I remember when this came out it was the first kung fu film ever seen around our way and we were all excited about seeing it for sure .Although the action was mediocre at best it gave us our first taste of kung fu and our first taste of bad dubbing as well as bad film making or more precisely the way Chinese people were making films at the time . They were admittedly inferior wlthout question but there was entertainment value here and that caught on for sure . The kung fu craze had begun and Bruce Lee and ''The Chinese Connection'' would soon follow either that or ''The Chinese Boxer'' with Jimmy Wang Yu . In any case this film was chosen to lead the way .


This is indeed the film that popularized kung fu in the 1970s. However, if it ever had any kind of excitement or even halfway interesting plot, it doesn't seem to have aged very well.

Long story short: extremely drawn out, slow-moving, confusing plot with run-of-the-mill choreography, typically annoying and exaggerated whiplash sounds with every punch and kick, and constant "plot twists" that never come to an end. By the time the film reaches its emotional climax, I had long had all the wind knocked out of me to actually care.

Watch it for its historical value as a milestone of Chinese kung fu cinema -- just leave your expectations at the door, or you'll be bitterly disappointed.

For hardcore fans only.


I really liked this quirky movie. The characters are not the bland beautiful people that show up in so many movies and on TV. It has a realistic edge, with a captivating story line. The main title sequence alone makes this movie fun to watch.


After hoo-hooing American Indians scalp number one son, frontiersman Bruce Bennett (as Daniel Boone) seems, at first, like he wants to get even; but, he really wants to make friends with the natives. When sad-eyed Indian chief Lon Chaney Jr. (as Blackfish) also loses number one son, it gets more difficult to clear up misunderstandings. Apparently, this was Republic Pictures' attempt to do for their "Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer" what Disney Studio's had successfully done with "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier" (1955).

The "Dan'l Boone" song, whistled and sung by a group of children in a wagon, did not follow Fess Parker's "Davy Crockett" up the Hit Parade. Singer Faron Young (as Faron Callaway) doesn't perform the title song (perhaps wisely); he does sing "Long Green Valley", and makes a good impression as a blond boyfriend for Boone's daughter. But, Spanish actor Freddy Fernandez is the film's most valuable player. In a cute scene, Mr. Fernandez reminds Mr. Young the name of the character ("Susannah") he is supposed to be in love with.

**** Daniel Boone, Trail Blazer (10/5/56) Ismael Rodríguez ~ Bruce Bennett, Lon Chaney Jr., Faron Young, Freddy Fernandez


Big D.B. tries to keep peace between the settlers and their red brothers.

Boone (an aging Bruce Bennett) has to try and prove to the local Indian chief (Lon Chaney, Jr., appearing to be drunk, as usual) that his son was killed by the tribe's leading jerk who has also been dealing in rifle-trafficking when nobody's looking. Faron Young sings, though he holds his rifle like it's a mop.

OK western-adventure directed by two guys, neither of whom has many credits on his resume, but this flick ain't too bad and it has a nice short running time of 76 minutes.


Reports of this film's brilliance appear to have been greatly exaggerated, and unless the other reviewers were watching a different movie, I fail to see how anyone can find this film anything other than dull, unscary, uncreepy, overlong, and at times, unbearably irritating. I'm not some schlocky horror fanatic. I love j-horrors and euro-horrors over American horrors any day, but I feel the need to warn any potential viewers about this film before they invest two hours of their life in it.

It could have been so great. A reporter is investigating a series of bizarre deaths and occurrences, which seem ostensibly unlinked, but a series of unnerving tropes appears to connect them - dead pigeons, thudding noises, the presence of strangely tied knots... Our reporter goes from person to person, interviewing them, filming them and then passing on. Three important characters are among this jumble of people, a young, shy psychic girl, an immensely irritating, insane psychic man, and a crazy old woman and her boy, whose importance is not revealed until later on.

The problem is that the film is not even remotely interesting, which makes its two hour running time unforgivable. It's also not even remotely scary or creepy. Supposedly scary scenes, like shots of ghoulish faces are done incredibly poorly, shown twice, or worse, we are told when they are about to happen. Other techniques, such as telling us that a family just interviewed "died five days later" simply don't make me care, let alone mildly creeped.

The film does pick up a bit towards the end, as our reporter, cameraman, psychic and cursed woman go to a village in order to 'remove' the curse which is linking all these deaths. However, by that time, I was in a state of catatonic boredom, and couldn't care less, so all the fairly creepy camera-work and shocks were wasted on me. The "final tape" is quite good, but once again, I'd given up caring and just wanted this film to end.

Boring and dull, not scary and not creepy, I would advise you keep away from Noroi. It has promising moments, but this is a film that was poorly made and not worth your time.


I haven't seen any other films by Antonioni and the people that saw this one with me agreed that it shares themes and imagery with the rest of his works. Maybe if I had seen other stuff by him I would have enjoyed this one, knowing what to expect.

I saw it as an almost complete failure for so many reasons. First of all, the film introduces interesting, deep issues about social relationships, feelings, the nature of reality versus fiction, but this is very often done in the clumsiest of ways making the characters speak as if they were delivering speeches, rambling on and on, juxtaposing declarations rather than having dialogues. The scriptwriters seem to be so worried that we will not get the point that they prefer to tell instead of showing.

Secondly, the movie has no rhythm, especially in its first half. It is not only that it is slow. Some slow films have been made with an excellent sense of pace and rhythm (El Sur by Victor Erice Or Scorsese's The Age of Innocence are examples I like), but for that to be successful it is necessary that we find the characters so engaging or the story so moving that we can adapt to it. This does not happen in Beyond the Clouds, where the first episode seems to drag endlessly, and the relationship between John Malkovich's "reality" and the love stories "fiction" is at times fluid, others abrupt, others confusing.


If rich people are different from us because they have more money, then film makers are different from us because they think the world cares about their every thought.

This self-indulgent piece of tripe seems to have been made just because the director felt it was time to make another movie, and someone would finance it. Not every trivial idea or reflection is worthy of a movie (unless you are a college film student trying to complete a course). When you don't have anything to say, sometimes it is best to remain quiet.

The visuals are not breath-taking. They are quite ordinary. The dialog is inane and unbelievable. They speak words no one would every sequence together in situations that are beyond imagination. Germaine Greer's zipless f**k is finally brought to the screen. Even if you believe in love at first sight, no one falls into bed as easily as these characters. They screw before they talk. Even more unbelievable is an aging, balding director finding instant sex with the most beautiful chick in town, though gravity is already getting to Miss Marceau at a youthful age.


What a shame. This could have been good. The main problems are the script and the star. The film cannot decide whether to be a slapstick comedy (of a very uninspired and routine kind) or whether to be a insightful satire on the old East Germany and its mores. Its attempts at the latter flop totally, however. The film does not hold together well and the ending is very artificial and unbelievable. Any stereotypes one might have about German comedy are sadly reinforced.

The characters are stereotypes one and all, and the leading character, played by Kim Frank, is colourless in the extreme. He just cannot carry the film and appears to have been chosen largely for his baby face. It may not be all the actor's fault (he is a pop singer), as the script does not give him much to work on.

One plus -- the recreation of the East German 'style' and period is good.

The worst thing is that the film feels somehow dishonest and demeaning. The film seems to have been churned out by people who were not necessarily giving it their best and just wanted to make a quick buck from a few cheap laughs. (If they were giving it their best, it is a sad case indeed!) I watched it at the cinema with an East German audience and I felt sorry for them. The GDR regime was awful in almost all respects, but those who lived through it deserve better than this.


I didn't expect too much from this movie, but I was still disappointed. It's supposed to be a comedy, but there are only four or five scenes where I actually laughed, and I think that's rather poor. There is no real plot either, I always had the feeling that most of the scenes could have been put anywhere in the movie because there's no connection between them. But the worst thing was the "acting" of Kim Franke. He has ONE facial expression during the whole movie, as if he was supposed to play some retarded guy, but I believe that's not the case. All in all I rate it four out of ten, I've seen worse movies than this, but I wouldn't spend money on this one again.


As was mentioned before in other comments, the major problem of NVA is that it cannot decide what it wants to be, slapstick of the cheapest kind or an honest parody of the East German Army. There are a couple of moments which are quite moving, for example when one of the recruits returns from the army prison in Schwedt with a completely broken personality. But in the end, Leander Haußmann goes for the infantile humour. No wonder the film flopped at the German box office as it's historically untruthful to the real situation in those training camps and led by an actor who is unfortunately incapable of giving a nuanced performance.

However, there is the camera work of Frank Griebe who - as always - does a wonderful job. If it wasn't for his beautiful images I would have rated the film far worse.


If you have been to the east of Europe (or even in their armed forces), you might find this movie interesting. I don't know why calls this a comedy (sure, there are a few funny moments), but it is not a good movie if one of the orderly officers talks for 15 min about the achievements of socialism on a Christmas dinner, and the officers in general act like funny oafs, the soldiers are running of the base to meet their girls at night, and surprise, surprise, one of the girls is the daughter of the commander. The east German army was known for its abusive and humiliating service of its conscripted men, and the comedy was basically not filmed on the facilities or with the equipment to make a good movie of the east German army and their time now gone by. Despite this, some of the actors and actresses tried to act well, but it came out only in the roles they're known for from East German TV and some small films. I would not recommend this movie to anybody, it was basically boring and very cheap made.


I've expected a comedy about the NVA, but this is a parody. It shows the national army of Eastern Germany in a light that is not appropriate, and definitely not true.

One can make a comedy about everything, as long as the underlying facts are not changed. Even a comedy about the German KZ is possible, as Roberto Benigni with "LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL" has shown.

The movie NVA would be an "OK" comedy, because the jokes in it are overall OK. Nothing special - not hilarious, but enough to live with it.

The point is, that the movie makes a farce and a parody about the NVA. A death machine that was ready to attack WESTERN EUROPE along with it's friend the RED ARMY. An institution that used everything to get the utmost from it's soldiers. An army that marched into the CSPR in 1968, and was ready to march also in POLAND to destroy the SOLIDARNOSC. You can't make a movie without showing the tiniest bit of evil, or would you make a parody about a KZ,Guantanamo or 9/11??? Showing Osama bin Laden as a funny screwed guy? 90 minutes about a funny Osama in a Afghan Taliban camp, where he makes jokes and is training his soldiers would be comparable to what this movie is doing about the NVA!


A young man, who never knew his birth parents, receives an old farm in an isolated section of West Virginia upon the death of his natural father. He visits his property with a cross-section of potential victims including the comic relief black guy and a trendy lesbian couple. (Hmm, will there be skinny dipping? Take a guess.) Unfortunately, the party comes to an end when the spirits of drifters killed by his evil great-grandfather and used as scarecrows come back for revenge. This film starts out well. An artful montage of depression-era photographs and phony newspapers set against a speech by FDR - this, I believe, is his first appearance in a killer scarecrow movie- establishes the mood. I developed some hopes for the film, which were partially realized. The story was serviceable enough. The setting was sufficiently bucolic. The photography was mostly in focus. The acting, while no great shakes, was slightly above par for horror movies in this budget range. The film might've actually worked within the narrow demands of the genre if the scarecrows were scary. But they weren't They looked cheap. They weren't frightening at all. The better the monster, the better the movie. These scarecrows wouldn't scare Dorothy, let alone Toto.


Rent this only movie if you're in the mood for laughs (for sheer stupidity) , as this movie wouldn't scare a bunch of kindergartners at a Halloween party! The trouble is, there is too much gore for kiddies, so definitely don't put this in your VCR for the toddlers. It starts off with a little bit of promise, giving you the impression that the box cover artist may have actually started watching this film before designing the cover, but then descends quickly into epic stupidity. The "killer scarecrows" are clumsy oafs that are about as scary as the one in the Wizard of Oz, but not quite as smart. If they'd only had a brain...? I got this movie for $1.20 at a local discount/close-out store and even so, I feel somewhat ripped off. I think with all the other comments posted here, if you actually pay to see this, you can only blame yourself.


I was in Blockbuster and I saw a film called "Dark Harvest". The cover art looked great, the plot wasn't that bad, and the tagline (You reap what you sow) made the movie look pretty good. But I was dumb that day, because I did something I should have never done. I rented a "Straight To Video Independent Horror Film" Walking out with my much better rentals, I went home, popped Dark Harvest in the DVD player and it began. I figured I would watch the trailer after the film was done (BAD IDEA) but went ahead and watched it anyway. NOW to the review.*POSSIBLE SPOILERS* First off, the acting by the "kids" sucks, and the scene when the 2 (main characters) are talking, the lighting sucks, and the buildings even look fake! Now they go to this house, where Sean Connel's (I think he's the main character, I don't care) relatives lived there. All of a sudden one by one, they all start getting killed by...(gasp) A KILLER SCARECROW!!!! AHHH!!!!! The scarecrow is obviously the definition of low budget, and the scenes where the scarecrow is computerized looks so fake it's hilarious. It makes dinosaur noises and everything! And then at the end...they shoot the scarecrow with a gun (that is red for god's sake and looks like it was purchased at a local family dollar) and it pauses for a while and then.....(gasp) BLOWS UP!!!!!!

Save yourself some time, I'm telling you this movie sucks. if you need to pass an hour and a half, look at the wall, because looking at the wall is A+ fun compared to this disaster. It is quite funny though.

Overall Grade: F If there was anything lower **F-** Than I would give it that.


This is possibly the worst of the worst. I am a huge fan of the horror movie industry and I can believe this movie was allowed to be made. The acting was juvenile and the story completely idiotic. The camera work was also juvenile. One scene that comes to mind is outside a store. It is nighttime and you can see the moon, yet the characters all have shadows that cast on the wall. There was no street light to be seen. One character gets gutted at one point, yet manages to resurface later after removing herself from a post. Come on!!! It felt like I was watching a middle school play. I kept expecting the characters to wave to their family members off camera and mouth "hi mom". I can only give it two positive comments...it ended and it was good for a laugh. Please do not rent this movie!!!!


Few videos in recent history have been as amateurishly produced as this one -- at least none that have been released by such a reputable distributor. Every frame of this film is a plaguerism of better films of the past. The word 'cliche' is given new meaning by a talentless writer/director who should reserve his imagination for lesser masturbatory efforts that don't victimize film viewers. Assisting in the amateur night 'horror' effort is a number of less than capable technicians who contribute poor cinematography and laughable make-up and special effects. Unfortunately, the one or two of the amateur actors in the film who display a hint of talent that will go unnoticed due to the reputation that this atrocity will produce.


I think there's a reason this film never came close to hitting theaters. It was probably my neighbors down the street who filmed this movie with their mother's video camera. The acting is very amateur. This movie is definitely not something you would want to watch unless you were extremely bored. The actors even seem to double as directors and crew members, with no "professionalism" whatsoever. Should the director(s) and/or actors choose to continue with their endeavor of making movies, I would definitely advise them to brush up on their skills and perhaps take a few (ok, many) classes on film-making and acting.


Dark Harvest is about a group of friends that go to a farm(it belongs to one of the friends relatives or something) for a getaway. But there are killer scarecrows lurking there(there was something about a curse in there too but I forgot what that was about).

The acting in this movie is awful, I don't know what the director was thinking when he was casting actors and actresses. The script is the same story as the acting "awful"(this statement coming up is very obvious but..) if there was better acting and a better script this could have turned out "okay".

The directing stunk too, I see no potential in this guy's future. After all these negatives this movie still maintains a "fun" factor that bumps it up to a two. The last plus is they don't use CGI! My overall thoughts on this film are it's bad, real bad, but so bad it's "fun" so it gets a 2/10


pardon my spelling. This is probably the funniest horror movie that ever existed. Think evil dead * 1000. The acting is horrible, you can see the makeup line on a certain lady's face. there is a lesbian scene, which makes no sense at-all. And the ending, haha ohhhh the ending... be prepared to have your stomach hurting from laughter. Now if you watch this film for more then 5 minutes and are still expecting something, take a look at your self, and ask what the hell is wrong with you. This is a very bad movie, meant to laugh at and enjoy for its pure silliness.

Don't forget to watch all the outtakes after the movie, you can see just how low budget the whole thing really was. All in all this movie is a rare gem in demonstrating the pure and udder lack of talent/care/ability/money/ and anything else you would ever need to make a successful film. But its definitely worth watching.


Now, I am going to do this without putting spoilers if I can. My cousin and I were renting movies the other weekend, and we stumbled across this, with the big freaking' scarecrow on the cover. It looked cool, so we rented it alongside Kungfu Hustle.

Wow... Just... Wow.

To start off, the movie was horrible. Now, the box art, opening scenes, and music was decent-to-well done, but the movie itself is horrendous. The acting is sub-par (Sean, the lead, shows hardly any emotion and/or effort in his character), the scarecrows look nothing like the one on the cover (False advertising, perhaps?), and the camera shots and angles were that of a bad wrestling event.

And trust me, I'm a wrestling fan. I KNOW bad camera angles. And honestly, this is right up there with Gigli and Pootie Tang. It's done so bad that it AMUSES me. It makes me laugh. So, somehow, this movie takes its place as a good comedy to me.

But, to be fair, it does serve as a what to do and what not to do in movies, especially of the slasher genre. I recommend that people DO watch this, just to get a good grasp of what to avoid.


MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. This movie was the worst movie ever. I couldn't even watch it all it was so bad. This film is actually worse than scarecrow slayer which is saying a whole lot. This was worse than terror toons which at least terror toons was funny at times. Not even the gore in the film was good. The shootings were fake and the acting was worse. Please do yourself a favor and skip this one. If you see it at the rental store then run the other way. There is nothing good about this film at all. If you want to see a good scarecrow movie then watch Night of the scarecrow or pumpkin head. If you want to see an OK new cheesy movie then watch Scarecrow. I rate this movie a 0.2 out of 10. That's how horrible this film really is. THE WORST MOVIE EVER.


DO not take this film seriously, rent it with some folks who want to play Mystery Science 3000, and you will probably laugh your butts off. The evil guys are so not scary, it's funny, it's like some dude from 7th grade with a sickle in a scarecrow get up. The acting is hilarious. I love the occasional self torture with a poor horror film and this really had me giggling. I recommend it on that basis. Of course recreational drugs will enhance the experience. Oh, there is a naked group swimming scene, that will allow for some star dust on the 5 star system. The token black male gets injured badly, but continues his joking as well as using the injured body part quite readily throughout. Enjoy this complete and utter disgrace to films.


Okay, I'm sorry to the cast and crew for this review, but this movie is by far the worst I've seen yet...First off, the acting was okay. It could of been better (especially in some parts), but it was "okay". Then, there was the cheapest video camera (which they used). The violence was pretty good. If it were paced faster, it would be awesome, but they didn't (*sigh*)...Scares. The scares were well written (in the script), but not well done. For instance...(SPOILER HERE!) In the loft, a girl is half way in it and the other half is in the dark, bottom area of the barn house, then she gets it. The monster yanks her down and then you hear someones guts getting ripped out. The scares could have been better if the music wasn't ripped from a cheap horror sounds CD. The blood effects were pretty good, but the blood was like that of "Kill Bill". K.B. pulled it off, because it was meant to resemble old kung-fu movies, but when the crew can't tell the difference between red and pink....it's sad. The ripped up bodies in the movie were good, but the scarecrow costumes were something you would see for 25 bucks at a halloween store. Don't let the cover fool you, the costumes suck! My overall grade is a 3/10. If you are interested in independent movies, are easily satisfied, or just have 3 bucks burning a hole in your pocket, go to Blockbuster and see the horror of failure.


Bad script? Check. Awful effects? Check. Horrible actors? Check. Lame direction? Check.

After seeing the DVD box at blockbuster video and being a fan of the horror genre, I placed my $4.28 on the line and rented this "film." My girlfriend was out of town and I was bored so on a late Tuesday night I decided this would be a perfect time for me to watch, what appeared to be (based on the box cover art) a horror movie. What I got instead was the worst film ever made. Up until that point I had always declared "Slumber Party Massacre 3" the worst film ever made.

If you are the type that wants to see a movie because you heard how bad it is, this is for you. If you don't want to lose $4.00 and 80 irreplaceable minutes of your life, steer clear of this garbage.

An added note: I noticed a few of the "actors" come on here and post comments on the bulletin board. How can you brag about being in this film? You were all horrible. I mean really bad. If there was an American Idol for actors, you all would be laughed at in the first few episodes.

Peace.

Sutter Cain


The movie starts off as we see a footage of a huge drought back in the 30's in America. Then a short story is shown about a creepy - looking farmer Elija who made a deal with Satan , to get good harvest. Elija hired young men to work in his garden , killed them , and used as scarecrows. He also fed the ground with their blood. Some time after 2 cops come to visit him. One of them gets shot by Elija , another one kills the farmer himself... After that , the present day is shown , and some guy named Sean is told that he has an old farm left as inheritance. He decides to go there with some friends to see what's up. Little did Sean know that the next night is the "Payback Night".....

As for me this movie had a good story for a horror flick , but low budget and poor special effects just ruined it. "Dark Harvest" is a perfect example of lazy film making. For example we see a scarecrow (a usual guy wearing a funny , cheap mask) chasing a girl. When he raises his hand we get to see a normal human skin below his glove, instead of some rotting flesh. The gore is not very impressive as well. There are some nasty killings by our "lovely" scarecrows but everything is very cheap and unrealistic. Surprisingly the acting is somewhat OK in this flick , or i better say its believable. Some nude scenes are presented as well for the fans (even a lesbian scene) ,but those scenes don't save it.

Verdict : Good music, good story, solid acting. But awful effects , cheap gore and plot holes slow this movie down. Not really recommended.


The first opening scene that lasted around five minutes showed the potential of becoming an instant classic, with moderit to good acting, good film, a story that keep the volume up, and an in the corner the of screen a spooky "did you see that!"(the scarecrow moves).

After the quick set up of history that would come into the present, it was like someone else had written and directed the rest of the "film". The next scene is a basic outline of how the film goes downhill like a runaway truck. It looks like the rest was shot in video, with crappy "porn style actors", the set design was a lawyers office with practically nothing on the bookshelves or anything in the office at all.

I remember only watching crap horror films for a chance of seeing some naked "teenage" girls, back then there weren't Victoria's Secret mags everywhere, and not watching for things that make great horror films of today like acting, terror, suspense, intregue, and so on.

It took nearly fifty minutes for the first person to die. When it did, me and and my friends were so shocked by the WORST costume of a "monster" EVER, we through our popcorn at the TV screen booing.


According to the budget information given on this web site Dark Harvest had an estimated budget of $130,000. Where this money was spent I'm not exactly sure. Let me see....costumes...no...location and sets...hmmm, think not....special f/x...NOT...acting lessons...ah, no. Dark Harvest tells the epic tale of a young man who inherits a family farm in the hills of West Virginia. His girlfriend talks him into taking their friends up there to check the place out. Once there our intrepid hero learns that his great grandfather used a unique method for getting his crops to grow and now it's revenge time. Killer scarecrows out for revenge!!! Ewww scary. Well no, not really. We all know there have been some terrific movies made with very little money but this is not one of them. This film contains pretty much some of the worst acting and dialog I've ever seen. Terrible clichés with terrible delivery. All in all do not be fooled by the half way decent cover and avoid at all costs. I'd like to give the film makers at least a D- for trying but I'm afraid they didn't even do a good job with that. GRADE: F


Let's begin by acknowledging that there are arguably three types of horror films: good, bad, and utterly embarrassing reels that make the entire genre suffer in every way. Dark Harvest promises big with its Artisan DVD cover, but rest assured that is where the show stops. Following a grueling opening montage, we soon discover that the film consists of a very poorly written script, extremely under qualified (even for a beginners film) acting, disastrous lighting and even worse special effects. Seriously, could no one afford anything more than a mask for the villain, or did they just think it was good enough for Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers , so it's good enough for us? Well, it did not work at all to create a scary villain. At any rate, this is one of the movies that make you check your watch, sigh and curse your own gullibility. The timing in every scene is painful, and the entire production has a middle school feeling to it (come to think of it, I have seen better middle school stage productions, right down to the special effects). I'm trying to think of some way to end this review on a positive note, so let me suggest that all copies of this train wreck be donated as drink coasters, Frisbees, wind chimes.......I'd say "go see your yourself", but that would just be cruel.

Check out the rest of this production company's reviews and you'll find the same for every one of their movies. They claim to honor the contract between film and audience (i.e. please the fans) but all they have done is chuckle and dumped a load on our heads for the cash (of which I am sure they saw very little for this).

Sorry people, the high ratings and favorable reviews are obviously posted by those either directly or indirectly connected to this travesty.

1 star out of 10 because it is the lowest possible rating. Giving it even one makes me angry.


Some teen agers go to an old deserted farm house left to one of them by their dead grandfather, unaware that there had been several murders there decades earlier because their grandfather had made a pact with the devil for a good harvest- couldn't the guy have thought of something better to sell his soul for? The man's grandson and his friends are set up to be the next sacrifice, for reasons which are never explained. The stereotypical teenage son and his girlfriend, the black guy with a white girlfriend, and the two lesbians have to do battle with three killer scarecrows- but, don't be tricked like I was, this isn't nearly as fun as it sounds. It's mostly just a lot of chit chat about ball kicking, dope smoking, and the lead actor complaining about never knowing his parents. The camera work is atrocious and shaky, maybe done on a hand held camcorder in some scenes, which maybe a good thing since the scarecrows look like they just came from some kid's birthday party, and apparently they could only hire two people to play the three scarecrows! Some of the best movies I've seen have been these low budget, independent horror movies, but this one is just pathetic. The cast and crew seems to have just been made up of a bunch of people who knew each other, had never acted before and had no intention of acting again, and had a few thousand dollars (I can't believe this movie cost $130.000 to make) and a weekend of free time on their hands- even the lesbian skinny dipping scene is lame.

I think it's amusing also, that as of this writing, there is a sequel to this film which no one has even bothered adding to IMDb.

* out of ****, and I only rate it that highly only because of the skinny dipping scene, no matter how lame it may be.


I woke up and it was a beautiful day; the sun was shining, the birds were singing and i fancied getting a movie, something new, a horror movie perhaps? Like many other reviewers i came across what can only be described as a piece of poopy in a gold wrapper. The front cover is great, and the comment on the back is mesmerising - 'it will scare the crop out of you'...oh how i chuckle looking back at such naivety and ignorance.

One of the many things scarier than this movie is the acting skills of these 'actors'. I think, no, i did actually cheer when they got slashed up by these 'scarecrows', who were wearing some classic fancy dress costumes. I used to drive quite quickly past cornfields as i found them to be pretty scary at night, but having seen this movie, i nearly wet myself (through laughing so much) just at the sight.

I have seen scarier omelette's quite honestly, not mine though, i'm a dab-hand at cooking omelette's, and if anyone associates this movie with my omelette's, let's just say that i would create a situation in which they would be forced to watch this movie 3 times in a row.

If anyone has any good corn (crop not pop) movies they can recommend, feel free to inform me. It's a great comedy if nothing else, OK it is nothing else. Enjoy, but a little advice - before pressing the play button on your DVD player, throw it out of the window.


This is an irredeemably stupid, boring, unimaginative, lazily put together piece of garbage. When watching a direct to video slasher pick, it is only fair to expect the film to be trashy on some level, but this goes beyond trashy. It is just horrible on every level, with a cliché ridden script that manages to be both incredibly stupid and incredibly boring at the same time, a cast of no name over actors, and some of the worst special effects I have ever seen. Even fans of slasher movies won't be able to find anything here that would make this film a worthwhile use of an hour and a half.

The plot focuses on your usual group of young people who decide to spend the weekend at a remote farm in West Virginia that one member of the group has recently inherited. Unfortunately for the teenagers, the inherited land was once owned by a farmer who made sacrifices in order to help his crops grow, or something stupid along those lines, and now some evil scarecrows are out to kill everybody. I don't know anything about writer director Paul Moore, but I am assuming he is over ten years old, and therefore he ought to be able to come up with something more original than killer scarecrows. Honestly.

The special effects bringing the scarecrows to life are laughably poor. They often look like hardly more than Haloween costumes on sticks. Special effects such as these would have been considered rather rather poor twenty years ago, but by todays standards, they are nothing short of embarrassing.

This is a total waste of time for all viewers, whether or not they are into horror movies. If you must watch a slasher film, rent any one of the "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" movies. Most of them aren't very good, but are certainly superior to crap like this.


Straight to video and with good reason. Its like the neighborhood kids putting on a play in the backyard, but worse. A young man,(Don Digiulio) inherits a farm in West Virginia that has been dormant for generations. He decides to take a few friends to check the property out. This farmland used to produce good corn crops, even during the Great Depression. The secret being that the owner was murdering folks and watering the fields with their blood. Then hang their bodies out as scarecrows. The special effects are pretty lame and the the horrible dialog is full of unfunny one-liners and the banter so ridiculous the sound may better be turned off. Cheap gore and a sham of a horror flick. Along with Digiulio in the cast: Jeanie Cheek, B.W. York, Booty Chewning and Jessica Dunphy.


This is one of those films that you watch with a group of people. You will have the best time. It's really, really bad, like Showgirls bad but without the quality of Showgirls.

You've got the best mix of bad actors, bad director and bad script here. Everything that can possible be wrong that can make for an entertaining evening, you have here. The first being the tag line is "a bunch of teenagers..." These people are as much "teenagers" as my grandmother.

The director has zero sense of suspense or tension. The 30 year old "teenagers" are standing around and the "monster" comes out and attacks and this pretty much happens throughout the movie when the monsters are revealed. There is no suspense building up to this or surprise or anything. It's more like when you were kids pretending to be chased by monsters and just kind of made up stuff as you went. And when I use the word "monsters" I exaggerate. More like a couple guys in Halloween masks bought at the .99 cent store.

There is no doubt this script was spun off in a couple days, no rewrites and I can only imagine how bad and poorly formatted it looked on the page because it was clearly written by an amateur with no clue. It's another example of one of the bad things about this day and age: anyone can make a movie.

But of course the best bad thing about this film is the acting. It's as bad as you can get. There isn't one person in this who has the slightest skill at acting and the lead is the absolute worst. He delivers every line in this monotone manner without any expression and you have to wonder how someone this bad could possible get a part in any movie, no matter who he knows. When he had to "cry" when his girlfriend was killed, it was one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Watching these people reciting some of the awful dialog is very very funny. But when the black guy said "tell her...tell her...I love her..." before his death scene, there was a huge laugh among our group. Funny, funny stuff.

My only hope is this movie gets bad enough ratings to take its place where it belongs: in the IMDb lowest rating 100 movies. We can do it, folks!

PS. Is it any surprise that the one "great" comment this movie got in here was from someone in Virginia (who has one comment, only on this movie and nothing else). And guess where the movie was made? Virginia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who work on the movie should NOT be allowed to comment on it.


I knew full well when I rented this DVD that it could very well be one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. But to say that it was one of the worst movies I've ever viewed would be putting it lightly. I'm wondering if there isn't some legal action that can be taken against the individuals that allowed this film to produced. I mean, the financing had to come from somewhere, someone had to put up money for this to be produced!!??

I'd pinpoint several production values that led to the failure of this film, but this film violated every production standard in the universe. I couldn't make it thru the entire movie, as I started getting dizzy the from horrendous filming techniques. I also can't tell you how many scenes I just ended zoning off during because of the inexplicably horrific dialog.

I feel like I've been permanently scarred for life. If you viewed this movie before getting this warning, you should think about starting a support group with me for the poor people who did view this monstrosity.


Another stupid "movie". The quality of image is correct. Sound too. Music is middle. The guy try make music like in Halloween.

For one rare time, producer/director choose no-anorexic girls. It is cause this "movie" take one week to do and cost $10,000. Does it mean when producer have money they choose all anorexic girls? Good question.

But girls in this "movie" are physically correct. But they are not good actress. Neither guys too. But maybe it's just cause the "story" of this "movie" have no value.

I'm sure we give $10,000 to some teen who like movie, and they can create a better movie.

Don't lose your time to watch this "thing".


Dark Harvest is a very low budget production made by a bunch of rank amateurs which manages to come off as a kind of semi-professional movie. Unfortunately the poor effects, wooden acting and unoriginal story makes this a very mediocre horror slasher at best. By no means is Dark Harvest the worst horror movie i've ever seen, it just isn't anything special and has nothing in it to warrant a second watch or hope for a sequel. You know a director has doubts about their own horror film when a) there is some pointless nudity and b) the movie's so short they add some rather boring outtakes at the end credits that nobody really cares about because the movie wasn't that good! A slightly better movie which i can't help feeling was the inspiration for Dark Harvest is the eighties movie 'Scarecrows' which is an OK movie but still pretty average.

Dark Harvest isn't as bad as some of the other comments say it is but don't think that you will be entertained much either. One thing i also have to comment on is the character of Angela who has a really terrible English accent! What was the point in that?! To maybe give it a certain touch of class? Yeah right! English people do NOT say "WAAHTAAH" when they mean to say "water" and i don't care what part of England they are from! If you can't find a genuine English actress or a non-English actress who can put on a brilliant English accent (not many of them about) then DON'T BOTHER! Sheesh! Final score: 4/10


First off I am in my mid 40's. Been watchin horror films since I was a kid so I have seen A lot of variety. IMO,this is not as bad as the multitudes that gave this a 1 or 2.

Yes,it is a low budget horror flick. The dialog is soso and acting tolerable,sometimes. The basis of this film plotwise is actually pretty good. For those of you old enough to remember or lucky enough to have seen them on DVD. This is very much like a 1970's movie of the week. Just add in blood and minor gore,minor T & A and swearing, without big names. That is it to a T. I would rather watch this than Jason vs Godzilla or whatever other continuois crap is out there. Tho not as good, EVIL DEAD was a LOW budget film. At least give these guys credit for trying. With acouple MIL budget this could have been a pretty good flick. My score a watchable 4.


Any time a movie feature a dwarf or a midget in a prominent role, the odds are 10-to-1 that the director threw him in because he didn't know what else to do to keep the movie interesting. In this case, the featured little guy isn't all that bad - he manages to keep his dignity for most of his scenes (except the part where he drags the leading man down the stairs of the dungeon), but the movie itself uses him like a doggie chew toy.

The problem here is a common one with low budget exploitation movies - there's a germ of a decent idea in here, but the director and the screenwriter don't know how to develop it. A good director would take the various story elements - brain transplants, mad doctors with secret labs and a dungeon, car chases, fist fights, dim-witted monstrous Frankenstein style assistant, mind control, betrayal and conspiracy, etc...and make an exciting, involving film full of cheap thrills and fun.

Instead, what we get here is a bunch of people stumbling around and arguing in the doctor's lab, then a cheesy operation where the patient bleeds tempura paint, followed by some of the same people stumbling around and arguing in the doctor's lab some more, followed by another subgroup of the initial group driving around and having an accident, followed by a dungeon escape scene that is mostly about a woman putting her shoes back on, followed by a rooftop chase (the actual high point of the movie), followed by a confusing series of events where everyone in the movie apparently escapes from everyone else, followed by a lovely stroll in the countryside where everyone either chases, bumps into, attacks or escapes from everyone else AGAIN, followed by, well, not much else.

Somewhere in here is a scary peroxide blonde dressed in white, a well meaning heroic type who is sort of blandly good looking, a three foot lab assistant, a big lunk with a mass of melted rubber pasted to one side of his face, a kid who wonders into the middle of the movie to provide more of the "frankenstein factor", a brunette who sort of falls in love with the hero for no apparent reason, and the mad doctor himself,who must be the luckiest man in the history of evil super-villains, because nothing goes according to his plan, but things work out for him anyway... and all because he remembered to stick an electrode into the transplanted brain at one point in the operation.

This was by no means the worst movie I've seen, or even the worst exploitation movie I've seen, or even the worst badly made exploitation movie I've seen, but it just lies there, oozing cheapness and inattention to detail at every point, and there is no real reason for even bad movie enthusiasts to watch it.


I'm not sure I've ever seen a film as bad as this. Awful acting, All over the place plot, terrible special effects. There are some 'so bad its good' moments in here but not really enough to maintain interest. The woman who plays Tracey looks hideous. There are some fairly worrying scenes with a dwarf which leave you feeling ever so slightly violated. On the plus side the operation scenes are fairly amusing for the special effects as is the car chase where one car is "trying to force us off the road" without actually making contact. Guess the budget didn't stretch to trashing cars. Oh and what looks like a Postcard of the Taj Mahal is shown every time they cut to the fictional foreign country.


In the Muslim country of Khalid (fictional), its benevolent leader/dictator,Reed Hadley as Amir, is dying of cancer. Amir dies and a desperate plot unfolds. His body is wrapped in aluminum foil and taken in a clandestine operation (the population does not know of his death) consisting of his doctor (Nigserian) and Mohammed, out of the country to perform a risky brain transplant. The surgery is being performed by the disgraced Dr. Kent Taylor, who believes there is no chance of failure and has two assistants. One of them is about 3 feet high (Master Blaster did indeed run Barter Town) and the other is a mutilated & traumatized 7 foot giant named Gor. What could possibly go wrong??

Did I forget to mention Amir's deathbed American, blonde-Barbie wife, Tracy or that Dr. Kent has a dungeon with female slave test subjects & delusions of grandeur? How about a brain transplant that didn't take? There is a lot of double-dealing throughout this and people are killed, but I'm not going to lie to you anymore : MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The ends justify the means. If you can accept that then you will not have to waste 80 minutes. I hope that is warning enough. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you must watch, then don't watch alone and have plenty of medicine standing by.

-Celluloid Rehab


This is a cheap-o movie made by Al Adamson--a man who was perhaps the worst film maker ever--even possibly worse than Ed Wood, Jr.. Adamson specialized in extremely low budget horror and skin films during the 60s, 70s and 80s and with such titles as FIVE BLOODY GRAVES, HELL'S BLOODY DEVILS, SATAN'S SADISTS and LASH OF LUST it's obvious he wasn't making Shakespeare!! His movies all had rotten production values, sensations, gore and amateur acting.

Here in BRAIN OF BLOOD, several stock Adamson actors (such as his wife, Regina Carrol, Zandor Vorkov and Angelo Rossitto are along for the ride and had appeared in Adamson's previous film, Dracula VERSUS FRANKENSTEIN. This is fortunate because the prior movie was so terrible and so poorly executed on every level that BRAIN OF BLOOD can't help but look good! Sure, the makeup is laughable, the plot dumb (it involves the ubiquitous brain transplant scheme) and acting is level Z, but it's STILL better than their last film!

About the only positive things about this film are that aging supporting actor, midget Angelo Rossitto actually had a better than usual part--with more dialog and a more important role in the plot--and there is actually some sense of danger and tension at times. As for Ms. Carrol, she STILL looks like a stripper and the rest of the cast limp through this silly flick. However, it's bad enough that it makes for good watching by bad movie fans--you've just gotta see makeup on the guy with acid burns as well as the ray gun that appears to be made out of an old tail light!


This is one cheap looking movie! A stripper keeps getting attacked and raped by zombies and no one believes her. She goes to the police who also rape her. She finally finds a kid who was also attacked by the zombies and they trace the zombies back to 'The Zombie Master'. The fact that Stephanie Beaton stars as the stripper is the only reason to watch this film.


I gotta go with my boy Allen (who also reviewed this film)...ZOMBIE GANGBANGERS (as my copy is entitled - guess they left out the "NINJA" part after realizing there isn't a single "ninja" nor reference to ninjas anywhere in the whole f!cking film...) is a total wasted of time. Honestly one of the most boring, retarded "films" I've ever had the displeasure of viewing.

A hooker is repeatedly (un-graphically) raped by two zombies, and then by a cop (again, un-graphically) when the cop doesn't believe her story. She meets a guy who was beaten up by said zombies and the two try to find a way to seek vengeance on the undead culprits...

First off - there is NO "gangbanging" (or really other "banging" at all) to be had in ZOMBIE NINJA GANGBANGERS. I was hoping to at least get some sort of horror/porn hybrid a la PORN OF THE DEAD, or RE-PENETRATOR, or perhaps PERVERTED STORIES - but no - there was absolutely NO sex in this film. At least a bit o' the ol' in-out might have redeemed this boring garbage to some degree, but without it, we get a bunch of poorly shot scenes of complete boredom with zero payoff. I'm all for "trash" films and most other schlock, gore, porn, and exploit material, but this one honestly sucks in every conceivable way. Save your time, pass this one up...1/10 (and the one is only for a few brief shots of some sub-par titties...)


What I liked best about this flick was the chance to see Joan Woodbury, who awe-struck me as one of the several beauties in the Charles Boyer classic "Algiers", in a leading role. She does well as Rita, an orphan who rises to make good as a lady crime boss. Her ascent to the top reminds me of Joan Crawford's characters, e.g. Mildred Pierce, who realize their ambitions by fierce determination and willpower. If you're looking for a film noir classic, better look elsewhere. At several points, it's difficult to know where this story is going. I first got the impression that it was going to encompass Rita's plot for revenge against the father and son who tricked her into taking the rap for a drunk driving death perpetrated by the playboy son. But payback time ended up being only a minor point, and a springboard to the somewhat confusing second part of the film, where Rita becomes increasingly involved in city corruption. Anyway, it's only 72 minutes, so a second viewing should clear up any haziness. My copy is from a Platinum box set called "Mobster Movies". The picture quality is good, but the soundtrack sucks, constantly skipping fragments of dialog. There are eight films in the $5.50 box, making each movie a fair 69 cents. Look for Anne Archer's father, John Archer, as Rita's childhood friend Bob. Alan Ladd doesn't get much screen time. It's definitely Joan Woodbury's picture.


This obviously was a pretty low budget production, but the cast was pretty decent, the basic premise had promise, and something more could have been done with it, but the script wasn't that great- the plot is incoherent and seems almost random at times and the dialog is stilted and terrible.

Basically, a girl's father gets whacked by fellow gangsters, and later she becomes a robber, and wants to avenge his death, and then it goes into a mob protection racket involving corrupt politicians.

Alan Ladd gets top billing but he really plays a very minor role.

I have to say I found it mildly entertaining in its archaic B-grade hokiness but it really is shoddy and pathetic.


My question is what was the worst element of this movie? Was it the acting? directing? script?. Maybe it was the waste of Alan Ladd and Jack LaRue. LaRue and, especially, Ladd are capable of bringing extreme sinisterness to a role. In this movie, it was hard to tell who the bad guy was. Granted, Ladd was playing an undercover good guy, but even in his good guy roles, he could be very chilling. So, the net result was a potentially good movie bereft of any feeling of conflict.


As a young lass, beautiful Joan Woodbury (as Rita Adams) was orphaned, after her "stool pigeon" father was shot to death. As a young woman, Ms. Woodbury finds herself struggling to keep a job, as her murdered father's ex-convict status makes Woodbury a bad business risk. Woodbury rooms with understanding songstress Linda Ware (as Donna Andrews), who advises Woodbury to get in touch with old orphanage friends John Archer (as Bob Elliott) and Jack La Rue (as Mickey Roman). But, none of her friends can help when Woodbury is the victim of a scam, which lands her in prison. Upon release, Woodbury decides to give the male mobsters a run for their money

Re-titled "Gangs, Inc.", this is an obviously weak, cheap mobster melodrama. Still, it's a lot of fun to watch Woodbury work wonders with inferior material. She plays the innocent growing more sophisticated "Rita" quite convincingly; and, she tosses in a great bit as a blonde hooker. Woodbury must be added to the list of unfortunately underutilized Hollywood actresses of the past. "Paper Bullets" also features an early Alan Ladd (as Jimmy Kelly aka Bill Dugan). Ms. Ware, who sang the hit "An Apple for the Teacher" with Bing Crosby, sings a couple of fair '40s numbers nicely. But, mainly, it's Woodbury's show.

**** Paper Bullets (1941) Phil Rosen ~ Joan Woodbury, Linda Ware, Alan Ladd


I couldn't make heads or tails out of this terrible film noir.

The plot was confusing, the acting was alright, but the picture quality was awful! Though I bought this at a "Gansters Double Pack" (8 movies on two discs) at WalMart for $5.50 and when you put the DVD in, it apologizes for the awful picture quality that some of the movies may have.

The plot was flip flopping everywhere I couldn't understand it and had no idea what was going on...then "The End" popped up and the movie was over.

What a waste of my time!

I say don't waste your money or time on this! Or if you too bought that Gansters Double Pack then just skip over this one...

2/10


This movie really sucks.

Just try to stay awake for 5 minutes while watching this baloney about a nice girl (Joan Woodbury) who gets involved with the 'underworld' because she needs money (and because she's too lazy to take a job from friends after they offer it to her). Alan Ladd was supposed to be the star of this thing, but he's nowhere to be found for the first freaking half hour and when he does show up, he stands around like a constipated mannequin. A real dud with enough talky scenes and unlikeable (as well as stupid) characters to make you wish somebody would shoot anybody, like really fast.

Bring a pillow.


The film begins with a little girl (Rita) seeing her father killed. He apparently was a criminal who squealed on his fellow crooks. Later, and this part makes little sense, the girl has grown to adulthood and STILL her father's past haunts her! A bit later, Rita meets a good-for-nothing and dates him. During one of their dates, he's a bit intoxicated AND driving like a total fool. The cops give chase and he speeds away--killing a pedestrian in the meantime. Here comes the Really stupid part. He convinces her to confess to the crime, as he assures her his lawyers can get her off scot-free. Why, oh why, would she agree to this?! Yet she does and spends the next couple years in prison!! And, soon after her conviction, this boyfriend disappears--showing that he's a total heel. What a chump!!! Later, after her release, her friend (Jack La Rue) informs her about the truth about the boyfriend. Then, he explains, the boyfriend's family is loaded and she should shake them down for lots of cash for all the trouble he put her to by taking the rap. Frankly, this does make sense--as they certainly owe it to her--especially since they knew she'd go to prison and had every intention of using her and then casting her aside.

Now the idea of bleeding money from the rich chumps is a good plot idea. However, there is no way this would have occurred in the first place because it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid as to take the rap for a hit-and-run! In an interesting twist, the dumb lady decides on a life of crime--donning a wig and picking up a rich guy--taking him into the desert and robbing him at gunpoint! Wow...how she's changed! Apparently she loves the idea of stealing from "phonies"--i.e., rich hypocrites. However, and this made no sense, she soon stopped doing this and began shaking down the father of the old boyfriend--why she bothered to do some petty robberies in the meantime made little sense. And, what also was a bit hard to believe was that instead of wanting money from the old jerk, she was interested in getting him to put his influence behind a mob-controlled man for mayor. Odd...very, very odd.

In the meantime, another plot develops involving a young Alan Ladd. He's an undercover agent who has infiltrated the mob. He was chosen because he just happens to be a dead ringer for a real crook--what a cliché! But what makes no sense is that this real crook isn't in jail and is out committing crimes while the fake one is infiltrating the mob in another town.

Eventually, evidence that Ladd is able to uncover is enough to issue warrants to the mob kingpins--including Rita. This is a case of very bad timing, as in the interim, she's made a decision to become a decent and legitimate woman, as she's met a really nice guy who she wants to marry! Wow,...what are the odds?! Overall, this is a goofy and rather dumb movie that suffers from "kitchen sink syndrome"--in other words, there is way too many plot elements and weird twists to make the movie the least bit believable. Plus, since the movie is only a little over an hour long, it all seems very forced and contrived. It's a relatively bad B-movie from crap-studio PRC of note only for the performance of Alan Ladd just before he gained great fame the following year at Paramount.

By the way, this DVD was released by Alpha Video---a company which sometimes releases some wonderfully obscure titles (mostly public domain) but which NEVER cleans up the prints or adds closed captions. In other words, the DVD production values are strictly 3rd-rate...at best.


Fellow noir devotees, be not deceived, this is a stinker...poorly filmed, poorly acted and there is nothing...nothing here for the film buff looking for yet another solid B-movie from the goldmine of the 40's & 50's era of classics. I gave it a try based on the relatively high rating on IMDb. There's no accounting for taste, but I found nothing in this movie to recommend to other IMDb members. This is a classic example of having watched a movie and feeling like you have been cheated out of x number of minutes that it took the movie to get to its thankful demise. To have Alan Ladd on the cover of the DVD/tape is nearly fraud, he is on camera less than two minutes and has almost no dialogue! This isn't This Gun For HIre folks...it is a classic in the lousy sense of the studios cranking out fodder on no budget...We all search for the great ones... save your time on Gangs, Inc./Paper Bullets...it is lousy!


Someone should teach the people who made this movie that there is a difference between "presenting multiple twists" and "screwing the audience over". They even use hypnosis as a tool to cover up the plot holes; whenever they can't find their way into or out of a scene, they just say "she is regressing to her past now" or "she's snapping out of it now", and they think that explains everything. This movie is a dishonest cheat and in the last 20 minutes becomes a full-blown fiasco. (*1/2)


If this film is an accurate display of J. Smits acting skills, I think he made a big mistake leaving television. Hasn't he watched any films "starring" David Caruso, especially "Cold Around the Heart"? Along the lines of acting ability, what about Mary-Louise, she has done much, much better. Yes, it is a terrible script, ineptly edited, and totally lacking in continuity, but skilled actors can and have overcome similar obstacles. A very big disappointment.


A good cast... A good idea but turns out it is flawed as hypnosis is not allowed as evidence in courts. So many good actors and they are all acting so badly! So why did they all get attracted to this mess... And yes it has its good points such as lighting etc... But ultimately I wondered two things.... How could so much talent lead to such a bizarre mess? What is that accent that Nigel Hawthorne is putting on? He is/was a great actor and so what is that accent all about? It is impossible to identify? What was he trying to do? Maybe it is his subtle indication as if to say to us: 'I've got involved with a turkey so here's a crap accent to go with it!'


I have read a lot of books in my short lifetime but this is by far the WORST!!! I just got done reading this worthless piece of trash and when I finished it I threw it across the room! I hated it and let me state the reasons! 1.The soldier dies. Why would the author make the soldier die?! Why couldn't she have kept him alive like a good love story author would do?! I deeply applaud Patty for trying to claw that FBI agent's eyes out.

2.Ruth get's fired. Ruth (the black housekeeper) get's fired and for no apparent reason too! She tried to comfort Patty and then Patty's SOB dad fires her for no good reason! Ruth and Anton and Patty were the only bright spots in the book. Oh and the grandparents too! 3. The perm. Yes. The perm. Now you people might think why would the perm upset you? Well here's why. Patty's mom asks the girl if she wants her hair done. Patty says no but the mom calls Mrs. Reeves (the horrible hairdresser) and tells her to give Patty a perm. Why on God's green earth would she do that?! Why would a mother ask her daughter if she wants a perm only to have her get a perm anyway! The mom always pretends that Patty has a say when she dosen't have a say at all!!! She should be given the "Worst Mother of the Year Award" for the stuff she dose to Patty. Thank God Ruth cut her perm off! 4. Discrimination, Racisem, and Prejudious. I hate the discrimination in this book. They use the word *beep* too much. Yes.I know that in those days blacks were free but had basically no rights but come on! Why teach todays children that word! It just teaches them how to discriminate people. Not only were blacks discriminated but the Chinese too. In the book people refer to Mr.Lee (a Chinese man) as "The *beep* That is really despicable and last but not least... Jews and Nazies. I hate the town for spitting on a little girl. What was so wrong for her liking Anton. SHE IS A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL!!! It was just a crush. Like a 12 year old can really love a 22 year old. Come on! This isn't "Lolita". And "Lolita" is a good book not a piece of filth! I'm surprised that this movie isn't considered "dirty" like "Lolita" is.

5. Patty going to a reformatory. Patty should not have gone to that reformatory. Refirmitories are for thieves and murders, not innocent 12 year olds! The teacher or whatever she was called Patty an ungrateful, spoiled brat. Ungrateful spoiled brat my butt! Patty was not a spoiled brat because her father and mother never gave a rip about her! Patty should of got community service or something. She did nothing wrong. She just helped a friend.

6. Favortisem. The parents played favoritism with their children. Patty, their firstborn daughter is clearly the least favored while Sharon, the five year old brat is their favorite daughter. The dad says that he wanted to take Sharon to Hollywood but clearly forgets his other daughter.

7. The dad. I hated him! He was so mean Patty might as well had Hitler himself as her father. Her dad beats her for no apparent reason and the way he talks to her in the end will make you so mad you'll be caught thinking "Patty would get better treatment in a concentration camp".

Well there you have it folks. 7 reasons I hate this book. Instead of reading this book read "The Diaries of Anne Frank" or anything else because I warn you, it is very depressing and it will leave you really mad! The only reason it gets 4 stars is because of Anton, Patty, Ruth, and the grandparents!


I was forced to read this sappy "love story" between a German 24 year old POW and a 12 year old Jew. That has "political correctness" written all over it. Its kind of like the movie "SPIRIT" in which a horse wants to be free but those "evil" Americans wont let it because they need it. Well i have good news the Americans are "evil" in The German soldier and his summer book. Why!!! Horses where given to us by god and if the Americans needed a horse the can darn well use it. In the same sense the German had been trying to kill Americans, but this book/movie makes it seem OK! The casting is absolutely awful!!!!!!!!!!!! The girl is Hispanic the mother is white the dad it probubly from mostly white descent and the little sister is "shirley templish." The acting is pretty bad too, the serious parts become comedy! Concluson-Bad movie, bad book, but both have different endings, don't read or see either one!


Times I look back to high school and it amazes me that I never went lower than Marvin did in this BAD film.

Poor Marv is the main character who's bad luck just gets worse and worse. Despite his intelligence, he manages to get bullied, exploited, supports his lousy deadbeat Dad, and plenty more goof-ups including a daring heist which let's say doesn't go fully to plan. Of course, the viewer feels no empathy with anyone in this film, so all this disastrous gloom bounces off like harmless zeta rays. Recommended for those days you're feeling down, pop this film in and you'll smile and say, "I'm so glad I'm not Marv!"


drab morality tale about a high school kid who's pretty much the now-stereotypical nerd. He's smart, but has no friends, no social skills, and a lazy loser of a father who borrows money from HIM. A pretty girl hits on him(he should've known she wanted something-he's supposed to be smart, right?). She manipulates the poor desperate fool into writing her term paper on Shakespeare, which the teacher immediately knows she couldn't have written. He loses the girl(not that he ever really had her) the confidence of his teacher, and his college scholarship, all in one fell blow.

Marv is so silly and desperate for love that he decides to rob some heroin dealers who are running the stuff through the warehouse he works at. Then maybe the trashy little slut will be impressed and want to marry him. Sad, really sad. Marv is such a pathetic dope(and pretty brainless, for a supposedly smart guy. I mean, trying to rob drug dealers? Has this kid got a screw loose?) that you stop feeling sorry for him and get the dreadful urge to kick him in the butt, instead.

The girl, of course, tells her boyfriend about the robbery Marv boasted of to her, and talks him and his cronies into stealing the money from Marv and company. They try to do so, and in the process manage to shoot several people. The cops show up at the same time, and the idiot Marv is dragged away, a total disgrace forever. I know this thing was geared towards making teens behave themselves by showing them the consequences of bad behavior, but all it really illustrated was the consequences of stupid behavior. Which is the premature end of your film career, of course. Goodbye, Marv, we never really knew ya. And thank goodness for that.


This could have been so much better than it turned out. Tom Pittman gives a good performance and some of the older actors do well with what they have to work with, but it just doesn't work.

First, the actors are much too old to play high school students, especially Howard Veit (Vince). He looks about thirty. Second, it's hard to sympathize with poor Marv, especially since Betty is not all that hot, to start with.

*******Spoilers****** The ending is so strange. It looks like the director intended for Pittman's character to get shot, but there are no gunshots...he's just knocked to the cement, where he lays there until the ambulance drivers pick him up and place him on a stretcher (face down!). What were his injuries? A skinned knee? Goofy! Vince has just shot his girlfriend dead without any remorse whatsoever, yet he simply shoves Marv to the ground and rushes off, despite the fact that he makes no secret of the fact that he hates the kid. And to make matters even sillier, Marv begs the police to tell his father he's sorry. (Duh! Hey Marv. You just got knocked around. I think you will have plenty of opportunities to tell your father you're sorry...in person). And this writer didn't get an Oscar nomination? Skip it, unless you get to watch it on MST.


I saw the MST3K version of this film and it is a bad movie - but its not nearly as bad as its low IMDB rating (currently 1.8 out of 10). At least the movie has a few production values and it apparently had a competent editor (unlike the movies that truly are awful). The primary problem with this movie is that it had no appealing characters whatsoever. The main character, Marv, is so pathetically morose, that he practically asks for all the bad stuff that happens to him. And he isn't very smart either, or he would have figured out to stay away from the conniving girl Betty. And even more pathetic than Marv is his father, who is nothing but a drunken loser. The highlight of the film is the heist sequence at the end but even that is so weakly executed, any excitement it might have added to the film is completely missing. At least this movie made for a very funny MST3K episode, as Mike and the 'Bots do a great job making fun of it.


This movie reminded me a lot of a song by the Dead Kennedys called "Straight A's." However, unlike this film, the hero of the DK's song turns to suicide. You'll wish this bozo had resorted to killing himself instead of doing the crime he did. The whole thing was convoluted and in the beginning, you sympathize with the hero of the film, then he quickly betrays your sympathies. The long sequences of just showing the hero's face while he delivers a monologue drag the film down quite a bit. Avoid this if possible.


Make no mistake about, High School Bigshot is a bad movie.

High School Bigshot is about a geek who makes a plan to become rich and get the girl. However, he goes about it all wrong, and of course by the end of the movie ends up dead along with a few other people, thankfully including the girl.

The moral of the story is all women care about is wealth. Also for us men, I guess we're just supposed to accept we either "have it" or "we don't have it"!

I could easily see how this movie could be rated a 1, however it is above that of the very worst of movies. The acting's not totally horrible, and production values aren't ultra-terrible. Over all it's a bad movie and not worth viewing for many reasons. If you insist of course at torturing yourself, watch the MST version.

2/10 (maybe a 1.5/10)


If you like The Three Stooges you'll undoubtedly like this 17 minute short. There were certainly some amusing moments in it, but like all the Stooges' work, this revolves around their particular style of slapstick comedy, and I have to confess that somehow the Stooges just never really did it for me. Their slapstick always seemed angry rather than funny, and even though it was obviously fake, their antics always seemed more likely to cause hurt rather than to cause laughter. In this short, the slapstick revolves around the attempts to find Shemp (who is a Professor of Music in this) a wife, because he's just inherited half a million dollars on condition that he marry within 48 hours of the will being read. One of his students is interested, but once word of the inheritance gets out , there's suddenly a long line-up of potential brides, and a pretty good cat fight emerges between them. Fans of the Stooges will enjoy. For me, it has all the elements that drive me nuts about them. 4/10


Shemp finds out that he stands to inherit a million dollars IF he is married within 24 hours. Considering how hideous he looks and his personality, it isn't surprising that he can't get a taker--that is until an article appears in the paper explaining his predicament--at which point five crazed women appear from no where to claim their new hubby (plus the money, of course).

While I don't hate the Three Stooges and like to watch their shorts on occasion, they never, even on their best day, came close to the brilliant comedy of Buster Keaton. That's why I disliked this film, as it was a ripoff of the plot from Keaton's masterpiece, SEVEN CHANCES. With the Stooges it wasn't uncommon for Columbia Pictures to steal old comedy plots or just recycle older Stooge shorts. So, from the outset, this film is a pale imitation of an original. It's also obvious that this film lacks the charm and subtlety of the original and the gags generally seem very forced (paricularly the phone booth scene). The cousin Basil bit, however, was pretty cute and funny--though far from subtle! However, the worst aspect of the film was the not particularly funny conclusion. In the Keaton version, hundreds of women appeared to marry him and the action became very fast and furious--here, it all stayed in one small room and lacked comedic punch--ending in a fizzle.

Overall, a dull retread. Also, before marking this review "not helpful", be sure to FIRST see SEVEN CHANCES to see what I am talking about--then you decide.


I've read a lot of reviews on the IMDb (well, all five of the ones that have been written at the time that I'm writing this) and I'm surprised at the amount of praise heaped upon The Brideless Groom, which is undoubtedly one of the lesser comedies performed by the Stooges. I prefer the older ones where it was Larry, Curly and Moe, although Shemp gets credit for most of the funny scenes in Sing a Song of Six Pants, another Stooges short which is only moderately amusing but far superior to Brideless Groom. Indeed, there is a single slightly amusing scene in the film, the "don't-hit-a-lady" scene, which is barely amusing at all and is 15 minutes into the film. Not very promising in a 17-minute comedy.

Shemp is a voice trainer whose uncle has passed away and left him an inheritance of $500,000, provided he get married within 48 hours, which is short enough notice as it is, but by the time Shemp learns about it he has only 7 hours left. This is a premise that had been done and redone before, but was not, I don't think, a massive cliché at the time this film was made, as it is now. There are a series of gags throughout the film, none of which are even close to the level of comedy for which the Three Stooges are so widely known. It seems that the Stooges have run into the same troubles that plagued so many of Shirley Temple's films  there is too little reliance on content and too much reliance just on the fact that they're there.

The standard characteristics of the Stooges are here, Moe is the mean one, whose meanness is certainly not used sparingly in this film, and the slapstick sound effects (although with more exceptions than usual) are fairly amusing, but are plugged into their standard slots in this film. The line "Hold hands, you lovebirds" is immortal. The rest of the film is not.

There is much talk among the other people who have reviewed this movie for this site about this being one of the best of the Stooges shorts, that you won't find one weak moment, about how this is their best since the early 30s shorts. It's just not true. I can certainly understand a level of automatic respect for milestone classics and for the giants of early comedy, which the Three Stooges certainly are, but that respect is damaged when poorer films are praised more than they should be. The Brideless Groom deserves some respect because it is a Stooges film, but for exactly the same reason, it should have been better. The Three Stooges were just better than this.


This movie is everything but the true story of Phoolan Devi. Director Shekhar Kapoor's claims are countered by the fact that he made the entire movie without even once meeting Phoolan Devi, on whose life this movie is supposed to be based! The excuse being that meeting the woman would have interfered with director's conception of the story! The film wastes the opportunity of sensitizing the society of the plight of low-caste women in the Indian society and ends up as a stereotype portraying Phoolan Devi as an angry woman whose sole motivation is revenge. No wonder, this Shekhar Kapoor's film was successful in the west as it catered to their non-bollywood tastes!


As powerful as the true story of Phoolan is, this book this film is based on came out before she herself was released from Prison and had the chance to tell it.

It is allegedly based on her diaries but she is illiterate. How does that work?

That said, some areas of he film are accurate and the acting isn't bad, with some sensitivity being shown.

Really though this story needs to be old in a TV series. Far to much happens to cram into a couple of hours.

Read her autobiography. Highly recommended. It is a fantastic story.


Before I had seen this film, I had heard some negative comments about it. However, when watching it I found myself thinking "ok, it's a little slow-paced but this is quite interesting". As it built toward the end, it created a complex moral dilemma, leading to a shocking yet, within the context of the film, entirely believable decision with extremely powerful dramatic consequences. If this had been followed through, it would have been a tremendously powerful ending and would have given me a very favourable impression of the film.

However, due to an ending which not only cops out emotionally, tacking on an unnecessary happy-ish ending without real emotional credibility but also within the context of the film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for you clearly see one of the character take an action which should end her life but inexplicably doesn't. Incidentally, please tell me if I did miss something here and there is a reason why she survives as I just couldn't how logically she could have and this wrecked the whole film for me.

This said, all three leads put in powerful performances although Kevin McKidd's characters' transformation by the end goes a little further than is fully convincing and it does create a very powerful ethical triangle.

This film is recommended if you ready yourself to walk out when the mother and the sister are lying on the bed. But do not watch further than this unless you have only a pinch, but several mountains, of salt.


`AfterLife' is about a somewhat arrogant, reasonably wealthy man who discovers that his mother is dying, and finds himself looking after his sister, who has Down's Syndrome. He can't be bothered with her, and basically just wants to get her off his hands; he has better things to do. At one point he finds that he has to take her, by car (she doesn't like flying) across the country.

If that all sounds familiar to you, it is probably because you have seen `Rainman,' a film far superior to its imitator, `AfterLife.' That it copies the basic premise (heck, it nicks a few characters and even scenes too) is not the fundamental problem with the film. The fundamental problem is that I did not care about these characters.

The brother, Kenny (Kevin McKidd), is a bit of a womaniser. He has a girlfriend who comes and goes in the story, and who learns to like the Down's Syndrome sister (again, this is taken from `Rainman'). He is a journalist, trying to get an interview with a doctor who is facing a scandal. When he ends up looking after Roberta, the sister, he doesn't have much time for her, and sometimes leaves her alone for a little too long. When she wanders off, he becomes even angrier towards her. Am I spoiling anything by saying that he becomes a nicer, loving person by the end of the film?

Roberta is not determined to be 'normal'; she is 'normal,' and wishes people would stop treating her differently. She is played by Paula Sage, an actress who does have Down's Syndrome, and her performance is easily the best thing about the film; why did the screenwriter not explore her character more? Well, probably because that would mean the characters would get in the way of the story. When we surely already know the story anyway, didn't the filmmakers see the problem they were creating?

For a film about a dying mother and her handicapped daughter (the father is absent; I think he is dead, but I'm not sure), it is surprising how little impact the film has on the emotions of the viewer. The scenes are performed in such a standard, dull way, with such standard, predictable dialogue, that I found myself rolling my eyes.

I have nothing against sentimentality in films, but it only really works if you care about the characters. Here the characters are so uninteresting and two-dimensional that I didn't really think there was much to care about. `Rain Man' has an emotional climax, but that moved me, because I cared about the characters.

Talking of climaxes, this film has a stinker. There is sequence at the end of the film that starts off as an unbelievable situation and ends up in even worse territory; an unforgivably cruel trick is played on the audience. The sequence is designed to move the audience, but ends up being horribly manipulative and offending the intelligence of the viewer. Audiences aren't stupid, and they know when the film is cheating. What a cheap shot.

There is not one scene in this film that has the impact it should. There are a few sequences that are funny, yes, but when the characters talk to each other, I can practically see the screenplay in front of me, moving predictably and uninterestingly, never hitting anything that touches the mind or the heart. There are those phoney arguments that are reserved especially for the movies, where the other character knows exactly what the reply is. Why don't supposedly 'realistic' films not realise that, in real life, anger can be irrational, and sometimes people can't express their emotions, and they might say things that don't make sense, or not be able to say anything at all? All of the actors in this film deserve better material. This film is not based on fact, but I think a documentary on a family with a Down's Syndrome member would be much more interesting. That way, we might have had truth and emotion. For some reason the characters in this film think that an emotion only involves saying something loudly and making a suitable facial expression.

** (out of 5)


I love basketball and this seemed like an intriguing movie. However, in the first ten minutes of the movie I knew that it was going to be lousy. It was poorly acted and much too slow. On top of that it was very, very racist, sexist, antisemitic and homophobic. Sometimes putting in racial, ethnic and other types of slurs has a point, illustrating the bigotry that exists. In this movie there was no point to the horrible bigotry and no one learned from what was being said. Part of the problem is that it was an adaption of a play and a remake of a 1982 movie that dealt with a basketball team from the 1950's. Having this movie take place earlier in time would have made a little bit more sense. It didn't translate well to modern times and the writing was horrible. I don't know how the play was originally written but I can't believe that any movie as bad and as hateful as this one has made it to television and video in 1999. It was disgusting. Don't waste your precious time on this one.


-SPOILERS------------ I am a fan of 60's-70's french cinema but not necessarily of the more modern,so to be honest i watched this because of Bellucci.She is very young here,extremely beautiful and on top of this supposedly this movie is where they met with Cassel,so it gives it some extra importance.

The movie begins with a very nice style reminiscent of DePalma.Then suddenly we are thrown to flashback,and the back and forth goes on which gets tiring.I don't mind one flash back,but do it and get it over with man!!!Anyway,the movie is still interesting to me until a point when the first and definite hole in the plot,that allows for the rest of the story,never lets me enjoy the rest.I can allow for little holes here and there,but not to base an entire plot on hot air.This is the story of a man who is literally searching for an old flame.This is the main plot.I will go along,when the story at some point will convince me that there are really mysterious things going on,but in this story there's nothing really mysterious.Bellucci-Cassel are a couple ,then Bellucci urgently has to leave for some job in Italy(not the farthest place on earth from Paris)and she leaves him a message,which for reasons later explained he doesn't get.OK,so what?Don't these people have phones?Supposedly she was away for 2months(not a century exactly) and wouldn't she call her boyfriend in Paris to see how he's doing? Of course not.Instead,even after she gets back she forgets all about him.And thats fine,but later in the movie she tells her friend that it was her greatest love and was ready to commit for the first time in her life.Yet she failed to give him a call for 2months and then never tried to get back with him.And what about Cassel's character?He was supposedly unable to locate her in Italy,really hard to find someone in Italy,its probably like Siberia,especially an actress who is probably listed even in the arts papers.And after 2months when she would be back,really hard to find her and ask for an explanation. One thinks she wanted to avoid him,but no,we find out they simply couldn't meet.So hard to meet in Paris. OK,i don't need to go further,because this is the incident where the entire movie is based. What is even worse,Bellucci is not really the star of this movie but this other girl Bohringer is.


I admit to a secret admiration of the original Love Thy Neighbour TV shows - mostly because they exhibit the kind of exuberant brashness and bad taste synonymous with so many programmes of their era - but I'd be lying through my teeth (very uncomfortable position) if I pretended that this big-screen spin-off is anything other than an abomination. The opening scenes of wanton vandalism are not only pointless but baffling as well - it's never explained why the film opens with a tracking shot of people trashing each other's houses - and nothing improves from there. By the time the film unearths the oldest joke in the book - the horrible dragon of a mother-in-law turns up unexpectedly to stay - is followed by the crashingly obvious revelation that she's developing a soft spot for the black neighbour's father, moving her bigoted son to ever greater depths of self-righteous, ignorant rage, most discerning viewers will have switched off. Take that as a warning, unless you're keen on cheapskate spin-offs with terrible acting, static direction and the overall comic flair of a burning orphanage.


On the heels of the well received and beloved coming of age film classic ,concerning the lives of teenagers as they headed into adulthood, George Lucas' American Graffiti, we have Cooley High. An adaptation of sorts by one Eric Monte, co creator of the popular 1970's CBS sitcom Good Times.

Cooley High was, and is, viewed as a black version of American Graffiti.Instead of central California ,as in American Graffiti, we have the black slum of Chicago's Cabrini Green as the backdrop for the story here. Instead of America in 1962 Cooley High is situated in 1964.The movie stars Welcome Back Kotter's ,Lawrence Hilton Jacobs and Glynn Turman as the movie main protagonists and its' main characters. It has Garrett Morris playing the principal who tries to keep Jacobs' and Turman's characters,named Coceise and Preach, out of trouble a great deal of the time.

You know, I would like to say that Cooley High is a worthy comparison piece to American Graffiti or that it is a great film on its' own but I can't. The problem lies with the fact that the producers of the film couldn't or wouldn't hide the sad underside of black life in America.Having the film in the Cabrini Green part of Chicago doesn't help things.

Neither does the crass gross attempts at humor here. When Coceise is looking for a letter of intent from a college he finds his little brother has thrown down a toilet. When the gang visits the Chicago Zoo, one of the gang named Pooter, has manure thrown on him by an ape. When the Turman's character,Preach, is being chased by two hoodlums in the school hangout(A dirty and depressing place to eat food in much less meet people at), he opens the door of the girls' bathroom while a girl is relieving herself as he escapes through the window of the same bathroom! The high school, the homes of the characters, the bathrooms, just about everywhere in the film displays the unfortunate look of urban decay and poverty.

If that wasn't enough there was the rough display of humor in the film. The use of violence and profanity in the film. Cooley High may be an coming of age film ,but it is a hard and rough coming of age film with little or none of the wit and liking of the use of nostalgia that made people like and appreciate American Graffiti so much.

Motown Records had a hand in making the film. The company's music was part of the film's soundtrack. But even here you get a sense of same old same old as one has heard these songs before a million times over. Not that they weren't great songs within themselves but black music,of that time period was more than just Motown.Especially in Chicago. The song nearing the end of the movie, by the Spinners' G.C. Cameron, was not all that impressive. There have been better Motown ballads that have been done, by better Motown artists than Cameron without question.

The last part of the film showing where the characters went to pay homage to the film Cooley High aimed to be ,American Graffiti. It shows that Preach,an intelligent but underachieving student went to Hollywood and became a successful television writer. Eric Monte may have patterned himself as Turman's character. The last shot of film show's Preach running away from Coceise's funeral ,held on a dark rainy afternoon, and all the bleakness that Cooley High came to represent. Eric Monte ,through Preach and that final scene, had one little lesson for all of us when watching Cooley High and for the love of the past. Don't look back.


This was pretty inevitable. This movie borrows from "The Core" and from the film it borrowed from, "Armageddon", and the films it borrowed from and so on. Except this time there's Luke Perry too. This films version of the familiar save-the-world plot involves super-earthquakes beginning in the Pacific Northwest and extending too the whole ring of fire. Its soon determined that everybody on Earth just might be doomed. So the military and some scientists build one of those high-tech drilling machines to go inside the Earth and fix things (it just wouldn't be as much fun if they didn't have to go somewhere like space or inside the planet). There's even a line the tries to make the journey into the Earth sound more impressive than the journey into space (like the one in "Armageddon"). It's a Sci-Fi Network movie, so the script is paint by numbers disaster movie. There is in-fighting between scientists and military guys, there are rock-melting lasers, people die and sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and above all, there are (weak CGI) special effects. Not original and not all that entertaining. This is a movie to watch when you have nothing to do, particularly if you've got beer.


I'm a pretty tolerable guy, when it comes to movies, even B movies. I routinely watch some B movies for fun, and they can range from surprisingly good, to just downright awful. I usually set my expectations really low before watching these types of movies, and even after doing that, Descent was just downright awful. I really didn't mind that they were ripping off the Core to some extent, but they did absolutely nothing interesting with the material. Some scientists are worried about the earth's seismic activity, and must travel into the depths of the earth in order to stabilize the mantel. So what we get is a monotonously long set-up in which two dueling scientists played by Luke Perry and Rick Roberts have to work together on a top secret mission, named Project DEEP. The man in charge, General Fielding played by Michael Dorn, is secretly withholding vital information from Assistant Marsha Crawford, played by Mimi Kuzyk. Rounding out the cast is Natalie Brown who plays Jen, a mission specialist who created the "Mole" a drill which is used plunge into the depths of the Earth.

Other than some pretty good special effects, and set designs, nothing about Descent is worthwhile. The movie starts out fairly entertaining, but it gets bogged down quickly in a tiresome story about uncontrollable seismic activity, which has been done to death in other movies such as the Core. Descent also has a poor script, with useless, forgettable dialog between the characters. To make matters worse, there is literally no action, no real threat or danger. The attempts at comic relief are painfully unfunny. The plot has gaping holes and some of the subplots are left untied at the end leaving a bad taste in your mouth.

In closing this movie was just a cheap way for everyone involved to get a paycheck. There was no thought behind this movie, no innovation, it's just there. Other than some nice looking special effects, and set designs, this movie fails on every other level. The story is from the garbage can of Hollywood, and the characters are uninteresting to boot. Descent will simply descend you into boredom, and frustration. Avoid at all costs.


I just watched Descent. Gawds what an awful movie. Right off the bat they depict a lava geyser and a note says that it is miles below the the surface of Washington State. Folks, there are no geysers deep in the Earth like that. They thought it looked neat and in typical Hollywood style they threw it in. And then there is that well that spewed lava. He dropped a stone and I heard a splash. Steam would have erupted out of that well before a blast of lava could, if ever.

And the acting was pretty bad as well. Micheal Dorn has sunk to a new low in jobs.

What a dog of a movie. I bet the vote goes no higher than a 3.5

It didn't look like SciFi Channel spent too much other than to have pretty boy Perry as an attempt to draw.


Usual awful movie... I'll not bother you about the synopsis, just put together The Core, Armageddon, an evil-planner Military Officer and one or two Solve-All Nukes and you'll have the movie, if I can call it that way.

Seriously, nukes in this kind of movies are more useful than Swiss Army Knives:

the Big One is approaching? Nuke some places and it's over... A tornado wants to destroy "Insert important city name here"? Nuke "Insert another important city here"... A volcano is erupting? Nuke it! A nuke is near to go off? Nuke it! Coffee is cold? Nuke it! You didn't like Transformers? Nuke yourself, but I can't assure this will fix things...

In the end, how many more movies like this can be made before they start copying one another? I doubt there are still many things to blow up with a nuke...


This movie's script is indistinguishable from others, most notably The Core, another bad movie. It's pretty clear why Luke Perry doesn't get much work, but to see the beloved Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn) resigned to something like this is just sad.

I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.

Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on.


This movie is a great movie ONLY if you need something to sit and laugh at the stupidity of it. As a geologist this movie gets most of the important facts wrong and uses actors that are too young to even be considered in the top of their fields. It is interesting how it shows spurting lava in massive caverns below the Earth's surface. It also is funny how seismically active areas are shown to have massive destruction from a 6.5 magnitude earthquake. They seem to forget the building standards in these areas would be higher needing a bigger quake to do this much damage. Also it is funny how much they make the coast line of Washington State and also Oregon to look as though they are nice beaches of Southern California. The Jelly donut analogy is very entertaining even if the way it is used is wrong. The director does a good job of adding more comic relief with the 2 "supossed" PhD's.