The problem with this movie is that it is trying to compile a 6+ hours movie into 2 hours. The result is clear. It seems too forced, unclear and too simple minded.

The only plus side is the beginning. It explains well why and how Hercules was born. The rest of the movie was...just mumbo jumbo that is put together. It has a potential to be a great movie like LOTR if only it is not forced into 2 hours.

The acting is not very convincing either. OK not all is bad. But most of them are. Special effects are stupid and look like it is made ten years earlier (although the 1st monster is pretty good) Overall, I give it 4 out of ten for the reasons I described above.


I really thought this would be a good movie, boy...was I mistaken! For a quick summery: B grade acting C grade special effects D grade for the overall movie. Don't get me wrong, the story was pretty good and not kiddish so an adult too ride along with it, the "hero" is good looking so most women will like it :-), not a total chick flick as it contains some fight scenes and some blood

but the way it is shot... horrible

the special effects->would be better suited for TV->on a kids show

and lastly...send some of the actors back to acting school if they ever attended a class there.

Trust me there are much better ways to waste 2 hours.

You have been warned.


OK, so Herc is a hunk... but the rest of the 3 hours were wasted, wasted... oh the humanity!

Poor Sean Astin had to follow his master up the very same hills of New Zealand that ... wait! Couldd it be? Someone in the production crew of Lord of the Rings was making home movies in his spare time! Yes that's it!

I wish I could at least say he was promising.

The Special effects were often laughable.

But, Herc was a hunk.

NH


Hercules: The TV- Movie Hercules - A very twisted and molted version of the story about the Greek superhero. Paul Telfer makes a good attempt to play this hero. Sean Astin rehashes his Sam Gamgee image by playing Lupin, a thrown in character to make the whole thing a buddy-movie picture. I almost expected his to say at one point "We're in a bad situation Mr. Frodo, uh I mean Hercules. An unexpected good performance comes from Timothy Dalton (one of the lesser James Bonds) as Hercules's father. Herucles's love interest looks like Paris Hilton, something which just turned me off right away. Unfourtunetly someone has twisted and molted the original story into somewhat of a murky and sometimes incomprehensible story. The special effects don't help either. While the Hydra scene does the original story justice, the Nemean Lion and Harpies are just....well lame. I believe the creatures and effects from Power Rangers flashed across my mind at least twice. And the Golden Hind felt rushed and very computer generated. And they took out Cerberus! One of my favorite parts of what was originally a very cool story. The movie can't decide whether it's Greek, Roman, or American. And it almost ruined the original story; a classic epic. Don't bother looking for this one on the direct to DVD. - C


Just saw it....the story, the plot, the script makes absolute no sense!! Its Samvise the brave part 2(without the RING), its characters showing up out of the blue(for no reason),its Hercules hated by everyone(no one knows why), its Leelee Sobiesky showing her true talents(two of them), its crappy special effects, its a few good actors wasting their talents(did I mention Leelee's two talents??)... do I have to say more??? ITS JUST AWFUL, even for NBC-TV standards!!! Its just the lowest....what a waste! by the way: how can you people give this mini-series so many stars????? Its beyond me!.... Shame on you! Have to make 10 lines, so this is my final word: AVOID, AVOID, if u are considering buying it!


In Chicago, four electricians leaded by Dean (Richard Grieco) come to an old building to disconnect power. They accidentally activate a portal and arrive in another dimension, where Chicago was destroyed by a Spider Queen and inhabited by mutants. The group meets survivors leaded by Crane (David Nerman) and Elena (Kate Greenhouse), and finds the inventor of the portal, Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox), who has been living in this dimension for thirty years. They join forces, trying to rebuilt a portal to bring them back home. "Webs" is a watchable plagiarizing of "Sliders", only worse. Most of the dialogs seem to be written by a person who has not concluded the elementary school, so imbecile they are. Further, the story is illogical, and seems that Chicago is the only city in the world. The scientist trying to start his sophisticated machine with broken wires as if he were stealing a car is very funny. The face of Richard Grieco looks like a white version of Michael Jackson and is horrible. If the viewer shuts-down his or her brain, he or she may like this forgettable TV movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Na Teia do Terror" ("In the Web of Horror")


A Sci-Fi Network original. Not the best. Not far from being the worst. An electrician(Richard Grieco) stumbles onto a "key" that can open a gateway to a parallel Earth that has been taken over by mutant spiders. The mutations have been controlled by a super-sized alien Queen for the past thirty years. She has already eaten up the population of this parallel world that resembles Chicago minus inhabitants. Guess what? Now she must find another world to feed on. The electrician leads a four man team that reluctantly finds themselves with the task of saving the world. The finale confrontation is probably the best part of the whole movie. The cast also features: Richard Yearwood, Colin Fox, Kate Greenhouse, Jason Jones and David Newman. One would have thought that the Sci-Fi Network could have spent more money on special effects.


I had seen this movie just days before Halloween 2004. I noticed it around lunch-time and it was an interesting description in my menu box so I decided to watch it. Seriously only a movie only suitable for late night TV...you know, after Conan but before the infomercials sorta deal.

Although this movie has very little to do with webs, it does have a lot to do with spiders, refer to my heading if you need a refresher.

I found the idea behind the story absolutely fascinating. A hidden nuclear generator, a scientist and a believable portal...Would have been a good start to a cool fantasy but then it goes downhill after 15-20 minutes.

The cast is poor with no memorable performances, poor quality queen who has had her breasts amplified...considering spiders don't carry breasts. As well as poor sound effects. An obvious low budget movie though the cast has tried.

SPOILER:

4 electricians stumble upon a hidden nuclear generator while on a job. They fiddle with the buttons and open a portal. 2 workers fall into the portal and it closes...scrambling to figure out what is going on, the party still in our world seeks help while the other party observers their surroundings.

Help does not arrive so they open the portal and follow through meeting up in a parallel dimension. They encounter a race of human spiders dubbed soldiers. After a death and chase they are saved by survivors.

Now it gets boring...they hide, talk a bit, try to build another portal then attack the hive. After losing 2 more electricians they open the portal and escape returning to our world...some 200 million years ago.

Sounds interesting huh?


There is so much wrong with this movie. Greico with a girls wig, old man scientist time machine fixer, tough guy Jones who stays behind with a shotgun that has three rounds, Spider people with tentacle hands and bad teeth, etc. The make up was so bad and they only had a few visible spider people on screen at one time (Aliens Cameron technique could have been used) instead they chose to dress every spider person the same way...badly. The nice thing about Greico's acting is that he bobs his had at every syllable as if he is counting how many words he gets to speak in the script. It amazes me that with all of the information out there on DVD commentaries, people like this still exist who make movies. This movie could have been worse, how I don't know. Oh and one last thing. I am going on a SCI-FI movie hunt down. The people running that channel should not be allowed to procreate to further continue the nepotism that exist in Film and Television.


OK we have 4 city electricians who find a mini nuke reactor, turn it in and fall into a parallel universe inhabited by a Giant spider queen also from a parallel universe, who managed to slip through with a few of her kin to take over the earth, but alas she is the only one left? If so why did not the rest of humanity join up and hunt her down. Also what happened to the military, no way a few billion plus round of ammo could have been used up and why hide out in a basement when a lot more defensible places had to available. Also not a dig on city workers, but how is it they knew what a mini nuke reactor looked like and how if they did not have one in the parallel universe, could they reopen the rift? Sorry but there was nothing likable about the movie


Someone said that WEBS is a lot like an episode of SLIDERS, and I have to agree. Spoilers: I never liked the actors on Sliders, and rarely have seen it except when nothing better was on. WEBS is the kind of movie to see if you have no other choices. Read a book. WEBS has those kind of TV has-been actors that look like they are there as part of their PROBATION or Work Release Program. Some low budget TV movies have actors that at least look enthusiastic. The actors in WEBS look like they were getting paid minimum wage and were working on a Time-Clock. They have that desperate, "The-Paycheck-Better-Not-Bounce" look. The Queen Spider looks great, except it is rarely seen, and there are no other spiders (and no webs). The Queen Spider bites people, and they become Spider Zombies, which means that they try to keep their eyes WIDE OPEN when they are attacking the humans. The humans are all fighting among themselves over a number of different reasons, and they are not sympathetic. After meeting all the "humans" I would have recommended charm school for the characters. All that WEBS made me feel was APATHY. I was numb to the characters, and hoped for some interesting gore and special effects. The gore was minimal, and the special effects were reserved for the ugly spider queen, who looked good. If WEBS had a bunch of Spider Creatures eating humans, it would have been more entertaining. Apparently they could only budget "spider-zombies." WEBS is a sad entry into the field of SPIDER oriented movies. It may qualify as the worst Spider movie ever, because Eight-Legged Freaks had great special effects.


Webs starts in 'Chicago: Present Day' as four electricians, Dean (Richard Grieco), Ray (Richard Yearwood), Sheldon (Jeffrey Douglas) & Junior (Jason Jones) are about to disconnect the electric to an unused building scheduled for demolition. As they search for the relevant cables & stuff they come across a set of doors that according to the buildings blue-prints shouldn't be there, being nosey & all that they force the doors open to have a look & find a room full of computers & scientific machinery. As they mess around with some buttons a portal to a parallel universe opens, Dean & Junior accidentally 'fall' in with Ray & Sheldon following soon after in search of their friends. Unfortunately they've all ended up in an exact parallel Earth that has been taken over by a mutant spider thing that either eats people or turns them into mutant soldiers with which she uses to protect herself & do whatever she wants them to really. In a desperate bid for survival they team up with a few of the last remaining humans including the original inventor of the portal Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox) who says that with the help of our electrician boys he might (yeah might) be able to build another portal to take them back home...

Edited & directed by David Wu I thought Webs was pretty crap, it's as simple & straight forward as that really. The script by Grenville Case & Robinson Young is preposterous to say the least & has plot holes in it you could drive a tank through, for instance is this film really trying to suggest that a few mutant spider things no bigger than a couple of people in size took over an entire world? How did they do this? If this parallel Earth was the same as ours where the hell was the army? The police? All of our weapons? A few fragile looking spider things against literally billions of humans?! The whole flawed, stupid & downright naff concept constantly bugged me throughout the entire film. Lets not forget that there is a inter-dimensional portal to a parallel Earth in the basement of most buildings that have sat there undisturbed for decades & remain in perfect working order, right? Then there's the nuclear reactor the size of a briefcase, the fact one electrician can make it work perfectly purely by accident as he randomly presses a few buttons in a room that probably had 100's spread over dozens of pieces of equipment & what about the wonderfully thoughtful guy who sets an explosive bobby trap in his base without telling anyone, what if one of his mates had set it off & found themselves blown to pieces by their mates homemade bomb? You wouldn't be best pleased would you? What about food? Do they grow their own in little vegetable patches? I could go on & on all day long about how flawed, ill conceived & poorly written Webs is but I can't be bothered. The character's are clichéd & annoying as is the film as a whole which obviously doesn't help. The only half decent thing I can say about Webs is that it's short & it moves along at a fair pace but when all said & done it's still crap.

Director Wu has to take a large chunck of the blame here, for a start the film looks cheap & the editing that he is credited with is terrible. There's lots of annoying inappropriate slow motion shots that come from nowhere, the action scenes are almost identical & become incredibly boring very quickly. He uses that highly annoying quick cut technique along with a bit of the old jerky camera movement, now I don't know about anyone else but I hate this editing style as it just looks a complete incoherent mess. In fact I don't know a single person who does like this sort of thing & I'm puzzled as to why filmmakers think people do. Forget about any gore, just a few shotgun wounds to the spider zombie soldier guys & they don't have red blood anyway so it doesn't relate to reality in my mind.

Webs was made-for-TV, the American Sci-Fi Channel I think & it looks every bit as cheap, low budget & rushed as you would expect. It's all so bland, forgettable, flat & dull. The special effects are far from special & the spider thing lacks imagination when finally revealed. The acting was OK considering everything else was so poor & I still can't believe the sweater Grieco was wearing in this.

Webs is crap, I can't really say anything good about it other than I've sat through worse films & that's the sole reason I'm not giving it 1 star & a quick glance at the IMDb user ratings for Webs confirms what I already knew in that it has more '1' votes than any other & there is very good reason why...


WEBS is a pretty odd movie, albeit slightly watchable. Richard Grieco plays an electrician who gets suck into a parallel Earth overrun by mutant spiders, or something like that. The film itself was made with a modest budget, which explains the limited locales, and the somewhat tedious screenplay that manages to do very little with quite an interesting premise. Basically a 90 minute episode of the TV show "Sliders", and nothing more.

4 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review and reviews of other films in the genre)


There can be no worse criticism for a movie than the word BORING.

Some "bad" movies are lots of fun, some "fun" movies are really bad, but to be BORING means no-one will ever buy the DVD to watch it over and over again.

It appeared to be a movie that employed the drama class from the Antartic, they were all too busy running around to stay warm instead of acting. The lead actor, spoke is a near whisper, husky style voice, damn, it seemed that he was gonna seduce someone, and he didn't care who.

The movie can't make money if it's boring, I hope this one dies a swift, never to be seen again, death.


Friz Freleng's 'Snafuperman' is one of the lesser Private Snafu shorts. A warning of the importance of studying your field manual, 'Snafuperman' makes it point rather clumsily. The story, in which Technical Fairy, First Class makes Snafu into a superhuman in order to help him see the error of his ways, is predictable and unfunny. Freleng's earlier Snafu short 'Rumours' had been bursting with ideas and laughs but here the director is lumbered with a rather boring topic and he struggles to make an entertaining short from it. Even at around three minutes long, 'Snafuperman' seems to drag and, unlike the best cartoons in the series, it feels like an instructional film first and entertainment second. Though they were knocked out more quickly than the usual Warner cartoons, the Snafu shorts largely maintained a surprisingly high standard. 'Snafuperman' is a reflection of the sort of quality you'd more reasonably expect from a less talent bunch of creative minds.


This good-guy-vs-the-evil-tyrant story, set in 19th century Russia, may have been an attempt to extend Steve Reeves' career beyond those "Hercules" movies. However, despite the different costumes, it's still a "Hercules" movie with the usual stilted dialog, haphazard dubbing, and cardboard characters. On the other hand, there's lots of action, the pace rarely flags, and Reeves gets to do yet another one of those scenes where he's stripped to the waist, bound with ropes, and given a vigorous whipping which, needless to say, has little effect on his defiant character.


The White Warrior is definitely one of,if not Steve Reeves weakest films. Set in 18th or 19th century Russia (??) Steve plays a cossack warrior who tries to over run a mad man Russian czar by running up a mountain side with his rebel band in a goofy looking Russian white tunic..... For the most part the great Reeves physique is hidden in a goofy, knee length tunic, with an even more sillier looking russian hat.

The action is rather minimal, with only a good wrestling scene from the mid waist up that shows off the great Reeves physique. This is an apparent attempt by the producers to move Reeves out of the sword and sandal genre into another historic era, with poor results. The dialogue from the script is hard to understand at various points, and only commentary from the narrator allows the viewer to understand what is really happening from scene to scene. I would image Reeves regretted making this film, but in an attempt to try and get out of his toga and sandals and tribune armor it helped launch him to other historic characters such as Morgan the Pirate and the Thief of Baghdad.


Reeves plays Haji Murad, a hero in 1850's Russia.

This is a badly dubbed movie, with June Foray doing some of the voices. Unfortunately who ever was suppose to sync the voices to the lips was blind since the words never match the lip flaps. Anyone who says that Japanese films are bad have never watched this film.

The film's plot is instantly forgettable and so I've forgotten it in the time its taken the movie to end and for me to sit and write this down. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the film is one of the many that Reeves made in hopes of moving away from action to more plot driven sort of films. It may have been a good thing for Reeves, but its deadly for the audience who have to slug through nooze fests such as this, where its all court intrigue with very little action.

In Reeves defense, he was a good actor, he just had no real luck in picking films that were any good. They all looked great, but very few of them didn't put the those watching them into a coma for the film's running time.

This film will put you in a coma. Watch it only if you have the need for sleep and all other gentler means have failed.


this movie is quite bad, aggressive, not played well, not directed well, seems low budget, low quality,emotionaly weak and disconnected. after watching earlier comments, went to see it, but if u try to compare it with apocalypse now, PLATOON, or any others, u'r really off the tracks. this movie looks like a 60's old and purely made film with cast of grown neanderthals, not to mention (or actually do), not paying attention to details like changing rounds, low budget fireworks and all sorts of poorly filmed characteristic. is watchable though, if u'd like to see it as an early development of the movies document.. not to go back!!

p.s - afterall, the guys are quite alright.


This has some of the stupidest fight scenes of all time. If I was a veteran of any war I would cry when I see this movie, not because I would remember being in Vietnam, but because it is a poor representation of any veteran of that war. Even though the troops are carrying M16s, that movie resembles nothing like Vietnam. The Viet Cong even uniforms look like old leftover Japanese uniforms from a WWII movie. The setting is obviously some crappy Hollywood back lot. The worst scene contains a US soldier fighting "hand to hand" like in a bad martial arts movie. After he dispatches several enemy troops he says, "hey come down here and lets kick some butt!" to a helicopter in the air. He then is shot. This movie is trash.


Very Cliched. Quite corny. Acting gets worse as the show goes on. Don't believe anything that folks say about the "realism" that this movie is supposed to portray. It's just a shoot'em up. Interesting twist in that the VC sieging the base were given a human face and weren't portrayed as evil incarnate.


This movie is not realistic at all, more of a comedy than a serious war film. Very old-fashioned too. Maybe I was just expecting it to be on a same level with "Platoon". I wonder, why 50% of the voters gave it 10? Something must be wrong.


I don't think this movie had the effect on me that was intended: seeing American soldiers shooting wounded soldiers from the other side, and punching wounded prisoners in their wounds to torture them into making them talk made me root for the other side. It certainly made the US forces look anything like "the good guys". Was this supposed to be acceptable?


This is the worst war movie I have ever seen, possibly the worst ever made. I find it incredible that some people have actually rated it as a 10. It has a stunning lack of even rudimentary traces of realism. Almost every war movie cliche appears in this film and is done badly. On the other hand, I wouldn't have watched it to the end if it hadn't been so remarkably bad that it amused me.


I also have been a wife of an abusive husband, even if in my situation the attacks were psychological, not physical. He presented a very respectable, responsible and generous personality to anyone who saw us together, which, in contrast to myself, resulted in having others treat me as dull and unstable. Initially, I was so incredibly flattered that anybody like Gus (who worked in a bank and was handsomely confident) would even give me the time of day, and I fell completely head-over-heels for the IDEA of him, rather than the person he was. If I'd had my head on straight, and gotten to know him much better first, there's no way I'd have married him. However, that's my mistake. It wasn't my mistake to be abused. I didn't deserve that, nor did I see it coming until I was embroiled in the mind games, criticism and isolation. He acted like I had no business holding an opinion that differed from his own - actually he went further. If I didn't agree, he assumed I misunderstood, and increasingly simplified his wording ... by the time I finally lost my self-respect, I was incapable of recognizing the predicament I was in, and I had to be jolted to reality by outside influence. My dad said Gus called me a bitch. Well ... it was still a half-year before the rage that began at that moment finally exploded and I packed some stuff while he was at work, and I left. .. and it was still another several months before I could grasp the fact that I had been abused, and that it wasn't my fault he was doing the things he did. ..... so please, anyone who assumes it's the fault of the victim, THINK!!! If a puppy is kicked by a cruel owner when, in an anxious situation it has an accident on the rug, do you blame the puppy? by the time the abuse in a relationship reaches an obvious violent level, the target of abuse has been so wounded and depersonalized (much like in Nazi concentration camps) that it's nearly impossible to judge the circumstance accurately, because by then, the victim believes all the horrible things spewed by the abuser. Have a heart, people. Labelling abuse victims as stupid morons is like kicking someone who's already terribly beaten. -------> and this helps how???


In fact, parts of it I liked a lot. It had some interesting twists. But it just left me with a been there, seen that feeling after all of the SAW movies. Granted the ending was different from a typical Saw, but let's face it...a group of guys, unknown to each other (or so they believe) tossed together in an abandoned chemical factory....

But then it loses something. There's no intensity, there's poor group dynamic, there's no sense of urgency.

Some nice twists at the end, and definitely worth a watch if there's nothing else on your plate, but it just left me empty...it passed the time, but it didn't satisfy.


I seemed to find the trailers better than the movie. They did their job and made me interested in watching UNKNOWN. The interest waned early. A simple premise laking in scenery. Five men wake up in a chemical warehouse not knowing why they are there; let alone know how in the hell they got there. Confusion and paranoia brings with it fear and distrust. The men learn that a kidnapper is on his way with plans to kill his hostages. Now the men size each other up trying to distinguish if all are victims and who may actually be one of the kidnappers. The cast includes: Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Joe Pantoliano, Bridget Moynahan, Barry Peppper, David Selby and Adam Rodriguez.


Since the characters begin with "Unknown" identities, they not identified by name, so you start with handsome James Caviezel waking up in a warehouse. He finds out the place is locked up tight. Don't ask - the windows are made with security glass, and it's impossible to get out. Four other awakening men make it a quintet - Mr. Caviezel in his "Jean Jacket", Barry Pepper in a "Ranger Shirt", Greg Kinnear with a "Broken Nose", Joe Pantoliano as a chair "Bound Man", and Jeremy Sisto shot and "Handcuffed Man". Oh, Man

These five men have collective amnesia. They think that three of them are kidnappers, and two are victims - but, they don't know who is which or which is who. The forgetfulness is due to a pipe leak. Don't ask - it happens. Meanwhile, on the outside, lead lawman David Selby (as Parker) sends his cops to solve the kidnapping while one of the men's wives, Bridget Moynahan (as Eliza Coles), frantically waits. But, criminal element's gang leader, Peter Stormare in "Snakeskin Boots", is also on his way to the scene.

Like the DVD synopsis says, "As secrets are revealed and clues unraveled, (the five men) must race against time to figure out who is good and who is evil in order to stay alive." This story reads a lot better than it looks on film, unfortunately. When the secrets are finally revealed, and memories become clear, there is no longer much interest in what has happened. Simply, director Simon Brand has a great premise with Matthew Waynee's idea, but they encumber light investment in the characters holding the short end of the stick.

**** Unknown (11/1/06) Simon Brand ~ James Caviezel, Barry Pepper, Greg Kinnear, David Selby


I Remember That Hey Hey Fuss & I Saw The Jackson Jive, It Was A Pretty Straight Forward Comedy Skit But I Saw This & It Is Free & Is Out In The Clear? Have I Missed Something? If The Black Community Should Be Complaining About Any Racist Comments In A TV Show It Should Be This & If You've Read My Earlier Comments I Am Not The Easy-To-Offend Guy. The Basic Plot Is That An African/American Moves In Next To This White Guy & They Make These Racist Comments Like The Value Of A House Will Drop Just Because Of Black Neighbours & The White Guy Makes References Like (If Your Easily Offended By Racial Slurs Do Not Read On) Nig-Nog Jungle Boy Sambo. (I Apologise But That Really Happens In This Show I Really Am A Guy Who Is Fine With The Black Community) People Might Say Hey Lighten Up But Even When You Take The Racial Slurrs Away It Is Un-Funny No New Jokes Badly Acted & I Can Swear In One Episode I Saw Someone's Eyes Focus On Something Unconnected With The Situation. All In All Horrible Comedy.


The promotions for "Clubbed" project a slick looking film based around the clubbing scene of the 1980's. What we end up with is a film with identity issues. The sub-plots end up taking over from what viewers would assume to be the main plot, so the focus on this film being mainly about "clubbing" ends up being left in the gutter.

Boxing, depression, self-loathing, gangsters, bouncers and drug-deals, are all hastily crammed into 90 odd minutes. On no less than 4 occasions I had to check the run-time of the film, as the worry grew that this film was bound to disappoint.

What club scenes we do see are bland and repetitive, featuring approximately 3 extras dancing in what is barely recognisable as a "club", hardly capturing the vibe of the day.

If you're looking for a film about the 80's club scene, something along the lines of what "Human Traffic" did for the late 90's, forget "Clubbed".


This movie was an absolute waste of time. It's nothing but a wanna-be gangster movie. It contains a very predictable plot. My feelings are unsympathetic to the characters, and the dialogue is mediocre at best. Half the time you are looking for something else to do, because the movie is that boring, since you already know what's going to happen. The other half of the time you're desperately hoping the protagonist grows a pair of balls or just ends his life by jumping off a bridge or something. Also, the secondary characters are for the most part one- dimensional. There's no depth to any of the characters in this movie! No depth!


"Clubbed" is yet another 'will-this-do?' entry into the Brit fisticuffs genre and is sure to keep punters who aren't expecting too much moderately entertained for ninety minutes after a few beers. However, for anyone seeking intelligent, quality entertainment it's really best avoided.

There are so many misnomers in the appalling script that even an actor of the calibre of Colin Salmon is left looking daft. The action is set in the 1980s, but it's never clear why, especially when they haven't been able to pull off any convincing feel for that decade - it takes more than a few 80s soul records on the soundtrack, the occasional zoot suit and a handful of 30-year-old cars. Then we see central characters studying texts such as Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" and speaking about how violence should be a last resort, while the same characters seem only too willing to start doling out punches with all the testosterone-fuelled, unthinking abandon of a bunch of chavs fighting over a bag of chips.

Character development does not exist in "Clubbed". Nor does irony, subtlety or pathos. This is a film which trades on fond memories of Guy Richie's early gangster films, which despite their flaws certainly had much more wit, better editing, snappier dialogue and packed more emotional punch than this limp little saga. They're a decade old now, anyway - isn't it time we moved on from trying to emulate them?


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Danny (Mel Raido) is a lonely factory worker who tries to get by with his job and to be a good dad to his two daughters after a messy divorce from their mother (Maxine Peake.) But after an altercation with said daughters present at a Working Men's Club, he uses a trip to their dance class to take a glance at Louis (Colin Salmon) and his gang of hard men who train in the boxing gym/free weights section there and to train himself into a tougher, more assertive person. Before long he's taken the philosophies of Louis to heart and has joined him as a nightclub doorman as the 80s disco faze kicks in...but when associate Sparky (Scott Williams) tries to do a sideline in drug dealing, everything turns pear shaped.

As Robert De Niro once stated in the film A Bronx Tale 'there's no bigger tragedy than wasted talent.' The writer of Clubbed had a good idea and a talent to make it into some sort of film...but without the ability, it seems, to put it all together into some sort of coherent film.

As a brummie, some of the filming locations (especially a scene at the end outside the Ring O' Bells pub in Moseley!) were quite easy and fun to spot...but the dour look of the cinematography is really a downer on things. Some really poor acting, for instance lead actor Raido with an indecipherable accent that's all over the place, and a hammy script with some misfiring dialogue are bigger problems for the film though. More established actors like Peake and even telly favourite Neil Morressey are sidelined to very small supporting parts, while the disastrous Raido and Ronnie Fox's lame villain take centre stage. Williams does a poor man's Sick Boy from Trainspotting impression, leaving Salmon and Shaun Parkes seemingly the only performers left with any integrity from the whole thing, as the excessive, blood splattered violence (becoming a common trend for Brit flicks!) takes over. Truly a missed opportunity. **


Why does the poster & artwork say "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time. SCREEN INTERNATIONAL" when it was a quote of the French distributor REPORTED by Screen International (an influential film trade publication). See www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=39811 which reads:

"Pretty Pictures has acquired all French-speaking rights to Neil Thompson's Clubbed ....James Velaise, president of Pretty Pictures, said: "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time.""

Isn't this rather misleading? The distributor is bound to say it's good. Are the other quotes real?


Mockumentaries are proliferating lately so much that the approach therefore needs an injection of fresh and creative material each time it's used to maintain its vitality. This film does not deliver anything but worn out retreads of similar stories, an aimless script, weak ad-libs, uninspired acting, and unfunny self-gratifying humor.

The premise would seem promising enough; the legend of the Loch Ness monster is made to order for one of these goofy mockumentary misadventures, with a vast array of history and legend waiting to be tapped for outrageous satire. The film makers totally waste this enormous potential, however. We get some fool inserting a fake Nessie into the water. Gee, that's original. Another scene has one obnoxious idiot threatening another obnoxious idiot with a gun. Sidesplitting. Some gratuitous shots of a pretty girl in a bikini. Annette did that 40 years ago (and far better, by the way). Throughout the movie, somebody always seems to be yelling: I suppose this is designed to wake up the audience who have nodded off by this point.

Worst of all, though, is the relentless salvo of those reality show type "interview comments" made by the characters. Not only do they nuke you with this tired joke every five seconds, but apparently, the actors also improvised; that's the only explanation for how humorless the jokes are. If lines like, "I've never seen anyone write a book about non-evidence" were actually scripted, then the writer should be shot on sight and fed to Nessie.

No wonder Nessie got violent; it obviously saw this movie.


Christopher Guest is the master of the mockumentary. Werner Herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. Zak Penn isn't good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. Guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films, sort of an essential with a mockumentary. Penn could also take a lesson from the The Blair Witch Project. Even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. It seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know, deep down, you're watching fiction. In other words, it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. In fact many early audiences watching it, at Sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. Penn, whose forte, by his own admission, is screen writing, should probably stick to that. Documentary or mockumentary film-making (and it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not.

Penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary, sort of a meta-documentary. Penn, however, confuses the audience, and loses their trust, from the get-go as he enters Herzog's house before the filming of Herzog's film, "Enigma of Loch Ness" about the myth of the Loch Ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished  probably because of Penn's interference). Even though Penn is apparently the director of the film we're watching, he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying, "What is the film crew doing here?" and starts shying away from them. He does this on a couple other occasions as well. He will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming, thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between Herzog and Penn. It seems to be a gimmick, but that is never made clear, and Penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. This leaves the audience scratching its head wondering, "Who is in charge here?" If Penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of? This is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction.

Penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (I think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the Loch Ness monster. But by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world Penn has attempted to create, so it all just seems silly and pointless.

This is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that Penn has a chance to document a master at work, but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about Penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. Penn's presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie.

The Herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn't acting. We even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by Penn, much the way the audience is, but you're never sure of even that. Penn, in his interviews to the camera, attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny, like the characters interviewed in a Guest mockumentary, but he only succeeds in being annoying. In a Guest film this effect is hilarious, while here it falls flat because you're never sure what Penn is about. As a result we, the audience, start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. Aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance, out of nowhere, of a beautiful model, thrown in to give the movie spice, there is little to recommend here. Perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it's a great example of why the audience is important; and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. For that reason alone I think this would be a good film to show to film students  sort of a "what not to do" kind of movie. I have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it's done skillfully, with a thematic base to give it substance. This film is completely lacking in that.

I'd like to call it a valiant effort at something, but I'm not sure what it is, other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time.

(As a side note: It seems like bad art always calls to mind good. This film made me think of the book "Picture" by Lillian Ross. Ross followed John Huston around during the filming of "The Red Badge of Courage" and brilliantly documented it for the New Yorker. It would make a great movie in fact. If you want a great example of meta-art, read it.)


I wish that all the mockumentaries and horror spoofs would go away. If you are going to investigate loch ness..do it for real. Enough of the bull****. Same with horror and sci-fi..if you are going to make a movie and it is supposed to be scary..make it scary..not funny. I hate when watching a horror movie and the character is fighting for their life(or running or whatever..their life is at stake) and they are cracking jokes. This never happens..cmon where have all the good directors gone? I think horror and sci-fi have really gone down the tube since the 70's. I long for the days that a horror flick was scary..all this "scary movie" crap is for the birds. This film is also for the birds. If you really would like to see a good investigation or here serious talk...don't expect it in this video.


One of my favorite "bum" actors, C. Tom Howell, stars in this tepid remake of WOTW. He runs around a lot, while a CGI-generated spider-like machine goes around killing everyone. The budget for this one obviously was pretty low. It also was one of The Asylum productions. Have you seen any of those? Yikes! I am not sure why anyone would have made this while the big-budget Spielberg version was slaying them at the box office. And if truth be told, neither version is all that hot. The George Pal version from the 1950s remains the best representation of the H.G. Wells novel, primitive special effects and all. Perhaps because Gene Barry was much more convincing in the lead than Howell or Tom Cruise.


Why does C Thomas Howell do these movies? Cruise (Howell's one time co-star) does a huge blockbuster of WOTW and Howell follows with this lame effort.

Where do I start here? Production Values - I'll start with the good stuff. The look and feel of some of the scenes in this movie are not too bad to be honest. The set-ups are okay in spots and the direction not too bad.

Script - Terrible. A series of clunky scenes that could have been put in any order you like permeate throughout the movie. The amount of times the scene faded to black and reemerged a second later in the same room was uncountable. Very poor storyline (but so was the Cruise WOTW) takes some blame but an abysmal screenplay kills it off.

Special FX - Okay, I don't want to be too harsh here as I imagine the budget was smaller than Cruise's lunch bill - but in the overall context of the film the effects are badly done. Some shots are quite impressive - mainly far off destruction shots of bridges, Washington, liner. But in the main the "alien" machines and tentacles themselves are dreadful. Also the camera quality is fuzzy on some shots and cuts away entirely on others.

Acting - I'm a fan of Howell but as he has reduced himself to acting in these low-budget flicks - he has succumbed to the "over-acting" bug a long time ago. Look at his performance in The Hitcher and compare it to this movie. There is no comparison. He overdoes his facial expressions, his flailing arms and legs (where did he get that running style???) and for a final coup-de-gras look at the scene where he loses the photo of his family. Hysterical. But after saying all that - he is still the best actor on show here. Busey is embarrassing to look at and Peter Green (Zed is truly dead now baby) mumbles incoherently through his one and only scene. I honestly could not understand one word he said - I even went so far as trying to enable the subtitles on that scene - but the DVD did not have subtitles. This seems to be a real keep-it-in-the-family affair too as Howell's son, the director's wife and the line producer all make it into the film. None of them are good.

Direction - not bad but not good either.

Score - Dismal.

Overall, a lame duck effort that will do nothing for Howell in his attempt to make it back to the big time. He should take a look at Rourke and try to figure out how he made in back to the A list but if he keeps doing stuff like this, he won't have a career soon enough.

3/10.


It is incredible that there were two films with the same story released in 2005. This one came out a day before that other one with Tom Cruise. Didn't they do that with Truman Capote the same year, and the Zodiac killer last year? Interesting.

Writer/Director David Michael Latt didn't have Steven Spielberg's budget and C. Thomas Howell is not Tom Cruise. This is a pale imitation of the blockbuster that grossed $588 million worldwide.

The action was minimal and most of the time we were treated to the whining of Rhett Giles, who played a pastor that was giving up on his god.

Gary Busey was creepy as an army LT.


Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of H.G. Wells rolling over in his grave, between this version and Spielberg's cinematic abortion it's been a tough year for the classic novel. But at least Steven got a few things right compared to this crapperella. Hello, the ships weren't big insects, they had names. They were Tripods and the aliens worked in threes. The ships and the aliens were all wrong, you don't really get to see the aliens until the end. The effects and the cast work fine. But these actors are much better then this "movie" deserves. The bulk if not all the movie is the Howell character wondering through the devastation, meeting one person, they join him and he looses them for one reason or the other. There's not more then two people on camera at any given moment though most of the movie. It's like if they filmed three at once it would put the movie over budget or something. So fat the only and mean only watchable adaptation of the WAR OF THE WORLDS story is the GEORGE PAL version way back in the 1950s. THE BLACK HOLE.


I normally finish every movie or book I start, even if they're poor, just 'cause I hate giving up on them. This was so poorly made, I was in disbelief.

I'm not just looking for Spielberg magic - I rent foreign films, and I rent really old sci-fi's (most recently Soylent Green - worth the rent). I like both Hollywood action and slower moving character development. Different films need to be approached differently to be appreciated. I could find no redeeming element to this one... The action was so wooden I wasn't the least bit on edge. The character development was virtually absent - you're not left feeling sorry for anyone, or even identifying with them. Finally, there were so many pieces that just didn't add up.

Don't waste your time - better to watch paint dry...


Mad scientist Professor Tabani drinks a potion he has brewed up in his laboratory but is turned into a blood craving vampire instead.When Dr.Aqil pays a visit Tabani sees a picture of Aqil's wife Shabnam and,after turning Aqil into a vampire,heads for Shabnam to make her his bride.Aqil's brother discovers the grave of the vampire and his brother at Tabani's castle and kills his brother with a knife to free his soul.Tabani succeeds in putting the bite on Shabnam and once turned she tries to lure her young niece away.Aqil's brother races against time to put a stop to the vampire curse."Zinda Laash" almost put me to sleep.The plot is extremely slow but more or less follows Bram Stoker's famous novel.The suspense is completely absent as is the gore and nudity.The film is only recommended for curious horror fans that want to see the second horror film made in Pakistan(after "Madman" from 1964).


Stop me if you hard this one before, some cheerleaders, their coach and a couple guys are trapped within a cabin in the woods when an unseen killer kills them off one by one. Shame on me, after I totally wrote off Jim Wynorski after the horrid "Busty Cops" (it was a long time coming as his last truly good film was 1990's "Hard to Die"), I still for some reason got my hopes up for a supposed sequel to "Slumber Party Massacre". Sadly even my mediocre expectations were not met. This outing is not nearly as fun as even the three previous films in the franchise (and yes I'm including SPM 2, that should tell you something) Furthermore how can you have a slasher film with this little gore??? I mean Come on now!!

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Ricky Ray gets topless; April Flowers and Charity Rahmer show boobs and buns in a shower scene (April gets nude again later in the film), and Tamie Sheffield gets topless and bares buns


Slasher sequel (fourth SLUMBER PART MASSACRE film) concerns a group of nubile cheerleaders stranded in a mountainous cabin in the snow, being offed by a deranged killer. Typical slasher elements for hardcore slasher fans, gore, wonderfully gratuitous female nudity, no plot. Though it wears out its welcome eventually, even at its short length.

Original star Brinke Stevens makes a cameo, which only seems to be there for the sake of including her in the movie.


Cheerleader Massacre was supposed to be the fourth installment of the Slumber Party Massacre series; if that's what they were doing (which it is considering ONE actress from the original returns in a small cameo role), they have failed miserably and made, by far, the worst installment of the 'quadrilogy'. Cheerleader Massacre seamlessly combines bad acting, a horrible plot, a dumb killer, dull and boring deaths, boring scenery, and hideous camera work to make it one of the worst films ever made. Did I already mention how bad it was? Don't get me wrong: this cheesy and retarded excuse for a horror film is nowhere near as bad as Napoleon Dynamite, but it is undeniably a horrible movie.

Cheerleader Massacre is an exact polar opposite of the original Slumber Party Massacre. Stay away by all means! This movie is utter garbage!


I've never expected too much from a film by trashy B-movie director Jim Wynorski: a silly premise, some cheapo effects and a bit of nudity from some busty babes, and I'm usually fairly happy.

Well, Cheerleader Massacre delivers on the former and definitely the latter, but unfortunately is a tad light when it comes to the splatter. And when a film has the word 'massacre' in the title, and scrimps on the gore, then Houston, we have a problem.

Wynorski's movie centres on a group of cheerleaders who, along with their teacher, mini-bus driver and a couple of guys, become stranded in the mountains during a snowstorm. They make their way on foot to a deserted mountain retreat, where they find food and shelter. And a crazy killer who wants them all dead! From the outset, good old Jim ensures that his film features plenty of scenes loaded with T&A, and includes the obligatory shower scene, along with numerous other moments in which tasty women get nekkid (including a spot of raunchy softcore sex and a very gratuitous three-babes-in-a-hot-tub scene). None of the women look young enough to be cheerleaders (and are never even seen in their outfits), but who cares about such details when they're all too willing to strip off in the name of art?

I do care, however, about the movie's numerous lacklustre deaths. With such an extremely lurid title, I had been hoping for some inventive bloodletting to go with all of the bums, bush, and boobs; instead, practically all of the killings occur off-screen or feature next to no gore. Only a silly post-decapitation scene (achieved with cheap-as-chips CGI) comes anywhere near to delivering the goods.

Still, if you're feeling in the mood for some titillation, or a bit of slasher silliness minus the grue, then, at 82 minutes, at least Cheerleader Massacre won't be too much of a waste of your time.


A movie like this makes me appreciate the work that professional actors do. I think movie-goers, in general, are a little too hard on professional actors and are ready to bash them for the most minuscule reasons. Just watch a couple minutes of "Cheerlader Massacre," and trust me, you'll change your views. A razzie would be almost a compliment for these no-talent actors. But then again, it's a Jim Wynorski film. Wynorski is a popular director of these ultra low-budget B-movies (having worked with Roger Corman on many an occasion). The problem with this movie is it actually tries to develop a plot. And when you have actors delivering lines like they're reading letters off an eye chart, how am I supposed to care? In Wynorski's "Bare Wench 2," he didn't try to develop a plot. He simply tried to make a softcore porn/goofy takeoff on the "Blair Witch Project." It was fun and it was titillating. "Cheerleader Masscare" is no fun. There are a couple obligatory female nude scenes, but they are few and far between. So it's not even worth enjoying on an erotic level. I must say, the worst scene is the one where Nikki Fritz walks across a bridge that's about to collapse. First of all, her character didn't have to walk across that bridge. Second of all, as the bridge starts creaking, rather than try her best to run across, she just stands there and acts helpless. And top it off, we don't actually see the bridge collapse because the filmmakers made this for a budget of 2 dollars!!! Unlike a lot of B-horror films, this one's actually boring. And that's what makes it the worst of all bad movies. One of the few bright spots was Lunk Johnson, who's probably the most natural actor in the film (though certainly no more than halfway decent). He was funny in "Bare Wench 2," and had some funny scenes in this movie too.


Hard to get in-depth with this kind of stuff since there is absolutely no existing shred of even partial reason for watching it, let alone expressing an opinion on it. I don't know anything about this - watched it for a laugh and stayed for the fake breasts. Apparently, it's an unofficial sequel to 1982's "Slumber Party Massacre", which I DID enjoy as a fun slasher. "Cheerleader Massacre" looks like a late-nite soft-core Cinemax porno! And not surprisingly, chicks like Nikki Fritz and Samantha Phillips (prolific T&A actresses) are in this. Plenty of nekkid hooters and not much else... A group of 20-something high school cheerleaders, two random guys, and the fat, stupid comic-relief slob become stranded in the country and find a house where they plan to stay the night. The recently escaped "Slumber Party" killer is in the area and begins killing them off. There's no gore or originality and I wouldn't say the nudity is a real "selling point" since this is just about as boring a slasher movie can be. Absolutely terrible...


Like CURSE OF THE KOMODO was for the creature feature genre, Jim Wynorski's CHEERLEADER MASSACRE is a straight-faced parody of slasher movies, such as SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE. A psycho, who has escaped from his padded cell,(..he was sent to the loony bin thanks to killing eleven people)is working across the mountainous backwoods countryside of Bobcat County attacking anyone within his reach. A van load of cheerleaders, their teacher, two equipment hands, and the driver are on their way to a contest when their vehicle runs out of fuel while taking a supposed short-cut to avoid having to turn back. Luckily the group find a cabin up ahead, but fall prey to a killer who attacks each victim one by one. The psycho loose in the county couldn't have killed one girl because she was in the cheerleaders' locker room while he was elsewhere which means someone among their own is the culprit. Meanwhile the sheriff of the county and his deputy pursue the whereabouts of their psycho, while also trying to find the location of the missing cheerleader squad.

Shot cheap on video, Wynorski does what he can with the limited budget having to find clever ways to assassinate characters off-screen without the luxury of properly effective special effects. In other words, lots of melons were stabbed, the sound effect used to let us know that certain victims whisked away into the darkness by a black gloved hand died savagely. Wynorski incorporates a scene from SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE regarding Brinke Stevens' character Linda, her being pursued by a killer with a drill(..that killer and Linda both wound up dead, but I guess Wynorski wanted to connect his film to that one, albeit rather poorly)..still it was nice to see her, even if it was a glorified cameo. Tamie Sheffield, as Ms Hendricks the teacher of the students in trouble, has a long bathing scene in the shower soaping her naked body and fake breasts. The girls who make up the cheerleaders are a bit unconvincing, because their obviously in their twenties. Aging soft-core porn stars Samantha Philips(..as a police officer who is attacked by the psychopath she's searching for)and Nikki Fritz(..a hiker who is victimized while jogging across a dangerous bridge)surprisingly don't have to strip. Wynorski vets Bill Langlois Monroe(..as Sheriff Murdock) and Melissa Brasselle(..as a detective who assists Murdock on his case)contribute to the sub-plot of the search for John Colton's serial killer McPherson. Interesting enough, the McPherson story serves as a McGuffan as, in truth, the meat of the film is devoted to the cheerleading group and their perilous situation. I'm not sure if slasher fans will embrace this movie because it takes too long for the kills to flare up and when they eventually enter the picture, the violence isn't potent or shocking enough to satisfy.


This movie was one of those movies where it completely fooled me into thinking that it was a cheesy 80's slasher flick, based on the cover, but it wasn't. It was quite possibly one of the worst slasher films that I have ever seen. The picture on the cover did not match any part or scene in the movie; in fact it didn't involve a chainsaw. Not even the tag line fit the movie. The film is about a group of cheerleaders and two potheads who escape to a desolate cabin, in the cold woods, for a weekend getaway. However, things get extra chilly when they start to get murdered by an unknown killer. At the same time, the local sheriff's department is hunting down a dangerous killer. I'll name the problems in a list.

1. The Acting. Boy was it cheap and horribly bad. It felt unnatural and it seemed as thought it was very scripted. None of the actors seemed as though they tried to perform with good intentions and therefore they seemed silly and tired. There was bad acting by all the characters in the movie, so I won't point out specific people, but I wills say that the stoners did a horrible job, as well as the police and the cheerleaders, which is not a surprise.

2. The Plot. This story had set up a perfect storyline for good ol' fashion slasher flick, but instead they peppered it with plot-holes, useless and unnecessary scenes and an overall stupid back-story to the killer's intentions. There were major plot-holes including how the killer killed the last victim so quickly and yet still be there in the group of girls when it happened? The ex-con virtually served no purpose in the movie aside from being a useless plot device. There was random and unnecessary sex and nudity sprinkled throughout it, even for a b-movie or my taste it was a bit too much. As for the killer's intentions, lets just say it was stupid and it makes no sense as to why she / he is killing young girls. Plus, there was also some very predictable kills that I saw coming about 30 miles away.

3. The Technical Side. The lighting was okay, it certainly wasn't the worse lighting that I've seen in a movie, but there were points where it was supposed to be dark but it looked more like the afternoon. The house seemed darker with the lights on, then with the lights off. The camera work was average, it didn't have any good establishing shots or amazing pans or zooms, thought it did get the job done is building some suspense with it's framing.

Overall, this movie, in the sense of plot, character development and performance, was a huge disappointment and a waste of my time. What I thought would have been a great slasher flick turned out to be one of the worse movies that I have ever seen. The acting was really bad and wooden, there was hardly any sense in the plot and there was no emotion to this film. However, the technical aspect of this film saved it for me, because if the camera work or the lighting was bad, then I would have turned off the DVD player and popped in something else. I would recommend this movie to those who enjoy really cheesy b-movies as well as those who follow cult classics, because this movie certainly is. I would partially recommend this film for those who enjoy 80s slasher flicks. But for me, this movie was pitiful and utterly horrible.


"Based on a joke once told by Jim Wynorski"... that's what I've read at the end of the closing credits. Well, Mr. Wynorski gotta have an awful sense of humour then! This film is terrible, really. I loved the first two chapters of The Slumber Party Massacre series; the third film was quite useless, but completely watchable, compared to this piece of crap! There's not even a Driller Killer and the plot, the acting, the characters, the locations, the events... everything is boring, absurd and laughable. The only good reason to watch this turkey are the girls: if this film were a porn, I think it would have worked really much better! The film lacks gore too: the first scene (the one in the tent) could be bloodier and the scene with the headless guy knocking at the door lasted one second! Some moments of slight thrilling can't save a nonexistent plot. Buzzy (Lunk Johnson) seems to be the only real actor here: I found him the only bearable character in this movie! Oh... there's a nonsense part with Brinke Stevens, who performed "Linda" in the first Slumber Party Massacre: the police bother her to know more details about the killer; but what we get is only some footage from the first film! Not a dialogue, neither a monologue, or anything from this still-traumatized grown-up girl, who's forced to revive the worst 30 minutes of her life (as she says), giving us no clues at all about the murderer!

Watch at your own risk.


Originally harped as a sequel to "The Slumber Party Massacre" series, this film falls flat on it's face with a new title. First off, if you are going to include the word "massacre" in your film's title, you better deliver. This one certainly does not. There is no gore, no on screen murders and no chainsaw, as the box art would lead you to believe. Instead, we get a paper thin, overdone plot about a group of cheerleaders who get stranded in an abandoned cabin on the way to a football game, only to be offed one by one. Again, this film could have been OK if the gore quotient was upped a bit. Why directors, especially those doing direct-to-video flicks, are afraid to show ANY gore is beyond me. Now, I am not a huge fan of excessive gore, but come on...why else would anyone rent a movie called "Cheerleader Massacre??" Besides that problem, the film suffers from a shot-on-a-home-video-camera cheapness. It looks cheap, sounds cheap, and the actors aren't all that good. It tries to throw us off track to who the killer may be, but even that fails. The ending ends up being a ridiculous mess. Folks, if you run across this film, walk away and go find the original "Slumber Party Massacre." 2 out of 10.


This movie was just plain bad. I can forgive low-budget films for being low budget but it wasn't funny, it wasn't smart, it had no redeeming qualities at all unless you really like looking at fake boobs. I don't know what this genre is classified as, possibly erotic horror, but if so-- well, it's neither sexy nor scary. Tying it into the Slumber Party Massacre movies was useless; I'd never seen the previous movies myself, and except for one scene that attempted to tie it together, I had no way of knowing who the escaped psycho killer in 'Cheerleader' was or why they were bothering with including him, especially because (and I don't think I'm revealing anything here) it was really obvious that the cheerleader killer in this film wasn't him. As for the actual murderer? All I can say is, lame. Really lame. When you find out why the killer is offing the cheerleading squad (and the squad's coach, and two stoners who happened to be on the bus trip they're taking, and the bus driver just for the heck of it, apparently) you will sit there and go-- WTF? Worst excuse for a murdering spree ever. The "actors" (two guesses why I added the quotes) generally looked like low-budget porn rejects, which they most likely were. Those poor people, trying to break into "legitimate" film. One of my friends had this to say about the actor who played Buzzy, the bus driver: "He looks like the guy who, you know, gets really into it, and his face gets all red and stuff." We had a good larf at that. Half of the other actors had all the skill and subtlety of the actors in the sixth grade production of "Annie" I just saw. The other half pretty much seemed bored to death (especially in the deleted scene, this one redhead...), and by ten minutes into this movie I was, too.

A note: the DVD contains one deleted scene, which would've put the movie from R-rated to NC-17 if it had been left in. It was entirely gratuitous, and as adult entertainment goes of no quality whatsoever. The only reason to bother with it is to laugh, a lot, at the badness.


CHEERLEADER MASSACRE (2003)

starring: Tamie Sheffield, Charity Rahmer, Erin Byron, Leonard Johnson, E. Eddie Edwards, Samantha Phillips, GiGi Erneta, April Flowers, Nikki Fritz, Tylo Tyler, Brad Beck, Summer Williams, Brinke Stevens, Melissa Brasselle.

plot: A group of cheerleaders, along with their coach and three guys, are on their way to a game when suddenly their van breaks down and they take refuge in a nearby cabin. Soon, they drink, have sex, and are brutally murdered one by one by an unseen killer.

the good: A few laughs, surprising identity of the killer, a Brinke Stevens cameo, my favorite scene from THE SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE used as a flashback.

the bad: I was excited about this film, I loved all three Slumber Party Massacre's because they were just so fun, and I was expecting a lot from this "Slumber Party/Sorority House Massacre with Scream tones), but it just sucked! They overdid it on the "We're cheesy but proud" thing and basically made soft-core porn but with a good who-dun-it.

**


I saw this on the shelves at the rental place and I have rented everything else so I said why not. Why not is because it's one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It looks like it was shot with home camcorder. I guess thats all the budget would allow. There was less boobs in it than I thought there would be. Some people made it out to be soft porn with a few killings. The funniest part of the whole movie to me is in the extra stuff. There is a spot with deleted scenes. Well there is only one but it is the dumbest and I think it may have brought the rest of the movie down. The girls get in a hot tub and find some chocolate syrup in the bathroom. Yes it ends up all over them. Great stuff !!! This movie is very very bad. Don't bother.


Ok. I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan of b-movies. Back when Michelle Bauer, Linnea Quigley and Brinke Stevens ruled the roost. And back then, even the bad movies were still good. Unfortunately, this is a bad movie that is just plain bad. Even a small cameo by Brinke Stevens (reprising her role as Linda from "Slumber Party Massacre" 21 years earlier) doesn't help this one out. A group of cheerleaders take refuge in a fancy cabin after their van breaks down. A psycho stalks them one by one, catching them in various states of undress. Bad script, bad direction and horrible acting make this one plain bad! Skip this turkey and go rent "Slumber Party Massacre." 1/2*


Even as a big fan of the low to no budget horror genre, I couldnt find this disaster mildly amusing. With horrible acting, a painfully generic "plot" and no dimensional characters, no matter how bored and drunk you are, this one is not worth your 81 minutes. Don't make the same mistake I did. Rent something else. ANYTHING else!!!


Before I start, I need to inform you that I love horror films with a passion. LOVE THEM! I have seen thousands and rarely does one come along that I do not like. I am very forgiving of the horror genre. One of the greatest lines in movie history is in the film "Ed Wood" where Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) freaks out and yells at the overly critical producers after they comment on "Plan 9's" cheap sets and continuity problems, "You don't know anything! Haven't you ever heard of 'suspension of disbelief?!'" Well, I try to bring that "suspension of disbelief" philosophy with me to every horror film I see and it usually works. Unfortunately, it didn't work for me during the screening of Cheerleader Massacre.

Strike One:

The first thing you'll notice about this "film" is that it is shot on video and has that crummy hand-held-home-digital-camera style. The camera work and quality are so bad it makes daytime soaps look breathtaking in comparison. In fact, it makes Troma and Full Moon video releases look good. And, that's bad.

Strike Two:

Jim Wynorski. This "filmmaker" probably fancies himself a chip off the ol' Corman, but nothing could be further from the truth. Roger Corman shot fast, furious and under budget, but was able to deliver a tight original film. Though Wynorski delivers a cheap film, he cheats his viewers (and perhaps other artists) as he steals entire pieces of James Horner's "Humanoids From The Deep" and "Battle Beyond The Stars" musical scores and inappropriately drops them into Cheerleader Massacre. On the back of the box art and during the beginning credits the music score is falsely attributed to, Dan Savio (an extra in Wynorski's "Deathstalker II"). You will also notice how Cheerleader Massacre jumps from video to film and back again as Wynorski lifts entire scenes from both "Slumber Party Massacre" and "Humanoids From the Deep." Wynorski utilized this deception, fourteen years earlier, in his horrible version of "Not of This Earth."

Strike Three (you're out):

While Cheerleader Massacre does have some nudity, (40-year-olds playing teenagers and the grossest set of fake breasts that I have ever seen in a horror film, ugh), the murders are relatively bloodless. What the heck is that all about? The film is titled, Cheerleader Massacre, but a handful of off-screen killings, in my opinion, does not add up to a massacre. It doesn't even add up to a bad mosquito bite.

The "film's" story is fair enough - unseen killer stalks a vanload of cheerleaders (old gals playing teens) until the van runs out of gas and the "girls" are forced to hold up in secluded two-story mountain home. I won't ruin the ending for you but this is one of those "films" where the person who is obviously the killer is not obviously the killer. Cheerleader Massacre would have been great if it were shot on film, directed by Joseph Zito and had special effects by Tom Savini. Instead it is an effect-less, shot-on-video travesty by Jim Wynorski. Ouch.

I beg of you, please don't buy or rent this abomination. If we keep supporting these clowns, the more of this talentless video garbage they'll produce. Go out and rent "The Prowler", "The Last House on Dead End Street", "Delirium" or "The Burning" instead. You'll be glad you did.


When Jim Wynorski first announced he would be doing a new sequel for my favorite series of all time, the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, I was ecstatic. I had been waiting for a new installment for literally years. So, production began and very small bits and pieces on the shoot and the actors involved were released until the shoot wrapped. Then, the announcement of a title change. No longer would this new sequel be titled "Slumber Party Massacre IV," but "Cheerleader Massacre" instead. I was a bit disappointed, but having a different title would be a very small price to pay for a film I had waited so long to happen. I was still extremely intrigued and on the edge of my seat to see it.

Maybe a month ago, some very advanced copies of the film were released to some extremely lucky viewers, who got to see the film months before its release date. A few reviews leaked on the net and judging by them, I began to become apprehensive on Jim Wynorski's "Cheerleader Massacre."

Tonight, I got to see the film for the first time in full length and I am still scratching my head. As I read in another review, "Cheerleader Massacre" is definitely NOT a new installment in the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, but a slasher flick all on its own. And a bad one at that.

Before I get into the specifics of the film, let me first state what an enormous fan of Jim Wynorski's films I am. I always thought him to be a true camp genius, with a winner almost every time. Yes, his movies are made on shoestring budgets and don't contain the most top-notch acting around, but they're fun nonetheless. They are what they are: campy movies you watch when you want to have a good time. From "Sorority House Massacre II," to "Hard to Die," to "Chopping Mall," Jim has produced the goods on more than one occasion. One of the reasons why I was excited that this film would be his latest project.

"Cheerleader Massacre" does not (in my opinion) reflect any of the films I had seen this director/writer create in the past. Firstly, the production was extremely inexpensive and the film was actually shot on videotape, something I had never seen Jim do before. The actors were mediocre, to say the least, and the story is almost laughable. The killer is also extremely stupid and reminds you more of your cuddly old grandpa, rather than an escaped lunatic.

Of course, the film is littered with female nudity. This is a Jim Wynorski movie we're talking about, folks. But some of the boob-shots seen here almost seem like they were done for time. There is an extremely long shower scene, containing the cheerleading coach, that seems to go on forever and it greatly reflects a shower scene in Jim's "Sorority House Massacre II." The girl even bathes herself almost in the exact same way.

"Cheerleader Massacre" is also extremely cliched, to say the least. The opening scene is literally something we've all seen in HUNDREDS of past slasher flicks. A guy and a girl making out, on the verge of consummating their relationship when...you guessed it. They're hacked to pieces.

Brinke Stevens, who I've never really considered to be a tremendous actress in the first place, also gives one of her stiffest and forced performances in her small cameo. We're talkin' possible cue cards here. She recalls some incidents her character endured by the killer seen here twenty years ago to the police, while footage of the original "Slumber Party Massacre" plays. Why was footage from the original film used if it was definitely not a new "SPM"? I have no idea. There is also two explosions seen in this movie that I am almost certain were recycled from other films.

Not only does this film recycle FOOTAGE from past films, but it also recycles the scores from other films as well. Some of the music used in "Humanoids from the Deep" (which was also recycled prior for "The Coroner") can be heard throughout the entire film. There are at least two more as well that I cannot identify, but am certain have been used before.

After sitting through this film's horrendous acting, ridiculous story, non-existent gore/special effects, and camcorder-like quality, I am having some serious concerns toward Mister Wynorski's career. Has the man who delighted audiences with films in the past finally lost his niche? Only time will tell. Oh, and let's not forget his newest film. A new installment in the "Sorority House Massacre" films, now titled "Final Exam." I think I'm seeing a pattern here...


I go to blockbuster, pick out a random movie, got this, and yeah.

This... was a good sexual porno.. the quality kind of sucked, and it kind of gave me a damn headache. To me, this movie was good for its sexual things, but not as much for the horror and suspense. It was ... magical...

The suspense.. not as good as I would have expected. I wanted to be at the edge of my seat hoping to jump up in fear, but instead I lay down on the couch and didn't see much.

The quality.. not really good at all. I mean, if you pay close attention, during when the people are on the COLD mountains, their barely wearing anything. It doesn't make much sense too.

So if your looking for a crap, not really suspenseful, and a pretty much sexual movie, you've got this.


Hmmmmmmm - cheerleader massacre. Let me think - high school girls get sliced up, except the cute one survives. Got it. Next movie.

I was actually surprised this one was made in 2003. I really thought they quit making these movies in the 80's. This was truly your run of the mill slasher movie with teenage eye candy, dumb male horn dogs, even dumber male adult, and hot teacher. It continues on the list of dark and stormy night and abandoned cabin in the woods. We have seen it all before.

However this one had a few interesting plot twists that places it above the normal me-too slashers, so if you have got a few brain cells to fry and 2 hours to kill - you could do worse.


Directed by Jim Wynorski (Chopping Mall, Return of the Swamp Thing), Cheerleader Massacre is the fourth installment in the Slumber Party Massacre series. Just think about it: it's the fourth chapter of a slasher series that no one really cares about! So how could this even be good? Well, it's not! But since when did slasher films have to be good? Cheerleader Massacre is entertaining, that's for sure. But in the entertainment field, we've seen better, that's for sure too! As you can see, I'm not sure about where I stand concerning this movie. Those who watch slashers only for nudity will be more than satisfied. This movie's all boobs, but unfortunately no blood, or not enough. I think I'm being generous with this movie because I had a good time watching it and I really enjoy watching slasher movies, even as bad as they sometimes are. If you want me to be sincere, The Slumber Party Massacre Part 1 is the best one and all the others are a waste of time, so I guess I have a lot of time to waste!! For more fun, watch Sleepaway Camp 2 and Cheerleader Camp.


On my continuing quest to find the worst movie of all time, my friends and I stumbled upon this little gem. It is hilarious through and through, especially if you don't know (like we didn't) that it's a semi-sequel to another horror series.

I won't bother going into the plot except to mention that everyone complains about the horrible snowstorm that was coming (it was equivalent to the characters just screaming "FORESHADOWING!" at the camera and waving their arms), and, in some odd twist of fate, the snow storm ever occurs. Budget problems, I guess.

Add that to a magical front door that is opened or closed depending on what scare effect the director wants to create and the electricity being cut off until the gym teacher decides to take a shower with lots of soap. I'll admit it; I had trouble breathing at points.

The only actual decent part of this movie, as it turns out, was from the original Slumber Party Massacre movie. It's so much funnier now that I know that.

*SPOILER* The end, where it is revealed that the slasher did it because her drunk friends stumbled in on her and a female friend making out and then the friend driving into a train or something is probably the funniest psycho killer origin ever, heightened by the fabulous use of blurring and stock footage. I'm glad all of the slasher's friends forgot the incident completely until a flashback was necessary.

Run, don't walk, to pick this up and see the hilarity. Of course, the continuity editor should be given an award for all of this, if only they weren't stuck in that horrible snow storm...


After reading many good things about it ,i finally watched "the clearing".With a cast of great actors like Redford and Dafoe ,one would,at least, expect a decent film.After the closing credits had rolled i was still shocked by how bad and incoherent this movie actually was.

Is it supposed to be an "art" film??I don't think so cause it is too melodramatic for that.The bad thing is that the drama seems way too forced and unrealistic.

The truth is that the script makes absolutely no sense.First of all it never really explains the motive behind the actions of any of the characters,it just overblows their so called "personal issues".What's so bad about Redford's character's life that he has to "clear it"??The fact that he cheats,occasionally,his wife??The guy is a millionaire who has had a good life,has a great son and a great daughter,a wife that loves him(and a girlfriend that also seems to be way above the generic mistress type of woman)o and a new-born grandson.The only problem seems to be that he...has been working hard for all his life to be a successful person.So what??It seems that his hard work has really paid off and there's actually no real problems with his life.

Then we come to Dafoe's character:here's someone who was a manager for one of Redford's companies and was fired.Why is this guy unemployed for ...eight years???It seems that he must have some kind of good education to have a job like the one he had in the first place and seems to have been a man with solid ideas about his work(as evident by his flashback of a conversation that he had with Redford when he was working for him).Why couldn't a man like that get a decent job and have a decent life??Cause he was ,once,fired??Totally unrealistic.

The film really tries to portray these men as "tortured souls" or something and that comes off as really cheesy.In fact i would say that if the creators of this film were trying to say something about the American dream then they failed miserably.

As for the actual events that take place during the movie ,they also make no sense at all.In fact the last 20 minutes of the film come off as an insult to the viewer's intelligence,because there's not one thing that takes place that actually makes any sense.Redford seems to have about a 1000 chances to escape ,yet he doesn't.At one moment he is ready to escape and yet he misses his chance cause he feels sorry for his kidnapper and doesn't want to hurt him!!!Then Dafoe picks up his gun from the water and the mud,which should be useless(if you fire a shot with a gun after the gun has been in the water and mud it will possibly blow up in your face)and the gun is in perfect condition!!! The way an unemployed ,useless(as portrayed in this film) and mentally unstable character,manages to outsmart the entire FBI with such ease brings the narrative of this film to "twilight zone" levels.The cheesy ending(with Redford's wife illusion) comes to finish the viewer off.

This film pretends to be something,it's not(i.e a quality,sophisticated psychological thriller).Unfortunately it fails so hard,that it becomes a disaster and that's the word that describes this film best:A DISASTER.


I hate it when people in the movie theater talk back to the screen. It's one of the main reasons why I stick to DVD's or videos . I saw The Clearing on DVD but if I had seen it in the movies I would have had to stand up and SCREAM " HE'S NOT DEAD YET , YOU MORON ! "

The Clearing is another in a long list of horrible movies that feature Mr.Redford . Legal Eagles , Havana , Indecent Proposal , Up Close and Personal , Sneakers , Last Castle , and Spy Game . If Robert Redford told me to invest in something I'd go the other way .

But the worst possible thing you can do to an audience is this . Say you're being kidnapped and your kidnapper has a gun . He's holding it on you for most of the movie . You turn the tables on him and start strangling him . Whatever you do keep strangling him until he's DEAD ! Don't just strangle him for ten seconds . Stay with it ! Ten minutes at least . But Bob stops too soon , walks away and forgets about Mr. Kidnapper until ....... He gets up , finds the gun and holds it on our hero again . At this point I wanted Mr. Kidnapper to shoot Robert Redford . More than a few times . And I wanted to shoot him as well .


Now I know why this movie can be bought for so cheap at the video stores. I was curious since it had three big-name stars yet was among the 'B' movies that the video apparently can't even give away! The answer is, it is a film that would attract a very limited audience: an over-50 crowd with very Liberal sensibilities.

Who else who watch Robert Redford, Willem Dafoe and Helen Mirren give, essentially, a basic message that "cheating on your wife is okay so long as you still love her." That's the nice "feel-good message" here, particularly at the end at the end of this strange kidnapping story. Who wrote this script.....Bill Clinton?

I say "strange" because the kidnapper is the nicest kidnapper (Dafoe) you've ever seen, except at the end. He unties his hostage (Redford) frequently, which no kidnapper would risk, has casual conversations about family matters, etc. It's all ludicrous! Well, the L.A. Times says it's "an intelligent thriller." Ha ha. Well, that confirms what most people know of the L.A. Times. For those of you who believe that, and haven't seen it, I won't spoil it with more of the gigantic holes in this story, particularly at the end. The fact is, it's an insult to anyone with intelligence.

Anyway, you can't fool all the people all the time, as critics have yet to figure out. Here is another film they touted that justifiably bombed at the box office and video store.


I wanted to like this film, and certainly there is room for a psychological character-driven movie which doesn't go for the cheap thrills. Yet, for the enjoyment of a movie, one requires a believable plot, some pacing and editing, and a feeling of involvement. In The Clearing, what starts out as an intriguing mystery, with a kidnapping and unknown motives, turns into a slow draggy pointless exercise. Nothing much really happens, and the so-called character-driven angles (as expressed by the director in his commentary) really don't add up to much.

Fine actors are wasted here. Robert Redford does his best trying to engage and outwit Willem Dafoe. Dafoe brings a bit of nuance to his character, insofar as one can feel somewhat sympathetic towards him. It's unfortunate that Dafoe has been typecast as a villain, he's gone into the Christopher Walken Hall of Fame of Typecasting.

Wendy Crewson is usually good but her character's entry into the movie was brief and contrived, and I was wondering why they even bothered to introduce her character. By far the biggest waste of talent was Helen Mirren. In the director's commentary, all I heard was how fabulous a talent she is. I agree, she's a great actress. Then why was she not used properly? Only towards the climax of this movie does she get to show herself, but by then the viewer has quit caring.

Too bad, I liked parts of this movie, but as another reviewer wrote, once you're halfway in you know the film is not going to get much better.


How do two great actors foist off a piece of junk like this on film-goers. My only conclusion is that they and their director believe that ANY film in which they star just MUST be seen and applauded,

Now to the film - probably the worst "thriller" I have ever seen. The actors showed minimal emotion; the plot was reasonable for a 1/2 hour time slot (not 91 minutes). The FBI agent was almost a silly parody - his partner was apparently struck dumb and spoke not one word. To paraphrase Robert Redford, the villain was a meaningless piece of crap! The film was drawn out and meaningless - the only question was whether the hero would die or not. One truly bizarre part of the story - The waiting family seemed to go on for at least several days; the hero and antihero seemed to only take one day.

All in all - waste of time


Do not watch this movie, go see something else ... I was very disappointed, I cannot rate this movie any better than 3. The acting was quite good and I really liked William Dafoe as the villain, but I cannot see why this movie made it to the big screen. The story was old and has been shown in 100+ other movies and 1000+ TV series/movies. The main problem was basically: Nothing is happening. Take a kidnapping, let the villain make the wife of the kidnapped man deliver the money, make the police look stupid and boring and extend this to 95 minutes, you got your "Clearing" movie. The only 2 reasons I did not rate this a 1 was a) Dafoe and b) the "plan-B-ending". There are not many endings you can give a kidnapper movie ... 75% of these kind end with ending A, 20% end ending B and 1% ends with something unforeseeable. Boring, boring, boring.


It has been a long time since I have been to a movie as lame and boring as this one. It is one thing to have a slow pace where characters are being developed in a progressive way, or some aspect of the movie clearly is enhanced by such pacing (such as 'Lost in Translation"). However, there is a difference between slow progression and outright stalling, as happened in this one. I guess from the look on Helen Mirren's face she must have been distraught by the disappearance of her husband!! Surprise, surprise!! What a marvelously creative moment the meeting of the mistress and wife was.(sarcasm) And what a great way that the whole story fell apart at the end. Truly a masterpiece.


what the hell was the point of this dull movie? it looked pretty interesting in the beginning but quickly fell flat on its face. its supposed to be based on a true story but for crying out loud is there no more script writers left in Hollywood? man iv'e seen these guys in some of the best movies ever made,defoe can play just about anything and when i see he's in a movie i don't have a problem renting it but I'm starting to wonder.redford also a great actor is also slipping; perhaps their hard up or just losing their senses. the dialog was long and terribly heavy eyed,especially at home with the family.i wonder if the actors thought they had a hit going here? perhaps...uh..an Oscar?


Business Executive is kidnapped, made to wander miles and miles in a woodland for days and days exchanging dialog with his kidnapper.And we have got to listen to all the nonsense......

Meanwhile his snotty wife and family are at home with the FBI wondering what to do...... .....at no time does she seem concerned about the fate of her husband except when it comes to the ransom..... A "love story"? Give me a break!

The plot is ludicrous. And almost every scene is filled with an air of expectation that something significant is going to happen but it never does.

The result of the kidnapping is predictable and stupid, and it becomes even more silly when we learn the fate of the kidnapper.

This is garbage:

2 out of 10.


What an atomic bomb of a movie. The story goes nowhere and comes fron nowhere. It leaves the theatre goer with ones arm up saying "is this it". What happened to Redford. He was once a fair actor. Now he thinks that he can show up on the set and make a few scenes and it's a take. Wrong. What an unemotional film. I don't mean to be so so cruel, but what crap of a movie. Unbelievable amateur crap. If I was in this movie I would be so embarased that I would not show my face. I tell you what, if I was associated with this movie, I am in big trouble. This movie will go down in the annals of movie making as the king of bombs with which all others will be compared to.


I'm sorry but i don't understand how the studio get's away with this. The movie is just not worth it. Maybe as a theater-play but certainly not as a movie! And why do they call it a thriller??? Offcource the acting is good but i did'n't expect anything less from these perfect actors. Robert Redford plays very well and Willem Dafoe is convincing enough as the softy "bad guy". Helen Mirren can play almost any role and always (still) looks beautiful to me ;). I'm also a fan of her British detectives. Still they just can't save this ow so boring movie, i'm sorry. I hope we don't get to many movies anymore from this director "Pieter Jan Brugge" cause he obviously doesn't now the meaning of the words "suspence and thriller".


I had never heard of "The Clearing" until I was really bored one day with some friends in the local Blockbuster and it grabbed our attention. The description on the DVD jacket grabbed our interest, but once we popped it into the DVD player, the boredom was only beginning.

The story was dragged out for waaaay too long. It seemed to follow the same outline as other movies which include a kidnapping. The most suspenseful parts were in the beginning of the movie, however. After that, the outline was followed exactly and that made "The Clearing" unoriginal. The flashbacks were too many in number and the grief of the victim's family provided nothing interesting nor enhanced the nature of the film. And I also found that I did not like the ending, so that probably led to me not liking the movie at all.

The acting was not horrible...it wasn't the greatest, though. Robert Redford has given much better performances. Willem Dafoe's tragic character was the only one I really saw develop throughout the story line and the viewer only really sees that change in the last ten minutes or so in the movie. Helen Mirren's portrayal as Robert Redford's wife was flat and sort of followed the same generic mold as other movies which include a tragic and heart-splitting event.

In my opinion, "The Clearing" is nothing to rave about. Use your movie rental money on something else...like "Garden State," perhaps?


like in so many movies of the past, you would think Hollywood would learn this by now, makes for a very disappointing movie, not to mention, make sure the kidnapped victim is alive first before paying the ransom.

Maybe this film wants to remind of these basic facts in case it should ever happen to one of us. Why the long walk in the woods and can a city guy really go through the woods without getting lost? Just an opportunity for some sentimental dialog that was meaningless in the end.

I had to listen to part of the director's comments in the special features section, from the great moves that Redford has made in the past, (Sneakers for one) surprised he agreed to star in such a film. The director's comments and reasons were weak.

The best parts of this movie was the scenery, can't wait for spring to come.


I love most Jet Li movies (with the exception of Romeo Must Die) and I bought this movie in a VERY cheap three-pack with "The Master" and "Twin Warriors". While Twin Warriors was very impressive and I was thoroughly intrigued by it, and the master was a bit "Karate Kid" but also enjoyable, I thought this movie was TERRIBLE. I'm not just saying that because I'm used to better movies. I'm saying that it was almost down there with "Kazaam". The fight scenes were terrible (blurry cameras and no real fighting) and the plot was your typical "stupid kung-fu plot". If you are going to have a plot this stupid (see 'man turns into woman to become all-powerful then falls in love with Jet Li') you best have some great fighting to go with it. If you are looking for an original HK Jet Li movie, I suggest you go rent "Shaolin Temple 2" (aka Kids from Shaolin).


I usually like hongkong - martial arts - fantasy movies but I hated this one. Once Upon A Time In China, Shogun Assassin, A Chinese Ghost Story and even Big Trouble In Little China are my favorites but this film sucked! Too much fancy tricks and stupid story.

4/10


Whoa!Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, did I mention terrible?You can tell just by the DVD cover not to get this movie, but unfortunately that wasn't the case for me.Well, someone brought this home for me to watch, and when I looked at it I just wanted to strangle the person, because they used my money.I will certainly be taking it back soon, but I might as well tell you about it while I have it in memory, for I definitely want to forget it.This movie doesn't deserve to even be called horrible.It's beyond horrible.Quite possibly, the worst film ever.The acting was so, so, so, so horrifically disgusting, as well as the deaths being so ENTIRELY lame and predictable.I didn't even laugh at how bad this movie was, which kind of frightens me a little.Don't see this film, shame on you if you're even looking at this movie page, and I have EXTREME pity for you if you're looking at this movie page, because you think this will be DECENT.Final word: YUCK!!!!!!!!!!


I have to say that there is one redeeming speck in regards to this "film". It firmly establishes the bottom of the barrel. Now filmmakers know what to aim above when making a movie. Other than that I regret watching this debacle. What shameless abandon the making of this "film" was. What a waste of $100,000 (that's right folks, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars). This "film" reminds me of that "Adult Video Awards" show in which of group of "industrial prostitutes" stand up a praise themselves, believing that they are real actors, actresses and filmmakers. Ironic then how I've watched blue movies with better acting, directing and writing. I also found it funny that the Executive Producer, Justin Ament, just had to be in the "movie". He plays Deputy Jake Barker. I'm sure his "acting" career has taken off... Ted Pfiffer, the writer, has a part. He no doubt was wallowing in the clichéd glory he created. It should be noted that Carrie Finklea has a lead role in the movie. You might remember her from Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant'. Though I'm not too sure that she'll want to write this film on her resume. And I'm not sure which is a more depressing point; money was spent to make this film or people are going to watch it. Along with 'Torque', 'Godsend' and 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', one of the worst films, IF NOT THE WORST FILM, of 2004.


This movie is not that good at all.Its pretty stupid, pretty annoying, and very poorly done.I really only saw this film was because one of my friends said they hated this film.Although I didn't hate it as much as them, I still found it to be a pretty bad film.The only thing that is remotely good about this was that it was a little entertaining at times, and also I feel that if it had been done a little better it would have been equally okay.What I mean by a little better is that if it had been totally recast, not have had it looked like it had been shot for a film festival, and if the script had been improved it would have been a okay slasher film.Instead it isn't but instead what it is now, a crappy film.The acting is atrocious I felt as if I was watching a couple of teens act for like a Halloween show or Thrill ride or something.The kills are pretty cheap(as is the film itself), and basically everything else is low-class.Overall this film really is bad and you wouldn't be missing out on anything if you decided to skip this film.

3.8 out of 10 stars