up immediately....sure is a fat lil' ol' goldmine waiting here, oh maaaannnn!!!!!


I have seen this movie and in all honestly was quite disappointed. And in my opinion this movie lacks heart. I frankly didn't care what happen to the characters by the end of the movie.

There was so much there they could have done with the movie that they didn't because they were either so rapped up in trying to be obscure and make some deep comment on life, or trying so hard not to, that the characters and story were completely lost in all of it. I have seen another picture by this director and enjoyed it well enough. But I felt this film lack of the whimsy and heart of the other and I was left wondering what the point was, or if the point of the movie was that it had no point. Honestly, while I didn't feel like tearing my hair out during the movie, I did remorse the lost time on the sad little film.

I have no doubt that some people will love this movie, but frankly I didn't.


I know Terry Gilliam is considered as a good director but claiming that this movie is good is just foolish. What was the movie about? What is it a spoof? Fantasy? Comedy? Satire? No answer there from Gilliam's screenplay. Totally confused and pointlessly hurtling from one historical age to another. I find it amusing that some people actually call this movie magical. Is it because they have to praise any movie which is vague and indecisive on what it is about?? 3 stars for special effects considering it is 1981. Roger Ebert has it right in his review. The movie is ambiguous and looks like Gilliam's romp with money just to make a vague children's move masquerading as a historical revue. The movie also tries to confuse the would-be viewer by giving John Cleese and Sean Connery top billing.


I got this movie from the library, and saw it had a lot of actors I like in it(John Cleese, Ian Holm, Ralph Richardson, etc), so I got it and watched it. I expected Cleese to have a large role since he had first billing, I was surprised to find out that he had about five minutes of screen time, along with everyone else I liked. This movie is amazingly pointless, the characters are nobodies, the plot is non-existent, and the ending is one of the worst endings I have ever seen. There were a few funny parts, but that's about it. Stay away from this movie if you want to prevent going "What?" and "Huh?", a lot. And if you don't want to waste your time. Ignore the people who say this is a very funny movie...it isn't. Just stay away from it at all costs...please.


For some reason I just didn't like it at all and felt embarrassed about how bad it was since I bought it and watched it with my family. All of us hated it with a passion. It's a nice enough kids' movie, maybe in the year it came out. However, think about it: an outdated kids' movie? What's the point? Kids do not generally like to watch such old movies anyway, and I don't see what adults are supposed to get out of this movie at all.

Some kids' movies (like Mary Poppins or Wizard of Oz) can be enjoyed even now, but Time Bandits is totally outdated. For your reference, and I think applicable in this case, I also did not like Dr Strangelove or Spinal Tap at all. So, if you disagree with me on those similarly outdated movies, you might like Time Bandits.

There is also a horrible case of overacting as I recall from the 'bad guys'. Think of the two stupid 'bad pirates' in the Pirates of the C. movies, except in Time Bandits they are not even remotely funny.

Anyway, I warned you, that's all I can do. People that rate this movie high must have liked it from many years ago. If you have not seen it before, then don't bother watching it now.


This show has shown it's true colors now that Democrats are in power. It never did lead the world in IQ as anyone who thought it has intelligence has been programmed to think one way (which is a scary thing).

Comedy Central moved this & it's spin off back to an earlier time once the Democrats took power for a reason- because now when the Democrats screw up - which is just as often as Republicans do - Stewart no longer takes pot shots at them. That is why the ratings for both this & the spin are dropping.

Basically, most of the humor now is either lame, or lame Sarah Palin jokes - which all the ratings dropping Comedians are now telling. The facts to back this up speak for themselves. The Jay Leno show which has been doing the same kind of humor is on the verge of being canceled. The ratings for Letterman & Conan & the shows that follow them are down.

So Emperor Stewart is not alone. Trouble is if any of them start taking real rips at the bungling Democrats in power, they could raise their ratings in a hurry because the best humor is always at the expense of whose in power. The Bush years proved that because the ratings for this show & Colbert, & Letterman & Leno were higher there.

O'Bama has done one thing, proved these shows have to be willing to take chances & rip the folks in power if they are to prosper. Right now, the Daily Show & Stewart are sagging but maybe they can get lucky & have Palin elected as the first woman President in 2012. Then the lame Palin jokes will become ratings grabbers.


I have tried watching this show on several different occasions and each time found it to be utterly pale of humor.

The reason, to mention one thing, is that it is solely based on ridiculing anything the Republicans have done. In short it is basically Democratic party political opinions touted as humor.

All Mr. Stewart does is wisecrack about anything the Republicans have done and the audience wets themselves in gales of forced laughter.

My guess is that the left is so devoid of any real substance that they have to define themselves in terms of how much they all hate Republicans.

-LD

_____________________________

my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/


Comedy works best when it relates to stuff that's true. But even as such, some effort is required to make jokes that everyone likes and even the most grumpy of viewers can crack a smile. When I look at the Daily Show, I see the whole "it's funny because it's true" thing, but I don't, however, see the effort and often times I don't if they're being funny or just trying to make a point(I notice this mostly in the interview segments). The Daily Show started off as a news parody, by definition they poke fun at how the media plays it's own news by pretending to be inept and dumb news reporters and anchormen and they tackled tons of subjects from science to movies and sometimes politics, then Jon Stewart came along...and it all went to Hell. Thr first years of Jon Stewart's reign were arguably golden, I though he was so funny, but then 2004 came along and it's where you start to notice a huge chance in the show from there on. The show's humor has gone stale, Colbert left, Steve Carell left, many of the show's best anchors left and now it's mostly about Jon Stewart and the show's gone from a parody to a semi-serious news show, essentially Evening News but with some gags here and there. For those who haven't seen the show and are having trouble finding out what to watch on cable, I'll give you a brief description of what the show's about(at least until 2009): -Bush, Cheney and all Republicans(unless they happen to embrace an opinion shared by Democrats as well) are stupid, evil, corrupt and hypocrites, anyone who stands by conservative beliefs is also evil, corrupt and a hypocrite; -people who doubt the man-made global warming theory are evil and stupid; -vote Democrat; There, I saved you 25 minutes of your time, go watch something else. At first, I though that the producers hijacked the show for their own personal political agenda, but when I actually see the interviews, it becomes crystal clear what this show's about(what I mentioned above), but I'll get to that in a moment. Frist off, the humor in The Daily Show according to Jon Stewart expects you to find a random filmed quote said by either Bush, Cheney or a random republican humorous because well, because. Jon sets up the joke, setting it in writers specific context and expects that the random quote somehow delivers the punchline. So, unless you «get» the context, it's entirely useless as bankable humor. Also the Daily Show expects you to laugh when they show a montage of one politician talking and in another separate video saying another thing, again putting into a context that the writers expect you to understand, thus making it funny,why? Well, because Jon said so. Now imagine The Daily Show using that formula countless times for years every week, and you'll start to understand of what used to be a laugh-fest that is now 25 minutes of just silent stares(yes, even in the Lewis Black segments). At first, some decent amount of effort was put into these jokes, but now much less of that is apparent. And the interview have the most odd sense of bias that I've ever seen. Jon Stewart calls Bill O'Reilly a bully, but what does that make him, when he sucks up to every single actor and democrat(John Kerry before, Obama today) that appears on the show and looks down upon respected republicans and accomplished conservative newsmen such as Weekly Standard's own Bill Kristol? He puts them in some sort of people's tribunal as if they're being charged with a crime, often times any person on the show who stands up for Bush is portrayed as delusional, as if that person's out of touch with reality and assumes he speaks for the majority of America, that's the de facto treatment for anybody conservative, unless they happen to share a similar point of view with Democrats, if so then's it's an endless love fest. But still, it doesn't matter, in the eyes of Jon you are already wrong before you walked into the show and are still wrong afterwords. That's the kind of treatment you get if you are anything remotely right-wing. Now you have to wonder what that could possibly have anything to do with humor. One wonders what'll happen if Democrats win the White House...


Jon Stewart (aka John Liebowitz) constantly rips conservatism and anything Republican. This liberal comic is anything but, as he pours his cutting "humor" down the throats of impressionable youths. I've viewed the show while stuck in a waiting room while my car was repaired and this guy borders on treason. He'll take Al Queda's side over Bush any day. He's shameless and everything he says is punctuated by a phony laughtrack. I do remember four years ago when he "interviewed" John Kerry. The two made faces at each other that seemed to preclude a makeout session. It was like, "Get a room, you guys". I just don't like smirky little traitors who peddle their propaganda. Call me shallow. The Daily Show has had a long run and there are many likeminded liberals who have a seething hatred for Republicans and Conservatism. I'm not surprised at its success, but do that many people actually watch Comedy Central? That Mancia guy makes me barf.


First of all, the title "DAILY" is a LIE.

Every "Daily Show" program opens with an on-screen visual of the date it was made, followed by a pause and the opening announce. On the many days when they are RE-RUNNING a Daily Show, they slip-cue the tape and OMIT the date and begin with the opening announce giving the false impression that the show is a new one. That's a lie. There is no mention of it being a rebroadcast. And that kind of crap is just a small indicator of how sneaky and deceptive this show is.

Furthermore, it's only on 4 nights a week. That's not quite "daily" - meaning Monday through Friday - another shortcoming but one I am grateful for.

It's sad to think that many clueless young people use this fake news program as their main, often only, news source. This leaves them woefully ignorant and much worse - badly misinformed.

Although it leans liberal-left, politically, this show can be amusing at times. However, its veracity is low. Facts and information are often cleverly twisted to fit the writers' agendas. It's often hard to tell where the facts leave off and the fiction and comedy writing begin. The result is pre-digested, reinterpreted information designed to persuade and influence. This is called "PROPAGANDA".

The remote interviews are heavily kluged in editing.

It really loses me when it bashes God and Christians - which it does all too often. However, you'll never hear anything vaguely anti-Semitic.

If Jon Stewart and company attacked anyone but Christians, it would be considered an offensive outrage. The names in the credits explain the source.


Don't get me wrong, the guy's a success dynamo, but he got to the top by selling overpriced plastic toys to impulsive brats. So I get a little peeved when he looks at comic book fans as an extension of that same market.

See, "The Invincible Iron Man" wouldn't be bad if it were slotted on a Saturday morning and geared exclusively toward undiscerning children. But it's not directed exclusively at children. Periphery characters are killed every five minutes and there's enough bloodshed and semi-nude bodies to make network censors squirm, so it isn't quite cut out for children's television.

So what audience is this video aiming for then? It's the audience that enjoys nigh intelligible story lines about reviving a tyrannical Chinese emperor with 5 arcane rings, that's who. And I think that audience is restrictively small.

A lot of great writers have passed through Marvel's leathery yoni over the decades. So it's a shame that Marvel would risk their pricey animation investments on so many questionable storytellers and scribes who, like Mr. Arad, are better accustomed to peddling action figures during Saturday morning cartoons. How many lukewarm receptions do Marvel have to endure before they come up with a better strategy?

***

Animation: just passable cels, some segments are better than others, a low budget look all throughout -- this ain't no Bakshi (Ralph) and it ain't no Bluth (Don)! CG animation's okay, but far from impressive.

Story: a litany of clichés, all over the place, convoluted, contrived, and uninspired.

Characters: so why is Rhodes even here if all he does is add to Stark's sexual ambiguity? Hmmm... her Dad's in a wheelchair... Tony misses his mom... Asian chicks are hot and, apparently, little else; the female lead is thoroughly objectified by the feature's end.

Performances: can't blame competent voice actors for a bad script.

Art: very Western musculature, very clean lines, faces are very derivative of Eastern art, very boring mattes, very bland CG.

Conclusion: Not great, but worth a watch for the fans and those who enjoy superhero myths. A 'must-buy' for collectors. A valuable "what not to do" course for junior animators.


I am obviously disappointed so I'll be brief and won't waste your time. First off, the plot was uninspired... at least. The animation was even worse, we're in 2008 for god's sake and it looked like a shinier version of G.I.Joe. I won't even bother characterizing the actors' performance and the dialogs. Or maybe I will 'cause I just saw that in order to post a comment over here you need 10 lines (?!??!?!). Where were we? Oh yeah the performance, well it was totally flat, lacking passion and talent if I am excused. Now as for the dialogs, just like the acting, no memorable quotes, nothing that someone wouldn't expect. Let's just hope the movie will be decent ...at least.


This was something I had been looking forward to seeing. The Ultimate Avengers movies had both exceeded my expectations and since Iron Man has been one of my favorite Marvel characters I thought that this same production team would be able to do some really great stuff with an Iron Man solo title. But the final film was unsatisfying. I wasn't expecting them to spend most of the movie paying tribute to Iron Man gray armor. The red and gold armor is seen for maybe ten or so minutes all together. Not a major complaint but not what I expected from the ads and box. The worse thing however was the story, the acting and the cell-shaded CGI animation for the monsters and Iron Man armor that was not convincing. It didn't blend in well with the cell animation at all. Even on it's own it seem stick-like and lifeless. Tony Stark's character arc, as incredibly slow as it takes, is so forced and unconvincing. I wanted to see this movie because I love Iron Man but after forcing myself through the film I wondered if they couldn't have come up with something that had been as good as the Ultimate Avengers movies.


I have been collecting Iron Man comics since the early 70s and always enjoyed the character who is far far from the average clean cut hero and his many and varied enemies. There have been no less than three attempts at an animated series for Iron Man and only the original and part of the second have ever done the character justice. So I was somewhat hopeful that this newest version would be good. Boy was I wrong! The DVD art is VERY misleading and presents an image that is not the movie. Fist off the good, what little there is... The art and animation are well drawn and the writing and dialog are generally good, though with notable exceptions. Character voices are very well selected and each character is distinctive and well acted. Now for the bad... Unfortunately the writers opted to totally screw around with both Iron Man's origin and especially the Mandarin's. On top of that they decided to do Iron Man and his opponents all in CGI. Bad CGI. This makes them stand out almost as badly as live actors would in a cartoon. The CG work is often repetitive and glaring shortcuts are taken at times. The CG battles are clumsy as well, further enhancing the fact that CG and line animation do not mix well. The movie would certainly have fared better had they opted to actually DRAW all the characters. Another problem is that Iron Man is in his traditional Red and Gold suit for all of ONE battle! And its not even the big fight at the end. All this drags the movie down and it never picks up.

************ SPOILERS (or warnings) MAY FOLLOW ************

The movie starts off with an interestingly unusual stop motion credit sequence of machinery, welding and gears. Then we are introduced to what looks like a Chinese temple in the process of being restored, and prominent is a statue of what fans will recognize as the Mandarin. Things go strangely, impeding progress in restoring the temple. Overseeing it is James Rhodes, Tony Stark's long time friend. Seems they plan to actually raise the temple up from the earth, despite opposition by a group who insist that raising the temple will bring about a terrible disaster. Rhodes is captured in a raid. Stark, shown in a hot tub with a lovely lady, is informed of the problems and sets out to personally oversee the project and rescue his friend while in the background his father deals with Board Executives who are pushing to have Tony removed. Tony arrives only to have his armored escort ambushed and blown to pieces. Tony later awakens mortally wounded in the heart and a prisoner of the rebels. He is saved only by quick action from Rhodes and a scientist. Eventually Stark must build the prototype gray iron armor and makes good an escape, but only after some loss of life. While with the rebels he meets a troubled girl named Li Mei, and the two fall in love. The Temple is raised and four elemental beings (all done in CG) appear and proceed to start collecting hidden rings of power. Stark and Rhody find trouble back home but manage to confront the elementals without success in really stopping them, First using the Aquatic Armor, then the more classic Red and Gold Armor and finally everything returns to the temple and Stark is back in the bulky gray armor for a final showdown and a run in with what may be Fin Fang Foom (also in CG.) Here the story takes a major twist as it turns out that the Mandarin needs a host body to manifest. This leads to a somewhat tragic final battle marred by the fact that the Mandarin is little more than a ghost and isn't seen till the last 5 minutes of the movie. ugh...

If you are an Iron Man fan then you will likely not enjoy this outing. And even non-fans may well find the movie somewhat lacking or not.


I am a fifth grade language arts teacher, and after we read this book (which the students loved), then we watched the movie. They laughed out loud! Unfortunately, it's NOT a comedy! The acting was so awful, I felt like I was watching a bunch of kids in the neighborhood putting on a play. My students were mimicking the lines and making fun off and on the whole way through. I have to agree with them, at times, it was pretty bad. Still, I would show it to students again, just for fun, and to compare the film with the book. We did a Venn Diagram (teachers know what that is) afterward, to show what was the same in both and what were the differences, so there is an educational value in showing it. I noticed that another adaptation is being filmed for 2005 so we can only hope the acting will be better!


I was in 6th grade and this movie aired on PBS during a series called 'Wonderworks.' I distinctly remember sitting on a couch watching the movie with tears running down my face at the end. In the film Jesse, the main character, forms an unusual friendship with a girl named Leslie. Due to a very simple, but careless mistake one of the pair dies. At the time, I found the story very powerful, because the fatal mistake is exactly the type of mistake a kid would make and so any kid watching the film will find it very easy to identify with and feel the emotional weight of the tragedy that ensues.

Last year, I finally tracked down a VHS copy of the show. I probably should have stuck with my memories. Watching the show as an adult I was absolutely shocked by what a horribly made film this was. My girlfriend had a similar memory of the movie as well, and she too was pretty sad about how bad the movie was compared to her memories.

Many adults probably have a good memory of watching this movie when they were kids. I strongly advise that these people leave their memories intact, and avoid seeing this film as an adult.


I have recently gone to the movie theatres to see the new (2007) version of Bridge to Teribithia. After, I went to the library to rent the older version to see it again without paying again. I must say that I was extremely disappointed! I found the older version to have horrible acting as well as corny lines including Jessie saying, "I know Daddy, but I hurt so much inside" after Leslie dies. It was quite horribly done and the casting was not much better in my opinion. I watched in amazement all the while saying no wonder they remade it. The story is great but trust me spend the money and see the new version, if you just see the old one you may never experience the true magic of Teribithia.


The acting is generally pretty weak. The dialog was also apparently dubbed in after the filming, so it just doesn't come across well. What do you want for a TV movie?

Annette O'toole was OK; there were a few strong lines from the parent of the queen.

Otherwise, these kids weren't quite up to it. Didn't impress my kids either.

On the upside, it is only an hour long. Considering that, it got through plot and character development in a creditable fashion. The settings and cinematography are OK too.

Some other viewers may like it for sentimental reasons.


This year's Eurovision was to me a big disappointment. I've watched the Eurovision Song Contest every year since 1986 (well, at least that's the earliest one I can remember, and I was only 2 at the time). As any other year this one contained both good, bad and horrible songs - nothing new there. However this year's show was the worst one I can remember. Only very few good (decent's probably more like it) songs and a lot of absolutely terrible songs.

Turkey's winner song "Every Way That I Can" sounded to me like a rip-off of Turkish singer Tarkan's hit "Simarik", just sounding a lot worse. It didn't deserve to win from my point of view. Belgium's song "Sanomi", coming in second, was a no-language song. Wonder what's next? Animals singing? Nevertheless the music for the song was quite catchy, giving the song a kind of dreamy feeling, to which the "lyrics" seemed appropriate. One of the better songs, but that's not saying much.

After one of the closest races in Eurovision history Russian duo t.A.T.u. ended in third place just three points behind Turkey and behind Belgium, with "Ne Ver', Ne Boisia" ("Don't Trust, Don't Be Afraid"). To me t.A.T.u. was one of the very few highlights of the show, surprising just about everyone by being some of the most covered up girls of all the female contestants. They let their song do the talking and if we ignore the fact that they failed to pitch a few times in the first chorus, they let the song speak very well indeed.

The biggest surprise when looking at the scoreboard was Austria. The bookmakers here in Denmark had the biggest odds on that song - a song that indeed was beyond horrible - but ended up in 8th place. Could it be that bum of his being shaken to the rhythm of the song? That performance was the one that made me and my family laugh the most, not because it looked good, but because it looked so stupid that it was actually fun.

Sweden did what they do the best; ABBA. In 1999 they won with "Take Me To Your Heaven", by sounding like ABBA. In 2001 they made the top 10 with "Listen To Your Heartbeat", again sounding like ABBA, and once again this year they did it ABBA-style, again ending in the top 10.

England was finally punished for making those absolutely horrible, non-catching songs, that they've been the past years.

Ireland ripped off the winner from 2000, "Fly On The Wings Of Love". And I could go on and on about how bad the songs were.

I feel a bit sorry for the Aussies, who this year finally got the chance to see the Eurovision Song Contest. They deserved better than this.

I wasn't surprised by the show though. The Eurovision from 2000 to me stands out as one of the best in recent years. 2001 was quite good, but not as good. 2002 was okay, but certainly no more. This year was quite simply disappointing.

Let's hope it'll get better next year. If not for us, then at least for the Aussies.

4/10. One for t.A.T.u., one for the close race, one for the butt-shaking and one for all the rest.


Tom is about to tuck into a delicious Jerry sandwich when a huge bird of prey swoops down and flies off with his snack. Not at all happy with having his sarnie stolen right from under his nose, Tom takes off in hot pursuit, determined to retrieve his mousy morsel.

As much as I love Tom and Jerry, I have got to say that this one is a bit of a stinker: the story is rather mundane; it introduces a badly conceived peripheral character that lacks charm; and it flogs the old 'dress the cartoon character up as a woman' gag to death.

In my opinion, 'Flirty Birdy' rivals 'Fraidy Cat' and 'Mouse in Manhattan' for the title of weakest Tom and Jerry caper thus far.


When I heard the film was to be released and the theme of what it was about, I felt very curious. But when I saw it was the biggest deception of my life. Technically speaking, the sound is poor, you can tell about man dialogs that were remade on studio that are poorly achieved in the final mix. Secondo of all, the photography is mediocre, some part of the films show some soldiers with night vision goggles, and the way the cinematographer achieves that "dark night" is by illuminated everything like if they were in an actual military base with lights, there's no reference used of the moonlight, my god! Thir but not least, most of the ac tings are really poor, it's totally not believable the roll of the wife of one of the soldier, her performance it's pretty poor.

Great disappointing, shame of the jury who chose to send this movie to represent Colombia on the Oscars.


What a mess of a movie! If it wasnt for Eric Roberts and Susan Sarandon's performances ,this movie would be a total waste! A very muddled plot and phony dialogue.Eric Roberts debut....where did his career go from this movie on?Nowhere but down!


I didn't particularly like Sliding Doors or Twice Upon a Yesterday, so I certainly didn't this poor second-rate excuse for those films. An idea that's been done to death (what would happen if...?) and the script is shoddy and unsuccessful, not to mention the obvious attempt at adding sex/nudity simply to gain an R rating and certain scenes that just weren't necessary but were there to push the boundaries (I really don't need to see a kid urinating or a struggle with a diaphragm. Especially when they have absolutely no connection to or use in the film).

The acting was also very poor, the only actor I found the least bit satisfying was her daughter; the rest were two-dimensional and quite unbelievable. The people I watched this with left the room about halfway through; I managed to finish it, but not without fast forwarding through part of it.

Overall: Nothing new here, it's a generic and boring film. The few rather amusing moments are far outweighed by the silly or stupid ones. This would be dull even if it hadn't been done before. If it weren't such a rehash I'd rate it a five, but even for an Indie film this was severely lacking, and as a rehash it loses on originality as well: 3/10.


Well, this movie wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I was expecting to give it one star. I chose to give it three. Why? Well, for a cheesy horror/sci-fi movie, it's not all that bad. Sure the characters are tacky (as is their acting - including a young Leonardo DiCaprio), the effects cheap looking, and the monsters...well let's just say that I've seen some more effective Halloween costumes in Elementary Schools... But there was something about this movie that made me watch it till the end. A little bit of humor helped out a bit I guess. And if you ever wanted to see an alien pass gas, this movie will let you live your dream. 3/10


Basically the first two Critters movie were already silly ones but in a good and entertaining way. This movie is way more of a B-movie, that is silly but for all of the wrong reasons.

This is the first sequel that doesn't really follows the plot of the first two movies. Basically all of the characters are new and there are no bounty hunters this time (well, as good as none, since the bounty hunter in this movie shows up far too late) and the budget for this one obviously went down again. To save even more costs, the movie got shot back-to-back with part 4, which I imaging will be just as bad, since it directly follows this movie and got made by the same people involved as with this one.

It's just a typical B-genre movie, that doesn't really have any originality in it or brings entertainment. It makes "Critters 3" a real redundant sequel, you can easily do without. Granted that things could had been way worse for this movie but it just ain't exactly a good one either. The movie just falls flat as a science-fiction/horror/comedy.

Also kind of strange to notice how the Critters has suddenly changed in this one. They are about double their usual size this time, without giving an explanation for that and they are even more Gremlins like in this movie than was the case in the previous one.

The movie is only made interesting because this was the feature film debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. He was about 17 in this movie and of course looking baby-faced like he still does now. I like watching this well known actors in their early roles. It's fun to see how they act and if their style has improved and changed over the years. Of course DiCaprio got only better but he already was kind of delivering his lines in the same way as he does these days.

Really a too silly and lame movie.

4/10


Critters 3 starts on the open road as Clifford (John Calvin) his teenage daughter Annie (Aimee Brooks) & his young son Johnny (the IMDb list two actor's Christian & Josephh Cousins, identical twins perhaps?) are heading back home from a vacation. Suddenly the tyre on their van blows & they have to stop at a public rest area to fix it. While there Annie & Johnny meet a kid named Josh (Leonardo DiCaprio, yes that one) who in turn all run into Charlie McFadden (the films co-producer Don Keith Opper) from the previous two Critter films. Charlie tells them the story of the Critters & the town of Grovers Bend but they don't believe him. Meanwhile back at the van a Critter lays some eggs on it's underside, out of sight from everyone. Once Clifford has fixed the tyre the trio set off for their home, a run down urban tenement block in Los Angeles somewhere complete with Critter eggs along for the ride. Upon arrival the eggs hatch & the Critters head straight inside the tenement block quickly disposing of Frank (Geoffrey Blake), the caretaker. As the night draws on the few remaining residents, a fat woman named Rosalie (Diana Bellamy), a telephone repair woman Marsha (Katherine Cortez), an elderly couple Mr. (Bill Zuckert) & Mrs. Menges (Frances Bay) must come together with Clifford & his kids to fight the Critters. Josh also makes an appearance as his Stepfather (William Dennis Hunt) owns the building. But will the group be able to defeat the Critters & prevent themselves from becoming dinner?

Directed Kristine Peterson I thought Critters 3 was an incredibly undistinguished film, but at least she can say she made a film staring Leonardo DiCaprio & not many people can say that! The budget for Critters 3 probably wasn't exactly a fortune as the whole production looks cheap throughout, there are very few characters, very few Critters & I think only 3 ever appear in the same shot at once & it does away with any sort of space angle so there are no expensive spaceship or distant alien planet special effects to pay for. The script by David J. Schow is strictly by-the-numbers & very predictable. A group of humans are stuck in an isolated situation with Critters & have no means of contacting the outside world for help, that plot scenario sounds very familiar right? Well it's same as the previous Critters (1986) & Critters 2: The Main Course (1988) & many other horror films so it should. Critters 3 does nothing with the premise, it never even tries to add anything to an already old, tired & well used storyline. Critters 3 is also very tame for a horror film with only two people actually being killed, the comedy elements are seriously lacking as well with the best joke Critters 3 can mange being a Critter eating some beans & then farting, very funny if your about 5 years old. The characters are mostly standard horror film clichés & quickly became annoying. There is virtually no blood or gore in Critters 3 at all, just a few splashes of blood & disappointingly Critters 3 in fact seems to go out of it's way not to show any violence. The special effects on the Critters are OK but they still look like static, simplistic hand-puppets that have very little movement. The acting isn't that good & Critters 3 happens to be a certain Leonardo DiCaprio's very first feature film, to be fair to the kid he's alright & I wonder if any of the other cast or crew had an idea what he go on to become. Why on Earth does that Charlie guy have to keep popping up in these Critter films? To give Critters 3 some credit it moves along at a good pace & isn't boring, it's generally well made with nice enough production values & it's a bit of harmless fun if your in the right sort of mood & thankfully it only lasts for about 80 odd minutes. Overall Critters 3 is an OK time waster but don't expect anything deep or meaningful. There's nothing really wrong with it as cheap horror film but I couldn't help feeling that I'd seen it all before. An average time-waster that isn't as good as either of the previous two Critter films. Critters 3 ends with a 'to be continued...' as this was filmed back to back with Critters 4 (1991) which unsurprisingly went straight to video, probably to save even more money. Critters 3 is a decent enough way to waste 80 odd minutes if you can watch it on T.V. for free otherwise don't bother.


Sadly, this movie is not very good. But does it really matter ? We all know the basics for the story, and this has nothing new. But I love low budget horror & sci fic camp classics ... so I forgive this one. About thew only thing that anyone remember from this movie, is that little Leonardo DiCaprio made his debut in it.

He did OK. The part didn't ask for great acting skills, and the direction probably never gave him any chance of providing one anyway ... Little Leonardo DiCaprio was very cute ... and so was the girl. The movie is fun, if you like horror & sci fic camp classics and are experienced in watching them.


*Spoilers - sorry!* The first word that sprung to mind whilst watching the film is 'Gremlins'. It's the only critters movie I have seen from the four movies, but I enjoyed it. It wasn't too complicated as I hadn't seen the past two, but I thought it was quite a good movie all the same.

Critters starts with a man, his son and daughter stopping off on the way to a vacation (although it turns out that they end up at their own home - which I have no idea what the hell went on) The girl meets up with a boy (played by Leo DiCaprio) and they go hang out in a nearby forest. They meet this weird guy who tells them to be careful and stuff because of the critters. He seems a bit psychotic and if I was in that situation, I would not speak to him. The critters steal a ride of the girl and boy's car and end up in their flat thing. They hide out in the basement and end up killing this lazy jerk. They then nearly kill this fat woman and the girl's dad. They are chased higher and higher up the flat until they hide in the attic. The critters eat stuff in the kitchen (Spoof of the gremlins kitchen scene???!) And I can't remember (not a good thing) but I'm sure they have to go back for something/someone. Anyway they end up getting out and saved. The psychotic guy comes back and before he kills the last two critters he is told he can't because they are endangered and so he sends them home.

The ending was disappointing and I was annoyed that only the lazy guy died as there were quite a few annoying characters I would personally have killed off. It's a thrilling, exciting movie worth a watch. But, if you're looking for a better version of this genre I recommend the gremlins movies. Sorry!


As a fan of bad movies (and MST3K, and a member of MFT3K), I must say I've seen my share of them. But geez! Even the worst I've seen at least had a soundtrack. As George Lazenby stiffly wanders around Hong Kong, doing who knows what, you can guarantee that you won't be distracted by any of that background music that fills todays cinema. Or any of that music that fills elevators. I don't think anyone in this film even hums.

Now, this isn't entirely true -- there *is* a sound track. if you listen closely, you will hear it chime in about a half-dozen times through the course of the film. Of course, the timing will be entirely inappropriate, and it doesn't last very long, but something that could be classified as "music" does occur. Your best bet, though, is to sit your toddler armed with a wooden spoon down in front of the TV with a collection of pots and pans while you watch. The rhythm and flow would be better than anything the film offers.

Keep an eye out for Sammo Hung as a minor villian in this film. Aren't we all glad he found Jackie Chan to work with?


My first question, is NOT about the horrible acting, NOT about the horrendous writing, it is the directing. The choices that were made about the cinematography are some of this worst decisions I have ever seen. Why does EVERY single bad guy have to die in slow motion? I was about to beat myself with a rubber hose. The camera shots make it so that you can't see whats going on. I was JUST about to turn the movie off because of Jalal Merhi's accent, when it made it to the sex scene, so I thought it might get better, well it did not. If you rate special effects on an A,B,C rating scale, I would have to put it around a W or so, and did I mention the acting? Wow, was it bad!!! And the WORST part of the entire "Expect to DIE" experience, is the blatant misuse of the phrase on the cover, which is: "THE MATRIX JUST GOT DEADLIER". comparing this movie to the Matrix is easily the WORST comparison I have EVER seen. If you haven't seen this movie, Don't, unless you are looking for a good reason to beat your head against the wall.


In the wake of the matrix this travesty of a film with loose connections to VR has been reissued with the tag-line "The Matrix just got Deadler!", in a box with a very Matrix inspired cover (still called "Expect to Die" though). Due to the choice of font however the tag-line looks to all the world like it says "Beablier". Anyway.

To complete the transformation to Matrix wannabe they have mocked up a VR fight scene with a Morpheus-a-like on the back of the box. It may be important to know that this character DOES NOT FEATURE IN THE FILM.

Overall this film is a travesty on every level. Jalal Mehri is an awful actor and does not impress with his martial arts. However his partner Stone is played by Evan Lurie, who in this film is simply the worst actor I have ever seen. Clearly he was chosen to make Jalal look good in comparison. Worst film I have seen for a long long time.


They must be. I'll list them so that you can check them off one-by-one:

- Police regularly leave tens of millions of dollars of cash and drugs just lying around, because they don't have evidence facilities.

- When you get shot, you always grunt the same way, and fly back the same way, even though there's never a mark on your body.

- Police are not able to identify the sound of gun shots, and don't think anything is suspicious when an undercover policewoman's phone call during a high-level drug-and-money deal is cut shot by that gun shot.

- Bad guy gunmen can hit mannequins with one shot, but can't hit a big, bulky martial artist with 100.

- If you rocket launcher a car in a car park, the next three cars in a line will blow up evenly in 15 second intervals.

- Further to the last point, all the cheap cars are always parked next to each other.

- The smoke that is caused from the firing of the rocket launcher is much greater than the amount of smoke caused by four cars blowing up.

- Virtual reality games that are a long, long way ahead of anything any other gaming company can produce fit on five floppy disks.

- Virtual reality games that are a long, long way ahead of anything any other gaming company can produce have graphics that look like Windows 3.1 screen-savers.

- Floppy disks can be read even after they've been shot up.

- Semi-drunk guys in bars attentively watch the news when they're at the pub, and have a deep understanding of American modern military history, Agent Orange, and the family trees of high-ranking military officials. However, they're only able to articulate their points using dialogue that sounds silly coming from anyone over the age of seven.

- Even though fights appear to break out almost hourly in a bar, that bar has only one staff worker, who both pours the beers and handles security. Of course he knows martial arts.

- Gold medal Olympians regularly make the simple transition to corporate CEOs of software companies in a matter of years.

- A woman who works for a computer game company knows everything about how to beat a game she's never played, raves constantly about her competitor's great games, and can rattle off facts and figures regarding her company's rivals - but she didn't know that they overtook almost all the other companies in the field in large corporate mergers.

- Bad guys always die in slow motion. Always.

- Wives tell their husbands that they're pregnant by raving about their man's bravery in killing bad guys.

- Wives do large amounts of their husband's police work; this might explain why she whines and complains so much every time he has to go to work. Although, it doesn't explain why she adores him so much every time he gets up in the morning and she can read about his murderous escapades.

- It's fairly typical for a police officer to be involved in kidnappings, kill tons of people on three separate occasions and stop a variety of multi-million dollar illegal deals in a week.

- When trying to lose a car that's following you, it's wise to continue driving under the speed limit. And if you're following a cop, subtlety is not important - you can tailgate him for miles, then park right next to him. He won't notice.

- All cops are experienced martial artists.

- It is possible to kick a guy four metres in distance.

- People scream or grunt in pain when they are punched or kick, yet when they have their arm broken, they don't make a sound.

- Bad guys clean their bloodied axes with their handkerchiefs, and then leave them in their pocket for many days.

- Pieces of wood, when swung with one sharp blow, shatter sturdy ladders in six or more places simultaneously.

- The photo, and listed special features on the back of the DVD case don't necessarily have to be on the DVD. The advertised interactive menus? Why not no menu at all! The advertised scene index? Why not have the whole thing as one scene/chapter, and not need an index! Likewise, it's OK to use The Matrix's font and title in the tag-line, and not be a rip-off in any way.

With all of this, I'm in shock that 12 out of the 15 top credited actors never acted again.


Wow, Jeez, I don't even know where to begin commenting on this thing they called a movie. I seriously don't know what the hell David Bradley began smoking after making Hard Justice, which in my opinion, was quite a good movie after the American Ninja features. I hadn't seen any of this guy's latter movies after Cyborg Cop. Lucky I saw them on Amazon for like 5 pounds each and I can safely say the following: if I had thrown down the drain the 5 pounds I spent on Total Reality, Crisis and Expect to Die, I would have ended up happier than having to sit through the 90 minutes that each of them lasted. My God, how the HECK can anybody label these as "movies" ??? And why do action/martial arts actors fall knee-deep into the smelliest horse-dung when they've like reached their peak?? I mean, David Bradley's no Oscar deserver but his first movies were pretty entertaining. Tough, cool guy with pretty good martial expertise who delivered corny lines but at least entertained action and martial arts fans to a certain extent. But I seriously would love to know what went through this guy's head after making Hard Justice. His final 3 movies have to frankly be the WORST I have ever had to sit through. As I mentioned before, I'd love to get my money back on the 3 DVDs I bought. Crisis was the epitome of sleepiness, Total Reality was harsh but this Expect to Die is just utter nonsense. I bet the director was either mega-stoned when he made this or he was just taking the pee out of every David Bradley fan who would sit through this heap of crap. The plot circles around a doctor (Bradley) who develops some type of Virtual Reality game in which he's just killing different people off one by one. Sorry but I just couldn't take this guy seriously playing a baddie with that posh hair-do, glasses and gray slacks and doing absolutely NO physical fighting whatsoever (frankly, his best asset). The film is even worse than any of those Saturday afternoon B-movies because the acting is laughable, the directing is horrendous and the few fights in the movie, well, what can I say... The actors look like they're training with their gym buddy. We get a dumb muscular cop who starts to show off his fighting stuff like one hour into the movie and fails heavily... a french hairy version of Van Damme who just can't fight, act or speak to save his freaking life and Bradley, the supposed protagonist, playing the evil doctor who I was really happy for when he stopped making this type of expendable rubbish. I even reckon he didn't throw a kick in this movie probably due to his heart condition already playing up on him. For a B-actor, I must admit I really liked this guy, his style, physique, fighting skills... But I'm really, really glad he stopped acting after this monstrosity because I honestly wouldn't have been able to sit through another ninety minutes of pee-taking material like this one. Avoid at all costs even if you're family of David Bradley, you'll be glad you did, word.


Purchased this film for one dollar and figured I could never go wrong, my big mistake was watching it. Enjoyed the acting of Ice-T and the rapping which gave lots of class to this film about Los Angeles and the world of pimps. There is a boxer who kills one of his opponents in a practice ring and who has a career, but because of mental problems from childhood and the killing of this other boxer he retires. He gets hired by a pimp who is looking for a bodyguard to protect the girls that work for him at their trade and make sure they are not beaten up. This boxer falls in love with the boss's girlfriend and all kinds of trouble starts. This is entertaining and it then becomes a big laughing comedy.


I rented this movie from my local library and thought it might be good considering I like this type of movie and considering who was in it but boy was I wrong. The acting stunk, the fight scenes were just as bad and they got a couple of known people to be in it but didn't cast anyone with acting ability to play the lead? I noticed some people gave it a 10. Why would you ever consider giving this pile of horse **** a 10. You can say it's worth a 10 for the sheer comedy of it but when you vote on a movie that's not supposed to be a comedy you can't give it a 10 for comedy. You have to rate it on what it was supposed to actually be like and not for something the director wasn't intending. Maybe some of you voted 10 cause you thought it would be funny to have this crappy movie have a high rating so that people would go out and rent or buy it cause you think it's fun to mislead people. You're playing with peoples time and money which you have no right to do. If the movie sucked give it a bad rating if it was good give it a good rating but don't lie. I gave this movie a 4 and am glad that I was able to check this out for free from my library cause this movie sucked and really isn't worth paying a cent to see.


If you would like to watch an example of how not to make a film, then you need to watch this. I, myself, with no film making experience could do better. The script is laughable with a weak plot and there is no effort to be seen for any intelligent structure. In order to make up for this flaw, you would think the action would be decent, wouldn't you?

As the acting, editing and overall piecing together of the film is appalling the only saving grace is the dreadful performance by the lead actor. The reason why he is the saving grace, is because he is so genuinely bad at acting, that he should win an Oscar for it. At least some recognition for making me laugh at him so much.

Toss in a dead woman's body after an all male shoot out (where did she come from?), pull the semi automatic trigger tens of times while the soundman pulls off two gunshot effects, reflection of the camera crew in Kool Mo Dee's shades, one and only ONE music track for the WHOLE film, an unoriginal script that has no logic; is a perfect recipe for a really, really bad film. Its actually more fun spotting the errors than actually trying to find something positive. Avoid at all costs.


Last night, I got bored and decided to watch a movie called 'out kold' which I had once bought with a whole lot of other cheap movies from a videostore. Seemed like a good old action movie, so I took out the chips and coke and was ready for a relaxing evening. Well, the pain started right from the beginning. The main character is a boxer who is the nicest guy I have ever seen. As the good person he has to be nice of course, but he is just a pussy! That totally doesn't fit with a boxer that has 28 KO's and starts working for a pimp to earn some extra money. Even nice guys can still be cool. Well, then came his first fight while he was working for this pimp. Every punch was clearly missed and that became even more annoying because the sound effect weren't synchronised with the punches. Then there is this totally worthless acting of the whole cast, and you have enough reasons to leave this movie for what it is. I gave it a 1 because I have never seen such a bad movie.


Bad, a lot a crap. It copied simone, also a bad movie! Them flips when "loretta modern" sang was lame. That internet scenes made it worse. And Roscoe loves a "hologram"! Thats plain stupid! I give 0 stars! Because they copied, the plot was stupid, THE WHOLE MOVIE WAS THUMBS DOWN ALL THE WAY!


One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Completely ridiculous. The story is bad. The animations are completely childish and displaced. The physics of the holograms are hilarious from how much they are completely wrong. OMG, I even wanna believe that this film has Disney label on it. Yuck. The actresses are somewhat beautiful, but there are so many good films with astonishing actresses that are far more valuable to see than this one. Final remark, bad film. Don't bother to watch it. If you're looking for films to see with your kids consider other alternatives like Ratattuile, Monster Inc or an Enchanted Story (on theaters). Seriously.


I'm not sure who should be blamed for this debacle - in truth, the acting isn't too bad and the story isn't as terrible as some made-for-Disney movies have been. The story itself is shallow and undeveloped but that isn't surprising in a film of this type. The acting is more than a bit two-dimensional, but I give the actors credit for managing to do anything with the material that they had to work with.

However, it's inexcusable, in my book, to base an entire storyline on the theory that they've created a 'perfect' pop star and then cast an actress who can't sing to save her life. If the girl can't sing, have someone who can record the music!

This actress is a TERRIBLE singer - she was so flat she was usually singing in a totally different key!


This pathetic excuse for a movie doesn't have a decent structure or a sensible closure. The characters were confusing and the entire plot kept getting off track. I'd have to say that Pixel Perfect was a disgrace. This is what happens when you let Disney channel make movies.


Gene Hackman is a former Marine Corps colonel who musters a handful of private Vietnam vets to go back to Laos and rescue some Americans who have been listed as missing in action. Hackman suspects that, in actuality, the half-dozen or so MIAs are secretly being held in a remote camp by Laotians to be tormented and to provide more hard labor. Hackman is being paid by the wealthy Robert Stack, whose son, like Hackman's son, is thought to be among the MIAs. But the circumstances are such that Hackman can only manage to buy old and out-dated weapons, though he manages to pick up the help of a fervid anti-communist Loatian and his two daughters along the way.

I don't think the movie was deliberately concocted to endorse the myth of the Vietnames still holding our MIAs for propaganda purposes. The myth was real enough. If anyone remembers, there were many bumper stickers in 1982 and 1983, BRING BACK THE MIAs. I think, instead, that the film was made partly in order to cash in on the myth. It was absurd on the face of it. Why would our former enemy refuse to return MIAs? Propaganda? Where is the propaganda value in something that's kept secret? To add the labor supply? They need a hundred extra laborers in Vietnam and Laos? The motives behind this movie -- with its triumphant music and high body count -- were scurrilous.

But how about the movie itself? Stripped of its theme of rescuing mythical mistreated MIAs, it's a routine paramilitary actioner, no better and no worse than dozens of others that appeared in the 1980s. Gene Hackman's performance is the only one that manages to keep its head above water. He's just about always reliable.

Of the others, this being a formulaic plot, derived from "The Dirty Dozen" among others, I kept trying to guess which of the gang would sacrifice themselves for the mission. Of the three anti-communist Asians, I figured one or more were dead meat. That's why Asian helpers appear in movies like this. (I was right two times out of three.) I also figured Patrick Swayzie as the rookie ex-officer, the youngest of the group, who'd never "earned the respect" of the others because he'd never seen combat, would also have to go in some heroic mode. Wrong. He becomes a hero, true, but survives intact. I thought there was a fifty-fifty chance that Hackman would have to go too, but he makes it out okay. The formula doesn't really stretch for originality either. Charles Bronson's claustrophobic POW escapee from "The Great Escape" is here in Fred Ward's ex tunnel rat, a claustrophobe who is forced to crawl through a drainage pipe with a snake inside it, so that he can do a recon on the Laotian POW camp.

The title, "Uncommon Valor," is from a tribute that Admiral Nimitz made to the men on Iwo Jima -- "Uncommon valor was common that day." Nimitz was certainly right about that. Whether or not the men who fought in Vietnam were all equally valorous is remote from the point. Anyone who saw combat or even came near it, putting their lives on the line for the guys in the line next to them, were heroic enough. This movie, and the way it exploits our bitterness about the Vietnam war, doesn't really do them justice.


I know these types of films sell tickets and make a profit for the film makers but it just won't do as a film about Vietnam. Viet Nam was filled with horrors for the men who lived it day in and day out.

This film stars Gene Hackman who is Korean war vet assigned to train a group of rag-tag Viet Nam Vets for a return trip to that country to rescue a group of American POW's held at a camp there. These men include a former tunnel rat, a crazy acid dropping sailor, a blond tanned surfer from California and some inexperienced kid (Patrick Swayze) who just so happens had a dad that was killed in Nam. They train first at some camp in Texas and once in Nam they are found out and lose all their weapons. They are able to find replacement weapons and continue on their way to free the captured men. Most of the men are found and saved but the rag-tag group is mostly wiped out.

This movie played like a video game in which you could figure out what was going to happen next and who would pop out of behind what bush, and who was going to die and who was going to live. Viet Nam I'm guessing was not like a video game....


But to be a little more precise I do not think that it is as bad as it actually could be. Eventhough the actors (famous to semi-famous) didn't do a very great job. Directors fault? Could be the script as well hard for me to say? Anyway, if you are after a lot of cool guns and action this is not the movie for you but they do run around with a lot of ww2 vintage guns. Sort of fun :) Well I guess I could say more but it just doesn't feel as if it's worth it. If you are desperate enough or a Hackman freak see it otherwise don't!

Live well and prosper


Maybe our standards for Vientam movies have increased since Born on the Fourth Of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. This movie has a predictable plot, bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, bad special effects, etc. Compared with other Vietnam movies this one is completely unbelievable.


It is sad to have to say that a film is truly awful and one tries to find ways around saying this. However, this is a dreadful film. Gene Hackman wastes time (and one suspects, many dollars) on re-playing his most famous, and oft recreated, role as "Gene Hackman". Otherwise, television actors are given the chance to become film stars, and successfully, resist the temptation. Patrick Swayze has a minor part and went on to greater things, for which he must be eternally thankful.

I watched this film, as a result of someone else's review and I felt that another point of view was merited. You may not agree with my review but now, at least, you have been warned.


Disappointing comedy-drama with sentimental coating has Michael J. Fox ideally cast as a former child star who now runs a talent agency for thespian tots; Nathan Lane and Cyndi Lauper are his assistants. This all sounds as if it can't miss, however too much of the scenario is given over to strident Christina Vidal as a streetwise tyke whom Fox believes will be the next big thing. They lock quickly lock heads, and the bantering dialogue takes them back and forth to an uninteresting, formula finish. Fox and Lane are both appealing, but the energy of the early scenes gives way to treacle. Slickly produced, but ultimately stale. *1/2 from ****


This isn't a bad movie. It's fun to watch for the first time. However it has absolutely no replay value at all. When you try to watch it again it gets so boring you have to turn it off. I give this movie a 6 out of 10.


This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie


This movie has got to be one of the all-time lows of Michael J. Fox's generally respectable career. I should have known how awful this movie was when I rented it and found the movie only half viewed and not rewound by the previous renter. Never a good sign! Fox plays a grown up child star who's now an agent for other show business kids. His character is delusional in that he still believes that everyone should love him for being Mikey. His big break comes when he meets Angie Vega, a talented child. Vega is abrasive and not at all likeable. In fact, the only likeable character in the whole movie is Cyndi Lauper as a Brooklyn accented receptionist for the agency. One of those movies that makes me want to stick a post-it note to the box warning others not to waste their time!


Yet another cookie-cutter movie about a hardened adult who meets an adorable, street-smart kid (Cop and 1/2, Gloria, etc). And once again, it is not funny or interesting, for anyone to watch - kids or adults. I'm sure some people might find this movie amusing, but I have no earthly idea why. Once again, I feel sorry for the poor kids who were forced to work in this movie, so that everyone else and their parents could make some bucks at the price of a cheesy cheesy movie.


Another sadistic and ultra-sleazy late 70's/early 80's revenge movie?? Wes Craven sure launched a popular trend with his "Last House on the Left" Although "Terror Express" is more like a rip-off of other rip-offs, like "I Spit on your Grave" and especially "Night Train Murders". Storywise, this movie has absolutely nothing new to offer so the only thing left to do for director Ferdinando Baldi was to multiply the sleaze-factor by a thousand! This is actually just a soft core porn flick that gets a little bit rough near the ending. On the night train from Rome are three hopelessly imbecile loser running amok. They provoke the male travelers and sexually harass the females. Things get a little out of control and a traveling convict comes to the rescue of a prostitute who keeps being screwed around by the three. This is a very tame movie and there wasn't even enough budget to buy a couple bags of fake blood. This type of movies is generally infamous for the brutal rape sequences and the discriminating behavior towards women, but the sex in "Terror Express" isn't unsettling at all. On the contrary, these 'rapists' spend more time orally pleasuring their victims then getting some themselves! The music is great, the dialogs are unintentionally hilarious and the characters are the most ridiculous ones I ever beheld. The villains are wimps and the train-passengers are so motionless they look like part of the set. If you like your exploitation as sleazy as it gets, this is your film. However, your hunger for blood and controversy will definitely not be stilled. "Terror Express" should be in the porn-section of videostores.


The unpleasant "home invasion" genre can be traced back to Wes Craven's early sleazefest "Last House On The Left", with such nasty off-shoots as "I Spit On Your Grave", "Wrong Way" and "The Visitors" soon following in the footsteps of that film. Here, in this early '80s Italian offering the same plot is regurgitated once more, with the twist being that this one is set on a continental train. "La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto"  known in English-speaking countries as "Terror Express"  starts out surprisingly well but about twenty minutes in it takes a turn for the worse, as the sex scenes start to gain precedence over the more serious action and suspense.

David, Phil and Ernie, three rich youths who wallow in terrorising and humiliating others, board a trans-continental express in Italy. The train is full of other passengers, among them prostitute Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) who rides the train frequently and has struck up a deal with one of the porters to act as a kind of pimp, persuading the male passengers to part with their cash for a night of passion in her sleeping compartment. The three cretins quickly set about upsetting the passengers with their aggressive, drunken behaviour, but matters get more serious when they seize control of an entire car on the express and barricade themselves in from the rest of the train. Pretty soon, they are revelling in their temporary control. a young wife (Zora Kerova) is raped by two of the youths in a cramped compartment; Juliette herself is subjected to a prolonged sexual assault; and later the odious trio force the male passengers to role a dice in order to decide which one will rape a 16 year old virgin travelling with her parents (a concept made doubly tasteless by the fact that her father is one of the men forced to play the game). The only passenger who seems prepared to fight back is a convict who is being escorted to Germany, but what hope does one man have against three armed thugs?

La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto gets off to a decent start. Various intriguing characters are introduced, and the three hoodlums are shown to have a genuinely unsettling influence over the travellers. Though the story is clearly the stuff of exploitation, the opening scenes are built up carefully and the film seems to be rising above the usual gutter-level of its genre. Things fall apart during a horrid scene in which Kerova is sex-sandwiched in a toilet compartment by two of the thugs. The scene is gloatingly filmed, and the effect does not seem to be to generate sympathy for the victim or hatred towards the perpetrators instead, we are being asked to feel turned on. This is sensationalism at its worst. Further humiliating rapes follow, but the rape sequences involve too much lingering camera work over acts of oral sex and the female genitalia. One sequence featuring the 16 year old girl teeters on the brink of hard core and feels particularly "wrong". By the end of La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto it is easy to forget that it was intended as a thriller, for the final hour of the film is dedicated to pornography rather than suspense. Lovers of sleaze will revel in it; others might want to look elsewhere.


I've got to say, I'm a big fan of these 'Last House on the Left' rip-offs, even the ones that most people seem to hate are often held in relatively high esteem by me; but one of these sorts of films that I didn't like much was Aldo Lado's 'Night Train Murders', and unfortunately it would seem that trains and The Last House on the Left don't mix, as Terror Express is another lacklustre rip-off. Something that this sort of film really needs is a resoundingly nasty lead character; and while Terror Express offers up three potential candidates, not one of them steps up and becomes this villain, leaving the lacking in the most important area. It actually gets off to a good start as three young men on a passenger train begin slightly irritating the guests on board. This leads the audience to believe that there is more in store, but unfortunately it never really gets going once the scene has been set. From there, the trio end up 'taking over' the train and use their new found power to terrorise the guests and rape the women.

It has to be said that there's a fair amount of sleaze in this film, which will be pleasing to many viewers; but there's hardly any blood. Director Ferdinando Baldi seemed to think that he could get away with replacing the blood with sex scenes, and he may have gotten away with it too; if he could film a brutal sex scene. The idea that these men have taken the train by force goes out of the window once it gets to the sex, as the people that you would expect to be powerful and forceful seem all too keen to show their women a good time, and despite one very tame 'sandwich' sequence, none of the sex is particularly interesting. Since a lot of the film is taken up by these sex scenes, this becomes a massive problem. Films like this are often lacking in style, suspense and credibility; but you know you're watching a bad one when it's boring you. As you might expect, none of the acting is up to anything; and the central three in particular stand out for being rubbish. The direction is lacking in style, and there's very little tension or suspense; making it difficult to care what is going to happen. Overall, this is a pretty crappy example of an exploitation film, and I can't recommend it.


La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, or Terror Express! as it was called on the version I saw, starts as various passengers board a long distance train. Three thuggish idiots, Dave, Phil & Ernie (Carlo De Mejo) board & it's clear that they're there to cause trouble as they intimidate & verbally abuse the other passengers & staff. As the train speeds along things turn nasty when a prostitute named Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) refuses to have sex with Dave, he & his mates decide to hold the entire train hostage so they can have an orgy with Juliette &, well not much else actually happens apart from some hero cop & his prisoner who set about saving the day. Erm, that's it really...

This Italian production was directed by Ferdinando Baldi & is complete total & utter crap from start to finish. The script by George Eastman as Luigi Montefiori could just as easily be described as a really boring porno as much as a horror/thriller. It is tediously slow, it's 35 minutes before anything even remotely sleazy happens & as a whole the film lacks the sort of exploitation elements that Italian sleaze & horror was delivering at that time. The film can be compared to another Italian production the infinitely better The House on the Edge of the Park (1980) made the same year, it's a very broad comparison though as everything that made The House on the Edge of the Park the notorious film that it is is absent from La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, there's no blood, no gore, almost no violence, there's only a couple of really tame rapes, the story has no twists or turns & as it's incredibly boring to watch. Italian sleaze & horror from the late 70's & early 80's isn't known for it's strong story lines or great scripts but this films really does scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel on all counts. The character's are awful, the film spends the first 30 plus minutes building them up & giving some background as to why they're on the train but this is all quickly forgotten & comes to absolutely nothing. I hated the lame ending as well & I don't know if I missed something but was any sort of reasonable explanation given as to why these three lamebrains would hijack a train? I don't think there was, was there? I'm sorry but because your angry at a prostitute is not enough of a reason, surely the filmmakers could have come up with something a bit more substantial & interesting if not more plausible. In my opinion this film stinks, it's as simple & straight forward as that I'm afraid.

Director Baldi does an OK job, to be fair he only has one corridor & a few train compartments to work with so I'll cut him some slack, having said that the film does become very repetitive. There is no style & he films the sex scenes like a bad soft core porno complete with awful romantic sounding piano music. There is NOT ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD SPILT IN THE ENTIRE FILM, that's right not one single drop. Forget about any gore or violence as you'll be very disappointed if you do, like I did. There are a couple of rapes but they're amateurishly staged & have zero impact, the nasty exploitation & sleaze of say I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or The Last House on the Left (1972) is not here.

Technically La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is OK & it's quite well made on what must have been a low budget but the setting obviously helped keep the cost down to a minimum. The acting is poor as usual, although since it was dubbed the original performances have been lost. Fans of Italian horror will recognise a lot of the voices here.

La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is a terrible film, it's just my opinion but I was bored to tears waiting for something to happen & when it eventually never I felt cheated, I want those 80 minutes of my life back. This piece of crap isn't even fit to grace the 99p VHS bargain bin in your local Blockbuster, one to avoid.


I don't understand the people here. The film is neither as good as as bad as some people say here. Except for De Kok the acting is OK. The problem with the film is mainly the script. The characters are not believable. The sex is done okay, but the psychology behind the people makes very little sense. The film doesn't look good, but what do you expect? The film was shot for very little money on video. Off course then it doesn't look as good as a normal film, duh! The one thing I do agree on is that the music is bad. Sounds like a cheap soft erotic film from the '80's. The film is not good, okay, but you have to give some credit for pulling this of without any money.


This is not a new film. It is a re-cut of 1994's "Emmanuelle, Queen of the Galaxy", and it has been significantly truncated. Warning: Many characters appear in the credits that have been cut from the movie!

If you want to see this one in its original form, pick up "Queen" - avoid this one at all costs, as the cuts make it even choppier than it was originally.


I caught this movie on late-night TV. Honestly i saw most of it, and the whole time i was sitting in complete and utter disbelief.

Is there any genre that's more pointless than soft-core porn? If there is i don't want to know about it. Softcore porn combines all the horrors of porn (lousy production values, abominable acting, crappy scripts) with the coyness of sex-scenes in regular movies. So the end result is arousing nor entertaining. This movie also has the rather odd approach of a science-fiction setting, and it works horribly. All the sex is performed in some sort of virtual reality setting where the crew from the future learn about physical love. And yes, it's about as confused and silly as it sounds.

But there has to be some positive points though, right? Well, there is one... Krista Allen is amazingly hot. That's about the only thing that was less than awful in this movie. I don't know what it is about her, but she has an amazing sex appeal. The rest of the cast look like the standard porn-cast though. Rather unattractive women with poorly done fake breasts, and men that have spent far too much time in the gym toning themselves grotesque. Probably a gym in Germany as well judging by haircuts and clothing.

To sum things up. If you enjoy Krista Allens presence on screen you can watch this for the brief moments where she shows some of her seductive potential (most of the time she tries to articulate crappy lines of dialog though). If you don't enjoy Krista Allen then you might as well stay away altogether.

I rate this 10/10 for Krista Allens sex appeal, 1/10 for everything else and 2/10 for entertainment value since this is a unique crappy porn/science fiction hybrid that's not really like anything i've ever seen.


Okay, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.)


I just have to comment on this movie because I gave it a 4 rating, and in my opinion that's pretty high for a softporn smut movie. The actual plot is kind of hokey (who would expect otherwise) but Hafron is so incredibly funny, and he delivers everything in a cyborgish voice so it's easy for him. Whoever wrote the script had some wit definitely! I must have laughed out loud ten times, and that's not a reason anyone would pick up this movie. The only softporn movie I've seen which had any merit other than beautiful women (and believe me, Emmanuelle is drop dead gorgeous...just look at the cover!)

Any movie that can entertain me considering how poor the plot was and how bad the acting is, also considering the movie wasn't made to artistically entertain, so to speak, it gets at least a four in my book. I mean, who wouldn't watch this before Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot?


If you read the plot summary for "Mad Max," you've just ruined the first 1 hour and 10 minutes of the film. You've also found out that "Mad Max" takes place in post-apocalyptic Australia, which will be helpful because otherwise you won't have any idea what's going on. The film, made in 1979, tries really hard to be Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) only that film, in all its strangeness, actually makes sense and leaves an impact. This film does neither and ends up being a car/bike stunt-filled romp that crashes like every vehicle in the film does.

The first thing wrong with "Mad Max" is that it tries to sell itself as a revenge tale when no vigilante appears to take revenge until the final 20 minutes. If the first hour were condensed to 20-30 minutes and then the final 20 added on and then another hour added after that, "Mad Max would be a cool action film with a great vigilante protagonist. Instead, Mel Gibson has to wait around and act like a sissy for 2/3 of the film and then have a sudden epiphany to seek revenge. I've yet to watch the sequel "Road Warrior" and I have to admit I'm excited for it only because I want to know what he does next. This first film was mostly a waste of time.

George Miller does some great action stuff here, but his over-the-top symbolism is absurd and the unbearable cheesy reaction sequences every time a character discovers something horrifying like a burnt hand or what have you completely ruins those moments. Its a terribly cliché B-movie technique.

There is absolutely no thematic value or subtle critique of society in this film no matter what you might think. A great action sci-fi movie at least makes a point, but the gratuitous violence done by random, weird bikers doesn't say anything of value. Even the villain Toecutter feels modeled off Alex of "Clockwork" only uglier and completely unimposing. The PG violence just does not allow the violence of this gang to settle in and get a reaction from the viewer, it just cheeses it up if anything.

I'll give credit for the amount of stuff the film crew blew up and crashed into things and Miller does a great job making you feel the intensity of the collisions. Everything else is mediocre at best and then after an hour of mediocrity, you get something good and the film ends 20 minutes later. I'm just crossing my fingers "Road Warrior" will fulfill the expectations of where this film ends, otherwise that's more time wasted. ~Steven C

Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com