Well, that's what this should have been called, anyway. Mainly, due the the ridiculous, ham-fisted use of what can barely be called symbolism by the director. It would not have surprised me to find out that this was A) One of Lea Pool's earliest efforts, and B) at least semi-autobiographical. Turns out A is wrong, although I don;t know about B. I will bet she attended boarding school, though, and had a rather terrible same-sex relationship of SOME kind. This is the message that was beat down our throats by this film, and the short film which preceded it, the name of which I no longer recall.

At any rate, the character development was clumsy (Who introduces herself by saying what her name means? Nobody.) the symbols were about as subtle as an all-glass elevator full of teen-age girls losing a cable and plummeting eighty stories. All over a loudspeaker. Honestly, the cry of a falcon when Perabo declared she was a raptor and leapt off the table? That was ridiculous to the point of parody. And it was only one of far too many symbols meant to show even the dumbest of viewers what her point was. And that was that she had a crappy childhood and feels the need to make movies about it, ala Vincent Gallo, instead of seeing a therapist, ala all of us who get on with our lives. There was nothing tender, nothing sweet, and nothing moving about this film. It was poorly enacted trash, and the actors could not save the Brett Ratneresque over the top "HEY THIS IS MY POINT IN THIS MOVIE" use of film techniques, writing, and acting. Sorry, but it was terrible.


Ken Burns' "Baseball" is a decent documentary... it presents a clear origin of the game, a great depiction of baseball's early years and heroes. There's plenty in this movie for any baseball fan... that said, the film has several glaring flaws.

18 hours is simply too long for the human attention span. It's clear that Burns stretched his film out to fit his "nine inning" concept. It's not even a tight 18 hours... the pace on every segment is slow, almost morose... the music always nostalgic and wistful. Isn't baseball ever exciting and fun? Why is every player and their accomplishments presented in the form of a tragedy? Talking head after talking head turn every pitch into an emotional heartbreak, yakking about baseball as a metaphor, baseball as Americana, the psychology and theology of baseball... enough! This is syrupy, mawkish drivel. Billy Crystal is here to sell us all the Yankee hokum he's sold us before. Ken Burns uses the National Anthem as the series' theme song, and manages to play "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" so many times you might vomit. We get it, dude.

Clearly Burns is a neo-Hollywood faux-liberal, so he spends probably a third of the film on the Negro leagues... these segments are spent chastising whites of yesterday for not being as open-minded as Kenny is today. For shame! He chides baseball for being segregated in the thirties and forties but fails to realize that America was segregated in those times! Burns falls head over heels in love with Buck O'Neil, a former negro-league player, and drools over every piece of footage in which the elderly O'Neil waxes poetic about his playing days. Nonsense...

Burns would have been better off with an adult to help him edit his creation down. "Baseball" winds up as mushy, gushy, civil-rights propaganda disguised as Americana. Its clear that Burns is not a baseball fan... otherwise he would know we watch games laughing and cheering, not weeping and reciting soliloquies... are you listening, Mr. Burns? There's no crying in baseball.


A pre-Nerd Robert Carradine, a pre-Automan Desi Arnaz Jr., and an almost pre-pubescent Melanie Griffith take to the road and head for Alaska with romantic dreams of becoming wealthy salmon fishers. Well, their dream is about as exciting as this lackluster youth road movie. They aren't particularly interesting, and the film doesn't exactly have much of a point, beyond `We got together the spawn of some famous people and made a low budget film about their misadventures.' Out of the cannon of 60's and 70's road films and rebel youth films, this one is mediocre, under developed, uninvolving characters, not much wit, not much freshness to the story, which is as bland as the films muddy landscape.

But, for those who care- They head to Alaska, and apparently Alaska was like the Wild West in the 70's because everyone carries a gun and is rough and tumble. Robert Carradine says charming things like `I hope we can find a shower, my nuts sure itch.' (And he's the one with Melanie Griffith!) They are quickly robbed and forced to take jobs, and the local bigwig, their employer, puts the moves on Melanie and eventually fires Desi for not being corrupt. That's when they aren't smart and do not leave town, opting instead to eat dog food or go hungry, get beat up by the guys goons, and then take a joyride in the bigwigs car. The final half of the film abandons the evil bigwig as the trio commit a robbery, go on the run, and hatch a kidnapping scheme, and so forth. The film just sort of ends, annoyingly and ambiguously, but seeing as how they didn't bother to have much character development and story in the first place, its rather appropriate. Worth a look if you are really into low budget 70's fare, but ultimately pretty forgettable.


The video box for 'Joyride' says "starring second generation superstars", and one can't help but feel sad. Granted, Melanie Griffith has gone on to bigger and better things...but who cares about the rest of the cast? So with that being the pathetic attention grabber on the box I was foolish enough to purchase the film for a dollar thinking I would be in the land of 'so-bad-they're-good 70's films' Eh, not so much. While so many aimless 70's youth films (or plain ol' 70's films for that matter) tried so hard to say something deep and meaningful, 'Joyride' doesn't even try. It's just aimless. It is devoid of any interest whatsoever. Each character is so poorly conceived that it's no wonder these actors look so listless.

In a nutshell the movie is about three 20-somethings who go to Alaska to start a business, but instead get robbed and then have to find work. They get beat up, eat dog food, steal cars, rob banks. It's all very typical but on top of that it's executed in the most mundane way possible. There are no surprises and the flow is so bad, and the actions of the characters so ambiguous that you can miss several scenes and not mind at all.

But if you're a fan of Melanie Griffith's breasts - then this is a must-see. That's still not enough to get this above the lowest rating I can give.

Best Line: "Jesus, everything is biology with you." * out of ****


I just saw this movie and all I can say is, where are the drive in's these days. This seems like it would have been a great 2nd feature at a drive in in 1977 (maybe playing with one of those Joan Collins movies), but it's only worth watching now if you're feeling nostalgic for the 70's. Silly plot that is full of holes, but it does remind one of the era it was made in. Interesting to see Melanie Griffith so young and Anne Lockhart is quite attractive, though not much of an actress. In fact, there is not much acting going on in this movie at all. It's sort of a Dukes of Hazzard adventure without a twang or a 1969 Dodge charger jumping over stuff in the Woods. But there is a Mecrury Comet jumping over a garbage dump in this one!


I think that a lot of friends of people who acted in this thing must've come on and rated it because I'm telling you, its just awful. The acting is worse than soapopera bad, the effects are like something you'd see out of a 1970 episode of Doctor Who, the story is, well, there is no story. And they keep using the same 2 minute song over and over and over again. And the werewolf? Its like the muppets they used in Wing Commander, the giant cats, remember how bad they looked? The werewolf is that bad. Seriously, the guy who directed this thing is terrible and should never get to direct anything else again, except maybe his son's school play, but even then, he should have to pay the audience to see it. Ghostwolf is nothing but a bad joke.


No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).

The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.

I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie!


The characters are annoying, immature, and flaky....Madison being the most annoying of all. OOH...a cold spot! Such a dire threat! Any ghost in that house would have fled in self-defense! To make a long story short, this movie is boring. Seeing a chair flying across a room may be creepy, but that's about as intriguing as it gets. I watched it once and when one of my kids wanted to watch it again, I was tempted to take a baseball bat to the TV set rather than watch this rubbish again. If you want a good horror movie or even a passable comedy, this isn't it! The only good part of the whole thing was "the roach scene" and, by the end of the movie, you ended up feeling sorry for the roach!


I was surprised that the makers of this movie actually came out said that this movie was a true story. The majority of the scenes looked fake to me. For instance when the one girl was eating her sandwich and there was a roach in it. While she was eating the sandwich the camera on the opposite side of it showed that there was a roach on it. It's funny how the camera just happened to be filming on the sandwich when the girl was eating it. Another scene is when the gang went to open a clothes closet and a cat flew out of the closet or should I say it was thrown out to give it effect. This movie was not realistic at all. It's highly doubtful that the events that happened were true that evening when the "St. Francisville Experiment" took place. I believe that the house may be haunted, but not on the night this movie was filmed! The ending was amusing when Tim and and other girl were chained down in the some sort of basement. Paul and Madison found them and rescued them! I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project again then have to sit through the St. Francisville Experiment movie again. As I said, if the makers of the movie did not state that this was a true story with true events I may have like it more. Your better off getting more entertainment from the Blair Witch Project (even though this is not a true story either)!!!


Okay they tell you it's real. They don't list any screenwriters or directors, but one viewing of this movie will prove to anyone - It's not real in the way you were hoping for. The speaking rarely sounds like real natural talk...but also down not sound to be scripted. (possibly loosely scripted). To me it sounded much more like they were always trying to ad-lib. (which they almost always did poorly). Therefore, they knew they were making a 'movie', not just collecting real natural footage. So I'm sure these people knew what was going on, knew they had certain spots to look for things that were set up...and they were just told to ad-lib around it all.

*************'Major Spoilers'**************** *****************************************

Okay, it's so lame. Every item, spot or thing that could be strange or use d as a scare, is magically stumbled upon by these people. Let me list off the ridiculously obviously faked things that happened that I remember:

1) Less than 2 minutes of entering the house, they turn a light switch on - the light sparks and a chandelier almost falls on a guy.

2) They happen to find an old medical bag with a bloody butcher knife* in it, while exploring the cellar.

3) They hear a noise in an armoire, so they open the door slowly - BAM - a cat happens to be in there and jumps straight at the camera while shrieking.

4) Then they happen to notice there is a hole in the wall, so let's stick our hand in...wow, they pulled out a doll of a baby wrapped in mummy tape.

5) Let's go to the attic, uh-oh it feels 'heavy' up here....BOOM - a chair flies across the room.

6) Time to eat. Oh no ! The girl that was scared of bugs had a ROACH in her sandwich ! LOL !....ridiculous.

7) Let's get out the Ouija board...oops one of the legs on the planchette fell off the side of the board. That couldn't be because the people were pushing it could it ? (they find out a ghost there is named Charles)

8) Wait ! What was that noise in the chimney...CLINK - oh my shackles fell out "I think she* kept people up here".

9) Now wimpy girl is going to brave looking up the chimney shaft...oh, what's this she sees something...and is asking people who aren't looking up the chimney what it is. SWISH - It falls off straight at her. (perfect camera shot) She moves just in time. It was more chain.

10) Now we have to separate and each 'cleanse' our designated rooms - wouldn't it be something if things started happening one by one to these people now...okay:

CHICK #1: Wow, suddenly her room is shaking...but no one elses does.

DUDE #1: Actually says to himself "Charles, is that you Charles...it can't be you because you're just a figment of my imagination aren't you Charles". Well guess what, he gets knocked over and dragged across the floor. Another lucky camera shot.

CHICK #2: Hears things..try to communicate ...and is standing there getting abrasions or something.

DUDE #2: He was in the attic, reached his arm through a hole in the floor and got a splinter....I don't remember what else.

11) Dude #2 runs, gets Chick #2...they hear chick and dude #1 screaming...they find them chained to a wall and strapped to a table.(*) They leave. Cut to black. Final text tell us they escaped safely, were treated for minor cuts. They have since had nightmares and insomnia, we also find out the next day a 911 call was made by they name a someone named "Charles".

*************'Major Spoilers'**************** ******************over********************

Okay, when I first heard this movie was being made, I couldn't wait. I thought it was going to be real. REAL, real. - and more professional, with more professional type people. I love the idea of this type of thing, I'd love to see real haunting footage. Before this movie was released I saw couple reviews of it by people online. They both claimed how fake it was and how stupid the people were.. time passed I forgot about the film....then I realized It was never released at theaters. So I found out it went straight to video, rented it....found that every brutal review was completely true. It's too bad, I really wanted this to be good.

Random thought: The house didn't seem to have TVs, radios..kitchen appliances that I recall...which would make me think no one has lived there for a long time. Especially the house is truly known for being haunted...im pretty sure no one lives there. But it looks so clean and tidy...and what was a cat doing there ? The property does not have near by neighbors....

All-in-all, you'll only want to rent this if you and your friends wanna sit there and make fun of it...or if you heard about it a long time ago and it intrigued you. (you will will be disappointed if you are expecting a good film...or real film)

Random thought: I believe the producer says "The 'footage' you see is real". Well technically it is real footage isn't it ? Real footage of fake hauntings ? Maybe that was his loop hole.

I give this this movie one star - strictly on the fact that they told the story of Madame LaLaurie. A real New Orleans story.

The best performance was by the guy who teaches the participants about the ghost hunting equipment in the beginning. He was obviously actually real...or a good actor.


The St. Francisville Experiment claims "this ain't no walk in the woods", a direct slap in the face of Blair Witch. Where Blair Witch proved to be a film that overworked the viewer's imagination through simple suggestion, The St. Francisville Experiement overworks the viewer's patience. One must say, however, that this is destined to be a camp classic.

Warning: Spoiler is forthcoming!!

I viewed this movie in a local theater in which the movie's "paranormal consultant" Troy Taylor spoke about the making of the movie. Should anyone want to see this movie without knowing the forthcoming information, stop reading here. For those of you who can't resist, read on my friends and all shall be told.

Mr. Taylor, a writer of rather unintriguing ghost stories which he claims are all true, informed the audience at this video screening that The St. Francisville Experiment was not a documentary. Shock! Amazing! As if we didn't know... He informed us that all of the frightening discoveries the participants made were all staged and prearranged by the film's producers. Matter of fact, he informed us that the last 15 minutes were not even filmed in Louisiana, but rather in California. All four participants were true actors (notice I didn't say good...). One of the participants is actually a special effects technician on ER.

What infuriates me about this film is that it proclaims everything is true. It feebly attempts to outdo The Blair Witch Project by claiming it's true whereas Blair Witch was a hoax. The amazing thing is that no one could have belief this film for an instant. Filled with dreadful acting and hilarious lines such as "surround yourself with the white light" and "I love the ghosts", The St. Francisville Experiment belongs at midnight movies everywhere so the crowd can properly heckle, boo, jeer and chant "I love the ghosts!"

Talk about false advertising. True stories are not filmed with staged special effects that look as if the neighborhood Boy Scouts troop set up a haunted house. From the bug in the sandwich (ooh...scary...) to the annoying Madison, from the "seance" which is nothing more than the foursome playing on an Oujia Board to the two mice being found under a bed, The St. Francisville Experiement is one embarrassing hoax of a movie. Lion's Gate would be wise to dump this thing into the nearest trash compactor or advertise it as it really should be:

"The St. Francisville Experiment: A comedic look at how not to make a movie".


I rented this one by accident. I lifted the video up and looked at the back and thought "shameless Blair Witch rip-off". Then, in a moment of carelessness, I grabbed 'The Francisville Experiment' thinking it was something else. My horror upon arriving home and realizing my mistake was far more terrifying than anything this film had to offer. Boring Characters, bad acting, and a feeling of 'we saw the Blair Witch Project and could do the same' permeate the action to the point where watching on fast forward will lead you straight to the credits. I'm not one to fault film makers for being lazy or desperate, but after this yawn-fest I felt the need to warn everyone: don't waste your time, you have a life.


Ted Nicolaou made a lot of great horror and fantasy films. I am looking for all his films to see. I could not find this one for 3 year, until I unexpectedly found it in youtube. To tell the truth I wanted to see more ghosts and less talks here. It looks like in 1999-2001 Ted had a crisis , maybe in money. His features of this time look more like real low budget thrash z garbage movies. But I do not claim him to be a bad director this time . Everything happens. The ending has some nice creepy details and suspense but the whole film was long dull dialogues .

only for real Ted's fans.

www.myspace.com/neizvestnostlab


Imagine if you will: four teen students have an assignment to spend the night in a haunted house in St. Francisville, Louisiana to check for the existence of the paranormal. If you watch this in the dark and late at night; you possibly will have the hair on the back of your neck rise a couple of times. Otherwise this mock documentary is a very lazy rip off of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. What is to be dialogue is very lame and the actors are pleasant looking enough, but seem to lack genuine personality. It seems to take forever before something real spooky even happens. This movie is excellent for 'sleep overs', when you have both eyes barely open and everyone is yakin' and snackin'.


Obviously, someone was looking at catching onto the "Blair Witch" wave.

This movie was set up like all the "reality" haunted shows that are popping up on TV lately (and I must admit, I get a kick out of these), but this movie is MUCH cheesier! Probably the first three-quarters of the movie is filled with the "participants" going through the house, WHINING. Give me a break! Spending 10 minutes whining about going up into the attic is not my idea of a good time. Any paranormal happenings are blatant setups. No strings, but too perfectly caught on camera to be real. The "participants" were not very likeable either. Two goofy guys who don't take it seriously, one girl who scares at the drop of a hat, and the quintessential over-played "paranormal" person. Is this becoming the clichéd-"formula" for a ghost movie?

I have to admit, the last 15 minutes or so were pure tension. They took every ounce of tension in the movie and stuck it in those 15 minutes. I admit, I spent that time pacing in the kitchen. I really wouldn't recommend this movie to younger viewers, even if it is PG13.

If you're looking for some entertainment, if you don't take it seriously, you will get a kick out of this movie. There's tons of situations to make cracks about! If you're looking for an great story-line.. look elsewhere ;)


There is a LOT of repetitive dialogue in this movie about "cold spots" (signaling the presence of a ghost), and characters praying to surround themselves with white light to protect themselves. To recreate the feeling of the movie, I shall repeatedly make references to cold spots throughout this review. I'e seen worse movies than the St. Francisville Experiment, but this may be the most *forgettable* one of all ("it's getting cold!") Basically some 20-somethings spend the night at a haunted house. This is filmed as a supposedly true documentary. It's obviously not real, but the house does contain some cold spots. SPOILERS- (as if you won't be able to predict most of the plot!). Not much happens in this film. We have the time-honored horror cliche of a cat jumping out of hiding near the beginning, as a "practice" scare to warm up the audience. The people wander around with flashlights, occasionally taking a moment to remind the house that they come in peace- that they mean no harm to the spirits (or cold spots) within. Now and then a door will swing shut and startle somebody. Of course , the ouija board makes an appearance. They chat with a ghost named "Charles". A girl eats a sandwich with a cockroach in it. More cold spots. Another door swings shut and some guy goes off about the scuff sound of the door. Scuff, scuff, he says. Oh my god, somebody says. "Surround yourself with white light." I admit there is a good scene in the attic (where a chair is knocked over by a ghost) that really caught me off guard. But aside from some funny bad dialogue, the chair scene (the actual split-second when it is knocked over, nothing immediately before or after that moment) is the only good thing in this movie. However there are still some cold spots in here. Eventually, the movie ends. Nobody dies. No more details necessary. I wasn't a big fan of Blair Witch Project, but it looks like a masterpiece next to the St. Francisville Experiment. You may find yourself not debating whether or not this is a real documentary, but whether or not it was intended to be funny. I still don't know. But whatever it was intended to be, it failed.


This film is a good companion to Blair Witch, because it does so much wrong that BW did right. Like BW, this one pretends to be a documentary of ghostly events, with each member of the team manning his/her own camera.

The sense of reality is never there, however. The participants are poorly written clichéd characters and the events that take place are equally clichéd (the cat jumping out of a closet, falling chandelier, etc). Also the stilted dialog and inept improv work by the overly-attractive cast detracts from the docu feel. AND, worst of all, the supposedly participant-held cameras record too many events too perfectly to be even remotely believable. Actually, with some re-editing, this thing could have been a Blair Witch parody. In fact, there is a scene in which the blond historian is eating a sandwich with a huge roach on it that is actually pretty funny as is, reminding me of a similar gross out scene from "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me." But in the end the event is played straight, with no punchline. It's hard to tell what the intent was with The St Francisville Experiment other than to glom a few stray BW bucks. But it's pretty sad when the only real interest I could find in it was whether the blond historian was going to have her t-shirt tied up off her belly in a particular shot or not.


I just watched this movie with a few friends they said I had to see it but from the beginning i knew it was going to go from bad to worse. So I can only give this movie a 1 because the effects that were used were so poorly used and thought out that anyone can see that there were no "real" ghosts. I feel the worst part was this so called "old haunted house" contained a whole bunch of new items and a few "convieniently placed items" I could have thought up effects that would have looked much better than a chair being flipped over by an unseen ghost (or should i say wire). Then later when they review the tape of the chair flipping it flips in a different way. Uh Oh thats a big continuity error. If this was a truly good movie then they would have caught that and all of the other "old house" items. This movie is like a rip off of house on haunted hill and the Blair witch project all rolled into one poorly thought out and assembled movie. I would be ashamed to put out something with that bad of acting, effects and cheap video shots of the girls chests and how convenient the camera falls when something "paranormal" happens. This movie is an insult to people who are out there actually looking for ghosts and getting real ghost footage on tape.


I realize why people hate this film. And, I hated Blair Witch Project,so go figure? This is about as staged as it gets & yes they do insult your intelligence by trying to make it seem real.I really liked the madame lalaurie storyline though it's more than likely made up. But, the main reason I like this film, is fake or not when the ghosts start attacking & kidnapping them,I get chill-bumps every time & have to look behind me as it feels like something's there with me.i know it's my imagination, but hey more than half of the drivel that is horror in today's cinemas & DVD's doesn't give me goosebumps,so that makes this a creepy delight.Not for everyone, as skeptics will hate it & not for gorehounds as with a PG-13 rating there is no gore. And, the females are very annoying!You'll wish the ghosts would take them off & experiment on them before it's all said & done. ** out of *****.


why oh why did i ever waste my time watching this film? it was given to me on video by a friend and i thought i'll watch it, it can't be that bad surely. firstly the acting is simply appalling and we're supposed to believe this is real? secondly this film is blatantly trying to copy the Blair witch project (yawn) and does so very poorly. so if you want the fright of your life i would suggest that a Simpson's Halloween special would be far scarier. but, if you just wanted to a laugh then maybe the general crapness of this film would suffice. but overall i would avoid this film at all costs or drink a large amount of alcohol before viewing. the best bit? its only about an hour and a half, thank god.


I suppose for 1961 this film was supposed to be " cool " , but looking back now ( 45 years ) it's charm was just as silly as it's entertainment value ! Granted , the special effects do well on T.V. with the Series that started in 1964 , but for the BIG screen ?? I once had a fish tank that was equally as exciting ! I must agree about the Octopus scene near the end where it attached itself to the Seaview. Obviously not well staged...or trained ! Overall , it's pretty bad acting with shoddy special effects and I still do recommend it - for fun laughs sake. This was probably one of Irwin Allen's Biggest films and I think he thought a lot of it . Barabara Eden went on to play " Genie " on T.V. Micheal Ansara was her Husband . Now that is a cool part about this film ! I always enjoyed seeing real life Husband and Wife teams star in the same movie . Neat !


I'm sure that any legitimate submariner would happily ship out on the USOS Seaview (yes, SOS...) Why, you could play full-court basketball in the torpedo room, it's so large. And how 'bout the bay windows in the bow, the better to see giant squids or minefields that appear out of nowhere? Did I mention the colorful mess-cook with the parrot on his shoulder? And the Admiral's stateroom with what appears to be a loft? Big bleeping sub...

OK, OK...it's never gonna win any prizes for authenticity. And if the sub is laughable, the plot is even worse. Somehow the Van Allen belts of radiation, hundreds of miles in space, have "caught fire" are going to make global warming look like a weenie roast. Pompous Admiral Nelson (Walter Pidgeon), along with his sidekick Lucius (Peter Lorre, looking suitably uncomfortable) hatch a scheme to put out the fire by firing a missile into its midst.

There's plenty of intrigue (sic) along the way, with a born-again survivor (and his little dog, too!) two "dames" who can never leave well enough alone, a passel of "red shirts" who are expendable, and plot holes big enough for Godzilla to walk through. Thrill to the Seaview being chased at what looks like 60 miles per hour by another sub -- no need for advanced sonar when you can follow from 100 feet astern.

The movie careens from one cliff-hanger to another; the payoff is so anticlimactic as to be pointless, certainly not worth the 1 hour and 50 minute wait.

The technical adviser for this shipwreck must have been a 14-year old boy with a stack of Popular Mechanics magazines. Worth watching, if only to riff upon.


I really wanted to like this movie. Great cast  Walter Pidgeon in a role that reminds us of his iconic "Forbidden Planet," Barbara Eden and Robert Sterling as young lovers, Frankie Avalon as a musically inclined sailor (is a guy on a submarine a sailor?), even Peter Lorre as a scientist with a fondness for sharks. Maybe it's a good kiddie movie but I had trouble staying awake. Lorre was severely underused. I guess he was a red herring, like Pidgeon  you expect him to maybe go nuts and try to throw the hero or his gal in the shark tank. No such luck. By the way, why is there a shark tank on a submarine? It's typical of the movie's lack of ambition. They explain why Lorre is walking the shark back and forth (because we're seeing it) but just expect us to accept the fact that there's a shark on this sub for some reason. "Research?" Yeah, scientists are always doing that research stuff, who can understand them? Of course, if there wasn't a shark, who would kill the evil psychologist lady (Joan Fontaine)? I'm sorry but even kid's movies in the 50s are capable of being less predictable and frankly idiotic (not to mention exploitative).

The first 10 or 15 minutes really got my hopes up. Great theme song sung by Frankie Avalon. Pidgeon leading Floyd the Barber (Howard McNear actually, sorry Howie loved ya in "Blue Hawaii") and Joan Fontaine on a guided tour, careful to skip the room with the huge "WARNING" sign on the door, past Peter Lorre with aforementioned sharks, and then we see a full screen shot of Eden shaking her moneymaker to Avalon's impassioned horn playing! The movie quickly goes downstream from there. There's no real explanation for the firestorm threatening the Earth, so there's a distinct lack of dramatic tension and no villain to boot. Instead Pidgeon's character is made into an unconvincing red herring vaguely of the Ahab variety (I guess "The Caine Mutiny" was still fresh in people's minds), and Fontaine's character suddenly turns evil for no reason at the end. Oh, I suppose the reason is that it's a surprise for the audience. And it is kind of surprising, since the only negative thing she's done is to talk bad about the captain's mental health and there's STILL no reason why she did the sabotage after she's revealed to be the villain. Very poorly done and unconvincing. The guy who was the pessimistic bible nut was better  at least his character made sense.

So what else could go wrong? Endless, interminable scuba-diving footage. I never understand the appeal of that kind of thing. A giant squid attacks the ship for a minute, just so there's a monster for the theatrical trailer. Maybe that fooled some people into thinking it was going to be a fantasy adventure film, instead of a half-baked suspense movie about military scientists who are never wrong. Yes  perhaps worst of all, it's barely a fantasy movie much less a science fiction movie. It never did anything for my imagination because the whole premise was nothing but another disaster/apocalypse and these characters never experience any feelings of wonder or discovery. I'm through with Irwin Allen. I never liked his later movies anyway, but this one got me by pretending to be Jules Verne when it's really just another formula exercise in disaster escapism. The whole movie is just waiting to see which character will improbably turn evil and die. He always hired an actor/actress with a charming and personable screen persona to play these roles and that's the only element of "surprise" to be found since there's no logic to these characters anyway. What a pathetic waste of time for these actors. George Pal's movies are 100 times better (the only one that was lame was "Atlantis," which, not coincidentally, was the most Allen-esquire), full of wonder and excitement and  think of it!  ideas! Other than a few effects scenes and Barbara Eden, there's nothing worth seeing here in my opinion. I guess it's good fun for those who are into disaster movies, but I think they are a hollow and dull genre of films.


It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for this awful cartoon-like epic that for some reason has become a cult classic. It certainly can't be because of the totally artificial look of the set designs or the limpid acting of an all-star cast. These days it's shown much too frequently on Fox Movie Channel or AMC.

It pains me to report that veteran actors like Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine are even cast in this muddled science fiction travesty, none of which rings true. It's like watching an expensive budget being spent on a Saturday afternoon kiddie show full of cardboard characters and unconvincing dialog. It's a comic book version of the Jules Verne novel.

The maturing Fontaine was still attractive but wears a pained expression on her face, perhaps regretting that she had accepted the role of the psychiatrist before reading the script. She contributes absolutely nothing to her cardboard role but an imperial and uncomfortable presence and looks totally out of place most of the time. Faring no better are Robert Sterling, Barbara Eden and--most of all, Peter Lorre--as well as Frankie Avalon, who gets to sing the title tune which--it's safe to say--did not become anyone's favorite title tune.

An awfully frustrating experience to sit through a film like this which wastes an attractive cast and is an insult to almost anyone's intelligence. Totally unconvincing from start to finish. The film, as well as the fantastic submarine, sinks to the bottom of the sea long before the fight with a rubber octopus brings the film to a dreary conclusion.


Irwin Allen, past master of cinematic schlock, pulled out all the stops in VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. A badly aged Walter Pidgeon, who actually may have been dead when he played this role, is the commander of an atomic submarine that must be the size of the Empire State Building. Every room is gigantic and some even appear to have no ceilings. You could bowl and hold a formal ball simultaneously in some of these rooms. The sub, called the Seaview, is on its maiden run when all hell breaks loose: the Van Allen radiation belt catches fire and the Seaview must launch a missile into the belt by a certain time or the world will go down in global warming flames! Along for the ride are a bunch of truly terrible character actors, many borrowed from TV. This makes them TV hack-tors. The worst is probably that poor man's Stella Stevens, Barbara Eden, as a naval secretary, squeezed into too-tight clothes, sporting high heels and acting like she's appearing in a beach party flick. Maybe that's because Frankie Avalon is also along for the ride. A badly aged Joan Fontaine, almost unrecognizable here, plays a visiting doctor with a big bad secret, but in truth who cares? VOYAGE is a truly bad movie obviously made for small children, but what child is going to sit still for endless shots of a miniature Seaview model moving over and over again from right to left across the screen in what is obviously a studio tank? There is not one scene where we believe these folks are actually aboard a sub. When the Seaview shakes, the actors fling themselves about, sometimes in opposite directions to one another. Just like on the good old STAR TREK TV series, when the bridge shakes. If I remember correctly, not one fish or sea creature is seen -- except for an octopus that momentarily latches onto the sub, a nod to 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. The octopus, if it was real, was probably about a foot long and it shows. Worse, when folks are standing at the Seaview's glass nose, the ocean they are supposedly watching is obviously a closeup involving an unseen air hose spouting bubbles, probably filmed in a fish tank. You have never seen bigger bubbles in your life. You'd think these bubbles alone would smash the damned sub to pieces. Sadly, a badly aged Peter Lorre is also along for the ride. Near the end, when the missile is entering the flaming belt, Lorre is seen enthusiastically congratulating Pidgeon while everyone else is still waiting for their cue to start shaking hands and embracing one another in victory. A one-take scene if I've ever seen one. What a stinker. It's not even good for a laugh. Stick with SILENT RUNNING.


Only a very small child could overlook the absurdities in this bomb; the first difficulty faced by the submarine "Seaview" is what appear to be chunks of--rock? falling down through the water and crashing into its hull. But it's not rock, they're under the North Pole--it is ICE! Everybody, except possibly hitherto mentioned small children (and even some of them) know that ICE FLOATS.

Then, disaster strikes--that darn VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT around the Earth catches fire! No one knows how this happened, we are told, which is understandable, because it is utterly impossible for radiation to "catch fire", and even if it could, there is NO AIR IN SPACE for it to burn.

There is literally no good reason to overlook science concepts basic to 2nd grade school textbooks when making a film; however, Irwin Allen manages to do it again and again; perhaps we are meant to focus on the "people" instead, which is pretty easy, as they are CARDBOARD.

The cast tries very hard not to look embarrassed in this ridiculous sub-kiddie romp, much like later episodes of his "Lost in Space" TV series, the concept of which was swiped outright from writer Ib Melchior and then rushed into production.

The sub looks pretty good, though, which is why this one gets a "2".


I think Walter Pidgeon was badly miscast in this film. Just not believable in the role. Barbara Eden was beautiful, and acted her part well enough. No one else was at all memorable.

I remember the TV series spun off from this movie when I was a small child. I even think I had a plastic "Seaview" that would submerse and was great for playing with in the bathtub. Long time ago.

As for some of the other criticism I've read for this film: It's certainly unfair to judge special effects or science knowledge of 4 decades ago by today's standards. The effects were OK for 1961. Not great, but OK. As for the science, that was ludicrous even for 1961. There's no excuse. Also, the sub was awfully roomy. I understand that the navy refused any help at all for this film, so maybe the filmmakers just had no idea.

Overall, the film bored me. (And I'm a sci-fi fan.) Can't recommend this one. Grade: D-


Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish "epic" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from ****


Jim Varney's first real movie is quite a delight, but don't come in expecting to see Ernest P. Worrel any time soon. I felt the wide array of characters Varney depicted were great, but without being said, the rest of the movie should be put into a mulcher or something. A rather odd beginning for a movie icon.


My website (www.theflickguy.org) lists this pick as the worst movie of all time. Here is an excerpt:

"If I were strapped down to a chair and forced to watch this movie over and over again, I couldn't imagine Hell being any worse. Jim Varney plays a three-handed crazy guy bent on destroying the world (apparently starting with cinema). Now let's face it, no one expects a whole lot from a Varney movie, but this agonizing drivel had me dry-heaving for 92 minutes. Not a laugh. Not one. This is not kamp or gitchy, this is not even mindless. It is evil. Do not rent this, it may destroy your DVD player. Do not even buy the VHS from a 29-cent clearance bin to use as a blank tape. It is the worst film of all time. Period. I mean it. Really."


this is one of the stupidest movies ever, not THE stupidest mind you but one of the stupidest. This is 96 1/2 minutes of sleep inducing material. Probably Jim Varney's worst movie ever. The last 30 seconds of the film is the best and funniest part but hardly worth sitting through the whole movie for. On the other hand, if you are a die hard Jim Varney/Ernest fan, then like me, you must add this film to your collection. It does have brief, rare moments of humor, although they are few and far between. The mere fact that this movie is so hard to find makes it a collectors item and a must have for your ernest collection. I was lucky to find this film online at a dirt cheap price a couple years ago. I believe I paid 1.99 plus shipping for it. And it was the only copy I could find anywhere. Even though this is a truly all around horrible movie, it is still a must have if you are a Jim Varney fan and an Ernest movie collector such as I. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give this movie a 2 but thats only because I've never seen a 1 before ;)


I saw this movie when it was first released in 1986. At the time I was young and enjoyed all the normal comedy available, i.e.; Monty Python, Jim Belushi & SNL, Steve Martin, Cheech & Chong, so I believe that my judgment represents most "sane" individuals.

The absolute best part of this movie was the trailer played at the beginning of the movie for the new "My Little Pony" movie that was coming out.

This movie was so atrocious that it was actually yanked from most theaters before the initial week run was completed.

I'm surprised that anyone would waste there corporate money to duplicate this steaming pile of human waste.

Don't waste your time or money to rent or watch this "movie".


This movie, which I just discovered at the video store, has apparently sit around for a couple of years without a distributor. It's easy to see why. The story of two friends living in New York searching for their pal from high school who is now living homeless under the boardwalk at Coney Island, has flashes of being a very good film, but ultimately is weighted down by the story focusing on Stan and Daniel, rather than on their homeless friend Richie. Cryer is as usual very good and the film has a nice stark look to it, with the ghostly images of Coney Island. However, writer Cryer and director Richard Schenkman are too busy dealing with the fairly uninteresting lives of Stan and Daniel rather than focusing on Richie. One flashback in a music store, where Richie has a crush on an employee stands out and really shows the viewer where this film could have gone. But in the end, not much. Two many drawn out scenes of annoyance, such as inside the Skeeball building. RATING 4 out of 10.


I kind of like JAG. It do have it´s charm but lately it´s to much propaganda in it. For an outsider (a non American) the patriotic feeling can be a bit to much.

I don´t like that Rabb and MacKenzie goes from being lawyers (as they were in the early parts of the TV show) to become super heros that stops wars and rescues entire continents. Its almost like watching a recruitment video from the US army.

I still watch the show, so it´s not that bad. But i would prefer more episodes when Rabb and MacKenzie investigates military accidents and don´t save the world in the future.


Watched this piece ONDEMAND because the description was kind of outlandish. This film stinks of cocaine, the opening scene alone must have cost at least five figures in blow to film. This is a racist, homophobic piece of garbage that plods along for a good 1hr and 22mins with absolutely no direction. I am a little confused on how this has good reviews here. I won't bother telling you the plot line because as far as I can tell there is no plot. I'm pretty sure everyone showed up to the set everyday did giant lines, dressed Loretta Switt in plunging necklines to show as much flapjack breastage as possible and yelled action; letting the cast improvise in a cocaine frenzy. Much like real beer this movie nearly caused my liver to fail half way through. Save your money, and watch 'Strange Brew' instead.


Given the subject matter of drug addiction Down to the Bone almost can't help but be a rather depressing film. But depressing doesn't necessarily have to mean bad. Unfortunately in this case it is in fact pretty bad. The film has some good things going for it, most notably the quality performance of Vera Farmiga in the central role of Irene, a working mom struggling with a cocaine addiction. But there isn't enough good here to outweigh the bad. The film's failings lie mainly with the story, which fails to captivate and never really seems to get going. Irene goes to rehab and comes home to a clueless husband who has no idea how to support her attempt to kick her habit. Irene grows close to another recovering addict, a male nurse from her rehab center. Complications ensue. But the story never really sparks to life. It doesn't seem as if the movie is really going anywhere. You can say it's a stark, realistic look at the day-to-day struggles of an addict. Maybe so but in this case it doesn't make for an interesting movie. The whole thing has a very "blah" feel to it. The minimalist cinematography doesn't help matters, adding another layer of drab to the incredibly drab proceedings. And none of the other performances measure up to Farmiga's. Hugh Dillon is OK as Irene's male nurse friend but nobody else in the cast adds anything of value to the proceedings. All in all this movie is a bleak, depressing and rather dull ride.


IF you love movies about fruity dudes who prance around with a top hats and canes while spouting off random line of poetry while stabbing their victims then this is the movie for you!!

If you like movies where it looks like the whole thing was shot with a camcorder, and when people get disemboweled their internal organs are made out of baked ziti an marinara sauce this movie is even more for you!!

And if you simply love movies where the acting and dialogue sucks so much that it makes you feel dead inside, then for God's sake run to the video store right now and buy this movie right now!!! Hurry go before it sells out!


This homemade horror movie tells the story of a dude who kills people using the motif of stories by Edgar Allan Poe. The local police have bungled the case for a few years, so now the FBI has taken over. They know exactly who the guy is, but apparently no one has thought to swing by his house, because that's where he's hanging out, running around in his vintage clothing and torturing the random locals. So FBI-chick gets kidnapped, which involves her father, the former lead investigator from the local police. To top it all off, a pack of wacky college kids have decided to camp out at the house and smoke a bunch of weed.

Mostly, the FBI agent winds up shrieking and running around like a little girl, and not a single one of the burly college boys thinks to just stop and take a swing at the wimpy Poe-boy. Mostly overacted and sometimes underacted, Dead End Road reeks of a low-budget, cast-with-friends production that has silly points too numerous to cover.


Detective Burt Williams has been on the trail of the infamous Poe killer for nearly three years.Burt's daughter Kris Williams,a homicide agent for the FBI along with her partner Sean Michaels take over.Burt reluctantly steps down from the case and retires.For the next seven months the "Poe Killer" continues his murderous rampage until Kris discovers that the killer uses internet chat rooms to seduce his prey.She logs in as Annabel Lee and is quickly captured by Poe killer.It's time for Burt to find the sadist and free his daughter before it's too late.Amateurish and supremely braindead horror flick with no suspense and a bit of nasty gore.The acting is hilariously terrible,the characters are painfully dumb and the killer is not menacing.Still I have seen worse indie horror flicks.3 out of 10.


This was honestly the worst movie i have ever seen. the acting was god awful, the story line also was bad. it was however a good idea. if this movie would have had better cinematics, and a lot better actors, i might of had something better to say. edgar allen poe was a great Gothic writer, and this movie just destroyed it. why do people always have to kill good stories by making bad movies. the only good part was when the killer put the head under the floor with a tape going, that was pretty good. the swinging axe was just horrible, there was absolutely no suspense. and also when the killer is chasing everyone around in the end, he was going from one place to another in just seconds, it makes absolutely no sense.


I bought this movie sight unseen at a sci-fi convention and I got what I deserved for doing something so silly. Simply put this movie is implausible, boring and unwatchable.

I was so bored and disgusted with the lack of plot development that I turned it off to watch a repeat of Mythbusters. I understand that this was a very low budget move, or least it looked like a very low budget move, but that does not excuse the horrible acting, terrible plot and even worse camera work. It looks like something a group of college students did in between classes and getting drunk.

Maybe if the villain wasn't so laughable and the plot was something that actually could happen in real life with respect to law enforcement it might become so bad it's funny. This movie isn't funny, it's just bad.


You know, I really hate IMDb's censor system, since my entire review is almost gone if you take out the cursing. But here we go. Editing time!

Holy moley is this bad. I thought it might be a cool little movie, judging by the plot summary, since yknow I've blindly rented such gems as Frailty and American Nightmare before. But this is just abominal. It's about a killer who uses Edgar Allen Poe's works as reference for his murderous exploits, and the story of a detective who has to stop him. Can't these blithering hacks make a good movie without defiling the grave of a great horror writer? I mean, the kills in here are completely devoid of thought or originality, and the references to Poe are hokey and fake, without enough thought put into them. They're shallow, and they put Poe's work to shame. Full of holes, with awful sequencing. The acting is bad too, reminding me of the abortion that was known in some third world countries as "Fear X", what with all the pausing and un-emotional lines.

I realize this is an indie movie, but that's no excuse. I've seen high school kids act better then these morons, and I myself could've come up with better kill scenes and a better plot, given ample time.

This has no reason to exist. Avoid at all costs.


How in the world does a thing like this get into my DVD player at home? How does it even get to be packaged and distributed? Are there absolutely zero screenings a movie (and I use that term loosely) have to go through before it's put on a video store's shelf anymore? I'm all for DIY film making but come on! That doesn't entitle me to get a group of my friends and relatives together, a crappy camcorder, an awful story and put it all together to create a heaping pile of crap and call it a movie. And I wish people would quit using the words "Indie" and "Campy" to describe these types of movies. They're not either. In no other profession would something like this be considered acceptable. If someone tried to sell you car that was as bad as this movie, you'd take it back and say it was a lemon. If it was a surgical procedure, you'd be suing the doctor for malpractice. I wish I could get my time and money back after watching this. Shame on the video stores who stock movies like these. They're a rip-off to the public. You want "campy"? Go get any of the Friday the 13th movies (even the LATER ones) or Dead-Alive. At least those don't make you want to kill yourself. It's because of movies like this that make people automatically equate independent with garbage.


What to say about "Dead End Road"...

Lets just say that Edgar Allen Poe would have been so ashamed. The acting, writing, effects, and everything in this movie was just horrendous. That doesn't even do justice! This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I have ever had to sit through. That is also why I stopped it about 20 minutes before the ending because personally I didn't care what happened to the characters. I have seen bad but this was definitely the worst. I got hyped up for this because I am a fan of Poe and this was just bad. Just bad.

What upsets me more is that you can't rate films with negative numbers.


This is one of the strangest things on TV. It is set in a bizarrely underpopulated Midlands superb called Leatherbridge which seems to be the dullest place in the country. It features a bar with no visible staff or customers, a university with no students, a police station with no criminals and a doctors' surgery with more doctors than patients. The story lines are dire - every episode revolves round a bizarre medical issue acted out by a variety of brummie extras who can never actually act, and for some reason the doctor always ends up round their house solving their problem. Pretty entertaining for its pure comedy value, but I cannot believe that this thing actually masquerades as a serious drama. Bonkers.


I am coming out fighting here because this film was so well shot and so well cast that I am twice as angry about its de-evolution than I would have been with a lesser work. Without revealing too much of the plot, I can only say that part one of my 2 VHS set was an unnerving, unfolding delight of bizarre but plausible plot developments. The lead character was suitably naif-like but also intelligent and very very open. The events that he is rapidly forced to come to terms with are the separation of his parents, the culture shock when his Pakistani roots collide with a complete breakdown of English straitlaced society in the sixties, his father's dubious transformation into the revered Buddha of Suburbia, and the turning of his cousin into a feminist militant as his best friend suddenly becomes an icon of the burgeoning punk movement in the seventies. Among other things.

What made me so angry was the amount of detailed work each actor put into creating and establishing their characters in the first part, only to have the whole thing devolve into very bad porn episodes in the second part, far too many to justify plot development, and far too explicit to even seem erotic. My biggest pet peeve is when directors let their private fetishes interfere with the truth of their movie, and this to me was a supreme example.

I felt a bit like I'd been invited to a party of very clever, funny strangers, only to have the doors locked and the guests not allowed to interact, and all of us forced to watch bad seventies sexploitation films instead. What an insult to the hard work of these amazing actors! Why not just make a cheeseball flick to begin with? And why cast a great lead character who can actually act, and then cut away from him whenever he is building up to a great performance? I almost felt as if he too was growing tired of the endless sex scenes where all he did was lie there pumping his pelvis for yet another breathy naked actress.

Bottom line - Part One is minor genius, Part Two is second tier soap opera perversion. I know the book is quite explicit, but I felt that these fine actors were as exploited in real life as their characters were in the movie, and it made me quite angry and very uncomfortable. Only John Waters can pull off such a dubious degrading of actors and plot and have it seem artistic. My suggestion is to only watch the first part, toss the second in the proverbial rubbish heap, and you will love the Buddha forever. Score A+F=0


Everyone has their choice for "worst movie they've ever seen." Some like to pick on Gigli or Battlefield Earth. Some pick on classics like Plan 9 From Outer Space. Ever since I was 14 I have been very vocal in saying that to me, it is Problem Child 2, and 9 years later, I feel the exact same way. It's not "one of the worst," it's not just an expression. It is THE ACTUAL worst movie I have ever seen.

How much farting, pooping, peeing, and puking can you put in a single movie? I don't need to see a dog take a dump that goes up to my waist! Why is it that I'm so hard on this filth? I have nothing against bathroom or gross-out humor. Heck, I like the American Pie movies. Having such an excess of it within 90 minutes is a bad idea, but the true tipping point is to do it with kids! Having little kids call each other sexual names (IMDb won't even let me post that word on here, yet here it is coming out of the mouths of 8 year olds. Think of the irony in that!) and urinate and puke on each other just makes the whole thing feel dirtier. Worst line in the movie: "I guess I should fart in more people's offices."

What other film has: urination into lemonade, dynamite sticks exploding toilets, a little boy filming his babysitter having sex and projecting it on the side of the house, and a little girl joking about scratching testicles?

However, my absolute favorite moment has to be when the same little girl is on a carnival ride, says: "I'm gonna puke," opens her mouth, and fake looking puke shoots straight out of her open mouth in a perfect 90 degree angle! The puking scene in Scary Movie 2 looked more real than that.

I suppose the only redeeming element in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried. You get the impression that he didn't even have a script, but was just being his usual self. Too bad he has to act stupid while pizza gets thrown on him.

You know what? Thinking about the movie this much has just made me have to go to the bathroom. Goodbye!


and nothing else.

One of my friends bought the Problem Child Tantrum Pack (contains the first two "Problem Child"s in one disc), and we decided to watch the sequel because it was "funnier".

There were many funny moments in the movie (the vomit scene, that's all I need to say.), Nippy the dog after eating CHOW DOWN, and numerous others. The movie is nothing but toilet humor, but it's hilarious. Other than the funny moments, though, this movie has little to offer.

John Ritter annoys the crap out of me, because it sounds like he's reading out of a book. The man can't act in this one, sorry.

Although I can't say if I would find the movie funny now...(we were blown when we watched it), it's a perfect movie for a rainy day...but nothing else. Don't expect Oscar material on this one, guys.


This sequel to Problem Child is just as bad as the first one. It still teaches kids that it's O.K. to be bad. It's impossible for me to recommend this movie to anyone.


I saw this movie in the theatre and it was a terrible movie. The way Michael Oliver who now turn even worse in the sequel is the biggest intolerance I cannot bare. Junior upset his father because he would not go to school which got his father Ben madly insane. Also the Crazy Dance ride operator is not fair to Junior for not letting him go on the ride. And that Lawanda Dumore is as horrible as a serial killer to Junior because she made threatening insults to Junior which is why I cannot tolerate this movie. Even if the movie is re-released back into theatres in the extended version, I still would not see this movie because this movie is not something I can even tolerate. In fact, it stinks!


This was just an awful movie. I've watched it once when I was roughly 12, I am now 19 and I don't think I will ever forget this movie.

I still feel sick whenever I think about it, it was just everything horrible that could possibly fit in one movie. I really don't understand what kind of person would enjoy this utter rubbish. It's not enough to simply turn off your mind to enjoy this movie, I can enjoy the dumbest made-for-TV Disney movies as much as the next person, but this is something else completely.

Usually I don't like to judge a movie until I have seen it myself, but believe me I am doing you a favour. Do not watch this movie.


Seriously! You've just got to see this movie to understand everything that is wrong with it. It came out during the time period where everybody was trying to make family movies that everyone could enjoy (The little rascals; Mr. Nanny, etc.) yet it lacked any charisma or enthusiasm. Every single character in the movie is driven by rage, with the exception of Trixie's mother, who shows only aggravation and weariness, possibly at the tired cliché's this movie enjoys.

To put it simply, the biggest flaw in the film was not the acting, nor the filming, but most notably the writing. The lines we receive are reminiscent of Disney classics, although this film lacks the whole-heartedness IL' Walt managed to pull off. Junior's Dad, (John Ritter) makes you mad without even doing anything, simply because he allows Junior to run around unsupervised, and only gives him a stern warning when he tapes a 200-pound behemoth to a chalk board.

Also, Junior's grandfather is particularly excruciating. For those of you who saw the first one, found it nauseating, and thus, did not see the second one, "Big Ben Healy" as he is referred to in this movie, is still a total douche. He basically barges into John Ritter's house uninvited, settles himself in Junior's room, even though he says that he hates Junior, and basically does nothing to accelerate the film's speed, or to support the film in any way. Rather, he ticks off the audience by being a lazy free loader.

Finally, we are introduced to a wide variety of new characters, such as the smug, obnoxious, Trixie, who carries dynamite in her backpack, which she first lights, then hands, to Junior, who simply stares wide eyed at. Also, Gilbert Gottfried returns in this film, this time playing the obnoxious principal at Junior's new elementary school. If Gilbert Gottfried ain't enough to get the point across, I will put it simply: This film reeks!

2/10 stars, because the actor's convictions shine through the film, even though the script sucks.


"Problem Child 2" was a complete waste of my time. The original film wasn't very good but its a classic compared to this film. The first film went over the top with its scenes of a devilish child wrecking major havoc in the lives of everyone he's around. Here, it goes even further over the top. And one scene in this movie proves that theory. That carnival ride sequence was too much for me to stomach. It's awful. This movie shouldn't have been made.

1/2* (out of four)


The only good either of the Problem Child films caused was bringing together Amy Yasbeck and the late John Ritter. Aside from that, the flicks are as demonic as their hero. In this basically unnecessary sequel, freshly separated Ben (Ritter) and his little hellraiser Junior (Michael Oliver, who never needs screen-time ever again) move to a new town infested with willing bachelorettes. Ben eventually picks Lawanda (played by the most underused original SNL-er Laraine Newman), whose Blanche DuBois tendencies don't suit Junior in the least. To add on to Junior's torture, it seems this town already has a little firestarter in younger girl form with Trixie, who coincidentally has a sweet, single mother played by Yasbeck, the same actress who played Junior's first horrible mother-through-adoption. You can see where the plot goes from here. Searching for my favorite scene is like pulling teeth, so I guess I'll go with the "cherry bomb in the toilet" gag that makes Back to the Future's James Tolkan one of the many grown-up victims (that guy's always playing school authority figures). Jack Warden and Gilbert Gottfried return as their parts from the first film, but sadly, there is no appearance from the Bow-tie Klansma- er, I mean Killer (Michael Richards) that made Problem Child all the more fun. On a serious note, I'm sure these films, whether abusive parents saw them or no, did wonders for the red-headed children of America. Let us also salute these proud American flicks for their terrific promoting of adoption. Oh, and dog poop jokes - gotta have dog poop jokes.... Shmucks.


Ten minutes of people spewing gallons of pink vomit. Recurring scenes of enormous piles of dog excrement - need one say more???


Junior and his dad start a new life in a new town. It's the same life because Junior hasn't changed one bit. He is still the same rotten brat as before only he's gotten bigger. This time he has a pal named Trixie and she is only slightly worse. Junior doesn't like his dad dating and messes up every opportunity that he has. Then grandpa moves in and the dog comes along. I thought that the two of them would have made it a good movie but they didn't even become buddies until the end. This is a movie for the most immature people. It has diapers, farts, doggy do do, and toilet humor in it. Only someone under the age of twelve would find this to be super hilarious. I hope when I have a son, he is exactly like Junior.


"Problem Child" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.

I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.

And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern débutante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.

I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?

In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.


Did the first travesty actually make money? This is another sequel (along the lines of ANOTHER STAKEOUT) that no one asked for. But we've received it anyway. The sequel is like its predecessor, completely brain-dead. It's also pretty disgusting (remember the dinner scene?) To think I almost felt sorry for Ritter, Yasbeck, and Warden. Did they need the money that much?


Whenever someone tries to tell me that they think a movie is the worst ever (and it's usually some movie that's "cool" to hate, like "Manos, the Hands of Fate" or "The Avengers") I ask them, "is that movie a comedy about an orphan who is constantly trying to murder adults? Does anyone utter the line 'I'd rather eat a turd' in that movie?"

This movie is WAY too infantile and moronic for adults, and WAY too violent and irresponsible for children. Is there that much money in the Beavis and Butt-head demographic to make a series of movies like this? There is a Problem Child 3, but I haven't seen it. I'd rather eat a turd.


What an awful movie. Full of cliches, perplexing scenes, very bad acting, and an atrotious script. It is hard to believe the same guys that wrote The People vs. Larry Flint and Man on the Moon wrote this garbage. Man, this makes my list of Top 10 Worst Movies of All-Time. Didn't this guy, this director, if you can call him that, realize that the first Problem Child was bad enough? Let alone make a sequel for it!!?? Amazing that piece of trash films like this can be shown to children let alone be released! 1 out of 10 *'s


I am having a hard time finding the words to explain just how much I detested this movie. The historical trial of Henriette Deluzy-Desportes and the Duc de Praslin is a tragic and compelling story that, I feel, had the potential to be a fantastic film, but failed.

Although the cinematography certainly had something to say for itself, it in no way could make up for the terrible structure of the film, the badly written script and most of all the horrendously overacted characters. The worst of them were the Duc's children who were so over-the-top-corny and sickeningly fake that it was almost painful to watch.

In conclusion, this film left me feeling nothing more than irritated and profoundly disappointed.


this movie was incredibly stupid with meaning what so ever. i fell bad for all the actors and actresses that ruined there career to be in this stupid movie. the entire movie was based on how unrealistic they could make it, to make little like it which made it even stupider. even some of the names were unrealistic. the film is fun to watch which is why it had 2 out of 10 stars. this is probably the 3rd stupidest movie ever made. i got really made after i realized that it had mostly adult actors in it yet in was a kid movie. the most upsetting one was Danny Trejo a horror movie actor who is always dirty. the other actors were pretty much clean as far as i'm concerned.


My kids enjoyed the movie, but I was bored. There were a few good lines and a handful of funny parts, but the plot was pretty lame and relied on the special effects and gadgets to pull it through. Still, it hit the center of the bullseye that it was aiming for: it was good for the kids.


As kids movie it is great. For the family it just sucks. I was truly hoping for something like the Goonies which is a great film for all ages. This movie was just geared too much to the kids with the silly script and characters calling each other little names like booger breath. ??? Alan Cummings was however a delight. And why do people compare Willy Wonka to this movie...just because there is a theme song closely resembling the Willy Wonka song doesnt make this film anything like Willy Wonka.


All the actors in this film seem bored. They are not really interested in their roles and the dialogue is all delivered in monotone. It's a problem because I think the basic idea for the film is really very sound. I suppose it's just bad direction which leaves the actors drifting.


I couldn't help but look at the time every 5 to 10 minutes because I found this movie a total drag. Childish humor, cheap looking sets, cheap looking effects, a plot that makes "Legally blonde" look like "The Usual Suspects" and so many coincidences that I can now officially say that Robert Rodriguez had brain surgery somewhere after 1996. The only thing he left as his trade mark are some cool camera moves, but there's where it ends. OK, so the guy decided to do something new for a change, a children's spy movie. Well if I were 12, I'd feel insulted. The best thing in this movie is the absolutely amazing Carla Gugino that just stole every scene she was in. Sadly, there weren't many. 4/10


Of all the kids movies I have seen over the years this was probably the worst. I took four kids aged from 7 to 11 and none of them liked it.

The script seemed to be based on a Willy Wonka style story but it just didn't have anything to it.

If you are considering seeing this movie dont waste your time, it is bad.

They are making a sequel, so it may be worth watching to see if they can even make a worse movie, but I don't think it is possible.


Wow, what a cheesy movie this is! It starts off looking like it's gonna be a backwoods slasher, with the camera following dogs running through the woods. It then gets a bit boring and follows the story of some girls moving into some house haunted by Indian spirits. We then get plenty of shots of one partially clad girl and another naked girl in the bath. It suddenly gets really cheesy when the "Zombie Indians" arise from the earth and start terrorising the girls. We even get a samurai Indian.

This movie starts off pretty boring although I did find the story of the four Indians who buried themselves alive quite interesting. Once the Indian zombies (or whatever you want to call them for they aren't technically zombies) start terrorising the girls is when all the fun begins. This is not a special flick and can't be taken seriously, it's just something fun to watch when you're bored or when you're drinking with friends. I can't help thinking though that it would have worked better as a short story because the first half is tediously boring.


Ladies and gentlemen, allow us to introduce to you . The Toltecs! This ancient Latin American tribe, even preceding the Aztecs, supposedly had the most malevolent and bloodthirsty sorcerers, yet they get their asses whooped by a couple of college floozies and a one-hundred-and-seven-year old lawman with a whip! But before you get to see this, however, you have to struggle through more than 40 minutes of sheer boredom, infantile pranks and sleazy sequences that don't contain any actual sleaze. In case I haven't made myself entirely clear yet: "The Dark Power" is an indescribably cheesy and inept piece of 80's horror crap that still manages to be amusing because of its sheer and somewhat charming stupidity factor. Writer/director Phil Smoot's intentions were obviously admirable, but he  as well as the rest of the cast & crew  lacked the talent and financial means to deliver something even half-decent. Smoot carefully watched "The Evil Dead" and other similar demonic-themed movies, and somehow must have thought he could pull this off as well. The movie opens with an old Indian guy dying in his isolated countryside house; barely speaking out his last word above a whisper  Toltecs. His grandson promptly rents out house to a bunch of college chicks, including a typically 80's aerobics babe, a cute black girl and a racist redneck gal. Soon they will discover why exactly the old Indian lived like a hermit, as he was actually the guardian of an ancient Toltec burial ground. Toltec sorcerers buried themselves alive, only to emerge again thousands of years later and feed on the flesh of the living. And, honestly, is there any better tasting flesh than that of bimbos? As hinted at before already, the first half of "The Dark Power" is terribly lame and sleep-inducing. The clichéd pranks, the retarded dialogs and the ridiculously overlong footage of Lash LaRue swinging around his whip seem to go on forever. Then, the movie loses its last smidgen of credibility when the Toltec sorcerers emerge from the ground. Instead of menacing, they look like drugged out hard rock stars with imbecile masks and drunken gestures. Exactly ONE gory moment is worth mentioning, when a guy's lips are stretched out over his entire skull, but overall even the carnage aspect of this movie is disappointing. The only remotely worthwhile moments are utterly senseless, like when a 9-year-old kid (named Cletus!) goes joyriding with his uncle's truck or when the vulgar naked chick sips beer in the bathtub after working out. Seriously, unless you get turned on by the sight of a 1940's western veteran swinging around his whip at nothing, I'd advise to skip this film.


Wow... I suspected this one to be bad... But now I find myself just at a loss for words... Honestly, no words of mine can do this movie any justice...

I'll try to say something anyway...

This truly is one unique gem. One of the worst kind.

Lash La Rue - given his background as an actor - doing a whip-fight with a Toltec sorcerer-zombie during the movie's climax...??? A true stroke of genius, without a doubt.

It rarely happens that I laugh out loud when watching a movie alone. It happened numerous times with this one.

The accents of the actors, man, the accents... And the dialogues I heard them speak... And the acting itself... I just couldn't believe what I was hearing.

That fat uncle farting so loudly (when walking up to the house together with his little nephew) for no apparent reason whatsoever...

Tits! Yes, there's titties! And female ass! There's even a naked chick in a bathtub sipping a beer...

That one "stretch his mouth over his face"-kill was the bomb! A true highlight.

The comedy-aspects were just totally bonkers. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. For a while I even thought that they were unintentional, shaking my head in disbelief. But about halfway in the movie, I started to get the bigger picture. Guess it took me half a movie to dumb-down half of my brain, to finally get it.

I had a really hard time believing this movie... But it's good, really, I think. It had one black chick walking up to a very tiny cupboard, opening it and then saying "Wooow, look at all the storage space!". And she said it like she meant it. I mean, that's good dialogue and good acting, right?

Oh, and perhaps needless to say: Lash La Rue's whip-skills suck major ass in THE DARK POWER. It's really sad and pathetic to behold. That's all part of the comedy, of course. Or wait, I might be wrong. No, yes, I'm wrong. Lash La Rue was amazing with the whip! It was the editor's fault. He messed it up, cutting his lashes together and all. Or wait, it might have been the camera operator. He filmed from the wrong angles... Then why didn't Phil Smoot say anything? That's it, it's the director's fault.

But it's a good movie.

I'm just gonna quit talking about it. I have nothing meaningful to say anyway, except for the fact that I hope my brain will recover from this experience... some time soon.


This film started off really tense when a poor young boy is set upon by a pack of savage dogs. After a tense chase he is saved by said grandpa with magic whip.

We are then introduced to a string of annoying house mates, including one tart who is always half dressed. During this stage the film heightens tension with strange "plinky plinky" background noises that had me on the edge of my seat.

I stopped paying attention for a while but when I looked back on the screen there where weird creature type things going around grunting and killing. One word of advice if you are ever trapped in your home by some nutter - get some cardboard boxes and a tray.

Although we did skip half the film, because it was totally non interesting or memorable, we are now at the stunning conclusion, the last surviving creature thing fights a "Whip Duel" with grandpa and his magic whip. I wont say what happens here, but I can say the whip battle is full of tension, with aerial fights, split level fights and all manner of drama.

I am now going to shove this film through the door of a neighbour i don't like.


When a group of dumb kids (including an unlikable. racist bitch) stay at an old house, it awakens four murderous Toltec spirits. Can Lash La Rue save the day? Will you be able to watch until the end due to the horrible comedy on display.

"The Dark Power" is the kind of really bad horror/comedy hybrid Troma used to release regularly. Thing is, they didn't. release this. That doesn't excuse the whole thing, as it has a dreadful synthesizer score (including bad attempts at Native American music and even worse "comedy" music), bad make up effects (basically Halloween masks), and atrocious acting (Ok, the fat guy was alright, though everyone else is terrible, and La Rue, a Western movie vet, seems embarrassed to be there-not that I blame him really.)

The worst thing though, is the comedy aspects. Sure, dumb teens is one thing, but when the movie keeps talking about the Toltec spirits as if they are the ultimate evil, only for them to turn out to be horribly annoying, bumbling fools, all hope is dashed. Combining horror and comedy takes at least some skill. There is no skill on display here, as it all is just stupid, and not "so dumb it's fun" either. I mean "smoking pot and listening to bad Punk Rock aren't I dumb" dumb.

Not even a decent ripped off face and a chick in little clothing can save this disaster. Terrible movie, and not even worth a rental.


A total and utter travesty of a movie.'Dark power'is the kind of film even troma would be embarrassed to release.The script,direction,acting and action sequence's are so dire as to be almost painful to watch and one cant help thinking that it's mere 75 minute running time could have been better spent. The above reviewer must be related to the director as that's the only reason i can see for his/her appraisal of this rubbish,some might call it b-movie fun or 'so bad it's good' just to excuse there enjoyment of it,but when the lead actor ( and most experienced cast member) cant deliver his lines convincingly you know you've got a very,very bad movie.Avoid at all costs.


Glenn Ford, a New York boy who has been saving his cash, thumbs and hobos his way to the Arizona ranch he has bought, where he hopes to find HEAVEN WITH A BARBED WIRE FENCE.

A film with a Dalton Trumbo script and story, directed by villain extraordinaire Ricardo Cortez, and starring the frequently twitchy Glenn Ford and the restless Richard Conte just shouldn't be so bloody nice. Though the system -- mostly seen as mean cops and railroad bulls and real estate con men -- is as awful as one might expect from the leftish Mr. Trumbo, every single proletarian is just so sweet and nice and salt of the earth that one feels nausea. It doesn't help that the heroine -- a sweet blonde thing who is an illegal alien refugee fleeing Franco's Spain -- is annoying for reasons of both scripting and acting.

So why watch? Richard Conte, in his first role, already has his persona and a pretty good part. And there are some moments of 30s leftist camp that are pretty astonishing. (Did Dalton absolutely have to set a major portion of the movie in the Russian Worker's mission? All that was missing was a portrait of a beaming Joe Stalin!) Also, this is Glenn Ford's first substantive role (though his performance isn't good).

Why not watch? Essentially, the movie offers an unconvincing vision, is wedded to a political viewpoint that is risible, and the two leads have made much better movies. Also, the strengths of Dalton Trumbo as a screenwriter are nowhere in evidence. Instead, we get a film that the Coen Brothers Barton Fink could have written in a flash (and avoided that hellish bout with writer's block).


i was one "chosen" to see this movie in a sneak preview.

first you should know that this film is based on the video game "far cry", a for its time really good game (2004). second you should know that the regisseur of this flick is the great uwe boll. this is a man, who takes video games (dungeon siege, bloodrayne, postal, etc.) and makes movies out of them (VERY horrible ones....).

i still remember when i saw boll's "the king's swords: a dungeon siege tail". there were so horrible mistakes in this film (like 3 scenes playing at the same time, 2 at day-time, and one somehow at night.....)

so lets come to "far cry". if you expect cool action, forget it. really cheap tricks and a plastic helicopter are far away from real action. if you expect a cool story, forget it. orientating by the not-so-bad story of the game, this movie is a laugh. the actors' playing makes the movie in a lot of moments funny, but in a no-good way.

i had the chance to see this movie for free. so do not do the mistake and pay for this trash. its one of my favorised flicks for the bottom 100.!!!!


Mr. "Uwe Fail" strikes again, transformed a classic game in a cheap piece of crap. Poor acting; Poor Directing; Awful adaptation; I mean, Far-Cry game was awesome, its like a true FPS game, cool weapons and lots lots lots of "point and shoot". In the movie we had nothing compared to the game.. Well we had some of the "point and shoot" thing but... i don't know how to explain, but if you ever watched another "Uwe Fail" movie you will understand. If you don't believe me, go to the website "petition online" and do a check for one named "Stop Uwe Bowl".

That movie made my eyes bleed, someone must stop him for once.

Don't waste your time.


One of Bolls better attempts. Just shows that if you do something long enough you have to improve just by chance. It is still not good but it is at least watchable which is an improvement over the bloodrayne. The main difference between Bloodrayne and FarCry really is that the story from Farcry wasn't the games strong point whereas Bloodrayne had a strong story and thus Boll had more chance to mess it up.

The action in this movie is actually fairly good. Occasionally a touch overdone but in a good way and worth a watch just for that.

Acting wise it was pretty decent. Most of the actors are pretty good but you can tell they aren't taking it seriously based on comparisons with other performances. But the lighter mood this gives to the film actually helps.

While I think sticking a little bit closer to the story of the game might have made for a slightly better film the changes made are pretty practical and not big enough to make a difference. Especially given the plot of the game was hardly Oscar winning just a vehicle for FPS carnage. Would have liked it set in the Jungle as that was a pretty integral part of the game but Canada doesn't have a great deal of Jungle and it is at least set in a kind of rainforest.

Why Boll feels the need to change already professionally scripted and directed game plots I don't know but he does. And until he starts letting the source material speak through his adaptations will always be lacking. Watch the film for a laugh its good for that and maybe for watching during a party as drinking party fodder.


There is only one reason this movie is watchable. Till Schweiger. He is such a good actor the movie isn't completely terrible. Uwe Boll please take up another career. The special effects and action are acceptable. All other aspects were very disappointing. All I can say is that Kevin Smith (An evening with...) talked about Tim Burton not ever reading the Batman comics and it showed. Uwe Boll must not have ever played the video games that he keeps making movies about. If you two ever want to know how it is done go see Andrzej Bartkowiak. Doom was one of the best video games to film adaptations ever. Some people may disagree, but if you watch the movie you can see that the guys at ID had a lot to do with Doom. It doesn't seem like anyone at UBIsoft was even near this production.


I am deeply disturbed by some posts I am reading on the message boards for this movie, people saying it is actually a good movie! Just because this movie is Uwe Boll's best to date does not make it a good movie at all, no way in hell! Far Cry is a clichéd mess full of bad acting, poor direction, and an uninspired story with a shoddy script. This is Boll's first pure action movie, and news flash people, action movies aren't too hard to make because for a basic action flick all you need is explosions and gun battles scattered around a flimsy plot, and hey, Mr. Boll succeeds in doing that. House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, and Bloodrayne, all horror games adapted into movies by Boll are far worse than this (they have no redeeming qualities). Far Cry boasts two things which make it his best yet: two good leads and a couple of well-done action sequences. Til Schweiger is quite good as Jack Carver, and Emmanuelle Vaugier is a strong female lead. The usually great Udo Kier is passable as the clichéd villain and the supporting cast are pretty damn bad. Towards the end of the film there is a surprisingly tense chase sequence which came as a shock considering Boll was behind the camera.

Unfortunately the rest of the movie has an incredibly cheap feel to it, with bad CGI, lame one-liners and clichés around every corner. Oh, and the worst lead up to a sex scene I think I have ever scene. Not only have the two only known each other for six hours, but all it takes is for him to say he kept warm while in the army by spooning his fellow soldiers. He already got her to take his clothes off by merely telling her to. Then he took his off and climbed into bed because he was afraid of hypothermia.

Anyway, to summarise, this is a bad movie. It is mindless action movie that can kill 80 minutes if you are totally bored. One could probably do worse than popping this in and watching it, but I'd personally say watch a classic action film like Die Hard or Predator and stay away from this derivative mess.

1½/5


I don't really mind the creative ideas interjected in these movies, but seriously. There isn't one coherent part of the game in this movie. That seems to be the trend, buy the rights and then just make a movie that has zero to do with what the fans want. This butchering is almost entertaining because you know you are getting away with hiding behind a lack of skill, and control of money (not yours) that allows you to do this. Play a game, or hire someone to, and please make a real movie, or stand in the boxing ring and have your butt handed to you as you so claim won't happen.

wow, 9 lines of text and i was done. had to add blah to bug you, sorry


Uwe Boll slips back in his film-making skills once again to offer up a scifi horror tale of mercenaries and reporters taking on super soldiers on a remote island. An okay cast headed by the excellent Udo Keir is cast adrift by Boll who makes the worst of script that should have worked. The mad scientist being investigated by a reporter has been done to death but this script is amusing enough that the plot should have worked, additionally the effects and super soldier design with their dead lifeless eyes have some degree of creepiness, however Boll somehow manages to film everything in an off handed way. Its as if he couldn't be bothered to actually figure out what would work and instead rattled off stock camera placements and walked away. Additionally the assembly of scenes has no spark or life, I'm guessing that Boll only shot one or two takes and just used what he had. It really stinks. Clearly Boll is in one of his periodic retrograde films where anything he's ever learned about film gets flushed. The last film he made that was this bad was Seed a serial killer movie that is one of the worst films I've ever seen. This isn't that bad, but it is close simply because it should have been better. Then again Udo Keir is good enough that he does make watching his scenes worth the effort and make this a an almost so bad its good film. I'd take a pass unless it's late at night and you're catching it on cable.


I really liked the Far Cry game, nice graphics, good level-design, interesting and clever enemies, above-average length and even a somewhat decent plot. I am not by default against movie spin-offs of games. I thought "DOOM The Movie" was hilarious. But what Uwe Boll has done here, is to take the game and modified every one of its good aspects and turned them into something horrible (well not the length, the movie runs only a merciful 90 min) The characters are even more stereotypical than in the game, which is quite an achievement. The entire plot is told without any twists or mystery. Several blatantly ridiculous scenes tell you every bit of the story. And come on "Genetically Modified Soldiers"? they could have come up with some better name.

However, this film should get some award for the most idiotic love scene. I have never seen anything of the like. I could not believe they were trying to be serious "we have to get out of the wet clothes" "I think I'll get hypothermia" (although everybody is wearing T-shirts) "we need to cuddle together for body warmth" "Is that your gun?" But... but ... weren't there people who consciously did this? There must have been a scriptwriter, a director, actors, a gaffer, an electrician, some food guy! Why didn't anyone jump into that scene to stop this evil from happening? Was this film done by ravaging, inhuman, genetically modified film people? I won't start at ranting about how many logical errors, inconsistencies and scriptwriting flaws there were, but even to the die-hard action-fan, this can't be anything but insulting.

This film did actually ask for being rated 2 out of 10, so I'll do it that favor. But that leaves me to explain where the second star comes from. Special-effects? Nah. Acting? Not really. References to the game? You wish. Wait! they used the font from the game for the title and the credits. That was neat.

If you are looking for a flick for a bad movie night, go for "2012 - Supernova", this one is just - sad.


Clearly this would have had potential in more capable hands, but given Uwe Boll's track record it would have been surprising if there would have been any merit to this farce.

The first 5 minutes are classic monster movie madness - even the horrible one-liners delivered by GI Joe type soldiers feel as if they were lifted off another venture into the same genre.

You will be doing yourself a favor if you exit the movie at this point. You've already passed all the highlights and you will have spared yourself the suffering of sitting through some of the worst acting in recent history.

Next, enter absolute rubbish talent. The leading man has the same amount of charisma that you will find in garden slug.

There is an awkward bit of contrived romance thrown in - this feels so wrong that you can only speculate why this scene was conjured up in the first place. Normally the genre uses interludes of romance and nudity to inject some humanity and sympathy into otherwise cardboard cut-out characters - here it backfires on all cylinders.

The effects are bad and the action unbelievably boring. Where other classics show originality and imagination in the face of budget restraints - here it just seems like everything was spent on catering.

There are in fact no redeeming features here - not even the "it's so bad it is almost good" applies. It's just bad, and in a bad way.

Our hero questions the leading starlet about the night they spent together and how she would rate him. She gives him 2 out of 10. I give the whole affair 1 (I'd have gone for 0 if that were possible).

Don't waste your time on this dribble, there is plenty of crap cinema out there, which exceeds this ridiculous rumble in the jungle.

Oh and finally, the movie has little to nothing at all to do with the popular game Far Cry (at best it is extremely loosely based on it).

Horrible, move along!


Sadly this film lives up to about 1% of the hype that the game created in 2004 and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. For video game enthusiasts, book worms and movie fans alike there is nothing more disappointing then a film that is based on an original concept (whether on paper or gaming console) that does not deliver. And not only that, goes well under the mark. Far Cry the video game released in 2004 created such a cult following that making a movie from the content should have been easy and scores of gamers would have flocked to watch the film. If you are a gamer that has played Far Cry; do not watch this film. Anyone else who hasn't played the game; it'll still seem like a B grade acted / B grade directed movie. Uwe Boll, hang your head in shame...this should've been easy to make into a blockbuster. The storyline of the game was incredible (think Jurassic Park meets Alien) and yet you still managed to take it and mould it into your own terrible recreation of an instant classic. Video game companies be warned - if Uwe Boll comes a knockin', lock the door. Oh & Til Schweiger...I look forward to seeing you make up for yourself in Inglourious Basterds. What were you thinking taking this one on? Sigh.