This movie was really bad. I mean really really bad. The scenes were like from a parody and special effect sucked a lot. And it was filmed in 2003!!! i think this was a great waste of time and money and Michael Shanks with his 'Shaggy from Scooby Doo' image just made me laugh. Never waste your time with this picture... I really don't know what the director was thinking after seeing the final cut of this movie but the fights were so unrealistic that it hurt my eyes to look on them. The 'latex cat women' fighters were like sheep just rolling around the scenes and looking frightened around like they had no clue what to do on the scene... I think this is a beautiful example of Bottom 100 picture.


I watched this out of curiosity. I enjoyed Stargate SG1 and I've watched many of the other TV shows and movies that the principal characters have worked on.

My expectations weren't high, so I was surprised to be so monstrously disappointed.

The acting throughout is appalling, and the script is worse.

Zero research into the bad science that is spouted throughout the movie, or into martial arts (which several cast members engage in throughout the movie, despite clearly having no martial arts training (baton twirling does not a warrior make)) training makes the already implausible plot even less credible. The same weapon (carried by Michael Shanks), when shot at the side of a mountain, causes extreme damage, but when shot indoors at the wall made of wicker, creates a small fireworks effect without damaging the wicker structure - OK, I suppose Michael Shanks fans will be sued to seeing that in Stargate SG1, where a staff weapon creates either a surface burn on a main character, or blasts a hole in a section of castle wall as required), but still... A bad CGI snake 'god' eats one of the faithful in the way a dog would eat - snakes just don't behave like that.

The basic premise of an amazonian warrior cult on a distant planet is silly at best. Matriarchal societies have always been based on a lack of understanding that men are required in the process of propagating the species - for instance, the Picts, who didn't figure out the role of men in sexual reproduction until the ninth century - at which time, the balance of power moved from the women to the men. They carry technological weapons and demonstrate some knowledge of science - particularly of medicine, so the idea that a matriarchal society could exist with this level of scientific knowledge is based purely on the original author's wet dream. Of course, the few references to stellar science made in this movie demonstrate that the author knew nothing about that either (except for a few keywords that he must have heard in other movies). Still, it could have been done better - like 'She' in 1965 for instance, which showed matriarchal society with a certain reverence, far more believably, and even after 45 years it seems fresher than this fetid exercise in stupidity. Marching a few women around in 'armour', pouting aggressively, and spitting out their lines like a kiddie looking for a fight in a nightclub ("Come on then! I'll do ya!" style), seems to be over-simplifying the complexities of a matriarchal culture.

The cultural references are so simple - 'all hail the snake mother' pretty much sums it all up. Even the tiniest hamlet shows more cultural variation.

There is nothing clever, thought-provoking, interesting, visually exciting, or remotely entertaining about this movie. The soundtrack is of similar quality.

I can only assume that the few, overly-charitable positive reviews this movie has received are from blinkered Michael Shanks fans who will give a thumbs up to anything he's involved in. Don't be fooled. Low budgets are not a reason for a film to fail - cheap B movies can be brilliant. This isn't one of them, and there's no reason to inflict this movie on yourself.


What a production, what a waste of screen-time and money. Here is what some european so called producer think, of a scifi movie. Take former model, Alexandra Kamp, pair a with an US c-class actor and get one of film business most notorious producer Harry A. Towers. Towers then finds some obscure munich based prod. house, Tandem communication, Rola Bauer, and then mix it all up with no script whatsoever and you'll get "Sumuru" - a priceless gem among the worst movies ever done! Get a live people, and do something else, whatever you do, no movies please!! To top everything, producers went to South Africa for filming, what you see on screen is one giant sand hole, where the "action" takes place, between extremely bad actors and extremely bad fx that any film student would do better.


Pretty.

Pretty actresses and actors. Pretty bad script. Pretty frequent "let's strip to our undies" scenes. Pretty fair F/X. Pretty jarring location decisions (the college dorm room looks like a high-end hotel room - probably because it was shot at a hotel). Pretty bland storyline. Pretty awful dialog. Pretty locations. Pretty annoying editing, unless you like the music video flash-cut style.

This one isn't a guilty pleasure - this is more an embarrassing one. If you must watch this, pick a good dance/techno album and turn the sound off on the movie - you'll see the pretty people in their pretty black undies, and probably follow the story just fine.

The cast may be able to act - I doubt that anyone could look skilled given the lines/plot that they had to deal with.


DeCoteau has to be one of the worst "directors" working today in any genre, and it has nothing to do with his movies usually containing homoerotism and having guys run around in their matching boxer briefs. Remember... anyone in tight black underwear is satanic and evil and want to suck out your blood/soul... such deep symbolism here). I just sat through The Sisterhood to give him his fair shakes, I try to watch every horror movie I can and this one had Barbara (FROM BEYOND, RE-ANIMATOR) Crampton in it (I had previously been sucked in to the world of DeCoteau thanks to Linnea Quigley, Adrienne Barbeau and several other actresses I like).

Lemme tell you what about The Sisterhood... Like the other reviewer pointed out, the supposed plot involves lesbian vampires on a college campus. But never has a parade of hot young babes ("actresses" if you want) running around dressed in bras, panties and bikinis been so boring. The movie has no plot, no gore, no nudity and the dialog is ridiculous and seems like they made it up as they go along. Parts are put in slow-motion and repeated many times to push the running time up. About ten minutes of this one consists of characters just walking around on campus (oh, the excitement!) that looks more like a hotel resort than any college I've ever been to. And the acting is the absolute worst. The only thing these girls do well is lean forward and bend over to show off their bodies. The cast were so devoid of talent that I'd be shocked to see any of them get a one-day walk-on role on Passions in the future. Ditto for the guys. Yeah DeCoteau squeezed more hot guys in underwear in this one, too... Guys who should be in some K-Mart brochure instead of trying to act. Do these people actually have to audition or just show up in Dave's office and take their clothes off? I think the answer is obvious.

I am willing to give any movie a chance if 1.) it's intelligently written, well directed, original and competently acted (or hell, even ambitious and stylish)... Or 2.) it is chock full of gore, nudity, assorted trashiness and/or it's unintentionally hilarious. David DeCoteau's movies deliver NONE of that and they do it on better-than-usual production values for direct-to-video flicks. What a waste! So what is the appeal, especially with the advent of porn of the soft- and hard-core variety that's easily accessible to anyone with a computer? I simply cannot answer that.

DeCoteau is a gay horror director and could use his resources to put a unique spin on the genre. Instead, he produces mind-numbing drivel without an ounce of talent or intelligence shining through. Ironically, when you think about it, his films are anything BUT pro-gay. They actually make homosexuality seem seedy, secretive and sinister. The obviously gay characters in his films are always trying to corrupt, seduce and/or kill off the innocent, sexually-confused leads. There's no shading here to make things interesting. The protagonists are naive and seldom prove themselves to be strong, assertive or confident in who they are. I would understand this plotting if Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps or Dr. Laura starting making direct-to-video horror films, but from a gay director, it just goes to show that he puts almost no thought into these beefcake cheese-fests.


I don't honestly know what legal or illegal substance they - the writers - were on when the wrote this horrid piece of tripe!

The cast - sucks The plot - sucks The editing - sucks The whole premise of the movie is that a girl with psychic/telekinetic powers comes across a lesbian vampire sorority, you just have to be totally out of your head to watch even 1 minute of this.

The only reason I had to watch it - it was on the here! network as part of a two-picture purchase and the movie that came on after it was the real one that I wanted to see. I fast forwarded through the whole thing and was just amazed how stupid this movie was in double speed!

Do not rent, buy, or watch this movie....the vampires in the movie don't suck as much as the overall movie and production does!

If you want a good lesbian vampire movie - The Hunger with David Bowie, Susan Sarandon & Katharine Deneuve - excellent movie to watch/own/rent in place of this piece of pure sh*t


I wasn't expecting "Citizen Kane" but I was hoping for some extreme guilty pleasure! The script is bad, but the school exterior shots were obviously done with the same 5 extras on the same day & the dorm exterior shots were easily shot during a hurricane.

The wardrobe was swapped around so much, I hoped the wardrobe mistress had some good strong soap to wash the panties. I know the budget's time but do you think they could have bought a couple of DIFFERENT styles of underwear? What oversexed up vampiric hot chick would wear boy-leg panties under latex trousers? I was relieved to see one appearance of thong in the penultimate scene.

Good points: the actors were all *very* attractive, and the girls had natural boobs. Too bad they never took the bras off.

The special effects were neither effective and could only be describes as special, if they rode the short bus to the edit bay. The final scene in particular is horrifically, laughably bad.

-Lizzzzzzzz


OK if you are looking for a fun lesbian romp. This is NOT the movie If you are looking for a fun movie with hot sociopathic characters (in the vane of 'cruel intentions' or 'wild things') This is NOT the movie if you are looking for a classic vampire lesbian seductress's movie. This is NOT the movie.

However if you are looking to wast an hour of your life, this is your movie. It is badly written, badly directed,badly scored, badly filmed.It had bad special effects...i mean really bad special effects. I think that you can actually generate the same special effects in imovie lol.

IT REALLY IS A PRETTY BAD MOVIE.

The actors were classic starlet beauties however look more like porn stars. it is shot like a soft core porn however you never get the money shot and the actors all look bored out of their brains. the 'girl on girl' scenes, which suck btw, were so LAME that there hardly worth mentioning. go watch the 'almost sex scenes' on youtube cos that's the only reason you would want to watch this movie and even there not worth it.

A WAST OF MONEY AND TIME!!! don't even pick it up, go watch 'Cruel intentions 2' instead - same movie without the bad special effects, bad storyline,bad writing,bad dialog and bad acting. actually i might go watch it now just to purge my mind


This was made in 2004 for gods sake, what happened to our state of the art special effects? What happened to our rough around the edges but still good actors? The actors in this movie were unbelievably horrible, there was one or two that weren't bad, but the rest, biggg thumbs down. Couldn't stand listening to the badly written dialogue, I mean, who the heck wrote that script? Please don't ever write again! Special effects? Don't even get me started on the special effects. SURELY they could have come up with better then fully fake looking green balls of light in the eye sockets. It looks so old and..lame frankly.! Even the easiest thing to make look real..the teeth, THEY looked so fake and stupid I would almost wipe a tear from my eye in annoyance. Come onnnn I cant believe this was even shown to the public.!


After seeing the movie in a class of mine and having a talk with the filmmaker, I found out exactly why the film bombed the way it did. The creators of the movie had no intention to call the film "8MM 2." Originally, the film was called "The Velvet Side of Hell" but was changed at the last minute by Sony Pictures to 8MM 2 without letting the filmmakers have any say in the matter. By doing that, it screwed them out of theatrical releases and doomed it to a straight to video release with minimal advertising.

Again, this is from the filmmaker's mouths, not mine, so I really can't say what is truth, and what is hype.

If you look at the film as "Velvet Side of Hell," it isn't THAT bad. It isn't great, but it is not god awful. It would basically just be a B-movie that likes to show boobs. But as a sequel to "8MM," the film fails terribly.


Sure, this flick set in Eastern Europe is filled with sexy, but it absolutely has nothing to do with the Nicholas Cage flick "8mm" An ambassador's daughter and her fiancée mix it up with a local woman in a threesome that ends up being taped. The tape is used for blackmail and the stakes get higher and higher as the couple try to work it out themselves instead of going to authorities.

The sex comes and goes -- and would be the only reason for renting it, I suppose if you like this sorta thing -- and is quite gratuitous towards the middle when we cruise along the porn scene looking for the "other woman." I definitely question how it got into Blockbuster even with a Youth Restricted Sticker considering how just a hint over the edge of soft core it is. (Oh that's right, it's the double standard. Actual art-house flicks like "The Dreamers" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien" get castrated R versions, but Straight To DVD crap like this get the UNRATED banner proudly attached. Whatever.)

The acting is horrible, the plot is mind numbingly unoriginal, but really the worst offense is the idea that this is a sequel to 8mm. I'd give the flick a D for a grade and be nice, but considering they tried to trick me, it gets the F it frankly deserves.


1st watched 2/9/2008, 4 out of 10(Dir-J.S. Cardone): Sexual political thriller that doesn't really succeed in any of these areas very well except early on where there are some interesting soft-core scenes. The movie starts off portraying a couple exploring their sexual fantasies amidst their work environments or wherever and whatever suits their fancy. The couple takes an excursion to a retreat and bathhouse where they run into a woman that's willing to be a part of a three-some and fulfill some of their fantasies. At this point, we only know that this couple is well off but we don't know until they return that the fiancé is part of a well-to-do political family. The man hopes to be on the rise to the point of possibly getting a congressional seat after the marriage. They then receive a package in the mail from an anonymous source with explicit pictures of their encounter at the bath house and their qwest begins as to how and why they were filmed, who sent the package, what they want, and how to clear their names before any of this gets out. This qwest becomes an obsession that leads them deeper into seedier worlds and takes a lot of their time, to the point where their friends & family wonder what they're doing all day and why they look rundown all the time. This movie is interesting at times but drifts into ridiculousness as they personally seek out the problem instead of getting the police involved early on because of their pride. This mistake, of course, keeps the movie going. The performances are fine despite the no-name cast but the lunacy of the situation overrides and the movie starts to become ho-hum about ½ the way through. And of course, they throw in a twist at the end that defies and challenges everything that happened prior(as is the norm these days when they don't know what else to do to spice up the movie). This doesn't help this movie one bit, though.


First off, the first thing that came to my mind after I finished this film last night was "Why the title of 8MM 2?", because I saw the first one obviously, and what did this have to do with the first movie's plot? The only thing that was similar was the fact that the couple had to go into the porno industry and that wasn't even needed in the plot, because after you see the ending that I will not spoil, it just didn't make any sense.

A diplomat and his fiancée are in Hungary and notice a woman who is swimming naked in the pool area, she's very attractive, so when they see her at a club, they decide to have a little fun and have a steamy threesome. But things get extremely intense when the diplomat is mailed pictures of them all having the affair, fearing that it might go public and jeopardize his career, they pay off the guy who sent the pictures, the diplomat freaks out and "kills" the guy, leading into a murder case. He and his fiacee decide to find the girl they had the affair with, but things just get deeper and darker as they go further into what they got themselves into.

What could have been an alright thriller, turned into an unexplained and not well thought out movie, which was sad. Like I said, the title really has nothing to do with the first one, so don't fall for it. It's just a sexual thriller that makes no sense, but it's good for those nights alone, because quite frankly this is one of those films where it's so close to porn that it might as well be labeled as soft core.

4/10


Why was this film made? What were the creators of this thinking?!?! The first 8MM film at least had a plot that made sense and was potentially interesting. The first film was about the snuff film industry. This sequel is about... hold on... the porno industry!! Yes, as if the snuff film industry, an industry in which people are supposedly killed on film for entertainment, were at all in the same league with the adult film industry, an industry in which people film other people engaging in unstimulated sex acts and situations for eroticism. The idea alone should warn you about how poorly conceived the idea for this film alone is. It isn't helped by a lack of plot, character, acting, direction, script, logic, theme, or even sound design. This is a remarkably boring film that never once held my attention. Literally nothing works. Why would a mystery thriller film about the porno industry involving assassination and betrayal work anyway? I don't have much of an interest in adult films, but I certainly have watched them before. Why would somebody make a film about the evils of it and that they would make it in a sequel to a film about snuff movies? I don't even know if there is an industry involved in snuff film making, but I hope it doesn't. The idea of a snuff film alone is horrific and only people who are truly sick and bad would be a part of it. I don't think that the adult film industry revolves around murder and torture. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people make pornographic films for good intentions rather than to hurt and kill people. It is never okay to hurt another human being. The adult film industry isn't about hurting people. It's about creating films that are, to me, a diversion and a waste of time. What is this film trying to say? It doesn't work.


I believe the production value is OK..probably deserves a 4/10 or 5/10.it's traditionally filmed,featuring good looking people with model quality and a little class..

but the premise let me annoyed..a decent woman would do such dirt? I mean she is gonna marry a man who would have sex with another woman?

and what's more serious she is also active in the behavior...... only in de Laclos's mind....the film also have many aspects that makes Eastern Europeans seem immoral

after all, it's just movie, if it doesn't intend to degrade women in general, I will give one more point..but obviously, it does

conclusion: a nasty piece of crap with a little taste


This is another one of those movies I just knew I would hate, but it ended up not being as bad as one would expect.

It has a lot of T&A in it and even the DVD menu is chocked full of women's breast. The first few scenes of the movie has a lot of sex and nudity and I was beginning to think there would be no story at all just exploiting nudity for the sake of making money off a popular prequel 8MM.

As I continued to watch there was just more sex and nudity and main characters that I could care less about, but then the story started to unfold and I started to see a point to it all, and it was a tad better.

It is about a man who's fiancé is the daughter of an Ambasador and they all have a promising future until nude photos of a menage a trois sex act shows up and blackmail is in the senders cards. The man and his fiancé must now get to the bottom of who sent the pics and how to shut them up.

The movie first of all is nothing to do with part 1, it doesn't even have anything to do with 8MM's, its about a sex video though so I can see the similarities, as small as they may be.

The acting is neither good, nor bad, its just nobodies playing parts anybody could do. The films production value is middle of the road and its pure drama yawn.

I did enjoy going along for the ride getting to the bottom of the blackmailers motives. I was anticipating answers which is way more than I could say for the first one which I consider garbage. This movie has some nice twists too which are always welcomed.

It's not great, and it is very slow started, but it does ultimately entertain. I wasn't on the edge of my seat and I won't rave to my friends that this is a must see, but hey if you watch a lot of movies and always seek something new, this might entertain you for 90 minutes.


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

David (Johnathon Schaech) and Tish (Lori Heuring) are a couple in Budapest, on business commitments and staying at a luxury hotel. One night, they meet an attractive woman at a nightclub and invite her back to their place, where they end up in a threesome. All is well, until David receives some negatives in the mail and he and Tish end up being blackmailed. But when some people involved in the deception are found murdered, things get messy and they are forced to enter the seedy underground world of pornography and hardcore bondage to track down the woman who may hold the key to everything.

Whereas the original film dealt with the concept of snuff films, this straight to DVD sequel deals with the more wholesome (!!!) theme of threesomes and sleazy sex. It plays like a porn film, a cheap piece of titillation with plenty of hot T/A action going on. If this sounds like your idea of a good film, you'll probably like it, but you'd probably be more at home in a porn shop than a video store.

This tries to copy the original film's dark and voyeuristic feel, but while it does a pretty good job of this, it still can't hold up to that of the original's. It has an apathetic story, with a dodgy narrative flow. And compared to Cage, Schaech comes across as interminably wooden.

Better than I thought it'd be, I suppose, and better than your average one of these DVD direct sequels that seem to be coming out a lot these days, but really, haven't we seen enough? **


I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!! I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!!


Wow, what's this on the video rental store's shelf in front of me? Nothing other than a questionable "sequel" to 8MM. It wasn't a very good sequel to a movie that had a very definitive end and an abundance of emotional depth far greater than this movie.

Basically, from the plot outline verbatim, an American diplomat, David Huxley, and his fiancée, Tish Harrington, venture into the sordid underworld of sex and pornography in Budapest, Hungary to find out who is blackmailing them with a porno video taken of them with a prostitute, Risa. The entire story is based around the various characters who make up these various sex clubs and strip joints throughout the city. The mystery is solved when, in the end, Tish finds out that the ransom money for the video and (essentially later on in the story) her fiancée which came out of her trust fund money is basically going back to her future husband as the story unfolds til the bitter end.

I didn't like how this had nothing to do with the original 8MM at all. The only thing close to the original is the type of thriller that it was, the fact that David ends up with some kind of bondage contraption over him to keep him prisoner looks like the kinky world of the first film, and the fact that the entire movie has sex emblazoned throughout almost every key scene. Otherwise, its a totally different movie. It made for a lousy love story, even before the end is known, which makes the ending more of a possibility because I didn't believe the words coming out of David's mouth the whole time. But we were warned that he was a liar about most things that might get him in trouble.

There were ridiculous nude scenes in most of the "shocking" moments of the film, which were trying to stir emotions in the audience to cheer for Tish to figure out the plot so she can leave this "hellish" sex debauchery. I counted at least 11 ridiculously filmed sequences when there was nothing but sex to be shown. Even the menu screen on the DVD is nothing but film with naked women on it to make the DVD seem totally provocative.

David was no heroic person throughout the film. You could guess he was the main problem long before the end. The actors who played each role were all new to me, which might explain how they got so many of them to strip down to gain acting "respect." There were plot holes (How did David and Richard finally impress Tish's father by getting the lease they wanted when David was so wrapped up in this damn investigation to try and find a prostitute?) There were cheesy technology moments (like the talking email program dressed up like a bondage queen), and a gay brother character which did nothing but show how the director was trying to get a Joaquin Phoenix knockoff to play this character. The tag line featured on this profile for this video is complete BS, too, because it wasn't even about a last breath. Nobody really dies. But they did have a good car crash sequence that came out of nowhere...but that was a good 10 seconds long out of an hour and 3/4 long movie.

Go rent (and maybe buy) the original. It's one of Joel Schumacher's better and more original films. It has everything better about it from this film. I wouldn't recommend seeing this unless you want to compare apples to oranges.


I'm sorry, ELO fans, but I was disappointed with this concert at the CBS Television City in Los Angeles. It's decent music-wise, but the presentation is simply boring - big-time. Most of the songs sound the same and lead singer-writer Jeff Lynne is about as animated as a store mannequin. He has a pleasant voice, but he isn't much to watch. He just stands in one spot and sings for an hour and 40 minutes. The songs all sound like 1970s-1980s bubblegum stuff: pleasant but not exciting.

Lynn is accompanied by a very pretty woman, Rosie Vela, but she isn't too animated, either. The only song - out of 23 - that creates any excitement is the last one: "Roll Over Beethoven." Now if only some of the other 22 songs had that excitement to them, this could have been a much better concert DVD.


I rented this film for $5 and felt sorry I did it...I wouldn't give a 5c for it if I knew.This is the worse movie ever...None of the filming locations was in former Yugoslavia,map at the beginning what the...???English actors are trying to speak Serbian eg. pretending they are Serbs and they did it terrible bad.My first language is Serbian and I could not understand what they were mumling about.They drove a big jeep in a country where 3 sides (Croats,Serbs and Muslims) are in war and they wrote on it peace 4 Sarajevo???Ha,ha, how stupid was that...Don't know why English are making stupid films about war like this one...or even if they do why they are blaming Serbs for everything,when there was another two sides in a war too.And we all know they were killing too,not just sitting and pretending innocent,so they should at least show the whole truth.This film also Harrison's flowers,Behind enemys lines,The hunting party and few others were total bullshit and that's proved eg The hunting party was biggest loser in 2007/08 spent 20 mil 4 it and they earned 800.000 ha,ha, what a crap...The truth will come out sooner or later.Proud to be Serb!!!


6 out of the 8 comments on this subject rated this film as worth watching, so let me redress the balance.

If this is the best that British Independent film makers have to offer then they need to pack away their cameras right now and find jobs in another industry. Unfortunately for me that was 82 minutes I'll never see again and hopefully I'll save some of you from wasting 82 minutes of your own.

Whilst the idea behind the film is interesting, it is not developed enough to keep the viewer attached. The student characters are bland and uninteresting and quite frankly you won't care about what happens to them. The soldiers are practically caricatures of every baddie ever seen in film, I kept waiting for Captain Markovic to twirl an imaginary moustache. Some of the effects were quite good and showed some imagination, but these were ruined by the shockingly bad acting, poor script writing and patchy camera work. The budget may have been better spent sending the "actors" (and I use that term loosely)to acting classes or the Thomas Brothers to film making school or maybe on a spell checker because the subtitles were incorrectly spelt. The fact that the mis-spellings were not picked up on and rectified speaks volumes about the immaturity of the whole production.

I can only assume that the positive comments are staged by the film makers, either that or they were watching a completely different film. I implore the Thomas Brothers to never give up their day jobs for if they continue in this field, they will surely starve to death.


The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.

Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.

This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The highlight of the movie is a comparison between the smell of natural gas and a dirty vagina.

The acting is pathetic. I know acting is hard work and stuff, but that's why it should be left to real actors. Watching these people act is like watching Michael J. Fox perform brain surgery. It's shaky at best.

One of the other comments would have you believe that the movie is saved by the acting talents of Dan Gordon as Chris. Only Dan himself or maybe his mother could believe that was good acting.

The special effects in this movie were terrible. The worst special effects were for the gas explosion in the lighthouse. It looked like someone was shining an orange light up from the bottom of a model constructed from a refrigerator box. Sure there was a little bit of computer animation layered over top, but it didn't help. I suspect that the special effects on this movie were created and rendered using a single Amiga computer from the late 80s.


It's incredible how a movie can take so much time and effort and still end up being abominable. For those of you who appreciate painstaking special effects and inconceivable detail in every shot you will watch this film in awe. Simply because Predator Island contains none of this. It is a redundant remake of every horror monster movie in the last two decades. Now I appreciate bad horror films, they have a certain flare for humor in the most dramatic of circumstances. However, if your goal is to create a memorable work that will thus be engulfed in the Cult Hall of Fame then my first suggestion is to find some imagination/creativity plus get some talent. Oh, and a few extra bucks to put into your picture.

One horror film tradition has been to shock the audience with violent deaths and gore. However, shock doesn't deliver for more than a few seconds. To really evoke a satisfying reaction from paying crowd there should b development of characters, some identifiable traits. I know, you're probably saying this guy is not providing anything intelligent to the filmmakers, he's just stating an amateur remark. Well, that goes to show you how amateur these filmmakers are.

Despite having to go through the horror of watching this movie, there was a silver lining. The performance by Dan Gordon as Chris is splendid. He is given nothing to work with in a script and yet he is able to come out of that film looking like a star. Out of all of the actors he is the only who believes in what he is reciting. He not only provides the audience with someone we can identify with but we also have someone we look forward to watching so we can get through the rest of the film. Gordon shows genuine talent and the ability to pull off quality work and overcoming a huge obstacle, that being the rest of the cast. Dan Gordon is going to be a star, hopefully sooner than later. That is to say if he can get away films like this that will hold him back.


The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill.

Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them.


Once in a while it is good to see a really bad film like this, just so you know how decent an actor Keanu Reeves is by comparison. The premise of this story is good: teenagers go out on a boat, meteor lands in water, aliens kill teenagers. What's not to love about that, if you're into scream thrillers? But I should have known something was up when I read it was only 75 minutes long. I thought, "I hate judging movies by how long they are. Who says a movie has to be 90 minutes?" But once I took the DVD home from BBuster, I was shocked at the awful production quality, acting, directing of this completely amateurish piece of garbage. The only reason I watched it to the end was because I don't have cable TV, and I already paid four bucks for it. However, there was one ray of light: the actor who played "Chris" is actually decent, and far outclasses this dreck. First of all, the special effects were cheap and unconvincing. Then the aliens--the costumes seemed interesting (rubber suits) but since most of the film takes place in the dark, you don't really get to see them! And hardly any of the actors were convincing enough to suspend disbelief. Finally, I must say that the DVD jacket was made with much higher production standards than the film itself, which felt like a rip-off, so beware of that when you rent other DVDs. Save your $4 and buy a pint of beer.


From the opening shot of the meteor falling towards Earth, you know you're in for something special.

This is an ultra-low budget shot on video movie about a group of teens stranded on a lighthouse island with some monsters. The story is unremarkable and nothing you haven't seen a thousand times before. The acting isn't great but isn't completely horrible, however the special effects - of which there are a good deal - are laughable at best. In fact, if you can read this sentence, chances are better than 50% that you could do a more credible job creating the video explosion and compositing effects in this movie than the filmmakers.

The movie's saving grace - if you're in the mood for a grade Z turkey of a film - is that there's always something happening and it never gets boring. And if you like making fun of bad movies with your friends, you might just find this worth a dollar rental.

And I must say I appreciated the opening joke, "that is the dumbest name for an island I've ever heard." Probably the best moment in the movie.


Predator Island starts as six friends, Eric (Tom Dahl), Chris (Dan Gordon) along with Heather (Iris McQuillan-Grace), Kim (Iana Baker) & Denise (Melissa Roby) get invited to spend sometime on Kevin's (Michael Wrann) father's boat partying in the open sea. What could go wrong with such a super sounding idea? Well for starters a big green meteorite could crash into the sea near your boat & an alien life-force could emerge from it & try to kill all of you, then again that's just a ridiculously stupid idea, isn't it?

Co-edited, written & directed by Steven Castle I thought Predator Island was crap & it's a simple & straight forward as that really. The script is of the worst kind, you know the sort of abomination that's full of highly annoying teenage character's who do & say the most stupid things, it's full of clichés & is utterly predictable, it makes next-to-no sense, things just suddenly happen without any build up or explanation, it's boring even at only 70 odd minutes & it has virtually no entertainment value whatsoever, not even unintentional laugh value. The film doesn't really have much of what I would call a plot, there's no explanation given as to why or how this alien creature can take over people's minds or why it can be selective in the sense that one moment the person will be 'normal' the next, when the story calls for it & with no apparent cause, they suddenly get green glowing eyes & a sudden urge to turn cannibal. There's not enough horror in it, the so-called action scenes are pitiful & I really don't want to waste another second thinking about Predator Island let alone wasting my precious energy typing these words...

Director Castle doesn't do anything to make this thing watchable & the 'special effects' are absolutely terrible, this alien creature dude wouldn't even get into a 50's sci-fi film. The filmmakers even play some blooper footage over the end credits but this has to be the least funny collection of mistakes ever, I mean they can't even get it wrong right if you know what I mean! Forget about any decent gore as there isn't any, there's a bit of cannibalism & some intestines placed on the unfortunate actors stomach so another unfortunate actor can pick them up & pretend to eat them.

With a supposed budget of about $150,000 I have to concede that the filmmakers were working on a seriously low budget, that's still no excuse for making such a poor film. The whole thing looks very cheap & the acting is pretty bad.

Predator Island is crap, I'm sorry but that's the way it is & I just fail to see what anyone would get out of it. In my humble opinion this probably one to avoid.


I carefully checked if there's another movie named as this one, and there isn't ! But I really don't think we all saw the same movie ! There's no way ! How can you vote more than "1" for this movie ?! The idea of this movie let's say it's acceptable. Oh, and the acting of Dan Gordon (Chris) is quite good. But those are the only two things acceptable in this project. The others are... awful ? It's a very delicate word to describe the acting of the other actors, the directing, the (so said) "special" effects, even the way that the crew was filming ! I don't even like the way that the camera operators were moving to record the scenes ! This may be the most miserable film I've ever seen. I really don't remember a movie lower than this one... Maybe there is, but... I don't think so... Ehh, what's done, it's done... That's the movie and there's too late for anyone to change anything. I've voted "1", but my realistic vote starts with a "-" (minus) in front....


I like to think I have seen it all. SS DOOMTROOPER. The one about a family of sabertooth tigers. The one about a family of pteranodons. GOAT EATER. DEMON CHILD (a nonanimated child's rubber doll with horns glued on its head. Several SASQUATCH flicks, none of them good. A couple of giant spider/insect flicks. Endless HELLRAISER sequels. Endless LEPRAUCHAN sequels. Endless JASON sequels. A kickboxing scarecrow. AX 'EM, which is actually about an urban street parade recorded on someone's $199 camcorder. And so on. I watched part of an STV the other night about folks stranded on a desert island kickboxing to the death with a group of badly animated totems. I have even sat through DREAMCATCHER, as recently again as last night -- well, I should say I sat through parts of it, having seen it in all of its awful glory years ago. But nothing compares to PREDATOR ISLAND, about a group of youths trapped on an island during a storm, forced to do battle with aliens that arrive in a meteorite. The meteorite looks like it came out of a SUPERMAN cartoon from the 1940s. So do the aliens, for that matter. The photography and acting and directing and writing are all equally bad. I turned it off halfway through. Good luck.


This has got to be the WORSE move I've EVER seen!!!!! It was not only boring, it was "gag me with a spoon" dumb. Where'd ya find the actors ... on a street corner? Who did the special effects...Maaco? For God's sakes I could have made a better movie with my CELL PHONE. And if that wasn't bad enough, you even had extras at the end of the movie so we could see just how stupid the actors are in real life. Who ever did the makeup for the aliens...must have spent $5 at your local used costume store and called it a day. And who in the world wrote up the movie description on the back of the DVD case should be shot. PUHLEEZ!! It's not even 1/8 % of what it is described as. That description is just to suck people in to buying, renting or paying a ticket to see it. No wonder there was never a trailer to it....ya would have drove them all away!!!!!!!

Bad Actors...$5

Special Effects...$5.50

Fake Fire....$1.89 (cigarette lighter)

Time Spent Watching This Movie....total waste! (I should sue ya for my time watching it)


this movie is so bad. but its so bad that i was laughing my ass off. for people that like movies, do not watch this one. for people who like movies good and bad, i recommend this one. the story lines shaky,the script is horrible,the acting is horrible to mediocre. the soundtrack throughout the movie was corny but i loved it. the cool catchphrases were a plus tho. ha ha. "if it can bleed, it can die". the fight scenes cracked me up. it seemed to me like they spent more time on those parts than any other cuz the fight scenes for the most part were pretty clean. i almost feel like this movie could have been good if it weren't for the f/x....no it would have still been a crapshoot. the eye thing was corny. and how the chick was eating the guys stomach in the kitchen,they coulda done something where shed be actually eating something or at least put more of the fake blood on her face. and the lighthouse explosion disappointed me. i thought they might have gotten real fire instead of crappy computer synthesized stuff. and the ending was so predictable, which surprised me when they actually did what i though they might do. so overall. id say this is a classic as far as crappy movies go. its in my bottom 5.


I see that the majority of the comments so far have been if not overly positive, then at least positive. I can not understand that. The only explanation I can find is that the people who commented had something to do with the film, because this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It makes "Boggy Creek II" and "Mutant" look like masterpieces of horror. The acting is shaky at best, and awful for the most part. The entire movie is almost pitch black, probably so they could shoot it all in the same location. The monster looks like something from one of Roger Corman's worst films. And the plot...well, the less said about it the better.

One to avoid at all costs.


Rented(free rental thank goodness) this as supposedly filmed in CT where I live....could have been filmed in a tunnel for all that matter! Dark ninety percent of time, and just an awful attempt at a low budget flick, which can be good if done right. In a nutshell about a bunch of young adults who witness meteor fall, and subsequently fall prey to aliens on a lighthouse island, assisted by keeper and wife. Analysis:

- acting = dreadful

- writing = uninspired

- story = done a million times before with different settings

- production values = okay (lighting) for budget

- effects (creature, digital, other) HORRIBLE,VERY CHEAP LOOKING

So, you get the gist of it. To add insult to injury, end credits has bloopers of filming - really now......who cares! Distributed under a Universal company, shocked they would even do so after viewing.

Finally as alternative, try "CREEP". Low budget, but well written, well acted, and fairly, well, creepy!


Wow. So my boyfriend and I went to the movie store to rent a film. I like dumb horror movies, so I browsed the variety of terrible films they had to offer while he went off in search of Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. So then I found the worst of all of them (as I would soon find out). It looked good on the cover and the description on the back seemed decent enough. The fact that there was an IMDb quote on it as a review was proof that it would be bad in a good way. So the next night, we put it in the DVD player and from the first five minutes, we were so incredibly confused.

The movie is utterly incoherent, with badly placed time-jumps from past to future that leave you asking a major 'WTF?' The plot has no sort of coherent story -- other than the vague allusion to a local myth about a murder, but this only actually comes into play in the movie in the last twenty minutes of it. So pretty much for the first hour you have this: random, confusing time jumps; incoherent plot; parents who don't age; bad acting; bad dialogue; a boy who magically changes hair colour; and a host of obnoxious characters for you to get bored with!

The movie moves so slow that it's a chore to actually sit there and watch. I'd rather be scrubbing the toilets, honestly. Don't bother with it.


I only watched this because I saw a couple of good reviews for this, so I was expecting at the very least a half-way cheesy movie. Toybox doesn't even deliver that. There are so many problems with this flick, that I don't even know where to start, so I will list a couple of main issues (Once again, spoiler warning. Just read them, it'll save you the trouble of watching this later).

One, this movie starts out with, and often mentions, the mythical folklore of both Celeste Noir (A witch, who the main character claims she is the reincarnation of), and the mid-folker (or something like that, an evil man with a big smile who cuts people open with hooks and sells their innards in pies). I liked that, it was a cute concept, anything to do with pies is simply enjoyable. But then you watch the movie and it's all about this idiot girl and her boyfriend (And what was the deal with him? Was he psychic? Did he have powers? Why did he keep seeing visions that even the so called 'Witch' didn't notice??), and them meeting their insane family. Not really insane, they just argue a lot. That's what most of this movie is, arguing, and they barely touch on the supposed myth ever again except in a couple of confusing scenes that you can't make heads or tails of.

In one scene, Berenice (The main witch-related character) wanders off and does some sort of ritual by candle light. It seemed rather important, but absolutely NOTHING happened after she did it, it just wasted more of my time.

And who the hell was that guy with his dog? You see him walking towards the house from the very start of the movie with that evil red-eyed dog, and then he finally gets there and gets killed? What the hell?? Was he the mid-folker? Was his dog possessed? Did someone kill the dog? They never really showed that. Also, any scene involving the Vicar was completely pointless and only served to weakly explain the lame ending. It was like they had all these interesting character ideas and they all went nowhere! The boyfriend, who obviously had some sort of powers but never explains them. The grandmother, who appeared to also have some sort of witch powers, but never used them. The Vicar, who...OK, never mind, there really was no point for his existence at all. And then there was Berenice and her stupid amulet. Could she really do magic, or did she just use it to reflect light and blind people? This was a complete waste of time, and the only reason I give it two stars at all is because a) Berenice is kinda cute, and b) It mentioned pies. Save yourself the money of renting this and dear god don't even think about buying it, unless wasting money is a new fad.


I really wanted to like this movie, because it is refreshingly different from the hordes of everyday horror movie clones, and I appreciate that the filmmakers are trying for something original. Unfortunately, the plot just didn't hold together and none of the characters were likable enough for me to really care about them or their fates.

Visually, The Toybox was pretty interesting. The director took a lot of somewhat risky moves, like adding in little bits of (Flash-looking) animation in parts and really cheesing up some of the special effects (such as the light from a certain amulet). Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't, but he deserves kudos for the attempt, and the cinematography was generally of high quality.

Unfortunately, when this same approach of throwing lots of things at the wall to see what sticks was applied to the plot, the results were not very good. The film never really finds a tone that it likes, moving schizophrenically from black comedy to family soap opera to 80's witchcraft flick to childhood nostalgia to embattled-family slasher. Taken on their own, bits and pieces of each of these elements work fairly well, but nothing ever coheres into a satisfying whole. Besides that, large bits of the plot are never really explained. I'm not one who likes to have everything spoon-fed to me, and I like movies that leave things up to the audience to decide, but the parts that are left out from The Toybox just seem like they either ran out of money before they could explain them or they didn't really think things through to begin with.

I look forward to the director's next project, since I think there is a lot of talent lurking under the surface here, but I can't really recommend The Toybox on its own merits.


Really!Here the French cinema hits rock bottom ,and compared to it, the least appealing of the American adolescent horror movies,the likes of "Friday the thirteenth" "Freddy" and co are masterpieces of the seventh art.

It's all the more infuriating as there were exciting original elements :the forêt de Brocéliande and its legends ,the druids and King Arthur ,all were splendid assets for a dreamlike fantasy and horror film.Alas! Filmed ,as an user aptly pointed out in a fake forest,near Paris ,the movie is fake horror,fake Celtic history,fake vestiges -you should see the professor (Wilms who was a wonderful M.Le Quesnoy in "la vie est un long fleuve tranquille) scream for the "invaluable scrap" -which the production probably bought in a dime store-fake characters ,fake excavations...

The boys disguised as druids are unintentionally very funny ;so are the girls who seem to be experts in martial arts.And what can we say of the professors? of the monster? A ten year old would write a better screenplay than this grotesque farce.To think that people can spend money for such drivel when artists are still waiting for a producer!

Word to the wise:Maurice Leblanc wrote a marvelous story dealing with druids and old ceremonies in his Arsene Lupin saga called "l'île aux trente cercueils" .A miniseries was made 30 years ago.Avoid this "Broceliande" garbage and try to see it instead.


In the early 00's, production companies had a short-lived craze for supernatural genre movies in France after "The Crimson Rivers" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf" turned out to be hits, so several movies were green-lit or saved from their "direct-to-video" fate. However, France, as opposed to the US, UK or Italy, has little tradition of fantasy B-movies and it turned out quickly that "Samouraïs", "Bloody Mallory" or the "Crimson Rivers" sequel were ill-advised attempts at recreating a kind of magic that had never existed in French cinema in the first place. As they flopped, producers have gone back to their usual fare: derivative farces or the umpteenth self-referential tribute to French New Wave by a former critic from "Les Cahiers du cinéma".

"Brocéliande" could only have been green-lit during this short window, as it serves no other discernible purpose. It's your by-the-book slasher movie mixed with vague mythological element and horror references and you'll find bimboesque female characters, a French University looking like a US campus and plot twists so lazy you don't even care because you had guessed it by yourself an hour before, even before the movie started.

These elements make all the fun of a 70's or a 80's B-movie and you expect them in a 70's or 80's movie. However, we're not in the 80's anymore and nobody warned director Doug Headline, as this tribute to the slasher movie genre is nothing more than a derivative slasher movie. Headline himself is no rookie and has been writing as a critic about this kind of pictures since the early 80's but as a first time director he shows a lack of skill and ambition that makes "Brocéliande" a bore.

When you put together clichés from a movie subcategory and hand them to a skilled and inventive director such as Wes Craven or Quentin Tarantino, you get a "Scream" or a "Death Proof", movies that are imitations from old guilty pleasures but also magnify these clichés and add a great deal to them. That's called "talent" and that's why you can't confuse these recent movies with their original inspirations shot decades ago.

"Brocéliande" takes the lazy path and only reproduces the worst elements from past movies (unfortunately for the male viewer, the gratuitous nudity is mostly missing). There are very strong similarities (presumably unintentional) between the plot of "Brocéliande" and the reviled "Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch", as both deal with supernatural Druidic evil rituals and some silly attempt at taking over the world on Halloween night. As even the plot of "Halloween 3" makes more sense than this one, it means that something seriously wrong went with "Brocéliande".


The actresses are cute and the sets, while simple, quite OK. Apart from this, there is nothing to save from this movie. Incredibly bad acted, dumb to tears dialogues, all-too-expected plot, a lot of goofs and inconsistencies (for instance, a pretty young girl gets hits in the head by a morning star and not only she survives, but barely with a scratch !)... To make it short because it does not worth more, even the fans of the genre can avoid it.


After a few misfires, we are still waiting for THE French horror movie that the critics will certainly vilify, but will launch a new trend. Not this time. Doug Headline can't be accused of not being knowledgable in the genre (He is editor of a high-class fantasy imprint, has worked for legendary magazine Starfix.), but why a scenario that uses EVERY cliché in the book (except maybe the Odious Comic relief) ? Why make it so predictable ? Even the nods towards Argento fails flat. It's not even an euro-teen movie like the German "Anatomy", much better, just a compilation of scenes that barely seems to have any relation one with the other and features LOTS of plot holes. The whole "Celtic" aspect is barely touched. And, after a "revenation" painfully predictable, the screenplay offers us a boring, endless chase in a subterranean necropole which seems bigger than Parisian catacombs. I really wanted to love this film. Really. But even a mother would not. Oh, and writer Valerio Evangelisti was supposed to have a cameo, but I vainly looked for him.


I HATE THIS MOVIE!!!!!! I have never seen such utter, complete trash in my life!!! I live in France so it turned out that I was in the front line to watch this awful movie. At first, it seemed cool, kind of like something about a cursed forest that chomps people. Unfortunately, it turned out it was something QUITE different: a good start with a girl that meets a guy and all that whatnot, then the girl gets threatening messages in the form of ravens shut up in her bathroom closet(ludicrous), from that bit and on, the movie starts to slide downhill very quickly with a lot of desperate thrashing in the process. The movie ends with sacrificial druids galore and ancient ugly, stinky creatures coming back from the past to kill a few people. Many questions were rushing around my head by then: why the heck did they bring back that scummy monster? Do druids look like maniacs dressed in bedsheets? Why did they even bother making this movie?? The "climax" of the movie was so goofy I laughed all the way through it: the "awful" stinky monster does battle with the two young women(who appear to be expert kung fu masters) and the professor gets sliced in two or something. What surprised me was that the monster was so slow and ungainly in battle, wasn't it supposed to be a god of war or something? Anyway, the movie in it's death throws was a pitiful sight. A brief condensation of the contents of this movie: Kung fu mayhem+druid stones+mysterious murders "à la thriller"+ancient prophecies+shabby ravens+old clumsy boneless war god+nutty professor=complete and utter, diseased, boneless, worm eaten, GODFORSAKEN, GODDAM, RECYCLED, FAKE, WANNABE, LUDICROUS SH*T!!!!!!!!! Things I learned from this movie: -Ancient war gods are lousy at kung fu. -All young women who study archeology at university in France are kung fu experts. -Professors are so resistant they can survive being sliced in two by a saw-mass-whatchamacallit without any injuries.


What should i say? I only saw this flick for curiosity, and this is truly a shame... I grew up in Brittany with stories of celtic legends, and spent 5 years in Rennes, the town in which this film is said to take place... Shame that not any actor nor camera from this flick ever arrived in Rennes. They could at least have chosen a likely town, or a likely forest, but nothing even SEEM like Brittany nor Rennes... And calling it a film about celtic legends is really making a fool of the audience. Besides those details, it could have been a good film, but it's crap. Silly scenario, silly characters and no originality. Definitely to avoid.


Yes, absolutely dreadful, And this coming from someone who loves bad movies - but there's a limit. I enjoy all sorts of horror/suspense films, and have seen some wonderful work from European film makers. Broceliande is sadly not among those those wonderful pieces of film-making. The camera work is worse than amateurish. Not the fashionable, shaky MTV "cameraman needs Ritalin" type of camera work so many film-makers use to camouflage their lack of talent. This is simply bad frame composition and terrible image composition. The acting is farcical when it is not entirely two-dimensional. The dialogues are stilted and unnatural - even more so than your usual run-of-the-mill horror/suspense film delving into pseudo-mysticism. I think that what put me off the most was the horribly choreographed fight scenes at the end of the film. These were bad to the point of being ludicrous. I've seen what a small budget can do, and it can do wonders. This was just bad film-making. Very, very sad.


Another try, another miss. France may be doomed for not being able to produce a good horror movie. I mean... the least they could do was to shoot the movie in the forest of Brocéliande, but even the forest is fake ! It was shot near Paris ! The subject is useless, the actors are really insignificant and the text makes you wish you were deaf. Nothing could save it.

Bad... to the bone. I wasn't warned. I want my money back.


This is a stupid movie. Like a lot of these karate movies it is badly written, awkward, and sometimes just stupid. The action really isn't all there and the movie overall leaves much to be desired. Everyone here is talking jive, doing bad karate and doing a very bad job of acting.

Watch for Scatman Crothers in a small role, he is too good for this movie overall. Jim Kelly is good at karate, but he is a terrible actor. Gloria Hendry is real bad. All of them are, there are just so many parts to this film that make absolutely no sense. The supposed love/running away scene with Hendry and Kelly, what the hell was that? They destroyed that man's guitar, for no reason!

And then there was the mandatory girls on trampolines!!! Now what was that? They were in the movie for five seconds, then you never heard from them again!!! Then there is the whole racially charged element of the movie, which is cool and all, but in this movie it goes absolutely nowhere. Like I said, this is good for a laugh one time, but don't watch it again.


This is a parody. That means, there are no characters as such, they are all plain stereotypes, and the movie relies completely on the quality of the jokes.

Well, there ARE quite some good jokes in this movie. Unfortunately, they are hidden in a mass of real stupid ones. If one expects all dialogues to be absurd, the fun wears off.

You see, there is American Pie 2, my all time favorite teenager movie. It contains a lot of real original characters. Maybe the jokes are tasteless, but all the people have some kind of live. For example, they feel embarrassed if something embarrassing happens. That is what makes the jokes themselves actually funny !

Not so this movie: every scene is clearly arranged as a pure parody, so there are no characters at all, therefore there is really no room for any sympathy. Too, if you know the original movies, you know whole scenes in advance. Add the fact that many jokes are not funny at all, and you have this movie.

The only thing that saved me from getting completely bored where in fact the comments from some teenagers in the cinema where I was watching the film.

Ah, and my personal highlight of the movie was the very short appearance of Melissa Joan Hart in one scene. Sigh. She is just too cool, she can't be real. Hmm, worth a whole movie ?


Of course, all this nonsense begs the question 'Does a genre as self-referential as the teen comedy really need another parody movie?' The woeful 'Scary Movie' (I and II) took the formula about as far as it could go - 'Not Another Teen Movie' really doesn't have anything either intelligent or shockingly excessive to add.

The plot, essentially based on fairyfloss teenflic 'She's All That', walks a shaky line between parody and homage ('John Hughes High School'). Everything from 'American Beauty' to 'Varsity Blues' is mined for references. The result is ultimately an unfulfilling viewer experience. The downside of giving us a carbon copy plot of 'She's All That' is that we all know where its going anyway. And if we didn't then the jokes would be meaningless.

There's extremely little to recommend here. The token gross-out scene (an erupting toilet) seems badly out of place here amongst all the 'feel-good' references. There are moments of humour - the song is funny enough and the odd good line is send the audiences way. It stinks, don't watch it.


This movie is not a remake of She's all That ( 1999)?

Where is the renewal of the american movie? This was probably the worst movie I saw in the last 5 years. This and the last movies of Schwarzenegger.


OK i have seen Hershall Gordon Lewis movies before but this one really takes the cake,its really gory and gross,not to mention disgusting the way the strippers are done in,I'm talking bad acting that makes plan 9 from outer space look like hamlet,the only saving grace is the late great Henny Youngman as the strip club owner,yeah take my wife..., please.the stripteasers are real sexy for 1972,i believe they used this same plot again in the Roger Corman movie;stripped to kill in 1987.i did enjoy the earlier H.G.Lewis flick 100 maniacs,which was a mini masterpiece of sorts,but bad acting,no awards here,but be aware this is a splatter movie that paved the way for Friday the 13th,and saw.in one disturbing scene a half naked stripper has her butt spanked with a meat tenderizer.ugh!morbid stuff here.H.G. Lewis strikes again. 2 out of 10.


Some might remember if having seen the film Juno a scene where Ellen Page has a moment of praise for Dario Argento's Suspiria, her favorite horror film. Jason Bateman's character then asks if she's ever seen a Herschel Gordon Lewis film, and to wit he has a copy of a movie (I forget which at the moment) and shows it to her. At the time I saw Juno I had seen Suspiria and a few Argento films but not Lewis. Now I can see that it's not just another one of Diablo Cody's pop-culture "in" references, but something that actually is an indicator on the tastes of the characters and, maybe more subjectively, how to judge them based on their tastes. In other words, Herschel Gordon Lewis's reputation is maintained some many years after he ended making his gore films - and it's that of a schlock-Meister, no more no less. Actually, less.

It's interesting then to take Argento as a basis of comparison, because both filmmakers approach, at least in the case of The Gore Gore Girls and, well, any given Argento picture, similar material. Where Argento is extraordinarily conscious about his craft, getting an audience wrapped up in whatever little story there is by the power of the movement of camera and music and style, Lewis takes the easy route to get at an audience, which is with an immature script and (putting it lightly) lackluster direction. The Gore Gore Girls reveals a filmmaker who isn't interested in entertaining his audience in an actual compelling way as a horror film, but as a side-show or a brothel. He can't direct actors worth a damn, he lights like it's a porno movie, and for every one possibly clever or funny one-liner there's ten that either totally stink or are too clever by half or not clever nearly enough.

That being said, perhaps as the best substantive thing to say about The Gore Gore Girls, a mystery movie about a detective (2nd rate Sherlock Holmes guy played by somewhat amusing Frank Kress) and a newspaper reporter (dummie Amy Farrell) investigating a series of murders of go-go dancers, is that it serves as the template for countless more Troma-style pictures. Perhaps this is faint praise, however, and really the best thing that can truly be said is that Henny Youngman- "Take my wife, please!"- has a few scenes and steals every one of them without having to try much. It's sad, since it could be the kind of picture that could entertain on an awesomely-bad level. But even on that score one may laugh more out of embarrassment for the production, some of the actors (i.e. that guy who plays the cop, my God) than out of some guilty pleasure enjoyment.

Even the gore itself is somewhat of a letdown. At first one thinks that Lewis is at least delivering on this end, showing these women being murdered in crazy and vicious and exaggerated ways. But with the killings it all goes on longer than necessary; I don't mean this in terms of shock value, for that it's fine. But there needs to be something else to really make it "stick", that showing women's faces dissected and eyes gouged is fine if you're 12 and seeing this as one of you're first 'horror' films. It becomes, dare I say it, dull. Dangerously dull for such a "daring" so-called movie.

This was Lewis's last film until 30 years later an apparently worthy swan song came with a sequel to a film he made earlier brought him out of his retirement from movies and job in writing books on how to make it in business. However, whatever experience he had coming up to this one doesn't show. It's not a failure, but it could have been, and it's just simply... schlock. Take it or leave it.


what a lousy movie, took me 3 times to finish it. The thing i disliked the most was the infantile sense of humor. jokes made by a 10 years old child. not funny. pretty annoying actually, for example when the detective cant get a place at the bar he yells "she's taking it all off" and then they all run "fast foreward" slapstick kinda' rush. so stupid. and also a guy sitting at the bar smashing fruit to work out his post traumatic stress disorder. on the bar! and the bartender is supplying him with more and more fresh fruit. thats supposed to be funny? and i mean ... i love good ol' exploitation gore flicks, and saw a lot of terrible movies, but his one is plain bad. and also the "gore" is not that exciting. don't bother. i wouldn't recommend it.


Aside from Frank Kress (who played Abraham Gentry), an appearance by Henny Youngman and the last seconds of the movie, there really wasn't anything particularly good about this film. Why it is currently rated 5.3 and adored by some reviewers is beyond me--the film is 99.44% crap...and exactly what I would have expected from director Hershell Gordon Lewis. In the 1960s and 70s, Lewis was known for making a string of incredibly low budget exploitation films, such as BLOOD FEAST and MONSTER A GO-GO. However, in recent years he's been christened "the father of gore" and he has many, many fans--fans who ignore the ineptitude of his work and only focus on how groundbreaking some of his films were. But apart from the liberal use of fake blood and real guts, at heart, his films are pure crap--and don't believe scores of 9 and 10 for his films. This would be like putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!

The film is about a string of very grisly murders that happen to strippers. When I say gruesome, it's very bloody and sick for 1972--though by today's standards the special effects look amazingly lame. So, while some very deviant and cruel murders happen in the film (I'd rather not explain them--they ARE from a pretty sick mind and show a particularly sick disregard for women), at least they won't nauseate you because they were done so poorly. It's obvious that in many cases they are cutting apart rubber dolls and mannequins. But to have them doing some of the sick acts, even if unrealistic, is pretty nasty and shows a lot of misogyny.

The only hope in the film, as the police are all idiots, is a guy named Abraham Gentry--whose mannerisms and style of speech are very close to the stock actor, David Lochary, from the early John Waters films. While his acting is bad, he is so flamboyant and funny that he kept my interest. He could be pretty funny and oddly this is the only film he ever made!! It was also odd that so many women wanted him--especially because they just didn't seem like his type.

As for the rest of the folks in the film, they are cretins and idiots who could not act. In fact, I was kind of hoping MORE would be killed--they really had it coming! None of their acting was the least bit believable and apparently the director NEVER re-shot a single scene--as most of the scenes in the film were worse than any of the ones in Ed Wood's masterpiece, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. In fact, for many of the women in the film, the only prerequisite for their appearing in the film is that they be willing to take off their clothes. Now I know this will sound pretty mean, but most of them were incredibly unattractive and looked like drug addicts who strip to get their next fix. When these ladies take off their clothes, men in the crowd give them money to put it back on (wow--Henny Youngman SHOULD have said that in the film)! But, considering Lewis' budgets, these were probably the best "actresses" he could get.

Overall, a sleazy bucket of bile that manages to be worse than most of the director's other films...and that's saying a lot! It's violent (yet dumb), anti-women (treating them like meat and things to be mutilated) and is thoroughly incompetent from start to finish.


I love camp movies, believe me and the usual technicolorian gore of Gordon Lewis don't bother me at all, but this is just one of his most stupid movies, even more than BLOOD FEAST, i'm not kidding. THE GORE GORE GIRLS is about a mad person who kills a lot of go(re) - go(re) girls of a night club. A detective and a reporter tries to find out the big secret. Maybe the performances here are slightly better than the usual average acting H.G Lewis films, but that is not saying much. The camera work is even dreadful.

But at least is kind of watchable with the go go girls acting ... you going to pass a good time with it, and the killings are just absurd in a very, very bad way: A girl is killed with a wooden hammer punching in her butt (!) and just don't let me talk about what it does with the nipples. You going to laugh like anyone with this. But the better of all this mess is a scene that i only love of it's campness: the go-go girl before being attacked by a lot of feminists dancing in a very American way. Though is important to note that this was one of the first films that got an X rating because of it's violence.

ONLY if you want lo laugh and pass a good time (But only with a lot, A LOT of beers).


I debated quite a bit over what rating to give this one because it's my least favorite Herschell Gordon Lewis film so far other than The Gruesome Twosome, but it has the best acting I've seen in a Lewis film. However, we all know that's not saying much. Once the movie was done, I was happy because it felt like I had been sitting through a 4 hour movie, though it was only 82 minutes long. I'm trying to see all of HGL's films and that's probably the only reason to see this one.

The gore is good as usual, the one thing that Herschell seemed to get right. The acting is just as bad as usual with one exception. That exception is Frank Kress. Now, would I say that he's a good actor? No way, but he's good compared to everyone else. The story is boring and flat and goes no where and by the end, I didn't care what happened just so long as it ended. I know this is a cult classic but I didn't enjoy it very much at all. I hope you will.


Say what you will about cinema's "Wizard of Gore," Herschell Gordon Lewis, it must be conceded that from his first films (1963's trashy "Blood Feast" and 1964's crackerbarrel massacre "Two Thousand Maniacs") to his last (1972's "The Gore Gore Girls"), the man remained faithful to his muse, gleefully chopping up the bodies of young men and women for the delectation of the camera. In "Gore Gore," for example, someone has been mutilating the pasty-faced and pasty-clad strippers at the Tops & Bottoms Club, and obnoxious ex-detective Gentry is hired by a hotty cub reporter to assist on the case. The film features remarkably annoying and repetitive background music, terrible lighting, abysmal acting, repugnant characters, problematic sound AND, of course, some of Lewis' patented gross-out scenes. Thus, one of the strippers has her face shoved into boiling oil; one has her head ripped open; another has her face ironed and her nippies cut off; and still another has her bum paddled with a meat tenderizer until her entire backside is covered with what appears to be Buitoni tomato sauce. (I could be wrong here; it might have been Ragu.) The film also throws out some fairly lame humor, although some of the lines ARE pretty funny. For example, we learn that the real name of slain stripper Suzie Creampuff was...Ethel Creampuff! A bottle of acid says "Made In Poland" on it (don't know why, but I thought this was funny). And some of strip club owner Henny Youngman's lines are, of course, amusing. Still, this is NOT the movie to show to Aunt Ethel or Sister Agatha. It is one of the sickest you'll ever see, with only one surefire, crowd-pleasing moment--the title card at the film's conclusion that reads "We Announce With Pride: This Movie Is Over"!


Low-budget schlockmeister Herschell Gordon Lewis reaches a new low (even for him) with "The Gore Gore Girls," a 'film' (snicker) that possesses all of his technical trademarks: badly-recorded sound, poor lighting, and OTT gore. This would be tolerable, even a bit charming, if the film at least had an interesting plot ("Blood Feast," in all its ridiculous glory, is a fine example), but "Girls" is a total snooze. Completely unlikable pompous-ass private investigator Abraham Gentry (Frank Kress) is recruited by a newspaper reporter to find out who's been murdering out-of-shape strippers (you'll stop caring who the culprit is long before these two are wrapping up the case). As before, the appeal isn't the plot, but the creative methods of bloodletting (including a girl's fanny being tenderized with a wooden mallet) and the occasional flashes of then-risqué skin...but this just isn't enough to elevate the material above tedium.


Well, this stripped my nerves raw, they got that right. I first rented this movie back in the 80's, when my friend opened a video store that carried every rare movie he could find. He also carried all the shock, horror, and exploitation movies he could dig up, and I went through almost of all them. Previously I had seen Blood Feast and 2000 Maniacs, and the Wizard of Gore. They were gruesome (especially for the time period), and the Wizard of Gore got pretty nasty. The Gore-Gore Girls, however, was the one I remember as being the most disgustingly gory.

I rented it on DVD a little while ago because I wanted to hear the commentary, and thought it might have some cool dancing and clothes. I forgot that it was made in the early 70's, so fashion had kind of gone downhill by then. I also realized this was a movie I didn't really need to see more than once. It had amusing parts, but gaaaah! It was much more disgusting than I remembered. I'm very jaded to movie gore but a couple of times I just got too grossed out and had to look away. This wasn't a good choice of movie to put on DVD all crisp and cleaned up with better sound and picture quality. The commentary is amusing in parts, and interesting (I think HG said the budget was $6100.00) Maybe HG Lewis wasn't feeling well that day, but he sounded tired overall and also had the nerve to get offended when the interviewer from Something Wild compared him to Ed Wood Jr. Sorry pal, but you're not exactly Martin Scorsese yourself.

The extremely thin plot is about a series of murders of topless go-go dancers in strip clubs. A cute reporter and a really unattractive private detective team up (sort of-he can't seem to stand her) to try to solve the crimes. Henny Youngman owns a strip club. A bunch of really ugly murders happen.

I'm going to apologize in advance because I don't want to sound like I need to lighten up, but this movie was so misogynistic it p***ed me off more than "Company of Men". Mainly because the main character's and the director's extreme dislike for females- and the audience- just oozes from every frame. It's not just the murders. The highly unattractive detective goes out of his way to treat the female reporter like dog dirt at every opportunity, for no apparent reason, (he's not exactly a threat to George Clooney, like I said) and she still follows him around like a puppy. She faints upon seeing a horribly mutilated body and he looks distastefully at her, then pours cold soda from a can onto her face to wake her up. Later he calls the police to report the crime- "No...no hurry...she just seems to have...lost face." This guy is THE HERO. You can imagine how the other characters feel about women. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Please note that I am making this movie sound much more politically correct (and much more fun) than it actually is.

Most of the cast are the type of actors you pray will never take their clothes off- not too easy on the eyes, so don't watch the movie just to see the nudity unless you're not too picky. The go-go dancers all look like they desperately want to have the scene end so they can get their $10 or whatever the going rate HG paid them was and get their drug fix. OK, it's not quite that bad, there was one dancer that looked like she might have been a pro and also one other cool dancer with a huge afro that didn't look as miserable as the rest, but still not too thrilled. The only slightly entertaining things were a couple moments of brief unintentional humor, such as when a policemen in charge at a murder scene angrily yells "Get outta here before I have you all arrested!" not to a bunch of reporters but to some other policeman calmly going about their work (they mutter and stroll off, though). Henny Youngman is kind of funny though, like Lewis says, he said his lines so fast that they almost needed subtitles (I'm sure he was trying to get the whole day over in a hurry so he could get paid and get the hell out of there, though he doesn't look like he minded watching some naked chicks).

Might be worth seeing just out of morbid curiosity- for the era the movie was made, it was probably the most gruesome thing on film at the time- or if you're really big HG Lewis fan and find him or low-budget film-making by anyone fascinating. Otherwise, if you've seen it once, you've seen it and can move on to other disgusting but much more entertaining low-budget movies from the early 70's...this movie doesn't even come close to, say, "Pink Flamingos" when it comes to the skip-the-popcorn factor. If you've never seen an HG Lewis movie, I recommend you try "Blood Feast" first instead, you'll have a much better time.


Give H.G. Lewis points: He managed to incorporate beefy exotic dancers, gallons of his notorious fake blood, and Henny Youngman all in one movie. "The Gore Gore Girls" was Lewis's horror film swan song, and ends with a head being squashed by an automobile. Oh... Henny plays a surly night club owner whose girls are falling prey to Lewis's standard butchery.


This sequel to "In the Heat of the Night" will suffer in inevitable comparisons to its infinitely better predecessor. Instead of looking like a theatrical movie edited for television, "Mister Tibbs" looks suspiciously like a TV movie edited for theatrical release, with grainy photography, cheesy opening titles, and sets that look like they're made of plywood. The murder sequence has a glaring continuity error: the camera shows two hands choking the girl, then a shot of a hand reaching for a statuette, then a shot of the girl being choked with two hands again, and finally the statuette coming down for the fatal blow. Solving the case should be easy: find the only guy with three hands! But the shoddy production values can't completely obscure this film's considerable merits: namely, Sidney Poitier's performance as the cool detective determined to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, even if it implicates a friend. Martin Landau is also convincing as the do-gooder preacher-activist suspected of brutally murdering his prostitute girlfriend. In addition to being haunted by the case, Tibbs is conflicted about his home life, but the issues of race and Tibbs' barely concealed sense of social outrage are absent here. So is the complex murder mystery that made "In the Heat of the Night" so compelling.


Academy Awarding actor Sidney Poitier of "Lilies of the Field" reprises his role as Lieutenant Virgil Tibbs from the 1967 Oscar winning Best Picture "In the Heat of the Night" for veteran director Gordon Douglas' tired, uninspired sequel "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," with nobody the equivalent of Rod Steiger with which to swap dialogue. Clearly, both "Bullitt" scenarist Alan R. Trustman and Robert D. Webb of "Cape Fear" were off their game when they penned this predictable police procedural potboiler. The dialogue is drab and none of the characters are interesting, not even the chief suspect. Absolutely nothing remotely exciting, suspenseful, or surprising occurs in this tame whodunit. Meanwhile, things have changed considerably since Virgil was last seen in "In the Heat of the Night." He worked as a homicide detective for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department. In "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," our hero works for the San Francisco Police Department. Moreover, he has a wife, Valerie (Barbara McNair of "Change of Habit"), and a family, a young rebellious son, Andy (George Spell of "The Naked Kiss"), and a younger doting daughter, Ginger (Wanda Spell of "Hickey and Boggs"). Tibbs drives a medium blue Mustang and his wife holds down the house and hovers over their two children since he doesn't have as much time to spend with them. Literally, there are no surprises in this pedestrian murder mystery. Indeed, the best thing about "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is Quincy Jones' terrific orchestral soundtrack with a memorable opening theme, more memorable than this forgettable crime thriller deserved.

Everything begins sensationally enough with a struggling prostitute, Joy Sturges (Linda Towne of "The Adventurers"), being bludgeoned to death in the bedroom of her downtown apartment by an unseen assailant. Apartment handyman Mealie Williamson (Juano Hernandez of "Intruder in the Dust") enters Joy's apartment and finds her strewn on the carpet dead with a bloody forehead. He picks up the statue briefly and then puts it back on the floor and reports Joy's death to the superintendent of the apartment, Rice Weedon (Anthony Zerbe of "License to Kill"), and Weedon gives Mealie and fistful of dollars and sends him packing. Afterward, Weedon anonymously notifies the SFPD that popular minister Logan Sharpe (Martin Landau of "Nevada Smith") beaten Joy to death and was seem leaving Joy's apartment. Captain Marden (Jeff Corey of "True Grit") assigns Tibbs to handle the case; it seems that both Tibbs and Sharpe have known each other for 18 years. Naturally, Tibbs' wife Valerie cannot believe that the well-known, politically active evangelist could have committed such a crime. Just to give the movie context, it should be noted that when Tibbs and the police study the crime scene, they mention the word 'semen,' no doubt a controversial term to mention in an early 1970s movie.

Tibbs questions Weedon whom he suspects is either a drug pusher or a pimp. Weedon explains that he has no records on Joy Sturges because she was subletting the apartment from another realty company. Tibbs visits the realty company and realtor Woody Garfield (Ed Anser of "JFK") flees and drives off, essentially doing an O.J. Simpson until he crashes his car after a lengthy but tame pursuit. When Tibbs proves that Woody didn't kill Joy, he allows him to leave, with his disgruntled wife, Marge (Norma Crane of "Penelope"), prepared to file for divorce after the revelation that he paid a hooker to stay in an apartment.

Tibbs tracks down handyman Mealie and clears him of the crime, and then he goes after Weedon. Luckily, for Tibbs, our hero catches the evil Weedon in the middle of a narcotics transaction. One of Weedon's henchmen assaults Tibbs, but Tibbs dispenses with him briefly before he embarks on a long foot chase after Weedon. Eventually, he corners Weedon in an underground parking garage and they shoot it out. Guess who wins.

The scenes in the Tibbs' household are more interesting than his investigation. Andy runs rampant, striking his sister, and smoking in the garden. Our hero wants him to clean up his room. When Andy refuses, Tibbs pops him three times on the jaw. These child rearing scenes could probably never be handled today as they were back in 1970. At the end of the movie, as if to solidify the family sequence, Tibbs is seen walking off with his wife and kids. There is on confrontation between Valerie and Virgil about the welfare of their children and how his long hours at work has affected them.

Director Gordon Douglas directs in competent fashion. Surprisingly, for a film released in 1970, the filmmakers never play the race card. In one scene, when Tibbs searches a billiards parlor owned by an African-American, we see a mixed breed of races scowling at the hero when he finds Mealie and leaves with him in tow.

Altogether, "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is a poor follow-up to "In the Heat of the Night." Mind you, Poitier delivers another fine performance with nuance, but everything looks prefabricated. All of the sets look fake and there isn't much physical violence: one underground parking lot shoot-out that doesn't last long and a fight. Beyond Jones' seminal jazz score, the only surpriseand it really doesn't qualify as a major surprise more like a convenient contrivanceis the ending. Donald Medford's "The Organization" followed "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" as the second, more action-packed sequel.


Pumpkinhead was in itself a decent 80s horror flick. No classic by any means, but an enjoyable piece of fluff. Why then, have we now been treated to a fourth film in this franchise is beyond me. As in previous sequels, there's nothing here to really connect the films except for the monster, the witch and Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen). This time out we follow the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Part of the film is a Romeo And Juliet romance as a young McCoy boy and his Hatfield lover decide to run away to be together. Soon, however, they are torn apart and the boy's sister is killed. The boy escapes to the woods and gets the witch to resurrect Pumpkinhead for some vengeance. The acting is passable at best, amateurish at the worst. The titular demon doesn't even really show up for almost forty minutes and when it does its a pale comparison between it and the original design. Overall, Blood Feud fails to impress. It may be worth a watch once, but certainly not an addition to the collection.


Well they've done it again a new pumpkin head film, the first pumpkin head film was perfect for its time, a dumb, gory, and clichéd monster flick. so heres how it goes, some one loses their loved one, goes to the witch in the woods, gets her to raise pumpkin head and have it murder everyone responsible. unfortunately the film makers have deemed it irrelevant to try and do any other than this, for the films fourth outing, deeming it far more suitable to add some lame romeo and Juliet sub plot, involving an idiotic family feud (over a car!!!!) and surprise surprise some gory pumpkin head slayings, so far so formulaic, but it doesn't stop there the acting talent in this flick is dire...oh so bad half of them can't even keep up a southern accent without slipping into their native and often posher accents. Lance henrikssen is on board so surely he would bring some gravitas to the movies proceedings...but no lance merely ambles on screen lets the words fall out mouth with absolutely no emotion or seemingly direction, and walks off again, i honestly think he just turned up for the money, then went off to his trailer to drunk and reminisce about aliens.

this film is utter cack there is no redeeming feature other than it ending credits which signal its all over.

despite the failings of ph:bf...if you want a no brainer that'll make you laugh for all the wrong reasons watch it.

if you want something with abit more meat and originality avoid.


Writer/Director Michael Hurst's Sci-Fi Channel sequel to Stan Winston's classic horror tale of revenge gone awry has its moments and some decent gore, but ultimately falls short in comparison to the original.

I'm pretty sure the filmmakers weren't trying to make a comedy, but I caught myself laughing throughout. A family feud started over a car accident is the basis for this entry into the franchise. The Hatfield and McCoy families live in a backwoods town with dirt roads, drive pickup trucks, drink moonshine, and kick each others asses every chance they get. Just when they thought it was safe to hate each other and live happily ever after, Jodie Hatfield (Amy Manson) and Ricky McCoy (Bradley Taylor) decided to fall in love causing the fit to hit the shan. One night the two lovebirds decide to head out into the woods for some quality time while Ricky's sister plays lookout, but it just so happens that on that very night some of the Hatfields accidentally kill Ricky's sister and catch him and Jodie together. You know what happens next. Ricky finds his sisters body and decides to pay a visit to Haggis so that he can exact his revenge through the mighty Pumpkinhead. Ye Haw! Also, Harley (Lance Henriksen) is back to warn potential damned souls against using Pumpkinhead to ease their pain. Which really put a kink in the story because Harley is supposed to have called on Pumpkinhead years before this story takes place, but the setting and characters look like dirty Pilgrims that somehow traveled through time in order to bring the pickup truck back to Plymouth. Then there's the Sheriff (Rob Freeman) who has his own ties to the demon and looks like he belongs in a 70's revenge movie instead of a made-for-cable horror flick.

Some of the gore and special effects were cool, but instead of sticking to the man-in-a-suit way of thinking Hurst used some terrible looking 3D shots for certain scenes. One particularly embarrassing shot shows Pumpkinhead jumping from tree branches like a badly rendered 3D monkey. The cinematography was exceptional and elevated the quality of the movie quite a bit. The acting was pretty decent also, with the exception of a few poorly executed accents.

Family feuds never end well, especially when the families involved in the feud have to deal with Pumpkinhead. I didn't enjoy every minute of this flick, but it was much better than most of the movies the Sci-Fi Channel spits out. Maybe it's a sign that the Channel is trying to bring the quality of its movies up to match the quality of its original series'. I wouldn't waste any coin on a rental, but if you get the chance to catch a rerun of it on the boob-tube I would say to check it out. It's a not-so-killer-film but it rises slightly above the level of trash that makes it onto DVD these days.


I realize it's a small statistical sampling (8 votes as of this posting), but 5.9 out of 10? I'm giving this movie a 3 and even that's generous. I've tried to watch this movie three times now (the Saturday night 9 p.m. premiere on SciFi Channel, and the Saturday night at 1 a.m. and Thursday night re-broadcasts) and I've fallen asleep all three times before the movie ends. Which leaves me with a laundry list of unanswered questions. For example, is Lance Henriksen that strapped for cash that he has to keep playing supporting roles in these god-awful "Pumpkinhead" sequels? Is Henriksen contractually banned from doing any non-"Pumpkinhead" movies? Can't the creators of this franchise do better than a monster that looks like a geriatric, emaciated "Alien" who walks like he has a stick jammed up his a**? When are the hick characters in these movies going to realize that handguns and rifles don't hurt the "Pumpkinhead?" Why don't they try jamming another stick up this thing's a** instead? And, lastly, are the writers of this movie so creatively challenged that they couldn't come up with names for the two feuding families more original than the Hatfields and the McCoys? While you're at it, why not write a screenplay about a fictional president and name him George Bush? Someday I may have the mental stamina to watch this movie all the way through without drifting off to sleep. Until then, if somebody has the answers, please let me know.