MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD! OK the movie in a nutshell. so this girl goes out buys drugs gets pulled over by a cop, the cops name is Wolf. the cop feels her butt, then he eats her...okay? he beats her up and eats her. then this woman is at home and this guy come with bulging genitals and he does her up. then the woman goes into the other room and this black guy is there and she undresses.....then the movie turns into a porno. he starts sucking on her breasts, then she gives him head. then wolf walks in with blood all over him and says "honey I'm home" then he realizes his wife is blowing some black guy and he kills her, the black guy kills him cuts the girl out of wolfs stomach and the go home. the end and they lived happily ever after. THAT IS THE MOVIE.

now after reading this do u really think there is anything to like about this movie. the only thing i liked in the woman had a nice body. but the performances sucked, the story sucked, the dialogue sucked, THE WHOLE MOVIE JUST SUCKED!!!!!


As usual, another masterpiece in the Vice Academy series(HaHaHa). I don't know why they even bothered to make this trash. Just another series of cops acting slutty. A defining part was when Ginger Lynn Allen's character(Holly Wells) and Elizabeth Kaitan's character(Candy) tried to seduce the scientist by wearing nothing but their bra and underwear under their labcoats. Just a wonderful scene(Ha). A character that I didn't like was the Commissioner. He was very annoying and ignorant. They should have arrested him. Mrs. Devonshire was pretty annoying, as well. They should have stopped this series after this movie.


There is no way to put into words just how bad, how shapeless, paceless and laughless these "Vice Academy" films really are. You have to experience one for yourself. For the third time in a row, writer-director Rick Sloane does not show even an ounce of writing or directing talent. There is nothing here that a person above the age of 5 will believe or laugh at, yet the (very brief) nudity and other "plot" elements make the films unsuitable for kids. Which leads me to believe that they are really aimed at adults with the mental capabilities of 5-year-olds. Elizabeth Kaitan makes a more than welcome replacement for Linnea Quigley - she is winningly bubbly and cute, and her wonderful big smile is about the only thing that can make a viewer smile as well. But watching her and the other girls in this film is like watching a bunch of flowers in a desert covered with horse manure. (*)


Terrible terrible movie for Television. Once again Lifetime brings us the predictable triangle; scheming bitchy woman out to get stupid unknowing wife of yet another stupid husband who doesn't have a clue.

I get antsy when I see these films. You may ask, why do I watch them then? I haven't a clue. Usually by mistake. And the movie is so bad I can't get away from it. I wait for the bitch to get her come up-pence. And usually I'm not satisfied in how she gets her just desserts.

Now if you can believe our vixen, she steals embryos from the clinic, and how does one do that? Without blood tests, DNA, inquiries and recommendations. She proceeds to kill the Realtor, Gabrielle Rose, who is on to her, in broad daylight in the front yard of a house for sale and no one sees her? She kills the mother, Susan Hogan, and you could predict that surmise when the mother off handedly mentions she's allergic to peanuts and that the pills to combat this allergy are in her pocket book. Guess what? I won't continue on this.

Finally you are left in the house alone with the wife and the bitch. Well good triumphs evil, but much too slowly. Victoria Pratt as the evil girlfriend is adequate in the role, looking a bit too disheveled and obvious. Tori Spelling just stands around looking blank most of the time. She's got those big big Bette Davis eyes that look like they're popping out of her head. I liked her better in TRICK. And Tahmoh Penikett plays the husband going around assuring his wife there's nothing too he and his ex-girlfriend, even though he's spotted all over town being very chummy with her, standing half naked with her in his house when he sent the wife off to the city to stay overnight. Yet he continues to deny the romance.

Lifetime never disappoints the viewers with their inane plots and stories about women and their stupid husbands. Wish I could give this chestnut a "0" rating.


This is one of those films you can have on for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning -- able to do other things with no real complications in losing any understanding of the proceedings, and gaining some fascination in wondering why such mediocrities acquired the manpower and financial resources to be produced in the first place.

Of course, with all the cable channels, as well as Lifetime's need to fill its time slots with 100 or so hours worth of movies per week (along with incessant "Golden Girls" reruns), this type of fare is now a t.v. staple. Also, it seems these flicks provide livelihood to the Canadian locales where most are made, as well as the host of Canadian actors appearing in them.

Tori Spelling, like the ferret-face Paris Hilton, is somebody who - if not for family connections and resources - would likely be working at The Gap. But at least Tori has become, say, a C+-level thespian, appearing in occasional presentations appropriate to this level.

This story is one which has been seen on Lifetime and similar venues God-knows-how-many times. Devious woman, a total sociopath, trying to screw-up everyone else's lives, operating during the initial parts of the story with more cleverness than a CIA operative could muster, committing murder when necessary, and out to wreck the life of the flick's "heroine."

As usual, the male lead is a completely clueless dolt. And in these types of films, one finds, say, characters about whom one can really "care," about 10% of the time. This one is in the other 90%.


I don't know if I should be amused or insulted by drivel like this put out by "Lifetime: Television For Women" Should be renamed "Lifetime: Television For Shut In Drama Queens" because I've yet to see a movie that wasn't a tear jerking pot boiler. This film was no exception. You know a film's going to be bad when the biggest headliner is Tori Spelling, completely a creation of bad plastic surgery and spoiled privilege minus any real talent. Everyone else matched her in unbelievably bad acting and the storyline was beyond dumb, as if anyone could believe any of it. If I hadn't have been helpless on the sofa pinned down watching with the same fascination you view a gory car wreck I would have changed the channel.


if you're a sucker for corny movies and are looking to see something you don't need to pay close attention to, this might be worth watching. the story itself is very unrealistic. the dialogue is also not very believable. it is doubtful you will find yourself relating to any of these characters because none of them are very likable. the acting could've been a lot worse. victoria pratt is noticeably out of place with the rest of the cast, as she seems to have a lot of potential and talent as an actress. while it's not saying much, this is one of the best acting performances i've seen from tori spelling. she appears to be getting better with age. overall, this extremely melodramatic movie is mediocre at best.


Lazy writing, bad acting and wooden direction lead us to a 2005 Canadian-made TV movie called HUSH, not to be confused with about eight other movies using the same name. Tori Spelling and her doctor hubby move from SanFran to his small hometown, where they run into his old gal pal, who decides she still loves him. She gets pregnant with Tori's baby (don't ask) and starts knocking off anyone who might get in her way as she plans to reunite with her old flame. The actors playing the old gal pal and the doctor are not worth mentioning, as they act flatter than flat. Tori isn't much better, but at least she is something to focus on as the plot meanders here and there before arriving at a very lame and all-too-familiar conclusion. Watch instead THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE.


In 1970, feminists invaded the 'Miss World' beauty contest in London and brought the occasion to a halt by pelting the stage with flour and eggs. Why? Because, rightly or wrongly, they felt the event to be demeaning and degrading to women. I offer no criticism of their actions. Its a free world we live in. What I want to know is: why don't their modern-day equivalents invade the studios where shows such as this are made and do likewise?

'Sex & The City' is all about four self-absorbed women from New York: Carrie is a slave to fashion who turns into a pussycat when a man so much as claps eyes on her, Charlotte yearns to find the perfect man ( they don't exist, love ) so she can use sex to ensnare the poor devil, lawyer Miranda scares men away by wittering nonsense like 'out of touch with my emotions', and lastly we have Samantha, the living embodiment of the old Martini ad 'anytime, anyplace, anywhere'. Feminists hold up these characters - particularly Samantha - as a shining example of modern-day womanhood. Well, if shouting rude words in busy restaurants is progress, I think the feminists should take a long hard look at themselves and what they're supposed to represent.

Had 'Sex & The City' been the creation of a man, it would have been pulled from the airwaves for being sexist. Instead, like 'Charlie's Angels' before it, it has conned supposedly intelligent women into thinking it has acted as a positive force for good. There's something very clinical and cold-blooded about the show. 'The Benny Hill Show' was sexist too, but at least it was funny.


To be hones, I used to like this show and watch it regularly, but now (thank god!) I don't understand why did I watch it. Sex and the city is one of the most pointless and insulting TV shows I've ever seen. I really don't get the point of this show, despite of trying. People are saying, that Sex and the city is funny. In what way? By cursing all the time, talking about vibrators and the size of the penis? Give me a break.

I don't understand the plot: we have four girls who are trying to find a perfect man by sleeping with every dork, who comes around. And this show is all about four spoiled chicks, who are sleeping with every man in the city, but in the end they admit the best pleasure comes out of the penis vibrators. And yeah... the show is trying to tell us, that sex is the most important thing in every relationship. If you can have a good sex, you're a good husband (or wife). It doesn't matter if you want to be loyal and having a good heart.. the size does matter.

The biggest problem is also bad acting. The four main actresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis) are so bad and unconvincing, that it makes me sick just watching this show. Parker is just screaming and complaining all the time, Cattral is showing her old boobs and saying "the f - word" all the time, Davis delivers her smile (and nothing else) and Nixon acts like she is bored all the time. And yes... men are sex - hungry pigs in this show. But, judging by this show, women are not much better. This show is insulting for men and women. The women are shown so primitive and emotionless, like they don't have any heart, just hunger for sex. It's insulting for everyone.

Sex and the city is one of the worst TV shows and I'm glad that the show ended, because it delivers bad acting and pointless stories. The whole world is not all about sex and vibrators.


I truly despair for womankind when they discuss this joke of a programme as if it's intellectually engaging and promotes female liberation and independence. This show is the biggest insult to women next to all those libidinous hip-hop videos. If talking like a bunch of reckless teenage boys over $100 lunches in swanky restaurants, indiscriminately shopping for unnecessary fashion and jumping into bed with the nearest male in site is considered empowering, the fate of western women may be doomed as we speak.

Aside from the damage it does to the female gender, Sex and the City is NOT ENTERTAINING. Not once has it been funny, captivating, exciting or original. The episodes play out monotonously. Each character are factory produced mannequins who behave in the same manner every episode. Not once have any of these shallow, unattractive women evolved. Perhaps the worst is lead character Carrie Bradshaw. Aside from looking hideous, her penchant for over analysis of relationships is cringe worthy. On top of all this, the show portrays men as a bunch of empty headed slobs who are unable to commit to healthy relationships. Even when there is a decent man, he is somehow painted as a villain. The utter lack of empathy for men is clearly the work of some "progressive" pseudo feminist.

Saddest part of the whole show is that these women live unfortunate miserable lives. Any intelligent woman would never envy them. It is a banal show with even more banal characters. The NYC tourist board must hate the way this garbage is showing up their otherwise fine city! Thankfully this train wreck is over! Desperate Housewives is seen as the fitting replacement for SATC. While DH can be quite far-fetched, at least it explores women in more multi-faceted ways. Plus it treats men more respectfully and it's actually entertaining!


Appalling, shallow, materialistic nonsense. How women (and gay men?) can enjoy this rubbish is beyond me. No self-respecting man would ever want to be with one of these neurotic gold diggers. What is even more concerning is that so many reviewers say they relate to the women on the show. If that is the future of women, Lord help us all. Showing your independence and being respected as equals with men should not be about spreading your legs every three seconds with a different man. I think this demeans women and does not do them justice. But this review is no rant against women. Fans of this show say it is "hilarious" and "rivoting" but every time I have watched this show I have just struggled to stay awake. Despite the narrative of the reporter woman, at no point in this show is there even anything close to something that could be considered a rational thought. So, it's not entertaining, and it's not informative, so why would you bother watching it? One out of ten stars.


I didn't expect much from the movie so am not all that disappointed. Carrie looked ugly, Mr. Big had his eyebrows colored with crayons and Samantha didn't say f***.

Charlotte's kid was annoying to watch as she was in too many scenes--the title could easily have been "SATC: Parents' Night Out." Camera angles just weren't that good, especially regarding Carrie's face.

There was a token black woman thrown in whose character doesn't have a proper exit and too few appearances by the gay men friends who seemed thrown in with no purpose anyway. Samantha's going back and forth from LA choked the story flow, especially when she comes in for Fashion Week and nothing happens.

The movie seems to have been made in rush because it could have been good but scenes were just thrown in to show different outfits or to offer viewers a chance to jump back in the show without adding much to the story of the movie.


The very first time I saw this I recoiled in HORROR at what was being presented as modern, liberated women.

Sorry, but I cannot relate to whining idiots whose lives revolve around loveless sex and the acquisition of Gucci, Prada and Louis Vuitton labels. The troubling thing is that some may actually think this is how career women live in NYC. It's definitely not. These women are incredibly shallow and materialistic and as another reviewer said, they act like gold-digging hooches.

This is not liberated womanhood and I'm glad it's gone. 0 stars and just plain AWFUL


All my friends and various other coworkers think this show is soooo great. First I hate this show!!!!!!! I think I might be the only female alive!!! I only watched it because my best friend adores it and fancies herself to be the Charlotte character!

First the whole plot (If you can call it that) is about four women Superslut Samantha (Kim Cattrall)who most likely has every STD available and mossy,brown and green genitals considering she is tri sexual( she'll try anything).

Samantha is not like most 40 something women even in NY, but than the show would not have some kind of entertainment since Samantha (along with some good NY scenery) is the only reason to watch and those are not reason enough.

Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is a well dressed upper class NY idiot who still believes the Pince Charming myth! However sweet and pretty she is do not let that fool you, she spreads quite often.

Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) now this woman is stereotypical angry, butch feminist. I think in one episode she is thought to be a lesbian, but apparently is not...What a shame she's almost interesting.

Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) the most annoying character. I swear I thought I was watching Twisted Sister front man Dee Snider's more manly looking, cross dressing, sissy boy, brother! This is a girl looking for can't live without you love....Heard of a puppy?

This show is stupid and I love making fun of it because I hear about how it is some kind of new awakening for women. That is just sad if your looking to watch slutty, pathetic, addictive people in way too expensive clothes drinking cosmopolitans and sounding like an annoying 15 yr old on cocaine than there is a show for you............just use protection.


I know that this show gave a lot of liberation to women in the late '90s and early 2000s, but come on! You have a whiner, a buzz kill, and an over-analyzer. This show really made women look bad. I cannot STAND Carrie's analyzing every little thing on this show and that's what really killed it for me. Also, Charlotte's whining about her nonexistent predicaments made my ears hurt and Miranda's cynicism was a complete buzz kill. I mean, can't she just be happy? Samantha was the only cool one on the show and the only one worth watching. There was also a good episode when Nathan Lane was on the show, but that was the only one worth watching--the rest of them were pretty much the same. The humor was drier than a bucket of sand, and not very interesting plot line. All in all, not a very good show and I'm glad it's over.


"Sex and the City" has some great things going for it. The problem is that it's saddled with a number of negatives that really hurt the ultimate rating and review for its' six seasons.

The good things about "SATC" is that a lot of the conversations ring true to life, the romance stories are interesting, and the characters are fun.

The bad things is that few women act like complete whores. These four women have so many partners, even going lesbian in some episodes, that you have no choice but to roll your eyes at the utter absurdity. Men on the show are for the most part depicted as shallow, degenerates, liars, cheats, and buffoons. The foul language these women use is far in excess as to what a normal conversation entails. Why do the writers do these things? Clearly, to be over-the-top and to get your attention.

Another thing that bothered me (without spoiling) is how some of the relationships ended. They simply didn't ring real to me or to others I discussed this with.

But, even though I gave the show 2 stars, in the end, I'm glad I watched the show. I've actually watched every season multiple times. I do recommend the show to anyone that won't be offended by strong profanity and soft-core pornography. I could have done less with the offensive language and the nudity and sex acts but the romance was very good and the saga ends pretty well.


Week after week these women just sweep all the men of their feet. Get real. None of these women are "Knockouts". Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) looks like the type of woman men would pick up at !:45am before the bar closed after their vision and standards were equally impaired by ten or eleven martinis. Yet she's the queen bee, a super-sexy man-killer. The other three don't fare much better. And their constant foul mouthed comments.....not to mention that they jump in and out of bed with strange men and never catch a disease. This show is pathetic .and creepy.I don't think any man would be terribly attracted to any of these women, even if he popped Viagra like Tic Tacs while on shore leave.


I watch family affairs,coronation st &east enders on uktv every week night family affairs is by far the worst, bad plots, bad sequences and the worst acting of any soapie,even worse than the Americans and that is saying something.

I find it very frustrating that all these shows on uktv Australia" are so far behind the UK and when one trys to find out the reason for this they just fob you off with some story that they will show double episodes to catch up ,needless to say, this never happens. I am very happy that family affairs is going , to make space for something of better quality, but at the same time I would to know the background reasons, did they finally realize how bad it was? did people stop watching it? whatever it was you musn't leave us in suspense Why do you feel that you have to keep everything a secret from your fans? or is it that you just don't care? I feel strongly that you should try and keep your public up to date. Family affairs is notorious for just having its characters disappear and reappear for seemingly no reason,we do get involved in the people and enjoy following their lives.\

I can understand why family affairs would have to come to an end, even though we are so far behind here in Australia, it is easy to see that the writers are running out of ideas for new plots,so many plots are being repeated and old episodes coming back.I have also noticed that as new characters are being introduced, a lot of them are really bad actors, like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and ending up with the drek regards Vince


Yes, I couldn't stop yawning, nor could my partner. Incredibly boring - 90 minutes seemed to stretch to at least 3 hours - and I'm not even a fan of action films, but this just falls asleep on its feet - unless you are a 70's polo neck sweater fan!

** SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW ** If you were expecting ANYTHING to happen, don't hold your breath - it doesn't!

But seriously, it totally fails to convince or involve the watcher. It's like a long, boring and rather disjointed dream. Frederic floats through it, able to leave work whenever he wants, and with attractive secretaries bringing tea and messages constantly. Obviously not real life! And an office with virtually no paper or files - just a giant calendar to let you know that the film really is taking 6 months to watch.

Frederick never seems to be touched by any real emotion, neither does his wife, and the children behave like rag dolls - in stark contrast to any real life. Even Chloe, despite her strong views, never gives the appearance of really feeling anything. The only 3 seconds of any real feeling occur between a couple overseen in a cafe, and have nothing to do with the plot.

Okay, so maybe there are some moral considerations, but if it's entertainment, or even good cinematography you are looking for, I think this film is incredibly over-rated by most other viewers.


Why this worthless piece of French cinema has garnered any sort of attention, other than negative, is beyond me.

Don't bother renting this one. It shouldn't have even come into this country.


1960's kid show with ex-vaudevillians playing handy men for hire. As you can expect they are a disaster at everything they do. Over the course of the 11 minute episodes (leaving 4 minutes for commercials in the 15 minute time slot), they do things like set up a fence between warring neighbors, help a magician on stage and deal with a found trunk and wallet.

Growing up I had never run across this show (which appears to have been shot in New York). I thought I had run heard of or seen a most of the children's shows from the period either through having watched them as a kid or viewed them at nostalgia conventions. Until Alpha Video released it on DVD I had been completely unaware if its existence.

The show plays like the Three Stooges mixed with Abbott and Costello as done by people aping the routines. (Indeed one of the pair claims to have created the legendary "Slowly I turned..." routine that Abbott and Costello perfected). Its not bad, but its really not good either since everything seems watered down. The timing is often off (Though that maybe due to bad direction) and the jokes were recycled years before the show first ran. Odds are you've seen it all before . On the plus side its the type of thing that would be perfect to introduce very young kids to the magic of vaudeville style comedy, however its going to be trying for parents to sit through even with the short episodes.

For nostalgia junkies only. Everyone else should look to seeing an Abbott and Costello or Three Stooges original.


From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.

Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!!


My only regret is that one cannot grade a movie on IMDb with a 0. "A Cena..." would definitely deserve that! At LEAST.

*SPOILER?* The movie starts with a bunch of people entering a crypt to awaken an ancient Vampire. When a guy cuts himself and his blood drips and falls onto the putrid and dried corpse that is supposed to be a bloodsucker, the metamorphosis takes place and the Vampire, in an ANIMATION-like effect (would you believe it!), quickly takes on a more human form,only to reveal that he's wearing a tux and a bow-tie! A BOW-TIE, yes. Red, if my memory serves me right! I tried to check out random scenes by skipping through a bit, but it did not get any better than the opening sequences. That's the point when I turned the movie off, cursing it for having made me hope to see a Vampire movie. This is surely not one,unless you're 5 and could take such stupidity seriously.

So, if you like Vampires and don't want to feel revolted or even disgusted,learn from my mistake and don't even try to see this garbage!


This started out as a good sketch comedy. The first few shows were very good and I was looking forward to a long run. What was really funny was the Mariah Carey imitation and the take off on Beverly Hills 90210 featuring the hair fight. The Delta Burke vs William Conrad heavy weight battle was also good. Unfortunately the following shows went downhill relatively quickly. The writing became uninspired and oh so predictable as if the show had acquired a cult following in it's young tenure. Nothing fresh was being offered and the recurring skits were boring. One example is the gun family (or whatever it was called) which became a weekly feature. This sketch was not all that funny to begin with let alone being a regular feature. An example of a quick promising start then a sudden fall.


This story of Ted Brice, an American pilot who is the sole survivor of the crash of an Allied reconnaissance plane in Belgium in January of 1944, is pretty much of a mess. The title would lead you to think that it is principally a story about the Belgian armed resistance groups, but that seems to be just a backdrop to prop up a silly love story between Ted and Claire, the woman who takes Ted in. Claire's husband Henri is a committed resistance member, but it is Claire who decides, in Henri's absence and against his wishes, to give Ted refuge.

Crucial plot details don't make sense. Central to the story is the retrieval of the recorder on the downed plane that contains navigation codes and the positions of targets. But in the opening scene we see Belgians looting the plane, resistance members among them. Why did they not retrieve the valued items at that time instead of waiting for the Nazis to come and guard the plane? And the whole affair of transferring Ted out of the area was conducted using secret instructions and code words when the transaction could have just been a simple exchange. The ponderous music attempts, but fails, to lend some weight to this tepid undertaking.

The most ludicrous part of the movie is how the love affair develops between Ted and Claire. At first Claire is devoted to nursing Ted back from near death and, when Ted starts to recover, they become physically involved (while Henri is conveniently away conducting resistance business). Julie Ormond does a passable job as Claire, but she effects a French accent that I frequently found impossible to understand. Her responses seemed a little weak at times - when informed of the hanging deaths of several town members she reacts as though she had just been told that the local grocery was out of peaches. As Ted, Bill Paxton seems just to be reciting his lines; his performance is so uninspired that it's embarrassing. A true American pilot might evidence such a flat personality, but it does not make for convincing cinema. I did not sense any chemistry between these supposed lovers.

The most idiotic thing is the way that Ted and Claire act like lovers on holiday. Maybe sexual release from such heavy situations is understandable, but to appear totally oblivious of the gravity of the situation is hard to fathom. At first Ted is consigned to an attic room and Claire worries about his even coming into the house. But as things develop he not only comes into the house, he dances with Claire to loud music, enters the adjoining barn to have a game of baseball with a local boy, and ultimately goes on a car trip with Claire to a nearby town.

The young boy seems to be most committed to his role, but he is undermined by the script. He has an uncanny ability to be at crucial events without being noticed. And when he delivers lines like:

"Have you ever seen someone get hanged. They look like the're dancing, but they can't find the floor."

you feel that it is the screenwriter talking and not a thirteen year old boy.

And oh, by the way, there are scenes to show that the Nazis are pretty bad guys.

Comparing this film to the brilliant "Ashes and Diamonds" about the Polish resistance, or the equally stellar "Lacombe, Lucien" about the French resistance, one realizes what a truly dismal affair it is.


I bought the DVD to get Julia Ormond. Well, I got that in spades. She was lovely in the romantic scenes; too bad Bill Paxton was flying on autopilot for the whole effort. I almost lost my lunch when he popped his big fat white behind out of his flight suit to shall we say 'engage' with Julia.

I realized Julia was very proficient in French while watching her in 'Sabrina'. I watched 'Sabrina' with the French soundtrack to see if Julia dubbed her own dialog. They used someone else. In any case, Julia was chosen for this Dutch film over a native French speaker with sufficient English to communicate with the American flier. Perhaps they wanted at least one familiar name for the British/American market. To my unfamiliar eye, Julia's features could pass for Belgian.

The whole film had an odd nature. It was a Dutch film about Belgium in World War 2. I would imagine that national pride would have required a theme of heroic Dutch resistance to the German invaders. The Belgians were much more passive during the occupation period than were the French or Norwegians. The most savage fighting of all came in the Balkans where Tito's communist partisans gave the Germans fits.

I noted in another review that 'dbdumonteil' believed Julia Ormond to be an American instead of the actual British nationality. Perhaps Julia's acting skills were great enough to carry off that impression.

After watching this film several times, it suddenly dawned on me how out of season, the film is. It is set on Junuary 16, 1944 when the American plane crashes in Belgian farm country. The trees look to be in mid-Fall with lots of leaves and the weather is warm. People walk about in light clothing and the grass is still green. There is not the smallest trace of snow or ice. This must have been the mildest winter in Belgium ever.

The actual plot of the film was a mess. Where to begin? For anyone interested in World War 2 history, the film came across as farce. The reconnaissance plane used was a huge 4-engine converted bomber. Such aircraft did exist, but they would have required massive fighter escort to have any chance of survival. In reality, smaller and swifter aircraft were readily available and would have been far more suitable for the task. The vital code books in the film would never have been carried on the plane. The crew had no need of this information to complete their mission, while compromise of this information would have been a huge intelligence defeat. Even given the premise of the film, the first items to be stripped from the aircraft would be the code books. They would have been on their way to Berlin within 10 minutes of the arrival of German troops at the crash site.

The Daussois home, where 'Major Brice' took refuge was a farm where no one had the least interest in farming. Food would have been very scarce in Belgium at this time. The Germans would have required substantial quantities of locally-produced food to support their forces. The family truck would have been expropriated long before the arrival of the American flier. There would not have been any fuel available to run it anyway.

The plot twist where Henri Daussois turns in the American out of jealousy is pathetic. He would have had to reveal all he knew about the resistance in order to be allowed to live. He would have had to function as a double agent to frustrate any effective opposition. The woman with the secret radio would have never survived the war.

'Major Brice' was caught in civilian clothing toward the end of the film. That made him a spy under the laws of war and liable for execution with no defense. He would not have meekly surrendered to face interrogation unhindered by the Geneva Convention. Better to force them to kill him and spare his friends if possible.

I have not read the novel upon which this film is based. If this film is a faithful adaption, it shows an abysmal lack of development in the novel. Regardless of the novel, the screenwriters could easily have produced a superior script that would not waste this opportunity to deliver a much better film.


Albert Pyun presents his vision of the lost city of Atlantis - and it's a vision so cluttered up with claustrophobic settings, weird costumes and noisy, "quirky" minor characters that one thing is for sure: you want to get the hell outta there as soon as possible (unfortunately, it will take you about 80 minutes). The "Alice in Wonderland"-like story is meandering and uninteresting, and there was probably no actress in the world who could have turned this into a good movie, though Kathy Ireland makes an appealing (annoying voice and all) attempt. (*1/2)


This movie is a bizarre fantasy tale, that I'm sure doesn't appeal to anyone over 10, but is too strange for children. The plot is stupid, and the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen.

25-year old Kathy Ireland plays a teenage girl who acts like a 9-year old. She seems to have gotten her character's voice by listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks. Her high pitched, screechy baby voice gets annoying the second she starts talking. All of the other acting is bad, but really Kathy Ireland is by far the worst. The plot is also terrible and is kind of a mix between Alice in Wonderland and Mad Max. Wanda Saknussemm (Ireland) gets a letter saying her father, who left her a long time ago, fell down a bottomless pit in Africa, and when she goes to find him, she falls into an underground world full of strange Australian accented people. It's one of the corniest movie you'll ever see, with terrible lines throughout.

It's annoying the effects this movie uses for character development. Kathy Ireland is a nerd who won't do anything or go anywhere. She flies to Africa....wow, what development! She drops her glasses and then doesn't need them. Why does dropping one's glasses represent them not becoming a nerd. It should represent her descent into blindness. It's just stupid. The only positive I can think is there are semi-good special effects and camera work, and the musical score sounds OK.

Overall this a ridiculous family fantasy that will only appeal to those who expect nothing from a movie.

My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 84 mins. PG for violence.


Even in her glasses wearing geek mode Kathy Ireland is very easy on the eyes but her acting is not easy to watch. Most of the actors in the film either take it way over the top (beyond "campy fun") or act slightly embarrassed at being there. The effects and soundtrack are nothing special and fairly low budget. The plot line REALLY stretches ones ability to suspend disbelief. Catch this one to laugh at if it comes on a premium movie channel or network Saturday afternoon TV, but DO NOT waist money on this thing.

One worthy mention for trivia purposes is that one of the underground mobsters is played by Deep Roy. Deep is now famous for playing (and doing it well) all the Oompa Loompas in Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."


The director of this waste of celluloid specialises in dreadful exploitation films where pretension is all; the previous year he did "Dangerously Close" whose good idea (about gangs getting too much power in school and the school paper editor against them) was submerged in a sea of sloppiness, and he would go on to do "Cyborg," Jean Claude Van Damme's worst film ever (no mean feat). This would-be comedy about a girl - Kathy Ireland in her film debut - who's a total schlump whose inner babe is only awakened after she falls to the centre of the Earth and has a set of badly filmed, impossible-to-follow adventures (chiefly involving a set of dwarves who want her because she has big bones - go figure!) before returning home changed for the better isn't funny, gripping or entertaining in the slightest. And anybody watching this to salivate over Miss Ireland will be put off too - not because of her voice, but because she spends most of the film buried under tons of baggy clothes, with huge glasses to boot. No wonder Cannon, the producers, are out of business. Amazingly, Kathy Ireland has made better films since then...or maybe that isn't so amazing. Next to this, "Barb Wire" is "Aliens."


This movie had a very convoluted plot and very contrived setting, that I, frankly, could not follow, which is surprising considering the acting and dialogue could have only been the product of a kindergartener's writing. If you like Kathy Ireland, then maybe you'd want to see this. The movie was probably made as a vehicle to try to get her into Hollywood, but if that was its goal I would have to say that I hope she didn't invest too much money in its production.


Back in the 1960's, those of us who were bad movie aficionados thought that "Plan Nine From Outer Space" was the worst movie ever made, and would remain so for all time. To put things in perspective, though, we also thought that $3,000 was a lot to pay for a new car.

As we grew older, our innocence was gradually stripped away as we were exposed to movies like "Hercules in New York" and "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank," which completely redefined the "bad movie" genre. In this context, last night, my son and I saw "Alien From L.A.," which pushed the envelope to an extreme unimaginable just a generation ago. To call this movie "bad" (or wretched or execrable) completely fails to do it justice, as does any other label existent in the English language. Even if there were words with which to accurately describe this movie, it would be of no consequence, since they would be banned in civilized society.

The Alien referred to in the title is played by Kathy Ireland, who apparently took some time off from modeling swimsuits for Sports Illustrated, to kick off her cinematic career. Her casting might seem some sort of recommendation, until you actually see the movie. The makeup artists earned their money by making Kathy look so drab and unappetizing you would not want to touch her with the far end of a broomstick -- no mean feat. To put it bluntly, in this movie she has a face that would freeze Medusa. Even worse than her look, though, was her voice, which was so raucous that I initially failed to credit it as originating with a human being. Throughout the movie, I found myself longing for a chalkboard to drag my nails across to cover the screechy twang of her dialog. At the end of the movie, Kathy finally gets a makeover and finds herself in her beloved swimsuit. I suggested to my son that the movie would have been better if they had put her in the swimsuit at the beginning of the movie, so at least we would have had something to watch. My son perceptively pointed out that if they had then removed the swimsuit and stuffed it into her mouth, it would have considerably improved the movie on two counts. I defer to the plain brilliance of his observation. If you have any doubts, compare this dreck to "Barbarella," in which a competent filmmaker shows how to exploit the assets of an ethereally beautiful leading lady in the fantasy genre.

Of the plot, itself, there is little on which to comment, since there was so little in evidence. It is said that if a million monkeys typed unceasingly for millions of years, eventually one would come up with "Hamlet." By the process of elimination, the rest of the time they would come up with something approximating this screenplay. Imagine, if you will, a modern-day Alice falling into a hole and dropping 500 feet onto a rock slab, following which she gets up, dusts herself off, and starts looking for her long-lost father in the city-kingdom of Atlantis. Once in Atlantis, she spends most of her time running, fighting, or climbing stairs and ladders, and basically trying to keep out of the hands of a general who seems to have no soldiers to do his bidding, and who would make Tiny Tim look macho. This summation, as abbreviated as it appears, is probably longer than the shooting script.

On the plus side, as you revel in the production values and take in whatever you can of the sets and costumes through the smoke and haze, you realize that this is one movie in which you can actually see on the screen where all $20 of the budget went.

The thought that kept going through my mind was that filmmakers ought not be given access to drugs and alcohol while they are shooting a movie, or perhaps prior, if it leads to results like "Alien from L.A.," though in fairness I have to acknowledge that I don't know whether they were actually involved in substance abuse, or were simply brain dead at the outset of the project.


The opening credits are pure poetry and I have watched it several times. It had a corny 20's adventure feel to it. Of course Kathy is gorgeous, but that voice! Did she realize this was a talkie. One word--voice coach. Great film for chronic insomnia (along with a bottle of scotch).


In 1990 I saw Kathy Ireland in person - I was at UNT in Denton during the filming of "Necessary Roughness." Strangely enough, the voice she's using in this film isn't too far off from her real speaking voice.

Anyway, the plot goes like this: Kathy gets a letter telling her that her father's fallen into a bottomless pit in Africa. She goes and investigates the site of her father's death, only to get sucked into a subterranean world that's part dystopian nightmare, part uninspiring fantasy, and inhabited by rejects from the Plasmatics. This movie really wastes the talent of Linda Kerridge, who, in my opinion, could have been someone had she gotten that one big role that was right for her. Anyway, the main hero of the story, Gus, is a very lame Mark "Jacko" Jackson rip-off. The original is annoying enough to begin with, but this guy really is torture to watch. Eventually the nebbish Wanda comes out of her shell and ends up wearing a bikini top and a sarong at the end. If you're going to have Kathy Ireland in a film in skimpy clothing, it'd better be a bikini. Anyway, the film was just all around bad and rightfully skewered by MST3K.

Avoid this one if possible.


Kathy Ireland: the body of a goddess, the face of an angel, the voice of a Smurf.

And the acting talent of a shovel full of calcite. If you don't believe me, check this out: "Alien from L.A." actually depends on her to act throughout 9/10 of the movie! Sure, she ends up in a nice red bikini top and a wrap-around skirt near the end, but that's too little (so to speak) too late.

Seems Ireland plays the daughter of a renowned scientist who falls down into the center of the earth to find him. Along the way, she falls for a guy named Charmin (yes, like the toilet paper - make your own jokes) and finds out how "Mad Max" rejects live. Did you know that people that live down deep in the earth have Austrailian accents? Neither did I.

It's bad (it was MST'd, after all) and also a Golan-Globus production but after all is said and done, Ireland just basically looks lost, like she's trying to find where the photographers are so she can do a photo shoot instead.

And I don't blame her.

One star. And if you insist on watching this, do so with the sound turned off - save your eardrums.


And the title says it all: a cheesy sounding title that is a cheesy sounding joke of a film known as "Alien from L.A." Why not just call it "Alien from South Africa," as this is the place where this movie was filmed? My advice for watching movies that have been featured on "Mystery Science Theater 3000:" do not watch the original version of the movie at all! Period! Always watch the movie with the theater shadow at the bottom of the screen, with a man trapped in space with his two funny, wise-cracking robot friends sitting at the lower right hand corner of the screen. It just seems better that way.

Movie as it was originally seen: Awful! Movie as it was seen on MST3K: Genius!


Boy, this movie is bad. And not in a good, cheesy, fun way, either. Even MST3K couldn't stop it from being boring, and it's also confusing as all get out. But the most annoying part of this dull mess is Ireland's hideous high pitched voice, which I was tired of listening to in the first five minutes. Not to mention how really unappealing her character is. Even her Dad ran away and abandoned her! I can see why, frankly. If he'd had to listen to her whine in her little mouse voice for more than a few minutes, he'd have been tempted to do her a great harm. As I was, by the end of the movie. Plus, she's useless and annoying. When she falls down the long hole in the earth a la Alice in Wonderland, she'd have been done for in the first ten minutes if that inexplicably Australian accented miner hadn't kept saving her from all of the various plights she kept falling into. He should have just tied her to the Atlantean version of train tracks and been done with it. And this Atlantis underground with the weird, confusing obsession with bone density,I have to ask-where was the light coming from down there? Did they have generators that imitate the sun? No matter. There's no real plot anyway, just a bunch of oddly costumed Goth wannabees running around trying to catch Kathy(probably so that they can stick a gag in her mouth). Stupid, pointless film. Thank you Golan Globus, for this cinematic abomination. May you burn in the seventh ring of Hell for all eternity.


I watched the MST3K version of the movie, and this review includes minor spoilers.

When I started watching this movie, it looked like it might have promise as a cheesy sci-fi flick, but the more I watched it, the more disappointing it got. The first reason is pretty idiosyncratic - I liked the mousy shy girl with glasses a lot more than the model Wanda became by the end of the movie. More deeply, it was the fact that the loss of glasses and change in clothing replaced any actual character growth. Instead of growing into a character that could take care of herself, Wanda was just as dependent on males to do everything for her as she was at the start of the movie. The acting could have been better (though I got tired of cracks about Ireland's voice - they were even in the movie itself! It's not that bad.) The background was okay, but it was a little hokey (aliens = humans with facepaint), and could have used more explanation.

Maybe it was just that I was interested in the movie itself, but Joel and the bots did little for me. The movie might have been better without them at all.

Overall (for the movie itself, not the MST3K), a 3 out of 10. It was an okay flick, for what it was.


...don't watch it. Here's a hint: tune in to the last 5 minutes and you'll catch her in a bikini. Otherwise you'll just have to sit through the flick and endure her helium-sucking voice view for screen time with the inexplicable Aussie accents of the lost city of Atlantis or wherever the heck she goes to to locate her missing father. We now know why Kathy pursued a non-speaking career of modelling: she couldn't have survived the death-threats from those poor headache-suffering victims who heard her voice for more than 30 seconds. The rest of the story is some kind of weird poorly-lit Mad Max mish-mash.


Every boy eventually learns the lesson that just because a girl is good-looking, it doesn't mean she's good. Well, lemme tell you, at age 19, lesson learned. It's hard to tell what's worse: Kathy Ireland's acting skills, or her ultra-high-pitched voice; the one that sounds like a screeching mouse on helium scratching its tiny little claws down a blackboard. With an incomprehensible plot set in outer space with dwarves that want Kathy Ireland's bones for some obscure reason, this movie is just wrong on so many levels. If there were ever a candidate for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 revival, this would be it.


Because they all just watch there MST3K with their artificial friends who make (mostly) not that funny and obvious comments about movies. And that's the only way these people watch them and then they comment and down-vote them on the IMDb based just on that, they don't even try to watch the film on it's own.

I watched this film on it's own, I didn't read the reviews first, I didn't have some people telling what to laugh at, I just got the DVD (bought for the flip side Morons From Outer Space, an old fave) and watched it.

Of cause I knew kind of what I was in for when it's a Golan Globus, Albert Pyun film, but usually they can be quite entertaining.

The film is a non too stressing on the brain Alice down the Rabbit-hole story done so many times, and kind of similar in basic structure (but completely different in content) to Warlords of Atlantis, another entertaining B-Movie.

The voice, was annoying, but then that's the idea, which they even poke at with a few lines in the movie.

The hero character had one of the worst over-the top voices/accents in English language film history, but you grow to accept it and enjoy it.

It's not a good film, but it's not a really bad film, it's just a bit of an average B-Movie DTV kind of film, nothing too new nothing too outstanding, and probably would be enjoyed more by a younger age bracket (say 7-14 year olds) than I. It's a bit of light-hearted Fantasy.

Will I see it again, probably not maybe about 10 years ago I would have.

Don't be so harsh on a movie because a couple of puppets told you too, this film isn't taking itself seriously and it's certainly no Troll 2 or Space Mutiny.


As a native Chinese, I can not accept this kind of idea that some people must die for a 'better world'. I said 'better world' because it is a lie that Chinese people have been indoctrinated for thousand years!

I guess most western audience may don't know Qin Shihuang(means the first emperor), the king in this film is the most notorious tyrant in ancient China. The Tianxia(Chinese word was spoken by the king, means 'the land and the people') spoken from his mouth is totally lie. From then on, one after another, all the king in ancient china spoke the same thing but very few of them did as what they said.

Another fact is, Qin Shihuang's empire only lasted about twenty years before it was destroyed by people.

Well, I do like the beautiful scenes of this movie, but it can not make me accept the idea that people should die for a tyrant.


The message of Hero is quite clear: the idea of Greater China is more important than the death and the suffering of millions. At a time when China is dangling its war toys over Taiwan, it is unacceptable for Western viewers to endorse this piece of over-produced, government-sponsored, dogmatic trash.

Particularly surprising is the promotion of this film by the liberal media. Roger Ebert of Chicago Tribune, David Edelstein of Slate, Charles Taylor of Salon, and many others have wholeheartedly endorsed Hero. In so doing, they have implicitly legitimated its reactionary political message. The only critic (that I know of) who saw through the film's glossy facade was J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, who wrote of the film's "sanctimonious traditionalism" and its "glorification of ruthless leadership and self-sacrifice on the altar of national greatness." I, for one, sign my name under Hoberman's final pronouncement: Hero is nothing more than "fascinating fascism."


Impressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"?

I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.

"Hero" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??

No, thanks.

But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!

Viva


It is impossible to avoid comparing Zhang Yimou's `Hero' to Ang Lee's `Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' They were both big-budget Chinese kung-fu films with breathtaking cinematography of Chinese landscape and a cast of super-stars. But aside from the obvious, there is in fact nothing else to compare. `Hero' fails to deliver on almost every level that really matters, proving that big-name stars, beautiful scenery, and action effects are no replacement for a director's artistry and vision.

All the marketing hype preceding the premier of `Hero' has done nothing more than make its failure a spectacular one. Much anticipated, `Hero' drew movie-goers in throngs when it first opened at theaters in mainland China and Hong Kong, making it an instant box-office success. However, though the script pleased government censors, Chinese audiences went to newfound heights of caustic criticism and sarcastic wit to express their disdain. On-line critics, both professional and amateur, proclaimed the film `ideologically disturbing,' `from the viewpoint of deep servitude,' written `either by an amateur historian, or someone with ulterior motives.' One article was simply titled, `Hero, you make me sick!'

The deepest failing of the film is in its plot, which is not only morally reprehensible, and based on unforgivable historic fallacy but - worst of all for a film - is boring! All blockbuster epic films are known to take some liberties with the facts of history, but `Hero' goes beyond artistic license into unforgivable ignorance when it attempts to glorify an emperor that was as brutal as Stalin or Hitler. `Hero' does not make up for this lack of moral compass by being entertaining or fun. Instead, it is makes a woefully poor attempt at being `deep' and merely manages to be pretentious and preachy.

Though historians agree that the First Emperor of China was ruthlessly violent, Mao Zedong was known to have admired this ruler - no surprise, given Mao's own tyrannical rule. Likewise, the Communist government in Beijing sees the allegory that can easily be drawn between the First Emperor and its own iron-fist methods, so they were particularly pleased with this latest work by Zhang Yimou. Tony Leung, one of the stars of `Hero' remarked during an interview to promote the film that the Beijing government had done the right thing in 1989 by crushing the student demonstrations, because it was needed to maintain `stability' in China. For these remarks, Tony Leung received shocked criticisms in his home city of Hong Kong, but he merely stated out loud the underlying message of the movie.

Director Zhang Yimou has stated that his goal was to surpass the values of loyalty and revenge that are traditional in kung-fu novels and movies, to reveal a higher wisdom. Unfortunately, his version of `wisdom' turns out to be: THE OPPRESSOR IS RIGHT. In China, where thousands of years of historical reality have rammed this message through, art was the last sanctuary where the individual could actually find freedom from such tyranny. The great popularity of the kung-fu novel can be explained by its ability to provide an escape into an alternate world: one where kung-fu warriors roamed the country seeking adventure and fighting for justice, free from fear and winning against all odds with their super-human skills. Only in the novel did the individual ever win over institutionalized power in China, and only in the novel did the oppressed find their champions. Going against this tradition of the kung-fu hero, Zhang Yimou has not gone upwards towards a higher truth, as he had hoped, but downwards, to the level of government propaganda. It's no wonder the government was so pleased.

Some film lovers may secretly wonder, `All moralistic judgments aside, is it at least entertaining?' Fortunately, the answer is a resounding `No!' Because the same tale is told over and over with only slight variations, it becomes tedious to watch. Moreover, the three conflicting versions of the same story serves only to confuse the character development, since it leaves precious little time for the viewer to feel any sympathy for any of them once the `real' version emerges.

The film is not without its beautiful images. However, all the scenes fall flat because they do not connect to or enhance the storyline. The use of different colors to distinguish the separate versions of the tale comes across as simplistic and contrived, and the cinematography appears self-consciously rather than truly beautiful. Great for a trailer, but a disappointment once you are there to watch the entire film.

For those in China who showed disdain for `Crouching Tiger's' unrealistic kung-fu, much was expected from `Hero.' Jet Li, who plays the title role, is a real kung-fu artist who held national titles before beginning his career as an actor. His previous movies have revealed limited acting abilities, but many hoped that Zhang Yimou could use Li's lithe body movements to full effect while casting him properly in a role that would not task his acting abilities. But it was not to be. `Hero' attempts to go beyond the kung-fu genre, so there are not many fighting scenes, and Jet Li is expected to perform a difficult piece of acting: an inner transformation leading to profound wisdom and self-sacrifice. As the casting director ought to have expected, Li fails miserably. Meanwhile, the only fighting scene that reveals any true kung-fu skill is the first one of the film, between Li and and Donnie Yen. All the scenes that follow are a disappointment, so `Hero' fails to satisfy, even on that level.

Though most audiences outside China are unlikely to be aware of the historical mangling of the story of the cruel First Emperor, it seems even more unlikely that they would accept Zhang's version of `Chinese wisdom,' which is anything but. Perhaps the only time an audience coming out of a screening of `Hero' was seen smiling - instead of yawning or frowning - was at the special screening for Chinese government officials.


Salesman Lenny Brown (Woods) is fast losing his knack of selling the proverbial ice cream to Eskimos. Given a chance to shine in California by a philanthropic entrepreneur, Brown and his wife Linda (Young) live the high life off tax shelter investments; a fortune they lose when the federal government changes the tax laws.

Seven hundred thousand dollars in the red, and in need of a 'boost', the yuppies without portfolio begin to hoover vast quantities of Colombian marching powder up their hooters, until they find themselves with rather hungry monkeys on their back. After briefly cleaning up, Linda's coke-induced miscarriage sees Lenny once more careering like a pinball between uppers and downers. Living purgatory follows.

A contemporary take on Reefer Madness, with perverse echoes of Albert Brooks' Lost In America, The Boost was overshadowed on release by tabloid revelations concerning an alleged affair between Woods and Young, and their tumultuous falling out. Woods, then engaged to horse trainer Sarah Owen (now his ex-wife), reputedly slapped a $2 million lawsuit on his spurned co-star for "emotional harassment" during filming, citing Fatal Attraction-style late-night phone calls to his fiancée and, in one noteworthy incident, reputedly leaving a mutilated baby doll on his and Owen's doorstep.

Ironically, the lack of chemistry between the supposedly loving leads is one of the more depressing aspects of this latter-day exploitation flick - the only real passion Woods demonstrates towards Young is when he's kicking her around the room. The script too is hilariously dreadful, perhaps mitigating Young's near-comatose performance when given howlers like "stay with me - 'til I fall off the Earth" to emote. Further, given Woods' edgy dramatic personae, his jittery descent loses all credibility when actually he looked that way to begin with.

Ultimately, The Boost must be seen in context: in the 21st Century cocaine use is ubiquitous. However, in 1988, with America still embroiled in an unwinnable "war on drugs", the very fibre of the nation looked to be in peril - hence one of the most hellish - and for that read hysterical - depictions of drug-abuse.


My gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.

On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good.


I saw this film in the theater when it first came out, I'm sorry to say, and it was one of only a few films I have ever wanted to walk out of early. I didn't have a problem with the drug content and I could see how this cautionary tale could have been powerful. The problem was, the film-maker, working with James Woods and Sean Young, drew two of the least lovable characters I have ever seen on film. I hated this pair and couldn't have cared less if they sunk straight to the inevitable bottom. Their was not one surprise in this film. Every turn of events was so painfully obvious that I felt I could have written the script myself; although I like to think I would have done a better job. I subsequently heard nightmarish stories about the incidents on the set between Sean Young and James Woods along the lines of some sort of stalking events. It made me wonder if the terrible acting arose out of some bad feelings and dysfunction. Anyway, I refer to The Boost as the worst film I've ever paid money to see.


This film is right up there with The Oscar and Moment by Moment as one of unintentionally funny films of all time.

It is worth the rental for a some wildly great laugh's.

The story is absolutely ludicrous.nothing in life would happen like this.it's so completely unbelievable. the way James Woods tries and hustle heavy hitters, than they give this supposed two-bit hustler a job 3000 miles away in LA what a joke

I love the old beat VW bug to signify how low they've gotten in life because of all the `tootski's'.

Sean Young is as unbelievably bad as the, "I'll love you forever, no matter what, wife" you'll ever see.if it wasn't so funny you would throw up at how sugary sweet Young tries to project herself.and as bad acting as you'll ever see.

James Wood overacts throughout the whole movie and he's so extremely funny and is way, way over the top, it's just not to be believed, Woods seems like a parody of a cocaine fiend off Saturday Night Live.but watching Woods on `ludes' is worth the price of the rental.<br /><br />I love it when Woods tells the guy who wants to give him some more `ludes' that he doesn't do that stuff anymore, right before that, Woods just did three giant lines of coke.

This is some very funny stuff.

The ending is so comical but right on par with the rest of the movie.


Its almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.

The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as "What do you do for a living?" in response "I kill zombies" and "I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier." The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.

Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.

Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic.


I haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the "Zombie" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the "Zombie" movie to an all new low.

Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the "Spec Ops" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.

The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly "high art", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from this one.


Granted, HOTD 2 is better than the Uwe Boll crapfest that was the first one, but thats like saying drowning is better than being chopped alive. OK OK, I'm being a little bit harsh with this one, its just that Video Game adaptations of Zombie movies always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Resident Evil was alright, but its sequels are pure rubbish. The first HOTD was entertaining crap more than anything else; Uwe Boll saw to that. And HOTD 2 was...better? The entertainment value was there, the hot chicks were there, the gore was there, but... this is it? The script, even though subpar, was better than the first one. But in the script dwells horribly written characters, stupid action sequences, clichés, and an ending that drags on and on reaching a level of ridiculousness which would make the Bollmeister very, very proud. But, it could've been worse right?

HOTD 2 stars Sig Haig (Yes, Sid Haig) as an insane doctor looking for a cure to death. As you may guess, it all goes to sh*t. A nearby College Campus seems to be the center for the Zombie (or Hypersapien?) epidemic, and as you may expect, a group of Commandos and two Zombie scientists try to save the world by going there and neutralizing the problem. Their main goal? No, it ain't blowing sh*t up. Instead, they have to get a sample of zombie blood, so they can create a cure to the deadly virus. Between this and that lays bland character interactions, an insufferable amount of clichés (but hey, at least the black guy isn't the first one to get killed), and decent looking Zombies.

The acting is passable. Who would've thought that Sticky Fingaz was a passable actor? Not me. Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn shine somewhat as the leads. And the supporting cast was passable too. It was all passable.

The make up effects on the Zombies were alright, it could've been worse like in the first HOTD: just guys running around in dusty mummy suits. The gore was alright too. Cheap scares and even cheaper tension are almost non-existent in this movie, which is a good thing. The action sequences were stupid as f*ck, but at least there wasn't any sword fighting zombies or that ridiculous slow motion bullet effect.

Overall, this movie will appeal only to Zombie enthusiasts, fans of the arcade games and for someone who wants to rent a cheap Horror movie for the weekend. Apparently there's going to be a third one as hinted by the ending, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless Uwe decides to do it. A 4.


I was on a mission to watch Uwe Boll movies to see if they were really as bad as all that. The first one I saw, BloodRayne, was not a complete loss. I liked it more than most people, and actually rated it a 4 out of 10. Next up was the first House of the Dead movie. Now THAT was horrifically bad. I could stand watching ten minutes of it, and fast-forwarding a bit, and that was it. I could see where it was going and I didn't need to see any more of it in order to rate it a just 1 out of 10.

But I had access to the sequel, too (which however is not by Uwe Boll, but, mysteriously, written by the same guys who so incompetently wrote the first one), and since it got a higher rating at IMDb than the original, I thought I'd give it a chance. And I actually managed to watch all of it. It started out with some funny references and cool lines (like how the president got his orders from the vice-president!), and acting-wise it is light-years better than the first. Here we have cool muchachas like the ultra-hot Emmanuelle Vaugier, whose coolness is in league with Carrie-Anne Moss, Claudia Black and Evangeline Lilly. Man, I hope some Matrix-style movie comes along for her sometime. And the always delectable, super-aerobicized Victoria Pratt. I love athletic women. And, there was also Nadine Velazquez (Catalina on "My Name Is Earl"), who performed quite well.

The story wasn't much, and the action wasn't great, either, and the ending was a disappointment, as they didn't succeed in their mission. Oh well, at least the two mains survived. Guess that's some small victory, too.

Good cast, but a pretty bad movie. The actors make it watchable, but there's no real substance there.

3 out of 10.


I saw the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.

Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.

Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.

I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.

Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.

The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.

Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless "livings" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.

Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.

That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.


When Uwe Boll, cinema con man extraordinaire, released the first House Of The Dead adaptation to completely deserved mockery, it was generally agreed among fans of the source video game that one would have to be incredibly moronic to contemplate making a sequel. Hollywood's per-capita ratio of morons must indeed be high, for not only do we have a sequel, it was distributed in the antipodes by Sony, a company not normally known for its taste in expensive write-offs. Released direct to television in America, the sequel does improve on the original in most respects, but in so doing, it becomes bland rather than interesting. The scale of the scenario is enlarged, with the action taking place in a deserted town that just happens to surround a university where experiments in a virus that can reanimate the dead have been occurring. In particular, the action is spread throughout the university, where the first infected denizens can be found. Put simply, the film differs from the original in that it actually occurs within a house where dead people can be found.

The cast, on the other hand, is a real step backward. Emmanuelle Vaugier was specifically made up to resemble a low-rent Angelina Jolie, while the rest of the cast never reaches the level of a slumming-it Jürgen Prochnow. In fact, the only name that will stand out among this cast is one Sticky Fingaz, who probably did not want to be recognised that easily by the people he faces at home. Put simply, these people could not convincingly order pizza on the big screen, even under the best direction. Say what you will about Boll, but he at least inspired actors like Ona Grauer to fight against his ineptitude. That said, the people involved here at least seem to be aware that their film sucks and that they might as well have some fun with it. Much of the problem with the original was that the director thought he was crafting some kind of misunderstood masterpiece, and he took himself seriously. Unfortunately, with the actors failing to take their characters or the predicament seriously, what little dramatic tension there could have been is undermined.

Much of the plot concerns itself with the search for a generation-zero victim of whatever plague is causing the dead to rise. Or to translate into more practical terms, they are trying to find someone who was infected just after the virus mutated into a form that was threatening to humans. How this would help when a non-mutated strain is usually required to create a vaccine is anyone's guess, but the manner in which this quest is paced out suffers problems of its own. The we-have-to-go-back plot device is used in order to pad out the running time, but the actual timing of the extra quest is also problematic. We are told at one point that the town will be obliterated by Cruise missiles in ten minutes, yet the heroes drive back into the university, locate the sample they are looking for, and fight off enough zombies to eat the army of China, all in this space of time. Filmmakers take note: it only pays to be specific with time when it can serve rather than hinder dramatic tension.

The special effects used in House Of The Dead 2 leave those of the original in the dust. Where Uwe Boll simulated the deaths of the characters using idiotic rotating camera tricks, Michael Hurst instead uses all the graphic details his budget can allow. Necks are bitten, arms are cut off, heads are shot. It all makes for a much more convincing throughput, but it also disallows the mockery of obvious fakery. The photography is also much improved. As DVD Crypt put it, the fact that it is in focus throughout makes it an improvement upon the original, but this also deprives us of something to have a laugh at the expense of. The writing is also both an improvement and a setback. Throughout the script, references to other horror and survival horror games, the most obvious being Run Like Hell, are offered. The first couple of times, they work because they offer clever ways to work titles into ordinary, everyday dialogue. After the eighth time, however, they just get on the nerves because they remind gamers of things they would prefer to do with their time.

Interestingly, House Of The Dead 2 cost a mere six million to bring to television screens across America. Given that Tom Savini on his own would cost more than this to work on a film nowadays, I have to say I am somewhat impressed with the visual results. In contrast to the much-reviled original, the zombies here look like actual zombies rather than extras in bad makeup shot poorly. In a further contrast to the original, the actors appear to have a clue what they are doing. Sealing the deal is the fact that apart from some real zingers scattered throughout, the characters speak like real people. However, the story is nothing that we have not seen a thousand times already. When Aliens, the real Dawn Of The Dead, or The Evil Dead were released to acclaim, the acclaim came from the fact that these films either did something we had not seen before, or did it so well that we did not really care. House Of The Dead 2 is competent enough that we do not mock it, but it brings nothing new or particularly brilliant to the table, so we end up not caring either.

For that reason, and many others, I gave House Of The Dead 2 a two out of ten. It is too good to be bad, but too bad to be any good. Unless you are into sucky films as much as I am, you are best to steer clear of it.


I'm sorry, but they did leave the impression that these commandos fought zombies before. But they sure didn't act like they even seen a zombie before. Jumping and turning their backs on them like amateurs. Second, the characters are pretty badly written. The actors did the best they could with what was given, I blame bad writing and bad directing. Lastly and here is where the spoiler warnings are highest. They loose the sample twice and the girl Jennifer Holland doesn't know if she's been bit or not. How stupid is that? As much as it hurts to be bitten, one would think you would know, plus gallons of blood leaking from your body is a good clue. Dumb, the first movie had it's flaws but it has re-watchablity, unlike this disaster of a movie, which I could barely get through once. I give the HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: NO GUTS, ALL STUPIDITY THE CRAP-O-LANTERN


This is one of the most awful movies I've had the misfortune of picking up. Don't get me wrong, I love a good zombie flick, but this wasn't one of them.

...Might as well (from the opening scenes, at least) been called 'Titty Zombies from Outer Space'. It had absolutely nothing to do with the other movie or the video game (as far as I could tell.)

The best aspect of the film is how the two main characters can get covered with so much blood and remain so nonplussed. I would certainly suggest giving this one and miss and staying with a safer zombie pleaser like '28 Days Later' or 'Dawn of the Living Dead' (the remake, of course, unless you're into some serious campy action.)


"House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" (2005) is the sequel, though you really don't need to see the first "House of the Dead" to get this film. That said, the production value is definitely here, with great zombie effects and it's edited quite nicely, with very effective sound design. However, that said, that's about all that's good here.

The story and script are awful . . . there's blatant plot holes everywhere. It's also funny how the soldiers don't mind if they get blood on their faces (unlike in 28 Days Later where blood in any part of the body will infect you). Also realistic how there's little order with the soldiers here unlike the usual US Military discipline.

A 4 out of 10.


How bad can you make a film. A good question which House of the Dead 2 succeeds in answering. I could not believe it was possible to get something worse than the first House of the Dead but amazingly the director has succeeded. The only feeling you get from the film is that its bad, just bad. What with overacting, bad FX and a stupid story. Its this kind of movie which gives a bad name to Z-Movies in general. Why could they not learn the lesson from the first House of the Dead movie? Anyway I guess you will have understood by now that you should not see this film. It is but a waste of time. Watch "Bad Taste" or "Dawn of the Dead" if you want to see some good zombies.


I can't get over how lazy the director is with this movie. Instead of setting up scenes in a creative way he relies on boring old zombie clichés.

Where the two unarmed leads have to get down the college steps into the van he surrounds them with zombies yet neither of the leads is bitten. He can't be bothered to direct a decent fight scene so we see the leads shove their way down the steps.

Sometimes the zombies limp about and at others they run like the wind. This is really convenient for the director because he can set up anything he likes without bothering with continuity in the behaviour of the zombies.

With careful planning and a lot more inspiration this movie could have been so much better.


Terrible, boring zombie sequel is only marginally better than Uwe's horrible first film. It consists of a group of soldiers going into a zombie plagued college campus to find a certain type of blood which could assist in finding a cure for the infection. These soldiers are your typical lambs to the slaughter and none of them are that drawn out(or at least aren't very interesting)so you don't feel a sadness at the pit of your stomach when they are disposed of. The film has the typical zombies biting humans and blood splatter. It even has the same munching on guts. It just doesn't do anything for the zombie genre to give it memory. And, the story's climax is rather anti-climactic and ridiculous. One wonders how two people can submerged in an army of zombies and not get bit(for they are the main stars who seem to always manage escapability)while others seem to get bit rather easily. The film sole motivation is to show people getting bit..nothing else. Just go watch a Romero film for lasting effect.


So lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of "them". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.

This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The "F" word holds together an unimaginative script.


If you haven't seen the first one you have to at least know someone who has and you have to know it was painful to sit through. There just wasn't anything good to say about it at all. So what's different with the second one? Why bother making a sequel for a movie that was wretched? This one doesn't take itself too seriously. It knows it was made for TV and doesn't try to impress with great or serious dialogue. There are moments where it tries to get 'serious' or 'intense' but these moments are so corny you have to laugh.

Thankfully gone are any elements of Uwe Boll and any hint that this originated from a video game (other than the title of course). Don't go into this movie expecting anything worth mentioning to your friends unless they're into camp, lame zombie movies, or are interested in making a drinking game out of this movie. Take two shots whenever Ed Quinn's character mentions his dead brother! Take one shot whenever a bullet would have been better place in the head of a zombie instead of pumping three in the chest! etc etc.


I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.

This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.

Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film


When one of the stars of a movie is named Sticky Fingaz, you should know enough to stay away. Stay away. HOUSE 2 is just more of the same, this time with zombies overrunning a college campus (man, how that must have saved on money). As usual, the "zombies" are given no direction so speak of, and provided very little makeup or costuming. They look like the zombies in one of those endless Italian zombie cheapies from years ago. Which is to say, they don't look like the kind of zombies we know and love from George Romero and Dan O'Bannon zombie flicks. The folks battling the zombies are all nonactors who get to shoot guns and do little else. Some who have written here feel the sequel is slightly more focused than the original. All I have to say is I'm glad the sequel's director did away with the 360-degree pan shots that helped to ruin the first movie. HOUSE 2 is still just more of the same, which means a lot of nothing happens for 80 or 90 minutes. There is one set piece, involving soldiers tussling with a zombie football team, that might at least have been funny. It's not.


I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.


Isn't it strange how crap-movies always tend to be a little better when you start watching them with an attitude like: "boy, this is going to suck harder than few things have ever sucked before"? It's pretty much impossible for anyone to rent this movie with high  or even remotely positive - expectations, as "House of the Dead 2" is a sequel to something that is generally considered to be one of the absolute worst genre disasters ever to be released. The abysmal reputation of the original actually turned out to be a great advantage for director Michael Hurst, as it was really easy to surpass the quality level of its predecessor. And exactly how embarrassing must this be for Uwe Boll, huh? Having to acknowledge that a straight-to-video sequel without star power or promotional campaigns is MUCH better than his own pretentious video game interpretation? In case anyone still doubts: NO, "House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" isn't a good horror movie at all but, YES: it's definitely better than the first and even worth renting in case you're looking for an undemanding splatter film with loads of gory butchering, sleaze and stupid humor. There's no real connection with the events in the first film (another advantage) and this part two opens like a typically rancid sex comedy set in a college campus. The male fraternity club plans to attack a sorority house, inhabited exclusively by blond coeds with enormous breasts, but the party gets interrupted when an insane professor (Sid Haig!) who runs his car over a girl and takes her back to his lab to turn her into a zombie. This is the beginning of a quickly spreading and deadly epidemic but, no worries, as the government is prepared and sends their best scientists & soldiers to the campus to search for survivors and to bring back blood samples for an antidote. Hunting down zombies seems like the most common thing in the world for this squadron, they even named them Hyper Sapiens, but their constantly increasing amount eventually endangers the lives of the most hardened soldiers. Director Hurst thankfully found his inspiration in the more eminent classics of the genre, like James Cameron's "Aliens" and  of course - George A. Romero's dead-trilogy, particularly "Day of the Dead". He luckily also didn't made the same mistakes as Uwe Boll, who inserted footage of the actual video game in his movie (why?!?) and *slightly* exaggerated with the use of CGI-techniques. HotD 2 contains heavy images of violence, like chopped up female corpses and detailed amputations, but it never really becomes nauseating or shocking. Naturally, there's isn't the slightest bit of suspense to enjoy and every dreadful horror cliché features here as well. The film is very enjoyable as long as story writer Mark Altman doesn't try to explain the origins of the zombie epidemics. They're walking corpses with their brains hanging out of their skulls, so we really don't need to know what caused their deaths. Especially not when the explanations are given by a blond sorority slut who clearly hasn't got a clue what all the medical terms mean. Just avoid getting bitten, sweetheart.


I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original "day of the living dead". 6. Acting not as good as the "Bold and the beautiful". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.

Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish.


oh man, where to even begin.....

dropping your gun to get in hand to hand combat w/ a zombie, while holding a bitten soldier down debating to shoot him b4 he turns, then he turns and bites the person holding him down, turning your back on a "fallen" zombie, continuously shooting the chest and seeing it doesn't work, so they shoot the chest some more, having the idea that a kid slumped at a desk w/ blood coming out of his mouth is still alright, walking along a football field like nothing is wrong then all the sudden noticing the zombie football team doing whatever in the middle of the field like they couldn't have been seen up to that point....

i could go one for a few more hours, but you get the point.....childish writing and dialog, bad directing, horrid special effects, truly sad and undeveloped storyline (zombie infested campus, must get the viral host then lose it....twice), the only plus i can find is that this one doesn't include clips of the actual game during the "action scenes"....

id say don't waste your money, but id be more upset about the waste of time, i saw it on cable and wanted the 2 hours of my life back


OK this movie was by far worse then the first one and the first one sucked! The zombie make up was extremely fake! The acting is very poor! And it doesn't really follow the first one! While watching this I kept thinking wow the first one is a masterpiece compared to this. I would say catch it on TV, Don't spend your money on it! Its not the worst movie i've ever seen but its on the list. I started watching it last night and fell asleep so i watched it today and almost fell asleep again! The plot was pointless, I mean i get the fact that a small military group are sent on a mission to get the blood of the lead zombie and bring it back so they can use it to save lives and stop zombies but they made it where you wanted everyone to die. They made plenty of bad guys who really were just annoying. If you ask me this was a rip off of resident evil and not a good rip off either. The plot could have made it if the acting was good and if they actually made you feel scared to see whats behind the corner. With these zombies my grandma could have went in that building and survived! out of a 1-10 i give it a 2.


OK I have to admit that I quite enjoyed House of the Dead despite its well documented failings. This however was the worst film I have seen since Demons at the Door. Compared to DATD the effects are vastly superior. However the plot is weak, the acting reminiscent of everyone's favourite, the porn film, and the decisions and actions of the "characters" consistently verge on the moronic. I feel like trying out Uwe Boll's latest cinematic outings just to get some sense of perspective over HOTD2. I am not suggesting that he is really the cure, more a case of a different disease, but when your senses have been insulted in such an abhorrent manner the only way is up. OK there it is. I have managed the ten line minimum and shall waste no more of our time on the waste of celluloid that is House of the dead 2.