Speed which I believe is direct copy of the Hollywood movie Cellular (I haven't watched this one) gives an impression of a test match which is very exciting in first four days, but then gets in a very boring draw at the end. I have watched this movie today on 12th January 2008 on rented VCD. It's release date is 19th Oct 2007. But still fortunately for me I didn't know or heard much of this movie before except that it is a flop at box office. So in this situation when I watch the movie, I feel that this movie could have been a very good movie, but then the director again falls in the trap for Bollywood traditions and has wasted a very good chance.

Off course as a Bhatt movie it must be copied from somewhere else. But now days it doesn't matter for me, if I haven't seen the original movie. I just found the main theme much similar to 'Nick of Time' and 'Badshah'. In the movie Sanjay Suri is shown an intelligence agent, but his wife thinks that he is a chef. This brings back the memory of 'True-Lies'. The only new part was the use if the phone. But that too I found out now is taken from movie Cellular. So when a movie is made with the mixture of so many other movies it's future is quite clear.

The things I like about the movie is its pace. As the name suggest the things really happens fast, and there is not much time to think about in between the scenes. But this breaks in the last 20 minutes of so where the movie goes in traditional Bollywood style of Dhishum dhishum.

The plot of the movie is also quite interesting. Three stories going parallel, one after the other. One of the kidnapping of Urmila, the other of the Zayed trying to help Urmila, and then the plan of murder of prime minister. These three stories gets mixed up naturally with each other as the movie continues.

But then the very ordinary acting and unnecessary extra style has killed the spirit of the movie. Except Sanjay Suri, none other makes any impression. This goes even for Urmila, who is always promising in RGVs movies. Due to this ordinary acting some scenes doesn't really convey the feelings that director wanted. E.g. the scene at the end where Urmila leaves all hope and cut the phone, should have made a good impact. But instead we just wait for the end of that scene.

Other than acting, some unnecessary love for style demoralizes the movie. Showing so cool villains is good for Hollywood movies not for Bollywood The background of London is also only for making style and not much intelligent advantage of this background can be seen. Especially at the end, all those dhishhum- dhishhum were utterly unnecessary. May be director has an impression that the climax in Hindi movies must have such fights. They look unrealistic, increase the length of the movie and make sure that the people are leaving theater before the movie ends.

Over and all, I find the movie once watchable. If it is coming on TV or you can get it on rent its OK. But then again make sure that you have the remote and forward button handy. Next time, when the movie is on TV, you can safely watch other channels.


I've watched this film about thirty years ago and it stuck in my mind until now. When I came across it on DVD, I didn't hesitate too long, even more, because I have a predilection for early Belmondo flicks. But what a bad surprise! Some movies should be allowed to resign from public exposure, to preserve a certain memory, and not to shock audiences.

Widely hailed as one of Chabrol's rare cynic works, the only lasting impression I got from re- watching it is... boredom. Some movies really do not age in style. But what about movies which didn't have any sense of style at all?

The flaws in the script, uninspired acting - presumably due to the lack of direction -, a sort of production design, which doesn't deserve its name, less than mediocre photography and, last but not least, the worst editing job I've seen in ages, make this one truly hard to stand.

My impression was, that there was a bunch of people with too much money and equipment but obviously, no idea or any skills at all. It really comes as a surprise, that this one didn't abruptly end Chabrol's career. Don't blame it on the overall bad taste of the 70s, this one is crap in its own right and a worthy contender for the most useless waste of celluloid ever.


It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened.

The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.

I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.

Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned...

What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.

Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.

I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?

Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.

Avoid it like the plague.


I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'

Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore


I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?


This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...

How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders "mirrors life"? Life on which planet, exactly?

It's written about "working-class" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the "working-class" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.

This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.

Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.

Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.

And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.


If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.

It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.

Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.

If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.

There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.

Even the characters are totally unbelievable!


The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.


Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA!

We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.

The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.


Young Quaids fake accent was difficult to accept at times.

The show was billed as mystery/suspence but should have been listed as a romance.

Don't rent this one if you are sleepy, it will knock you out.


New Orleans is nothing like how it is portrayed in this

debacle of a film. Quaid's attempt at speaking with a cajun

accent (by the way, hardly anyone speaks that way in New

Orleans) is terrible. Plot = elementary and mindless. This

picture refers to itself as a mystery, but a mystery involves a

gradual process whereby a viewer is given clues and twists throughout a film. There's none of that here. "Big

Easy" tries to get by on trite New Orleans stereotypes.

Don't be fooled - the real Big Easy is nothing like the town

that Quaid & Barkin bumble their way through.


As a native of New Orleans, I can state that almost everything in this movie, from the atrocious N'Awlins dialect to the highly creative "manipulation" of Crescent City geography, is horrible. This is another one of those Big Hollywood movies that decides to stereotype New Orleans as: 1. A city full of French-sounding idiots 2. A city full of people who sound as if they've just returned from Blanche Dubois' summer home 3. A city of drunkards, where every day is Mardi Gras 4. A city of deep mystery, where almost everyone practices or is a victim of voodoo (I admit that maybe we are a city of drunkards; although every day is NOT Mardi Gras). "The Big Easy" is one of the worst films about New Orleans. I wouldn't recommend it to anybody.


Totally brain-dead actioner made in the Philippines. This belongs to the mode of Filipino movies which tried to pass themselves as American films on the international market. After a rather dull beginning, the movie takes off and never disappoints again. It is actually a rip-off of the worst movies Chuck Norris ever made : an American prisoner in Vietnam is brainwashed by the soviets who implant a microchip in his brain so he is programmed to kill the Pope, then the President of the USA. One of his old buddies (played by B-movie stalwart Max Thayer) is sent to stop him. Utterly ridiculous action scenes, putrid acting (Nick Nicholson's performance as the evil soviet commander is a must-see!)and implausible plot make up for one of the cheesiest action pictures ever bestowed in the general public.


This movie is the worst thing ever created by humans. You think manos is the worst movie ever? It doesn't even come close to this garbage. I dont even know where to begin. The "russian" commander and the rebel chic are the worst "actors" ever to appear in a movie. They make the sister in troll 2 look like Meryl Streep. The goofy faces the chic makes while she's in kung fu training have to be seen to be believed. Then there is the oompa music during the prison break, the totally out of place love scene, the stupid song that plays during the out of place love scene, the fake castro, the fact that everybody has either a headband and/or a bandanna on some part of their body, the goofiest rape scene ever filmed, and the worst acting ever put on film. This movie deserves to be more well known among bad movie fans. Definitely the worst movie ever made.


Addle-brained stupidity that the cartoon "Bullwinkle" made fun of a quarter-century beforehand, NO DEAD HEROES proves that you can rip off a good movie (THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE) without copying a single sliver of quality from the object of your plunder. The acting barely registers on the cable-access TV scale, the plot is less nuanced than an old "Sgt. Rock" comic, and only Boris J. Badanov-style "bad guy" mustaches are missing from the Commies. This movie achieves the unusual feat of being too bad, too stupid to be enjoyed by anyone with opposable thumbs.


With No Dead Heroes you get stupid lines like that as this woefully abysmal action flick needs to be seen to be believed. William Sanders is saved by his buddy Harry Cotter during an extraction in Vietnam but gets himself captured by the enemy. Fast forward ten years and Harry is now a brainwashed Russian operative with a mind control microchip implanted in his brain. His new Russian superior is Ivan played to the obscene hilt by Nick Nicholson who might I add not only doesn't attempt once to speak with a Russian accent but resembles more a gas station attendant in Kentucky with his stained teeth. What is even more absurd is the fact that he was also the dialog coach for this film. Soon William is re-recruited by the CIA to hunt Harry down. He teams up with Barbara, a freedom fighter who has infiltrated Ivan's El Salvador camp and soon the both of them are blowing up half of South America. Some scenes are so jaw droppingly awful that it's a wonder why this film doesn't have more of a cult following. One such scene is the sudden lovemaking in the jungle by William and Barbara accompanied by the most inappropriate catterwalling background music I've ever heard. Who would strip completely nude in the middle of a South American jungle? There is a rape scene that uses the end theme from Blood on Satan's Claw as well. No Dead Heroes is the magic bullet movie champion of all time as one shot leads to multiple kills. In one scene Harry strafes his rifle from behind a rock and kills seven guys. I had to rewind it and count. Hard to find film that has recently gotten the full HD treatment by MGM. Track this movie down and watch it for the sheer silliness that ensues.


Makes "Invasion USA" look like "Apocalypse Now". This one can only be recommended to US skinheads, John Birch supporters or militia members. The message is very simple : let's shoot them all - gooks, commies, latinos, everything that isn't American.

Besides, this is badly acted, badly scripted, badly interpreted, incredibly stupid but no fun at all. This movie could be used as a toorture device by CIA torturers. oops, sorry, there can't be any US torturers because they are the GOOD


Why? Why? Why on earth no one tells the truth about this horrible, HORRIBLE movie? I still wake up in the morning and ask God why He didn't stopped me from seeing this revolting "comedy". I cant believe I PAID to see this offense to my cinematographic taste. I'm starting to think that the 5 stars it has is because of Martha Higareda 's nudity and all the men who cant buy a porn film and avoid seeing this ... I will call it "thing" cause call it film is an insult to the Mexican film industry. The characters are a huge cliché, the acting causes involuntary laugh and the script is... well, I cant believe a human being wrote this. And just when you thought you've been tortured enough...the last half hour is so painful that I wished to ripped my eyes out. The only good thing I can say about this abomination is that it only last 90 minutes (that would feel like centuries, but still). Really, AVOID THE PAIN!!!


Niñas Mal is not a movie is a bad episode of a cheesy badly conceived soap opera.

The acting is not a bit better of that in soap operas, I guess the writer and director has seen too many Mexican soap operas and can't conceive anything remotely different.

Give it up, go back to your soap operas so that you have an audience to please.

Stop waisting our time and money and giving a bad name to the once respectable Mexican film industry.

It is NOT an OK or good movie, it's a mediocre soap opera!


I can't believe I actually bought this movie! It sucks! ... Where I live Mexican movies Mexican movies are never advertised, or even available ... you can't find them in the regular rental places... so I had to buy it ... I really like Mexican movies! They bring me closer to my roots, and my people, and they are way different that what your normally used to... but this one was soo predictable!!! Your could guess what was going to happen... I'ts not a horrible movie! It just wasn't worth what I paid for it! jaja... but if you have time and are truly bored then yeah u should watch it.. but if you love Mexican movies, and love theater itself then don't watch it it'll be painful! lol


Adela is a rebellious teenager with the attitude that she is right and everyone else is wrong. She needs to be the center of attention and she'll act stupid to make it so. With her attitude she gets sent to charm school.

There she meets the typical characters in today's cinema; the nerd, the clumsy one, the stepford housewife and the sexual minority. Things happen and in the end Adela "learns her lesson" so to speak. The plot tries to carry a deeper meaning to the state Adela is in, but utterly fails to deliver (at least I didn't buy it). So what you are left with is superficial interaction within the same stereotypes you've seen in a million movies before. Plus the director seems to have a breast fixation, Adela flashes her boobies a few times too many, at least I can't see that they are relevant to the story.

So the film is OK, but if you are like me and don't like to watch a teenager pissing people off and making a behavioral U-turn in an instant, which I found very unbelievable, think twice before watching.


When I first saw this movie, I said to myself, "Hey what the heck it sounds like a good movie, why not rent it?". So yeah, I rented it and went back home to see it. When I inserted it in my DVD player I was shocked.

Well FIRST of all, no one told me it was a Mexican movie and was spoken in Spanish, good thing it had subtitles.

SECOND, it was nude, nude NUDE! Since I have no background whatsoever in Mexican movies, you could see my shock when I saw it. *GASP! Covering virgin eyes, NOO*

THIRD, predictable to say the least, but actually being it predictable was no excuse to me in liking movies, because I don't seem to care if it's predictable, unless it's way over the top.

FOURTH, how Heidi and Kike were reunited, so cheesy.

FIFTH, how the movie ended. It was a BAD, BAD ending. How Mr. Van der Linde's sudden approval to the mayor's election was because her daughter, knew how to throw the party... BLAH, Blah. I was hoping that he wasn't that easy to accept it, the director might have just rushed it.

After all of this bashing of the bad stuff, the good stuff's are here to come. The movie was actually quite hilarious at some point with Maribel being clumsy in the kitchen and all, Heidi's attitude, Valentina being poetic with words. What I really also like about it was the song that Valentina made with her girl friend. That's all, and for the other stuffs that I haven't mentioned they were just so-so.


I'm a massive fan of prison dramas which is reflected in OZ being my all time favourite American TV show . I guess the appeal lies in a type of smug voyeurism of wanting to see bad things happen to bad mens' bottoms , but I found Don Siegel's RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11 to be rather disappointing . Okay I knew since it was made in 1954 it would be devoid of bad language , graphic shankings and gang rape but even so it's a rather weak film compared to prison portrayal in earlier movies like EACH DAWN I DIE and WHITE HEAT . The problem lies in the preachy tone of the movie with riot leader Dunn being something of a prison reformer . Yeah that sounds ridiculous since he's a violent anti hero rather than some limp wristed tree hugging do gooder on a salary , but that's what he is in essence , he wants to see prisoners rehabilitated to rejoin society rather than being made to suffer . There's also a problem of making a B movie with such radical themes ( Quite ironic that Siegel would later make DIRTY HARRY where the only good criminal is a dead one ) and that is the cast isn't very good with Emile Meyer as the warder being especially irritating in his performance . like i said a disappointing movie


While it was nice to see a film about older people finding each other and falling in love and the performances by Andrews and Garner were not bad, this picture poured on the sapp and schmaltz at every turn. Every curve in the plot was in view from a mile away!


It was only the second year of the Academy but already they were voting politically - Jeanne Eagels' brilliant performance in this creaky early talkie had to make do with an Oscar nom and the statuette went to the worst performance ever to win - Mary Pickford's in COQUETTE. The only existing print was a work print without music or final editing, but wherever it's shown, Eagels stuns and captivates with her beguiling, powerful performance. She is so convincing on the witness stand that while we know she is lying through her teeth (we did after all SEE her kill the man), we in the audience find ourselves, like the jurors, believing in her innocence, before we suddenly catch ourselves. THAT is GREAT ACTING. The film needs to be made available on video so that the world can enjoy this terrific performance again. (One silent of Jeanne's exists in archive print - MAN, WOMAN AND SIN - and her only other talkie, JEALOUSY, is "lost," so this is the only document we have of her. Run to see it (when it first came out of the archives to be shown in NYC in the early 70s, the Village Voice printed a full page review, worshipping the Eagels performance).


Virginal innocent Indri finds herself at a house of prostitution run by ruthless pimp MG. Indri winds up incarcerated in MG's private prison after she refuses to make love to him. Of course, Indri and worldly top con Helga join forces and plan to escape. Maman Firmansyah's blah, uninspired direction and Piet Burnama's dull, talky script thoroughly undermine any trashy vitality this flick needs in order to qualify as a pleasing piece of babes-behind-bars exploitation junk: the sluggish pace painfully drags throughout, there's no gratuitous female nudity whatsoever (the girls don't even show any skin during the obligatory group shower scene!), the expected torture and degradation are both extremely tame and tepid, the moderate crummy gore likewise fails to impress, and even a ridiculous catfight sequence ain't nothing to get excited about. Thomas Susanto's pedestrian cinematography, the laughably lousy dubbing, the excruciatingly overlong 102 minute running time, the sappy theme song, and Gatot Sudarto's cornball score add further abject insult to already appalling injury. Only some decent last reel break-out action offers a little relief from the otherwise overly abundant stultifying tedium. A complete yawn-inducing dud.


While it's one of two movies on Tales of Voodoo Volume 1, there's no voodoo or anything supernatural in it! The box labels it "Hell Hole" but the screen title is Escape from Hell Hole. The title is confusingly similar to Hell Hole (1978) aka "Escape from Women's Hell Hole" A group of women bathe in a river and seemingly the worst thing they have to worry about is a peeping tom, who they easily overpower. No nudity in this or any other scene, however.

A woman named Cardena drives up in a car and seems to be known and liked by all the women. She invites Indri to come and live in the city with her and her uncle M.G. Once they get there, it becomes clear that M.G. wants to take Indri's virginity. M.G. runs some sort of house of prostitution, and he's either in charge of a corrupt branch of the military, or runs a paramilitary outfit, or prefers for his guards to all wear military-style uniforms.

The women who refuse him or otherwise make trouble get put into a prison. Indri gets sent there. The women get tortured and sometimes possibly raped by the guards.

Various unsuccessful attempts at escape or rescue are made, but inevitably fail despite the obvious advantages the women have: they outnumber the guards vastly, and relatively few of the guards have automatic weapons - most have semi-automatic rifles or handguns.

WIP genre enthusiasts may like it, and the fact that it was made in the Philippines gives it some novelty, but otherwise... eh.


I obtained this little piece of scuzz on the VideoAsia "Tales of Voodoo" DVD label. Quite where the voodoo is supposed to fit in, I have no idea. Indeed I would not usually connect voodoo with Indonesia anyway (let alone with WIPs).

I know and love WIP movies. I have seen most of them. I could not therefore resist this little known gem from the description given to it on the cover.

It is APPALLING. You cannot have a WIP movie if the women keep their clothes on (even in the shower!). Although it gives a nod to the exploitation genre, WIP without nudity is like a Big Mac without the beef.

As my gym teacher used to say, on the whole, I'd rather be at the disco....


This is the kind of film that I am wondering why anybody would have considered doing it from the beginning. This is the kind of movie that I cannot understand how people put money in it, how the rental store can put the DVD on its shelves. This is the kind of movie I blame myself for having rented it.

There are good class-B movies, and I do not reject the genre. When they are good, they catch the interest with the action, they have characters written well enough, and acted well enough so that you can care about them. The effects in some of these movies support the film in many cases, and you may like them for the originality. Almost nothing is true in 'Coronado'. The subject and the script is at the level of cheap comics - just a cliche. The effects are cheap - and I do not care that the film is low budget - you can do a lot with low budget, but you need some talent. There are so many continuity and other directing errors as in ten other films. You do not care for the characters, you do not laugh, and at the end of the film you are left wondering if the parody was intentional or not. The only quality I could find is the scenery, there are some good locations, worth a much better film.

2/10 on my personal scale. The worst film of the year so far.


If you are 10 years old and never seen a movie before, maybe this film may be entertainment for you, but if you've seen several movies, this one will be a silly fully-cliched cheap and predictable for you. Don't waste your time with this.


The bipolarity of this movie is maddening. One moment it's making fun of Latin Americans, American tourists and banana republics in general, the other it wants to be touching, with burned villages and orphans. Even the serious revolutionary hero, becomes a parody of a revolutionary at one point. But the comedy parts aren't even funny, because it's so obviously stolen from Star Wars. Yes, Star Wars, the "hero" is basically a rogue with a heart of gold. Add to this stereotypical sounds effects, Latin Americans who speak English with one another, and a villain that just disappears from the story. And whats the point? It's basically revolution propaganda with no resolution, and no planning (because, there is just no way these people can lead a country). The US government are bad guys, but who'll make money producing this? Not some poor farmer, that's for sure.


Just saw Coronado... Around here the only line they came up with to sell it is "from the FX team behind Independence Day". I think that says a great deal. No talk about writers, directors, actors...

It's a cute little adventure story set in a banana republic in Mid America, but the storyline is thin.

All the way through the movie I kept thinking about how much this movie looks like the cut-scenes from some action computer war game. Although the FXs are nice, they all too often are visible. Much like the cut scenes in CGs style like Command'n'Conquer.

You almost instantly know that that particular truck, backdrop, bridge, castle, or jet fighter never existed. The look is smooth and nice, but not up to the standard we have come to expect of Action Adventures today. The movie is lacking a lot of obvious on-location filming.

The acting, storyline is below average and the FXs are nice but not up to feature film standard. I am not surprised this thing went straight to video/DVD.


I went to see this film over Matchstick Men, in fact buying the tickets to Matchstick Men and going to the other, because it looked like a fun movie with action, romance, thrills, jungles, and exotic locations. They had all that but so do a lot of movies with a conception of story.

All I can say is WHY WHY WHY WHY did they not just make it a straight narrative instead of some sappy flashback story.

Here is all the movies from what I've seen the film was derived from: Of course, Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone, but also True Lies, Proof of Life, that old 80s Tom Selleck movie, Bananas (Woody Allen), and Hero (from the use of digital extras).

PS the only scene in the movie that was cool is when the central character finds her room blown up.


It didn't feel like a movie, and was thankfully short (under 90minutes), it felt more like a commercial of possibilties in computer graphics: Most of the special effects are great, to be sure. But that cerainly don't a great or even a good movie make. Not saying it's absolutely worthless viewing, since it's possible to see what are the possibilities in CGI or GCI, or what ever it's called.

As I read somewhere, "You can't fix it in the cutting room", a bad story and non-directed actors, can't be fixed in the cutting room or even with the most magnificent special effects! Things can be improved in the cutting room if they have a real director and material to work from.

However they thought this could be sold in USA is anyones idea, since USA is the crooks.

And isn't it sooo typical of low budget stories, they have to create an imaginative country south of Mexico??

Well Well I gace it 2! Just because of the special effects, the rest is absolute trash!


So we're supposed to find it funny that this woman travels all the way to the jungle - to the warzone - just to find out why her fiancée didn't travel to Switzerland? Or are we supposed to take it seriously? It's not even remotely funny, clever or entertaining - it's stupid - and so is the movie. The lead actress is one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a movie - even worse than Jar-Jar Binks. Dialog tries very hard to be funny (almost all the time) but it never is. The number of funny jokes is somewhere between zero and nothing. And as for the plot - did they even once bothered to explain to us what are the rebels fighting for (other than being anti-government)? I guess that didn't matter to anyone - neither to the rebels nor to the characters who just blindly flew to the battlefield. Don't waste your time. "Coronado" is neither funny nor entertaining.


This movie is just as bad as it gets. If you like logic (or the lack of it) á la National Treasure and bad acting as well, then it could be a movie for you.

Otherwise spend your time in the sun and your money on a beer.

Actually it looks like a bad produced promo or demo picture to promote the people involved (ie. actors, special effects and so on). Accidentially they produce really bad exposing of their lack of talent.

In a case like this the film company should be ordered to pay back money to the costumers that are not satisfied with the product.

It is really lousy.


Infamous for being "brought to you by the digital effects team behind Independence Day," Coronado is even more of a spectacular failure just from being juxtaposed with ID4. This ridiculous mess of a film starts off with a brainless premise and goes completely downhill from there. A wealthy, soon to be married couple in Beverly Hills are the subjects of this idiotic story. Claire's fiancée has taken off on a business trip right around Christmas, so she decides to spontaneously fly to Switzerland so they can spend the holiday together. I especially love that her initial reason for wanting to go was because he had left some documents at home that she thought he might need. She grabbed them up and yelled after him while he drove away, concluding that her best bet would be to fly to the other side of the planet rather than call his cell phone. I refuse to believe that a couple living in such a cavernous mansion as theirs were unaware of the existence of mobile phones.

So up until this point, the movie is unbelievably bad, but check this out, THIS is where it starts to get bad! She gets to Switzerland and when she can't find her husband she gets some cake and calls her friend to whine about how unfair it all is. This woman is not an action hero, and she is DEFINITELY not a German Indiana Jones, for crying out loud. She is an overgrown cheerleader, a pampered sorority girl whose outdoor experience is probably limited to digging her spike heels out of the ground when she gets tipsy enough to wander onto the lawn during a wine and cheese party out on the bluffs.

She gets a tip that her fiancée is in South America, so she, like, totally flies there to get him. Once there, this moron thinks she's going to go into the jungle by herself, sniff out the enemy base and rescue her poor helpless boyfriend. She laughs off a comment about the danger of going in there, then freaks out later because she finds out that there are battles going on. "You never said anything about battle!"

There is one point where Claire and some journalist that she met up with drive this huge truck across a bridge that is hundreds of feet high and hundreds of feet across and suspended by two by fours. Literally. There are thousands of thin pieces of wood tied together with twine, and these morons decide to drive over it. Not only does it crumble under the weight of the truck, but Claire manages to fall off of it, falling hundreds of feet and landing on her back in the shallow river below. Later she recalls the event, laughing it off like, oh maybe it was only a hundred. At least she wasn't twirling gum on her fingers.

What is truly sad about this catastrophically bad movie is that they even managed to coax a terribly performance out of the tremendously talented John Rhys-Davies, a REAL Indiana Jones veteran. There is a lot of nonsense about an uprising at the end of the film, where we meet an extremist rebel leader who, when we first meet him, has such a thick accent that he rolls his r's like he thinks he's in a Ruffles commercial, then later he talks like some guy they pulled off the streets of Venice Beach. Unbelievable.

The special effects are negligible. The team that brought you Independence Day, by the very fact that they were involved with ID4, was simply going through the motions, throwing together some matted and blue screen shots, I have to believe because they just had nothing better to do. The story is astonishingly bad, and Kristin Dattilo, who many other IMDb users cite as the only reason to see the film, doesn't put the slightest effort into her performance. Maybe she thought the digital effects team behind Independence Day could superimpose some meaning into this mess.

And given how far they've fallen, maybe they thought they could, too.

They could at least have tried.


Another awful movie from Hollywood. This time a female helps the revolution in a central American country. yeah yeah yeah. Hey lets make a movie without any sense of realism AT ALL. I am so sick of movies like this one. The actors and actresses are lousy, the effects are cheesy and the dialog horrible. And suddenly i see John Rhys-Davies as the evil president. From Gimli to Hugo Louis Ramos. I bet he is very proud of this. Well i shouldn't have expected much of this movie and i didn't. And i am glad cause this sucks bigtime. I wonder what kind of people who like this movie. My guess is younger people aged 12-16. And i guess some people like because of Kristin Dattilo. Well i am in neither of those group and i hate it. Rating: 2


Have you seen all the big adventures of last few decades? If you have don't bother with this one as you've already seen most of the scenes already - and I can guarantee that those scenes were originally in much better movies.

The story (I'm sure that true storytellers will never forgive me) is childish and stupid (stupid in a way that making it play in a mortuary would result in a bunch of angry walking dead). Every character is based in a cliché and... well, they're nothing but the cliché. And yes, again all you need to be a hero is to be American.

At least in Finland they advertised this to be the kind of movie the DVD was made for. Maybe I should sell my player then...

1/10


Other than cop rock and that show where the kid dies from eating a spoiled hamburger he found under the bed, this has consistently been the worst and dumbest show to survive prime time. If not for Jason Lee's unjustifiable success in film, this show would have never made it out of conception if pitched with a relatively unknown as the lead.

The concept is TERRIBLE. Moron redneck hick spends his lottery winnings to redeem himself with the white trash of his past. Is it funny? periodically but not consistently. Is it stupid? Each and every single episode.

I've seen a lot of great shows come then go before their time yet this blunder has survived longer than I ever could have imagined. The dialog is incredibly unfunny as are the episode themes. Every episode for someone with an IQ over 100 is an absolute struggle. And the icing on the cake? Jason Lee's annoying voice narrating each episode. If it weren't for the state's Southern culture and rednecks of the south, this show wouldn't have an audience.

If you're a moron and need a show completely lacking humor yet overflowing with bad taste, bad dialog and dimwit characters failing at life...well then you're probably an actor on this show.


I agree with the comments regarding the downward spin. The last view shows have been a little better, but surely the writers need some more direction. I think the characters are still interesting, although sometimes they spin into the "white trash" things a little too much. Subtlety and nuance goes a long way on shows like "Office". I would think the target audience is somewhat similar being they are both on the same night and lineup. One would think that Karma and the whole eastern religion thing is a big enough topic to bring some different and interesting shows, but they only scratch the surface of the subject. In my opinion it shows the contempt that many people have in Hollywood about the level of intelligence of the masses. We can handle more heady content. It has been proved before in many other shows.


With the plethora of repetitive and derivative sitcoms jamming fall, summer, winter and spring line-ups, it's nice to see a show that sets itself from the lot in more than one area.

'Earl' takes an unusual approach. It's not about the "daily musings of an eccentric family" (zzzz..) nor about the other boring stuff you see everywhere in sitcoms. The show is about this small-time white trash thief (Earl) who scratches off a lottery card and scores big time. Right at that moment, 'Karma' took it away from him. Overtime, he learns that that unusual incident was probably because of all the bad things he's been doing, so he sets off on a mission to right every wrong he ever did and he's got all his deeds on a paper.

This is a brilliant premise for a sitcom. Thankfully, it landed in the right hands. The execution of the show produces extremely satisfactory results: you get an innovative comedy that is genuinely funny and really touching at many times. You can't help but fall in love with Earl's sincerity and steadfastness, Randy's simple mind, good heart and observations on life, Joy's wild, flamboyant personality and Darnell's mellow, chillin' demeanor that really endears him to you very easily.

When you combine the show's innovation with its genuine humor, good heart, interesting characters and well-written dialogue, you really have a keeper. With shows like this (and the incomparable "The Office"), NBC is obviously on to something. Did they finally free a cubicle or two for quality assurance? Let's hope so. And let's hope for more quality shows like these will occupy the line-ups; shows that'll make both us TV viewers and NBC executives stop crying over the long gone days of NBC's golden days (Frasier, Seinfeld, Friends)


After I couldn't ignore the hype about the show, I started watching season one and it struck me as really good and I was hooked.... for about 5 episodes, then it started to spiral downwards. Why? First, Ethan Suplee is scripted to act as a complete idiot confirming that very obviously by spewing out semi-random stuff in great expectations of it somehow becoming the next best joke.

Jaime Pressly's got stunning looks, but if she thinks stretching lips to explore parts of the face to which they normally never go to and making strange grimaces to accentuate everything she says is hilarious, she's way off track. Maybe she thought her character would be too flat, faded and she wanted to make it colorful and spicy, but made a flood of colors, overkill of spices and screams out loud for attention and it hurts my eyes, ears and intellect.

I really, really wanted to love this show, like I said, the premise is great, (comes from the same shelf as The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain) and Jason Lee is doing a pretty good job here, along with some of the other actors but there is no way no how I would get 'sucked in' and forget that this is just a show, because Pressly's and Suplee's surreal, extreme characters abruptly wake me when they show up. It's worth to note that their characters and acting would be fine if this wasn't a 70 something-part series and if they didn't get that much screen time.


It seems like people are attracted to shows that showcase pathetic lives that have no purpose what-so-ever. To me i give my sincerity to NBC for their dire efforts to make new changes in television, making laugh track free shows. They seem to always find big success, like The Office. When I first started to watch it seemed to me that it could have potential to be a smash hit. But after a couple of episodes, I really felt like going to church and donating every penny in my entire bank to pathetic people showcased in these lowlife, poor, disgraceful areas. And the end where they show Earl and the brother in bed together, it just seems to me that this show is trying to show the bad side of life, like street beggars or people who struggle to pay the rent and have no sense of what the real world of normal people in society are like. I just seem to always be disgusted when I watch the filth the people in this show live in. It's like Venice Beach in California, beautiful but so many hobos. Believe me I'm no rich guy, middle class, and not a clean freak either, a bit sloppy, but it just seems to me that the show just can't seem to get off of all the gruesome, schmuck people out there who have one leg. I just wish that they would show a little more class, not all filth and poorness and trailers and just below average life, it just seems to depress me. To me this show is nothing more than a showcase of what not to do in life, what not to be. It also shows me that education is the most important thing you can have because apparently these two don't have an ounce of smarts. This is a schmuck-u-mentary.


My Name is Earl(2005)

Review:......For I have seen this.

This is something else. First off, how is this rated so high? I cannot understand that. This "show" is filled to the top with either annoying people, stupid people, or just plain unlikeable. The "gags" are hideous.

I saw one episode where the wife of Earl's brother wrapped and washed herself with dead fish. Not kidding. That wasn't funny, that's repulsive. Then she and Earl's extremely stupid brother(and I mean stupid) then had sex. I nearly threw up.

This has to be one of the most desperate attempts at comedy in a long time. Jason Lee is a talented actor, but is trapped in a helpless role in this horrible "comedy".

Earl is now in jail for this current season. Let's hope he gets the chair just so this show gets put out of it's misery.

The Last Word: This show would be funny to people who think Larry the Cable guy is funny. To the rest of the world, NOT A CHANCE. Avoid like the plague.


I watched the first 10 minutes of this show I think I'm gonna barf now! One worst shows on TV. It's not even funny. It's so lame it's disgusting. I gave it a second and third change couldn't even make it through five minutes. Don't waste the time. This is one of the many shows that need to go bye bye. Speaking of regular night time shows that need to go. All the shows on CBS. All the Shows on ABC. All the Shows on FOX and Joe Buck. All the shows on the new CW network. All the shows on NBC.(Accept The Law and Order series). All the Morning and Afternoon talk shows. All the Court TV shows. And every reality show out there!! Every stupid game show. period the end! All the Home improvement shows! And all the Media News. all it is.Is a 24 hour loop of bad news. Yes,I do have Favorites Monk,The law & Orders thats it for me.


I saw this movie with very low expectations. I didn't know a lot about it so I wasn't sure if it was going to be worth it.

The story did an OK job of getting you curious about these ruins they travel to. The suspense continues when the Mayans show up and force them to stay at the ruins.

Then the movie turns from somewhat suspenseful to pointless. The amount of gore found in this movie did not balance out compared to whether it was truly necessary or used more for shock value.

The fact that they didn't make any attempt to fight the vines from hell. They had fire and didn't try to burn it nor did they try to cut it with a knife to see if they could destroy it or not. They quickly jumped into a victim role and their helpless attitude was not real. It reminded me of the old horror movies where the people just scream and yell and don't have half a brain to try to fight back.


God! Where do I begin? From start to finish, I could not help to hate this movie. Vines? Vines that make cell-phone noises?! Oh yeah, I'm so scared - I'm going to rid the weeds of earth! Come on people! The plot went nowhere, When the group discovered the ruin, and the village people (no pun intended) came to warn them and brandished weapons in front of their faces, don't worry, Amy (Jena Malone) was there to take pictures! That whole scene really had me wondering why she didn't take pictures of her beau, Jeff (Johnathon Tucker), sawing off Mathias (Joe Anderson) legs. When the idiots first threw down the rope after Mathias, how the rope was at least ten feet from the ground, but how it eventually was able to be a mere two to four feet from the ground. I cannot begin to cover everything that was wrong about this movie, there is just too much to cover. I will say the graphics as far as the gore were terrific, but it amounted to nothing since the acting and script were so terrifically bad.


This movie was really awful. It was not in the least bit frightening, or even startling. I went to see it with a bunch of friends and by the end of the night we were saying "The Ruins ruined my night."

I would not recommend seeing this movie in theaters, renting it or even watching the movie on television by accident.It is an absolute waste of an hour and a half.

The plot was nearly non-existent, the characters were horribly underdeveloped, and they gave no back story whatsoever for anything that was happening, and then left it completely open at the end as if preparing for a sequel.


The scariest thing about freshman director Carter Smith's new horror movie "The Ruins" is the closing credits that list comedian Ben Stiller as one of the executive producers. What was Stiller thinking when he sank his bucks into this chiller about cursed carnivorous undergrowth that creeps up on its victims and devours them. Oscar-nominated scenarist Scott B. Smith of "A Simple Plan," adapting his own bestselling novel, sticks steadfastly to the standard clichés and conventions of all twentysomething scary sagas where reckless youth do everything but tote signs begging the forces of evil to eat them. Were cretinous characters not enough to contend with in this nihilistic nonsense, we're treated to yet another film where American tourists find themselves in jeopardy simply because they are Americans. Furthermore, unlike really good horror movies that explain why the monsters have a need to feed, "The Ruins" provides no explanation for the supernatural shenanigans of its villainous vines.

The set-up for "The Ruins" resembles the 2006 horror movie "Turistas" where slimy South Americans trapped brainless American backpackers and harvested them for their internal organs. Indeed, "Turistas" generated some legitimate thrills and chills. "The Ruins" spawns nothing in the way of either thrills or chills. A malicious mastiff that suddenly lurches on-camera to snarl at our heroes is as close as it gets to a thrill.

The rest of "The Ruins" borrows from another movie: "The Descent," a superb, 2006 chiller about a bunch of babes plunged into a nightmare experience when they get lost in warren of caves inhabited by albino mutants with a blood lust for murder. A couple of other movies that served either intentionally or unintentionally come to mind, too. They are the straightforward 1968 Hammer horror classic "The Lost Continent" about murderous vegetation that menaces innocent bystanders in a sea of derelict ships and the Roger Corman cult class "The Little Shop of Horrors" (1961)about a New York florist that grows a man-eating plant in his shop..

"The Ruins" unfolds in the scenic, sunny Mexico where four frolicking American college kids, Eric (Shawn Ashmore of the "X-Men" movies), Stacy (Laura Ramsey of "The Covenant"), Jeff (Jonathan Tucker of "Sleepers") and Amy (Jena Malone of "Pride & Prejudice"), are wrapping up their tequila-soaked spring break. Stacy loses a prized earring in a motel swimming pool, but a helpful Teutonic, twentysomething tourist, Mathias (Joe Anderson of "Copying Beethoven") recovers it, and the group embraces him as newest best friend. These people live to party, and they have already made friends with a trio of Greek tourists. Mathias tells them about his wayward brother who has accompanied a cute female archaeologist to a remote Mayan pyramid that isn't listed in any guidebooks. He offers to take them with him and they accept.

First rule of horror movies: if nobody knows about the place where you're going, you'd be well advised to avoid it. Since they have only one day left, and they haven't done anything adventurous, our two couples along with their Spanish-speaking Greek friend, Dimtri (newcomer Dimitri Baveas), decide to follow Mathias and check the pyramid out. They catch a bus into the interior of Mexico and look for a taxi to take them on the next leg of their journey. A cabbie glances at their map and warns them to stay away. Second rule of horror movies: when the natives warn you to steer clear, you steer clear. A crisp twenty dollar bill helps him change his mind, and he hauls them off to their destination and then he skedaddles in a heartbeat.

No sooner have our heroes found the mysterious Mayan pyramid covered with undergrowth that looks suspiciously like a variation of Mississippi kudzu in the jungle than superstitious natives appear. They know that the pyramid is haunted, and they kill Dimtri without a qualm when he tries to dispel their fears. The remaining protagonists scramble to safety atop the pyramid while the paranoid natives surround them to prevent them from escaping. Eventually, the vines slink out to greet our heroes and eat them. At this point, "The Ruins" turns into "Bug," the recent and ridiculous Ashley Judd schizoid movie about insects that get under your skin. Before long our heroes are carving each other up in a futile effort to extract the vines from under their skin. One particularly gruesome scene shows the Americans lopping off the German guy's legs to save his life. By comparison, it makes the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition look tame.

"The Ruins" ranks as just another vine mess with nothing to redeem it.


I have to say that this movie was not what i expected. Even though i have not read the book the fact that plants can one bait and then wait for a killing to happen only to have it drag off a corpse for lunch is about the worst scenario anyone has come up with. With the title ruins you would think that out of 3000 years that some kind of deity or ancient animal or god would be the culprit. This is like another movie primeval where you would think it was something strange that villagers fear the most, but not a crocodile. Either way this film was like that, it entices you to think about ruins of Mayan or Inca folklore resulting in awakening and old god or the people had another agenda for sacrifice or something to that effect. But plants?.... come on, is there nothing else producers can come up with to wow a crowd?. As for this movie it will hit the 'b' list in no time. I have to say that some of the gore was excellent to see, but it didn't make up for the rest of the film. And a plant mimicking a cell phone sound or peoples voices is just too much to be believed. I am a fan of horror films but i am not a stereo typed fan who relies on just gore or mechanical effects. I do rely on great suspense and whats the next scene going to bring for more suspense. The thing had a better story line than this did. Even the ring had me jumping for more, but the ruins is just that..... ruined for using a plant to coax victims into killing or be killed by the villagers. The premise was alright for the villagers to keep it at bay with salt and such but still a simple blow torch and lots of napalm can easily do the trick to end those pesky plants with a flesh eating disorder.


When I saw 6.0 on IMDb, I was rather impressed and excited to watch this movie, as a 6 for a horror movie should be rather entertaining. At first I thought it was going to be some disturbing, unseen evil force (having not read the book) to terrify the audience -- but it turns out to be something rather mundane -- killer plants. Regardless, I am a rather open-minded individual when it comes to movies so I thought perhaps the movie would bring some kind of breakthrough spin on carnivorous vines.

Unfortunately, it failed to meet my expectations due to the excessive amounts of cliché and lack of any originality. To top it off, the female lead character continues to annoy you off with her stupidity. Unless the movie is intentionally a bad B-rated movie that is entertaining in the hilarity of badness, no movie should ever ever ever have a main character irritate you if one expects the audience to care about the character. Such roles should be reserved for secondary characters. Characters were undeveloped, the monsters (plants in this case) left unexplained, and clichés were dripping all over.

The only thing that is mildly effective are some of the bloody/gory scenes, although the gore pales in comparison with movies like High Tension or Ichi The Killer. Consistently failed logic (such as why would a character not watching the top of a rope during a second attempt at descending into the ruins when it just snapped and almost killed someone), even if minor, adds up and just continues to anger the audience. The movie could've saved itself by using characters or some kind of story device to reprimand or "redeem" idiot characters who just did something stupid (or at least let the character recognize or regret her own mistakes). But to continue to allow idiocy to preside will certainly cause the audience to abandon all care for the character, in turn taking away the terror of the movie.

Overall this is a poorly done movie. An example of a well done movie involving pretty twenty-something's getting killed is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (and the prequel too) that certainly instilled fear and had much less character logic flaws. In summary, if you have a lot of time to kill, go watch it if there's nothing else. Otherwise, don't waste your time with this sub-par flick and go see something actually scary and highly satisfying like The Hills Have Eyes remake.


Plants in an ancient Mayan pyramid structure killing all who come close. Yes it is weird, as the travelers do not figure it out until everything starts doing crazy. And in a movie like this, I just wished it went absurd and had marching bands being attacked by plants wielding machetes.

Anyway, a group of people from America vacation and go into the mountains with a couple of other newly made German friends who know about the place. When they get there, Mayans began shouting at them and hide on the structure. And when there, thats when the plants decide to take them out, mimicking cell phone noises, humans, and ancient Mayan dead people.

Nothing was really scary about the movie and was not even entertaining. Not even the weird ending could save this piece of crap. I kept looking for something really good to happen, but nothing. Oh well. "F"


The movie started off o.k. A couple of tourists on vacation in Mexico having a good time decide they should go on a hike. They uncover some hidden trails and end up and this huge temple like fortress. Angry villagers show up and try to deter them from climbing it, but because of the language barrier people get shot and the tourists end up climbing the stupid thing. Turns out the plants are evil blood-thirsty things that the villagers won't go near so they guard the temple so the tourists can't get off. There are a couple of scares in this movie, but nothing really makes sense. I mean they're PLANTS! Don't bother buying or renting the d.v.d. Wait till it comes out on cable.


I was REALLY disappointed with this movie. I had heard some great reviews about it and unfortunately missed seeing it in theaters. As a result of this, I was really excited to see it when it came to DVD. I thought that it was going to be a high-paced horror movie with a lot of scary surprises but instead it was a snail-paced predictable movie. It dragged and dragged without a climax in it and after all the difficulties that those people went through to try and escape, the ending was completely frustrating. I gave this movie two stars for one reason. This is not your typical horror movie with one central bad guy slashing a bunch of people to death. The story makes this movie unique and provides a change for people who watch a lot of horror movies. Even though I don't like this movie, I recommend that all horror fans do see it at least once. You may surprisingly like it. As for this horror fan, all I can say is that I hope there ISN'T a sequel to this forgettable movie.


It had potential...it really did. But there is so much about the movie that was ridiculous and laughable. I'm a horror movie weenie and I thought it was stupid; as did my 13-year old! I was expecting to be at least creeped-out. And, yes, the gross-factor of the vines squirming in the people was there; however, the lead-up to getting to the ruins is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

I mean really who goes on a hike...in a jungle... with a total stranger... with a little water and a few snacks...IN FLIP FLOPS, NO LESS?! Puh-lease! Better still who goes to a foreign country and leaves the tourist area without an interpreter or being able to speak a bit of the language? Are these people complete morons?

The German's brother isn't heard from and he doesn't call for assistance? Who doesn't do that? He just finds some Greeks and Americans to go on a little search and find?


I have not seen such a stupid,dumb movie since quite a while. It absolutely has no logic, no horror- doesn't scare you, no suspense, not thrilling.. I mean I didn't find even one part of the movie appealing..

I don't know what they were thinking when they made the movie.. You watch the whole movie to find out that, there is a plant that can walk around, drag human dead bodies and eat human flesh. Not just that but it can also talk i.e. imitate sounds, like a cellphone ringing or human talking... so its like, the plant makes the noise of a cell phone ringing, so they go after the cellphone and find out its a plant... how intelligent of the plant to setup an ambush.

This clearly is the creativity level of a primary school kid... Bad!!!


The ruins is to Turistas as Deep Impact was to Armageddon, a worse version of a mildly entertaining movie, except much much worse. One of the characters is supposed to be going to medical school, so why are they all retards? "you can't keep cutting." -best line form this movie. This is an awful movie. I like horror movies, but fully appreciate that most of them are terrible, but had a bit of high hopes for this movie after seeing the reviews on IMDb. The situation they are in is stupid and how they handle it makes them stupid. It is awful, the one thing that makes it somewhat palatable is its cool Australian backdrop, despite the fact that they spend the vast majority of the movie in one place.


If you value your life in any way, shape, or form, you will do yourself a courtesy and pass by this seemingly "interesting" movie on the DVD rack.

I know what you're thinking, "I saw the preview and it looked GREAT!" However, buyer beware, I fell into the same trap. One of my friends expressed certain reluctance to watching this movie, but I forced her to sit it out. Oh, how I regret that decision.

Like most horror movies, the movie starts out cheerfully in a sunny Mexican resort where two couples are lured to an ancient Mayan Ruin by a fellow resort-goer. Upon arrival, they are disturbed by the appearance of two jungle people who are all but oblivious to their greeting shouts. As if this isn't ominous enough, the tour group casts aside large plant growth and declares an unused path consumed by wildlife a perfect route to their destination. I guess it wouldn't be much of a movie if they utilized rational decision making and turned around just then, but, well, this wasn't much of a movie anyways.

After some hiking, the sixsome (the resort goer brought a friend) stumble upon the ruins and at once their doubts are dispelled by its beauty and history. That is, until frantic tribal people emerge from the jungle armed with a vengeance for no reason in particular, shouting in an indecipherable language. Since when are brutal verbal assaults assuaged by calm, patronizing language - don't ask me - but nonetheless, the cast tries anyway, to no avail, obviously. Suddenly, the sixth trail member, Dimitri, is punctured with several arrowheads from the Mayans and all hell breaks loose. A gunshot finishes the job and the horrified travelers retreat quickly up the ruin.

Now, if there was ever a plot to this movie, it ended here. The introduction took at most 20 minutes and it was unfortunately the best 20 minutes of the movie. On top of the ruins, the now fivesome realizes they are stranded by murderous locals and proceed to make countless good decisions, one of them being to use a withered rope to lower one of their members into the bowels of the ruin. Needless to say, the adventurer is seriously hurt and then trapped within the ruins and the two girlfriends are gravely injured trying to rescue him.

The rest of the movie continues plotlessly, with no real horror, only only blood and gore, as displayed when one girl yanks a plant growing within her out, gushing torrents of blood and then again when somebody's legs are cut off, only to have the same plat from within the girl strangle him later.

My only satisfactions in this movie were observing the very attractive Jonathon Tucker, playing Jeff McIntire, grow increasingly more frazzled and distressed and sitting long enough to ascertain that almost all of the cast dies a horrible, gruesome death. Their simulated pain seems an adequate compensation for the time suck that was this movie.

Supposedly, the storyline goes that the ruin is an ancient house of of dangerous spirits with an evil, flesh eating plant to ward off and consume unlucky visitors. Unfortunately, I got no such warning from screaming bloodthirsty plants and the only evil thing relating to this movie that I am truly horrified by is the script writer.


My review is divided into questions that you really should ask yourself:

1. Plants eating people have been done HUNDREDS of times. It's been used by Nintendo in everything from Mario to Zelda to Metroid Prime. It's been used in plenty of low-budget 50's movies, on par with the lowest of the Godzilla franchise. And this brings it to a whole another level of cheese with plants that TALK. I've known no one who walked out, but I know a lot of people who absolutely broke out in hysteric laughing during parts of this movie. I was one of them. Doesn't the horror genre deserve something a little better than this pile of laughable crap?

2. The characters easily could have been copy/pasted from Hostel or Wrong Turn or Wolf Creek or any other movie with collage kids with bad luck. Yet it's called "characterizing" when the movie takes hours of your time to tell you clichés that hundreds of characters before have had? Don't you ever wish a movie had characters that weren't just forgettable pieces of meat with legs?

3. This was not gory. A guy cuts his skin off. Oh, my! (Not.) A guy gets his legs broken. Oh my! Gasp! (Not.) I have shown movies like this to my mother who hates everything to do with horror because it makes her sick, and she said: "I've seen PG movies worse than that! Why was it rated R?" So, why was it rated R?

4. Here's the only plot the movie/book has: collage kids drink, have sex, get naked, cruse, bleed, and eventually die. This is possibly the most typical example of a cheap, thoughtless horror movie, yet people call this "mature"? What the . . .?

5. I do not think I have ever seen something less original sense I watched A Beautiful Mind.

Haven't you ever sat there and wished the horror genre, easily the most diverse genre out there, would do something . . . well, diverse? Something truly original?

I just wish more horror movies would have actual horror, not just cheap collage parties put on film with a few splatters of fake blood tossed around.

1/10


First off, I saw another reviewer said this movie was "fantastic". Well nothing could be further from the truth! This movie is complete garbage!!! A moronic horror comedy that is NOT even slightly funny!! Don't take that mean that it's so bad that it's good because it's not. It's a total waste of time and money!

Here's what I see in this waste of a DVD. A group of friends get together on a weekend, get drunk and then decide to make a backyard video. They grab Mom and Dad's video camera and start coming up with scenes on the spot. They all get a big kick out of watching themselves mug for the camera. They figure, if they think it's funny then everyone will think it's funny. Well, they're wrong. This backyard home video is garbage. The "acting" and comedic gore effects are lousy but I guess that's to be expected since this is nothing more then a home video.

On the bright side, I guess the fact that this crap got out there gives hope to anyone out there who wants to make a movie. If these people could get their movie made and released on DVD then anyone can!

0/10-- Save your money.


I've watched a number of Wixel Pixel and Sub Rosa Extreme movies lately, and have found a lot to like about them.

This SRE movie seemed a lot more slight than all the others I've seen. Perhaps that's because this is a comedy/horror movie rather than straight horror, and perhaps it's also because the humor didn't register with me very well.

It's a little less than seventy minutes long, and the credits begin as the last ten minutes are beginning. There are some outtakes, goofs, and behind the scenes stuff going on while those credits roll.

SRE movies do tend to be short, and tend to feel padded out in spite of that. This is no exception, with some scenes that tend to go on too long.

The story involves a poor kid in Christmastown, California who'd been picked on by all his classmates. He'd had one shoe stolen, and unable to replace it, he was dubbed "Oneshoe McGroo." Due to an obsession with pirates, his parents gave him an eyepatch for Christmas with a Christmas tree emblazoned on the eyepatch.

Many of the classmates are killed, and the few who remain gather together to decide what to do. They're picked off one by one by McGroo, who stalks around to the sound of sleigh bells ringing.

The characters are pretty much all broad stereotypes, like the nerd named Dorkus, etc. There's an odd scene in which a kinky couple has sex; the woman is handcuffed and blindfolded, the man wears a large paper watermelon slice over his head. This reminded me of some of the stranger sex scenes from director Rinse Dream.

The picture quality is good, and there are a lot of extras. But basically a pretty silly movie.

Oh well, I guess you can never have too many Christmas horror movies. Still, there are a lot of other needy holidays.


While this isn't one of Miss Davies' very worst films, it is pretty bad. And it's sad that in a revisionist fashion, recent IMDb raters have deliberately over-inflated the scores on some of her films to make up for her being slighted in the past--or so it seems. For years, conventional wisdom has been that Davies was a terrible actress and only got the roles she got because her beau, William Randolph Hearst, bought her way into Hollywood. This certainly is the image created in Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE. It is true that Hearst did use his considerable wealth and clout to build Davies' career. With all this money, it's not surprising that she made some excellent films and it isn't surprising that people got snippy due to all the extra attention she got. Sleeping with the man who finances your films is bound to get noticed. However, despite this edge, she also made a decent number of bad films and I think we really need balance when it comes to the scores of her movies. After all, no rational person could believe that as of today (1/5/08), PEG O' MY HEART and two other Davies films recently shown on Turner Classic Movies (THE FLORODORA GIRL and MARIANNE) deserved the exceptionally high scores--ranking them higher than such films as HIGH NOON, BEN HUR, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT!! In fact, MARIANNE would now rank as the fifth best movie ever according to IMDb with a score of 8.8!!! Considering most people out there don't even know who Marion Davies was AND most of her movies were financial disasters, this is a serious problem!! However, she was a much better actress than CITIZEN KANE implied and initially broke into films before she began sleeping with Hearst.

What sets PEG O' MY HEART apart from these two other movies, is that MARIANNE and THE FLORODORA GIRL were pleasant little films--while PEG O' MY HEART is in some ways just terrible. Much of the reason was the terrible miscasting of Marion. While her French accent in MARIANNE was cute, in PEG her Irish accent just sounded bizarre--not particularly Irish. Plus, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but her continual use of the word 'ye' makes her sound like she should be doing Shakespeare, not a film set in 1933 Ireland! Also, there was a bizarre insistence that Marion should be the consummate multi-talented star--so they had her not just act but dance and sing. The singing actually fit the scripts in some of her films, but here it seemed out of place and seriously detracted from the film. It just seemed like you could almost hear Hearst shouting out "see--she IS a great actress---look at her sing and dance". Sadly, Marion just looked uncomfortable and out of place in many of these scenes. But for me, the biggest problem was the idea of having 36 year-old Marion playing such a youthful role. It was obvious that the character she played at the beginning of the film was supposed to be like the ones Mary Pickford played in the teens and twenties--complete with the pig tails and plucky attitude. Miss Pickford COULD carry off these roles even though she, too, wasn't a girl any more. But here, Marion had put on a bit of weight and looked at least 30. No offense--she looked fine for her age--but she DID NOT look like a teen!

Oddly, with the millions that Hearts spent on Marion's career, he never realized that the most important thing he needed to spend his money on was a good script and one that fit Marion's talents. Believe me, I have rated several of her films very high (I especially adore SHOW PEOPLE), but here she just couldn't help but flop--this film was a turkey.


Just watched this today on TCM, where the other reviewers here saw it.

Sorry that I was the only one to find Davies a weak actress, with a truly awful attempt at an Irish (Irish-American or otherwise) accent. As she's the star, it was sort of hard for me to get past that -- especially as the other reviewers have said that this was her finest performance.

Another particularly terrible Davies performance was in "Marianne" (1929), which I also watched today. In this film, given a 9 of 10 rating here, her accent switches from that of a (correct) French woman to an odd combination of Italian and Swiss.

Interestingly, in TCM's one-hour bio of Davies -- "Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies" (2001) -- film historian Jeanine Basinger claims that "one of the things that you note about Marion Davies in her sound work is how good she is at doing accents." Of course this bio also includes commentary by fans (make of that what you will).

Davies was a very attractive young woman, and by all accounts a terrific comedienne in real life.

And because a part of her anatomy added immeasurably to the real-life answer to Joseph Cotten's character's search for the meaning behind Kane's final word in the opening scene of the great "Citizen Kane," she's earned her spot among the great stories if Hollywood's history.

But I think Welles & Mankiewicz got it right for the most part with the "Susan Alexander" facsimile of the real article.

Don't bother voting as to whether you agree or disagree with this post as I really couldn't care less.


Bob Clampett's 'The Hep Cat' is a distinctly average cartoon only really notable for the fact that it was the first colour Looney Tune (previously Looney Tunes were all black and white while Merrie Melodies were in colour). The tale of a singing, dancing cat's attempts to woo a lady cat and a dog's attempts to catch the cat, 'The Hep Cat' lacks the trademark energy and pace of most Clampett shorts. To be fair, Clampett doesn't have a great deal to work with. Warren Foster's script is embarrassingly thin and, while he has spun straw into gold with other cartoons, Clampett doesn't manage it with 'The Hep Cat'. It's often said of Clampett that you can't mistake his cartoons for anyone else's and it's generally true but 'The Hep Cat' is an exception. There's flashes of Clampett genius, such as the chase scene in which the cat stops to ask the dog "Hey, are you following me". When the dog confirms that he is, the cat simply says "Oh" and the chase immediately resumes. Unfortunately, there's very little of such brilliance on show here. Knowing who directed it, 'The Hep Cat' is a bitter disappointment. We all have off days and this was clearly one of Clampett's!


This movie is about a group of people who are infected by a powerful man-made virus. They are pursued by government men into the desert.

The premise of the film is quite interesting but is hampered by the fact that the delivery is extremely boring. At no point does the film engage with the viewer on any level. Granted, the miniscule budget is a problem but is not the reason for the film's failure. Much more at fault is the very po-faced delivery. There is a great deal of narration but, unfortunately, the narrator has an annoyingly over-dramatic voice. Very little seems to happen to these people and well before the end you will be rooting for the government men - the sooner they kill the protagonists the sooner the movie will end. A much better title for this film would have been Four People Run About In The Desert With Some Stock Footage Of A Helicopter. Overall, very tedious.


The movie starts off promisingly enough, the use of imagery and simple short clips convey the bigger story, which would normally need a considerably higher budget than the one here. However it did start to worry me as it continued, combined with another overly husky Max Payne type voice over the movie was starting to look not so good. I hoped it was just the introduction to the story.

The story is what really caught me and took me to this movie. The idea that a research scientist has created a virus that actually protects the cells it infects from other infection was an interesting scientific idea. Then that subjects who had the most bizarre disorders sought out the scientist and offered to be his human experiments made me think this could be one very good small movie. Yet the introduction hadn't gone well.

There did seem to be a change of pace as the movie turned to recorded interviews with the four main characters in the movie, the test subjects. Although the acting wasn't superb, there seemed to be a lot of scope for character development throughout the movie, and the recordings were done quite well with a varied mix of characters. However these faded through the movie. They weren't used again after a few brief clips and I did feel that there was a missed opportunity to provide some great character development by reflecting back to them, however it wasn't to be.

The imagery becomes increasingly disconnected from the story, often repeating to represent something that is still happening. This disconnection and repetition is reflected in the annoying and distracting commentary. It began reciting words one after the other. Short, meaningless sentences and reciting none too relevant or interesting scientific ramblings. If there was something to be described, four or five words would be used, it was too long, repetitive, circular, looping,...you're getting the idea.

Now this could have been to reflect the confusion and of the character, slowly becoming caught up in his own thoughts, rambling due to lack of food and water. What it actually did was to cause me to totally switch off to the voice and by the closing stages of the movie I found that I hadn't been listening to some of the ramblings.

A number of times that an event occurs the camera shows all the characters one after the other for their reaction, which seems to be somewhere between confused and thoughtful. There are repeated fades from the same scene to the same scene, for instance a character sleeping fades to black, then fades back in on the character sleeping again. Look, we know the character is asleep, we know time has passed, please move on. Overall there are just too many atmospheric cuts and long, hanging shots to fill time.

The acting was not bad, and the characters were okay, but not exploited and developed. When they were interacting there were some truly cringeworthy moments. For example when one of them asks if they are hungry the camera looks to each of them and returns to a group shot, they pause, look to each other, turn back to camera and say slowly "No". It raised a snigger or two. Their dialogue was slow, glossy and either it was missing altogether or totally unnecessary, there seemed to be no middle ground where the dialogue hit spot on.

However, there were some good scenes, but they were really hard to find unless you viewed them in isolation, and this is what it almost looks like has happened with this movie. The film has been looked at as a series of scenes and not as a complete story.

Nowhere is this seen more than in the main storyline. The characters are infected with the virus that has been killing the animals, the one that was being engineered for them. We're told that it develops in stages to something dramatic, and so that is what we expect. What we get are the characters eating loads together, all throwing up once together, water pouring from their mouths in unconvincing streams, then they all fall asleep, these are the phases which all happen really early in the movie. Then, they all say "Good" together when asked how they are, and that's it. That's the virus done, nothing else happens.

There could have been so much more done with this movie, so much more developed with the virus and it protecting them from all manner of harm. It could have explored a serious change of these characters as it infected and took over them, it could have developed these characters, shown them making decisions and doing things that connect back to their character shown in flashbacks to the interviews.

The ending isn't even confusing, intriguing or thought provoking. It just shows something that happens and that's it, although in the long, drawn out style with the irritating voice over above it. I really struggled with this movie and watched a number of Press members walk out (including one famous TV critic leaving within the first twenty minutes), I stayed, but regretted the lost time.


If you suffer from insomnia then Radiant would be the best way to send you into a 7-year coma. The film is so preposterously overwrought and mundane that it's hard to imagine that director Steve Mahone could overlook such obvious dullness.

The story has an exiled Doctor (who we never get to see) move out into the desert to create a vaccine that will cure all diseases by filling the hosts full of antibodies that can combat any infection (yes, just like that episode of Futurama). The vaccines don't work and the human guinea pigs become infected with a virus that kills within 48 hours.

Not wanting to be caught by the Government guys in masks the group head into the desert for cover, hoping that the sunshine will kill the virus. All of this is narrated by Michael, the only one of the quartet immune to the infection. And it's the most boring narration ever. They could have cast someone with an interesting voice but instead we get someone with less vocal personality than Clive Owen.

On top of this the editor insists on fade-cutting more than half the movie, giving it a weird dream-like feel and increasing the audiences desire to go to sleep. It's no surprise that half of the audience walked out of this, I was not one of them for some reason. But I bloody well should have.

The ending is supposed to be shocking and clever and foreboding. But it's plain and simply not. A relief yes, but not dramatic in the slightest.

The utter cheapness of this production and muffled sound that renders a lot of the dialogue unintelligible cripples what could have been an interesting sci-fi story if it had better actors, cooler locations and a sense of urgency. As it is, Radiant is a snoozefest.


This movie is simply rubbish. I have to say I am an expert of rubbish movies. I reserve the "1" rating for movies that are rubbish but funny, but this film is just tedious and certainly not crappy in a funny way but crappy in a crappy way. It gets a "2" so those of you out there can distinguish between the ones that will make you laugh and the ones that will make you fall asleep. There are scenes in this movie where the actors are looking at something, their expressions are of amazement and there wide eyes and slack jaws tell the audience that what they are looking at is going to be profoundly amazing, this simply isn't it's just a cupboard or even more desert. It has to be pretty god damn awful for me to walk out, let me tell you, I walked out and so did quite a few people.


Susan Slept Here turned out to be Dick Powell's swan song as a performer on the big screen. Of course he directed some more films and appeared frequently on television until he died. It's a pity he didn't go out with his performance in The Bad and the Beautiful.

Frank Tashlin has done so many better films, I'm still not sure whatever possessed him to do this one. The premise is absolutely laughable.

Dick Powell is a screenwriter who's looking to do more serious stuff than the fluff he's been writing. He had an idea for a film on juvenile delinquency so two friendly cops in Herb Vigran and Horace McMahon deposit 17 year old Debbie Reynolds on his doorstep. She's not a really bad kid and they don't want to put her in the system. So they give her to Dick Powell at Christmas time.

I mean is there anyone out there who doesn't see a problem? The term jailbait comes immediately to mind. Additionally Powell has a girlfriend, the young and sexy Anne Francis. Why Debbie Reynolds is any competition here is beyond me.

Susan Slept Here got one Oscar nomination. The song Hold My Hand, sung by Don Cornell in the background, was nominated for best song, but lost to Secret Love.

Powell and Reynolds do have some funny moments together and Alvy Moore as Powell's factotum and Les Tremayne as his lawyer also get a few laughs.

But it's not enough.


A ridiculous comedy given an arms-flailing direction. I love one of the comments here: "Couldn't be made today". Well, neither could "The Philadelphia Story" without a car chase or two. Nonetheless, does that mean the picture is worse for the wear for being old-fashioned? I don't think "Susan Slept Here" was good for any generation and it should fester peacefully in the memories of Debbie Reynolds-buffs. There is no sparkle in this story of a screenwriter who latches onto a much-younger girl for 'script research'. Dick Powell makes his farewell screen appearance in what must have been an embarrassment to him. Reynolds is pallid. Produced by one Harriet Parsons--who gives her famous mother Louella a number of inane plugs. *1/2 from ****


This frothy romantic comedy is based on the kind of story I loved as a teenager, but now find rather distasteful. In the case of May-September attachments, doubtless what is on the mind of the elder party is either lust, or an inability to face the reality of aging, or both. And the younger is most likely looking for the kind parent that she (or he) lacked as a child. These underlying agendas seem more pathetic than romantic to me now; there is also something rather predatory about them.

Dick Powell looked a bit embarrassed--as well he should--at playing the elder lover in this silly story. He was, at fifty, attempting the role of a thirty-eight-year-old man romancing a teen-ager. But young Debbie Reynolds was a knockout--pretty and saucy and full of vinegar--as a misbehaving seventeen-year-old presented as a kind of "gift" to the morally upright and honest screenwriter, as a subject for him to study. Her spirited performance wrung from me a better rating than this film would otherwise deserve. Anne Francis was cast as Powell's beautiful, but brittle fiancée, and handled her small role deftly.

Some of the dialogue was quite amusing, too, so it's not a total washout.

5/10


From what I understand, Fox was embarrassed they released a PG-13 Alien/Predator movie not so long ago. It was not well received by any means.

Not exactly sure where to go next, seeing as they thought Anderson was the best director for the franchise and they had produced a true sci-fi gem, Fox turned to it's small, but knowledgeable group of monkeys for answers.

These monkeys were by no means veterans of writing sci-fi flicks, but had seen Burton's Planet of the Apes remake and House of the Dead.

Their first task: hire actors. Fox gave them a reasonable budget but the monkeys wanted to save the money. They hired fifteen TV actors shortly after.

Now, the script. The monkeys wanted to save more of the budget so they wrote the movie themselves. Leaving out important aspects of the two franchises was the easy part. Thinking of great new lines for the general audience to remember years down the line - that was more difficult. They butted heads awhile and came up with a truly award-winning screenplay equipped with cliché characters, idiotic decisions an gaping plot holes.

Fox was pleased thus far with the results but wanted to see what was to become of the centerpieces to the film - the aliens and predators. The monkeys again wanted to save money in the budget so they decided to trash the great robotics used in the otherwise terrible AvP original and go with the man-in-the-suit Alien seen in the old films. The actors playing the aliens had trouble fitting into the suits as they weren't properly sized by the monkeys so they jiggled their plastic heads throughout the film with honor. As for the predators, the monkeys decided one predator was enough this time around (again, saving budget) to fight the hordes of aliens that seemingly come out of nowhere.

But what about the effects, you ask? Come on now, people. They may be monkeys but they clearly knew CGI would play a key role in the film. Without diving into the budget, the monkeys used a standard Final Cut program and cut and pasted some very nice fire and spark effects throughout. Putting red and green filters over the camera lens provided some excellent Predator visions.

The setting was something the monkeys thought long and hard about. If this was to be on Earth, in Colorado of all places, they needed to make it realistic. This was where they admitted they might have made a mistake. See, the monkeys didn't have proper training in this department so they thought turning the lights off in the city and having the movie play out in the dead of night and in the rain was the right thing to do. They simply forgot people like to see the creatures instead of looking at shadows and rain the whole film. To add insult to injury, the monkeys accidentally filmed all the fight scenes incredibly close so no one could see what was fighting or who it was. But again, rookie mistake.

The rating. Fox told the monkeys to make the movie R-rated. That was easy. Without showing how many of the injuries or deaths actually happened, the monkeys made a habit of showing the carnage after the fact. It was simple: the viewers got the gore they desired and the monkeys didn't have to film the majority of action shots involving that violence.

Some of the actors originally had questions concerning the screenplay. Why does a blue liquid the Predator has endless amounts of magically disintegrate whatever he wants it to and nothing more than that? Why is an ex-convict driving around in a police car the entire movie? Why did the monkeys forget to show a full body shot of the Aliens? Why does a clock play a more memorable role than any of the main characters? The list of questions just kept growing but the monkeys ignored them and finished their masterpiece.

Fox was thrilled with their work. So thrilled that they opened the movie nationwide on Christmas Day and even spent a few bucks advertising it the week before it came out. The monkeys had successfully made another installment in these cherished franchises.

But some ask, what ever happened to the budget the monkeys forgot to use? They put it towards their next film: Aliens vs. Predator vs. Hulk Hogan. They knew the general public would be upset with the title but they have since released this statement:

"To the people- do not worry about our upcoming film. It will be rated R and will have violence."

And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.


I love B movies, but I like to be aware from the beginning that I'm watching one. I can't believe someone could mess up a movie about aliens and predators so bad.

Aliens and Predator are AWESOME. This movie made a big joke out of them. The creators didn't take this movie seriously at all. I am throughly disappointed in how the Strauss jerks handled this film. They made a mockery of amazing characters. It's like they were trying to be serious in the beginning, then their writers got high and gave up. Almost nothing was continuous, the main characters were awful and were NOT Aliens or Predators. I am so ridiculously sad that no one takes Alien and Predators seriously anymore. These characters are icons of American pop culture and the creators of this movie showed no respect to the original films. They should not be allowed to cash in on the names of the previous films and they should be ashamed of themselves


I really, really don't understand how that movie could get a rating bigger than 4 here on IMDb. It's simply a huge mess, and I have to admit that I actually liked AvP 1: Close to no story, okay, I can live with that, but at least they got to the point pretty much at once. AvP 2 does not. After the stupid premise has been presented there is well over half an hour of stupid and unfitting teenager clichés, dumb as hell dialog and close to nothing else, except for a few Alien scenes that feel like an excuse to have that first half of the movie and Predator scenes that make you ask yourself whether those guys making the film even watched any other Predator movie or just didn't care enough to be bothered.

After that, that crap-fest finally gets to the point where the Predator starts attacking the Aliens, or at least pretends doing so. And boy, is that Predator stupid, blind and deaf. It's awful. How he even managed to earn that stuff he has is beyond me. He misses with almost every shot, only notices Aliens when they're right in his face or if it's absolutely necessary for the script, so that he can move where he has to be. He even gets caught on surprise by puny human teenagers and deputies all of the time. What's that guy supposed to be? After the first hour of that abomination I was more or less constantly shaking my head at every scene. Close to no scene in this movie passes by without unbelievably stupid dialogs, stupid Predator actions or stupid lack there-of or stupid actions from our "heroes".

Then, that thing finally ended. To my surprise not only me and my friends didn't know whether to laugh or to cry, but everybody I overheard leaving the room was half-crying, half-laughing about those 1 1/2 hours they just wasted.

Don't watch. Never.