I loved the original P.H. and was somewhat satisfied with Bloodwings (II)and Ashes to Ashes (III), then I saw part IV. Oh boy..... As a Pumpkinghead enthusiast, I did my best to give part 4 as much credit as I could, but it's pretty bad. The wedding reception fight right at the beginning of the film is a horrendous mess for one thing. The Hatfield and McCoy storyline is incomprehensibly stupid and cliché. How did the producers get away with using that tired family feud storyline? Wow, unbelievable. The acting, besides Henrickson, is below average. The plot and script are mind-numbing. The actual editing and cinematography are average, as is the directing. I mean, the movie isn't a total loss. As always: I really enjoy watching Pumpkinhead, I love seeing Haggis the Witch, and like watching Harley's ghost in action. But all three characters had WAY too much screen time. I thought Haggis and Harley would wind up going out to a supper club for an evening bite to eat and drinks, the way the were being so buddy buddy in her cabin. The bottom line is.... Is that I wanted all the characters in this puke fest of a plot line to be dead within 20 minutes of the start of the picture. Where does Sci-Fi get these so called "film production professionals" from anyway!? I could do a better job writing a script stone cold drunk. I'm sure there was a limited budget and everything, but come on! See it if your a fan of the other three, but just once. And then go back and stick to the original two. Shame on you Sci-Fi!!!!


I just wanted to leave a quick comment as its not listen on here ,but i have just seen this movie,the version I just rented was released in 2005 as far as I know and it was actually called "Don't go into the attic" I only realized it was the same movie as Devils Harvest upon searching for some of the actors who looked familiar in the movie. Anyways I'm in Ireland so maybe this has only been released over here and in the UK now,but thats what its called over here..........not really like it matters because I would not recommend this movie.The only words that spring to mind watching it are CHEESE CHEESE CHEESE!! My one mark out of ten is purely for the one little jumpy bit :o)


The artist Daniel King (Chris John) and his mate Laura Peters (Lara Clancy) are invited to move to an old house in Cornwall, in Great Britain, by his childhood wealthy friend Natasha Carlton (Carol Kentish). Natasha has a crush on Daniel, who is an ambiguous man regarding his sentimental life. While alone in the house, weird things happen and Laura is startled and scared. When Laura meets the old insane priest Gabriel Norton (Brian Blessed) on the road, she is advised to immediately leave the house, since evil lived there. But the couple stays and has to face tragic consequences.

What a messy screenplay and awful and cheesy movie this "Devil's Harvest" is! The cinematography and the camera work is not totally bad, but the amateurish performances of Chris John and Carol Kentish and direction of James Shanks, together with the terrible story, ridiculous situations and dialogs make this movie one of the worse I have ever seen in the genre. I have occasionally seen in YouTube a couple of shorts from cinema college that are better and better than the pointless and dreadful "Devil's Harvest". In the end, it is not a horror movie but a horror of movie. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "A Colheita do Diabo" ("The Devil's Harvest")


How in the name of decency did this film ever get made?

One presumes the subtitles merely say 'awful' on every single frame of this truly dismal effort.

Horrendous acting, woeful dialogue and the lack of talent from everyone involved in this nightmare make for an excruciating 90 minutes.

Overall impression?

A bunch of excitable drama students got lucky with a lottery grant and proceeded to make one of the most painful films ever made.

This makes Hammer Horror TV shows look like Oscar material.

And don't for a second think this falls into the 'so bad it's good' category. It's not even that bad.

But the fart lighting scene is probably worth another look.


So this ugly guy with long, nasty hair and his girlfriend end up in this house and they argue and argue about his old girlfriend. There was suppose to be something scary in it but I didn't see anything scary at all. There is some mention of a demon from the sea but that doesn't go anywhere at all. I wish it did because then it would've taken the tension away from the jealous love triangle. The title of the movie makes it look like it would be a scary and exciting movie but it is so far from it that I couldn't believe it. I waited and waited for it to end and was so happy when it did. It did not live up to the title like it should have so boo hoo hoo. The cover had a cool picture but I shouldn't judge a cheesy movie by its cover.


The Gun is probably the worst film I've ever saw. The comedians direction is very poor, the dialogs sounds like they were written by a 13 year old teenager, the plot (what plot?) is another "suspense" in which it is very hard to get into. Finally, nothing in this movie is any good. A big thumbs down to everyone involved and particularly to the Montreal film festival who presented this movie IN COMPETITION!


I was quite excited when I saw this film in competition at the Montreal Film Festival. Along with Elephant and a few others, I thought the issue of American gun violence/culture would be treated intelligently and in a fashion compelling for film-goers. The press-release promised (in not so many words) a `Red Violin' for the gun-violence crowd, something to make us ponder our NRA-shoot-em-up mindset in this country.

After waiting until after 9:15 to be seated for a 9AM screening (what technical difficulties they would have encountered is beyond me), we were finally let into the venue to see the film on DV (where did the advertised 35MM print go?). I think I just answered my first question.

The result is an abhorrent mess. We get the "gun", in a vignette with the most unrealistic "biker' I have ever seen (and I do know more than a few). The film then lapses into irrelevant "character development" only because the characters are either a. stereotyped, b. losers, c. stereotyped losers, and/or d. racial caricatures. It takes another 30 minutes to get to the plot movement, and once we are there, we wish for the inane conversations between the couples and/or the bikers and pawn brokers.

The film finds it's conclusion, but not without leaving any cliché untried. I didn't care for the white-trash characters who came in contact with the gun, and the depiction of the minority characters should have the NAACP crying foul immediately. All these people WOULD chase after a gun, because they are at the bottom of the societal trash-heap, and would look for an opportunity wherever it was found. Placing the action a level up would have at least provided some soul-searching on the part of the characters.

The biggest problem is the promise unfulfilled. The plot outline was great. In the hands of a P.T. Anderson or Gus Van Zandt, it could have been a powerful piece. But due either to bad screenplay, direction or both, the thing is an unmitigated mess that needs to be ignored at all costs.

My bigger question is who at the MFF thought this was competition material. Better bury this on Showtime at 3AM.

Art Blose


Wakayama Tomisaburo's portrayal of fugitive ex-Kaishakunin Ogami Itto felt entirely natural. His demeanor, his voice, his appearance- all of it spoke to dislodgement. When he entered a space I, as well as characters on the screen, could feel he didn't belong there and that his determination to be there spelled trouble.

I read somewhere that Mr. Wakayama actually took Kendo (Japanese swordsmanship) training and that would explain his comfort with the katana, which showed magnificently in every cutfest. If you watch the movies, from the moment he draws to the moment he sheaths the sword you feel as though you were witnessing something inevitably ugly. He'd even spin the katana quickly to flick off the blood before sheathing it and it would happen in an effortless instant.

Nakamura Kinnosuke's rendition comes across as a rendition. It feels as though he were trying too hard to be someone else or tell someone else's story. As a result, every time I tried to engage I'd lose my grip because HE didn't seem to have a firm grip on the role, himself. As though it were awkward for him.

The swordsmanship in the TV series was entirely old-school Hollyweird, too. Camera cuts to disguise Mr. Nakamura's awkwardness with the katana, slow action, targets sitting still, etc. Extremely bad, from a viewer's perspective. There was a moment in the episode The Castle Wall Attack when Mr. Nakamura drew his sword like a child. It was embarrassing. He handled it as though it were heavy! I almost fell off my chair.

And let's be frank: The story is about an excellent swordsman. Period. Swordsmanship is an issue.

Realism isn't, however: the swordplay in the movies was excellent and manga-like, as was intended, I'm sure. (The baby cart was outfitted with a cluster of automatic, rapid-fire muskets operated by a 3 year old? Yes...manga-style.) It's how the story seamlessly weaves historical cultural accuracy into, basically, superhero fantasy that makes the movies captivating. (Read Yoshikawa Eiji's Musashi [%historical legend]%!) I couldn't really sit through the TV series episodes. They just felt cheap. See the movies first and you'll know what I'm talking about.


This is a very interesting acquaintance! "Two-fisted tales" contains three foolish and childish episodes - genre isn't actually horror or action, more like something in between. Where's the suspence? Where's the fun? Where's the common sense? Definitely not in here but if you don't expect to get it, you don't necessarily miss it.

First segment is called "Showdown". It's a violent, absurd western. I failed to understand the whole idea of it. "King of the road" is a stupid story starring Brad Pitt. At the time of "Two-fisted tales" he was just a pretty face who really didn't know how to act yet. Luckily he learned the skill later and now he's a fantastic, talented actor - one of the big ones of the younger generation. Story is almost ok in all of it's stupidness. Final episode "Yellow" is the only segment that's almost entirely successful. It's foolish but funny. We have to thank Kirk Douglas for that.

This movie is something to watch when you sit in an easy chair and eat popcorn. (I should know, that's what I did) If you loved "Tales from the Crypt", you'll love "Two-fisted tales" too because basically it's all the same. I understand these three episodes are actually extremely rare "piece of art" and very difficult to find anywhere. I have the whole package on VHS but I don't think it's a big privilege. You'll have to be a fanatic Brad Pitt fan to search it out. Otherwise don't bother, it's not worth the effort. Silly crap.


Corny and horrible, I was not surprised this short lived show didn't make it. I remember fondly when Tales From the Crypt tried reusing these corny episodes like they were actually scary. Coupled with bad acting and lousy music, I was surprised this crummy showed was ever conceived. It never showed up again, and one can only be thankful for this circumstance.


I'm so glad I only got this movie for $5. Anime is expensive, no doubt about that. I've had my eye on this one for awhile and finally I saw it on sale. I grabbed it immediately and took it home only to hang my head in disappointment. This movie sucked. I've heard people talk about how gory and violent this movie is. It's really not that gory or violent. I've watched it three times, and I think I've wasted enough of my life on this. The demons get a point for being unique and kinda cool at times. The sex gets a point since it's almost non-stop. The horny old man gets half-a-point for being horny and still having the sex drive. And the main character (who's name I've erased from my mind) gets half-a-point for the cool design of his gun. I saw major connections between this movie and Demon City Shinjuku. Both have same style animation, that's obvious because of the director, both have lame soundtracks which suck like the Antichrist, and both have terrible endings. Avoid this movie unless you're into anime sex.


Victor Jory never became a major star. He is better known for later character roles than for his early leads. But he was very handsome and an excellent actor.

His love scenes with Loretta Young in this romantic adventure thriller are passionate. Their kisses look very real. And very modern.

Vivienne Osborne is a standout here also. She plays a woman with a reputation. But the character has a good heart.

The print I saw was not clear. But what a joy that rare movies like this are turning up! And they are, in some sort of watchable condition, still intact. This is nothing truly special. But if one is willing to sift through movies of its era with similarly intriguing titles, one is likely to find some suprtb movies.


...but memorable because it includes an actor I actually recognize! James Horan is, by these types of movies' standards, Lawrence Olivier. He's given some decent performances on stuff like Highlander and various Star Treks, so it's kind of amusing, if mildly depressing, watching him degrade himself here. Okay, yeah, there's a plot. Horan's character and his wife are fighting, he's having an affair with a movie reviewer while trying to do his "masterpiece" film, and their guest decides to enjoy the wonders of stripping. But watching Horan is really the only enjoyment to be found here.


The problem with making a movie like this, though, is that the finale, the crème-de-la-creme of the movie, the battle between the two souped-up ships, must be done well. Disappointingly, this scene in Ironclads is obviously done completely with little model ships in an overgrown tub. There's no tension, little explanation of what exactly is going on and what the timeframe is of the stand-off.

The film takes quite a few liberties with the surrounding story, as all true stories do when converted to a movie, such as the Union traitor and most notably that of Betty Stuart (Madsen), a Virginia belle.

It resorts to making a possibly-decent movie involving an interesting story on the ironclads to preaching about the evils of slavery. It was out of place in this historical drama, and was a cheap ploy to bring in the women viewers. It only succeeded in lessening the positives about the film.


Well now this strange movie. It was listed as a comedy but I certainly found nothing to laugh at. Actually I am struggling to find anything positive to say about this film. Oh here I go. Alex Ferns is not bad in the lead role and I did not pick the ending for a change, but apart from that this has no great direction solidly two dimensional characters and is not funny enough to be a comedy or serious or dark enough to be any form of decent drama. I would really avoid ever having to watch this movie again and think it does nothing to benefit any of the working class characters it is attempting to portray. I found it hard to empathise for any of the characters and was not given enough information on the lead character Jimmy to believe his motives. Best avoided.


This is so poor it's watchable.

The plot deals with a grizzled spaceship crew happening upon a drifting, apparently abandoned Russian craft.

In the empty vastness of space, the two craft accidentally collide (!) - and 'Alien'-esque fun ensues as a cyborg from the Russian ship menaces our crew.

The spacecraft interiors are clearly a dolled-up factory set (metal walkways, boilers, piping). In this entirely unconvincing setting, 'Kody', 'Snake' and the rest of our hero crew grimace, grunt, run about and continually and repeatedly rack their shotguns without firing them.

The continuity gaffes are what define this movie, and they are nothing short of amazing:

Stuff appears and disappears. The shotguns are racked. A cigar gets longer by being smoked. The shotguns are racked again, just to make sure. Content of a bottle increases by being drunk from.

The film progresses through the usual clichés by way of intense ham acting, poxy camera work and Ed Wood quality props to a showdown climax.


As other reviews have said, another of the countless number of Alien clones, this time with a great wodge of The Terminator thrown in, add a bit of the classic SF Story "Who Goes There?", and a insanely stupid plot device lifted from The Andromeda Strain (apparently flashing red lights make rampaging killer 'droids unable to detect scared people standing three inches away from them).

OK, the story: after a sequence of people running around in a space ship and killing each other we get a caption.

"25 years later".

The crew of a relay station orbiting Mars, due to be relieved in 48 hours, detect a ginormous space ship on a collision course. It's The Siberia, the ship we saw in the opening sequence. Not a good time to have taken everything useful off-line on the relay station to do some repairs then. The approaching ship doesn't deviate from its course and is broadcasting a "Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Enter This Ship!" warning. After a lot of shouting at each other, the crew of the relay station patch something together and get the station out of the way just in the nick of time. But the ship changes course and rams them any way - impaling one of the crew on a stick-outy pointy crew impaler thing. The satellite starts to "loose integrity". Bits de-pressurise. Lots more shouting and running about in which only two crew people are sucked out into space backwards. (Why are they ALWAYS sucked out backwards?).

After a few keystrokes the wheelchair bound techy (who is called 'Wheeler' - the only only detectable joke in the whole movie) deduces that the Siberia is draining them of all their power and they need to go aboard her and switch off its engines. They all go on-board and take their helmets off. "Do NOT Enter This Ship!" obviously means get on board the ship and expose yourself to possibly fatal infectious diseases. One team head for the Main Computer room where they find a dead frozen guy clutching what looks like an American Express card but turns out to be a minidisc. The other team find some switches. Amazingly the dead bloke turns out to be the father of the attractive female crew member voted most likely to survive an encounter with a rampaging alien. They switch the engines off but this means the ships reactor will explode. A spooky Point of View Shot starts killing people. There's some guff about the Siberia having discovered an new ore, a petential power source worth millions, which mean the more venal members of the crew immediately thrust themselves into danger to get hold of it. The POV shot returns with whoosh! whoosh! walking noises on the soundtrack. Unfortunately these give you the idea the killer is wearing corduroy trousers and the effect is wasted.

After that it's all just running around and getting killed in order of ugliness and acting ability, until only the obvious survivors survive - along with the cute dog which had managed to lead at least two crew members to their deaths. Just why space hardened veterans wander into the jaws of certain death looking for their pets cats and dogs has long been a mystery of this kind of movie. Other stupid highlights include everyone forgetting to act the falling levels of oxygen until reminded by the voice of the on-board computer (not that the low levels of oxygen in any way dampen any of the impressive fires this load of idiots start). If the Killer Droid id so clever it can steer the ship in a tight curve and have another go at ramming the relay station why didn't it turn off the "Do NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Enter This Ship!" warning signal.. I'm sure if it was looking for more people to kill then yelling GO AWAY! was not a good way of going about it.

Musetta Vander is the only person who gets to do any acting - everyone else just flares their nostrils all the time while baring their teeth and shouting and pointing guns at each other. It that sort of script; full of exclamation marks - the only thing that kept me watching till the end was the hope that the script demand she take all her clothes off, or get wet while not wearing a lot. Unfortunately it didn't. One of the things wrong with this movie (apart from it having more cyan put on screen than in any other movie ever) is that there was no gratuitous nudity.


Each year the company called Nu produces couple of "action packed", "full of suspense" movies. This little nugget, called Shadowcaster III(Until I visited this site I wasn't avare this is a whole trilogy), is a great example of the good job the company is doing. Frank Zagarino is as mean as always and does a great job as almost undestructable(?), schizophrenic(??) android. I won't waste any more words since I don't want to reveal the terrific plot and ruin you a couple of great laughs.

Rating 2/10 (Revard for those hard working tehnicians. Man, putting together this kind of rubbish must be nervewracking.)


"Happy Days" was produced and broadcast from the mid-1970's to the early 1980's and seems to get more ridiculous with age. At the time of its broadcast, most viewers who grew up in the 1950's were in middle age with families, and the scenes at Mel's Diner probably brought an artificial nostalgia to them. The Fonz was of course the coolest of the cool (although the actor Henry Wrinkler to this day has never learned how to ride a motorcycle). Richie Cunningham was the all-American blond-haired kid who would probably be elected student body president. Potsie was Richie's best friend--the star of the show has to have a best friend, I guess. And Ralph Malph was the bumbling sidekick to the Fonz, if not the entire group. I loved it when the Fonz would beat up on poor Ralph Malph. And there was Mel, the middle-aged lug who ran Mel's Diner. And of course who could forget the appearance of Mork? Was this really the 1950's? Ironically, films produced during the 1950's, such as "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Wild One" have gotten better with age and portray the period more honestly than this show which was produced 20 years after the period it portrays.

Unfortunately, the TV show "Happy Days" is not in the same league as "Rebel Without a Cause" or "American Graffitti" for that matter. "Happy Days" may have captured some aspects of the 1950's with its burger diner, juke boxes, cool cars, and tacky plaid shirts, but it is more a nostalgic idealism done strictly for laughs rather than an honest portrayal. "American Graffitti" had something to say about young Americans in the 1950's whereas "Happy Days" seemed more about what middle-aged people of the 1970's wished the 1950's had been like. The result was a kind of watered down fabrication that really has nothing to do with the 1950's. "Happy Days" is, at best, a comedy-fantasy with some of the artificial culture of the 1950's as its backdrop. As pointed out by another reviewer, the all-American kid Richie Cunningham would probably have been chastised for befriending the likes of a drop-out like Fonzie. And Mel would probably forbid Fonzie from entering his Diner.

A quick history: "Happy Days" was originally a pilot called "Love in the Happy Days" that was rejected for broadcast. Comedy pilots that had themes concerning sex and romance that did not make it to pilot airing sometimes appeared on the infrequently broadcast show "Love American Style" which was often aired in place of baseball games that had rained out or other unexpected programming cancellations and/or alterations. In short, "Love American Style" was a throw-away show that contained all these one-episode comedy pilots that never made it to a slotted debut. "Love in the Happy Days" did appear as a "Love American Style" show sometime in the early 1970's, but at the time TV executives could not foresee how a show about 1950's young people would be popular, particularly during the hey-day of comedy shows centering around middle-aged people, such as The "Mary Tyler Moore Show" (and its subsequent spin-offs such "Rhoda"), "The Bob Newhart Show", and "All in the Family". (How things have changed since now most TV sitcoms are about young people and the industry avoids most shows about middle-aged people like the plague!)

Subsequently, one of the young stars of "Love in the Happy Days", a child actor from "The Andy Griffith Show" named Ron Howard, got the chance to star in a film about young people taking place in 1959 called "American Graffitti" directed by the relatively unknown George Lucas whose previous "THX 1138" had bombed miserably at the box office. Even when it was premiered to movie executives, again the studios could not see how a movie about young people in the 1950's could become popular because it didn't "fit" with what had been popular in the past, although they didn't realize that much of the movie-going audience had been young in the 1950's. As everyone knows, the movie was a huge hit, and studio executives recognized that they had completely misjudged their audience. Somewhere during the theatrical run of "American Graffitti", TV executives realized they had a comedy pilot in their vault that was a lot like "American Graffitti". They brought it back with the original cast, plus Henry Wrinkler as "The Fonz", re-titled it "Happy Days" and the rest is TV history as it became one of the most popular shows of the 1970's.

"Happy Days" now seems ridiculous. The characters are flat and cardboard, never being more or less than what they superficially are. The issues they deal with are trivial. And their reactions appear mindless and even silly. Nowadays, the character of the Fonz seems to be a caricature of, well, The Fonz. Was the idea to be a kind of parody of Marlon Brando's character in "The Wild One"? Looking on the show with fresh eyes, I feel the producers really missed out on a great opportunity to present the 1950's with depth and realism that still could be fun and entertaining. Instead the producers decided on cheap laughs for quick bucks. This is definitely a show that has not withstood the test of time. "American Graffitti" has many of the outward appearances of "Happy Days" but it had an edge. It had an honesty about the characters and their issues. "Happy Days" took the look of "American Graffitti" but failed to take its heart.


HAPPY DAYS was one of my favorite shows when it aired in 1974. But the critics were quick to show their ignorance combined with a total lack of a sense of humor by slamming this show because they thought it was a cheap attempt to cash-in on the success of American GRAFFITTI.

There were some similarities between American GRAFFITTI and HAPPY DAYS.

Both opened with "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & the Comets. Both took place in a bygone era and both featured Ron Howard as one of the leading roles. But there were also some major differences. While American GRAFFITTI took place in 1962 California and centered around a group of newly graduated high school students about to take that big step into adulthood, HAPPY DAYS took place in Milwaulkee, Wisconson and centered around a group of teenagers in high school, dealing with the joys and tribulations of adolescence.

HAPPY DAYS originally opened with the juke box playing the original version of Bill Haley & the Comets' ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK. But when oldies became hot, thanks to the success of American GRAFFITTI, , and the original 1954 version of ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK, entered the Billboard Hot 100 and became a hit again in 1974, royalty payments went through the roof. So a "remake" of the song (the correct term is now "new stereo recording") was quickly substituted.

The current theme song for HAPPY DAYS was then introduced for the second season if memory serves me right.

Fans and foes alike agree that this show is escapist. Liberties were taken and details overlooked, making this show less than completely authentic.

This is perfectly fine. HAPPY DAYS is supposed to be a comedy, not a history lesson. But occasionally the writers did sometimes stick their necks out by hitting on controversial topics. One episode centered around the Cunninghams building of a fall out shelter. Another episode was about a divorced woman moving into the neighborhood with a dream of starting a new life. The topic of prejudice was addressed when Howard was invited to the wedding of an old army buddy who just happened to be black (in an era when prejudice and discrimination was sadly an acceptable part of the American way of life). The issue of the draft even came up on a later episode!

The show as originally set in 1955. One problem that was dealt wisely was with the cast. Most of them were teenagers and as each year passed, it was obvious that they grew older so the series aged with the cast, moving the series out of the safe waters of the Eisenhower years into the Age of Camelot, all the way with JFK and then into the turbulent later half of the 1960s. That, along with the writers running out of ideas, and later, cast members like Ron Howard leaving the series, wisely quitting while they were ahead, left me wishing that they had all done the right thing by pulling the plug on this show and quitting while they were ahead. That, along with the idol worshiping studio audience who just couldn't control themselves every time the Great Fonzie entered the scene, began to wear very thin very fast.

This show originally portrayed the Fabulous Fifties as we LIKE to remember that era. Time heals wounds, you know. Everything has its place and though I would prefer hearing the "original hit versions" over those "new stereo recordings", those "new stereo recordings" worked very well on HAPPY DAYS. And this is where I find myself regretting my buying the DVD! Unlike the complete first season DVD, the original music on the complete second season, has been replaced with different music. While it is great that the original episodes were digitally restored to digital perfection, the removal of the original music destroyed what it was that made this show so much fun to watch!


Oddly enough, it's Fred MacMurray who plays the more "screwy" part in this screwball comedy. Carole Lombard shows a fine performance combining lighter moments with and undercurrent of drama and seriousness.

As usual, Fred MacMurray remains a mystery to me. The camera is no fan of his, he's not that attractive, and he doesn't have the style and panache to pull off this very Cary Grant-like role.

Ralph Bellamy is excellent as the kind friend coming back to life through his relationship with Lombard's character. One can only wonder why her character wouldn't want his gentle, reassuring love instead of the almost certain doom of MacMurray's ineptness. But that's Hollywood!

The picture almost works but misses the mark, primarily due to MacMurray's performance. It would've been lovely to see Grant or even Clark Gable in his role. Lombard and Bellamy are largely believable and likable; MacMurray is stiff and makes you want to keep him at arm's length.


The acting is excellent in this film, with some great actors. It was fun to see Fred McMurray as a young man. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful, and some of them appear forced and contrived. It's in the script, though, not the fault of the acting.

The 10 line requirement forces me to write some more...Hmmm. Loved Carole Lombard's My Man Godfrey, because it is a comedy and, while the acting is wonderful, the story line and the script itself, wins the day. Carole Lombard is pretty and a wonderful actress. I will try to watch Fred McMurray's features.


Cheaply pieced together of recycled film footage, music and ideas, this film cannot really be called "well". But for me, when I watched it as a teenager, it was quite amusing. (I didn't know BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS before.) In retrospect it has got something nostalgic, regarding the SF wave of the early eighties and the special effects of this time. Its trashy old-fashioned look and its naivety provide a certain attraction. To enjoy this movie I recommend to concentrate on the paternal relationship between the characters of Vince Edwards and David Mendenhall. In addition, I liked the idea that a bunch of scoundrels discovers its heroic qualities after been unwillingly confronted with the challenge to take care of a child.


If there were an EPA for film, then this movie would get their most sincere approval. If we all recycled our "stuff" to this degree, we'd never run out of anything.

Funny how I was reminded of this movie when I first saw Starwars I: The Phantom Menace. At least Lucas didn't recycle his old footage.

This is a dud. But it's a nice dud. Cute in spots (I liked when the kid said, "damn rocks"). And, if you like explosions (even recycled ones) you will get your fill.

Actually for an obviously "no budget" film, it makes out fairly well. Acting is weak, but there is a little characterisation here and there. Story is predictable, but will lead you along anyhow.

This is an "everybody chases the kid" type of movie which probably will appeal mostly to younger audiences. I gave this one a 2 out of 10.

I dug up my old VHS copy of this film. I don't think it's on DVD.


This one hardly compares to the space adventures of its time. Those being Star Wars and Star Trek. And while I am no fan of Star Trek, I recognize that this film pales in comparison to the series Trekkies ooze over. In fact, I would place Back to the Future in better light in terms of space and travel.

The story is of a boy who is captured by space raiders (pirates). In a obviously fake and unentertaining battle, the captured boy befriends the pirates and even helps them. And slowly, one by one, those raiders die off. In the end, the boy gets to return home and the last remaining pirates escapes gravely wounded.

The acting wasn't that great. But what really is obvious is the total lack of interesting dialogue, effects, and storyline. How they even got 80 minutes of this is beyond me.

If you want to take a shot at it because it involves space, go ahead. But be warned. "D"


It took me a few years to hunt down this title, a major staple of my childhood. Almost every trip to the video shop I'd pick out Space Raiders and watch it three times every time my mother rented it for me. It was, I suppose, my Star Wars.

It's a shame then that it's such a stinker. My memories were so hazy that it offered nothing in terms of nostalgia so I had to take it at face value. A crew of space pirates accidentally kidnap a pretty annoying little kid and spend the rest of the movie trying to get him home.

Aimed squarely at the under-tens it's got unwelcome slapstick, very shoddy costumes and make-up, recycled special effects, wobbly sets and poor acting. But even with the unintentional comedy it's no fun to see it as an adult, where I can pick out not just the technical faults but wonder at how spectacularly the writer and director managed to botch an endless stream of no-brainer fun/powerful moments that have been seen in a million other sci-fi movies and in the hands of anyone remotely competent should have been successful.

I imagine as a kid I probably found it quite empowering - there are lots of "I can't do this, I'm just a kid" "Sure you can kiddo, you just have to try!"-type exchanges; the kid drinks beer, etc., but even by low budget 1983 sci-fi standards this one's pretty awful, with a real snoozer of a "finale".


As several posters have "hinted," this is a sorry "Star Wars" ripoff. Now if you're going to rip off "Star Wars," at least do it right; "Battlestar Galactica" did, and there were a few other space operas that didn't do a bad job of it, but this is definitely not one of them. David Mendenhall, the juvenile lead, actually isn't too bad, though he goes overboard on the "cute" factor every so often. Vince Edwards hasn't improved much as an actor since his "Ben Casey" days; if anything, he's even more wooden than he was ten. The other performances are nothing to write home about, either. Even worse are the special effects; the best you can say about them is that they're lousy. It's glaringly obvious that the "aliens" are simply actors wearing rubber masks with a little foam or latex slopped on them, and the "battle" scenes between Edwards' raiders and the aliens are poorly staged and badly shot. A very weak effort from Roger Corman. Skip it.


A Roger Corman rip-off assembled for what appears to be virtually zero budget. All of the special effects were originally used in "Battle Beyond the Stars", and I suspect a fair amount of the props, costumes and sets were re-used from other sources as well. The story seems to have been written around these elements, so this isn't really a movie as much as it's a recycling project. Third-rate "Star Wars" junk wasn't needed then or now.


This movie is a desperate attempt to ride the skirtales of the success of the Star Wars movies. The film uses recycled footage from "Battle Beyond the Sars" which is another Roger Corman Sci-Fi Turd, but atleast this one is better than "Battle Beyond the Stars" - there is no real acting in this film (but its a Roger Corman film-What did you expect)again the entire soundtrack was done on a Keyboard/Synthasizer, the sound effects are recycled from "Battlestar Galactica" - there are no special effects because they were recycled/rearranged space scenes from another movie, the costumes look like something right out of 1981 salvation army salvage. --ironicaly, the little boy in this film gives one helluva performance, and he'd resurface again to star in the Sylvester Stallone movie "Over the Top" - I give this movie 3 stars out of 10


I've been trying to remember the name of this movie for years (not consecutively, of course). I saw it at the local dollar theater when I was 11, and it was so atrocious I almost walked out; I think I didn't realize one was allowed to leave before the movie ended. Anyway, it stuck in my mind as just about the worst movie I saw growing up. I can finally give it the rating it deserves.

1/10 (that was strangely satisfying)


Truly awful. Obviously an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze, but there's no excuse for this insipid piece of garbage. The storyline gets lost before the middle, the characters are forgettable and the kid is such a non-talent that all he does is pose for the camera. An alien planet they land on is actually the Naval stockyards in Long Beach, California.

This movie actually made me physically ill watching it.

Roger Corman has made some good, some bad movies in his career, but there's no excuse for this one.

0/10 - IMDb won't let you score a zero.


OK, no one will confuse this with Citizen Kane but you've got to love a movie where the women are always topless. There are a few catfights and some kinky sex as well. On the other hand I hope they didn't overpay the guy who wrote the dialogue. Here's a prime example. After one of the captive girls dies:

"This is terrible. It reminds me of the day Zenobia died" "A relative?" "No, my favorite cow." I guess they saved some money on the script and blew it on great special effects like that plastic crocodile. I will say that it took me three sittings to make it through this fine work of art, never a good sign. I guess that's what happens after a while when everything looks the same. I hope the folks waiting to rent it next didn't get too impatient. Don't worry folks, it's on it's way.


I am a fan of Jess Franco's bizarre style, and a lover even of his trashier films, and my personal opinion is that he has, besides several very entertaining movies, also created a few masterpieces, such as the brilliant "Paroxismus" aka "Venus In Furs" of 1969, for example. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the 180+ movies this highly prolific filmmaker has directed in his career, also include a bunch of big time stinkers. "Sadomania" of 1981 certainly is one of these stinkers, just an utterly bad and plot less movie with the ability to bore the hell out of you in spite of constant sleaze and nudity.

Sure, the constant nudity will keep you entertained for 20 minutes, but since it keeps going on and on like that one is pretty likely to get bored after a short time. The only thing that really kept me watching this was the intensity of the sleaze which is, generously spoken, slightly amusing.

After couple of newlyweds get lost in the desert on some island, they are stopped by a bunch of topless women carrying guns, wardens of a local prison camp. While the husband is banished from the island, the wife is taken to the prison camp, a place of torture and sexual humiliation, reigned by the sadistic nymphomaniac Magda and an extremely perverted governor. The prisoners are, of course, entirely hot chicks, most of them blondes, the wardens are entirely topless women carrying rifles.

The plot, if one can call it that, is extremely stupid of course, but who is going to watch this for a good plot anyway. The (only) interesting thing about "Sadomania" is the high level of exploitation, even for a 'Women In Prison' film. There are probably two short scenes in the movie where we see a woman actually wearing a top, the sleaze contains all kinds of sexual perversions from rape to bestiality, and some of the torture scenes are really nasty.

It is amazing that a film with this extreme level of sleaze, however, can still be so boring. The sleaze will keep you watching in the beginning, but after the first 45 minutes I actually had a hard time not to fall asleep. It also makes me wonder why, out of all pornstars, Jess Franco chose Ajita Wilson, who was, according to most sources, a transsexual who had been born a man (well, maybe for exactly that reason). If you really want to watch this, make sure you have enough beer at home to sit through it and watch it for the sleaze and exploitation only (and maybe for the slight unintentional fun factor). Don't expect to be highly entertained, however, it is almost unbelievable how a movie with such a high sleaze level can be so boring. I am a Jess Franco fan and I always will be, but "Sadomania" is just bad. 2/10


Jesus Franco is pretty hit or miss on his films & I'd say this was a miss, that is, unless you're into total sleaze. I will say that the man has an eye for a good shot, even if it involves topless women with machine guns silhouetted against the ocean. This is overall pretty ridiculous and the acting is horrible, but the acting is the least of what this is about. And what is it about? Well, it's about 102 minutes of lesbianism, women picking and shoveling in the hot sun for no apparent reason, and just about as much sleaze as you can stand and maybe then some. Most notable (?) is a scene involving one young woman who is tied to a chair and an apparently amorous German Shepherd, and while what's going on is merely implied (thankfully) it is probably a scenario that I could have done without. I'd rank this up there with Tender Flesh as one of the Franco films I'd rather not have in my collection, although the music is jazzy and fun. 4 out of 10, yecch.


I can't help thinking that this is Franco's 'hamage' to the Marquis de Sade's "One Thousand Days of Sodom". People (in this case women) abducted to serve as slaves to a privileged elite? Check. Kinky sex? Check. Torture including whipping? Check. Victims chosen at random to be killed? Check.

Thank goodness Franco didn't go the whole hog and introduce cinema audiences to the delights of coprology (and indeed coprophagy), another perversion that crops up repeatedly in de Sade's tediously long and disgusting saga.

I rather hoped that this film would fall into the 'so bad it's good' category. But even the acres of naked flesh and numerous sexual encounters didn't make up for the dismal dialogue, dreadful acting, elusive plot and - just to put the tin hat on it - dubbing AND English sub-titles (a belt and braces approach missing from the women's costumes). The Alsation gave a very professional performance though.

Of course I could be wrong about the de Sade angle. After all, I failed to realise that the actor playing the head warden at the 'prison' was a trans-sexual. I must pay more attention to the size of people's hands in future.

According to another reviewer, the film was banned in the UK. Well it clearly isn't any more, though I fancy that the nipple-needling scene was cut to satisfy the censors. On the DVD I watched, it was only clearly visible on the Spanish trailer (which, in case you're wondering, I watched to compare it with the English one).

The DVD also features an interview with Jess Franco, though you'll need better Spanish than mine to understand it. Unless I'm much mistaken it's neither dubbed nor sub-titled. And it points out that the person sodomising the character played by Franco is Ajita Wilson disguised using a moustache. Kind of ironic, given that (s)he had had the requisite appendage surgically removed.


Generally speaking, I'm a an admirer of Jess Franco's film-making but, for some of this movies, I really have difficulties understanding the motivation behind them or even their reason of existence. Like this sick puppy, for example. "Sadomania" has absolutely no cinematic value, it's poorly made without any sort of plot and featuring some of the most ill-natured sleaze footage ever captured on film. This is another filthy women-in-prison film where rape, lesbian-action and violent torture games are daily routine. The guards are crazier than the prisoners and the institution is protected by an impotent governor who only gets sexually aroused when he spots a girl having sex with a dog (!). The girls are all very beautiful and naked throughout the entire film, yet you can't really enjoy this sight with all the perversion going on. The dubious highlights include a barbaric hunting game (you can guess what he prey is), a duel-to-death between a guard and a prisoner and the image of a poor girl having a needle injected all the way through her nipple. Auch! Avoid this sick mess and you'll save yourself the trouble of taking TWO baths in order to wash the filth off.


this movie is the worst EVER!!! sorry but this was a total waste of good hours. quasi-psychology and b-actors makes a baaaad horror movie. you can say that if you are into bad movies you will adore this one. and the "hot chick" wasn't all that hot. there is absolutely no climax to the movie, and the worst part is the ending song. some homemade thing with these words "its in awful condition the world is a mess. when heads fall of bodies and girls wont stay dressed. the cops they are clueless, eating donuts in their car. newspaperflash next morning: headless body,topless bar." Jesus! sorry guys, but milks gone bad with this one.


My mate and I chose to watch this obvious piece of junk purely based on its tagline After nearly 30 years of lousy and rudimentary teen slashers, I can't believe that only just now some nerdy horror brainiac come up with the brilliantly witty slogan "They Axed for it"! Other than that, "Miner's Massacre" is just as random, annoying and forgettable as all the rest out there. Perhaps even more! The script contains all the typical clichés and features all the dreadfully stereotypic characters you wish a horrible and painful death to. The gore effects are computer engineered and thus beyond pitiable and the obligatory "big" stars (Karen Black, John Philip Law and Richard Lynch) are entirely wasted in spite of their top billing. Cursed mines and abandoned ghost towns form an ideal horror setting  the creators of "My Bloody Valentine" already figured that out in the early 80's  but his dull film simply hasn't got any innovative ideas or even remotely surprising elements to offer. Bunch of greedy twenty-something losers, which refer to themselves as friends even though they clearly can't stand each other, desecrate an ancient mine in search of the gold that is allegedly hidden there. Of course they unwarily resurrect the zombie miner this way and he just 150 years of rest in order to prepare for a massive teen massacre. Yay! The cast is exceptionally irritating in this one. The girls all have impressive racks but refuse to show anything. Instead, they all prefer endless whining and the taking of needless risks. The dim-witted blokes clearly just serve as screen fillers. In her barely five minutes of playtime, Karen Black still manages to make an utter fool out of herself by depicting the most prototypic and hysterical local nut woman ever. The zombie has a stupid and very unconvincing face, but he looks okay and reasonably menacing when shown in the distant shadow of the moonlight whilst swinging around his pick-axe. Since the best thing about "Miner's Massacre" concerns the aforementioned tagline and you can read that on the box in the video store itself, there's very little else to recommend here. Director John Carl Buechler scored a few modest hits during the eighties, like notably the original "Troll" and a fair "Friday the 13th" sequel, but it's obviously time to retire now.


This was bad enough. I really hope that there is no sequel. Maybe that is giving away part of the plot to let you know that it is open to the possibility, but no, it really isn't.

There is really not at all special about this movie. Well, the special effect were fairly good, but nothing to write home about.

There were some hot babes in her, especially Elina Madison and Alexandra Ford, but nothing to see folks. PG-13, definitely not an R. That also tells you the slasher aspects were less than spectacular. The shovel to the head was the only thing that was unusual.

Tame scare fare.


Director and FX man John Carl Buechler doesn't have to do much in order to terrify me; the sight of his name in the credits alone is enough to strike fear into my heart.

His lamentable straight-to-video output in the 80s sat on the bottom shelf of the horror section at my local rental shop; twenty years later, and his DVDs occupy the same space. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. You can rely on old JCB to serve up dreck, whatever the format and regardless of advances in movie-making technology.

In this contemptible offering, a bunch of friends travel to a remote town where they discover the secret treasure hoard of Jeremiah Stone, AKA the forty-nineran evil, claim-jumping, cannibalistic miner who caused havoc in the mid-1800s. Before his death, Jeremiah cursed anyone who should find his gold, and it's not long before the pick-axe wielding killer is back, bumping off the hapless treasure seekers.

With its dreadful script, unimpressive make-up effects and Scooby-Doo style villain, 'The Curse of the Forty-Niner' is par for the course for Buechler. Only genre stalwarts Keren Black, Richard Lynch and John Phillip Law lend this movie any credibility whatsoever, with the rest of the cast giving performances ranging from bad to awful (although I'll forgive Alexandra Ford, who is a complete hottie).

Even fans of bad schlock horror will be disappointed since most of the women keep their clothes on, and a lot of the deaths occur off-screen (which is probably not such a bad thing since the on-screen deaths are pathetic).

'The Curse of the Forty-Niner' is another in a long list of duds for John Carl.


The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and a couple of embarrassing performances. Somebody forgot to tell the writers that "Fool's Gold" refers to the genuineness of the gold, not the people who are looking for it. 3/10


Return to Frogtown was a hard film to track down. Well, I accomplished that mission and it had been sitting on the shelf for a good while. Wish it was kept that way! First, Sam Hell is of course not Roddy Piper. He is replaced by a dude with a large face, less charisma, and this poor actor is very soft-spoken for the part! Sam Hell is supposed to be rebellious and awesome. Here, he gets captured THREE times! What kind of a hero is that?! Spangle is replaced as well here by another actress. Why did we not get different characters here? This was stupid! Lou Ferrigno stars in this film and he is not even the hero. Common sense says let Lou be the hero of the film! Bad effects, poor acting, and just a forgettable film. Funny as they take shots at Ninja Turtles 2 with the whole concert scene in this movie. At least Ninja Turtles 2 was funny and not a bad movie! I really wanted to like Return to Frogtown, but I just cringed when the fight scenes would commence. This film makes Turtles 3 look like gold! Avoid this or you will be the one singing "meaner, greener, talking turtle TV dinner!"


Hercules wound up falling into the same category as many promising television productions that could have been a really great classic, only to become a sad joke.

I really like Kevin Sorbo and his supporting cast, but I didn't care for the direction the show took since their movie equivalents either. I believe the show would have had a much more successful run if they had kept the same format they did for the movies.

I watched in the beginning and lost interest along the way. I did encounter the odd episode afterwards, but my attention span towards it was lucky to make it to commercial break.


This Game is a good looking First Person Shooter. -----------Hang on......

But of course a story must be put around this genre, so a quite innovative plot about soldiers now driven by drugs to save the world and kill the terrorist, Nectar is the drug of choice which creates a super soldier.

Great, now just give us some fun, challenging missions, throw in some great new weapons and free terrain vehicles that can be driven at our leisure and I will be quite content.

NO!!!!

The maker's of this game decide to create a propagandish, military driven game, that tries to make sense of our fears of terrorism and embracing democracy. The game has twisted ideals that just re-enforce morals that we learned when we were in primary school, nothing new is told to us, but "Drugs are bad...mmmkay". Then pushed in a type of ....Yvan eht Nnnioooojjjjj! (join the navy) of how standing up for the common good, given rants on normality and abnormality, right and wrong....GOOOOOOOOOOD WE GET IT! LET's KILL SOMETHING!!!!

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't, You are forced to endure extremely long gaps of completing BULLSH!T objectives such as "Run to Helicopter"......."Go to group of Troops" .....Then once this is completed.........CINEMATIC takes over.........You sit there for at least half of the game watching little scenario's played out by the characters, one's you CANNOT skip, but sit and wait, sometimes when people aren't even talking, we sit and wait for a helicopter to land!

Bad game, by a laughable group of programmers! Don't bother making another because I will rather see the movie!


For many months I was looking forward to this release. The previews looked good, early reports on the net were encouraging, and golden eye and Timesplitters were excellent shooters (by the same people). It turns out I was greatly misled! Haze had the potential to be up there with Call of Duty 4 and other next gen shooters, however it looks, plays and feels like something from 5 years or so ago. I played Haze on a 1080 TV and was initially disappointed that the game's developers had limited the graphics to 720. The Haze universe lacks detail and atmosphere, the feeling of "they must have really rushed to finish this" is always there.

The controls are sluggish and cumbersome, and i have yet to find an adjustment for x/y axis sensitivity . There are many parts of the single player game that are very dark (visually), to the point where you can't actually see where you are going. Why not add a torch function like in Halo? or even better, night vision? The use of the performance enhancing drug "nectar" is interesting, however just as you get used to it you switch sides and don't use it again! why bother? I could go on with many more Haze faults, but instead i'll just say Don't BOTHER! wait for killzone 2 or play call of duty 4 and try to unlock the gold AK!


At the beginning of 'Loggerheads', we're introduced to three pairs of seemingly unrelated characters. To make matters even more confusing, we're informed (via titles on the screen) that the action is taking place in three separate time lines (between the years 1999 and 2001). It takes a great deal of time but eventually we come to see how the three pairs are related: Mark Austin, a young man in his 20s, gay and HIV Positive is estranged from his conservative parents, Elizabeth and Rev. Robert Austin.

Mark is now a drifter and arrives in Kure Beach, North Carolina, a seaside town, where he meets George (sensitively played by Michael Kelly), a gay motel owner and they eventually become involved with each other. Meanwhile, Mark's birth mother, Grace (played by Bonnie Hunt) has come to the point in her life where she has decided to find the son she gave up for adoption when she was 17. Similarly, Mark's adoptive mother, also has decided to track her estranged son as she misses him (despite the misgivings of her homophobic minister husband).

'Loggerheads' we're told is based on a true story and that perhaps is its Achilles Heel. Director/Writer Tim Kirkman tries too hard to create scenes fraught with dramatic tension where there is very little to be found. Take Mark and Georgethey're both sensitive souls who have little to disagree about. There's some slight tension when Grace faces off against an Adoption Agency Director who is forbidden by law to give her any information about her lost son as well as a slight conflict with her mother who denies that she disapproved of her when she became pregnant as a teenager. No sparks fly either between Elizabeth and Robert since the good Reverend has adamantly insisted from the beginning that he has no intention of reconciling with his son.

'Loggerheads' is similar to 'Brokeback Mountain' in that the gay couple are the good guys and the straight males (for example, the Kure Beach cop and the Reverend) are the baddies. The biggest letdown of the movie is that there is no interaction (and hence no dramatic conflict) between Mark and either one of his 'mothers'. Mark is already dead before either the birth or adoptive mother has a chance to reconcile with him.

Kirkman's theme is both a plea for tolerance and an exhortation for family members to express their heartfelt feelings before it's too late! Kirkman's sentiments are for the most part well-intentioned but they do not make for good drama. Loggerheads moves along at a snail's pace without providing any new revelations (or suspense) regarding such topics as AIDS, Adoption and Homophobia. Ultimately 'Loggerheads' fails due to a lack of originality.


Well, now that all of the director/ productions company's friends and relations have posted their shill reviews after seeing this at various festivals, I guess it's time to show reviews written by people who actually paid 10 bucks to see it.

Like the director's "Dear Jesse" (the only other one of his films I have seen), "Loggerheads" suffers from a lack of focus and too many ideas crammed into an indie budget. I swear, this guy might have better luck doing miniseries. I kept waiting for the various plot threads to come together, but they only intercepted at points blatantly forshadowed in a way obvious to all but the most dense viewer. It was like watching a season of Lifetime made-for-TV movies crammed into one, long (did I say LOOONG) sketch on the old "Carol Burnett" show. Maybe an enterprising male suitor could take his girlfriend to see this and then exclaim "Hey...remember all of the chick flicks we went to last year...the one about the adoptive mother...the one about the gay guy...the one about the Christian housewife. We went to THREE Chick Flicks last year; so now we have to go see Terminator 4!" I guess one has to do anything to cast a familiar actor to get funding, but what oh what is Bonnie Hunt doing in this flick? She isn't exactly known as a dramatic actress, and this attempted "performance" won't be sending Mr. Oscar to her door. I mean (speaking of Lifetime Original Movies), wasn't Valerie Bertinelli or Farah Fawcett available? Ms. Hunt has always come off to me as cold, maybe she should have played the other mom? I wish I would have chosen "Capote" to fill my weekly Gay-themed Indie Allowance..oh well, maybe next week. I think there is a good reason why Capote is playing at tons of theatres all over the NYC area and this one is playing at only one; let the distributors faith in this flick assure to to run in the opposite direction if you don't trust this review!


A wallflower is tossed into the sea and dreams herself into a pirate fantasy as a damsel in love with a pirate's apprentice. Energetic and good-natured, perhaps, but a shoddy enterprise; a failed musical send-up of "The Pirates of Penzance" with a cheap, backlot feel, wan bubblegum songs and constant, leering overacting. Kristy McNichol's film career took a real hit after this, while leading man Christopher Atkins cannot get a grip of any particular emotion, his voice wobbling about in search of an appropriate tone. You have to wonder, if that's the best title they could come up with, what's the level of wit going to be in the actual script? The movie's "Grease"-like affection for musicals doesn't gel with its penchant for slapstick a la "Airplane!", although McNichol works overtime being effervescent and nearly makes the limp handling look endearing. For the most part, it is an embarrassment. *1/2 from ****


First off, I would like to make it clear that I voluntarily subject myself to the viewing of terrible movies. I have seen what I thought were the worst of the worst. In my mind, movies could not get any worse than the likes of D.E.B.S., Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood, and Terror Storm. Until I saw this movie.

The Pirate Movie, without any exaggeration, is the WORST MOVIE IN THE WORLD. I was informed prior to watching that the movie was, indeed, awful, but I did not believe the allegations. Believe me when I tell you that this movie is simply an abomination to film.

It starts out with a 3 minute clip of a boat of pirates apparently in the middle of a battle with themselves. "The End" splashes across the screen. Unfortunately, it is not the actual end of the movie. The movie is about an unpopular, awkwardly nerdy girl named Mabel, who carries around a ghetto blaster and is attracted to ambiguously homosexual pirate boys. She drowns and has a overly drawn out hallucination in which she stars as a scantily dressed skank who falls in love with Frederic, who happens to have just crawled out of the ocean. He might actually be homosexual. The Pirate King has a ruby and diamond studded codpiece. It honks and squeaks when he squeezes it.

There is singing in this movie. You might have the impression that this is a hilarious musical. It isn't. Trust me. They are the worst songs that you've ever heard, and by the end of the first original tune you will be searching for objects to pierce your eardrums with.

There are "references" to other movies in here. By references, of course, I mean "obvious rip-offs." The inclusion of Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau, and the lightsaber were, in fact, anti-hilarious.

The dialogue is, in its better moments, painful to hear. The direction is flat out awful, and at one point you can see the stunt pad in the scene, which isn't very well hidden at all.

In conclusion, if there is even the shadow of curiosity in your mind about this movie, get rid of it. There are times when people want to see how bad something really is, but this movie is not worth it. Put it completely out of your mind and never think about it again. If you cherish your mental capacity then I beg of you, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.


Phoned work sick - watched this in bed and it was so awful I would have went back to work if I could have gotten out of bed. The dog ran off with the remote so I was stuck.

I'm positive Hammer was grooming the eldest daughter to become his beeeatch.

Horrendous to watch - made me vomit more than what I was doing anyway. So there you have it - this would be the film that they play in the waiting room of Hell before you go in. Or maybe your stuck in the film for all eternity with the Hart kids. Just remember to take a gun with you....


Man, did this film stink! It's obvious this film helped spurn Hollywood's need to churn out tired sequels to appeal to the masses. First of all, it came out too quickly, and second of all, it just didn't have the same hipness which made the original film so successful. No new ground was broken, and it turned into a rather mundane effort.


Slayer is a mindless vampire movie with a few twists on an ancient plot. Special ops team is sent into south America to hunt down blood sucking natives. Their leader is a real old man who has aged well. There's an environmental twist as the vampires are attacking villages because their rain forest and old diet of wild animals is disappearing because of the greedy corporations and farmers. Lost of fighting and so much blood they just never bothered to wash off the cast for the whole film. It looks like they slept in the bloody clothes and caked on blood. While each member of the cast brought their own talents, it really didn't all click as a film. The effects were OK, except for the vampires dangling from the buildings on wires. If you're looking for lots of blood and violence, this is for you.


This is about some vampires (who can run around out in the sunlight), that are causing some problems down in South America. Casper Van Dien is sent in with his team of commandos to investigate. The movie opens with Van Dien & Co. walking through the jungle, and there's this huge black guy who just absolutely, positively cannot act. He speaks all his lines as if he's reading them off the cue-cards for the very first time. His voice is also so low that, well, it's positively hilarious. Great way to get the movie started! Anyhow, they run into some of our vampires, shoot them (this causes them to appear to die for about 20 seconds), and then of course they come back to life. Van Dien notices that one of them was impaled across a tree limb, and yells to his buddies to kill them with wood. The stunt work must be seen to be believed - the vampires are on wires that pull them up trees, which is supposed to make them look like they can climb really easily, but it just makes them look like they're bouncing around on bungee cords or something.

Yeah...anyhow, later on, the huge black dude is down in South America with some guys (Van Dien not included), and they're attacked by more vampires. It's really too bad these guys never heard of a crossbow, because it would seem to be the perfect weapon to kill the little bloodsuckers with, but instead they use big old wooden stakes that they try to impale the vampires with by hand. The big black dude ends up getting captured and he eventually becomes some big powerful vampire leader. Van Dien ends up battling him later on. It doesn't help that all through the movie, everyone forgets that if you shoot a vampire, they are knocked out for 20 seconds or so, which would enable a person to stick a stake in them fairly easily. They just try to stick stakes in them in the middle of hand-to-hand combat. Yeah, not exactly brilliant tactics.

There's a hot babe (remember Veronica from The Lost World TV show? Yes, it's her!) who also happens to be walking around in the middle of Vampire County on some sort of research mission, and she also just happens to be Van Dien's ex-wife. Hey, what are the odds? It's a shame she's not in the movie a whole lot more than she is. Will her and Casper get back together in the end? Will Van Dien defeat the huge black dude who can't act? Will the circus performer vampires make you laugh through all the numerous action scenes? Will we hear the three stooges music when somebody does something funny? Has even Lynda Carter forgotten how to act in her small cameo (she's more convincing in her Sleep Number Bed commercials)? These questions and more will will be answered if you make it all the way to the end of the movie.

I don't know, it might score some points on the so bad it's good scale, but that's about it. Eh, it's a bunch of goofs running around in the jungle, I guess it's kind of entertaining.


This is a relatively watchable movie (+1). After watching UKM: Ultimate Killing Machine, this one looks good, in comparison. There are no obvious technical gaffes, although the vampiric teeth look odd.

The story line makes no sense. Let's see. An American GI fights vampires. Comes back to the states and is rehabilitated for seeing... Vampires. His commanding officer is the aunt of his ex-wife. Who happens to be doing some research on the biodiversity of the South American area where the vampires are. Huh! Don't pile on too many coincidences. Who cares about the head vampire? Or, his daughter? Or, any one in this film? The only originality in this is that most of the myths about vampires (allergic to crosses and garlic, can't come out in the day, etc.) are wrong. But, they can't be killed except by beheading or a wood wound in the heart. Yeah, right. It's obvious they just didn't want to film a dark movie, since this is a made for TV film.

It would have been nice for the viewer, if they had hired some actors. Oh, they've got Lynda Carter (TV's Wonder Woman), and a big, black dude with a tremendously deep voice, who snarls appropriately in order to show off his vampire teeth prosthetics. But, otherwise, you would never know they had actually paid people to read these lines.

There is more than enough fight scenes, and some vampire-biting-neck blood, but no real violence.


Slayer starts in the South American rain forest where Captain Hawk (Casper Van Dien) & his men are attacked by a bunch of Vampires, they barely manage to escape with their lives. Jump forward six months later & Hawk is called to see Colonel Weaver (Lynda Carter) who informs him there has been other reported sightings of Vampires & that his ex-wife & her Goddaughter Dr. Laurie Williams (Jennifer O'Dell) has gone out there on an expedition to study beetles, worried she ask's Hawk to take a squad of soldiers back to South America & officially provide back up to Captain Grieves (Kevin Grevioux) & his men while at the same time unofficially look for Laurie & not get killed by the Vampires who have decided to venture out of the caves & into the civilised World...

Edited, written & directed by Kevin VanHook this is yet another poorly made Sci-Fi Channel original which just isn't very good in any respect. The humourless script has nothing going for it as far as I could see, it's one of those modern Vampire films which decides to pick & choose the 'traditional' Vampire film lore rules it wants to use like these Vampires can be killed with stakes through the heart & have fangs but at the same time can freely walk around in sunlight & they don't sleep in coffins. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it's all very dull, bland & lifeless. The story is poor & just rather stupid, the character's are terrible, the dialogue is forgettable & there's very little here to recommend. Slayer also tries to have some sort of ecological message as the head Vampire claims they are only starting to kill human beings because of their systematic destruction of the rain forest where they have lived in secret for centuries, unfortunately there's no conviction there & is more like a throwaway line to fill the time than a serious statement. There isn't enough exploitation content & is a rather unsatisfying way to spend 90 minutes of your time. The makers don't even do anything with the jungle setting, hell I didn't expect Predator (1987) but I hoped for a bit more than this.

Director VanHook has made several horror films all of which I have seen have been equally poor, I'm sorry but he does nothing here & turns in a throughly forgettable looking & feeling film. There's no atmosphere or tension & as for genuine scares forget about it. The gore is restrained, there are some bitten necks & a bit of spraying blood but it's nothing we haven't seen before or has much impact. There's also a huge Vampire monster creature at the end but it doesn't look that impressive & it gets itself killed far too easily.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this actually had a decent sized amount of money spent on it but it's still a rubbish film, it's reasonably well made but nothing special or memorable. The acting sucks, I'm sorry but that's the way I saw it.

Slayer is yet another poor, stupid & boring made-for-TV Sci-Fi Channel rubbish that I simply can't recommend. Not to be confused with the rather fine one time British 'Video Nasty' gore film The Slayer (1982) which is 100 times better than this so track that down & watch that instead.


I like vampire movies, I like B-movies, I love B vampire movies. But this one has nearly nothing going for it. Some of the acting is horrible, especially by 3 of the male leads. The story is not particular interesting. At a relative short 88 minutes it still seems too long and you'll find yourself fast-forwarding quite a bit. There are an awful lot of kung-fu vampire attacks. Sound cool? It isn't when it's done on a low budget. It gets repetitive very quickly. There is some minor blood and gore, nothing to get excited about. There some good wire work where you can see the wires. It has some good landscapes being filmed in Puerto Rico.

Not worth the rental


I suggest that in the future, any movie made by the Sci fi channel and subsequently released on DVD must say that it was indeed made by such channel as I would not buy this stuff if I had known this fact. Not that this was all bad, but when you have fade out for commercials in the middle of your movie it just ruins the flow of said film. This in turn makes the movie rather more boring. This one had an interesting story however the light hearted and extremely generic soundtrack distracted one from the film as did most of the bad actors with the exception of Dien and Linda Carter. The story, vampires are on the attack in South America, of course the rules of vampire movies are not in effect, which the usually aren't in any of the movies about vampires I have seen lately with the exception of the Blade trilogy. Group of soldiers are sent down to battle said squad another team is sent to meet up with the team and to track down the ex wife of one of the soldiers...why she is not just his wife, who knows as this part of the plot really goes no where. Still we get an interesting boat ride some nice jungle scenery and a lot of blood. This fact, however, does not save the film from being way to jerky in its presentation and really dull seeming at times. I don't know maybe it was the cgi blood, and smoke and whatever they have to make cgi now even though old effects look better and don't cost that much more. I mean cheap Italian zombie movies could do a bullet hole without cgi why can't we now?


This proved to be a rare case of a poliziottesco made with British funding; unfortunately, the result is undistinguished (except by its exceeding unpleasantness and borderline-camp approach) despite stars and director. The former is led by a wooden Franco Nero and an ultra-hammy Telly Savalas as a couple of would-be robbers (if anyone is able to believe either actor  who generally exude cool  as a duo of bumbling crooks, he's more gullible than I am!).

Their 'job' goes awry (ending in murder and saddled with cases of cutlery instead of jewels!)  however, the mismatched criminals see an opening to their dilemma when they inadvertently 'kidnap' the son of a British diplomat (a miscast Lester, who even gets to kick trigger-happy Savalas where it hurts at one point). Still, they never actually ransom him and their sole intent is to cross the border into France; tagging along with them is Nero's girlfriend (a wasted Ely Galleani): soon enough, though, she's had enough and decides to run away while the others are sleeping; the crazy Savalas notices this and, following the girl, kills her. In the meantime, Nero and Lester have woken up  the former thinks his accomplices may have double-crossed him, so he goes on the lam with the boy in tow; after a brief spell at a rich old lady's country estate (which features totally gratuitous rear nudes by both Nero and Lester!), Savalas catches up with them. They continue their trek, where the trio run into a family of German campers: the situation degenerates to the point where Savalas shuts them inside their trailer and tosses the lot into the river  though he's badly hurt in the process himself; typically, it all ends with the 'heavies' getting killed just as they're about to reach the border.

The film, therefore, contains most of the genre's typical elements  sleaze, sadism, violence, chases (the aftermath of the opening robbery when the getaway car causes havoc in the city's narrow back-streets and even disrupts a funeral procession is downright farcical), etc.; one mildly interesting aspect to it is that, by the end, Lester himself is seen to have been definitely (irrevocably?) marked by the experience  coming to feel excitement when an act of violence is committed.


I actually went into this film with some expectations, not because I thought the film sounded particularly good, but because I'm a fan of Italian exploitation flicks and with a cast that sees Franco Nero and Telly Savalas starring alongside Oliver Twist, I figured it had to be interesting at least. Well...RedNeck does have one or two positive things going on, but for the most part; it's a dull, lifeless film that is as ridiculous as it is pointless. The plot simply focuses on two criminals (Nero and Savalas) who kidnap a young kid (Oliver). The twist in the tale is that the kid realises that he'd have more fun if he gets accepted into the 'gang'. Telly Savalas and Franco Nero are two actors that have proved they can carry a film on their own on numerous occasions, and they do have some memorable moments in this film - although really for all the wrong reasons. Savalas in particular gives a silly portrayal of the 'bad' criminal. The plot doesn't flow badly, but since nothing interesting happens, that's not really a positive point and doesn't save from the film from being mediocre. Overall, I can't recommend this film; it may appeal to some for its cult value but it didn't do anything for me.


Definitely not your typical Polizia, Redneck just never worked for me. The movie tells the story of a jewel heist gone wrong and a young boy who is inadvertently kidnapped in the process. In their attempt to get away, the robbers leave a bloody trail of death in their wake as they hatch a plan to ransom the boy. The plan is never carried off as the robbers are more intent on getting to France and the boy is intent on staying with them. While I could cite a number of problems I had with the movie, I'll focus on the most obvious  the character Memphis played by Telly Savalas. From his work in The Dirty Dozen and Kelley's Heroes to other Italian films like Crime Boss to his most remembered role as Kojak, Savalas was a winner. I've always thought of him as one uber-cool customer. Unfortunately, Savalas is almost unwatchable in Redneck. Did the director turn on the camera and instruct him to act as psychotic as possible? It might not have been too bad had his actions been done within the context of a plot I cared about, but here he seems to be acting bizarre for sake of being bizarre. It's appears to be random lunacy. And what's with that accent? Savalas might have been a lot of things, but Southern isn't one of them. He sounds completely ridiculous even attempting the accent. Beyond that, I found little of interest in the rest of the movie. As I indicated, the plot never drew me in. I just didn't care about what was going on. And the notion that the boy is so quickly attracted to the criminal lifestyle doesn't ring true. As for the other actors, Mark Lester is almost as bad as Savalas and the usually reliable Franco Nero isn't a whole lot better. Three "name" actors and not a good performance between them. To make matters worse, I believe the director filmed many of the night scenes with nothing more than the glow from his watch to light the shots. I couldn't tell what was going on. Characters I hate, a plot I don't care about, and a production values that failed  little wonder I've given Redneck a 3/10.


I know a lot of people would claim certain films as 'the worst of all time' but I think Redneck stakes a claim for this prize. A combination of quite dreadful acting from both Mark Lester and Telly Savales and plot progression that defies belief.

On Telly Saveles: was he drunk when he acted in this? He seems to play a slurring, laughing lunatic with no sense of conviction. Maybe he mixed his medication with his whiskey, I don't know.

On Mark Lester: A performance more wooden than a carpenter's workshop. His clipped British tones don't belong in this film; and his transformation from sheltered teenager to gangster's apprentice in 24 hours is mad. And the strip scene with Mosquito does not have any relevance to the plot at all; perhaps the director likes this sort of thing.

Plot logic: when Memphis and Mosquito ambush the car at the beginning, why doesn't Mark Lester's mother do or say anything to get her son out of the car, before the loonies drive it off? She just lets them all go, without saying a word!! On the other hand, Redneck has to be seen - you won't believe how bad it is otherwise!


sdiner82 had clearly not seen the film in decades, and his memory is appalling. His attempts to paint the Mark Lester shaving scene as suspect are utterly erroneous, as are his incorrect comments about the bad guy "sneaking peeks at the kid's body". Lester is clothed for the entire time the man is in the room, and the man barely gives him a glance.

The scene is a crude attempt to show Lester's innocent curiosity about the man's body.

Like everything in this film, it's badly done, but nothing more.

Even sdiner82's comments about Savalas' character who "casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff" is nonsense (it was a single woman, she was already dead, and she was in a car).

I suggest that sdiner82's review says far, far more about his own, far from liberal mindset, than it does about this valueless film.

The only reason I even bothered to look it up, was out of curiosity to see if it was made before or after Kojak.

The film is a worthless piece of 70's trash, but sdiner82's review of it is the worst kind of slander. He wraps up his review in pseudo-intellectual "facts", but the only fact is that he is plain wrong on almost every "factual" matter he discusses.

I can only assume that sdiner82 saw exactly what he looked for, which is disturbing. Now he can return to burning copies of Catcher in the Rye.


In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable "star" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed "dogs" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called "Redneck" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious "Georgy Girl"), and the three leads were Mark ("Oliver") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the "nice" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called "M*A*S*H"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw "Redneck" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like "Redneck")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?)


Have just seen this film for the first time after purchasing it on DVD

It comes across as a cheap attempt to cash in on the two Conan movies.

Unfortunately, this film didn't appear to have the same budget as the Conan films and hence some of the sets and effects aren't as flash and some scenes seem hurried.

Nielsen is OK to look at but unfortunately she couldn't act if a gun was put to her head.

Arnie's supporting role looked like it was done as a favor to director Fleischer, who also directed Conan the Destroyer. Maybe Arnie wasn't confident that he would go on to headline films like Predator, Total Recall, T2, etc.

Some of the female guardians of the talisman early in the film looked like they were struggling to lift their swords and the looks on their faces suggested they were having great fun making this film. I couldn't be so jovial if I was fighting for my life.

All this aside, this film required very little concentration to watch and was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Two stars.


Sometimes intentionally campy, at other times unintentionally silly (like in the opening scene, where a woman is "informed" that she has been raped and that her family has been slaughtered, just for the sake of exposition), this film is ultimately neither funny enough nor competent enough (as a straightforward adventure story) to be really enjoyable. I'll leave you to decide which may be the highlight, but the low point is probably the fight with a silly metallic dragon. Brigitte Nielsen was a good choice for Sonja, with her fresh face and her firm, slightly muscular body (and I think that her dark-red hair suits her perfectly), but Schwarzenegger gives one of his few colorless performances as Calidor. (*1/2)


It is sad that Schwarzenegger was the best thing about this production, especially considering the fact that he had not yet come into his own, and was still as stiff as cardboard in his dialog delivery.

Actually, this isn't as bad as some critics say, but it isn't good, either. It IS amusing, and DOES play like a poor country cousin of the Conan line, making it a conflicted, uneven, poor work. And speaking of poor, the quality is terrible, due to the era in which this was filmed, but that is not the only reason.

The story herein is inferior, even to the Conan line, but moreover, it loses itself in the "Red Sonja must be dominated by big strong Schwarzenegger" ploy, and entirely forgets its purpose, if it ever had one.

It's entertaining, but in a low-budget, guilty-pleasure "B" kind of way.

It rates a 4.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Red Sonja is a career-step-in-the-wrong-direction for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Having made a couple of sword 'n' sorcery films (as Conan) he had moved onto slightly more serious acting roles in films like The Terminator and Commando, only to make a mystifying return to the sword 'n' sorcery genre for this 1985 debacle. It's hard to figure out why he bothered, as this is weaker than both Conan films in every conceivable department. Allegedly, this was to have been the third Conan film, but for one reason or another the emphasis was shifted onto the leading female character, the titular red-head, leaving poor old Arnold to play an incredibly dull supporting role. Spare a thought, too, for director Richard Fleischer who had given the world classics like 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Fantastic Voyage, The Boston Strangler and 10 Rillington Place. In this - his penultimate film - Fleischer also has taken a gigantic career step backwards.

Evil queen Gedren (Sandahl Bergman) wants to rule the world, and she needs a priceless and powerful talisman to do so. She and her brutish army storm a keep populated by priestesses and steal the said talisman, massacring the helpless priestesses as they go. One of the dead priestesses has a sister named Sonja (Brigitte Nielsen), a fiery red-headed warrior, who upon hearing of her sister's death swears revenge upon the evil Gedren. Sonja rides across the land in search of Gedren's lair. Along the way she picks up travelling companions in the shape of a boy prince, Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr) and his bodyguard Falkon (Paul Smith). She also meets the muscular warrior Conan - sorry, I mean Kalidor (!) - who offers to join her in her quest. Initially Sonja doesn't want the help of Kalidor (Arnold Schwarzenegger), preferring instead to prove that she can confront and defeat her enemies alone, but eventually she warms to him and accepts his assistance.

Red Sonja is a staggeringly poor film, all the more so when one muses that it was made in 1985 when the sword 'n' sorcery genre was close to its end. It seems so simplistic and amateurish that one could easily mistake it for an early example of its kind. The performances are poor on the whole, ranging from Bergman's embarrassingly OTT villain to Reyes' unbelievably irritating spoilt brat to Schwarzenegger's wooden and unenthusiastic hero. Nielsen is slightly better as the heroine - presumably full of enthusiasm at the thought of being in her first starring role - but she is let down very badly by the stupidity of Clive Exton and George MacDonald Fraser's script. The film is riddled with goofs, including a scene where Schwarzenegger is seen in close-up hacking down bad guys but in a long-shot in the same sequence there isn't a corpse in sight. Technically it is very inept too, with sub-standard special effects and appallingly mechanical monsters. There are a few compensations, such as Ennio Morricone's enjoyable music (Morricone spent a great deal of the '80s providing good music for awful films, e.g The Island, Treasure of the Four Crowns and Hundra). Another compensation is Giuseppe Rotunno's lensing of the locations - in fact, much of the time it's a hell of a lot more gratifying to look at the lovely scenery than the actors standing in the foreground! There were very few sword 'n' sorcery films after Red Sonja, so in some ways it might go down in history as the film which destroyed its own genre.


"Red Sonja" is flawed, weak and lacking. Even the camp-ness isn't good.

There are only two good things about "Red Sonja"; The costumes (even though the Red Sonja costume is ridiculous. It's ironic that a girl who is even afraid to be touched by men, because she was raped, still choose to wear so few little clothes, even when it rains.) and the music by Ennio Morricone. Still the movie is somewhat watchable but certainly not recommendable.

The story is extremely simple and they didn't even bother to make it interesting. The story could have been forgotten if there had been some good action sequences and some humor, both are present but are seriously flawed in many ways. The movie takes itself too serious and tries to impress but fails completely.

Brigitte Nielsen is an horrible leading lady. I don't know who's accent is worse; Hers or Arnie's and on top of that; She can't act. There is also absolutely no chemistry between the two characters which makes the love story totally unbelievable. Even worse was Sandahl Bergman as the main villain who acts more poorly than a paper bag. Ronald Lacey was somewhat good in his role, but my God he looked horrible, he changed so much since his (only well known) role in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Maybe it had something to do with his illness which claimed his life in 1991? And by the way, what was with all those "Raiders of the Lost Ark" actors in this movie? Next to Ronald Lacey, Pat Roach, Terry Richards and Tutte Lemkow appeared in a role, it seemed like some kind of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" reunion.

The only times when the movie gets a bit interesting is during the (sword)fights even though some of them are needless and weak.

Only really watchable for the fans of the fantasy-genre.

4/10


I watched this movie, or part of it, in hope that it would be fun to laugh at how bad it was, but it soon became clear that this was just plain silly. For one you have the worst acting EVER! The lead "actress" Birgitte Nielsen is terrible, uninspired and hardly even attractive. And she certainly do not look like the female warrior who could easily kick some veteran warrior kings butt, but she does. And whats with the feminist attitude, it's plain hypocrisy. For one her family was killed by a women, then she joins some warrior school or something so she can learn how to fight men. She then joins up with a fat servant and his child king, whose city was destroyed by Gedren. Those two characters are just plain stupid and destroys the little of atmosphere that the movie managed to create. After this i could not take any more of Nielsen painful acting, and the stupid clichés and lack of some real action.

Schwarzenegger as Kalidor was the only part of this movie which actually made it remotely watchable.

I liked the Conan movie, but this is pure crap!


I figure the company that made this movie wanted people to think of the Conan movies, but unfortunately for the ones who made this one it does just that. You will be thinking, man the Conan movies were pretty cool...this one is totally boring and sucks. The story, who cares? It isn't going to help you like this movie more or less as it just seems like a really cheap film. Arnold, doesn't look like he belongs in this one, why he agreed to play the role is beyond me. Well probably for the money. I just love the monster in the water that turns out to be a machine. Lame! This movie is just plain and simply terrible.


This, in my opinion, is a very poor movie that advertises Arnold Schwarzenegger as starring (despite him being the co-star) only to sell more copies. Obviously taking influence from the similarly themed Conan' movies, this film fails to prove as enjoyable and eventually fails to entertain at all.

Bridgette Neilsen stars as Sonja, a beautiful woman who has been given unbelievable strength by a ghostly figure after her village was pillaged, her family killed and she herself raped by the soldiers of Queen Gedran (Sandahl Bergman). Gedran is a tyrant Queen who wants control over the barbaric world and seeks out a talisman protected by Sonja's sister to do it. After discovering what has happened Sonja sets out for revenge and at the same time she must save the world from the wrath of Gedran. Kalidor (Schwarzenegger), the master of the talisman, sets out to protect her whether she wants him there or not.

The first major problem with this movie is the beginning. The events leading up to the point where Sonja receives her powers could have easily made a good ten to fifteen minutes of enjoyable film. However, the beginnings are rushed into what seems like a quick one-minute `Previously on.' segment from a television show. Had they actually made these events part of the story and cut out some of the filler later on they may have been able to start redeeming this movie but unfortunately they didn't (I wonder why director Richard Fleischer has only currently directed two movies since Red Sonja).

This film also features some of the most annoying characters in history like Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr.) who is a stupid character and just adds an over abundance of camp to the movie, which sometimes works but in this case fails miserably. He was quite obviously written into the movie for some comic relief but with the overall absurdity of the film anyway this was another costly mistake for Red Sonja'.

For all it's faults there were some good fight scenes involving both Neilsen and Arnie which are worth noting but these are nowhere enough to save this turkey. The acting is about as good as it gets for movies of this quality and even Arnie didn't seem too bothered about his performance. I don't recommend this film at all; to me it's a waste of an hour and a half. My rating for Red Sonja'  3/10