This picture hit the movie screens on June 6th 1980, starring Stephen Macht as Sergeant Thor, Avery Schreiber as Captain Comelius Butt, J.D. Hinton as Buzz and starring Playmate of the year Dorothy Stratton. The picture starts with the police infinity roaming space looking for I guess criminals. There ship is suddenly attacked by an unknown space ship. Enters Sergeant Thor and his partner Buzz as they try to figure out who the unknown ship belongs to. When failing they call on Captain Comelius who instructs his crew to fight back. Enters the gorgeous Dorothy Stratton, who plays the role of Galaxina who is man made robot. An now a few thoughts on this picture. This movie was plan stupid and it's one of the reasons that I don't get into Sci-Fi. If you're into Sci-Fi you would have notice that the laser sound effects were borrowed from an early Sci-fi movie titled Battlestar Galactica which aired in theaters in 1978. Many of the door sounds that you hear in this movie came from another Sci-Fi movie that aired back in 1966 titled Star Trek. Now for the reason that I bought this movie, Dorothy Stratton. She is gorgeous in her one piece suit. I think her talents were wasted in this picture and she should have never been involved in such garbage. Connie Sellecca was also considered for the role and her talents would have been wasted also. On the picture alone I give this movie 1 weasel star and on Dorothy Stratton I give her 10 weasel stars even though she didn't deserve to be put into a trash movie like this. If you like pictures like this you can get the DVD version on Amazon.com


I have yet to watch STARCRASH (1979) - that notoriously cheesy Italian take on STAR WARS (1977) - but it can't be much worse than this misbegotten piece of junk which, suffice it to say, makes Mel Brooks' so-so SPACEBALLS (1987) look like a veritable work of art! In fact, the main reason why GALAXINA is remembered at all nowadays is because of the tragic fate which befell its leading lady - Playboy centerfold Dorothy Stratten who was killed by her insanely jealous estranged husband - before the film had even had its official premiere!

Although Statten (who subsequently had two biopics made about her wherein she was portrayed by Jamie Lee Curtis and Mariel Hemingway) plays the title role, for the first half of the film she is reduced to being propped up in a chair ostensibly driving a spaceship on a 27-year journey to some planet or other; in fact, Galaxina is an all-purpose android who also serves the wacky crew their snacks, gets them all hot under the collar and even goes scouting for the Blue Star (cue choral music) once they land! Having said that, Statten certainly looks luminous in her white attire and, even if her role hardly demands much exertion of any acting talent she might possess, it's not exactly demeaning either.

Still, it's ironic that for a film which bears her name, she is overshadowed by the campy and would-be zany antics of her fellow crew members, especially the annoying Captain Cornelius Butt (which gives you the idea of the level of comedy on display here), a long-eared, wing-sporting colored guy, a pot-smoking, proverb-quoting old Chinaman and, best of all (relatively speaking) a foul-mouthed, rock-eating, hairy alien creature they hold prisoner. The villain of the piece is a metal-clad non-entity who does, however, have the best laugh in the film when, upon hearing the choral music following his every mention of the Blue Star, exclaims, "What is this s**t?" There is little point in listing the sci-fi classics which are mauled by this stinker in its ludicrous attempts at spoofing the genre since they are not only lame but obvious; incredibly enough, a chest-busting but ultimately benign alien is apparently played by diminutive Hollywood veteran, Angelo Rossitto!

For what it's worth, then, the scenes shot on the planet they visit (which looks more like a Western set than a planetary landscape) have a yellowish, sun-like hue and its inhabitants are 'human gourmets' (delicacies on their menu include Skin and Tonic, Scotsman on the Rocks, Thigh Pies, Baked Alaskan, etc), not to mention a motorcycle gang who serve their own particular deity (the Harley Davidson) and when our heroes escape on the back of it, they dare not shoot at them for fear of hitting their "Lord". God(awful) indeed...


I've seen worse films. This is bad but at least doesn't try to be good so it deserves a brief round of applause. It rest firmly in the realms of the low-budget B-movie sci-fi genre.

It is a rubbish film but in a nice way and is certainly worth buying if it's in the bargain bin at your local supermarket. Awfully charming rather than just plain awful.

The highlight for me is when Galaxina's lover goes to rescue her. Upon turning up she exclaims "Bunnyfluff!" which draws sniggers from his co-pilot.

Sit back, get drunk, enjoy!


I'm not a movie snob. I've liked lots of movies that critics hate, and I've hated movies that critics love. However, I have to agree with critics here--"Galaxina" is just substandard. Clearly intended to be a comedy, it only has a few scattered laughs. "Galaxina" has poor photography; it has poor special effects; it has some pretty poor acting; and the production values...well, the sets might as well have been made of cardboard.

"Galaxina" tells the story of a spaceship whose crew is looking for a magical object called "The Blue Star". After a long voyage (and some very unconvincing space battles), the crew arrives at its destination, a sort of wild west alien world. There's a painfully unfunny cantina scene (clearly designed to be a spoof of the famous "Star Wars" scene), a chase involving space bikers, and a final getaway.

The cast tries, but can't breathe life into this turkey. Stephen Macht and Avery Schreiber have done better work in other movies. James David Hinton is pretty good as a member of the spaceship's crew. The late Dorothy Stratten stars as the robot of title, and while she looks great, her role doesn't give her much of a chance to act.

You might catch this film to see Dorothy Stratten. However, if you're looking for a good movie, you'll probably want to skip this one.


This is not the worst movie I've ever seen. I did not feel like I wanted to remove my eyeballs forcibly after watching Galaxina. It just is not good. The jokes are almost funny, but fall short. All of them. The few gags that come close are beat back down by repeating them over and over. The production values are, well, non-existent. The sound is bad, the lighting is bad, ... it just seems cheaply made; overly so. The dialog ... well, often it is missing - many awkward silences; they are all just standing around, and it seems like someone should be saying something. The film even seems ambivalent about what it wants to be - it is not always clear that it was intended as a comedy - like maybe that developed after shooting started. It feels like someone's film project that they threw together the night before it was due, and if they had put two weeks into it, it could have been good.

And I'm easy to please. I thought "Mom and Dad Save the World" was a hoot. I like "Pluto Nash". "Mystery Men" is one of my favorite movies. "Spaced Invaders" is well nigh unto a classic. This turkey just doesn't do it. "Space Truckers" was more believable.

Avery Schreiber, who can be very funny, tries too hard. His part calls for a straightman, and he plays it leaning toward sitcom. Dorothy Stratten is OK in her role, but not particularly noteworthy.

Oh, yeah, the "My watch is always slow." line was funny. I'll give this movie all the kudos it can get, it needs it.

The space vehicle models are not bad, but they are few and are not used effectively. The space scenes are vague. No sweeping passes, no close up detailed fly-bys, not even appropriate action scenes when they dock. (The Infinity does crash land very oddly at one point.) The flight dynamics are terrible; worse than anything you've seen, they're jerky, not smooth. The initial battle is stilted and static; even though the two ships have just shown that they can maneuver in their jerky fashion, they trade (slow) shots at close range in a manner that is more reminiscent of a 16th century sea battle, except not as exciting.

The aliens - imagine if all of Star Wars was the cantina scene. That many rubber masks could get dull rather rapidly, no? A few are used as sight gags that work OK the first time, but not the fifth.

Mercifully, if you attempt to watch Galaxina, you are likely to fall asleep. (I got busy doing something else and missed the last ten minutes, and did not feel like it was worth replaying it. If that doesn't say "It sucked", I don't know what does.) Sadly, there is a lot of potential, and this could easily have been a good movie. It would be easy to remake this and have a decent film.

MadKaugh


The odd thing about Galaxina is not that it is supremely bad, although it is. The odd thing is that in spite of being supremely bad, it is not funny. Supremely bad movies have their own particular brand of unintended humor--the secret of their success, you might say. But Galaxina is quite uniquely different--it is MST3K's worst nightmare, a bad movie in which the intentional *and* the unintentional humor alike fall flat.

It is easy enough to figure out why the intentional jokes fail--and the reasons are quite varied. Sometimes it's a timing question; sometimes it's a good idea badly worked out (the human restaurant *could* have been hilarious, but it wasn't); sometimes it feels like there was some mixup in the cutting room, with the punchline ending up on the floor; and sometimes the jokes are just bad jokes. Bad movies get their laughs from such unintentional snafus. It's harder to figure out why Galaxina doesn't get any laughs on that count. Something is subtly wrong with the unintentional humor in this movie, just as something is wrong (not at all subtly) with the intentional humor. It is a supremely bad movie whose very badness is not the redeeming quality it usually is. It's absolutely unique in my experience.


If ever there was a film that can be considered a missed opportunity then that film is Galaxina. What could possibly be wrong in basing a sci-fi film around a sexy statuesque female android? Surely such a film could never be a complete waste of time? Well, sadly this movie is pretty close to useless. There are a number of faults with this production it has to be said, however, there are two basic problems that entirely destroy the whole enterprise. Firstly, this is a comedy with no funny bits at all, or at the very least a film where the potentially amusing aspects are presented in an incredibly unamusing way. Secondly, the title character is woefully underused. This may be because Dorothy Stratten was not really an actress but if so it was a terrible decision as she is still easily the best thing about the film. I don't think she really needed to be a great thespian to pull off the role of a sexy android to be perfectly honest. Anyway, what we are left with is a whole lot of mind-numbing comedy relief, which often is made up of hopeless spoof-type gags of the big sci-fi hits of the time such as Alien, Star Wars and 2001. It's badly written and not funny at all, and it doesn't even really have a plot to propel things along. The story basically is about a police space-cruiser that is sent to get a rock. That's it! Steven Spielberg once said that a high-concept movie was one whose plot line could be described in one sentence. What he didn't define was what you call a movie that can be described in less than a sentence - pointless maybe?

This seemed like a sure-fire winner to me but it failed miserably. It seems to have been an attempt to spoof Star Wars and combine it with adult comedy situations. All it does actually achieve is to leave you cold and a little irritated that it wasn't close to what it should've been. A Barbarella for the 80's this ain't.

Shortly after this film was finished Dorothy Stratten was murdered in an appallingly violent and horrific way. And for that reason Galaxina has derived a considerable amount of it's cult interest. I just think it's a great shame that Dorothy didn't have a better film left to immortalise her.


How can ANYBODY give this anything higher than a '1'?

I thought "Manos, the Hands of Fate" would forever be the worst movie ever to impinge itself upon my optic nerve. Indeed, I didn't think anything COULD be worse.

I was wrong. "Galaxina" is that rare movie where EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of it is achingly, agonizingly, blindingly bad. How often have you watched a movie and commented, "Who the hell LIT this thing?" From lighting to soundtrack to effects to script to acting to cinematography to . . . well, EVERYTHING, this movie is absolutely unendurable. It's so bad, I couldn't even tell for some time if it was the worst comedy or the worst drama I'd ever seen.

It's too bad even to be laughable. I'd sooner eat a platefull of broken glass than sit through it again.


I am giving this movie Vampire Assassins a "2" rating mainly because it had no sex or nudity. Other than that, I am not sure why it was ever made. It was more like a training exercise in how to make a movie with a very limited budget. The characters Derek and Slovak were the best actors. They were followed closely by the "biker-Dude" with the Pleather pants and silver belt. He was OK too. Most of the movie was filmed in some kind of distribution warehouse. If you got tired of watching the kung-fu kick boxing stunts, you can check out the packages of Scott tissue, Windex and other cleaning products. You will have a lot of time to do this, trust me. I almost started to make a list. The dialogue and kung-fu stunts were extremely slow. They talked slow, fought slow, etc. I don't know why. At least with the extra-slow delivery of the actors lines, you could hear everything very distinctly. I am trying hard to find good stuff to say about this movie. We watched it all the way to the end to see if got any better, but it didn't. We never could decide if the actors really knew martial arts or were just acting like they knew martial arts. You can watch yourself and decide. My favorite line was something like (vampire speaking:) "what are you looking at?" other man responding: "your bad dental work."


When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.

What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.

The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.

The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.

The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.

Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett


Mixing small town sheriffs, high-school students, fake rock music, and some weirdo who kills for, well, no reason in particular, this film is essentially a re-make of "The Giant Gila Monster" - except without the gila monster, of course.

Now, anyone who has actually seen "Giant Gila Monster", knows that it is one of the worst made films of all time, frequently so slow, it's not even funny. And I can't believe that by 1967, "Giant Gila Monster" had earned such a reputation that young directors were just dying to get to work on a sequel, let alone a remake. So will someone please explain to me why this film was made?! The dance sequence, by the way, is historically interesting, although about three years out of date; but even that's spoiled, since it goes on... and on... and... on....


Imagine what it must have been like for John Agar. One of Hollywood's handsome leading men. Married to Shirley Temple for five years. He finds himself doing movies like this. I remember him in "Tarantula" where he wasn't half bad. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend this film. The monster is dumb uninteresting and incompetent. The police are boring. The teenagers are boring. The plot is stupid. People run around. There are events that do nothing to advance the plot. There's dancing that goes on and on, and then there is no attack. There is some idiotic love triangle that no one could care the least about. It isn't even campy or outrageous. It's just no worth anything. Agar might as well have been a post. He's given nothing to do.


There is one adjective that describes everything about this film - acting, plot, effects, continuity, etc. - and that word is poor. The government wants to asses the effects of space travel on certain organisms but the capsule crashes and a mutant something-or-other (looks like a guy in an ape suit with the top of a football helmet over his face) wreaks havoc around the accident scene, which includes a favorite place for the window-fogging, partying set. Therefore, some young people - as well as a law enforcement officer - are among the creature's victims. You gotta be extremely unparticular about how you spend your time - or rich, if you spend any money - to view this epic.


This one isn't even lively enough to be fun. Something is out there, ripping people off (off-screen) after a spaceship crash (off-screen) while government executives investigates (off-screen) and bad actors says stupid lines (on-screen), including a guy who looks like Jim Carrey with a hangover. The "monster", when it finally is shown, looks like an extra from "Robot Monster", but there ain't enough monster fu anyway.

Fortunately, it's pretty short. Skip it, unless you want to get bored out of your skull by this


I am a fan of bad horror films of the 1950s and 60s--films so ridiculous and silly that they are good for a laugh. So, because of this it's natural that I'd choose this film--especially because with John Agar in it, it was practically guaranteed to be bad. Sadly, while it was a bad film, it was the worst type of bad film--dull beyond belief and unfunny. At least with stupid and over-the-top bad films, you can laugh at the atrocious monsters and terrible direction and acting. Here, you never really see that much of the monster (mostly due to the darkness of the print) and the acting, while bad, is more low energy bad...listless and dull.

The film begins with some young adults going to Satan's Hollow to neck. Well, considering the name of the place, it's not surprising when they are later found chewed to pieces! Duh...don't go necking at Satan's Hollow!! Well, there are reports of some sort of crashing object from the sky, so what do the teens go? Yep, throw a dance party--a very, very, very slow dance party where the kids almost dance in slow motion. So it's up to the Sheriff (Agar) and his men to ensure that the teens can dance in peace without fear of mastication.

As for the monster, it's some guy in a gorilla suit with a silly mask--a bit like the monster in ROBOT MONSTER. Not exactly original and not exactly high tech. To make it worse, it makes snorting noises and moves very, very slowly--so slow that even the most corpulent teen could easily outrun it! How it manages to kill repeatedly is beyond me.

Overall, too dull to like--even if you are a fan of lousy cinema.


Okay it is terribly, and I mean terribly, easy to pick apart this film. C'mmon what do you expect with the title, synopsis, and actors in leads such as Carol Gilley, Ralph Baker Jr., Dorothy Davis, Bill Thurman, and, my personal favourite, Roger Ready. Yes, B star John Agar is here as a sheriff out to rid the Texan landscape of a robot-like ape from a NASA experiment gone awry. The movie has dreadful performances, dreadful scenery, dreadful special effects, and dreadful lighting. I really cannot find much good to say about it other than as bad films go you could do a lot worse as far as finding something dreadful to sit through. It is bearably short and has many moments of unintended humor. Missed cues, lighting faux pas, off-screen terror, an unbelievably inane score, and of course John Agar trying his level best to be the core of the film with an earnest performance amidst this muck. The beginning is the hardest part to sit through as it seems like it takes forever for these two teens to get their comeuppance for traveling in the woods down the Texas back roads where great ape soon will reek his vengeance in his own terrible way...Yeah right! Night Fright! Bah!


What? - that was it? The town sheriff (John Agar) blows up the mutant gorilla with a stick of dynamite hidden in a mannequin? Did I just write that? Did I just see that?

With instrumentals by The Wildcats, "Night Fright" is one flick that never deserved to be made as late as 1967. The heyday of the gorilla was well over, and anyone other than Ray Corrigan in an ape suit is just asking for trouble. Remake this in black and white and set the story about thirty years earlier and you'd have at least a 4.0 rating on the IMDb. But sadly, this one never should have stood a chance of seeing the light of day. Oops, there's another quirk - you can never tell if it's day or night in the story, since they seem interchangeable with one another.

I'll give you this though, a couple of the early malt shop scenes looked like they could have gone on the air as Coke commercials. Thinking about it now, those were probably the best looking and best lit scenes of the picture; Coca Cola must have paid for them. Had they seen the completed movie, they might have been better served to prevent it's release.


This movie was painfully awful. Most of the movie consisted of people running in the woods, walking thru the woods, or dancing in the woods. More than half, at least. Then two kids who discover two 'horribly mutilated bodies' in the woods, return to the woods the very next night for a romantic walk. ????? There is no time continuity. its day, its night, its day, its really really night, its dusk, its pitch black, its day. All the woods scenes go on like this until you think you will lose your mind. really bad. The sheriff discovers a five foot claw print embedded in the dirt of the woods and theorizes that a super large alligator may have learned to walk upright. Really a silly movie with no real motivation written in for the characters. Might be entertaining for young kids, as an alternative to really graphic stuff.


This cheap and rubbish film is about a NASA test rocket that is sent into space with a cargo of animals. It vanishes for a while then unexpectedly returns, crash landing in a forest, unleashing a vicious mutant creature.

Like many films of this type, Night Fright, features dumb teenagers boogieing on down to 60's surf music before being killed. None of the murders, however, are even remotely memorable, as we don't really see anything. One thing we do see, however, is that one of the teenagers appears to be about 40 years old and sports a quite impressively silly haircut.

For a creature feature to work, it really has to present its monster to the viewer properly. In this film, however, we only get the briefest glimpses of the monster. It seems to sort of resemble the alien from Robot Monster. But I'm not sure; as the photography was so dark I simply couldn't make out what the hell was going on a lot of the time. Although, my gut feeling was that I probably wasn't missing very much.


When a rocket from a government experiment on the effects of cosmic rays on animals crashes in a small Texas town, people start to die. The county sheriff tries to investigate but is hampered in his efforts by other government officials. It turns out that there is a mutant space gorilla on the loose killing teenagers in the woods.

I like low budget science fiction and horror movies. I like monster movies. So I thought that there would be a good chance that I would like this movie. Sadly, I didn't.

I don't mind the bad acting, the corny dialog, the atrocious musical score or the giant plot holes that this movie has. There are a lot of movies that have the same problems that I have seen and enjoyed in a so bad it's good kind of way.

But where others of that type and Night Fright differ is that Night Fright just has terrible pacing. And it drags on because of that. There are scenes that just go on and on without anything happening-the searching the woods for clues is just people walking in the forest for a long time; there are several seemingly endless dancing teens at a party in the woods...but nothing interesting is going on. If these scenes were shorter, the movie might not have been as boring (though I don't think simply cutting those scenes would save this one).

I have now given this movie three viewings to make sure that I gave it a chance before slamming it in this review. Sadly, it has gotten worse with each watch. There won't be a fourth.


"A Texas community is beset with a rash of mysterious killings involving some of the students from the local college. The sheriff investigating the death discovers the startling identity of the killer responsible for the murders. A NASA experiment involving cosmic rays has mutated an ape and turned it into an unstoppable killing machine with a thirst for blood," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Or, could the creature really be a mutated alligator returning from a space-bound "Noah's Ark"?

A long opening, with laughably straight 1960s couple Ralph Baker Jr. (as Chris) and Dorothy Davis (as Judy), suggests "Night Fright" might be a joyously bad movie; but, don't get your hopes up. After some innocent cavorting, the attractive collegiates discover another couple has encountered a monster; naturally, the creature is hell-bent on terrorizing young romantics. Sheriff John Agar (as Clint Crawford) isn't trusted by the younger set; but, he really wants to help.

Mr. Agar was a friend of my aunt; he spoke about very few movies, and this wasn't one of them.


Okay, When I bought this flick I though this gotta be the ultimate b-movie, space monkey landing to the Earth and starts right away to kill people!

Well, It was almost everything what I expected, typical low-budget scifi movie from the 60's. Acting has to be the worst I've ever seen, especially the girl playing the lead role and the girl that played the waitress made me laughing my ass off.

So why 'Night Fright' doesn't fall in to category 'so bad that it's good'? Reason why is that some of the scenes were just too long and boring. For example the scene were the police officers are searching clues in the woods it was just minutes of walking without purpose. And then the grand finale, the people's waiting for the monster about 5 minutes and when the space monkey appears it get wack'd in 20 second, end of film.

Yeah, 'Night Fright' is boring, but it got couple of funny moments. I can recommend this movie to all who liked films like 'Zontar, the Thing from Venus' or 'Curse of the Swamp Creature'.

I give 'Night Fright' 4 Space Monkey slaps out of 10..

-Rob Gruesome-


Rivalry between brothers leads to main story line. Navy Commander Chuck Prescott(Marshall Thompson)has developed the Y12 aircraft to test how far man can go up in the atmosphere. His brother, Lt. Dan Prescott(Bill Edwards), seems to be the best test pilot around and is chosen to go up in the Y12. Dan of course has a problem with taking orders and is also an over confident dare devil.

On Dan's second flight, he hits over the 300 miles up comfort zone and his craft passes through a meteor dust storm. Returning to earth, Dan becomes a monster that resembles 200 pounds of bad asphalt. He also has a demanding craving for blood, whether it be from farm animals or fellow human beings.

Short runtime of an hour and seventeen minutes; black & white with near stoic acting...typical of low budget sci-fi.

Rounding out the cast is Marla Landi, Robert Ayers and Carl Jaffe. Noteworthy trivia: about two months after this film was released; the Russians put the real first man in space.


Lame rip-off of THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955): the first half is deadly dull, even dreary - but the latter stages improve considerably with the scenes involving the rampaging 'monster'. In the accompanying featurette (a rather dry affair at a mere 9 minutes, when compared to the ones created for the other titles in Criterion's "Monsters & Madmen" set), director Day - who admits to not being a fan of the sci-fi genre - tries to justify the film's shortcomings by saying that he had a zero-budget to work with (where all the outer space scenes were composed of stock footage!)...and I'd have been inclined to be more lenient with the film had I not recently watched CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - a similar (and similarly threadbare) but far more stylish venture from Italy!

Bill Edwards as the cocky but unlucky astronaut - obsessed with achieving the titular feat - is positively boring at first, but he eventually manages to garner audience sympathy when his physical features are deformed and the character develops a taste for blood! Marshall Thompson as his commanding officer and elder brother is O.K. as a leaner Glenn Ford type; he had previously starred in FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958), another (and more successful) Richard Gordon-produced sci-fi which, incidentally, is also available on DVD through Criterion. Italian starlet Marla Landi, struggling with the English language, makes for an inadequate female lead; even her input in the featurette proves to be of little lasting value!

The Audio Commentary is yet another enjoyable Tom Weaver/Richard Gordon track where, among many things, the fact that FIRST MAN INTO SPACE was intended as a double-feature with CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) is brought up - but it was eventually put out as a standalone release, so as to exploit the topical news value of the current space race; it's also mentioned that the monster dialogue was actually dubbed by Bonar Colleano (who, tragically, died in a traffic accident prior to the film's release!). Weaver even recalls a couple of anecdotes from the time when he was involved in the production of the DVD featurette shot by, of all people, ex-cult-ish film-maker Norman J. Warren: Landi, who by then had become a lady of title, was still ready to help out in carrying the equipment necessary to film the interview down several flights of stairs!; Edwards was supposed to have contributed to the featurette but, once in London, he proved reluctant to co-operate with Weaver - eventually, the latter learned that the actor had been recently diagnosed with cancer and, in fact, he died in 2002!


Sheltered young woman, home-schooled and possibly quite gifted, harbors a disturbed, overly-emotional side which comes to the surface after her absentee father pays her mother a visit, asking for a divorce. Directed by celebrated cinematographer William A. Fraker, this ill-titled psychological thriller falls into the trap that most films helmed by directors of photography find themselves in: each shot is composed for the utmost style, but at the sacrifice of fluid pacing and a tight, gripping narrative. Fraker (and his cinematographer, László Kovács) are very fond of gauzy whites and golden tones, giving the picture a burnished, tableaux feel. The mansion at the center of the action looks like a funeral parlor, and Fraker paces the wheezing yarn just like a funeral. Robert Shaw and Sally Kellerman (as Shaw's fiancée), two of the most interesting actors of the 1970s, manage to cut through the plastic overlay and are quite compelling despite the jagged editing (which turns their scenes into little bits of half-realized business). Sondra Locke, another interesting screen personality, seems cast for her resemblance to Catherine Deneuve in "Repulsion". Pale and saucer-eyed, with imposingly thick and long hair, Locke is a curious human puzzle, and she's initially quite intimidating and dangerous; however, this role is so old-hat that Locke can find nothing fresh to bring out of the deep freeze, and she flounders. Fraker allows Locke's freak-out scenes to go on and on, while Shaw (looking terrifically debonair) is put in the impossible position of playing touchy-feely daddy to her. All of this nonsense might be worth slogging through if the screenplay had been peppered with a modicum of tangibility (or, at the very least, some dry wit or humorous relief). As it is, Lewis John Carlino and Edward Hume's limp script, adapted from Stanton Forbes' novel "Go To Thy Deathbed", strands the viewer early on, and only the charisma of the players gets us to the finish line. *1/2 from ****


First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.

This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.

If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.

Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.


I saw this DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting.


John Knowles modern masterpiece, A Separate Peace, are one of many subtle, and subtly is the watch word, themes of love, hate, jealously, denial and regret. The 1972 version does attempt to address this style and what the book is - A love story with war looming in the background.

The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel - is a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.

I did not like this remake for more reasons. The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.

Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.

The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.


This movie was not very well directed. they almost totally disregarded the book.I guess they were trying 2 save time. the only upside 2 me was that the actor who played finny was cute. Some of the dialog between the main characters appeared a little gay which was not the case in the book. Major parts of the book were once again chopped out.You lost the over all effect it was not as haunting as the book and left me lacking severely. Also the strong language although it was brief was very unnecessary. Also i was surprised ( not pleasantly) by a new character that was no where in the book.One of my favorite characters (leper) was poorly interpreted and portrayed. He seemed more sinister in the movie than the real leper was in the book. Over all disappointing.


I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.

I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.

Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.

People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it.

Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer.


I really don't know if this was supposed to be science fiction or horror. It was confusing to say the least. What really upset me, however, was the lack of story development between the characters.

The Sheriff's (Bruce Boxleitner) 17-year-old daughter (Clara Bryant) is stuck with him for the summer, and they don't spend 30 seconds on screen together at any one time.

The hot Native American (Jennifer Lee Wiggins) apparently has the hots for the Sheriff, but they don't spend any time together either.

The hot secretary (Kristen Honey) ends up dead and she had more acting ability than the other two put together.

The bad developer vs. the Native Americans is an overused story, but I personally like evil developers getting theirs as I live in Florida.

The only reason I stayed with this was the creature. It was original. I have never seen anything like it and I am a sucker for new creatures.


In Sweet Water, the ambitious entrepreneur Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is constructing a resort in the middle of the desert under the protest of the Katonahs. When three workers find some Indian relics and bones in a ditch in the site, they accidentally release the giant skeleton like creature known as Bone Eater and their bones are devoured by the monster. The half-breed Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) a.k.a. Running Wolf is in charge of the investigation of the disappearance of the workers, being pressed by Krantz to arrest the protesters. But the Bone Eater attacks and kills other locals, while Chief Storm Cloud (Michael Horse) seeks an ancient Tomahawk capable of destroying the evil creature.

"Bone Eater" is a lame and silly movie, with one of the most ridiculous screenplay I have ever seen. The characters and situation are not well-developed and things happen without any further consequences. The conclusion is probably the worse part in this flick, with the typical white North American Bruce Boxleitner dressed like an Indian (in the story, his grandfather was an Indian), cutting his own wrist (why? And where is the blood later?) and clumsily throwing the axe in the chest of the Bone Eater, destroying the monster and my last hope of any improvement in the story. My last question: if the Bone Eater eats bones, what happens to the flesh and clothes of his victims? My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "O Devorador de Ossos" ("The Bone Eater")


....OK, small-town, clueless sheriff? Check. Sheriff's hot daughter? Check? Ne'er-do-well boyfriend of sheriff's hot daughter, whom sheriff hates? Check. Corporate land developer who greedily puts profit over people? Check. Developer's rank-and-file accidentally unleashing a primordial monster, then being pressured to cover it up? Check. Natives warning of mass death and destruction if things are not returned back to the way they were? Check. Amateurish CGI special effects that could have been produced by a Commodore 64 computer? Check. Seriously, virtually all the clichés of your typical Sci-Fi Original movie have been lumped into a classic, so-bad-it's-good movie. The only one that's missing is the scientist/expert trying to impart his knowledge; there is a paleontologist with three students who get ambushed my The Bone Eater fairly early in the movie, but they are basically extras in the movie. And I can honestly say that I predicted virtually all of this; right down to who survives and who doesn't (though I have to say I got the actual death time of one of the characters wrong by about an hour). I swear I could have done this movie myself if they gave me all the characters. Despite all this, the movie is fun to watch, if for no other reason than to play MST3K with your friends. If you're up for some mindless fun, it's a great movie to watch, which is why I give this movie a surprisingly respectable 4, even though for all intents and purposes it deserves a much, much lower rating. But then again you wouldn't tune in to a SciFi Original movie if you were looking for a movie with an actual plot, substantive characters or good special effects, would you?


Bone Eater is set in a small desert town in Alabama where property developer Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is financing the building of a huge resort. Late one night three of his workers Riley (Timothy Starks), Hansen (Adrian Alvarado) & Miller (Paul Rae) are digging foundations in the desert when they unearth what looks like a tomahawk axe, unfortunately for them an ancient Native American demon called the bone eater comes along & kills them. Local Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) soon has Krantz breathing down his neck as the construction of his resort grinds to a halt, Sheriff Evans also has to deal with the bone eater demon as it kills anyone it comes across...

You know I consider myself a fairly big fan of the horror & sci-fi genre, I certainly don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (unlike many here on the IMDb...) but please believe me when I say that Bone Eater is the worst Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' I have ever seen & it's up against some damned strong competition. As a horror & sci-fi fan there are two names that when involved with a film send shudders down my spine in anticipation of how bad it will turn out, those names are Jesus 'I have no talent' Franco who had nothing to do with Bone Eater & Jim Wynorski who directed the absolute disaster that is Bone Eater. In fact Bone Eater is so bad Wynorski hid under the pseudonym Bob Robertson, when a director as bad as Wynorski hides under a pseudonym you know the film must be bad. Where do I even start? Bone Eater is quite simply the worst film I have seen this year & is so bad it's untrue, the story is awful, the script is sloppy (at one point Sheriff Evans tells Kia to meet him at the hospital but when they meet there later he acts surprised & says 'what are you doing here?', at one point Sheriff Evans triumphantly claims that we are in the twentieth century & that ancient Native American demons are nonsense although actually we are in the twenty first century now, there's a part when a woman tells in flashback the story where three men awaken the Bone Eater & it kills them but since it killed all three of them how did anyone else know about it for it to be passed down in legend?) & at times it gets more than a little bit embarrassing. The character's are horrible clichés, the small town Sheriff who saves the day, his daughter becomes involved which adds some personal motivation & as for the Native Americans there's an old wise man, a young hot head who hates 'white man' & a young woman who is the voice of reason between the two who have names like Storm Cloud & Black Hawk. The film is as boring as hell, nothing happens, the story is awful, it's full of plot holes & lapses in any sort of logic, the set-pieces are terrible, there's no horror or gore or suspense or mystery & Bone Eater is just the sort of film that makes you lose the will to live.

Bone Eater has some of the worst CGI computer effects I've seen in a while, from the daft looking stiff moving bone eater creature itself which is just a selection of bones magically held together to a motorbike jumping a large gap to an awful CGI truck crashing over the edge of a cliff to a van being tossed to one side by the bone eater. Whenever the bone eater needs to get some speed up he causes a large horse to form from the sand & dust & rides it! In principal this is actually quite a neat idea but it looks awful & the scenes even have cheesy cowboy music on the soundtrack! There is one pointless scene at the end when Sheriff Evans cuts his own arm (why?) & it bleeds but apart from that there isn't a single drop of blood in the thing, whenever the bone eater kills someone they usually just disappear in a cloud of dust, boring. The hilariously goofy climatic showdown between Sheriff Evans & the bone eater has to be seen to be believed, Sheriff Evans goes native on horseback complete with tribal war paint on his face while the bone eater also rides his dust horse & they have a sort of jousting contest which is just to bad to describe properly.

With a supposed budget of about $700,000 Bone Eater is filmed in a very bland, forgettable & flat way, there's no sense of style here at all. The majority of the film takes place in bright sunlight & if you watch it on a decent telly then the desert scenery is quite nice on occasion. There are several veteran 'known' actors really slumming it here, Boxleitner plays exactly the same role as in the similarly themed but much better 'Creature Feature' Snakehead Terror (2004), William Katt will obviously put his name to any crap as long as he gets paid while ex Star Trek man Walter Koenig must be really desperate to agree to appear in this.

Bone Eater is a truly atrocious 'Creature Feature', there's really not much more you can say about it other than to steer well clear of it. The worst film ever to appear on the Sci-Fi Channel & that's saying something, isn't it?


Yes, thats that i felt after i completed watching this movie. The acting is below-average and the special effects are horrible. In fact, the worst i have ever seen. It is a very low budget movie. There is no way this movie will can scare you, it has no creepy or scary moments. Mr. bone eater was more of a funny creature for me. It could have been much better but oh well they didn't had a big budget. The movie fails to convince you that you are watching a horror movie, lol. I would name this movie The Time Eater (waster). I am sure you would have a lot of better movies/etc to watch. Still watch it if: 1. you have nothing else to watch. 2. you get to watch it for free. Not worth renting at all.


With the exception of the fine rack on Clara Evans...this show was pretty bad...so why did I watch it? Too much coffee, and had to relax before hitting the sack. Watching BB change into his lamest Big Chief outfit, was amusing at best, downright laughable at worst.

I could have made a better Skeltor and special effects on my Dell.

Boxlietner has seen better days, this guy is a year younger than me, and he's looking more and more like the Scarecrow from his TV series days back in the early 1980....the women eye candy need to go back to acting school, although Evans size 40 and playing a 17 year old(she's in her early 20s was a stretch)....the Sci-Fi Channel has done better that this...but for us folks that don't get out to the bars much anymore, I guess we have to take what we can get...after all anything that gets you away form CNN, MSNBC, and Fox coverage of Election 2008 these day is a good thing.


Now before I tell you the synopsis this is a non-spoiler review. Bone Eater hits its mark for being the worst movie of the year. I don't know how these movies even get onto DVD. If I saw this in theaters I would get extremely upset. Bone Eater is about these people who dig up an ancient burial ground and find some bones. It's the 'Bone eater' and the more bones he eats the more powerful he gets.

First of all I thought okay well the DVD artwork looks creepy and it sounds creepy. When I rented it and looked at the DVD label it looked scary. But then when I played it in I could agree on one thing- the title 'Bone Eater' is better than the movie itself. Tell me what's more stupid? A bone eater that just attacks by throwing a bone ate you and you disappear? Don't worry that's not a spoiler you see that happen in the first 5 minutes. Or is it more stupid that 'Bone Eater' has a horse? You know what I think is the stupidest? The whole movie.

The CGI is awful. Yeah I thought the idea of 'Bone eater' was creepy but once you see the actual thing you think this is some kind of action movie or just a cruel, mean joke. The film felt longer than Titanic and this was half an hour. Once the film actually has its moments of suspense it just stops. I admit the acting was not the best but actually decent and that the violence wasn't over-the-top but everything else is a stinker.

Overall Bone eater is a film you can skip. If you like interesting movies with great creatures, great CGI, and suspense 'Bone Eater' is a film to skip. If you like bad movies no matter how cheesy they are then 'Bone Eater' will satisfy.


Another Indian legend you never heard of before is let loose. As the name implies, this is a vengeful wraith who likes to absorb the skeletons of people while they're still using them. As usual, ancient burial grounds (can you say, "Poltergeist?") have been disturbed by clichéd greedy land developers building stuff.

The CGI, if it had been better, might have made the effect more treacherous looking, but they skimped on the budget, and it shows--to comical effect. The unleashed creature probably should have been kept off stage during its first several killings-that might have added some mystery or impending doom atmosphere-but the inept director decided to show us in the first five minutes what it looks like, and it wasn't impressive. The deaths are just poorly done, again with shoddy CGI. I guess ancient spirits always kill by using cheap special effects. As for the "victims," they look they're going to laugh any moment while they do goofy screams. It's always obvious who's going to get it: a character with only a few lines shows up, strange noises are heard, CGI dots fly, exit character. Repeat (several times).

Still, there's a few chase scenes featuring the monster that actually made this thing watchable. Unfortunately, the director seems to be using these as a device to fall back on (so it's used too often) when he can't think of anything else for his characters to do. Overall, it's pretty silly, but I've seen worse. This flick is cheap, but it's oddly fun to watch.


All I can do is laugh. Wow. I like Jim Wynorski's movies, I really do. I mean, Chopping Mall is a classic. But this, what happened to this guy? He used to make funny horror movies, that tried to be good. But this was hardly even funny...I mean, I guess it was, because I laughed. The villain is incredible. I mean, horrible CGI. It looks...terrible. And the movie has no gore, and no nudity as redeeming qualities. It is rated PG-13. A movie named "Bone Eater" you know won't be a blockbuster movie, you know it probably won't have a smart script. A movie like this may rely on gore...but no. It doesn't rely on anything really, it's just...crap. Check it out if you want to laugh, though. But don't expect a good movie. I hope Jim Wynorski goes back to movies like Chopping Mall and Ghoulies IV, because this and Komodo Vs. Cobra ain't cutting it.


well I'd probably agree with all the bad comments about this movie cos honestly i thought it was such a piece of crap i mean the actors had done a terrible acting job and the script was all terrible. Although the special effects wasn't a bit bad but i think the should have thought a lot harder than that. I mean how did Clara Bryant get successfully put into this film i mean she'd do a lot better if she looked a bit further and that goes the same with Kristen honey, i mean her character dies and she doesn't bother to try and defend herself i mean it's gotta be a total joke. She should at least do a lot better than what she an do like become a soldier or more of a heroine or something along the lines of bravery. But the point is the actors did a complete soulless lousy job and so did the director and the writer who made this film. they should've went into film school to think up some better ideas and i hope everyone agrees with my methods cos they are probably thinking the same thing.


Bad, bad, and did I mention bad? Aside from the comical monster terrorizing the workers the funniest part of the movie was when surveyors are in the desert and one comments that they have an hour of daylight left, but you can clearly see by their shadows, and the bright sky, that it's probably only 2 or 2:30 in the afternoon. Talk about consistency. READ THE SCRIPT director!

The only cool part of this movie, besides the rack on Clara Bryant of course (as another reviewer mentioned), is the phantom skeleton horse that the Bone Eater rides on. That thing was pretty cool as it chased the surveyors on their motorcycles.


Construction workers disrupt the Native American burial ground of a large, hulking skeletal monster which disintegrates it's victims with it's touch, breath, or bone sword! The head honcho over the resort project, Krantz(Jim Storm)orders his construction crew to keep their skeletal findings secret for much would halt the continuing development if the nearby Katona tribe caught wind that remains were being dug up and disturbed. An aging Bruce Boxleitner, likable as always, stars as half-breed Sheriff Evans trying to keep peace between the Katonas and Krantz's crew. The peace was strained, at best, but with that skeletal monster running rampant making it's victims vanish without a trace, soon Krantz wants answers to why members of his crew are missing..Evans begins losing citizens as well. Evans is warned by Katona Chief Storm Cloud(Michael Horse)that an ancient demon, the Bone Eater, has been loosened and can only be stopped with a sacred war axe(..the axe was removed by a worker who found it's remains with the weapon lunged inside)now in the back seat of his daughter Kelly's(Clara Bryant, who wears tight jeans and shirts to reveal how daddy's girl has grown into quite a striking lady)boyfriend's truck. Evans must somehow defeat the demon if the killing will stop..and this must occur before the Eclipse or it's power will become too strong for anyone to vanquish.

A solid cast, floundering in an embarrassing horror outing. The CGI, isn't very good, although the monster could've been quite threatening if done with a better budget. It rides a horse made from dust chasing after it's prey, for Petesake! Some cameo appearances include BUCK ROGERS Gil Gerard as Evan's deputy Big Jim, STAR TREK's Walter Koenig as a coroner, & HOUSE's William Katt, as a Country Doctor attending to the wounds of Evan's deputy. None of these cameos last longer than one minute or so..sad, really. Adoni Maropis, impresses in an underwritten role as a brooding Katona, Johnny Black Hawk, who wishes to use the Bone Eater to drive the white man off his tribe's land. Jennifer Lee Wiggins portrays Kaya, a tasty dish of a Katona female whose against Black Hawk's hatred for the white man and wishes for Evans to follow his Indian blood regarding putting an end to the Bone Eating monster. This might be worth sitting through if just to see Boxleitner dressed in war paint and Indian garb. I felt for the actor, to be honest, as Bruce tries to keep a straight-face in such a terrible movie. In yet another over-worked and tiresome cliché, Bruce's sheriff has an estranged relationship with his daughter, whose 17, hot, and wanting to date the "bad boy"..although this winds up being an underwritten sub-plot as is most of the plot concerning the killing skeleton and many of the poorly developed characters.


I agree with all the comments posted so far: This movie was a waste of time and energy, for viewers as well as those who made it. Terrible CGI, awful script, stupid plot and hey, the setting is Alabama but it looks like California. But the worst thing has got to be the Native American angle on this, which pulls in every stereotype you can think of, from the chief surrounded by smoke, the angry warrior, people speaking without using contractions ("Do not do this thing!"), Native American pipes playing in thin air, etc. It just shows such a lack of respect and understanding that I was tearing out my hair. A Native American with any ounce of self-respect would have tossed their TV out the window at this trash. So in closing, I'd say this movie is pretty much an offense to everyone.


While trying to build a major mall or complex or something like that, a wealthy landowner ignores ancient Native American artifacts buried on the land, and unleashes the Bone Eater...a creature who goes around and kills people in search of his fallen friends or something like that.

Indeed this movie had to be a Sci-Fi Channel original. If it wasn't, then the director should never direct anything again. The effects in the film is laughable at best, and the Bone Eater monster is nothing but a CGI-animated being added into the frames at a later date. The actors don't even look all that frightened when they see the thing (probably because they really don't, and they're just terrible actors). It's a great comedy, though, even if it's supposed to be pure horror.


As other posters have commented this was a very very bad movie (keeping it kid friendly) FX was low class, they should of spent the $1 on a coke. As is typical with these D movies most victims die and leave a mystery except for one lucky soul and of course the lead. Hope the money was worth it for Boxleitner, really really big step down from Babylon 5. Nice to see what happened to Buck Rogers but damn this was low even for him. ' It was so bad and on the older actors you could even seem to tell that they thought it was bad also. Don't Watch.

*****Warning Spoiler Below****

This thing chased down everyone it was after and yet Boxlietner got away... that was pure BS. And the ending? How in the hell did the kids end up right there with him? That was just too much stupidity.


A great cast, a fantastic CGI monster and a brilliant script. If this film had had any of those things then it might not have been amongst the worst films I've ever wasted an hour and a half on. Infinite chimpanzees with infinite typewriters have not yet written the complete works of Shakespeare but along the way this has appeared in their waste-paper bin and somehow it got made into a movie. You can tell the the actors regret signing those contracts with every word they mutter directly into camera. The CGI is amateurish in the extreme and they might have created more tension of the cast had been attacked with the Sinclair Spectrum it was created on. I wanted to like this film, it has nice cameo appearances by Gil Gerard and Walter Koenig so I expected a fun horror movie that didn't take itself too seriously. It actually does try to take itself seriously but is about as much fun as trip to the dentist. Do yourself a favour. Don't watch this movie, you'll only encourage them to make more.


If you're like me and you occasionally enjoy watching terrible movies (I guess it's kind of like slowing down at a car crash), you can't do better than this! The plot is inane, the special effects are hilarious and the acting is some of the worst you'll ever see! 4 THUMBS DOWN! WOOOHOOOOOOOO!!! Seriously, I have no idea how the director and the "actors" can sleep at night! It's painful, and yet hysterically funny, to watch and I highly recommend it for those who want to punish themselves for something. If you can watch this crap without wincing, you're a better man than I'll ever be! I wonder if the producer of this garbage had any idea what he was getting himself (and his money) into!


I used to think that it couldn't get worse that "Army of the Dead" but this load of crap makes the afore mentioned movie look like "The Godfather"!! The special effects are HORRIBLE (Makes the original Nintendo graphics look like HDTV). When it comes the acting, put it this way, I went to a play with my 6 year old niece in it and she gave an Oscar worthy performance, when compared to these D-List (and that's being kind about it) actors and actresses. So basically, if I had a gun to my head and head to chose between watching this movie again or chopping my own arm off with a dull knife, that's a tough choice!! You know what, who needs two arms anyways??


This movie was beyond awful, it was a pimple on the a*s of the movie industry. I know that every movie can't be a hit or for that matter even average, but the responsible parties that got together for this epic dud, should have been able to see that they had a ticking time bomb on their hands. I can't help but think that the cast would get together in between scenes and console each other for being in such a massive heap of dung. I can hear it now, "You getting' paid?" "Nope, you?" I understand that this flick was more than likely made on a shoe string budget but even with that taken into account, it still could've been better. You wait for the appearance of a monster/creature and when you finally see it, it's a big yawn.I'm so mad at myself for spending a 1.07 on this stinker!!!


I knew five minutes after the monster made his appearance where his was going. But when I saw the beginning credits, I said "oh my god, Bruce Boxlightner, Walter Koenig (from Star Trek). Gil Gerard (from Buck Rogers, and he's almost unrecognizable), then I saw John Callahan who used to star on my favorite Soap, All My Childen. Put on a few pounds but he can still act. Then there was Veronica Hamill. too bad I didn't sick around to see her in the film. I bailed out 20 minutes into he film. It was THAT bad. Never did see William Katt (from Perry Mason, and The Greates American Hero).

All these stars and one lousy film. I hope hey got their paycheck.

Bad Bad Bad


Sorry, after watching the credits, I thought this would at least be a decent homage to retiring SF actors.

Boy was I wrong.

The direction and story telling in this POS are terrible. I have never been so insulted by a production.

I have great respect and love for many of the actors in this "film" but have to say they were conned.

If you haven't seen this debacle yet, do yourself a favor and stay away. These are not only two hours you won't get back, but they will also ruin your respect for some actors you may once have enjoyed.


Sci-Fi channel thinks this IS Sci-Fi; it's a shame. Big Bugs, Snakes, Mythical Beasties, on and on, they persist.

Some one at Universal had the brains to include BattleStar Galactica (the new, good one) and Firefly for a brief moment in their line up. I know they know they difference between total garbage and extremely high quality sci-fi.

A few years back they were on about how they were going all high and mighty, making productions that were not just for us mere, lame-o Trekkies. Thanks so much, Sci-Fi! You know, you make movies so bad, even Trekkies won't watch them, so you achieved your goal! Fire Serpent, Ice Spiders, Manticore, Larva etc.and a vast unrelenting crap-storm later, and they're still churning out just faster than the latest flu virus! How they do it is beyond my ken. Why they do it, I just don't know. How they can ignore these reviews, comments, blogs and e-mails, I don't know either, but it's clear they don't think much of their audience or care about our opinions! They seem to think this is what sci-fi fans want! You would think one or two good productions with some sense would creep through when whoever green lights this junk is on vacation. At least they're employing the collection of Misfit Toys; many of the sci-fi movie of the week actors were in Science Fiction shows once and now need the cash. Love you folks, and hope you get some better work!


I thought i could see something good but... I am tired after seeing this movie, i don't know what i hated the most: the script, the acting, the FX or the music. Try to picture the worst Power Rangers episode and would still be to kind. I've seen better FX in FPS Games( The touch with the bone sword or his breath that is making the people disappear in a green smoke is touch of genius) and the music seems to come from a spaghetti western. I did liked how the women in the car was screaming, when the "monster" was walking around the car (even if she's looking in the wrong way). So give your self a break and don't watch this thing, at least call somebody up to see a horror movie with you, trust me you will end up playing monopoly for some kicks.


I'm not really sure where to begin. From start to finish, bad, stinky bad, like stepping into a port-a-john on a 100 degree day. If you force yourself to watch this as I did, keep some Vicodin handy for the pain. I will never understand how flicks this bad make it past the cutting room without the entire reel ending up on the floor. The movie is a cross between Gumby rides Pokey, meets the terminator, meets Wally Beaver playing cowboys and Indians without the cowboys. I've seen better animation in the original cut of the Blob. You will get more entertainment from watching Gone with the Wind while suffering from the puke and poops. Bad acting and hokey lines will have you squirming and wishing you had rented Peewee's big Top or watched every episode of Gilligan's Island back to back. UGH..I'm going to go slit my wrist now.


the plot of this movie revolves around this submarine builder who's a real bastard and he wants to launch his new sub that can travel thousands of feet deep. unfortunately, he can't. oh yeah, and he's haunted by the memories of his mom and dad getting eaten by a megalodon when he was a child. the guy meets some scientist whos pretty hot, and they and this crew of about a hundred people set out on the main character's submarine to kill the same megalodon that killed his parents.now, the shark in this movie is a really fake looking CGI shark. basically this is sorta like Shark Attack 3, except more depressing. if you don't get what i mean, listen. the film's opening credits show "home movies" of the main character when he was a child with his parents before they got killed, and there's really sad and depressing piano music playing in the background. you would expect to see a shark or something, and you do. a brief shadow of the CGI shark floats around every few seconds but that's just it. also, i don't remember one happy facial expression at all throughout the film's entire runtime, a majority of the film takes place in the dark depths of the abyss, where the story gets even more dull, and all the characters (the shark too) die in the end. I was thinking Sabato would manage to kill the shark and manage to save himself and the girl, but no, they all die, and the film ends with the shark, all blown up, and the submarine (with Sabato's crushed and burned body in it) sinking into the abyss. if you're a happy person and you don't enjoy being depressed, then avoid this movie. if you're the opposite, then congratulations, you found your movie.


At last, a film to rival 'El Padrino' and 'Darkness Falls' in terms of sheer and utter dullness. This is actually the first film I've ever given 1 out of 10 for on IMDb, and with good reason.

For one, the cast is nothing special. That's usually not a problem for me except that the only character that's in anyways interesting or different from all the rest is Grand L. Bush's Harrington. Secondly, the production values a substandard - television sci-fi such as 'Stargate' has more convincing sets, and all of the underwater scenes NOT handled by the SFX teams are filmed on dry sets with 'falling particles' that aren't very convincing. This film is literally 'drydocked'. The worst part though is that this film is BORING. For the first 45 minutes, I felt as if we were going round and round in circles: "It's a prehistoric shark." "Bullsh*t." "No really." "Bullsh*t." "I'm not making this up." "Bullsh*t." "There it is now!" "I didn't see anything." "Let me guess?" "Yup. Bullsh*t." After then it picks up ever so slightly for about twenty minutes or so. Then we're back to the dialog run-around. Dialog is not a bad thing, but that's all this film has. Characters talking. That too, is not a bad thing, except this film isn't very good at it. The dialog is often contrived and clichéd, and is not very interesting to listen to. I don't see any point slandering the special effects; this film has worse qualities.

The sets are small and unrealistic. The acting is sub-par. The script - oh Lord, the script - is worse than a garbage of sci-fi television has to dredge up. It makes you wonder where the budget of this film is or was.

Yet another awful, awful addition to the 'Megaloadon' (there's about four) series of films. Bring on Steve Alten, please...


I was enticed into watching Shark Hunter by the comments posted on IMDB. The movie was bad but the shark was cool blah blah blah. So I rented it. Bad idea. This movie was bad on so many levels that I'm glad that I had the option to fast forward. The shark itself is ok. It's appearance is decent and it is the only thing saving this movie from getting a 1, (I gave it a 2). The acting is incredibly bad and the dialogue is just as deplorable. I wasn't expecting much but I was continually surprised by this suckfest. Antonio Sabato Jr. is some kind of biologist or scientist or something, I wasn't really paying attention. He goes down with the expendable crew of this submarine to find out what happened to this underwater station that the shark took out of course. By the way, all the scenes that show someone working underwater are not underwater. First of all, if they are just going down to find out what happened to this station, what's with all the huge tranquilizer darts and the harpoons and stuff. Are these things that you normally carry with you when investigating a accident. The shark theory was advanced by Antonio while on the way so it not like they went in knowing what they were up against. Antonio and this young college student, horrible actress by the way, just jump to the controls of the sub when the sub is in trouble. What is with that? Unless everyone is getting some kind of sub training before leaving high school I find this a little silly. The director seems to think that if crew members are working in the background then it is a good idea to put someone welding in the background. Metal crafting is very important when your on a sub I guess. Anyway I could go on but I've said too much already. Bottom Line: Go to your local video store, rent this video and then destroy it. Then send email asking IMDB to remove all record of this movie from their site. All memory and evidence of this movie must be destroyed. We can do it if we work together.


Hey what a great idea to open a film - show someone`s home movie . Drama schools must be full of idiots ! , there they are taking drama lessons hoping to become the next big thing in Hollywood when all you have to do is send a home movie to a studio . Hey I think I`ll send in the video of my wedding and call it THE GREATEST ROMANCE EVER SEEN or send in a tape of my honeymoon and call it THE GREATEST SEX EVER SEEN . Oh hold on I`m not married and I`ve never been on honeymoon ! Not to worry I`ll send in a video of someone elses wedding/honeymoon

!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!

You`d think with an opening like that SHARK HUNTER could only improve wouldn`t you ? As shocking as it may seem the home movie is the best directed , best written and best acted part of the film , alas it`s all downhill from here as the family go to sea ( In reality a fog shrouded swimming pool ) in a three foot yacht where mom and dad get eaten by a CGI fin and their son Spencer swears revenge against the fin . Cut forward to the present day and the French are using an underwater research base for oil exploration . Only thing is - And it`s so obvious you can`t fail to notice this - it`s not filmed underwater !!! , the director hasn`t made any attempt whatsoever to even use the unconvincing technique of shooting the scene through a fish tank . The underwater research base is blown up by the shark ( Maybe it`s hired by Greenpeace ? ) killing everyone inside and Spencer now a grown man is hired to hunt down the shark that killed his parents and a bunch of Frenchmen . What else happens ? No idea because I decided to watch something else

No hard feelings if any of the cast and crew are reading this and I do hope Matt Codd becomes a big fish in Hollywood . You think you know about sharks Matt ? You ain`t seen nothing yet


a really awful movie about a 30 meters long shark. bad story bad discussions bad characters bad plot even a confusing ending a complete. a waist of time in my point of view I thought it was a TV movie, but then I saw it was not I cant imagine having paid to see this load of crap please avoid this movie at any cost. even if u liked jaws, which I averagely did, don't see it even if you have interests in paleontology, don't see it even if you like corny movies with corny actors, corny plots during corny TV time, do humanity a favor and do not, I repeat, DO NOT pollute your mind with this ridiculous excuse for a sci-fi animal thriller still, some people gave it a ten ranting... don't know if they were serious or not (but sincerely expect they weren't)


this is one of the worst movies ever There is a scene where they are supposed to be underwater and they are literally walking on land and they added bubbles! The shark is boring and is just this big slow computer generated silly thing. Antonio Sabato is horrible, I mean even worse than normal. How does this guy work? The directing is the worst and there is nothing redeemable in the entire films. I love shark movies and this one just disappoints. I've seen this studios movies before and everything they do has some star on their way down doing bad work. I'd rather see an unknown actor who cares about making a good story.


this could have been good,but sadly,its too inplausible,anthony sabato jr has a grudge...PLEASE!I wanted to like it,love shark movies ,someone should have asked my opinion before they wrote this.ha!ha! the shark is cool but the story lacks...alot!


Now out of all the shark movies I've seen, this one takes the cake! The plot of the movie was good, but the excitement factor sort of took a nosedive afterwards. Antonio Sobato, Jr. does an excellent role as a son who seeks the shark who killed his father. A megaldon is one of the biggest sharks of all and the most dangerous one as well. The view of the shark was indeed scary in some angles, but the effects were a blur, and the scenes were a little weak in some places. With the mini-sub's weapons there, that would take out a whole school of sharks there. It was great that the son would get the exact revenge on that monstrosity, although it would indeed cost him his life as well. Like they say revenge has it's price, but was it worth it? That answer could go on and on, and this movie was a major letdown. The beginning was fine, and at the end, it went like the Titanic. 1 OUT OF 5 STARS!


The recent release of "Mad Dog Morgan" on Troma DVD is disappointing.This appears to be a censored print for television viewing. Some of the more violent scenes have been edited and portions of the colorful language have been removed. Anyone who viewed the film uncut will be mad as hell at this toxic DVD version. "Mad Dog Morgan" deserves to be released on DVD in the original theatrical cut. However, even as released on DVD, the film is still one of the better depictions of bushranger life in nineteenth century Australia. After having toured the Old Melbourne Gaol, with death masks of convicts on display, it is "Mad Dog Morgan" that comes to mind.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is not a shred of historical accuracy, in fact reality is reversed. Just one example: Morgan preyed on the few ethnic Chinese he encountered. The acting is over the top, the script is a poorly written lie. I have never seen worse fake beards.

Hopper arrived in Australia and reportedly only would make the film if the script was totally rewritten so he could be a hero. Since the script was ten made up on the fly, the may explain how bad it is and how disjointed the movie is.

Any movie about Ned Kelly is a lot better than this film.


In the mid 1800s, Irishman Dennis Hopper (as Daniel Morgan) emigrates to Australia, seeking a share of the continent's gold. Instead, Mr. Hopper finds himself branded, and thrown in a torturous prison; there, he is gang-raped. Upon release, Hopper hooks up with aborigine David Gulpilil (as Billy), with whom he seeks revenge upon sadistic Bill Hunter (as Sergeant Smith), Jack Thompson (as Detective Mainwaring), and others. Eventually, vengeance becomes heroism; Hopper is admired and assisted by the common people, and hunted by corrupt and powerful authorities. Hopper's "scarcely human" performance certainly fits the disjointed feel of the film. Mr. Gulpilil heads up a strong supporting cast. The personnel involved in "Mad Dog Morgan" make it not only worth a look, but also a huge disappointment.

*** Mad Dog Morgan (1976) Philippe Mora ~ Dennis Hopper, David Gulpilil, Bill Hunter


Similar story line, done many times before, and this was no improvement.

15 minutes into this, and you should pretty much be able to turn it off - the ending was deja vu all over again.

The only morals I could see out of this are: - stupidity + criminals do not equal success - if he screwed you before, he's gonna do it again


Have you ever read a book, then seen the movie, and wonder-How did they screw it up so bad? This is one of those. The book by Huffaker, "Nobody Likes a Drunken Indian" was great, riotously funny...this movie is not. It seems as though nobody cared enough to move the direction along so we CARED about the characters. This movie, which touches on some real concerns about Indians, makes you wonder why we haven't seen more comedies about the holocaust, or slavery. Not well done.


The recent DVD release of Good Humor Man labels the film as comedy. It's hardly a comedy, rather a dull indie film about a group of losers. Supposedly set in the 70s, there is scant attention paid to period details, with overly muted color correction taking its place. The monotonous soundtrack only serves to accentuate the repetitiveness of the film (perhaps that is the point, but it does not add to the enjoyment of the viewing experience.) Apprarently the clique of losers only like to hang out at one location, the bleachers. It seems like the packaging of the film as a comedy is meant to deceive people into renting or buying this film, which is a complete waste of time.


The acting made you feel like you were watching a kindergarten play. The story is full of holes and gaps and skips around so you have no idea as to what just happened. Half the scenes are pointless. There is not an inkling of character development. The score/soundtrack consists of about three songs one in particular is played in about 70% of the scenes. I'm glad I only rented the movie yet I still feel cheated. Avoid this movie at all costs unless you want to see some decent actors give horrible performances. It seems like the bulk of the budget was spent on putting a few name brand actors in this less than bad film. This movie is equivalent to visiting a strip club, it tries to get you excited and interested but just as you think something is going to happen your thrown into some unrelated scene and left trying to figure out how you arrived there.


I disagree in calling this a stoner movie just because weed also makes an appearance. I can't imagine this as even approaching "stoner classic." That would be like calling Singles a "grunge film." The movie definitely plods along with a murky plot. At times I wondered if the script had either been dropped and shuffled or if they lost it entirely and just tried to wing it. Watching this movie reminded me of watching children play-acting and making the story up as they go along.

The characters are wooden, the dialog is taxed, and the whole story seems to be completely disconnected. Who got killed? When? What? And this is how you act when your friend overdoses? Complete lack of emotion and utter disconnect from reality.

As for the droning guitar soundtrack that accompanies each scene: enough! It was like watching the opening menu screen where the same track loops endlessly in the background, neither moving forward or back.

I kept watching and hoping that the plot would somehow fall in to order, the acting and dialog would improve or something, somehow would focus this mess in to a coherent movie. After 112 minutes, it never happened.


When I think of a 1970s-period film, this is not what I think of. I don't want a monotonous, one-song Robin Trower soundtrack; I want a soundtrack punctuated with the top-40 bubblegum songs of the day that epitomized the '70s. The generic karaoke-style disco music during the prom scene was especially annoying. The acting (if you can call it that) was very wooden, and seemed just read from script in monotone. The film quality and camera work was horrid; the dialog murky, the script seemed thrown together without much thought and the plot was thin if not nonexistent. I can't believe people are giving it the high ratings I've read here. Basically a forgettable, poor attempt at recreating a beloved era of the past. Two stars is all I can come up with. Sorry, guys.


I saw this on a screener DVD a couple months before it was released.

I liked the main characters and the overall story but some scenes are pretty sloppy and confusing. The sets were fitting but a few just looked like left overs from Freaks & Geeks or reminded me of a cell phone commercial shot in a middle class home. Definitely not what the DVD cover claims, "Destined to be the next stoner classic", hardly.

Wardrobe and hairstyles are done well and yes, there are some really pretty girls in this, always nice to see a good looking cast.

Almost every scene contained guitar that just droned on and on. Sound design was a bit poor. I think less would have been best.


Plodding, maybe that should have been the title. Bad dialogue delivered at a snail's pace. All the characters are single dimension with the exception of one. Unfortunately, that character has some of the worst lines and does not seem to fit into this cliché ridden two- hour drag. Having grown up in the seventies, this film is seriously lacking in detail, atmosphere and authenticity. Surprisingly, this was produced by Kelsey Grammar, someone who should recognize sharp dialogue and a consistent narrative in a script. Cameron Richardson is about the only element that lights up this film. Robin Trower's music is also a welcomed addition.


After seeing the DVD release of the Blues Brothers, and their mention of "Wired" on Belushi's bio, my boyfriend and I were hungry for more information on John Belushi. I had heard of "Wired" but didn't know too much about it and found it way in the back of the local rental store. I understand that Dan Akroyd was really p***ed over this movie and I thought it was because it didn't portray them in a good light. But that had nothing to do with it.

The movie starts out okay, until they wheel in John's body to the morgue. When he wakes up on the autopsy table, and decides to run for it, then begins the utter tastelessness of this movie. John is subjected to viewing his life and all of the turmoil he created with "Angel," a Puerto Rican cab driver with a wicked sense of humor -- subjecting him to criticism and attempting to try to get him to cross over.

The two actors who portray John and Dan look nothing even remotely close to the real actors, (let alone anyone else related for that matter, i.e., Lorne Michaels,) making it difficult to really try to concentrate on them and how they were in real life... but that is the tip of the iceberg.

I believe this was supposed to be an "artsy" film -- John constantly being tormented by drugs (i.e., the powdered soap in the bathroom being cocaine,) in such a way that was also difficult to follow. The flashbacks are choppy, also making it difficult to understand.

Probably the most tasteless scene was when John is (literally,) forced to undergo his autopsy and is in pain while they remove his heart to weigh it, saying that it was abnormally large due to drug use, obesity, yeah, we get the point without the grotesque portrayal.

There are very few other actors we know of in the movie, (where's Carrie Fisher for instance? They were incredibly close. And Jim Belushi would have been a great person to show,) it looks VERY cheaply made, (we felt it looked as if the graphics were from the early 80s or late 70s,) it felt as if it was filmed in about a week and all in all, didn't show the side to John at all. I felt I knew a little bit more about him from watching episodes of Saturday Night Live.

On one last note, Bob Woodward comes across narcissistic by placing himself in the movie, arguing with John about writing his life story. For someone who was supposed to be very highbrow, concerning the bust on Nixon, his calibur of person could match any writer in the National Enquirer, and therefore losing my interest in any of his work from this point forward.

SKIP THIS MOVIE. If you want to see more on John, watch his movies, see clips of Dan Akroyd talking about him or hope someone has the taste to make another movie on John that goes along the lines of "Man on the Moon," which is ultimately what we were expecting. I guess this was a "moral" kind of movie -- you know, don't do drugs, but I guess the creators of this film didn't understand that his death made a number of people (like Carrie Fisher,) stop doing drugs altogether for that reason.


Any film school student could made a film 1,000 times better than piece of garbage. As someone who had read the book, I expected even a straight re-telling of the book would make this a fair film. There was a chance that a talented director could go beyond Woodward's narrative and make a great film.

Well the director did go beyond Woodward's narrative. He added a hip Hispanic angel named Velasquez that was not in the book. He had Bob Woodward interview the dead Belushi in an exchange in the morgue. The film had all the insight of someone stoned on PCP staring at his navel.

If this is a spoiler to you, you will thank me for it because it is absolutely the worst movie ever made.


Journalist Bob Woodward's blistering, scattershot and sometimes suspect account of actor John Belushi's rise and fall becomes a wholly misjudged movie, a nebulous "fantasy" directed by Larry Peerce as if he were doing something edgy and vital. Michael Chiklis (years before his breakthrough on "The Shield") is put in the unenviable position of portraying Belushi, taking a post-mortem trip through his life, recreating those "Saturday Night Live" skits which are now part of TV history. It's like watching someone try to out-Lucy Lucille Ball--it can't be done. The reason why there was such sorrow at Belushi's death was because he was one of a kind. Chiklis makes a commendable attempt at looking the part, and he's funny in an early scene trying to escape from the morgue. Still, it's an uphill venture and no actor--no matter how talented--could have saved it. * from ****


and I have seen a lot of films. I saw this in the theatre in 1989 and to this day I remember the sickening urge to walk out. If you like John Belushi, respect his talent, or even the sanctity of the cinema-- this film has nothing to offer you. It is mostly a pathetic showcase for the writer of Belushi's biography, Bob Woodward. As we see the progression of Belushi's life pass on the screen, Woodward actually shows up in the film like a ghost character. The most offensive scene occurs when Belushi is dying, looks up from his deathbed to see the author standing above him and he weakly utters "Breathe for me, Woodward." There are too many terrible things to mention them all, the least of which is the opening that has Belushi jumping out of his body bag in the morgue and getting into a taxi driven by a guy named "Angel." I'll leave it at that.


This movie narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4.


"Wired" would have to rate as one of the ten worst films I have ever seen. The writing and direction show a stunning lack of imagination and I'm sure that most of the actors still cringe whenever anyone mentions this film.

It fails to work either as a tribute to Belushi's unique talent, or as an accurate account of his short life.

A pointless mess with no redeeming features.


This could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!


I saw this film in the movie theater. I was taking classes at the Second City Chicago and of course the buzz of this movie was intense. It is a Woodward film about one of Second City's Native sons.

Everyone knew about Johns history. Everyone knew how he died. Some even knew that the lore did not make him out to be particularly friendly towards women in improv or comedy.

But hey. the man led his life and he was loved intensely by the people who were in his world, and lore also states that he treated all of his close friends with love and respect.

This movie. Well. Forget the idea of poor Michael Chilklis (who is a really great actor) being in a really astonishingly bad film, and really only relegated to doing an impersonation of the man.

Forget the idea that they could not get the rights to any of Belushi's work...and all the SNL scenes never happened that they portrayed in the movie.

Screw the idea that half of the historical information in the film did not even follow Bob Woodwards work. Kinda saying "Okay...we are about to mess with Belushi...now lets go after Woodward too..." They also decided to take the premise of It's a Wonderful Life and turn it into It's a Horrible Life on Crack.

Is he a guardian angel or the devil? Is the pinball machine the devil's assistant electronic device...how many different endings can you tack onto to a movie? It is one of those movies after it is over...you look at the person you are with and in stunned disbelief go "What the hell was that?!" In some circles this movie has become a kinda cult classic. But for good reason.

A good cult classic you sit around the screen and make fun of (or throw out snappy one liners) to the screen. A cult film is never good. And most people would never watch them in any serious context.

If you want to watch some classic bad late 80's fair stoned? Rent Wired. If you want to know about John Belushi...you can get more information off of the walls of Second City Chicago than this movie.