Odious Chuck Norris decided to put one final nail in the coffin

containing his film career before going to the safe world of CBS

Saturday night carnage with this hysterically bad supernatural

actioner.

For such a dumb movie this thing sure is plotty. Norris is Chicago

cop Frank Shatter. First off, what kind of last name is "Shatter"?

Have you ever met any Shatters? Genforum.com has no listing for

the last name Shatter, which opens up any half clever viewer to

replace the "a" in Shatter with an "i." He and his partner, Calvin

Jackson, do the same old buddy cop routine you have seen

before: make funny with the pimps, and make their captain mad.

Jackson, looking like the theoretical love child of Whoopi Goldberg

and Rick James, quickly wears on the nerves with his constant

complaining and Eddie Murphy-patented facial expressions.

Shatter and Calvin become involved with an emissary of Satan,

whom we are introduced to in the too long opening scenes.

Prosatano is a demon who is locked in a crypt by King Richard the

Lionhearted. The demon's scepter, from which he gets his power,

is busted into nine pieces and hid in nine different parts of the

world by holy men. In 1951, some grave robbers accidentally let

Prosatano out and he begins collecting the nine pieces. He

disguises himself as an antiquities professor named Lockley and

always happens to be giving a lecture where a holy man is killed

and a piece of the scepter is taken.

Norris brings in his "Walker: Texas Blunder" cohort Sheree Wilson,

who plays Lockley's assistant. She helps Norris with his

investigation, they make goo goo eyes at each other, and our

intrepid investigators travel to Israel after a rabbi is killed in

Chicago. While in Israel, Calvin is given even more to complain

about: the heat, the lack of restaurant accomodations, the lousy

drivers, and the fact that he is missing the Chicago Bulls playoff

games. Norris even manages to work a cute Israeli kid into this

nightmare. Bezi steals Calvin's wallet, and hangs around the men,

leading them around Israel and not arousing any sort of

appropriate suspicion.

Eventually, Lockley (Prosatano) assembles all of the scepter

pieces, but needs the blood of royalty to complete the ceremony

and call up the devil. Where to find royal blood? Well, Sheree's

father is a duke! She has an American accent but she is the

screenwriters' convenient method of forcing this monstrosity

toward its inevitable conclusion. Sure, this minion of Satan may

have killed countless hundreds over the years, but how is he

gonna do against a good old fashioned American butt kickin'?

After Prosatano has been vanquished, killed by his own scepter (I

envied him, he did not have to watch Bezi steal Calvin's wallet

again), we are treated to an awful coda involving a bearded man

who has been watching Shutter, I mean Shatter, and Calvin on

their quest. You see, it was foretold...somewhere...that two

warriors from the west would defeat Prosatano. The silent

bearded man who watched over the couple was none other than

Jesus...I kid you not. He is listed as "Prophet" in the end credits,

but you and even your pets will recognize the subtle Christian

reference the film makers are trying to exhibit here.

Like in "I Use a Walker: Texas Ranger," Norris is aging and cannot

get into his fight scenes too much anymore. He kicks a lot, and

people fly over furniture in slow motion, and then Norris gives all of

his line readings in that monotone voice of his. Oh, what a real

director might be able to fashion out of him! His brother, Aaron,

who has directed him in other films as well, has no sense of story

or momentum. Scenes are thrown in for ego's sake, not to

entertain. The scenes when the dynamic duo first meet Bezi drag

on and on, and then Bezi is not all that important to the rest of the

film.

The film was shot on location in Israel, which means the

Americans could insult the Israelis in person. There is not one

likeable Israeli character here. The Israeli police captain is a jerk.

The cops' driver does not know English, and Calvin convinces him

that the word "sh*tty" is a compliment. Nothing funnier than

mocking those stupid foreigners on their home turf, especially

when all this racist humor is coming from an American minority

who would have been more than offended if the tables were turned

and the Israeli cop was mocking the African-American cop in

Chicago.

This film is badly written, badly acted, and badly directed. It does

not work as action, cop drama, or even horror. It just shows that

the now defunct Cannon Studios was willing to throw their money

into anything, no matter how badly it was planned. "Hellbound" is

surely a most adequate title. I disliked this movie intensely.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, strong

profanity, some sexual references, and some adult situations.


I was so looking forward to watching the documentary self-immolation of the mastermind behind Boondock Saints, one of the most aggravating and pointless movies I've ever seen. But the makers of "Overnight" - buddies (ex?) of the mastermind in question - also need to learn how to make a movie. Various unsavoury remarks, yelling obscenities into the phone, and enjoying his alcohol do indeed make Mr. Duffy look like a putz. But it doesn't shed any insight into why the guy got a contract in the first place, what his creative process or vision is - what's Boondock Saints even about? How hard is it to meet Patrick Swayze? What are these strange institutional machinations in which our disgusting heroes are caught? Because the film doesn't try to answer these questions in any coherent way, it doesn't end up having dippity-doo to say about Hollywood either. So who cares?


never before have i seen such a tale of such talentless hangers on been so ungrateful that their golden goose has failed to lay. these spunk monkeys are parasites and bad examples of friends. i felt sorry for troy as he tried to hook up all of his friends with Hollywood gigs, but as soon as things turned sour, they all left troy hanging. overnight was a contrived effort of self indulgent retribution on a man who was going up against the forces of Hollywood to retain story integrity. The simple premise of Overnight is to try an communicate the message, "look at this guy, he blew it all", when in fact he has a strong underground following, dealt with harsh blows from friends and executives all in the name of getting a project done in the way he envisioned it. Quite frankly the only productive par that any of these guys played in the overall execution of the Boondock Saints shoot culminated as nothing more than extra bodies in the first bar room scene, after that all they did was whine why they weren't a bigger deal based on the clambering of their rancid efforts on top of troys shoulders. (the 2nd half of this was written by Adam j farina)


my friends and i watched this movie last night. it was pretty incredible. by all means, this was probably the worst movie i have ever seen. at first, it was tolerable. it stunk of BAD IMPROV but it was pretty friggin hilarious, despite the scenes being too long & drawn out and the terrible quality (i read $400 budget above... sounds about right) of the film itself.

the biggest problem came from the lack of a script; with a background in improv, i know how hard it can be to keep scenes short & efficient. what happened in this film was that the actors were left to improvise the scenes and they didn't know when to stop, they just kept going for ages on stupid topics. at first i thought this was because the movie was short and they needed long, useless scenes to flesh it out. as the movie progressed, i realized it was just a really bad movie.

there were a lot of parts where i could see that the film maker had a really good idea for a shot but not the resources (or talent!?) to pull it off effectively. a lot of the scenes were taken from a single shot (cause, you know, improv) for what felt like a really long time. so boring! if you can stand to put up with and hour and a half of terrible improv, watch it. it's really funny at parts but also really stupid and annoying. the acting ranges from alright to absolutely terrible. it seemed like the only good parts were the parts that really had nothing to do with the main plot; the ballsy kid who swore lots, the barbershop, etc etc.

but yeah. painfully bad. like, i was literally hurting. after an hour or so, my friends and i just got bored and left.


Given the budget and the inexperience of everyone involved, Livin' tha Life could have been worse. Jamal wants to be Chris Tucker (whom I've always found very annoying), as a previous commentator has noted, but Peanut (Edward D. Smith), while some of his (over)reactions go on way too long (a director's problem), has some comparatively subtle and funny moments, such as when he is trying to instruct Jamal on the proper method of smoking a joint with a buddy. Throughout, he is usually more poised and self-possessed than Jamal, which could have been the germ of a nice exploration of the contrasts in the relationship but wasn't developed very far.

But the inexperience of the writer/director/cinematographer/etc. is no excuse for his inattention. Has he ever seen a movie? Faces are important! Has he ever heard of a closeup? Even Ed Wood could do a closeup. I don't think it's much of a budget issue. I could only give a general description of what any of the actors look like, and not just because of no closeups, but the lighting ...! Lights for outdoor shooting may cost too much, but you can make a reflector with pieces of paper! That would have required moving the camera closer to keep the reflector out of the shot, helping to solve the closeup problem at the same time. If that's too technical you can turn the actors around so they are not in shadow, or you can expose for the shadows, and if it hadn't been shot in L.A. I'd say take advantage of cloudy days. It goes without saying that the movies this one steals from are all, with the possible exception of Weekend at Bernie's, better than this one, but Livin' tha Life would have left a much better impression if it hadn't made the viewer squint all the way through just to catch a glimpse of whatever the human element might have been.

P.S. The scene in the barbershop is just stupid.


I have NEVER EVER seen such a bad movie before. The scene where they shoot some guy.. The pistol don`t even shoot. Damn that is baad. The scene with the boy is even not that good. no script, not any good sound, not anything good to say about this movie..


If, like me, you actively seek out the rarest and weirdest (and often most awful) that world cinema has to offer, then you should look no further than the supernatural horror output of Hong Kong in the early 80s. Often mixing bizarre black magic with kung fu and silly comedy, and usually packed with plenty of creepy crawlies (snakes, worms, eels, centipedes etc.), these movies are about as bizarre as it gets.

Succubare is definitely a case in point: featuring a mountain tribe whose women keep their men from straying by casting nasty spells over them (that, should they leave, cause them to fill up with writhing creatures and die an agonising death), some so-so martial arts, and lots of real life animal killing (much of which is perpetrated by a geek who has absolutely no bearing on the story), this film is just plain strange.

A prolonged scene in which the tribeswomen hunt for snakes and insects, casually throwing the creatures into the baskets on their backs, is quite fascinating; a tribal feast that sees a poor ox bashed on the head and then torn apart is totally disgusting; and the moments that show worms crawling in open wounds and being vomited onto the floor will have the squeamish losing their appetite for a while.

However, it's the live animal munching that really qualifies Succubare for legendary status amongst fans of out-there movie-making. It's thoroughly vile to watch and yet strangely compelling: the geek chomps on a snake, woofs down a fat, juicy toad (nasty!), and hungrily devours a mouse (biting off its head and then shoving the rest in afterwards).

Not a great movie (hell, it's not really even a mediocre movie), Succubare is recommended only to people who think they've seen it all. This one gets 4 out of 10 from me, which is probably more than it deserves, but I begrudgingly respect it for being able to make me feel slightly ill.


The animal-eating (geek) scenes were not as bad as you would think. After having watched Mondo Cane and Mondo Magic, these scenes are average. The grossest one was when the guy ate the head off the mouse. But they were so fast and few that they didn't bother me.

Otherwise, the film was just sort of interesting. I always like hearing the silly voice-overs. They never sound like what you think the actor/actress would sound like in real life. I liked the bright colors worn by the princesses. The shots of weird looking bugs were cool too. The youngest princess looked REALLY young, almost 14 or something. The fight scenes were not as long and boring as most fight scenes, so that was good.

3/10.


I was permanently scarred by this terrible film.

The main action of the movie is nothing special. It seems there's a tribe of snake-worshipping people in a remote mountain region of Northern China, where women rather than men are the leaders and decision makers. I suppose among some men, this is enough to make "Succubare" a horror movie... Anyway, occasionally Chinese men would wander into the village, take a fancy to the local girls, seduce them and then abandon them. Unfortunately for the men, the women had put them under a spell, derived from snake venom, which would make them die horribly in 100 days -- their bellies swollen like a pregnant woman's with live worms and snakes -- if they did not return.

Forget the cover of the US video. This has nothing to do with vampires, though there is one inept blood-drinking scene. The title itself is only marginally appropriate: "Succubare" is the Latin verb meaning "to lie beneath", and it's the root of the word Succubus, a female demon who would seduce men in their sleep. Actually, it's the MEN who are the seducers here.

But it's not the main action of this ludicrous film that's so objectionable. It's the little side-incidents. I'll overlook the slaughter and butchery of an ox that's performed on-screen. The participants seem very experienced, as though this is an unpleasant duty they actually do in real life; and I'm sure they really ate the animal afterwards... though I resent having the act thrust in my face as "entertainment".

What I WISH I could overlook (or HAD overlooked) are the numerous, totally extraneous shots of an unidentified man, who from time to time interrupts the story by eating living animals. He starts the movie by tearing apart a live snake with his teeth. In the course of the movie, he devours a bug, a lizard, a toad (I had to leave the room after this), and a whole mouse (I stopped watching at this point, and lost my appetite for days). Let me stress that this was totally unexpected, and had nothing to do with the movie... unless it's a cynical reference to love as it's portrayed in the film: a blind, selfish, predatory survival mechanism that tears apart the helpless... but then again, I'm probably just rationalizing to get the vileness out of my head...


Following a 19th century gun dual that goes awry, a charming young woman becomes a vampire. Not only does she become one of the undead, she uses her goth, temptress persona to sustain her talents as a cold blooded assassin. This is a low grade B feature that should have went straight to video. The violence is vicious and gory, but actually quite mild. The story line is so weak and dialogue so haphazard it is hard to work up much interest. Eileen Daly is the lead character Lilith Silver. Also in the cast are Mark Caven, Kevin Howarth, and Isabel Brook.


I was all ready to hate this but it turned out to be surprisingly tolerable - though the MTV-style of film-making (shot on DV, to boot) is quite an eye-sore! I liked the script's self-mocking style, as well as its central idea of having the female vampire lead doubling as a contract killer. As to the cast, Eileen Daly (best known as the 'star' of those horrid "Redemption" intros) has an undeniable screen presence - and is quite sensual, despite her age; however, Christopher Adamson's hammy chief villain is obnoxious. David Warbeck has a brief role as a doctor (dubbed "The Horror-Movie Man"!) who conducts the autopsy on one of the vampire's victims; the film seems to have taken quite a long time to shoot as Warbeck died in 1997! There's plenty of nudity and violence on hand, but not much sense alas (especially since its subplot involving a secret society of vampires infiltrating the power structures is barely developed); the film is also overlong for its purpose, and eventually slips into tedium during the last half-hour.


The movie Razor Blade Smile has an interesting title as well as leading role. Now most may not like this movie for the plot and acting was a little cheap, but that is the appeal of a movie like Razor Blade Smile. In a way it was suppose to be bad movie.

However, if you watch this movie all the way through the end you'll see it is as I said a cheap vampire flick with a little humor. (Also how they manipulated colours in a few scenes is very interesting.)

So in conclusion this movie is a type you rent and laugh at with your friends and enjoy it for what it is. For no movie is throughly bad.

As Lilith Silver says: "Humans just don't smile enough..."


Sure it is a new take on vampires. Who cares. I would rather the old take if it is entertaining. This was not entertaining. It was a dull story, poorly acted, with annoying cinematography. Save your money, don't even watch it on video.


As main "character" Lillith Silver likes to point out - "you know f**k all about vampires". It is evident that this statement was aimed at the cast and crew, who create an exceedingly bad image of everyone's favourite bloodsucking undead. According to the misguided director, Vampires are all caked in white foundation and crammed into latex similar to a piece of meat in shrink wrap. With fangs resembling Bannana's and a bad case of asthma our main character Lillith creates a slapstick caricature of the "modern day" Vampire.

The plot consists of a 9 year old boys' playstation collection jotted down on a piece of paper, then blended together to concoct this horrible tale. Lillith our pale protagonist is a Vampire Bounty hunter who makes a living from snubbing out members of everyone's favourite cult, the Illuminati! Rather than incorporate the classic assassin methodology of stealth and precision however, Lillith waltzes in through an open window and then proceeds to chomp her targets necks before shooting them point blank with a handgun (that apparently doesn't leave bullet holes thanks to the shoddy continuity). PC Plod is then assigned to solve the murders, he comes to the grizzly, yet strikingly obvious conclusion that Lillith is actually a Vampire and proceeds to hunt her down armed with the usual vampire dispatching tools including a cross, garlic and a sharpened piece of wood. Meanwhile, Lillith, who has gotten into the habit of bonking her boss, is distraught when an old nemesis kidknaps him and demands a Ransom to be delivered personally. As you may imagine, this doesn't go according to plan. I'm not going to put myself through the pain of the following scenes however, so I'll skip to the end. Lillith and her "nemesis" have a showdown, and after Lillith obtains victory it is then revealed, with all the extravagance of someone being told they have cancer, that the two are century old lovers and the whole plot was some kind of twisted game. Yes, that kick in the balls was the actual ending of the film. In my eyes, this joke of a conclusion is the icing on the latex clad cake, and seals this film in the "Never ever watch this" vault.

As far as cinematic techniques go, the film merely doesn't bother creating any style. The director tries to rescue his disasterpiece from the brink, by throwing in some close ups and a few multi-angular shots, this however is not the saving grace the film needed.

You may be screaming "but this is a B movie, its meant to be crap!". I however do not take pity. I have seen some cracking B movies, such as evil dead 2, and Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, and therefore this disgrace cannot hide behind excuses. The budget was low, This is obvious by the lack of location and good actors. Maybe however if the director was more creative and spent less money on paying for makeup and fake blood, he could have done something decent with this sickening attempt. The seedy sex scenes are not beneficial in any way and merely served to give me a few chuckles at the obscene acting skills throughout. Half the budget must have been paid to the female cast merely for getting their tops off for lesbian romps. If I wanted to watch a vampire porno, I would have bought Muffy The Vampire Layer.

The cast are bad, the story is worse and the effects are cripplingly fake. This film had some potential, however its seedy undertone and embarrassing portrayal of a classic horror character merely served to be its downfall.

If you want a laugh with a few friends, I recommend you watch this mockery. If you are looking for a more serious Vampire action flick, try Blade or Underworld to sooth your raging bloodlust.


Just as the whole cast and crew knows f*** all about film making.

This film concerns the adventures and predicaments of a modern day cockney vampire assassin, and an age old spat with her seemingly jaded vampire lover. That plot in itself reeks of clichés and promises of boredom when on as small a scale a film as this, and that's exactly what you get.

First off let me say that I by no means dismiss films because they are B movies, in fact some of my favourite films are B movies such as Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter, but this one misses the mark by a mile.

Anyone with any knowledge of small budget films will know that the acting is rarely gripping and emotional, but Razor Blade Smile creates a whole new dimension of hamming it up on screen. Some of the so called acting is just indescribably bad, with characters spewing cheesy one liners that fall flat, and discourse expressing about as much emotion and conviction as the terminator after a couple of horse tranquillisers.

A vast portion of the film is also taken up by the vampiric characters, the protagonist in particular, unnecessarily flapping their mouths, showing off their ridiculously large vampire teeth and exhaling very loudly. It literally must happen in almost every scene at least once, and quickly became annoying and pointless, as if that many looks of slack jawed supposedly scary vampire faces were used to merely fill a little bit of time and pad out the rest of this turd sandwich of a film.

Contrary to what some of the other reviewers believe on here, I feel this film (the director in particular) is really trying to take this film seriously in many parts. The sheer number of overly dramatic action shots and extreme close-ups seems to indicate to me that the director really wanted people to feel this film and make it legitimate to its genre and not spoof it, and he fails miserably. The attempts at supposedly tasteful sex scenes come out as comic and silly and the action sequences are sometimes just plain stupid.

Also the ending of this film was one of the weakest and most pathetic conclusions I have seen to a film, B movie or not. When films such as this force you to sit through hours of themselves only to be rewarded with a "oh it was all a game" ending it is actually sickening. It the conclusion to the "plot" feels like an afterthought of the director that he figured out on the last day of shooting because they had run to the end of their shoestring budget.

But I have not rated this film as one star despite the overwhelming crappiness, and this is because of the only plus point I can really give this film. Intentionally or not, it was funny. I am fairly sure the parts I found humorous were not intended to be, and I found most of the efforts at genuine gags to be fruitless, but when watched with friends it is a good film to take the mickey out of.


I will not even make any more comments about this movie. Instead I will make a recommendation for all you Euro-horror fans: If you want to see an enjoyable low-budget Vampire flick, check out Nattens engel (1998). It has everything Razor Blade Smile lacks: acting, nice locations, terrific score, and less hissing vampires...


I had no expectations when seeing the movie because I was seeing it with a bunch of friends and had no idea what it was. Some parts were silly and some parts were lame, but overall the movie was worth watching. I like goth looking women; this movie has plenty of it. The fangs do look really lame though.


12 Grand is the cost of a new car. A new car that Jake West now needs to escape the hordes of angry villagers desperate for his blood. Some may say this film could attract "So bad it's good" status. In my Opinion it is the proud owner of the "So bad it's Bad" label.


I laughed at the movie! The script, the acting please don't we deserve better? But now the filming, some of the camera angles were interesting. I did enjoy the film, but it's not to be taken seriously though. I liked it. If it had a new cast and scriptwritter it would be better than all right. It's worth a look!


Well, some people might go to see this to watch a trashy rubber and pvc clad bisexual vampire assassin kicking some ass. If that's what you want, and you wear a cloak, file your teeth to points and think that the name Lilith Silver is cool, you'll see a fine film.

If, like most people, an assassin dressed in gleaming, creaking rubber with HUGE cleavage, thick makeup and bad fangs makes you laugh, then this is one of the best comedies you'll see. I laughed so hard I nearly cried. Ridiculous acting, dialogue and plotting help to make this a better spoof than Dracula, Dead and Loving It could be...

It tries to be cool and goth, and all it succeeds in doing is making each scene hilarious. Even the tacked-on lesbian scene is funny (how *did* she get those boots off that quickly? They were laced up to *here*...)

Don't see it if you like good films. See it if you like terrible films and want to laugh until you fall over.... It isn't good, it's just bad.


Frank Tashlin's 'Censored' is a so-so Private Snafu short which aims to teach the importance of the Censor in stopping military secrets from leaking out. Snafu attempts to get word out to his girlfriend that he's to be stationed in the South Pacific but the Censor foils each attempt he makes to send the letter. These early scenes are the best, with the unseen Censor plucking the letter out of the sky with long mechanical arms, nets and even a specially employed eagle! The second half of the cartoon, in which Snafu manages to send the letter with the aid of Technical Fairy, First Class (who is actually teaching him a lesson), is less funny and climaxes with a disappointing only-a-dream finale. The main point of interest in this part of the cartoon is the appearance of Snafu's extremely scantily clad girlfriend who is even seen bare-breasted, albeit with strategically placed limbs at all times! Aimed at the military, the Snafu shorts were often characterised by a heightened bawdiness but these scenes, crowbarred in as they may be, are by far the most erotic I've come across in any of these shorts thus far. Despite all this, I prefer the Snafu shorts that go for the jugular a little more, usually resulting in the death of the main character. For great examples of this, seek out Tashlin's 'The Goldbrick' or Chuck Jones's 'Spies'. 'Censored' is fairly weak by comparison.


Ego. Seems it's the only reason this movie was made. This movie is so wrong in so many ways that it's below one's dignity to write much about it. Every character was only good at self praise and lead actors (i use this term liberally as has the director) emote in the likeness of stone. the little story, if that, fails on the basic aspects such as logic, feeling and drama. Direction leaves much to be desired. blatant flaws are all over the place (character motives aren't defined, prospective husbands are found overnight, broken car windows mend themselves among other things)

Let's face it, Himesh can't act. neither, it seems, can Hansika Motwani. In her defense, she's still a chubby child who looks older than she is thanks to tonnes of make-up. Raj Babbar Overacts and makes his little presence as fake as possible. Darshan Jariwala laughs a bit too much. The actor who plays Himesh's friend is the only natural.

a few questions do come to mind: how can such a film cost Rs.500,000,000?? where did the money go??? granted that one chase sequence was moderately well shot and Mallika Sherawat was paid an obscene Rs.15,000,000 for her 15 minute appearance and 2 songs. but the sheer stupidity of the film boggles the mind. (including 3 Mumbai auto rickshaws that show up and jump on a police car)

the good: Himesh shows courage by allowing the film to make fun of his nasal voice and trademark "topi." Let's give the Devil his due: Himesh, as usual gives good music.

The bad: Direction, Story, Himesh's singing is still hard to ignore

The Ugly: Dialogs and everything else!!!

Final Word: Painful in every sense of the word! watch this movie only if you loved Subhash Ghai's "Yaadein"


I have to hold my hand up and say that I was one of the first (and probably the last!!!) to see this film. Where do I start, it's a complete mess. The main attraction of course was the soundtrack. Which goes without saying is brilliant - it's what Himesh does best. But as they say, don't give up your day job - HR definitely shouldn't.

HR's acting is plain and simply awful. Even if the film had a plot, the thing that baffles you most is why this man is up on screen and what the hell is doing there. Two words of advice to HR - give up acting and secondly, use chapstick.

HR has no screen presence, no acting skills and the female lead looks just a little too young for him. As for Malika Sherawat - just the same old Bollywood vamp crap.

You can package the product as much as you want, but if there's no substance it won't hold. Don't waste your money...


First things first, how can someone with his creativity on the right side believe in a movie like this. I saw this movie and after end of couple of hours was left scratching my head, what exactly is director trying to say.

If its a thriller, there are no thrills, if its action, there is no action barring a chase sequence, there is no Drama, and the much touted love story, it actually never takes off. No passion, emotion nothing is there.

Actually I never expected wonders from the movie, however after the bumper opening it took, I thought of giving it a chance. I have no problems with Himesh Reshamiya whatsoever, and I am not one of the guys who will bash him at every given opportunity. I went in with an Open mind and came out with a closed one.

Let's not put the blame of Himesh Reshamiya, he is just a Debutant Actor. But direction, screenplay, writing, makeup, everything has gone for a toss.

Himesh is very stiff and would take a lot of time to come up the curve. He can do the don kind of roles. Hansika is just a kid, and it shows on screen with her baby fat and the way she walks.

The only actor who was good was the friend of Himesh in the movie, I don't know his name, but he looks promising.

Watch it at your own risk, not even good to watch it for a time pass viewing.

** Strongly recommend to avoid this Movie.**


one of the most awaited movie!i thought himesh will do a bit of acting but Alas all my hope went wrong..given that the heroine is 15 yrs old!!!!omg!!what did they thought before considering the actress..may be its because no boby wants to work with HR(as he is called in the film,(human resource as many people wrote in mazagines!)nevertheless it was a disappointment.i hope the producer doesn't make himself bankrupt by making a part 2 of this as this news is roaming around...the story was predictable one with himesh showing his generosity character throughout the movie which i doubt very well.

anyways..the movie is good from those people's angle who thinks himesh cant do anything wrong. >>4 out of 10<<


If you feel Reshammiya as the singer is too much of a pain to watch on TV, try watching him in the movie for 2 hours straight. His face is bland all throughout the movie, and it is very comical to see him act the demanding and intense scenes. This is way far from a real love story (Get the spelling right, Reshammiya - it is not luv or reeal), and is complete with him doing a Mithun da dance, auto rickshaw fight scenes, Himesh getting imprisoned, Himesh accused of murder, he fleeing from prison etc ... If you want a good laugh, there is nothing like this one, especially the scenes where he howls in Mehbooba. If you despise the nasal twangs, and want to know out of curiosity what two hours of Reshammiya can do to you, then don't miss this movie.

I couldn't stop laughing from the beginning till the very end. The only saving grace that this movie has are the cinematography, locations, and a couple of the songs. Even then, until you are a die hard Reshammiya fan, avoid this movie at all costs.


Whoever filled this stupid idea of acting and producing a movie in Himesh's head, which is always hidden under a cap, covering almost half of his face all the time ? Only hope this is first and the last as well, for God's sake ! From Assalam Valekum to Gayatri Mantra, Himesh has tried every thing, to create an aura of his so-called singing talent, which is nothing but atrocious pronunciations of words like Tanhaiyya, which completely kill the beauty of the terms, so commonly used for love songs. Why does Himesh not smile ? Simple, because he does not use close Up toothpaste ! Now there this friend of his, tailing him around every where, and this number one lawyer in the town, who has to herself sexily wiggle and try to seduce Himesh, of all the handsome German people she might have met earlier, perhaps the male lawyers on this part of the world might be cursing their fate, for destined to deal with the stiff, unattractive lot, every day ! The action scenes are so funnily shot, like the event planner attacked by the thief, autos riding over the cars, so on and so forth. The father of the bride seems to be in a great hurry to get rid of his daughter by marrying her off, that he flies to and fro around. Most hypocrite, he praises HR for distributing love among people of the world, as if they were sweets , and on his back, coolly gives a lecture to his daughter on these show business men. when Himesh is proved innocent, he again unceremoniously dumps the other guy, as if it's a game of musical chair ! i didn't get to se the poor guy's face even, did you ? Hansika in the role of Ria, looks as if she is in need of an eye check up, for strain in her eyes ! The fellow in the role of a friend is good, who has acted quite naturally, and should be in better movies, like Sharman Joshi, for example. Child artist in Trishu's brief appearance is sweet, but wasted. It seems today's young generation has gone nuts , since they prefer this kind of mockery of lyrics and musical scores , and associate gossip with it, for example, if you sing ek bar aaja, the ghost would come. this is a weird taste in music, and rather funny. i am surprised, how such classic lyricists like Gulzar , have opted for Himesh of all the people, to give music. There is story in Panchtantra , that a crow attachés so many feathers of a peacock, to look beautiful, and appeal to the birds; but the feathers fall off ultimately, and the real dark crow is revealed ! Hope Himesh takes a hint, and refrains from manufacturing such meaningless stuff, and wasting precious money, which he has earned by taxing his short nose so much ! His friend does tell him, if your nose is cut, how will you sing ? Thanks for showing us Germany, Himesh, at a reasonable cost of renting the DVD ! and correct those spelling mistakes, will you ? an extra e in movie, and no e in love ! There is also a famous number from the old film Sholey, Mehbooba, on which Mallika Sherawat wiggles, once again, but this time with Himesh, winking at her, and conveniently, Ria , his so-called real love, and his new bride is not around ! Now that was very clever, Himesh ! At least one thing in this movie which you have done smartly, to justify Sherawat's presence . But doesn't she look a bit washed down ?


I have been watching movies from i think last 10 years , and I must say that i never felt that bad, which I felt after watching this extra large bore movie, it was bad, very Bad. There were songs & songs. Nobody should watch this movie. The director has shown Germans speaking English which is so rubbish. Germans does not speak English. & in one scene there was a white girl who asked Himesh for autograph. (Obv that he must have gave some money to her) In the promo they have shown prepare for Laughing riot. But i could say there was only one scene where that Himesh was laughing for no reason may be he thinks he's funny. Hansika is very good. she is like an angel. But too young only 16 yrs old. If you have plenty of time and don't know what to do then you should watch this movie or else its waste of money


Agreed this movie is well shot,but it just makes no sense and no use as to how they made 2 hours seem like 3 just over a small love story,

this could have been an episode of the bold and the beautiful or the o.c,in short please don't watch this movie because there is a song every 5 minutes just to wake you up from you're sleep,i gave this movie 1/10 cause that was the lowest,and no this is not based completely on a true story,more than half of it is made up.I repeat the direction of photography is 7 or 8 out of 10,but the movie is just a little too much,the actor's nasal voice just makes me want to go blow my nose.Unless you are a real him mesh fan this movie is a huge no-no.


In Bollywood it isn't rare that worthless films become hits, good films flopping and good actors not making it big

AKS is such a movie

Himesh after a music director and singer tried acting Hell man, just because his songs became a hit that means next he becomes an actor

The producers were sure the film will work perhaps, the songs were a hit too and of course Himesh did his cheap publicity as usual

The film tells such a poor story, such poor direction, such poor acting it makes you cringe

Indian rickshaws in Germany, Stunts by Himesh and lot of stupidity Himesh's cap is intact even when he is in the car which somersaults

Direction is poor Music is saving grace though most songs sound the same

Himesh tries hard but sadly his emotive scenes are a joke, lacks expressions, he is best suited for his music director and some singing He cuts a sorry picture Hansika is awful Malika is okay Sachin Khedekar is okay, Darshan Jhariwala hams


As a nice anecdote to one of the above comments: In was in Mumbai about two weeks before the release of this movie, I was approached -being white- to dub some of the lines of this movie in a recording studio.

While I speak German as well, i was kindly asked to do all dubbing scenes in English, otherwise it would be too confusing for the Indian audience... So therefore, all Germans in this movie actually speak English! funny enough i did multiple characters, so if you would want to actually spoil some time by watching the movie again, listen carefully;

all non-Indian characters are only done by 4 voices! . . . .


( HR is what Himesh is called in the movie, I think he likes it too. ) It's amazing how intelligent people, talented even fall in to the same trap.

I really like Reshamiya. It's amazing what he has done. No one in recent years has come back from the wilderness and made a mark for himself.

And I truly expected a great film ( What with the budget of 50 Cr and the cute actress ). As intense as Reshamiya is I thought, he would excel at a sentimental and an emotional role. Ironically he is depicted the same but for what care? Sheer incompetence, carelessness, awful acting, banal background music, insensitive direction make it a real pain.

Blunders rule. ( Ex. How can German Police issue public instructions on a loud speaker in English? They communicate among themselves in English!) Unfortunately this incompetence has become the standard in main line Bollywood. There are some excellent directors but many a bad ones too. The worse thing is that the majority just doesn't care.

Songs are the only saving grace...

Please don't repeat this HR and find yourself a good director ( low budget.. No problem).

The villain should really have shaved his head instead of the wig you know... after all it's a 50Cr movie.


This movie has to be the worst film of 2007, it was just really bad and i don't think i have ever seen a film that is just so bad, i mean the don't make really bad Hollywood films do they?? Hamish really should stick to singing instead of acting cause he just can't act at all, god he was just so bad, i mean he was that bad in the film that he made Mallika Sherawat look like a better actress than him, as for her performance, she plays the same role in every movie, god it is just so boring watching her, i mean what do men see in this woman?, yeah she has a god body but where is that talent???? i have not seen it yet and at this rate i don't think that i ever will.

Anyway Hamish falls in love with Ria now this 15 year old girl can act, my god she was the best actor in the film and she does not look 15 at all, to me she looks about 21, but her performance was brilliant in the film. bless her she was really good, i hope to see more of her in the future. So Ria falls in love with Himash, but her father wants her to marry someone else, a typical bollywood film anyways there is a hiccup (can only happen in a bollywood film) and the both get married in the end.

Well i would give th music 10/10 it was superb, that made the movie a hit, the songs were truly amazing and brilliant. anyways the only thing that i can say is to go and buy the music and not watch the film.


I do not like Himesh Reshamiya. I do not like his singing too. But his songs are a craze in India, especially among commoners. Now when he ventured to become an actor  that was a big joke! What guts he has to reap as much as he can in his prime time. I did never want to see this movie. But one thing changed it. The movie becoming a super-duper hit! After 2 weeks, Aap Ka Saroor has raked box office collection of 14 crores  compared to Apne that has collected 7 crores in the same 2 weeks. If I can sit through Apne and Rajnikant's absurd Sivaji  I should give this movie also a try to understand what stuff this movie has got that made it such a big hit? The story is about the real life singer Himesh Reshamiya (HR) who has gone to Germany for a concert and falls in love with Riya (Hansika Motwani). A German lawyer Ruby (Mallika Sherawat) loves Himesh. Now Himesh is arrested for a murder. The mission of Himesh (in last 40 minutes) after he runs away from jail is to prove himself innocent and find the real murderer.

Let me say that Himesh has nothing in him to become a hero. He tries hard but fails miserably. He is pathetic. I was thinking what could have made the movie click so much? Let me find something positive.

First, the saving grace of the movie is the script till the point Himesh runs away from the jail. (But after that the movie nose dives into unbearable stupid limits) Second, the songs of the movie are good, catchy, crowd puller numbers. Third, Mallika Sherawat  she looks gorgeous and acts well too, as the second lady. I can imagine fans of Mallika coming to see the movie just for her. Fourth, the cinematography of the movie is pleasing  especially the German locales, are a treat to watch for the eye. Fifth, the major portion of the story is a love story between Himesh and Riya  with clichéd dialogues that would probably connect to young crowd. Sixth, the Director Prashant Chadha has done a decent job in covering the pathetic acting skills of Himesh as much as possible with shots that don't need Himesh to act much.

The heroine Hansika Motwani looks like a small budget film heroine. Raj Babbar is wasted in a small role. Overall the movie is a below average.

I was thinking throughout the movie  what if the same movie script was done with Salmaan as the main lead. I think it would have had been a much better affair. May be then I would have given the movie 6 out of 10. But now (Stars 4.5 out of 10)


The pace of this movie is quite slow. It takes about 70 minutes to get Katie to China (which we know that she will) and leaves 30 minutes to wrap things up. The storyline is so predictable that you know everything after about 5 minutes. Nothing surprises you. I guess that the movie is a coming of age movie but the movie is full of stereotypes that are quite over the top:

Katie - A beauty that realizes that looks, boys and shopping isn't everything. She realizes that she can "feel" and "see the real world". Touching.

The mother - high strung, nervous, screaming mother (wow very innovative) that need taking care of by a strong man.

The father - patient and always understanding and takes care of the incapable woman.

The boyfriend that only wants to get into her pants.

The comedian clown Chinese guy that doesn't know how to speak English properly and made a laughing stock. Thought Hollywood dropped those characters in the mid fifties.

The nurse that at times knows everything how to get around in China that in the next moment is a carbon copy of The mother i.e. a woman who cant handle the situation or knows anything.

The deformed Chinese girl that with the help of us westerns get help and become a beautiful girl. Because in China (a third world country according to the film) don't have anything and hence needs our charity. Gah, wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

Sure that there are some poverty in China but the portrayal of the aid from western countries (read USA) is so shallow and happy ending-ish that it is sad and revolting. Shanghai (where the movie is set) is the most expanding and evolving city in the world at the moment.

The Chinese father that is so nice and goodhearted that in the end has one wish ... to be a cowboy with a white hat ...

The teacher (Sean Astin) that has this really heart ripping story (not) that he tells without feel. Why Sean? WHY!?

Etc etc. It is difficult to actually finding a "real" person in the entire movie.

This is nothing but a feel good movie for Americans below age 15. If you want to learn anything about the world watch e.g. Hotel Rwanda instead. For a better life story or coming of age movie I suggest you watch the Italian "Cinema Paradiso" that won the best foreign film academy reward some years back.

The only nice thing in the movie were the small town sceneries that truly capture some (not all) of the beautiful Chinese country side. I have been there and seen some of it.


Two redeeming qualities of this film were the cinemaphotography and a storyline that was hard to resist. However, the script, the direction, and some scenes, were just awful. I kept asking myself why such a good cast would have produced such a bad movie. My only conclusion was that these actors must believe in the charity which underlies the plot of the movie, but knew the movie was filled with flaws.

This film could have been so much better, and reached a larger audience accordingly. What makes me think this is that with all of the problems of the film, some scenes being painfully bad to watch, I still wanted to see how the obvious conclusion would resolve itself.


...without anything to walk away with. This movie starts with scenes in China with the finding of a newborn. While this is not a new concept, I wasn't going to give up right there. Then there is a flash forward to adolescence. The man's wife and biological child are fed up with the father who has neglected them. While this did not seem culturally accurate, and the movie made no move to develop these characters or the purpose for the adopted father's devotion, I pressed on.

Next, we're in Malibu where we are bombarded by poorly constructed classroom interaction and terribly low-budget (fill in the blank: acting/camera work/lighting).

I won't give away any more of the plot, because I suppose the synopsis is accurate: the movie is meant to show how a Malibu girl who (though she seems to innately have the compassion and interest to help others when she immediately asks her teacher about the trip to China) is spoiled and inconsiderate, finds herself as being a healer and helper of both body and spirit.

Lame. LAME, LAME, LAME.

Now I, admittedly, am a harsh critic, so maybe take one of those LAME's away and you'll be on the mark.


The story line of a man's love for an innocent baby he finds with a malformed face and on the opposite side of the world a shallow self centered "valley girl" who shares a birth date with her and ends up making a big difference in both of there lives. What a great and worthy story line. But in this telling the screen writing and/or directing and/or editing is so poor as to take most of the joy out of the story. Linda Hamilton's character goes from understanding mom to wicked witch and back faster than a speeding bullet, and for what purpose? Conflict, conflict, conflict, at the drop of a hat. Katie (The California Girl) and her boyfriend, Katie's Mom and everybody, including the poor lady at the airport check-in counter, Lin's adopted father, who is the nicest, most considerate man alive, and his wife and biological son, all in constant conflict. I really wanted to enjoy a heartwarming story, but the only thing that made me SMILE was when all the hate and fighting were over. There were too many unexplained or illogical events, many of which don't add to the story. My wife and I kept looking at each other and asking ourselves how such a good cast and what should be a great story, could be crapped up so badly.


The characterization in this movie is among the worst I've ever encountered. The dialogue is trite and cliché to the point of extreme distraction. None of the issues the characters face are developed at all--they're merely surface details intended to get a point across without having to actually come up with believable dialogue to support said point. Also, the depiction of the Chinese characters leaves a bit to be desired--I find it hard to believe that the Chinese father learns flawless English from a book(or so it is implied in one scene) so he can teach it to his daughter. Etc.

The Smile Train is a great organization and it's a nice idea, to make a heartstring-tugging film about the impact a program like this can have on kids' lives, but overall, I found this movie to be more frustrating than anything.


This movie is terrible, it was so difficult to believe that Katie became a heartfelt teenager with the power to save the pity Chinese people, the movie didn't show any convincing argument to prove that. And the rest of the plot didn't make any effort to show us more than a cheap common sense...

The plot is ridiculous and the only thing we can extract from it is that it demonstrate how arrogant a human can be. Katie must have inherited her arrogance from her mother, the most annoying character I have seen for a long time.

The acting and scenery were OK, but the plot ruins everything, full of cheap clichés and hypocritical scenes, I expect not to see this movie again in my life. Skip this one!


Not to be confused with Michael Ritchie's nasty 1975 beauty pageant spoof, this "Smile" is a down-turned example of those good intentions paving the road to hell.

The film parallels two stories: an impoverished Chinese father sacrifices his wife and son to raise a facially-deformed orphan named Ling (Yi Ding), and a TV-spawned Malibu family act out "Gidget Get Birth Control." Katie (Mika Booram, the third Olsen twin) plays a spoiled, self-absorbed high schooler distanced from reality. Her teacher (Sean Astin) paves the way for a school trip to China aimed at showing students how to work with deformed children.

The film uses deformity as a means of suspense by treating Ling like the Frankenstein monster. Kramer continually masks her deformity through hats, hoods and camera placement. This approach exploits the freak show quality inherent in the material. She may be uncomfortable with the way society views her and Kramer's answer is to cover her up until the big reveal. Why disturb your audience with such unpleasantness? We see her face briefly at the end and only minutes before closing-credit snapshots of her after surgery disclose a swan beneath the harelip. It is not good enough to give the girl a reason to live; what is imperative is Ling being equally as hot and popular as Katie.

Funding for the film came from a trust established by the late Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. They envisioned a heritage of quality family films. Give me "Son of Paleface" any day.


I just purchased this movie because I love to donate to Operation Smile, the charity on which the movie was based...but I found the writing of the movie to be very strange. It t does not really focus so much on Operation Smile or similar organizations like The Smile Train and their Herculean efforts to relieve the suffering of children born with facial deformities in third world countries. No, it concentrates on an American teenage volunteer, Katie, whose "over-privileged" life in Malibu, California, includes a mother who brings her to a doctor so that she'll have birth control pills in her before she sleeps with her boyfriend. What is this birth control nonsense supposed to do, titillate the audience? It's 2005. I'd be more surprised if in 2005 a Malibu teen wasn't on birth control, and even if she is, so what and who cares? Contrasting Katie is the character of Lin in China, a girl with a facial deformity who missed last year's chance to get an operation and this year does not want to have one. Neither character is written in such a way that the audience can really identify with, let alone understand the motivations of, either girl. On the other hand, the actors do an adequate job of trying to play the bad hand they were dealt by whoever wrote this ridiculous script. The best performance was by the gentleman playing Lin's father although much of his dialogue is in Chinese and subtitled. Operation Smile deserved to be honored by a much better movie than this!


Never mind the serious logic gaps, never mind the achingly cliche character portrayals, never mind the haphazard writing, and you might like this movie. The main character Alyssa was supposed to be endearing, the heroine who you root for to be saved,(or in this case, save herself) But instead she merely grates, and makes one wonder, are all pro ballerinas really that stupid? Her busybody mother was obviously only necessary to further propagate the illusion that ballet companies are evil monsters ready to snatch your poor, innocent, young girl from your grasp, with an ever present, biting artistic director/villain. And the cliche's! Not only does she become anorexic, bulemic, an over the counter junkie, and a pathological liar, but all in the course of a few months. It's like the writer read every horror story he could dig up about ballet and decided to see how much he could cram into two hours, (with commercials).

Believe it or not, but I am a dancer. This "uprising" or "resurgence" of anorexia and bulemia that is happening is nonexistent at all of the dance schools I have attended. In fact, the teachers are so scared to even suggest that a girl might stand a better chance a few pounds lighter, most of the dancers in my classes would be actually considered minorly overweight. I'm not saying eating disorders never occur, but not to the extent as it was portrayed in the movie.

Another annoying problem this movie had was the means-to-an-end writing style. Her on again off again boyfriend probably had all of half an hour total screen time, all in the first half. The other supporting characters were merely props, decorations to further the story. Given the right dialogue, this would have been a very intricate mind study of a psycological problem. As it is, it turns into a one woman show, and Kimberly McCullough doesn't have the chutzpah to pull it off.

To a non dancer, this movie would be a supposed "insight" into what really goes one behind closed doors at a ballet company. To a dancer, this is a very insulting movie, which portrays ballerinas as stupid and parents as pushy and ill informed. Those adjectives more correctly describe the people who got this on the air in the first place. 3/10


Rarely seen a movie that deviates so much from the original premise and still remains (more or less) acceptableBloodline is a rather short (which is a good thing in this case) escapade that focuses on the mysterious Hellraiser box. Who wanted it to be made and how it cast a spell on the entire bloodline of the man who eventually created it. We're introduced to 3 generations of the Merchant family (all played by Bruce Ramsey); one in 18th century Paris, one in the present day and the last one in a future galaxy far, far away Opinions on this storyline may differ a loteither you think it's very idiotic and far-fetched ororiginal and dared. The initial atmosphere and setting by Clive Barker has completely vanished, yet the morbid surrounding remains and several sequences are still very creepy and unsettling. Hellraiser: Bloodline contains quite a lot of exquisite slaughtering and the charismatic presence of Pinhead (Doug Bradley) still is an extra horror-value. Pinhead  accompanied by a pet puppy this time  still knows how to killtoo bad he talks too much and his vicious speeches tend to get boring quickly. Best aspects in this production are the newly introduced `cenobites' and the occult Parisian portrait. Giant turn-offs are the weak script, the absence of the typical macabre humor and the lack of references to Barker's initial masterpiece.

Although not highly memorable itself, Bloodline stands as the last watchable Hellraiser film. After this sequel, the series went downhill completely. So far, 2 more sequels came out (2 more are still in process) and neither of those is worth seeing. Hellraiser:Bloodline suffered from a lot of production difficulties and the director eventually preferred to be credited as Alan SmitheeMeaning he doesn't want to be remembered as the director of it. Who could blame him?


The Joe Cool Review - Hellraiser: Bloodline

Starring: Bruce Ramsay as Phillip L'Merchant/John Merchant/Dr. Paul Merchant, Valentina Vargas as Angelique and Doug Bradley as Pinhead

Plot: This follows a timeline of the lineage of the Merchant bloodline, which started with Phillip L'Merchant, who created the box that opens the doorway to Hell. Starting with the 18th century to present time when Pinhead first meets Merchant and tries to sever the bloodline..(he's the only one who can stop Pinhead, you see) and finally in the future, in space, where Paul Merchant has finally figured out how to send Pinhead to hell for good.

Openers: This is a movie hated so much by the people who made it, they declared fictional director Alan Smithee would be the credited director. They only pull Smithee out of the woodwork when they really think they've made a terrible movie, such as classics as The Birds II: Land's End or Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh. No I didn't make that up. How did I like it? You're reading this so I'm sure that's what you want to know.

The Good: This movie isn't as bad as you've been led to believe. Oh I'm not going to sugar-coat it. This movie was filled with so much potential and ended up being a disaster, but it does have some positives. Cooler cenobites this time around for starters, such as the twins and the demon Angelique. Pinhead is still in a main role, and still has good lines("Pain has a face, allow me to show it to you") and it's somewhat entertaining throughout. Gorehounds will love the movie because of it's endless supply. There is also some continuity with the rest of the series, although you'll have to look hard to see it. The Chatterer Dog is awesome.

The Bad: But for a story about Hell vs the cursed Merchant bloodline that could close the gateway forever, it was really complicated and held together with duct tape. Nothing was really explored to it's full potential and there were some really stupid things included. Pinhead kidnaps a kid and holds him for ransom! Random deaths just to feature more blood(not always a bad thing, but not for the sake of the story). Pinhead is at his worst here, he rants and rants and rants even when he's about to die! For the very smart demon that he used to be, he's been reduced to nothing more than a Bond villain, at best. If Hellraiser fans ever needed a reason why he was moved back into a cameo like role, this is it. Bloodline ruined it for us all.

The Ugly: Gore is always mentioned here. This one has skin ripping, drilling, hook impaling, beheadings, and more goodies. The Chatterer Dog, while awesome, reeks of bad special effects during the chase scenes.

Final Verdict: This movie had the potential for something great, even Hellbound levels of greatness. But all of that was wasted. Who knows exactly what went down to produce this crap, but we can only blame Alan Smithee.

Compared to the rest: This movie is the worst of the Hellraiser series. For completists only.

Rating: 1/2* of *****


After the failure of "Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth," the chapter that served as a kind of 'death blow' to the franchise, another embarrassing cheapo cash-in did not come as a surprise. An abysmal attempt to explain every single mystery of Pinhead and the puzzle box, covering literally centuries of history, in a film that runs UNDER 90 minutes... On display is sub-par to wretched acting, sup-par to wretched B-movie special effects, and a ludicrous and insulting attempt at dark humour, while STILL attempting to keep the whole project completely serious. I'm wondering, how many freaking directors did this thing have? Poor Pinhead has SO MUCH screen time, that every bit of mystery and menace that this iconic character possessed, is completely lost. After an hour of hearing long-winded speeches and dramatic posturing, we simply want to tell the guy to shut up! mildly entertaining in spots, especially in the first segment, this mess begins to look and feel like a cheap, ugly made for TV splatter flick after a while, and ends in the most ridiculous way imaginable: Pinhead, along with his pet Cenobite dog, killing a bunch of idiots... in outer space! I'm sorry, but any true fan of the first two films in the series, that gave this abortion of a film more than 3 stars, should be ashamed. On a side note, the film that follows; "Hellraiser: Inferno" is actually a surprisingly intelligent, and stylishly-made film-noir piece, that brilliantly reinstates 'Pinhead' as a master of illusion and cruelty, and brings back the concept of the inherent evil in human kind, that was the centerpiece of the original film, and the whole point of the story. For any serious horror fan, see Hellraiser I & II, skip the lousy III & this one, and continue with 'Inferno.' You won't miss a thing by skipping this garbage...


By the time the Hellraiser franchise was reaching it's forth film the premise was wearing a bit thin. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) is a scientist in the future, whom while prisoner regales his captor of the story of how his ancestors (all played by Ramsey) had first built the evil Lament Configuration puzzle-box that sets evil upon the world and how his bloodline had subsequent dealing with said box. The film is a awash with lack of continuity in regards to the other films and lack of coherency in this one. Yes, this could be due to a combination of rewrites, massive cuts in the original version of the film, or what have you. But I'm reviewing the film as is, and not what it was or could have been. And as it is now it's a mess. Sure the franchise will go on indefinitely with direct to DVD sequels, but this one was pretty much a death-nail to it's chances of getting a new one released theatrically ever again.

My Grade: D-


In the XXII century an architect by the name of Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) commandeers a space station, which he personally designed. As can be predicted a special force is sent to retake the expensive station and put Merchant into custody. Upon arrival they find him partaking in a weird ritual with the use of a mysterious cubical. During interrogation he reveals that they must let him finish, what he has started or else the hell he has released will bathe in blood... In order to convince the officers holding him captive he reminisces about his heritage, about the toymaker who built the box and about the reasons as to why he is here in space...

The movie that is essentially the same to Hellraiser, that The Quickening was to Highlander. Something to be ignored and forgotten, as so it won't influence the lore of Hellraiser to much. By far the most trashy of the franchise with a much more low-grade feel to it than its predecessors (who let's face it were B or C class films).

Acting at times seems to be influenced by a mid-budget porn-flick with wooden unbelievable performances, that actually have you thinking: So when are they going to undress and start with the intercourse? Surprisingly not much sex in the movie, albeit the introduction of the seductress-demon Angelique (a totally superfluous character that unnecessarily messes with what we know of the world of Hellraiser) offers ample opportunities for the love-making.

Basically the movie consists of three abruptly pasted together separate short stories (one in the future, one in the present and one in the past) which lack focus and are rushed along in amateurish fashion. The end result is extremely poor, basically underlined by the fact you have no interest into what happens to any of the characters in the film.

Some decent gore in the flick, but apart from that an utter failure.


There's lots of ketchup but not a whole lot of sense in the supposedly explanatory third sequel, which piles on the naff visuals to no effect. Good old Alan Smithee directed this one, in which various members of the same family (all played, poorly, by Bruce Ramsay) are terrorised by Pinhead (Doug Bradley, wheeled out of mothballs for the umpteenth time). Peter Atkins tries to imbue his script with poetic touches but doesn't seem to realise that his dialogue is as deep and meaningful as a plate of sick. The incoherent plot fails to adequately fill the movie's meagre running time, although this may have more to do with studio interference than anything the filmmakers intended.


Hellraiser: Bloodline is only a so-so film. I believe it's the fourth installment in the Hellraiser series.

I missed the beginning, and all I remember from there was some topless women and a box-shape thing on a computer screen. But, using my wit and intelligence, (and the Info Button) I soon found out that the villain (Pinhead) was released from Pandora's Box, which, I believe is a gateway straight to Hell.

So, anyways, Pinhead somehow comes out of the box and terrorizes the "Toymaker's" family. And, that's about it. Oh, and not to mention the random tortures of various people that cross his path. Yawn.

What mainly happens in this film is that Pinhead captures the kid, and then unleashes the dog on his wife, and then kills a random person. Then he husband comes along, blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Why it fails is because Hellraiser: Bloodline is too corny to be scary. Look at Pinhead's minion of creatures: a cheesy dog that looks like it's been turned inside out, two men whose heads and bodies are connected together, (Siamese twins in a horror film?) and some person who is supposed to be a princess of some sort. (I haven't seen the previous films.) Now look at the main villain. His name is Pinhead. Isn't that the name you call somebody when they're stupid? He has pins in his head and hooks coming out of his fingers, and he has blue skin. I suppose he would make a decent villain if he didn't have such a corny name, and a corny speech. Somewhere in the film, two cops approach him and say "Don't make us put some pain on you!" Pinhead replies "Pain? How dare you use that word! I AM pain" blah, blah, blah, blah blah. It sounds a bit cliché if you ask me.

Don't forget the final half of the movie. The characters (and audience) get to experience more torture when Pinhead attacks some futuristic asylum. Some person who we don't recognize (Maybe he was in the previous films. I don't remember him in the beginning of the movie.) This scene is basically one thing played over and over again:

A guard goes to inspect a mysterious noise.

Some other guard: "Oh no! He's down. I will go check on himby myself!"

After he dies the same thing happens again.

(SPOILERS) Here's the thing I didn't get. In the film Pinhead is supposedly sent to Oblivion at the end. So, how does he come back for another four films? Are they prequels? Why hasn't he died in the previous ones? Geez. The makers need to come up with an idea for a different series. (END OF SPOILERS) Hellraiser: Bloodline is gory and full of torture scenes, but has little thrill or scare value. Just forget it. Bad special effects with badeverything else make this more of a snooze-fest than a good horror.

Good: Wellsome people may enjoy the topless women in the beginning. Plus, Pinhead's voice is pretty cool. I suppose if you like ultra-violence, you might like this too.

Bad: None of the reasons above make this a very good film. The corniness and repetitiveness are pretty bad. And, who names their villain Pinhead?

Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.


Some sort of accolades must be given to `Hellraiser: Bloodline'. It's actually out Full-Mooned Full Moon. It bears all the marks of, say, your `Demonic Toys' or `Puppet Master' series, without their dopey, uh, charm? Full Moon can get away with silly product because they know it's silly. These Hellraiser things, man, do they ever take themselves seriously. This increasingly stupid franchise (though not nearly as stupid as I am for having watched it) once made up for its low budgets by being stylish. Now it's just ish.


Hellraiser: Bloodline is where the sequel mediocrity of the Hellraiser series well and truly sets in. Gone is the imagination and invention of the first two movies. Gone is the ethos of Pinhead and his minions. Gone are the sick desires of humans. In fact everything that once made Hellraiser so original has been trashed by this mess of a picture.

All that is left is that basic premise of Christian mythology that there is a Hell with evil Demons. What happened to the evil that men do? This watered down excuse for a Hellraiser movie is padded out with endless Psycho Babble, so that Pinhead becomes a nonsense spouting philosopher and not the harbinger of doom as he is meant to be.

The film uses the most basic of film formulas with characters separating and getting individually killed. Pinhead is not Alien. The link between the box and the 'demons' or 'Hell' is never established it just arrives at a sacrifice and sits on a sideboard.

The lead female Character is called 'Rimmer' and the producers obviously think it really funny because everyone keep saying her name. Really the film should have been retitled to give it that characters name.

Shame on you Kevin Yagher and Alan Smithee.


It's true, no one really expects anything from sequels. But even by that low standard this is a terrible film.

Essentially an anthology movie, this fourth installment in the Hellraiser saga tries to be an origins story and a wind-up to the entire series at the same time. An ambitious idea. But none of the cast is given enough screen time to do anything with their characters and rookie director Yagher abandoned the film rather than give in to studio meddling. The result is a steaming pile of mediocrity that even fanboys have trouble defending. Unless you're an "Alan Smithee" fan, avoid this one.


***SPOILERS!*** I sometimes wonder what makes sequel-makers think that they have to explain (and therefore destroy) the mysteries behind iconic Horror films. The original "Hellraiser" of 1987 was an absolute masterpiece and probably one of the scariest films ever made. The 1988 sequel "Hellbound" was also a fantastic Horror film, though I personally didn't like how the viewer got background information on the Cenobites, some of the all-time creepiest Horror-villains in the original. The third part, "Hell on Earth" (1992) was already quite a mess, whose makers obviously thought it necessary to add a dose of humor to the formerly incomparably creepy lead-cenobite Pinhead (a typical 90s stupidity) and therefore destroyed most of his scariness. This fourth part "Hellraiser: Bloodline" (1996) is slightly more atmospheric than the third one, but it lowers this quality by inventing even more silly and completely unnecessary 'background information' about the cenobites and the opening of the gates to hell.

Seriously - did we need to know how the mysterious puzzle boxes that open the gates to hell are being made? I think not, and that is not the only mystery about the cenobites that is stupidly destroyed in this film. The setting of "Bloodline" goes back and forth in three different periods. The film begins in a 22nd century space-station, when scientist Dr. Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) attempts to close the gates to hell forever. When government soldiers disrupt his mission he has to explain his reasons. In 18th century Paris, Merchant's ancestor was a toymaker assigned to build a puzzle box by an aristocrat obsessed with the occult. An evoked demon, the princess of hell, took over the body of the beautiful Angelique (Valentina Vargas). Since the only person capable of destroying the gateway to hell is the one who built it, the bloodline of the toymaker would be cursed and his ancestors infested by cenobites throughout the ages... The film, which takes place in the 18th century, the present, and the 22nd century, really is quite a mess. I admit that the part set in the 18th century has a creepy atmosphere and is by far the best part of the film, but its also its smallest part. The parts set in the present and in the future are quite weak, and filled with stupid and unworthy elements. The film's undoubtedly strong points are the terrific make-up and gore-effects, the absolutely ravishing Valentina Varagas as the she-demon, and Pinhead (Doug Bradley), who, in spite of having lost some of his creepiness, still is a menacing villain. It is an almost offensive idea for "Hellraiser" fans, however, that Pinhead is supposed be defeated by a ridiculous light-show. Overall, "Bloodline" is not a complete disaster, but it sure is an unworthy sequel to a series that began so brilliantly. Even director Kevin Yagher was obviously embarrassed about it, as he preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee. Overall, this is only recommendable to hardcore Pinhead-fanatics, and most of them are probably going to be angered by another diminution of their favorite demon's creepiness. All others are well-advised to stick with the brilliant first, and excellent second part of the "Hellraiser" franchise and skip all the others. The makeup effects in "Bloodline" are creepy as hell, but almost everything else is disappointing. My rating: 3.5/10


this fourth installment of the series is the last to get a theatrical release,though it feels like a direct to video movie.it's OK,i guess,but nothing special.the acting is the worst of seen in the series up to this point.and like the third movie,there isn't much in the way of imagination.also,the sentence "directed by Alan Smithee" is never a good thing.Smithee is the pseudonym directors use when they want nothing to do with the movie.anyway,its an acceptable movie in the Hellraiser series,but not much more than that.it's a slight drop in quality from number three,and a huge drop from the first two.for me,Hellraiser IV:Bloodline is a 4.5/10


this movie is so bad and Hellraiser part 1 to 3 are so great. Nothing is good Bloodline... a lot of gore but without meaning and the majority of time without originality. the movie is about the past, the present (1996) and the future of the puzzle box. The creator of the box and his offspring fight against some demon but nothing link up seriously the 3 stories. Pinhead is in the movie...but it isn't Pinhead, he is just a boring bad guy who kidnap kids and kill bird, and the worse...he talk too much. A thing that I really didn't understand is why the dog from hell????? He can't be a cenobites because he had nothing human. Why the dog can be killed by the pressure if the other creature from hell can receive bullets without problems????? Bloodline is incoherent with the movie series in many ways. For example Pinhead and Angelique are old friend in this movie but it's impossible that Pinhead met Angelique because Pinhead is just a soldier from the First World War and Angelique is an old demon and she live in Paris since sometimes like 200 years.


When I first saw this movie in the theater I was so angry. It completely blew in my opinion. I didn't see it for a decade then decided what the hell, let's see. I'm watching all hellraiser movies now to see where it went wrong. My guess is it was with sequel 5 that was the first to implement the whole "i am in a dream omg i see weird stuff, oh noes what is happening, oh its a dream, oh its not a dream, oh wait i see something spooky, oh never mind"-sucky storyline. Those sequels don't even require the box to be opened, or stick to the rules from the first 4 movies that if you saw pinhead you are pretty much screwed and dead. The first 3 hellraisers sticked to this storyline which made it so scary in the first place. Nothing fantasy, nothing weird, the box got opened boom they came. Kirstey was the only one that could bargain her way out of it, first because of uncle Frank. Then because she had information about the cenobites. This movie at least attempts to stick to all that, even though it was a bad story it was still somewhat hellraiser. No I'm pretty sure part 5 was the first part to completely and utterly destroy the hellraiser series. Now they are remaking 1, and I don't even think I will watch it. Oh who am I kidding I probably will and probably will be disappointed.... again.


I just saw this on TCM tonight and was shocked at the over-acting by Jean Arthur. Her bugging her eyes out in surprise and just generally over-doing everything was not in the same style as Dietrich and Art Lund. Dietrich was marvelous in her restraint and comic timing. She being the best thing in this movie. The Wilder gags were flat and frankly more like something a freshman in college would write trying to "get away" w/being wicked,witty and dirty, but just sounded boring and not funny at all. It seemed the humor was being pushed too hard to be funny. The ending was totally contrived.

SPOILER AHEAD: Never for a moment did I believe that Art Lund suddenly fell outta love w/Dietrich and then was suddenly madly in love w/Arthur. Oh, Billy. Get real! 3 out of 10.


How could a film dealing with illegal Mexican immigrants being robbed and beaten over the border be dull? Well, "Border Incident" is.

No wonder that song and dance man George Murphy's career ended not long after this terrible film came out. Politics was certainly a way out for this future senator who dies a horrible death in this slowly paced film. The film stereotypes the typical Mexican migrant farmer worker as dimwitted and awfully dull.

The film only picks up in intensity once the identities of Murphy and Ricardo Montalban have been discovered as federal agents for the U.S. and Mexico respectively.

Disappointing at best, we see similar problems in our very own society today.


Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration.

The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, "quick - we must try to save him," but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two "rescuers" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!

I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating?


I watched this film because I thought it would be a classic Amy Adams movie. Wow, this movie is so bad on so many levels it staggers the imagination. It is poorly constructed for one, also the script and the acting is just awful. But hey even Johnny Depp has a slew of bad films under his belt. The upside of this movie would be Amy singing, and even on that score I believe better songs could have been chosen. Amy is of course beautiful to see and if you are a die-hard fan of hers you will probably watch this title no matter what, just don't expect too much. I wish I could have found more to like but it was just painful to watch. I recommend Sunshine Cleaning or Doubt.


I would say this is a background movie. Play it the background as your tending to busy work (laundry, checking email, etc). I thought this was a film that was done before Amy Adams became successful after Enchanted. Wrong! It was done in 2009! The screenplay/script is pretty awful. I love musicals but the singing is just average and doesn't move the plot along. Ughh. It almost seems like it's a made for TV movie based on the cinematography. Am I watching a TV show?

Even the secretary breaks out into song. What the f@#$ is going on?! Actually she seemed to have the best voice. Amy Adams was so great in Enchanted. Lead actor is average. Disappointed for sure. This movie would have been good for lifetime, but that's about it. :(


Having endured this film last night, I turned off the DVD player with a sense of deserving a medal for having the stamina to see it through to the end. Throughout the film I felt that I was watching the storyline fillers that you get in a high budget porn movie. the acting was stiff and taut, camera work appalling, and the locations and sets were so poor it felt like they had borrowed them from the local High School "Amateur Dramatic's Society".

The only saving grace for this movie was that it had Amy Adams and Harriet Sansom Harris in its credits, other than that it was pure dribble.


I am a huge Amy Adams fan and have been for many years. I am also a big fan of musicals. With that said this is not a good movie on any level. It is quite dull and the acting overall is very very poor. Amy Adams is awkward to watch act with Scott G. Anderson due to the fact that she is in another league when it comes to acting. All the performances come off as very amateur. The music performances are pleasant, but nothing special.

Scott G. Anderson is just an bad actor! I assumed he was put in this movie because he has a great voice, but it's just not the case. He has an average voice and sings on key, but that's about it.

I guess I can see why Amy Adams did this movie with the singing element I just wish she had not. I could rant about other poor elements of this movie, but I'll leave it at that.


I rented this movie because it supposedly takes place in a jazz club -- you know, those hip, cool places you might stumble upon late on a Saturday night. Well, there's not one ounce of "cool" in this ridiculous movie. The score is goofy, the original songs are awful, both lead actors' singing is continually off-key (to be kind) and unprofessional at best, the plot is no more complex than "boy meets girl," the acting is laughable, and the only decent cinematic moments are the stock footage scenes. The jazz club scenes feature sophomoric dialog smothered by overly-busy organ music. This Joey de Francesco should keep his day job (unless his day job is helping with movie scores). Is it possible to not only get my four dollars back, but have my therapy sessions paid for as well? This movie, interestingly enough, is so bad, you might want to watch it. Sort of like driving by a bad accident -- you just have to look at least once. Just get the ear plugs ready!


About the movie itself, there are ample comments.

I just wanted to say something about the German version, which I have seen recently on TV. It is heavily cut. From 103 to 76 minutes! It is usual that the most bloody scenes are cut for German TV. I understand the reasons for that, but this movie was something else. They did not only cut "gore-shots" - they have cut entire sequences, sparing only glimpses. Like: "WE have to attack THEM" - one 5 second shot of explosions in the camp - protagonist running away.

When the assault on the island begins, it isn't even possible anymore to follow the storyline. All the cuts create something that amounts to a string of erratic, disconnected scenes that don't make any sense anymore.

I could not stand to watch the end after spending 60 minutes on this nonsense.

I think I would have given the original 7/10 The German version is worth only 1/10

Get it on DVD (and check the runtime first) or forget about it.


In what attempts to be a positive story, Dolph Lundgren leads a group of mercenaries to take over a tropical island that looks a lot like paradise so that the men who hired his team can mine it for...bird droppings. Actually, the nitrogen gas that exudes from the muck on this island is what they are after.

There was only one good thing about this movie -- the island location in which it was filmed was beautiful. Otherwise, the story drowns itself leaving the actors with nothing to work with. Result: A lot of violence, a lot of language, lots of blood, and a few shots of women topless. If you want pointless violence (sorry, the storyline can't even give the violence a point, though it tries) then this is the movie for you.

Parents: be warned that this movie is full of violence and blood, driving the R rating.


Big spoiler right here: this film is B!A!D! But enjoy, it's good bad.

Bugged is the kind of film you can't believe exists, with dialog, plotting, and direction so ineptly handled that Uncle Ned's Carlsbad Cavern home video looks like an IMAX experience. Since it's a Troma flick, there's plenty of gross-out gore on tap, but its even sillier than usual.

Most of the production money seems to have gone into buying soda and sandwiches for cast and crew. The brilliant dialog is best summed up in the immortal, "%@#$! What was that?" which is second only to the oft screamed, "Now what?"

Any knowledge of how people act in a desperate situation is alien to Ronald Armstrong, the writer/director. When one of the friends is found being eaten alive by a grasshopper/termite/chiapet thing, Armstrong has the survivors immediately making time with cute, but dumb-as-a-doorknob, "Divine." While she's being hit on, Divine is cooking up a big steaming pot of a rat-poison/oatmeal mixture on the stove, stirring, smiling, stirring, smiling, never falling over dead from the fumes!

The killer bugs are as frightening as piñatas, which they too closely resemble. The effects used to move them include dragging them across tile floors real fast with their legs dragging behind.

The highlight for the film would probably have been the house blowing up, but they were either out of cash or never had any, so instead of seeing even a miniature go up in flames, they simply let the screen go black (eat you heart out ILM).

The cast is virtually all black. How can the NAACP consistently censor something truly funny like Amos and Andy (which depicts characters certainly no less similiar than those on 99% of all white comedy shows), but says nary a peep about something like Bugged. Oh well, it's best they don't know about how demeaning this film is to all involved (as it would be if it were played by any single ethnic group, frankly). Before they put the kabosh on Bugged, get some friends together and get ready for the Plan 9 of Bug Exterminator movies.


I received this movie as a birthday gift because all of my friends know I'm a big fan of low budget Horror flicks. Kaufman Studios have always made the cheesy gory flicks that delivered. I loved to watch their films at home on rainy nights with my family...until I saw Bugged...WHAT HAPPENED?

This Movie started out with a pretty good concept about mutating bugs and even added some slick comedy but overall the writing is just bad and that was mistake number one. Ronald K. Armstrong should learn to first be a better writer before becoming a filmmaker. After reading the Credits we discover he gave himself the most important role in the film!?! two words Mr. Director "Acting Lessons" OK? Mr. Armstrong joins the ranks of other writer/directors who cast themselves in their own movies and that's mistake number two.

The only thing that I believed saved this film was the artistic camera work and the musical score, (let's hear it for the crew!) The cast of other actors who in the beginning of this production seemed a bit cold, really warmed up toward the middle and end of this production. Everyone pulled together and helped to pull this film off. Ronald Armstrong may lack the talent to ever become a decent Director or Actor but, I'll say this of him-He seems to know how to organize people to get them all to come together and pull his productions off.

This film, I have to say can be an inspiration to any young filmmaker who dreams of making their own movie because if Mr. Armstrong was able to pull this off, Any one else can too. If you get a chance to see this film, watch it for the sake of getting inspired to do "Better" in the future. Hollywood needs bigger and better Horror Flicks to keep this genre coming back from it's grave.


Okay, it's a movie for children, and it's not one of those movies that adults will enjoy as well. However, there are some unintentionally funny moments, most of them involving holes in the story. For example, the kid needs a computer part to bring his dad back to normal, and he doesn't have the money. So, does he ask his father for the dough? Nope, he STEALS IT and gets caught. Kids, if I'm ever turned invisible, I'll advance your allowance, ok? Also, while this kid is at the police station (no doubt about to be charged with criminally lame acting), his beautiful blond teacher comes in, announces who she is and where she works, then BUSTS THE CHILD OUT OF THE SLAM IN FRONT OF THE COPS! To make matters worse, instead of making a quick getaway, they then SIT IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE POLICE STATION AND LAUGH ABOUT THEIR ACHIEVEMENT. You know, I hate to pick, but the kid DID steal something and ought to face the consequences, but maybe being in this movie is punishment enough. Y'all avoid it!


First of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!

If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared "too human and real" without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.

I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, "ain't" always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood.


Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I can't find anything positive to say about this movie (if this production is even worthy of that word).

This production is not even the standard of a low budget porn-movie!

My question is simply: why did someone look at the script and think "Hey I'm gonna make a movie out of this"?

At the end of the movie I wasn't even hoping that "Nicole" was going to make it. She was really that annoying!

So for your own sake, do not watch this movie... unless you want to waste 85 minutes of your life...


Quentin Tarantino once said that to succeed in the film industry you had to make your own Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. Writer/actor/director Larry Bishop seems to have taken that advice a little too literally with Hell Ride and concocted a messy homage that borrows much too heavily in its visuals, music, camera-work, and time-altering storytelling. But to properly mimic a Tarantino film, one has to have a knack for constructing creative conversations; unfortunately Hell Ride's primary derailing element is its atrocious ramblings and vulgar monologues that only work to disgust and confuse the audience while simultaneously invoking pity for the actors just for being involved.

The anti-hero protagonist biker gang, The Victors, consists of several weathered vigilantes who bring their own brand of bloodthirsty justice to the lawless roads. The leader, Pistolero (Larry Bishop), is hell-bent on revenge and putting out fires. The Gent (Michael Madsen) just tries to balance his chaotic, psychotic symphony of life with putting lead into anyone who crosses his boss, and Comanche (Eric Balfour) follows with a fierce loyalty and a mysterious past.

On the villainous front, Deuce (David Carradine) is the mastermind who orchestrates from afar, though not quite far enough, and Billy Wings (Vinnie Jones) spits venom and lewd explanations for his tattoos while toting a harpoon gun and a general disdain for life. While these characters might sound interesting on paper, once they're forced to rant horrendously ill-conceived dialogue all traces of cool disappear faster than the funding should for Bishop's next film.

While Hell Ride is riddled with imperfections and missed opportunities, the main facet of its undoing lies in the poorly devised conversations. And because Bishop's main influences are the talky films of Tarantino, there are a lot of them. The first twenty minutes of the movie are nearly unintelligible and would probably make as much sense muted. By the time Pistolero's main squeeze is introduced and certain phrases are overused to the point of nausea, you'll pray for both death and the ability to turn the sound off. Even Dennis Hopper has trouble remaining cool while spouting off such goofy dialogue.

Have you ever repeated a word or phrase to yourself so many times that it just doesn't sound right or even make sense anymore? Bishop starts there and then keeps the madness going until you envy the characters on screen getting their heads cut off. And when the dialogue finally takes a break, we're treated to interspersed shots of nude female oil wrestling and throats being slashed. I'm not sure what effect Bishop hoped to attain, but I doubt he found it.

Hell Ride wants to pay homage to Quentin Tarantino films, Robert Rodriguez films, and every movie that idolizes the violent and devil-may-care attitudes of bikers. But while its intentions may be noble, the horrendously cringe-worthy dialogue and the hyper-stylized timeline-mangling editing prevents the audience from becoming invested with the generic tough-guy characters. By the time we figure out the mystery behind the characters' motives (and it may be awhile before you even realize there's a mystery to be solved), it's just too hard to care anymore. And while everyone on screen is clearly having fun, they've entirely neglected to translate any of that entertainment to the audience.

- Joel Massie


Or that's what the filmmakers would like you to believe, anyway.

This movie tries sooo hard to be cool it's ridiculous. Everything, from the look of the film, the cinematography, the editing, the dialogue and the acting, is geared in super cool mode from the get go. Just to make sure that no one misses how cool this film is, there's a soundtrack of really cool rock n roll tunes and a twangy western-surf-tex mex guitar playing constantly throughout the film. As a final reminder of how frickin cool this movie is, all the actors have been instructed to speak in a hoarse voice, because, as we all know, that's badass.

The plot (if there indeed is one) seems pretty straightforward. But as someone else already pointed out, the director and star of the film, seems fiercely determined not to tell that story, instead focusing on a plethora of naked babes and dialogue that's supposed to be badass, but grows tired surprisingly quick (did they have an contest to see how many times they could cram the words "pussy" and "f*ck" and its derivatives in an 80 minute film?).

This movie was absolutely horrible.